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

[LancelotLink]

I was just reading on the PS trial. Seems Dr. S. was in agreement with the defense team there, too. I also saw something that looked familiar.BBM
From the
http://www.nme.com/news/phil-spector/com
Dr. Werner Spitz, an experienced forensics scientist, had concluded that actress Lana Clarkson shot herself at Spector’s mansion in February 2003, and stuck to his opinion throughout the interrogation.

Spitz, who has worked on thousands of cases, including the assassination of President John F. Kennedy, did concede that the physical evidence matched the prosecution’s case that Spector shot Clarkson.

However, he said that evidence OTHER than the physical led him to the conclusion that she shot herself, saying he put the pieces together like a puzzle.

"When you work a puzzle, you don't know what is the picture," he said.

Addressing the notion that Spector and Clarkson were embroiled in a struggle before the shots were fired, Spitz said “To comply with that theory you would have a lot of holes in that puzzle. It doesn't fit in this case."

Grilled by Los Angeles Deputy District Attorney Alan Jackson, Spitz said that the actress in his opinion, did not commit suicide, but did shoot herself in the mouth.

Jackson brought up the fee that Spitz is earning for his consultation in the case, which at $5,000 a day, has so far earned him $45,000. He dismissed the notion that money was a factor in his participation, saying:

"I have plenty of money. What I don't have plenty of is time."

 

[matou]

I was surprised when I learned Dr. G did not open up her skull (I have witnessed two autopsies for a course I took in University). I thought it was standard. I will reserve judgement on this until Dr. G is called again (I'm sure she will be) to explain why this wasn't done.

 

[D96s]

I was surprised when I learned Dr. G did not open up her skull (I have witnessed two autopsies for a course I took in University). I thought it was standard. I will reserve judgement on this until Dr. G is called again (I'm sure she will be) to explain why this wasn't done.

Standard on skeletonized remains? I honestly can not see why it would be standard on skeletonized remains. The jaw is disarticulated - just tip the skull unside down! Why do you need to remove the skull cap as well? That makes no sense at all!
Yes - remove the skull cap when you are doing an autopsy on a body in the early stages of decomp! But not on skeletonized remains.

 

[Boytwnmom]

he wrote his "report". The exam was conducted on December 23/24 of 2008, right after the ME did her autopsy and Caylee was identified. Yet he waited 806 days before his wrote his report and then when he testified he had no recollection of the facts of the case which would be needed to determine manner of death. All he knew was he went to the Anthony's house and saw a pool and was told things by JB.

Part of the jurors job is to determine the credibility of witnesses. If I were a juror I would dismiss all of his testimony because of a lack of credibility. His report is suspiciously late suggesting he waited until the defense had their theory put together instead of immediately writing the report as any professional would do while the exam was fresh in their minds. Then he tries to call Dr G shoddy because she didn't do what he said he always does. Yet he found nothing she didn't and performed no tests on what he did find thus rendering his "superior" method meaningless. Throw in his laughable theory about the duct tape and I can see jurors totally dismissing his entire testimony.

Not only are you asked to believe he found some unidentified substance, but having not bothered to document any of his findings at the time, you are now supposed to accept that someone who has so many obvious gaps in his memory can now recall verbatim what he found.
It must not have been of any consequence or he would surely have felt it needed to be analyzed. Who throws 'brain dust' away? Dr S apparently.

 

[Ssejors]

I'm sorry but i dont know where else to put this.

In this video.. http://www.wftv.com/video/28281548/index.html

JA begins his cross. At 4:41 JA asks DR. S What information about this case, were you given, in order for you to render your opinions.

Watch that video, to about the 7 minute mark.

And where is the Good DR getting his information from?

He doesn't know that "Anthony" family's name.
He asked JB and CM.
He doesn't remember "who those people were"
???

He has NO INFORMATION. He has a skelotonized body, some duct tape and photos...!!!

 

[Tuffy]

he wrote his "report". The exam was conducted on December 23/24 of 2008, right after the ME did her autopsy and Caylee was identified. Yet he waited 806 days before his wrote his report and then when he testified he had no recollection of the facts of the case which would be needed to determine manner of death. All he knew was he went to the Anthony's house and saw a pool and was told things by JB.

Part of the jurors job is to determine the credibility of witnesses. If I were a juror I would dismiss all of his testimony because of a lack of credibility. His report is suspiciously late suggesting he waited until the defense had their theory put together instead of immediately writing the report as any professional would do while the exam was fresh in their minds. Then he tries to call Dr G shoddy because she didn't do what he said he always does. Yet he found nothing she didn't and performed no tests on what he did find thus rendering his "superior" method meaningless. Throw in his laughable theory about the duct tape and I can see jurors totally dismissing his entire testimony.

Was it told to the jury that the time between the exam and the report was written was 2 years? I can't remember.

 

[Turnadot]

Jeez, you are acting as if you're JA and I'm a defense witness.
Just tell me the damn thing she found instead of referring me to documents (assuming the answer IS in that document )

Respectfully, no thanks. There can't be any meaningful discussion between you and I if you're not even willing to read the document for yourself. I've referred you to the source, where you can learn for yourself. That's all I'm willing to do.

It's absolutely your right to form an opinion of Dr G's work in this case without reading her actual report, but it's my right not to get into what I see as a back and forth of me having to read the document for you and tell you what it says before we can engage.

I promise I don't mean that as snarky, I'm just unwilling, which is my own shortcoming.

 

[Boytwnmom]

but I didn't listen to 100%. I found it on the HinkyMeter when I went to read the article there about his report.

Was it told to the jury that the time between the exam and the report was written was 2 years? I can't remember.

 

[grandmaj]

I'm sorry but i dont know where else to put this.

In this video.. http://www.wftv.com/video/28281548/index.html

JA begins his cross. At 4:41 JA asks DR. S What information about this case, were you given, in order for you to render your opinions.

Watch that video, to about the 7 minute mark.

And where is the Good DR getting his information from?

He doesn't know that "Anthony" family's name.
He asked JB and CM.
He doesn't remember "who those people were"
???



He has NO INFORMATION. He has a skelotonized body, some duct tape and photos...!!!

The kicker is CM was not an attorney on this case when Dr. Spitz did the autopsy. So when was C. Mason giving Dr. spitz the information? As he wrote his report some 300 days after he did the autopsy?

 

[suzihawk]

With so much of Dr. S's testimony to rip apart, I'm not sure it was noticed that he voluntarily admitted that he was not a chemist.

 

[matou]

Standard on skeletonized remains? I honestly can not see why it would be standard on skeletonized remains. The jaw is disarticulated - just tip the skull unside down! Why do you need to remove the skull cap as well? That makes no sense at all!
Yes - remove the skull cap when you are doing an autopsy on a body in the early stages of decomp! But not on skeletonized remains.

I agree. I saw autopsies on non-decomposed bodies. The first area examined after examining the outer body was the head. The brain is removed and weighed and a sample taken for further tests in other labs. I wouldn't know whether a skelonized body would undergo the same process or not. I'm interested in what Dr. G has to say and I respect her decision on this.

 

[Ssejors]

The kicker is CM was not an attorney on this case when Dr. Spitz did the autopsy. So when was C. Mason giving Dr. spitz the information as he wrote his report some 300 days after he did the autopsy?

OMG!

That I didn't know.

We could pick his entire testimony apart. It's completely fabricated. Aside from him bolstering his own credentials.

I'm in a position where I don't even trust his science anymore.

If a person can't look at their own work analytically, critically, constantly looking to improve, then they will fall behind and NEVER improve.

Dr. S is clearly not willing to accept ANY new or different science. Stuck in his ways. Life changes Dr. Things are always changing.

 

[katydid23]

The kicker is CM was not an attorney on this case when Dr. Spitz did the autopsy. So when was C. Mason giving Dr. spitz the information? As he wrote his report some 300 days after he did the autopsy?

Exactly. So what we have here is Dr. S. coming back onboard after a serious illness. And he has to get up to speed, and reread his old report, and CM is kind enough to 'fill him in' on all of the pertinent facts. ' The child drowned and the body was taken by the meter reader who duct taped her mandible back together at some point, before returning her to the dump site.' Right.

 

[grandmaj]

C. Mason joined the defense team at a hearing in March of 2010.

 

[kaRN]

I totally agree with you.

Child neglect resulting in death is very much a crime though.

 

[D96s]

Originally Posted by Turnadot

Respectfully, no thanks. There can't be any meaningful discussion between you and I if you're not even willing to read the document for yourself. I've referred you to the source, where you can learn for yourself. That's all I'm willing to do.

It's absolutely your right to form an opinion of Dr G's work in this case without reading her actual report, but it's my right not to get into what I see as a back and forth of me having to read the document for you and tell you what it says before we can engage.

I promise I don't mean that as snarky, I'm just unwilling, which is my own shortcoming.

LOL, you never give up, do you?

This whole discussion came out of the fact that Dr S claims he found something Dr. G didn't. I would be curious to know why you believe that? Dr. S didn't have it analyzed? How do you know what he found wasn't exactly what Dr. G found? I have nothing to believe what Dr. S found isn't exactly what is written in Dr. G's report.

 

[mobius99]

I was surprised when I learned Dr. G did not open up her skull (I have witnessed two autopsies for a course I took in University). I thought it was standard. I will reserve judgement on this until Dr. G is called again (I'm sure she will be) to explain why this wasn't done.

Were the either of subjects of the autopsies you witnessed completely skeletonized remains?

 

[Ssejors]

C. Mason joined the defense team at a hearing in March of 2010.

/Sigh

Hence the 806 day wait for his report.


Dr. S- Would you like me to write the report now?

JB - No TY Dr. We will call you back closer to the trial...I have some things.. I need to... Work out.

JB scrambles for more help.

 

[matou]

Were the either of subjects of the autopsies you witnessed completely skeletonized remains?

No they weren't. I assumed that removing the skull cap was standard but I don't know if it would be at all for a skeletonized person. There could be some reasons I suppose, for wanting to see inside the skull eg. vegetation, root penetration. I totally respect Dr. G's decision on why she chose not to. I was watching when she said "Absolutely not" in response to being questioned if she had opened the skull. I was surprised but I'm sure she had her reasons for not doing it.

 

[RR473]

Originally Posted by Turnadot




This whole discussion came out of the fact that Dr S claims he found something Dr. G didn't. I would be curious to know why you believe that? Dr. S didn't have it analyzed? How do you know what he found wasn't exactly what Dr. G found? I have nothing to believe what Dr. S found isn't exactly what is written in Dr. G's report.

Good question! It might be dirt. It might be Xanny. I don't know. All I know is that Dr S "scraped" something off the inside of the skull. Dr G only washed the inside with some liquid. They may or may not be the same thing but I say the scrapes need to be tested.