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

[Ssejors]

Again, without reading this thread.

I think the difference for me is, Dr. G was the ME for the county in which Caylee's remains were found. So wasn't she then required to do the autopsy. She wasn't hired by a lawyer. She did the original autopsy PRIOR to finding out the identity of the body.
Dr.S was HIRED by the defense. And didn't know half the facts and history of the case and never saw the body until AFTER Dr.G did her original autopsy. Dr. G also noted the sediment in the skull and Rinsed it with saline to test the residue. Dr. S just looked at the residue and ASSUMED what he saw what dust. When a person stops questioning their own theories, then there is no more evolving. No more growth, no more learning. I felt like dr. S was "right" in his own mind because "he said so". Dr. G was vey clear and concise as well as natural and unforced.

I vote for Dr. G. Dr. S just seemed like another minion of KC.

 

[joypath]

Joypath,
He made a big deal about bringing gloves and protection wear to do the autopsy and was surprised that there was no tissue. If that's true,then he read nothing didn't have that info from JB. I find that odd,that he didn't understand that Caylee's remains were skeletal. Do you? Or would you expect him to go in knowing nothing?

NO! He should have at least heard that Caylee was "missing" for 31 days before reported and THEN figured out on his own that the decomp rate in Fla environ would accelerate skeletonization!:maddening:

IMHO, he expected to "crash" the OME post and be an observer and of course, provide invaluable wisdom.:innocent:

IMVHO, he had been told that it was CAYLEE but I do not have any proof other than his behavior. :innocent:

 

[ZsaZsa]

Not to get too rude, but there are other holes in the body where fluids could escape that are not on the head either. Were they taped up?

This would be the first case I've heard of where the killer worried about fluid leaking from the body after death so, I don't know.

There was a pullup diaper with the remains, she wasn't potty trained completely IIRC.

 

[RavenTrue]

"Well, at this point, Dr. Spitz, you have chosen to ignore your previous interest in the saline wash of the skull, and just assume you examined the skull in “pristine” condition. You cannot claim with a straight face at this point that the skull was lying on the left side."

Defendant looks dubious, disinterested or without emotion. I challenge at *this* moment what emotion you see in KC. Just curious....

 

[Tuffy]

BBM :twocents: Does NOT matter, the victim was NOT identified at the time of the post, persons who had a RIGHT to be there were limited to LE and those involved in assisting with the case.


Autopsies are not a "spectator sport"


all my humble opinion, of course

What is the accepted practice for allowing the defense team to be in the room, even assisting, in the autopsy of the victim? I wondered the same thing about the crime scene.

To me that just seems wrong. If it were my child, I would be upset that the person accused of killing them, wanted to have their defense team there.

I know this case is different because the accused is the victim's mom, but just wondering if this is done.

 

[ZsaZsa]

What is the accepted practice for allowing the defense team to be in the room, even assisting, in the autopsy of the victim? I wondered the same thing about the crime scene.

To me that just seems wrong. If it were my child, I would be upset that the person accused of killing them, wanted to have their defense team there.

I know this case is different because the accused is the victim's mom, but just wondering if this is done.

It is prohibited. Only in Caseyworld do things like that happen...

 

[joypath]

Residue of brain. Well What could he do? Dr G had the luxury of using states funds to access the services of a lab not Dr S.

I'm:innocent: not convinced that it was residue of the brain but AS A CONSULTANT, it was Dr. Spitz's responsibility to perform a complete analysis. PAYMENT for laboratory services by a consultant is covered within the consult fee, at the time of hire, ICA was NOT indigent.

:twocents: NOW for little ole me......that makes Dr. S's work..SHODDY!


:maddening: good for the goose, good for the gander!:maddening:

 

[Turnadot]

Excellent point, not arguing that at all. I'm just trying to say to those that think it's suspicious for the defense to call out their experts before the remains were officially identified is silly because she was the only child missing at the time and was found very close to where she lived. It's a reasonable conclusion. IMO.

I'll give you that it was a reasonable conclusion based on the location of the remains, but the bold is extremely hard to believe.

 

[allaster]

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.

I have been thinking along the same lines about the tape, I am a nursing student and have taken many science and anatomy courses, I believe the tape was placed on her mouth after death to stop her jaw from dropping open, because there is no muscle tone after death so the jaw will drop open, I think this creeped her out so she put the tape on Caylee. I also have my own theories on the flies and feel they are beating a dead horse because the truck was cleaned etc so the evidence of the flies is gone or tainted.

