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

[Sabrina2011]

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?

Oh God yes! But only if a few holidays are coming up so i can have people over to show them my handy work, then i put it back where I found it!

(CAN YOU even imagine removing remains, taking them, hiding them, bringing them back...IT is unimaginable and did not occur...not going to believe it... nope)

 

[BritsKate]

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

:tyou: I was looking everywhere for that!

A 2 page report compared to a 36 page report. Who was more thorough? Hmmm...

 

[D96s]

Oh God yes! But only if a few holidays are coming up so i can have people over to show them my handy work, then i put it back where I found it!

(CAN YOU even imagine removing remains, taking them, hiding them, bringing them back...IT is unimaginable and did not occur...not going to believe it... nope)

My question is WHY WOULD KRONK DO IT?? Give me one reasonable explanation as to why he would do that? If he wanted the reward money he would have got that the minute he found the body. WHY WOULD HE HIDE IT??

 

[Turnadot]

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.

Thank you.

It bothered me that he couldn't remember an interview he did last week, but he could remember an autopsy he did years earlier. It also bothered me that he didn't remember breaking Caylee's skull, and his hypothesis regarding the duct tape was an embarrassment to his good name.

Also, I'm bothered by the fact the he agreed with Ashton that knowing the facts surrounding the case is very important for rendering an opinion, but he didn't know know the facts, yet still sat there and opined on Caylee's death. When cornered, he accused someone in the ME's office of staging a photo of the remains.

Overall, I didn't find Dr Spitz's testimony that of a renowned forensic pathologist.

And that's a shame, because he's a brilliant man.

 

[BritsKate]

My question is WHY WOULD KRONK DO IT?? Give me one reasonable explanation as to why he would do that? If he wanted the reward money he would have got that the minute he found the body. WHY WOULD HE HIDE IT??

And why would he call 911 instead of the tipline thereby circumventing the reward money? :waitasec:

Nejame paid him $5,000 out of his own pocket because Kronk was not entitled to the reward money by calling the wrong number. IIRC.

 

[Hot Dogs]

We are at somewhat of a disadvantage because we can't see any skull photos. But something interesting happened today.

Spitz saw the photos and said that he could not see any hair on top of the skull at the crime scene but viola there suddenly is hair on the skull in the lab autopsy photos.

Aston could have easily slapped up the photo of the crime scene and said "Look there! You can see hair on the skull can't you? Use your glasses if you need them." But he didn't do that. It's as if he too can see that there isn't skull hair at the crime scene. All he did was ask Spitz to reaffirm his claim that the hair had been manipulated. Ashton didn't use the photos to show that it hadn't been manpulated. Was that because Spitz was correct that some of the hair actually had been moved up onto the skull?

 

[sherryk]

Dr. Spitz came across to me confrontational. He seemed to be looking to not tell the exact truth but to self serve.

I do not understand about the skull and the position of any sediment. Would it not be almost certain that the skull before being found would of been turned every which way due to weather conditions, animal activity. I would say that even up little Cayless was found it is quite possible that animal activity could of turned the skull or any bones several different ways.

Perhaps I do not understand the importance of the skull and what position it was found. Duct tape does hold in place in water. The hair attached to gummy duct tape does not come undone.. example is easy.. stick a piece to my own hair and wash my hair.. the tape is still there

 

[Turnadot]

We are at somewhat of a disadvantage because we can't see any skull photos. But something interesting happened today.

Spitz saw the photos and said that he could not see any hair on top of the skull at the crime scene but viola there suddenly is hair on the skull in the lab autopsy photos.

Aston could have easily slapped up the photo of the crime scene and said "Look there! You can see hair on the skull can't you? Use your glasses if you need them." But he didn't do that. It's as if he too can see that there isn't skull hair at the crime scene. All he did was ask Spitz to reaffirm his claim that the hair had been manipulated. Ashton didn't use the photos to show that it hadn't been manpulated. Was that because Spitz was correct that some of the hair actually had been moved up onto the skull?

The jury and the gallery saw the crime scene photos earlier in the trial, and indeed, there was hair on Caylee's skull.

Having Dr Spitz reaffirm his opinion to the jury there wasn't any hair further discredited his testimony.

 

[LongtimeMedic]

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.

I don't recall him giving a precise anatomical location, but he did indicate it was in a crevice-like area (paraphrasing of course).

 

[anada75]

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.

