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

[mydailyopinions]

These two statements are laughable:

"(Prosecutor Jeff Ashton) tried to discredit me, but I don't think he was successful," Spitz said. "People that did watch the jury told me the jury was very intent on my testimony.
"It almost looked to me that (Ashton) did not want to extend the cross-examination because he thought all that would happen is that the jury would get a better understanding (of my claims)."

From The Detroit News: http://detnews.com/article/20110620...estimony-in-Casey-Anthony-trial#ixzz1PqooOFeV!

It amazes me that Casey's, Jose's, Cheney's and Spitz's egos all fit in the courtroom at the same time!

I personally THINK that this is the problem with anyone who comes in defense of Casey Anthony! None of them THINK!
The lack of common sense in this case cracks me up, and leaves me truly believing that none of them are smarter than 5th graders!:crazy:

 

[BritsKate]

Sigh.

Well if cutting the calvarium is necessary, expected, or standard when inspecting skeletal remains not only does Dr. Spitz have the world's best kept secret (since there is NO documentation anywhere that I can locate to support that claim) but he needs to inform several anthropologists that they are doing their jobs all wrong.

As an aside...the study I linked earlier for UNLV is a lady anthropologist studying skeletal remains showing non-fatal cranial trauma in regards to violence against women. Fascinating! Her list of procedures includes endoscopy, radiography, photography, visual inspection, etc. Guess what isn't on the list? Yep. Sawing open the skull on cranial trauma victims is suspiciously missing from her protocol. Somebody better let Dr. Spitz know stat!

 

[Sabrina2011]

Sigh.

Well if cutting the calvarium is necessary, expected, or standard when inspecting skeletal remains not only does Dr. Spitz have the world's best kept secret (since there is NO documentation anywhere to support that claim) but he needs to inform several anthropologists that they are doing their jobs all wrong.

As an aside...the study I linked earlier for UNLV is a lady anthropologist studying skeletal remains showing non-fatal cranial trauma in regards to violence against women. Fascinating! Her list of procedures includes endoscopy, radiography, photography, visual inspection, etc. Guess what isn't on the list? Yep. Sawing open the skull on cranial trauma victims is suspiciously missing from her protocol. Somebody better let Dr. Spitz know stat!

I know before more heads are separated in the name of.. well.. of? um that protocol that is not written down. Secret society of... :fence:

 

[Sabrina2011]

I personally THINK that this is the problem with anyone who comes in defense of Casey Anthony! None of them THINK!
The lack of common sense in this case cracks me up, and leaves me truly believing that none of them are smarter than 5th graders!:crazy:

They would have been better to exercise their right not to put a defense on. In other words Quit While You Are Ahead.:floorlaugh:

 

[kjpaw]

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.

BBM...but won't the DT have to then go against their own Bug Guy (Dr. TH) who I believe on Friday testified on cross that he believed the remains decomposed at that location after 2-3 days in a different location, meaning her little body had been in that location for approximately 6 months. Personally I felt that was a major slap for the defense's theory (from OS). I guess unless we are going to hear from the DT that RK left all other bones, but decided to take only the skull and detemine that he should put duct tape on to keep the mandible in place post decomposition...but after JA's questioning of WS regarding how a person would put duct tape on a skull to hold the mandible anatomically in place I believe the jury will believe the SA's witnesses and the defense's own witness that decomposition occurred in that location and after that display will be more convinced of the difficulty if not impossibility that duct tape was placed on a skull and not skin. It's the Occam's Razor principle that will come into play at that point because the jury is going to lean towards the more reasonable/simple explanation and in MOO I believe the defense even throwing out such unreasonable theories will push the jury beyond reasonable doubt that the SA's theory is the correct one. It's kind of like ICA's lies to me, simple lies people kind of shrug off and don't pay a ton of attention to, but more elaborate stories cause our senses and reason to kick in and the more we think about it the more we tear them apart. All MOO.

 

[LongtimeMedic]

From The Detroit News: http://detnews.com/article/20110620...estimony-in-Casey-Anthony-trial#ixzz1PqixNScd

Whaaat????

The circumstances are, a baby found in a trash bag, in a trash dump, not reported missing, and it doesn't make any sense to him that it might be a homicide??

