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

[Turnadot]

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.

I'm not looking for you to make me happy, and I couldn't care less if you think Dr Spitz did well today; I care about erroneous statements passed off as fact.

 

[Wescott]

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.

Why wouldn't it be an anthropological examination? The remains were bones.

 

[GeekyGirl]

I could be way off base here, but from reading Longtime Medic's posts in this thread, it seems like he's trying to point out that in a case where so few forensic facts surrounding the actual death are known, that Dr. Spitz made a good argument that not removing the skull cap may not have been the most appropriate choice in this scenario. Off course hindsight is always 20/20, but the death of a child at the hands of their mother goes against most of our core instincts, and the emotional impact of that is staggering. It is cognitive dissonance in the most extreme. Even experts are subject to confirmation bias, and should take steps to remain aware and combat that bias whenever possible.

 

[MissJames]

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.

:Welcome1: to WS ,but there are :tos: we all follow :woohoo:
Respectfully ,I think there are 2 things that may be a big help on this thread.
One ,since you are recently registered ,might be to become familiar with the rules here.
If you state something as fact you have to back it up with a link to that specific info. If you can show where it's stated that Dr. S took sample/specimens and gave them to the State ,just show us the link.
But you can't keep arguing something as fact ,unless you can back it up.
That's a big no no here. If you have a question about this rule the Mods are awesome and can give you good advice.Just pm them.
Second,it would be helpful for you to actually know the material you are arguing. It doesn't do any of us any good to go round and round when you (or anyone )aren't sure .

 

[MissJames]

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.

Posters are just asking for a link to your statements of fact .It's expected here.

 

[Turnadot]

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.

What the heck? No one said you were a nut, and I don't think you are.

You stated Dr Spitz opined in court today that the cake of brown residue had a waxy, soapy brown stain which is usually seen on the side decomposition occurred on.

You made a claim; I'm simply asking for a citation.

I'm not out to upset you or anything.

 

[ZsaZsa]

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.

IIRc those bony remains sat on a shelf at the funeral home for quite a while after Dr G's autopsy until they came up with Dr S. to do a second exam.
What side was the skull on, during that time? Lying on its side?
I do know what Dr G saw - she documented her findings meticulously at the time.
What did Dr S document? Nothing. We only know what he said in his very delayed report (March 2011) and if his memory of his findings is anything like his memory on the stand I doubt it is reliable,by his own admission.

 

[LongtimeMedic]

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.

I can't ever recall an autopsy I know of where it wasn't done, I don't know if there is a national or international protocol on it, or if Orange Co. has such a policy. But one thing I can tell you with certainty (because I remember it like yesterday) is that an old professor in a cadaver lab at Texas Tech told me, "You can't see why an engine quit running without opening the hood and getting dirty." What followed will never be forgotten. These Doctors deserve our utmost respect for what they do everyday.

 

[sappysoul]

In response to the sentence I bolded:

If so, I believe Dr. G will be able to truthfully respond that 100% of the time, people don't put duct tape over dead victim's faces because there is no reasonable or logical reason to do so.

Duct tape goes over live people's faces so they can't scream or breathe.

ITA. She could say Caylee put the duct tape on herself but that isn't reasonable or logical although possible.

 

[LongtimeMedic]

What the heck? No one said you were a nut, and I don't think you are.

You stated Dr Spitz opined in court today that the cake of brown residue had a waxy, soapy brown stain which is usually seen on the side decomposition occurred on.

You made a claim; I'm simply asking for a citation.

I'm not out to upset you or anything.

His testimony is probably still being transcribed, but if I find it, you'll be the first to know. :}

 

[katydid23]

Not sure if I can post you a link here but if I can here it is: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/81/Gray193.png
And the superior ridge of the petrous portion of the left temporal bone stain would be hidden from view from the foramen magnum. The only reason I brought up cribriform plate, is because you can't see it from below either, it is the bottom, how can you see what's there if you don't look?? Like Spitz said... why do an autopsy from the neck down only??

You may be missing my point, but I'm not trying to argue with you, just point out that the doc said Caylee decomposed left side head down, and we have a detective that says the skull was virtually unmoved because of vegitation, and he says it was upright and unmoved for six months! That's a HUGE discrepancy! At least let's don't totally sit back and watch the State fail, and her and all her co-conspirators walk!

I do not think the state has said it was 'totally' upright and 'totally' unmoved.
What I mean is that they are saying it was originally decomposing in a fetal position for a number of days, and then moved to the Suburban site. And then, because of the hurricane and the elements and animals foraging, the remains may have been slightly moved around, by water and wind and heavy rains,all of which could account for debris in the cranium. And the roots began to grow and set it in a 'somewhat' upright position. But I am sure that it tilted one way or another at different times due to heavy winds or flooding or debris.

What the state is disputing is that a random stranger TOOK the remains out of the dump site and returned it months later. And that is what Dr. S. tried to put forward with his convoluted testimony, imo.

 

[PaulaF513]

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.

I respectfully disagree. Dr. G also said there is no reason to apply duct tape to the face of a living child.

Does duct tape stick to wet, slimy sufaces? That's what Caylee's face would be if her body was purging fluids after she drowned.

The duct tape stuck in that baby's hair, thankfully held in place throughout decomposition, even after losing its adhesive, the threads of the backing entangled with a small bone at the mandible joint, and gave mute evidence of how this child died.

 

[samhunt]

I can't ever recall an autopsy I know of where it wasn't done, I don't know if there is a national or international protocol on it, or if Orange Co. has such a policy. But one thing I can tell you with certainty (because I remember it like yesterday) is that an old professor in a cadaver lab at Texas Tech told me, "You can't see why an engine quit running without opening the hood and getting dirty." What followed will never be forgotten. These Doctors deserve our utmost respect for what they do everyday.

How many of those autopsies were of skeletonized remains?

 

[Kimster]

Knock off the personal comments and have a healthy debate in here.

What is a healthy debate? Well, start off with eliminating the word "you" and back up opinions with links or personal experience.

 

[LongtimeMedic]

Posters are just asking for a link to your statements of fact .It's expected here.

Sorry I broke rules here, but I can't provide any documentation that the specimens were given to the State as Spitz's testimony is doubtfully available. Please point out my erroneous facts and I'll see if they have been addressed or if I can rehab them for you.

 

[katydid23]

I can't ever recall an autopsy I know of where it wasn't done, I don't know if there is a national or international protocol on it, or if Orange Co. has such a policy. But one thing I can tell you with certainty (because I remember it like yesterday) is that an old professor in a cadaver lab at Texas Tech told me, "You can't see why an engine quit running without opening the hood and getting dirty." What followed will never be forgotten. These Doctors deserve our utmost respect for what they do everyday.

How many of those autopsies were on skeletal remains which had been in a swamp for 6 months? Would that make a difference?

p.s. my 23 yr old son just passed the test for certification as an EMT. Cross your fingers because he really wants to be hired soon.

 

[dr dona]

Again all the sources I have been able to find classify this autopsy as an anthropologic one since the body was skeletonized. However the ME has to examine to find the means and manner of death. All the resources I have found do not mention sawing away the calvarium. Rather, in most examinations of skeletelized bone the skull is left intact to check for indentations etc. I have spent many hours doing exhaustive research on this

 

[yllek]

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.

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

Imo, Dr. G used a different technique to determine the same thing that Dr. S feels should be determined through opening the skull. New school vs. old school. I think Dr. S either believes that old school is the only reliable and thorough way, or part of his objective on the stand was to give examples of how Dr. G's work was "shoddy" and he had no protocols to support his contention, so he used the fact that she didn't do it like he would have (and an unfounded insinuation that evidence photos were improperly posed) to try and discredit the ME's rulings. That was his job today. I found him completely lacking credibility, but that's just my personal judgment and we all see things differently.

I have zero doubt in my mind that Mr. Ashton will call Dr. G as a rebuttal witness to explain why she did not open the skull. If she was able to get the same thorough results without having to do so (by using a different technique) she will tell us. If she used a less thorough method and just did not think it was necessary or proper to examine the skull to the fullest extent, she will explain why. At that time, I think we and the jury will have enough information to determine if something was done "shoddily" or not. No medical protocols have been produced in this thread (that I saw) to indicate that a vital step was skipped in the autopsy of skeletal remains.

Until then, we were discussing who we found more believable. For me, Dr. G was much more credible and backed up her science and her opinions. She came across as a little uncomfortable and defensive to me, but I understand because I know the history of the defense's tactics with her and she probably has a healthy ego too. I think the jury may not have felt as warmly towards her as most of us do, but I don't believe they would have had any reason to doubt her credibility or passion. She was not evasive; solid.

Dr. S, on the other hand, could not back up anything and could not remember or did not bother to learn much about the critical circumstances leading up to the death. If it turns out that it might have been somewhat better to open up the skull (other than for Dr. S's reason of it it being a "national case"), we can give Dr. S that point and then judge for ourselves whether it would have made any difference whatsoever in how Dr. G ruled the death or how little Caylee died.

All JMO...

 

[allycat1208]

Is it true that Dr. G did not open the skull and examine it? Also, did Dr. Spitz say that duct tape would not stay on the face if it was placed on it prior to death and decomposition?

 

[dr dona]

PS-- BritsKate I agree with you...Luv Dr Dona