2011.03.11 Dr. Spitz Report Due Today

[LambChop]

Only if they avoid the question of how much he got paid :great:

Plus I would imagine they will ask him what took him so long to write a report and why is it so lacking in detail. Very unprofesssional to give an opinion 2 years later based on your memory when you are up there in years. I believe SA asked for any bench notes, reports, notes he made from the beginning. So he will have to answer that question and the answer should be interesting.

jmo

 

[LambChop]

Sure, if they want to.

As an example.... In the recent murder trial State of Florida v. Gary Michael Hilton, the defense team called upon Adina Schwartz, a law professor at the John Jay College of Criminal justice as an expert witness.

She did not appear in court during the trial. Instead, she appeared in a pre-taped Skype deposition where both the Prosecution and the Defense asked questions. The jury just watched the video.

So.....IMO.....the SAO will have no problem calling upon Dr. Spitz in some manner.

An aside......Hilton was found guilty and the jury recommended the death penalty. He awaits sentencing, to take place in April.

I'm thinking his doctor will advise him against giving a deposition because of his condition. Unless he is better, of course. But if he were better, and considering Dr. Spitz' reputation, I would have guessed he would have never had let it that report go until the last minute. jmo

 

[sleutherontheside]

Is the prosecution not entitled to cross examine any witness testimony??? I would think that the SAO must be given the opportunity to ask questions if JB expects to use any expert testimony. A question for the lawyers.

 

[AZlawyer]

Is the prosecution not entitled to cross examine any witness testimony??? I would think that the SOA must be given the opportunity to ask questions if JB expects to use any expert testimony. A question for the lawyers.

Yes, they can cross-examine defense witnesses. Wouldn't be much of a fair fight otherwise!

 

[LambChop]

So, if the good doctor were to be too ill to give a deposition one could conclude he is too ill to testify?

 

[AZlawyer]

So, if the good doctor were to be too ill to give a deposition one could conclude he is too ill to testify?

At this point, I would certainly think so. The trial is so close.

 

[LambChop]

Yes, they can cross-examine defense witnesses. Wouldn't be much of a fair fight otherwise!

What would happen if the doctor's surgeon said he can't sit for a deposition. His condition is too fragile. Would the judge extend the time for SA to depose him right up until right before opening statements in the trial or would the doctor be eliminated because SA was unable to depose him?

 

[AZlawyer]

What would happen if the doctor's surgeon said he can't sit for a deposition. His condition is too fragile. Would the judge extend the time for SA to depose him right up until right before opening statements in the trial or would the doctor be eliminated because SA was unable to depose him?

It will be up to HHJP--there's no absolute rule he has to follow.

 

[lowens1975]

What would happen if the doctor's surgeon said he can't sit for a deposition. His condition is too fragile. Would the judge extend the time for SA to depose him right up until right before opening statements in the trial or would the doctor be eliminated because SA was unable to depose him?

Kind of late in the game to replace the defense's star quarterback, don't ya think? Baez should have taken his age and general condition into consideration. He was probably star struck at this guy long career and long list of famous trials he's testified at. As far as I know, they can't 're autopsy', wasn't Caylee cremated? I'm sure if he can't travel that his testimony can be done via electronic media. He doesn't have to be physically in the courtroom when they question him.

 

[LambChop]

Kind of late in the game to replace the defense's star quarterback, don't ya think? Baez should have taken his age and general condition into consideration. He was probably star struck at this guy long career and long list of famous trials he's testified at. As far as I know, they can't 're autopsy', wasn't Caylee cremated? I'm sure if he can't travel that his testimony can be done via electronic media. He doesn't have to be physically in the courtroom when they question him.

I'm think his surgeon may have more of a problem with the stress issue. Recovery at his age from his ailment is very difficult under normal conditions.

 

[SoCalSleuth]

Spitz is very careful to state there is no "scientific" evidence that Caylee died at the hands of another. But I'm pretty sure in his text on forensic pathology he stresses that a pathologist has to take into consideration all factors --scientific or not--in determining a cause of death.

