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

[dilbert]

I felt kind of bad for Dr. S this AM...My father in law is right around his age, in his carrer he was a genuine rocket scientist. He is still a very wise man due much respect, but his ability to comprehend and communicate is slipping rapidlly, and it saddens me to no end.

I try to take all emotion away when viewing this case, but I cannot help but feel compassion for a man who has accomplished so much in his life, and was demeaned by his testimony today.

The defense is to blame for that, they should never have put him on the stand.

 

[RavenTrue]

Hands down Dr G.
Dr S's discription of someone moving the hair around, oh boy what can you say to such a rediculious statement.

When you forget your own question, and contradict to the point that it's leaning for the opposing team...what can I say? :great:

 

[RR473]

Do you mean Dr S? in your first sentence?

Why would the State allow an outside ME to participate in an autopsy of an as yet unidentified child? The DT must have known it was Caylee right, as no positive identification had been done at that point.

Yes corrected it. Thanks.

Well as Dr S said it's custom to do that. Examiners even invite each other cross country to be there while autopsy is done.
If you have ever been to a hospital you would know that doctors do that often too.

 

[sleutherontheside]

I agree with you, however, it's not a huge stretch by any means to conclude that the remains were Caylee's considering she was the only child missing in the area at the time and the remains were found essentially around the corner from where she lived.

BUT....when attacking protocol.......protocol is a factor.

The DT can't have it both ways.
"You refused our request to observe the Autopsy."
AND
"You failed to follow protocol (which was rebutted by JA) by not opening the skull."

If you cite standards and procedures...then they apply to everything, not just what fits the defense theory.

JMO

 

[joypath]

I agree with you, however, it's not a huge stretch by any means to conclude that the remains were Caylee's considering she was the only child missing in the area at the time and the remains were found essentially around the corner from where she lived.

BBM :twocents: Does NOT matter, the victim was NOT identified at the time of the post, persons who had a RIGHT to be there were limited to LE and those involved in assisting with the case.


Autopsies are not a "spectator sport"


all my humble opinion, of course

 

[MissJames]

:twocents: IMHO...He read the preliminary OME reports....heck by 12/24/2008, they might have been FINAL reports! :rocker:


Dr. Spitz's report DID NOT have any sample results from HIS post.

Joypath,
He made a big deal about bringing gloves and protection wear to do the autopsy and was surprised that there was no tissue. If that's true,then he read nothing didn't have that info from JB. I find that odd,that he didn't understand that Caylee's remains were skeletal. Do you? Or would you expect him to go in knowing nothing?

 

[Turnadot]

Yes corrected it. Thanks.

Well as Dr S said it's custom to do that. Examiners even invite each other cross country to be there while autopsy is done.
If you have ever been to a hospital you would know that doctors do that often too.

This is irrelevant, as evidenced by the fact that Judge Strickland ruled Dr Spitz couldn't be present at an unidentified child's autopsy.

 

[crucibelle]

I do not think he fell apart at all. I am not Bill S., just an average person like those on the jury. I do not think that everyone on the jury will feel he fell apart on cross.

Dr. Spitz is an older gentleman and he has old school manners. Thanking Ashton was just being gentlemanly, which is refreshing these days.

From what Kathi B. of WFTV reported about the jurors' reactions during Dr. S's cross examination, I don't think they were buying what Dr. S was selling. I think a couple of them were even trying to contain giggles, as Kathi said they were smirking and covering their mouths.

 

[Tuffy]

If so, what about the ears? IIRC the duct tape was over the hair on the sides and not under to block anything from the ears.

Not to get too rude, but there are other holes in the body where fluids could escape that are not on the head either. Were they taped up?

This would be the first case I've heard of where the killer worried about fluid leaking from the body after death so, I don't know.

 

[Quiche]

Here is Valhall's masterful analysis of Dr S's post mortem.
http://www.thehinkymeter.com/2011/0...ase-a-defense-pathologist-spitz-out-a-report/

This is an awesome critique! :clap:

 

[IfIMay]

Residue of brain. Well What could he do? Dr G had the luxury of using states funds to access the services of a lab not Dr S.

At that point, Baez had in excess of $200k at his disposal. He sold Caylee, the least he could do was pay for a test to determine such "important matters". If the good Dr. Spitz had collected the matter, Baez could have had the STATE pay for the test after the indigency hearing. He didn't want to test it because he knew it was dirt.

 

[MissJames]

Complete footage of Dr. Spitz' testimony can be found at wftv.com

http://www.wftv.com/video/28280973/index.html

Happy Hunting !

 

[Tuffy]

From what Kathi B. of WFTV reported about the jurors' reactions during Dr. S's cross examination, I don't think they were buying what Dr. S was selling. I think a couple of them were even trying to contain giggles, as Kathi said they were smirking and covering their mouths.

Yeah, I think if Ashton believed that the jurors were buying into Dr. Spitz's story, he would have continued. Seeing that they weren't, I think he was wise to end questioning where he did.

 

[joypath]

Do you mean Dr S? in your first sentence?

Why would the State allow an outside ME to participate in an autopsy of an as yet unidentified child? The DT must have known it was Caylee right, as no positive identification had been done at that point.

perfectly stated, and HAD the defense gang notified the OME of the victim's name.....Werner Spitz might have then been allowed to OBSERVE, in the spirit of collegiality :innocent:

 

[cuppy199]

BBM
I agree that he felt good reason to open the skull as it is something he has always done and as stated he did find drug residue in a previous case. My question to him, is why cut open the skull if you are not intending on doing any lab work on anything he may find?

Because IMO if he had tested it he couldn't of came in court and stated in his opinion it was brain residue. The elements that child was in and as long as the sweet baby was laying there was nothing left. Dr G didnt test it because there was nothing to test. Defense spin thats there job. I personally dont think the jury bought it.

 

[dilbert]

BUT....when attacking protocol.......protocol is a factor.

The DT can't have it both ways.
"You refused our request to observe the Autopsy."
AND
"You failed to follow protocol (which was rebutted by JA) by not opening the skull."

If you cite standards and procedures...then they apply to everything, not just what fits the defense theory.

JMO

Excellent point, not arguing that at all. I'm just trying to say to those that think it's suspicious for the defense to call out their experts before the remains were officially identified is silly because she was the only child missing at the time and was found very close to where she lived. It's a reasonable conclusion. IMO.

 

[ZsaZsa]

Residue of brain. Well What could he do? Dr G had the luxury of using states funds to access the services of a lab not Dr S.

Oh please.
A pathologist who has participated in 60,000 autopsies does not know how to pick up the phone and get the 'residue' tested? He had instructions from the DT as to his findings, he could have called and asked what they wanted done with the 'residue' if he had no clue. If there was anything there, which is not certain, since he didn't mention it until March 2011.

 

[GeekyGirl]

Not to get too rude, but there are other holes in the body where fluids could escape that are not on the head either. Were they taped up?

This would be the first case I've heard of where the killer worried about fluid leaking from the body after death so, I don't know.

Again, for arguments sake, a pull up might have made the other holes a non issue. I still don't feel the duct tape placed to prevent purging, but that's JMO.

 

[beach]

Hi! Finally coming out of "lurkdom" to post! I voted Dr. G. She isn't dumb, she knew the DT would be watching for any little slip up. I do not see the point of sawing Caylee's skull when it was obvious the there was no tissue, and the skull was not attached to the vertebrae. And why should she have invited Dr. Spitz to view the autopsy? Caylee had not been positively identified at that point. It could have been another child!

:welcome:

 

[MissJames]

This is an awesome critique! :clap:

And that's actually written by our own JWG,not Valhall, though both always deliver!:great: