2011.01.11 Info RE: Caylee's Second Autopsy

[LiveLaughLuv]

http://policelink.monster.com/news/...zona-deputys-shooting-reopened?comment_page=2

The pathologists, Dr. Michael Baden of New York and Dr. Werner Spitz of suburban Detroit, examined photos of the wound released by the sheriff’s office. They told The Associated Press on Friday they concluded the bullet was fired from inches away, not at least 25 yards as Puroll said.

Close-up of Pinal County Deputy Purrol's wound on his back/submitted photo
The sheriff’s office soon after released a statement saying it stood behind the official investigation, and that physical evidence supports the deputy’s account.

Office spokesman Tim Gaffney said the shirt Puroll was wearing the day of the shooting is being sent to the state Department of Public Safety for testing. The department will check for gunshot residue, charring, burning or any other evidence that it was a close-range shot.

“If in fact a rifle was fired at Deputy Puroll within a couple of inches as Dr. Baden and Dr. Spitz have concluded, burn marks and residue will be present on the shirt,” Gaffney said.

The sheriff’s office said Friday there were no burn marks on Puroll’s shirt and that his wound had no stippling, which is caused from burnt gunpowder coming from the barrel of a gun fired at close range.

One case I stumbled upon via OS...where the State is saying the deputies account is correct and that these forensic experts are wrong..

So, it goes along with the territory, one must raise reasonable doubt via evidence. It will be up to the jurors to use common sense when deliberating...JMHO

You can read the comment by: My name is Michael B. Davison, it's the first one on this page...JMHO

Justice for Caylee

ETA:
http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2010/09/deputys-shooting-hoax/

 

[Aedrys]

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5129184/39942971


DR. WERNER SPITZ, MACOMB COUNTY MI MED. EXAMINER: Thank you.

ABRAMS: All right. When this story initially broke, when we reported it first about this autopsy, you were on the program with me.

SPITZ: Yes.

ABRAMS: You believed at the time that the way the coroner‘s report described that twine and tape, you believed it would have been very difficult for that to have gotten there accidentally. Now that you‘ve had a chance to research more of the material, now that we‘ve been able to sort of graphically depict exactly how that tape was wrapped around the baby, do you still stand by that position that it‘s very hard to believe that it got there accidentally?

SPITZ: No, I don‘t believe that anymore. I don‘t believe it anymore, after I saw the artist‘s rendition of the way the pathologist who described it, the artist made a drawing of it and...

ABRAMS: Yes.

SPITZ: ... I now realize that that tape is not tight around the neck. That tape is loose. That tape is one and a half times around the neck and arm, left arm. There‘s a knot somewhat removed. The tape is not tight at all. I think this tape is totally consistent with having floated up and the wave action put it where it is on the drawing.

ABRAMS: What about the point Mark Geragos makes, which is that there‘s simply—the opening on the tape simply isn‘t big enough for it to have come over the baby‘s head?

ABRAMS: Maybe. Look, this is why Dr. Spitz is a great shooter. He‘s given us a lot of information, which seems to help the defense, and then he turns around and gives us a lot of information that helps the prosecution. And that‘s why he‘s a good objective expert. You may not hear...

Red coloring by me.

OMG...I know this is for Scott Peterson's case, but someone brought this up on WS a long time ago as a viable theory on how the tape got on Caylee's face. Of course, it's just BONKERS. But I had NO IDEA it actually came from Dr. Spitz in another case!!!!!! You have GOT to be KIDDING ME!!!! A medical professional said this? As a real explanation for duct tape placement? OMG!

*THUD*

Way to pick experts, Jose. I mean really!

 

[chefmom]

Thanks sleuther!

Very interesting ... quite the "club" ... I noticed in the Faculty listing of each speaker that NO ONE mentioned Phil Spector trial ... although they did mention other high-profile or impressive trials and investigations they were involved in like OJ, JonBennett Ramsey, etc.

