Couple things to clear up.
Trying to clarify that the "true"statement that Dr G stated that the MOD was by undetermined means is not true. She did state that the COD was by undetermined means. COD and MOD are not interchangeable.
It is customary for the ME to include case history and events surrounding a death to render an expert opinion on MOD. So, for her to determine that the MOD was homicide, it is not outside the scope of a typical autopsy. An EMT,a non-expert,or an average Joe canNOT take the stand and say the same thing as the defintive word, because the opinion rendered by Dr G is a result of her completed autopsy,which requires expertise and special skills in that particular field. What the ME states as the MOD and COD are the final say in the matter. However, the average joe or other non expert has no say in the matter, in a legal sense.
hth
BTW, thanks for moving the post to the more appropriate thread.
To clarify, the expert whose scientific opinion on MOD = "undeterminable" I was referring to was Dr. Spitz.
To get offtrack from the quality of the opinions for just a second...even if both were made as scientific opinion;
One ME expert (JG) stated homicide as MOD, the other (WS) concluded undetermined as MOD - so there is a conflict in testimony, and per the jury instructions a conflict in evidence/testimony (also weighed with witness credibility) is reasonable doubt:
WEIGHING THE EVIDENCE
It is up to you to decide what evidence is reliable. You should use your common sense in deciding which is the best evidence, and which evidence should not be relied upon in considering your verdict. You may find some of the evidence not reliable, or less reliable than other evidence.
.
.
EXPERT WITNESSES
Expert witnesses are like other witnesses, with one exception the law permits an expert witness to give her opinion.
However, an expert's opinion is only reliable when given on a subject about which you believe her to be an expert.
Like other witnesses, you may believe or disbelieve all or any part of an expert's testimony.
.
.
PLEA OF NOT GUILTY; REASONABLE DOUBT; AND BURDEN OF PROOF
A reasonable doubt as to the guilt of the defendant may arise from the evidence, conflict in the evidence or the lack of evidence.
Back to the opinion itself.
Dr. G's 3 foundations for her opinion of homicide: (1) accidental death of a child does not go unreported, (2) body was hidden, (3) duct tape around the face.
(1) IMO is not a qualifier for homicide as MOD, nor IMO is it an opinion based on the expertise of Dr. G. of the hundreds of thousands of missing children never found in the country, its reasonable to believe that at least some are the result of a covered-up accidental death...is it not? In fact, thats exactly what the police in Portugal accused the McCanns of.
(2) Assuming accidental deaths of children are occassionally covered up (i.e. child reported 'missing') isn't it then reasonable to presume the body was hidden?
(3) IMO this is the only possible qualifier for a ME MOD opinion to be homicide, but only if he/she is certain that the tape in fact covered the nose and mouth,
and that the COD was asphyxiation. WS testified that this was impossible to determine, and there was no evidence that the duct tape covered the mouth and nose pre-mortem, causing death.
Yes, Dr. G. (an expert) gave an an opinion that MOD was homicide - but did not qualify that opinion with expert analysis. Another expert gave an opinion that MOD was undeterminable and did qualify that with expert analysis.