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

[Tuffy]

It has to be opened and looked inside of, because after decomp is done, inside the cranium and inside the bone cores are the only places cryptic evidence will be found. The rest of the body is GONE. Why would you NOT want to know what's INSIDE what you have left?? Makes no sense.

I don't think that it was ever stated that Dr. G didn't look inside the skull. She just said that she didn't saw it in half.

What great information did Dr. S gain by sawing the skull in half? None that I heard.

 

[gamom]

x-rays and the opening are sufficient.

Agree. The inside of the skull can be scraped with out cutting the skull.

 

[nssherlock]

Dr. G never said it was prior to death, she said it was prior to decomposition.

Actually what she said was ante mortem......which I think means before death.

 

[Boytwnmom]

I would note that Dr S conclusions regarding the sediment and position of the skull on the left side make no sense in light of the fact that he acknowledges that Dr G had introduced and washed the skull interior with a saline solution (during which process a tooth was found/washed out of the skull). His conclusion seems to suggest he examined the skull in a pristine environment even though it clearly wasn't as the saline solution had been introduced and was of sufficient pressure to remove the tooth within so wouldn't it have dislodged moved any sediment meaning that where the sediment ended up would be relevant to absolutely nothing in terms of how the skull was originally positioned at the site?

 

[angeleleven]

100% for Dr. G.

 

[Turnadot]

Also, Dr. S couldn't point to a single published protocol stating that it is always done. He could not point to anything that describes an exam that doesn't include sawing the skull in half, as incomplete.

BBM

Yet we have people claiming Dr G's autopsy was incomplete and Dr S was credible.

 

[gamom]

I don't think that it was ever stated that Dr. G didn't look inside the skull. She just said that she didn't saw it in half.

What great information did Dr. S gain by sawing the skull in half? None that I heard.

And what little dust he did find, he never tested it. So poor little Caylee's skull was sawed in half for NO reason whats so ever other than the fact that he could say he did something Dr. G didn't.

 

[passionflower]

Dr. G was doing her job on that fateful day in December......

Dr. S had monetary and his own selfish reasons (fame, attention) to become involved in this case.

This is my opinion also!

 

[Turnadot]

It has to be opened and looked inside of, because after decomp is done, inside the cranium and inside the bone cores are the only places cryptic evidence will be found. The rest of the body is GONE. Why would you NOT want to know what's INSIDE what you have left?? Makes no sense.

Addendum: removing the cranial cap showed which side the of the head was laying towards gravity, as decomp residue was on the left side, not the back, and DR G MISSED THAT!!!

Have you read the autopsy?

 

[DIXIECAT]

IMO Dr. S's testimony showed every sign of having been manufactured by the defense, or Willy Wonka....

:woohoo:

 

[sappysoul]

It appeared the one thing that Dr. S was able to remember clearly about this case is that it is high profile. Why mention that when discussing how thorough an autopsy should be if you're not implying a "lesser" case wouldn't warrant the same type of detail?

I'm lost how someone can say Dr. S. based his opinion on objective scientific evidence, experience, etc. when he himself couldn't say exactly what he based his opinion on. I'm also lost how Dr. G. can be considered biased because she used knowledge of the case in order to come to her opinion. I'd like to know of another ME anywhere who found a child (not reported missing) with duct tape on their body, in several bags and dumped in a swamp as a possible accident, suicide or natural causes death. If someone can show me this then I'll agree that Dr. G. was totally subjective and biased in her opinion.

 

[goldenlover]

~~~Bolded by me

I hope I can say this without getting myself into trouble. Mods, please note that I am truly not trying to be snarky in any way.

Are you saying that Dr. Spitz's theory of how that duct tape came to be placed on little Caylee's skull was a credible one?

In my opinion, that was the most convoluted, contrived, unbelievable, and condescending testimony I have ever heard come from an expert's mouth. There is absolutely NO evidence to suggest that anyone ever picked up that skull, realigned the now detached mandible, and then placed duct tape on it to hold the mandible in place, just for staging purposes. What possible reason would a person have for doing such a thing?

Even though I find totally ludicrous the entire concept of duct taping a person's face and airways to prevent spillage of decompositional fluids, it certainly would make much more sense than what Dr. Spitz was trying to peddle on the witness stand today.

I won't even go into what I think about him accusing medical examiner staff of "staging" little Caylee's skull for photography purposes. I am going to sit on my hands for that.

Yes, I am saying it was a credible one. He has no reason to lie and he presented scientific evidence he used to come to that conclusion. He did not say it was for staging purposes, he did not know why someone would duct tape the mandible to the skull, but he believes it was done and told us why he thought that.

In the last part of the cross exam he was shown a photo of the skull on brown paper, he said that was set up for the photograph and the hair placed on top because it did not match the photo taken at the crime scene as to the position of the skull and hair as it was photographed at the crime scene. That photograph was taken in the ME's office.

 

[LongtimeMedic]

x-rays and the opening are sufficient.

If you've looked inside a human skull before, you can not examine the inside thoroughly without opening it... too many nooks, crannies and other fissures present to see tiny evidence.

 

[katydid23]

Just not sure a ME, who is a scientist, should give an opinion based on her own bias. Dr. G should have said both manner and cause of death were undetermined that is all she could determine. She cannot be sure it was not some type of accident by her scientific findings, so why even offer an opinion at all on manner of death? She came across as biased and arrogant. Dr. Spitz came across as a very intelligent, experienced scientist and only gave his opinion based on scientific evidence and his experience.

I disagree. Dr. G used FACTS surrounding the circumstances of the deceased child to help her come to her findings. Those FACTS are crucial to the determination, imo. Dr. S knew next to nothing, other than there was a pool that he remembered, about the time right before the child's death. Science routinely takes surrounding circumstances and facts into evidence when they attempt to make determination or conclusion.

I think it is hard to label Dr. G as arrogant and not do the same for Dr. Spitz.
I found him quite arrogant and stubborn, although I respect his lofty wisdom and experience.

 

[coloradoteacher]

I honestly don't know who or what to believe anymore. I find it odd that Dr G wouldn't open the skull if that is something that is typically done. All the same I don't like that Dr S thought it was staged by LE or the ME, because I just don't see that.

All I know is I think ICA is guilty, maybe not of preplanning months in advance but there is just no way a mom could have a child accidently die or be murdered, disposed of like that (duct tape around the mouth or not) and party for 31 days. There is just NO WAY. I'm a young mom too. I like to drink and have fun with my friends and shop and get tattoos, but I get a sitter for my son....a REAL one. I hope the jury can see this. Regardless of which Dr's testimony they prefered.

BBM- I would think it odd and did until I heard dr. G's answer for CM's question about having cut the skull. She said "Absolutely not." This tells me Dr. G has a reason for not doing it and not just "shoddy" work, but has some medical basis for this. She will be called as a rebuttal witness and clarify this and we will have a very good answer.

 

[Broderick]

I don't think that it was ever stated that Dr. G didn't look inside the skull. She just said that she didn't saw it in half.

What great information did Dr. S gain by sawing the skull in half? None that I heard.

Well we learned water coming in and receding moved the hair to defy gravity as it laid in the wrong place when found because Lord knows it didn't move sediment according to Dr. S in his findings - just the hair. And of course the ME staged the whole thing anyway after Kronk picked it up and carefully applied not one, not two, but three pieces of Duct tape to hold the disconnected mandible in place and then discarded another piece he didn't use. The guy was so good that he even knew the rare brand to use to implicate the Anthony family, and Casey. Good Job Dr. Spitz. Bravo. I think he cracked the case wide open, and discredited Dr. G by finding nothing in going further while cracking the skull sans gloves. Technology has changed quite a bit in the years since he stopped practicing. Just sayin.

A little bit of sarcasm here.

 

[Hot Dogs]

Actually what she said was ante mortem......which I think means before death.

In her medical examiner's report she said the tape was applied prior to decomposition. On the stand she said it was applied ante-mortem (before death).

 

[LongtimeMedic]

Have you read the autopsy?

I have, but I'll go review it, which part are to pointing to?

 

[BritsKate]

At this point without Dr. Spitz being able to testify to the protocol breached by Dr. Garavaglia...and my own inability to reference any procedure to cut into the skull during an anthropological exam...(despite several hours of searching)

I am going to conclude that Dr. G did nothing untowards by not doing so.

 

[katydid23]

If you've looked inside a human skull before, you can not examine the inside thoroughly without opening it... too many nooks, crannies and other fissures present to see tiny evidence.

And what did DR. S find upon opening that child's skull that changed anything?

The only difference I see is that it 'helps' sway the jury towards an obvious lie about Roy Kronk.