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

[Turnadot]

Horace, your avatar is hysterical!

 

[BritsKate]

If "A cake of dark brown residue was adherent to the left side of the skull, behind the petrous portion of the left temporal bone" that would be a very difficult location to see from the foramen magnum with a "light". When I referred to two area, I was suggesting the NaCL rinse, and the actual scraping that I believe was retrieved by Spitz, and processed by the State.

Also, I don't recall seeing "A cake of dark brown residue was adherent to the left side of the skull, behind the petrous portion of the left temporal bone" in Dr G's report.

Question...how is it known that Dr. Spitz retrieved the material and turned it over to the State for testing? That is in neither report. It was testified to?

As for Dr. G's report...she references sandy dirt. Now, I am not a medical expert, or a scientist, or a chemist...but she does mention a saline wash. Dirt + water = mud? :waitasec:

 

[Nore]

Couldn't it be possible to inspect the inside of a skeletonized skull using some kind of endoscope, high magnification fiber optic camera, x-ray and/or ultrasound without opening it?

Just curious...TIA

------------
Dr/G. did examine with a scope of some sort with a light.
It is stated in the full autopsy report..There is no need to remove
calvarium (sp) when the head is detached.Not the right words but
denisemb you are right.:seeya:

 

[Puzzler]

Today I noticed this in the state's autopsy report:

There is a minimal amount of adipocere present and the bones have sandy, silty dirt on their surfaces, except for the skull.
http://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnn/2009/images/06/19/caylee.anthony.autopsy.pdf​

Just wondering if anyone has any thoughts on why the skull was cleaner than the rest of the bones?

 

[yolorado]

Dr. S. was a horrible witness, imo. No question.

At one time, he was as good as there was. But now, not so much. Dr S is way, way past his prime, and I think that must have been obvious to the jury. He appeared to me to be completely in the tank for the defense and I think that was probably the way the jury saw it too. Ashton was able to rattle him and by letting him talk (quite a bit of nonsense) and accuse people of crimes without basis, he almost certainly left the jury with an unfavorable impression. For example, Spitz didn't seem too clear about the facts around the time Caylee went missing...whatever set you want to use. Spitz said he talked to Baez about the circumstances, but he didn't seem aware of any accidental drowning. He seemed under the impression that Caylee was left with a sitter..... Apparently Jose didn't give him all the facts.

 

[chckmate22]

have you ever had a conversation with someone who you would say is "like talking to a wall" we all know these people they will argue that the sky is green and hold tight to that opinion no matter what..that is the opinion that I get when listening to Dr S ...it has nothing to do with race age sex education ...there are just some people that you cannot argue with ...and you just need to walk away IMO:banghead::banghead::banghead::banghead::banghead::banghead::banghead::banghead:

 

[LCoastMom]

If "A cake of dark brown residue was adherent to the left side of the skull, behind the petrous portion of the left temporal bone" that would be a very difficult location to see from the foramen magnum with a "light". When I referred to two area, I was suggesting the NaCL rinse, and the actual scraping that I believe was retrieved by Spitz, and processed by the State.

Also, I don't recall seeing "A cake of dark brown residue was adherent to the left side of the skull, behind the petrous portion of the left temporal bone" in Dr G's report.

I was under the impression Dr G used a scope to examine the cranial vault and have heard theorized that the residue "settled" in that spot after Dr G's saline rinse.

 

[BG4pip]

We are at somewhat of a disadvantage because we can't see any skull photos. But something interesting happened today.

Spitz saw the photos and said that he could not see any hair on top of the skull at the crime scene but viola there suddenly is hair on the skull in the lab autopsy photos.

Aston could have easily slapped up the photo of the crime scene and said "Look there! You can see hair on the skull can't you? Use your glasses if you need them." But he didn't do that. It's as if he too can see that there isn't skull hair at the crime scene. All he did was ask Spitz to reaffirm his claim that the hair had been manipulated. Ashton didn't use the photos to show that it hadn't been manpulated. Was that because Spitz was correct that some of the hair actually had been moved up onto the skull?

I think what happened was interesting, too. But I don't think Spitz was accusing the medical examiner of impropriety in "manipulating" or "staging" the evidence. All he said was that the hair in the lab photo was not in the same orientation, relative to the skull, as in the crime scene photo. I think he was just pointing out that difference. If he accused anyone of impropriety, it was Ashton, for assuming [and asking Spitz and the jury to assume] that the orientation in the lab scene photo accurately depicted the orientation when the skull was discovered.

