Autopsy Report - UCF Osteological Analysis-Duct Tape Info

[ZsaZsa]

I have stated (again and again) that I take issue with Dr Gs description and subsequent conclusion in the report. I take issue, because I find these two things to be contradictory to one another at this time based on the information that is at my disposal.

It is MY opinion at this time, after examining the only evidence available to me, that the measurements of the tape, located in the FBI analysis do not substantiate her findings as they are currently found on the record.

It is MY personal opinion at this time, that in order for the duct tape to secure the mandible in place, and at the same time be attached to the hair, all the while being exposed to said conditions, that the tape would have to reach further around then the current measurements of it would dictate.

I of course also leave this opinion open for change when and/or if this is disputed at trial. I was merely pointing out that as it stands now the conclusion is illogical to me when I take the measurements of the duct tape pieces into consideration.

Not only Dr Garavaglia's conclusion, but also Dr Utz and Dr Schultz are also incorrect ? Don't you find it a bit odd that all three would concur on a mistaken conclusion?

What do you think held the mandible in its anatomic location throughout all those months?

 

[AZlawyer]

In this thread there are posters who take issue with this exact point. I am not aware of them being experts, but it appears to me that they do understand the structure of the human skull, the mandible, and what it would take for it to remain in place with the use of duct tape.

Of course I am only offering my own opinion in regards to the information at my disposal. I will assume that the posters within this very thread who also questioned this particular piece of evidence were going off their personal opinions as well.

OK, I think I understand. So you don't dispute that the duct tape was found over the mandible and had to be cut out of the hair (and, of course, the hair is visible in the pictures of the duct tape that were released and will be visible in the photos before the tape was removed), but you dispute that the duct tape was the cause of the mandible remaining in place?

Seems like not a very big deal to me. Who cares why the mandible remained in place? Maybe the head ended up upright early in the process and was not disturbed enough to move it from that position later on.

 

[marspiter]

I have stated (again and again) that I take issue with Dr Gs description and subsequent conclusion in the report. I take issue, because I find these two things to be contradictory to one another at this time based on the information that is at my disposal.

It is MY opinion at this time, after examining the only evidence available to me, that the measurements of the tape, located in the FBI analysis do not substantiate her findings as they are currently found on the record.

It is MY personal opinion at this time, that in order for the duct tape to secure the mandible in place, and at the same time be attached to the hair, all the while being exposed to said conditions, that the tape would have to reach further around then the current measurements of it would dictate.

I of course also leave this opinion open for change when and/or if this is disputed at trial. I was merely pointing out that as it stands now the conclusion is illogical to me when I take the measurements of the duct tape pieces into consideration.

Everyone is entitled to their opinion, however I would tend to believe the educated analysis and description of the trained medical examiner who actually observed the body.
http://health.discovery.com/fansites/drg/bio/bio.html

With the rarity of the tape and the fact that Casey had access to that type of tape I'd love to see the defense experts stumble over themselves trying to explain that one in a reasonable way. Which by the way have we even heard from the defense experts on anything in what like a year or more? Excluding JB's comment that his experts were beyond the age of technology.

The defense is responsible for handing over it's discovery just like the prosecution.....so far they have turned over? In fact didn't they miss a certain dead line? Just saying.

 

[LambChop]

OK, I think I understand. So you don't dispute that the duct tape was found over the mandible and had to be cut out of the hair (and, of course, the hair is visible in the pictures of the duct tape that were released and will be visible in the photos before the tape was removed), but you dispute that the duct tape was the cause of the mandible remaining in place?

Seems like not a very big deal to me. Who cares why the mandible remained in place? Maybe the head ended up upright early in the process and was not disturbed enough to move it from that position later on.

Or maybe the tape was applied so tight, say in a fit of anger, that it kept the mandible in place. But you are right the only way defense would challenge the good doctor is if they were planning on saying Caylee died from an accident. But then what would be the point of applying the tape so tight. We know the tape was there, we know it held the mandible in place so with 9 inches it may have been applied very tightly to her face. Poor baby. That would be sadder yet. jmo

 

[Astraea]

Oh My Gosh!!!!!!!!! I waited at least 10 mins for my response to post...and it didnt ...I am very mad about losing that right now. I will have to try to remember to copy when spending that much time on a post!!!!!

In more simple terms. My reason for taking issue with that conclusion, is that there ARE other reasons that the mandible could have been found in place, one being that the skull was found sitting upright. To go to the next step and imply that it was "clearly" the tape would be suggestive that Caylee was suffocated with the tape, and virtually denies the existance of any other possible reasoning. I personally feel that the conclusion was far reaching and illogical when taking the tape measurements into consideration.

