If I'm reading that correctly, it says to remove the brain. So I would think this isn't speaking about skeletal remains.
I got the impression that it was directly referring to opening a skull to remove the brain too.
If I'm reading that correctly, it says to remove the brain. So I would think this isn't speaking about skeletal remains.
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
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.
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.
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)
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.
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.
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 believed. Dr G is still credible at least.
I don't think he said GA did it. He said "someone". With the duct tape being at the public searches and on the table at the search headquarters, anyone could have picked up the roll. Just because it was Henkel duct tape does not mean someone else in the state of Florda could not have it, either. Just playing devils advocate. RK is almost as strange as KC in some of his actions..his ex-wife has said he had a "duct tape" incident in the past..this is a strange case..looks to be getting even stranger.
Dr G's autopsy was topical at best, and her opinions involved more subjective evidence than objective evidence. JMOO
Like Dr Spitz, for example.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.
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 don't think he said GA did it. He said "someone". With the duct tape being at the public searches and on the table at the search headquarters, anyone could have picked up the roll. Just because it was Henkel duct tape does not mean someone else in the state of Florda could not have it, either. Just playing devils advocate. RK is almost as strange as KC in some of his actions..his ex-wife has said he had a "duct tape" incident in the past..this is a strange case..looks to be getting even stranger.
goldenlover with the mandible only attached by duct tape, would that not allow one to look inside the skull?
LongtimeMedic it is my understanding that Dr. Spitz only observed "debris" inside the skull. IIRC, it was dirt/mud. I will agree with you that removing the cranial cap is a more thorough autopsy. I just don't see the why the cranial cap would NEED to be removed since there was nothing inside the skull.
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.
It has to be opened and looked inside of, because after decomp is done, inside the cranium and inside the bone cores are the only places cryptic evidence will be found. The rest of the body is GONE. Why would you NOT want to know what's INSIDE what you have left?? Makes no sense.
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.