PUBLIC NOTICE RE: ELECTRONIC TRANSCRIPT COPY CERTIFIABILITY
WARNING: This electronic transmission of the official transcript of proceedings is deemed certifiable only to the extent that the reader of this message is viewing a first-generation authorized transmission. All subsequent transmissions of this first-generation electronic copy and all copies printed therefrom are unauthorized and non-certifiable, and the Official Reporter assumes no responsibility for consequences stemming from the use of such unauthorized non-certifiable copy. Responsibility for such consequences is that of the person or organization whose use of a non-certifiable unauthorized transmission or printed copy creates those consequences, including civil liability arising therefrom. No portion of this file may be redistributed or resold without permission, pursuant to California Government Code Section 69954(d). Authorized certifiable transcript copies are protected by digital signature. If you would like to purchase an official transcript of the proceedings, contact NetCourt, 1316 Harding Place, Charlotte, North Carolina, 28204 or click here.

REPORTER'S DAILY TRANSCRIPT
DECEMBER 17, 1996

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES

SHARON RUFO, ET AL., N/A, PLAINTIFFS,

VS.

ORENTHAL JAMES SIMPSON, ET AL., DEFENDANTS.


SANTA MONICA, CALIFORNIA
TUESDAY, DECEMBER 17, 1996
8:50 AM

DEPARTMENT NO. WEQ
HON. HIROSHI FUJISAKI, JUDGE

(REGINA D. CHAVEZ, OFFICIAL REPORTER)

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

THE COURT: There are three declarations regarding service. First one
is as to Brasini.

MR. P. BAKER: In terms of Brasini, Judge, we called the number
provided to us; we sent a process server out to his occupation or his
workplace in Chula Vista for approximately six hours, informed Mr.
Brasini -- that he was there. He wouldn't come out and accept service.

I called him, asked to leave a message for Mr. Brasini, that I was an
attorney trying to serve him with a subpoena. He wouldn't accept
service. And we've tried, now, for over 20 hours to serve this
gentleman; he's avoiding service.

We would request to read his trial testimony in.

THE COURT: Okay. That's not a deposition, but trial testimony?

MR. P. BAKER: Trial testimony from the criminal trial.

THE COURT: Okay.

MR. PETROCELLI: Submit.

THE COURT: You're conceding?

MR. PETROCELLI: We don't concede anything, Your Honor; we submit to
your good judgment.

THE COURT: Normally, there are some issues, but if you're just
submitting, then we'll go along.

MR. PETROCELLI: Okay.

THE COURT: Declaration with regards to --

MR. P. BAKER: There's --

THE COURT: -- Ramirez and Ball.

MR. P. BAKER: Ramirez and Ball are both in Indonesia. We're only going
to call Edward Ramirez because Ramirez and Ball are duplicative.

THE COURT: These are police officers?

MR. P. BAKER: Yes.

MR. PETROCELLI: Same.

THE COURT: Okay.

MR. P. BAKER: Michael Norris, who currently resides in Kansas, we
would request to read in his criminal trial testimony.

MR. PETROCELLI: Same thing.

THE COURT: Okay.

MR. P. BAKER: We have some exhibits to move in, for the record for --

MR. BAKER: 1239, 1240, 1241, 1403, 1404, 1405, 1406, 1407, and 1411.

THE COURT: There being no objection, they're received.

MR. BAKER: Thank you.

(The document previously marked Defendants' Exhibit 1239 for
identification, was received in evidence.)

(The document previously marked Defendants' Exhibit 1240 for
identification, was received in evidence.)

(The document previously marked Defendants' Exhibit 1241 for
identification, was received in evidence.)

(The document previously marked Defendants' Exhibit 1403 for
identification, was received in evidence.)

(The document previously marked Defendants' Exhibit 1404 for
identification, was received in evidence.)

(The document previously marked Defendants' Exhibit 1405 for
identification, was received in evidence.)

(The document previously marked Defendants' Exhibit 1406 was received
in evidence.)

(The document previously marked Defendants' Exhibit 1407 for
identification, was received in evidence by reference by reference to
Criminal Case No. BA097211.)

(The document previously marked Defendants' Exhibit 1411 for
identification, was received in evidence by reference to Criminal Case
No. BA097211.)

THE CLERK: 1407 and 1411 were received by reference.

THE COURT: Okay.

Bring in the jury, please.

MR. PETROCELLI: Before you do so, may I briefly be heard on the
side-bar conference we had concerning Henry Lee's opinion testimony on
the subject of the shoe prints?

THE COURT: All right.

MR. PETROCELLI: I reviewed the trial testimony taken by video
deposition, and at page 167, Dr. Lee testifies that he saw one other
imprint besides the Bruno Magli shoe prints, which he was able to
identify as a shoe print that is set forth in Criminal Exhibit Number
1337-A.

However, on cross-examination, at page 320, Dr. Lee testifies that he
is unable to say whether that particular imprint was identified --
excuse me -- was put on the scene after the murders or not.

In other words, Dr. Lee was unable to testify that this one particular
imprint that he said was a shoe print was actually placed on the scene
the night of the murders, as opposed to some subsequent time. So the
only shoe prints that Dr. Lee was able to identify as having
originated at the time of the murders were the Bruno Magli shoe
prints.

MR. BLASIER: Obviously, Dr. Lee wasn't allowed on the scene until the
25th of June. He saw this imprint evidence, which he testified was
consistent with the shoe print. A phenol test was done on it; it was
tested positive for blood. That's the best we can do.

THE COURT: You may frame the question appropriately within the
parameters of Dr. Lee's qualifications of that evidence. And you may
not state it categorically as a determination.

All right. Bring the jury in.

(The jurors resumed their respective seats.)

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

THE COURT: Morning.

JURORS: Morning, Your Honor.

THE CLERK: You are still under are oath.

Would you please state your name again for the record.

THE WITNESS: Michael Baden.

Thank you.

MICHAEL BADEN, the witness on the stand at the time of adjournment on
Monday, December 16, 1996, having been previously duly sworn, was
examined and testified further as follows:

MR. MEDVENE: Morning, Your Honor.

Morning, ladies and gentlemen.

JURORS: Morning.

MR. MEDVENE: Morning, Dr. Baden.

THE WITNESS: Good morning, Mr. Medvene.

CROSS-EXAMINATION (Resumed) BY MR. MEDVENE:

Q. With reference to the sock or socks, Dr. Baden, that you referred
to yesterday as having looked at, is it correct, sir, that you did not
examine the socks?

A. That's correct.

Q. And you did not touch them?

A. That's correct.

Q. You did not pick them up?

A. That's correct.

Q. You did not hold them up to the light?

A. That's correct.

Q. You didn't perform any sort of microscopic examination on them?

A. That's correct.

Q. You did not turn them inside out?

A. That's correct.

Q. The lighting in the room was not very bright; isn't that true?

A. Little brighter than the lighting here.

Q. But not very bright for purposes of examination?

A. That's correct.

Q. And you wrote on that day, you were doing an analysis, or you were
reviewing, or an inventory of certain items of evidence?

A. That's correct.

Q. And you wrote, "Two dark socks. No analysis yet." Is that correct?

A. Yes, I believe so.

Q. And would you agree, sir, that it's certainly possible when you saw
the socks, because of the conditions, that you just overlooked or
missed any blood that might have been on them?

A. Yes, in general, that would be fair.

Q. Thank you, sir.

Would it be correct, sir -- I notice you have some -- and it's fine
that you do -- I notice you have some things in front of you. What are
they?

A. I just have the report of the -- my visit to the laboratory that
you're referring to, and two autopsy reports, in case some questions
come up, I can answer them more quickly.

Q. That's fine.

Is it fair to say, Dr. Baden, that from your review of the autopsy
reports, the tissue, the material that you examined at the coroner's
office, that's all consistent with one assailant having committed both
of the murders?

A. Could you just repeat that question.

Q. Sure. Yes, sir.

Is it fair that, based on your review as a doctor, your profession --

A. Yes.

Q. -- of the autopsy photos, the tissues, the other material you
examined at the coroner's office, that those things that I've just
referred to, were all consistent with one assailant having committed
both murders?

MR. BLASIER: Your Honor, I'm going to object. The question is -- is
vague and improper to ask him to consider just some things and not
consider --

THE COURT: I can't hear you.

MR. BLASIER: He's asking him to consider just some things and not
everything that went into his opinion. And it's irrelevant unless he's
allowed to consider everything that went into his opinion.

THE COURT: Overruled.

You may ask the witness to consider each item, piece by piece.

Q. (BY MR. MEDVENE) Is my statement a fair one?

A. Yeah, I understand what you're asking.

On the basis that you listed, yes.

Q. And are you aware, sir, of the testimony that it is anticipated Dr.
Lee will offer at this trial, that other than the bloody Bruno Magli
shoe prints that were at the scene of the murder, there was only one
other shoe print he could identify on the walkway; and he was not able
to say whether or not that shoe print was placed there some date after
the murders. Are you aware of that?

A. No.

Q. Now --

A. I'm not aware of that.

Q. Now, assuming that Dr. Lee's testimony would be that, other than
the bloody Bruno Magli shoe prints, the one pair of size 12 bloody
Bruno Magli shoe prints, he observed one shoe print on the walkway,
but did not know when that print was placed there; and he observed
that on June 25, is it correct, sir, that the facts available to you
are consistent with one assailant having committed the murders?

Yes or no, sir?

A. I can't answer that yes or no.

Q. All right, sir.

A. May I ask you something?

Q. Yes, sir.

A. Just to clarify. Two things. Do I take into consideration Dr. Lee's
prior testimony?

Q. Just his testimony at this trial.

A. Just what you're representing --

Q. Yes, sir.

A. -- in testimony. And do I take into consideration what Dr. Lee and
I discussed --

Q. No, sir.

A. -- at the walkway when I was there at the time we identified that
shoe print?

Q. No, sir. Because if Dr. Lee has anything to say, he'll tell this
jury in testimony that's going to be read or shown to this jury.

So putting aside your discussions with Dr. Lee, which I'm sure if
relevant, he'll tell this jury, and making the one assumption that I
just told you about Dr. Lee's testimony, he only observed one pair of
bloody Bruno Magli shoe prints on his examination; and he saw one
other shoe print; and didn't know when it got there.

Is it your testimony, sir, that, based on the facts that you know of
as a medical doctor, as someone testifying here, that the facts are
consistent with one assailant having committed the murders?

Yes or no, sir?

MR. BLASIER: Objection. Improper hypothetical. Does not conform to the
facts.

THE COURT: Overruled.

MR. MEDVENE: Yes or no, sir?

A. If I accept just precisely what you say, that further would be
consistent with one person.

Q. Thank you, sir.

Now, is it also true, sir, that it would be your testimony that all of
the knife wounds inflicted in this double murder are consistent with
having been delivered by one knife?

Yes or no, sir?

A. Yes, could be.

Q. Isn't it true, sir, from your experience, in face-to-face struggles
between a motivated killer with a knife and a defenseless victim, that
the victim could have the kind of injuries Nicole Brown and Ronald
Goldman sustained, and there would be no wounds on the assailant?

MR. BLASIER: Objection. Two victims here. Hypothetical based on a
single witness.

Q. (BY MR. MEDVENE) Isn't that true, sir?

THE COURT: Sustained. There's two victims mentioned Mr. Blasier.

MR. BLASIER: He said victim, but no two names.

THE COURT: Overruled. You may answer the question.

Q. (BY MR. MEDVENE) Is that true, sir?

Yes or no, sir?

A. If I remember the question properly, yes; that is, the perpetrator
need not have injuries, need not suffer injuries.

Q. And while the perpetrator, as you said, in a struggle such as was
sustained by Ms. Brown and Mr. Goldman need not suffer injuries, isn't
it, true, sir, that if the assailant had his left arm around one of
the victims in the course of attempting to slash that victim's throat,
in your experience, it is certainly possible that the victim could
have attempted to scratch and pull away the assailant's arm from her
throat?

You would agree that that's certainly a possibility, would you not,
sir?

A. Yes.

Q. And certainly, the answer would be the same if the assailant,
instead of having his left arm around Ms. Brown's throat, had his arm
around Mr. Goldman's throat, your answer would be the same; that it
would certainly be possible for the victim to attempt to remove the
assailant's hand and scratch the hand in the process; isn't that
correct?

A. Yes.

Q. Now, you saw Mr. Simpson and examined his left hand on June 17 of
1994; is that correct, sir?

A. Yes.

Q. And you were -- and Dr. Huizenga was with you?

A. Yes.

Q. Dr. Lee?

A. Yes, and Dr. Faerstein, a psychiatrist.

THE COURT REPORTER: Excuse me. May I have a spelling for Dr.
Faerstein, please.

MR. PETROCELLI: F-a-e-r-s-t-e-i-n.

THE COURT REPORTER: Thank you.

Q. (BY MR. MEDVENE) And, Dr. Baden, you were aware at the time of the
examination, that Dr. Huizenga, on the 15th, had observed three cuts,
one of which had an A and B portion, and seven abrasions on Mr.
Simpson's left hand, are you not?

Dr. Huizenga told you that?

A. At some point, I knew that, but I'm not sure that I knew that at
the time that I came there.

At some point later, we discussed the findings. But I don't -- I
didn't discuss it before I made my examination.

Q. But you were with Dr. Huizenga that day?

A. That morning, yes.

Q. Now, is it accurate, sir, that after examining Mr. Simpson, he told
you he received certain of those marks on his hands while he was still
in Los Angeles on June the 12th, preparing for his trip to Chicago?

A. Yes.

Q. And he told you, did he not, sir, that he wasn't quite sure how he
cut himself?

A. Yes.

Q. That he noticed he had been bleeding?

A. Yes. Or had some blood on his hand, yes.

Q. That he doesn't know how it came about in his house?

A. Yes.

Q. And it happened, he thought, somewhere in his home on Rockingham
before he left for Chicago; is that correct, sir?

A. Yes.

Q. Thank you, sir.

A. Yes.

Q. Is it correct, sir -- Is it correct, sir, that it was your opinion
that the injuries on Mr. Simpson's hand could have been the result of
a struggle between Mr. Simpson and another human being?

Yes or no, sir?

MR. BLASIER: Your Honor, I'm going to object. "Could have been" is
vague.

(Court reviews real-time computer screen.)

THE COURT: Overruled.

A. It's not my opinion, but it could have happened that way, yes.

Q. (BY MR. BLASIER) Now, in discussing fingernail marks yesterday,
doctor, you said, did you not, that one of the reasons you did not
believe certain -- a certain mark or marks you were shown were not
fingernail gouge marks, was because none of the fingernails had the
skin of the assailant under them; is that correct?

A. No. I -- that wasn't the reason I don't think it's gouge marks.

Q. You were asked sir, can you tell us why, in your opinion, that
couldn't be a fingernail gouge mark. And in part, didn't you say, sir,
none of them had skin on them?

Didn't you say that, sir?

MR. BLASIER: I'm going to object. If he's reading part of an answer,
he should read the whole answer.

THE COURT: Overruled.

