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

[Turnadot]

They could have avoided the entire issue and allowed Spitz to be present at the first autopsy, and then everyone would have seen the same things. That would have streamlined things a bit, no?

Caylee wasn't identified yet though. How would it have been legal for Dr Spitz to have been present for an unknown child's autopsy on behalf of KC's defense?

 

[Kelroy]

Dr. G when asked if she cut the skull said "Absoulutely NOT!" she was mortified by that question. I took that to mean a little sense of humanity. As if to say "Caylee's little body was mutilated enough already. She had animals chewing on her little bones. We searched for days upon days to make sure we found every one of her missing teeth and every one of her tiny bones. Cutting the skull would have given me no more facts then I already had without cutting the skull. I wanted this little girl to be barried as whole as possible"

OF course those are not Dr. G's words, but that is the perception I gained from her testimony.

I think Dr. G indicated that it is unusual to open the skull in such a case, and I believe her. However--and this is a small point--I don't think it's because she thought cutting the skull would be "desecration" or "mutilating" Caylee. I just don't think medical examiners view cutting up a body or skeleton as disrespectful or inhumane; that's what they do--it's their job to get to the bottom of a person's death, and I actually think it's more respectful to do what it takes. I guess I'm just saying that I can't imagine someone who does autopsies for a living would find it wrong to cut a skull in half, no matter how young the victim; it's science. I've just seen several people say Dr. G was being "respectful" by not cutting the skull, and I simply don't think any scientist would think of it as a matter of respect or disrespect, but as a matter of scientific protocol. JMO.

Anyway, I think Dr. G was far more credible than Spitz. I have a lot of problems with her "100% of all accidents are reported" statement, but she seems much more informed and logical than this guy, for whom I kind of felt sorry, to be honest.

 

[Quiche]

They could have avoided the entire issue and allowed Spitz to be present at the first autopsy, and then everyone would have seen the same things. That would have streamlined things a bit, no?

Now there's some protocol, not allowed.

 

[LongtimeMedic]

Caylee wasn't identified yet though. How would it have been legal for Dr Spitz to have been present for an unknown child's autopsy on behalf of KC's defense?

Court Motion... very common.

 

[Broderick]

Well, all in all, I was highly entertained by Spitz's testimony, sure wasn't falling asleep!

eta: ...and because it was so absurd, imo, there's no threat to the truth in this case. Pure entertainment.

I am amazed that duct tape doesn't leave residue. Who would have thunk it?

 

[Quiche]

Does Dr. Spitz have a booking agent? :waitasec:

 

[pinkfly]

I have no medical knowledge and if I was a juror I would have to rely a lot on my observations of those presenting differing facts. Today I would have had to consider Dr S as being unreasonable and hard to believe so my vote has to go to Dr G who was very professional and thorough.

 

[katydid23]

They could have avoided the entire issue and allowed Spitz to be present at the first autopsy, and then everyone would have seen the same things. That would have streamlined things a bit, no?

They had not even confirmed it was Caylee at the time of that first autopsy.

Why would the county medical examiner allow a paid expert of a defense attorney to look over her shoulder, not even knowing whose remains she was examining. Besides, it is against the policy and regulations because once you begin allowing other people in, it is hard to say no to others.

They were given a chance to do their own autopsy. So what is the problem about not being there at the first one?

 

[Justin Tyme]

When he went into... "He mentioned that he's been out of the mainstream", which to me would mean that he wasn't current on what's being done in "today's time". That's just one of the reasons that I don't trust his testimony. Another reason is that he also went by what JB told him as well as what the "A's" told him at their house and he mentioned the pool at the "A's" house. So he was told a possible drowning. So, nah, I don't believe him.

I hold high respect for Dr. G's work. She is a people person that has compassion and passion for what she does. She's not one of those, "look at me, see what I can do" type of people...

as opposed to the Dt's witness, who was all about , "Look what I can do, and don't insult my intelligence because I am so smart, type of people. He had already factored in a drowning, (HE mentioned the pool). He was trying to make the hand fit the glove...so to speak.

 

[Turnadot]

Court Motion... very common.

There was, the very day Caylee was found. Judge Strickland ruled that since they couldn't ID the body as Caylee, the defense's expert had no right to be present during the autopsy.

 

[MissDiva]

I think my respect for Dr. S.'s credibility went down dramatically when he insisted there were protocols in place that called for opening the skull, but couldn't recall where these protocols exist.

 

[cleo612]

Main thing I see in many threads here, and I know this is OT, but there is a distinct lack of objectivity here about the witnesses and counsel in the trial. You have to be able to put aside things like "... well so and so said that...", and look at things objectively, even if they disagree with what you want to hear or see. To do otherwise, some one needs to explain to me what the point is in having a trial or even more so watching it?? Just to convict??? Sorry, but that's not how our justice system works, and was never intended to.

It's natural and normal to have an opinion, and everyone does, but opinions don't afford one the benefit of excluding facts to help support their own beliefs and opinions.

I have been following true crime stories since I was around 8 years old when I found a copy of my grandfather's True Detective magazine in the bathroom one day. Being an avid reader, even at that young age, I was quickly "hooked" on true crime of all types. I used to save my candy money and allowances to go buy my own copies of "True Detective" and "True Crime."

I do feel that Casey Marie Anthony is guilty of first degree murder. I do think that she planned to kill, not only her daughter, but her parents, and possibly her brother, as well.

I do think that she chloroformed and then put duct tape over the airways of that precious little girl whose name was Caylee, and I do think that Casey sat there and watched her daughter struggle for her last breath until she could no longer fight for her life.

I do think that Casey then put Caylee's body into 2 black trash bags, put those bags holding her daughter's body into the laundry bag, and then stuck the entire deathbed into the trunk of her car.

I think she then proceeded to go to her boyfriend's apt., to go rent movies that evening, and then to spend the next 18 or so hours laid up in bed while her daughter's body began decomposing in the trunk of that car.

I think that at some point Casey took Caylee's remains back to her parents house and planned to bury them somewhere in that yard, spilling decompositional fluids in those areas where grass will no longer grow in the process.

When burying her little body was not possible, I think that at some point, either that day, or within a few days, Casey Marie Anthony took that bag that held her once beautiful and precious baby daughter and dumped it in the woods 15 houses from her parents' home.

I think she drove away and never looked back.

With all of that being said, I want the truth. I don't care if bits of the truth come from the defense experts or from the prosecution experts. I want to know what happened to that precious little girl, because until the truth is known, there is no way to truly honor that baby's life, nor a way to understand how she died.

I listen to each expert lay out their theory, their thoughts, their evidence, and at some point down the road, I hope that it will all make sense.

Sometimes, however, there are cases where a death never makes sense.

Sadly, I fear that all of the facts and thus the truth behind the death of this precious baby, Caylee Marie Anthony, will never be known.

 

[Quiche]

Uh, maybe we should check for some fresh entries on Spitz's and Autopsy Protocol's wiki pages. Then there will be PROOF!

 

[DesSands]

He totally lost me when he said they may have put hair on Caylee's head? :loser:

 

[Sabrina2011]

There was, the very day Caylee was found. Judge Strickland ruled that since they couldn't ID the body as Caylee, the defense's expert had no right to be present during the autopsy.

Exactly, because they did not have a positive ID on the remains.. WHAT if that had been my missing child (if I had one) I would feel so offended and violated that every agency and renegade doctor or self appointed Baez expert from around the world all descended into the facility of the agency with legal jurisdiction over the remains (DR. G.) And all pulled apart my child.

I would be LIVID if a circus erupted around my child and then what IF they discover it was not Caylee.. then they just say "oh sorry, here is your leg bone back"

They had to keep order.. they are not covering up anything in the Autopsy and its done with decorum.

 

[gamom]

What bothered me about Dr G's testimony is that she said that there is no reason for the duct tape to be applied postmortem. While I respect that she is an expert, this is speculation on her part. If it were a FACT that there was no reason to apply the duct tape postmortem, and antemortem placement would have killed her, why is it not listed as COD?

I don't see using comon sense to come to medical conclusions a problem. We use common sense to come up with MANY conclusions in the medical community. Part of the job of a ME is to use logic, science, and the circumstantial evidence given from outside sources to come to a cause of death. The fact that she did not list that in the COD in her report says more about her crediablity to me. She could use it to determine that little Caylee did not die of natural causes or accidential since under normal cases little kids don't just die with tape on their face, nor do they have an accident that is not reported, die and get doubled bagged and tossed in cases of accidents. So that can lead her to a homicide. She can not say the tape actually killed her, because she does not know that to be fact. She can just say there is no reason (common sense) to put tape on a child after death and the only reason one would put tape on a childs mouth and nose before death would be to stop them from breathing. (common sense)

If the defense wants to argue the reason someone MIGHT use tape on the nose or mouth before or after death, then have at it. Seems to me they agree there is no logical reason which is why they have decided to say the tape was never around her nose or mouth. :twocents:

 

[magnolia]

I am not sure that he had no reason 'to lie.' He is a professional witness. That is how he makes his living. He said he does 30 cases a year. He cannot to to a trial and say whatever he wants to. It HAS TO line up with the defense's theory or he will not take the stand. Which is why he had to lay out his theory of someone putting the mandible back together and taping it, then putting it back on the dump site.

And did you notice he even threw a Kronk scenario in there for good measure? He said ' maybe someone took the body, went somewhere else, put the mandible back in place, duct taped it together, and then came back at a later time and planted the body.' WHY WOULD HE PUT THAT SCENARIO OUT THERE ? Sounds like he was asked to say something along those lines. He certainly did not get that scenario from any Medical Examination he had done. Disgusting, if you ask me.

Regardless of who is right or wrong, I don't think the Jury is going to buy the "took,"duct-taped" and "replaced" theory. IMO
:ufo:

 

[Boytwnmom]

at that time-no ME will let some defense attorney send someone in to an autopsy of an unidentified person. That would be extremely disrespectful to the decedent. The autopsy was the ME's job to perform. Dr S was not just some other ME-he was someone hired by the defendant's counsel as they apparently knew all along where little Caylees remains were-but they don't get special privileges for that.

They could have avoided the entire issue and allowed Spitz to be present at the first autopsy, and then everyone would have seen the same things. That would have streamlined things a bit, no?

 

[katydid23]

He show what Dr G didn't and couldn't without opening the cranium... plain and simple.

She looked inside with other methods. And I cannot see that there was anything that Dr. S saw that made any difference at all.

Do you believe his theory that the body was a skeleton, the mandible was separated, and was put back together, and then duct taped, perhaps by a person like Kronk? Does that make sense to you?

 

[cleo612]

Didn't Sr. Spitz make a comment regarding the necessity of taking off the cranial cap in order to attain bone marrow for further studies? His implication was that no bone marrow studies were done.

As I recall, bone marrow tissue from, I believe, Caylee's left tibia was sent for analysis.

He was shooting arrows at a target, but Dr. G. already had it covered.