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

[allycat1208]

Is Dr. Spitz coming back? I actually enjoyed his arguments with JA.

 

[goldenlover]

Have you seen his testimony transcribed yet? Could you provide a link to where he says that as I am not able to find that comment. What I saw was that he didn't know what happened to the 'brain dust'- he didn't test it and he didn't know if anyone else did.. and when challenged by JA got irritated...

I have not seen his testimony transcribed yet, but when I do, I will try to find it and post the link.

 

[butwhatif?]

If I understood Dr. Spitz I think he said that if the duct tape was put on the skull before decomposition it would not have stuck which makes sense. Not knowing how long it would take during decomposition I can only than assume it would have to have been put on later in the decomposition period. But this does not make sense because I think that KC got rid of the body pretty early in the decomposition period. This is the only thing that Dr. Spitz made me rethink my opinion as to whether the duct tape was placed on the skull of Caylee before, during or after decomposition. I still though cannot imagine why RK would put it on her later if this is what JB is suggesting. Dr. Spitz may have had some other valid points.... what comes to mind is he stated that Dr. G never examined the insides of the skull. I don't remember if this is true but if true I would agree she may have left something out important. All in all though I feel as though he may be becoming senile because he did seem to remember many elements of the case. I can't imagine he was pretending to not remember, as some posts have suggested because I don't think he would want to look like an idiot. I still don't understand his comments on why hair was placed on the skull for a photo? This doesn't make sense.

The problem here is that Dr S contradicted himself. On direct he clearly said that there was no adhesive from the tape on the skull, but went on to suggest that someone had placed tape on a fully decomposed skull...which would surely leave behind some kind of adhesive when their was no decomp fluid present . :waitasec:

The only thing that makes sense to me was that the matted hair with a 'glob' of adhesive, and root growth kept the mandible in place....which both Dr's seemed to imply at some point in their testimony...but then they both went off in different directions.
I'm disgusted with the DT for not having an expert prepared for their testimony. At the very least they should have had his reports ready for him to refer to to refresh his recollection. And Dr S should be self-aware enough to know that after being involved in 60 000 autopsies, that one brain cannot recall every detail of every one performed.

Is there any reason why they can't test the 'brain dust' now to determine if it did contain the Iron, magnesium phosphate, sodium chloride etc, or if it was just sediment from the environment?

JMO

 

[cuppy199]

If I understood Dr. Spitz I think he said that if the duct tape was put on the skull before decomposition it would not have stuck which makes sense. Not knowing how long it would take during decomposition I can only than assume it would have to have been put on later in the decomposition period. But this does not make sense because I think that KC got rid of the body pretty early in the decomposition period. This is the only thing that Dr. Spitz made me rethink my opinion as to whether the duct tape was placed on the skull of Caylee before, during or after decomposition. I still though cannot imagine why RK would put it on her later if this is what JB is suggesting. Dr. Spitz may have had some other valid points.... what comes to mind is he stated that Dr. G never examined the insides of the skull. I don't remember if this is true but if true I would agree she may have left something out important. All in all though I feel as though he may be becoming senile because he did seem to remember many elements of the case. I can't imagine he was pretending to not remember, as some posts have suggested because I don't think he would want to look like an idiot. I still don't understand his comments on why hair was placed on the skull for a photo? This doesn't make sense.

Dr G didnt cut the skull because their was nothing there to take. Everything was long gone and anything that would of been left would of washed away. The duct taped was stuck in the hair and was on both sides of the skull. The state claiming the tape was around caylee nose and mouth makes perfect sense why it was found lower then when it was applied but still held the skull together.

 

[Scamperoo]

Dr. G did not open the skull, or remove the top of the skull to examine the inside.

She used an endoscope to look inside the skull she did not need to open it.

 

[joypath]

No disrespect intended here, but do you ever refer to any text or papers on forensic examination that were penned entirely or partially by Dr. Werner Spitz, and if so, have those documents ever been used in assisting you at making any decisions in how you conclude or handle any of your cases?

