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
NOVEMBER 12, 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, NOVEMBER 12, 1996
8:50 a.m.

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:)

MR. LEONARD: Morning, Your Honor.

THE COURT: Okay. Somebody has something they want to address?

MR. PETROCELLI: Yes, Your Honor.

With regard to the Court's confidentiality order, we understand that
there was a modification with regard to witnesses on the theory that
the lawyers cannot control witnesses. But we have here, an expert
witness consultant, retained by the defense, paid by the defense, on
television last night commenting specifically about the testimony of a
pending witness who's testimony is not even concluded.

Dr. Baden is the fellow who is was on TV. He's going to be in court
testifying for the defense, talking about Dr. Spitz's testimony in
court. I don't think it's appropriate that witnesses under the control
of a party, retain witnesses who are thereby agents and
representatives of counsel or a party be talking about the
proceedings, specifically the subject matter of their testimony while
this case is pending; and that's why we filed the application.

THE COURT: Well, bearing in mind that the Court addressed the summary
issue with regards to the jury selection expert, I indicated at that
time that the Court did not feel it had personal jurisdiction over
that person. And in this instance, I don't feel that I have personal
jurisdiction over Dr. Baden.

However, as in the case of a jury selection expert, I indicated that
if the defense cannot keep control of their people, the people they
hire, they pay money to, the recourse that's available to the Court is
to not permit them to testify. And that's exactly what's going to
happen if Dr. Baden continues to comport himself in the manner which
he's allegedly comported.

MR. BAKER: Understood, Your Honor. We have one other matter.

THE COURT: All right. In lieu of an Order to Show Causes re: Contempt,
the Court orders that should Dr. Baden or any other any other defense
witness get on television or news media and broadcast anything,
connected with this case, the Court will do -- the defense and the
plaintiff have been forewarned and any witness who prejudices this
trial by making public comment on the media with regards to the
matters that are directly involved in this case, will be precluded
from testifying.

That's going to be my -- That's the way I'm going to handle it. Okay.

MR. BAKER: That witness' under our control, right?

THE COURT: Well, you -- Dr. Baden appears to be your expert witness.

MR. BAKER: He's our expert witness. I agree with that.

THE COURT: You pay him. You have control over him.

MR. BAKER: I don't know that -- adopt the Court's linkage. I
understand the Court's order.

THE COURT: All right. Anything else?

MR. BAKER: Yes.

THE COURT: Yes.

MR. BAKER: Your Honor, during Friday's session, Dr. Spitz indicated at
page 141 that after we took Dr. Spitz' deposition on August 16, he
then had a conversation with Dr. Golden, this is at page 141 of the
daily that I got, volume 12, lines 18 through 21.

And I would move the Court that he not be allowed to discuss anything
relative to that conversation. He certainly had the opportunity to
talk to Dr. Golden between January, when he was retained, and August
16, when we took his deposition and he indicated in his deposition as
well that he hadn't talked to Dr. Golden, the autopsy surgeon under
the case of Kennemer at 233 Cal.App. 3d.

We would request the Court to order him not to discuss or to bring
into his testimony, any of the information gleaned from that
conversation because we obviously didn't have an opportunity to
cross-examine him about that and go back to Dr. Golden about that
conversation, and I think that would be sandbagging us in this case
and I don't think it's appropriate and the Kenner case so holds."

MR. MEDVENE: If the Court please, Dr. Spitz did not indicate it was
the basis for his opinion and further what he said was in response to
a question from the defense. He has no intent to raise that.

THE COURT: Excuse me?

MR. MEDVENE: Unless the defense raises it.

THE COURT: What was the question?

MR. MEDVENE: My memory of the question.

THE COURT: Mr. Baker, you have the transcript right there.

MR. BAKER: Question (Reading:)

"As I understand it, you correct me if I'm in error, you did not view
any piece of evidence, would that be true.

"A. Well, Yes. I did view evidence. I think the autopsy report is
evidence. I think the photographs are evidence.

"Q. Okay. I think that the -- that --

"A. I think that it is evidence that, with everything else, are viewed
to get it, such in my mind that I would see totally clear. I also
called Dr. Golden, who did the autopsy and talked it over with me."

Q. When you took your deposition, you hadn't talked to Dr. Golden.

A. No I talked to him afterwards.

THE COURT: Okay.

The witness is ordered to the -- not order -- not to refer to any
conversation that you had with Dr. Golden.

THE WITNESS: Yes, Your Honor.

THE COURT: Okay. Thank you. Okay. Bring the jury in.

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

(Jurors resume their respective seats.)

THE COURT: Good morning.

JURORS: Morning, Your Honor.

THE COURT: Okay. You may proceed.

THE CLERK: You are still under oath. Would you state your name again
for the record?

THE WITNESS: Werner Spitz.

WERNER SPITZ, having been previously called and sworn as a witness by
the Plaintiffs, testified further as follows:

CROSS-EXAMINATION (CONTINUED) BY MR. BAKER:

Q. Morning Dr. Spitz.

A. Morning.

Q. Did you enjoy our southern California weekend weather over the
weekend?

A. Yes, I did.

Q. Now, would it be -- would it be accurate, sir, for the first time
since you've been involved in this case, that being from the criminal
trial to this last weekend, you finally took some notes relative to
this case?

A. Well, Yes, I did. That's correct. I did make some notes over the
weekend to refresh my memory on certain points and to -- and you know,
it is really my habit to make notes. I didn't make notes before, for
some unknown reason. I don't know why there was so much overwhelming
material that I didn't make notes, but ....

Q. Let me ask you, Doctor, you were consulted by the prosecution
during the criminal case, were you not, sir?

A. No. I was consulted. I was called by the prosecution during the
criminal case to request permission to use pictures from my book.

Q. Now, throughout the criminal case, throughout your retention in
this case, in a complex matter, you say where there's so much
information, you never took a note until this weekend; is that
correct?

A. Yes.

Q. All right. Now, let me ask you in terms of your review in arriving
at your opinions, you read and reviewed the autopsy reports in some
detail, correct?

A. Yes.

Q. And is there anything that you disagree within the autopsy report?

MR. MEDVENE: Objection. Compound.

MR. BAKER: Either one.

MR. MEDVENE: Objection. Compound, Your Honor and it's vague and
ambiguous. The autopsy reports are 30 or more pages.

THE COURT: You may answer yes or no as a preliminary hearing answer.

THE WITNESS: No, I don't disagree with anything that's in the autopsy
report.

Q. (BY MR. BAKER) The autopsy reports, as your counsel for plaintiffs
just mentioned, are 20, 25 pages; are they not?

A. Whatever they are.

Q. Your usual autopsy report is a page or two; is it not?

A. Yes.

Q. So these have somewhat more detail than your customary autopsy
report, you would agree, correct?

A. Possibly. I'm not even sure of that. I know that 25 pages as
appeared to one and a half or two pages sounds a bit different.

Q. Sounds a lot different?

A. Of course, but your including in the 25, 20 or 25 pages, I think
you said diagrams and results of toxicological analyses and
investigative reporting. I don't include all that. Mine is a -- my
reports are single space densely typed. And when they are two pages
like this, they -- I mean, you could extend that into easily six,
seven pages if you typed it a little differently.

Q. Now, in Ron Goldman's report, there's 18 pages of single space,
typed written report, then 6 pages of addendum for 24 pages before the
forms or diagrams are even shown. You would agree with that, correct?

A. Yes. And you would also agree, Dr. Spitz, that when an autopsy
surgeon pathologist is reporting, they put in their reports in the
anatomical summary on page 1, in the order of importance, their
findings. You would agree with that, true?

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

THE COURT: You may ask whether or not that is the case in this
instance.

MR. MEDVENE: If the Court, please, he may be -- he's opening an area
that we discussed, which is fine with us, if he knows.

THE COURT: I don't know what your talking about.

MR. MEDVENE: I didn't want to make a speaking objection. Can we
approach, Your Honor?

THE COURT: You may.

(The following proceedings were held at the bench:)

MR. MEDVENE: Mr. Baker, what the autopsy report says, the autopsy
report makes reference to the aorta wound.

THE COURT: To what?

MR. MEDVENE: The wound to the aorta and the blood flow.

What the question is: Doesn't the autopsy report indicate certain
findings and isn't that, in your experience, what the autopsy surgeon
found?

This witness knows more on what the autopsy surgeon found 'cause he
actually spoke to them this morning.

Your Honor ruled in a vacuum that he could not make reference to the
conversations with Dr. Golden. It would be unfair to ask this witness
what doesn't the autopsy surgeon indicate, X, when the witness knows
from conversations with the autopsy surgeon the significance of what
he wrote and why he wrote what he wrote.

And what I'm saying is I think Mr. Baker's opening the area, which is
fine, but the witness ought to be able to answer within -- if it's
within Mr. Baker's question, what he learned from the autopsy surgeon
as it's pertinent to Mr. Baker's question.

In other words, the autopsy report says certain things. Dr. Spitz
interprets them certain ways and formed certain conclusions. He then
spoke to the autopsy surgeon who confirmed, as I understand it, Dr.
Spitz conclusions.

What Mr. Baker I think is trying to elicit is the autopsy report
doesn't say everything that Dr. Spitz is saying, and isn't it true
that the autopsy surgeon, in affect, doesn't believe what Dr. Spitz is
saying, which is untrue; based on Dr. Spitz's conversation with the
autopsy surgeon.

So what I'm saying is we think Mr. Baker has opened up the area of Dr.
Spitz conversation with Dr. Golden.

MR. BAKER: I don't understand what he's talking about. In an autopsy
report, in the anatomical summary, every -- and the autopsy report
list the most important first. That's what I'm talking about. I'm not
talking about any conversation he had with Golden whatsoever.

THE COURT: Well, as I said before, you can ask him about this
particular autopsy report. We haven't established that there's a
national uniform autopsy protocol.

MR. BAKER: That's what I'm trying to do.

THE COURT: But I don't want to get into the protocol autopsy.

MR. BAKER: We're not -- the purpose of this is that No. 1 on the list,
in the anatomical summary and then is in virtually every autopsy, is
the primary cause of death, this and this one. It's the severance of
the internal jugular vein for Ron Goldman. There's some evidence
because that -- because of the order and that's all I'm going -- then
I'm moving on.

MR. MEDVENE: We think the witness --

THE COURT: I don't think you've opened up to any avenue to Dr. Golden.
If there's something that's contradicted in the autopsy report, maybe
you might consider Dr. Golden as a rebuttal witness. But at this
point, I don't see how I can permit this witness from testifying as to
his conversations about Doctor -- with Dr. Golden after his
deposition.

MR. MEDVENE: But if what he's trying to elicit is that Dr. Golden felt
that the aorta wound had no significance and there was no bleeding,
that's not accurate.

THE COURT: He's trying to establish that the autopsy report says what
it says in the order in which it says.

MR. MEDVENE: There's no problem with that. But he's asking, as a
background question, doesn't the person writing the report -- wouldn't
ordinarily do A, B, and C.

THE COURT: Yeah, so.

MR. MEDVENE: Okay.

THE COURT: You can't rehabilitate his opinion on the autopsy report
from a conversation that was had after the deposition.

MR. MEDVENE: All right, Your Honor.

(The following proceeding were resumed in open court in the presence
of the jury:)

Q. (BY MR. BAKER) Now, as we were saying, Dr. Spitz, on the anatomical
summary, if we look at Nicole Brown Simpson, the first indication of
cause of death is a transection of left and right common carotid
arteries, correct?

A. Yes.

Q. And you would agree that that is the primary cause of death in
Nicole Brown Simpson, true?

A. Yes.

Q. And if we look at Ronald Goldman, the primary cause of death
listed, No. 1, sharp force wound of neck, left side with transection
of left internal jugular vein and that was listed first in the Ron
Goldman autopsy report, correct?

A. Well, I suppose it's listed as No. 1.

Q. All right. And did it -- is it correct, the custom and practice of
autopsy surgeons in listing in the anatomical summary, the cause of
death is that the primary cause of death is listed first, true?

A. No.

Q. Okay. Now, in terms --

A. May I explain?

Q. You'll have plenty of time, sir.

Now, in terms of your full reconstruction of the murders of June 12,
1994, and you did do a full reconstruction, in your own mind, did you
not, sir?

A. Of what?

Q. Of how the murders took place?

A. I did a reconstruction, a full reconstruction, as you call it, in
my area of expertise.

Q. Let me read what you --

A. I mean, if I did not do a full reconstruction in encompassing other
disciplines. I'm a forensic pathologist. I did a full reconstruction
from my angle?

Q. Let me read what you told us on Friday afternoon on page 126 of
volume 11 of your testimony on Friday. Starting at line 14 (Reading:)

" ... You did a full reconstruction of how these murders took place in
your mind, and you're willing to sit here and tell us about them?

"A. Yes."

Q. (BY MR. BAKER) Now, you didn't qualify anything about your area of
expertise when we asked you the question about full reconstruction,
true?

A. I don't know that that's true because I don't know what comes in
the sentences before and what comes in the sentences after.

If the question is fingerprint analysis or shoe print analysis or hair
and fibers or DNA, I'm no expert in those -- in those areas. It goes
without saying. There's a lot of things people say when they talk that
isn't qualified. But it is certainly evident that I'm not an expert in
areas in which I haven't had training.

Q. Now, have you had training, sir, in how assailants inflict knife
wounds on human beings?

A. Yes. In that area, I think I have had training.

Q. And you've had training, I take it, sir, then in timing of the
infliction of wounds and reviewing a murder scene, to determine
whether or not the estimate -- Strike that.

Whether or not your time periods would fit within the parameters of
what actually occurred at the time the murder took place, true?

A. No. The main reason why I --

Q. Can you answer my question, sir?

Can I ask the Court to --

A. No. That's not the only reason why I go to a crime scene.

Q. Didn't ask you whether it was the only reason you go to a crime
scene, sir. I said, have you had training where you attempt to
assimilate all of the information of the crime scene to determine
whether or not these estimates or -- strike that.

Not these estimate, these absolute timeframes you gave this jury were,
in fact, accurate when pragmatically compared to what occurred at the
crime scene. You had training in that, sir?

A. I wish I could answer you. I did not understand your question.

Q. Well, in other words, sir, you gave this jury, on direct
examination Friday morning, some pretty concrete timeframes within
which all of these wounds were inflicted to these two human beings,
true?

A. Yes.

Q. And my question to you, sir, is: Have you had any training in
looking at all of the elements of a crime scene, so that these
absolute timeframes that you gave this jury on Friday can be compared
to the crime scene and what actually occurred to determine whether or
not your time periods are, in fact, accurate in --

MR. MEDVENE: Objection, Your Honor. Assumes facts not in evidence that
you have to go to the crime scene.

