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

[allycat1208]

Yes, even Dr. S. stated that the tape was not attached, though he had to be reminded that it WAS attached to the hair that was matted onto the skull. It was overlying the mouth/nose area, but it was not adhered to the skull. Again, even Dr. S. stated this, in spite of the fact that he wants us to believe the tape was applied directly to the skull.

Why did he say the hair was reapplied to the skull for a photo?

 

[grandmaj]

My question is did Dr. S ever call Dr. G and ask to confer? Since we are told there was no report how would Dr. G even know that Dr. S has these alleged findings? He had her preliminary report not her final report. So what do we take away from this? That the State was not sharing information?

 

[scandi]

To clarify: BAEZ was at the conference, Spitz was not!

Followed your BAEZ trail, not the saliva one (there's a joke in here)......j/k

Yea:floorlaugh: When ever I hear him speak his voice drives me nuts and I want to shout out 'swallow your spit, swallow your spit . . . .'. I guess some people don't realize what they sound like.

 

[scandi]

My question is did Dr. S ever call Dr. G and ask to confer? Since we are told there was no report how would Dr. G even know that Dr. S has these alleged findings? He had her preliminary report not her final report. So what do we take away from this? That the State was not sharing information?

When Dr G was asked about Dr WS performing an autopsy on Caylee she acted like , what? as tho she was not aware of it or it wasn't true. It seemed to me a bit more than that, like there was a disagreement of some sort just by the look she had on her face.

 

[RANCH]

Because the statement was made by a court agreed expert witness, Spitz's testimony is considered "opinion evidence". Experts are the only ones whose opinion is considered evidence. That fact he said it, leaves it up to the jury to decide how they want to weigh it. MOO

Your exactly right. The jury will weigh Dr Spitz's testimony when they deliberate.My opinion is that they will not agree with him.

 

[TorisMom003]

No--he said "why would there be" any adhesive left on the skull. He said when he put duct tape on his arm and pulled it off there was no adhesive left behind. What's the difference between that and bone, he asked.

The following is a portion from Dr S's autopsy.

a. The evidence found at 2nd autopsy as described above.
b. The DNA results of the duct tape yielded no DNA from the deceased.
c. The lack of entomological eVidence found on the duct tape is also inconsistent with the duct tape being placed over any orifice that would have attached to the duct tape during decomposition (skin would be expected to adhere to duct tape).

According to c. in Dr S's report he claims that skin would be expected to adhere to duct tape. So my question is, at what time was Dr S not being forthcoming?

As to b. in his report he is completely overlooking the fact that Caylee, along with the duct tape, had been left in the elements for more than 5 months. During that time there was flooding, animal activity and docomposing. I certainly would not expect to find any DNA from anyone on the tape after what the tape had been exposed to.

 

[LambChop]

I still can't figure out how Dr. Spitz could explain the mat of hair if the duct tape were not there for a long time. If the tape were placed after full decomp....there would be no mat of hair. The hair would have been gone along with the tissue that held it on the scalp. It's as if the hair stuck and tangled in the duct tape which was originally placed on Caylee's face all pretty much stayed together. Anyone who has ever found tangled wires with solid objects tangled within them would understand. There's no glue holding it together just a tangled mess and it is all together. jmo

 

[LongtimeMedic]

YES, the guidelines also has the following "

NAME recognized that certain standards may not be applicable where they conflict with federal, state,
and local laws. Deviation from these performance standards is expected only in unusual cases when justified by considered professional judgment.
National Association of Medical Examiners
Standards Committee
August 12, 2005​

Again, the case in question is on a skeletonized individual, no soft tissue present.
AND, here's the entire standard:

Standard F21 Head​

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.​

Procedures are as follows:​

F21.1 the forensic pathologist shall inspect and describe scalp, skull, and meninges.
F21.2 the forensic pathologist shall document any epidural, subdural, or subarachnoid hemorrhage.
F21.3 the forensic pathologist shall inspect the brain ​

in situ prior to removal and sectioning.
F21.4 the forensic pathologist shall document purulent material and abnormal fluids.
F21.5 the forensic pathologist or representative removes the dura mater and the forensic pathologist inspects the skull.​

BBM these terms represent soft tissue or "stuff" that would surround the soft tissue, all MISSING in this case.

