Replies

Two white jurors voted “guilty” on their first ballot. They were intimidated and folded.

Considering the state of the testimony, and your complete inability to confront it, it seems difficult to believe it took two hours for anyone to reach the conclusion that the prosecution was an utter failure. What took four hours was to proceduraly ensure they did all they had to do, and to complete the paperwork.

Unlike you, the actual jury had to follow the judge's instructions.

The case was lost on the scientific evidence which was not racist. The prosecution witnesses were eviscerated on the science. After that, there was no way to escape reasonable doubt.

Throwing collected evidence into a bag with OJ's reference sample overnight can cross-contaminate it.

Leaving blood samples in plastic bags overnight can degrade the samples so an RFLP DNA test is impossible.

Jurors Marsha Rubin-Jackson, Carrie Bess, and Armanda Cooley seemed to have understood the problem with degraded blood samples, even if you refuse to do so.

"I had no doubt in my mind that that wasn’t O.J.’s blood, the blood drops," says Marsha. "But by them being so degraded they could have been there before. Prior to the murders. He visited that place often. See, the first blood they found was the blood that was on the gate, two, three days later, or two weeks later. Samples 47, 48, 49, 50, 52 were all degraded, it could have been there prior to the murders."
Carrie says, "Well, like I stated, the blood by the shoe print are the drops that they talked about. I didn’t have a problem with it being the same type as O.J.'s. but the only thing I had a problem with was that it was so degraded you couldn’t read some of it. Most of it you couldn’t read. The part that they really read, which I think were samples 50 and 52 coming out the back gate, was the only drops that they really, really could say was O.J.’s and the one that was on the fence that had EDTA in it. And I really can’t speak out for that because they never tested to see what the kids’ blood drops were. They never compared anybody eise's blood."
Armanda interrupts: "Excuse me. But there was testimony from the fingerprint man, there were a lot of fingerprints there that they never did find out who they belonged to."
"There was so much degradation in that blood that they could never really pinpoint it to say this is the type it was." says Carrie, "And when they got to the autorads, to say these are his drops, they still had a problem, saying that some of it was so weak that they couldn’t even say so. On that point, I can’t say one way or the other."

The blood evidence collected on June 13th was too degraded to identify with RFLP testing. The collected blood evidence was left in a hot, unrefridgerated truck all day, improperly stored in plastic bags.

The blood samples that could be RFLP tested were collected weeks or months after the murders. Blood that had been exposed to the weather for several weeks or more had a remarkably strong and testable amount of DNA. It also had a testable amount of EDTA in parts per million, a fatal dose if in the circulating blood of a human.

The prosecution presented manufactured evidence to the jury and got caught. The blood from June 13th might have proved O.J. guilty, but due to mishandling it was too degraded for an RFLP test, and suffered from cross contamination.

They quickly brought charges. Simpson quickly invoked a California speedy trial provision. The prosecution was forced to begin months before they had the RFLP DNA results back. They spent months with repetitive and nonsense testimony, just stalling.

The mess started to go south at a pretrial procedure where the autopsy doctor was destroyed. Dr. Golden, who performed the autopsy, testified at a pre-trial procedure, and he was utterly destroyed. He was so bad that when the trial came about, the prosecution kept him off the stand despite his availability, and had the Chief Medical Examiner, Dr. Lakshmanan (aka Dr. Lucky) testify about the autopsy. Dr. Lakshmanan was not at the autopsy. He never examined the victims other than by looking at photographs after the bodies had been released.

Prosecutor Brian Kelberg wasted 8 days on direct examination. Defense Counsel Robert Shapiro ripped it to shreds in a few hours. This monumental waste of time was an object lesson in how to lose a sequestered jury. Remember, this jury was sequestered as the trial dragged on and on and on. That was just the prosecution case.

As Prosecutor Kelberg made up one ridiculous hypothetical after another, the direct testimony of Dr. Lakshmanan seemed like it would never end.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

[11504]

MR. KELBERG: Doctor, I want you to assume that there were bloody shoeprints found along the walkway leading from the bodies to the back of the Bundy location and that I want you to assume hypothetically that there will be testimony that those bloody shoeprints are consistent with a person who has a size 12 shoe, and I want you to further assume hypothetically that people who wear size 12 shoes tend to be six feet to six feet four based upon studies conducted by the Royal Canadian Mounted Police and the FBI. Doctor, would that type of evidence, assuming it is true, serve to confirm your opinion that a single killer of a height greater than Mr. Goldman in a swift and violent assault on both of these human beings is the perpetrator?
MR. SHAPIRO: Objection. May we approach?
THE COURT: No. Overruled.
DR. LAKSHMANAN: I already said it could--it could be such a kind of perpetrator.
MR. KELBERG: And Mr. Shapiro asked you would you stake your reputation to a reasonable medical certainty. Remember that question?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes.
MR. KELBERG: Doctor, would you stake your reputation that based upon the forensic pathology evidence you reviewed, that all of that evidence is in fact consistent with one killer, six foot two, 210 pounds, athletically built with the element of surprise with a 6-inch long single-edged knife killing Nicole Brown Simpson and Ronald Goldman? Would you risk your reputation, stake your reputation on that?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: I said that one person could have done all the injuries, yes, I did say that.
MR. KELBERG: And will you stake your reputation that all of the evidence is consistent with that?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes.

To see what horsecrap that was, we can visit what else was brought out.

That was from transcript page 11504. The below excerpts are in chronological order, starting on page 11392.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

[11392]