THE COURT: Okay. Sustained. That's a multifaceted compound question
that is starting off on one track and ending on another.

Q. (BY MR. BAKER) Well, let me ask you this question in terms of the
injuries. We were talking about Ron Goldman on Friday in doing the
accident, the -- not the accident, the reconstruction of the crime
scene, correct?

A. Yes.

Q. And you -- I -- you have not seen any of the photos that were of
the closed-in area, correct?

A. I had not seen these pictures. I'd seen other pictures of the same
areas but these pictures, I had not seen. The other pictures, I would
say, show the same area. But these very pictures, I have not seen.

Q. Okay. Now, I showed you a picture in the upper right-hand corner,
and -- on Friday and you couldn't tell us whether or not you thought
that that was blood 'cause you just didn't know, correct?

The upper right-hand corner -- what's that chart number, please, Phil.

MR. P. BAKER: 1342.

MR. BAKER: 1342?

THE WITNESS: May we -- may I approach the board?

Q. (BY MR. BAKER) Well, I put that, Monday, on the monitor, put a
close-up picture of that on the monitor and you can tell us whether
you believe that this is, in fact, blood of Mr. Goldman?

MR. MEDVENE: Objection. Relevance, outside the scope of the direct,
"what's on the fence."

THE COURT: Overruled.

Q. (BY MR. BAKER) Can you see that, sir?

A. Yes.

Q. What number is it?

MR. P. BAKER: Going to mark that next in order. Sorry.

THE CLERK: 2166.

(The instrument herein referred to as Photo on Exhibit board 1342
showing blood stains on bar was marked for identification as
Defendants' Exhibit No. 1342.)

Q. Is that a close-up of the photo the upper right-hand photo of the
board 1342, sir?

A. I'd have to go and look at it.

Q. Go ahead.

A. Yes.

Q. And would you now agree, sir, that that was, in fact, blood?

A. You're talking about this area here?

Q. Talking about on the lower horizontal bar of the fence.

A. This?

(Pointing to photo on board.)

Q. Correct?

A. Yes.

Q. I'm talking about dripping down off of that horizontal bar into the
dirt area in front of the concrete stone, whatever it is?

A. Yes.

Q. Okay. And you would agree that's blood, correct?

A. I would agree that that looks like blood, yes.

Q. All right. And for a person to have bled in that particular manner,
the person has to be above it, correct?

Bled down on that horizontal bar, true?

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

THE COURT: Overruled.

THE WITNESS: I --

Q. (BY MR. BAKER) You can answer.

A. It looks to me --

Q. Can you answer my question. I didn't ask --

MR. MEDVENE: If the Court please --

Q. (BY MR. BAKER) I didn't ask what it looks like to you.

A. I'm not a blood splatter expert.

Q. Would you agree that the person who left the blood there, had to be
above the area where the blood is dropped on the horizontal rail of
the fence and then puddles into the dirt area.

MR. MEDVENE: Objection. Asked and answered. The witness said he's not
a blood splatter expert and he wasn't put on for that purpose.

THE COURT: You can answer yes or no. He testified in direct
examination with regards to blood flow.

THE WITNESS: The origin of this blood could be from a higher level. It
could be from the same level.

Q. (BY MR. BAKER) It's going to take some period of time for that
blood to accumulate on the horizontal bar as well as to accumulate in
the puddle areas that are about -- in the center of the TV monitor.
You would agree with that?

A. You mean that it takes time for this blood to accumulate here?

Q. Yes, sir. That's what I mean.

A. Everything takes time. There's nothing in life that doesn't take
time. The question is: How much time, but it takes time. It takes
time. Everything we do takes time.

Q. Now, if you would come over, I want to point out on 1342, the
middle picture on the left-hand side and ask you if you have looked at
that area where there is a hole that is approximately 12 inches by 12
inches, maybe 8 to 10 inches deep?

A. Yes. There is a hole.

Q. And I want you to further assume that Detective Lange came into
this courtroom and said that hole, more likely or not, in his opinion,
was made during the struggle that culminated in the death of Ron
Goldman. Now --

A. He said that this hole was made during the struggle.

Q. That's what he said.

A. Okay.

MR. MEDVENE: Objection. Assumes facts not in evidence.

THE COURT: Overruled.

Q. (BY MR. BAKER) Now, do you have an opinion as to whether or not you
can dig that hole, and you can have the blood that is indicated on the
TV monitor, now, would that take over five seconds?

A. I don't know how big the hole is. I don't know. I'm not an expert
in hole digging. I don't base an opinion on the hole digging. I have
really no opinion about whether that hole existed -- preexisted,
existed or was done after the fact. I have never seen the hole. I
don't know what it is.

Q. Well, but you never took that into account in asking, for your
opinion and conclusion, that within 60 seconds, the first wound was
inflicted on Ron Goldman and until the last wound was inflicted on Ron
Goldman, correct?

A. My opinion is --

Q. Did you take --

A. Has been --

Q. Did you take it into consideration, was the question, Doctor, not
what your opinion is.

THE COURT: Did you take that into consideration, the hole?

Q. (BY MR. BAKER) The hole and the blood splatters and the -- that are
on the photo on the monitor, did you take those, just those two
elements into consideration in arriving at your opinions and
conclusion that it was 60 seconds from the first wound to the last on
Ron Goldman?

A. Can I answer, Your Honor?

Q. You may.

THE COURT: You may.

THE WITNESS: I took into consideration, the blood that I saw. I did
not take into consideration the hole.

Q. (BY MR. BAKER) Well, you didn't take into consideration the blood
you saw on the horizontal bar of the fence, on the north end of the
caged-in area because you didn't know it was blood on Friday; isn't
that true?

A. I took into consideration everything that I thought was blood in
the -- in that general area.

Q. What's the number of this one?

MR. P. BAKER: 2134.

Q. (BY MR. BAKER) On 2134, do you know where this blood came from?

MR. MEDVENE: Objection, Your Honor. No testimony about the back gate
and the case --

THE COURT: This --

MR. BAKER: This is not the back gate, Mr. Medvene.

THE WITNESS: Who's blood is this?

Q. (BY MR. BAKER) Do you know where it is in terms of taking into
consideration, your opinions that it took 60 seconds from the first to
the last wound on Ron Goldman?

A. These blood splatters were taken into consideration, although at
this moment, I cannot tell you where this is. I looked at the scene. I
looked at other pictures of the scene. I got a very excellent idea of
what the scene looked like. I went to the scene a couple of times and
I studied the scene.

My opinion in regards to the length, to the duration of the
altercation with both individuals has not changed one iota and will
not change unless there is new evidence that comes in.

Q. I'm sure of that.

Now --

MR. MEDVENE: Objection. We object and move to strike Mr. Baker's last
remark.

THE COURT: Last remark stricken. Jurors to disregard it.

Q. (BY MR. BAKER) On -- put up the diagram, Phil, of the closed-in
area, please.

(Mr. P Baker complies.)

Q. No. Back off a little bit.

(Indicating to monitor.)

Q. Is your gate open or close at the time the altercation took place;
that is the front gate?

A. I believe that the gate was possibly open.

Q. And --

A. But there's no lock.

Q. Where was the first wound? Where was Mr. Goldman standing when the
first wound was inflicted on Mr. Goldman?

A. I think Mr. Goldman was probably in the area, in the general area
in which he was eventually found dead.

Q. Now, where was Nicole Brown Simpson standing when the first wound
was inflicted upon her?

(Indicating to diagram with yellow figures and red footprints.)

Q. Where she's at the time she sustained her first injuries?

A. Yes, sir.

Q. Also in the general area in which she was found, the picture I just
showed you, was a picture of the front gate which you believe was
open.

Now, does that indicate to you that there was blood spatter from Mr.
Goldman, who was standing near the front gate at the time the first
wound was inflicted upon him, rather than over in the dirt area or the
closed-in area.

MR. MEDVENE: Objection, Your Honor. Assumes facts not in evidence in
testimony of exactly where he was standing. He didn't say he was
standing where Mr. Baker said he was standing.

THE COURT: Overruled. But I'll sustain the objection because this
witness didn't say the gate was open. He made a reference to the gate
being either open or unlocked.

Q. (BY MR. BAKER) Did you not indicate that you thought the gate was
open at time?

A. I said the gate was opened but qualified it by saying unlocked. I
didn't say that the gate was ajar. You didn't ask me that.

Q. Did you believe that Mr. Goldman was standing on a tile walkway at
the time the first wound was inflicted?

A. He may have. The area is so small. It is six by four feet, so if
you'd like me to show you what six by four feet is, I'd be glad to do
that, if somebody has a tape measure.

Q. The area is actually nine by four feet, when you put the tile area
in it as well; isn't that true, sir?

A. I'm talking about the area of altercation with Mr. Goldman. I'm not
talking about the area, the areas that are adjacent. I'm talking about
the area of the -- area in which Mr. Goldman met his -- met his death.

Q. Okay. So that we're clear, the reason we're not --

A. Let me just show you what --

Q. Let me you ask you a question so that we're clear. The reason that
we're concentrating on the area of six feet by four feet, is it's your
view that Mr. Goldman did not incur any wound while he was on the tile
area, only while he was on the tile area which is six feet by four
feet, true?

A. Yes.

Q. All right.

A. Yes. Let me just say that I am not certain whether he was standing
near the tile or off to one side of the tile or to the other. But the
area, where he incurred his injuries is the six by four feet.

Q. All right. And that's -- all his wound were incurred in there,
right?

(Witness indicates with measuring tape.)

A. This would be four feet.

Q. Okay. Can you hold this for me?

(Mr. Medvene complies.)

A. This would be six feet.

Q. Okay.

A. So, in other words, the area in question is this area here, a
little less than this area here because it only goes to here. This is
--

Q. If we have the tiled area, that's another three feet right, this
way?

A. You go -- you mean over this way?

Q. Right.

A. Whatever it is, yes.

(Indicating to diagram.)

Q. Then three the six feet dimension is what I'm trying to get at. The
six feet dimension you're talking about, is from the walkway to the
fence on the north side, correct?

A. Yes.

Q. Um, and four feet is from the east side fence to the area where the
tree is, correct?

A. Yes. This is on the Bundy side.

Q. Yes. The east side. All right.

In terms of your analysis, Mr. Goldman and Nicole Brown Simpson, never
came into contact with each other, correct, met?

MR. MEDVENE: Objection. Vague, ambiguous "came into contact."

THE COURT: Sustained.

Q. (BY MR. BAKER) They never had physical contact with each other at
any time during the murder scenario, true?

A. Who didn't?

Q. The two victims.

A. Once the altercation started or once the -- The injuries started --

Q. Okay. They did not have contact with each other?

A. Once the injuries started, no, I don't believe that they
necessarily had contact.

Q. Well, not necessarily. Is it your belief that they did not, sir?

A. I believe that -- I believe this, from my understanding, the way I
understand the scene, but I am not the one and only in this case
giving opinions.

So from my angle, from the way I see it, based on injury and injury
pattern and understanding of the scene from my angle, that's my
opinion.

Q. All right. Now, that's -- you read Dr. Lakshmanan testimony in the
criminal trial, in preparation for your testimony before your
deposition on August 16, 1996, correct?

A. Yes. And you disagree with Dr. Lakshmanan in a couple major areas,
do you not, sir?

MR. MEDVENE: Objection, Your Honor. It's not relevant. It also
misstates the record. Also compound.

THE COURT: Sustained.

MR. BAKER: On which ground, sir.

THE COURT: Dr. Lakshmanan has not testified in this case and
apparently is not going to.

MR. BAKER: I don't know about that.

MR. MEDVENE: Excuse me. We'd ask Mr. Baker's remark be stricken.

THE COURT: Stricken.

Q. (BY MR. BAKER) In any event, sir, you read and reviewed his
testimony so that you would have some semblance of what his thoughts
were, correct?

A. Yes.

Q. And, well, let me ask you to go back just a minute. Did you -- did
you believe that any of the wounds to Mr. Goldman were, could be
classified as a taunting wound?

A. As what?

Q. Taunting.

A. No.

There are no taunting wounds. Taunting mean, torture-like wound, if
that's what you mean.

Q. Yeah.

A. No. There are no torture wounds.

Q. Let me go back a minute.

You believe that the wound to the left side of Nicole Brown Simpson's
neck, those were all wounds that were made in anticipation or in
attempts, rather, to make the fatal wound that was ultimately made,
correct?

The slashing wound from left to right that cut both carotid arteries?

A. Yes. Those wounds on the left side of her neck, the four stab
wounds, the slash across the neck, the stab wound on the head were all
done in an effort to kill her.

Q. And -- but my question, I hope, was a little more specific than
that. That the wound, the four wounds to the left side of the neck
that are under the left ear, you testified, I believe, Friday were all
made after Nicole Brown Simpson was being held -- and do you need a
picture, Doctor?

A. I would like to see the picture because I would like to know what
you're talking about.

Q. Well, let me just ask you a question, sir first. You can look at
anything you want.

A. Yes.

Q. Did you not testify on Friday that the wounds that were made to
Nicole Brown Simpson, under her left ear were made while she was in a
position with the assailant, left arm around her stretched back and
the wounds were made like with four stabbing wounds and then a slash
across her neck from left to right. That's what you testified to; was
it not, sir?

A. Yes. I testified -- let me tell you what I testified to.

Q. Can you just answer that yes or no.

MR. MEDVENE: Excuse me, your honor, he's trying to answer the
question.

THE COURT: Answer; yes. You may -- he answered yes. You may ask
another question.

Q. (BY MR. BAKER) Now is it your view then, that the assailant that
had one knife that was single, single sharp-sided knife that made all
five of those wounds in very rapid succession, the four underneath the
left ear and the slash that ultimately severed the carotid?

A. It is my opinion that all the wounds were inflicted with a knife,
consistent or compatible with a single-edged sharp knife.

Q. Didn't ask you that question. Maybe it was a poor one, I apologize.

Is it your testimony that those four wounds underneath the left ear
were made with this compatible single-edge knife and they were a
precursor, they were made all in rapid succession just prior to the
lashing wounds from left to right across Ms. Brown Simpson's neck that
turned out to be fatal?

A. You mean all five wounds?

Q. Yes, sir.

A. Yes.

Q. Now, the one directly under Ms. Nicole Brown Simpson's ear has --
the blunt part of that wound is vertical and towards the ear lobe,
true?

A. No.

Q. Did you look at the diagrams drawn by doctor --

A. I've -- I have looked at the diagram. If you like me to I'll be
glad to explain to you why I'm saying, no.

Q. Your view of the photographs, you believe, is better evidence of
the angle of the cuts than the diagram of the autopsy surgeon who made
the diagram, correct?

