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

[Turnadot]

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

Well, I watched it today and didn't hear it, but I'm fully aware that he might have said it and I missed it, hence my request for a citation.

I wasn't trying to imply you are a nut or anything and I aplogise if I made you feel that way.

And insofar as you thinking Dr Spitz did well today, it's irrelevant to my conversation with you in this thread, ironically, since it's what this thread title is about. At the end of the day, only 12 people's opinions matter, so I'm not married to my own opinion; I was just trying to have a discussion.

 

[LongtimeMedic]

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...

If you have a link, I'd be happy to read it.

 

[beeshie]

I was really surprised the defense didn't object during cross-examination when Dr. Spitz was asked about his theory of when the duct tape was applied. He was bumbling around with a theory and the defense just let him do it. I was even more surprised that Mason had a smile on his face during that line of questioning and that he didn't rehabilitate Dr. Spitz about this on redirect. What's up with that?

 

[BritsKate]

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.

The Florida Association of Medical Examiners has a general protocol that does not address cutting the calvarium of skeletal remains. The National Association of Medical Examiners also has a general set of guidelines that does not address cutting the calvarium of skeletal remains. Links to both sets of guidelines were provided in previous posts I believe.

 

[GeekyGirl]

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.

I apologize for the O/T, but good luck to your son! EMS is a tough job, but a very rewarding one.

 

[ZsaZsa]

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.

One big difference in the way Dr G works is that she still considers the person in front of her as a person, not a structure to be dissassembled, unless clinically necessary.
There was no indication for her to have to open the cranium. She had already been able to see the interior and there were no contents.
If you recall when she was asked on the stand whether she did open the skull she immediately shot back, "Absolutely Not"- it was not an oversight nor shoddy work, it was her clinical decision.

 

[MissJames]

If you have a link, I'd be happy to read it.

IMO and JMO mean In My Opinion and Just My Opinion . You can see them at the beginning and end of the OP (Original Poster's) post.
No links required for opinions ,just what you claim are facts .:seeya:

 

[celticthyme]

I actually feel sorry for <modsnip>. How humiliating. Hubris at its best.

JB and CM should be ashamed of themselves for even putting him on the stand. Was LKB behind this? Shame on her too.

You are so right Jersey Girl, and I blame them also for him really not being prepared. One really has to wonder if these people gave him the basic facts, including the 31 days, storm in August and the bagging. Huge pieces of information. And as Dr G says you always have to look at one's decision in light of the surrounding circumstances. Spitz was not even able to recall the Anthony name. Despicable behavior for Baez & Mason, but then who can be surprised by the depth to which they will stoop, or the number of innocent people they through to the wolves. This man should have been left alone to maintain the dignity and respect he once had as a scientist.

 

[BritsKate]

One big difference in the way Dr G works is that she still considers the person in front of her as a person, not a structure to be dissassembled, unless clinically necessary.
There was no indication for her to have to open the cranium. She had already been able to see the interior and there were no contents.
If you recall when she was asked on the stand whether she did open the skull she immediately shot back, "Absolutely Not"- it was not an oversight nor shoddy work, it was her clinical decision.

And from what I can ascertain may well be part and parcel of her local, individual protocol that a chief medical examiner has control of.

 

[rhornsby]

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.

I agree with this point you have made and it is one I find unbelievable the defense did not adopt.

This spilling you reference is called purge and occurs in every death, whether intentional or natural.

Importantly, although it looks like blood to a lay person, it actually is not. So this would likely freak someone like Casey out and she would want to stop it from occurring, thus the tape.

 

[GeekyGirl]

One big difference in the way Dr G works is that she still considers the person in front of her as a person, not a structure to be dissassembled, unless clinically necessary.
There was no indication for her to have to open the cranium. She had already been able to see the interior and there were no contents.
If you recall when she was asked on the stand whether she did open the skull she immediately shot back, "Absolutely Not"- it was not an oversight nor shoddy work, it was her clinical decision.

I wouldn't consider this a "difference". It's been my experience that medical examiners and pathologists have a great deal of respect for the dead, but ultimately it is their job to try and find answers. It's a very difficult line to walk, and everyone has their own coping mechanisms. MOO

 

[LongtimeMedic]

One big difference in the way Dr G works is that she still considers the person in front of her as a person, not a structure to be dissassembled, unless clinically necessary.
There was no indication for her to have to open the cranium. She had already been able to see the interior and there were no contents.
If you recall when she was asked on the stand whether she did open the skull she immediately shot back, "Absolutely Not"- it was not an oversight nor shoddy work, it was her clinical decision.

