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

[D96s]

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.

The whole point regarding which side of the skull the "residue" was on is just moot. Caylee's remains were in an area where we have had testimony has great animal activity, floods, rains and was basically a garbage dump. AND, she was there for SEVEN MONTHS. It can not be unreasonable for anyone to consider the little skull was "disturbed" by animals, or the trash bag didn't at some time fill with water (in which the skull floated for a bit and settled in another position). One more thing. The fact that the defense is trying to proffer the notion that Krunk moved the body is also moot in my opinion. I want to know who killed that little baby. If an entire town moved that body from place to place to place is just not important to me. What IS important is WHO KILLED THAT BABY. So Dr. S can distract everyone from the main purpose of this trial all he wants - I'm not buying it.

 

[kathyn2]

How come Ashton let the Dr. get away today at the end without saying anything after the doctor accused someone of moving the skull and hair in the picture at the end of his cross? He just backed off and that was it leaving the jury to think the Dr. was right in what he said.

 

[katydid23]

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.

You think he was answering truthfully when he said he thought someone put the duct tape on a skeleton? Was he being truthful and direct when he said someone picked up the mandible and taped it back on the skull ? And when he said that person may have taken the body first, duct taped the skull, then returned it to the dump site?

Did that sound like a direct and truthful answer to you?

Because it sounded like a bought-and-paid for answer to me.

 

[Tuffy]

How come Ashton let the Dr. get away today at the end without saying anything after the doctor accused someone of moving the skull and hair in the picture at the end of his cross? He just backed off and that was it leaving the jury to think the Dr. was right in what he said.

I think he realized how silly the doctor sounded to the jury, and didn't wish to further beat up on the poor doctor.

 

[gamom]

Dr. S lost all credibility when he said he has done more than 60,000 autopsies but yet he did not know WHERE to send the sample of huge evidence missed by Dr. G that he found in Caylee's skull.

Really??

 

[BritsKate]

How come Ashton let the Dr. get away today at the end without saying anything after the doctor accused someone of moving the skull and hair in the picture at the end of his cross? He just backed off and that was it leaving the jury to think the Dr. was right in what he said.

I don't see that Ashton could have elicited more. Spitz had already repeated himself numerous times. Ashton chose to leave the jury with the absurdity of Spitz's statement. Judging by the tweets out of the courtroom I would surmise his strategy worked.

 

[cleo612]

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.

In fact, Dr. Spitz stated that he did have a sample of those scrapings, but did not have a lab to send them to.

He has been working in his field for 56 years and yet he could not find a lab that would perform tests for him?

Why not?

 

[katydid23]

How come Ashton let the Dr. get away today at the end without saying anything after the doctor accused someone of moving the skull and hair in the picture at the end of his cross? He just backed off and that was it leaving the jury to think the Dr. was right in what he said.

I think it was a perfect time to back away? He asked him very pointedly " Dr, is that your testimony-- that someone put the hair in that position on purpose?'

And the doctor ranted and raved a little, and Ashton backed away and let the jury see him end on that note. I thought that was smart. imo

 

[gamom]

I think he realized how silly the doctor sounded to the jury, and didn't wish to further beat up on the poor doctor.

ITA. It is like JA was saying "really??"

I was glad he just sat down. The jury is not dumb and sometimes a long pause to let it sink in, says so much more.

 

[LongtimeMedic]

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.

I guess my point is this, not meant in a snarky way, but so others here can relate to my passion about how everyone involved horrific crime, needs to go down, and all angles must be looked at is this. Ya know the infamous stickers?? Do y'all realize there could have been a small one stuck inside her skull on the base (that you can't see through a hole) that rinsing it out and peeking in there with a flashlight would have never found. Doing things the correct way, like Spitz argued for, would not be able to miss something similarly. The thread was who do you believe... it should have been "Who's forensic exam was more thorough?"

 

[gamom]

In fact, Dr. Spitz stated that he did have a sample of those scrapings, but did not have a lab to send them to.

He has been working in his field for 56 years and yet he could not find a lab that would perform tests for him?

Why not?

How much you want to bet he did find a lab and they found it to be exactly what Dr. G found....dirt.

 

[npcougar]

In fact, Dr. Spitz stated that he did have a sample of those scrapings, but did not have a lab to send them to.

Or maybe he made that excuse up. He seemed to be 100% sure what the substance was. He probably thought everyone would take his word for it because he is a famous grandfather of medical examiners. I wonder if any of his past clients starting rethinking his conclusions? No gloves, making assumptions, makes me nervous.

 

[npcougar]

I guess my point is this, not meant in a snarky way, but so others here can relate to my passion about how everyone involved horrific crime, needs to go down, and all angles must be looked at is this. Ya know the infamous stickers?? Do y'all realize there could have been a small one stuck inside her skull on the base (that you can't see through a hole) that rinsing it out and peeking in there with a flashlight would have never found. Doing things the correct way, like Spitz argued for, would not be able to miss something similarly. The thread was who do you believe... it should have been "Who's forensic exam was more thorough?"

Not trying to be snarky, but did she say she just used a flashlight? One of the various flex medical cameras would have done a fine job of examining the inside of the skull.

 

[Hot Dogs]

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

Yes, and that was the situation as found. The skull was sitting atop the mandible with the mandible in the correct anatomical position. The hair was in a mat on the ground next to the base of the skull.

Spitz said that he saw no hair on top of the skull in the crime scene photos. He said a person could lift the skull off and the mandible would stay on the ground.

Then he said that he could see hair on top of the skull in the autopsy photos and suggested that a person couldn't lift the skull off leaving the mandible on the table because of the hair over the skull.

His theory was that somebody draped (manipulated) some of the hair over the skull before the autopsy photo was taken.

 

[ZsaZsa]

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.

Incredibly this Pathologist who is so critical of Dr G did not even bother to write a report on his Autopsy. That is indefensible. Now we are supposed to believe that he recalls all the details.
That is malpractice at any age.

 

[Z-sleuth]

In fact, Dr. Spitz stated that he did have a sample of those scrapings, but did not have a lab to send them to.

He has been working in his field for 56 years and yet he could not find a lab that would perform tests for him?

Why not?

He didn't want to know what it was because he knew it was nothing. His sole purpose was to opine that Dr. G's work was shoddy. Period. End of story.

 

[Trident]

Toxicology for starters.

At that point I believe it was an impossibility. Do you have any links, literature, to prove any toxics could possibly be present in a small amount of residue after 4 months in a hot, damp environment with a dessicated brain?

Let me say, I totally agree with you, but I also believe the small amount of "whatever" inside the skull could not give evidence of any kind.

I respect Dr S, as a pioneer, a teacher, a brilliant man, but I also respect Dr G as someone who knows what she's doing, brilliant, educated, and very caring. A small amount of swamp-washed stuff cannot change my opinion on whether or not the skull should have been cut. Yes, it should have been, to prove to the TV cameras, the world, the looky loos, that things were done properly.

In my opinion, both Dr S and Dr G are credible. JA made a monkey out of Dr S, but in my opinion, that doesn't make him a hero, he didn't have much passion until the DT started presenting their case - his own was milk toast at best.

Bottom line - I want justice for Caylee, not emotion, not tricks, not one-upmanship. Whoever killed this child, and I'm not leaving anyone out, needs to be punished.

Edited to add: I think this case shows our "justice" system ain't all that. It seems to depend on the best charade, the twisting of words, the emotion, and who can get away with what. Meanwhile, we have a dead child who sang and danced and asked Pop Pop if he was tired. Justice? I spit on it.

My opinion only

 

[LongtimeMedic]

Not trying to be snarky, but did she say she just used a flashlight? One of the various flex medical cameras would have done a fine job of examining the inside of the skull.

The Autopsy Reports says the inside was examined with a light. That doesn't change the angle you can see through the hole, and no "flexible camera" or anything of the sort is mentioned.

 

[npcougar]

Incredibly this Pathologist who is so critical of Dr G did not even bother to write a report on his Autopsy. That is indefensible. Now we are supposed to believe that he recalls all the details.
That is malpractice at any age.

It really struck me that he had no notes to refer to. I think all the other experts or examiners had notes to refer back to. He just had no clue. It was really bizarre. It really sounded like he got a lot of his information from the defense team. Shouldn't have the DT noticed this during their discussions with him that he had no notes and couldn't answer questions?

 

[cloud9]

I had to leave and missed some of this, including all of JA cross! :banghead:

Anyway, I think this says it all!
snipped...

Dr. Werner Spitz said he believes the tape was placed on the body long after the flesh had disappeared to hold the jaw bone on, perhaps because someone wanted to move it. Spitz said the lack of DNA found on the tape would suggest it was placed on the girl's skull by someone who wanted to move it for some reason. The tape, he said, was intended to keep the jawbone from falling off. (RK under the bus or someone else?)


http://www.wftv.com/news/28279935/detail.html

Pathetic!