A. Please, let me explain to you why I'm saying that.

Q. Can you answer my question for a change?

A. No. I'm not. I'm not in agreement with you because what you're
doing is misleading.

MR. MEDVENE: If the Court --

THE WITNESS: I would like the opportunity, sir.

Q. (BY MR. BAKER) No. No, have you --

MR. MEDVENE: If the Court please, there's no need for Mr. Baker to
behave like this.

Q. (BY MR. BAKER) He's here to answer questions. He's not here to give
a speech.

MR. MEDVENE: There's no reason for Mr. Baker to talk like this or
behave like this, Your Honor.

THE COURT: Ask your question.

Q. (BY MR. BAKER) Your view then, Dr. Spitz, is that you're looking at
-- a photograph is more reliable than the drawing made by the autopsy
surgeon at the time he did the autopsy, correct?

A. My view is that I need to explain it.

THE COURT: You can agree or disagree, Doctor.

THE WITNESS: Your Honor, it's misleading for me to give a definitive
opinion on somebody's observation of a wound when I know full well
what the relevance is and it's not coming out.

THE COURT: Excuse me. You will answer the question that's asked.

THE WITNESS: I will, Your Honor, of course.

THE COURT: Answer yes or no or you can't answer the question.

THE WITNESS: Well I can't answer the question without qualifying it.

THE COURT: All right. Move on to the next question.

Q. (BY MR. BAKER) Now, in your -- in your view of reconstruction of
this, Mr. Goldman was -- Was in the caged-in area at the time this 15
second attack took place on Nicole Brown Simpson, right?

A. Yes.

Q. And, is it your view, based upon your reconstruction of this, that
he just stood there during that period of time?

He didn't run, he didn't yell, he didn't do anything? He just stood
there for the 15 seconds while Ms. Nicole Brown Simpson was being
attacked?

MR. MEDVENE: Objection. Assumes a fact not in evidence that Ronald
Goldman was there at the time her throat was slashed and it's outside
the scope.

THE COURT: Sustained.

Q. (BY MR. BAKER) You just indicated that your opinion was that Mr.
Goldman was present during the time that Nicole Brown Simpson was
attacked and murdered; isn't that true?

MR. MEDVENE: Court please, that misstates the evidence.

THE COURT: Sustained.

Q. (BY MR. BAKER) Did you not -- well, let me get it.

Page 131. This is your testimony from Friday (reading):

"... And then it was your opinion and your reconstruction that you had
done, in your mind, sir, that Mr. Goldman was in the closed-in area
during that 15 second altercation.

"A. I think it possibly was."

Is that your testimony, sir?

A. Yeah. Yes, my testimony that he was either there for that time or
for part of the time, I don't know if he was there for all of the 15
seconds. I have my thoughts that he was there for the entire duration.
And besides, I don't know that the altercation with Ms. Brown took 15
seconds. I always said 15 seconds or less.

Q. And during this 15 seconds or less, when Mr. Goldman probably was
in the -- in the area, did he attack the attacker in your
reconstruction of the event, sir?

A. He may have.

Q. And if he attacked the attacker, most certainly the assailant would
have had some bruises, correct?

MR. MEDVENE: Objection. Calls for conclusion.

THE COURT: Sustained.

Q. (BY MR. BAKER) Well, if he attacked the assailant, in your
scenario, sir, the assailant -- if Mr. Goldman came in through the
gate, the assailant had his back to Mr. Goldman while he's at the
initial stages of the attack, true?

A. I don't know whether he had his back or whether he didn't have his
back.

Q. Well, did you -- Was it your view of the event that Nicole Brown
Simpson was the person who took off the glove of Mr. -- of the
assailant?

A. I don't know who took off the glove. I know the glove came off, but
I don't know who took it off.

Q. Well, where did all of these fingernail gouges come from, did they
come from Nicole Brown Simpson or did they come from Ron Goldman or
did they come from somebody else?

A. You mean the fingernail marks that we were talking about on Friday?

Q. Sir, you have testified that every mark on the pictures of Mr.
Simpson's was, in your view, made by a fingernail?

A. Oh, I understand.

Q. You testified to that right. Every one?

A. Yes. May I have -- may I have the pictures back?

Q. May I conduct this examination?

A. Of course.

Q. Thank you.

Now, you testified that every one of those marks on his hands was, in
fact, a fingernail gouge mark, correct?

A. Now, when you say gouge, you're using the wrong term. If I'm to
qualify the fingernail marks, they are fingernail marks of three
different types. They are gouges, too. But they are not all gouges.

Q. Okay. But in any event, sir, those fingernail marks are not going
to be made from somebody wearing a glove. You would agree with that?

A. Yes. All right.

Q. And you would agree that --

A. Yes, that's correct. I'm sorry.

Q. Now, I take it that in doing your careful analysis, you noted that
and went down and reviewed the fingernail clippings of Ron Goldman at
the County Coroner's Office, County of Los Angeles, true?

MR. MEDVENE: Objection.

Q. (BY MR. BAKER) You did --

MR. MEDVENE: Objection. Assumes a fact not in evidence.

Q. (BY MR. BAKER) I agree.

You didn't look at any fingernail clippings of Ron Goldman to
determine whether or not he even had fingernails that could have
produced any gouge marks on Mr. Simpson, did you?

MR. MEDVENE: Objection, Your Honor. Assumes a fact not in evidence,
that there were fingernail clippings taken.

THE COURT: Sustained.

MR. MEDVENE: Mr. Baker knows there weren't.

Q. (BY MR. BAKER) Did you attempt to find out the length of Mr.
Goldman's fingernails to the -- to determine whether or not he could
have made any gouge marks in Mr. Simpson's or any other assailant?

A. Yes.

Q. And did you find that his fingernails were of inappropriate length
to make any gouge marks in Mr. Simpson's?

A. No, I did not find that. May I explain?

I will be glad to explain that to you.

Q. Go ahead.

A. Thank you.

Q. No. No, just sit right there and explain to us, will you?

A. Mr. Goldman had short fingernails. I have short fingernails.

My fingernails are approximately those of Mr. Goldman's. Would you
like me to show you how this works?

Q. Sure. Gouge me.

(Laughter.)

A. You may be sorry.

Q. Go ahead.

A. Well, take your sleeve up.

Q. No. Go ahead. Do it right on my hands where Mr. Simpson's (sic)
hands were. Go ahead.

A. You want me to scoop?

You want me to scoop, tear you out?

Q. I want you to scoop, tear it out.

(Laughter.)

THE COURT: Mr. Baker, I'm not going to have any gouging of flesh out
in my courtroom.

(Laughter.)

Q. (BY MR. BAKER) I'm willing to see if he can do it.

A. I wasn't going to do it, but what I would like to indicate to you,
and I'll show you. I can show it to you on me rather than on you
because I know when it hurts and when to stop. On you, I don't know
when it hurts.

So therefore, let me say what happens. When you fight for your life
and you dig in deep, without concern of whether it hurts or didn't
hurt, you push back the top of the flesh of the fingers and the
fingernail suddenly becomes much longer. Now. Having said that, if you
want to, I'll show you what I mean.

(Witness removes jacket and lifts up shirt sleeve.)

I'm not going to gouge, and you're not going to see blood. You're
going to see the indentation. (Witness demonstrates on his own arm.)

THE WITNESS: Can -- you like to see them?

MR. MEDVENE: May the record show that there are indentations on Dr.
Spitz's left arm?

THE WITNESS: I'll be glad to.

Q. (BY MR. BAKER) May Dr. Spitz show that to the jury, Your Honor?

THE COURT: I think he's made his point. Go on and ask another
question.

MR. MEDVENE: Yes, sir. Thank you.

Q. (BY MR. BAKER) Now, Dr. Spitz, then is it your opinion that the --
that the --

A. Go ahead. I'm sorry.

Q. The fingernail gouge marks are made by Ron Goldman. Is that your
opinion or do you have an opinion as to who they were made by?

A. I'm not able to look at the fingernail marks and say who made them,
obviously. I can say that Mr. Goldman could have made them, Nicole
Brown could have made them.

Q. Well, let's talk about her fingernails for a minute.

What about her fingernails?

Did you examine anything that indicated what type of fingernails she
had on the night of the murder?

A. I understand that she had, what they call --

Q. Fake?

A. Fake fingernails.

Q. Resin fingernails, right?

A. I don't know.

Q. They're included on --

A. I don't know what you call them. There's a name for this, I know,
but I don't know the name.

Q. Well --

A. They're included on --

Q. You would at least agree that the only genetic marker that was
found under any fingernails of either victim was a genetic marker
inconsistent with Mr. Simpson's, true?

A. No, I -- I cannot really answer this with yes or no because there
are -- there is no analysis ever made of Mr. Goldman's fingernails.
There is a record in the report in the autopsy report --

Q. Dr. Spitz, we can't --

A. -- Which says that --

Q. -- We can't talk about evidence that wasn't processed. We don't
know what it is; isn't that true?

MR. MEDVENE: Objection. Vague, ambiguous, calls for conclusion. I
don't know what it means.

MR. BAKER: I'll withdraw the question.

The only genetic marker that was found under any nails was a genetic
marker inconsistent with Mr. Simpson's, true or untrue?

A. I cannot comment on that.

Q. Well, you commented on it on Friday, did you not?

A. I said no on Friday. And I'm sorry, I did that because it's a
misleading answer.

Q. So you want to change that answer today?

A. I want to say.

Q. Do you want to change the answer? I didn't ask you what you wanted
to say. I asked you if you wanted to change the answer.

A. Yes. I want to change the answer from --

Q. All right. From -- it is not the only genetic marker to what?

A. Well, Goldman is excluded, to begin with, because his wasn't even
taken for analysis.

Q. Is that the change you want to make?

A. The other change I want to make is that it really doesn't concern
me whether there is anything under the fingernails or not and I'll
elaborate on that in a minute if you let me.

And I -- To indicate to you that when the fingernails of Ms. Brown
were examined, there was a red substance on them, which was believed
to be blood.

Q. And there is no typing of blood to match Mr. Simpson from Nicole
Brown Simpson's fingernails, true or untrue?

A. I --

Q. True or untrue, sir?

A. No. This isn't true and it isn't untrue either because --

Q. Thank you. You've answered the question then if that's what you --
Now, I want to ask you, sir, from the front gate around item No. 119,
you can tell that there's this metal meshing here that a -- that's a
gate?

A. Yes.

Q. There was blood on the front gate. I showed you that picture which
had the label of item No. 116 on it a few minutes ago. You want to see
that again?

(Indicating to upper left-hand photo in Exhibit 1342.)

A. Yes, I understand that.

Q. That is down below here?

A. Yes.

Q. So we had blood on the front gate, that would appear from these
photographs, at least, when we were taken to be in an open position,
correct?

A. Yes.

Q. We had, as we go around the area to the east side where Bundy is,
out on the east side, we had more blood smears. We then have a hole in
the northeast corner, correct?

(Indicating to middle photo.)

A. There's a hole on the picture.

Q. We have keys that were dropped in the area or discarded or flung or
whatever?

A. You mean, within the four to -- four to six feet?

Q. Yes. At the feet of Mr. Goldman, do we not?

(Indicating to diagram with yellow figures and red footprints.)

Q. Do we?

A. Yes.

Q. We have a pager that has been dropped or flung in the area behind
the fence on the north side, actually onto the adjacent property,
correct?

(Indicating to diagram.)

A. Behind Mr. Goldman's body.

Q. Correct.

A. In that you mean in that little space here or under the fence,
there's a little level under the fence that you see over there on that
picture where the pager may have been found.

Q. Well, here's the pager right here?

A. Yes. That's right --

(Indicating to 1342, left hand photo.)

Q. It's indicated in this diagram. I think that's a photograph exhibit
outside the fence. I think that's supposed to be a symbolic depiction
thereof.

And then we had Mr. Goldman lying on the right side, correct?

A. Yes.

Q. And that indicated to you that there was a struggle that took place
in that closed-in area that you measured off, four feet by six feet,
correct?

A. Yes.

Q. It also indicated to you that struggle consumed some period of
time, did it not?

A. As I indicated already, everything in life takes time.

Q. And --

A. And, it was my opinion that this struggle took place in less than a
minute.

Q. And actually, would you agree or disagree that a forensic
pathologist can only indicate the minimum time it takes to inflict
wounds, but it can never indicate the maximum time?

A. I don't necessarily agree with that. You can indicate what you
believe is a reasonable estimate for a minimum time and you can
indicate what, within reason, may be the range of something taking.

And it is because of that, that I said that the injuries to Mr.
Goldman took a minute and maybe less and the injuries to Ms. Simpson,
Ms. Brown took 15 seconds or less.

Q. And --

A. 15 seconds is a maximum time and a minute for Mr. Goldman is a
maximum time. So I beg to disagree with you there.

Q. Okay. So in your view, based upon the wounds itself, you can
extrapolate that regardless of whether a hole was dug, regardless of
whether keys were flung, regardless of whether an envelope is between
the two victims, regardless of whether a pager is flung, regardless of
whether Mr. Goldman had a bruise on his hand, that regardless of pools
of blood and regardless of blood going down the pant leg of Mr.
Goldman; that you can opine that all of those wounds were inflicted
first to last within less than 60 seconds, true?

MR. MEDVENE: Argumentative question, Your Honor. Object on that basis.

THE COURT: Overruled.

THE WITNESS: Yes. That is my opinion and I would like to show you.

Q. (BY MR. BAKER) You answered the question, Dr. Spitz.

Now, let's examine, did you ever physically, in person, examine the
clothes of Mr. Goldman?

A. No, I saw the pictures.

Q. All right. Now, you have testified that the thigh wounds to the
left thigh did not bleed very much because what we have in our -- in
the thigh area of our body is, we have the quadriceps muscle is that
true; and we don't have a major artery until we get behind the femur,
correct?

A. Yes.

Q. So in other words, when Mr. Goldman suffered the wounds in the left
thigh, you certainly didn't think that that was a wound?

A. Let me just say, because I don't want to go on the record as having
said that the arteries are in the back, because that's not 100 percent
true. I didn't say that.

Q. Okay.

A. But having said that --

Q. Now, Dr. Spitz, you, in terms of your analysis of this case,
believe that the left thigh wounds did not bleed very much, correct?

A. The left thigh wounds did not bleed very much when compared to the
other wounds. The left thigh wounds entered a different type of tissue
so as compared to the other areas in the body, like the aorta and
other places, that thigh wounds bled very little. But as we know, it
was enough to stain the pants and it was probably enough for some of
the blood to go on the ground.

