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

[mimmy03]

I find it interesting that lay people are questioning the methods a 20+ year Medical Examiner used to examine Caylee's remains.
She was professional ,didn't get paid anything extra for doing her job ,hasn't been giving interviews to bolster her testimony. She has no dog in this in fight,so to speak.
I think she tries to get to the truth,and that includes exculpatory evidence,when LE is ready to charge an innocent person. That's not what she found here.
So I ask again,what makes a lay person believe they have a better way of doing Dr. G's job or the knowledge to even question the protocol she followed? I'm baffled.

ITA

And imho Dr. G would have more to lose by falsifying results or evidence than she would gain from it.

 

[Kimster]

Back to the subject at hand, folks. It's interesting to read both sides.

And yes, if you are wanting to post as a professional rather than provide links to facts, email WSVerify@xmission.com

No need to comment further about it here.

 

[aeneas1]

I agree with this point you have made and it is one I find unbelievable the defense did not adopt.

This spilling you reference is called purge and occurs in every death, whether intentional or natural.

Importantly, although it looks like blood to a lay person, it actually is not. So this would likely freak someone like Casey out and she would want to stop it from occurring, thus the tape.

if this happened to be a somewhat common occurrence, perps duct taping their victims out of fear that a purge, or subsequent purges, might make a mess and give them away then, maybe, i might buy into it, reluctantly. but when has anyone ever heard of someone doing anything remotely similar to this, whether it was with duct tape, a plastic bag, etc.? maybe i just don't follow enough murder cases. the idea of casey a) worrying about something like this and b) being smart enough to recognize/anticipate something like this strikes me as beyond far-fetched. jmho. on the other hand if one googles suffocation using duct tape....

 

[mimmy03]

I agree with this point you have made and it is one I find unbelievable the defense did not adopt.

This spilling you reference is called purge and occurs in every death, whether intentional or natural.

Importantly, although it looks like blood to a lay person, it actually is not. So this would likely freak someone like Casey out and she would want to stop it from occurring, thus the tape.

But wouldn't it be easier and more effective to just double bag the dead body in garbage bags to stop the purging than trying to apply duct tape to a decomposing body?

 

[ZsaZsa]

In a case like this, if someone is bold enough to state is a Homicide, it wouldn't be appropriate for the pathologist to do as thorough exam as possible to back up potentially putting someone else to death?? A Postmortem exam IS NOT considered desecration of a body! Not finding if there are more than one criminal in the case is far more insulting to me if you let them go.

Which part was not thorough? She inspected the skull, interior and exterior and removed the only contents which was a small amount of sandy dirt.
You are second guessing what she did. You were not there so you really cannot know. I suspect if there were any shoddiness it was on the part of Dr S.
At least Dr G and colleagues documented their findings scrupulously.

 

[GeekyGirl]

if this happened to be a somewhat common occurrence, perps duct taping their victims out of fear that a purge, or subsequent purges, might make a mess and give them away then, maybe, i might buy into it, reluctantly. but when has anyone ever heard of someone doing anything remotely similar to this, whether it was with duct tape, a plastic bag, etc.? maybe i just don't follow enough murder cases. the idea of casey a) worrying about something like this and b) being smart enough to recognize/anticipate something like this strikes me as beyond far-fetched. jmho. on the other hand if one googles suffocation using duct tape....

I would tend to agree with you on this. The idea of the duct tape to prevent purging doesn't fit into my perception of something Casey would do.

 

[LongtimeMedic]

I am not claiming any medical expertise and I'm waiting to hear Dr. G address the criticisms levied by Dr. S today to understand why she chose to do the skull examination as she did. I believe (and hope) it will be addressed in rebuttal. Then, I'll be able to form my opinion as to whether Dr. S's contention of "shoddy" work holds any merit whatsoever. At this point, I find him lacking credibility and imo his criticisms were not supported by facts or protocols today. That's what my post says, in a nutshell.

So, I don't understand your request for a link. A link to what? The opinions I posted? My prediction that the issue will be addressed in rebuttal? Sorry, truly unclear what you're asking for... I wasn't asking for you to read or weigh in or anything; just posting my opinions...:dunno:

In an address to two quotes of my posts you started with "Imo, Dr. G used a different technique to determine the same thing that Dr. S feels should be determined through opening the skull."

I've read her report... what new age methods are we discussing?

 

[Turnadot]

But wouldn't it be easier and more effective to just double bag the dead body in garbage bags to stop the purging than trying to apply duct tape to a decomposing body?

I hear you, but it's KC...

It's not a stretch, IMO, that she panicked and applied duct tape to a deceased Caylee.

 

[JanWhitebear]

I always thought that the skull was cut open in a REGULAR autopsy so that the brain can be removed. No??

Since there was no brain left in this skull, what would the point be of cutting it open when you could look inside it through the eye holes or whatever.

 

[GeekyGirl]

Which part was not thorough? She inspected the skull, interior and exterior and removed the only contents which was a small amount of sandy dirt.
You are second guessing what she did. You were not there so you really cannot know. I suspect if there were any shoddiness it was on the part of Dr S.
At least Dr G and colleagues documented their findings scrupulously.

Second guessing isn't necessarily a bad thing. Even the best of experts are not infallible.

 

[Linda7NJ]

This is not geared towards any poster in particular but I don't understand why people would hold any presumption of bias or conspiracy against the defendant by the police, the prosecutors, any expert personnel working on this case, or the public. A small, loved child has died. It is a terrible tragedy. Of all the possible scenarios, the very worst, most awful, sad, horrible, unacceptable one is that her own mother deliberately murdered her. That is the very worst case scenario. No one would want KC to have murdered Caylee, people would prefer it was an accident, or if not, a mentally unbalanced stranger, or someone not close to her, etc etc. NOT HER OWN MOTHER. And now decent, honorable, professional people are being called 'shoddy' etc. for doing a very taxing job trying to get to the truth of a horrible event. It's disgraceful, and I cannot understand apologists who are eager to go along with DT theories that the DT themselves cannot possibly believe.

A Most :rocker:EXCELLENT POST!

See what happens when commen sense and all logic goes out the window? IMO

 

[MissJames]

Back to the subject at hand, folks. It's interesting to read both sides.

And yes, if you are wanting to post as a professional rather than provide links to facts, email WSVerify@xmission.com

No need to comment further about it here.

Kimster,
I have a question about bolded :seeya:

Even a professional would still have to back up statements about the case,right? Hypothetical: Stating a witness said something or did something ,when it's not in a court transcript,could not be argued as fact,just because a person is a verified professional. They can still be asked for a link to that type of claim,can't they? Do I have that right? :waitasec:

 

[GeekyGirl]

I always thought that the skull was cut open in a REGULAR autopsy so that the brain can be removed. No??

Since there was no brain left in this skull, what would the point be of cutting it open when you could look inside it through the eye holes or whatever.

The interior of the cranium is pretty well closed up. The only holes are generally small, to allow nerves and blood vessels to pass through. The largest is the foramen magnum, which allows the spinal cord in. HTH

 

[Jolynna]

She didn't say prior to death; she said prior to decomposition (before disarticulation of the bones, per her testimony). So, someone placing the tape after death to stop spilling from the mouth and nose would STILL be consistent with Dr. G's testimony.

I really doubt ICA's defense (or ICA) is going to say or even suggest that KC put tape over Caylee's face, dead or alive, forany reason.

The defense's star medical expert has definitively informed us that the tape absolutely wasn't put onto the skull until AFTER skeletonization. Way after any spilling from the mouth or nose.

According to JB, the meter reader & George were the ones with control of Caylee's remains.

 

[mimmy03]

I hear you, but it's KC...

It's not a stretch, IMO, that she panicked and applied duct tape to a deceased Caylee.

I'm not sure how long after a person dies does the purging occur. Imo ICA would probably rather not look at her dead daughter and would prefer to have her doubled bag. Out of sight out of mind.

 

[sappysoul]

But again according to all the documentation I can attain Drs Garavaglia, Utz, Schultz, and Goldberger did do a thorough examination.

A 36 page report.

Dr. Spitz testified he 'talked to the people he needed to talk to who knew about those things' (paraphrasing).

A 2 page report.

IMO, I am much more confident in a ruling of homicide than accidental for those reasons alone.

