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

[Wysteria]

I voted for Dr. G.

Although I have a tremendous fondness and bond well with the elderly; I personally liked Dr. S. and his mannerisms. As a juror I would have given some weight regarding his testimony; not based on what I just stated but based on his experience. As a juror I would not even venture to deliberate on Dr. S's motives for testifying in this case. His experience is impressive. He's worked very hard all of his life and is clearly devoted to his profession.

However, I think that Dr. G. and her knowledge of this case (the totalilty) far exceeds Dr. S's knowlege of this case. As a juror; I would certainly give greater weight to Dr. G's opinion's because of her knowledge of this case. There are other factors I've considered as to why I voted for Dr. G.

 

[leophoenix]

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.

The only problem with this theory is that duct tape will not adhere/bond with wet surfaces well at all. There is a special Duct tape from 3m designed to stick to wet surfaces but, it has a special adhesive and is somewhat a new product. Try it yourself at home. Spray water on a piece of duct tape and try to stick to your mouth. It will barely stick at all.

 

[Jolynna]

I would tend to agree with you on this. The idea of the duct tape to prevent purging doesn't fit into my perception of something Casey would do.

It doesn't fit into my perception of anything ICA would do either.

Not that it matters. It doesn't look like ICA's defense team or ICA is planning to admit ICA put duct duct on the face of an alive or a dead Caylee.

ICA's defense team's star medical examiner just spent a whole day testifying that no tape was applied to the Caylee's face until nothing was left but bone and hair.

And JB has stated that George and the meter reader are the ones with control of Caylee's remains.

 

[Linda7NJ]

This could be true, too. I'm just saying I think KC is totally capable of applying duct tape to her dead child, sadly.

I see Casey as extremely & consistently LAZY and I find it hard to believe she would apply duct tape to her dead daughter to solve any purging issue when all she would need to do would be stuff her in some Hefty Bags. That's exactly what she did AFTER she murdered her with duct tape...I just pray little Caylee was knocked out at the time w/ chloroform and simply never woke up.

 

[Kelroy]

I'm not an expert in court testimony but I have to say this is the first time I have seen a witness not be able to say what he is basing his opinion on. He said he went to a house, talked to someone he couldn't remember and they had a pool. Baez also told him some things. That is just unbelievable to me. I understand this man is educated, experienced, etc. but he acted offended that he was asked to explain and defend his opinion. His reputation is just not enough for him to walk in, state an opinion and expect everyone to accept it as truth. As the judge so wisely said earlier in the day, this is not a game. Then he lies about his interviews although he blamed his memory. If his memory is as bad as he made it out to be then I don't see how anyone could just accept his opinion without complete knowledge of it's basis. I find it humorous that some think JA was provoking him or being disrespectful. Can you even imagine how the DT would have reacted if Dr. Vass said "I don't remember" half the times Dr. S. did in his his testimony? That was entirely unacceptable IMO. He was the least prepared witness I've ever seen. He acted like everyone should have just been honored he showed up.

This is exactly what gets to me! Look, I'd have been quite happy to see a competent expert refute Dr. G's findings; again, I don't think she's infallible. And some people have made some good points here: maybe Dr. S is right and the skull should have been cut (though Dr. S and no one here can provide a citation), and there's certainly no harm in second-guessing an expert opinion . . . but if, only if, there are facts to back up that second guess. Dr. S seemed to offer no verifiable facts on which he based his opinion--and I'm astounded.

 

[yllek]

In an address to two quotes of my posts you started with "Imo, Dr. G used a different technique to determine the same thing that Dr. S feels should be determined through opening the skull."

I've read her report... what new age methods are we discussing?

Using current standards and protocols, Dr. G professes that she conducted and documented a thorough examination of the skeletal remains of Caylee Marie Anthony in her role as the Medical Examiner. Nothing I have read on this thread thus far has been produced to indicate that opening the skull is a standard or required protocol for skeletal autopsy. If opening the skull is something Dr. S believes is required to do a thorough and valid examination, based on his training 50 years ago and his experience, he wasn't able to cite a protocol to support that it is "shoddy" not to do it by today's standards.

I am not interested in debating medical techniques (but happily reading when you and others do); just expressing my opinion based on what we've heard from both witnesses.

 

[ZsaZsa]

Second guessing isn't necessarily a bad thing. Even the best of experts are not infallible.

I agree. But the second guessing in this case (Dr S) is saying that she was shoddy, when she was not. She visualized the skull in its entirety, collected the only contents which was some sandy dirt. What exactly is missing from this examination, that someone who was not there, did not document his own findings until almost 2 years later now says there was?
What did she miss by not opening the skull?
Nothing...

 

[BritsKate]

For anyone interested there is a video tour of the ME facility on this link:

http://www.orangecountyfl.net/YourL...ision/MedicalExaminer/tabid/2388/Default.aspx

It is hardly archaic IMO.

 

[Linda7NJ]

It doesn't fit into my perception of anything ICA would do either.

Especially since her defense team's star medical examiner worked so hard to establish that no tape was applied to the Caylee's face until nothing was left but bone and hair. No purging at that point.

And JB has stated that George and the meter reader are the ones who had control of Caylee's remains.

It doesn't look like ICA's defense team or ICA is planning to admit ICA put duct duct on the face of a dead or an alive Caylee.

Casey's unwillingness to accept ANY responsibility for her daughters "accidental" ( eyeroll) death or disposal is the pitfall of the defense team. It's what happens when nuts run the sanitarium. :crazy:

 

[GeekyGirl]

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.

The presumption of bias is necessary because we are all biased. Our brains are wired to be biased. We are not computers who process information dispassionately. It's not necessarily a bad thing, but it does mean that it's important to examine conclusions to determine if they were made based on facts, or if conclusions were made first and the evidence was interpreted in the light that best supports our conclusions. A case like this, which goes against one of the most primal human instincts, maternal love, creates such strong emotional discord that we are compelled to try and find answers. I don't think I've seen people on here, myself included, who are eager to believe the defense, and I know I don't believe that Dr. G or any of the other SA experts did anything in bad faith. I think what you're seeing is people who didn't have strong conviction of KC's guilt coming into the trial trying to interpret the evidence. I'm truly sorry if that comes across as disrespectful, I know I certainly don't mean it that way. MOO

 

[Turnadot]

I see Casey as extremely & consistently LAZY and I find it hard to believe she would apply duct tape to her dead daughter to solve any purging issue when all she would need to do would be stuff her in some Hefty Bags. That's exactly what she did AFTER she murdered her with duct tape...I just pray little Caylee was knocked out at the time w/ chloroform and simply never woke up.

Hm. Yeah, that's a good point, too.

 

[crucibelle]

It has to be opened and looked inside of, because after decomp is done, inside the cranium and inside the bone cores are the only places cryptic evidence will be found. The rest of the body is GONE. Why would you NOT want to know what's INSIDE what you have left?? Makes no sense.

Addendum: removing the cranial cap showed which side the of the head was laying towards gravity, as decomp residue was on the left side, not the back, and DR G MISSED THAT!!!

BBM. Yeah, provided one actually buys Dr. S's testimony on that. I certainly am not buying it.

 

[RR473]

I didn't vote because I think both have shortcomings. They shouldn't have denied Dr S's help in which case they would've opened the skull and the residue would've been tested. Who knows maybe Xanny would've been caught right there.

 

[crucibelle]

Actually what she said was ante mortem......which I think means before death.

In her report, she states "before decomposition".

 

[GeekyGirl]

The only problem with this theory is that duct tape will not adhere/bond with wet surfaces well at all. There is a special Duct tape from 3m designed to stick to wet surfaces but, it has a special adhesive and is somewhat a new product. Try it yourself at home. Spray water on a piece of duct tape and try to stick to your mouth. It will barely stick at all.

I really don't think this is what happened, but for arguments sake, in my experience fluids don't necessarily purge at a continuous, steady rate. You could probably wipe the face off and apply the tape. *shudders* Ick.. That's a horrible image.

 

[celticthyme]

There was NO TISSUE. She was a SKELETON. She was in water for six months at least, then animals ate the tissue off of her after that. I'm sorry to be so graphic, but there was not one iota of tissue left inside that skull. He had no reason to open that skull, and it is inexcusable that he also damaged it. There is no excuse for how he treated Caylee's remains, which were completely skeletonized. He was too greedy for money and fame. I don't care about his credentials, I don't like him and I'm glad Ashton shredded him apart on stand. He is an embarrassment to the medical community.

I wish I could remember who, but several witnesses have said that Caylee was completely skeletonized after 8-12 days, especially in the elements in Florida.

 

[ijam]

Funny thing to me is Spitzer stated this in his report "The skull had not been opened, at the first autopsy, in accordance with normal protocols as when dealing with skeletal remains"
then said Dr G did shoddy work b'c skull wasn't opened..
http://www.clickorlando.com/download/2011/0314/27194964.pdf

I also can not imagine doing an autopsy on a child on Christmas eve..

 

[LongtimeMedic]

I agree. But the second guessing in this case (Dr S) is saying that she was shoddy, when she was not. She visualized the skull in its entirety, collected the only contents which was some sandy dirt. What exactly is missing from this examination, that someone who was not there, did not document his own findings until almost 2 years later now says there was?
What did she miss by not opening the skull?
Nothing...

Dr G's report states "The inner aspect of the cranial cavity is examined with light and reveals sandy dirt and a small an attached incisor which is attached to the inside of the calvarium with dirt." http://blogs.discovery.com/files/caylee_anthony_autopsy01.pdf page 9

Now if I read that correctly, there was also a TOOTH in that dirt in the skull!! Dr G was thorough by not looking farther?? JMHO

 

[drip~drop]

Without any doubt in the world, I trust in Dr.G.


<back to the top of the thread>

 

[RR473]

LongtimeMedic it is my understanding that Dr. Spitz only observed "debris" inside the skull. IIRC, it was dirt/mud.

the debris was never analyzed. So we don't know what it was and it could contain medication used by Caylee.