Dr G. to do special about Caylee

DNA Solves
DNA Solves
DNA Solves
Absolutely. As a professional Medical Examiner, yes.

Umm, no. Wrong. Legally that is beyond a reasonable doubt that Caylee was murdered. There have been articles written on it. I think some people want nothing less than a videotape and eyewitnesses before conceding she was murdered.
 
- My Bolded response and All just my opinion as well
ITA
Didn't Casey babysit for Holly G's kids? And she was a mom for almost 3 years? That's experience.

And didn't she hold a job until she had Caylee? That's experience.

Nothing about what happened June 16th,'08 indicates there was an accident. There was a cover up of a murder . The murder included 3 strips of duct tape over a toddlers face,then dumping her body to rot in the woods.

Casey was a selfish sociopath. We all need to keep our eyes open and recognize one when we see them ,because everyone in their path is a potential victim. JMO
 
BBM - I've been scared, young, and immature too.........but I would never have left one of my babies to rot in a swamp......it's just inhuman. She knew where her baby was and told no one.......no soul........

Scared, young and immature = OMG What have I done - call 911 - someone help my Baby - please God - let her be alright!!! IMO...

She can pick up the phone to call because the protestors are hanging around being noisy outside her house - then she is mature enough to call 911 when her baby girl "drowns".

"Drowns" - right. Absolutely brings to mind that the first action would be to bag "that child" and throw her in a swamp down the road - first duct taping her face. Yeah sure - that's a sure sign of immaturity and fright alright..:banghead:
 
:waitasec:
So what was Dr. Spitz's testimony based on? He examined skeletal remains just like Dr G, what was his scientific confirmation?

What scientific confirmation did he have to hypothesize that the medical examiner or her office staged the photos of Caylee's remains?

What scientific confirmation did he have to testify that the duct tape was applied after the body fully decomposed because someone wanted to move it?

Dr Spitz accused Dr G of shoddy work because she did not open the skull on a thoroughly decomposed body even though there is no official protocol on that, not even in the book on forensic investigation that Dr Spitz has co-written

Dr Spitz testified that the dried sediment found in the skull was from Caylee BUT upon cross examination he admitted that the sediment was not chemically proven to be from Caylee's body.

:twocents:

Dr. Spitz and his testimony at the trial - thank so much for that quick trip down memory lane...:giggle:
 
:waitasec:
So what was Dr. Spitz's testimony based on? He examined skeletal remains just like Dr G, what was his scientific confirmation?

What scientific confirmation did he have to hypothesize that the medical examiner or her office staged the photos of Caylee's remains?

What scientific confirmation did he have to testify that the duct tape was applied after the body fully decomposed because someone wanted to move it?

Dr Spitz accused Dr G of shoddy work because she did not open the skull on a thoroughly decomposed body even though there is no official protocol on that, not even in the book on forensic investigation that Dr Spitz has co-written

Dr Spitz testified that the dried sediment found in the skull was from Caylee BUT upon cross examination he admitted that the sediment was not chemically proven to be from Caylee's body.

:twocents:

Man, just reading that makes me want to throw things again...and I'm just going to stop there...:banghead::furious:
 
Man, just reading that makes me want to throw things again...and I'm just going to stop there...:banghead::furious:

I don't have that reaction at all and I still can't believe anyone took his testimony seriously because he was so....well.....:floorlaugh:...er..:innocent:
 
I saw in the above referenced blog that JB had to stick his nose in it. How does he know the jury rejected it? And, no, it did not require medical training, just common sense.

In an email, defense attorney Jose Baez responded, “Dr. G needs a TV special to explain her science because her testimony was not based on science. All three reasons she used to give her ‘OPINION’ that it was a homicide did not require any medical training whatsoever. That is why the jury rejected it.”

And as usual, he is way off the mark. None of the three reasons she outlined have anything to do with her opinion.

1. That no drowning in Orange that has lead to a death has gone unreported. Since she has the stats, I don't suppose that's an opinion.
2. That no accidental drowning victim has been tossed in the woods like trash. Since she has the stats, I don't suppose that's an opinion either.
3. That no accidental drowning victim in Orange County has been duct taped in order to make the drowning look like a murder, or suffocation, or any other form of death. Actually, no duct tape on drowning victims at all. Since she has the stats...well, you know.

