2011.06.18 Sidebar Thread (Trial Day Twenty-Two)

[MissJames]

I can picture some people thinking the Anthony's didn't deserve to have Caylee's grave and body, and moving it somehow. Think about some of those protestors. And can you imagine the "memorials" that would be held constantly at the gravesite? People sitting in vigil for months during the trial? The media there recording?

A nightmare.

I actually think it was a smart move on the A's behalf,at that time. But my son's ashes are on a shelf in my bedroom,so I'm a tad biased. And i have a heart necklace with his ashes .So do my 3 daughters. Unless you've lost a child ,it might be hard to understand what drives decisions made surrounding their remains. It's not always logical ,to others,I guess.

 

[Kimster]

So funny you say that because, again, Dr. Spitz' son (also a Medical Examiner) was on Dr. Drew last night saying he (the son) concurs with Dr. G's finding of Homicide. Wonder how that goes over at their dinner table?

No kidding?

 

[pinkfly]

I guess this case is different from so many in that the accused was already in jail before a body was found. Most cases do not have a cast of defense characters trying to get involved before a body is even identified. This defense is acting like they were treated differently when in reality there is very strict protocol about who can be involved in autopsies and criminal investigations. Contamination of the facts and access to an unidentified body are crucial concerns.

 

[CementPond]

I haven't been around here long enough to know your story with your son. But, reading what you have written in your signature, I pretty much understand and it breaks my heart. I am so very sorry for your loss.

I actually think it was a smart move on the A's behalf,at that time. But my son's ashes are on a shelf in my bedroom,so I'm a tad biased. And i have a heart necklace with his ashes .So do my 3 daughters. Unless you've lost a child ,it might be hard to understand what drives decisions made surrounding their remains. It's not always logical ,to others,I guess.

 

[BigFatMommyDog]

Yes I heard all of that but based on his experience a complete autopsy should include a look inside the skull and an examination of bone marrow.

As for the argument that he cares more about high profile cases and not as much about unknown cases, he said 'no, of course every case has people who care' about the results of an autopsy. I understood exactly what he meant and do believe, since this case was already a big news story, that it wouldn't hurt to do everything that may be needed in response to questioning. Why wouldn't Dr. G allow him to come into her chambers and review with him what she had done? I'm not saying that I don't trust her,
not at all am I saying that, but if she had invited him in, what happened today could have been avoided.

I'm supporting you woe-be, and I'm all for applying the principles of devil's advocate. So if she had invited him in, what would that have accomplished?

He's a hired show pony - hired to discredit - hired to add more media fuel to the fire and fan the flames. Why would she invite him in? He has no jurisdiction. To me, bringing him in would have been a serious, serious breach of protocol and ethics - and potentially actionable.

 

[Moggie]

O/T (sorry) Just a quick shout out to all our Canadian WSers - thanks for taking care of my boys this week - they performed their rentry burn and have reentered US orbit. A few more hours to splash down, but they sure enjoy being aliens in Canada - largely because of your fine hospitality.

I thought at first glance, you were talking about the Boston Bruins. The vancouver canuks are still in a world of pain. lol. Sorry for OT.

 

[JustMeDeb]

If ICA gets LWOP, it should be with the stipulation that a blown up pic of Caylee's skull must be hanging on the wall at all times.

Just once in the trial I want someone to walk up with the pic and hold it in front of her face, "Look what you did!" I know, watching too much crime dramas on TV

 

[Sleuths4Me]

Ok I have a question. I under stand that Dr. S. has been doing this for a long long time but now he really does high profile cases and is on the DT side. Does he now just say "tell me what you want me to say" really I was shocked by his testimony and don't give him an ounce of credit and even if I have never heard Dr. G and with the way he was responding to JA and not answering him and how JA was asking very good questions about his "therory" of how the duct tape was there I would still be thinking the same thing asking myself where did he pull this out from. I was telling my husband about it and the questions JA was asking and the answers he was giving and my DH was even like WTHeck?

 

[BigFatMommyDog]

I thought at first glance, you were talking about the Boston Bruins. The vancouver canuks are still in a world of pain. lol. Sorry for OT.

Nah - just some fish (no octopuses). "We" were part of that scene last year - got a nice trophy out of it.

 

[Sabrina2011]

I take it this Dr S... did not go over well? (I know his son does not agree with him)


"Sheaffer decried Spitz’s implication that the medical examiner or her office had staged a photo of the remains. “A couple of jurors laughed and smirked” at Spitz’s comments, Sheaffer noted, a bad sign for the defense."

Richard Hornsby, offering analysis for WESH-Channel 2, was equally frank. “Dr. Spitz did not come across as very well versed in the facts of this case, which is what’s important,” Hornsby said. “They might have been better off with not even putting him on” because “the jury is probably looking at the defense theory and finds it completely incredible.”

Hornsby praised Ashton for a thorough job of cross examining Spitz. “I don’t think there’s an attorney in this town that really thinks that Dr. Spitz convinced that jury of much of anything except that he’s an old guy,” Hornsby said.

 

[Woe.be.gone]

Dr. Spitz says every case is important because there is always someone who cares. Then he pulls someone's skull out of a duffle bag. :waitasec:

People donate their own bodies to science. Once that is done, they may be used scientifically. The people who are around dead bodies all the time are not emotionally attached to any bone. They don't think of the person behind the bone. If they did, they wouldn't be able to do the work. That's why some people can't be a nurse for instance because they'd get too personally involved with the suffering of the patients versus focusing on how they are helping them. :twocents:

 

[MissJames]

Yes I heard all of that but based on his experience a complete autopsy should include a look inside the skull and an examination of bone marrow.

As for the argument that he cares more about high profile cases and not as much about unknown cases, he said 'no, of course every case has people who care' about the results of an autopsy. I understood exactly what he meant and do believe, since this case was already a big news story, that it wouldn't hurt to do everything that may be needed in response to questioning. Why wouldn't Dr. G allow him to come into her chambers and review with him what she had done? I'm not saying that I don't trust her,
not at all am I saying that, but if she had invited him in, what happened today could have been avoided.

A. Maybe Dr. G didn't trust him. He has a reputation,you know.
I can only imagine the type of interference a Defense expert could cause in the Official Medical Examiners Autopsy .I mean,it's just not done! That's the bottom line.

B. The remains were not yet identified.Why should the ME even consider such a thing before the remains were identified?

C. A piece of leg bone WAS removed to test for marrow and toxicology,but nothing resulted from the tests ,as there was no marrow left.
The DT has referred to this removal and testing as "destroying evidence"

D.Dr. G could see inside the skull,and did a rinsing of the interior .She then examined what came out.

E. Dr. G is the consummate professional,IMO ,and this being a big NATIONAL news story would have no bearing on any of her decisions in the autopsy. Dr, Spitz,yes,it would give him a reason to do things not needed ,just so he could praise himself.Dr. G,No. She just does her job.

Dr. Phil says :crazy:"when someone shows you who they are,believe them."

JB,CM,and Dr. WS showed us who they are today.

JMO

 

[tsitra01]

Do we think that there are any other experts to testify once they have this Rodriguez fellow back on Monday? I am wondering which days to clear my schedule for the real fireworks.
Do WSers think the DT is going to call CA and GA?
I think definitely CA to get all that pool ladder stuff and the former fox news guy to show she said she left the ladder up.

If the DT calls Cindy and confronts her about the ladder.....I am sure she will say if the Fox news guy said she told him she left the ladder up, she will say that ahe probably did. After all she went from she always took the ladder off until Baez asked if she was sure (paraphrased) she then so easily claimed....well she couldn't say 100 percent. Let's face it she continues to protect ICA as much as possible while making an effort to stay under the radar.

 

[coloradoteacher]

One thing that was slipped by JA was that the Dt never told Dr. Spitz of the accidental drowning when he came to examine the remains and the jury heard it. I think this is very powerful that the jurors might now have the impression that this theory was developed much later in the game and was not around when Caylee's remains were found. It helps to show where it might have come from- perhaps someone who has made up many false statements about what happened to Caylee along this three year period.

 

[MissJames]

I take it this Dr S... did not go over well? (I know his son does not agree with him)


"Sheaffer decried Spitz’s implication that the medical examiner or her office had staged a photo of the remains. “A couple of jurors laughed and smirked” at Spitz’s comments, Sheaffer noted, a bad sign for the defense."

Richard Hornsby, offering analysis for WESH-Channel 2, was equally frank. “Dr. Spitz did not come across as very well versed in the facts of this case, which is what’s important,” Hornsby said. “They might have been better off with not even putting him on” because “the jury is probably looking at the defense theory and finds it completely incredible.”

Hornsby praised Ashton for a thorough job of cross examining Spitz. “I don’t think there’s an attorney in this town that really thinks that Dr. Spitz convinced that jury of much of anything except that he’s an old guy,” Hornsby said.

I want to point out again,the DT knew Dr. Spitz was a loose cannon.His history in other trials,along with his recent interviews showed this. I cannot understand what they hoped to accomplish with this less than credible testimony.

 

[mrsu]

I haven't had time to read most of the posts today, but I listened to the testimony on my phone today at my kiddo's softball game this morning.... I did see a few comments where people had mentioned they thought the jurors would believe Dr. S over Dr. G. I just wanted to say that coming from someone who hasn't followed the case much until trial, I saw the Dr. G testimony, and today, Dr. S seemed like nothing but a "grumpy mad scientist".

 

[TiaM]

No kidding?

Yep. But of course it was right at the end of a segment, so Dr. Drew didn't let him expound on that really, and practically talked over the end of his last sentence. :maddening:

 

[MysteryAddict]

There is a large hole in the base of the skull (Foramen Magnum) through which Dr G could visualize the empty cavity. If a brain had still been present it would have been necessary to open the roof of the skull to remove and inspect the contents.

Thank you!
This shows us that Dr.G. handled the remains of this little 2 yr. old child with respect!
She was not going to saw open that little skull when there was no reason to do so!
Spitz would have, for no reason. He just always saws skulls open.
How dare he call Dr. G.'s work "shoddy" when he was the one who actually damaged Caylee's skull??

 

[MissJames]

People donate their own bodies to science. Once that is done, they may be used scientifically. The people who are around dead bodies all the time are not emotionally attached to any bone. They don't think of the person behind the bone. If they did, they wouldn't be able to do the work. That's why some people can't be a nurse for instance because they'd get too personally involved with the suffering of the patients versus focusing on how they are helping them. :twocents:

And ,Thank God, there are people able to set aside emotions and do these jobs. It really can be fascinating.

 

[coloradoteacher]

If the DT calls Cindy and confronts her about the ladder.....I am sure she will say if the Fox news guy said she told him she left the ladder up, she will say that ahe probably did. After all she went from she always took the ladder off until Baez asked if she was sure (paraphrased) she then so easily claimed....well she couldn't say 100 percent. Let's face it she continues to protect ICA as much as possible while making an effort to stay under the radar.

But when she was on the stand for the SA she said she is very sure she didn't leave the ladder up. She would now be in the same courtroom risking perjury if she went against this, which I think the DT is trying to do by calling the fox news reporter- show CA as not credible. ALso, I think Cindy will and has protected ICA but she seems to draw the line at implicating herself at all in the death of her granddaughter. That would be too much for any grandparent to bear.