Q. Well, let's talk about that a little bit.

Where was the thigh wound in terms of it's relationship between, let's
say, the knee and the pelvis?

A. The thigh wound, as is shown on the photographs is about here.

Q. Okay. Now, Phil, can you put that picture of --

MR. PETROCELLI: Hold on.

JUROR: We want to see what he was doing.

THE WITNESS: The thigh wounds is about here.

MR. MEDVENE: If the Court -- if the Court please, may the record
indicate Dr. Golden is pointing to his --

THE WITNESS: Spitz.

MR. MEDVENE: Excuse me, Dr. Spitz is pointing to his left leg,
approximately how -- below your belt, Dr. Spitz.

(Witness measures with tape measure.)

THE WITNESS: Approximately 10 inches.

Q. It was 33 inches from his heal, was it not?

A. I measured 32.

THE COURT: Let's take a 10 minute recess. That's Dr. -- that's Dr.
Spitz's leg that was measured. (Break.)

(Jurors resume their respective seats.)

MR. BAKER: Thank you, Your Honor.

Q. (BY MR. BAKER) Dr. Spitz, Ron Goldman had what, 30 wounds?

A. I never counted them, but that could be.

Q. Well did it make any difference, the number of wounds he had, in
arriving at your opinions that he all the wounds from first to last
were inflicted in 60 seconds?

A. Yes. It made a difference in my -- My decision. My determination
was that the all these wounds were very likely inflicted in less than
a minute.

Q. But you didn't think it was necessary to count the wounds to come,
to any conclusion that they were, in fact, inflicted in 60 seconds or
less, right?

A. I decided it doesn't make any difference whether that's 29 or 35.

Q. And relative to the all of the blood in the caged-in area, that we
have been talking about, did you make a determination whether or not
there was any blood on the plant, the plant life that was in the
closed-in area?

A. I did not make any determination, but I wouldn't be surprised if
there was blood on the plant life.

Q. Now, the blood from the thigh wounds certainly did not travel
towards the waist of Mr. Goldman. You'd agree with that?

A. You mean upwards.

Q. That's what I mean.

A. No.

Q. You would not agree with it or you would agree with it -- poor
question.

A. No. I would agree that it probably did not travel upwards.

Q. Now Mr. Goldman's left pant leg was thoroughly encased with blood,
was it not, from the waist on down?

A. No.

Q. This photo's going to be a little rough, so -- That one.

Q. (BY MR. BAKER) I apologize. What I want you to look at, sir, is the
left pant leg, and then answer the question again, sir, if, in fact,
the left pant leg is encased in blood from the waist on down.

MR. P. BAKER: This is 860.

(The instrument herein referred to as Photo of Ron Goldman on ground
lying in area of open gate was marked for identification as
Defendants' Exhibit No. 860.)

(Witness reviews exhibit 860.)

Q. Yes or no?

A. No, it's not, because some of it is a shadow. Because I have a
picture of the same area that shows it differently.

MR. P. BAKER: No. 38.

(Exhibit 38 is displayed.)

Q. From the waist on down?

A. This picture was taken at night and there is --

Q. From the waist on down?

A. I understand that.

Q. Can you answer my question for a change Dr. Spitz?

A. No, I disagree.

Q. Just say you disagree?

A. It is not encased in blood.

Q. You don't have to make a speech every time.

MR. MEDVENE: Objection, Mr. Baker's remarks.

THE WITNESS: It is not encased in blood.

Q. (BY MR. BAKER) The blood comes from the waist and goes down towards
the feet, does it not?

A. It does.

Q. And, in fact, the left boot was bloody and the right boot was not,
correct?

A. There was blood.

Q. Put up the photo?

A. On the left boot and there was not, is my understanding, on the
right.

Q. That indicates that's quite a bit of blood; is it not?

(Photo is displayed.)

A. Well, there is blood on the boot, yes.

Q. And that blood came down the Levi's and was absorbed in the left
boot, correct?

A. Yes it went down on -- on the leg and this shows that the pants are
not drenched, as you say, and my picture doesn't show it's drenched
either and it came down, ran down on the boot, yes.

THE COURT REPORTER: What number is that, please?

MR. P. BAKER: That is 860.

(Indicating to exhibit 860.)

Q. (BY MR. BAKER) The levis, the blood came down the levis, the Levi's
more likely than not were at this area over the boot and because
there's no blood here, and then bled into the boot area and was
absorbed by the canvas portion of that boot, correct, sir?

A. Yes.

Q. And there is that bleeding pattern, you would agree, is totally
consistent with the internal jugular vein being severed in this man as
one of the first wounds of the altercation, true?

A. Absolutely not.

Q. All right. Now, in terms of the amount of blood that is shown in
that photograph, sir, Mr. Goldman was upright for a period of time in
excess of 60 seconds, true, after the bleeding started?

(Indicating to Exhibit No. 860.)

A. No.

Q. Is it your testimony that all of the blood that we see in that
photograph is from the thigh wounds?

A. At least most of it, if not all of it is from the thigh wounds. And
as far as -- it's 60, more than in a minute of him being upright, I
disagree that it took longer than a minute and I disagree that he was
necessarily standing for that duration. But much of the time, held
upright.

Q. He was held upright?

A. Yes.

Q. All of the area above the -- what would be right about the pocket,
left pocket. All of that blood cannot be caused, we would at least
agree on that, by the wounds of the thigh, correct? Gravity has not
been repealed?

A. I'm sorry.

Q. Gravity hasn't been repealed. All of the blood above the pocket
area, is going to be caused by the internal jugular vein bleeding from
this man while he is in the fight, true?

A. No. No. No, there's a misinterpretation here.

MR. MEDVENE: Objection.

Q. (BY MR. BAKER) Now, in terms of your analysis of the altercation,
did Mr. Goldman attempt to kick the attacker?

A. Mr. Goldman did not attempt to kick the attacker. Mr. Goldman used
his left leg as a defense weapon.

Q. Okay. It was his left leg that was a defense weapon, right?

A. It was his left leg that he used to defend himself.

Q. Okay. How did he use -- to defend himself with his left leg?

A. If I may show, Your Honor.

(Witness demonstrates.)

Q. So that's how he got the wounds?

A. That's how he got the wounds to the -- to the thigh. That's how he
got the wounds to the hands. That's how he got the wounds to the
flank.

Q. Now, in your -- and you're sure, as you sit her now, that Mr.
Goldman was -- had his left leg extended in the air and he was
attacking or warding off an attacker who was to his left side,
correct?

You just demonstrated to us, sir, that you had your left leg extended
and you had your hands extended out to the left, did you not?

A. No.

I don't know. Maybe I did -- my opinion is that he exposed his left
side to the assailant and went like this (indicating).

If I'm showing a -- stretching my arms out to the -- to the left so be
it, like this --

Q. Okay. Fine and if you're standing?

A. I can further tell you that at that time the attacker was jabbing
the knife this way (indicating).

Q. He was jabbing it right at him. He had all of his weight basically
on his right foot, correct?

A. Yes.

Q. Now, look at the TV monitor and tell the jury, if that is not a
cut, fresh cut in his right boot, that was made at the time of the
attack, and you can tell that because it's a fresh cut from a knife,
true?

A. It looks that way, yes.

Q. So he was kicking at the attacker with his right foot; was he not?

A. No.

Q. No?

A. I'm saying that he used his lower extremities right or left, or
both to defend himself.

Q. Well, I didn't hear right or left or both. When you were
demonstrating twice to the jury, I heard you say that the reason that
he was attacked on the left side, that the left thigh wounds and the
left flank wounds was, he was attacking or warding off his attacker
who was to his left side?

A. That's correct.

Q. Now it's to his left or right?

A. No. No. No, that's not what I said. I said at the time that he
sustained, that was the question, that he sustained the wounds in the
thigh, he went like this (indicating.)

Later on, or before we -- he may have done the same with the right leg
except at that moment when he did that, he did not get a wound on the
thigh or elsewhere.

Q. Where was he, in the closed-in area when he was warding off the
attacker with his left thigh?

A. Somewhere in the four by six.

Q. Can you be more vague?

A. Vague, no.

MR. MEDVENE: Objection.

THE COURT: Sustained.

MR. MEDVENE: If the Court, please, it's not called for, the remark by
Mr. Baker.

Q. (BY MR. BAKER) Now, in terms -- In terms of your examination and
determination of where everybody was in this reconstruction.

If in fact the internal jugular vein was the first vein severed, and
if, in fact, it bled down his left side and down his pants and down
into his boot, you would agree that he would still have the ability to
fight off an attacker for a period of time, five minutes or longer,
true?

MR. MEDVENE: Objection. Assumes facts not in evidence, Your Honor.

THE COURT: Overruled. Hypothetical question.

THE WITNESS: Are you asking, if I may, so I can understand the
question, are you asking me whether with a severed jugular vein, he
could still fight for five minutes?

Is that what you're asking me?

Q. I'll be happy to rephrase the question.

THE COURT: Excuse me. Ask the -- asked the question. Answer that.

THE WITNESS: Yes. None of the injuries of Mr. Goldman were immediately
incapacitating.

Q. (BY MR. BAKER) Well, if in fact, he had the severed internal
jugular vein, he could then have fought off his attacker at the front
of the gate, could he not?

A. Theoretically, yes.

Q. He could have fought off his attacker as he went into the dirt and
closed-in area where the keys and the envelope were found, could he
not?

A. Theoretically, yes. He could have fought his attacker anywhere.

Q. And he could have continued to fight and kick at his attacker
during the time period that the -- that the struggle took place,
correct?

A. Yes.

Q. And he could have actually taken a swing or hit his attacker during
that period of time, could he not?

A. He could have.

Q. And this picture is a little rough as well. Mr. Goldman had
substantial bruises on his right hand, didn't he?

A. Bruises?

Q. Yes.

A. He had some bruising. I wouldn't say -- I wouldn't call that
substantial. He had a lot of cuts and he had a lot of scrapings.

MR. P. BAKER: Exhibit 878.

(The instrument herein referred to as Photo of Ron Goldman's hand was
marked for identification as Defendants' Exhibit No. 878.)

Q. The bruises on the middle knuckle and the knuckles, those are
substantial bruises, are they not?

A. I don't know what you call substantial.

Q. Those are consistent?

A. These are all bruises.

Q. Those are consistent with him attempting to, or hitting his
attacker, are they not, sir?

A. I am not sure whether they're from hitting at an attacker or
whether they are from hitting the ground or from hitting the wall or
from hitting the fence, or from hitting the tree. There is abrasions
in there as well. There's a little abrasion in this area and here. I
am not certain, exactly what he hit. He hit something.

(Indicating to photo.)

Q. Doctor, let me ask you the question again.

Those bruises are consistent with Mr. Goldman hitting his attacker
somewhere on his body, regardless of when you know, specifically,
whether he did or not, would you agree with that? True?

A. Sir?

Q. True?

A. They are consistent with him hitting anything.

Q. But we know at least one thing, he wasn't fighting the fence, he
was fighting his attacker, don't we?

A. But we -- he collapsed at some time.

Q. Sir, can you answer my question?

A. Yes. We know he was fighting his attacker.

Q. And in fighting his attacker, it is not inconsistent for Mr.
Goldman to try to have hit his attacker. You would agree with that,
this is a fight for his life; is it not?

A. Yes.

Q. And those bruises on his right hand are consistent with hitting an
attacker, correct?

A. Yes.

Q. Thank you. Take that down, please.

Now, did you review any of the photographs of Mr. Simpson's that were
taken on the 15th or the 17th day of June 1994 other than his hands?

A. Yes.

Q. Did you see any bruises on Mr. Simpson's body that would be
consistent with having Mr. Goldman attempt to hit him with a hand that
produced a bruise such as we have just put on the board?

A. I saw a bruise on Mr. Simpson's left arm.

Q. You saw a bruise on Mr. Simpson's left arm?

A. Yes.

Q. And --

A. There's a picture that shows it.

Q. Okay.

And you think that's consistent?

A. I'm saying -- you are asking; is there a bruise? I say there is a
bruise and if there's a bruise, it's consistent.

Q. Okay. And did you see -- well, strike that.

Now, in terms of the marks that you say of Mr. Simpson's, are all
these fingernail marks. These you testify to these are quasi cuts,
correct in your deposition?

A. Semi-used.

Q. Well, let me see exactly what you used?

A. I said I didn't say semi-cuts, I said semi-blunt.

Q. Well, let's see exactly what you said?

A. That is exactly what I said.

Q. Page 55 line 7. (Reading:)

"Q. Do you have an opinion on the amount of bleeding that would have
occurred in the time that wounds was inflicted until it closed?

"A. The amount of bleeding.

"Q. Or the type of bleeding.

"A. What do you mean by type?

"Q. How much bleeding would there have been?

"A. Not much.

"Q. Why do you say that?

"Q. (sic) Because these are not cuts; they are, for lack of a better
term, quasi cuts. They're cuts by a blunt, semi-blunt object, which is
a fingernail. A fingernail is not sharp, a fingernail has measurable
thickness necessary and it crushes the skin and it causes more damage
inside than outward. So therefore you have a lot of swelling and
probably some pain associated with it."

That's what you said; is it not?

A. Fine.

Q. And so you don't believe that Mr. Simpson's, if it was him who was
the attacker, would have bled, correct?

A. No. That's not what this implies. This doesn't say he wouldn't have
bled.

Q. Dr. Spitz --

MR. MEDVENE: The Court please --

MR. BAKER: If you, and my question -- move to strike as not -- as not
responsive.

MR. MEDVENE: Your honor, he's in the middle of answering the question.

THE COURT: The answer's stricken. You may re-ask the question.

Q. (BY MR. BAKER) In your view, there would not -- There would have
been no bleeding, correct?

A. From what?

Q. We're talking, sir, about what you have characterized in your
testimony as every one of the cuts on his left hand being a
fingernail, crush type, semi-blunt injury?

A. Yes.

Q. And so I take it, sir, that if these crush type semi-blunt
injuries, which cause more damage inside than outward, Mr. Simpson
would not have been bleeding, right?

A. I never said that.

Q. Which cut, in your opinion, would have bled, if any of them?

A. They probably would have all bleed, but not instantaneously.

In a crush, if you let me explain, the tissue, as the term implies or
indicates, is that the tissue is crushed and if blood in the bottom
bellows up, comes up, it needs to overcome the crushed area of tissue
which is crushed down.

It takes a few seconds for that to happen. So -- and furthermore, if
the hand is down, it may bleed a little sooner. If the hand is up, it
will take a little longer.

We all know that when we cut ourselves, if you raise the extremity,
the bleeding may even stop.

