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

[D96s]

I disagree and here is why. Immediately after Ashton asked if he was implying anything like it was staged, do you remember his response?

The Doctor responded by saying ; [paraphrasing ]

'It wouldn't be the first time." and he went on to discuss ME's who were now in prison for tampering with evidence.

So, imo, his reponse indicated that he was implying that something hinky was going on.

Exactly. I agree. And, it was shameful in my opinion. Shameful attemp by Dr. S.

 

[LongtimeMedic]

Okay. I gave you this link already, above: http://www.clickorlando.com/download/2011/0314/27194964.pdf. The quote is in the fourth paragraph.

Where did you get "crevice-like area?" And "cribriform plate" and "inside the cap?" And argued your position so adamantly that I thought I missed one of Dr Spitz's reports. Please don't tell me I've spent all this time researching for some unknown report from the doctor that contained those descriptors in it ~ based now, I think, solely on your "paraphrasing."

Good lesson for me, I guess, on why we like links!

Not sure if I can post you a link here but if I can here it is: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/81/Gray193.png
And the superior ridge of the petrous portion of the left temporal bone stain would be hidden from view from the foramen magnum. The only reason I brought up cribriform plate, is because you can't see it from below either, it is the bottom, how can you see what's there if you don't look?? Like Spitz said... why do an autopsy from the neck down only??

You may be missing my point, but I'm not trying to argue with you, just point out that the doc said Caylee decomposed left side head down, and we have a detective that says the skull was virtually unmoved because of vegitation, and he says it was upright and unmoved for six months! That's a HUGE discrepancy! At least let's don't totally sit back and watch the State fail, and her and all her co-conspirators walk!

 

[Kelroy]

I disagree and here is why. Immediately after Ashton asked if he was implying anything like it was staged, do you remember his response?

The Doctor responded by saying ; [paraphrasing ]

'It wouldn't be the first time." and he went on to discuss ME's who were now in prison for tampering with evidence.

So, imo, his reponse indicated that he was implying that something hinky was going on.

Yeah--I think Spitz not only indicated that, but flat-out said it when Ashton asked, more than once, if Spitz was accusing the ME of staging the photo. Another of Spitz's quotes was "I could tell you horror stories" of medical examiners and police doing the same thing. And then he said something about bloody clothes in the trash. . . . ?

However, I will admit that because I couldn't see the photos, I was lost as to what they were discussing regarding hair on the skull.

 

[Puzzler]

Nope, wrong. JA specifically (more than once) asked Dr. S if it was his testimony that he was accusing the States Medical Examiners Office of manipulating the skull for the purposes of photos - and Dr. S answered that yes it was. He even went on to say it wouldn't be the first time and he is aware of many instances where that has happened. He absolutely was accusing them of impropriety and manipulation.

He also did a lot of equivocating over "manipulation" -- going into the Latin roots of the word, and how anything that's been handled can be said to have been manipulated. In my opinion, he did intimate improper rearranging of the remains, and all his equivocating did nothing besides make him look bad.

 

[JanWhitebear]

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?

And I guess it's perfectly OK for Spitz to accuse Dr. G's investigators of STAGING the scene for photos!??

 

[ExpectingUnicorns]

Incidentally since I mentioned it like 15 pages back there is NO protocol that I am able to locate stating the calavarium should be cut in an anthropological autopsy. Expecting Unicorns posted a link stating just the opposite - that the skull should NOT be cut in skeletal remains.

The Florida Association of Medical Examiners 2010 guidelines also has no specific protocol in the examination of skeletal remains. FWIW

I do not believe a nonexistent protocol or opinionated expectation should in any way discredit Dr. G but that's just my opinion.

I may have used poor wording. It was not recommended in the sense that it was not listed as one of the steps. Opening the skull was not mentioned at all. (I went back and tried to edit that post to make sure it wasn't misinterpreted to mean that there were recommendations against opening the skull.) Sorry for the confusion I may have caused.
:truce:

 

[Quiche]

Today I noticed this in the state's autopsy report:

There is a minimal amount of adipocere present and the bones have sandy, silty dirt on their surfaces, except for the skull.
http://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnn/2009/images/06/19/caylee.anthony.autopsy.pdf​

Just wondering if anyone has any thoughts on why the skull was cleaner than the rest of the bones?