Deviations from the SUGGESTED protocols may be part of any particular OME.

"F21.1 the forensic pathologist shall inspect and describe scalp, skull, and meninges."

And how does one inspect for the presence, absence or anything pertaining to meninges, as described in the first standard?

 

[LambChop]

The following is a portion from Dr S's autopsy.

a. The evidence found at 2nd autopsy as described above.
b. The DNA results of the duct tape yielded no DNA from the deceased.
c. The lack of entomological eVidence found on the duct tape is also inconsistent with the duct tape being placed over any orifice that would have attached to the duct tape during decomposition (skin would be expected to adhere to duct tape).

According to c. in Dr S's report he claims that skin would be expected to adhere to duct tape. So my question is, at what time was Dr S not being forthcoming?

As to b. in his report he is completely overlooking the fact that Caylee, along with the duct tape, had been left in the elements for more than 5 months. During that time there was flooding, animal activity and docomposing. I certainly would not expect to find any DNA from anyone on the tape after what the tape had been exposed to.

Perhaps Dr. Spitz is relying too much on defense's theory that LB from TES stated she searched the exact spot and there was no water and no body. jmo

 

[Etilema]

Why did he say the hair was reapplied to the skull for a photo?

He wanted it to be that the skull was laying in the position he said it was, and if hair was on that part, then it would contradict that. (In fact, I think he had a point about the photo that was taken after the skull was moved; but there was also a photo taken in the woods where it was found, before it was moved.)

WHO KNOWS what he thinks the motivation would be for sneakily reapplying hair that way??

 

[matou]

Was Spitz ever asked on the stand if he had previously ever opened up a skeletonized individual's skull to examine the contents? From his 60,000 autopsies, how many times did he actually do this?

 

[Etilema]

The following is a portion from Dr S's autopsy.

a. The evidence found at 2nd autopsy as described above.
b. The DNA results of the duct tape yielded no DNA from the deceased.
c. The lack of entomological eVidence found on the duct tape is also inconsistent with the duct tape being placed over any orifice that would have attached to the duct tape during decomposition (skin would be expected to adhere to duct tape).

According to c. in Dr S's report he claims that skin would be expected to adhere to duct tape. So my question is, at what time was Dr S not being forthcoming?

As to b. in his report he is completely overlooking the fact that Caylee, along with the duct tape, had been left in the elements for more than 5 months. During that time there was flooding, animal activity and docomposing. I certainly would not expect to find any DNA from anyone on the tape after what the tape had been exposed to.

Wow--so he even contradicts himself. Why does this not surprise me?

 

[Sedona722]

A direct quote taken from Dr S report.....

"The skull had not been opened, at the first autopsy, in accordance with normal protocols as when dealing with skeletal remains."

Doesn't that make the testimony he gave sort of odd? ETA since he kept saying he knew no protocols when JA asked him. Yet, there he is saying "normal protocols" in his report!

Directly taken from Dr G's autopsy report.....

"Examination of the skull reveals no antemortem trauma. The inner aspect of the cranial cavity is examined with light and reveals sandy dirt and an attached small incisor which is adhered to the inside of the calvarium with dirt."

Dr S report here:
http://www.thehinkymeter.com/2011/03...-out-a-report/

Dr G report here:

http://www.wesh.com/download/2009/0619/19802034.pdf

Also, Dr S said the skull was egg shell thin, so why did he saw it? Makes no sense to me, besides, he cracked it!!!

