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

[Hot Dogs]

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

See post 227. Click the attachment.

 

[LongtimeMedic]

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?

Toxicology for starters.

 

[Turnadot]

She sent it after he collected it for her.

DR G rinsed the inside of Caylee's skull for the purpose of collecting samples. The defense is being disingenuous.

Dr G did noted the sediment, it's in the autopsy report, hence the reason she used a saline solution inside Caylee's skull. Dr Spitz didn't make a discovery that Dr G missed.

 

[Sleuth5]

Funny... the man considered around the world to be one of the grandfathers of forensic pathology, who probably penned many of the texts Dr G studied from, says you always remove the cranial cap. Dr G peeks through the foramen magnum with a flashlight, and calls it good and rinses it out with normal saline, and almost 100:1 on this site, most with NO medical background whatsoever, favor Dr G's very short opinion. Why is that??

I think I may just read here for a while, as one thing has become shockingly apparent here. It's all about "Justice For Caylee!" as long as it involves convicting Casey. Never mind science, the legal system, a thorough investigation... none of that is relevant unless you guys see Casey get convicted. Well guess what?? Justice For Caylee, true justice, means any and everyone that acted in or conspired in her murder and cover-up are held accountable... not just the ONE you've picked out.

Enjoy the witch hunt.

Perhaps people are waiting to hear whether or no Dr. G. will respond to the issue of the removal as a matter of common practice. If she were to take the stand and affirm his testimony, that might make a difference, don't you think?

:cow:

 

[Turnadot]

Toxicology for starters.

Dr G knew of the sediment.

It's on page 8 in the autopsy report; she then rinsed the inside Caylee's skull for toxicology samples.

 

[LongtimeMedic]

May I suggest to some of you to search for a photo of a "Cribriform Plate" or "base of the skulls interior. Then you'll see why it is important to take the top off and look down and inside the skull... not through a hole with a penlight.

 

[D96s]

Funny... the man considered around the world to be one of the grandfathers of forensic pathology, who probably penned many of the texts Dr G studied from, says you always remove the cranial cap. Dr G peeks through the foramen magnum with a flashlight, and calls it good and rinses it out with normal saline, and almost 100:1 on this site, most with NO medical background whatsoever, favor Dr G's very short opinion. Why is that??

I think I may just read here for a while, as one thing has become shockingly apparent here. It's all about "Justice For Caylee!" as long as it involves convicting Casey. Never mind science, the legal system, a thorough investigation... none of that is relevant unless you guys see Casey get convicted. Well guess what?? Justice For Caylee, true justice, means any and everyone that acted in or conspired in her murder and cover-up are held accountable... not just the ONE you've picked out.

<modsnip>.

It is for me "Justice for Caylee". I am currently a certified EMT-B Nationally and in the State of Iowa so I do have some medical background. If Dr. S's theories were described in a book somewhere (heck, anywhere) I might pay attention but to be asked to believe him just because HE says I should is ridiculous. Again, I see no reason to remove the cranial cap on skeletonized remains. The "Protocol" Dr. S refers to involves remains in the early decomp phase. If you remember in re-cross it was brought out that Dr. G did in fact send the "residue" that Dr. S refered to in for toxicology testing - so clearly she FOUND IT and was able to access it without removing the cranial cap. Dr. S did not send the sample in for testing but instead just asked us to believe it was "Brain Dust" just because HE said it was. No, sorry, just because he has a reputation doesn't mean I am going to ignore all the evidence AND chuck reasonableness out the window

 

[MaraSleuth]

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

Just wondering - if the skull was found upright - would that hold the mandible in place?

 

[LongtimeMedic]

Dr G knew of the sediment.

It's on page 8 in the autopsy report; she then rinsed the inside Caylee's skull for toxicology samples.

A rinsing vs a scraping are two astronomically different substances.

 

[Sleuth5]

May I suggest to some of you to search for a photo of a "Cribriform Plate" or "base of the skulls interior. Then you'll see why it is important to take the top off and look down and inside the skull... not through a hole with a penlight.

Again, I don't have any problem hearing what she would say in response to that criticism. I'm sure many would like to hear it as well. Do you think JB will recall her to ask that question?

 

[USARDOG]

May I suggest to some of you to search for a photo of a "Cribriform Plate" or "base of the skulls interior. Then you'll see why it is important to take the top off and look down and inside the skull... not through a hole with a penlight.

What information do you believe a different examination of the cribiform plate would have shown?

 

[Turnadot]

May I suggest to some of you to search for a photo of a "Cribriform Plate" or "base of the skulls interior. Then you'll see why it is important to take the top off and look down and inside the skull... not through a hole with a penlight.

Now you're moving the goalpost.

