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

[goldenlover]

Respectively quoted....LongtimeMedic WHY would the cranial cap need to be removed? If the skull is EMPTY, one should be able to view the entire interior of the skull!!! So wouldn't that negate the removal of the cranial cap?

Due to the bone structure, you cannot see completely inside a human skull without opening it. (you cannot look in the eyes, etc. there are bones blocking it)

 

[megsy]

I posted this link on a different thread: http://www.forensicpathologyonline....ent&view=category&layout=blog&id=55&Itemid=81

It is copywritten, so cannot be cut/pasted. It begins that for a controversial death, the autopsy be thorough in scope. Section h, #vi speaks specifically about the skull.

If I'm reading that correctly, it says to remove the brain. So I would think this isn't speaking about skeletal remains.

 

[megsy]

Just not sure a ME, who is a scientist, should give an opinion based on her own bias. Dr. G should have said both manner and cause of death were undetermined that is all she could determine. She cannot be sure it was not some type of accident by her scientific findings, so why even offer an opinion at all on manner of death? She came across as biased and arrogant. Dr. Spitz came across as a very intelligent, experienced scientist and only gave his opinion based on scientific evidence and his experience.

I disagree with you wholeheartedly. She addressed the possibility of accidental death in that no one phoned anything in.

 

[semisweet]

I was struck by Dr. S's body language during cross. He seemed to collapse and hunch over, almost wanting to disappear. And the way he came across so defensive, while he was trying so hard to sound definitive. JA did a great job. To me, the doc sounded like a rambling, ranting old man.

 

[gamom]

Lol, gamom! I would, but I'm betting there are going to be some people who believe Dr. S. I really want to know what anyone might have found credible about his testimony. For me, I don't care how much CM went on about all of the things Dr. S has done in the past. I am well aware of his illustrious career. Having said that, I found his testimony today to be staged and for show. The fact the he even mentioned this as a high profile case I found to be tacky. JMO.

You are right. I will say, that I think Dr. S would be very thourogh in doing an autopsy. I would also say, if it were thought that the only way to find out if Caylee was on sleeping meds or drugged in anyway was to cut the skull, then Dr. G should have cut the skull. It sounds like there are other ways to test and that is what Dr. G did. I work in the pharmaceutical industry and talk to tons of medical experts. It seems that once they learn something in med school they tend to keep with the same practice even though things change or methods change over the years. I am sure that is the case with Dr. S. He has prob always cut the skull and continues to do so. Dr. G, learned different and has her own way. No right or wrong different.

One of the biggest things I have learned when dealing with medical experts is they all have an opinion and they often disagree with one another. I love playing their ideas off one another. Like Dr. S, they get pretty heated when their theory is questioned. I am sure Dr.G will do the same on rebuttel. Which is why she ripped CM to shreds when he tried to question her.

 

[LongtimeMedic]

Respectively quoted....LongtimeMedic WHY would the cranial cap need to be removed? If the skull is EMPTY, one should be able to view the entire interior of the skull!!! So wouldn't that negate the removal of the cranial cap?

Because there are dips and crannies (laymen terms) INSIDE the skull that will collect residue... just like that in Caylee's skull that Dr. Spitz pointed out, that Dr G did not. Now if Dr S saw something by removing the cranial cap, that Dr G didn't see by NOT doing so... which is the more thorough physical examination of the remains. Answer that honestly and the questions answer itself provides the conclusion.

 

[Puzzler]

This is a bit complicated. I partly believe Dr. G and PARTLY Dr. S.
I don´t agree with Dr. G that it is a given that the tape was placed on Caylee prior to her death. I think it could have been placed on her after death to stop spilling from mouth and nose, but NOT after it was skeletonized, only slightly into decomposition.
Dr. S´ theory is plain crazy in my opinion.

Dr. G never said it was prior to death, she said it was prior to decomposition.

 

[Mohabi]

Dr. G, hands down.

 

[megsy]

Dr. G just doesn't strike me as someone who isn't thorough. What was her reason for saying "absolutely not"?

 

[New1]

This is a bit complicated. I partly believe Dr. G and PARTLY Dr. S.
I don´t agree with Dr. G that it is a given that the tape was placed on Caylee prior to her death. I think it could have been placed on her after death to stop spilling from mouth and nose, but NOT after it was skeletonized, only slightly into decomposition.
Dr. S´ theory is plain crazy in my opinion.

I, too, think the duct tape was put on after death to stage a kidnapping theory. But if you recall, Dr. G. did not say it was placed on before death..she said before decomposition. There is a difference between death and decomposition. The body does not instantly decompose after death. JMO

 

[gamom]

I was struck by Dr. S's body language during cross. He seemed to collapse and hunch over, almost wanting to disappear. And the way he came across so defensive, while he was trying so hard to sound definitive. JA did a great job. To me, the doc sounded like a rambling, ranting old man.

