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

[allycat1208]

If nothing else, at least Dr. Spitz was entertaining. I hope he comes back and argues with JA again.

 

[kelian36]

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

Because he's 84 and has selective memory?
He's a paid defense witness who remembers what he's paid to remember and forgets what he's paid to forget. Frankly I thought even baez would do better than Dr. Spitz.

 

[kelian36]

If nothing else, at least Dr. Spitz was entertaining. I hope he comes back and argues with JA again.

:floorlaugh: Ok I'll give ya that!

 

[Solomisskitty]

Many people don't know "how" to retire or what to do with themselves at retirement. This may the case with Spitz.

But who do I believe, S or G? Let me think about that for .1 second.
Dr. G.

 

[goldenlover]

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?

I don't think he was asked, but I bet he always did it, in order to do a thorough autopsy.

 

[mydailyopinions]

When the conviction comes down and any juror decides to speak, I feel that this will be something we hear about.

I do feel we will hear that the jury was giggly because of the nonsense that Spitz was spewing and that none of it made any logical sense, or at least that he lost them when saying someone found the skull and then wrapped duct tape around it.

The only thing I believe we will hear about Dr. G is how she hit the nail with her statements that no child should be Not reported missing, an accident not being reported, and that this child was thrown out in a trash dump.

 

[Broderick]

I don't think he was asked, but I bet he always did it, in order to do a thorough autopsy.

So he did cut 60000 skulls open which is about five a day for sixty years. Busy man with the saw. Or was it ten a day for thirty years? I am sure he was pretty thorough between tv interviews, court, teaching and writing books and all. Or was 60000 a lie?

 

[kelian36]

I don't think he was asked, but I bet he always did it, in order to do a thorough autopsy.

Isn't that just your opinion goldenlover?

Kind of like people who claim that their children never made a mistake.:crazy:

It's highly unlikely that during his 56 years of work that Dr. S did thorough autopsies every single time. I'm pretty sure he made a mistake or omitted something a time or two in 56 years.

 

[grandmaj]

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.

He also stated that it was adipocere binding it to the skull. If my recollection of the autopsy report there was mud, roots and mattes on the hair. I don't recall any findings of adipocere being a found in the hair. And, he never examined the hair only saw pictures.

 

[kelian36]

So he did cut 60000 skulls open which is about five a day for sixty years. Busy man with the saw. Or was it ten a day for thirty years? I am sure he was pretty thorough between tv interviews, court, teaching and writing books and all. Or was 60000 a lie?

I'll go with lie for 500.00 Bob.

 

[seekingjustice**]

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...

BBM - ITA. While watching his testimony, IMO, it was terribly obvious his memory has declined. I could see him struggling at times, just trying to recall, what should have been simple information that he should have known about.

 

[Pattymarie]

BBM - ITA. While watching his testimony, IMO, it was terribly obvious his memory has declined. I could see him struggling at times, just trying to recall, what should have been simple information that he should have known about.

I wonder why the DT didn't rehearse/prepare him better?

 

[kelian36]

He also stated that it was adipocere binding it to the skull. If my recollection of the autopsy report there was mud, roots and mattes on the hair. I don't recall any findings of adipocere being a found in the hair. And, he never examined the hair only saw pictures.

:seeya: grandmaj. Right! Dr. S said he never examined the hair. Maybe Dr. G will be called back and make the comment-"Dr. Spitz never examined the hair." lol

 

[katydid23]

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

That would be up to the jury to decide, not the state. The whole purpose of allowing the DT to do their own autopsy is for the see their reports and findings. So IF the 'brain dust' had been noted, and pictures taken, notarized and sent to a certified lab, and tested, then the jury would take that info into account. imoo Sure, the state could try and say it was tainted, just like the DT says the states evidence is tainted or 'shoddy.'

 

[kelian36]

BBM - ITA. While watching his testimony, IMO, it was terribly obvious his memory has declined. I could see him struggling at times, just trying to recall, what should have been simple information that he should have known about.

seekingjustice**,
He was forgetful. Did you notice during his first cross Jeff asked Dr.S about the Anthony home, examining it, asking Dr. S who was there--Dr. S said I DON'T KNOW?

HU????????? Dr.S made a reference to the people who were there and were somehow involved with Caylee! I think he should have been excused right then and there.

 

[Donjeta]

If you take the word of the people that said they smelled decomposition because they have smelled it before and just "know" what it is, due to their occupation, life experiences, etc. For example, the tow truck drive that also worked for waste management. Everyone took his word that he knew the difference between the decomposition smell and the trash smell, yet he was just a tow truck driver with no actual training in the smell of decomposition.

Why is it so hard to belive that a forensic pathologist that has done over 60,000 autopsies and has years of education and experience, as well as has taught in his field for years and written textbooks on the field of pathology, does not know what the residue inside the skull was without testing it? He said it was sticky, etc. He knew that it was not dirt. He knew what it was. He also knows how to perform a complete autopsy.

All the more reason to test it if he knew... IMO.

If it really was brain dust it was the only soft tissue left on Caylee and might have contained traces of the cause of death.

 

[Talina]

I wonder why the DT didn't rehearse/prepare him better?

For all we know, the DT did prep him before his testimony. Given his demeanor, can you imagine a meeting between Dr.Spitz and Baez with Baez trying to "school" him on how to give his testimony. My mental impression of how that would go is not very well. :floorlaugh:

 

[LongtimeMedic]

That would be up to the jury to decide, not the state. The whole purpose of allowing the DT to do their own autopsy is for the see their reports and findings. So IF the 'brain dust' had been noted, and pictures taken, notarized and sent to a certified lab, and tested, then the jury would take that info into account. imoo Sure, the state could try and say it was tainted, just like the DT says the states evidence is tainted or 'shoddy.'

CM showed a large picture to the jury, up close of the skull after it was open, with Spitz showing them the stain he was describing? Did you miss that?

http://www.wftv.com/video/28281980/index.html
RAW VIDEO: Day 33 In Casey Anthony Murder Trial Pt. 4 @ 06:49 through about 12:40.

As for sending it to the lab, ding for the defense. Why didn't Dr G send it? It's her case... right?

 

[goldenlover]

Isn't that just your opinion goldenlover?

Kind of like people who claim that their children never made a mistake.:crazy:

It's highly unlikely that during his 56 years of work that Dr. S did thorough autopsies every single time. I'm pretty sure he made a mistake or omitted something a time or two in 56 years.

I am sure he has made mistakes. Everyone does, and no, I am not the kind of person who would say my child has never made mistakes or myself..and yes, that was my opinion, and I will admit it was a bit exaggerated. I am sorry for that.

Every medical professional makes a bad call once in a while. Medicine is truley an art and much is left up to a physician descretion. That is why you get second, third and fourth opinions and many times they can all be different. Maybe, just maybe, Dr. G made a bad call this time and should have opened the skull becaue she may have missed something, that is all I am trying to say.

 

[seekingjustice**]

seekingjustice**,
He was forgetful. Did you notice during his first cross Jeff asked Dr.S about the Anthony home, examining it, asking Dr. S who was there--Dr. S said I DON'T KNOW?

HU????????? Dr.S made a reference to the people who were there and were somehow involved with Caylee! I think he should have been excused right then and there.

bbm - yes, and he expected the Jury to believe that he remembered going to the A's house when he couldn't even remember who was there??? gawd, what an embarrasment he was imo. His credibility was shot by JA's first couple of questions.

I loved it when JA asked him what protocol he was using hehe.

I could see and hear he was well past his use-by-date, and I'm convinced the Jury thought the same.