Some of these experts even worked on cases together or worked on the same cases ... but Spitz is ready with whatever smoke and mirrors he can come up with to discredit someone of Dr G's caliber and experience ... it boggles my mind why another scientist would do that to a colleague experienced in similar fields of expertise ... I mean it's one thing if you think the other expert's opinion is wrong and to give your opinion and reasons, but to go after someone to try to find something they may or may not have overlooked or find fault, any fault or worse, suggest fault or improper procedures when you really have no proof and your sole purpose is to discredit testimony ... well ...

I suppose in fairness to Dr Spitz, we should wait and see if that was in fact what he told the defense lawyers or their "interpretation" of what he said ...

BBM

Funny how this group of "experts" seem to all have ties to the cases that most people would agree FAILED to be solved or serve justice!!! JMO, of course!

 

[faefrost]

I'm not ready to jump all over Dr. Spitz yet. He obviously took the skull a step farther than Dr. G did. probably unnecessarily. But his documented findings and hers are not inconsistent. It is possible with the skull opened he may have noticed a clearer pattern to the dirt/mud pooling that Dr. G had noted. It's not an unreasonable conclusion to come to. Neither pathologist is right or wrong. They both documented the materials inside the skull. Until we see them both on the stand and give each the chance to look at the others work we can't point fingers. For all we know they may agree.

But why of why is the defense, particularly CM, bringing this up in motions and dragging it to the center stage? He has taken something that was a fairly defense neutral report from the county pathologist Dr. G. Dirt found in the skull. And turned it into something very harmful to the defense, from their own expert. "Mud" pooled on the left side of interior skull. The evidence the defenses expert and second autopsy provided shows the skull was under water. This is normally the sort of evidence that you, as the defense lawyer don't actually want to put in front of the jury or the general public because it strengthens the states case against your client.

 

[ZsaZsa]

All Dr G had to do to 'open the skull' was to remove the mandible and then turn the skull upside down. Voila! She could look inside and inspect the contents.. I'm puzzled why Dr S feels it should have been surgically opened.
If he proposes the duct tape floated up and somehow amazingly attached itself to the scalp hair on both sides of her head, covering the nose and mouth, so firmly that it held her mandible in place - I think he will be laughed out of Court.

 

[Intermezzo]

ITA...IIRC, Baez argued about Dr. G doing the initial autopsy due to her TV program--more or less implied that she was in it for fame/fortune---(yet another one "inserting" themselves into this case :sick::loser---Can't remember when or where---perhaps that hearing when he was whining about not having access to the crime scene with his "experts".....

Yes, I also remember something mentioned...went to search can't find it..

It was pointed out at the time that Dr G already had a TV show..she was already known...and her response to news media questions about this case have always been "No comment"

Unlike the Defense team and their experts who have gone on local and National TV shows to speak of the case..

 

[beach]

I'm not ready to jump all over Dr. Spitz yet. He obviously took the skull a step farther than Dr. G did. probably unnecessarily. But his documented findings and hers are not inconsistent. It is possible with the skull opened he may have noticed a clearer pattern to the dirt/mud pooling that Dr. G had noted. It's not an unreasonable conclusion to come to. Neither pathologist is right or wrong. They both documented the materials inside the skull. Until we see them both on the stand and give each the chance to look at the others work we can't point fingers. For all we know they may agree.

But why of why is the defense, particularly CM, bringing this up in motions and dragging it to the center stage? He has taken something that was a fairly defense neutral report from the county pathologist Dr. G. Dirt found in the skull. And turned it into something very harmful to the defense, from their own expert. "Mud" pooled on the left side of interior skull. The evidence the defenses expert and second autopsy provided shows the skull was under water. This is normally the sort of evidence that you, as the defense lawyer don't actually want to put in front of the jury or the general public because it strengthens the states case against your client.

BBM

I think it was CM's way of kinda-sorta complying with the Order by releasing how Dr. Spitz is expected to testify - In the defense spin world, it paints Dr. G as less than thorough since he found "mud".

Dirt, sand, mud, saline solution...opening the cranial cavity v. viewing through the opening after the duct tape was removed and the mandible was released ....Whatever. Assuming that CM released the best they have, they've got nothin'. I am not worried in the least. Dr. Spitz claims will easily be neutralized during cross-exam, imo. Besides, as you said, the description "mud" favors the prosecution.

