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

[D96s]

I wish she had tested the hair for long time chloroform use.

She did.

 

[ShadowGal]

IMHO: and that's all it is, my opinion.

protocol of an autopsy: SOP is created by the agency under whom one works, generalized protocols do exist and are often shared by those within the profession. Many accrediting/licensing agencies DEMAND that a SOP or procedures & protocol manual be available on site during inspections prior to awarding accreditation, it is EXPECTED that those employed by the accredited/licensed facility. SO individualization of agency procedures is permitted. Additionally, one must be able to DEFEND one's actions on the stand if necessary, IIRC NOBODY from the defense gang asked Jan WHY she chose not to cut the calvarium.

The sediment Dr. S. observed: considering the fact that Jan performed a saline (Nacl) "salty H2O" as described by Dr. S wash, the residue could be artifact from that or just good ole residual left over dirt. The human brain is wicked fast to decompose (details not needed) under the cited conditions in Fla. and "ash" is not what it FIRST looks like. Dr. S was absolutely correct when he stated that residue CAN provide information WHEN TESTED which is EXACTLY what Jan did!

Additionally, the OME of District 9 had/has major diagnostic tools available to observe the condition of the skull, Dr. S did not bring all those tools with him. (IMHO)

Thank you as always Joypath for your opinion!!

 

[grandmaj]

OK let me say something here. It really bothers me that Dr. S. did not have autopsy notes.

I now work in the funeral industry but when I was younger I was an EMT for a spell. Even at that low level of medical training there was a golden rule. If you don't put it in your report you didn't do it. Notes were taken during the call and a formal report left with the hospital and one had to be filed in house. I was called to testify a time or two about car accidents etc., When you render care in the medical profession be in CMA right on up until ME or pathologist of course you take notes. This man is testifying 3 years later and he had no notes. That is highly suspicious.

While the defense enjoys being able to tear through every last detail of the State's case, the State is left being sand bagged and can't even impeach this witness with his notes. Because surprise I've been practicing in this field for 57 years but I don't have notes. It is wrong.

 

[cyberborg]

Picture this. The smell of decomp in the car so bad that it still smells 3 years later.

You have a wet canvas bag, you have two eroded garbage bags and bones scattered from critters. Now what is left in one area is a hair matte and skull and some bones. Whooooooo who in their right mind would want to go suffering the most ghastly sight, be able to pick up that tiny skull with the hair all a tangled mess, and then apply duct tape to put the mandible back on the body. I mean this is against all civilized behavior as I know it. It would be unbearable to do it with Caylee still intact. But after decomp?

For the life of me, there is absolutely no good excuse or reason to do that. NO way!

He didn't even know how long the lengths of duct tape were, had no dr.s notes. Yet his theory is someone took that skull and taped it after she decomposed. No explanation, no theory just this was some weird thing someone did.

It makes no sense.

:clap::clap::clap::clap:

 

[whiteangora]

I feel much better after listening to Bill Scheaffer's analysis.
http://www.wftv.com/video/28281980/index.html

 

[Turnadot]

I wish she had tested the hair for long time chloroform use.

IIRC, she did.

 

[cloud9]

JWG is a long time member here who has sleuthed the heck out of this case and a contributor to Val's site:
http://www.thehinkymeter.com/2011/0...ase-a-defense-pathologist-spitz-out-a-report/

Compliments of BritsKate~

Bumping for a must read!

 

[crimesnooper]

Knock it off with the age comments!

Did you all know that the US Equal Opportunity Laws consider age bashing as bad as racial commenting?

Not that we are governed by those laws here, but it shows how rude it is to consider age as a negative connotation.

Sorry, but it's a fact of life. As I get older, I do see that things do change. And age bashing is as as bad as racial commenting? Never heard that before? But then my memory could be going as we speak.

 

[grandmaj]

It's not moot at all if he can convince the jurors that the State's argument is flawed because they didn't notice this-and-that and therefore you've got a botched examination and therefore you cannot convict this girl because you cannot trust anything that the State is offering you.

They want jurors to consider that people messing with the remains could be accomplices or people trying to frame Casey. This is exactly what defense strategy is about. It doesn't matter if it doesn't make much sense to you or seems moot. It's what they do and it sometimes works in their favor. It's an ancient dance that goes on every day in criminal courts.

But it didn't work today IMO Hot Dogs. While he was ahead before cross this witness was impeached badly. And when he lost his temper that was bad. Then when he suddenly came up with his theories of this duct tape I believe that sealed the deal. I don't think there was any reasonable doubt today. And Dr. G will probably be brought back for rebuttal.

 

[katydid23]

Are you kidding? You mean you have never ventured into the brush or woods, and happened upon skeletal remains and not run back to the car for your Henkle duct tape out of sheer politeness to tape that mandible on and a few other body parts so after the storms hit and the animals have their go at it, at least some will still be taped together when it is found years later.

YOU were not a girl scout were you. :woohoo:

(ok, I don't have to say kidding right?)

NO NO NO. You got it all wrong.
Haven't you ever ventured into the woods, happened upon a child's skeletal remains, grabbed your trusty Henkel tape, put the mandible back on the skull, AND THEN TAKEN THE REMAINS WITH YOU FOR A FEW MONTHS, until your car broke down, and you needed some cash?