You are absolutely right. Dr S bears the brunt of the responsibility. I just get the impression that another defense team would not have let that happen to that extent. If Dr S had been a prosecution witness, I believe he would have had all the relevant information and his memory would have been refreshed. It was as if he had not been prepped at all. But you are right - a professional needs to take responsibility for his own testimony.

 

[tennisgirlsc]

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.

I do not believe that JA goofed in any manner. The cross from JA did provoke Dr. Spitz - and as a result, the Dr. delivered an unbelievable and in his own words, "kerfuffled" version of events that no reasonable jury could ever buy. To subscribe to his theory, we would have to believe that someone picked up, re-assembled, applied duct tape and then styled the hair of the decomposed skull of Caylee. And the worst part of it is that according to BAEZ, this person would be GA.

 

[LCoastMom]

Bwahahaha. Dr Spitz may as well have said :ufo: placed duct tape on the mandible and returned the skull to the recovery site!

I actually gave the DT a point during the direct, but when JA took the floor, they lost that point and at least one more during cross.

The hair mat was placed there, it wasn't as the picture clearly depicted. Dr G did shoddy work by accessing the cranial vault through the "natural opening" but Dr Spitz cracked the skull when he opened it. Dr Spitz didn't have access to a lab to have the "dust" analyzed???

Dr Spitz has done over 1000 posts per year! When did he find the time to travel, write articles and even a couple books?

His "I don't remember's" were not believable.

Dr G on the other hand rocked the courtroom!

 

[D96s]

Originally Posted by LongtimeMedic
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.

JA did absolutely nothing wrong - he was doing exactly what he should have as a lawyer and that is to bring out inconsistencies in testimony. Dr. S was a bit irrational in claiming his integrity was being attached? Really? No one can question him? Really? No cross examination can be done on him because he is that special? Is that the deal?

 

[LongtimeMedic]

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.

If "A cake of dark brown residue was adherent to the left side of the skull, behind the petrous portion of the left temporal bone" that would be a very difficult location to see from the foramen magnum with a "light". When I referred to two area, I was suggesting the NaCL rinse, and the actual scraping that I believe was retrieved by Spitz, and processed by the State.

Also, I don't recall seeing "A cake of dark brown residue was adherent to the left side of the skull, behind the petrous portion of the left temporal bone" in Dr G's report.

 

[Sleuth5]

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.

Oh, you're being too modest, you mock juror you!!!!!

 

[Harmony 2]

Couldn't it be possible to inspect the inside of a skeletonized skull using some kind of endoscope, high magnification fiber optic camera, x-ray and/or ultrasound without opening it?

Just curious...TIA

Welcome to WS, Denisemb! That is exactly what I was wondering. Perhaps nowadays advanced technology excludes the need to saw the cranium.

I will use an analogy as an example. In the true story made into a movie "The King's Speech" the therapist used marbles to help the king with his stuttering. That is an archaic method and no longer used in the field of Speech Pathology. I just wonder if new techniques and technology in the field of Forensic Pathology eliminate the need to saw the cranium...

 

[sleutherontheside]

Marbles? Did someone say marbles?

 

[LawRig]

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

respectifully bbm :takeabow::tyou::cheer:

thanks wasnt enough

its so obvious that I fail to see how anybody can miss it.....

 

[Horace Finklestein]

I don't see how Dr. Spitz was even allowed to testify. He seems to be suffering some <modsnip> and clearly has no clue what he's talking about. I'm sure after the five minutes of him basically describing himself as an opinion for hire, the jury saw through him. Disgraceful of him to insult Dr. G because HE didn't see fit to bring a saw. Interesting personality to say the least.

 

[katydid23]

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.

That is all true. Absolutely. But imo, none of the Defense witnesses convinced me that the states examinations were botched in any way. Sure, maybe a case could be made that Dr. G. should have/could have cut the skull open. But nothing came of it when Dr. S. did so. It did not change the findings in any real way, so it seems like a small thing. And she did not ignore or neglect to inspect the interior of the skull. She took the inner debris and had it sent to the lab for tests. So, it does not seem like she botched anything.

And i see nothing so far to show that any accomplices or perps were messing with the remains. Dr. S's theory that it was moved, and the mandible was placed back on the skull, and then duct taped with the Henkel tape--not believable, imo. The only way that the doctor would come up with such a scenario is if he was trying to validate the defense scenario, imo.