Who do you believe? Dr. G or Dr. S?

[Tulessa]

Dr. S sold out for participation in a high profile case. Zero credibility after his accusations against Dr. G! What a tool!

This right here says it all IMO. And after listening to KB talk about how the Juror's were smirking during his testimony, I have NO DOUBT he lost all credibility.

 

[Turnadot]

My understanding, is that the skull was found in an upright position, sitting on it's base. Did I hear that incorrectly??

The reason Dr Spitz found sediment in the skull on its left side is because Dr G sprayed the inside of Caylee's skull with a saline solution.

It's in Caylee's autopsy report. IIRC, Dr G did it twice.

 

[Trident]

I respectfully disagree. I do not feel he was defensive. I think he answered the questions directly and truthfully. I think he was frustrated with the ridiculus questions JA was asking him and felt JA was trying to put words in his mouth at times. All questions cannot be answered yes or no. Dr. S. knew what he was talking about and think his tremendous knowledge and experience were apparant. On the other hand, I think Dr. G seemed arrogant and defensive. This is just my opinion. I try to look objectively at all of the witnesses and this is the feeling I got. I think this one went to the defense.

I believe the difference here was Dr G has true feeling for her work, compassion, a need to know, a desire to help families, while Dr S is more of a cerebral type, unemotional, cold and clinical, a teacher, a looker into microscopes. There is much to be said for both, not that Dr G does not, because she does, she's just softer about it.

Sometimes I wish our justice system could incorporate humanity and cold analysis, it might be better off.

 

[Z-sleuth]

Agree. Dr. S would have been MUCH more valuable to the DT if he would have listed his reasons for beleiving that Caylee's death was an accident or at the very least NOT a homicide. All I heard was he agreeded with her findings of undetermined AND he thought there was some foul play involoved by looking at her remains. "somebody moved the body"

I think the jury is still thinking "who tries to hide a dead body when it was an accident?" the next logical thing the are asking themselves is "who would not want the body found?" Apparently according to the DT, Kronk wanted the body found that is why he kept calling and moved the body so it can be better seen. Until the defense can answer those two logical questions, they are getting no where.

I recall that one of the few things about the case Dr. S could remember was that there was a pool in the backyard! He didn't explain why we should believe Caylee drowned, but it's obvious someone wanted him to mention the pool.

 

[Beyond Belief]

Dr. G's testimony will carry more weight or wait, well whichever wait/weight it is.

 

[Tulessa]

2010 Guidelines of the Florida Association of Medical Examiners for those interested:
http://www.fameonline.org/downloads/standards

I am and thank you. Another reason I hope and pray that my PC never gets confiscated! Off to read!!

 

[Hot Dogs]

We already knew from other testimonies that her skull was found on its LEFT side exactly the way Dr. Spitz stated today. There were pictures taken at the scene and the people who took the photos as well as the man who lifted it up to bring it the medical examiner's office told us so. In fact, they said is was partially face down in the muck on it's left side and Dr. G. knew that, too.

No. The skull was found upright. Click to enlarge.

 

[D96s]

Originally Posted by LongtimeMedic
It has to be opened and looked inside of, because after decomp is done, inside the cranium and inside the bone cores are the only places cryptic evidence will be found. The rest of the body is GONE. Why would you NOT want to know what's INSIDE what you have left?? Makes no sense.Quote from LongtimeMedic: Addendum: removing the cranial cap showed which side the of the head was laying towards gravity, as decomp residue was on the left side, not the back, and DR G MISSED THAT!!!

But what did it tell him? I missed that. From what I heard he didn't send the residue to any lab so what's the point?

Again, LongtimeMedic, all you have to do is tip a skeletonized skull upside down to see inside. AND, modern day autopsy labs have modern equipment like cameras to assist with doing things like looking inside the skull. The fact that some residue was found on the left side means nothing. First we're being asked to take Dr. S's word for all that as it isn't currently in a literature. Second, we have already had testimony that there was great animal activity around that site (plus floods and rains and etc.) There is nothing to say her little scull wasn't disturbed by some animal scratching at the plastic bags, ect. or by floating once water filled the plastic bags

 

[LongtimeMedic]

Actually, Dr. G DID find the "residue" because the Defense pointed out on re-cross that while Dr. S DID NOT send the 'residue" in for chemical/toxicology testing, Dr. G DID! And, amazingly, she was somehow able to find that residue WITHOUT sawing off the cranium. I'm going to guess she just flipped the scull unpside down and took her sample that way.
What else is it she's being accused of not finding?

She sent it after he collected it for her.

 

[Tuffy]

I believe in most professions there are procedures done as a matter of course, so common, so necessary that they don't need to be written down.

My opinion only

In my experience, the medical profession is not one of those professions. We go by the saying, "if it isn't written in the chart, it didn't happen." There were written protocols for the most mundane procedures in the hospital. I actually worked on some of them for our safety manual.

I would imagine something like an autopsy would have been document by this time somewhere. If not, I would be beyond shocked.

 

[mydailyopinions]

Here's my comparison of the two

Dr. G.= Tim Miiller
Dr. S.= Leonard Padilla

 

[ascerbic]

If you've looked inside a human skull before, you can not examine the inside thoroughly without opening it... too many nooks, crannies and other fissures present to see tiny evidence.