The hypothetico-deductive method:
1.Gather data (observations about something that is unknown, unexplained, or new)
2.Hypothesize an explanation for those observations.
3.Deduce a consequence of that explanation (a prediction). Formulate an experiment to see if the predicted consequence is observed.
4.Wait for corroboration. If there is corroboration, go to step 3. If not, the hypothesis is falsified. Go to step 2

This is called science, JB. When Dr. G tried to work with an accident theory, and given all of the stats that she had at her discretion, she continually went back to step 2. Then she tried the homicide theory. It passed all steps.
Assuming Dr. Spitzer-schnizel went through all of these steps, which I think he was too pompous to do, and actually used the evidence and not his OPINION/FANTASY that maybe LE or Kronk or Zenaida staged the scene, he would have deduced the same as Dr. G. But he was paid to do otherwise...
 
:waitasec:
So what was Dr. Spitz's testimony based on? He examined skeletal remains just like Dr G, what was his scientific confirmation?

What scientific confirmation did he have to hypothesize that the medical examiner or her office staged the photos of Caylee's remains?

What scientific confirmation did he have to testify that the duct tape was applied after the body fully decomposed because someone wanted to move it?

Dr Spitz accused Dr G of shoddy work because she did not open the skull on a thoroughly decomposed body even though there is no official protocol on that, not even in the book on forensic investigation that Dr Spitz has co-written
Dr Spitz testified that the dried sediment found in the skull was from Caylee BUT upon cross examination he admitted that the sediment was not chemically proven to be from Caylee's body.

:twocents:

Nor was there any practical reason to do so, given that it would have destroyed the evidence, a skull possibly as thin as an eggshell-with no reason to use anything other than an x-ray.
 
No proof duct tape obscured any airway - if did, no proof Casey applied said duct tape

Death not reported - she was scared, young, immature, and didn't know what to do

Body hidden away by WHO

Lies don't equal murder

All JUST MY OWN OPINION

I hear what you're saying although imo the Anthony's seem to somewhat agree with Dr. G or they would still be out there looking for the real killer - instead they started a foundation for Grandparents Rights
 
No proof duct tape obscured any airway - if did, no proof Casey applied said duct tape

Death not reported - she was scared, young, immature, and didn't know what to do

Body hidden away by WHO

Lies don't equal murder

All JUST MY OWN OPINION

Hmm - are you saying the duct was applied to Caylee's face but left the nose open and the mouth not covered so she could breathe? What was the point of that do you think?
 
:great::great: Good for Dr. G ! She is a "class act" ... I cannot wait to watch her show ! :woohoo:

This is the best news I have heard since Jeff Ashton's book was published ! :woohoo:

:waitasec: And as to Jose Baez, he is soooooo "jealous" that Ashton and now Dr. G are getting the attention ...

:seeya: Jose = "yesterday's news" -- just like his "client" ...

:seeya:
 
I doubt I will watch it. I don't read anything about Casey either and will always change my TV channel when there is any story about her. I still turn over th mags in the check out line if it has anything about her on the front.
 
Bumping, so this tired old soul doesn't forget....
 
I have never seen any of her shows, but will make it a point to watch this one.
 
Bumping, so this tired old soul doesn't forget....

__________
Tulessa, this old soul will remind you!! I cant wait.I have it marked on my calendar in big letters..I feel Dr. G wants people to just realize the truth of forensics..Unlike other people she doesnt want pay, we know that for sure
just for truth to come out on forensics. :seeya:
 
I have never seen any of her shows, but will make it a point to watch this one.

neesaki, I think you will enjoy her show. Its (IMO) not like other autopsy programs. Dr. G. is a very upbeat person. She explains things for the everyday person to understand. She is very caring about all, I must say it really hurts to see Baez make such stupid remarks about her. They say "stupid is as stupid does," really fits in his case. :seeya:

P.S. one learns a lot about the live human body from her shows..
 

Staff online

Members online

Online statistics

Members online
121
Guests online
467
Total visitors
588

Forum statistics

Threads
608,462
Messages
18,239,725
Members
234,377
Latest member
Tarbet
Back
Top