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

[Donjeta]

And therein lies the rub, at least for me, ITA that it's reasonable to assume that a normal parent's first instinct would be to try and get help, or if they didn't immediately seek help (I've had situations where parents just totally froze), they certainly reported the accident once reality set in. But nothing in Casey's behavior prior to June 16th would indicate to me that she's "normal" in the context of this scenario, so making assumptions about her behavior based on what a "normal" parent would do aren't particularly useful to me in trying to understand what actually happened that day. Again, I'm not arguing that she wasn't responsible, because I think she is, it's just that I think her behavior and reactions are so *abnormal* that I can't say with any certainty that she wouldn't try and cover up an accidental death if it suited her purposes at the time.

It is possible but that's not really her defense, is it? That she covered up an accident because she's an abnormal parent I mean. The defense says she is a loving caring good parent and George made her cover it up, for unfathomable reasons of his own.

 

[miabellamoure]

Wow...it was all I could do but, pull my hair out after listening to Dr S & his testimony...ugh!

The obvious rehearsed tearful moments of ICA as Dr S discussed the "skull" and her attorney's (can't think of her name) casual glances at ICA & handing her a tissue under the table as a cue to step it up and produce some visible tears was so obvious...makes me want to :sick:

My concluding thoughts...Dr S, please take your "apron" & have a lovely rest of your life at the old folks home & ICA please take your broke murderous azz back to your cell and by all means have a horrible rest of your waste of a life!:loser:

 

[Donjeta]

Is there any logical reason someone would not report an accident?
(Apart from ICA of course) :crazy:

Not really unless it's CYA and you think it's gonna get you in trouble somehow.

I assume most people would think they'd get in more trouble if they try to stage an accident as a kidnapping or murder.

 

[GeekyGirl]

It is possible but that's not really her defense, is it? That she covered up an accident because she's an abnormal parent I mean. The defense says she is a loving caring good parent and George made her cover it up, for unfathomable reasons of his own.

Oh, I agree with you on this, but again, I think her "defense" is entirely consistent with her behavior. I truly believe she feels like she can still escape from this mess without having to accept any responsibility whatsoever for Caylee's death. I guess I'm just trying to understand the truth of what happened to that poor child, and at the moment, neither that state nor the prosecution has presented an explanation that I can accept without reasonable doubt.

 

[Cailin Rua]

Regarding the "what if she was stiff" business by CM, it takes about 3 hours for rigor mortis to set in. I don't believe for a minute that there were two adults in a house and a baby wandered off for 3 hours with nobody looking for her.

 

[beeshie]

My keywords were "indicate" versus "definitively demonstrate"; sorry for the confusion. I haven't seen anything yet that fully explains why Dr. G would say this proves or even necessarily demonstrates homicide rather than simply indicates it. I'm not saying she doesn't have a basis for that, I just wish she had explained it further. That's all.

I really hope this doesn't sound snarky; if it does, please forgive me: Yes, I'm aware that behavioral science is a science. I'm aware that not only is behavioral science a science, but so are history and economics and a host of other disciplines that perhaps the general public does not usually associate with science. (The latter two fall under the social sciences, of course.) So, yes, I do understand that not all science is conducted in a laboratory. I have a PhD in a social science discipline, and my long experience within academic institutions has made me well aware of the different branches of science.

I will concede, however, that I did not realize that medical examiners relied extensively on behavioral science in order to determine manner of death (until she said so on the stand); I was surprised by that, actually, though I have no reason to doubt it. When I questioned how her ruling was determined scientifically, I suppose I was referring more to some other statements she made that do not, at first glance, seem like facts that can be verified scientifically: "100% of accidents are reported" and "a child should not have duct tape on its face." I've no doubt that all accidents should be reported and that no child should have duct tape on its face, but these seem, at first glance, less verifiable facts than assumptions or beliefs. I'm sure Dr. G could explain further; she didn't get a chance to do so, however.

Still, I'm not impeaching this witness! As I said, I found her likable and credible. However, I had some questions about her statements that were not cleared up in direct or cross. I stand by my original assertion that I wish her ruling, based on those three red flags, could be further explained, and that it does leave some room for debate. She ruled the death a homicide of undetermined means; in a death penalty case that seems to depend on whether the death was a homicide or an accident, of course that's going to be debated. It's just not airtight, though nobody has said anything on the stand so far to discredit it. JMO.

