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

[Melanie]

Maybe someone can answer this for me. WHY was Dr. S allowed to come in and cut the skull in the first place? Don't you have to have some kind of permission from the jurisdiction to do so? Wouldn't Dr. G (as the Dr. who performed the autopsy) have to be present while Dr. S (from another jurisdiction) is degrading the skeletal structure further?

And to assume that he found some type of dust, why didn't he tell someone to test it (in Florda)? Where is the dust. What's become of it?

One more question I didn't hear asked/answered at trial - who was with him when he performed the autopsy? Is there really any evidence of this dust/sediment?

Thanks so much if anyone knows.

Mel

 

[D96s]

Good question! It might be dirt. It might be Xanny. I don't know. All I know is that Dr S "scraped" something off the inside of the skull. Dr G only washed the inside with some liquid. They may or may not be the same thing but I say the scrapes need to be testes.

Dr S SAYS he scraped something off the inside of the skull. Does he have proof that he scraped something off the inside of the skull? Evidence that he scraped something off the inside of the skull? Or am I being asked, once again, to just take his word for it? It frankly insults my intelligence that I'm being told to take Dr S. word for all this stuff when he doesn't have one bit of proof.

 

[Ssejors]

Originally Posted by Turnadot




This whole discussion came out of the fact that Dr S claims he found something Dr. G didn't. I would be curious to know why you believe that? Dr. S didn't have it analyzed? How do you know what he found wasn't exactly what Dr. G found? I have nothing to believe what Dr. S found isn't exactly what is written in Dr. G's report.

I have no reason to believe that Dr. S Found anything.

I don't think he really examined the body. He DIDN'T have gloves on. He had no one WITH him, He was most likely ASKED by JB to look for CERTAIN things ONLY. HE knew NOTHING of the case, he RECALLED NOTHING of evidentiary value. He did NOT send any residue for chemical analysis. He blames Dr. G for NOT allowing him to be there for the AUTOPSY for the reason WHY he never sent any residue to the LAB.

Clearly, rewatching his testimony is only angering me.

 

[GeekyGirl]

Child neglect resulting in death is very much a crime though.

It is. Respectfully though, it's called manslaughter, not murder.

 

[GutFeeling!]

No they weren't. I assumed that removing the skull cap was standard but I don't know if it would be at all for a skeletonized person. There could be some reasons I suppose, for wanting to see inside the skull eg. vegetation, root penetration. I totally respect Dr. G's decision on why she chose not to. I was watching when she said "Absolutely not" in response to being questioned if she had opened the skull. I was surprised but I'm sure she had her reasons for not doing it.

Do you have the link where she said "absolutely not" because I was sure she gave an explanation as to why she didn't pretty close to that (and I just can't find it lol)

I think the first part of the autopsy done on a body with innards is the chest cavity and organs (when they do the Y cut and cut the ribs.

One of the differences I saw between Dr G and Dr S that I noticed was that Dr G seemed to realize this was the body of a child and Dr S treated it as "just remains" even though he knew who it was and Dr G didn't.

 

[grandmaj]

Casey was authorizing things from jail. She probably authorized the second autopsy. I would have to do some digging but she did in the end authorize that her parents could take custody of the cremated remains.

But yes the next of kin would have to authorize this second autopsy.

 

[matou]

Maybe someone can answer this for me. WHY was Dr. S allowed to come in and cut the skull in the first place? Don't you have to have some kind of permission from the jurisdiction to do so? Wouldn't Dr. G (as the Dr. who performed the autopsy) have to be present while Dr. S (from another jurisdiction) is degrading the skeletal structure further?

And to assume that he found some type of dust, why didn't he tell someone to test it (in Florda)? Where is the dust. What's become of it?

One more question I didn't hear asked/answered at trial - who was with him when he performed the autopsy? Is there really any evidence of this dust/sediment?

Thanks so much if anyone knows.

Mel

Good questions. Based on how he was handling the model skull on the stand, I'm not surprised that he "broke" the skull. I wouldn't doubt it if he dropped bones on the ground, he looked so clumsy. A child's skull is likely much more fragile and the bones may not have fused together completely yet (not sure on this). Maybe that's one reason why Dr. G didn't cut the skull (bones are more fragile). JMO

 

[Tuffy]

Maybe someone can answer this for me. WHY was Dr. S allowed to come in and cut the skull in the first place? Don't you have to have some kind of permission from the jurisdiction to do so? Wouldn't Dr. G (as the Dr. who performed the autopsy) have to be present while Dr. S (from another jurisdiction) is degrading the skeletal structure further?

And to assume that he found some type of dust, why didn't he tell someone to test it (in Florda)? Where is the dust. What's become of it?

