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

[LongtimeMedic]

If the State puts up Dr G. for rebuttal, which you know they will, I'll bet a shiny beer cap that CM on cross will ask her how there was a tooth found in the cranium.

 

[Donjeta]

Here is one thing I am surprised about as far as Dr G's testimony. Most of the time in court, the lawyers want the witness to answer yes or no to their questions. I am shocked that the DT let her talk so much and "speculate". She basically had the stage..Im just very surprised it was allowed by the DT. Were they napping? why didnt they object and make her just answer yes or no the absolute cause of death. the fact of the matter is Dr. G does not KNOW the cause of death other than her speculation that it was homicide. yes, what she said is rational and true, but she doe not KNOW that Caylee didnt drown.

She said that the cause of death was undetermined.

Homicide was what she concluded the manner of death to be, by undetermined means.

In some homicides the cause of death is drowning so it wouldn't have ruled anything out even if she could prove Caylee drowned.

Sometimes I wonder if that's the one nugget of truth in ICA's story.

 

[Donjeta]

If the State puts up Dr G. for rebuttal, which you know they will, I'll bet a shiny beer cap that CM on cross will ask her how there was a tooth found in the cranium.

And what would be inferred from that?

 

[Donjeta]

grandmaj, there were a few times while I was watching and listening to him at the beginning of his testimony, that I felt a tinge of sadness for him. But then I thought of Caylee and I could see and hear that she didn't mean a thing to him, nothing at all, he was simply there, not for justice but to do his job for money.

I'm going to give him a break for not being emotionally involved. I expect some people might find you must protect yourself a little if you do tons of autopsies and can't get too upset about the helpless little victims. It helps to be clinical. (Dr. G. managed to look like she cared, though, and it didn't hurt her testimony imo)

But there is no excuse not to be well informed about the case. None. Nada.

 

[matou]

If the State puts up Dr G. for rebuttal, which you know they will, I'll bet a shiny beer cap that CM on cross will ask her how there was a tooth found in the cranium.

Was it ever disclosed if it was an upper or lower incisor? If it is a lower incisor, the mandible being duct taped to the skull could be a plausible reason for it getting in there. No doubt the skull moved from its original position inside of the bag at some point. I don't think the real anatomical position for a head is sticking up straight in the mud and dis-articulated from the body. If it was an upper, the tooth could have gotten in through the foramen magnum. JMO

 

[matou]

And what would be inferred from that?

I'm guessing that the inference is that the skull was moved and it knocked a tooth in there. JMO

 

[LongtimeMedic]

And what would be inferred from that?

That there really is a reason that area inside the skull is thoroughly investigated too. I mean, if you can find dirt and sand and waxy stuff and a tooth... what else is in there? Right? JMO

 

[Donjeta]

That there really is a reason that area inside the skull is thoroughly investigated too. I mean, if you can find dirt and sand and waxy stuff and a tooth... what else is in there? Right? JMO

I thought she did find dirt and the tooth?

Dr. G. did note the sediment in the skull on page 8 of the autopsy report when she stated:

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.

http://www.thehinkymeter.com/2011/0...e-back-and-a-do-over-and-use-spin-to-request/

Edit, sorry I misunderstood your post.

IMO it tends to indicate to me that you can investigate the skull pretty well from the outside if she found all that looking in.

So what else was there?

Apparently nothing worth reporting in a timely manner.

 

[allycat1208]

Why does it make more sense the tape would be put on later? Because there was no skin residue? I am not sure what convinced you of that.

Because Dr. Spitz brought up the point that the duct tape would not have stuck to the skull after decomposition if she put the duct tape on beforehand. If it was just hanging around the skull then I guess it fell off after it decomposed. I'm not convinced of anything....I'm just throwing out different ideas. The more I think of it, the more I realize I'm not sure at all.

 

[LambChop]

I thought she did find dirt and the tooth?



http://www.thehinkymeter.com/2011/0...e-back-and-a-do-over-and-use-spin-to-request/

So was Dr. G suppose to gift wrap the tooth to prove she had seen it. I believe all but one tooth was accounted for. If it was Dr. S who was handling the skull and seeing him handle the demo skull on the stand I'm surprised he only found one tooth. The older you get the more you hear yourself saying....ooppps. He cracked the skull and did not know he did it. So why is this even a point. Dr. Spitz may have been agile at one time but is no so now.

I just watched JA's cross of Dr. Spitz and JA made some good points. The doctor was not very well informed and seemed to buy into the theory that everyone, everyone is out to frame KC. While he is well respected I don't think he did well yesterday. He appeared more like a hired gun. jmo

 

[Trapshooter]

If the State puts up Dr G. for rebuttal, which you know they will, I'll bet a shiny beer cap that CM on cross will ask her how there was a tooth found in the cranium.

:floorlaugh::floorlaugh::floorlaugh:

Of course CM will ask her that question!!! :floorlaugh:

After all, it WAS CM that asked Dr. G in her depo "who put the mandible there?" Her answer was "God"!