Q. (BY MR. BLASIER) Didn't you say that, Sir; none of them had skin on
them?

A. I'd have to see that in context, if I might, because that's not the
reason.

Q. Excuse me, sir?

A. That's not the reason that I don't think they're fingernail marks.

However, if there were skin under them, of course, that would be a
different situation.

Q. Sir, my question was: Do you now recall, in answer to a question,
whether, in your opinion, certain marks could be fingernail marks?

You said in part, none of them had skin on them.

Do you remember using those words?

A. I don't see what you mean, "in part." I said in part or --

Q. As part of your answer, you said none of them had skin on them?

A. That might be an aspect to it, but that's not the reason that I
don't think they're fingernail marks. Because to get --

Q. Excuse me sir?

A. -- them --

Q. I've asked you if you said those words. And you remember saying
them or you don't.

A. -- I --

Q. Just yes or no, sir.

A. -- I remember saying those words, but not in quite the context that
you're indicating.

Q. Is it true, sir, that if a victim, during the course of being
attacked, scratches their assailant, you would not expect to find the
skin of the assailant under the victim's fingernails?

That is an accurate statement?

A. I think that's true. It happens occasionally, but that's very
unusual to happen that way, in my experience.

Q. Now, I'm going to put on the screen, Dr. Baden, certain of the
marks on Mr. Simpson's hands. And this one is, I believe, 715, what we
call number 2.

(Exhibit 715-2 displayed on

the Elmo screen.)

Q. (BY MR. MEDVENE) And that's the -- now I'm going to --

Now, those marks that you see on top of Mr. -- those marks are on the
top of Mr. Simpson's hand; is that correct?

A. On the back of the hand, these marks here? (Indicating.)

Q. Yes, sir.

A. On the back of the hand, yes.

Q. And you see several?

A. Yes.

Q. And those could be fingernail marks, could they not?

They're curved; they're gouged; and they're certainly consistent, you
would say, with fingernail marks. Is that true, sir? Yes or no?

A. They're very nonspecific. Could be anything, including fingernail
marks.

Q. They could be fingernail marks?

A. It's within the possibility. I wouldn't call them fingernail marks.
Could be.

Q. Okay.

Now, did Mr. Simpson tell you how he received those marks?

A. Not specifically. I didn't ask him about those marks.

Q. Thank you.

Your answer is, he did not; is that correct?

A. We did not specifically discuss those marks (indicating to Elmo
screen).

Q. And you did not specifically ask him, did you?

A. That's correct.

Q. Thank you.

A. I asked him about other things.

Q. I didn't ask you if you asked him about other things.

You didn't ask him about these marks that could be fingernail marks;
you didn't ask him about those?

A. I don't think they're fingernail marks.

Q. Sir?

A. I didn't specifically.

Q. You've done this a lot of times, and I want you to answer my
question, if you would. Your counsel will ask you his questions.

Dr. Baden, let's go in steps again.

You said they could be fingernail marks?

A. No. You asked me if it's possible it's fingernail marks.

Yes, it's a tenth of one percent possibility that they're fingernail
marks.

I didn't ask him about them.

Q. You didn't ask him how he got them?

A. Not specifically.

MR. BLASIER: Can you put on 2165. (Indicating to Mr. Foster.)

(Exhibit 2165 displayed on the Elmo screen.)

Q. Dr. Baden, you said yesterday, by the way, did you not, in your
testimony, nothing about one-half of one percent; but you said
yesterday in reference to these very marks, that they could be
fingernail marks, did you not, sir?

Isn't that what you told the jury, yesterday?

A. These marks here?

Q. Yes, sir.

A. They could be anything. They could be anything.

I did not think then or now that they were fingernail marks, but they
could be anything.

Q. Okay, sir.

Now, you say they were curved?

A. You said they were curved. I don't really see them being curved.

Q. You see some skin gouged out?

A. They're abrasions. Like, I have one on my finger here, just a
little crust. I can't tell what caused it.

Q. Okay, sir.

MR. BLASIER: We'll put up 715, number 13.

(Exhibit 715, number 13 displayed on the Elmo screen.)

Q. (BY MR. MEDVENE) Now, those, you would say, those were curved,
wouldn't you, Dr. Baden?

A. No, not curved. They're lacerations of the skin.

Q. They're consistent with somebody having their fingernail and
causing that mark, aren't they, sir?

A. I don't think so, no, no. No.

Q. You see some white tissue in the center of the photo, white tissue,
white skin?

A. This skin here?

Q. Yeah.

A. And this is a little -- this is tissue, and here's tissue
(indicating to photo). I think this looks more like a paper cut kind
of thing.

Q. It wouldn't be a knife wound, would it, because that would cut it
clean and be a different pattern?

A. No, I think that sharp -- this is a sharp wound. (Indicating to
Elmo screen.)

One of the possibilities is a knife wound or some kind of a more
jagged knife, not a sharp, very sharp knife. I think it's something --
it's something that cuts the skin.

Q. Now, did you -- strike that.

You didn't ask Mr. Simpson where he got those wounds, did you?

A. I did. I did ask him.

Q. Is that the one he told you he got in Chicago, or he didn't know
where he got it?

A. No, no. When I asked him about the cut wounds that -- the wounds
that broke the skin, this, this, and the others, the other two I
think, he indicated to me he didn't know where he had gotten them, but
he had gotten blood on his hand after rummaging through his car,
looking for the cell phone and while at his house. He noticed blood,
but he didn't quite know how that happened.

Q. Ah --

A. Because he often cut himself. And he does have a lot of scars on
him.

Q. You're not an advocate --

A. I'm sorry?

Q. Now, Mr. Simpson got these wounds, he told you, at his house the
night of the murders, and -- somehow, rummaging in his car, with his
car phone.

Now, Dr. Baden, did you ask him to look at his car phone to see if
there were any rough edges, points sticking out, sharp objects that
could have cut his hand in those two places?

Yes or no, sir?

MR. BLASIER: Objection. That misstates his testimony.

THE COURT: Over --

THE WITNESS: I didn't quite --

THE COURT: Overruled.

Q. (BY MR. MEDVENE) Yes or no, sir?

A. I didn't say he cut it on the car phone.

Q. Sir --

A. I did not say he that he told me he -- didn't tell me he cut it on
the car phone.

Q. Sir --

A. Pardon. He cut himself, and I'm stating -- please.

MR. BLASIER: May he --

THE COURT: Let him answer, Mr. Medvene.

A. (Continuing.) -- that he told me he had -- he saw blood on his
hands, and he had somehow cut himself while in the house and rummaging
around.

He didn't tell me that these were those cuts. I misstated that. He
said somehow he cut himself; he didn't know where. He saw blood. He
had rummaged for his car phone, and that there was -- it was dark. The
light was out. And he thought he might have cut himself there or
someplace else.

I don't know which -- there were four different cuts, these two and
two others (indicating). He didn't specify to me which -- what
occurred at the time. I'm saying something happened, according to what
he told me.

Q. So that I have it correctly -- and I apologize --

A. I'm sorry.

Q. That's okay.

So -- So that I have it correctly, he was -- I don't want to misstate
this.

Are you saying he was rummaging around in his house in the dark in --
with the car phone?

A. No. What I recollect in my discussion with him on that day, he said
he was rummaging around in the car in the dark. He went out to the car
to get -- he was looking for his car phone, and he was rummaging
around. He then was in the house. And at some point, he noticed blood
on his left hand --

Q. Oh, came --

A. -- and he doesn't know what happened when.

Q. All right, sir.

Just somehow started bleeding; that's the best --

A. He noted -- He noted blood on his hand.

MR. BLASIER: Objection. Argumentative.

THE COURT: Overruled.

Q. (BY MR. MEDVENE) I'm going to move to another area, if I might.

Would you agree, Dr. Baden, that there's no question that a motivated
killer could have inflicted the injuries that Ms. Brown sustained
very, very quickly?

Those knife wounds could have been very rapid; would you agree with
that?

MR. BLASIER: Vague as to "very, very quickly."

THE COURT: Well, in conjunction with the motions that Mr. Medvene
made, I don't think it's ambiguous.

Q. (BY MR. MEDVENE) Would you agree with that, sir? Yes or no?

A. I can't answer. You have too many things in the question.

Q. My question is, you're aware of the stab wounds Ms. Brown received,
are you not?

A. Yes.

Q. And my question is, could somebody, intent on killing Ms. Brown,
have inflicted those wounds very quickly, sir? Yes or no?

MR. BLASIER: Objection. Misstates the evidence. There's more than stab
wounds on Nicole Brown Simpson.

THE COURT: I think he indicated more than stab wounds.

Overruled.

THE COURT: Yes or no, sir?

A. The problem I have is "motivated and intent on." Those are
different issues. I can't read motivation and intent on.

Any killer -- any killer could have rapidly inflicted the cut wounds,
stab wounds and the bump on the head, quickly. Yes, it could happen
very quickly. But I can't tell if they're motivated or not.

Q. Let's talk about that a little bit.

As a man with your 30 years or so experience, would you say that the
killer was motivated to kill?

In looking at the wounds that show he virtually slaughtered Ms. Brown
by severing the major vessels of her neck, would that appear to you
that he was motivated to kill her, sir?

MR. BLASIER: Your Honor, objection.

Q. (BY MR. MEDVENE) Or that it was an accident?

MR. BLASIER: Argumentative. No foundation. This person can't tell
what's inside his mind.

THE COURT: Overruled.

I think this witness can answer the question. You're trying to
ascertain what is motivation and accidental.

Overruled.

Q. (BY MR. MEDVENE) Can you?

A. Mr. Medvene, I don't think this was accidental. A killer killed
Mrs. Simpson and --

Q. He was motivated to kill her, wasn't he, sir?

A. I don't know what you mean by that, as all killers are motivated to
kill their victims; and they're all terrible. And dying -- being
murdered is terrible, whether it's ten wounds or one wound. It's
terrible.

Q. Dr. Baden, this killer -- this killer --

A. Yes.

Q. -- virtually slaughtered Ms. Brown by severing the major vessels in
her neck, did he not?

MR. BLASIER: Objection. Argumentative.

THE COURT: Overruled.

Q. (BY MR. MEDVENE) Yes or no?

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

Q. When you slaughter an animal, sir -- are you familiar with
slaughtering an animal?

MR. BLASIER: Objection; argumentative.

THE COURT: Overruled.

Q. (BY MR. MEDVENE) Are you a familiar with how an animal is
slaughtered?

Yes or no?

A. You're using how cows are slaughtered by cutting the neck? I guess
that -- that --

Q. That's what --

A. -- Mrs. Simpson died of a cut wound to the neck that cut through
the major arteries of the neck.

Q. Like somebody slaughters an animal; isn't that true?

A. I've never seen anybody slaughter an animal.

Q. You know how it's done?

A. I've heard.

Q. That's how it was done here; isn't that true, sir?

Yes or no?

A. Slaughtering an animal is intentionally cutting through the
arteries of the neck.

I don't know if this was an -- if the murderer intentionally cut the
arteries in the neck.

This seems like a lot of stab wounds, a lot of cuts on the person,
which happened to cut the carotid arteries, yes.

Q. Did -- was there, sir, a large neck wound that Ms. Brown suffered
that went around to the spine? Was that --

A. That went down to the spine, yes. About an inch or so. An inch or
two.

Q. And at the same time, she suffered the slashing of her carotid
arteries; isn't that true?

A. Yes.

Q. No question the person meant to kill her by slashing her throat, is
there, Dr. Baden?

Are you saying maybe just giving her a warning?

A. No, I'm not saying. "Slaughter" is not a medical or pathological
term; may be a legal term, may be a public term.

Whoever killed Ms. Brown, killed her by cutting through her neck and
cutting her carotid arteries.

I don't -- "slaughter" is not a term that I've ever used.

Q. And she would have lost consciousness from the carotid artery cut
within ten seconds or so; is that not true?

A. Yes, I believe so. Once the carotid arteries are cut, she still
could be conscious for five, ten seconds, and then lose consciousness.

Q. Thank you, sir. Thank you.

Let's talk about Mr. Goldman.

Is it true, sir, that the assailant, with a large knife, could inflict
a number of stab wounds on Mr. Goldman's body very rapidly, with very
rapid thrusts of his knife, into Mr. Goldman?

You would agree with that, would you not?

A. Yes.

Q. The issue you raise, as I understand it in your testimony, is not
that the wounds could be inflicted very quickly, in a matter of
seconds; but the issue you raise is how long does it take for the
blood to pour out, so that Mr. Goldman became incapacitated,
unconscious, and die. Is that a fair statement?

MR. BLASIER: Objection. Mischaracterizes his testimony.

THE COURT: Overruled.

Q. (BY MR. MEDVENE) Is that a fair statement, sir? Yes or no?

A. It's partially fair. It's partially fair. There's another aspect to
it: The fact that there was no bleeding from the chest, the two chest
wounds, and the aortic wound.

Q. All right. We're going to talk about that.

You told this jury yesterday about the wounds to the left jugular
vein. Do you remember that?

A. Yes, sir.

Q. And you told us about where you thought that blood went. Remember?

A. Yes.

Q. And it was your testimony, as I understand it, that the blood from
the left jugular vein flowed all the way to Mr. Goldman's shoes, and
that's what -- took whatever time you say it took him to be
unconscious and then die; is that correct, sir?

A. The time it took him till he collapsed to the ground; that is, he
was upright for a few minutes, then he collapsed to the ground. And
then I can't tell the time from the clothing.

Q. Okay.

Is it true, sir, the left jugular vein is -- could you point it out to
the jury, point it out?

A. It's right next to the carotid artery that we feel a pulse out in
the neck (Witness indicates to his own neck). That is, on both sides
of the neck, there's an artery that we take a pulse.

On the outside of that artery, closer to the skin is the jugular vein.
We can't feel the jugular vein because it doesn't have a pulse, but
it's right there. It's about half an inch under the skin.

Q. On the left side?

A. Both sides. The one I related to was on the left side.

Q. 'Cause that's where she [sic] was cut?

A. He was cut, yes, sir.

Q. Now, is it accurate, sir, that in your words, there was
surprisingly little blood found on Mr. Goldman's shirt?

Is that and accurate statement, sir?

A. There was blood on Mr. --

Q. Surprisingly little amount; is that correct, sir?

A. My opinion is, there was blood on the shirt. I don't -- perhaps you
can refresh my memory.

Q. Wasn't there a surprisingly little amount of blood, in your
opinion, on the shirt, sir?

A. As I sit here, my best recollection, there was blood on the shirt.
I wouldn't characterize it now as surprisingly little. It was blood.

Q. Wasn't there, in your opinion, about three ounces of blood?

A. Oh, oh, um, it might be. I mean, the amount of blood -- a small
amount of blood can cause stains, yes. A few ounces of blood could all
-- could be all that's on the shirt, yes.

I don't think that's surprisingly little, because it all doesn't get
absorbed.

Q. Well --

MR. MEDVENE: Mr. Blasier, 41359.

MR. BLASIER: 59?

MR. MEDVENE: I'm sorry. 41360.

I'd like -- I'm going to read from the middle of the answer which
talks about the shirt --

MR. BLASIER: No, I'm going to ask --

MR. MEDVENE: -- At lines 14 through 20.

MR. BLASIER: I'm going to ask that the question and the answer be
read.

MR. MEDVENE: Well, I just purport to read everything that has to do
with the shirt, Your Honor.

THE COURT: Read it. Mr. Blasier, you can read the whole thing when it
becomes your turn.

Q. (BY MR. MEDVENE) I'll read you the portion about the shirt, Dr.
Baden.

A. Yes, sir.

Q. And the amount of -- I'm reading at line 14.

"And the amount of blood on the shirt, seen on the shirt, doesn't
account -- it's a very, you know, three ounces of blood, at most, and
on the shirt fabric. And that's all accountable on the left side of
the neck. "God bless you, Ms. Clark. "From the left side of the neck,
that -- and surprisingly little blood on the shirt. "

Did you give that answer on a previous issue?

A. It sounds right

MR. MEDVENE: We're putting 440 on the screen.

(The instrument herein referred to as photograph depicting Ron
Goldman's shirt was marked for identification as Plaintiffs' Exhibit
No. 440.)

(Plaintiffs' Exhibit 440 displayed on the Elmo screen.)

A. I can't tell if -- if this shirt -- if the shirt is toward the
normal position, and not inside out, then this would be the left side.
(Indicating.)

Q. That is the side with hardly any blood?

A. Oh, no. That's blood here. (Indicating.)

Q. That's blood?

A. Yeah.

Q. But it's not as much blood as on the other side?

A. That's correct. This is --

Q. And --

A. -- this is after the body's moved and it's taken off.

Q. Sir, just asking you --

A. Yeah.

But at this point, when this photograph is taken, there's more blood
on the right side than the left side.

Q. And there appears to be, you said, surprisingly little blood on the
shirt.

If the blood is coming from the left side, the left jugular vein,
there certainly is no soaking of the shirt on the left side; isn't
that correct, Dr. Baden?

Yes or no, sir?

A. You asked too many things in the question.

Q. My question, sir, is --

A. I mean, you have about three things in there.

MR. BLASIER: Objection. Compound.

THE COURT: It's not just -- excuse me.

THE WITNESS: I'm sorry.

THE COURT: That wasn't compound. He just said if the blood came from
the jugular vein on the left side, is that a lot of blood or not a lot
of blood.

A. It's not a lot of blood on the left side.

Q. (BY MR. MEDVENE) Thank you.

A. But consistent with the blood, bleeding down from the left jugular
vein.

Q. And there's no soaking of blood on the left side, is there?

A. Well, this is -- there's soaking of some blood in there, but it's
not soaking as on the right side. But this soaking occurs after he's
collapsed and he's on the ground.

Q. All right, sir. So we're talking -- you've talked to us about
gravity and what happens with gravity. And you talked to us about the
oozing from the vein.

A. Yes, sir.

Q. And if the blood was coming from the left jugular cut and traveling
down the shirt on its way to the shoes, for whatever reason, you don't
see it on that photo; isn't that correct, sir?

Yes or no?

A. They're not inconsistent.

Q. All right, sir.

A. Blood can come down and not get -- for two or three minutes and not
get onto the shirt very much.

And then when I lay down on the ground, it sits there for ten hours on
the ground.

Q. So the blood --

Is it your theory --

A. It's not immediate absorption of blood.

Q. Is it your theory that you're going to tell this jury, with
reasonable medical certainty, that this blood you're talking about
that oozed out slowly from the left jugular vein, somehow made its way
across the shirt, basically, without being absorbed, and then made its
way wherever it went?

A. To the jeans.

Q. Yeah.

A. Certainly, because the shirt isn't the skin, it -- it goes down.
And when I say "slowly," we're talking about a few minutes. It goes
down from the jugular vein, on the skin, down to the pants, and -- or
where the belt is. And it doesn't necessarily soak into the shirt,
except in portions where the shirt is against the skin. And it's only
a couple minutes' exposure, few minutes' exposure.

Q. So we have it on the right side but not the left side. It wouldn't
necessarily soak into the shirt on the left side, but it would soak
into the -- somehow, some blood from in here came on the right side?

(Indicating to photo)

A. The right side soaking is while he's laying on his right side for
ten hours, before the body is removed. And then while he's transported
down to the -- to the L.A. mortuary, until the -- the clothing is
removed.

So most of this soaking, 95 percent of the soaking, occurs after he
collapses.

Q. But we have no soaking on the left side that we can --

A. Well, there is -- there's a lot of blood. If you or I had this much
blood on our shirt right now, we'd be concerned about it.

Q. Well, let's talk about that.

You made some reference to the abdomen.

That shirt, you're aware, was pulled up on Mr. Goldman's body, and his
abdomen was exposed between where the shirt was pulled up and his belt
line; is that correct, sir?

A. At the time the first photograph was taken, yes.

Q. Well, as he lay dead?

A. As he was found.

Q. Yeah.

Now, is it true, sir, that you have previously testified that you did
not see on the skin, a trail of blood along the upper edge of the left
side of the body going down to the belt line; isn't that true, sir?

A. I never testified, but that's my best recollection in the
photographs.

Q. Okay.

So, we have whatever blood we have or don't have on the left side.
Then we don't have any trail from where the shirt stops and the pants
begin. And then we have a certain amount of blood in the pants. Is
that correct, sir?

A. Yes.

And as I recall, there was some blood from the left flank wound that
went horizontally down.

Q. We're going to talk about the flank.

THE WITNESS: There was a little bit of blood there.

Q. (BY MR. MEDVENE) So, some?

A. If I may, I'm talking from the first photographs.

I don't know if anybody looked before they took the first photograph,
because there were a lot of things going on before the photographs
were taken.

Q. Dr. Baden, if you don't know now that -- I'm trying to get the
basis for your opinion --

A. Yes, sir.

Q. So whatever happened or didn't happen, we're working with what you
know, to give your opinion. And where we are so far is, we have
whatever blood we saw or didn't see on the left side of the shirt. We
then do not have a continuous trail --

A. Yes.

Q. -- of blood to the belt line, and then we have the pants?

A. Yes, sir.

Q. Now -- and incidentally, there was no notation made anywhere of
blood or any particular amount of blood on the abdomen; isn't that
correct?

MR. BLASIER: Objection. Notation by who?

MR. MEDVENE: I'm sorry.

Q. From your review of the photos, you and Dr. Wolfe, there was no
notation made in those notes of any blood found caked on Mr. Goldman's
abdomen, as contrasted with his buttocks, for example; isn't that
true?

A. I don't know what you mean by "buttocks." It's whatever the report
is. But we have the photographs as the best evidence.

Q. When you say you don't know what I mean by -- by buttocks, isn't it
true, sir, that in an examination that you made of the evidence --

A. Which day is that?

Q. -- on 2/19, February 19, '95, at the Albany Medical Center --

A. Oh, I'm sorry. That's --

Q. -- that there is a notation, dried blood staining, both buttocks?

A. I'd have to review that. But that was at Albany Medical Center,
yes, when they sent us the material.

(Witness reviews document)

A. (Continuing.) Oh, this is referring to the -- to the blue jeans,
not to the skin.

Okay. I'm sorry; I misunderstood.

Yes, that there was -- there was dried blood on the buttock areas of
Mr. Goldman's blue jeans, yes.

Q. But no reference to any dried blood on the skin area, abdomen area,
between where the shirt is pulled up and the belt line; is that
correct?

A. What I'm referring to there is when we examined the clothing --

Q. I understand, sir.

A. -- not the skin.

We didn't have the skin to examine.

Q. Just trying to make the point, if you saw blood from pictures or
clothing.

A. Okay.

Q. You made notes, correct?

A. No, I didn't see the skin. When we examined evidence, we made
notes. So. . .

Q. You saw --

A. What those notes are, descriptions of the clothing, as we're
including the -- the clothing, not of the photographs. The photographs
are permanent documentation by themselves. But that's just the jeans
that we're talking about. We handled it and looked at it.

Q. Is it also true, in terms of blood, we know we have about three
ounces on the shirt. You told us, is it true, that in the neck area,
there's no swelling or discoloration internally that would demonstrate
any massive bleeding in the neck or chest?

A. Yeah. There was a little bit of hemorrhage in -- from the soft
tissues around the jugular vein, but no accumulation of blood in that
area; yes, sir.

Q. Okay.

Now, we then go down to the pants, if we can.

MR. MEDVENE: And could you put the picture up, please.

What number is that?

THE CLERK: It's going to be next in --

MR. FOSTER: Next in order, 2268.

MR. MEDVENE: Next in order, 2268, I believe.

THE CLERK: (Nods affirmatively.)

(The instrument herein referred to as photographdepictingn Ron
Goldman's pants and a ruler was marked for identification as
Plaintiffs' Exhibit No. 2268.)

Q. (BY MR. MEDVENE) Now, would it be -- first, in terms of the thigh
wound, Mr. Goldman suffered a wound to the thigh; is that correct?

A. Left thigh, yes, sir.

Q. And the thigh wound was in a vascular area; isn't that true, sir?

A. Not an exceptionally vascular area. There are blood vessels in
every part of the body. It would have been around where I'm pointing,
a few inches below the pocket of the jeans.

Q. I didn't ask you if it was exceptionally vascular. Like, when we
cut our finger, it bleeds?

A. Yes. It's vascular.

Q. It's vascular. What does "vascular" mean?

A. There are blood vessels there.

Q. And if it's cut, it's going to bleed?

A. Yes.

Q. And it's going to bleed even without striking a major blood vessel;
isn't that true?

A. Yes, yes.

Q. Is it true, in terms of figuring out where the blood came from,
that the blood on the left pant leg appears soaked, in contrast to
whatever blood we saw on the left side of the shirt?

Isn't that a correct statement, sir?

A. It is heavier in the pant, in the jeans than in the shirt, yes,
sir.

Q. Now, sir, you're suggesting to us that blood from the jugular vein
--

MR. MEDVENE: Would you throw that shirt picture up again.

(Exhibit No. 440 displayed on the Elmo screen.)

Q. (BY MR. MEDVENE) That blood from the jugular vein is going to go
down -- is going to go the left side of the shirt and leave that
amount of blood.

MR. MEDVENE: Now throw up the pants. And -- I'm sorry.

(Exhibit 440 and 2268 are displayed on the Elmo.)

Q. (BY MR. MEDVENE) And leave off that amount of blood, (indicating to
photo) and then somehow when it makes its way to the pants; it's going
to soak in that fashion. This same blood. Is that what you're telling
us? Yes or no.

A. Yes.

Q. So -- excuse me?

A. Because the bleeding -- the fabric and tightness of the garment
against the skin.

Q. Well, did you do -- you didn't do any analysis of the -- you have
anything in your records that you did an analysis of a garment and the
absorption ability of that shirt, did you?

A. I didn't do any analysis --

Q. All right, sir.

A. -- of that shirt's absorption.

Q. Now, what you're telling us is, there was this trail of blood from
the left jugular vein, not soaking the shirt, somehow making its way
over the skin, where we also don't have any blood --

MR. BLASIER: Objection. Misstates --

Q. (Continuing.) -- And then getting to the pants, the same jugular
vein blood, and soaking the pants.

Is that your testimony? Yes or no, sir?

MR. BLASIER: Objection. Compound, misstates the evidence.

THE COURT: Restate it.

There's been no testimony about blood being on the stomach or not
being on the stomach.

Q. (BY MR. MEDVENE) You've told us previously, sir -- remember when we
asked that there was no trail of blood -- strike that.

When Mr. Goldman was found, you observed the pictures with the shirt
pulled up, showing a portion of his abdomen prior to his -- his pants,
correct?

A. Yes.

Q. And you told us a few minutes ago that there was no trail of blood
observed on the portion of his abdomen that was exposed between his
shirt and his belt buckle, right?

A. Yes.

Q. Okay.

Now, let's go back to the question.

Are you telling us, then, that this blood came from the left jugular
vein, did not soak the shirt, did not leave any blood caked on the
portion of the abdomen that was exposed, and then soaked the left side
of his thigh?

Is that your testimony?

A. Yes.

THE COURT: Let's take a ten-minute recess.

Ladies and gentlemen, don't talk about the case. Don't form or express
any opinions.

(Recess.)

(The jurors resumed their respective seats.)

THE COURT: You may resume.

Q. (BY MR. MEDVENE) Dr. Baden, we talked a little bit about your
testimony at another time under oath. We talked about surprisingly
little blood on the shirt.

Do you remember that earlier today?

A. Yes, sir.

Q. Is it true, sir, that you told this jury, under oath, yesterday, in
contrast to that testimony, there was a great deal of blood present on
the shirt?

Did you tell this jury that yesterday, sir? Yes or no?

A. I don't recall. I may have.

MR. GELBLUM: Page 152 of yesterday's transcript.

MR. BLASIER: What line?

MR. GELBLUM: 16.

MR. FOSTER: 16 and 17.

Q. (BY MR. MEDVENE) Did you give that testimony yesterday, sir?

A. I said there's a great deal of blood present on the shirt and on
the jeans.

And I think that, as you point out, it was much more in the jeans than
on the shirt.

Q. Sir, you don't recall yesterday, you said there was a great deal of
blood present on the shirt; is that correct.

A. And on the jeans. Not fair to take the sentence in half. Take them
both together.

There was a great deal of blood; I agree with you. I hadn't reviewed
the shirt; that there's more on the jeans than on the shirt.

Q. Well, as a matter of fact, sir, with respect to the jeans, you had
previously said under oath, there was only a few ounces on the jeans;
isn't that correct, sir?

Isn't that what you said before?

A. I would --

Q. Yes or no, sir?

A. I don't recall.

Q. Didn't you say, sir, there was a few ounces of blood that are
adherent --

MR. BLASIER: Could we have a page and line, please.

MR. MEDVENE: Yes. 41364.

Q. (BY MR. MEDVENE) Didn't you say, with reference to the left leg,
sir, that there were a few ounces of blood adherent to the leg?

Maybe a half a quart, half a liter could be accounted for on the
clothing and on the shoes, at a maximum?

A. That sounds right.

Q. So, a few ounces on the shirt and a few ounces on the jeans; is
that correct, sir?

MR. BLASIER: Objection. That's not what it says.

THE COURT: It's a question.

Overruled.

Q. Isn't that correct?

A. Half a quart would be about 16 ounces. So that I would be referring
to in the clothing and all that, perhaps that much could be on the
clothing.

Q. Okay.

A. And a few ounces on the shirt and a few ounces on the -- on the
pants.

Q. Of that amount, a few ounces on the shirt and a few ounces on the
pants; is that correct, sir?

You don't mean "and" you mean "of that amount."

A. "Of that amount," yes, sir.

Q. So it's true also, sir, is it not, that there was little blood on
the ground when the body was removed?

Wasn't much blood in the area; isn't that true, sir?