And let me state, for the record, one more time: I found Dr. Spitz to be a terrible witness and I find Dr. Garavaglia's findings infinitely more credible.

Good post. I don't think her findings need to be airtight, just as none of the evidence in this case needs to be airtight. It just needs to be beyond a reasonable doubt. The jury will weigh her testimony just as they would any other witness'.

I believe she stated that her office conducted observational studies that showed, of the accidental drownings that came through her morgue, 100% were reported unless there was a good reason not to. I don't remember her giving examples of good reasons not to, so one can only assume what those were.

Let's say the ME receives a body with a gunshot wound. By this alone, they can't determine manner of death unless they know the circumstances i.e. other evidence at the scene. Based upon the evidence, they can make a determination of manner of death (suicide, homicide, accident). Is it airtight? No, because the ME wasn't there when the person was shot. They can only make a determination based upon observational studies, which is what Dr. G did.

I hope this helps!

 

[Tuffy]

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...

The ears are connected to the throat by the Eustachian tubes. That is why swallowing during take-off keeps your ears from popping.

 

[Mountain_Kat]

And therein lies the rub, at least for me, ITA that it's reasonable to assume that a normal parent's first instinct would be to try and get help, or if they didn't immediately seek help (I've had situations where parents just totally froze), they certainly reported the accident once reality set in. But nothing in Casey's behavior prior to June 16th would indicate to me that she's "normal" in the context of this scenario, so making assumptions about her behavior based on what a "normal" parent would do aren't particularly useful to me in trying to understand what actually happened that day. Again, I'm not arguing that she wasn't responsible, because I think she is, it's just that I think her behavior and reactions are so *abnormal* that I can't say with any certainty that she wouldn't try and cover up an accidental death if it suited her purposes at the time.

Can you offer your thoughts as to why GA would not call 911 upon finding his grand daughter accidentally drown? Or why he would put the dead body of his grand daughter in the trunk of his daughter's car, and leave her to rot there for 3-5 days before dumping the body into a trash heap?

 

[BetteDavisEyes]

Snipped for space and BBM.

I think we all know that it's not true that 100 % of accidents are reported. But did she really say that?

IIRC she said something to the effect that all children's accidental drownings that her office had investigated were reported unless there was a good reason not to.

You could argue that it's a circular argument. If you use reported/not reported as a factor in making the accident/homicide distinction then it's not surprising to find that accidents were reported. Sure, otherwise they wouldn't have been classified as accidents.

But it makes sense and fits the normal every day experience. If a parent finds her child in dire straits normally the first instinct is to try and get help and not cover one's azz.

You are correct. Dr. G's comment about "100% accidents being reported" was specifically about drownings - not all cases of accidental death in children.

 

[Tuffy]

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.)

BBM:

I don't have a problem with any of the experts testifying for either side. As long as they get up there and tell the truth. I didn't get the feeling that Dr. S was there to lend his scientific knowledge to the Defense Team. He came across as a scientist that had been paid to show up and tell the jury that Dr. G did a shoddy autopsy, that the tape was placed on the skull, and that the ME's office had tampered with evidence.

When asked about the facts of the case, he didn't seem to know them. He didn't have any notes with him, and seemed completely unprepared. He had to be told to prepare a report years after his exam. To me this says that his role in this trial was more of a hired gun, than anything else. Dr. S afterward, by thanking Ashton and saying "good job" only solidifies that belief for me.

 

[GeekyGirl]

Can you offer your thoughts as to why GA would not call 911 upon finding his grand daughter accidentally drown? Or why he would put the dead body of his grand daughter in the trunk of his daughter's car, and leave her to rot there for 3-5 days before dumping the body into a trash heap?

I don't think any of those arguments by the defense are true at all. I fully believe Caylee was in Casey's care when she died, and that Casey tried to cover up the death. What I can't say is that I have a firm conviction that death resulted from a criminal act (be it willful murder or aggravated child abuse) rather than a neglectful one. I know that's frustrating, and I apologize. I mean no disrespect to anyone else or their beliefs, it's just my opinion.

 

[Mountain_Kat]

BBM:

I don't have a problem with any of the experts testifying for either side. As long as they get up there and tell the truth. I didn't get the feeling that Dr. S was there to lend his scientific knowledge to the Defense Team. He came across as a scientist that had been paid to show up and tell the jury that Dr. G did a shoddy autopsy, that the tape was placed on the skull, and that the ME's office had tampered with evidence.