06/14/1995, Cross Examination by Robert Shapiro

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR. SHAPIRO
MR. SHAPIRO: Good afternoon, Dr. Lakshmanan.
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Good afternoon.
MR. SHAPIRO: Dr. Lakshmanan, you've been on the witness stand for approximately eight days?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes, sir.
MR. SHAPIRO: And as I understand your testimony, you can tell us with a reasonable degree of medical certainty that both Nicole Brown Simpson and Ronald Goldman were victims of a homicide?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes.
MR. SHAPIRO: And you can also tell us within a reasonable degree of medical certainty that both of these victims died as a result of stab wounds?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes. Sharp force injuries.
MR. SHAPIRO: And you can also tell us within a reasonable degree of medical certainty that both of these individuals bled to death?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes.
MR. SHAPIRO: You cannot tell us within a reasonable degree of medical certainty what time they died?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: That is correct.
MR. SHAPIRO: In fact, all of your expertise lends you to the opinion that a layperson could give, that they were last seen alive at 9:00, that they were found dead at 12:15, and that is the range of death; isn't that correct?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Well, that's what I opined also, between 9:00 and 12:30.
MR. SHAPIRO: And with all of your training, experience, education, reading all these books, you cannot tell us with a reasonable degree of medical certainty how many people were responsible for the deaths of these two people?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: I--I said that one person could have done it with one single-edged knife in my testimony.
MR. SHAPIRO: Can you tell us with a reasonable degree of medical certainty how many people are responsible for these homicides?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: No.
MR. SHAPIRO: Can you tell us within a reasonable degree of medical certainty how many different weapons were used to accomplish these homicides?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: I already opined saying that a single-edged knife could have caused all the injuries, but with reasonable medical certainty, I cannot exclude a second knife.
MR. SHAPIRO: Can you exclude other types of sharp instruments within a reasonable medical certainty?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Could you expand on what you mean by "Other types of sharp instruments" before I--
MR. SHAPIRO: In your range of this vast experience, are there any other types of sharp instruments that you can tell us within a reasonable degree of medical certainty could or could not have caused these injuries?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: I would like you to be specific, what type of sharp instruments because I want to know what type of instrument you are talking about. I don't have experience like you do with these sharp instruments.
MR. SHAPIRO: Are there any sharp instruments that you are aware of that you can tell us within a reasonable degree of medical certainly could have caused these injuries?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: The main sharp instruments which I think could have caused these injuries is a--could have caused all the injuries was a single-edged knife. I already opined that.
MR. SHAPIRO: Can you tell us within a reasonable degree of medical certainty that a double-edged knife could not have caused most of these injuries?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: I said that most--some of the injuries could have been caused by a double-edged knife, but a double-edged knife could not have caused all the injuries.
MR. SHAPIRO: Could two single-edged knives have caused all the injuries?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: That's a possibility.
MR. SHAPIRO: Could three single-edged knives have caused all the injuries?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Possibility.
MR. SHAPIRO: Could three single-edged knives and a double-edged knife have caused all the injuries?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: That's also a possibility.
MR. SHAPIRO: Could three single-edged knives and two double-edged knives have caused all the injuries?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: That is also a possibility.
MR. SHAPIRO: Could three single-edged knives, two double-edged knives and a broken piece of glass have caused all the injuries?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: I don't see--there's no evidence of any glass pieces on the bodies which I could see or--and also, the wounds look more like a more sharp instrument like a knife.
MR. SHAPIRO: Are you saying a sharp broken piece of glass could not have caused any of these injuries?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: It's a possibility in some of the wounds.
MR. SHAPIRO: Could a razor blade have caused some of these injuries?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: On incised wounds, it's a possibility.
MR. SHAPIRO: So after eight days, there's only about four facts that you can tell us within a reasonable degree of medical certainty that can help this jury in reaching an opinion?
MR. KELBERG: Objection, your Honor. Argumentative.
THE COURT: Sustained. Rephrase the question.
MR. SHAPIRO: Isn't it true, doctor, after eight days on the stand, there's only four facts you can testify to within a reasonable degree of medical certainly based on your education, background, experience as to how these two people died?
MR. KELBERG: That's argumentative, assumes facts not in evidence and it's vague.
THE COURT: Overruled.
DR. LAKSHMANAN: I've already discussed the findings. I've discussed my opinion that they were significant stab wounds to both the victims. I opined that the significant wounds on the body were caused by a single-edged knife. I think that's an important opinion which I have given. I have said that some of the other incised wounds could have been caused by a single-edged or double-edged knife which you cannot exclude with medical certainty. So I think I've been very clear that at least in most of the significant stab wounds, there's clear evidence that it was a single-edged knife. But your questions were more general wherein I indicated some of the wounds or most of the wounds, incised wounds, it was difficult to tell what type of weapon it was, wherein the stab wounds--the wounds we see on--some of the significant stab wounds on Miss Simpson and also on Mr. Ron Goldman, it was definitely a single-edged knife; and with reference to some of the incised wounds also, it would favor a single-edged knife rather then a double-edged knife, even though I cannot totally exclude it, especially the neck wound on Miss Simpson, it would favor a single-edged knife because of the bridge of tissue on the left side which I have discussed a few days ago. So I think I have given some direction. I won't say totally, but I think I have clearly established the cause of death in these two decedents. I also think I have given evidence which supports my opinion on the single-edged knife theory. And it seems medically, I can't exclude a double-edged blade. I think it seems illogical that you have all the significant wounds caused by a single-edged blade, and you bring up the theory of a double-edged blade causing some of the not so significant wounds. So I don't think my eight days of testimony has been wasted. But if that's your position, I can't change it.
MR. SHAPIRO: Well, you came to us because you have expertise above and beyond an average person in a specific field of medicine and science; isn't that correct?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes.
MR. SHAPIRO: My question to you was a simple one. Can you tell us with that expertise within a reasonable degree of medical certainty that one single-edged knife caused all the injuries to both victims?
MR. KELBERG: Your Honor, excuse me. Misstates the testimony.
THE COURT: Sustained. Rephrase the question.
MR. SHAPIRO: That one single-edged knife caused all the injuries to both of the victims.
DR. LAKSHMANAN: That is my opinion. I said it could have caused--
MR. SHAPIRO: No. My question--I want you to listen to this question very carefully. Can you tell us as a doctor, as a scientist and as the Chief Medical Examiner of one of the largest counties in the United States that within a reasonable degree of medical certainty, you will put your reputation on the line that one single-edged weapon was responsible for all the injuries to both victims in this case?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: I can't say that.
MR. SHAPIRO: Is Dr. Golden sick?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: No. He's still working in the Coroner's office.
MR. SHAPIRO: Is he on vacation?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: No, he's not on vacation. I told you he's working every day in the Coroner's office.
MR. SHAPIRO: When did you find out he was not going to be called as a witness and you were?
MR. KELBERG: Objection. Irrelevant.
THE COURT: Sustained.
MR. KELBERG: Compound as well.
THE COURT: Sustained.
MR. SHAPIRO: When did you find out he wasn't going to be called as a witness?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: The same time when Mr. Kelberg announced that he's not going to call him as a witness because Monday at 9:30, I thought they were meeting with him because that was the morning I was giving a lecture in Ventura. So that's the same time when you knew--I knew he was not testifying.
MR. SHAPIRO: You would expect, as the person who is in charge of this medical office, that a doctor who performed the autopsy who is not sick, not on vacation, not doing other things that would prevent him from coming to court, would in fact be a witness; would you not?
MR. KELBERG: Objection. Argumentative and irrelevant.
THE COURT: It's argumentative.
MR. SHAPIRO: Is that your practice; that the doctor who does the autopsy, if available, testifies?
MR. KELBERG: Excuse me, your Honor. Objection. It's not within the province of the Coroner's office to determine who testifies and who does not.
THE COURT: Overruled.
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Could you repeat the question again?
MR. SHAPIRO: Is it the practice of the Coroner's office that you supervise that the doctor who performed the autopsy, when otherwise available, testifies?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: That is correct.
MR. SHAPIRO: And what is the reason that you have been told that Dr. Golden is not going to be called to testify?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Well, the same reason which was outlined here. They felt that I presented evidence in a manner which the jury can understand, and they didn't want to repeat the testimony again. This is my understanding from what was told in court right in front of all of us because I was not aware he was not going to testify until Monday morning when it was announced in court, and that's the truth.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