I'm not an expert in court testimony but I have to say this is the first time I have seen a witness not be able to say what he is basing his opinion on. He said he went to a house, talked to someone he couldn't remember and they had a pool. Baez also told him some things. That is just unbelievable to me. I understand this man is educated, experienced, etc. but he acted offended that he was asked to explain and defend his opinion. His reputation is just not enough for him to walk in, state an opinion and expect everyone to accept it as truth. As the judge so wisely said earlier in the day, this is not a game. Then he lies about his interviews although he blamed his memory. If his memory is as bad as he made it out to be then I don't see how anyone could just accept his opinion without complete knowledge of it's basis. I find it humorous that some think JA was provoking him or being disrespectful. Can you even imagine how the DT would have reacted if Dr. Vass said "I don't remember" half the times Dr. S. did in his his testimony? That was entirely unacceptable IMO. He was the least prepared witness I've ever seen. He acted like everyone should have just been honored he showed up.

 

[ZsaZsa]

I agree with this point you have made and it is one I find unbelievable the defense did not adopt.

This spilling you reference is called purge and occurs in every death, whether intentional or natural.

Importantly, although it looks like blood to a lay person, it actually is not. So this would likely freak someone like Casey out and she would want to stop it from occurring, thus the tape.

Mr H- there has been some debate here as to the purpose of the duct tape since we first heard of it - asphyxia vs control of purging of fluids, but I have seen one case cited numerous times, Florida vs Huck in which the State Supreme court has upheld a ruling re someone who claimed placement of duct tape over eyes and mouth, took place after death, and the court found it to not be a logical nor reasonable argument.
I'm just wondering -
Why would they want to argue the same thing if it has already been decided?

 

[Kimster]

Kimster,
I have a question about bolded :seeya:

Even a professional would still have to back up statements about the case,right? Hypothetical: Stating a witness said something or did something ,when it's not in a court transcript,could not be argued as fact,just because a person is a verified professional. They can still be asked for a link to that type of claim,can't they? Do I have that right? :waitasec:

Right. If I were to say "During CA's testimony she said that Caylee's father is Robert Downey Jr." then another poster could say, "LINK PLEASE!", even if I were a verified DNA expert.

 

[Turnadot]

Imo ICA would probably rather not look at her dead daughter and would prefer to have her doubled bag. Out of sight out of mind.

This could be true, too. I'm just saying I think KC is totally capable of applying duct tape to her dead child, sadly.

 

[AlwaysShocked]

In regard to "examinations", the tools available in the medical field are unbelievable nowadays. For scopes such as colonoscopy and endoscopy, the flexible tube is about the diameter of your little finger - or less - and it can contain a camera, a light, a cauterization tool, and a "snare" tool.

Other tools, such as those used for arthroscopic knee procedures like meniscectomy have a cutting device and a suction device along with a camera.

The devices used for angiograpy - the type they insert into the femoral artery and thread up through the aorta and into the coronary arteris have a camera, a port that can be used to release a dye, and a "balloon" device used to push plaque up against the interior wall of the artery to open it up.

And so on and so on.

The cameras on these devices are excellent and the photos can be enlarged for experts to examine the interior of organs for evaluation purposes.

I cannot imagine that the Chief Medical examiner's office does not have access to some device of this sort. I would think if they wanted to photograph the interior of the skull they would have. And maybe they did, I don't know.

I think we all know this was not a "normal" autopsy, where yes indeed the skull would be removed for the pathologist to examine the brain.

I honestly don't think Dr. Spitz's finding, even if it is what he thinks it was is all that earth shattering or important to this case. Numerous, numerous people have testified during depositions that the area where the body was recovered was covered in water. Others have told us of the storms that came along with the Hurricaine. Water moves when the wind blows.

Sorry to be graphic, but the little body inside those bags likely would have bloated and could have been floating or bobbing around down there among the underbrush. It was a lucky break that it ever was found. And I believe that only happened due to Casey's laziness. I think she just pulled her car off the side of that road in a place she knew had a steep drop off and heaved that bag down over the hill.

All JMO, of course.

For your viewing pleasure, here's an interview Dr. Spitz gave BEFORE his testimony. He expounds:
http://www.clickondetroit.com/video/28239806/index.html