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

[Dr. Know?]

Thanks Gram! Embalmed only. I've see what I've seen. No ear fluids unless embalmed? Thanks!

 

[grandmaj]

Tape being put on the face to stop purge is not something someone like a police officer(George) would even begin to believe would stop the after affects of the natural progression that happens with decomp.

Think about a peach. What happens when you peel the skin off of a peach. What do you have underneath. The pulp and the liquids right? This theory makes no sense.

 

[grandmaj]

I'm afraid to ask. What's an embalmed "client"? :silenced:

I work in the funeral profession. I'm not an embalmer just work the service end. But sometimes when these issues occur we have to deal with them.

 

[grandmaj]

Thanks Gram! Embalmed only. I've see what I've seen. No ear fluids unless embalmed? Thanks!

No actually I've seen it under both circumstances. We see it more with post autopsy. Sorry should have said that.

 

[Kat]

I don't think that statement is correct. I'll check it out but I've had kids. I've seen macoroni out of noses and for some reason I've seen smoke out of ears. LOL It's connected, the respiratory tracts...

Eustachian tubes. Especially in small children. (only know that because I had one with ear tubes inserted twice)

 

[Nore]

AHHHH (not directed at you)

Dr. G DID take marrow samples from Caylee's tibia. It is in the autopsy report. I have NO clue why Dr. Spitz felt he needed to cut the calvarium to obtain bone marrow...he was a bit flummoxed trying to answer that one.

And I believe JA did point out bone marrow was taken IIRC but I've been awake a long long time so I could be wrong on that.

-----------
BritsKate. Thank you!!! I knew I read that but wast sure where. I believe she also took bone scrapings. She also saved a piece of bone. She dotted all i's and crossed all t's. Dr.S. didnt read it all or forgot.

 

[Just Jayla]

As I have written here before, I appreciate Dr. G because she goes to the greatest lengths to tell the last story a human being has to tell. I have watched amazing episodes of her show where she just did not relent until she could completely identify with the deceaseds' final moments on this earth.
Dr. Spitz, to a jury, was quite scientific but failed, IMO, to humanize his subject. This is, after all, the story of what happened to a beautiful 2 year old child. These doctors, Dr. G and Dr. S, must give voice to the dead, and I think Dr. G does that so much better that Dr. Spitz.
Beyond science, she had palpable disdain for the reckless fashion that Caylee was bagged and discarded. All doctors have a bedside manner in one way or another, and Dr. G's bedside manner for her "patients" is the kind that we all would like to have. This does not lessen her abilities as a scientist-but it does endear her to the jury, who are the people that count most right now.

 

[Kimster]

Grandmaj is verified to be in the funeral profession.

 

[Kelroy]

Folks, the concern shouldn't be how to defeat DT or to support SA, rather it should be finding the truth. This is not a football match.

I can't emphasize enough how much I agree with this, and it's the attitude I'm trying to take toward the case. I hope I'm not overstepping my bounds, but I'm still disheartened when I see people criticizing any defense witness for "testifying for a killer" and not "for Caylee." It's not that cut-and-dried, and it makes me worried; if I don't totally buy the state's theory, am I sympathizing with "a killer" against the victim? I don't think so.

I don't think Dr. S was at all credible, but suppose he had been--suppose he could cite protocols and show that the sediment in the skull had meaning. We shouldn't condemn testimony just because it helps the defense; rather, it might be better to consider whether testimony truly creates a reasonable doubt. Again, Dr. S really angered and saddened me (as did the entomologist from Friday), but let's not think of this as a game in which anyone who casts doubt on the state's case is wholly an opponent or villain.

Anywaaaaay, as for fluid purging, which is one of the grossest things I've ever contemplated--isn't the body pretty horrible looking when it gets to that point? I mean, is that the bloat stage? I can't imagine someone putting duct tape on a body that was in that condition; trash bags would be better for containing fluid for a number of reasons. But as others have said, since the defense's chief expert testified that the tape was placed on a bare skull--well, that would negate that theory anyway. (I also agree with others that the defense was never going to throw out a narrative that had Casey placing duct tape anywhere on the body; their story has her completely innocent of everything.)

 

[Just Jayla]

Folks, the concern shouldn't be how to defeat DT or to support SA, rather it should be finding the truth. This is not a football match.

A few mistakes by Dr S doesn't make him incompetent. State did a mistake by denying him access to autopsy. He does have a point in opening the skull and testing the residue inside as in another case the found traces of sleeping pills in that residue. Ok he talked about a non-existent protocol. So what? Now is anything else he says also incorrect?
DT has a goal to acquit KC of charges no matter what, tricks, lies, etc.
However does SA have a goal of getting KC convicted no matter what?

Those of you who hated Baez for holding the title of Mr Overruled should begin to hate JA for exactly same reason now.

BBM-I think this goes to the heart of the matter-It is not what we want to see here on this forum, it is what a jury believes. One incorrect statement can sway the jury one way or the other. The issue then is whether or not the jury will forgive that mistep, and that can be very much based on how much the jury likes the witness. When they deliberate, if they like Dr. S, they will stand up for what he says and defend inaccuracies. Same if they like Dr. G.
This is why I believe Dr. G makes the better witness-not necessarily the better scientist. Same reason we defend JA vs. JB....we can overlook JA's faults because we like what (or who) he is standing for. And that can translate to what facts are considered in deliberation.

 

[grandmaj]

I can't emphasize enough how much I agree with this, and it's the attitude I'm trying to take toward the case. I hope I'm not overstepping my bounds, but I'm still disheartened when I see people criticizing any defense witness for "testifying for a killer" and not "for Caylee." It's not that cut-and-dried, and it makes me worried; if I don't totally buy the state's theory, am I sympathizing with "a killer" against the victim? I don't think so.

I don't think Dr. S was at all credible, but suppose he had been--suppose he could cite protocols and show that the sediment in the skull had meaning. We shouldn't condemn testimony just because it helps the defense; rather, it might be better to consider whether testimony truly creates a reasonable doubt. Again, Dr. S really angered and saddened me (as did the entomologist from Friday), but let's not think of this as a game in which anyone who casts doubt on the state is wholly an opponent or villain.

Anywaaaay, as for fluid purging, which is one of the grossest things I've ever contemplated--isn't the body pretty horrible looking when it gets to that point? I mean, is that the bloat stage? I can't imagine someone putting duct tape on a body that was in that condition; trash bags would be better for containing fluid for a number of reasons. But as others have said, since the defense's chief expert testified that the tape was placed on a bare skull--well, that would negate that theory anyway. (I also agree with others that the defense was never going to throw out a narrative that had Casey placing duct tape anywhere on the body; their story has her completely innocent of everything.)

I will agree. No one would suffer the consequences of poking around in plastic bags where decomp has occurred to reposition the mandible of a loved one. Even if it isn't a loved one there is no way this would have any benefit for anyone. It would make a person not used to witnessing these things retch. I can't in my wildest dreams see George doing this. Or even Casey. I mean how could she? It is humanly not normal. Even Kronk? What would he have to gain by having a skull minus a mandible? So he thought the skull was more valuable with a mandible? NO.

I can't get there. There is no normal reason for duct tape on the face of a child. NONE. That tape had to have been there from day 1 is my opinion.

 

[Trapshooter]

Thank you.

It bothered me that he couldn't remember an interview he did last week, but he could remember an autopsy he did years earlier. It also bothered me that he didn't remember breaking Caylee's skull, and his hypothesis regarding the duct tape was an embarrassment to his good name.

Also, I'm bothered by the fact the he agreed with Ashton that knowing the facts surrounding the case is very important for rendering an opinion, but he didn't know know the facts, yet still sat there and opined on Caylee's death. When cornered, he accused someone in the ME's office of staging a photo of the remains.

Overall, I didn't find Dr Spitz's testimony that of a renowned forensic pathologist.

And that's a shame, because he's a brilliant man.

Turnadot & LongtimeMedic I truly appreciate your posts and opinions. I know we have differing opinions of Dr. G and Dr. S but it's okay to agree to disagree.

I was somewhat concerned for Dr. S on the stand today. At one time, he DID have a brilliant mind but I'm afraid the years and the early onset of senility may have set in already. Senility is just a fact about growing older. I see it in my aging aunts all the time. It is sad, really, to watch them remember something they did 20 years ago so vividly yet not remember if they went to the doctor for their appointment two days ago.

When Dr. S opined that he believed the duct tape was put on the skull after being moved & handled, I felt sorry for him. His claim was so absurd because the duct tape had clearly disintegrated into the form in which it was found. Then when he claimed "shoddy work" on behalf of Dr. G and saying "someone" had placed the hair "there", well, it was pitiful to watch.

I am sure Dr. S was GREAT "in his day" but the years have taken their toll. I'm not bashing Dr. S nor bashing his age but it clearly seemed to me that Dr. S at times was not cohesive, not cognizant of how Caylee died, and IMO, therefore unable to render a clear & precise opinion.

 

[butwhatif?]

How was Dr. G's opinion "not scientific", or "biased?" Because she took into consideration the surroundings and other facts of the death? These things are commonly used to determine the manner and cause of death.

While it's a pretty logical assumption that a childs skeletal remains found in trash bags with duct tape was a homicide, I don't think it's conclusive enough to list it as a homicide.
I don't believe it personally, but it's still possible that it was a cover-up of an accidental death.

JMO

 

[Boytwnmom]

Really? This was not a matter of professional courtesy. This was a matter of a defense attorney who clearly knew the body found was that of his clients' murdered daughter and he wanted to get his expert in the room with the ME while she was performing her duties on behalf of the victim. Ridiculous

Yes corrected it. Thanks.

Well as Dr S said it's custom to do that. Examiners even invite each other cross country to be there while autopsy is done.
If you have ever been to a hospital you would know that doctors do that often too.

 

[MissJames]

After the cross from Ashton of Dr. S - definitely Dr. G. She came across as the most credible. She knew all aspects of the case, unlike Dr. Spitz. She was extremely passionate, and gave Mason a lesson in what not to ask a witness on cross exam. For Pete's sake, Dr. S. did not even know the grandparents' names, let alone Caylee's. He is resting on his laurels, and does not even care about the victims, or performing a proper investigation. He came across as so arrogant - almost as if his opinion is the only one that is correct and should matter. Ashton was absolutely briliant in his cross, I was afraid before he started, but when he asked the first series of questions, I knew Dr. S. was going down. It was almost painful to watch, Ashton succeeded in showing the jury that Dr. S. testimony could not be relied upon. In the WFTV video of Scheaffer's analysis of the today's trial with Belich, Belich stated that she spoke to Dr. S. directly after his testimony was over, and Dr. S. said that Ashton did well. Which is something from a guy who has been on the stands so many times.

:welcome4:

 

[goldenlover]

His testimony is probably still being transcribed, but if I find it, you'll be the first to know. :}

I remember him saying this also.

 

[Disguiseduser0308]

Dr. S went into the realm of ridiculous when talking about someone placing tape on Caylee's jaw so her body could be moved around. After hearing that, it didn't matter to me what he said before. It was a ridiculous accusation and one that a true professional could not attest to on a stand.

DT bought this witness and it couldn't have been more obvious.

JMO

 

[MissJames]

I can't emphasize enough how much I agree with this, and it's the attitude I'm trying to take toward the case. I hope I'm not overstepping my bounds, but I'm still disheartened when I see people criticizing any defense witness for "testifying for a killer" and not "for Caylee." It's not that cut-and-dried, and it makes me worried; if I don't totally buy the state's theory, am I sympathizing with "a killer" against the victim? I don't think so.

I don't think Dr. S was at all credible, but suppose he had been--suppose he could cite protocols and show that the sediment in the skull had meaning. We shouldn't condemn testimony just because it helps the defense; rather, it might be better to consider whether testimony truly creates a reasonable doubt. Again, Dr. S really angered and saddened me (as did the entomologist from Friday), but let's not think of this as a game in which anyone who casts doubt on the state's case is wholly an opponent or villain.

Anywaaaaay, as for fluid purging, which is one of the grossest things I've ever contemplated--isn't the body pretty horrible looking when it gets to that point? I mean, is that the bloat stage? I can't imagine someone putting duct tape on a body that was in that condition; trash bags would be better for containing fluid for a number of reasons. But as others have said, since the defense's chief expert testified that the tape was placed on a bare skull--well, that would negate that theory anyway. (I also agree with others that the defense was never going to throw out a narrative that had Casey placing duct tape anywhere on the body; their story has her completely innocent of everything.)

I have watched complete trials when I had questions about a defendants guilt. I've watched when ,although I thought a defendant was guilty,I didn't think the State had a strong case for a guilty verdict. There have also been times when I was very suspicious of LE and thought they were a tad too over zealous to be completely believed.
I have followed this case,not in the media,because they always get info wrong,IMO. I have followed it by reading the discovery,watching and listening to all the LE interviews,reading transcripts,motions, watching the hearings. I've watched or read every depo that's been posted.
The DT doesn't just try to defend ICA,they have pulled some looloos . JB has had several Bar complaints lodged against him since this started. The Judge(s) often have to tell him how to write a proper motion. JB was sanctioned for not complying with a court order .He was called out again today,for the same thing and now has a possible Contempt charge hanging over his head.
And the very hinky money issue ,in the beginning of this case,is not over,IMO. I think JB may still be facing something related to that once this trial is concluded.
Today was a trial by ambush. Stunk to high heaven's and Dr. S ,who gave MANY INTERVIEWS AND MEDIA ROUNDS ABOUT THIS CASE (despite the fact he doesn't remember them) was right in the middle of it.

I don't begrudge or usually dislike most DT experts.I find their testimony fascinating. It's the history of THIS DT,that sets the stage for my distrust of their experts,and so far I've been right ,again,IMO.
ETA Are you aware that Dr. Baden ,a DT consultant ,changed his opinion of FACTS he had stated in the media,once he was hired by the DT? Cheney Mason also said she was obviously guilty ,in an interview,until he became part of the team.

 

[RoseTree]

Dr. S went into the realm of ridiculous when talking about someone placing tape on Caylee's jaw so her body could be moved around. After hearing that, it didn't matter to me what he said before. It was a ridiculous accusation and one that a true professional could not attest to on a stand.

DT bought this witness and it couldn't have been more obvious.

JMO

YES, exactly this. I was nervous when I heard his level of expertise (I didn't see it live), but when I heard this, I felt like the man had sold out. That is the most ridiculous thing I have ever heard. Someone got their hands dirty to move this body just 30 feet in? Why not go ahead and move the body to a far more hidden place if you are willing to place duct tape on a badly decomposed body.

I always thought that the reason that it was so close was because the body was beginning to decompose and smell, and iCA couldn't get rid of it fast enough once that happened.

 

[QuietStorm]

It goes without saying. And I'm just sayin . . .