 

[D96s]

My opinion of Dr. S was pretty well sealed when he said the only other thing he took into consideration besides the autopsy to make his determination that he could not determine Manner of death was Mr. Baez's opinioin, the Anthony's opinion and the fact that a pool was located in the back yard. Really? That is all you used to make the determination that no Manner of death can be determined? Cause you talked to Baez, the Anthony's and you saw a pool in the back yard?

 

[Turnadot]

If "A cake of dark brown residue was adherent to the left side of the skull, behind the petrous portion of the left temporal bone" that would be a very difficult location to see from the foramen magnum with a "light". When I referred to two area, I was suggesting the NaCL rinse, and the actual scraping that I believe was retrieved by Spitz, and processed by the State.

Also, I don't recall seeing "A cake of dark brown residue was adherent to the left side of the skull, behind the petrous portion of the left temporal bone" in Dr G's report.

Isn't there another reasonable possibility?

Dr G washed the inside of Caylee's skull with a saline solution. Maybe that's how the cake of dark brown residue got behind the petrous portion of the left temporal bone?

 

[aafromaa]

I haven't read all the posts in this thread yet, but here are my thoughts...

I have a great deal of respect for both Dr G & Dr S and I respect the fact that two experts can disagree. BUT Dr S was way over the top to accuse Dr G of shoddy work. It was unprofessional and disrespectful. Apart from that, I don't understand the big deal over the sediment being on the left side since there is absoluetely no way to know how many times between June and December that animals may have rolled the bags containing her remains. Does anyone think that the way it was found is the way it laid for 6 months? I also did not see any way that he could make the leap to the duct tape being applied after decomposition. And am I the only one that thought not wearing gloves (whether needed or not for protection for contamination) was just not respectful to Caylee? I don't know why that bothered me so much but I'd heard him say that on an interview I'd seen before he testified and was just floored at the way he spoke about it then and in court today.

As I said, I do have a lot of respect for Dr S (his education, his years of experience, his knowledge & expertise) - but, sadly, I have a little less respect for him today than I did. Perhaps 60,000 autopsies (performed or supervised) is just a bit too many for any one person (after all that would be about 4 per day wouldn't it?)

 

[katydid23]

It's hard to know what the jurors have in their heads. We can't always assume that they are thinking the exact same thing that we are. Ashton tore into Spitz because he is concerned that they will believe him if he doesn't. But witnessing that from our armchairs is no guarantee that everything Spitz said to raise doubt will be ignored by the jury. It's the same thing with Huntington bug guy and the upcoming Rodriguez.

I think when Garavaglia comes back that Mason will have another go at her. He's going to force her to say that the tape could have been applied after death no matter what her common sense tells her.

True, but all that really does is take it down from DP to LWOP. It does nothing to acquit the defendant. If she placed it there after the death to keep the chloroform in or the decomp from coming out, it still means a very long sentence.

So far the DT is opening with a very weak hand, imo. Especially after they came out roaring like Lions. 'She is an innocent victim, everyone else messed up. ' That was their OS. But this is nothing like that. And it seems destined to fail, imo.

 

[mimmy03]

But he has a great mind, and I think JA goofed by pushing Spitz's buttons this morning. As Spitz's put it "...well now you've provoked me!" might not have looked too PROfessional of JA.

What I observed were a few members of the courtroom audience in the background laughing at Spitz regarding his being 'provoked'.

 

[ExpectingUnicorns]

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.

LongtimeMedic, it's probably just me ~ but I can't find any reference to the cribriform plate in the Dr S's report that I'm seeing. The report I'm reading from says, "A cake of dark brown residue was adherent to the left side of the skull, behind the petrous portion of the left temporal bone, spread over an approximately two inch diameter area." Could you please share the link to your reference for me? TIA

Here's my link: http://www.clickorlando.com/download/2011/0314/27194964.pdf

Again, all I can find is Dr S's reference to the left temporal bone area. Only one area. Please share where your information has been gathered. TIA.

I don't recall him giving a precise anatomical location, but he did indicate it was in a crevice-like area (paraphrasing of course).

If "A cake of dark brown residue was adherent to the left side of the skull, behind the petrous portion of the left temporal bone" that would be a very difficult location to see from the foramen magnum with a "light". When I referred to two area, I was suggesting the NaCL rinse, and the actual scraping that I believe was retrieved by Spitz, and processed by the State.

Also, I don't recall seeing "A cake of dark brown residue was adherent to the left side of the skull, behind the petrous portion of the left temporal bone" in Dr G's report.

Okay. I gave you this link already, above: http://www.clickorlando.com/download/2011/0314/27194964.pdf. The quote is in the fourth paragraph.

