2011.03.11 Dr. Spitz Report Due Today

[strawberry]

Here is Dr. Spitz's report: http://www.wftv.com/pdf/27194148/detail.html

He says the skull was free of defects...didn't Dr. G note a premature fusion of one of the sutures? He calls into question her thoroughness, yet she caught that developmental anomaly and he did not.


ETA: It was actually in the Report of Osteological Analysis done by UCF. Page 19: "The posterior half of the sagittal suture appears to be in the beginning stages of premature synostosis (closure)".

http://i.cdn.turner.com/cnn/2009/images/06/19/6440.6475.pdf

 

[strach304]

Hold it right there. There's no scientific evidence to say that Caylee didn't swipe the Sunbird car keys and drive herself over there. Oops. Don't tell Baez!

I thought she preferred to take a taxi?:innocent:

 

[strawberry]

So mostly, Spitz doesn't believe that the duct tape was actually on Caylee's face/mouth...etc (he mentions lack of bug evidence)...lack of Caylee's DNA on the tape...

Well, there was no DNA on her shorts either (at least male DNA). Maybe that is why they did not test for female DNA...if there were none it would undermine their argument that no DNA on the duct tape meant it was not on her. :waitasec:

 

[JWG]

Actually, not much of a report, and pretty straightforward to shred. I cannot wait to read Jeff Ashton's deposition of this person. :highfive: Methinks Mr. Ashton will have way more fun than he is supposed to. :martini:

 

[strach304]

And I think if you look at those duct tapes pieces there are impressions of her face on them. At least we all here seem to think we can see where her mouth was, ears, nose, etc. jmo

The public will never get to see the photos but the SA will have a simulation and hopefully we can see for sure how it was placed. I cannot picture 3 pieces of duct tape adhering from one side to the next because of rain and animal movement. IMO she was put there that way.

 

[ZsaZsa]

Actually, not much of a report, and pretty straightforward to shred. I cannot wait to read Jeff Ashton's deposition of this person. :highfive: Methinks Mr. Ashton will have way more fun than he is supposed to. :martini:

He's gonna be chuckling when he reads his report.

 

[Just Jayla]

He says the skull was free of defects...didn't Dr. G note a premature fusion of one of the sutures? He calls into question her thoroughness, yet she caught that developmental anomaly and he did not.

Just having watched her show, and without the benefit of combing over each and every one of her cases, I am distinctly aware how thorough she is.

There have been episodes of her show where she came to the end of a path as far as cause of death, and she noted that most ME's stop at those points and make the declaration-However, in one episode in particular, something was nagging at her and she did a little research into the guy's life, and found out about past drug use that would have never presented itself had she not been so persistent.
Having a history of stroke and heart disease and being elderly, any other ME woud have chalked this guy's death up to one of those two long-existing issues-But this guy, at 70 years old, had died of a heart attack...due to a crack overdose. She had to go through nearly every cell in his body (hyperbole) to figure it out. She was able to distinguish a "normal" heart attack from one caused by an overdose. Specific toxicology confirmed it.

Good luck to the defense in convincing a jury that Dr. G is not extraordinarily thorough.

 

[strawberry]

Just having watched her show, and without the benefit of combing over each and every one of her cases, I am distinctly aware how thorough she is.

There have been episodes of her show where she came to the end of a path as far as cause of death, and she noted that most ME's stop at those points and make the declaration-However, in one episode in particular, something was nagging at her and she did a little research into the guy's life, and found out about past drug use that would have never presented itself had she not been so persistent.
Having a history of stroke and heart disease and being elderly, any other ME woud have chalked this guy's death up to one of those two long-existing issues-But this guy, at 70 years old, had died of a heart attack...due to a crack overdose. She had to go through nearly every cell in his body (hyperbole) to figure it out. She was able to distinguish a "normal" heart attack from one caused by an overdose. Specific toxicology confirmed it.

Good luck to the defense in convincing a jury that Dr. G is not extraordinarily thorough.

I saw that one! I am hoping they have new ones now that they have moved the show to DFH!!! Do you know if they will? (Sorry for the OT)

 

[logicalgirl]

Has anyone watched the show "Silent Witness" that comes on BBC? The same kind of thing (but not real cases) but the real depth analysis with pathologists without the CSI effect - one of my few favorites.

 

[strawberry]

Has anyone watched the show "Silent Witness" that comes on BBC? The same kind of thing (but not real cases) but the real depth analysis with pathologists without the CSI effect - one of my few favorites.

No, but I'll check it out!!

 

[chakti]

K, so the news outlits got the spit report, but did it make it to the court on time ?

 

[joypath]

Actually, not much of a report, and pretty straightforward to shred. I cannot wait to read Jeff Ashton's deposition of this person. :highfive: Methinks Mr. Ashton will have way more fun than he is supposed to. :martini:

:twocents: ITA! and would LOVE to be a Muscae on the wall during the deposition!

IF and that's a huge IF, Werner Spitz, M.D. performs as he did during the Spector trial, then MANY opinions rendered will be "dismissed" by the jury! The challenge of testifying :waitasec: with this information will be to present it without slipping into the "unbelievable". The report such as it is, "dances" around terminology and factoids, IMHO!:innocent:

 

[truckengirl]

Anyone notice how Dr. Spitz added at the end of his report that he reserved the right to change his report if new evidence became available, my guess is this is how JB will try to seek something in at the last minute. The Judge was very clear that if it was not in the report that it could not be testified to in Court. My guess is JB try to say they have discovered something new right before trial.

 

[robotdog]

I would like to SPIT on the guy..SPITZ:maddening:
no worries, this ship sinks deeper every day

 

[ynotdivein]

:twocents: ITA! and would LOVE to be a Muscae on the wall during the deposition!

Respectfully snipped, and respectfully :silly:, joypath!

 

[Nore]

Just having watched her show, and without the benefit of combing over each and every one of her cases, I am distinctly aware how thorough she is.

There have been episodes of her show where she came to the end of a path as far as cause of death, and she noted that most ME's stop at those points and make the declaration-However, in one episode in particular, something was nagging at her and she did a little research into the guy's life, and found out about past drug use that would have never presented itself had she not been so persistent.
Having a history of stroke and heart disease and being elderly, any other ME woud have chalked this guy's death up to one of those two long-existing issues-But this guy, at 70 years old, had died of a heart attack...due to a crack overdose. She had to go through nearly every cell in his body (hyperbole) to figure it out. She was able to distinguish a "normal" heart attack from one caused by an overdose. Specific toxicology confirmed it.

Good luck to the defense in convincing a jury that Dr. G is not extraordinarily thorough.

----------------------

I saw that also,watch her all the time. I hope the Jury bears in mind Dr. G. gets one paycheck. She tells it like it is, No matter what her decision she has nothing to gain either way.She does not make mistakes.Can every ME. say the same.I also wish the defense luck,they desparately need it.IMO.:seeya:

 

[LolaMoon08]

I don't know about anyone else, but I am a lot more confident after reading these depositions and reports by the defenses "expert witnesses."

 

[RR0004]

The poor man has lost his mind. Says duct tape should have had tissue on it and there should have been DNA. The DNA I would imagine was on the glue which pretty much desolved under the conditions. Also, he states no proof that the duct tape obstucted airways. What possible reason would there have been for duct tape from the A's home to be on the victim's face in the first place. No proof that the child died from homocide.

What is important is what he may not have said and that is that a child this age should not be dead, or found with duct tape attached to her skull, or placed in plastic bags and carried to the site in a laundry bag. What he did say is scientific facts which prove nothing other than a child is dead and not how she died.

Hope they did not pay alot for his report. jmo

I'd like to know what he DOES think explains the tape.

 

[Aedrys]

I don't know about anyone else, but I am a lot more confident after reading these depositions and reports by the defenses "expert witnesses."

No kidding. If this is all they've got, they need to work even harder on the mitigation phase. Seriously. They're going to need it if they come to court with nothing but hired guns loaded with blanks. Lord.

 

[RR0004]

So mostly, Spitz doesn't believe that the duct tape was actually on Caylee's face/mouth...etc (he mentions lack of bug evidence)...lack of Caylee's DNA on the tape...

Well, DNA wasn't found on her clothes, but that doesn't mean they weren't once on her. Would he suggest then that Caylee disrobed after or before the duct tape floated downstream (so to speak) and secured itself to her mandible? This seems like st$pid logic to me.