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

[harleysnana]

WOW... Dr. S has anger issues.... IMO.
If I was on the jury I would take his anger into consideration and go with Dr. G!

 

[katydid23]

The "sediment" was from two different areas inside the cranium. Some on the inside of the cap, and some in the crevices of the cribriform plate... which in order to see, you must open the top of the skull. My point... and Dr S's.

And? How does that change the findings in either of their reports? His big conclusion is the skull may have been resting on it's side at some point. Okay. Big deal.

Especially given some of his other conclusions, like the mandible was already separated, and some one came along with duct tape [ from the Anthony's home] and taped it back together on the skull. Sorry, but that is silly.

 

[Z-sleuth]

It really struck me that he had no notes to refer to. I think all the other experts or examiners had notes to refer back to. He just had no clue. It was really bizarre. It really sounded like he got a lot of his information from the defense team. Shouldn't have the DT noticed this during their discussions with him that he had no notes and couldn't answer questions?

The defense team wanted him to say two things and he said them. That's about all he could remember about the case.

 

[grandmaj]

I guess my point is this, not meant in a snarky way, but so others here can relate to my passion about how everyone involved horrific crime, needs to go down, and all angles must be looked at is this. Ya know the infamous stickers?? Do y'all realize there could have been a small one stuck inside her skull on the base (that you can't see through a hole) that rinsing it out and peeking in there with a flashlight would have never found. Doing things the correct way, like Spitz argued for, would not be able to miss something similarly. The thread was who do you believe... it should have been "Who's forensic exam was more thorough?"

And I don't agree with Dr. S. had the better exam. The skull had been out there for 6 months. There was testing done on the bones of Caylee. It was too long. I do not believe he can look at this skull and say that Caylee's skull was on her side. If he wanted to make this claim he could have found a way to test. Jeff Ashton asked him several times where the scrapings were sent for testing and he said after several attempts to avoid the question that he was told by Baez that Dr. G had already sent things to some lab for testing.

OK so now we are to take this man who involves himself in high profile cases who couldn't remember much about anything over the ME who was articulate, who refused to make unfounded assumptions and who did her job.

Dr. Spitz is not highly regarded as he used to be. He is old school. And he has a bad temper if you ask him to back up what he says. That tells me this man can't stand behind his findings as Dr. G did. And to accuse someone of intentionally staging evidence goes to the lowest standards any professional should ever drop to. He has no proof of that and he wouldn't like it if someone did it to him. That is outrageous and game playing. No medical professional should ever stoop that low.

 

[LongtimeMedic]

Incredibly this Pathologist who is so critical of Dr G did not even bother to write a report on his Autopsy. That is indefensible. Now we are supposed to believe that he recalls all the details.
That is malpractice at any age.

He had to submit not only a report, but also "any findings he would be testifying to" to the court in this case in advance. I think that covers the paperwork aspect.

 

[mydailyopinions]

I guess my point is this, not meant in a snarky way, but so others here can relate to my passion about how everyone involved horrific crime, needs to go down, and all angles must be looked at is this. Ya know the infamous stickers?? Do y'all realize there could have been a small one stuck inside her skull on the base (that you can't see through a hole) that rinsing it out and peeking in there with a flashlight would have never found. Doing things the correct way, like Spitz argued for, would not be able to miss something similarly. The thread was who do you believe... it should have been "Who's forensic exam was more thorough?"

In order to believe that scenario, one must agree with Dr. Spitz that some unknown person picked up this skull, wrapped duct tape on it's mouth, then jammed a sticker through the eye socket far enough that the ME would miss it during examination, oh and certainly they put the hole up to the sunlight to check closely that for sure the sticker couldn't be seen?:waitasec:
Should have been:
"Whose forensic exam defies logic"

 

[gamom]

I guess my point is this, not meant in a snarky way, but so others here can relate to my passion about how everyone involved horrific crime, needs to go down, and all angles must be looked at is this. Ya know the infamous stickers?? Do y'all realize there could have been a small one stuck inside her skull on the base (that you can't see through a hole) that rinsing it out and peeking in there with a flashlight would have never found. Doing things the correct way, like Spitz argued for, would not be able to miss something similarly. The thread was who do you believe... it should have been "Who's forensic exam was more thorough?"

