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

[Marina2]

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.

The whole part about WS is a must read but I just had to bring this part over. Reading it takes me back to the way I felt listening to his testimony.:crazy:

"And then it all got crazy from there.

I can’t do it justice, I assure you. Waving mandibles, somebody’s poor skull on the witness stand with top up top down mandible over here mandible over there mandible in the air mandible everywhere, soap, more soap, wet soap, sticky soap, sticky hair, water effect on everything but brain dust (which must have some molecular weight equivalent to Ununseptium because swamp water can move everything at the remains scene except the highly weighted doesn’t move once it lands “brain dust” ), conspiracies, skull stealers who like to take skulls home, duct tape them together and put them back in a swamp…you name it, this story’s got it! YOU CAN’T MAKE THIS S**T UP!!!"


http://www.thehinkymeter.com/2011/06...k-4/#more-7236

Thank you, Valhall.

 

[Donjeta]

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

Welcome to WS!

What's your take on what this case says about the psychology of dumping children's bodies and how it applies to Caylee?

I wonder if it happens more often in dead newborns. Due to the mother not being quite herself and/or possibly wanting to conceal that she gave birth at all. If a woman gives birth all by herself it might be more risky and the child might end up being born deceased more often. There are fewer questions asked than if it's already a known toddler.

I looked the case up and here's how it ended.
http://www.leaderpost.com/health/Weyburn+woman+sentenced+disposing+body+newborn/4851037/story.html

They never ended up finding the baby because the mother moved the baby to a different garbage bin when someone saw it and they couldn't find the child at the landfill.

The judge said there is no evidence to suggest the baby was alive at the time of his birth. A medical expert would later estimate, based on descriptions from Vermeulen and the other witnesses, that the child was between 20 and 24 weeks old. While Morris said other estimates put the age as high as 27 weeks, Chicoine said not much turned on that.

The baby was premature according to this description and it is possible that it was dead before birth or went lifeless while she gave birth. But sometimes they do survive the birth at the older end of the given range and begin to thrive in a hospital setting. With no baby being found it doesn't seem like they'd have been able to determine with certainty that the cause of death was natural causes. But no duct tape was seen on the baby's face, apparently.

 

[Marina2]

Valhall made a very good point in her analysis of WS testimony. If WS broke the skull and he didn't even know he did it, how thorough was his autopsy? There was a skull fracture that he never noted and he took photographs of it. He was so concerned about the "brain dust" that he completely missed the skull fracture. That's like Daniel Spitz' gunshot wound blunder.

 

[Trapshooter]

The whole part about WS is a must read but I just had to bring this part over. Reading it takes me back to the way I felt listening to his testimony.:crazy:

"And then it all got crazy from there.

I can’t do it justice, I assure you. Waving mandibles, somebody’s poor skull on the witness stand with top up top down mandible over here mandible over there mandible in the air mandible everywhere, soap, more soap, wet soap, sticky soap, sticky hair, water effect on everything but brain dust (which must have some molecular weight equivalent to Ununseptium because swamp water can move everything at the remains scene except the highly weighted doesn’t move once it lands “brain dust” ), conspiracies, skull stealers who like to take skulls home, duct tape them together and put them back in a swamp…you name it, this story’s got it! YOU CAN’T MAKE THIS S**T UP!!!"


http://www.thehinkymeter.com/2011/06...k-4/#more-7236

Thank you, Valhall.

Marina Valhall's quote about the "highly weighted brain dust" had me :floorlaugh::floorlaugh::floorlaugh:

Came back to add that Dr. S was SO concerned about the "brain dust" that he didn't even send it off for testing! :loser:

 

[Donjeta]

Ok, Dr S on stand (they are replaying his testimony) He said he got the scrapings out of the skull and then

"i gave it to... ummm...I gave it...I gave it to. They told me it was already scraped and sent to...umm, sent to the police laboratory, the police already had it and tested it"

OK so huh????

Huh is right... :waitasec: what did she test if she didn't find anything and was even unable to inspect?

so according to him Dr. G found nothing inside the skull but she had something tested. Dr G. found something inside the skull but had nothing tested. Sounds like they have it covered between the two of them whether there was something or nothing.

 

[Silmarion]

Both were right about different things for different reasons. Both performed some different tests. Both were excellent scientists. But even the best of scientists don't always agree on every point. There were missing prints and in some cases missing DNA, at least that's as I understand it. But I'm not a scientist, therefore I cannot judge the findings of other scientists.

In any case, I don't believe anyone "in that family" murdered Caylee . If it was an accident of some kind, and the family was responsible, why would anyone in the family hide her body so near the house? I don't know what happened to Caylee, or how it happened, and I don't think either the prosecutor or the defense attorney is quite sure either.

 

[katydid23]

Not only unaware, he mentions she was taken by a babysitter.. They forgot to update him on Casey Anthony Fables, V2.5
(he knew nothing about her, what she did before this happened he did not know the story at all)

Look, of course it was not a homicide. Dr. Spitz found a few centimeters of brain dust in the upper left recesses of the cranium, so how could it have been a homicide? It could not have been a homicide because the skull decomposed while it was tilted left, not while it was upright. So that is evidence right there it was an accidental death. The top of the skull was never removed--how could it have been ruled a homicide?

