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

[katydid23]

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?

No ding that I see. Dr. G did send it to the lab. The stuff she found in the skull is the same stuff he is talking about. He even said that he later found out it had already been tested.

And I saw the picture. I never said he did not take a picture. I was replying to your post where you said that nothing he did would be accepted by the state. The pictures he took were shown to the jury, correct? So, imo, if he had some lab results of the 'brain ' fluff than the jury would have seen that as well. All we were told was that there was something there, he never tested it to give us concrete results. So if any one of them did incomplete reports, he did. imoo

 

[kaRN]

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

I have a sneaky suspicion that when JA asked Dr S to re-assemble the skull he brought with him, it was to show the jury how unsteady his hands were.

 

[kaRN]

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

Or the soft tissue surrounding it decomposed and it fell in.

 

[butwhatif?]

Dr. Spitz never said that there was no adhesive left on the skull because of the rain?

I'm confused. I didn't say anything about rain in my post.:waitasec:

Originally Posted by butwhatif?
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 .

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

 

[Donjeta]

I have a suspicion that he didn't view the earlier testimonials about the autopsy and the recovery of the body. IIRC at some point JA asked him about something Dr. Utz did and he responded in the feminine, "she" did something. I don't recall what that was about but if he had seen Dr. Utz on the stand or even read about his testimony he would have known Dr. Gary Utz is a man. Maybe he thought the question was about Dr. G.

Now, it's up to you to decide if it's a good thing or not if his testimony was not tainted by what had been testified to before but I can tell you that if I was ICA's defense attorney I would like my witnesses better prepared. It all helps to create a picture of a man who is not quite aware of the things going on.

 

[katydid23]

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.

Sorry, but none of the above makes any sense at all, imo. I hardly know where to start. Bottom line is, a tiny amount of sediment, left in an empty skull cavity, AFTER IT HAS BEEN SPRAYED TWICE WITH A SALINE SOLUTION, is pretty meaningless. There is nothing about it that indicates anything like what you described.

Think about it---the roots were growing up through the dirt and around the skull. How could that be 'staged'? And there is plenty of evidence that the entire area was flooded earlier. So the skull would have been moved around quite a bit. I do not understand why a little sediment on the left side disproves that in any way.

Sorry, but I do not follow your logic at all here. I know you are a very intelligent person so I am trying to understand how you are going from A to B to C. But I am lost. sorry.

 

[leophoenix]

^ Also roots themselves will move objects and the animals. This reminds me of when my father found an antique bottle in a stream bottom side up. An oak tree root had grown into it and lifted it out of the water. I'm also sure most people have seen a sidewalk lifted up and crushed by tree roots at least sometime. Roots moving/growing, animals, water/sediment shifted etc.

 

[Donjeta]

Yeah and who's to say that there were no other people there between the dumping and the remains being recovered who might have disturbed the setting. All that garbage didn't walk there all by themselves.

 

[Donjeta]

Sorry, but none of the above makes any sense at all, imo. I hardly know where to start. Bottom line is, a tiny amount of sediment, left in an empty skull cavity, AFTER IT HAS BEEN SPRAYED TWICE WITH A SALINE SOLUTION, is pretty meaningless. There is nothing about it that indicates anything like what you described.

Think about it---the roots were growing up through the dirt and around the skull. How could that be 'staged'? And there is plenty of evidence that the entire area was flooded earlier. So the skull would have been moved around quite a bit. I do not understand why a little sediment on the left side disproves that in any way.

Sorry, but I do not follow your logic at all here. I know you are a very intelligent person so I am trying to understand how you are going from A to B to C. But I am lost. sorry.

They lost a golden chance not testing it. If they could have shown that the sediment contained plant debris from vegetation that was plentiful in RK's back yard but not found at the dump site it would have been a brilliant moment.

 

[BritsKate]

They use endoscopes and other techniques to diagnose disease in live persons because it is non-invasive and does not put the person through unnecessary surgery. Sometimes it is to give them a clue as to if further testing is needed and if it is it usually followed up by real exploratory surgery so they can actually see what is going on with their eyes.

Ask any physician..nothing is better than a visual exam. Many times thing are missed with these new techniques, but sometimes that outweighs the risks of surgery. In an autopsy, they are not worried about risking the health of the individual, therefore nothing would beat a visual inspection. Visual examination is not "old school". I had the chance to ask a physician about this last night. Endocsopes and the like are not usually used in an autopsy. Infact, autopsy tools involve a lot of saws. Even in skelatal remains they need to examine the inside of the skill for fractures to see if the cause of death could have been a trauma to the head.

BBM

Would you happen to have a link that specifically states it is routine protocol to cut the calvarium in a skeletal autopsy? FAME general protocol does not state this in regards to skeletal remains; NAME general protocol does not state this in regards to skeletal remains and many websites that reference anthropology, osteology, and forensic pathology of skeletal remains state radiography is often relied upon. Dr. Garavaglia did examine the interior of the skull and xrays were taken.

As well can you offer a link that states endoscopes are not used in autopsy? Did you know some medical examiners have performed endoscopic autopsies in cases where a conventional autopsy was not possible? Endos have also been used to avoid removal of the eyes in studying cases of intercranial hemmorhage.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/7572871
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19566351
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15745279
http://www.enotes.com/forensic-science/skeletal-analysis

 

[Kelroy]

BBM

Would you happen to have a link that specifically states it is routine protocol to cut the calvarium in a skeletal autopsy? FAME general protocol does not state this in regards to skeletal remains; NAME general protocol does not state this in regards to skeletal remains and many websites that reference anthropology, osteology, and forensic pathology of skeletal remains state radiography is often relied upon. Dr. Garavaglia did examine the interior of the skull and xrays were taken.

As well can you offer a link that states endoscopes are not used in autopsy? Did you know some medical examiners have performed endoscopic autopsies in cases where a conventional autopsy was not possible? Endos have also been used to avoid removal of the eyes in studying cases of intercranial hemmorhage.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/7572871
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19566351
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15745279
http://www.enotes.com/forensic-science/skeletal-analysis

You've done a lot of research! I looked at some of those articles on endoscopic autopsies, and they do seem to indicate that endoscopes really aren't usually used in autopsies now (which is what goldenlover meant, I think). Like you said, these seem to be unconventional cases, as when the deceased's family objects to traditional autopsy or when traditional means of accessing the intraocular area would damage the deceased's eyes too much (thus precluding an open casket, I guess?) Do they by any chance say anything about using an endoscope on skeletal remains?

I think your research on protocols is reeeally interesting in light of Dr. Spitz's insistence that such a protocol exists! And I'm sure there are other tools besides endoscopes--a long mirror, for instance--that would allow an ME to see the inside of the skull; I also think the x-rays and saline washes that Dr. G did sound like they yielded as much info as cutting the skull would (and perhaps even more). (Let me emphasize that I'm not a medical professional!)

 

[Donjeta]

I've never said that I buy into GA being involved, I don't. I agree that would be an unreasonable scenario to me. But again, how can you reconcile the fact that you believe Casey would willfully murder her child, but make every attempt to save her if a drowning occurred? MOO

I think they're reconcilable because the intent is different in such situations.

If Caylee was willfully murdered by Casey it can be inferred that she wanted her child dead. If Caylee drowned accidentally she is not a murderer and thus we can't take it for granted that she preferred a dead Caylee to a live one.

Anyway, if it's a surprise situation I believe that instincts will usually kick in and calling 911 happens pretty automatically, as per Dr. G. I think it tends to happen whatever your feelings towards your child are because the resentment and anger a parent might feel will momentarily be displaced by fear and upset. Sometimes you hear sad stories about parents who were so angry and frustrated with their children before they died and now they'd give anything to get the child back.

Granted, a not-so-loving mother might later think, oh no I should have let her drown, now she's got brain damage and is even more of a burden than she used to be. But most are glad that their child lives.

If we assume that Casey had coincidentally been considering murder before Caylee drowned accidentally it doesn't imo make any sense that she'd cover the accident up. On the contrary, it would be the easy way out for her, she'd snap it up. The end result was the same, the child was dead, and with far less trouble far fewer risks to herself. She should have been eager to report it. Maybe wait for a while before phoning in to make sure they can't revive her?

 

[BritsKate]

You've done a lot of research! I looked at some of those articles on endoscopic autopsies, and they do seem to indicate that endoscopes really aren't usually used in autopsies now (which is what goldenlover meant, I think). Like you said, these seem to be unconventional cases, as when the deceased's family objects to traditional autopsy or when traditional means of accessing the intraocular area would damage the deceased's eyes too much (thus precluding an open casket, I guess?) Do they by any chance say anything about using an endoscope on skeletal remains?

I think your research on protocols is reeeally interesting in light of Dr. Spitz's insistence that such a protocol exists! And I'm sure there are other tools besides endoscopes--a long mirror, for instance--that would allow an ME to see the inside of the skull; I also think the x-rays and saline washes that Dr. G did sound like they yielded as much info as cutting the skull would (and perhaps even more). (Let me emphasize that I'm not a medical professional!)

Um, I get squeamish at a paper cut! LOL

I realise goldenlover meant 'generally' - my aim was to show that not only has it been used in or as an alternative to a conventional autopsy but that researchers are looking at ways to make post-mortems less invasive.

Endoscopy is often used on skeletal remains in anthropology, paleopathology and osteology - I can offer several links if anyone wants them - this one is particularly fascinating though...the study is on human skeletal remains with an emphasis on non-lethal cranial trauma:

http://faculty.unlv.edu/dmartin/violence.htm

 

[cleo612]

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

Where is it noted that "waxy stuff" was found inside of Caylee's skull?

I do not see it noted in Dr. G.'s report. She notes that there is sandy dirt caked within the skull and that a tooth was embedded in the dirt.

If Dr. Spitz stated this during his testimony, then that is all the more reason that he should have sent his scrapings of "brain dust" for testing.

There is not one argument that will ever convince me that a man of Dr. Spitz's stature, his 56 year long career in forensic pathology, his world renowned reputation in the field, could not find a lab to perform appropriate tests on this child's remains.

Besides, as a pathologist, Dr. Spitz could have, and should have, examined those scrapings under a microscope himself.

The only conclusion that leaves me is that the scrapings he took contained exactly what Dr. G. found--sandy dirt.

There is nothing waxy about it.

 

[TotallyObsessed]

IMHO, Dr. S ended up looking like a crazy old man. My DD was watching and she felt sorry for him because he is old. I did not. I am a very compassionate person, but he put himself up there and out there....so fair game.

This defense team is a barrel of laughs.

 

[Turnadot]

Where is it noted that "waxy stuff" was found inside of Caylee's skull?

I do not see it noted in Dr. G.'s report. She notes that there is sandy dirt caked within the skull and that a tooth was embedded in the dirt.

If Dr. Spitz stated this during his testimony, then that is all the more reason that he should have sent his scrapings of "brain dust" for testing.

There is not one argument that will ever convince me that a man of Dr. Spitz's stature, his 56 year long career in forensic pathology, his world renowned reputation in the field, could not find a lab to perform appropriate tests on this child's remains.

Besides, as a pathologist, Dr. Spitz could have, and should have, examined those scrapings under a microscope himself.

The only conclusion that leaves me is that the scrapings he took contained exactly what Dr. G. found--sandy dirt.

There is nothing waxy about it.

BBM

And there's the crux of it right there, IMO.

Dr Spitz made this OMG HUGE IMPORTANT WAXY, SOAPY DISCOVERY THAT DR G MISSED - but wait! It wasn't important enough to view under a microscope, have tested, or even note in his report.

So basically: who cares?

Apparently, it wasn't an important discovery to a Dr of Spitz's stature, so why should it be to a jury.

Val's week recap is gold: http://www.thehinkymeter.com/2011/06/19/caylee-anthony-case-review-of-trial-week-4/

 

[Turnadot]

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.

No; what it means is that at some point, Caylee decomposed on her left side (perhaps while in the trunk), then was torn apart by water and animals after she was dumped; her skull came to rest upright and remained stationary after that, where it was later found.

I feel like I'm doing this :banghead:

And by the way, since Dr Spitz didn't bother to have his scraping tested, his claim of what he found is then unverified; an unsupported assertion. I'm sorry, but it is. Everyone is fallible, even the great Dr Spitz.

At any rate, I'm dropping out of this debate. It's a new week.

 

[MissJames]

Sorry, but none of the above makes any sense at all, imo. I hardly know where to start. Bottom line is, a tiny amount of sediment, left in an empty skull cavity, AFTER IT HAS BEEN SPRAYED TWICE WITH A SALINE SOLUTION, is pretty meaningless. There is nothing about it that indicates anything like what you described.

Think about it---the roots were growing up through the dirt and around the skull. How could that be 'staged'? And there is plenty of evidence that the entire area was flooded earlier. So the skull would have been moved around quite a bit. I do not understand why a little sediment on the left side disproves that in any way.

Sorry, but I do not follow your logic at all here. I know you are a very intelligent person so I am trying to understand how you are going from A to B to C. But I am lost. sorry.

The defense tactics are to simply confuse the situation enough that it leaves the jury wondering if they missed something or can trust their own conclusions. LKB did it the same way in the PS trial. The State will back up their claims. The defense will simply MAKE claims. JMO

 

[hoosier_mama]

No question about it Dr. G, she has nor reason to lie, and I liked the way she answered all questions, very direct, I also liked her answer that no child for whatever reason should have tape across their mouth, I feel that sealed C.A.
new home real soon!!

Yes, this!

 

[kljohnson0458]

Honestly I believe he should retire.