If you put it down, the bleeding will come.

Q. And what is -- are any of those cuts going to bleed more than a few
drops?

A. Yes. Some of them may.

Q. Which ones?

A. They are -- there are gouges in the side. Those will bleed. There
are fairly deep fingernail marks along the inside and the outer
surface on the back of the -- I think it's the ring finger or the
middle finger.

Those injuries will bleed. Those were fairly deep injuries. In fact,
there's one picture of the one on the middle finger, which bled, which
it is still bleeding when the picture was taken, which is many hours
later.

Q. That was bleeding. That wasn't oozing, that was active blood?

A. Oozing. Oozing to me is still bleeding just at a lower pace.

Q. When you were shown this picture by Mr. --

MR. MEDVENE: What's the number of this?

MR. P. BAKER: 714.

Q. (BY MR. BAKER) You told the jury, and demonstrated to the jury that
that was in the webbing of Mr. Simpson's hand. And you actually got
out of your chair and pointed to the webbing of his hand, did you not,
sir?

A. Yes, I did.

Q. And you meant to do that, Dr. Spitz, because you meant to have the
victim pulling down on his hands and grabbing him in the web of his
hands so as to cause those particular cuts, right?

A. No. I meant to do that because that was my opinion at that time
where these -- this one and that gouge -- These two are gouges, where
they were situated.

I subsequently, as you remember, corrected it and said that I was
wrong and repeat now that was wrong and that the actual injuries were
in the extension of the little finger if I'm not mistaken.

Q. You went outside. You talked to Mr. Medvene. You talked to Mr.
Petrocelli and they told you, you were wrong on this photograph. That
this photograph was not in the web at all. This photograph was under
the -- The what's this, the distal aspect or what is it called?

A. The extension of the little finger. There's clearly a medical term
for it.

Q. Well, don't you know it?

A. No. It's a hypothenar eminence.

Q. And you can see the wrist bone in that photograph, right?

A. I beg your pardon?

Q. You can see the bone that protrudes?

A. No. Mr. Medvene or Mr. Petrocelli did not tell me. I made a
mistake. Mr. Medvene or Mr. Petrocelli, or one of the other gentlemen
told me.

Q. Can you answer my question?

A. Whether -- I would like to see the picture, another picture which
will tell me better where these injuries are located.

Q. Now, you want to go back -- move to strike as nonresponsive -- and
see if you can answer my question.

THE COURT: Stricken.

Q. (BY MR. BAKER) My question was, sir, that you can see the wrist
bone in that photograph, right?

A. Yes.

Q. And it doesn't make sense that somebody's hand is underneath and
around back in here when they could pull their hand all the way over
into the webbing. That's why you wanted that photograph to be in the
webbing because you are partisan advocate as you sit in this witness
chair?

A. Absolutely not. Absolutely not. Under any circumstances.

THE COURT: Just a minute. I'm going to sustain the objection, that
it's argumentative.

Q. (BY MR. BAKER) Now, in terms, did either of those cuts produce a
drop of blood, in your opinion, sir?

A. I would say they probably did.

Q. They did?

A. Yes, they possibly did.

Q. How many drops did they produce?

A. I don't know that.

Q. How soon would they coagulate?

A. Mr. Baker, I don't know that they have coagulated on this picture.
There's a crust over this one and a crust over there. I would have to
be a wizard to tell you how many drops of blood came out of that and I
am not a wizard.

Q. Stipulated.

Now, what's a normal coagulation time for a -- for a human being?

A. A few seconds. It varies significantly.

Q. Well, give us the parameters?

A. It depends, as I indicated to you earlier, it depends on whether
the arm -- I'm not talking about a laboratory now, I'm talking about
whether the arm is down.

The practical thing, like grandmother has taught us, if you put the
arm down, it's going to bleed. So don't put it down, put it up. It
will stop.

Q. What's the coagulation time? I didn't ask you about when you put
the arm down or when you put the arm up, what's a normal coagulation
time?

A. Somewhere around ten seconds.

Q. And?

A. Ten, 15 seconds.

Q. And so if Mr. Simpson or any assailant gets gouged, there's going
to be a coagulation of those cuts in a very short period of time,
correct?

A. No. I didn't say that. I said that is not in a laboratory. I said
if the arm is down, it will bleed longer. If the arm is up, it will
bleed less or not at all.

Q. Well, but certainly those cuts are not going to take any three,
four, five minutes to coagulate before they quit bleeding, are they?

MR. MEDVENE: Objection, Your Honor. Asked and answered. He explained
where the arm is.

THE COURT: Sustained.

Q. (BY MR. BAKER) Now, you wouldn't anticipate that any of these blunt
force, alleged fingernail marks would produce a trail of blood ten
minutes later, would you?

MR. MEDVENE: Objection, Your Honor. Assumes facts not in evidence,
that something happened ten minutes later. There's no evidence of
that.

THE COURT: Rephrase that.

Q. (BY MR. BAKER) As I understand the scenario that you believe
occurred, sir, is it your belief that these gouge marks were made by
Nicole Brown Simpson, and you demonstrated to us on Friday the
position that she was in, correct?

A. I don't know if I said that Nicole Simpson necessarily inflicted
these or that Ron Goldman inflicted these or that both of them
inflicted these.

I cannot tell you. Or that one inflicted one and the other one was
inflicted by somebody else. I did know that I said that I cannot tell
who inflicted the fingernail marks.

Q. And you don't know if the fingernail marks were inflicted by
anybody on June the 12, 1994 to Mr. Simpson's, hands, do you?

A. Yes, I do know. I have -- mean, I have some ideas about that. I
don't know if I know to tell you I was there and saw how they were
being inflicted. But I have reasons that I can give you why I think
that these are fingernail marks sustained which is consistent with the
timeframe of this altercation.

Q. There is no such thing as a typical fingernail mark. You would
agree with that?

A. There is no such thing as a typical fingernail mark, but there is
--

Q. You've answered the question.

A. A --

Q. And that was your testimony, in fact, when you had your deposition
taken on August 16, 1996 there -- that there is no such thing as a
typical fingernail mark and testified that every one of these was a
typical fingernail mark; isn't that true?

A. Yes. They are typical fingernail marks. I have to explain to you --

Q. No. You answered the question, Dr. Spitz.

Now in terms of the reconstruction of this case, did you then
determine after -- Well, strike that.

Your view was that Ron Goldman was upright when he got stabbed in the
left flank and it was either the first cut or very early on, right?

A. Yes.

Q. And was he standing, then, with his back to the assailant by the
front gate where we have blood?

A. He was standing with the left flank exposed to the assailant, the
way I told you earlier when I showed the raised leg --

Q. Now --

A. -- Raised left leg.

Q. Have you ever looked at -- At photographs of him while he was in
the closed-in area after his demise, and the blood pattern coming out
of that wound in the left flank?

A. I know that there -- yes, I have.

Q. Have you looked at a photograph?

A. Yes, I have.

Q. And you would agree that if this was a very early-on flank wound,
the blood from that flank wound would go down Mr. Goldman's side and
there wouldn't be wounds going, blood going across his back and down
to his right side, correct?

You don't understand the question?

A. No.

Q. Okay. The flank wound is one of the first wounds. The blood from
the hemorrhage from the track of that wound is going to come out the
wound and it's going to go down his back towards his waist, true?

A. No.

Q. If he's upright, it's going to go down his back and towards his
waist, true?

A. No, he's -- your making a wrong assumption.

Q. He's lying on his side and flank wound is inflicted before he
expires. The blood will emanate from that wounds and it will go across
his back from left to right. You would agree with that?

A. No, I will not agree with that. Let me explain to you why.

Q. Doctor, just answer my questions.

A. Okay.

Q. Will you -- Would you show that photograph?

MR. BAKER: Apologize. I'm having some trouble locating that
photograph.

Now, we'll come back to that as soon as we find that. Did you get it?

MR. P. BAKER: No, not yet.

Q. (BY MR. BAKER) In terms of your scenario, then, Nicole Brown
Simpson and Ron Goldman, after the attack on the Nicole Brown Simpson,
never came in contact with each other, correct?

MR. MEDVENE: Asked and answered, Your Honor.

THE COURT: Sustained.

MR. BAKER: It's foundational.

THE COURT: I don't want to rush you, but you said two hours and I'm
waiting. So let's get on with it.

Q. (BY MR. BAKER) In terms of the clothing of Nicole and Ron Goldman,
in your scenario, he comes in the gate. She's attacked, then he is a
attacked, correct?

They never touch each other; isn't that true?

MR. MEDVENE: Same objection. Asked and answered.

THE COURT: Answer the question.

THE WITNESS: Yes.

Q. (BY MR. BAKER) And you don't have an explanation why there is
transfer of blood between Nicole Brown Simpson and Ron Goldman, that
there are 11 separate transfers of blood, on one clothing and the
other clothing, correct?

MR. MEDVENE: Objection, Your Honor. Assumes facts not in evidence.
There's no facts to support that, none.

MR. BAKER: We'll make an offer of proof that that is in fact a fact --
facts of this case.

THE COURT: Okay. I'll sustain the objection. You may state it as a
hypothetical.

Q. (BY MR. BAKER) I want you to assume that after the murders, and
there was an analysis done of the clothing of Nicole Brown Simpson and
Ron Goldman, there were 11, at least 11 separate transfers of blood
from one clothing to the other clothing. That is contrary to your
professed scenario of how these events occurred, true?

MR. MEDVENE: If the Court, please, lack of relevance. Objection, and
there are no facts to support that, Your Honor, that we know of.

THE COURT: Overruled.

Ladies and gentlemen, a hypothetical question is one where the
attorney possessing the hypothetical, sets the question up. And if
later the evidence does not support that hypothetical, then you must
consider the answer that he elicits from the witness in view of the
fact that the basis for the hypothetical was not established.

Okay. Everybody understand what that means?

That means the basis for that question, we allow the lawyer to ask the
question supposing that he's going to be able to prove something about
that at a later time. If he doesn't prove it up, then the question and
the answer is no good or you can give it the weight to which it's
entitled, subtracting out the hypothetical evidence that was not
proved. Okay?

Q. You want to answer the question, Doctor?

A. My opinion of this is that it supports my conclusion that there is
a single assailant with a single weapon.

Q. Well --

A. Because if there is a transfer, then there is others, of course.
There is blood of one victim on the weapon and then there will be
blood on the same weapon from the next victim.

Q. Doctor, You, if that were true, there would be minuscule -- that is
small amount of blood transferred because it would only be blood
transferred by the knife, correct?

A. I cannot discuss that. I am not an expert in blood spatter. I have
no expertise. I have no training. I have not read about it and I think
that if I'm going to go into the detail of how much is enough, I will
be misleading you and the jury and the judge.

Q. Let's just talk about simple physics for a minute.

If you say that -- That 11 transfers of blood from -- a hypothetical:
11 transfers of blood from clothing of one to the other, in fact is
made by a knife, they would be the blood of one victim taken to the
blood of the next victim only on the knife, correct.

MR. MEDVENE: Objection. Lack of foundation, speculation, outside the
scope, no foundation.

MR. BAKER: He just said it, Your Honor.

THE COURT: I'll sustain the objection.

Q. (BY MR. BAKER) Now, in terms of your view of this particular case,
and your 60 seconds and 15 seconds, were you of the opinion that there
was any noise made whatsoever while these vicious and violent attacks
were going on?

A. There was.

Q. And what noise was -- were you of the opinion was made during this
minute and 15 seconds?

A. "Hey, hey, hey."

Q. Anything else, sir?

A. That's enough for me. That's enough for me.

Q. What else happened in the other minute and 14 seconds?

Any noise whatsoever that occurred, in your opinion, sir?

A. I am not aware of noise. I am only aware of that noise which I've
heard about, which I've read about. I'm not aware of other voice
noise. I don't think there's need to be -- for a need for other noise.
These people were busy.

Q. Well, isn't it true, sir, or do you know that when somebody is
being attacked, they commonly scream? They commonly yell?

MR. MEDVENE: Objection. Lack of foundation.

THE COURT: Sustained.

THE WITNESS: Yes, that is true. But somebody would have to explain to
me how Nicole Simpson could scream with her throat cut because when
you utter sound, what you are doing is bringing air from the lung
through the airway. Her airway was severed.

So how would she bring air over the vocal cords.

Q. Well, she only had, in your view, less than 15 seconds. But Mr.
Goldman had, in your view, 60 seconds plus. He was there while, for
the 15 seconds or thereabouts when Ms. Nicole Brown Simpson was being
murdered. And he said -- if he said anything at all, "hey, hey, hey,"
which took about one second, right?

MR. MEDVENE: Objection, Your Honor sustained the last objection.
That's where this question is going.

THE COURT: Sustained.

Q. (BY MR. BAKER) Your view, Dr. Spitz, is that the L.A. County
Coroner's Office bungled everything they did in this case; isn't that
true?

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

THE COURT: Sustained.

MR. BAKER: You relied for your opinions on the photographs in the
autopsy report of the L.A. Coroner, County Coroner who you believe
bungled everything that they did in this case, correct?

MR. MEDVENE: Objection, Your Honor. Compound.

THE COURT: Sustained.

MR. BAKER: On what ground, sir.

THE COURT: You may ask a specific bungle, but I'm not going to go
through this whole scenario of going through the coroner's reports in
terms of bungle.

Q. (BY MR. BAKER) You told the Los Angeles times on or before October
8, 1995 the following, quote "the O.J. case has vastly exposed the
inadequacies of that department," unquote.

MR. MEDVENE: Objection.

THE COURT: Sustained. It's irrelevant. You may ask about this killing
and these killings and the findings.

MR. BAKER: Your Honor, I'd like to approach.

THE COURT: No.

Q. (BY MR. BAKER) You said that, "I don't believe for a minute that
the verdict would have been different if the Coroner's Office had done
everything by the book and they bungled everything."

MR. MEDVENE: Objection.

THE COURT: Sustained. The jury's to disregard that. Court made a
ruling and attorneys continue to ask the same question. Counsel you're
not to do that.

Q. (BY MR. BAKER) Did you believe that the L.A. County Coroner's
Office bungled the autopsy report?

MR. MEDVENE: Same Objection, Your Honor.

THE COURT: Sustained.

MR. BAKER: I think it goes to his bias.

MR. MEDVENE: Objection. Making argument in front of the jury.

THE COURT: Bias. Is he bias? He's plaintiffs' witness.

MR. BAKER: Can I have just a couple seconds? I want to get a
photograph, Your Honor.

(Pause in the proceedings.)

MR. BAKER: Your Honor, let me go to another area while they're doing
that.