On another note, I am under the understanding that the tape was NOT a match to the gas can, and yet I see others saying it does match. Can anyone point me to the actual conclusion to this issue?

 

[joypath]

I am well aware what the report states. I have read it over and over again at this point.

The measurements of the tape were stated above and it took me a very long time to find them. 9.5 inches was the longest. My "home" measurements tell me this would not fit around the head to attach into the hair(and my nephew is 2 and a half with an enormous head though...bless his little heart). Of course as I stated previously, this would depend on Caylees skull size.

I respect those who take the evidence presented at face value, but I can guarantee that other experts could and possibly WILL disagree with Dr. G. If medical examiners were always correct in their findings, some people wouldnt be found not guilty. As a matter of fact we had 60+ cases overturned here where the medical examiner was not correct in his findings..all children. One man spent 7 years in jail and another Mother originally charged for her daughters murder was freed(there was pubic hair evidence that the examiner hid)... no one can erase the public scrutiny of these people while they were charged and/or convicted...it happens....

If OTHERS take the report as telling them that the duct tape was still attached around the face into the back of the hair I respect that, but then I dont see the point for those same people to contribute anymore to this particular thread that is specifically about that evidence. How many ways can one repeat themselves?

You believe in Dr Gs findings..ok...I accept that you do....I personally find them questionable, and contradictory. I have been examining them closely, thus my current responses that can be found herein.

It is with great humility that I read your third paragraph as the points made are applicable to EVERY profession and can only BEG that the outcomes of such discordant situations be righteousness for those harmed and a "never again" scenario for the future, of this I pray!
Given that mea culpa however, I believe that it is crucial to differentiate between observations of factual material and opinion of factual material as utilized within the practice of forensic pathology.
The pathologist has available the raw material: the tape, the skull, hair and also has observed all pieces of the puzzle in ALL environments, ALONG with colleagues. Using ALL the factual material available AT the time, an opinion is rendered, usually in consultation with the aforementioned colleagues (I can confirm without a doubt that this WAS DONE in this case). This particular case involved a victim with a very small skeleton structure, her adult growth placement probably would be classified in the vernacular as "petite, delicate, small-boned" female. Given that general classification, the sizes of the tape would be adequate to achieve what was described in the autopsy report, which BTW, contrary to your statement " the report as telling them that the duct tape was still attached around the face into the back of the hair" did not specify that the tape was found exactly as you stated rather that it was "several overlapping pieces of duct tape, over the anterior portion of the lower skull, including mandible and a portion of the maxilla
1. Duct tape still attached to scalp hairs
2. Mandible still in approximate anatomical position with no visible attached soft tissue beneath the duct tape"

Now the opinion from the factual material: that the manner of death was a homicide, specific etiology unknown.

Here's where your hypothesis of experts diverging opinions may occur and that is exactly what the defense is anticipated to promote, an alternative interpretation of data. HOWEVER, the jury gets to apply that good old common sense approach to data and theory as in "if it looks like a duck & quacks like a duck, ..... might it be a mallard?

Yes, experts' opinions may be "purchased", usually in a case such as this the opinion rendered would be the 0.00001% chance of occurrence (also known as the unreasonable doubt!) or the opinion might be unentered as in the expert's report will never see the light of day! (defense need not turn over anything "unflattering" to his/her client!).

I make one final plea: remember that the medical examiner serves only one individual in this case, or for that matter ANY case, he or she speaks & serves for the DECEDENT!

 

[LambChop]

Thank you, Joypath, for explaining in terms that we can all understand.

 

[AZlawyer]

Oh My Gosh!!!!!!!!! I waited at least 10 mins for my response to post...and it didnt ...I am very mad about losing that right now. I will have to try to remember to copy when spending that much time on a post!!!!!

In more simple terms. My reason for taking issue with that conclusion, is that there ARE other reasons that the mandible could have been found in place, one being that the skull was found sitting upright. To go to the next step and imply that it was "clearly" the tape would be suggestive that Caylee was suffocated with the tape, and virtually denies the existance of any other possible reasoning. I personally feel that the conclusion was far reaching and illogical when taking the tape measurements into consideration.

On another note, I am under the understanding that the tape was NOT a match to the gas can, and yet I see others saying it does match. Can anyone point me to the actual conclusion to this issue?

I'm really trying to understand this idea. So, assuming Dr. G was not lying and the tape was really found where it was found, over the mouth and nasal cavities and stuck to the hair, you still see 2 options:

1. Option 1--The reason that the mandible stayed in place was because the tape held it there. Therefore, Caylee was suffocated with the tape.

2. Option 2--The reason that the mandible stayed in place was because the head remained upright once decomp really got started. Therefore, Caylee might have died from an accident.

Am I right that these are the 2 options you are considering? Where I think I'm losing you is at the "therefore" sentences in both options.

 

[joypath]

Thank you, Joypath, for explaining in terms that we can all understand.

No problem, too bad I',m so @#$%^& wordy! LOL, good thing my reports & certificates are "boilerplate"! LOL:angel:


PS: my staff "hates" when I go into "teacher" mode! :twocents:

 

[marspiter]

Oh My Gosh!!!!!!!!! I waited at least 10 mins for my response to post...and it didnt ...I am very mad about losing that right now. I will have to try to remember to copy when spending that much time on a post!!!!!

In more simple terms. My reason for taking issue with that conclusion, is that there ARE other reasons that the mandible could have been found in place, one being that the skull was found sitting upright. To go to the next step and imply that it was "clearly" the tape would be suggestive that Caylee was suffocated with the tape, and virtually denies the existance of any other possible reasoning. I personally feel that the conclusion was far reaching and illogical when taking the tape measurements into consideration.

On another note, I am under the understanding that the tape was NOT a match to the gas can, and yet I see others saying it does match. Can anyone point me to the actual conclusion to this issue?

To my understanding the tape was not an "exact" match but it was of the same rare/uncommon type/brand. I could be wrong as I'd have to go back and read it but I believe the samples were found to be chemically similar and from the same batch but could not be matched to the same roll because of the degradation of the fibers. Unless of course someone knows off the top of their head.

 

[Astraea]

I do believe that the pictures will speak louder then words whether spoken or in type. I understand when one peruses my posts in this thread that it could easily be inferred that I personally have a HUGE issue with Dr Gs conclusion. It is but a minor one really.

As is the case in many threads here, it is difficult to make an assertion and then "walk away" so to speak. I am going to have to work on setting my opinion out in one succinct detailed post I suppose.

I really just wondered about this evidence and have gotten much deeper into it then I originally intended. I will assert that the measurements of the tape do not indicate to me that the tape could have been wrapped in a way to hold the mandible in place, or that Caylee was suffocated with it. I am definitely open to reconsider that opinion when and/or if it is elaborated on at trial.

(dont know how to access smilies in this mode....so please insert the how the hell did I end up so entrenched in this topic anyway smiley)

 

[AZlawyer]

To my understanding the tape was not an "exact" match but it was of the same rare/uncommon type/brand. I could be wrong as I'd have to go back and read it but I believe the samples were found to be chemically similar and from the same batch but could not be matched to the same roll because of the degradation of the fibers. Unless of course someone knows off the top of their head.

IIRC:

Chemically similar, same brand and "model" with same printing and logo, same size (width), same thread composition EXCEPT that the Q66 (gas can) tape had cotton fibers twisted together with the poly fibers. The other tape (the remains tape) had no cotton fibers but the same number and placement of poly fibers as on the Q66 tape.

First report (re: chemical analysis, etc.) said consistent with coming from the same source. Second report (re: fibers) said not consistent with coming from the same roll. Nothing in the FBI bench notes shows any difference between the tape except for the lack of cotton fibers in the remains tape.

 

[Astraea]

I'm really trying to understand this idea. So, assuming Dr. G was not lying and the tape was really found where it was found, over the mouth and nasal cavities and stuck to the hair, you still see 2 options:

1. Option 1--The reason that the mandible stayed in place was because the tape held it there. Therefore, Caylee was suffocated with the tape.

2. Option 2--The reason that the mandible stayed in place was because the head remained upright once decomp really got started. Therefore, Caylee might have died from an accident.

Am I right that these are the 2 options you are considering? Where I think I'm losing you is at the "therefore" sentences in both options.

Stupid really, isnt it! At this point I dont even know what the defenses defense is!!!. I hope to heck it isnt the SODDI theory, and if it is I hope they have something REAL BIG hidden away! I have been looking at it from the devils advocate perspective I supppose and am trying to take into account all available options. :angel:

I also honestly feel that the State, LE, and Media (ick), have went so far out of their way to present "guilty" evidence that things have been embellished, distorted, and confused along the way. Their own evidence has begun to contradict itself in my opinion. I wish Dr G had just left out the clearly part, because it isnt clear in my opinion! This is but one example of what I mean.

I also understand fully that at trial this evidence will be presented much differently and hopefully, logically This is why I stated in my previous post that I dont know why I threw mysef into THIS particular issue anyway, as it honestly wasnt my intent when first posting ha! :innocent:

 

[Marina2]

The tape also covered the inferior portion of the mandible, i.e. under the chin.

The tape was not cut away from the hair because it was so tight but to preserve the original shape/placement on the mandible. This seemed to be important for future reference as to how the mandible was held in place. We'll hear more on this at trial.

ETA thoughts.

 

[LambChop]

SA's job is to present guilty evidence. They don't have to embellish, evidence is what it is. Media I can see embellishing, big time. They do a lot to hurt KC. LE has been very, very good to the A's. I do not see them doing anything wrong. To have a case thrown out because you've distorted evidence or embellished same would cost these people their jobs. You said so yourself....so what would be their motive. They want to see justice for Caylee no matter where the evidence points. Plain and simple.

jmo

 

[LambChop]

The tape also covered the inferior portion of the mandible, i.e. under the chin.

The tape was not cut away from the hair because it was so tight but to preserve the original shape/placement on the mandible. This seemed to be important for future reference as to how the mandible was held in place. We'll hear more on this at trial.

ETA thoughts.

This is awful to think about but in the other duct tape thread Bond has posted a theseus study about decomposition and cotton. Cotton is a vegetable fiber, plain and simple. When exposed to water and decomp. the cotton changes to glucose (simple syrup) sticky. So this could be why the tape stuck together. When the cotton was degrading and mixed with water and decomp it became sticky...not like glue, just sticky. That could be why the tape is described as being stuck together. JMO

 

[Harmony 2]

IIRC:

Chemically similar, same brand and "model" with same printing and logo, same size (width), same thread composition EXCEPT that the Q66 (gas can) tape had cotton fibers twisted together with the poly fibers. The other tape (the remains tape) had no cotton fibers but the same number and placement of poly fibers as on the Q66 tape.

First report (re: chemical analysis, etc.) said consistent with coming from the same source. Second report (re: fibers) said not consistent with coming from the same roll. Nothing in the FBI bench notes shows any difference between the tape except for the lack of cotton fibers in the remains tape.

The Henkel documents indicated that brand and "model" contained cotton and polyester.

page 1

http://www.wftv.com/pdf/21147538/detail.html

 

[marspiter]

This is what makes me believe the opinion of the medical examiners about the tape holding the mandible in place.

one:

"On December 11 Dr. Utz and Dr. Shuultz removed the skull from the brown paper collection bag by tearing the corners of the bag to expose the skull. A hair mat was noted on the base of the skull and grayish colored tape was noted covering the mouth and nasal aperture areas. The tape remained in place because it was adhered to the hair of the skull. In addition, the mandible was still retained underneath the base of the cranium positioned slightly posterior."

So for starters the skull and mandible remained intact during the evidence collection and transport of the remains. So if the skull was just "sitting" up right and the mandible wasn't attached in some fashion (ie tape) then imho the mandible would not have remained intact with the rest of the skull during collection and transport.

two:

"Animal damage was noted as chewing with punctures, pits, and ragged borders on the proximal ends of both the femora (right femora also exhibited a number of fractures due to animal chewing), the sternal end of the right clavical, the head of the left 10th rib, the left 8th rib (only a small aspect of the head remained), the base of the right second metatarsal and the inferior aspect of the left ilium the includes the acetabular portion."

In other words Caylee was eaten by scavenging animals. I personally do not find it reasonable to believe a mandible with no soft tissue or ligaments to keep it in place would remain intact with the skull given the amount of animal activity observed. Noticed the description on the activity. They didn't just remove the flesh, the bones were chewed and gnawed.

 

[ecs5298]

This is awful to think about but in the other duct tape thread Bond has posted a theseus study about decomposition and cotton. Cotton is a vegetable fiber, plain and simple. When exposed to water and decomp. the cotton changes to glucose (simple syrup) sticky. So this could be why the tape stuck together. When the cotton was degrading and mixed with water and decomp it became sticky...not like glue, just sticky. That could be why the tape is described as being stuck together. JMO

Everyone is also forgetting (pardon the expression for the squeamish) but decomp goo. That will hold things together as well.

The bottom line is that it is not speculation that it was stuck to the hair, it is a fact that was reported in Dr. G's post mortum report. I'm absolutely sure there are pictures to prove it and there may even be video showing her cutting it away. The problem is that we will probably never see them.

Dr. G. is a professional. The only side she advocates for is the decedent. Her "opinions" are based on science and years of experience. You can take that to the bank!

 

[Astraea]

Let us not forget about the hair mass with roots, as they could also have aided in keeping the mandible in place during transport of the remains. I would also like to believe that LE ensured they were transported with the utmost of care to preserve their state when found!