The original claim was the Dr Spitz discovered the sediment and Dr G missed it because she didn't remove the top of Caylee's skull. But from page 8 of the autopsy report:

The inner aspect of the cranial cavity is examined with light and reveals sandy dirt and an attached small incisor which is adhered to the inside of the calvarium with dirt.

Apparently she was able to see the sediment, and collect samples without opening Caylee's skull.

 

[grandmaj]

Except opening it up he can't really say. Because truth be told without chemical testing there is no way his opinion can be backed up. It could be root growth that was washed out of the skill leaving the stain. If he wanted to have an opinion then he needed to send it out for testing.

And we never really heard did we, what happened to the scrapings of the skull? It sounds like he took a sample and then didn't know what to do with it. SAD

 

[grandmaj]

The other thing. When a coroner caps the scalp they go in there take out the brain and some structures and reseal the head. Generally in forensics the thing they are looking for is the brain for examination not the empty skull. I'm glad he doesn't autopsy my clients we could never make them look good for viewing if he does this on every autopsy. Too invasive and old school.

 

[aeneas1]

honestly, i don't know how it could have possibly gone any worse for team defense and their medical expert - spitz was a complete and utter disaster. frankly, i'm not sure that he even prepared for this case beyond memorizing what he was coached to say during direct. had ja simply pressed spitz a bit more about his familiarity with with the case, i.e. asked him for details found in the police and me reports that allowed him to draw his conclusions, it would have really gotten ugly. nonetheless, when the dust finally settled spitz came across as nothing more than a witness paid to follow a script during direct, and a witness paid to intentionally stonewall during cross. he also came across as out of touch and somewhat senile, a sad sight actually.

 

[Turnadot]

A rinsing vs a scraping are two astronomically different substances.

Again, you're moving the goalpost.

First there was the criticism that Dr G didn't remove the top of Caylee's skull, which resulted in her missing the sediment that Dr Spitz found because he removed the top of Caylee's skull. However, as cited in Dr G's autopsy report, she didn't miss the sediment and she collected samples for toxicology.

Now she should have scraped instead of rinsed?

 

[grandmaj]

A rinsing vs a scraping are two astronomically different substances.

Dr. S. scraped. And we know what about those scrapings? He has no idea what they are without testing. So what is the difference? The way I see it Dr. G stated that it was dirt and a tooth.

 

[gamom]

Just not sure a ME, who is a scientist, should give an opinion based on her own bias. Dr. G should have said both manner and cause of death were undetermined that is all she could determine. She cannot be sure it was not some type of accident by her scientific findings, so why even offer an opinion at all on manner of death? She came across as biased and arrogant. Dr. Spitz came across as a very intelligent, experienced scientist and only gave his opinion based on scientific evidence and his experience.

I am confused as to why some say Dr. G should not have listed homicide. I understand in some states the definition of homicide is cut and dry. But in Florida, the defination of homicide fits exactly the circumstances that Caylee's remains were found. Why wouldn't she list homicide by undetermined means? She had 4 choices, Suicide (nope) natural (nope, little 2 year olds don't natually die and get placed in garbage backs w/ tape), accident, (nope. you don't accidently end up in a plastic bag with tape over your mouth) or homicide. Every guideline or protocol I have read right now about ME and autopies say they need to consider the circumstances of the body, last time seen alive, etc.

Now, I can see where you can argue accident and cover up after the fact, but the circumstances that Dr. G was presented with when she examined the remains, there was NO talk from the defendant, her attorney or the defendant's family about it being an accident. As far as she knew, Zanny had the baby and no accident or anything else was EVER reported. We already know autopsies are more than just the examination of the body itself. Dr. S said the same thing. Based on what Dr. G was told, there was no other logical conclusion to the manner of death other than homicide.

Am I just not getting it? Of course the circumstances have changed per the DT, so IMO, they should have no problem finding a ME that will look at remains now and determine it to be undertermined. I thought Dr. S was going to do that today, but even HE thought the baby was with the nanny last. You would have thought he would say he was told she drowned and since the remains were skeltonized, he had nothing that would indicate differently. But he never said that?? Instead he focused on somebody moving the body?? :waitasec: Seems like a waste, a huge waste. moo

 

[Tuffy]

See post 227. Click the attachment.

Thanks, Hot Dots!

 

[LongtimeMedic]

Again, you're moving the goalpost.

First there was the criticism that Dr G didn't remove the top of Caylee's skull, which resulted in her missing the sediment that Dr Spitz found because he removed the top of Caylee's skull. However, as cited in Dr G's autopsy report, she didn't miss the sediment and she collected samples for toxicology.

Now she should have scraped instead of rinsed?

The "sediment" was from two different areas inside the cranium. Some on the inside of the cap, and some in the crevices of the cribriform plate... which in order to see, you must open the top of the skull. My point... and Dr S's.