Now, Dr. Spitz, your view is, of course, that this aorta was severed
and I believe within a very short period of time, Mr. Goldman would
have been incapacitated, correct?

A. I believe I stated that none of the wounds were immediately
incapacitating.

Q. Well, let me -- let me read what you testified to on Friday at page
147, volume 12, lines 25 discussing the wounds, flank wounds.
(Reading:)

"Q. And if this were the first wounds, Mr. Goldman would be
incapacitated within a matter of seconds. Would you agree with that?

"A. Probably.

"Q. Because what happens is, if this is the first wound, you have an
enormous loss of blood in the -- in terms of blood recirculating to
the heart and then being pumped up to the carotid arteries to put
oxygenated blood to the brain, correct?

"A. Well, he would lose consciousness there (sic) very quickly because
the brain would not get, although it would get blood, it would not get
enough blood."

Q. (BY MR. BAKER) The brain is very susceptible to oxygen deprivation.
That's what you testified to on Friday?

A. That is correct.

Q. All right. And so, if Mr. Goldman -- and you've testified that that
wound was either the first or very near the first wound he incurred,
that is the wound to the abdomen, correct?

A. If that's the impression I get, it is an early-on wound. I believe
that the defense wound on the leg, on the hands occurred earlier. It
is in my view the first of the major wounds --

Q. Well, let me read to you what you said in your deposition, sir.
(Reading:)

The sequence of the injuries to Mr. Golden -- page 24, line 22 -- I
believe is that the injury to the posterior abdominal area is either
first or very early on.

Q. That's what you said, correct, sir? That's what you said?

A. I know that that's what I said. What I'm trying to tell you is of
the major wounds --

THE COURT: Just a minute, Doctor.

MR. PETROCELLI: We'd like to have a page reference also. The time Mr.
Baker read from the trial at page 147. He neglected to read the
remainder of the answer which concludes at the top of page 149, which
was part and parcel of that inquiry Your Honor. And I object to this
and we ought to have time beforehand to know what he is reading so the
jury is not misled.

MR. BAKER: Well, I object to those comments.

THE COURT: Excuse me, Mr. Baker, if you're going to read from
anything, I think it is required of you to notify the opposing counsel
as to what you're going to read.

MR. BAKER: I have. I gave them the page and line number.

THE COURT: No, you didn't.

MR. BAKER: I did.

THE COURT: This last one.

MR. BAKER: All right. Now --

THE COURT: Okay. Let's take a ten-minute recess. Direct the jury back
in 10 minutes.

(Recess.)

(Jurors resume their respective seats.)

THE COURT: Mr. Baker, I think you gave them a page number. You didn't
give them enough time to get the document out.

MR. PETROCELLI: Exactly.

MR. BAKER: I'll give them more time.

Q. (BY MR. BAKER) Now, Dr. Spitz, you believed early on that the area
behind the peritoneal area, there was quarts of blood, liters of blood
in that area of the peritoneal space, right?

A. Well, when -- yes. Well, liters sounds like a -- quart sounds like
five, ten. That's not how it works. It's --

Q. Well, was that your belief or was that not your belief?

A. Yeah. My belief is that there was more than one.

Q. Now, on page 70, line 27 through 8, on page 71, let me just read
quickly what you said on Friday.

Okay. (Reading:)

"Q. By wound track, what do we mean?

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

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

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

Q. That's what you testified to on Friday, right?

A. Yes.

Q. And how many quarts or how many liters of blood did it contain?

A. I don't know. But it in order to be filled with blood, you can
possibly have two or thereabouts.

Q. Two or more or just two?

A. Maybe two or less. Maybe two or more.

Q. Is it your opinion, then, sir, that Mr. Goldman's blood loss of two
quarts of blood caused his demise because there was an substantial
bleeding in the lungs, you agree to that?

A. Yes.

Q. There was insubstantial bleeding in the peritoneal cavity. You
agree with that?

A. Yes.

Q. And, in fact, if the aorta had been cut on one side, the other side
and the knife had gone through, as it had to, because you have an inch
cut in the exit hole of the aorta, there should have been, if the
bleeding had occurred early on, as I you say it occurred, there should
have been quarts of blood in the peritoneal cavity, true?

A. No, never. Never. Shall I explain it to you.

Q. Well, put up the picture, Phil.

MR. P. BAKER: Which one?

MR. BAKER: Yeah. And I apologize for the quality of this picture.

MR. P. BAKER: Page 1 of 1420.

Q. (BY MR. BAKER) This is a --

MR. MEDVENE: Excuse me. Could we get a look at what this is?

MR. BAKER: On the contact sheet, page 1 of 1420.

THE COURT: I don't know what that means.

MR. P. BAKER: Contact sheet are the negatives of what Mr. Rokahr took.
This is page 1 of the pages of contact sheets which is a collage of
negatives.

Q. (BY MR. BAKER) Now, that red spot we're seeing is, in fact, a flank
wound, which you say was this devastating wound that you said early
on, caused the demise of Mr. Goldman?

A. This wound here is a stab wound situated right there.

Q. And the blood tract from that stab wounds goes across the back and
down towards the ground. There's a picture of Mr. Goldman lying on the
ground, correct, after he has expired?

A. From this injury?

I'm not sure I understand.

Q. Let me --

A. You mean externally or internally?

Q. This is a picture taken after Mr. Goldman has expired and is still
at the crime scene, lying on the dirted area with his shirt pulled up
as it was when they found him, correct; on the right -- left side?

A. Yes.

Q. This is the blood tracking down towards the ground area; is it not,
from the flank wound?

A. No. This is not blood tracking. This is a smear of blood which
probably occurred when they removed the body.

Q. Did you --, the body has not been touched when this picture was
taken?

A. Then it is.

MR. MEDVENE: Objection. Assumes facts not in evidence.

THE COURT: Sustained.

MR. MEDVENE: Mr. Baker is testifying.

Q. (BY MR. BAKER) I want you to assume that the body has never been
moved when this picture is taken and I want you to further assume that
this wood stake is a stake on the tree in the closed-in area. You have
any problem assuming that sir?

A. No.

Q. And then that the body has not been touched in the area of the
flank whatsoever at the time that photograph has been taken. Does that
alter your opinion in any way that that is blood coming from the flank
wound?

A. This is --.

Q. Does that alter your opinion?

A. No. It does not alter my opinion. This is --

Q. Thank you.

A. This is blood.

Q. Thank you. Now, if you have two quarts of blood in the back of the
retroperitoneal space of Mr. Goldman, this is going to cause certainly
a protuberance in tissue. It's not -- that's going to be visible by
the human eye just looking, true?

A. No.

MR. MEDVENE: Objection. Assumes facts not in --

THE COURT: Excuse me.

Q. (BY MR. BAKER) If you put two quarts of blood in your abdominal
cavity --

THE COURT: Did you make an objection -- I can't hear you.

MR. MEDVENE: Assumes facts not in evidence, Your Honor.

THE COURT: Sustained.

Q. (BY MR. BAKER) If -- hypothetically, if you are correct, and there
is two quarts of blood that is in the retroperitoneal space, we can --
you know, maybe as I get older, my back is a little more firmer than
my abdomen. If we put two quarts of blood in the abdominal cavity,
that causes a major protuberance or expansion of the abdominal cavity,
true?

A. This is not the abdominal cavity.

Q. I understand that, sir.

A. That's behind the --

Q. Could you --

A. -- Behind the abdominal cavity.

Q. Sir?

A. And my answer to you is no, it does not cause any protuberance.

Q. Okay.

A. I'd explain that to you if you like.

Q. I'm sure you have an explanation for everything.

MR. MEDVENE: Objection to Mr. Baker's comments. Move to strike and ask
that he cease making them.

MR. BAKER: I think in view of this witness's comments, that I'm
totally entitled to make those comments, Your Honor.

THE COURT: I'll sustain the objection. Please don't make -- because
this witness is also being admonished not to volunteer any answer that
is not asked by the question, please.

Q. (BY MR. BAKER) Now, did you review any of Dr. Goldman's (sic)
testimony in the preliminary hearing?

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

And it opens up an area.

THE COURT: Does not open up an area. If it's something he read before
the deposition, he may inquire.

Q. (BY MR. BAKER) Did you or did you not?

A. I don't recall.

Q. You don't have a recollection one way or the other?

A. No.

Q. All right.

Now, in terms -- one more area, sir. In terms of the -- of Mr.
Simpson, you went through all of the photographs -- well, strike that.

In the closed-in area, this four foot by six foot area, based upon
your reconstruction, there was hand-to-hand combat going on in that
area between Mr. Goldman and -- Mr. Goldman and the assailant,
correct?

A. Yes.

Q. He was striking out. He was kicking. He was attempting to hit the
assailant, correct?

A. No, I don't think so. I think he wasn't kicking. I think he was
using his lower extremities to defend himself, to put them out as a
barrier. That's what you do. Like when you put your hands out to grab
the knife or to do something to prevent the blade from hitting your
body.

So that's when you do, these kind of things instinctively, protecting
the face and chest.

Q. Well, instinctively protecting the face and chest. We saw where the
bloody boot had, more likely than not, came in contact with the knife?

A. That is correct. He fought off the assailant like that.

Q. Okay. Except with the other boot, right?

A. I beg your pardon.

Q. The cut is on the right, sir?

A. I'm talking about the injury to the thigh. When he turned and got
the cut on the boot, he used his right leg.

Q. He wouldn't have been kicking, and you can tell that he wouldn't
have been trying to kick the knife out of -- out of the assailant's
hand?

A. He may have been kicking. But the usual and the expected is that
people use their extremities to ward off an on-coming blade, other
than in contrast to what happened -- what happens in gun shot wounds.

Q. The usual and expected, right, in a knife fight?

A. This is --

Q. Okay. Thank you, sir.

Now, you -- Mr. Goldman is not only trying to ward off, he's trying to
get the knife away from the attacker. That's usual and expected; isn't
it?

A. And he is, exactly that. That's when he got the stab wounds between
the fingers.

Q. All right.

Now, Mr. Simpson's had some photographs taken, six of him, within a
couple of days of the murders and you reviewed those photographs,
correct?

A. Yes.

Q. Did Mr. Simpson's have any bruises on his abdominal area, chest or
abdomen?

A. I'm not aware of any.

Q. Put that up.

(Indicating to photo 4 of Exhibit No. 714.)

(The instrument herein referred to as a series of photos of O.J.
Simpson was marked for identification as Defendants' Exhibit No. 714.)

MR. P. BAKER: This is photo 4 of 714.

Q. (BY MR. BAKER) You see any bruises whatsoever?

A. No, I do not.

Q. Did you see any bruises on his face?

Put up the facial shot.

MR. P. BAKER: This is photograph 1, 2 and 3 of 714. (Photo Nos. 1, 2
and 3 or Exhibit No. 714 are displayed on TV screen.)

Q. No bruises there?

A. No. There are no bruises and I wouldn't expect any bruises, either.

Q. Put up his arm.

(Photo Nos 4 and 5 of Exhibit No. 714 are displayed.)

Q. (BY MR. BAKER) Bruises there, sir?

A. Here, there is a bruise.

Q. You believe that's a bruise?

A. That's what I thought, leaning on -- gleaned of a picture that I
saw of this area.

Q. So you think that's a bruise?

A. If it isn't so, let it not be, but it looks like a bruise.

Q. All right.

Those are the only two options.

Now, in terms of the -- that was the only thing on any part of his
body that you felt even resembled a bruise, right?

A. You mean this area?

Q. Yeah.

A. I would not expect bruises.

Q. I didn't ask you what you expect.

A. Yes. That is correct. That's the only bruise that I saw on the rest
of the body, other than the hands because there are bruises on the
hands.

Q. I've gone into the bruises on the hands from your quasi, crushing
fingernail cuts in some detail?

A. And bruises.

Q. And by the way, Doctor, when -- Mr. Goldman had some significant
blood on his hands, did he not?

A. Yes.

Q. And if he had, of course, come in contact with Mr. Simpson, if in
fact, Mr. Simpson were the assailant, blood would have been
transferred from the cuts that you saw on Mr. Goldman's hands to
clothing that Mr. Simpson, if he were the assailant, was wearing,
true?

MR. MEDVENE: Objection. Vague, calls for speculation. Calls for a
conclusion, lack of foundation.

THE COURT: Sustained.

Q. (BY MR. BAKER) There would have to have been, if Mr. Goldman hit
his assailant and the cuts were made on his hands, there would have
been a transfer of blood from Mr. Goldman hands to the assailant,
correct?

MR. MEDVENE: Same objection. It's an argumentative question, Your
Honor.

THE COURT: Sustained.

Q. (BY MR. BAKER) On which grounds, sir. I'm not following.

THE COURT: You can argue that to the jury.

Q. (BY MR. BAKER) Well, then, let's go back one thing and I'll try to
sit down.

When Nicole Brown Simpson had the carotid arteries severed, blood went
splirting out of those carotid arteries onto the attacker, onto the
tile and onto Ms. Simpson, true?

A. No.

Q. When you cut the carotid artery, Dr. Spitz, that carotid artery --
well, let's go back.

When the heart pumped blood, it pumps 20 percent to the brain, 80
percent to the rest of the body, correct?

A. I never thought of it that way. Maybe that's correct. I don't know
if it does that or not.

Q. And when it pumps blood from the heart, the two most direct sources
of oxygenated blood to the brain are the carotid left and right, true?

A. Yes.

Q. And they are a force relatively close to the heart as contrasted,
for example, to our abdomen, to our legs, et cetera?

A. Yes.

Q. And when that area is severed --

A. Yes.

Q. -- The blood, the heart is still pumping and the blood pushes out
of there when the left side contracts, true?

A. Yes.

Q. And so that is why this is an exceedingly bloody scene; is because
both of this young woman's carotid arteries were severed, true?

A. Because, of course, it's a bloody scene, all you need to do is look
at the walkway.

Q. I understand, sir. And if, in fact, someone had their left arm
where you placed it, that left arm would be covered in blood, wouldn't
it?

A. No.

Q. So your view of the severance of the carotid are that -- and when
you have whoever is the attacker, and you know kind of the position
that Mrs. Nicole Brown Simpson was in, down, with her head back and
all of that; have you a clear picture of -- and you're clear picture
of the bleeding that is caused by the direct severance of two carotid
arteries in this young woman does not cause closed bleeding upon the
assailant? True or untrue, sir?

A. Correct. My opinion is that in the scenario which I described, and
which is the basis of my opinion, there would be very little and maybe
none on the assailant.

Q. And there would be none on the assailant from Mr. Goldman attacking
the assailant after he had defensive wounds on his hands, correct?