Where did you get "crevice-like area?" And "cribriform plate" and "inside the cap?" And argued your position so adamantly that I thought I missed one of Dr Spitz's reports. Please don't tell me I've spent all this time researching for some unknown report from the doctor that contained those descriptors in it ~ based now, I think, solely on your "paraphrasing."

Good lesson for me, I guess, on why we like links!

ETA: I see now it was Dr G's report that you said you didn't see the residue listed. Sorry for getting that wrong.

 

[Horace Finklestein]

It bothered me greatly that his age is taking it's toll. He's still a scrappy 'ol guy, and pretty much master of that domain, but his brain has downshifted a couple of times, and his thoughts don't seem to readily flow when he speaks. Plus I think he always leans towards the opinions most supported by dollar signs. He was costing Phil Specter $3k/day anytime he was in the courtroom... PLUS expenses! But he has a great mind, and I think JA goofed by pushing Spitz's buttons this morning. As Spitz's put it "...well now you've provoked me!" might not have looked too PROfessional of JA.

How could someone who lies for money make someone like JA look unprofessional?

 

[D96s]

I think what happened was interesting, too. But I don't think Spitz was accusing the medical examiner of impropriety in "manipulating" or "staging" the evidence. All he said was that the hair in the lab photo was not in the same orientation, relative to the skull, as in the crime scene photo. I think he was just pointing out that difference. If he accused anyone of impropriety, it was Ashton, for assuming [and asking Spitz and the jury to assume] that the orientation in the lab scene photo accurately depicted the orientation when the skull was discovered.

Nope, wrong. JA specifically (more than once) asked Dr. S if it was his testimony that he was accusing the States Medical Examiners Office of manipulating the skull for the purposes of photos - and Dr. S answered that yes it was. He even went on to say it wouldn't be the first time and he is aware of many instances where that has happened. He absolutely was accusing them of impropriety and manipulation.

 

[azwriter]

Dr. S claim the tape was applied to the body after the tissue and muscle had decomposed might just had worked taking into account his long list of previous trail appearances and his educational background which mades him an expert in the field.

But when JA asked him to go through the methods of how that application could be carried out on the skull, Dr. S acted as if he didn't understand what the State's attorney wanted. But, I'm sure the jury got it 100 percent.

I'm not sure if the doctor really didn't get it or if he was really stalling not to answer.

I found his testimony both exciting for the prosecution and sad for the doctor himself.
jmo

 

[katydid23]

I think what happened was interesting, too. But I don't think Spitz was accusing the medical examiner of impropriety in "manipulating" or "staging" the evidence. All he said was that the hair in the lab photo was not in the same orientation, relative to the skull, as in the crime scene photo. I think he was just pointing out that difference. If he accused anyone of impropriety, it was Ashton, for assuming [and asking Spitz and the jury to assume] that the orientation in the lab scene photo accurately depicted the orientation when the skull was discovered.

I disagree and here is why. Immediately after Ashton asked if he was implying anything like it was staged, do you remember his response?

The Doctor responded by saying ; [paraphrasing ]

'It wouldn't be the first time." and he went on to discuss ME's who were now in prison for tampering with evidence.

So, imo, his reponse indicated that he was implying that something hinky was going on.

 

[BritsKate]

Incidentally since I mentioned it like 15 pages back there is NO protocol that I am able to locate stating the calavarium should be cut in an anthropological autopsy. Expecting Unicorns posted a link stating just the opposite - that the skull should NOT be cut in skeletal remains.

The Florida Association of Medical Examiners 2010 guidelines also has no specific protocol in the examination of skeletal remains. FWIW

I do not believe a nonexistent protocol or opinionated expectation should in any way discredit Dr. G but that's just my opinion.

 

[susan1122]

It bothered me greatly that his age is taking it's toll. He's still a scrappy 'ol guy, and pretty much master of that domain, but his brain has downshifted a couple of times, and his thoughts don't seem to readily flow when he speaks. Plus I think he always leans towards the opinions most supported by dollar signs. He was costing Phil Specter $3k/day anytime he was in the courtroom... PLUS expenses! But he has a great mind, and I think JA goofed by pushing Spitz's buttons this morning. As Spitz's put it "...well now you've provoked me!" might not have looked too PROfessional of JA.

I appreciate your response. In many ways, I agree. What I saw was JA bending backwards to be kind and respectful. He may have pushed the questioning at times, which is his job. But he ultimately dropped it. I think he figured he was not going to get a reasonable answer. At any rate, the way Dr. S acted, I think anyone just being on the prosecution side would have pushed his buttons and provoked him. I am very curious how this man handled things 20 - 30 years ago.