Not bashing his age, because I believe that with age comes great wisdom. I just wanted to say I agree completely with you. Dr. S reminded me of my grandpa when he shares his stories. If you try to disagree with him, he starts on rants like this. It is kind of funny. I did like how Dr. S would say "if you tell me different, then fine" at least he was willing to be shown wrong...yesterdays guy just kept claiming he was right. I was expecting him to say that the paper found in the salami container was once salami or would change to salami if you wet it. :banghead:

 

[Melanie]

To not remove the cranial cap is an incomplete autopsy. You'll also hear in the defenses case that the bone "scrapings" Dr G had analysed, were collected by Spitz as well. Dr G's autopsy was topical at best, and her opinions involved more subjective evidence than objective evidence. JMOO

I appreciate opinions from both sides. I've always said, if I look at this one-sided only, I will never know the truth. I can blame the inmate until the cows come home (which I do), but I also appreciate insight vs. dismissing it. I'm not an expert, never have been, never will be. It sounds like you know more about autopsies than I do

thanks!

Mel

 

[Oakley]

Dr G, hands down.

 

[Hali]

If I'm reading that correctly, it says to remove the brain. So I would think this isn't speaking about skeletal remains.

http://forensicpathologyonline.com/...s-examination&catid=53:chapter6-cat&Itemid=79

I don't know yet if this speaks about auopsies on skeletal remains. I'm still reading it myself.

 

[SommerSunshine]

I honestly don't know who or what to believe anymore. I find it odd that Dr G wouldn't open the skull if that is something that is typically done. All the same I don't like that Dr S thought it was staged by LE or the ME, because I just don't see that.

All I know is I think ICA is guilty, maybe not of preplanning months in advance but there is just no way a mom could have a child accidently die or be murdered, disposed of like that (duct tape around the mouth or not) and party for 31 days. There is just NO WAY. I'm a young mom too. I like to drink and have fun with my friends and shop and get tattoos, but I get a sitter for my son....a REAL one. I hope the jury can see this. Regardless of which Dr's testimony they prefered.

 

[gamom]

I, too, think the duct tape was put on after death to stage a kidnapping theory. But if you recall, Dr. G. did not say it was placed on before death..she said before decomposition. There is a difference between death and decomposition. The body does not instantly decompose after death. JMO

You could be right, but Dr. S just threw that theory out the window for the DT. He said it was placed on the skull. Also, what reason would RK have to put duct tape on Caylee? It is not like he was trying to help colaborate KC's story. He would have received the reward (since that was what the DT is claiming he wantedd) no matter what condition Caylee's body was found in.

So then it comes to GA putting it on after her death. But that does not make any sense either to me. GA being a former detective would have known that tape could be traced back to the manufacter and to the house. Anyone who has watched a few forensic shows knows that. So to me if GA would have done it, the body would have been found with no evidence of any item from the house.

 

[nssherlock]

I wish JA would have asked Dr. Spitz, "So you feel that Dr. G failed to find critical information by not cutting the skull?" followed up with "What did you find differently from DR. G by cutting into the skull?" ummm, nothing. "Oh, wait..you found dust. Did you test the dust? Nope? so why cut the skull if you were not going to test the findings?"

I'm wondering if Dr G tested the material (dust)........does anyone remember?

It is very sad that all Dr S has left is his ego.

 

[BritsKate]

http://forensicpathologyonline.com/...s-examination&catid=53:chapter6-cat&Itemid=79

I don't know yet if this speaks about auopsies on skeletal remains. I'm still reading it myself.

It does, thank you. Dr. G performed all the things listed...cutting the calvarium is not listed.

FWIW

http://www.forensicpathologyonline.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=90&Itemid=113

 

[Turnadot]

I honestly don't know who or what to believe anymore. I find it odd that Dr G wouldn't open the skull if that is something that is typically done. All the same I don't like that Dr S thought it was staged by LE or the ME, because I just don't see that.

All I know is I think ICA is guilty, maybe not of preplanning months in advance but there is just no way a mom could have a child accidently die or be murdered, disposed of like that (duct tape around the mouth or not) and party for 31 days. There is just NO WAY. I'm a young mom too. I like to drink and have fun with my friends and shop and get tattoos, but I get a sitter for my son....a REAL one. I hope the jury can see this. Regardless of which Dr's testimony they prefered.

Advances in technology, IIRC.

Why physically open the skull if she doesn't need to, KWIM?

Also, even if Dr G did do an incomplete autopsy, DR S., showed on the stand today that he can't be believed. Dr G is still credible at least.

 

[Kimster]

WHAT IF?

What if Dr. G would have said the hair was sticky and she knows this from past cases? And that she only looked at a photograph of the hair?

I'm sorry but when Dr. S said that, he lost me for good. How he can make a conclusion of touch based on a photograph was more than I could take. I am NOT a scientist, but as a juror, I'd continue to wonder "what if" the hair wasn't sticky? And what other conclusions did Dr. S come to based on pictures? And why didn't he remember that the duct tape wasn't on the back side? :waitasec:

It wasn't one thing or another, it was the cross examination as a whole.