A. I didn't see much blood as far as the photographs were concerned.
But the ground soaks up blood, so I can't --

Q. Sir, I didn't ask you if it did or didn't soak up blood.

I'm asking you, from what you knew -- because we're going to track the
amount of blood there is, sir -- from what you knew, there was not
much blood on the ground when the body was removed, and not much blood
in the area. Haven't you previously said that under oath, sir?

MR. BLASIER: Objection compound.

Q. (BY MR. MEDVENE) Yes or no?

MR. BLASIER: Compound.

THE COURT: Overruled.

THE WITNESS: Can I see the testimony, please.

Q. (BY MR. MEDVENE) I read you, sir, from page 41359 --

MR. BLASIER: Line?

MR. MEDVENE: I read you from -- this is in the middle of the answer,
but it's the part that has to do the blood on the ground.

THE WITNESS: Might I see it, or --

MR. MEDVENE: Sure.

MR. BLASIER: What line, Mr. Medvene?

MR. MEDVENE: I'm sorry. Lines 1 through 6. And lines 3 through 6 deal
with the blood on the ground.

THE WITNESS: Thank you.

MR. BLASIER: Again, I would object just reading part of an answer.

THE COURT: You can read the rest of it on your redirect.

(Witness reviews transcript.)

THE WITNESS: I can't get to where the question is.

Thank you.

Q. (BY MR. MEDVENE) Dr. Baden, did you say at a previous time, under
oath, with respect to blood on the ground:

"So if he were alive and the heart were pumping, maybe over a quart of
blood would have to seep out in the position that he's in, which we
don't see any blood in the soil, and there's no -- when the body is
removed, there's not much blood in that area to start with."

Did you make that statement under oath on a previous occasion?

A. Yes, sir.

MR. BLASIER: Objection. That's not inconsistent with anything.

THE COURT: Overruled.

Q. (BY MR. MEDVENE) Sir, I'm going to -- going to -- strike that.

In terms of this trail of blood, is it true, sir, that if one were
standing, and the blood -- instead of -- the blood on the pant leg,
instead of going from the thigh, was coming from the jugular vein, you
would expect that blood to soak into the top of the pants, isn't that
true, and leave blood in the pants?

A. It would stain and get into the pants, yes, sir.

Q. All right.

And certainly, if it was flowing down and the material were absorbent,
there would be as much soaking at the belt area of the pants as there
was lower down; isn't that true?

A. That varies. It varies on many factors.

The soaking of blood into the clothing in this fashion involves a lot
of different factors.

Q. All right.

I'm sorry to do this, but would you put on 1986, please.

(Exhibit 1986 displayed on the Elmo screen.)

Q. (BY MR. MEDVENE) Now, in this trail that you've told us about
that's going from the left jugular vein, we discussed already what
blood there was or wasn't on the shirt; we discussed the lack of blood
on the abdomen, getting down to the pants. And isn't it true, sir,
that before the staining starts in the areas shown on the picture,
there's little, if any, blood on the upper portion of the pant leg,
where you would expect blood naturally to flow, if it was flowing, and
Mr. Goldman was standing up for five, ten, whatever amount of minutes?

Isn't that true, sir? There's little or no blood shown at the top of
the pants around the belt; yes or no?

A. There's little blood. There's a little blood, but not much blood.

Q. And you have no explanation, sir, why there would be all this
soaking above in the area of the thigh wound, and little or no blood
up at the top of the belt line, if the blood was flowing down from the
left jugular vein, somehow not on the abdomen and somehow not on the
upper portion of the blue jeans, do you?

A. I do have an explanation. May I give it to you?

Q. Do you contend, sir --

MR. BLASIER: Your Honor, may he finish his answer?

THE COURT: That was an answer.

THE WITNESS: May I continue?

I -- My explanation is that when blood --

Q. (BY MR. MEDVENE) I'm going to ask you a question, sir. Your counsel
will be able to ask you whatever, and maybe you'll get this
explanation this way, sir.

A. Okay. I wasn't sure if you were waiting for my explanation or not.

Q. Is it your contention, sir, that Mr. Goldman was standing five,
ten, fifteen, twenty minutes, while this assailant was attacking him
with a knife, and the blood was dripping down from the left jugular
vein, somehow didn't stain very much, or soak into his shirt on the
right, skipped over his abdomen, skipped over the first portion of his
jeans?

THE COURT: Which side are you interposing the wound to, Mr. Medvene?

MR. MEDVENE: The left side.

A. No, I'm not saying that at all. I didn't say he stood up at any
point for two, three, five, ten, fifteen minutes.

Q. Stood up?

A. I said he stayed up for two or three minutes, yes, while the blood
came down and stained some areas and didn't stain other areas, yes

Q. I understand.

So he's up now two or three minutes and he collapses from loss of
blood and--

A. He collapses from loss of blood and whatever else goes on when the
jugular vein is cut. There are other things that happen.

Q. I understand.

We'll talk about the two or three minutes we now have him on the
ground in a few minutes.

But, what I want to ask is, your explanation is this blood somehow by
gravity kind of jumped over these areas that you talked about, jumped
over -- kind of jumped over the shirt sort of, jumped over the
abdomen, jumped over this first part, and kind of landed here, this
slow oozing blood from the vein that's oozing out, is that it, sir?

MR. BLASIER: Objection, argumentative.

Q. (BY MR. MEDVENE) Just yes or no, sir, is that what you're saying?

A. That's not what I said, Mr. Medvene.

THE COURT: Overruled.

THE WITNESS: Sorry.

Q. All right.

Now, you've now told us under oath he's standing maybe two or three
minutes before he's on the ground.

Did you tell, in this TV program you went on a month ago, Mr. Rivera
and the national TV audience, at that time we had him up at least five
or ten minutes, did you tell whoever you were telling on TV that?

Yes or no, just yes or no, sir, did you say that on TV?

A. I didn't say what you said I said.

Q. Did you say, sir, what I'm saying is that in order for the blood to
flow from the neck down to the shoe, bleeding from the jugular vein,
would have taken at least five or ten minutes, he was standing for
that period of time?

I could play it for you, sir.

Did you say that?

A. You can play it.

Q. Did you say it, yes or no, sir, just tell me yes or no?

A. I'd have to get it in the context.

Q. Whatever context it is?

A. My opinion -- you're asking my opinion?

Q. No, no, no, sir. You're a pro. I'm asking you, did you say it on
national television on November 11 on the Rivera show? That's what I'm
asking you. Did you or didn't you?

A. I don't answer it that way. What I should have said, would have
been -- could have been, could have been standing five or ten minutes.

Q. Sir, I didn't ask you what you should have said, what you could
have said.

I know we're now two or three minutes?

A. No, no, he's alive when he collapses.

Q. Did you say that, or do you want us to play it?

A. You do what you want. I don't --

Q. Okay.

A. I don't recall specifically what --

MR. MEDVENE: With the Court's -- do I have permission to play that
segment?

THE COURT: Only that segment.

MR. MEDVENE: Only that segment.

MR. PETROCELLI: Do you have it?

MR. FOSTER: Yes.

THE COURT: Would you watch this, Mr. Baden.

(Tape playing at 35:24.)

MR. BLASIER: Objection.

THE COURT: Only that segment.

MR. MEDVENE: Hold it. We're only going to play that segment.

THE COURT: What are you doing?

Q. (BY MR. MEDVENE) Just that one, Dr. Baden --

MR. MEDVENE: No, no, no.

THE COURT: Excuse me. You're not going to play anything if you don't
have this thing cued up.

MR. MEDVENE: Here it is, sir. I'm sorry, Your Honor.

(Tape playing at 21:36:06.)

MR. MEDVENE: Can you back it up so we can --

(Tape playing at 34:65:27.)

MR. MEDVENE: Okay.

MR. BLASIER: Objection.

A. Could you go back? I didn't understand the part before it --

(Tape continues playing.)

MR. MEDVENE: What I'm saying is -- sorry, Your Honor.

(Tape played again.)

MR. BLASIER: Your Honor, I would object to the previous without -- I'd
like to see the transcript so I can make an objection if there's one
there.

THE COURT: Show him the transcript.

(Mr. Medvene hands transcript to Mr. Blasier.)

THE COURT: Henceforth you're not playing anything unless you have it
cued up.

MR. MEDVENE: Yes, sir. I'm sorry, Your Honor.

MR. BLASIER: I'd object to anything other than what they already
played.

THE COURT: Play that portion so that it's comprehendible.

THE WITNESS: Might I see it, Your Honor?

THE COURT: No.

MR. GELBLUM: They talk over each other so much, very fine tuning.

A. I'll agree I said what I said.

(Pause for tape to be cued up.)

MR. BLASIER: I would ask to approach if they're going to play any more
of this tape. After reading the transcript --

(Pause for tape to be cued up.)

MR. BLASIER: May I have a ruling on my objection.

THE COURT: Overruled.

(Tape played at 35:11.)

(Tape concludes playing.)

MR. MEDVENE: Thank you.

Q. (BY MR. MEDVENE) Now, does that refresh you that he was -- that you
said he was standing for that period, contrary to what you told this
jury under oath a couple minutes ago, that we have him down in two
minutes or three minutes on the ground? Does that refresh you, sir;
yes or no?

A. Yes.

Q. Thank you.

In discussing -- would you agree, sir, that all of the bleeding that
we've gone through and described, does not account for the amount of
bleeding necessary for Mr. Goldman to -- to collapse?

A. No, I don't agree with that.

Q. We have from the -- oh, and by the way, sir, you've told us that
the amount of blood in the clothing and in the shoe is approximately
half a quart or half a liter, maximum; is that correct, sir? So that's
-- the shirt, the pants, the shoe, we're talking about half a quart.
That's how many ounces?

A. That's about 16 ounces.

Q. Okay.

And would you agree with Dr. Spitz that we need, in terms of sudden
blood loss, about roughly a quart or liter and a half to two liters,
two quarts; isn't that true?

A. Blood -- some blood loss to what?

Q. Some blood loss to cause incapacitation, unconsciousness.

A. And death.

Q. And death, yes, sir.

A. That's reasonable, yes.

Q. So we have half a quart, and we need another -- another quart and a
half. We don't have it on the clothing, we don't have it on the
abdomen, we don't have it on the ground, so --

A. That's not true. Nobody measured the ground. A lot of it would have
been in the ground.

Q. Excuse me, sir.

You told us there wasn't much on the ground -- strike that.

A. I didn't see any on the ground. Obviously, it has to be on the
ground.

Q. Excuse me, sir.

If the bleeding was internal, Dr. Baden, if it was internal and inside
Mr. Goldman's body, it wouldn't have to be in the ground, would it;
yes or no?

A. If there was no external bleeding it wouldn't have to be in the
ground, but not everything you bleed from gets soaked up in clothing.

Q. Sir, you told us before that as far as you knew, there was not
much, if any, blood on the ground?

A. I couldn't see any, that's correct.

Q. All right.

A. There had to be blood there. He was laying in blood.

Q. Sir, you looked at the pictures, and there was not much blood on
the ground; isn't that true?

A. In the photographs, that's correct.

Q. But that's all you saw, the photographs? You saw the photographs of
the scene?

A. That's correct.

Q. And that's what you were working with in your diagnosis,
photographs of the autopsy and what you saw at the scene around his
body; isn't that true?

A. And lots of other things. I mean I work with many things. But we
can never reconstruct, in any murder how much blood is lost to the
outside.

Q. I want to find the other quart and a half.

Now, Dr. Baden, yesterday, you talked about the aorta, and isn't it
true that if the aorta is almost transected, that you would have
massive internal bleeding from an artery? Is that true, sir?

A. If the heart is beating, yes.

Q. And the aorta we're here dealing with was almost transected; isn't
that true?

A. It's not described though as a half an inch in the front and a half
inch in the back.

Q. It wasn't almost transected, is that -- was it or wasn't it?

A. That is not what is described --

Q. Sir --

A. -- in the autopsy.

Q. Sir --

A. It's not described that way in the autopsy.

Q. We're trying, all of us, to get the facts here.

Now you're telling me it's not in the autopsy. I'm asking you --

A. It was not transected, no, it was not almost transected, but it had
a big stab wound front and back.

Q. Thank you, sir. It's not almost transected. Thank you, sir.

When you examined this body -- you examined the body, didn't you, Dr.
Baden?

A. No, I did not.

Q. Did you examine the aorta?

THE COURT: Mr. Medvene --

MR. MEDVENE: Yes?

THE COURT: Please don't crowd the jury.

Q. (BY MR. MEDVENE) You examined the aorta?

A. I examined the tissues that were removed and put into the formalin
jar, yes.

Q. You did.

You say in your report, in your hand, that the aorta was almost
transected.

A. Can I see that, please.

Q. You just told us you never said it. I want to know if you said it?

A. I don't recall saying that.

MR. BLASIER: Can I see it, please.

(Mr. Blasier reviews document.)

Q. (BY MR. MEDVENE) Dr. Baden, I'm showing you some papers that are
marked at the top "Defense 001004," and it continues.

Are these your notes, sir?

A. Can I see?

(Witness reviews document.)

A. Yes, this page is my handwriting.

Q. Is the second page your handwriting?

A. No, it's not.

Q. Who handwriting is that?

A. I don't know. Possibly Dr. Wolfe.

Q. And Dr. Wolfe was -- are those your initials up at the top of the
page?

A. That's -- I didn't write it, but it's my initials, yes.

Dr. Lakshmanan, Dr. Wolfe, myself, and Dr. Ziegler of the coroner's
office.

Q. And these notes were written at the time you examined, among other
things, the aorta?

A. Yes, when I examined the tissues.

Q. And do I read accurately, "Aorta with laceration and hemorrhage in
surrounding soft" -- what's that word, sir?

A. Tissue.

Q. -- "soft tissue (almost transection)"?

A. That's correct.

Q. Be a fair statement, sir, that that's what you observed when you
observed the aorta; yes or no, sir?

A. That's fair, yes.

Q. So when you told us a minute ago that there was no transection, it
wasn't almost transected, that was incorrect, yes or no?

A. No, that's --

Q. All right, sir.

A. That's not incorrect. It was not transected. It was not almost
transected.

Q. No, no, sir. I used the word almost transected.

A. I'd have to describe what almost transected means. Can I say what
almost transected is? That's from that little piece of tissue we saw
up there --

Q. At any rate --

A. -- doesn't make any difference to what we're talking about.

Q. At any rate, when you observed the aorta, it had lacerations, which
means what?

A. There was stab wounds, cuts, through the aorta.

Q. Did you measure them?

A. I believe there were -- no, I adopted Dr. Golden's measurements of
half an inch each because there's a shrinkage factor.

Q. Excuse me, sir.

My question was did you measure.

Dr. Spitz measured them as 5/8ths of an inch.

A. He didn't measure them. He measured the picture, he measured the
photograph. I didn't measure the photograph.

That's a distortion. A half an inch, it doesn't make any difference,
the aorta will bleed very heavily from a half an inch laceration or
whether it's transected. They all bleed very rapidly if a person is
alive and the heart is beating effectively.