One more question I didn't hear asked/answered at trial - who was with him when he performed the autopsy? Is there really any evidence of this dust/sediment?

Thanks so much if anyone knows.

Mel

The remains had already been release by the ME at that time. Dr. G was finished with her exam. I believe that the Anthonys were free to do (within the law) as they wished with the remains. They chose to have another exam done, then have the remains cremated.

 

[matou]

Do you have the link where she said "absolutely not" because I was sure she gave an explanation as to why she didn't pretty close to that (and I just can't find it lol)

I think the first part of the autopsy done on a body with innards is the chest cavity and organs (when they do the Y cut and cut the ribs.

One of the differences I saw between Dr G and Dr S that I noticed was that Dr G seemed to realize this was the body of a child and Dr S treated it as "just remains" even though he knew who it was and Dr G didn't.

I was watching it on WESH.com and there was a tweet from a reporter with her quote. Are there transcripts of each day's testimonies?

Yes, the Y cut is done and I remember the head being done first but this was from '93 and it really freaked me out so I could be remembering this wrong.

 

[RR473]

Dr S SAYS he scraped something off the inside of the skull. Does he have proof that he scraped something off the inside of the skull? Evidence that he scraped something off the inside of the skull? Or am I being asked, once again, to just take his word for it? It frankly insults my intelligence that I'm being told to take Dr S. word for all this stuff when he doesn't have one bit of proof.

He has taken photos of the residue stuck to the inside of the skull. The same residue that didn't resolve in Dr G's solvent.

 

[Tuffy]

It is. Respectfully though, it's called manslaughter, not murder.

Are you sure that it's not murder in Florida? I thought that it was.

 

[Tracey276]

I was actually looking forward to this very respected Dr. S's testimony. While I can give him credit for all of his years of training, education and experience, I have to say, that all went out the window for me, when he presented the theory on the duct tape. He truly wants the jury to believe the theory that a "regular" person would even think through the idea of taping the jaw bone to the top part.
I really hope the jury will speak about this after the trial and what they thought of that testimony.
Sorry for the elementary vocabulary. I was trying not to be too graphic. I just think that lost him any credibility with the jury.

 

[Florida Native]

Gosh darn nit. Due to my iPad and my inability to be patient, I accidentally voted Dr. S. I meant I believe Dr. G completely.

 

[TorisMom003]

He has taken photos of the residue stuck to the inside of the skull. The same residue that didn't resolve in Dr G's solvent.

Please provide a link for the photos that Dr S took or at least a link where Dr S claims that he took photos. I have read his two page report and there were no photos at all with it.

 

[D96s]

He has taken photos of the residue stuck to the inside of the skull. The same residue that didn't resolve in Dr G's solvent.

How do you know it didn't resolve in Dr Gs solvent!!! I only heard Dr S SAY it didn't resolve in Dr. Gs fluid. There is very little that wouldn't be picked up in a saline solution wash. I have no doubt some of the substance was collected in her wash and was tested. Again - I'm being asked to except what Dr. S says JUST because he says it. Again, he has no proof that some of the substance wasn't collected in Dr. Gs wash. He has no evidence that some of the substance wasn't picked up in Dr. Gs wash. If he wants me to believe it, he should have proved it.

 

[Tuffy]

Gosh darn nit. Due to my iPad and my inability to be patient, I accidentally voted Dr. S. I meant I believe Dr. G completely.

you can change your vote.

 

[GutFeeling!]

It is. Respectfully though, it's called manslaughter, not murder.

NOT in Florida. Florida has this crazy little "Felony Murder" thingy that comes in handy for the state and is a DT's worst nightmare.

Aggravated child abuse (aggravation comes in with plastic bags and duct tape) comes under that category (as opposed to murder in the first degree). Punishment is the same including the DP.

 

[Florida Native]

you can change your vote.

Do tell. TIA.

 

[GeekyGirl]

NOT in Florida. Florida has this crazy little "Felony Murder" thingy that comes in handy for the state and is a DT's worst nightmare.

Aggravated child abuse (aggravation comes in with plastic bags and duct tape) comes under that category (as opposed to murder in the first degree). Punishment is the same including the DP.

If it's aggravated child abuse, yes, but death resulting from neglect, with no willfull intent, is manslaughter, not murder, at least according to everything I've read and the opinions of the legal experts on here.

 

[beach]

Are you sure that it's not murder in Florida? I thought that it was.

One of the lesser included offenses Casey has been charged with is Aggravated Manslaughter of a Child. If convicted it carries a term of 30 yrs and under FL sentencing guidelines 85% of that sentence must be served before being considered for parole.