The defense continues to contradict themselves.

 

[LCoastMom]

All Dr G had to do to 'open the skull' was to remove the mandible and then turn the skull upside down. Voila! She could look inside and inspect the contents.. I'm puzzled why Dr S feels it should have been surgically opened.
If he proposes the duct tape floated up and somehow amazingly attached itself to the scalp hair on both sides of her head, covering the nose and mouth, so firmly that it held her mandible in place - I think he will be laughed out of Court.

BBM - I suppose if he just examined the bones spread out before him, after some poor tech counted them and laid them out in order, finding the exact same condition as Dr G - Dr S would have had nothing to warrant his post fees, or even his need to perform a second autopsy (pictures would have sufficed, right?).

The defense has been crying conspiracy since day 32 - of course Dr G is in on it - now they just have to prove it. I would call this finding Dr G - 1, defense - (still) 0.

 

[JWG]

ITA...IIRC, Baez argued about Dr. G doing the initial autopsy due to her TV program--more or less implied that she was in it for fame/fortune---(yet another one "inserting" themselves into this case :sick::loser---Can't remember when or where---perhaps that hearing when he was whining about not having access to the crime scene with his "experts".....

That is pretty funny. Dr. G. is the Orange County Medical Examiner. She is an employee of the county that has jurisdiction over the case. She does not insert herself - it's her job.

 

[sleutherontheside]

I had to laugh when I saw this.

Recall that Andrea Lyon and other defense team members have criticized the "CSI Effect" impact on jurors.

Found this clip of Werner Spitz stating "they do give a good insight of what happens".

The glaring contradiction was amusing.

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AOK71JfXnh0"]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AOK71JfXnh0[/ame]

 

[Aedrys]

I had to laugh when I saw this.

Recall that Andrea Lyon and other defense team members have criticized the "CSI Effect" impact on jurors.

Found this clip of Werner Spitz stating "they do give a good insight of what happens".

The glaring contradiction was amusing.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AOK71JfXnh0

Sounds like Mason and Spitz just need to retire...

 

[LCoastMom]

That is pretty funny. Dr. G. is the Orange County Medical Examiner. She is an employee of the county that has jurisdiction over the case. She does not insert herself - it's her job.

Could someone please flag this comment to make sure JB catches it the next time he comes by. I think the poor man really doesn't understand how the state works. :innocent:

 

[2goldfish]

OT sortof, I never read the autopsy report and I still cant, even just the first page of this thread has me teary eyed. this is going to be a very rough trial for me.


and I cant even say how angry I am that I'm sitting here crying about this while caylee's mother....well...

 

[Cuddlyrunner]

This lovely toddler who sang to her Grandpa and cared enough to understand he was tired was reduced to a SKULL and BONES. Why on earth the defence felt it was necessary to further desecrate her by sawing off the top of her skull instead of turning it upside down I will never understand!

 

[ZsaZsa]

The latest from Valhall:-
http://www.thehinkymeter.com/tag/casey-anthony/

Joypath- regarding Dr Green's comments. I realize it is the norm to remove the calvarium in an autopsy, but what practical application would it have when examining a skull that is already separate to the body,held together by duct tape, and completely skeletonized?

 

[joypath]

The latest from Valhall:-
http://www.thehinkymeter.com/tag/casey-anthony/

Joypath- regarding Dr Green's comments. I realize it is the norm to remove the calvarium in an autopsy, but what practical application would it have when examining a skull that is already separate to the body,held together by duct tape, and completely skeletonized?

ZsaZsa: For those with a full autopsy suite to perform the post, well, :innocent: personal opinion ONLY:innocent:, NONE since they (remember the first autopsy was performed at the District 9 OME with a (guessing here) probable HUGE audience :rocker: of interested, necessary to the investigation & prosecution of ANY perp involved in the child's demise, parties AND scientific/medical staff) had ALREADY PERFORMED XRAYS. The xrays would have indicated any minute/ INVISIBLE to the eye fractures and I ASSUME that Dr. Spitz requested them :waitasec: or that Dr. Jan :angel: provided them with the post report.