Does this major premise still apply when the spine and jaw are detached? Is the size of the skull a factor?

If I agreed to be objective I forgot.

 

[Trident]

My understanding, is that the skull was found in an upright position, sitting on it's base. Did I hear that incorrectly??

I believe you heard correctly - Caylee's skull was found in an upright postion. However, and there always is an "however", there was deterioration (not the proper word) on the left side, which more or less (ain't I politically correct?) proved the skull was on the left side at an earlier time.

My opinion only

 

[joypath]

Have only read the first few pages of this thread so this may have been addressed but I was hoping that our own Joypath might weigh on what she knows to be current protocol on the autopsy of skeletonized remains.

Also, as I said, coming in later to thread, so may have missed this, but Joypath, if you see this, what is the significance of the location of the matter (on one side) of the cranial cavity that was not tested? All that showed me was that the head was on its side as it decomposed *if* that was decomp and not dirt, unless I missed something else. Little Caylee's skull was found more upright IIRC but we know that animals scattered the body and we also had a huge tropical storm. I am a resident of central Florida, and was here during the winds and heavy rains of Faye...it was worse then many hurricanes I have been through.

Yoohooooooo........*sends out bat signal for Joypath!*

IMHO: and that's all it is, my opinion.

protocol of an autopsy: SOP is created by the agency under whom one works, generalized protocols do exist and are often shared by those within the profession. Many accrediting/licensing agencies DEMAND that a SOP or procedures & protocol manual be available on site during inspections prior to awarding accreditation, it is EXPECTED that those employed by the accredited/licensed facility. SO individualization of agency procedures is permitted. Additionally, one must be able to DEFEND one's actions on the stand if necessary, IIRC NOBODY from the defense gang asked Jan WHY she chose not to cut the calvarium.

The sediment Dr. S. observed: considering the fact that Jan performed a saline (Nacl) "salty H2O" as described by Dr. S wash, the residue could be artifact from that or just good ole residual left over dirt. The human brain is wicked fast to decompose (details not needed) under the cited conditions in Fla. and "ash" is not what it FIRST looks like. Dr. S was absolutely correct when he stated that residue CAN provide information WHEN TESTED which is EXACTLY what Jan did!

Additionally, the OME of District 9 had/has major diagnostic tools available to observe the condition of the skull, Dr. S did not bring all those tools with him. (IMHO)

 

[Sleuth5]

I just can't think of a way to make Dr. S's theory re the duct tape make sense. That alone makes it a slam-dunk for Dr. G. Somebody came along, picked up Caylee's skull, put it back together properly, duct-taped it carefully, enough to keep it all together but loosely enough to look as though it had been there for six months underwater -- oh, and also used tape with no adhesive backing -- for what reason, again? This so foolishly nonsensical its really not worth our time. Insulting.

:cow:

 

[Trident]

She sent it after he collected it for her.

Residue in otherwise empty human skull, no residue in otherwise empty human skull - what could possibly be determined from testing a small amount of whatever?

 

[Tuffy]

My understanding, is that the skull was found in an upright position, sitting on it's base. Did I hear that incorrectly??

I don't think the skull was found upright, but I don't know which side it was.

 

[joypath]

I'm not familiar with what's proper, acceptable procedures for a ME. Is it proper/acceptable for a ME to visit the home of the victim (Caylee Anthony) and the suspect (Casey Anthony) when performing an autopsy a criminal case?
Dr. Spitz testified about visiting the Anthony home and talking to the family members.

YES, but usually the investigation team members of the OME go

 

[D96s]

My understanding, is that the skull was found in an upright position, sitting on it's base. Did I hear that incorrectly??

If we consider the site at which Caylees remains were found it should be apparent that there were many, many factors that could have "disturbed" her skull. We already have testimony that there was active animal activity in that area as well as flooding, rain, etc. It shouldn't be a surprise or be unrealistic to anyone that an animal might have scatched at the plastic bag, or water filled that plastic bag and the skull may have "floated" for a time and came to rest in another postion. Little Caylee was there for SEVEN MONTHS!!! THAT is reasonable. To proffer the idea that Kronk somehow found the body, hide it, then moved it is NOT reasonable. Please explain to me WHY he would do that. If he wanted the reward money - he would have got it immediately upon finding the body. THAT is not reasonable.

 

[ExpectingUnicorns]

To not remove the cranial cap is an incomplete autopsy. You'll also hear in the defenses case that the bone "scrapings" Dr G had analysed, were collected by Spitz as well. Dr G's autopsy was topical at best, and her opinions involved more subjective evidence than objective evidence. JMOO

While removing the calvarium is protocol in most autopsies, according to this article, http://forensicpathologyonline.com/...ent&view=category&layout=blog&id=53&Itemid=79, it is not a requirement in skeletal autopsies. It is not listed at all. (You will note the author lists a separate protocol for other, non-skeletal autopsies in which they include removal of the calvarium as a necessary step in the protocol.)

This article happened to be the first of many that popped up in my search. It looks as though it is representative of most of the others as well.