Q. So you would agree that that -- if there was the kind of stab wound
to the aorta that was described, let's put aside when in the struggle
it occurred, it's a very serious wound that would bleed very, very
profusely?

A. Absolutely, absolutely, no matter what it -- you know, yes.

Q. And you would agree, sir, that that wound would incapacitate one in
a matter of seconds?

A. No.

Q. If the blood was pouring out, the blood pressure would immediately
drop if -- if the heart was pumping at the time?

A. No, no. Bleed profusely, but it self-seals as it's bleeding
partially.

Q. Did you -- didn't you say, sir -- strike that.

Did you tell us when we were talking about transected and almost
transected, it really doesn't matter because the blood is gushing out?

A. No -- yes -- no -- that -- whether it's partially transected or
transected or a stab wound front and back, it's going to be a great
deal of bleeding in any of those three circumstances in a healthy --
in an otherwise healthy person.

Q. In an otherwise healthy person, if it's almost transected or
transected, we're going to have relatively the same amount of blood
pouring out, if we have an otherwise healthy person?

A. The two, half inch stab wounds were almost transected, whatever
that means, would pour out a great deal of blood, yes.

Q. And didn't you say, sir, again, on the Rivera show, on November 11,
that if it were cut through, if it was transected, it would be very
quick, very quick, you wouldn't be able to stand within seconds?

Didn't you say that, sir; yes or no? Just yes or no?

A. I think that sounds right.

Q. All right. Thank you, sir.

A. Depending on where the stab wound goes is the problem.

Q. Now, in terms of -- in terms of the blood, you saw, did you not,
from looking at the section of the aorta, that the tissue was
saturated with blood?

A. Infiltrated with blood, yes.

Q. Is that a different word than saturated?

A. Yes.

Q. Infiltrated with blood. And the infiltration with blood, didn't
that mean that there was still blood pressure in the victim, the
homogeneity of the blood surrounding the fatty tissue, isn't that what
that means; yes or no, sir?

A. Not necessarily. Could be a reflection of that, it could be seepage
of blood through the --

Q. But it could be a reflection, the homogeneity could be a reflection
of the blood pressure?

A. -- that there was still blood flowing out of those --

Q. Yes, sir.

A. -- the stab wounds, yes.

Q. Okay.

Now, in the autopsy report itself, sir, that report describes a wound
starting at the skin on the left flank and passing through that skin
into the subcutaneous tissue, went through the retroperitoneal tissue
which was bleeding or bloody; isn't that true?

A. Which had blood in it, yes, in the tissue.

Q. And the pathway was through a muscle that's in the back, not the
abdomen, but in the --

A. Back, yes.

Q. In the back, in the left flank. So there's no question that the
stab wound didn't come through the abdomen or the belly button, but it
went through the left flank, through the muscle, and cut the aorta,
correct, sir?

A. That's correct.

Q. Now, there's no indication in the autopsy report of a stab wound to
the abdomen, isn't that correct, sir?

A. That's correct.

Q. The abdomen is encased in what you told us about yesterday, this
sack, remember, you brought up from lunch, that plastic --

A. It's lined by -- the abdominal cavity is lined by the thin
peritoneal membrane.

Q. Yes.

A. Like a piece of cellophane.

Q. And the aorta is in -- when it bled out, it was described as
bleeding out into the retroperitoneal, that there was what, a
retroperitoneal hemorrhage; is that correct, sir?

A. It didn't say he bled out. It said there was hemorrhage in the
retroperitoneal soft tissues.

Q. All right, sir.

And when you looked at --

A. Which is what we saw on the -- on the photograph of the aorta.

Q. Yes. It showed a bloody --

A. Hemorrhage into the blood -- into the retroperitoneal fat of the
soft tissue.

Q. And I think you pointed out yesterday, there was some hemorrhaging
or some blood that found its way even to the kidneys?

A. No, to the adrenal gland, not to the kidney.

Q. To the adrenal glands?

A. Yes.

Q. And in the autopsy report, there was no injury that was noted to
the adrenal glands; isn't that correct?

A. That's correct.

Q. So that the adrenal glands are in the retroperitoneal space,
correct?

A. Yes.

Q. And the adrenal glands are approximately 6, 7 inches from where the
aorta was almost transected; isn't that correct?

A. About 3 inches.

Q. Not more than 3 inches?

A. Three and a half inches.

Q. And that meant, reasonably, that blood that poured out and was
observed in that picture made its way to the area of the -- the
adrenal glands?

A. The blood didn't pour out. There was some blood that made its way
to the adrenal gland, infiltrated the fatty tissue to the adrenal
gland, not to the kidney, though, there's nothing described in the
kidney.

Q. Now, sir, isn't it true that -- an aneurysm means what, a bursting?

A. An aneurysm is a dilatation or -- of a blood vessel.

Q. Well, let's get a word --

A. Dilatation.

Q. Let's get a word that I understand.

Does it mean it broke?

A. You and I would understand, in the old days, when we had tubes in
the tires, an aneurysm is like a little ballooning out of that tube.

Q. But if someone dies from an aneurysm --

A. It ruptures.

Q. -- of the aorta, it means, in my language, it ruptured and blood
comes out?

A. If that aneurysm, that sac, the saccular dilatation ruptures, as
does happen as we get older, in the aorta, then it means the person
could bleed from pouring out of blood from that ruptured aneurysm,
yes, of the aorta.

Q. And that blood remains in the retroperitoneal space; isn't that
correct, sir?

A. Yes, yes.

Q. All right.

And the reason it remains in the retroperitoneal space is because it's
-- it's confined there in this soft tissue in the -- in the
retroperitoneal area, correct, sir?

A. Because the peritoneum blocks it off and there's no communication
normally through the peritoneum, so the blood stays behind it and it
doesn't get into the peritoneal cavity.

Q. And it stays in a retroperitoneal space?

A. Yes.

Q. Now, if -- so we know now from a ruptured aneurysm of the aorta,
the blood rushes from the aorta and remains in a retroperitoneal space
because the peritoneum is protected by that thin membrane, right?

MR. BLASIER: I'm going to object. There's no testimony there was an
aneurysm.

THE COURT: Sustained.

And let's move it on.

MR. MEDVENE: Yes, sir.

Q. (BY MR. MEDVENE) Now, in -- in this case, sir, there being no wound
to the abdomen, isn't it true that the only -- and the abdomen being
in the peritoneum, that one explanation for the fact that there's a
hundred or 200 cc's of blood in the abdominal cavity is that the tip
of the knife that sliced the aorta went through the retroperitoneal
area and nicked the membrane of the peritoneum?

A. It went through the membrane communicating with the abdominal
cavity, that is my opinion, that it caused the bleeding.

Q. It caused some leakage of blood from the retroperitoneum?

A. No, no, not from the retroperitoneum. From the aorta.

See, as in your diagram, it made a -- the stab wound that comes out
the front goes right into the peritoneal cavity, and there's a direct
communication between the aorta and the peritoneum, and that caused
the 100 cc, 3 ounces, of bleeding into that cavity.

Q. There's only -- when we say direct communication, to be more
precise, you've told us that on a ruptured aneurysm of the aorta, the
blood will stay inside the retroperitoneal cavity and not go into the
peritoneum?

A. Usually because the peritoneum isn't ruptured, but sometimes it can
go.

Q. It's only if the peritoneum is ruptured by possibly a tip of a
knife. In this situation, where some blood could ooze from the
retroperitoneum from the aorta into the peritoneum; isn't that
correct?

A. Directly from the -- yes, directly from the aorta into the
peritoneal cavity.

Q. All right, sir.

A. As I diagram on that diagram you have.

Q. Now, did you speak -- strike that.

You told us, several times on your direct, that you spoke to Dr.
Golden; is that correct?

A. It's true. I did speak to Dr. Golden, yes.

Q. And did you ask Dr. Golden whether or not it was true that there
was massive bleeding in the retroperitoneal area that resulted from
the almost transection of the aorta? Did you ask him that question?

A. I asked him two questions.

Q. No, no, no, no, sir. I asked --

A. I asked two, after discussing matters with Dr. Golden --

Q. Excuse me --

THE COURT: Excuse me.

Would you listen to the question and answer the question instead of
arguing with the lawyer.

MR. BAKER: I object to the Court's statement.

THE COURT: Well, objection is overruled.

Q. (BY MR. MEDVENE) Did you ask him that question, sir?

A. Can you repeat the question, please, so I understand the question.

Did I ask him what?

MR. MEDVENE: If the Court please, may the recorder read back the
question.

THE COURT: Read it.

(Reporter reads the record as follows:)

Q. And did you ask Dr. Golden whether or not it was true that there
was massive bleeding in the retroperitoneal area that resulted from
the almost transection of the aorta?

Did you ask him that question?

THE WITNESS: You have three things.

THE COURT: Could you just answer yes or no.

THE WITNESS: No, to the whole question.

THE COURT: Ask another question.

THE WITNES: Yes, sir.

MR. MEDVENE: Yes, sir. I'm about done.

Q. (BY MR. MEDVENE) You told us earlier today that whatever the first
wound or second wound, that Mr. Goldman slumped to the ground, I think
you said after -- is it two or three minutes?

A. Yeah, I think two or three minutes, or could have been five or ten
minutes but --

Q. Well, could have?

A. I mean I don't think there -- I think it was pretty quick.

Q. Pretty quick?

A. That is within minutes.

Q. And it's your theory, then, that it could have been two minutes,
that after the two minutes, that the assailant then, seeing him still
breathing after maybe two minutes, goes over and inflicts wounds to
the lungs, the aorta, the abdomen and the neck?

Is that your theory, sir; yes or no?

A. My --

Q. No, no. Is that your theory?

A. I don't know he saw him breathing.

You're asking me questions that have six different things in them. If
you can ask me one at a time, I can answer them.

I don't know if he saw him breathing.

Q. All right, sir.

Let's check it.

Did you say, sir, at a previous occasion under oath, 41384:

(Reading:)

I think it was dark and the perpetrator wasn't sure that Mr. Goldman
was dead. That's why five minutes later or ten minutes later,
additional stab wounds were made, because Mr. Goldman, while he was
bleeding from the neck, would have collapsed to the ground after a few
minutes, would have been breathing, and then additional wounds were
made on the body while I believe he was lying on the ground, which
included the lungs, the aorta, the abdomen and also the neck could
have been cut.

Did --

A. I'll agree with that, yes.

Q. All right.

So now we've moved our time to two minutes we have him breathing?

A. No, could you -- okay, I agree with just what you read, just what
you read, I agree with a few minutes, whatever that is.

Q. Okay.

So you've told us two, three, five, ten, but whatever it is, I think
the latest you told us earlier today was two or three?

MR. BLASIER: Objection, argumentative.

THE COURT: Sustained.

Q. (BY MR. MEDVENE) All right.

So he's on the ground, and then the assailant sees him breathing and
finishes him off?

A. The assailant -- he's on the ground, and additional stab wounds are
inflicted upon him when he's on the ground, yes.

Q. Okay.

And those wounds, as far as you know, could well have been inflicted
the moment, even on your theory, the moment after he fell to the
ground; yes or no?

Yes or no, sir?

A. Yes, if I could explain it, but I -- okay.

MR. MEDVENE: Thank you very much.

BY MR. BLASIER: Go ahead and explain it.

THE COURT: Five minutes recess, ladies and gentlemen, or make it ten.

Bring them back in 10 minutes.

(Recess.)

(Jurors resumed their respective seats.)

THE COURT: Mr. Blasier, you may proceed.

MR. MEDVENE: If the Court please, we move in as 603 the one page of
the notes that we questioned Mr. Baden about, 2268, and 440.

(The instrument herein described was received in evidence as
Plaintiffs' Exhibit No. 603.)

(The instrument herein described was received in evidence as
Plaintiffs Exhibit No. 2268.)

(The instrument herein described was received in evidence as
Plaintiffs' Exhibit No. 440.)

THE COURT: Okay. Proceed.

REDIRECT EXAMINATION BY MR. BLASIER:

Q. Dr. Baden, you recall yesterday when at the beginning of the
cross-examination, Mr. Medvene asked you questions about whether you
were trying to mislead the jury about your opinion with respect to one
or more perpetrators?

A. I think so, yes.

Q. And he was suggesting that you had testified to the jury that you
thought, to a reasonable degree of medical certainty, there was more
than one perpetrator?

A. Yes, I remember.

Q. Reading from page 145 of yesterday's transcript, do you recall this
question and giving the following answer with respect to that opinion.

(Reading:) Q. What is your opinion?

A. My opinion is that it's -- based on all the evidence and all the
circumstances that it's more likely that there were more than one
perpetrator.

A. Yes, that was -- I recall, and that is my opinion. More likely
being -- more likely than not.

Q. Now, Mr. Medvene asked you a bunch of questions about whether
certain things were possible.

How do you interpret that term, possible, in terms of whether it's
something likely or not?

A. Possible means any circumstance which something could happen. It
could be less than one-hundredth of one percent. Is it possible
there's a dog out the door there. It's possible, I don't think so, but
it's within the realm of possibility.

Q. In terms of an expert testifying to various opinions, does that
standard really have much meaning at all?

A. I think it doesn't have any meaning as far as giving opinion to
agree with the possibility except that the jury or the judge
understands that that kind of an opinion has a lot less weight in my
-- in my -- in my opinion, has much less weight, in my opinion, than
opinion to a reasonable degree of medical certainty, 95 percent, or
more likely than not being 51 percent.

Q. And how about when you're asked the question whether something is
consistent with something else, what does that mean?

A. It depends on the circumstances. But consistent with something,
consistent with could be consistent one percent or could be consistent
50 or 60 percent.

Q. So would you agree that we're asked questions about whether
something is possible or whether something is consistent with
something else that you're not being asked any kind of question about
your quantitative assessment of whether that happened or not?

A. That's correct. It's not an opinion of whether it happened that
way, but whether there's any chance that it might have happened that
way.

Q. Now, Mr. Medvene asked you some questions yesterday about your
background.

Did we talk about your entire background when I asked you questions?

A. No, you didn't go much into my background.

Q. We left a lot of that out, didn't we?

A. Yes.

Q. Now, you went from the New York City Medical Examiner's Office to
the New York State Police in 1985, '86?

A. '85, '86, yes.

Q. And Mr. Medvene asked you some questions about whether you were
fired.

You weren't fired, were you?

A. No, I was never fired.

Q. In the late 70's did you have a dispute with Mayor Ed Koch of the
City of New York?

A. Yes.

Q. And describe that dispute.

A. I was -- when I was chief medical examiner in the City of New York
which is that I had been working in the office since 1960, deputy
chief medical examiner since 1966, and in 1978 I was appointed chief
medical examiner. And I had a dispute with one of the five district
attorneys we work with and with the Mayor as to the independence of
the medical examiner's office.

Q. What was the -- I'm sorry. Go ahead.

A. And that led to my being demoted to being back to deputy chief
medical examiner.

Q. What was the dispute about?

A. The dispute was about the independence of the medical examiner's
office, specifically listed a complaint from one district attorney in
New York City which has five counties; Brooklyn, Queens, Staten Island
-- each county has a district attorney and there's one medical
examiner for five counties, and one of the five district attorneys
felt I wasn't a team player and I wasn't cooperative in giving
evidence to help in the prosecution of cases.

