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

[Turnadot]

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.

BBM

Apparently it worked though, because Dr Spitz, as Bill S. put it, fell apart during cross and seemed like the nutty professor at one point.

Also, Dr Spitz himself opined afterwords that Ashton did a good job today on cross.

 

[kelian36]

Dr.G used her medical training and common sense to come to her conclusions.

Spitz was paid for his testimony. His record doesn't impress me either. I've followed a few cases he's been involved with.

 

[ladynana]

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

this is re a tape recording ......

 

[goldenlover]

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.

I think he was thinking JA was asking him if he knew anything about the "living Caylee", or her life prior to going missing. I think this was simply just a misunderstood question, because he started to answer with ..she was a healthy 3 year old..and then was interupted. He did know the facts of the case and read the police reports, but I don't think he knew that is what he was being asked. JA seems to ask question upon question and not give the witness a chance to answer, trying to make the jury think they do not know the answer.

 

[gamom]

According to one states Human Rights law, there is a protocol for autopsy on skeleton remains and it does not list opening the skull.

http://www1.umn.edu/humanrts/instree/executioninvestigation-91.html

From reading this, it sounds as if the reason for opening the skull in an autopsy would be to examine the brain for signs of haematomas and brain abnormalities.

 

[Patty G]

If I look at the final determination by both Dr. G. and Dr. S., they both came to the final conclusion that Caylee's demise was that of "undetermined means."

The jury will remember Dr. G's reason for the charge of homicide, and left with a puzzle look on their faces by Dr. S. indicating, IIRC, an "accident".

 

[goldenlover]

BBM

Apparently it worked though, because Dr Spitz, as Bill S. put it, fell apart during cross and seemed like the nutty professor at one point.

Also, Dr Spitz himself opined afterwords that Ashton did a good job today on cross.

I do not think he fell apart at all. I am not Bill S., just an average person like those on the jury. I do not think that everyone on the jury will feel he fell apart on cross.

Dr. Spitz is an older gentleman and he has old school manners. Thanking Ashton was just being gentlemanly, which is refreshing these days.

 

[Zoe Bogart]

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.

Addendum: removing the cranial cap showed which side the of the head was laying towards gravity, as decomp residue was on the left side, not the back, and DR G MISSED THAT!!!

We already knew from other testimonies that her skull was found on its LEFT side exactly the way Dr. Spitz stated today. There were pictures taken at the scene and the people who took the photos as well as the man who lifted it up to bring it the medical examiner's office told us so. In fact, they said is was partially face down in the muck on it's left side and Dr. G. knew that, too.

Dr. Gary Utz – Chief Deputy Med Ex for OC

2:34 pic skull with the mandible and tape removed and are looking at the upper jaw . He did remove mandible, once he removed the tape w.hair attached, the mandible was easy to remove. He never has seen a mandible attached to skull in skeletonized remains. Skull was sitting on debris when delivered to him
2:37 pic portion of examine of skull: skull is tilted down on left side and we see right side of lower mandible. Lifting the tape to show the fabric backing of the tape is partially attached to the mandible. Indicated there were multiple layers of tape. You can see the strand fibers off the tape on the mandible/adhering to it & mixed in with that is plant roots.

[ame="http://www.websleuths.com/forums/showpost.php?p=6648611&postcount=115"]Websleuths Crime Sleuthing Community - View Single Post - Forensic Astrology-CAYLEE ANTHONY-COURTROOM LOG CLOCKED activity-"NO DISCUSSIONS"[/ame]

 

[SurfieTX]

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.

I agree with your summation about Dr. G. She came across as nervous and a little defensive to me as well. The one thing that she accomplished, in my mind (I never followed this case) was using her common sense approach - duct tape, 30 days and disposed of in a container. I related to that 110%.

With Dr. S, I did find him credible at first, but like I said, he lost my respect by disparaging his peer. JA was aggressive with him, I do agree, but there is no reason in my mind for Dr. S to treat someone like that if his findings were accurate. Plus, he didn't wear gloves. That, in and of itself, is disgusting to me as a healthcare worker. There is no excuse. And to break Caylee's skull and not remember? No excuse for that either. MOO.

 

[goldenlover]

Since an accident cannot be ruled out, Dr. Spitz was much more objective than Dr. G.
Dr. G. does not know what happened and neither does Dr. S. Dr. S. just was willing to admit it.

