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

[Tuffy]

Do tell. TIA.

Oh, I spoke too soon. Maybe there is an option for it when you create the poll, or perhaps it was in a dream that I saw it.

I swear, I thought you could change it!

 

[GutFeeling!]

I was watching it on WESH.com and there was a tweet from a reporter with her quote. Are there transcripts of each day's testimonies?

Yes, the Y cut is done and I remember the head being done first but this was from '93 and it really freaked me out so I could be remembering this wrong.

Yeah there is At http://www.wftv.com/caseyanthony/index.html ... from day One PLUS all discovery. You can see transcripts, actual video of interviews and recordings Enjoy! lol

 

[RR473]

Please provide a link for the photos that Dr S took or at least a link where Dr S claims that he took photos. I have read his two page report and there were no photos at all with it.

How do you know it didn't resolve in Dr Gs solvent!!! I only heard Dr S SAY it didn't resolve in Dr. Gs fluid. There is very little that wouldn't be picked up in a saline solution wash. I have no doubt some of the substance was collected in her wash and was tested. Again - I'm being asked to except what Dr. S says JUST because he says it. Again, he has no proof that some of the substance wasn't collected in Dr. Gs wash. He has no evidence that some of the substance wasn't picked up in Dr. Gs wash. If he wants me to believe it, he should have proved it.

I meant fluid by solvent.

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

Beginning at 3:30 Mason asks if Dr S took photos then the photo is shown to the jury but not to the public and Dr S talks about Caylee was put on her left side after death.

 

[aeneas1]

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.

ds's duct tape / mandible theory is pretty comical to say the least. during his recent detroit interview, which aired three days before his testimony, ds elaborated even further... he told the interviewer that people do strange things to human skeletal remains that they stumble across, especially skulls, including painting them as a joke or dressing them up in top hats and putting pipes in their mouths in order to display on their fireplace mantels. as such he didn't find anything particularly odd about someone putting duct tape on a newly discovered skull they happened to come across - you can't make this stuff up!

7:45 mark
http://www.clickondetroit.com/video/28239806/index.html

 

[Scamperoo]

He has taken photos of the residue stuck to the inside of the skull. The same residue that didn't resolve in Dr G's solvent.

It was incumbent upon Dr.S, who was doing a second autopsy on Caylee's skeletal remains, to have his findings analyzed, I saw something, here's a picture of it, doesn't work in a court of law.

I believe Dr.G used less invasive methods maybe including an endoscope, (lighting and camera) x ray and as for the dust on the inside of the skull it was noted and tested by Dr.G according to her depo, Dr.S saw it but never tested it, guess he should have, he also broke the skull and then has the gall to call her work shoddy.

 

[D96s]

Originally Posted by D96s
How do you know it didn't resolve in Dr Gs solvent!!! I only heard Dr S SAY it didn't resolve in Dr. Gs fluid. There is very little that wouldn't be picked up in a saline solution wash. I have no doubt some of the substance was collected in her wash and was tested. Again - I'm being asked to except what Dr. S says JUST because he says it. Again, he has no proof that some of the substance wasn't collected in Dr. Gs wash. He has no evidence that some of the substance wasn't picked up in Dr. Gs wash. If he wants me to believe it, he should have proved it.

I meant fluid by solvent.
http://www.wftv.com/video/28281548/index.html

Beginning at 3:30 Mason asks if Dr S took photos then the photo is shown to the jury but not to the public and Dr S talks about Caylee was put on her left side after death.

My question was how do you know that none of Dr Gs saline solution picked up the substance in the skull? All I heard was Dr. S CLAIM that none of the substance in the skull was picked up by Dr. Gs wash. Again he had absolutely no proof or evidence. He just makes statements and expects everyone to believe them. Show me where the evidence is. Without evidence I'm going to make the assumption Dr Gs saline solution picked up some of the residue and it was tested by Dr G!! Its all in here report

 

[grandmaj]

ds's duct tape / mandible theory is pretty comical to say the least. during his recent detroit interview, which aired three days before his testimony, ds elaborated even further... he told the interviewer that people do strange things to human skeletal remains that they stumble across, especially skulls, including painting them as a joke or dressing them up in top hats and putting pipes in their mouths in order to display on their fireplace mantels. as such he didn't find anything particularly odd about someone putting duct tape on a newly discovered skull they happened to come across - you can't make this stuff up!

7:45 mark
http://www.clickondetroit.com/video/28239806/index.html

So true you can't make it up. The human skull in this case though is not on a mantle, didn't have a cigar in it's mouth, wasn't painted or dressed up. It wasn't a trophy as he was describing.