When asked about the facts of the case, he didn't seem to know them. He didn't have any notes with him, and seemed completely unprepared. He had to be told to prepare a report years after his exam. To me this says that his role in this trial was more of a hired gun, than anything else. Dr. S afterward, by thanking Ashton and saying "good job" only solidifies that belief for me.

I couldn't agree with you more, Tuffy.

 

[Sleuth5]

BBM:

I don't have a problem with any of the experts testifying for either side. As long as they get up there and tell the truth. I didn't get the feeling that Dr. S was there to lend his scientific knowledge to the Defense Team. He came across as a scientist that had been paid to show up and tell the jury that Dr. G did a shoddy autopsy, that the tape was placed on the skull, and that the ME's office had tampered with evidence.

When asked about the facts of the case, he didn't seem to know them. He didn't have any notes with him, and seemed completely unprepared. He had to be told to prepare a report years after his exam. To me this says that his role in this trial was more of a hired gun, than anything else. Dr. S afterward, by thanking Ashton and saying "good job" only solidifies that belief for me.

ITA. I expect a difference of opinion, but ideally one would like to see that expressed professionally. Dr.S. fairly seethed with an agenda. His testimony sounded less like an educated response to questioning than as a lecture interrupted by occasional questions. Lobbing bombs out like the wholly unfounded claim that the ME's office had staged the photos of the skull, solely based on his personal say-so and ability "to tell you horror stories," was spurious at best.

Volunteered sensationalism doesn't come across as expert testimony no matter who you are or what your background is. As far as I'm concerned, that was the end of his credibility right there.

:cow:

 

[Reality Orlando]

I don't think any of those arguments by the defense are true at all. I fully believe Caylee was in Casey's care when she died, and that Casey tried to cover up the death. What I can't say is that I have a firm conviction that death resulted from a criminal act (be it willful murder or aggravated child abuse) rather than a neglectful one. I know that's frustrating, and I apologize. I mean no disrespect to anyone else or their beliefs, it's just my opinion.

I totally agree with you.

 

[Tuffy]

Snipped for space.

I didn't know this. It's a concern IMO. In my field the protocol is that the report should be ready and filed within five days of meeting the patient. It tends to endanger the patient's rights if the report is based on hazy memory from two years ago.

It would take longer for a ME's report if you have to wait for lab results but he didn't send any samples to the lab, did he?

Hopefully he took very good notes. I wouldn't trust my memory if I was him and couldn't even keep the names and my interviews from last week straight.

I think the jury noticed the memory problems he had, and I'm sure they would be concerned if they knew the time lapse between the exam, and the writing of his report.

 

[sappysoul]

Of course I would, but then again it would never occur to me to steal money from my family and friends, lie even in the face of a mountain of evidence, create a fake job, fake people... Well, you get my point. MOO

I don't recall Dr. G. using Casey's history of lying and stealing as a factor in her determination. Despite the lying and stealing Casey was described as a loving mother. I know Dr. G. used the fact she wasn't reported missing to bolster her ruling but even if she were reported missing I think it still would have been ruled a homicide. Mason asked her about parents who found an obviously dead child in what I assumed was a challenge to her statement that parents called 911 in all drowning accidents. I thought that was ridiculous in the context of this case because not only was 911 not called the child was duct taped and dumped in a swamp.

 

[Tuffy]

OK it sounds like they wanted to wait until they've decided what lie they're going to go with.

...and they should have waited a bit longer too! He was still talking about Zanny! That story is sooooo 2010!

 

[Tuffy]

I just can't for the life of me see how Dr. G. could ever reconcile duct tape on an accident victim.

Could you imagine the outrage if she had ruled this case an "accident!?"

 

[Jack]

There are actually 4 manners of death- homicide, accident, natural causes and suicide.

I would think accident and suicide would also be classified as homicide.

 

[gypsyblue]

Dr. G all the way! She is paid to explain the basis of her conclusion.

Dr. S is a paid witness ... there for the defense. There is a big difference

I also think that the odds of 2 people immediately deciding to risk prison and throw a baby to scavengers in a dump to rot due to an accidental drowning, is slim to none.

Dr.S is also is bashing Dr.G for not sawing open the skull considering the factors surrounding this high profile case, yet, he, as all ME's are to do, didnt consider these factors himself when rendering an opinion. He admitted he knew nothing surrounding the case.

jmooc