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

DNA Solves
DNA Solves
DNA Solves

Who do you find more credible and believable?

  • Dr. G

    Votes: 747 96.5%
  • Dr. S

    Votes: 27 3.5%

  • Total voters
    774
  • Poll closed .
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...
But that wasn't confirmed until the skull was opened, and IIRC there was still sediment inside, so she didn't collect everything. I'm not arguing that her work was shoddy, in fact I think she was pretty reasonable, just pointing out that it's not inappropriate to say that she didn't open the skull when there may have been other ME's who would have. MOO
 
Dr. S said that Dr. G violated protocol, but he couldn't say what protocol was. That destroyed his testimony to me. That and implying that the duct tape was added after decomp. I guess he forgot that the duct tape was also degraded! Early in decomp, the brain liquifies and flows out the openings in the head. Why examine a skull with liquified innards? And "brain dust"? I couldn't find "brain dust" referred to anywhere other than in an MRI of a living person. Certainly NOT what Dr. S was saying. It's pretty clear he was a "hired gun" since he immediately went for the corrupt investigation excuse. There's nothing to back up his explanation. Not to mention that he claims to have done thousands of autopsies in his career. If he didn't take time out to eat and sleep, maybe. But Superman, he is not.
 
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

Yes, that is what she documented in her report, and that is what I have cited from.
What exactly did she miss? She irrigated the cavity clean with N/S.

See my post #456 earlier this pm.
 
I am sorry but have spent hours trying to find the so called "Expected" or Protocols that Dr. Spitz suggested in his testimony....Cant find a thing??

All I found was identifications ( DNA ) and a visualization of the bones to ascertain possible injuries or disease...Humm I saw nothing about Opening of skulls ??..I am totally incredulous about Sr. Spitz's suggestion that Dr. G. gave a "Shoddy" autopsy...:banghead:

Anyway..Due to her actions (Dr. G.) she did all she could with what was left of poor Caylee..at least Caylee got identified..:great: and documented what she saw, found and sent appropriate items for lab work... Xrays showed NO SOFT TISSUE left in skull..thus NO brain matter..only dirt/debris from a 6 month history of being left in a dump/critter fodder/ floodings and goodness knows what else...

I wish Dr. Spitz could have cited some protocol to included Skull "Capping"..which is what he suggested..but I really LOL..as there isnt..especially with NO brain left:floorlaugh:..I know it isnt funny that Caylee had nothing left..but Dr. Spitz was blowwing smoke with his accusations..Maybe he forgot about the imaging capablilty of today's sciences?? Maybe he has not read the latest on things?? But doesnt matter/because in the past decade..he has proven over and over again..His testimony is based on HIS opinion..NOT science or provable documentation!!
His credentialling seems to reached an expirey date..I find it so SAD:crazy:
 
:offtobed:

Good night friends. I am not a chemist and my cranium needs a break.

Justice for Caylee is just around the corner...
 
IMO the DT experts have to discredit the prosecution experts by whatever means especially those who have an opinion with respect to existence of tape prior to death/decomp precisely because of Florida v. Huck...
 
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.

No tissue in skull but surely residue. Dr S even scraped some of the residue off the skull but since had no lab to test it left it at that. Testing the residue could have shown if Caylee was taking any medication.
 
Dr. S said that Dr. G violated protocol, but he couldn't say what protocol was. That destroyed his testimony to me. That and implying that the duct tape was added after decomp. I guess he forgot that the duct tape was also degraded! Early in decomp, the brain liquifies and flows out the openings in the head. Why examine a skull with liquified innards? And "brain dust"? I couldn't find "brain dust" referred to anywhere other than in an MRI of a living person. Certainly NOT what Dr. S was saying. It's pretty clear he was a "hired gun" since he immediately went for the corrupt investigation excuse. There's nothing to back up his explanation. Not to mention that he claims to have done thousands of autopsies in his career. If he didn't take time out to eat and sleep, maybe. But Superman, he is not.

I just posted ..I spent hours trying to find protocols regarding autopsies of skeletal remain..NADDA..Yikes..It does appear Dr. SPitz makes up his own rules..opinions based on his thoughts not evidence..yikes.. He ends up saying in the end..BELIEVE me when I say..:waitasec:
 
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.

ICA isn't going to say she stuck duct tape on Caylee's face for any reason and certainly not on a dead Caylee to stop purge.

Her star medical examiner just spent the whole day explaining how it is impossible for the tape to have been applied to anything but Caylee's bones and hair.

And her head lawyer, JB, told us, in his opening statement, that George and RK had control of Caylee's body. Overcome with grief, KC had run off to Tony's to disassociate and party by 4:30 p.m. on June 16.

ICA would have to get up on the stand and say forget about...um...whoops, scratch everything JB said, NOW that I've heard all of the evidence, I've got a NEW and improved true story, honest, really, I swear this time...(and if you buy that I've also got a bridge to sell because I'm going to need an RV).
 
I just posted ..I spent hours trying to find protocols regarding autopsies of skeletal remain..NADDA..Yikes..It does appear Dr. SPitz makes up his own rules..opinions based on his thoughts not evidence..yikes.. He ends up saying in the end..BELIEVE me when I say..:waitasec:

PLEASE believe me :floorlaugh:
 
Well, I've drawn the conclusion that works for me.
Whatever Dr S says about anything is a given.
IMO
 
:twocents: Hmmmmm I'm supporting TEAM (yeah, the TEAM approach where "more than one set of eyes were present at the autopsy) Office of the Medical Examiner, District nine.

I M H O.:innocent:
 
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.

He also said he was told things by Cheney Mason, but CM was not on the DT team back then. As a matter of fact,CM was saying it was obvious ICA was guilty back then.
 
Yes, age bashing is in very poor form, however I believe comments about the state of DrS's mental health are very relevant to his testimony. As a medical professional without speaking to him directly, without seeing tests done on him or with him, I could not comment on the state of his mental health. However, it is my personal opinion formed watching him appear to have some difficulty putting the skull back together, appear to have some difficulty understanding the questions put to him as well as appear to have problems forming coherent answers to those questions, the doctor is possibly facing early stages of mental decline. Declines of this type are attributable to many causes, but decline corresponding to increased age is the most common among them. I would for example site from a University of Iowa, peer reviewed article titled; "Memory and the Aging Brain" by Steven W. Anderson, Phd and Thomas J. Grabowski, Jr. MD and I quote; "All people are at risk for dementia, with the greatest risk factor being increased age." http://www.uihealthcare.com/topics/medicaldepartments/neurology/memory/index.html

It is my personal opinion that the doctor in testifiying that duct tape was placed on the skull after the skull had undergone near total decomposition, has put fourth a theory that is so abstract and so lacking in evidence or logic, that it leaves me questioning the mental state of this professional. Given the other factors sited, his difficulty formulating coherent, relevant answers to direct questions, his apparent difficulty with manual dexterity, etc, age related dementia or a similar condition resulting in some level of decreased mental capacity should be considered. This would IMO, directly relate to the credibility or lack there of, of any testimony he may give, in spite of his extensive and honored background. This is not age bashing, but a realistic look at the relevance of his testimony and so directly relates to his credibility, which I personally found very lacking.

Awesome post! "thanks" wasn't enough. :)
 
Dr G was the most credible, and factual witness to date IMO.

Just wish she hadn't flashed that smile while leaving the courtroom...what was that about?
Self congratulation....totally unnecessary (didn't ruin her testimony, but left you thinking..wt%^?) when you believed every syllable before.
 
No tissue in skull but surely residue. Dr S even scraped some of the residue off the skull but since had no lab to test it left it at that. Testing the residue could have shown if Caylee was taking any medication.

So is he saying that in a murder enquiry he found some unidentified substance (residue of what ?) inside the child's skull and just "left it at that!'
He's calling Dr G shoddy?
 
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..

He also stated that toxicological examinations were negative for drugs.
How did he test for drugs if he didn't have a lab as he said when asked if he tested the dust in the skull?
 
Dr G explained perfectly how she came to her conclusions. I voted for Dr G .Mr Ashton ripped Dr Spitz apart nothing the man said after that point mattered. I almost felt bad for the old gentlemen until I remember he wasnt there for the Caylee the victum he was there for the accused. He kept contradicting himself :twocents:
 

Members online

Online statistics

Members online
197
Guests online
268
Total visitors
465

Forum statistics

Threads
608,482
Messages
18,240,232
Members
234,385
Latest member
johnwich
Back
Top