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

[Nore]

Dr S likes the spotlight and high profile cases. This was pitiful the ramblings of an elderly man. Not to detract from what Dr S might have been years ago.

Dr S didn't recall his interview with Tony Pipitone with WKMG:

http://www.clickorlando.com/video/28248341/index.html

I can only assume the DT, with those they have called thus far, must be trying to confuse the jury. If I was on the jury I would be a tad upset having to listen to the same questions and all the ramblings of Dr S. Thank goodness it was only a half day session. I don't think Dr S could hang in there like the 'bug doc' yesterday without blowing his top.

------------
This interview is sad..

 

[Z-sleuth]

Killers dispose of bodies in a wooded swamp to hide evidence. With the passage of time, evidence is destroyed by decomposition, insects, and scavengers. There was no tissue on the skeletal remains because it was all consumed by the time the body was found. That's true of the interior of the skull, just like the rest of the bones.

Criticizing the failure to find evidence on a body you dispose of is a little bit like murdering your parents and throwing yourself on the mercy of the court because you're an orphan. ICA brought all this on herself by not reporting her child's death, however it occurred. The fact she didn't reinforces the evidence she committed murder and attempted to conceal it.

 

[dr dona]

I'm also getting tired of the lack of respect being shown towards Caylee She was an innocent child and is not "the child" "it" "the body" etc. I was really upset with today's expert and his lack of civility. I had professors in med school that acted pompous....no one was correct but them.. Humility and common sense seem better avenues.
The last two days of this trial have given me a headache.

 

[BetteDavisEyes]

Perhaps a little OT, but some of you may be familiar with William Kienzle's murder mysteries (best known is probably The Rosary Murders) that were set in and around Detroit where the former priest had spent most of his life. In many of his novels, Kienzle refers to a "flamboyant Medical Examiner" - a reference to Spitz who was a prominent figure in several high-profile cases during the '80s and '90s.

 

[dr dona]

Way to go Surfie....agree with your post 100%

 

[yllek]

I own a company specializing in health care for seniors and am very active as an elder advocate working with legislators. From my experience, it's possible Dr. Spitz has short term memory issues, but remembers past events much more clearly. But, I don't think so. Personally, I think he was simply invoking selective memory rather than conceding a point when he wrong or did not know. I saw ego-driven reactions rather than vagueness or over-compensation due to memory loss. His short term memory was fine when it served his purpose and lacking when he wanted to avoid answering truthfully, imo.

Reading between the lines in his statements, several things screamed out to me during his testimony:
1. How dare he not be allowed in for the original autopsy?; it was flawed by his lack of his presence. No one, certainly not Dr. G, compares to him in intellect and performance.
2. A protocol exists and is mandatory for other forensic experts simply because Dr. Spitz prefers a certain method (likely one that is based in old school techniques rather than technological advancements). His preference supersedes formal scientific protocols used by today's medical community. He is the utmost authority.
3. He does not need to have first hand experience in the given case because he is so vastly experienced that he can make a definitive and superior judgement using second hand information and photos only.
4. "National" exposure means more to him than just about anything else; being considered an "expert" is more important than being unbiased and forthcoming.

I think the man is a narcissist (his overreactions when questioned are another sign of this, imo). Narcissism in not age-related, he was probably the same way when he was younger. I don't know enough about him to say he was an incredible medical professional in the past; maybe he was. Maybe he was so confident and self-promoting he was able to convince people he was. Certainly, he is well educated and has earned awards.

All JMO, based only on today's testimony (which is unlike any I've seen before).. Powerfully negative impression of this man as a person; which was opposite of what I was expecting when the testimony began. I would not want Dr. Spitz involved in any medical examinations of any kind in my community (of living or deceased individuals).

 

[Quiche]

To be fair, I lost respect for him regarding Lana Clarkson, Phil Spector's victim. That peeeezed me off!

 

[auntbaby]

I didn't once get the feeling that Dr. S could not remember as much as he chose not to remember. I think it had less to do with memory and much to do with EGO. It seemed like he skewed every answer as far in favor of the defense as he possibly could and still tell the truth even if it didn't quite make sense, at least to me. He also seemed quite used to people taking him at his every word. I don't believe it ever occurred to him that A. would dare to question his answers. It was so difficult to watch. I just wondered during doctors time on the stand if Baez ever regretted his putting him there? Nothing worse than a runaway witness. lol

 

[Boytwnmom]

of the case. This http://www.denverda.org/DNA_Documents/Huck.pdf takes you to the appeal decision. Some of the relevant language:

More importantly, the assertion that Mr.Huck taped the victim's eyes and mouth shut after she died is not particularly reasonable. The only logical reason to tape her eyes and mouth shut would have been to prevent her from seeing,talking, screaming for help, or breathing while she was alive. There is no logical or reasonable purpose for taping a person's eyes and mouth shut after she is dead. In addition, the State presented evidence inconsistent with death by natural causes. The medical examiner testified within a reasonable degree of medical probability that the cause of death was asphyxia and the manner of death was a homicide.