 

[LongtimeMedic]

Joypath... I really don't mean to beleaguer this topic any longer, but you honestly feel that not removing the skull cap in a murder case of a child, that the manner is homicide with an indeterminate cause? Every last stone covering every suspect must be looked under, so that they are all found and brought to justice. This is a case where you go the extra mile, and do every extra test and procedure, Pay attention to every detail, you check and recheck every element so that your case is rock solid... the States case at this point is not. Depending on what other surprises we get in the next week, who knows if they won't just acquit? And that's because of cumulative errors throughout the OC/FBI system. Contaminated murder weapon evidence?? Seriously??? JMOO. If that's how you truly feel, well then to each there own opinion. Thanks for sharing your knowledge here.

 

[Tuffy]

"F21.1 the forensic pathologist shall inspect and describe scalp, skull, and meninges."

And how does one inspect for the presence, absence or anything pertaining to meninges, as described in the first standard?

Caylee's meninges would have been gone, because that is the covering of the brain. There was no soft tissue left when either autopsy was done.

 

[RANCH]

My mother is in her 80's and said she learned to make creamed spinach while watching a cooking show on TV after school when she was a kid.......There was no TV in the 30's for the average American much less for any family recovering from the depression. Sometimes at that age truth just does not make for a good story. I'm really surprised by some of the things Dr. Spitz came out with but then I remember some of the things my mother comes out with. She was a very intelligent woman business woman when she was younger and still is pretty sharp but once in awhile she leaves me shaking my head by saying something completely out of character. I think with Dr. Spitz there is just something that is not right with him. lol

My mom is 78 yrs old and she's been watching the coverage of the trial.She called Dr Spitz that "that old codger" to describe him.Kind of cracks me up.

 

[Sedona722]

I still can't figure out how Dr. Spitz could explain the mat of hair if the duct tape were not there for a long time. If the tape were placed after full decomp....there would be no mat of hair. The hair would have been gone along with the tissue that held it on the scalp. It's as if the hair stuck and tangled in the duct tape which was originally placed on Caylee's face all pretty much stayed together. Anyone who has ever found tangled wires with solid objects tangled within them would understand. There's no glue holding it together just a tangled mess and it is all together. jmo

Frankly, I am not sure he even understood what he was talking about, LOL.

IMO, his ego was challanged and his 56 year history, I felt he was talking in circles and getting madder by the minute. He is so out of touch with the mainstream of pathology forensics, he is relying on archaic methods during his hayday. Of course, JMHO.

 

[LambChop]

"F21.1 the forensic pathologist shall inspect and describe scalp, skull, and meninges."

And how does one inspect for the presence, absence or anything pertaining to meninges, as described in the first standard?

Okay I have a question. Wasn't every bit of tissue gone? If the body had been buried there might have been some material left but given the amount of animal activity in a naturally wooded area, Florida being the insect center of the world and the constant washing from the water in the area, Dr. G's report pretty much spells out no tissue present in the skull. Just as an average person who could be sitting on a jury may think why cut open a skull to examine brain tissue that is clearly not there. What purpose would it serve? Just because you might do it everytime with other crimes does it mean you can't use your professional judgment in this case and decide nothing of value would be discovered. Half the child's bones were already chewed by animals. Why damage her poor remains further when little benefit would be found?

The sad part is Dr. G. cared more about doing damage to this child's remains than Caylee's own mother who apparently could have cared less where her daughter's remains were lying or what was happening to them. jmo

 

[aeneas1]

As to b. in his report he is completely overlooking the fact that Caylee, along with the duct tape, had been left in the elements for more than 5 months. During that time there was flooding, animal activity and docomposing. I certainly would not expect to find any DNA from anyone on the tape after what the tape had been exposed to.

i think it's quite possible that ds had entirely forgotten that the skeletal remains were submerged in water when he wrote his report and testified - everything he's said about the duct tape points to him not being aware of the water, including point b. in your post, his forearm skin test, etc... and it would explain why ds was so stumped, paralyzed actually, when ja asked him if the cranial residue couldn't simply be silt given so much exposure to water...

 

[kelian36]

Dr.Spitz made one big mistake imo. He went on and on about the hair mat being placed on the head by 'who knows who' in the pictures of the remains. If the jurors listened to the way Spitz made that comment, I think the jurors will think -just as I do--that Spitz was telling a lie.