[11404]

MR. SHAPIRO: And when mistakes are made, don't you have a responsibility to do an intensive review immediately to correct those mistakes?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: We did do that.
MR. SHAPIRO: Don't you also have an obligation to somebody who is accused to make sure that as good a job as is medically possible be done?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes.
MR. SHAPIRO: And don't you have an obligation to correct mistakes immediately and look for errors?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: We do that as soon as I ever find out about a mistake and it is a mistake, and I'm the first person to accept it and I always direct my doctors to correct it. And if there's a change of cause of death, we call the family and tell them that. At least all the cases--I'm aware of whenever there's a mistake, as I told this Court and this jury, we have to identify any mistake first to accept it.
MR. SHAPIRO: Have you filed a report in this case?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: A report in the sense--what kind of report do you mean?
MR. SHAPIRO: Have you filed any reports in this case?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: I've not filed any reports except for the knife report I made, which I examined four knives presented to me by LAPD, and the other report which has been put in evidence as this chart, which I played a role in developing.
MR. SHAPIRO: Have you filed any supplemental report to correct all the errors that you have found in this autopsy?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: No.
MR. SHAPIRO: Do you intend to do that?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: We could do that, but I thought we already presented the evidence in court. And we can do that.
MR. SHAPIRO: Do you intend to do that?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: I can and I--
MR. SHAPIRO: The question is, do you intend to?
MR. KELBERG: Excuse me. I don't think the witness finished the answer.
THE COURT: Yes. Finish the answer, doctor.
DR. LAKSHMANAN: I don't plan to do it because I was testifying here and the whole proceeding being televised and we have the--my charts which I introduced in evidence. But I could do it.
MR. SHAPIRO: So you don't believe you have an obligation to the victims in this case to file a report that correctly reflects the autopsy in this case?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: We have issued an addendum already. I met my obligation correcting the first mistakes we were aware of. These other smaller mistakes we just talked about, for example, in Goldman's, these abrasions, were not described in the addendum, and several other mistakes, we have not issued an addendum as yet. And as I said, it can be done, but--and I'll be happy to do it.
MR. SHAPIRO: Are you going to do it?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes.
MR. SHAPIRO: When are you going to do it?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: After the trial, after the testimony is over.
MR. SHAPIRO: You think that's proper, a year later, to file a report after the case is over?
MR. KELBERG: Objection, your Honor. Irrelevant, argumentative.
THE COURT: It's argumentative. You want to rephrase the question?
MR. SHAPIRO: I'll just go on. Thank you, your Honor.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

[11434]

MR. SHAPIRO: Are you certain as to whether the assailant--as to whether there was one or more assailants regarding Nicole Brown Simpson?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: I'm not certain.
MR. SHAPIRO: Are you certain as to whether the assailant or assailants were right or left-handed?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: I've already opined on that, I think.
MR. SHAPIRO: I'm asking you are you certain?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: I'm not certain.
MR. SHAPIRO: And again, that is because you weren't there and there are no eyewitnesses to this; isn't that correct?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: That is correct, but what I gave was what are the possibilities and based on the wounds. For example, the last wound on Nicole Brown Simpson had to be right-hand person because the wound travels, in my opinion, from left to right and it has to be done from the back based on the blood.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

[11504]

06/15/95 Lakshmanan Day Nine, Direct Examination by Kelberg.

MR. KELBERG: Doctor, would you stake your reputation that based upon the forensic pathology evidence you reviewed, that all of that evidence is in fact consistent with one killer, six foot two, 210 pounds, athletically built with the element of surprise with a 6-inch long single-edged knife killing Nicole Brown Simpson and Ronald Goldman? Would you risk your reputation, stake your reputation on that?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: I said that one person could have done all the injuries, yes, I did say that.
MR. KELBERG: And will you stake your reputation that all of the evidence is consistent with that?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

16506

MR. SHAPIRO: Can you, as an expert medical examiner to a reasonable degree of medical certainty, tell the height of the assailant or assailants in this case?
DR. BADEN: No.
MR. SHAPIRO: Can you, as an expert medical examiner within a reasonable degree of medical certainty, tell the weight of the perpetrator or perpetrators?
DR. BADEN: No.
MR. SHAPIRO: Can you, as an expert medical examiner, within a reasonable degree of medical certainty, tell the physique of the perpetrator or perpetrators?
DR. BADEN: No.
MR. SHAPIRO: Would you say you would have as much chance as determining whether or not somebody had a mustache from observing ashes in a cremation as you could of coming up with whether -- what the size, weight and height was of the perpetrators in this case?
MR. KELBERG: Objection, your Honor, argumentative.
THE COURT: Overruled. I would like to hear the answer to this one.
[16507]
DR. BADEN: Yes.
MR. SHAPIRO: Regarding the timing of injuries, can this be based on the appearance of injuries in a photograph?
DR. BADEN: Very dangerous to do it that way.
MR. SHAPIRO: Why?
DR. BADEN: Because part of the--of the timing of injuries, how long an injury has been present, is based on color changes, and that is very dependent on the color film, the speed, the flash and how it is developed. The naked eye direct visualization is very helpful and looking at the tissue under the microscope is the best means of determining how long an injury has been present in general.
MR. SHAPIRO: And so that I understand you correctly, and the jury does, that when we are talking about timing of injuries, we are talking about whether it occurred before death, at the time of death or after death?
DR. BADEN: Okay. That--I was going--how long before death an injury occurs and also the same applies for distinguishing whether--or trying to distinguish whether an injury occurred after death or before death, but that also is very difficult and often impossible.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

[16559]

MR. KELBERG: So, doctor, is it your use of the term "Possibility" to relate to doctors who talk in terms of "Consistent with" or "Inconsistent with" when questions are posed?
DR. BADEN: What I said is that the witness, me in the blue chair, Dr. Lakshmanan in the blue chair here, can only answer the questions that the lawyers put to us, and I think we try to answer the questions the best we can. But if all we say is it's possible that it happened by a bushy-haired stranger who's righthanded from behind, yes, but it's also equally consistent with a bald-headed midget from the front who is left-handed. It's all -- it depends on what kind of information I want to give across as an expert, but I don't have control over your questions or Mr. Shapiro's questions.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -