Autopsy Report - UCF Osteological Analysis-Duct Tape Info

[Anais]

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.

Good heavens, I cringe and start to cry for Caylee everytime I read this kind of stuff. How incredibly horrific!! It's like it wasn't enough that her mother killed her but to leave her to be further attacked.........Good God in Heaven! I just honestly do not see how GA or CA can even look their daughter in the face. As a parent I couldn't get past this and support my child until they came clean. I wonder if either of them has read or heard any of this or other evidence???

Sorry to go O/T and rant for a minute.

 

[marspiter]

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!

I'm sure LE operated according to their SOP. Hence the paper bag for the collection of the evidence. I would also like to point out that it was placed in a paper bag which would allow the specimen to move and jostle. The problem with the roots is they can't explain how the mandible stayed in place during the noted animal activity. I notice you didn't address that part of my quote.

 

[LambChop]

Most of these examiners are parents. Hard to believe they would be anything but professional. JMO

 

[Marina2]

I'm sure LE operated according to their SOP. Hence the paper bag for the collection of the evidence. I would also like to point out that it was placed in a paper bag which would allow the specimen to move and jostle. The problem with the roots is they can't explain how the mandible stayed in place during the noted animal activity. I notice you didn't address that part of my quote.

And the ME had this to say:

"Based on the position of the tape and mandible, it can be inferred that the mandible remained in this position because the tape held it in place prior to the hair forming into a mat on the base of the skull."

I'm anxious to hear her testimony about the position of the tape and the mandible.

 

[thedeviledadvocate]

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 sad to hear about a professional having that many cases overturned. That reminds me of the fiasco with the cadaver dog trainer who had been planting evidence. Hopefully in this case, Officer Cain’s dereliction of duty will be the only unprofessional actions that will come to light.

In regard to Dr. G’s report, I have questions as well. They cannot be answered by reading the report (since reading the report is what caused me to have so many questions), nor can they be answered by someone else’s interpretation of what the report says. So, I will have to wait until trial, and when Dr. G. is on the stand, I am quite certain all my questions will be answered at that time in regards to the autopsy report. MOO

 

[ZsaZsa]

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?

But wasn't the skull was found sitting upright after it rolled out of the bag... we will never know what position it was in up to then, but I doubt it was upright with nothing to support it- no spine, animals had scattered that around.. if she was originally upright, say recumbent against a tree, which I highly doubt- when her cervical or thoracic spine was disrupted her head would not have stayed upright IMO.. and there was no other internal ( no teeth left in place, no soft tissues of any kind ) or external support that could have kept that mandible where it was.

 

[Astraea]

I'm sure LE operated according to their SOP. Hence the paper bag for the collection of the evidence. I would also like to point out that it was placed in a paper bag which would allow the specimen to move and jostle. The problem with the roots is they can't explain how the mandible stayed in place during the noted animal activity. I notice you didn't address that part of my quote.

I didnt realize that I was supposed to be addressing your quote. My apologies, I will be sure to remember that next time

If I were to hazard an opinion about animal activity, I may just suggest that the animals pulled the tape into the nested hair mat. But I havent looked that deeply into it and I was actually planning on stepping away from this evidence, as I realize that until trial, no one knows. The report itself is contradictory, so I am certainly looking forward to this being expanded upon at trial.

ETA: I would also hope that the paper bag was not just placed in the back of a vehicle, like my gym bag, so as to let Caylees little skull "jostle" around in the back!

 

[AZlawyer]

I didnt realize that I was supposed to be addressing your quote. My apologies, I will be sure to remember that next time

If I were to hazard an opinion about animal activity, I may just suggest that the animals pulled the tape into the nested hair mat. But I havent looked that deeply into it and I was actually planning on stepping away from this evidence, as I realize that until trial, no one knows. The report itself is contradictory, so I am certainly looking forward to this being expanded upon at trial.

The tape was not found in the hair mat. The tape was over the mouth and nasal apertures, attached to the hair that still remained on the skull. The "hair mat" is the hair that had fallen off and was around the bottom of the skull.

 

[Astraea]

It is sad to hear about a professional having that many cases overturned. That reminds me of the fiasco with the cadaver dog trainer who had been planting evidence. Hopefully in this case, Officer Cain’s dereliction of duty will be the only unprofessional actions that will come to light.
In regard to Dr. G’s report, I have questions as well. They cannot be answered by reading the report (since reading the report is what caused me to have so many questions), nor can they be answered by someone else’s interpretation of what the report says. So, I will have to wait until trial, and when Dr. G. is on the stand, I am quite certain all my questions will be answered at that time in regards to the autopsy report. MOO

I agree, I am looking forward to the testimony as well.

BBM...Could you tell me what you mean by this or direct me to a thread, or is this about an entirely different case. :waitasec:

 

[Astraea]

But wasn't the skull was found sitting upright after it rolled out of the bag... we will never know what position it was in up to then, but I doubt it was upright with nothing to support it- no spine, animals had scattered that around.. if she was originally upright, say recumbent against a tree, which I highly doubt- when her cervical or thoracic spine was disrupted her head would not have stayed upright IMO.. and there was no other internal ( no teeth left in place, no soft tissues of any kind ) or external support that could have kept that mandible where it was.

This is yet another piece of evidence that is contradictory. Roy Kronk says it fell out, and the reports say, nope thats not possible.

 

[Astraea]

The tape was not found in the hair mat. The tape was over the mouth and nasal apertures, attached to the hair that still remained on the skull. The "hair mat" is the hair that had fallen off and was around the bottom of the skull.

Well then. I had this vision of the tape being still attached to the mat of hair at the base of the skull. So NOW upon reread (again!), I am suppposed to believe the even crazier notion that there was still head hair on a skull with no tissue whatsoever, and that tape was still attached to it? Good grief...I will be waiting for trial as this evidence is just much too illogical to me.;

:banghead:

Not to mention that NOW I am supposed to only half believe Roy Kronk!!

:banghead:

ETA: Sorry for my moment .....I forgot why I quit reading about this case in detail a long time ago!!!

I feel the need to clarify this post, but just cant be bothered....but my other posts should suffice to show that I have read about this topic!!

BUT, the more I read the more confused I find myself!

 

[elementary]

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?

What evidence and reasoning do you have to support your conclusion? Forgive me but it's kind of a crazy theory because I don't get the relation between uprightness and the placement of the mandible and the duct tape. Like did the duct tape kinda float along till it landed on this upright skull's mandible and entangled in Caylee's hair?

 

[marspiter]

I didnt realize that I was supposed to be addressing your quote. My apologies, I will be sure to remember that next time

If I were to hazard an opinion about animal activity, I may just suggest that the animals pulled the tape into the nested hair mat. But I havent looked that deeply into it and I was actually planning on stepping away from this evidence, as I realize that until trial, no one knows. The report itself is contradictory, so I am certainly looking forward to this being expanded upon at trial.

ETA: I would also hope that the paper bag was not just placed in the back of a vehicle, like my gym bag, so as to let Caylees little skull "jostle" around in the back!

In what way is the report contradictory? Do you have some specific examples where the report contradicts itself?

As to the paper bag I'm not saying it was tossed about in a hap hazard manor. However a paper bag is a paper bag and has qualities that make it a paper bag. For example a paper bag is not a rigid container. It's not like the skull was placed inside a hermetically sealed plastic container or foam molded package. A paper bag is going to allow for some amount of movement. Picture a cantaloupe in a paper bag for example. Even in a box it's still going to allow for a certain amount of movement. There was no connective tissue holding the mandible in place. So therefore something had to be holding it in place. My question is if it's not the duct tape that held it in place then what could have held the mandible in place and underwent all the activity that the skull went through (animals, weather, and such) during it's entire exposure from the time the body was placed to when it was found..

I personally see nothing that can other then the duct tape. The hair mat and roots could contribute but they can't be the sole item holding the mandible in place because the roots would not explain how the mandible stayed on during the animal activity and before the roots grew into the mat.

 

[AZlawyer]

Well then. I had this vision of the tape being still attached to the mat of hair at the base of the skull. So NOW upon reread (again!), I am suppposed to believe the even crazier notion that there was still head hair on a skull with no tissue whatsoever, and that tape was still attached to it? Good grief...I will be waiting for trial as this evidence is just much too illogical to me.;

:banghead:

Not to mention that NOW I am supposed to only half believe Roy Kronk!!

:banghead:

ETA: Sorry for my moment .....I forgot why I quit reading about this case in detail a long time ago!!!

I feel the need to clarify this post, but just cant be bothered....but my other posts should suffice to show that I have read about this topic!!

BUT, the more I read the more confused I find myself!

Photo of a skull with hair still attached from an Inca cemetery appx. 500 years old:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/olmedia/1935000/images/_1937001_incaskullagain300.jpg

Accompanying news story:

http://images.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://news.bbc.co.uk/olmedia/1935000/images/_1937001_incaskullagain300.jpg&imgrefurl=http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/1937001.stm&usg=__-VBoD6dpZO0Ho_JeeaBcPYjSnIc=&h=180&w=300&sz=16&hl=en&start=13&sig2=iT9j3etIg3NwrOMgRaK6Lg&um=1&itbs=1&tbnid=p21n388y5XHr8M:&tbnh=70&tbnw=116&prev=/images%3Fq%3Dskull%2Bwith%2Bhair%26um%3D1%26hl%3Den%26tbs%3Disch:1&ei=UdPQS7mpGZf8swPz5NTECQ

 

[Astraea]

What evidence and reasoning do you have to support your conclusion? Forgive me but it's kind of a crazy theory because I don't get the relation between uprightness and the placement of the mandible and the duct tape. Like did the duct tape kinda float along till it landed on this upright skull's mandible and entangled in Caylee's hair?

Please reread this entire thread, as well as the reports, and the duct tape photo thread. It took a long time, but I did, and they explained alot. At the same time they left me feeling very confused. You will see how I reached my conclusions. They are well documented, as well as my reasons for reaching said conclusions.

For today, my brain simply can not handle any more autopsy discussion, nor do I feel like repeating myself.

 

[Astraea]

Photo of a skull with hair still attached from an Inca cemetery appx. 500 years old:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/olmedia/1935000/images/_1937001_incaskullagain300.jpg

Accompanying news story:

http://images.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://news.bbc.co.uk/olmedia/1935000/images/_1937001_incaskullagain300.jpg&imgrefurl=http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/1937001.stm&usg=__-VBoD6dpZO0Ho_JeeaBcPYjSnIc=&h=180&w=300&sz=16&hl=en&start=13&sig2=iT9j3etIg3NwrOMgRaK6Lg&um=1&itbs=1&tbnid=p21n388y5XHr8M:&tbnh=70&tbnw=116&prev=/images%3Fq%3Dskull%2Bwith%2Bhair%26um%3D1%26hl%3Den%26tbs%3Disch:1&ei=UdPQS7mpGZf8swPz5NTECQ

Very good AZLawyer...thank you...I guess I should have clarified.... as I knew this already...the rant...was just that...a rant....

ETA: I assumed you would know from the ETA what I meant....will remember to clarify always!

 

[ynotdivein]

And who will hold KC down while SA is describing what may have happened.

RSBM... Judging from the rules for decorum we saw in the "Judge Belvin Perry" thread, it will take lots of Botox AND some Zanax.

Hm. "Zani" the chemical "nanny" restraining KC in the courtroom. Indeed. The irony is rich.

(With all due respect to HHSS, and to Sleutherontheside who made the original Botox comment which I am not sleuthy enough to figure out how to add in here.... and IMO of course!)

 

[marspiter]

Photo of a skull with hair still attached from an Inca cemetery appx. 500 years old:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/olmedia/1935000/images/_1937001_incaskullagain300.jpg

Accompanying news story:

http://images.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://news.bbc.co.uk/olmedia/1935000/images/_1937001_incaskullagain300.jpg&imgrefurl=http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/1937001.stm&usg=__-VBoD6dpZO0Ho_JeeaBcPYjSnIc=&h=180&w=300&sz=16&hl=en&start=13&sig2=iT9j3etIg3NwrOMgRaK6Lg&um=1&itbs=1&tbnid=p21n388y5XHr8M:&tbnh=70&tbnw=116&prev=/images%3Fq%3Dskull%2Bwith%2Bhair%26um%3D1%26hl%3Den%26tbs%3Disch:1&ei=UdPQS7mpGZf8swPz5NTECQ

I also think in the decomp thread. The one with the warning about potentially disturbing photos this had been talked about to if I'm not mistaken. lol Wish my memory was better but there just so many details in this case. I know it was talked about though with some pretty good evidence to back up the fact that hair can remain on a skull when the tissue is gone.

 

[elementary]

Please reread this entire thread, as well as the reports, and the duct tape photo thread. It took a long time, but I did, and they explained alot. At the same time they left me feeling very confused. You will see how I reached my conclusions. They are well documented, as well as my reasons for reaching said conclusions.

For today, my brain simply can not handle any more autopsy discussion, nor do I feel like repeating myself.

Actually, my question and the logic are not that complicated.

Sorry your brain is fatigued.

 

[ZsaZsa]

This is yet another piece of evidence that is contradictory. Roy Kronk says it fell out, and the reports say, nope thats not possible.[/QUOTE

This is verbatim what Roy Kronk say to YMelich immediately after finding the skull. The complete report is on You tube, various doc sites.

" And I took my stick and hit it and it thudded. And it sounded like either plastic, or like you know,hollow bone or something. And, and so I took my stick and I - which is curved for meter boxes- and I grabbed the bottom of the bag and I pulled it. And I pulled it the second time and then, umm, a human skull dropped out with the hair around it and duct tape across the mouth.
And I went Oh GOD".