A. Again, the same thing.

Q. Can you answer?

A. It may be.

Q. Can you answer my question for a change?

A. That is correct. There may be very little blood on the assailant
from Mr. Goldman.

Q. And?

A. Or from the first victim.

Q. Now, if Nicole Brown Simpson, she had defensive wounds on her hands
as well, didn't she?

A. Not bleeding defensive wounds, scratches.

Q. Okay.

So let's see if I got this straight, her wounds don't bleed but Mr.
O.J. Simpson if, in fact, he was the attacker, those nail crushing
injuries they bleed, right? Is that true? Is that your testimony or
not?

A. That is absolutely my testimony. All he need to --

Q. Nothing further from this witness.

A. You have to look at the witness' pictures.

Q. Nothing further from this witness.

THE COURT: Anything further?

THE CLERK: For the record, I like to clear up something about an
exhibit number, number 1420 was referred to earlier and it's not --
that's not the right number. It should be number 2051. That's already
been received in evidence.

REDIRECT EXAMINATION BY MR. MEDVENE:

Q. Would you explain your last answer?

A. The --

MR. BAKER: Please ask a question, Your Honor.

THE COURT: Overruled. Go ahead.

THE WITNESS: The injuries on Nicole Simpson's hands are superficial
scratches. They are not through the skin. They are not even far into
the skin. They are abrasion type injuries which scuff off the upper
most layer of the skin, the epidermis and then dry and become dark,
dark brown or black. These kind of injuries do not bleed.

The blood vessels in the skin are deeper down. So --

Q. How do you -- deep?

A. In the case of fingernail marks, if you look at the picture of the
fingernail marks, you see that the depth of a fingernail mark is
entirely different. All you need to do is display it on the camera, on
the -- on the television.

There is a depth to the fingernail mark, the fingernail markings into
the skin. The fingernail digs into the skin and there is a crater, in
the case of Nicole Simpson's abrasions, on the fingers, those don't
bleed.

Q. Now, you gave an opinion about whether or not you believe there
would be blood or much blood on the assailant who slashed the throat
of Nicole Brown Simpson by cutting the carotid arteries?

A. Please understand, first of all, the victim shields the assailant.
Her body shields him.

Secondly, I'm not sure that necessarily the hand was held across the
face, it probably was at one time or another. The same affect would be
from holding the hair back. She's got fairly long hair and it's
easiest and most available to be grabbed and pulled back.

The further -- when you hold a person over down like so (indicating).

MR. BAKER: I'm going to object to this. I'm going to object to his
demonstrating that. He should be required to answer a question.

THE COURT: What is the question?

MR. BAKER: I don't know.

Q. (BY MR. MEDVENE) We were -- we were discussing, Your Honor, blood.
The likelihood that blood would not be on the assailant if the
assailant slashed Ms. Brown's throat. And the witness was answering
the question and attempting to explain why, and attempting to explain
the position and shielding by the -- by the assailant of the blood.

THE COURT: All right.

Finish your demonstration.

THE WITNESS: If the victim is held like this over the ground, and the
throat is slashed or stabbed, I can't -- I don't -- I can't see why
there should be blood on the assailant. The assailant is behind her,
either holding her head like so or holding the hair back.

All I can say is that the neck was taut, otherwise the knife would
never have gone into the vertebral column. She bled. She bled out
tremendous amounts, but downward and forward not upward and sideways
and certainly not through her body.

Q. Now, with respect to Mr. Goldman, what is the basis for your
opinion that there would not necessarily be much blood on the
assailant as a result of the assailant's --

A. Goldman was held in a grip, too. The same way, only the slashing of
the throat did not materialize and remained superficial because at
that time, there was no more resistance.

When Goldman was killed, he was held and all the assailant had to do
was leave go. That's when Goldman collapsed.

He's unconscious, unresponsive. Goldman was not dead at this time.
Goldman was left dying. He was not expired. He was expiring. He was --
he still had a heart beat, a mild heart beat. Not a good heart beat
because he had lost a lot of blood. But he died with time. He didn't
die at that moment.

MR. MEDVENE: Can you put up 2051 on the board, please.

Q. (BY MR. MEDVENE) You wanted to give an explanation with respect to
2051 and the wounds and what appears to be blood shown. Could you give
that explanation now?

(Exhibit No. 2051 is displayed.)

A. This is blood that I think was transferred from the clothing. My
opinion is that somebody moved the clothing to the side to take the
picture. This is a very unimpressive wound.

But it's a fatal wound. Because this wounds goes into the aorta. This
is not a very big wound at all. This is what, three-quarter of an inch
or maybe an inch or half an inch, but it goes into the aorta. That's
the problem. This wound in the skin looks like nothing.

Q. By the way, does the autopsy report refer to this wound as a fatal
wound?

A. The autopsy report refers to it as a fatal wound. The autopsy
report describes that this is a wound that goes into the aorta. By
necessity, it would be a fatal wound and it refers to it. It says so
in the report.

Q. Exhibit 2053 not 2051. Why would there be no protuberance in the
retroperitoneal space if there was one to two quarts of blood?

A. May I have the chart back that we used on Friday?

Q. Yes.

A. With --

Q. Yes, sir. May I go get it, Your Honor?

THE COURT: (Nods in the affirmative.)

(Diagram displayed with section of human and aorta and knife cut
through it.)

Q. Can you explain, sir?

A. When the aorta is injured like it is here, this is the stab wounds
in the skin. This is the back. This is the front. This is the
abdominal cavity. There is the retroperitoneal cavity.

This is the area where the bleeding occurred, up and down. This is a
cupped section through the middle of the body. This is the stab
wounds. This is the aorta.

When there is bleeding into this area, you have the back, and there is
a vertebral body and there are lower ribs. So you don't -- there's no
protuberance here that back the muscles, shield it.

We all know that when you eat a heavy meal you have all this food in
the stomach, your abdomen protrudes because there's nothing in the
front here except skin and a little fat or sometimes more fat. But in
the back, there is heavy muscle that precludes swelling. People who
die from a ruptured aneurysm. An aneurysm is a bubble of the aorta
that suddenly busts and they bleed into the area in question here.

And I go and do an autopsy on a person like that. I don't know what
they died from. All I know is that they were found dead and I open the
body and I don't find any protuberance.

It would be wonderful if I looked, opened the body and I looked at a
protuberance. I wouldn't have to do an autopsy. This bleeding here
never protubes (sic). There is no such thing. That's a strange type of
medicine.

Q. Do we have 1977?

THE COURT REPORTER: Excuse me, what number is that diagram, please?

MR. GELBLUM: 2025.

(Referring to exhibit 2025, a diagram.)

(BY MR. MEDVENE) I want to show you now, remember we spoke earlier
about the photo of the aorta that was taken by the coroner?

A. Yes.

Q. And I want to put that up if I might.

MR. FOSTER: You want it up?

MR. MEDVENE: Yes.

MR. GELBLUM: 1977.

(Exhibit No. 1977 displayed.)

Q. (BY MR. MEDVENE) Can you -- would you tell us what that photo taken
by the coroner shows?

MR. BAKER: Asked and answered Your Honor. That was all gone into on
Friday.

THE COURT: Overruled.

THE WITNESS: This area here.

Q. (BY MR. MEDVENE) The area in the front?

A. The yellow area, this area is the area of the aorta which is a pipe
opened up.

In other words, the aorta was slit across the side and opened up like
so. And it shows a nearly through and through cut nearly severed.

This tissue here, by the way, these two holes are origins of other
arteries. The aorta is the main artery of the body and from it, all
the other arteries emanate and these two are origins of two other
arteries.

This dark tissue, all around that the aorta is resting on -- is
totally infiltrated with blood tar.

This should be yellow, like chicken fat or like you can see in the
wounds of the thigh where you can see. Because of the slicing, you can
see the cut and then the yellow fat underneath.

If you want to put this on, then I can show this. There is --

MR. BAKER: Your Honor, who's directing the examination?

(BY MR. MEDVENE) While that's being put on --

THE COURT: Overruled.

Q. (BY MR. MEDVENE) Can you draw the significance of the homogeneity
of the fat and what that has to do with blood pressure?

Steve, you want to put the aorta picture back up?

MR. BAKER: Outside the scope, Your Honor.

THE COURT: Overruled. But I may sustain it for relevance.

(Referring to previous photo.)

MR. MEDVENE: We're going to tie it in in one second.

THE WITNESS: The fact that the entire area, every where that this
picture shows is infiltrated with blood indicates that there was a
blood pressure at the time, because otherwise the bleeding would not
have homogeneity infiltrated all this tissue with the same extent of
bleeding.

Q. What's the significance of there being a blood pressure in terms of
the sequencing of the aorta wound and any other wounds?

A. What the significance is, is that the heart was pumping with vigor
like at the outset of the altercation.

Q. And does that indicate anything to you in terms of the timing of
the wounds to the aorta and the timing of the cutting of the jugular
vein?

A. This supports that this occurred early on. Early on in the course
of this struggle and certainly before the jugular vein, because the
jugular vein is in the -- in the neck is covered by muscle, by skin,
and other soft tissues. And when that bled, it would bleed into these
tissues.

There is some bleeding described along the wound track, but there's no
bleeding anywhere else here because this was opened up and there is no
bleeding in this area under the skin.

The bleeding outward would have occurred to some extent. But most of
the bleeding from a semi severed jugular vein would have been inside.
There is no such bleeding.

Q. Now, Mr. Baker talked in a hypothetical about bleeding for five
minutes or more from a cut in the jugular vein. And can you fight, or
couldn't you fight? Is there any evidence that you found that that
jugular vein was bleeding for five minutes or more before death?

A. No. There's no -- no five minute jugular vein bleeding, not before
death. Maybe after, after Goldman was in the -- collapsed in the four
by six area that the jugular vein still oozed out some blood. But the
jugular vein -- but it's nature is a vein, not an artery.

Veins don't bleed like arteries. The aorta bleeds with great force,
very extensive. As I described on Friday, would hit -- a severed
artery would hit a 12-foot ceiling. A vein wouldn't do that, whether
it's a jugular vein or any other vein.

Q. Is there any indication from an examination of the tissue around
the jugular vein of swelling or anything that would support a
significant bleeding?

A. No swelling, no evidence of bleeding under the skin to any extent
or under the chest because that's where it would percolate downward.
In an upright individual, that's where it would go.

Q. In other words, if it was bleeding, it would have to be somewhere.

A. Where is that blood?

Q. Now, reference was made by Mr. Baker to certain stab wounds to Ms.
Brown's neck, and your basis for saying that they occurred in rapid
succession.

MR. MEDVENE: I want to get the board that shows 2015 and 2013, please.

(Mr. Foster complies. Indicating to display board marked "Sharp Force
Injuries and Blunt Force Trauma to Head Face and Neck of Ms. Brown." )

MR. MEDVENE: I'm sorry?

THE COURT REPORTER: May I have the number of that, please.

MR. MEDVENE: Yes. Number 2013 and 2015.

Q. (BY MR. MEDVENE) Dr. Spitz, would you come down, if you would, with
your pointer and point out what it is about those wounds that leads to
your conclusion that they were struck in rapid succession and very
quickly.

(Witness complies approaches board.)

MR. LEONARD: May I, Your Honor?

(Mr. Leonard repositions himself in courtroom.)

A. There are four wounds on the left side of the neck in a vertical
line all in one area.

There is the wounds across the front of the neck which starts, as you
can see here, right at this point (indicating).

If you make a schematic out of that -- Do you have a felt writer?

MR. PETROCELLI: Felt -- or I have --

THE WITNESS: There you go. If you make a schematic out of this, you
have four wounds, one, two, three, four, and you have the fifth wound
right there. This one is the fifth wound. The first, the second, the
third, the fourth.

I do not know whether this is one, two, three and four. I -- or
whether this is one, two, three and four.

I don't know whether they go from the top to the bottom or the bottom
to the top. But I do know that this is one action. One action in which
there is, like I demonstrated on Friday, a very rapid succession
before there is possibility of moving.

There is a holding and no movement sideways, because otherwise they
wouldn't all be oriented in the one perfect line. And this one,
extending from the same area, this is one unit.

Q. And where does the -- where does the slashing movement of the
throat start?

A. The slashing movement starts in the extension of the left lower
lip, the left angle of the mouth. If you run that, a vertical line
right through the bottom, that's where the deep side slash starts. The
actual slash starts much further over in proximity -- Right here.

Q. And how long did it take, in your opinion, in your judgment, to
deliver those stab wounds to the neck and then the slash cutting her
carotid artery?

A. One, two, three, four, angh (witness makes grunt sound) --

Q. Seconds?

A. That is seconds?

MR. MEDVENE: Good time to break.

MR. BAKER: Let me put, for the record, there were four movements
straight down by Dr. Spitz and a movement across from right to left.
The first four went straight down and his right hand was moving in a
vertical position from top to bottom and went down four straight
times. Before then, he moved his hand over to the left and moved it
across in a horizontal movement from left to right.

MR. MEDVENE: Dr. Spitz, where you made the movements were where the
stab wounds appear in the picture on the neck; is that correct?

A. Let me do it again.

THE COURT: Okay. Jurors. Jurors.

JUROR: Yes.

THE COURT: You're a juror. You have to watch the testimony and you
have to watch the witness as the witness is testifying. All right.

THE WITNESS: Difficult to. Difficult to do it on me, but this is how
it went.

(Witness demonstrates on himself.)

MR. BAKER: Now --

THE WITNESS: I'm sorry.

MR. MEDVENE: Excuse me, Mr. Baker.

MR. BAKER: I'm sorry.

THE WITNESS: One, two, three, four.

MR. BAKER: So now the record reflects that in this demonstration he --

MR. MEDVENE: If the Court please, I wonder if Mr.` Baker has an
opportunity --

MR. BAKER: No. I want the record to show, this is -- this is visual
testimony. I want the record to be complete with the visual
demonstration he just gave because it was nonverbal communication.

And now, instead of having four vertical up and down motions with his
hand, he had four straight in movements underneath the left ear and
then a movement across, from left to right across the neck area.

THE COURT: The record will indicate that the witness had a pencil or a
pen in his hand, made four movements into the neck area and then
across the neck.

MR. MEDVENE: Thank you.

THE COURT: Okay. 1:30, ladies and gentlemen. Don't talk about the
case, don't discuss the case.

(At 12:01 P.M. an adjournment was taken until 1:30 P.M. of the same
day.)


SANTA MONICA, CALIFORNIA
TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 12, 1996
1:30 P.M.

DEPARTMENT NO. WEQ
HON. HIROSHI FUJISAKI, JUDGE

(REGINA D. CHAVEZ, OFFICIAL REPORTER)

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

THE CLERK: For the record, Exhibit 2051 that was referred to this
morning, is actually 2053.