Less fatty tissue, I'd presume. jmo

 

[JanWhitebear]

I think what happened was interesting, too. But I don't think Spitz was accusing the medical examiner of impropriety in "manipulating" or "staging" the evidence. All he said was that the hair in the lab photo was not in the same orientation, relative to the skull, as in the crime scene photo. I think he was just pointing out that difference. If he accused anyone of impropriety, it was Ashton, for assuming [and asking Spitz and the jury to assume] that the orientation in the lab scene photo accurately depicted the orientation when the skull was discovered.

He specifically accused the M.E.'s investigators and police investigators at the scene of staging things for the photographs. He DID accuse them. I was sitting here at my computer with the TV on behind me when he said that and almost gave myself a whiplash turning to look at the TV!

 

[Turnadot]

Not sure if I can post you a link here but if I can here it is: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/81/Gray193.png
And the superior ridge of the petrous portion of the left temporal bone stain would be hidden from view from the foramen magnum. The only reason I brought up cribriform plate, is because you can't see it from below either, it is the bottom, how can you see what's there if you don't look?? Like Spitz said... why do an autopsy from the neck down only??

You may be missing my point, but I'm not trying to argue with you, just point out that the doc said Caylee decomposed left side head down, and we have a detective that says the skull was virtually unmoved because of vegitation, and he says it was upright and unmoved for six months! That's a HUGE discrepancy! At least let's don't totally sit back and watch the State fail, and her and all her co-conspirators walk!

BBM

I hate to keep pointing this out to you, but I will anyway.

Dr G rinsed Caylee's skull with a saline solution.

saline rinse inside a skull where there's sediment ='s mud.

Dr Spitz's autopsy of Caylee was weeks after Dr G's.

Mud + weeks = a cake of dark brown settling inside the skull.

Thus Spitz's conclusion that Caylee decomposed left side down is erroneous.

 

[D96s]

bbm

i hate to keep pointing this out to you, but i will anyway.

Dr g rinsed caylee's skull with a saline solution.

Saline rinse inside a skull where there's sediment ='s mud.

Dr spitz's autopsy of caylee was weeks after dr g's.

Mud + weeks = a cake of dark brown settling in the skull.

Thus spitz's conclusion that caylee decomposed left side down is erroneous.

exactly

 

[BritsKate]

I may have used poor wording. It was not recommended in the sense that it was not listed as one of the steps. Opening the skull was not mentioned at all. (I went back and tried to edit that post to make sure it wasn't misinterpreted to mean that there were recommendations against opening the skull.) Sorry for the confusion I may have caused.
:truce:

No worries, EU. There is NOTHING that I can find to state opening the skull cavity is recommended, necessary, standard, or expected when examining anthropological remains. Routine autopsies are different. Unless someone can provide a link telling me otherwise I'm all researched out.

 

[GeekyGirl]

BBM

I hate to keep pointing this out to you, but I will anyway.

Dr G rinsed Caylee's skull with a saline solution.

saline rinse inside a skull where there's sediment ='s mud.

Dr Spitz's autopsy of Caylee was weeks after Dr G's.

Mud + weeks ='s a cake of dark brown settling inside the skull.

Thus Spitz's conclusion that Caylee decomposed left side down is erroneous.

No snark intended, but doesn't that just show that a saline wash might not be the most effective process if you're trying to ascertain what evidence *could* be left inside the skull? I'm not arguing that there was any pertinent evidence to be found, just that it may not be that far off to argue that it wasn't the most thorough technique. MOO

 

[Jolynna]

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.

In response to the sentence I bolded:

If so, I believe Dr. G will be able to truthfully respond that 100% of the time, people don't put duct tape over dead victim's faces because there is no reasonable or logical reason to do so.

Duct tape goes over live people's faces so they can't scream or breathe.

 

[LongtimeMedic]

BBM

I hate to keep pointing this out to you, but I will anyway.

Dr G rinsed Caylee's skull with a saline solution.

saline rinse inside a skull where there's sediment ='s mud.

Dr Spitz's autopsy of Caylee was weeks after Dr G's.

Mud + weeks = a cake of dark brown settling inside the skull.

Thus Spitz's conclusion that Caylee decomposed left side down is erroneous.

Then we'll just respectfully disagree, because Spitz stated the area, the petrous portion of the left temporal bone, had a waxy, soapy brown stain which he said is usually seen on the side decomposition occurred on, as it wasn't on the right side. plus both right and left petrous portion of the temporal bones cannot be seen without taking off the skull cap.

It appears though, that if the State is heading in the wrong direction, or they aren't including all the players, they aren't changing now regardless of what you show them. Which is unfortunate because some may get off.

 

[Turnadot]

No snark intended, but doesn't that just show that a saline wash might not be the most effective process if you're trying to ascertain what evidence *could* be left inside the skull? I'm not arguing that there was any pertinent evidence to be found, just that it may not be that far off to argue that it wasn't the most thorough technique. MOO

Sure, but that's for the ME's or whomever to hammer out; I'm not white knighting Dr G.

 

[GeekyGirl]

If so, I believe Dr. G will be able to truthfully respond that 100% of the time, people don't put duct tape over dead people's faces because there is no reasonable or logical reason to do so.

Again, this makes the assumption that Casey is reasonable and/or logical, when by all accounts, she wasn't.

 

[Aedrys]

Dr. G. Hands down. All the way. SHE didn't crack Caylee's skull. I can't believe lightening didn't strike him for doing something like that. And she most certainly did not tamper with evidence. This is not some big conspiracy against Casey! And Dr. Spitz's theory was downright laughable. I find that the SIMPLEST explanation works, not the most out there and complex one. Apparently he's never heard of KISS.

I am just outraged at Dr. Spitz. No concern for the deceased, and he's right and everyone is in some vast conspiracy to frame a lying, stealing, nonworking, nonresponsible, no morals, no ethics, soulless woman who should have CHERISHED the gift of Caylee that God gave her but instead killed her and dumped her like trash.

It's like Dr. G said - God put that mandile there and no two year old should ever have duct tape on their face. I am going with reason and logic, not fantasy <modsnip>. I don't care how much more experience he has, he is obviously stuck in a time that's at least three to four decades behind everyone and think's he God.

I got news for you, Dr. Spitz. You are not God, not by a long shot. God is the one laughing at you right now.

 

[D96s]

No snark intended, but doesn't that just show that a saline wash might not be the most effective process if you're trying to ascertain what evidence *could* be left inside the skull? I'm not arguing that there was any pertinent evidence to be found, just that it may not be that far off to argue that it wasn't the most thorough technique. MOO

All medical procedures are governed by protocols. Dr. G followed the current protocols of the Florida State Medical Examiners. If Dr S. is for some reason implying (as he did today) that there are other protocols that SHOULD have been followed, he failed to identify what those protocols are (or where they are located). Dr. G only needs to be concerned with the protocols relevant to the Florida State Examiners Office. Secondly - Dr S did not find ANY evidence inside the skull (even after sawing the skull cap off and damaging/cracking the skull in the process) that Dr. G. didn't find by simply tipping the skull upside down and using a pen light.

 

[MissJames]

BBM

I hate to keep pointing this out to you, but I will anyway.

Dr G rinsed Caylee's skull with a saline solution.

saline rinse inside a skull where there's sediment ='s mud.

Dr Spitz's autopsy of Caylee was weeks after Dr G's.

Mud + weeks = a cake of dark brown settling inside the skull.

Thus Spitz's conclusion that Caylee decomposed left side down is erroneous.

:seeya: Bears repeating .

 

[samhunt]

I studied forensic anthropology, and cutting the skull open is not done for an anthropological examination. I don't remember ever seeing that done in any actual cases I saw or in any cases I read about.