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

[GeekyGirl]

Well I don't know how you can say that when the child had duct tape all over her face and high levels of chloroform in the air in her trunk even after many weeks, but you are certainly welcome to your own opinion. I hope we don't have jurors thinking in that manner.

Respectfully, it scares me that there could be jurors that accept the state's case as presented without question. MOO

 

[Mountain_Kat]

Well I don't know how you can say that when the child had duct tape all over her face and high levels of chloroform in the air in her trunk even after many weeks, but you are certainly welcome to your own opinion. I hope we don't have jurors thinking in that manner.

In all fairness to GeekyGirl, I also struggled with many of the things she is now struggling with. It took the testimony of a few specific witnesses (Dr. Haskell, for one) to lead me to where I am today with all of this.

If the DT ever presents a witness I can believe, then I might swing the other way. All I can do is listen.

 

[GeekyGirl]

That's true. But the defense team has already laid out their theory of what happened to this child. Do you think I'm being unreasonable to expect them to now prove this theory? Or am I simply supposed to take their word for it?

ETA: P.S. I am not allowed to listen to the TH's while watching the trial. Judges orders.

No, I don't think you're unreasonable at all, I think my position is not that the state met the burden of proof and now the defense has to challenge it, it's that I don't feel, IMO, that they met the BOP for first degree in the first place. Manslaughter, absolutely. The defense theory is crazy, but only goes to further reenforce my belief that Casey absolutely refuses to take responsibility for any part of Caylee's death, which leads me back to the fact that I do believe she'd cover up an accident if one occurred. Which leads me to question if I believe, with moral certainty, that the death was the result of a criminal act vs a negligent one. *whew* MOO of course. YMMV

 

[joypath]

I am way behind as I laid down and took a very long nap this evening (grandbaby is off with relatives tonight so Nana got to sleep!), but I wanted to respond to this post.

When Dr. Spitz was testifying to this scenario today, the look on John Ashton's face was simply priceless--he could not have looked any more incredulous at the concocted tale he was hearing from this once renowned scientist.

At one time, Dr. Spitz was held in very high esteem--even in my own eyes. However, when I saw him testifying in the Phil Spector case, my admiration of him as an unbiased witness began to waiver. After seeing his testimony today, I no longer find him to be a credible man--no matter what his past accomplishments or accreditations.

Once an opinion can be elicited by payment or publicity, the theory presented must be able to be held up to the utmost of scrutiny.

When Dr. Spitz stated that since this is such a high profile case, it requires more diligence than would the case of an 85 yr old person dying at home in bed, he totally lost me.

Every case, no matter if high profile or of anonymity, should be given the same care and meticulous attention to details. It was obvious that Dr. Spitz sees these two such case examples in a much different light.

:twocents: Point #1...ITA, he should have lost the entire "viewing/hearing audience". IMVHO...(and yes, it WAS an INSULT to those toiling in the field of forensic pathology at ANY level, heck it was an insult to ANY member of any pathology team (remember he mentioned hospital pathologists who perform autopsies also!)

:twocents: Point#2....ITA, again! The motto of all members of laboratory medicine should be ATD...attention to detail! (initials that my staff have threatened to have engraved on my headstone!).

:innocent:IMHO, that comment about the value of death investigation being dependent upon the societal ranking of the victim CLEARLY identified that he was a biased/"for hire"/egotistical and smart but inaccurate witness who might have "lost the human element of the jury".:maddening:

 

[Sleuth5]

Thanks. Even if I did misspell "explanation" three times. :floorlaugh:

We'll let it slide this time.

 

[sappysoul]

Respectfully, it scares me that there could be jurors that accept the state's case as presented without question. MOO

I don't really think that is what is being argued in this thread. Dr. G. does not have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Caylee was murdered. She only has to give a ruling on the manner of death. She can't be expected to look at the personality, criminal record or anything having to do with the suspect in determining her opinion. So the fact that Casey may or may not be capable of acting jolly following an accident OR murder isn't relevant. The jury can question the state's case and still not find reasonable doubt. IMO I think they will seriously question and consider all the evidence.

 

[gypsyblue]

I am confused as to how some can not rule out accidental drowning.

If you put the facts of the case together thus far you can rule that out. The jury are to use ALL of the facts and evidence in the case.

Unless you are of the belief that someone came along and added duct tape to the remains at a later date in the swamp, DTs theory has been ruled out....thanks to Dr.S

if you believe that kc added duct tape to stage a kidnapping, the defense is not saying this is what happened. They are saying someone else came along and felt like adding duct tape to a body.


The defense claims it was a drowning yet adds details that have already been proven otherwise, so how does their defense of an accidental drowning hold any weight?

if it were and an accidental drowning it would be just that, the rest would not have to be lies.


Ruling should be based on the evidence by the state and lack of by the defense..... to pick and chose and add own thoughts or scenarios that are not that of the defense nor the state, is not what the jury is there to do. imo

 

[Mountain_Kat]

No, I don't think you're unreasonable at all, I think my position is not that the state met the burden of proof and now the defense has to challenge it, it's that I don't feel, IMO, that they met the BOP for first degree in the first place. Manslaughter, absolutely. The defense theory is crazy, but only goes to further reenforce my belief that Casey absolutely refuses to take responsibility for any part of Caylee's death, which leads me back to the fact that I do believe she'd cover up an accident if one occurred. Which leads me to question if I believe, with moral certainty, that the death was the result of a criminal act vs a negligent one. *whew* MOO of course. YMMV

Well, if you are watching the trial, perhaps the state might present something during their rebuttal that could possibly change your mind. That could happen, don't you agree?

 

[GeekyGirl]

Well, if you are watching the trial, perhaps the state might present something during their rebuttal that could possibly change your mind. That could happen, don't you agree?

Absolutely, I've never stated otherwise. I hope they do.

 

[Sleuth5]

That's true. But the defense team has already laid out their theory of what happened to this child. Do you think I'm being unreasonable to expect them to now prove this theory? Or am I simply supposed to take their word for it?

ETA: P.S. I am not allowed to listen to the TH's while watching the trial. Judges orders.

You go, girl. The jury has a right to see the support for the outlandish serving of LiePie the DT offered up. Otherwise, no "reasonable" doubt, and here I mean a reasonable doubt as HHJBP is going to describe in the jury charge, not some lay interpretation -- which usually includes virtually anything, because subjectivity alone dictates that in a hundred different people you'll probably get seventy different versions of what constitutes "reasonable" even given identical facts. That's why we have courts and judges.

 

[joypath]

I'm seeing what may be something like a self-fulfilling prophesy within the ME office on this issue. Since they are the authority which declares manner of death, they create and control the statistics regardless of what actually happened. This situation involves cause of death being undetermined.

In spite of the 3 red flags, it is the duct tape over the mouth and nose which triggers the declaration that this is a homicide and not an accident. Because nobody puts tape on the face of a fatal accident victim.

But if somebody actually did put tape on the face of a child who had accidentally drowned it would be declared a homicide anyway. It looks like it would be close to impossible for the ME to say that it was an accidental drowning death of a child but then somebody put duct tape on their face. The duct tape demands the manner as homicide no matter what actually happened.

One could say, well, the ME might allow for an "exception to their 100% statistic" if they had a confession. But in a way that is what we have here. Casey by way of her defense is confessing that Caylee accidentally drowned and then afterwards duct tape was placed on her face. She is confessing that she told countless lies to cover up that this is what really happened. The state is refusing that "confession" and is prosecuting for murder with the full support of the ME who says that it is murder.

Even if there is an acquittal and Casey is declared innocent of the charges, the ME office will still count this as a Homicide and not an accident. Their "100% rule" will remain perpetually.

One small modification to that statement as a death certificate CAN BE AMENDED if/when more information is received by the OME. A declaration by a court of law that the death was an accident is one example of such information. The change in MOD would then drop the 100% statistic.

 

[Numbers]

IMO, Dr. S came off as a pompous man who gets angry very easily. It seemed to me like he was ticked off that he did not get to participate in Dr. G's autopsy so he was determined to undermine her credibility from that point forward. Just because he is older and has more work experience, does not mean he knows more about this particular case. His attitude came across as, "I speak therefore, you should believe everything I saw no matter what it is, and everybody else is stupid".

Just my opinion.

:floorlaugh:

Seems there's a lot of that going around, mostly on the Defense side of the courtroom.

 

[GeekyGirl]

I don't really think that is what is being argued in this thread. Dr. G. does not have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Caylee was murdered. She only has to give a ruling on the manner of death. She can't be expected to look at the personality, criminal record or anything having to do with the suspect in determining her opinion. So the fact that Casey may or may not be capable of acting jolly following an accident OR murder isn't relevant. The jury can question the state's case and still not find reasonable doubt. IMO I think they will seriously question and consider all the evidence.

Agreed, and I apologize for getting for off topic.

 

[sappysoul]

Agreed, and I apologize for getting for off topic.

I wasn't giving you grief for getting off topic. I was just trying to understand if we were even talking about the same thing.

 

[GeekyGirl]

I wasn't giving you grief for getting off topic. I was just trying to understand if we were even talking about the same thing.

I think we were, and we weren't. I think I'm saying that while I understand where her ruling came from, based on the factors an ME takes into consideration, if I were a juror given the other evidence in the case, I couldn't say with moral certainty that the state's theory of the crime is the correct one. That's my opinion only, and I completely see where people would disagree with me and be frustrated.

 

[joypath]

Because as you nicely put it Dr S is no attorney but a Medical Examiner.

Only because I'm an "ATD" type person, Werner Uri Spitz, M. D. is a retired Medical Examiner.


He is an M.D. with a board certified specialty in pathology, specifically anatomical and forensic.

 

[D96s]

Do I have any that says conclusively that she didn't? No matter what the TH's say, the burden of proof is on the state.

In my opinion there is proof she didn't drown and that is Dr. G's stats that in 100% of all cases of child drownings 911 was called. 100% of all cases of child drownings that have come through her morgue (and there are MANY child drownings in Florida she said) 911 was called. No matter how long after the childs drowning. And that is because ALL parents or grandparent.s cling to the hope that the child can be revived (and in many cases they are)

 

[Marina2]

The defense cannot retain possession of any physical evidence for themselves or secretly. Can a lawyer weigh in? JMOO

They have to disclose it if they intend to use it at trial. Otherwise, they can do whatever they want with it and certainly, incriminating evidence will never be disclosed to the state.

 

[Harmony 2]

I would like to know why neither Dr. G or Dr. S checked for the following? Did I miss it in the reports?

DIAGNOSING DROWNING

A positive diagnosis of drowning can be very difficult (Ludes et al., 1996), particularly in decomposed bodies where physiological indications of drowning may be absent (Kobayashi et al., 1993). When a person drowns in fresh water, diatoms are taken not only into the lungs but are also dispersed among other internal organs (Miller Coyle et al., 2001). In the absence of other evidence, diatoms detected in the body tissues are the most reliable indicator of a freshwater drowning (Kobayashi et al., 1993). Even when there are only skeletal remains, diatoms can be detected in the bone marrow of drowned victims (Ludes et al., 1996).

http://myweb.dal.ca/jvandomm/forensicbotany/limnology.html

 

[GeekyGirl]

In my opinion there is proof she didn't drown and that is Dr. G's stats that in 100% of all cases of child drownings 911 was called. 100% of all cases of child drownings that have come through her morgue (and there are MANY child drownings in Florida she said) 911 was called. No matter how long after the childs drowning. And that is because ALL parents or grandparent.s cling to the hope that the child can be revived (and in many cases they are)

Stating that something hasn't happened isn't the same as saying it couldn't happen. Sadly, not all people care that much about their children that they cling to hope the child could be revived. I'm not sure how a person could believe that she willfully murder her child and yet insist that if she drowned she would do everything possible to save her. MOO