:twocents: Werner U. Spitz, M.D. is/was both an author and editor of many chapters within professional texts, that said, those texts and the subsequent revisions to said texts are frequently utilized as reference material.
Certain OMEs have a marvelous concept utilized within the practice of pathology, a team approach, where every necessary resource is utilized in DIFFICULT cases. Does one :innocent: place more "weight" on the opinions of texts BECAUSE they were edited by Dr. Spitz, absolutely NO.


my opinion ONLY
links to show Dr. Spitz's publication history (brief)

http://www.ncjrs.gov/App/publications/Abstract.aspx?id=235642
http://bookmooch.com/detail/0398075441
and for those who really really want Ebay bonus points,
http://www.ebay.com/ctg/Spitz-And-F...J-Spitz-M-D-Werner-U-Spitz-M-D-2006-/43559691

PS: note the Spitz, M.D. team are "keeping it in the family"

 

[DawnTCB]

I thought the most compelling evidence given so far on the issue of whether or not the bones had been moved was Dr. Shultz, who said that it was evident that the bones had been moved while they were still connected with soft tissue. I thought it was especially important that the spine bones were found in anatomical order, as well as right hand being together with the right arm, etc. Whether the skull was sitting up, down, or sideways when it was found, no one but a forensic anthropologist could have lined all those vertebrae back in order nor told the left thumb bones from the right thumb bones in my opinion.

I wonder why they didn't ask Dr. Spitz about that? To me that tells me a lot more than that the skull was lying on its left side.

 

[cuppy199]

The problem here is that Dr S contradicted himself. On direct he clearly said that there was no adhesive from the tape on the skull, but went on to suggest that someone had placed tape on a fully decomposed skull...which would surely leave behind some kind of adhesive when their was no decomp fluid present . :waitasec:

The only thing that makes sense to me was that the matted hair with a 'glob' of adhesive, and root growth kept the mandible in place....which both Dr's seemed to imply at some point in their testimony...but then they both went off in different directions.
I'm disgusted with the DT for not having an expert prepared for their testimony. At the very least they should have had his reports ready for him to refer to to refresh his recollection. And Dr S should be self-aware enough to know that after being involved in 60 000 autopsies, that one brain cannot recall every detail of every one performed.

Is there any reason why they can't test the 'brain dust' now to determine if it did contain the Iron, magnesium phosphate, sodium chloride etc, or if it was just sediment from the environment?

JMO

They didnt test it because if they had tested it Dr S could not of came in court and said it was his opinion it was brain dust. Why take the chance it would of shown it was just dirt. Dr S and the DT are throwing alot of hot air IMO. Thats what DT do.

 

[Scamperoo]

The problem here is that Dr S contradicted himself. On direct he clearly said that there was no adhesive from the tape on the skull, but went on to suggest that someone had placed tape on a fully decomposed skull...which would surely leave behind some kind of adhesive when their was no decomp fluid present . :waitasec:

The only thing that makes sense to me was that the matted hair with a 'glob' of adhesive, and root growth kept the mandible in place....which both Dr's seemed to imply at some point in their testimony...but then they both went off in different directions.
I'm disgusted with the DT for not having an expert prepared for their testimony. At the very least they should have had his reports ready for him to refer to to refresh his recollection. And Dr S should be self-aware enough to know that after being involved in 60 000 autopsies, that one brain cannot recall every detail of every one performed.

Is there any reason why they can't test the 'brain dust' now to determine if it did contain the Iron, magnesium phosphate, sodium chloride etc, or if it was just sediment from the environment?

JMO

I think it may have something to do with chain of custody which is lost as soon as the remains are turned over to the family. If a second autopsy takes place outside the chain of custody, anything could be added removed or otherwise adulterated to effect a better outcome. So there isn't much point.

(thank you websleuths radio)

 

[Etilema]

If I understood Dr. Spitz I think he said that if the duct tape was put on the skull before decomposition it would not have stuck which makes sense. Not knowing how long it would take during decomposition I can only than assume it would have to have been put on later in the decomposition period. But this does not make sense because I think that KC got rid of the body pretty early in the decomposition period. This is the only thing that Dr. Spitz made me rethink my opinion as to whether the duct tape was placed on the skull of Caylee before, during or after decomposition. I still though cannot imagine why RK would put it on her later if this is what JB is suggesting. Dr. Spitz may have had some other valid points.... what comes to mind is he stated that Dr. G never examined the insides of the skull. I don't remember if this is true but if true I would agree she may have left something out important. All in all though I feel as though he may be becoming senile because he did seem to remember many elements of the case. I can't imagine he was pretending to not remember, as some posts have suggested because I don't think he would want to look like an idiot. I still don't understand his comments on why hair was placed on the skull for a photo? This doesn't make sense.

BBM. But the duct tape was not stuck onto the skull when it was found. It was near it, as if it had fallen off, as would be expected once the skin decomposes. It was, however, stuck to some of the hair (which had also fallen off during decomposition).

 

[Kentjbkent]

Dr S said alot of things that didnt add up. He couldn't name the person he sent things to. Seems to fishy to me with something that he felt so strongly about and he couldn't remember.For a man with such a long career doing cases and you want me to believe he didnt keep the documentation to back it up on who from the state received it.

Going to test my own memory here now....am I recalling these events correctly.......???

Back in January 2011 when the lack of a report from Dr S came before the court, didn't we have a thread running about it and and what was proven with links is that....

Dr S did the autopsy in 2008, but did NOT create a written report at the time

In 2011, when the deadline passed, Baez went before the court and stated that Dr S was ill and needed an extension or something?

During this timeframe, another member here found another case where Dr S was scheduled to appear as a defense expert witness and the docket in THAT case showed a continuance or something....this was backed up by a MSM news report that that particular case was being CONTINUED due to a hospitalization and illness of Dr S?

There was speculation at that time concerning his health.....and whether or not he actually AGREED to act as defense expert witness as Baez even stated in court that neither Spitz nor anyone in his office would return the phone calls of the ICA defense team?

Then came the news that Baez was going to make a "surprise" visit at some convention where experts who had not submitted reports to him were attending??

Am I recalling this correctly???

 

[LongtimeMedic]

Here's your link to Autopsy Standards (standards/protocols are often interchangeable, particularly for someone that speaks multiple languages) according to N.A.M.E. or "The National Association of Medical Examiners" an organization that Dr. G. belongs to. Referring to page 13, Section F, Standard 21 which begins:

"Because some findings are only ascertained by in situ inspection, the scalp and cranial contents must be examined before and after the removal of the brain so as to identify signs of disease, injury, and therapy"

Standard/Protocol, call it what ya want, but it wasn't done.

I'll look for those other documents now...

http://thename.org/index2.php?option=com_docman&task=doc_view&gid=18&Itemid=71

 

[ZsaZsa]

The problem here is that Dr S contradicted himself. On direct he clearly said that there was no adhesive from the tape on the skull, but went on to suggest that someone had placed tape on a fully decomposed skull...which would surely leave behind some kind of adhesive when their was no decomp fluid present . :waitasec:

The only thing that makes sense to me was that the matted hair with a 'glob' of adhesive, and root growth kept the mandible in place....which both Dr's seemed to imply at some point in their testimony...but then they both went off in different directions.
I'm disgusted with the DT for not having an expert prepared for their testimony. At the very least they should have had his reports ready for him to refer to to refresh his recollection. And Dr S should be self-aware enough to know that after being involved in 60 000 autopsies, that one brain cannot recall every detail of every one performed.

Is there any reason why they can't test the 'brain dust' now to determine if it did contain the Iron, magnesium phosphate, sodium chloride etc, or if it was just sediment from the environment?

JMO

Umm- He said he didn't know what he did with it.
This vital material that supposedly was overlooked by Dr G.
He doesn't know what happened to it, he only remembers that he didn't test it.

 

[allycat1208]

I have a theory that really enlighten me when Dr. Spitz took the stand. I haven't read through this thread so I will apologize in advance if someone has already posted this. He testified that the tape had to have been put on after decomposition had already occurred because the tape would have stuck to the skin which would have decomposed and would not be present when he received the skull. In fact the tape was still present stuck to the actual skull. It then hit me. He was absolutely correct and it now makes sense. My theory about what happened from day one was that she wanted to make this look like a kidnapping or missing child case and hoped it would fall through the cracks, if they found the body, it would have been possible that the "kidnapper" had killed the child and disposed of her...hence the zanny story etc...so when Caylee was given too much chloroform and died, she must have panicked and didn't know where to put her, in the backyard at first, than in the trunk, then figuring out what she is going to do all the while the body is decomposing. She finally decided to put the duct tape before she actually put her in the final destination so that it was made to look like someone actually killed her. So, Caylee didn't die of asphyxiation and that is true, she died from overdose and the tape was the cover. Baez thought he had a homerun and mason made him repeat this several times but this makes it more obvious as to what really happened IMO. This means premeditation.

So you think that KC went back in the woods later and put the tape on the skull? I can't imagine she would do that but it makes more sense to me now that the duct tape had to be put on later. I just don't know how long it would take for the body to be fully decomposed and skeletonized for the duct tape to stay attached to the skull?

 

[grandmaj]

Kent I can't help. I was following this case but had lots of other forums that I was working in. But I do recall his report was after the deadline. The report date is March 10, 2011.

Can you recall the date all reports were due to the court? Where is that Judge's order issued in January. That would show what date the report was due.

 

[joypath]

Then the evidentiary value of anything collected by the defense was not going to be considered by the State. Right or wrong, they had released custody of the remains. Any "substances, scrapings, sticky stuff or other could not be used as evidence, it would immediately be impeached as "tainted" and no official chain of custody. MOO

The value of the results of the testing of the material that Dr. Spitz discussed is in the simple fact that it would be part of his consultant's report. As such, it would be used to BOLSTER his opinion(s) regarding the case. Chain of custody is a moot point, the remains had been turned over LEGALLY to whomever was declared responsible for the disposal.
The state WOULD and COULD consider whatever results the consulting expert presented and THEN choose to refute in any manner possible, SHORT of demanding that the defense give them the material.


:twocents: IMVHO:innocent: , Dr. Spitz presented a very poor consultant report and an even worse courtroom demeanor.

 

[Kentjbkent]

Going to test my own memory here now....am I recalling these events correctly.......???

Back in January 2011 when the lack of a report from Dr S came before the court, didn't we have a thread running about it and and what was proven with links is that....

Dr S did the autopsy in 2008, but did NOT create a written report at the time

In 2011, when the deadline passed, Baez went before the court and stated that Dr S was ill and needed an extension or something?

During this timeframe, another member here found another case where Dr S was scheduled to appear as a defense expert witness and the docket in THAT case showed a continuance or something....this was backed up by a MSM news report that that particular case was being CONTINUED due to a hospitalization and illness of Dr S?

There was speculation at that time concerning his health.....and whether or not he actually AGREED to act as defense expert witness as Baez even stated in court that neither Spitz nor anyone in his office would return the phone calls of the ICA defense team?

Then came the news that Baez was going to make a "surprise" visit at some convention where experts who had not submitted reports to him were attending??

Am I recalling this correctly???

Quoting my own post since I have now found the old thread for anyone who is interested....

[ame="http://www.websleuths.com/forums/showthread.php?p=6065985"]2011.01.25 Defense Requests More Time to Submit Expert Reports - Page 6 - Websleuths Crime Sleuthing Community[/ame]

 

[LongtimeMedic]

I don't want to take this thread OT,so I only offer this link to further explain HHJP's court order of the expert reports,as it does pertain to Dr. Spitz' report .

http://articles.orlandosentinel.com...attorney-state-attorney-jeff-ashton-jose-baez

Discussion of what is contained in this article can be found in appropriate threads.:seeya:

That's a story from January that slings mud at Baez... how is that relevant to Forensics?

 

[cuppy199]

Going to test my own memory here now....am I recalling these events correctly.......???

Back in January 2011 when the lack of a report from Dr S came before the court, didn't we have a thread running about it and and what was proven with links is that....

Dr S did the autopsy in 2008, but did NOT create a written report at the time

In 2011, when the deadline passed, Baez went before the court and stated that Dr S was ill and needed an extension or something?

During this timeframe, another member here found another case where Dr S was scheduled to appear as a defense expert witness and the docket in THAT case showed a continuance or something....this was backed up by a MSM news report that that particular case was being CONTINUED due to a hospitalization and illness of Dr S?

There was speculation at that time concerning his health.....and whether or not he actually AGREED to act as defense expert witness as Baez even stated in court that neither Spitz nor anyone in his office would return the phone calls of the ICA defense team?

Then came the news that Baez was going to make a "surprise" visit at some convention where experts who had not submitted reports to him were attending??

Am I recalling this correctly???

I believe you might be correct. I forgot all about that. Gonna have do a search and see if I can find it.

 

[LongtimeMedic]

She used an endoscope to look inside the skull she did not need to open it.

Link Please... I have to do it too...