From: Prien@aol.com
Date: 25 May 2008
Time: 10:19:18 AM
I agree that since a chasm obviously separates about our take on the case, I would no more dream of changing your mind that you would mine. There are, however, evidentiary issue that may be worth exploring. I have many, but the one I am niw most curious about is whether as far as you know itm is true that, as Clark put it in her book, Nicole had lost 90% of her blood and, as Vannatter and Lange put it, the victims had most bled out. The autopsy report and Dr. L testimony appears to confirm it for Goldman since Dr. Golden reported that there was insufficient blood in Goldman's heart for taking a blood sample (the place from which it is usually taken since it is a best source for an accurate reading of the condition of the blood in the system. Another interesting finding regarding the blood less is reflected by the weight of the lungs recorded in the autopsy. Both of Goldman's lungs weighed 740 grams (420 right; 320 left) compared the the normal weight 1060 grams for an adult male (570 right; 490 left) so that Goldman's lungs weighed 70% of the normal weight (and 73% of normal for right and 65% of left where he had two stab wounds). By contrast, Nicole's lungs weighed 630 grams (330 left; 300 right) compared to 930 grams for the averager weight of an adult female so that her lungds weighed 68% of normal (66% of right and 70% for left) even though she sustained no injury that would have causeed blood loss from the lungs. The weight loss of the lungs would obviously be due to the reduced volume of blood in them. Since the lungs of each victim were proportionally reduced by almost the same amount, the loss was obviously unaffectred by the different injuries they had. So it would be interesting to learn what you know about how much blood the victims actually lost, and any explanation you may have about the weight loss in the lungs. Prien