You have just stated that in your opinion there is resonable doubt if you use the word might. Death penalties are no place for "mights" and "Maybes" JMOO

 

[goldenlover]

You have just stated that in your opinion there is resonable doubt if you use the word might. Death penalties are no place for "mights" and "Maybes" JMOO

Well said. If it "might be" it "might not be" too.. Death Penalty cases are more serious than that.

 

[BritsKate]

You have just stated that in your opinion there is resonable doubt if you use the word might. Death penalties are no place for "mights" and "Maybes" JMOO

I tend to think there could be video of Casey murdering Caylee and some would choose to ignore it as evidence.

Eyewitness testimony could be wrong, bought, or coerced. DNA, blood spatter, gunshot residue, semen stains could be contaminated. Confessions could be forced. Witnesses could be tampered with. Police could be corrupt. Prosecutors could be over zealous. And Casey just could be guilty of murdering her daughter.

There is no absolute in any case. Every case is might or may be. Even DNA is considered circumstantial evidence and every defence attorney in his right mind would seek to discredit it regardless of whether contamination is a valid argument or not. Our system is based upon a preponderance of the evidence beyond a reasonable doubt - not any or all doubt. Legal statutes are in place in death penalty states to avoid prosecutors from seeking the death penalty when certain aggravating factors are not met - in this case those aggravating factors are applicable. It is now for the jury to decide whether they feel death is an appropriate sentence based upon the evidence.

Sorry mods for the O/T.

 

[SpaCity 102]

I'm watching the replay of this testimony on HLN and want to add to my post above....how do you NOT remember if you talked to the childs family? The child that you autopsied, that you are in Florida to examine and who is your current job you forget if you talked to her family in the home???

Exactly Stef. Dr. S was a bumbling man who seemed to have great difficulty recalling even the smallest detail of his activity surrounding this case. He didn't have a problem saying Dr. G performed a shoddy autopsy though. THAT's what BAEZ drilled him on.

 

[LongtimeMedic]

(Respectfully snipped)

Did I hear right when I heard that he not only removed the skull cap to examine the interior, that he broke it?

There is just nothing credible here.

You heard an excited utterance made by JA of Facts Not In Evidence. JMOO

 

[Donjeta]

You have just stated that in your opinion there is resonable doubt if you use the word might. Death penalties are no place for "mights" and "Maybes" JMOO

I wasn't commenting on the seriousness of death penalty cases or the degree of reasonable doubt I or anybody else may or may not have. My comment was directed to Dr. S's comment that in these circumstances homicide as the manner of death doesn't make sense to him. I mean, honestly, what the heck? He's never in his career of 60.000 autopsies come across toddlers who were disposed with the trash and the parents failed to report them missing and it turned out to be a homicide?

That is just disingenuous IMO. Even if one doesn't believe it's a homicide in this particular case it would make sense considering the circumstances. How many deceased toddlers get treated like Caylee and how many of them were murdered? A more credible statement would have acknowledged that the circumstances seem to point to homicide but yet he does not believe it happened because [list of reasons that actually make sense].

 

[goldenlover]

I tend to think there could be video of Casey murdering Caylee and some would choose to ignore it as evidence.

Eyewitness testimony could be wrong, bought, or coerced. DNA, blood spatter, gunshot residue, semen stains could be contaminated. Confessions could be forced. Witnesses could be tampered with. Police could be corrupt. Prosecutors could be over zealous. And Casey just could be guilty of murdering her daughter.

There is no absolute in any case. Every case is might or may be. Even DNA is considered circumstantial evidence and every defence attorney in his right mind would seek to discredit it regardless of whether contamination is a valid argument or not. Our system is based upon a preponderance of the evidence beyond a reasonable doubt - not any or all doubt. Legal statutes are in place in death penalty states to avoid prosecutors from seeking the death penalty when certain aggravating factors are not met - in this case those aggravating factors are applicable. It is now for the jury to decide whether they feel death is an appropriate sentence based upon the evidence.

Sorry mods for the O/T.

First the jury must hear the rest of the trial and the come up with a verdict before they decide if the death sentence is appropriate. Isn't that how our justice system works?

 

[Quiche]

Last Updated: June 20. 2011 3:42PM

Spitz defends testimony in Casey Anthony trial

Josh Katzenstein/ The Detroit News

Former Wayne and Macomb County medical examiner Dr. Werner Spitz has returned to the Detroit area confident in his testimony in the Casey Anthony trial, saying efforts to discredit him were unsuccessful.

Spitz, 84, of Grosse Pointe Shores, said today he believes his stance is correct, despite a report by the Orlando Sentinel in which legal analysts suggested Spitz failed to convince the jury of his hypothesis...

From The Detroit News: http://detnews.com/article/20110620...estimony-in-Casey-Anthony-trial#ixzz1Pqhzz1Im

Oh dear, dear-- I'm a little concerned about the "good" doctor. :floorlaugh:

 

[MissJames]

I seem to remember from his testimony that he didn't remember or know the circumstances of Caylees disappearance, the circustances of how long she was gone, of where she was found, of the conditions in which she was found, of the conditions the area sustained during the time she was there. He just seemed completely unaware of the circumstances in this case. Or is that just me?

When JA was cross examining him about the hair falling off, Dr. S says (paraphrasing) "you tell me there was water,maybe the water made it come off..." Of course,I wasn't sure if he was referring to the flood water or the "salty water,so-called saline" that the ME used.
I would swear that the first half of his sentences do not go with the second half .

 

[Kelroy]

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

I'm not doubting your research or your conclusion from it at all! I just got interested in the articles, and thought they indicated that endoscopes still aren't quite in common use in autopsies. Still, you're absolutely right that they have been and are used, and certainly sound like a viable alternative to opening the skull.

I'm with you on being squeamish. Incidentally, I've only seen Dr. G's show once, long ago, and had to change the channel because it literally made me gag. The remains were blurred and the camera was usually just focused on her, but simply seeing her vigorously sawing away at a cadaver's chest and then lifting things out of it . . . that was enough for me. More power to anyone in that profession. I do not know how they do it.

(The trial has also made me gag more than once. I wish I didn't know what adipocere is now.)

 

[BritsKate]

First the jury must hear the rest of the trial and the come up with a verdict before they decide if the death sentence is appropriate. Isn't that how our justice system works?

Of course. :great:

ETA: I think I may have forgotten to mention I think she's guilty.:floorlaugh: So my brain kind of skipped over the verdict since I'm already on the penalty phase!

 

[Baznme]

Oh dear, dear-- I'm a little concerned about the "good" doctor. :floorlaugh:

He sounded pretty arrogant to me in his statement and WHY did he make a statement to begin with? Not necessary and certainly shows lack of respect for the purpose of this trial, instead he views it as a contest between himself and the prosecution. Not good.

 

[grandmaj]

Last Updated: June 20. 2011 3:42PM

Spitz defends testimony in Casey Anthony trial

Josh Katzenstein/ The Detroit News

Former Wayne and Macomb County medical examiner Dr. Werner Spitz has returned to the Detroit area confident in his testimony in the Casey Anthony trial, saying efforts to discredit him were unsuccessful.

Spitz, 84, of Grosse Pointe Shores, said today he believes his stance is correct, despite a report by the Orlando Sentinel in which legal analysts suggested Spitz failed to convince the jury of his hypothesis...

From The Detroit News: http://detnews.com/article/20110620...estimony-in-Casey-Anthony-trial#ixzz1Pqhzz1Im

I take back my feeling bad for the total crash of this witness on the stand for the world to see. He deserves it he apparently has an ego bigger than JBs and is delusional.

 

[Broderick]

First the jury must hear the rest of the trial and the come up with a verdict before they decide if the death sentence is appropriate. Isn't that how our justice system works?

It would be nice if Baez follows the rules and lets the trial proceed. Seems he is trying to shake the jury attention span with delays by knowingly practicing abuse the system policies. Can't call a witness that has not properly provided a full report as the judge ordered in December and January, so a witness can be properly deposed.

 

[Tulessa]

Oh dear, dear-- I'm a little concerned about the "good" doctor. :floorlaugh:

I want to know what planet he is on? :loser: