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

[GeekyGirl]

But Casey would never want to get her hands dirty and a dead body would just be icky to her. I can't imagine her applying duct tape after Caylee's death for that reason. And the duct tape wouldn't stay on a decomposing face. It wouldn't stick if fluids were already coming out of her mouth. It wouldn't have been with the skull still if it was put on after death. If the purging fluids weren't enough, there was a hurricane and she was under water for months. The duct tape would no longer be there if it was put on after death and then the body going through a hot trunk then swamp conditions with a hurricane added in to boot. A person could TRY to apply duct tape after death, but that is not what happened here. We'd have a whole different case if the duct tape was applied after Caylee's death, believe me.

It all depends on how soon after death it was applied. If it was applied shortly after, it probably would have stuck just fine. In a hospital, if an autopsy is required after a person's death, all of the medical devices (I.e. Endotracheal tubes, IV's, central lines, foley catheters etc.) are required to be left in place. Many times when prepping a body to go the morgue, I've had to tape these tubes in place to keep them from being pulled out during the bagging/transfer process. Even transpore tape (which is much less sticky than duct tape) sticks quite well to a, pardon the term, freshly dead body.

 

[LyndyLoo]

No snark intended, but doesn't that just show that a saline wash might not be the most effective process if you're trying to ascertain what evidence *could* be left inside the skull? I'm not arguing that there was any pertinent evidence to be found, just that it may not be that far off to argue that it wasn't the most thorough technique. MOO

My only comment regarding Dr. G's saline washing..She had already xrayed the bones of Caylee including the skull..and ascertained there was no soft tissue present..so she then salined the skull to get whatever was seen ( dark and likely sediment of some sort) and noted nothing but debrise and local flora...Humm..

I really dont blame her for NOT opening the skull..she had visual, and washngs and Xrays to confirm no further tissue present..So nope I dont believe further mutulations of her poor remains were necessary...They were bones in a garbage infested dump-site..eaten by critters, duct taped...Yikes..

I am sorry, I do feel that Dr. Spitz has reached too far in his accusations towards Dr. G..and am totally disgusted with his accusations regard "Manipulations" of Caylee's bones..then for him to go with his opinions based on assumtions and unknowns and hopes his past credentials gives him authority (believability)...( he couldnt recall what he knew or history of what went on??) Yikes he couldnt even remember who he first talked nor who he had an interview let alone what he said??)

My Opinions of Dr. W. Spitz has been further degraded..and fear he is a prime example of "Peters Principle"..someone who reaches level of Incompetence..It is usually reserved for employees who rise in ranks beyond their capabilities..but Dr. W. Spitz has gone well beyond..JMOO

I have watched many cases he testified for and he opines..accuses yet not based on science nor evidence..but his recollections of past experiences..yikes..It was almost embarrassing to watch this once recognized authority be sooooo exposed for his agenda's...I watched CM today and I believe by his facial and body expressions he saw it too...I felt sad:twocents:

Bottom line..Dr.W. Sptiz should retire..and I am sure CM will line up right behind him..As for JB..Dont think he cares..He believes he can write books and do Gigs with Crime Shows..

Sorry for long windedness..These seasoned professionals are just upsetting me..and the younger ones have precluded and chances of credibility in their chosen careers..Thats my viewpoint..Sorry :blushing:

 

[bonniez451]

I don't feel badly at all that this is likely the end of the career of Dr. Werner Spitz. He had his "distinguished career". His big mistake is that he has "gone to the rodeo" one too many times.

These career defense witnesses all seem to do this to themselves. And I don't even think it is for the money. It is for the fame, the glory, the "importance of being an expert". They have basked in the interviews asking for their much-desired opinions.

Dr. Henry Lee went so far as to suppress evidence in the first Phil Spectre case. While he did not suffer any legal consequences from that event, the judge in the case made it a point to go on record with HIS opinion of Dr. Lee. The Judge basically said "Dr. Lee lied".

Today Dr. Spitz was able to "act confused" when actually kind of gently put to the wall by Jeff Ashton. If he tries this crap in some other trial in the future, he may not meet up with a Prosecutor who has the class of Mr. Ashton.

To me, Spitz came of as forgetful and somewhat confused but with an underlying defensiveness bordering on outright anger at having his "opinions" questioned. In the meanwhile some of his statements were downright ludicrous. Plus his outright insult of Dr. G's work as being "shoddy" tells me that this old(er) dude has just "lost it".

I am old(er). I retired. My employer did not want me to retire. I recognized it was time for me to retire. From a job position in which I was still performing very well. To me, it is better to leave when you are still doing really, really well than to "ride it" to the point where you are not.

Tough to watch in some respects. But we all know excellence when we see it, and Dr. G. has it. Spitz does not.

And again as stated Shame Shame on the defense team I really really hope that the jury sees how destructive they are.

 

[LongtimeMedic]

Please, please, please provide a link for what I bolded because I have spent about 20 hours researching anthropological and osteological procedures and nowhere is it stated that cutting the calvarium is 'usual' in anything but routine autopsies. If it is your opinion please clarify. Thank you!

This illustration: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/81/Gray193.png is looking from the top down. You can see the foramen magnum (the hole Dr G looked through) is at or above the level of the are Spitz found the stain in. As far as I'm aware, the autopsy was a regular autopsy, not an anthropological examination. Again, any specimens they would collect would be considered States evidence or remains, so if Spitz took any samples/specimens, the State got them and did what they wanted with them.

 

[Turnadot]

He did no testing, but I thought I understood him to say specimens he collected were handed over to the State. It would be remains/evidence... he nor Baez could keep anything he collected, even if they wanted to. Even if Baez had it sent out to a lab, there would be a report, and I'm not aware there is one.

Dr Spitz didn't say anything about collecting specimens in his report.

And, gosh, I know I'm coming off as dumb as a post here, but I've read Dr Spitz's report again and he doesn't mention the cake of brown residue had a waxy, soapy brown stain which is usually seen on the side decomposition occurred on.

Can you point it out to me?

 

[LongtimeMedic]

Yes,links please. Wiki anything can be written by John Q. Public so they don't count :crazy: IMO

Note that the wiki link was a redirect link to a Gray's Anatomy image. If you can refute Gray's, go for it.

 

[D96s]

Originally Posted by BritsKate
Please, please, please provide a link for what I bolded because I have spent about 20 hours researching anthropological and osteological procedures and nowhere is it stated that cutting the calvarium is 'usual' in anything but routine autopsies. If it is your opinion please clarify. Thank you!

This illustration: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/81/Gray193.png is looking from the top down. You can see the foramen magnum (the hole Dr G looked through) is at or above the level of the are Spitz found the stain in. As far as I'm aware, the autopsy was a regular autopsy, not an anthropological examination. Again, any specimens they would collect would be considered States evidence or remains, so if Spitz took any samples/specimens, the State got them and did what they wanted with them.

I don't really see where this reponse answers the original question.

 

[LongtimeMedic]

Dr Spitz didn't say anything about collecting specimens in his report.

And, gosh, I know I'm coming off as dumb as a post here, but I've read Dr Spitz's report again and he doesn't mention the cake of brown residue had a waxy, soapy brown stain which is usually seen on the side decomposition occurred on.

Can you point it out to me?

He testified to it in open court today. His opinion (he's an expert, he can opine) is now a matter of the case record.

 

[kelian36]

BBM

I hate to keep pointing this out to you, but I will anyway.

Dr G rinsed Caylee's skull with a saline solution.

saline rinse inside a skull where there's sediment ='s mud.

Dr Spitz's autopsy of Caylee was weeks after Dr G's.

Mud + weeks = a cake of dark brown settling inside the skull.

Thus Spitz's conclusion that Caylee decomposed left side down is erroneous.

:woohoo: I knew if I tried to say that it wouldn't make sense. THANK you TADot.

 

[LongtimeMedic]

I don't really see where this reponse answers the original question.

This is what I wrote in answer to the question. "As far as I'm aware, the autopsy was a regular autopsy, not an anthropological examination."

 

[Turnadot]

He testified to it in open court today. His opinion (he's an expert, he can opine) is now a matter of the case record.

I see.

When?

So he didn't find it significant enough to mention in his report to Baez, but it was suddenly significant today?

Is that a reasonable conclusion to draw from this?

 

[samhunt]

Links gladly given:

Spitz report:
http://www.clickorlando.com/download/2011/0314/27194964.pdf

ME report:
http://www.wesh.com/download/2009/0619/19802034.pdf

Thank you!