MR. PETROCELLI: Your Honor, at this time, I'd like to move all of the
exhibits into evidence that were referred to in the course of our
direct examination of Dr. Spitz.

The clerk requested it might be easier if we do it now than later, so
I will do so.

They are Exhibits 375, 2021, 2022, 2023, 3373, 2013, 2015, 378, 1999,

MR. BAKER: I'd like to -- I'm sorry; were you finished?

MR. PETROCELLI: No.

2000, 2003, 2004, 2005, 386, 1986, 1987, 1988, 1989, 1990, 1977, 2025,
2161, 2162, 2163, 2164, 2165, 1973, 826, 171, and 172.

And we'd also like to move in 2167, the notes -- the handwritten notes
taken -- of Dr. Spitz, made just before the noon hour.

MR. BAKER: I'd like to reserve on that, Your Honor. I can't remember
verbatim what all those are. 2167 -- these are cumulative, number one;
and number two, I don't think I heard 2051, which is Ron -- I just
referred to in the last few minutes -- maybe that's 2053.

THE CLERK: I said it exactly wrong; it's supposed to be 2051, not
2053.

MR. PETROCELLI: 2053 was referred to by you, not by us. Do you want
that in?

MR. BAKER: No, no, you put it on -- on the Elmo in the last few
minutes before --

MR. PETROCELLI: 2053 is fine

THE CLERK: No, no. 2051. 2051.

MR. BAKER: Who's on first?

MR. PETROCELLI: Where do we stand with these exhibits?

THE COURT: They're all received, subject to any objection Mr. Baker
may discover at a later time.

MR. PETROCELLI: Erin, do we have a final ruling? Is it 2151 or 53?

THE CLERK: It's 2051, 2051.

MR. PETROCELLI: Okay.

THE COURT: Okay. Bring the jury in.

MR. MEDVENE: If the Court please, there was one exhibit, 2016, that we
brought -- or wanted to bring to your attention. Originally, it was
not going to be shown.

There were some questions asked of the sequence of injuries to Ms.
Brown, and we wanted to show that one photo of the injury to the head.
And the doctor was going to relate it to when that occurred, as well
as when 2013 occurred. He was going to try to put those in sequence.

I believe that area was opened up on the cross-examination.

THE COURT: All right. I will allow it.

MR. MEDVENE: It will take us one moment to put that on the board, Your
Honor, because we had taken it off.

THE COURT: Counsel, tomorrow we're going to adjourn at 4:00.

JURORS: Thank you.

MR. PETROCELLI: Your Honor, I advised the clerk we have a change in
the order of witnesses. I also advised Mr. Blasier.

After Robin Cotton, we will have Renee Montgomery instead of Gary
Sims. We will be reversing the orders of Montgomery and Sims.

THE COURT: Thank you.

(Jurors resume their respective seats.)

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

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

Q. (BY MR. MEDVENE) Dr. Spitz, when we were discussing the sequence of
injuries to Nicole Brown, we hadn't discussed what's been marked 2016,
which is a picture entitled, Right Side of the Head.

And I would appreciate your coming down, if you could, and giving us
your opinion when, in the -- roughly in the sequence of injuries, the
right side of the head injury occurred and how and its relationship to
2016, the picture of Ms. Brown with the carotid artery slashed.

(Witness approaches board.)

A. On Nicole Simpson's left side of the face in the -- around the left
side of the mouth, there is an bruise. It's obviously and definitely
there.

There is evidence of swelling and bruising of the lower lip on the
left side. The bruise extends down to the level of my pointer here.
And the top of the bruise is like that. (Indicating.)

Q. Around the upper lip?

A. Above the upper lip, which is also a little swollen.

Q. This, in my opinion, by its oval shape and the configuration of
this injury, that it's a punch with a fist.

This caused her to fall back and sustain the injury on the right top
of the head here, (indicating) from striking the stucco wall or the
bannister over it.

There is on -- when you look close at this, there are two areas where
the upper layer of the skin is scuffed off, like in a scraping, where
-- which we discussed earlier -- the upper layer of the skin is
hanging loose; you can actually see it there on the -- on the left,
and to a lesser extent, to the one on -- it's right where the skin is
hanging loose, and it's like a white tissue, little piece hanging. And
this would have occurred, in my view, probably -- more probably than
not, from striking the wall, the stucco wall.

In addition to that, she struck on the same wall, the back of the
right shoulder and the elbow, as she went back somewhat dazed from
this blow. And she was pulled up and held and stabbed and slashed.

Between the two, between this set of injuries and the ones I just
described, the blow to the face and the falling over on the wall, are
four stab wounds to the head, which did not penetrate the skull and --
and just manifested by a little cut in the skin.

So all these injuries: The head, the punch, the head wound and the
ones in the neck area, they're all in one area of the body, inflicted
in very rapid succession.

Q. Thank you, doctor.

JUROR: Could you tilt the exhibit forward? There's a glare across the
picture.

Thank you.

(Witness resumes seat at witness stand)

Q. (BY MR. MEDVENE) Doctor, how much blood, in your opinion, would an
individual have to lose in order to die?

A. In a rapid blood loss, in an acute type of blood loss like in this
case, or in a shooting or a stabbing, there is usually one and a half
to two quarts of blood.

In a cavity -- assume somebody is shot in the chest and there's an
injury of the heart or the aorta or lung.

When we do an autopsy, normally there is one and a half to two quarts
of blood -- one and a half to two liters of blood. In a rapid blood
loss, the body cannot get used to the -- to the loss, and the heart
fails.

In a lung, people would lose blood over a long period of time, like
from a bleeding ulcer or some intestinal problem, they can use lose a
lot more than that: Much, much more than that, and survive and be
treated and do well.

Q. You said in a rapid blood loss like this case. If you would have
the amount of blood loss to cause death, why would this be rapid?

What would cause it to be rapid?

A. Well, the injury to the aorta would cause it to be rapid.

Q. What happens with the blood pressures?

A. All the injuries bled here. It's not like just the aorta bled; all
the injuries bled together.

The injury in the leg bled, as manifested by the blood on the pants.
All the injuries -- every time there is an opening in the -- in the
skin, it all adds together in the loss, and it's all lost within a
confined period of time.

Q. Now, I'm going to ask to be put on the board next in order, 216 --
I'm sorry -- to be put on the TV monitor. And this was some picture of
Mr. Goldman's jeans.

And where, in your opinion, did the blood come from?

A. This blood that's running down in here, you see very nicely how it
stains the pants -- it goes from practically the top of the pants, all
the way down to the leg -- to the end of the leg, where the shoe is.

This is blood that runs down from the -- runs down from the wound in
the -- in the thigh, runs down on the leg. The wound bled and run down
on the leg, and then was soaked up by the pants.

This blood is not blood that came on -- from the pants to the outside;
this is blood that ran down the leg and stained the pants from the
inside and was soaked into it.

(Indicating to photo number 216.)

A. (Continuing) Similarly to the blood on the upper portion of the
pants, which is -- which is all soaking from the bleeding wound and
the thigh.

Q. And the blood on the left shoe?

A. The blood on the left shoe is blood that runs down here, that
didn't meet the pants on the way, or did meet the pants up to where
the pants go, and then went on the shoe, eventually soaked into the
shoe and spread on the shoe.

MR. MEDVENE: Thank you, Steve.

Q. (BY MR. MEDVENE) Now, I believe there was a suggestion by counsel
of a jugular vein cut and some blood coming from the jugular vein and
finding its way to the pants.

And you were asked if, in your opinion, that occurred. And your answer
was?

A. No. In fact, I said never.

Q. And would you explain why you say that?

A. First of all, there is not this trail of blood from the jugular
vein down.

Secondly, as I explained earlier, the jugular vein only partially bled
to the outside. Most of the blood -- if the jugular vein is really
bleeding, then the jugular vein would cause bleeding under the skin
and into the muscles, not in the area of the neck and chest.

Thirdly, there is a wound in the chest which is totally, completely,
and entirely capable of explaining how the blood got over the pants
and onto the shoe. So I find it very difficult to take some remote --
remote possibility that to explain an event that is far more likely to
be explained in the way that I did.

Q. Now, you've possibly covered this, but when we're talking about the
pants and the blood on the pants, you'd made some reference to some of
the blood being somewhat above the thigh wound.

How, in your opinion, did it get there?

A. You mean on the pants?

Q. Yes.

A. Well, it means it gets soaked in and it spreads. Once it gets in
the fabric, it spreads. This is what makes a spot on fabric look like
more than it really is in terms of quantity of blood.

Q. I want to briefly -- since time was spent on it and in the
cross-examination -- talk for a moment about the sequence of wounds to
Mr. Goldman, and ask, with the Court's permission, if you'd be good
enough to -- you still have your ruler? If you would, mark off the
four-by-six area for me.

(The witness complies, uses measuring tape.)

Q. (BY MR. MEDVENE) This is roughly six feet. And so with the area,
could you describe the area for me?

A. May I borrow your chair?

(Bailiff nods affirmatively.)

THE WITNESS: This -- wait a minute.

MR. BAKER: It's your courtroom, Judge.

THE WITNESS: This would be the area.

(Indicating.)

THE WITNESS: This would be the area.

Is that okay?

Q. Yes.

(Indicating to coat hanger.)

Q. That would be the area where the struggle occurred?

A. That would be the area where the struggle occurred.

Q. In that area is marked by the --

A. By the coat hanger.

Q. -- by the coat hanger?

A. I --

Q. Yes.

(Counsel assists witness with tape measure.)

THE WITNESS: It's a little less than that.

Q. (BY MR. MEDVENE) All right.

A. And this is four feet.

Q. Yes, sir.

A. Yes. It's a little less than this. It's about up to where the --
where the wrapping paper is.

Q. So within this area?

A. In this area.

Q. And within this area, when Mr. Goldman was stabbed in the aorta?

A. Yes.

Q. You had mentioned that he could have struggled for 40 to 60
seconds.

What could have happened -- could all the actions that Mr. Baker asked
you about have occurred within this confined space in that 40 to 60
seconds?

A. Absolutely.

MR. BAKER: Objection. Leading, vague, ambiguous as to what actions.

THE COURT: Overruled.

Q. Now, Mr. Baker mentioned an envelope being somewhere and a pager
dropping, how -- and some blood on a railing.

How long would it have taken for those actions that Mr. Baker asked
you about, in your opinion, to have occurred within this confined
area?

A. You mean dropping these objects?

Q. Yes.

A. Seconds. Seconds.

Q. And could a violent struggle have taken place over the period of
time after Mr. A -- or Mr. Goldman's aorta was stabbed?

A. Absolutely. The aorta is not an immediately incapacitating wound,
not in that sense, not instant by -- this is not you cut the nervous
system. Bleeding has to occur first.

Q. Do you have a watch?

A. Not only bleeding, but a lot of bleeding.

The watch, yes.

Q. All right. What I'd like you to do, because you've described --
well, first, if you would just describe for me quickly the wound that
-- how many major wounds were there, because Mr. Baker asked you about
a number of wounds.

How many major wounds were there?

A. There were -- there were, going from top to bottom, not in sequence
-- there was -- there were the wounds in the neck area; there were two
stab wounds in the chest on the right side. There was one wound in the
left flank.

I do not consider the wound in the thigh as a major wound, for the
simple reason that it is not a life-threatening injury.

Q. Now, were there wounds to the lung?

A. The two stab wounds in the right side of the chest entered the
lung, penetrated the lung.

Q. When Mr. Goldman died, had his lungs collapsed?

A. No. The right lung could have collapsed, given time, but it did not
collapse because there was no time.

Q. And what is the significance of that in terms of the time that it
might have taken Mr. Goldman to die?

A. His breathing stopped relatively early and his -- a significant
exit of air from the lung into the chest cavity did not occur to cause
a compression and collapse of the lung.

If I -- if I -- well, I can say that in the chest cavity, normally
there is a mild vacuum to keep the lung suspended; otherwise, the lung
-- the lung would collapse. Inside the lung is what is atmospheric
pressure. The lung is opened by way of the air ways to the atmosphere.
Atmospheric pressure is, as we know, quite high. Around the lung, it
is a negative pressure, mild vacuum, not a very strong vacuum, a mild
vacuum, so that when that vacuum is interrupted by a stab wound in the
lung, there is atmospheric pressure transferred into this space around
the lung, and the lung would collapse.

It did not collapse in this case.

Q. Now, during the struggle -- you saw some pictures of what appeared
to be bruising on Mr. Goldman's hand, around his knuckle area?

A. Yes.

Q. In your opinion, what is the -- you weren't there, but what is the
most likely cause of that?

A. There was not only bruising, there was bruising, and over the
bruising, in the middle, there were abrasions. And if you look at the
picture, you will see that there is a dark area in the middle. That's
an abrasion. That's where the upper layer of the skin is scuffed off.
And it dried and became like leather and became dark brown to black.

That, in my opinion, is far more likely the result of striking a
rough, firm object, like the wall or the bannister or the tree, or
something of that nature, rather than a person.

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

You said the struggle lasted approximately a minute. And you've heard
the questions of Mr. Baker in terms of the various activities that
occurred within the struggle.

Could you mark off on your watch for me -- and I'll be quiet for a
minute -- 60 seconds, that period within which you said the activities
occurred, starting now.

A. Let me start according to my watch.

(Witness pounds pager against witness stand.)

(Pause in proceedings.)

(Witness hits pager against witness stand.)

Q. (BY MR. MEDVENE) Is there any question, any actions Mr. Baker asked
you about, or all the activities you described, could have happened
within the 60 seconds?

A. The 60 seconds is long.

Q. Let me move to the topic of fingernails, if I might.

MR. MEDVENE: And put on the board, please -- I'll look at 545 and 547
and 548 on the TV monitor.

(The instrument herein referred was marked for identification as
Plaintiffs' Exhibit No. 545.)

(The instrument herein referred to was marked for identification as
Plaintiffs' Exhibit No. 547.)

(The instrument herein referred to was marked for identification as
Plaintiffs' Exhibit No. 548.)

Q. (BY MR. MEDVENE) Can you describe for the jury and the Court where
on there you've identified his fingernail marks.

And I'm going to ask you some follow-up questions.

MR. BAKER: Your Honor, I object. This is cumulative; asked and
answered.

THE COURT: Sustained. We went through this on your direct examination.

MR. MEDVENE: I did. Mr. Baker asked some questions on cross but I
didn't ask.

THE COURT: If you want to redirect, redirect; Let's not go over the
same testimony we got on direct.

MR. MEDVENE: All right, Your Honor.

THE COURT: It's a day and a half with