 

[joypath]

Spitz is very careful to state there is no "scientific" evidence that Caylee died at the hands of another. But I'm pretty sure in his text on forensic pathology he stresses that a pathologist has to take into consideration all factors --scientific or not--in determining a cause of death.[/quote]


:twocents: BBM :seeya: with one tiny, itty bitty correction that the CAUSE of DEATH is NOT a compilation of "social, societal or environmental" factors rather a pure medical/"scientific" cessation to life. THUS in this case, COD is stated as "undetermined". The "scientific"/medical reason or "means/modality" of the death process COULD NOT BE DETERMINED DUE TO THE CONDITION OF THE REMAINS.

Note that the good Dr. Spitz clarifies that in HIS opinion, no "scientific" evidence exists to declare the MANNER of DEATH as a homicide or "death at the hands of another". SoCalSleuth is on the money when presenting the fact that the declaration of the MANNER of DEATH (MOD) MUST taken into consideration ALL factors.

All in all, the "in-depth" floorlaugh:, IMHO) report from Dr. Spitz is a dance in semantics and demonstrates his skill level within the fields of Pathology and Law! Watching this "dance interpretation" on the stand will be FASCINATING and possibly, mind-boggling (for the audience, that is :floorlaugh

 

[sleutherontheside]

I love smart people!!! We've got lots of them here.

 

[sleutherontheside]

Interesting article......

http://www.onntv.com/live/content/onnnews/stories/2011/02/03/story-widmer-trial.html?sid=102

The prosecution has filed a motion to exclude previous written testimony from a defense expert.
Dr. Werner Spitz autopsied Sarah Widmer and testified at the two previous trials that the cause of her death could not be determined.
The defense said that Spitz is now recovering from an illness, and cannot testify in person, so his previous written testimony should be allowed. However, the prosecution said that the defense simply does not have the money to pay Dr. Sptiz and so they're trying to get his testimony admitted improperly.

 

[joypath]

Then Dr. G did ALL the work and all this guy did was add enough of his .02 to contradict her and create doubt? Unlike Dr. Spitz, Dr. G took the 'totality' of evidence in consideration. She 'shoots straight' and I respect that. I think jury will too.

:twocents: Well......That's the EXPERT WITNESS BIZ! :floorlaugh: BBM :seeya:
The "key point" of the opposite side's experts is to invoke thought by the jury OR point out some false information by some way, manner, data or "whatever". :truce:

The CHALLENGE :rocker: to the expert of either side is to DEFEND his/her WORK, be it data, observation or opinion while in deposition OR most importantly, on the stand!:woohoo:

"Shooting straight" is EXACTLY the method of testimony that one :innocent: SHOULD follow since the TRUTH AS ONE PRESENTS IT does not change! Once you're on the stand and "slip in a lie" and get CAUGHT, one's credibility with the jury is often GONE!

 

[Aedrys]

I cannot wait to see him on the stand and torn to shreds. That's if he can make it to the stand. If he can't do the other case, I wonder if he'll be able to do this one?

 

[SoCalSleuth]

Spitz is very careful to state there is no "scientific" evidence that Caylee died at the hands of another. But I'm pretty sure in his text on forensic pathology he stresses that a pathologist has to take into consideration all factors --scientific or not--in determining a cause of death.[/quote]


:twocents: BBM :seeya: with one tiny, itty bitty correction that the CAUSE of DEATH is NOT a compilation of "social, societal or environmental" factors rather a pure medical/"scientific" cessation to life. THUS in this case, COD is stated as "undetermined". The "scientific"/medical reason or "means/modality" of the death process COULD NOT BE DETERMINED DUE TO THE CONDITION OF THE REMAINS.

Note that the good Dr. Spitz clarifies that in HIS opinion, no "scientific" evidence exists to declare the MANNER of DEATH as a homicide or "death at the hands of another". SoCalSleuth is on the money when presenting the fact that the declaration of the MANNER of DEATH (MOD) MUST taken into consideration ALL factors.

All in all, the "in-depth" floorlaugh:, IMHO) report from Dr. Spitz is a dance in semantics and demonstrates his skill level within the fields of Pathology and Law! Watching this "dance interpretation" on the stand will be FASCINATING and possibly, mind-boggling (for the audience, that is :floorlaugh

Thanks for the correction, I did mean to write the "manner of death" and not the "cause of death".

 

[lowens1975]

:twocents: Well......That's the EXPERT WITNESS BIZ! :floorlaugh: BBM :seeya:
The "key point" of the opposite side's experts is to invoke thought by the jury OR point out some false information by some way, manner, data or "whatever". :truce:

The CHALLENGE :rocker: to the expert of either side is to DEFEND his/her WORK, be it data, observation or opinion while in deposition OR most importantly, on the stand!:woohoo:

"Shooting straight" is EXACTLY the method of testimony that one :innocent: SHOULD follow since the TRUTH AS ONE PRESENTS IT does not change! Once you're on the stand and "slip in a lie" and get CAUGHT, one's credibility with the jury is often GONE!

That's why her answer to Cheney Mason's question about who placed the mandible where they found it was *so* funny. "God" did. Of course he did! lol! Ok, next witness: Let's call God to the stand. :floorlaugh:

I have an issue with 'expert witnesses'. I think they are nothing but hired guns who would say anything for a dollar as long as they can quote some obscure text or report and swear it is the truth. At some point these people don't care if justice is actually served, it's all about a paycheck to them.

Spitz has a long list of trials and testimony under his belt. He's 84 years old, he should have hung his spurs up in the barn a few years back. In this case he's right, no scientific reason to say that Caylees death was a homicide, But Dr. G. has already stated that. But to go further to state she 'botched' an autopsy? Now he's treating on sacred ground. :maddening:

 

[Aedrys]

That's why her answer to Cheney Mason's question about who placed the mandible where they found it was *so* funny. "God" did. Of course he did! lol! Ok, next witness: Let's call God to the stand. :floorlaugh:

I have an issue with 'expert witnesses'. I think they are nothing but hired guns who would say anything for a dollar as long as they can quote some obscure text or report and swear it is the truth. At some point these people don't care if justice is actually served, it's all about a paycheck to them.

Spitz has a long list of trials and testimony under his belt. He's 84 years old, he should have hung his spurs up in the barn a few years back. In this case he's right, no scientific reason to say that Caylees death was a homicide, But Dr. G. has already stated that. But to go further to state she 'botched' an autopsy? Now he's treating on sacred ground. :maddening:

ITA. It warmed my heart and made me cry when I read that she said God had put Caylee's mandible there. I still remember that press conference when Dr. G. announced that the remains that had been found were Caylee's. You could tell it affected her personally. You could tell that she wanted to say so much more and couldn't. It was killing her to hold back, but she did so to remain professional. I absolutely have had a love for Dr. G. since that press conference, and I will never ever forget it. That Dr. Spitz is questioning her methods and her whole autopsy when all he gave this case is a passing glance for a buck just makes me livid beyond belief. He doesn't care about Caylee, just the almighty dollar. :banghead:

Yeah, we'll see who is better on the witness stand and convinces the jury with not only science and logic but heart and compassion, and I'm telling you right now, that person is not going to be Dr. Spitz.

 

[Caligram]

I'd say that this "bare bones" report from this pathologist should be rejected due to insufficient evidence. He either wrote a report long ago which Baez didn't like because of its honesty, or this was just another body, another dollar to him and Baez got what he paid for. There was more than just bones to this case, but Spitz prefers to duck the issue about the duct tape. That duct tape clung to Caylee for a reason - the truth will keep ICA from walking free one day. If this “document” is going to be submitted and Spitz remains as expert witness for the defense, then cross-exam will be allowed. So if Spitz’s condition is too fragile to allow him to be subject to cross-exam, his report is too fragile to stand up in court anyway – therefore, no testimony, no witness, no problem.