 

[Turnadot]

I do not think he fell apart at all. I am not Bill S., just an average person like those on the jury. I do not think that everyone on the jury will feel he fell apart on cross.

Dr. Spitz is an older gentleman and he has old school manners. Thanking Ashton was just being gentlemanly, which is refreshing these days.

And you're entitled to think that, fair enough. I'm not trying to change your mind. Dr Spitz didn't dazzle in the Spector trial either, apparently.

To each their own, etc.

My opinions...

 

[Quiche]

this is re a tape recording ......

Here, check out Boytwnmom's response-- thanks, Boytwn!

[ame="http://www.websleuths.com/forums/showpost.php?p=6709717&postcount=189"]Websleuths Crime Sleuthing Community - View Single Post - Who do you believe? Dr. G or Dr. S?[/ame]

 

[LongtimeMedic]

We already knew from other testimonies that her skull was found on its LEFT side exactly the way Dr. Spitz stated today. There were pictures taken at the scene and the people who took the photos as well as the man who lifted it up to bring it the medical examiner's office told us so. In fact, they said is was partially face down in the muck on it's left side and Dr. G. knew that, too.

My understanding, is that the skull was found in an upright position, sitting on it's base. Did I hear that incorrectly??

 

[USARDOG]

I do not think he fell apart at all. I am not Bill S., just an average person like those on the jury. I do not think that everyone on the jury will feel he fell apart on cross.

Dr. Spitz is an older gentleman and he has old school manners. Thanking Ashton was just being gentlemanly, which is refreshing these days.

Always interesting to see how people can look at the same information and come to opposite conclusions. I thought he completely fell apart on cross, and didn't find him credible at all.

 

[Turnadot]

Since an accident cannot be ruled out, Dr. Spitz was much more objective than Dr. G.
Dr. G. does not know what happened and neither does Dr. S. Dr. S. just was willing to admit it.

I completely disagree, with respect.

He can't be objective since he himself admitted he didn't know the facts surrounding the case. How can anyone render an objective opinion about anything if they're ignorant of the facts?

Anyway, have a good evening.

 

[PennyC]

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.

Addendum: removing the cranial cap showed which side the of the head was laying towards gravity, as decomp residue was on the left side, not the back, and DR G MISSED THAT!!!

But what did it tell him? I missed that. From what I heard he didn't send the residue to any lab so what's the point?

 

[D96s]

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

Actually, Dr. G DID find the "residue" because the Defense pointed out on re-cross that while Dr. S DID NOT send the 'residue" in for chemical/toxicology testing, Dr. G DID! And, amazingly, she was somehow able to find that residue WITHOUT sawing off the cranium. I'm going to guess she just flipped the scull unpside down and took her sample that way.
What else is it she's being accused of not finding?

 

[BritsKate]

2010 Guidelines of the Florida Association of Medical Examiners for those interested:
http://www.fameonline.org/downloads/standards

 

[Z-sleuth]

Let's face it. Dr. Spitz was hired to create a "Gotcha!" moment for the defense. One only needs to look at the fact that he didn't bother to test the material he claimed Dr. G missed. For all we know, it was swamp mud. The defense just wanted him to declare her work shoddy and put forth the ridiculous theory that the tape was applied later by some nefarious conspirator and he did what they asked him to do. JA was able to show his testimony for what it was, which was largely ridiculous.

 

[gamom]

If I look at the final determination by both Dr. G. and Dr. S., they both came to the final conclusion that Caylee's demise was that of "undetermined means."

The jury will remember Dr. G's reason for the charge of homicide, and left with a puzzle look on their faces by Dr. S. indicating, IIRC, an "accident".

Agree. Dr. S would have been MUCH more valuable to the DT if he would have listed his reasons for beleiving that Caylee's death was an accident or at the very least NOT a homicide. All I heard was he agreeded with her findings of undetermined AND he thought there was some foul play involoved by looking at her remains. "somebody moved the body"

I think the jury is still thinking "who tries to hide a dead body when it was an accident?" the next logical thing the are asking themselves is "who would not want the body found?" Apparently according to the DT, Kronk wanted the body found that is why he kept calling and moved the body so it can be better seen. Until the defense can answer those two logical questions, they are getting no where.