In this case the defense set forth several scenarios where accidental death had occurred and the tape applied after death. The court did not find this reasonable as discussed above. The court also cited another case where there was only evidence of death by drowning and thus could be consistent with an accident. This was seen as distinguished form the case where there was duct tape applied to the victim as this is inconsistent with an accidental death.

There is a Supreme Court of Florida that sets a precedence that there is no logical reason for duct tape to be placed after death. HHBP has mentioned the case in reference. Florida vs. Huck If I have this wrong, can someone let me know, tia.

http://www.floridasupremecourt.org/clerk/briefs/2004/2001-2200/04-2046_JurisAns.pdf

 

[heartfortruth]

Is this a trick question????? :crazy:
Seriously, I have never voted on any of these polls because I can be very unsure of myself but this one was a "no-brainer" ( sad and bad pun intended). In my humble opinion , the venerable Dr. Spitz barely knew what case he was talking about. He and the DT think he should be believed because of his age and credentials alone, it appeared. I disagree.

 

[ShadowGal]

Have only read the first few pages of this thread so this may have been addressed but I was hoping that our own Joypath might weigh on what she knows to be current protocol on the autopsy of skeletonized remains.

Also, as I said, coming in later to thread, so may have missed this, but Joypath, if you see this, what is the significance of the location of the matter (on one side) of the cranial cavity that was not tested? All that showed me was that the head was on its side as it decomposed *if* that was decomp and not dirt, unless I missed something else. Little Caylee's skull was found more upright IIRC but we know that animals scattered the body and we also had a huge tropical storm. I am a resident of central Florida, and was here during the winds and heavy rains of Faye...it was worse then many hurricanes I have been through.

Yoohooooooo........*sends out bat signal for Joypath!*

 

[Trident]

I'm also getting tired of the lack of respect being shown towards Caylee She was an innocent child and is not "the child" "it" "the body" etc. I was really upset with today's expert and his lack of civility. I had professors in med school that acted pompous....no one was correct but them.. Humility and common sense seem better avenues.
The last two days of this trial have given me a headache.

I believe it is easier for the experts to distance themselves from the victim/body, it may be the only way to reach scientific, as opposed to emotional, conclusions. I respect them for being able to do this, without them there would be no forensics.

For an aside, LOL, back when I was young and dumb, I asked the gynacologist how he could go home at night, after looking up so many vaginal canals, and make love to his wife. He said he turned himself off, LOL.

 

[cleo612]

so anyone can show up and attend an autopsy!? The victim was not identified. I sure don't want someone like hi around during the autopsy of any of my loved ones or me!


If he can't even be bothered to wear gloves or send his findings off to a lab to confirm.. well...

And what if Dr. G had said sure! come on, dude! then the defense didn't go with him as their expert (think Petraco), they would have jumped all over her having the nerve to allow someone in there to contaminate further.

~~~Bolded by me

Wow, this just made me think of something. Since we know that this was the second autopsy and no tests were run after Dr. Spitz's exam, it doesn't really affect this case, however...

Think of the implications here.

He stated that since the remains were skeletal, he did not even put on an apron or gloves.

So, what if there HAD been testing done for the defense team.

What if Dr. Spitz, by not wearing protective clothing, had somehow contaminated either the remains or any item found with the remains with his own DNA, or a hair from his own head?

That could be devastating to any prosecutor's case, and could potentially permit a murderer to run loose on the streets by literally CREATING reasonable doubt.

 

[Aqua_Green_Bean]

This is just my opinion as I am not an expert, but I would think with the advances in technology that radiography would be a preferred method of examining inside skulls and other artifacts. They provide the same views (and sometimes better than the naked eye) and leave the remains intact and undisturbed. You don't always need to go inside the canyon when you have a powerful camera that can show you what is inside.

As with anyone who has been in a profession for a long time, I believe Dr. S is content in his way of doing things, and Dr. G is more comfortable using updated resources and technology. It is like my 90 year old grandma who still does her taxes by hand when the rest of us use Turbo Tax. Neither way is right or wrong, both get the same results, they are just different. Using Turbo Tax doesn't make it "shoddy" just because it is a newer way of doing it.

That said, I feel Dr. G's testimony was more believable because she took all of the information into account (circumstances, situation, etc.) when coming to a conclusion, and Dr. S seemed to rely only on the forensic anthropologic exam.

 

[Sabrina2011]

This is just my opinion as I am not an expert, but I would think with the advances in technology that radiography would be a preferred method of examining inside skulls and other artifacts. They provide the same views (and sometimes better than the naked eye) and leave the remains intact and undisturbed. You don't always need to go inside the canyon when you have a powerful camera that can show you what is inside.

As with anyone who has been in a profession for a long time, I believe Dr. S is content in his way of doing things, and Dr. G is more comfortable using updated resources and technology. It is like my 90 year old grandma who still does her taxes by hand when the rest of us use Turbo Tax. Neither way is right or wrong, both get the same results, they are just different. Using Turbo Tax doesn't make it "shoddy" just because it is a newer way of doing it.

That said, I feel Dr. G's testimony was more believable because she took all of the information into account (circumstances, situation, etc.) when coming to a conclusion, and Dr. S seemed to rely only on the forensic anthropologic exam.

That is what shocked me the most.. After Dr S agreed a ME needs to know the entire history surrounding the body to help in their conclusions, he was asked if he knew anything about this body and what happened or the history.

He did not.

 

[SAgal]

I'm not familiar with what's proper, acceptable procedures for a ME. Is it proper/acceptable for a ME to visit the home of the victim (Caylee Anthony) and the suspect (Casey Anthony) when performing an autopsy a criminal case?
Dr. Spitz testified about visiting the Anthony home and talking to the family members.

 

[SurfieTX]

~~~Bolded by me

Wow, this just made me think of something. Since we know that this was the second autopsy and no tests were run after Dr. Spitz's exam, it doesn't really affect this case, however...

Think of the implications here.

He stated that since the remains were skeletal, he did not even put on an apron or gloves.

So, what if there HAD been testing done for the defense team.

What if Dr. Spitz, by not wearing protective clothing, had somehow contaminated either the remains or any item found with the remains with his own DNA, or a hair from his own head?

That could be devastating to any prosecutor's case, and could potentially permit a murderer to run loose on the streets by literally CREATING reasonable doubt.

BBM: Oh.my.gosh. Remember when JB was going after Detective Bloise about what he was wearing when he collected evidence? "Sir, did you wear protective clothing? Sir, did you have anything on your head? Sir, did you wear gloves?"

Major points for the State if they choose to bring that up in closing!!

 

[goldenlover]

I was in awe of this Doctor... after having seen only snippets of his comments here and there, I was honestly blown away by all of his experience and credentials. I thought the direct examination furthered his credibility... but, alas... the bloom fell off the rose during cross. JA asked logical, reasonable questions and the veil of Dr. S-Super-Hero was pulled to the side... I did feel his answers on cross were very evasie, clouded, illogical and rather pointless. Which is why, imo, he got so defensive. He is a smart man (to say the least) and he knew he was looking flustered and answering questions in a roundabout way.

Thank goodness for JA!!! Another EXCELLENT CROSS that brought the defense team down a few notches. But I HATED seeing the image of CM and JB and ICA SMIRKING during his testimony!!! Did anyone get a screenshot of that?!?

I respectfully disagree. I do not feel he was defensive. I think he answered the questions directly and truthfully. I think he was frustrated with the ridiculus questions JA was asking him and felt JA was trying to put words in his mouth at times. All questions cannot be answered yes or no. Dr. S. knew what he was talking about and think his tremendous knowledge and experience were apparant. On the other hand, I think Dr. G seemed arrogant and defensive. This is just my opinion. I try to look objectively at all of the witnesses and this is the feeling I got. I think this one went to the defense.

 

[goldenlover]

I'm not familiar with what's proper, acceptable procedures for a ME. Is it proper/acceptable for a ME to visit the home of the victim (Caylee Anthony) and the suspect (Casey Anthony) when performing an autopsy a criminal case?
Dr. Spitz testified about visiting the Anthony home and talking to the family members.

I know when my grandmother died at home of natural causes (she was quite elderly) the ME did speak to my grandfather because usually all at home deaths are autopsied, but he did not want her body to be treated that way. After getting the facts from my grandfather, the ME decided an autopsy did not need to be done. So they do speak to family members.

 

[LongtimeMedic]

This is just my opinion as I am not an expert, but I would think with the advances in technology that radiography would be a preferred method of examining inside skulls and other artifacts. They provide the same views (and sometimes better than the naked eye) and leave the remains intact and undisturbed. You don't always need to go inside the canyon when you have a powerful camera that can show you what is inside.

As with anyone who has been in a profession for a long time, I believe Dr. S is content in his way of doing things, and Dr. G is more comfortable using updated resources and technology. It is like my 90 year old grandma who still does her taxes by hand when the rest of us use Turbo Tax. Neither way is right or wrong, both get the same results, they are just different. Using Turbo Tax doesn't make it "shoddy" just because it is a newer way of doing it.

That said, I feel Dr. G's testimony was more believable because she took all of the information into account (circumstances, situation, etc.) when coming to a conclusion, and Dr. S seemed to rely only on the forensic anthropologic exam.

You most certainly can photograph a canyon with a camera, no question about it, but can you look under a stone at the bottom of the canyon with it as well, and take a sample of what is found there?? Or... should you just rinse the canyon out with water and test what comes out the other end, and call it 'good'??