Q. They wanted you to testify in a couple of cases to something you
didn't agree with; isn't that correct?

A. That is correct.

Q. And you refused, didn't you?

A. That's correct.

Q. Now, you were also asked about your billing in this case.

Your understanding is that Mr. Simpson has no funds at this point?

MR. MEDVENE: Objection, relevance, materiality.

THE COURT: Sustained.

You can ask him about his billing.

MR. BLASIER: I'm sorry?

THE COURT: You can ask him about his billing.

Q. (BY MR. BLASIER) Okay.

Mr. Medvene asked you a question about changing your billing in a
high-profile case.

You work on high-profile cases all the time, don't you?

A. Not uncommonly, yes.

Q. And it's -- incidentally, when was the last time that the Los
Angeles District Attorney's office asked you to consult with them on a
case?

MR. MEDVENE: Objection, relevance, materiality, outside the scope.

THE COURT: Overruled.

A. Past month.

Q. They contacted you yesterday?

A. Sent some stuff yesterday, yes, some autopsy report.

Q. Now, why don't you tell the folks on the jury, we didn't cover it
yesterday, some of your teaching positions.

MR. MEDVENE: Objection, outside the scope.

THE COURT: Overruled.

A. I have -- I have various appointments to teach in medical schools,
law schools and criminal justice schools on a part-time basis, aspects
of forensic medicine, forensic pathology, and forensic science, which
include, presently, visiting professor of pathology at Albert Einstein
School of Medicine, adjunct professor of laboratory medicine in
pathology at Albany Medical Center, and I teach some terms as visiting
professor at John Jay School of Criminal Justice and New York Law
School in New York.

And I hold various other teaching positions, all of which are
part-time, for medical students, law students and the police in
training.

Q. (BY MR. BLASIER) Have you won many awards that we never even talked
about yesterday?

A. I've received many awards, yes.

Q. Now, you were asked some questions about the Geraldo show on
November 11.

At what point was your appearance scheduled for the Geraldo show; how
long before that?

MR. MEDVENE: Objection, relevance, materiality.

THE COURT: Overruled.

A. About a week or two before I appeared.

Q. And who scheduled it for you?

A. It was scheduled through HBO, Home Box Office television program.

Q. And what was supposedly the reason for the appearance?

A. The reason for the appearance was to talk about and publicize a
special program on autopsy that HBO had just completed.

Q. And that program features you, primarily?

A. I was the consultant.

This is a third in the series, every year there's a new one, and it
has to do with how you use forensic science and investigation of
injuries and death, and yes, I'm featured in it.

Q. Incidentally, in any of those three specialties, will any of Dr.
Spitz's cases be featured?

MR. MEDVENE: Objection, relevance, materiality.

THE COURT: Sustained.

Q. (BY MR. BLASIER) Dr. Baden, you were asked questions yesterday
about -- with respect to your opinion about more than one perpetrator,
and you were asked questions about shoe prints at the crime scene,
correct?

A. Yes.

Q. Let's talk about your basis for saying that it's more likely than
not that there was more than one perpetrator.

What information do you have about shoe prints that goes into that
opinion?

A. The information I have is there's evidence of more than one type of
shoe print at the Bundy crime scene, and on the envelope in which the
eyeglasses were found at the crime scene, and also on the jeans that
Mr. Goldman was wearing, and other shoe prints in the walkway leading
up to the gate, outside the gate.

Q. The shoe print that Mr. Medvene was asking you about Dr. Lee's
testimony, tell us about that shoe print; when did you observe -- did
you observe that personally?

A. Yes.

Q. And when was that?

A. About the first week of the -- after the -- in the week following
our examination of Mr. Simpson on June 17, just before he was
arrested, just before he was taken into custody or arrested, Dr. Lee
and I and the other doctors examined Mr. Simpson, and the following
week we went to the various scenes, the Bundy scene in particular, and
examined the walk and the area for evidence.

And in one of those first reviews, when we went to the scene, there
was evidence of -- remnants of bloody shoe prints, and Dr. Lee and I
looked at them together, and he did blood tests. He has a little kit
to do tests, presumptive blood tests. And there was one print there
that didn't match the other prints.

Q. And it tested positive for blood?

A. And that tested positive for blood, yes, tested positive in a
presumptive test for blood.

Q. Let me show you Exhibit 717.

And you mentioned shoe prints in the walkway area in front of Bundy.

(Exhibit 717 displayed.)

Q. Now, can you see -- actually, let me show you 2214 first. And I
apologize for this picture.

(Exhibit 2214 displayed.)

Q. Dr. Baden, do you see the --

A. Yes.

Q. Okay.

Is that consistent with the Bruno Magli shoe print?

A. It's a shoe print.

MR. MEDVENE: Objection, lack of foundation.

THE COURT: Sustained.

Q. (BY MR. BLASIER) Consistent with a shoe print?

MR. MEDVENE: Objection, lack of foundation Your Honor.

THE COURT: As to shoe print, overruled.

A. Yes.

Q. (BY MR. BLASIER) Is that one of the shoe prints you were talking
about when you just answered my prior questions?

A. Yeah. This isn't one that I looked at with Dr. Lee, this is one I
took into account in answering your previous question.

Q. And let's look at 717.

MR. PETROCELLI: What was that exhibit?

MR. BLASIER: 2214.

Back on out.

Q. (BY MR. BLASIER) Then this one --

MR. MEDVENE: What exhibit is this?

MR. BLASIER: 714 I believe.

Q. (BY MR. BLASIER) Dr. Baden, is this another indication of a shoe
print.

THE COURT: What did you call this? What did you call this.

MR. P. BAKER: It's 717. It's also marked as 2257 I believe.

THE COURT: I'm sorry. Go ahead.

A. Yes, sir.

Q. (BY MR. BLASIER) Is this one of the ones you observed as well on
the pictures?

A. In the picture, yes.

MR. BLASIER: Let's back that out so we can see where that is.

Q. (BY MR. BLASIER) And that appears to be a number of feet out toward
the Bundy walkway, correct?

A. Yes.

Q. And describe what you observed about those shoe prints that go into
your opinion about the number of perpetrators?

A. The two shoe prints are in clotted blood. That is, the shoe print
was made after the blood had congealed, so that after bleeding had
occurred from Mrs. Simpson, and it indicated that there was movement
in and walking around within a few minutes of Mrs. Simpson's collapse.

Q. Well, you say within a few minutes, what -- can we estimate that to
any degree of particularity?

A. Yeah. It would -- the blood remains pretty liquid, like water, for
a few minutes and if you stepped into blood one or two or three
minutes after it was shed, the blood would just -- it's like stepping
into water, it would not leave a permanent impression.

So in order for this permanent impression to remain there, the blood
would have had to have clotted sufficiently to maintain its shape
without liquefying, you know, disappearing, and that would take at
least three to four to five minutes of clotting.

Q. That would be after the blood had a chance to get down this far in
the walkway, correct?

A. As it was traveling down and after, yes.

Q. And that would take some time as well?

A. Yes.

THE COURT REPORTER: One more time, that current exhibit?

MR. P. BAKER: 2257.

Q. (BY MR. BLASIER) Incidentally, when you examined or looked at the
socks; you were prevented from actually examining them, weren't you?

A. I was not permitted to pick them up or to examine them in any way
other than to view and inventory the evidence that was there; I'd say
about 59 pieces of evidence.

Q. And it was Detective Vannatter that refused to let you even touch
anything, correct?

A. He was the one who told me that I couldn't -- we couldn't examine,
touch anything or photograph anything.

Q. Now, do you recall this morning, during cross-examination, Mr.
Medvene asked you a couple of questions where he used a hypothetical
where he had his arm around his neck; do you remember that?

A. Yes.

Q. If either of the victims in this case had a perpetrator's arm
around their neck as Mr. Medvene demonstrated, what would happen if
the perpetrator tried to cut the neck with the right hand?

A. Well, so long as an arm, or any object, was present on the neck,
that would interfere with the ability to cut the neck.

Q. Cut the arm first, wouldn't you?

A. Yes.

Q. Now, with respect to the fingernail -- the absence of skin under a
person's fingernails that may have scraped the perpetrator, is it your
opinion that you usually don't find skin?

A. That's correct.

Q. You can find blood, can't you?

A. That's more frequent than skin.

Q. And what's another mechanism by -- when somebody is scraped with a
fingernail, what do you expect to see on the skin?

A. A scratch, a scratch mark.

Q. And what happens to the person's skin, is it transferred to the
fingernail or does it stay on the person that's being scratched?

A. It can stay -- usually stays on the victim being scratched. It's
like being scratched by a cat or some other animal. The skin is pushed
aside.

Q. Is that -- is that what's called an evulsion?

A. It would be called an evulsion. It's a very minor evulsion. An
evulsion would be a tearing of the skin. This would be a very minor
tearing of the skin, yes.

Q. Now, you were asked about blood on Mr. Goldman's clothing.

Let's talk about his shirt first.

Well, let's talk about the ground first.

Is it your understanding that Mr. Goldman's body was allowed to lie on
the ground for 10 hours before anybody collected it?

A. Yes, at least that.

Q. What happens to blood in dirt?

A. It would be absorbed and it would not be possible to distinguish
blood from dirt after a period of time. Certainly, the majority of
whatever blood gets into dirt would be absorbed or made unrecognizable
--

Q. Now --

A. -- over a 10-hour period of time.

Q. Now, is it true that if there was internal bleeding, however,
especially with no wound to the abdomen, had there been massive
internal bleeding, that would be apparent to the autopsy surgeon?

A. Absolutely.

Q. And incidentally, is one of the reasons why a medical examiner
should go to the scene as early as possible, is to evaluate some of
these other evidentiary issues about rates of bleeding and that sort
of thing?

A. Yes.

Q. Now, with respect to Mr. Goldman's shirt and his jeans, tell me, in
your opinion, what's the difference between his shirt and his jeans
with respect to when you would expect to find blood soaked into one
versus the other?

A. The amount of blood that soaks into clothing varies on how tight
the clothing is on the body, varies on the fabrics, some fabrics are
more absorbent than others, and also varies on the position of the
individual, invariably, during the struggle or -- when somebody's
being injured, it's unusual for the person to stand in the anatomic
position at attention. The person is making all kinds of motions to
get out of harm's way or to defend oneself.

So that bleeding is not a direct linear line from the top to the
bottom. It may vary depending on looseness of clothing, fabric, and on
the position, whether the person's leaning forward, leaning backwards.
And there's no predictable pattern for any kind of bleeding in that
regard except that blood has to follow the law of gravity, that it
goes downward.

Q. Now, is the fact that there is no straight line from Mr. Goldman's
neck wounds straight down his shirt, indicative of him struggling
after that neck wound, moving around a lot?

A. It would be supportive of that, yes.

Q. Now, you were asked some questions about the jeans.

Do you recall being shown one picture of Mr. Goldman lying on a table?

A. Yes, sir.

Q. You actually have examined the jeans themselves, have you not?

A. Yes.

Q. And let me show you next in order.

THE CLERK: 2269.

(The instrument herein described as a photograph of Ronald Goldman's
jeans was marked for identification as Defendants' Exhibit No. 2269.)

(Exhibit 2269 displayed.)

Q. Does this appear to be a pair of Mr. Goldman's jeans?

A. Yes, that -- I think it's too close.

MR. BLASIER: Can you back out a little.

THE WITNESS: Back up a little.

A. Yes.

Q. Let's move to this area up here.

Does this appear to be blood at the very top of Mr. Goldman's jeans?

A. Yeah. That is the top side of the jeans. There is blood in the
fabric going above the belt line.

Q. And?

A. In the front.

Q. And?

A. On the side.

Q. Where is the thigh wound with respect to Mr. Goldman's jeans?

A. I think it's about four or five inches below the pocket, as
described in the jeans, to my best recollection.

MR. BLASIER: Can you back out a little, Phil.

MR. P. BAKER: Sure.

Q. (BY MR. BLASIER) So we're talking about well below the area where
the blood starts on Mr. Goldman's jeans?

A. Yes, it would be below the screen.

Q. Now, would you expect the person wearing jeans, if they were
struggling, would you expect the jeans to move around a lot like a
shirt might?

A. Surely, it could, especially if there's no belt tightening. As I
recall, there was no belt, so the pants would move in unpredictable
ways during a struggle.

Q. Would you expect them, however, to absorb more blood because
they're tighter on the skin and closer to the skin?

A. Yes.

Q. Now, let me show you next in order.

THE CLERK: 2270.

MR. BLASIER: 2270.

(The instrument herein described as a photograph of Ronald Goldman's
shoes was marked for identification as Defendants' Exhibit No. 2270.)

Q. Is this a picture of Mr. Goldman's shoes?

A. Yes.

Q. And this is blood that is saturating his left shoe, correct?

A. Could that be focused a little bit better. I can't --

Yes. There's blood soaking the left shoe.

Q. Now, how far, approximately, would it be from the thigh wound down
to the shoe?

A. Possibly around two feet. Or --

Q. And is it your opinion that Mr. Goldman would have to be upright
for his shoe to get saturated in that way, whether it's from the neck
wounds or the thigh wound?

A. Yes. Whether it's the thigh wound or the neck wound, the flow of
blood is going to be downward by gravity, so it would indicate an
upright position.

Q. Now, you were asked about whether there was evidence of an
accumulation of blood around the jugular vein cut.

Would you expect to find an accumulation of blood around that area?

A. No. The -- There was a little bit of blood on the cut but there's
no space for the jugular vein to accumulate. It's like cutting one
wrist, if the blood flows right out onto the skin and doesn't pool
anyplace in the body.

Q. Now, your testimony with respect to -- let me show you another
picture.

MR. BLASIER: Could we mark next in order.

MR. P. BAKER: 22 --

THE CLERK: 71.

MR. BLASIER: 2271.

Q. (BY MR. BLASIER) Does this appear to be another picture of Mr.
Goldman's jeans, the back side of them.

(The instrument herein described as a photograph of the back side of
Ronald Goldman's jeans was marked for identification as Defendants'
Exhibit No. 2271.)

A. May I?

(Witness approaches TV screen.)

A. Yeah, this is the label on the right buttock area, so this is the
back side of the jeans.

Q. So the left side would be at the bottom of the picture?

A. Yeah, this is the left side facing 6 o'clock.

Q. And this picture seems to indicate a continuous stain from the top
to the bottom.

Is that consistent with your observation of the actual jeans?

A. Yes, going from the very belt line.

Q. Now, again, would you expect that to be an absolute straight line
or could there be some breaks in that because of bunching of the
jeans?

A. Yes, there could very well be breaks. I don't see a break here but
there could be breaks.

Q. Now, the wound to the -- the jugular vein, are there things that
happen once that wound is inflicted, other than just bleeding?

A. Yes.

Q. Describe what would go on with the body, what could go on in
addition to that wound bleeding?

A. When the wound is transected, as happened here, that is complete
separation of the top part and bottom part of the jugular vein, the
top part continues to bleed as the blood is continued to be pumped up
into the head through the aorta and the carotid arteries, which are
intact, the bottom part doesn't have blood in it so it sucks air into
the heart, and that's another reason that that occurs when the
internal jugular vein is cut. So that also happens.

It's hard to interpret it from this autopsy because the autopsy was
done some 36 hours later and there's no mention as to air in the
heart.

Q. Now, when you testified to your opinion about an approximate span
of time between the infliction of the neck wound and the wound to the
aorta, were you talking about specifically the time that Mr. Goldman
would be upright as opposed to being lying down, or are you talking
about the combined period of time?

A. I'm talking about the amount of time it took for the heart to stop
pumping effectively, the heart to stop, failing as a pump.

So that would include the time he's standing up and the time he
collapses until the heart beats so feebly that when the aorta is cut
and when the lungs are cut, not much blood is pumped out.

And these are both areas that if any of us in this room were stabbed
in those areas, we would pump out one or two quarts of blood very
quickly.

Q. Now, Mr. Medvene asked you questions about the wound to the aorta
and bleeding into the retroperitoneal space, and he also described a
tip of a knife going into the peritoneum.

What was the size of the wound that went into the peritoneum in this
case?

A. A half an inch.

Q. And is that considerably larger than a tip of a knife?

A. It would have been the front portion of the knife that went through
the aorta, and it would be more than just a tip, yes.

Q. Now, you were asked some questions about an aneurysm.

There was no aneurysm in this case, was there?

A. No, there was no aneurysm.

Q. Now, can people that are -- that are wounded in the back, with the
aorta being severed or cut without the peritoneal space -- peritoneal
sack being cut, what would happen there?

A. If a person, and this happens on our streets, is stabbed in the
back, and the aorta is cut in the back and not in the front, then the
bleeding -- and there's no other injury to cause impairment, then the
bleeding would be into the retroperitoneal space, as occurs when
somebody has a ruptured aneurysm that Mr. Medvene referred to, and in
those circumstances, as the blood infiltrates the retroperitoneal
space, the space behind the aorta, it builds up pressure, and what's
called a pseudoaneurysm, false aneurysm, because the blood clots
around the aorta, it's got tissue pressure. These tissues are harder
to infiltrate than a space like the peritoneum or the thoracic cavity,
and these people usually live long enough to get to a hospital, be
operated upon and oftentimes survive.

So a stab wound in the -- that does produce hemorrhage in the
retroperitoneal space, is not nearly as harmful as one that goes into
the peritoneal cavity because once a stab wound goes into the
peritoneal cavity, as I tried to illustrate with the plastic bag
yesterday, there's a big space there with no counter pressure that
just fills up with a great deal of blood, and those people who have
bleeding from the front of the aorta into the peritoneal cavity have a
much poorer prognosis, they don't do as well. They often don't live to
get to a hospital.

If it's only in the retroperitoneal space, many of these people are
operated upon and are salvaged.

Q. Now, the 100 to 200 cc's of blood that Dr. Golden found in the
abdominal cavity, this is a relatively small amount, is it not?

A. Yes, as is the blood in the right chest cavity is also a small
amount.

Q. And incidentally, it's routine in an autopsy to record those kinds
of things?

A. Absolutely, yes.

Q. And just so the record is clear, describe again what your opinion
is with respect to the state of Mr. Goldman at the time the aorta
wound was inflicted?

A. My opinion when the aorta wound was inflicted is the same as my
opinion when the two lung wounds were inflicted, the heart was not
beating effectively, the heart was failing as a pump, so it wasn't
pumping blood effectively through the body or through any of the blood
vessels, and that's why very little bleeding occurred.

Q. And that would take a certain period of time that you've estimated
after the neck wounds would have been inflicted for his body to have
bled out enough to lower his blood pressure and produce that small
volume of blood?

A. Yes. In order for the stab wounds to the aorta and to the lungs to
bleed very little would have required, that's where I get into these
numbers, a good -- a good 10 minutes from that point, he's on the
ground a good 10 minutes before, so that the heart can no longer pump.

Now, that's modified -- that's also modified by the amount of air
that's being sucked into the air (sic), because as the air gets sucked
into the heart from the lower portion, it causes an airlock so blood
can pump.

And people with transected internal jugular veins have the additional
problem of the blood not being able to pass through the heart because
of the air, and this causes the heart to beat ineffectively as a pump,
and within five or ten minutes the -- the stabbing into the aorta or
the lungs will not produce much bleeding.

Q. Now, Mr. Medvene asked you a number of hypothetical questions.

Do you have anyway of knowing whether the perpetrator or perpetrators
saw Mr. Goldman breathing or not?

A. I have no way of knowing that.

Q. Now, what is your opinion with respect to whether he was stabbed in
the aorta and in the chest after he had already collapsed on the
ground some period of time after the neck wound?

A. Yeah. My opinion is that when he's stabbed in the right chest area
and the left thigh, the heart is not able to pump blood effectively.
That would take at least five or ten minutes, you know, from the time
of the cut -- wound, and that's where I get confused on numbers, and
the stab wounds to the right -- right chest stab wound to -- the right
chest would have been first, from the position of the body. The stab
wound on the left chest would be the last one, from the position of
the body as seen at the scene, but prior to that there would be stab
wounds on the right side.

During all this time -- During all this time Mr. Goldman is not
conscious, he doesn't feel this, he's not conscious during all this
time.

Q. Now, is part of your opinion that you've talked about, deal with --
with the Bruno Magli set of shoe prints that make it appear that
somebody went out and came back a second time.

A. Well, during that time, there -- there are shoe prints in different
areas, and part of that is the ones you showed me where there was
motion, whoever was there, whether it's one person or two persons,
there was motion going on and the -- the congealed or partially
clotted blood was stepped into.

Q. But as to the Bruno Magli shoe prints in the back walkway, you take
into account Mr. Bodziak's testimony with respect to possibly the
perpetrator going out and coming back and going out a second time?

A. I also considered that, yes.

Q. Now, you were asked questions about the adrenal glands having some
hemorrhage.

What does the autopsy report say about that in terms of how much
hemorrhage?

A. Is says in the description in the adrenal gland that -- that there
is -- there is a small amount of hemorrhage around the adrenal -- of
the left adrenal gland, due to the retroperitoneal hemorrhage caused
by the stab wound. So in the course of that stab wound track which was
illustrated in that diagram, there is hemorrhage around that stab
wound's track, partially passive hemorrhage, and there might have been
a small amount of blood pressure at that time, and that hemorrhage got
into the -- to the adrenal gland area.

Q. Now, had the wound to the aorta been inflicted early on as Dr.
Spitz testified, would you expect to see a small amount of hemorrhage
or a large amount?

A. Well, I expect a large amount. And also, I expect the kidney in
that area to be encased in blood because the kidney is right there in
the retroperitoneal space, and there's no mention in the autopsy
report of any hemorrhage around the kidney.

Q. Now, you were asked questions about your conversation with Dr.
Goldman -- Dr. Golden, excuse me.

Did you have a conversation with Dr. Golden after you heard Dr.
Spitz's testimony or read his testimony?

A. Yes.

Q. And did you discuss with Dr. Golden the issue of whether there was
massive bleeding in the retroperitoneal space?

A. Yes.

Q. What did he tell you?

MR. MEDVENE: Objection, hearsay, Your Honor.

THE COURT: Overruled.

A. My understanding in talking to Dr. Golden, and I specifically asked
him whether there was any additional information he had that was not
included in the autopsy report -- his autopsy report about the
hemorrhage in the retroperitoneal space, and he reassured me that he
sticks by what he says in the autopsy report and what he testified to
at prior -- prior testimony that he gave.

Q. And is it accurate that he told you that he did not observe massive
amounts of blood in the retroperitoneal space?

A. He told me that he did not see massive bleeding in the
retroperitoneal space or if he did, he would have put it in his
autopsy report.

Q. Now, Dr. Baden, is it accurate to say, or fair to say, that you're
somewhat reluctant to criticize Dr. Spitz; he's a friend of yours?

A. I don't have --

MR. MEDVENE: Objection, relevance, Your Honor.

THE COURT: Sustained.

Q. (BY MR. BLASIER) There is absolutely no basis in the evidence from
the autopsy and from any of the observations here that support Dr.
Spitz's conclusion with -- there is absolutely no support whatsoever
for Dr. Spitz's opinion that the wound to the aorta was one of the
earlier wounds and that there was massive bleeding in the
retroperitoneal space?

MR. MEDVENE: Calls for conclusion, argumentative, Your Honor.

THE COURT: That's his job. He makes conclusions.

A. In my opinion, to a reasonable degree of medical certainty, I don't
find any evidence for massive bleeding in the retroperitoneal space
and I disagree with Dr. Spitz's opinion to that point.

Q. And if I asked you the same question with respect to all of the
marks on Mr. Simpson's hand being caused by fingernail gouges, would
you agree that that simply is not supported by the evidence?

A. My opinion is that they're not finger scratch gouges but there's a
little more evidence that I would agree with Dr. Spitz is that I can't
tell. The little scratches on the back of the hand that were crusted
could be from anything. So it's not my opinion they're finger scratch
marks, but there's some basis that another person could think they
are.

I don't think there's a good basis that there's massive
retroperitoneal hemorrhage.

MR. BLASIER: That's all I have, Your Honor.

THE COURT: Anything else?

MR. MEDVENE: Yes, Your Honor.

MR. MEDVENE: Recross.

RECROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR. MEDVENE:

Q. You're not a shoe print expert, are you, Dr. Baden?

A. I am not, sir.

Q. And you performed, yourself, no analysis of what imprints of any
kind were at the Bundy scene to determine the origin of those
imprints; is that correct, sir?

A. That's correct.

Q. And if -- And if Dr. Lee said that as far as the Bundy walkway was
concerned, other than the Bruno Magli footprints that had been
previously identified by Agent Bodziak, the only other imprint on the
walkway that he could say with scientific certainty was a shoe print,
was one particular shoe print, you wouldn't disagree with that, would
you?

A. No, not --

Q. And if Dr. Lee said as far as that one particular shoe print, the
only other one that he saw on the Bundy walkway, other than the bloody
Bruno Magli size 12, if he said he did not know if that imprint was
put on the scene after the murder, you would have no basis to disagree
with that, would you, sir?

A. I would not disagree with that. There's no -- we can't tell the
time any shoe print is put down.

Q. Thank you.

And if Dr. Lee were to testify that he is not able to identify with
any degree of scientific certainty, as a shoe print, any imprints that
are on an envelope that you referred to, or on jeans you referred to,
you would not quarrel with that, would you, sir?

A. I would not quarrel with Dr. Lee's opinion.

Q. All right.

So, basically, then, if we assumed that the testimony is there's one
set of bloody Bruno Magli size 12 shoe prints at the crime scene, and
one other shoe print that nobody knows when it got there, are you
telling us that with some degree of reasonable medical certainty --
you're claiming that based on that there were two assailants?

A. No. I would not make an opinion based on that.

Q. Now, when counsel -- and with respect to that one particular shoe
print, the only one Dr. Lee said even though he didn't know when it
was there, that he identified as a shoe print, other than the bloody
Bruno Magli shoe prints, with respect to that one shoe print that was
some distance in the walkway, do -- did you perform any examination to
figure how that one shoe print could appear somewhere halfway in the
walkway and nowhere else?

A. No, I didn't.

Q. So --

THE COURT: Okay. We're going to resume at 1:30.

Ladies and gentlemen, don't talk about the case, don't form or express
any opinions. You're excused.

THE BAILIFF: Could I have it quiet in the courtroom, please.

(Jurors exit courtroom.)

(The following proceedings were held in open court outside the
presence of the jury.)

THE BAILIFF: Please take a seat in the audience.

THE COURT: Okay. I'll remind you, counsel, you've had ample
cross-examination. The Court is not going to go through the same
testimony the second time.

MR. MEDVENE: Yes, Your Honor.

(At 12:04 P.M. a recess was taken until 1:30 P.M. of the same day.)


SANTA MONICA, CALIFORNIA
TUESDAY, DECEMBER 17, 1996
1:40 P.M.

DEPARTMENT NO. WEQ
HON. HIROSHI FUJISAKI, JUDGE

(REGINA D. CHAVEZ, OFFICIAL REPORTER)

(The jurors resumed their respective seats.)

THE COURT: Ladies and gentlemen, you will note that one of your number
is no longer with you. You're not to speculate as to the reason why.

I wish to remind you that it is very important for you to follow the
instructions that I have given to you, and I give to you periodically
about not talking about this case with anyone, not communicating
anything about -- anything about this case, not even the fact that
you're on this case.

People may know you're on this case, but your duty is not to initiate
any communications about anything like that.

You're also not to form or express any opinions about this case until
this case is completed. You're not to do any investigating on your
own. You're not to permit yourself to be addressed about this case by
anyone other than myself or the lawyers in the course of the trial, or
by the witnesses as they testify.

Everybody understand those instructions?

JURORS: Yes.

THE COURT: Okay. Thank you.

You may proceed.

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

RECROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR. MEDVENE:

Q. Good afternoon, Dr. Baden.

A. Good afternoon, Mr. Medvene.

Q. Just a few more questions for you.

You were asked on redirect about the question of blood under
fingernails.

I want to ask you, sir, isn't it true that it is uncommon to find an
assailant's blood under the victim's fingernails?

A. Yes.

Q. There was some discussion on redirect about the shirt and the fact
there wasn't much blood on the left side of the shirt. And you had
talked about the absorbency of a shirt, and that might account for the
possible lack of soaking on the left side.

You know what kind of shirt it was, sir?

A. That's not what I said.

Q. All right.

Do you know what kind of shirt it was Mr. Goldman was wearing?

A. I did at one time. I don't recall.

It was --

Q. Yes, sir. Was it a cotton shirt?

A. I forget what it was. I'd have to review my notes on that.

MR. MEDVENE: Put on the board next in order.

THE CLERK: 2272.

(The instrument herein referred to as Photograph depicting shirt label
was marked for identification as Plaintiffs' Exhibit No. 2272.)

Q. (BY MR. MEDVENE) I ask you to look at 2272, and ask if that's Mr.
Goldman's shirt and if that is a cotton?

A. Cotton; yes, sir.

Q. And cotton, to your knowledge, would be an absorbent material?

A. It would be absorbent, yes.

Q. You also said with respect to the shirt, and discussing relative
lack of blood on the left side, something about the assailant twisting
the shirt. Is it your testimony that the --

A. I didn't say that.

Q. Is it your testimony that the assailant was holding Mr. Goldman's
shirt so that the left side was moved away from his left jugular vein
for five or ten minutes?

A. No, I didn't say that. And I would have no knowledge of that.

And I would doubt that.

Q. All right.

Is it true, sir, that you have previously testified, under oath, that
you did not see any blood in the soil, and there was no blood when the
body was removed, and not much blood in that area, to start with?

Did you previously say that under oath, sir?

