2011.06.18 Sidebar Thread (Trial Day Twenty-Two)

[JustMeDeb]

Wow, just wow.

KBelichWFTV Kathi Belich, WFTV
Dr. Werner Spitz complimented Jeff Ashton on his cross examination afterward.. Baez pushed me out of his way as I interviewed Spitz unhappy

 

[Serjen]

Yes I heard all of that but based on his experience a complete autopsy should include a look inside the skull and an examination of bone marrow.

As for the argument that he cares more about high profile cases and not as much about unknown cases, he said 'no, of course every case has people who care' about the results of an autopsy. I understood exactly what he meant and do believe, since this case was already a big news story, that it wouldn't hurt to do everything that may be needed in response to questioning. Why wouldn't Dr. G allow him to come into her chambers and review with him what she had done? I'm not saying that I don't trust her,
not at all am I saying that, but if she had invited him in, what happened today could have been avoided.

IMO I believe the whole point about opening the skull or not, was basically that the entire body had decomposed. Dr. G said there was no need to open the skull because she was able to examine inside it (possibly with the use of more current technology that Dr. Spitz maybe doesn't use?) Most likely, Dr. G used some sort of pencil thin light/camera to inspect the skull for any signs of damage that can be related to cause/manner of death. She also did the saline wash to get out the debris inside (another aspect that Dr S scoffed at). In the end, it seemed that this whole ado about opening the skull was for nothing since Dr. S ended up cracking the skull HIMSELF in the process and never tested the dust inside to determine if it was dirt or brain dust, anyway. They were not dealing with a partially decomposed body with soft tissue remaining where there would be a need to open the skull.

Also I believe Dr. G testified she couldn't allow him to perform the autopsy with her because it was against procedure for where she works. Others have said that she also said the body was not determined to be Caylee's yet at that point, so why allow the DT expert in on her autopsy? Makes no sense. I read that after Dr. G performed the autopsy, Caylee's remains sat for 2 weeks before Dr S performed his autopsy. So he REALLY wanted to do the autopsy with her but then waited 2 weeks after? I think the DT wanted Dr. S in the autopsy with Dr. G for their own personal reasons and NOT in order to be efficient. If he had done the autopsy with her, I'm sure they would have found some other way to try to discredit her.

I know we are not to insult Dr. S for his age, and I am certainly not trying to do that mods. However, I think it is important to note because it DOES play a factor in how people perform tasks or how well of a memory they have to serve as a witness. He can't remember who he interviewed with last week, but he can remember details about the autopsy? But then he can't remember that he cracked the skull, etc. Also, an example, my uncle is a dentist. A GREAT dentist. But he is not so young, and if you go to his office it's run in a pretty ancient manner (IMO) Most files are done by hand, the programs they use are outdated, etc. Technology has advanced soo much since he's opened his practice, but while he's great at Dentistry and keeps up to date with it, there are better methods he can use to make his office more efficient when it comes to customer files, etc. This is how I feel about Dr. S. He's not aware of the advances in technology that perhaps do NOT require you to open a skull of a fully decomposed body when you can look inside and get the dust out with other methods.

As always, JMO.

 

[technicalconfusion]

KBelichWFTV Kathi Belich, WFTV
Dr. Werner Spitz complimented Jeff Ashton on his cross examination afterward.. Baez pushed me out of his way as I interviewed Spitz unhappy

 

[technicalconfusion]

at first glance, I thought the first photo was the special finger .... again ....

:floorlaugh: Me too!

 

[Boytwnmom]

it's another instance where HHJP has to tread very carefully. As he said, he can't penalize the defendant for the misconduct of her lawyer. He has to maintain fairness for the defendant. But I chuckled when he said it as the jury clearly knew something was up, the the witness was also from out of town and HHJP's statement was not too explanatory. I think that was as far as he could go though.

What I liked was when CM got up and asked him about saying something to the jury and the judge said, "What, like the truth". That seemed to clearly horrify CM as HHJP likely knew it would.

HHJP just has to be fair to the defendant beyond all reproach. He knows what he's doing and I have faith in him.

I agree ... especially since Dr. Rodriguez already told the jury that he is Washington, DC, and the Defense Witness List says he is Maryland -- HE is an "out of town witness" also.

Defense Witness List
Dr. William Rodriguez - Maryland - EXPERT - Anthropologist/Taphonony
added Nov 30, 2010

 

[allycat1208]

Yes her name was Judy Buenoano (I believe the name was made up-which means good year--in reference to her killing her husband for her was a good year) HHJP tried the case in 1984 or 1985 and she was put to death in March 1998 and HHJP was present for that as well.

Why did he bring up this case?

 

[Boytwnmom]

the witness stated he discussed the duct tape with JB many months ago and yet didn't put it in his report and so the SA had no idea this guy was going to say anything about duct tape. And, no, it's not the experts fault anyway as the lawyer has to instruct his witness to put all the opinions in the report or otherwise JB knows he can't go there. Bottom line, this was intentional and followed in line with what they did yesterday and HHJP had clearly seen where this was going and ended it once and for all.

But isn't it the witness's fault if they did not put every opinion they have in a report?

 

[Tuffy]

I take it this Dr S... did not go over well? (I know his son does not agree with him)


"Sheaffer decried Spitz’s implication that the medical examiner or her office had staged a photo of the remains. “A couple of jurors laughed and smirked” at Spitz’s comments, Sheaffer noted, a bad sign for the defense."

Richard Hornsby, offering analysis for WESH-Channel 2, was equally frank. “Dr. Spitz did not come across as very well versed in the facts of this case, which is what’s important,” Hornsby said. “They might have been better off with not even putting him on” because “the jury is probably looking at the defense theory and finds it completely incredible.”

Hornsby praised Ashton for a thorough job of cross examining Spitz. “I don’t think there’s an attorney in this town that really thinks that Dr. Spitz convinced that jury of much of anything except that he’s an old guy,” Hornsby said.

BBM:

Thankfully, they put him on. I think he did wonders for the state's case, by illustrating how ridiculous the defense team's case is.

 

[BigFatMommyDog]

Why did he bring up this case?

he was relating how he had gotten bushwhacked when prosecuting the case, and the remedy he employed. It may have been for general illustrative purposes, or he could have be a.) telegraphing a strategy or b). giving a warning about what he surmised would happen in the ensuing hours.

I don't think he likes bushwhacking - as it ain't his first rodeo

 

[Jaboom97]

Why did he bring up this case?

When HHJP was a prosecuting attorney in the mid 80's while trying Ms. Buenoano the defense at that time basically did something like Baez did--trial by ambush and HHJP was using it as an example of how someone responsibly, submits supplemental discovery, takes depos and provides full disclosure to the other side what one will be testifying to. I believe HHJP said he had organized this all in a matter of 1 day after he "realized he was in a boat without a paddle." Of course HHJP prosecuted the case successfully and the "black widow" Ms. Buenoano was sentenced to death and this was carried out about 10 years prior to this case coming to fruition.

 

[Tuffy]

Yes, it was just a misunderstanding.

What was it though? I didn't hear about it.

 

[Leila]

Anyone remember when HHJP told the jurors things *might* wrap up (my words)?

HHBP said earlier in the week that he expect the jury to get the case for deliberation on Sat. the 25th or Monday the 27th.

Back when the jury was being selected, one potential juror said he had a commitment for sometime in July (July 4th - a cruise ?) and HHBP said they'd be done by then.

I think HHBP is figuring that the jury will have this case by Monday the 27th at the latest, and then will likely come back with a verdict before the long 4th of July weekend.

Am I correct that once the verdict is made, the jury is no longer sequestered, and can return home, but will have to return for the penalty phase of the trial?

If the schedule I've outlined is correct, it looks like the jury would return to Orlando on July 5th for the penalty phase - assuming a conviction.

 

[katydid23]

Why did he bring up this case?

He was rambling.

 

[tiredblondy]

Wow, just wow.

KBelichWFTV Kathi Belich, WFTV
Dr. Werner Spitz complimented Jeff Ashton on his cross examination afterward.. Baez pushed me out of his way as I interviewed Spitz unhappy

He probably thought he was talking about CM...:innocent:

 

[darnudes]

he was relating how he had gotten bushwhacked when prosecuting the case, and the remedy he employed. It may have been for general illustrative purposes, or he could have be a.) telegraphing a strategy or b). giving a warning about what he surmised would happen in the ensuing hours.

I don't think he likes bushwhacking - as it ain't his first rodeo

What's interesting about him bringing Judy Buenoano up is that he's tried approx 8 death penalty cases but this is the one he keeps talking about. I wonder if this case brings backs memories for him? If I was ICA I wouldn't take it as a good sign although I'm sure it means nothing, but it is interesting.

 

[Bon]

A friend just told me Judge Jeanne P will have a 2 hr special on FOX tonight, 8pm CST for those interested..... I really want to see it. She's a very fair and sensible person. Not just another th babbling on and on...

 

[sappysoul]

I apologize if this has already been addressed. Hopefully someone can help me out with something I'm struggling with. When the jury returned and the first witness had been dismissed did the judge tell them there was another witness because they were accommodating him because he was from out of town? Is it ethical to lie to the jurors? I really like Judge Perry and am amazed how he has been able to maintain some sanity in this trial. He was put in a bad situation and really pushed to give some explanation. However, unless I misunderstood his comment to the jury I am disappointed he would handle it in this way.

 

[Bon]

I apologize if this has already been addressed. Hopefully someone can help me out with something I'm struggling with. When the jury returned and the first witness had been dismissed did the judge tell them there was another witness because they were accommodating him because he was from out of town? Is it ethical to lie to the jurors? I really like Judge Perry and am amazed how he has been able to maintain some sanity in this trial. He was put in a bad situation and really pushed to give some explanation. However, unless I misunderstood his comment to the jury I am disappointed he would handle it in this way.

Wondering the same thing, too!

 

[tiredblondy]

:seeya: Hey ...
Does anyone know what the reaction was of the other lawyers on the defense team when JB was being reprimanded by His Honor Judge Perry????

 

[ZsaZsa]

The witness and Jose both testified they had talked about this matter before today and Jose admitted he did not tell the SA about it. That is why he might be up for contempt.

Not only that but JB at first said he had just learned about the opinions this witness was going to testify to a few nights ago- HHJP asked the Dr and he stated that JB had known about it since February 2011.