So, according to the report Dr. Spitz found "sediment" in the cranium and later says that the bones "were completely devoid of soft tissue," which leads me to believe he didn't think the sediment was decomposed brain matter. He also says that the sediment was found "behind the petrous portion of the left temporal bone." I don't have a skull on hand to check this, but I think you could probably see the area behind the petrous portion (i.e., toward the back of the skull) by looking through the foramen magnum.

 

[Wise Old Owl]

He testified to it in open court today. His opinion (he's an expert, he can opine) is now a matter of the case record.

It was made very clear (yet again) in court today with the first witness - that HHJP had issued a court order that ALL opinions of the expert had to be contained within their written report. That was why the first guy was made to leave. So, if Dr. S testified to that in court and it wasn't contained in his report - well, again, that goes against HHJP's order.

 

[crucibelle]

This is a bit complicated. I partly believe Dr. G and PARTLY Dr. S.
I don´t agree with Dr. G that it is a given that the tape was placed on Caylee prior to her death. I think it could have been placed on her after death to stop spilling from mouth and nose, but NOT after it was skeletonized, only slightly into decomposition.
Dr. S´ theory is plain crazy in my opinion.

She didn't say prior to death; she said prior to decomposition (before disarticulation of the bones, per her testimony). So, someone placing the tape after death to stop spilling from the mouth and nose would STILL be consistent with Dr. G's testimony.

 

[Carrington]

I did notice that Judge Perry did not take this unique opportunity to personally question the famed Dr.
IMO

 

[ZsaZsa]

Are you aware if the area described by Dr Spitz that he found upon doing an autopsy after opening the cranium, which is very usual, was actually made of of decomposed tissue, and it would actually be the most likely place that a positive test for chemicals or drugs would have been rendered from. Dr Spitz did not do anything disrespectful by trying to help identify all of her killers by seeking any evidence he could find.

And while I know Spitz has a bad rap for being a "Hired Gun". I recall that he testifies for both State and Defense on cases regularly, and on a somewhat recent opinion, he was fired because he told the defense their client was guilty... I'll look for a link.

Dr G's report stated - The interior of the Cranium was EXAMINED . She found sandy dirt and an attached small incisor which was adhered to the inside of the calvarium with dirt. There was no decomposed tissue so I am not sure why you are implying there might have been.

 

[LongtimeMedic]

Sorry to run out, but I've been cordially fielding questions all afternoon on this. When I'm only one out of the 10 of 440 that have taken this poll that think Spitz did well today, there's no way I can make you all happy with anything I say other than if I changed my opinion... and I have no reason to do that.

I'm ready to get some of the science out of the way in this case and start seeing some family feud action in the courtroom.

 

[miss plum]

This is not geared towards any poster in particular but I don't understand why people would hold any presumption of bias or conspiracy against the defendant by the police, the prosecutors, any expert personnel working on this case, or the public. A small, loved child has died. It is a terrible tragedy. Of all the possible scenarios, the very worst, most awful, sad, horrible, unacceptable one is that her own mother deliberately murdered her. That is the very worst case scenario. No one would want KC to have murdered Caylee, people would prefer it was an accident, or if not, a mentally unbalanced stranger, or someone not close to her, etc etc. NOT HER OWN MOTHER. And now decent, honorable, professional people are being called 'shoddy' etc. for doing a very taxing job trying to get to the truth of a horrible event. It's disgraceful, and I cannot understand apologists who are eager to go along with DT theories that the DT themselves cannot possibly believe.

 

[BritsKate]

This illustration: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/81/Gray193.png is looking from the top down. You can see the foramen magnum (the hole Dr G looked through) is at or above the level of the are Spitz found the stain in. As far as I'm aware, the autopsy was a regular autopsy, not an anthropological examination. Again, any specimens they would collect would be considered States evidence or remains, so if Spitz took any samples/specimens, the State got them and did what they wanted with them.

I am asking for a link that states specifically cutting a calvarium is standard when examining skeletal remains. Is there one? Or is it your opinion that opening the cranial cap should be standard while examining skeletal remains?

No literature that I can find states this is 'usual' - not anthropology, not osteology, and not forensic pathology. I am at a loss what else to research.

 

[LongtimeMedic]

I see.

When?

So he didn't find it significant enough to mention in his report to Baez, but it was suddenly significant today?

Is that a reasonable conclusion to draw from this?

Yes, yes... you're all right and I'm a nut. Catch ya on another thread. I can't answer for Baez and JP and JA and WS and GA and CA or ICA or anyone's opinion other than what I glean from listening to the witnesses.... just as the jury is doing.