In a case like this, if someone is bold enough to state is a Homicide, it wouldn't be appropriate for the pathologist to do as thorough exam as possible to back up potentially putting someone else to death?? A Postmortem exam IS NOT considered desecration of a body! Not finding if there are more than one criminal in the case is far more insulting to me if you let them go.

 

[yllek]

If you have a link, I'd be happy to read it.

I am not claiming any medical expertise and I'm waiting to hear Dr. G address the criticisms levied by Dr. S today to understand why she chose to do the skull examination as she did. I believe (and hope) it will be addressed in rebuttal. Then, I'll be able to form my opinion as to whether Dr. S's contention of "shoddy" work holds any merit whatsoever. At this point, I find him lacking credibility and imo his criticisms were not supported by facts or protocols today. That's what my post says, in a nutshell.

So, I don't understand your request for a link. A link to what? The opinions I posted? My prediction that the issue will be addressed in rebuttal? Sorry, truly unclear what you're asking for... I wasn't asking for you to read or weigh in or anything; just posting my opinions...:dunno:

 

[Carrington]

You are so right Jersey Girl, and I blame them also for him really not being prepared. One really has to wonder if these people gave him the basic facts, including the 31 days, storm in August and the bagging. Huge pieces of information. And as Dr G says you always have to look at one's decision in light of the surrounding circumstances. Spitz was not even able to recall the Anthony name. Despicable behavior for Baez & Mason, but then who can be surprised by the depth to which they will stoop, or the number of innocent people they through to the wolves. This man should have been left alone to maintain the dignity and respect he once had as a scientist.

I feel it was also his responsibility to know the facts before testifying on a case. Facts were not hard to find.
IMO

 

[Turnadot]

I agree with this point you have made and it is one I find unbelievable the defense did not adopt.

This spilling you reference is called purge and occurs in every death, whether intentional or natural.

Importantly, although it looks like blood to a lay person, it actually is not. So this would likely freak someone like Casey out and she would want to stop it from occurring, thus the tape.

In your opinion, did Dr Spitz damage the State's case?

 

[BritsKate]

In a case like this, if someone is bold enough to state is a Homicide, it wouldn't be appropriate for the pathologist to do as thorough exam as possible to back up potentially putting someone else to death?? A Postmortem exam IS NOT considered desecration of a body! Not finding if there are more than one criminal in the case is far more insulting to me if you let them go.

But again according to all the documentation I can attain Drs Garavaglia, Utz, Schultz, and Goldberger did do a thorough examination.

A 36 page report.

Dr. Spitz testified he 'talked to the people he needed to talk to who knew about those things' (paraphrasing).

A 2 page report.

IMO, I am much more confident in a ruling of homicide than accidental for those reasons alone.

 

[Turnadot]

I feel it was also his responsibility to know the facts before testifying on a case. Facts were not hard to find.
IMO

I quite agree.

I'm curious what Mr Hornsby's opinion is of Dr Spitz's testimony, because he's objective, and I'm probably seeing Ashton's cross with rose coloured glasses, IMO.

 

[ZsaZsa]

I quite agree.

I'm curious what Mr Hornsby's opinion is of Dr Spitz's testimony, because he's objective, and I'm probably seeing Ashton's cross with rose coloured glasses, IMO.

Mr Hornsby said (paraphrased) The only thing Dr S convinced anyone of today is that he's an old guy...

 

[crucibelle]

Exactly, what the prosecutors case is missing is some objective, scientific evidence...she could and should have done that.

And what the defense case is missing is... a defense. As opposed to a fairy tale, of course.

 

[Carrington]

I agree with this point you have made and it is one I find unbelievable the defense did not adopt.

This spilling you reference is called purge and occurs in every death, whether intentional or natural.

Importantly, although it looks like blood to a lay person, it actually is not. So this would likely freak someone like Casey out and she would want to stop it from occurring, thus the tape.

Yes, but what a horrible task to undertake.
Putting myself in that position, I would have worn heavy work gloves.
Not so much that no fingerprints would be found, just the ick factor.
Well, of course fingerprints second thought.