I hear you and can see you point to an extent. But if I had to answer who's exam was more thorough, I would still say Dr. G because at least she ran tests. Dr. S did not run any tests, even on things that he found?? How is that thourough? I find that very faulty and careless. Yes, he sawed the skull, but just because you crack a few extra bones, that does not mean you are more thorough.

Not to mention he could not even remember Caylees name or what circumstances her body was found in. That is part of his job and part of the report he would have put together on Caylee's autopsy, which he admitted today. Dr. G knew the exact amount of days Caylee had been missing and how her remains were found, what they were wrapped in,etc. That told me that she took this exam very seriously, where in my opinion Dr. S made it seem like a joke. Just another huge profile case that he wanted to be a part of. MOO

 

[mydailyopinions]

He didn't want to know what it was because he knew it was nothing. His sole purpose was to opine that Dr. G's work was shoddy. Period. End of story.

:Banane35:

 

[LongtimeMedic]

And? How does that change the findings in either of their reports? His big conclusion is the skull may have been resting on it's side at some point. Okay. Big deal.

Especially given some of his other conclusions, like the mandible was already separated, and some one came along with duct tape [ from the Anthony's home] and taped it back together on the skull. Sorry, but that is silly.

The deal is, the skull was, according to the State, sitting in the same spot, upright the entire six months, because they say the roots prove that to be fact. Well if that's fact, how does sediment inside the skull come to rest on the upper left inside of the skull?? was it hovering until it dried there?

 

[Hot Dogs]

IMO, the strategy of the DT with Rodriguez and Spitz is to try to instill reasonable doubt. In particular going after doubt that the duct tape was used to murder. Neither can offer why Caylee died, but they are arguing that it wasn't the tape that caused death.

 

[grandmaj]

He had to submit not only a report, but also "any findings he would be testifying to" to the court in this case in advance. I think that covers the paperwork aspect.

From my understanding he did not prepare an autopsy report. For several months until he was required to submit a report in order to testify. Now come on. How do you not prepare an autopsy report when you are a forensic pathologist. If the State had played the same game of finger pointing they could have really impeached him on his testimony leaving the lingering thoughts in the minds of the jurors that he waited to be told what his report should say.

I'm not saying that is what happened. But this man so critical of the ME and he doesn't prepare a detailed autopsy right after he performed it taking notes as he goes. Medic you know that isn't how things work in the medical profession. It just isn't the same as preparing a court ordered report several months later.

 

[Salem]

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

You need to back this information up with links. Who says it is necessary to remove the cranial cap? Where does that come from? If you have no links, we have no way of knowing that you know what you are talking about, kwim?

Thanks,

Salem

 

[gamom]

And I don't agree with Dr. S. had the better exam. The skull had been out there for 6 months. There was testing done on the bones of Caylee. It was too long. I do not believe he can look at this skull and say that Caylee's skull was on her side. If he wanted to make this claim he could have found a way to test. Jeff Ashton asked him several times where the scrapings were sent for testing and he said after several attempts to avoid the question that he was told by Baez that Dr. G had already sent things to some lab for testing.
OK so now we are to take this man who involves himself in high profile cases who couldn't remember much about anything over the ME who was articulate, who refused to make unfounded assumptions and who did her job.

Dr. Spitz is not highly regarded as he used to be. He is old school. And he has a bad temper if you ask him to back up what he says. That tells me this man can't stand behind his findings as Dr. G did. And to accuse someone of intentionally staging evidence goes to the lowest standards any professional should ever drop to. He has no proof of that and he wouldn't like it if someone did it to him. That is outrageous and game playing. No medical professional should ever stoop that low.