 

[katydid23]

So amazed to hear duct tape leaves no residue. My experience is completely different but maybe I apply it wrong or don't use the magic brand he did.

I hear you. When our son moved out he left an incredible amount of duct taped creations in his wake. The closet door had duct tape covering graffitti he had scrawled sometime in middle school. His book shelf was duct taped together, as was his old hockey trophy. Every single place that I removed duct tape had residue remaining. None of it was underwater, but I do believe the skull would have had tell tale signs that there was once duct tape on it if it had been stuck there at one time. imoo

 

[Solomisskitty]

An afterthought re: Spitz testimony. He was imperative that he did not realize/remember he broke broke Caylee's skull during his examination. This just really upset me. That poor child was not wanted by Casey to begin with and that is totally a woman's choice, but CA encouraged her to have Caylee. IMO, that could make Casey the poster woman for pro-choice. In any event, she did have the baby, the baby who became a tug of war between mom and grandmom, the baby who ended up in a trash dump after a horrendous death, and whose poor little skull was broken by an expert retained by the defense. This is too sad beyond words. Such horrendous things happened to her in life and horrendous things happened to her little remains.
Caylee was doomed from birth. In my faith, I'm sure she is one of the many, many favorites of Jesus.

 

[LongtimeMedic]

I thought she did find dirt and the tooth?

Exactly... but she didn't see or document the area in the skull Dr. Spitz showed a picture of to the jury either! The significance of that area, is that the skull would have been lying on that side throughout decomposition. That means no moving with the water and the waves, but rather stationary and left side down which is not consistent to the way the skull was found, which was upright. Dr Utz testified it was found upright and held in place with roots.

I think the DT is going to say that the body was fully decomposed (and clearly that didn't happen in the trunk) before it was placed in the woods. Where was that? Who knows, maybe while Casey is going down in flames she'll take the whole lot with her and tell us everything that happened.

 

[katydid23]

After several months in a swamp?

I think that if the duct tape had been baking in the sun for a few months and then was under water that there would still be some indication of residue or discoloration on the skull where it had been placed. imoo

But since it was on the skin, and not the skull, there is no evidence.

 

[Scamperoo]

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?

You are wrong, as soon as the remains are turned over to the next of kin chain of custody is broken and it is no longer the ME's case. A second autopsy is requested by the next of kin and the results of this should be put into a report with supporting evidence.

 

[Scamperoo]

Exactly... but she didn't see or document the area in the skull Dr. Spitz showed a picture of to the jury either! The significance of that area, is that the skull would have been lying on that side throughout decomposition. That means no moving with the water and the waves, but rather stationary and left side down which is not consistent to the way the skull was found, which was upright. Dr Utz testified it was found upright and held in place with roots.

I think the DT is going to say that the body was fully decomposed (and clearly that didn't happen in the trunk) before it was placed in the woods. Where was that? Who knows, maybe while Casey is going down in flames she'll take the whole lot with her and tell us everything that happened.

I appreciate your valiant effort to change or reinterpret the facts to fit a scenario you are more comfortable with but I think this...:deadhorse: and I feel like doing this :banghead: so I am going to bed before I get a TO.

 

[kaRN]

If the State puts up Dr G. for rebuttal, which you know they will, I'll bet a shiny beer cap that CM on cross will ask her how there was a tooth found in the cranium.

I bet 2 shiny beer caps she makes him look foolish when he does. Her explanation is even in the autopsy report and there are 3 RNs on the jury who understand and can explain to their fellow jurors, all about the eruption of childrens deciduous teeth and where their permanent teeth develop in the upper jaw.

 

[kaRN]

And what would be inferred from that?

Absolutely nothing Donjeta. CM didn't even bother to question his own ME on that

 

[Donjeta]

Exactly... but she didn't see or document the area in the skull Dr. Spitz showed a picture of to the jury either! The significance of that area, is that the skull would have been lying on that side throughout decomposition. That means no moving with the water and the waves, but rather stationary and left side down which is not consistent to the way the skull was found, which was upright. Dr Utz testified it was found upright and held in place with roots.

I think the DT is going to say that the body was fully decomposed (and clearly that didn't happen in the trunk) before it was placed in the woods. Where was that? Who knows, maybe while Casey is going down in flames she'll take the whole lot with her and tell us everything that happened.

But she did find the tooth stuck in the calvarium. If it was on the left side where the dirt gravitated it would tend to indicate that she saw and investigated that area. If it was not on the left side it would tend to indicate either that the skull wasn't stationary and on its left side all the time and at some point things gravitated to some other direction or that teeth move against gravity.

Anyway there were flood waters and a hurricane capable of moving it. There were animals who moved body parts around and I doubt they would have been careful not to upset the position of the skull. The meter reader may have touched the skull when he found it to ensure it really was a skull.

What does this tell us about the manner of death and who disposed of her in the woods?
What am I not getting?