It was the skull of Caylee Marie Anthony left with her body in decomposing stage in the trash dump of a wooded area. No comparison. Trophy hunters yes I'm sure there are people who would do that. But why tape the mandible shut and then return her skull to the place where her bones were? This again is weird outrageous and not sensible. MOO

 

[ZsaZsa]

I meant fluid by solvent.

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

Beginning at 3:30 Mason asks if Dr S took photos then the photo is shown to the jury but not to the public and Dr S talks about Caylee was put on her left side after death.

I'm not sure how he can say that. It may have been that her skull sat on its left side in a box at the funeral home before he showed up to do the second autopsy.. it was there a couple of weeks IIRC

 

[RR473]

My question was how do you know that none of Dr Gs saline solution picked up the substance in the skull? All I heard was Dr. S CLAIM that none of the substance in the skull was picked up by Dr. Gs wash. Again he had absolutely no proof or evidence. He just makes statements and expects everyone to believe them. Show me where the evidence is. Without evidence I'm going to make the assumption Dr Gs saline solution picked up some of the residue and it was tested by Dr G!! Its all in here report

In the photo he showed that there is a substance sitting on the left side of the skull and concluded that Caylee was put on her left side after death. The brain after death will resolve and melt down. Under the gravity the unresolvable substances will fall to the bottom.

 

[D96s]

I'm not sure how he can say that. It may have been that her skull sat on its left side in a box at the funeral home before he showed up to do the second autopsy.. it was there a couple of weeks IIRC

Actually, I really don't have a problem with the head lying to the left during decomp. Decomp happens quickly. She would have been totally skeletonized by late July early Aug. That means she lie there for five months totally skeletonized (with the residue on the left side of the skull). We all know that the area where Caylees remains where recovered was a garbage dump frequented by animals and subject to flooding. I would actually find it harder to believe that little scull lay there for five months without being disturbed somehow. The bag easily could have kicked by an animal or the inside of the bag flooded, floating the skull for a bit and settleing in a different position. Dr Ss whole thing about the skull being moved means nothing to me.

 

[parker38]

I do believe that Dr S.'s testimony was 'shoddy'
and was an insult to anyone following this trial.

If he wasn't prepared with the case then he shouldn't
have testified at all.

There was no reason to open that skull just as Dr. G
pointed out. I could see if it was a fresh corpse but
Caylee had been there at least 6 months and there
was nothing else left to do than what Dr G did.

Who cares after all that time WHAT was in that
skull because it would serve no purpose. If anything
it was dirt etc residue from lying there, floating in the
water etc.

So to me common sense tells me it is what it is.
She was killed either by chloroform and duct tape
and left to decompose the rest of the way in those
woods.

Dr S was a side show to confuse any of the jurors
but he failed badly and he has lost my respect for sure.

I'm glad Jeff 'provoked' him. It's what he deserved.
I noticed some of the people there trying not to laugh
by looking up, holding their hand over their mouths
and the only thing Dr S accomplised was to make
a complete fool of himself and the DT

He did not help Casey at all.

Time to retire. moo

 

[katydid23]

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.

Dr. Baden gave a reason on Judge Jeanine's show yesterday, but I think common sense might reject it. He said 1 reason it should have been opened is because one can see skull fractures that are only seen from the inside. I am sure that is sometimes the case. But in the autopsy report, BOTH sides agreed that the skull was about equal to an eggshell in width. So I think it is quite doubtful that something that thin could show a crack just on the interior of the 'eggshell.' imoo

 

[D96s]

Originally Posted by D96s
My question was how do you know that none of Dr Gs saline solution picked up the substance in the skull? All I heard was Dr. S CLAIM that none of the substance in the skull was picked up by Dr. Gs wash. Again he had absolutely no proof or evidence. He just makes statements and expects everyone to believe them. Show me where the evidence is. Without evidence I'm going to make the assumption Dr Gs saline solution picked up some of the residue and it was tested by Dr G!! Its all in here report

In the photo he showed that there is a substance sitting on the left side of the skull and concluded that Caylee was put on her left side after death. The brain after death will resolve and melt down. Under the gravity the unresolvable substances will fall to the bottom.

I must not be making my question very clear. I'm not doubting the existance of the residue. You made the statement that the residue did not resolve in Dr Gs saline wash. I'm asking how do you know that? I only heard Dr S CLAIM or SAY that residue didn't resolve in Dr Gs wash. There is absolutely no evidence to back up his claim. He doesn't even know what that residue is so there is no way he can make that claim.

