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

[Asker]

I have complete and total faith in Dr. G., her autopsy and her testimony.

 

[ExpectingUnicorns]

Hi! New poster here, first post, nice to meet ya'll.

There is something about Dr Spitz that just gets under my skin and I don't know what it is exactly. His professional history is astonishing and very well accomplished but I don't see what he's done in THIS century to warrent the level of respect for his opinion that he seems to feel everyone should give him.

I found him to be out of touch with current methods and thoughts on procedures. I found him to be ego driven and not fact driven. He seemed to be more interested in what his picture showed than what test results showed or what he found himself.

He did not follow normal procedure when conducting his own autopsy by not wearing gloves and proper equipment. He did not either perform his own tests or send things out to be tested.

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

LOL! An excited utterance is basically a statement made when someone is so excited that, without thinking, they automatically tell the truth. So you may be right, there.

I believe JA showed the picture of Caylee's skull, indicating where he had broken it. And Dr Spitz's reply? Long pause. "I didn't know I did that." Not, "I didn't."

 

[magic-cat]

Dr. S's testimony was surreal, bordering on the edge of laughable. I was not impressed and I ain't that hard to impress hahaha. He seemed confused and uninformed and completely off the mark. His day in the sun has gone I think, and he does not prefer the shadows to which he has been resigned. I kinda felt sorry for the dude and wondered, fleetingly, about altzheimers...lol.

 

[ZsaZsa]

NG is all over this subject tonight! Breath of fresh air and truth.
Panel ME says - Nothing was gained from opening the skull -what was his (Dr S) point, he did not need to do it and he didn't find anything ,so why the kerfuffle?
Bill S says this Dr had some renown at one time, but he should have hung up his cleats a couple of games ago...

 

[chefmom]

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

Wow! Just wow! I have no words! Dr. S states in this interview that Dr. G. "determined the manner of death was homocide. That doesn't make sense, not under these circumstances." Really? A dead child that is triple bagged and dumped in a swamp with duct tape on their face is not a homocide? On what planet?

 

[ExpectingUnicorns]

NG is all over this subject tonight! Breath of fresh air and truth.
Panel ME says - Nothing was gained from opening the skull -what was his (Dr S) point, he did not need to do it and he didn't find anything ,so why the kerfuffle?
Bill S says this Dr had some renown at one time, but he should have hung up his cleats a couple of games ago...

Forensic anthropologist, Heather Walsh-Something or Something-Walsh (it was said too fast) added that it was a good thing that Dr G did not open the skull. She said every cut that an ME makes on a skeleton makes the job of the anthropologist more difficult. She said Dr G followed the standards established for a skeletal autopsy. (These are not quotes but only my paraphrasing. Please check the NG site tomorrow for her transcriptions if you have detailed questions.)

 

[Steft50]

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.

Spa!! Good to see you here! We HAVE to get Sec here, she would love it if she isn't here somewhere already! :woohoo: LOL I love these icon smilies!

I do thnk your right, the only thing he knew answers to directly were what Baez told him. IMO!!

 

[gladiatorqueen]

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?

A much different case but speaks to the psychology of possibly dumping a child's body in death -- even if it was natural or accidental.

http://www2.canada.com/saskatoonsta....html?id=a76d9fc4-f1b4-459c-b3e9-1649b15fe492

(Oh, my first post, hello!)

On an aside ... I still think some of Dr. S' testimony raised some serious doubts. I mean, truly, if the tape had been put on directly on the skin to smother Caylee then why did it not contain DNA and why did it remain attached to the bone. Makes no sense.

Secondly, I read somewhere (sorry can't cite it at the moment) that iin the case of smothering that discolouration can occur on the inside of the skull. I think this is what Dr. S meant by suggesting shoddy. I mean, in the case of a possible murder of a child wouldn't you want to insure you have checked all possible causes of death?

 

[LongtimeMedic]

LOL! An excited utterance is basically a statement made when someone is so excited that, without thinking, they automatically tell the truth. So you may be right, there.

I believe JA showed the picture of Caylee's skull, indicating where he had broken it. And Dr Spitz's reply? Long pause. "I didn't know I did that." Not, "I didn't."

Clearly I should have chosen a non-legalese term, as everyone knows I'd never give Ashton props.

 

[gladiatorqueen]

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

I respectfully disagree. I am Canadian and do not believe in the death penalty. When the death penalty is on the table for a 1st degree murder charge then I think there should be NO DOUBT in the minds of the jury that the defendant has committed 1st degree murder. I don't believe in this case that 1st degree murder has been proven. JMO

 

[GeekyGirl]

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.

Just trying to clarify here because of your screen name, are you talking about the British legal system or the U.S. system? I'm not sure about the British system, but in the U.S. "preponderance of the evidence" and "beyond a reasonable doubt" are two very different legal standards of proof.

http://www.nolo.com/dictionary/preponderance-of-the-evidence-term.html
http://www.nolo.com/dictionary/reasonable-doubt-term.html

 

[TorisMom003]

A much different case but speaks to the psychology of possibly dumping a child's body in death -- even if it was natural or accidental.

http://www2.canada.com/saskatoonsta....html?id=a76d9fc4-f1b4-459c-b3e9-1649b15fe492

(Oh, my first post, hello!)

On an aside ... I still think some of Dr. S' testimony raised some serious doubts. I mean, truly, if the tape had been put on directly on the skin to smother Caylee then why did it not contain DNA and why did it remain attached to the bone. Makes no sense.

Secondly, I read somewhere (sorry can't cite it at the moment) that iin the case of smothering that discolouration can occur on the inside of the skull. I think this is what Dr. S meant by suggesting shoddy. I mean, in the case of a possible murder of a child wouldn't you want to insure you have checked all possible causes of death?

First of all, WELCOME!!!!!

The tape did not contain any DNA because it had been out in the elements (heat, flooding, wind, animal activity and decomposition fluids) for 6 months. Duct tape is good at holding things together but not good enough to continue holding onto DNA when it has been exposed to all of those things. The duct tape was also not attached to the bone, only the hair mat that had slipped to the back of the skull. The duct tape did help to keep the madible in place thanks to being put tightly on Caylee's face and still being tangled and stuck to her hair.

Dr. G is an ME that makes sure that she has done everything she possibly can to find out what happened to the person that is on her table. If you have never watched one of her shows, and you can, I would suggest it. Dr. G does not like not knowing what happened. She will do everything in her power to answer any and all of the questions that she has. Caylee being left out in a swampy area for 6 months was a major break for KC. Not finding Caylee until there was nothing left of her except the skeleton did away with any evidence that could have been used to determine why Caylee died, except for the duct tape.

MOO

 

[dax]

During the last few minutes of this video Dr G explains that she scraped the cranial cavity.
http://www.wftv.com/video/28199426/index.html

CM: "You did not cut open the cranium, did you?"
Dr G: "Absolutely not."
25 seconds in:
http://www.wftv.com/video/28200315/index.html

So what was the point of Dr S's testimony? and...why does anyone think she did not do a scraping?

 

[enlightenme]

Huh??!! I just heard LKB say on Dr. Drew's show that Dr. G. lost her acreditation? Um, I think that would have come up during her testimony, no? :maddening:

 

[Trapshooter]

For those still questioning Dr. G's "shoddy autopsy", please refer to the Nancy Grace show 6/20/2011.

Nancy had a medical examiner from Texas on there and he said Dr. G absolutely did NOTHING wrong by not removing the skull cap!!! He said if there HAD been a brain in the skull, then proper protocol would've been to remove the skull cap to remove the brain. No brain inside, no reason to remove skull cap.

Just another quick opinion....Dr. Spitz saying "ashes to ashes, dust to dust" was completely WRONG!!! There was NO brain dust in Caylee's skull because animals had eaten that precious child's brain and internal organs. Caylee had NOT been in the swamp long enough to turn to "ashes", nor to "dust".

Now with Dr. Spitz saying he thinks the prosecutor was (paraphrasing) afraid to cross-examine him further....PUH - LEEZE! This is an old man that still thinks HIS opinion is the only one that matters! I agree with Bill Schaeffer! This man should've taken his cleats off back in the early 80s! Actually pitiful that Dr. Spitz values himself so highly.

 

[Trapshooter]

Huh??!! I just heard LKB say on Dr. Drew's show that Dr. G. lost her acreditation? Um, I think that would have come up during her testimony, no? :maddening:

enlightenme, I would take anything that LKB says with a grain of salt. Nasty salt! :furious:

She is just on tv blabbering her opinion of this case because she couldn't get paid for being there in person! She backed out of this case and IMHO should STHU!!!!! :banghead:

 

[azwriter]

First of all, WELCOME!!!!!

The tape did not contain any DNA because it had been out in the elements (heat, flooding, wind, animal activity and decomposition fluids) for 6 months. Duct tape is good at holding things together but not good enough to continue holding onto DNA when it has been exposed to all of those things. The duct tape was also not attached to the bone, only the hair mat that had slipped to the back of the skull. The duct tape did help to keep the madible in place thanks to being put tightly on Caylee's face and still being tangled and stuck to her hair.

Dr. G is an ME that makes sure that she has done everything she possibly can to find out what happened to the person that is on her table. If you have never watched one of her shows, and you can, I would suggest it. Dr. G does not like not knowing what happened. She will do everything in her power to answer any and all of the questions that she has. Caylee being left out in a swampy area for 6 months was a major break for KC. Not finding Caylee until there was nothing left of her except the skeleton did away with any evidence that could have been used to determine why Caylee died, except for the duct tape.

MOO

TorisMom, good post. I have to agree, Dr. S made a fool of himself when it came to questions about the tape. There was no way the duct tape was attached at a later date to the skeleton remains. It was there from the beginning when Caylee's body was placed in the trashy area. And like you said the elements, six months of it, removed any DNA from the tape.

I think though the real proof the tape WAS NOT placed directly to the skeleton at a later date is that the tape would also have wasted away from the same elements the body was exposed to. If it were added later to the bone after entire soft tissue of the body decomposed, the tape would appear newer than it did when it was found along with the body in December. From photos that I've seen, the duct tape looked pretty ragged and worn. It had to have been there from the beginning.

I don't know how many months it took for the body to completely become a skeleton, but from the looks of the duct tape, it too had gone through the same harsh surroundings for the same amount of time.

jmo

 

[Jolynna]

Wow! Just wow! I have no words! Dr. S states in this interview that Dr. G. "determined the manner of death was homocide. That doesn't make sense, not under these circumstances." Really? A dead child that is triple bagged and dumped in a swamp with duct tape on their face is not a homocide? On what planet?

Caylee was found triple-bagged and dumped in a trash pile with duct tape on her face. Caylee's death could only be ruled a homicide under those circumstances.

Just like when Brent Huck's pregnant girl friend was found dead six months after her disappearance, The victim was bound, in a lake and with duct tape over her face. A piece of rope with a pattern like the pattern of rope Huck had and a dog hair found on the victim that could have come from the same breed of dog as Huck owned, was all that tied the victim to Huck.

No cause of death could be determined because alligators, fish, insects and 6 months the lake had taken their toll on the body. However,because of the circumstances--a bound victim with duct tape close to her face with the body weighted down in a lake the death was ruled a homicide. although the victim could have died of natural causes,the state didn't have to “rebut conclusively, every possible variation of events” which could be inferred from the evidence, but had to introduce competent evidence inconsistent with the defendant’s theory of events.

Which would be a piece of cake for Jeff A. and Linda BD, every bit of evdience they have presented so far has been inconsistent with ALL 3 OR 4,(or however many) of ICA's theories of events.

 

[wonders]

***WARNING GRAPHIC PORTION***

At the moment I'm livid. I don't know why I watch the TH's on TV.
Dr. Spitz saying the duct tape being placed after decomp is absolutely crazy as is the staging of the hair. This is why I'd like to see the full pictures of how Caylee was found then I would know for sure in my own mind. It's not because I want to be morbid or disrespectful to Caylee I just have a need to know. I hope you all understand what I'm trying to say.
Comon sense tells me that if the tape was placed after decomp there would not have been any hair around to stage. If someone (RK) duct taped the mandible in place then why use 3 piece's of tape? And would the *mover* of the remains care if the whole skull was in place. Make no sense to me. Yes some may say to block fluids from escaping. But what about the eyes, ears and private parts I ask you will they not leak fluids?
ICA did this horrible deed herself and in my world she would sit on death row with many walks to the death chamber thinking she was going to lose her "beautiful life" before she was put to death just so that she could feel half of what CAYLEE felt.

Rant over!

 

[Trapshooter]

Just for kicks & giggles, I read Valhall's (The Hinky Meter) trial recap posts. I just gotta say, the way Valhall sums up Dr. S is hysterical!!!! :floorlaugh: Seriously though, Valhall hit the nail on the head!!!!

Here is the link if you want a good laugh...

http://www.thehinkymeter.com/2011/06/19/caylee-anthony-case-review-of-trial-week-4/#more-7236

Valhall's review of Dr. Spitz is near the bottom of the page.