 

[STEADFAST]

Look, of course it was not a homicide. Dr. Spitz found a few centimeters of brain dust in the upper left recesses of the cranium, so how could it have been a homicide? It could not have been a homicide because the skull decomposed while it was tilted left, not while it was upright. So that is evidence right there it was an accidental death. The top of the skull was never removed--how could it have been ruled a homicide?

What a great summary of Dr. S's testimony!

 

[LiveLaughLuv]

Heather, thank you for being with us. Do you agree -- be honest, with the medical examiner, Spitz, the one that`s bringing in $5,000 a day on some of his cases? Do you agree with his characterization of the state autopsy as shoddy?

HEATHER WALSH-HANEY, FORENSIC ANTHROPOLOGIST, FLORIDA GULF COAST UNIVERSITY: I don`t. And as an anthropologist, working with these types of cases, and knowing Dr. G, knowing the experts from Florida that are involved, there was no manipulation of evidence.

Not to mention, when you have skeletonized remains, the medical examiner will defer to the anthropologist because every autopsy, every cut that you make alters the evidence. And alters what I can call from that evidence. Especially when it`s bone.

And when you`re dealing with somebody that`s 2 or 2 1/2, her bone is so very, very fragile. I think Dr. G. did the right thing, because she can also use tiny little mirrors, endoscopes. She can rely on her experts that she has around her, like Schultz and Warren, to help her make a decision based upon skeletal remains.

Her brain was no longer inside that brain case. She was absolutely right in her standard operating procedures.

http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/1106/20/ng.01.html


DR. Spitz is just going with the defenses theory, he has no facts about the hows and whys of Caylee's alleged disappearance or what ICA did for those 31 days...I've heard on news, a defense attorney should never give a scenario about the remains, the good doctor should not have asked either to remain 'impartial' but he just corroborated with the defense theory..a paid witness...Why didn't he test what he found...brain dust? or dirt?

this is just a paid testimony to fit the defense. I don't know how this man can sleep at night selling his soul...the duct tape was weathered by the elements and the storms that blew through in August..if that tape was applied after Caylee's remains were skeletal, there would be adhesive on her little skull, the tape would appear fresher and not tattered...this is just fodder for the defense..I only hope those jurors use common sense...JMHO

Justice for Caylee

 

[Tuffy]

Dr. Spitz getting a little upset:

Physical comedy as Dr. Spitz tries to put the top of skull back on:

http://deathby1000papercuts.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/06/Casey-Anthony-Trial-Spitz-Skull.png

 

[STEADFAST]

http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/1106/20/ng.01.html


DR. Spitz is just going with the defenses theory, he has no facts about the hows and whys of Caylee's alleged disappearance or what ICA did for those 31 days...I've heard on news, a defense attorney should never give a scenario about the remains, the good doctor should not have asked either to remain 'impartial' but he just corroborated with the defense theory..a paid witness...Why didn't he test what he found...brain dust? or dirt?

this is just a paid testimony to fit the defense. I don't know how this man can sleep at night selling his soul...the duct tape was weathered by the elements and the storms that blew through in August..if that tape was applied after Caylee's remains were skeletal, there would be adhesive on her little skull, the tape would appear fresher and not tattered...this is just fodder for the defense..I only hope those jurors use common sense...JMHO

Justice for Caylee

Seems like not only would the tape appear fresher but also the parts of the skull where the tape had been would be less discolored since they would have been protected for some length of time. I think there would be an obvious outline of the tape if it had been applied to the skull early enough for the tape to have weathered so badly.

 

[joypath]

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:

:twocents: Jan C. Garavaglia, M.D has NOT lost "her" accreditation, the agency which she leads, District nine, OME has not participated in the NAME (National Association of Medical Examiners) VOLUNTARY accreditation process.

Definition of accreditation: http://medical-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/accreditation


Information regarding NAME accreditation: http://thename.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=71&Itemid=69

Please take an opportunity to read the downloads, the process of agency accreditation is long and tedious, some OMEs have declined or delayed primary or re-accreditation due to staffing & budget cuts. Since it is a VOLUNTARY exercise, dollars might not be released by legislative bodies

The individual providers (M.D./D.O.) within the agency are licensed (NOT voluntary) to practice his/her profession.

Definition of licensure: [ame="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Licensure"]Licensure - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia[/ame]

Since the accreditation issue is an agency issue and understanding the terminology is complex, I can easily understand WHY the defense did NOT try to "use it " against Jan's testimony. Also remember, Werner Spitz, M. D. is a consultant pathologist practicing as an individual NOT eligible for accreditation by NAME.

 

[Starfish]

I've lived in Wayne County my entire life & I can remember when Dr. Spitz was the ME. He was a person to be proud of, an expert in his field. It's sad to see him now, an old man, saying whatever needs to be said to collect that $5000. Oh he mixes the big words in there to try to make things look on the up & up, but nothing of value comes out of his mouth! Big deal Dr. Spitz you went to the funeral home & sawed open the skull of a 2 year old little girl and you found what?????? NOTHING! Hope that $5000 can buy you a conscience, you're nothing but a sad, pathetic, money hungry old man.

 

[Stargazer7]

Dr. G. Hands down. I was appalled by Dr. Spitz throwing several people under the bus unjustifiably to bolster the defense's case. That made him lose credibility almost more than anything else. But there really was a lot of huge holes in his testimony.

 

[Hali]

I'm wondering now if parts of Dr. S's testimony were more valid than he was given credit for? I'm basing this on the fact that Roy Kronk has admitted he lifted the skull up with his meter stick.