I said this in another post but will reiterate here. The fact that the residue was found on the left side of the skull meaning that is the way her head lay during decomp means nothing to me. Decomp happens quickly. She would have been totally skeletonized by late July or early August. That's when the residue would have settled. That also means little Caylee lay in that garbage dump another five months totally skeltonized before she was found. We know that garbage dump was frequented by animals and subject to flooding. I would find it harder to believe her little skull lie there for five months without being disturbed. Either the bag was kicked by animals, or filled with water during flooding, floating the skull a bit and it settled in another position. His finding means absolutely nothing to me.

 

[aeneas1]

So true you can't make it up./COLOR] The human skull in this case though is not on a mantle, didn't have a cigar in it's mouth, wasn't painted or dressed up. It wasn't a trophy as he was describing.

It was the skull of Caylee Marie Anthony left with her body in decomposing stage in the trash dump of a wooded area. No comparison. Trophy hunters yes I'm sure there are people who would do that. But why tape the mandible shut and then return her skull to the place where her bones were? This again is weird outrageous and not sensible. MOO

no doubt - in fact when i wrote that "you can't make this stuff up", i was actually referring to the absurdity of ds trying to explain away the duct tape with his desecrated skeletal remains war stories...

 

[D96s]

Dr. Baden gave a reason on Judge Jeanine's show yesterday, but I think common sense might reject it. He said 1 reason it should have been opened is because one can see skull fractures that are only seen from the inside. I am sure that is sometimes the case. But in the autopsy report, BOTH sides agreed that the skull was about equal to an eggshell in width. So I think it is quite doubtful that something that thin could show a crack just on the interior of the
'eggshell.' imoo

If the jaw is disarticulated on skeletonized remains you can see clearly inside the skull by tipping if upside down!

 

[USARDOG]

Not sure if I can post you a link here but if I can here it is: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/81/Gray193.png
And the superior ridge of the petrous portion of the left temporal bone stain would be hidden from view from the foramen magnum. The only reason I brought up cribriform plate, is because you can't see it from below either, it is the bottom, how can you see what's there if you don't look?? Like Spitz said... why do an autopsy from the neck down only??

You may be missing my point, but I'm not trying to argue with you, just point out that the doc said Caylee decomposed left side head down, and we have a detective that says the skull was virtually unmoved because of vegitation, and he says it was upright and unmoved for six months! That's a HUGE discrepancy! At least let's don't totally sit back and watch the State fail, and her and all her co-conspirators walk!

What a streatch... There is no way that Caylee's skull remained un-moved for the entire time becaue of: animal activity, flood... No, and if this is what you are basing co-conspirator theory on, you will never find them because she acted alone, I"d bet my last dollar on it, and there is no evidence pointing to anyone other than ICA... None whatsoever, including the residue issue as there are so many other ways to explain any discrepancies here.

 

[GeekyGirl]

If the jaw is disarticulated on skeletonized remains you can see clearly inside the skull by tipping if upside down!

Respectfully, are you an expert in the subject? Not snark, serious question since it's being stated as fact.

 

[USARDOG]

If the jaw is disarticulated on skeletonized remains you can see clearly inside the skull by tipping if upside down!

Not to the best of my knowledge. The mandible only forms the anterior, inferior articulation, not the base of the crainium. Removing the jaw would only expose the anterior side of the spinal vertebra (if the soft tissue were decomposed). Been there, done that.

 

[ExpectingUnicorns]

Now you can either beat me for not knowing what she found other than dirt (considering she found something ) or tell me what she found and we can have a constructive conversation and maybe even I revise my opinion.

According to these results, she did not find anything other than dirt. In the first attachment you will note that two washes (items 3 and 4) were submitted for analysis to UF College of Medicine, Forensic Tox Lab. The results are listed in the second attachment. Found at this link (last two pages): http://www.wesh.com/download/2009/0619/19802034.pdf

 

[D96s]

Respectfully, are you an expert in the subject? Not snark, serious question since it's being stated as fact.

No - I'm not an expert in bones. I am quoting an expert.
That being said, I do have a B.S in Biology and I am a certified EMT-B for the state of Iowa. I volunteered for an all volunteer Ambulance Service for six years before we moved to Virginia last year.

But no I'm not an expert in Bones. I am only quoting what an expert said and also, I have held a skull before and can affirm that you clearly see inside the skull through the bottom with the jaw disarticulated.