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

[Justin Tyme]

You most certainly can photograph a canyon with a camera, no question about it, but can you look under a stone at the bottom of the canyon with it as well, and take a sample of what is found there?? Or... should you just rinse the canyon out with water and test what comes out the other end, and call it 'good'??

She tested what came out of the other end of the canyon, so to speak and he did not.

 

[Quiche]

I'd like to know how the interior skull of a 30 months old child differs from the interior of an adults-- is it smoother? It's certainly smaller, not much of a "canyon" probably. jmo

 

[Turnadot]

I disagree that Dr S is arrogant. He was very gentleman like to Ashton after court.

 

[katydid23]

His written report was to who hired him... Baez. He had no jurisdiction to file an autopsy report with or any obligation to. As to whether he took or recorded notes, we never heard any of that asked by either side in court. But, yes, he did file a report in March.

He did not seem that knowledgable or prepared about the basic facts of this case. He knew what facts he wanted to put out there, about the body 'being moved' and the tape being on the skeletonized remains. But he did not know the basic facts of the case which makes me wonder how familiar he really was with the case overall. He has done 60,000 autopsies. I have got to think things have kind of blurred together, imo.

 

[D96s]

Originally Posted by GeekyGirl
What bothered me about Dr G's testimony is that she said that there is no reason for the duct tape to be applied postmortem. While I respect that she is an expert, this is speculation on her part. If it were a FACT that there was no reason to apply the duct tape postmortem, and antemortem placement would have killed her, why is it not listed as COD?

In my opinion, Dr. G did the responsible thing. She listed Manner of Death as Homicide and based the fact in part (certainly not limited to) that duct tape was applied, "....anywhere on this childs fact....". This to her is a "red flag" and ONLY seen in Homicide. She cannot tell if it was the duct tape that actually killed Caylee. Caylee could have died from the Cloroform, for example, right before the duct tape was applied.

 

[Sabrina2011]

Picture this. The smell of decomp in the car so bad that it still smells 3 years later.

You have a wet canvas bag, you have two eroded garbage bags and bones scattered from critters. Now what is left in one area is a hair matte and skull and some bones. Whooooooo who in their right mind would want to go suffering the most ghastly sight, be able to pick up that tiny skull with the hair all a tangled mess, and then apply duct tape to put the mandible back on the body. I mean this is against all civilized behavior as I know it. It would be unbearable to do it with Caylee still intact. But after decomp?

For the life of me, there is absolutely no good excuse or reason to do that. NO way!

He didn't even know how long the lengths of duct tape were, had no dr.s notes. Yet his theory is someone took that skull and taped it after she decomposed. No explanation, no theory just this was some weird thing someone did.

It makes no sense.

Are you kidding? You mean you have never ventured into the brush or woods, and happened upon skeletal remains and not run back to the car for your Henkle duct tape out of sheer politeness to tape that mandible on and a few other body parts so after the storms hit and the animals have their go at it, at least some will still be taped together when it is found years later.

YOU were not a girl scout were you. :woohoo:

(ok, I don't have to say kidding right?)

 

[aeneas1]

What bothered me about Dr G's testimony is that she said that there is no reason for the duct tape to be applied postmortem. While I respect that she is an expert, this is speculation on her part. If it were a FACT that there was no reason to apply the duct tape postmortem, and antemortem placement would have killed her, why is it not listed as COD?

sure, it's speculation. but it's reasonable speculation. can't say the same about what ds offered up on the subject...

 

[SAgal]

I've never heard either Dr. G or Dr. Spitz testify in a court of law until this trial.

I found Dr. G to be more credible and believable based on on testimony 1) that a child was found dead after she was missing and was never reported missing for 30 days by the mother....2) the fact that the child had duct tape on her face when found dead...and 3) the fact that the child was found discarded in a trash-filled lot.

I found Dr. Spitz to be evasive in his testimony. I can't believe that he could not recall/remember the interviews he's given about this case. I also found some of his procedures to be improper and careless: Not wearning gloves...breaking the child's skull, and claiming he didn't remember doing this? Using the excuse that he doesn't have a Lab for not testing this residue from the skull.
I especially was offended when Dr. Spitz accused the ME and/or LE of mishandling evidence and staging the autopsy photographs. This was highly unprofessional, in my opinion.

 

[chckmate22]

Question..did Dr. S just blow away the defense theroy as given in opening statements???? At the 9:00 min mark on this video he states that his understand of the events leading to the "disappearance" of Caylee was that she was dropped off at the babysitter....i thought the DT said over and over again she drowned on June 16th? Did they even bother to tell their witness what carp they were going to present the jury???? WOW

http://www.wftv.com/video/28281712/index.html

 

[LongtimeMedic]

I am under the impression that the eyesocket is part of the skull. In addition, unless the optic nerve were still in place, and it isn't/wasn't, it would be very easy to see through the eye socked into the crainial vault.

Absolutely true... through two holes 3-4mm each... and the foramen magnum of course.

But I digress. The main thing here is that justice for the death of Caylee is everyone's focus, and as I've said before, that means everyone involved in this horrible crime. I firmly believe the entire family knew what happened to her and when, with the last to find out, being Cindy. Hence the 911 call, which, I think if she could redo right now, she wouldn't. JMO.

BTW, I'm not here to argue, anger or inflame anyone, but to offer up the concept that there are other realistic scenarios that are easily as plausible as what the State has presented. Thanks for tolerating me.

 

[Kelroy]

He did not seem that knowledgable or prepared about the basic facts of this case. He knew what facts he wanted to put out there, about the body 'being moved' and the tape being on the skeletonized remains. But he did not know the basic facts of the case which makes me wonder how familiar he really was with the case overall. He has done 60,000 autopsies. I have got to think things have kind of blurred together, imo.

Another good point: I think the first question Ashton asked him was whether facts of the case have a bearing on the autopsy or determining manner of death, and Spitz said absolutely. Then Ashton asked him what he knew about the case, and . . . crickets. I think he said the child had gone to a babysitter, and that he went to the Anthony home and saw a swimming pool. And that's it? I mean, it's one thing to say the facts of the case shouldn't have any influence on the autopsy; I think that could definitely be argued. But Spitz admitted that knowing the background is an important part of putting together autopsy findings!

I'm sorry, I was just stunned by this witness. I didn't find it funny, just sad.

ETA: I totally agree with and understand this:

BTW, I'm not here to argue, anger or inflame anyone, but to offer up the concept that there are other realistic scenarios that are easily as plausible as what the State has presented.

I just don't think Spitz's testimony lends any credence to any other realistic scenarios!

 

[ascerbic]

Maybe we should all SIT DOWN.

Seriously, do any of you medical people know if a child chloroformed and ducttaped would struggle? In other words, would chloroform prevent suffering.

 

[Hot Dogs]

OK - Then the "disturbed" skull is more reasonably explained by the fact that it lay there for six months in an area that is know to have animal activity and flooding. How is it so hard to reason that the body did decompose with the head laying to the left and was then disturbed by animal activity or flooding (skull floated up in the floods and settled in another position). The whole argument he brought about the head laying to the left during decomp is just moot

It's not moot at all if he can convince the jurors that the State's argument is flawed because they didn't notice this-and-that and therefore you've got a botched examination and therefore you cannot convict this girl because you cannot trust anything that the State is offering you.

They want jurors to consider that people messing with the remains could be accomplices or people trying to frame Casey. This is exactly what defense strategy is about. It doesn't matter if it doesn't make much sense to you or seems moot. It's what they do and it sometimes works in their favor. It's an ancient dance that goes on every day in criminal courts.

 

[Sabrina2011]

Question..did Dr. S just blow away the defense theroy as given in opening statements???? At the 9:00 min mark on this video he states that his understand of the events leading to the "disappearance" of Caylee was that she was dropped off at the babysitter....i thought the DT said over and over again she drowned on June 16th? Did they even bother to tell their witness what carp they were going to present the jury???? WOW

http://www.wftv.com/video/28281712/index.html

That is like when Dr G mentioned Drownings and Cheney Mason said "what does that have to do with this case"

(um, you said your client drown in a pool...jesus, get your 9th story straight already)

 

[USARDOG]

Absolutely true... through two holes 3-4mm each... and the foramen magnum of course.

But I digress. The main thing here is that justice for the death of Caylee is everyone's focus, and as I've said before, that means everyone involved in this horrible crime. I firmly believe the entire family knew what happened to her and when, with the last to find out, being Cindy. Hence the 911 call, which, I think if she could redo right now, she wouldn't. JMO.

BTW, I'm not here to argue, anger or inflame anyone, but to offer up the concept that there are other realistic scenarios that are easily as plausible as what the State has presented. Thanks for tolerating me.

Thank you for brings in other ways of looking at testimony. IMO there is only one person who really knows and she's not talking.

Yes, I think CA did know where Caylee's remeins were at some point, and during the same time was saying she was still alive. I don't believe for one second that either she GA helped in any way dispose of or in any other way participate in this crime. After following from day one, I believe ICA is the one and only partcipant... Unless one includes some of the defense team who seem to have gone way beyond and seek to implicate people whom I believe are not involved at all.

 

[Turnadot]

Absolutely true... through two holes 3-4mm each... and the foramen magnum of course.

But I digress. The main thing here is that justice for the death of Caylee is everyone's focus, and as I've said before, that means everyone involved in this horrible crime. I firmly believe the entire family knew what happened to her and when, with the last to find out, being Cindy. Hence the 911 call, which, I think if she could redo right now, she wouldn't. JMO.

BTW, I'm not here to argue, anger or inflame anyone, but to offer up the concept that there are other realistic scenarios that are easily as plausible as what the State has presented. Thanks for tolerating me.

Same here! Aside from the argue part, I love vigorous debate and arguments...without ad homs!

I sometimes lose objectivity and I like engaging here with people who hold an apposing viewpoint, because it forces me to think instead of argument from emotion, which I catch myself doing sometimes - often.

At any rate, did any of Dr Spitz's testimony today bother you in the least, or did you find him credible overall?

 

[RSDhoping for a cure]

I haven't read the comments yet but wanted to say it boils down to two things for me.

1) Common sense
2) Dr. Spitz did not seem prepared to back up anything he stated.

 

[mydailyopinions]

I disagree that Dr S is arrogant. He was very gentleman like to Ashton after court.

After the wiping he got on the stand, I don't blame him for being nice.

I don't believe he is arrogant either, he was brought on to do a job, one that defies any kind of logic. He was brought on for reasons that LKB and Andrea Lyons walked away. He can obviously stand in a court of law, make silly claims and still be able to walk out with dignity. I'll give him that much.

 

[katydid23]

You are aware you can't put your finger through an eyesocket into the skull aren't you?

If you are theorizing that a sticker could find it's way inside the interior of the skull, then I am going to imagine the Head County Medical Examiner can find a way to inspect it without cutting the top off.

 

[ascerbic]

Well, I think LongtimeMedic has a point that perhaps evidence was lost when Dr G rinsed Caylee's skull. I'm not an ME or a doctor, so I really haven't a clue about this kind of stuff, however, I can't imagine someone like Dr G screwing up that badly. I must admit it's possible; she's fallible. And it's my understanding from discussing this with a friend of mine, that Dr G not removing the top of Caylee's cranial cap is a minor thing and not a big deal, insofar as protocol goes.

I wish she had tested the hair for long time chloroform use.