2011.06.18 Sidebar Thread (Trial Day Twenty-Two)

[pinkfly]

I was pleased that Dr S kept saying he did not have to test the brain dust because he is an expert and knows what it is. When JA pointed out that Dr G had rinsed the skull and cleaned it he felt she must have missed something but still felt it proved how the body was laying.

 

[Sleuths4Me]

Ok so what's next for the DT? thier past witnesses have mostly been chewed up and spit out by the SA especially JA..So their "bug" guy Dr. H. confirmed it w/ JA that the Caylee was in that location from 2-4days after death and remained there until found in Dec, which basically discredits their OS of the body being moved. Then Dr. S. today was "supposed" to be big and it was nothing but a flop. He didn't know details of the case (or couldn't recall), he had an outrageous theory as to how the duct tape was applied on the skeleton, and how the ME office "staged" the photos.

So what's next for the DT? The only thing I can think of to have any interesting value will be to have KC take the stand..

 

[pinkfly]

HLN keeps putting it out that Dr Spitz called Dr G’s autopsy shoddy but don’t cover much of his babbling.

 

[Woe.be.gone]

I'm supporting you woe-be, and I'm all for applying the principles of devil's advocate. So if she had invited him in, what would that have accomplished?

He's a hired show pony - hired to discredit - hired to add more media fuel to the fire and fan the flames. Why would she invited him in? He has no jurisdiction. To me, bringing him in would have been a serious, serious breach of protocol and ethics - and potentially actionable.

She could have had that fight with him then and there and then they both could come back to the jury to report their reasoning for their decisions and opinions.
At a trial, one knows there's going to be a defense so why not cover as many bases ahead of time?

That said, I have no idea why I'm taking the stance that I'm taking here. What I mean is, there is something within me that can't shake a suspicion I have that there's some kind of coverup going on here -even beyond the A family coverup. I'd like nothing more that to decide, tie a bow, and be done with the debate going on within me. For some reason, I've been unable to do that as of yet. I may never get the answers I need to questions that the jury will probably never hear and that I notice some peeps are willing to overlook and/or forget about.

Therefore, I've become, yes, the devil's advocate. At least it makes for more interesting debate than continually delivering snide comments about the defendent.
That doesn't hold my interest.

 

[pinkfly]

Wonder if JB or CM will be up first on Monday am? Guess that guy is getting deposed right now.

 

[Chiquita71]

Or - gosh! Maybe she used one of those tiny mircoscopes that are inserted into the body to do surgery with.....in laproscopic surgeries, but that's only been done for 20 or so years so maybe Dr. Spitz isn't aware of it.

:tyou: logicalgirl

The more I think about Dr. <modsnip> cracking open Caylee's skull, the more disturbed I feel. Especially since everyone is reminding me of all the modern technologies that would be employed to look into the skull BEFORE I would think one would want to CRACK the skull open.

And wouldn't that act alone, possibly cause trouble? If Dr. G had cracked open the skull, Jose would have had Dr. <modsnip> say that proves their point. That is what sends me the most about these unusual people. They will always find a way to lie. A way to weasel out.

Am I right in remembering that HHJP brought up his case involving the "black widow" today? Barbara? Something. I could have the Barbara all wrong...but I think that was the case HHJP was referring to, I could be wrong...?

:cow:

 

[pinkfly]

Was the other grief counselor lady also supposed to be getting deposed today by prosecution?

DT better get with the plan as HHJBP is out of patience.

 

[tsitra01]

But when she was on the stand for the SA she said she is very sure she didn't leave the ladder up. She would now be in the same courtroom risking perjury if she went against this, which I think the DT is trying to do by calling the fox news reporter- show CA as not credible. ALso, I think Cindy will and has protected ICA but she seems to draw the line at implicating herself at all in the death of her granddaughter. That would be too much for any grandparent to bear.

I agree that she would never implicate herself in the death of Caylee. She has not spoken up in defense of Lee.....I'm not sure if she has ever made a statement in defense of George. This will stay with both of them forever.

 

[countzero]

I want to point out again,the DT knew Dr. Spitz was a loose cannon.His history in other trials,along with his recent interviews showed this. I cannot understand what they hoped to accomplish with this less than credible testimony.

They had to go with WS since HLee backed out. There really wasn't any choice for them. No other reputable ME wanted to touch this. Or work for a crate of oranges. :floorlaugh:

 

[Woe.be.gone]

And ,Thank God, there are people able to set aside emotions and do these jobs. It really can be fascinating.

And we know that you are one of the people who can do that for the greater good of the one who suffers. Thank you for that.

But I've heard of medical students, who thought they'd become doctors, who have to drop out because of the psychological effects of the job
or they discover they can't be around blood, etc.

 

[MissJames]

I haven't been around here long enough to know your story with your son. But, reading what you have written in your signature, I pretty much understand and it breaks my heart. I am so very sorry for your loss.

There are a lot of parents here,who have lost children
(my son had JUST turned 15) and many ,many more who have tragic stories involving loved ones.
I just try to bring my perspective,because,what I thought I knew and believed ,before I lost my child,is different now.One can think they know what they would do or feel,but it's not even close to what actually happens, IMO.
Thank you !

 

[dani]

OK&#8230;I read the 1st page and the last page of this thread and I'm too sleepy to read the 13 pages in between to see if my question has been asked, so please take pity on this sleep deprived WSer:

Does anyone know what Hiz Honer meant about the "sequestration violation"?

I was kinda hoping juror #4 got caught doing the "walk of shame" from juror #9's room this morning and she decided she could maybe judge someone after all. :great:

 

[MissJames]

Wonder if JB or CM will be up first on Monday am? Guess that guy is getting deposed right now.

I wonder if the first witness today had something else scheduled for Monday.:crazy:

I wish HHJP had not led the jury to believe the switch was to accomidate an out of town witness. I understand why he did,but that was misleading. :maddening:

 

[MissJames]

OK…I read the 1st page and the last page of this thread and I'm too sleepy to read the 13 pages in between to see if my question has been asked, so please take pity on this sleep deprived WSer:

Does anyone know what Hiz Honer meant about the "sequestration violation"?

I was kinda hoping juror #4 got caught doing the "walk of shame" from juror #9's room this morning and she decided she could probably judge someone after all. :great:

:floorlaugh:

 

[coloradoteacher]

Did everyone watch this? the video of Kathi Belich and Bill Schaeffer is up and they both think that Dr. Spitz's testimony was completely devastated by JA today and that many jurors acted so as well:

http://www.wftv.com/video/28281980/index.html

 

[coloradoteacher]

OK…I read the 1st page and the last page of this thread and I'm too sleepy to read the 13 pages in between to see if my question has been asked, so please take pity on this sleep deprived WSer:

Does anyone know what Hiz Honer meant about the "sequestration violation"?

I was kinda hoping juror #4 got caught doing the "walk of shame" from juror #9's room this morning and she decided she could probably judge someone after all. :great:

LOL
I believe it had something to do with Dr. Spitz saying something in a TV interview about watching Dr. G's testimony and even taking an interview in the media at all, which potential witnesses are not supposed to be doing.

 

[Sabrina2011]

Did everyone watch this? the video of Kathi Belich and Bill Schaeffer is up and they both think that Dr. Spitz's testimony was completely devastated by JA today and that many jurors acted so as well:

http://www.wftv.com/video/28281980/index.html

Totally. When the jury giggles at your witness its a bad sign :great:

 

[Kelroy]

People donate their own bodies to science. Once that is done, they may be used scientifically. The people who are around dead bodies all the time are not emotionally attached to any bone. They don't think of the person behind the bone. If they did, they wouldn't be able to do the work. That's why some people can't be a nurse for instance because they'd get too personally involved with the suffering of the patients versus focusing on how they are helping them. :twocents:

Yeah, that's what I was trying to say in another thread, pretty much. Some have said that Dr. G didn't open the skull because she didn't want to "desecrate" Caylee's remains, but I'd much rather believe Dr. G just didn't feel it was protocol. If a medical examiner viewed cutting up bodies or bones as desecration, they couldn't really do their jobs, could they? I mean, if Dr. G says it's just not routinely done, I believe and respect that; I really hope she didn't fail to do it because she was thinking of the victim's age or because she felt bad that the bones had been chewed on or something. JMO.

 

[costalpilot]

But when she was on the stand for the SA she said she is very sure she didn't leave the ladder up. She would now be in the same courtroom risking perjury if she went against this, which I think the DT is trying to do by calling the fox news reporter- show CA as not credible. ALso, I think Cindy will and has protected ICA but she seems to draw the line at implicating herself at all in the death of her granddaughter. That would be too much for any grandparent to bear.

yes in other words she seems perfectly content to shade the truth unless it looks like it might interfere with HER life.

then........

 

[cecybeans]

I'm wondering if the "violation of the rule of sequestration" is something lame the DT cooked up to complain about as to where the jury ate dinner or something. IIRC, HHJP mentioned something yesterday about how he hoped they'd have a better time at dinner even (which could have been an innocent comment seeing as how they had to eat lunch with pix of decomposing pigs fresh in their minds and then after lunch continue to look at the same unappetizing and totally gratuitous exhibits). Perhaps HHJP had arranged for them to eat dinner at a nice restaurant or something and the DT, in their increasingly frenetic search for reasons for mistrial, jumped on it as some kind of imagined violation.