MR. BLASIER: Objection. Outside of the scope.

THE COURT: Overruled.

Q. (BY MR. MEDVENE) Did you say that?

A. That would be my observation; I did not see any blood --

Q. Thank you, sir.

A. -- in the soil or on the photographs.

Q. Thank you, sir.

And last question, sir: You have stated that, from whatever wounds he
received, Mr. Goldman would be on the ground in two to three minutes,
but might have stayed alive, before receiving the other wounds, for
seven or eight minutes.

Are you contending, sir, as you stated on the Rivera show, that the
assailant could have inflicted a wound and stopped and talked, or
maybe there was another perpetrator with a gun?

Are you suggesting that that's what happened during this seven or
eight minutes that Mr. Goldman was on the ground, before he was, you
say, stabbed in the abdomen and the aorta?

A. What I was trying to convey was that --

Q. Is that what you're saying, sir?

A. What I'm trying to say, that many things could have happened in
between the two. I'm not saying it happened that way at all.

Q. So that's one of the things?

A. But if I may answer your question --

In the context of the show, which I regret I have to have been
involved in, from trying to explain my thoughts without having to
review the record, I was trying to explain that we can only tell, as
medical examiners, the minimum time, just like in a boxing match, that
injuries are inflicted; and we don't know what happens in between.

Q. Right.

A. So the reason I'm was very confusing -- have been very confusing,
is, between the cut and neck and the -- and the final stab wound,
there's at least five or ten minutes.

How long he stood during that time, I can't say.

Q. Well, you had --

A. I -- I can say only as I've said it before.

Q. Dr. Baden, so we stay focused, and I'm done --

A. I'm sorry.

Q. -- you had him down on the ground in two to three --

A. Two to three minutes. I've given various numbers. I don't know how
long he stood up. Two to five minutes, he'd be down on the ground.

Q. So many numbers you've given us.

A. I'm sorry. It's all in the same grouping.

Q. I'm asking you, Dr. Baden, are you suggesting to this jury --

A. Yeah.

Q. -- as you did on the Rivera show, that maybe the assailant didn't
immediately, after two minutes, inflict the remaining blows, but he
stopped and talked?

Yes or no, sir?

A. That he stopped, did something else.

Q. Sir, you said stopped and talked.

Are you suggesting --

A. That was an example.

Q. All right.

A. I don't mean that literally; I mean that figuratively stopped,
walked to the car, came back, stopped, did something in between.

Q. Sir, you're very verbal. You didn't say stopped and did something.

A. I'm not very verbal.

Q. You said stopped and talked.

A. I may have said that as an example.

Q. All right.

A. Not -- not to mean that that's what happened.

Q. All right.

Sir, are you suggesting to the jury, as you did on the show, maybe
there was another perpetrator with a gun?

Are you telling the jury that that's what you believe happened?

Yes or no, sir?

A. No, I'm not saying what I believe.

Q. Sir, did you say that?

A. I said that as an example of what could have happened.

MR. BLASIER: Thank you, sir.

I have nothing else.

FURTHER REDIRECT EXAMINATION

BY MR. BLASIER:

Q. Dr. Baden, the Geraldo show, the purpose of that was to promote the
HBO special?

A. Yes.

Q. And when you got on there, you found that Chris Darden was also on
the show?

MR. MEDVENE: Objection. Outside the scope.

THE COURT: I don't have any inclination to allow any examination about
anybody else on the show, Mr. Blasier.

MR. BLASIER: I think I'm entitled to let him explain.

THE COURT: I'm not going to let you. You can ask about what he said;
that's it.

MR. BLASIER: All right.

Q. (BY MR. BLASIER) Dr. Baden, had you reviewed all your materials
before you appeared on Geraldo?

A. No, I hadn't.

Q. And were you -- was it your understanding that you were even going
to be asked about the Simpson case?

A. I was hoping I wouldn't be asked about it. I was just going to talk
about the -- I was hoping only to talk about the HBO program, which
was kind of a foolish thought in my mind.

Q. And the ten-minute period that you referred to on Geraldo, did you
intend that to mean that's how long Mr. Goldman was standing up, or
the period -- time period be a neck -- wound in the aorta?

A. That's what I said, but I didn't intend it that way. And I don't
agree with that.

That -- that's the time period, the five- to ten-minute is the time
period between the cut wound to the neck and the stab wound to the
belly. How -- and I misspoke. Because how long he was standing, I
can't quite tell. I think it was a few minutes. It had to be enough
time for the blood to go down to the shoe and during that time -- for
some time, he was standing. And I can't be more specific than that.

Q. Would you agree that no medical examiner could be so precise to say
all this happened, for example, in a minute and 15 seconds precisely?

MR. MEDVENE: Outside the scope.

THE COURT: Overruled.

MR. BLASIER: No further questions.

A. I would agree with that.

MR. BLASIER: No further questions.

MR. MEDVENE: No questions.

THE COURT: Your're excused.

THE WITNESS: Thank you, Your Honor.

MR. BLASIER: Your Honor, can we move in 2267, 2270 --

THE CLERK: Wait.

MR. BLASIER: I'm sorry. 2269, 70 and 71.

THE CLERK: 2269, 70 and 71?

MR. BLASIER: Correct.

THE COURT: Okay.

(The document previously marked Defendants' Exhibit 2269 for
identification, was received in evidence.)

(The document previously marked Defendants' Exhibit 2270 for
identification, was received in evidence.)

(The document previously marked Defendants' Exhibit 2271 for
identification, was received in evidence.)

MR. MEDVENE: We move in -- I believe it's 22 -- 2272, Your Honor.

THE COURT: Okay.

(The instrument previously marked as Plaintiffs' Exhibit 2272 was
received in evidence.)

THE COURT: I'm just trying to get my courtroom policed a little bit. I
want to get rid of all those cups and things, if you don't mind.

(Referring to cups on witness stand.)

MR. LEONARD: I'll get it.

THE COURT: No, you won't.

MR. LEONARD: Your Honor, we're going to read in the criminal trial
testimony of William Blasini, William Blasini, Jr.

(The testimony of William Blasini, given in Criminal Case No.
BA097211, was read into the record, with Mr. Philip Baker reading the
testimony of Mr. Blasini, and Mr. Leonard reading the questions, as
follows:)

MR. LEONARD: Beginning at page 43972, line 9:

Q. Mr. Blasini, what is your occupation?

THE COURT: Excuse me. I think you better identify the witness so the
jurors will know who it is.

MR. LEONARD: This is Mr. William Blasini, who was called as a defense
witness at the criminal trial.

THE COURT: Spell that.

MR. LEONARD: B.

MR. P. BAKER: B-l-a-s-i-n-i.

MR. LEONARD: Sorry.

(Reading:)

Q. Mr. Blasini, what is your occupation, sir?

A. I work for Pick Your Part, the world's largest self-service
automobile recycling center.

THE COURT: Mr. Baker, either use the microphone or speak louder.

MR. LEONARD: (Reading:)

Thank you, Mr. Blasini.

And it's called Pick Your Part?

A. Yes, sir.

Q. All right.

And how long have you been so employed?

A. About three and a half years.

Q. And what is your present job title with Pick Your Part.

A. I'm general manager of vehicle purchasing.

Q. And as such, tell us briefly what you do as a general manager of
Pick Your Part.

A. Basically, I go to auctions, police auctions, impounds, and we buy
cars.

Q. And you've been doing this for how long?

A. At Pick Your Part, for three and a half years.

Q. Have you been in this industry for -- before that time?

A. I was a wholesaler. I was wholesaling vehicles before this.

Q. All right.

So you've been around automobiles for some time; is that correct?

A. Fifteen years, to be correct.

Q. All right, sir.

I'd like, sir, to direct your attention back to the date -- I believe
June 21 of 1994.

Did you have an occasion on or about that date, in the afternoon, to
be at Viertel's garage, here in downtown Los Angeles?

A. Yes, I was.

Q. And would you tell the ladies and gentlemen of the jury under what
circumstances you were at Viertel's on that date, that Tuesday, June
21.

A. Well, every Tuesday, we go there and we bid on cars -- they have
four locations -- and the last location is at Temple, the main garage;
that's where we wind up. And when I walked -- when we finished bidding
on the cars, I was walking in to do the paperwork, when I just
happened to see the Bronco inside the garage.

Q. All right. So would you say you were accompanied by someone else at
that point?

A. I was accompanied by Bob Jones, Andrew Adlen, myself, and Sam
Adlen, I think. I'm not sure about Sam, if he was there that day.

Q. Let's take them one at a time.

We've heard the name Bob Jones before. By whom is Bob Jones employed?

A. Viertel's.

Q. You knew him prior to the date of June 21?

A. Yes.

Q. And you mentioned a Mr. Aden -- excuse me -- Adlen. What is Mr.
Adlen's first name?

A. Andrew.

Q. And who is Mr. Andrew Adlen?

A. He's a competitor. He also bids on the cars, as well.

THE COURT: How do you spell Adlen? Do you know?

BY MR. COCHRAN: A-d-l-e-n, I believe, Your Honor, Andrew Adlen.

And you mentioned another Adlen, I believe.

A. It's his uncle. I assume it's his uncle.

Q. So you were there in the company of the two Adlens and yourself and
Bob Jones; is that correct?

A. I'm not correct on the second Adlen, but the first one was there,
yes.

Q. You're sure about the first one?

A. Yes.

Q. You were describing that you were at Viertel's, and this jury heard
something about Viertel's and the layout there.

Can you describe for us where you were once you got there on that
particular afternoon?

A. Well, there's two entrances, two main entrances, one from the
street and one from the back of the yard. And that's where we come
from, from the back of the yard.

Once we're done bidding on the vehicles, we come through the back of
the garage, and right there, as you walk in the area where they keep
the restricted vehicles. And as you continue past that area, you go
down to the offices.

Q. All right. And did you -- you were in this -- walking in this area;
is that right?

A. Yes, I was.

Q. And while in this area -- first, before we get to that, tell us
what time -- what time of day was it on June 21?

A. It was about 2:30, 3 o'clock in the afternoon.

Q. And at some point after 2:30 or 3 o'clock in the afternoon on June
21, did you see a white Bronco?

A. Yes, I did.

Q. And who were you with when you first saw the Bronco?

A. I was with Andrew Adlen and Bob Jones.

Q. Did you have some conversation at all with Mr. Jones about that
Bronco?

A. The minute I saw the Bronco, I was amazed at -- yes, I did.

MR. LEONARD: Okay. Over to page 43979, line 10.

(Reading:)

I think I had just asked you a question about whether or not you had a
conversation with Bob Jones about this particular Bronco, and you
indicated yes; is that correct? A. Yes, sir.

And what was the --

MR. P. BAKER: Oops. Sorry.

Q. And what was the -- when you talked to Mr. Jones, can you tell us
the general subject matter of what you talked to him about the Bronco,
without telling us what you said and what he said?

A. Basically, why was the vehicle there.

Q. All right.

And did you get some response from him?

A. Yes, I did.

Q. Now, based upon that brief conversation you had with Bob Jones, did
you have occasion to, at any point that afternoon, go over to or get
inside of this particular -- particular vehicle, the Bronco?

A. Yes, I did.

Q. And describe for the ladies and gentlemen of the jury what you did
in that regard, if anything.

A. As far as walking up to the Bronco and exactly what I did?

Q. Yes. Tell us what you did.

A. I opened the door to the Bronco.

Q. Let me stop you there.

Was the Bronco locked at that point?

A. No, it wasn't, sir.

Q. So you just walked over and opened the door?

A. Yes, sir.

Q. Which door did you open of the Bronco?

A. The passenger's door.

Q. On the passenger side of the vehicle?

A. Yes, sir.

Q. Now, you've seen pictures of that Bronco, and you've seen the
Bronco itself; is that correct?

A. Yes, sir.

Q. Now, when you open the door to the Bronco, the passenger door, what
happened next?

A. I looked in the vehicle.

Q. All right.

Now, was there any particular reason why you wanted to go and look
inside this Bronco?

A. Well, I guess there was a couple of reasons. It was -- it was a big
story. Just the facts of looking at the Bronco, O.J. Simpson being
involved in it, it was a big story. I was curious.

Q. All right. You were curious at that point?

A. Yes, sir.

Q. Had you read or seen any stories on television regarding the Bronco
being there?

A. Some stories.

Q. Were you expecting to see it at Viertel's?

A. Not at all.

Q. All right.

So you saw it, and then you had heard things about it, and you went
over to it; is that right?

A. Yes, sir.

Q. Now, when you went over to the Bronco and opened the door, tell the
ladies and gentlemen what you next did after that.

A. I looked inside the Bronco. I looked at the seats, the floor. I
looked at the dashboard. I basically looked all over the vehicle.

Q. All right.

And why did you look all over the vehicle?

A. Well, Andrew and I were talking that it was said that there was a
lot of -- lot of blood in the vehicle.

Q. Who -- who said there was a lot of blood in the vehicle?

A. Well, it was said in the papers.

Q. All right.

You had read or heard that?

A. I heard that, yes.

Q. And were you looking to see if there was a lot of blood in that
vehicle?

A. Well, that was the first thing I looked for, yes.

Q. And will you describe for us how you --

Did you get inside the vehicle at some point?

A. Yes, I did, sir.

Q. Describe for the jury again how you got inside the vehicle and
where you were when you were inside the vehicle.

A. Well, once I looked in the vehicle, I sat in the passenger seat; I
continued to look around the vehicle. I looked between the seats and I
looked to the back of the vehicle.

Q. So when you got inside the vehicle and sat in the passenger seat
and looked all around the vehicle, did you see any blood?

A. No, sir I didn't.

Q. Were you looking specifically for blood?

A. At first, yes, we were.

Q. Now, you said "we." When you got into the passenger side of the
vehicle and sat in the passenger seat, what did Mr. Adlen do, if
anything, that you saw?

A. He opened up the driver's door.

Q. Did you see him at any point put any part of his body into the
Bronco vehicle?

A. Yes. Half of his body came into the vehicle.

Q. Can you describe for the jury again how he did that, that movement.

A. The vehicle sits up high because it's a truck. And he basically
opened the door and leaned over the seat and looked in the vehicle.

Q. At the time he made that movement of looking inside the vehicle and
looking inside, were you already inside the vehicle?

A. I was already inside the vehicle, yes.

Q. And you were seated in the passenger compartment, just as though
you're seated in the witness seat there?

A. Correct, sir.

Q. All right.

Take your time and describe for the jury what you did from that
particular vantage point inside the driver's compartment of that
Bronco on June 21, 1994.

A. Well, I basically, at first, looked for blood. And I looked all
over the vehicle. I looked for fingerprint dust.

Q. Do you recall seeing any fingerprint dust?

A. Not inside the vehicle, no.

Q. All right.

Tell us what else -- what happened after that.

A. I saw some dust on the window sill, so I put my fingers on the
window sill to see if there was any dust on them.

Q. So you're holding your fingers up. And I want you to describe for
this jury how you did this.

What did you do with regard to your fingers on the window sill, and
which window sill was it?

A. It was the same side I was si