 

[Mare10]

I'm sorry, but I am a little confused. Why would the OME invite either the SA or the DT? They are workers of the state in the Medical Examiners Office. They are not attorneys for either side. They report what their findings are in an autopsy, not for the SA or the DT but for the victim. So, I don't understand why Dr S would think that he would be able to attend.

 

[sleutherontheside]

Excellent point, not arguing that at all. I'm just trying to say to those that think it's suspicious for the defense to call out their experts before the remains were officially identified is silly because she was the only child missing at the time and was found very close to where she lived. It's a reasonable conclusion. IMO.

Oh I understand. I'm just saying "reasonable" according to logic and common sense does not EQUAL "reasonable" in the legal sense.

 

[dilbert]

I'll give you that it was a reasonable conclusion based on the location of the remains, but the bold is extremely hard to believe.

sorry, I meant to say; only child missing in the area at the time.

 

[grandmaj]

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?

If you recall Mason has been hammering on that with other witnesses and I don't believe he got anywhere with it. Manipulation is what the DT is doing. I believe in our system of justice and right now I'm not very happy to see this trial take on this manipulation of truth in order to free someone who I believe killed her innocent child.

 

[joypath]

What is the accepted practice for allowing the defense team to be in the room, even assisting, in the autopsy of the victim? I wondered the same thing about the crime scene.

To me that just seems wrong. If it were my child, I would be upset that the person accused of killing them, wanted to have their defense team there.

I know this case is different because the accused is the victim's mom, but just wondering if this is done.

:twocents: IF the victim is known, IF the perp is under the care of a defense team and IF the agency policy permits it....a consulting scientist MAY BE permitted to attend the post...BUT NOT perform or assist per se. This information comes for my observations & discussions, naturally EVERY jurisdiction is different.

 

[grandmaj]

Refresh my memory. If I recall there a a very long delay in the human remains being released back to the Anthony family after the DT took possession. I need to go research this but I can recall that it was to me an inordinate time.

And we still don't know if the scrapings from the skull were ever turned over. Dr. S. never sent them anywhere according to his testimony. She where are they? Or were they tested and thus didn't back up the theory so we are not hearing about it.

 

[ZsaZsa]

Yes corrected it. Thanks.

Well as Dr S said it's custom to do that. Examiners even invite each other cross country to be there while autopsy is done.
If you have ever been to a hospital you would know that doctors do that often too.

Outside medical examiners are not entitled to participate in autopsies done by the State Medical Examiner, particularly if they represent the suspect in the case.
Can you supply a link where that is stated as customary?
Yes, I have been around Doctors quite a bit too...

 

[Tuffy]

Refresh my memory. If I recall there a a very long delay in the human remains being released back to the Anthony family after the DT took possession. I need to go research this but I can recall that it was to me an inordinate time.

And we still don't know if the scrapings from the skull were ever turned over. Dr. S. never sent them anywhere according to his testimony. So where are they? Or were they tested and thus didn't back up the theory so we are not hearing about it.

It seemed like it was a couple of months...

 

[grandmaj]

According to Dr. G it is against the protocols in her office to allow a lay ME to be present at the autopsy.

Oh boy I can only hear it now what Dr. S. would have accused her of after his testimony today I'm glad he was not allowed in there. That is the reason that he wanted to be there. To critique her autopsy. MOO

 

[ZsaZsa]

Refresh my memory. If I recall there a a very long delay in the human remains being released back to the Anthony family after the DT took possession. I need to go research this but I can recall that it was to me an inordinate time.

And we still don't know if the scrapings from the skull were ever turned over. Dr. S. never sent them anywhere according to his testimony. She where are they? Or were they tested and thus didn't back up the theory so we are not hearing about it.

Last we heard of them they were stored at the Funeral Home for several weeks before the second autopsy was done, and then again after the autopsy, it was several weeks before the memorial service or disposition of the remains was announced.

 

[crucibelle]

How come Ashton let the Dr. get away today at the end without saying anything after the doctor accused someone of moving the skull and hair in the picture at the end of his cross? He just backed off and that was it leaving the jury to think the Dr. was right in what he said.

Probably because Ashton realized how utterly ridiculous it sounded and that the jury probably wasn't buying it. I suppose it would have been better for him to delve into that issue further, however.