 

[LongtimeMedic]

Same here! Aside from the argue part, I love vigorous debate and arguments...without ad homs!

I sometimes lose objectivity and I like engaging here with people who hold an apposing viewpoint, because it forces me to think instead of argument from emotion, which I catch myself doing sometimes - often.

At any rate, did any of Dr Spitz's testimony today bother you in the least, or did you find him credible overall?

It bothered me greatly that his age is taking it's toll. He's still a scrappy 'ol guy, and pretty much master of that domain, but his brain has downshifted a couple of times, and his thoughts don't seem to readily flow when he speaks. Plus I think he always leans towards the opinions most supported by dollar signs. He was costing Phil Specter $3k/day anytime he was in the courtroom... PLUS expenses! But he has a great mind, and I think JA goofed by pushing Spitz's buttons this morning. As Spitz's put it "...well now you've provoked me!" might not have looked too PROfessional of JA.

 

[Turnadot]

NO NO NO. You got it all wrong.
Haven't you ever ventured into the woods, happened upon a child's skeletal remains, grabbed your trusty Henkel tape, put the mandible back on the skull, AND THEN TAKEN THE REMAINS WITH YOU FOR A FEW MONTHS, until your car broke down, and you needed some cash?

I find myself in this exact position at least four times a day.

 

[mimmy03]

While I agree that Dr S's direct testimony was severely undermined by the cross examination, I disagree with some of the critiques.

I think calling Caylee "Casey" is understandable given the similarities of the names and the stress of the situation. Heck, I am borderline obsessed with this case, and I have mixed the names up once in a while!

Also, I think that some of the lapses in Dr S's knowledge about the circumstances of the case were the fault of the defense attorneys and not his own memory or lack of due diligence. I can imagine a possibility wherein he asked for all materials to be given so that he could make a determination, and Baez cherry-picked the ones he wanted to present.

I am not saying that lets Dr S off the hook completely for the holes in his assessment, but if he is used to working with defense teams that are more thorough, he might have just assumed he was getting complete information. JMO

I agree about the name thing, it happens all the time... reporters do it on the news and even the witnesses and lawyers in the courtroom.

However, I don't agree that the DT is completely to blame for his lack of knowledge with the basics of this case. Personally, if I were a professional to testify for a case I would certainly familiarize myself or refresh my memory prior to my appearance. He couldn't even remember who he spoke to at the Anthony house or interviews he has given. The number of things he couldn't recall or remember made him look as though he is unable to work competently anymore. I actually felt pity for him.

 

[BetteDavisEyes]

Two articles about Dr. Spitz' testimony from local (Detroit) news sources on this thread (post #199):

http://www.websleuths.com/forums/showthread.php?t=140281&page=8

 

[reeseeva]

I haven't got a clue, lol. I think the defense was trying to show that if Caylee's skull was found upright on the ground, then how did the sediment stay in the upper left.

IIRC, in Melich's report, he stated the skull had been in the position it was found in for some time.

IIRC from today, I could be wrong, but when Dr. Spitz was talking about the sediment, I thought he said "it is very sticky". Could be why it wouldn't have moved?

 

[grandmaj]

JA was somewhat gentle with him but also had to impeach the unreasonable assumptions he was making. Plus everyone knows that Dr. S has a temper and does not like to be challenged. He had to do it carefully which I believe he did, get things on the record like non recollections and silly theories so that the jury would use their common sense.

JA wanted the jury to see Dr. S lose his cool. He didn't want him to come unglued but he wanted him to show his temper because when testifying if you lose your temper it is generally perceived you are hiding something.

 

[ExpectingUnicorns]

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.

LongtimeMedic, it's probably just me ~ but I can't find any reference to the cribriform plate in the Dr S's report that I'm seeing. The report I'm reading from says, "A cake of dark brown residue was adherent to the left side of the skull, behind the petrous portion of the left temporal bone, spread over an approximately two inch diameter area." Could you please share the link to your reference for me? TIA

Here's my link: http://www.clickorlando.com/download/2011/0314/27194964.pdf

 

[BritsKate]

There was a time that Spitz, Lee, and Baden were genuinely the most respected names in forensics. Unfortunately I feel all three have sacrificed any passion for discovering truth in lieu of fame and fortune and with it their own reputations.

JMO

 

[Hot Dogs]

But it didn't work today IMO Hot Dogs. While he was ahead before cross this witness was impeached badly. And when he lost his temper that was bad. Then when he suddenly came up with his theories of this duct tape I believe that sealed the deal. I don't think there was any reasonable doubt today. And Dr. G will probably be brought back for rebuttal.

It's hard to know what the jurors have in their heads. We can't always assume that they are thinking the exact same thing that we are. Ashton tore into Spitz because he is concerned that they will believe him if he doesn't. But witnessing that from our armchairs is no guarantee that everything Spitz said to raise doubt will be ignored by the jury. It's the same thing with Huntington bug guy and the upcoming Rodriguez.

I think when Garavaglia comes back that Mason will have another go at her. He's going to force her to say that the tape could have been applied after death no matter what her common sense tells her.

 

[ExpectingUnicorns]

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.

Again, all I can find is Dr S's reference to the left temporal bone area. Only one area. Please share where your information has been gathered. TIA.