IF no Xrays were submitted/observed/reviewed, I also ASSUME that the funeral home DID NOT have the equipment on site to perform a skull series or ANY plates for Dr. Werner and on Christmas Eve, they could have transported the remains to a hospital/radiology facility but........:truce:

 

[Ssejors]

OT sortof, I never read the autopsy report and I still cant, even just the first page of this thread has me teary eyed. this is going to be a very rough trial for me.


and I cant even say how angry I am that I'm sitting here crying about this while caylee's mother....well...

OT OT

Thank you for coming here and thinking of Caylee. This is the best way that this little girl is getting Justice. She is being loved and thought of by people who care about her STILL. She is still the main focus for so many people, even if the people who SHOULD have cared for her aren't concerned at all for her Justice.

I figure, millions of strangers loving her from afar, and thinking about her daily, is a million times better than a mother, not loving her at all. And that is part of why I come here everyday. To pay my respect and show my love for a little girl who deserved better. To honor Caylee.


Thank you!

 

[Gaia713]

"The additional information offered up today includes a statement that defense expert Dr. Werner Spitz would testify that an examination of the remains by Orange-Osceola Chief Medical Examiner Jan Garavaglia "was less than the appropriate standard for such a medical examiner's protocol."

Spitz would testify that the discovered skull should have been opened by Garavaglia, something Spitz did in his "second autopsy," according to the motion. Spitz, according to the document, discovered a dirt or mud deposit inside the cranium, on the left side – something Garavaglia did not discover.

Spitz, the motion states, "would testify that that is material because it indicates that the remains had been laid on the left side … and, therefore, the body had not been left in an upright or straightforward position as has been claimed by investigators, as well as the experts for the prosecution."

Here's the full article: http://www.orlandosentinel.com/news/os-jose-baez-sanction-appeal-20110111,0,4602564.story

What people say someone will testify to is not always what they actually testify to. Dr. G was aware of the significance of this examination. so I am sure she took many precautions. Besides, how could debris get into her skull before it was decomposed. Also most experts don't actually get to handle the body, jsut review what had been done. I don't think Spitz is as good as he thinks he is.

Think Scott Peterson and how Garegos said that Wecht and Lee would testify to this and that. They never even got on the stand. What is said in public is NOT what is said under oath in court.

NOot to mention that it's stated in a defense MOTION which is not made under oath or anything of significance. It's just more defense BS and it should be taken as such.

 

[Gaia713]

I don't recall any mention of an upright body in any filing. The stain in the trunk reflects a body laying in fetal position, right temple flush with the carpet IIRC. I also recall the autopsy explaining in detail how the dispersion of bones over a large area was due to foraging animals. In short the body had been moved.
It also proves the skull was there while the area was flooded because the only way dirt and debris could have entered the sinuses to collect in the skull would have been via water flow. The mud didn't use it's legs to walk there. Oopsy.
There, now he has a written report like a real Doctor doing a real autopsy would already have.

Re the ME not splitting the cranium. I'm not sure it's normal protocol to open up the cranium of a skeleton on autoposy. Had Dr G, the case against KC would be stronger but I disagree she missed a step. Had Caylee been found with any soft tissues remaining, the ME would have to take samples of brain tissue. Caylee had none left so there would be nothing to examine for cause of death. Her skull was intact, well it was until the defense got hold of her.

If she was totally skeletonized, there would be no need to open the cranium - it would be visible anyway. More smoke and mirrors from the defense.

 

[krisskross]

Per the last status hearing, imo Jeff Ashton fully expects to be given reports from all listed experts. I don't see Spitz bringing anything helpful to the defense except, possibly some fancifull theory about the duct tape. He has a reputation for the fancifull imho,:crazy: I'm also of the opinion that Spitz has been paid out of the original ABC fund. So he's somewhat obliged to testify IF the defense choose to call him.