BBM, exactly. Now let me ask you. Why would Dr. S trust Dr. G to send in his findings to a lab for testing if he thought her work was shoddy and not complete? Especially such a high profile case (according to him)? :waitasec:

 

[D96s]

OK - once again I'm left wondering what the significance is to Dr S's testimony (what the defense thought they were gaining). All I can see is the Dr. S claims the body decomposed while the skull lay on it's left side. So? Maybe it did and was disturbed by animals or flooding (the most likely and reasonable senario). Maybe it was moved around by people. What does that have to do with THIS TRIAL??? This trial is about determining if Casey killed that baby. If they want to go after Kronk for their cockamamy theory, go after HIM in another trial for desicration of a body and bring Dr. S back for his proffering then.
I don't think he brought anything else to this trial.

 

[Tuffy]

I hear you and can see you point to an extent. But if I had to answer who's exam was more thorough, I would still say Dr. G because at least she ran tests. Dr. S did not run any tests, even on things that he found?? How is that thourough? I find that very faulty and careless. Yes, he sawed the skull, but just because you crack a few extra bones, that does not mean you are more thorough.

Not to mention he could not even remember Caylees name or what circumstances her body was found in. That is part of his job and part of the report he would have put together on Caylee's autopsy, which he admitted today. Dr. G knew the exact amount of days Caylee had been missing and how her remains were found, what they were wrapped in,etc. That told me that she took this exam very seriously, where in my opinion Dr. S made it seem like a joke. Just another huge profile case that he wanted to be a part of. MOO

Whose exam was more thorough? Dr. S broke the skull, and didn't even notice that it happened!

 

[Mountain_Kat]

Full discolsure: I am not a medical expert.

Having established that right off the bat, can some please explain to me why I am supposed to care if the sediment in the skull was brain matter or dirt? Because my teeny tinee non-medically qualified brain tells me that 1). there was flooding of the dumpsite area at some point, and 2). there was animal activity. I ASSUME that means the skull probably moved around. For all I know, it was moved by animals shortly after being dumped.

But nevermind me, I have no medical or scientific training, so obviously my opinion is worthless.

 

[grandmaj]

The deal is, the skull was, according to the State, sitting in the same spot, upright the entire six months, because they say the roots prove that to be fact. Well if that's fact, how does sediment inside the skull come to rest on the upper left inside of the skull?? was it hovering until it dried there?

She was decomposing from 3-5 days in the car. Probably on her side if indeed that is decomp. That was never proven. And we don't know where she was before she ended up in the car. Or how she was laying. 7 days to 2 weeks her skin and brain would have been in a serious state of decomp.

 

[ZsaZsa]

He had to submit not only a report, but also "any findings he would be testifying to" to the court in this case in advance. I think that covers the paperwork aspect.

He did not document any of his findings at the time of his autopsy.

In pre trial hearings this spring when it was discovered he had never written ANY report, JB had to ask him to write one, over 2 years later- at that time he was ill in hospital and so then the court had to wait on his recovery to even get that from him.
No documentation. He has the gall to criticise Dr G and her procedures when he does not do the most basic of medical record-keeping.
I can just imagine what his comments would have been about her had she 'forgotten' to document her autopsy findings.

 

[Turnadot]

Well, I think LongtimeMedic has a point that perhaps evidence was lost when Dr G rinsed Caylee's skull. I'm not an ME or a doctor, so I really haven't a clue about this kind of stuff, however, I can't imagine someone like Dr G screwing up that badly. I must admit it's possible; she's fallible. And it's my understanding from discussing this with a friend of mine, that Dr G not removing the top of Caylee's cranial cap is a minor thing and not a big deal, insofar as protocol goes.

 

[JusticeSeeker1960]

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.

Sorry, but I can't picture ICA wanting to touch her while in that stage...don't even think this is a possibility! No doubt ~ Dr. G! Especially since Dr. S stated in his interview that he had been "on the Casey Anthony case long before JB was her attorney". :banghead: