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

[Mountain_Kat]

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 am listening to all the evidence presented in this trial before I form my opinions, GeekyGirl, so your honest thoughts are no offense to me what so ever. I value everyone's opinions.

What bothers me about the accidental drowning theory are the following:

1). I have no doubt that Caylee's body was decomposing in the trunk of Casey Anthony's car for 3-5 days. And I do not think that a loving mother of an accidental drowning victim would drive around town with her precious child's body rotting in the back of her car. I just don't.

2). During the 31 days that this child was either missing or dead (depending on the story Casey chooses to give), Casey Anthony was out drinking and competing in Hotbody contests. I need a REASONABLE explaination for this behavior, and so far, I have not heard one. Casey, through her DT, wants me to believe the "reasonable explaination" for this is because she was molested by her father. I'm waiting for testimony and evidence of this molestation. So far, I've seen nothing. And if I continue to see nothing, then I'm going to assume this to be another of Casey Anthony's lies.

3). This child's body was found in a trash dump with duct tape stuck in her hair and near the jaw bone of her skull. While I can not determine from the evidence where exactly this duct tape was positioned on the head prior to the soft tissue of her face decomposing, I think it is reasonable to assume that the duct tape had, at some point, been on this child's face. There is NO innocent reason for that duct tape to be there. None. Why duct tape the mouth of a child who died innocently from a drowning accident?

4). Casey Anthony, through her DT team, has implied to me that Roy Kronk put that duct tape on this child's skull after he found the body and secreted it away somewhere for a period of 4 months (?!) before leaving the remains in this dumpsite. Entomological evidence does not support that fact, botanical evidence does not support that fact, and forensic evidence does not support that fact. If the DT plans to question RK about his involvement, I am all ears. Until that time, I am going to assume this "RK duct taped and then played hide and seek with the body" theory to be nothing more than another of ICA's lies to explain why this child had duct tape on her face.

If, as Casey Anthony would like us to believe, this child innocently drown, and she is now admitting to that fact, why the need to continue to lie? The jig is up, isn't it? But, of course, she needs to explain the duct tape and the partying. I believe, until the DT provides evidence to the contrary, that ICA is lying because there IS no innocent explanation for the duct tape, nor her behavior after this child was dead.

All JMO

 

[Sleuths4Me]

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.

BBM

I thought that too but also she was either freaked going into the woods and didn't want to be seen so she did it quick not realizing she was so close. It probably seemed far away with all the adrenaline she probably had at the time

 

[Hot Dogs]

I believe she stated that her office conducted observational studies that showed, of the accidental death cases involving children 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.

I'm seeing what may be something like a self-fulfilling prophesy within the ME office on this issue. Since they are the authority which declares manner of death, they create and control the statistics regardless of what actually happened. This situation involves cause of death being undetermined.

In spite of the 3 red flags, it is the duct tape over the mouth and nose which triggers the declaration that this is a homicide and not an accident. Because nobody puts tape on the face of a fatal accident victim.

But if somebody actually did put tape on the face of a child who had accidentally drowned it would be declared a homicide anyway. It looks like it would be close to impossible for the ME to say that it was an accidental drowning death of a child but then somebody put duct tape on their face. The duct tape demands the manner as homicide no matter what actually happened.

One could say, well, the ME might allow for an "exception to their 100% statistic" if they had a confession. But in a way that is what we have here. Casey by way of her defense is confessing that Caylee accidentally drowned and then afterwards duct tape was placed on her face. She is confessing that she told countless lies to cover up that this is what really happened. The state is refusing that "confession" and is prosecuting for murder with the full support of the ME who says that it is murder.

Even if there is an acquittal and Casey is declared innocent of the charges, the ME office will still count this as a Homicide and not an accident. Their "100% rule" will remain perpetually.

 

[Donjeta]

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 could have been convinced that she covered up child neglect if that had come out a bit earlier. It just doesn't make sense to me as a reasonable person that anyone would prefer charges for murder, three years in prison and a death penalty trial to fessing up about having been neglectful and witnessed an accident. If she'd been charged for child neglect she might have been out by now.

 

[BetteDavisEyes]

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:

Dr. Spitz has long been known as a "flamboyant medical examiner", but I think the "flame" was doused for good by Ashton yesterday.

As DH and I watched Spitz' testimony yesterday, particularly his insisting that Caylee's skull should have been opened, we couldn't help recalling a recent local case: Dr. Spitz' son, Dr. Daniel Spitz who has replaced his father in the role of ME for Macomb County (MI) conducted the autopsy on a prominent banker who was found dead in a body of water. The victim's family did not agree with young Dr. Spitz report and requested a second autopsy that was performed in Oakland County. It was determined that Dr. Spitz missed a bullet wound to the back of the victim's head! So much for opening the skull

 

[Tuffy]

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?

Funny that the Anthonys who won't call 911 to try and save their granddaughter just called 911 again this week! http://www.examiner.com/crime-in-national/george-anthony-calls-911-after-bounty-hunter-leonard-padilla-shows-up-at-house

 

[GeekyGirl]

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.

I think we're just going in circles here. I understand the rationale behind her findings, really I do. My problem is that when taking the whole picture into account (Casey's hx, etc.) I can't, personally, say that I don't have doubts as to whether Caylee's death meets the standard for a first degree murder conviction. This my opinion only, and I realize that I'm in the minority. No disrespect meant.

 

[sappysoul]

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

No, homicide is when the death was caused by another. Not the case in accident or suicide.

 

[dunlurken]

I felt kind of bad for Spitz. Poor old guy didn't have a clue what he was talking about. Baez got what he deserves............ possible contempt of court citation.

 

[sappysoul]

I think we're just going in circles here. I understand the rationale behind her findings, really I do. My problem is that when taking the whole picture into account (Casey's hx, etc.) I can't, personally, say that I don't have doubts as to whether Caylee's death meets the standard for a first degree murder conviction. This my opinion only, and I realize that I'm in the minority. No disrespect meant.

What we're talking about here is Dr.G's ruling of a homicide. That really isn't the same thing as saying it was 1st degree murder, she doesn't determine the charges brought against the defendant. It appears you were talking about something different than Dr. G's ruling?

 

[GeekyGirl]

I could have been convinced that she covered up child neglect if that had come out a bit earlier. It just doesn't make sense to me as a reasonable person that anyone would prefer charges for murder, three years in prison and a death penalty trial to fessing up about having been neglectful and witnessed an accident. If she'd been charged for child neglect she might have been out by now.

But again, you're a reasonable person. A reasonable person would probably also put on a defense that wasn't a fairy tale if the DP was on the line. MOO

 

[joypath]

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

:twocents: Not to confrontational but there are FIVE categories in box 37 on the US standard certificate of death that MOST (almost ALL) medical examiners/forensic pathologists/coroners utilize in classifying manner of death. They are natural, homicide, accident, suicide, "could not be determined" or undetermined. I've provided a link to the CDC, please note that there is another "choice" in box 37, "MANNER OF DEATH" which is "pending investigation" and it IS a choice one may ascribe to the death when the previous choices are IMMEDIATELY r/o or when a death certificate is needed for family utilization (ie. transport of the body to another state, insurance claims, inheritance/court issues). Death certificates CAN be amended IF more information is provided to the certifier (see box 45).

:truce: Neither "undetermined" not "pending investigation" are categories that a ME/coroner or forensic pathologist WANTS to use (IMVHO, no coroner who is NOT an M.D. should be using but that's a different discussion!) and will move heaven & earth to get a "solid" confirmation to "check off" one of the remaining 4 choices!:rocker:

BTW: :innocent: not releasing any forensic pathology "club members" secrets here, this is public information! As an addition service to our public health protection per se, the CDC collates the data from the death certificates, that data IS AVAILABLE if one were to research it to bolster one's statements in court (or at a cocktail party, depending on your social circle!:floorlaugh

 

[Tuffy]

What we're talking about here is Dr.G's ruling of a homicide. That really isn't the same thing as saying it was 1st degree murder, she doesn't determine the charges brought against the defendant. It appears you were talking about something different than Dr. G's ruling?

I have to agree, Dr. G didn't say 1st degree murder. She said "homicide." Like others have said, it's not suicide, accident, or undetermined. Caylee was killed.

Dr. G doesn't file charges or determine punishments.

 

[joypath]

:floorlaugh: oh yeah, the LINK! :floorlaugh:


http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/dvs/death11-03final-acc.pdf



:rocker: Forgot THAT detail, I was using a hard copy! :rocker:

 

[gypsyblue]

I think we're just going in circles here. I understand the rationale behind her findings, really I do. My problem is that when taking the whole picture into account (Casey's hx, etc.) I can't, personally, say that I don't have doubts as to whether Caylee's death meets the standard for a first degree murder conviction. This my opinion only, and I realize that I'm in the minority. No disrespect meant.

bbm~ I respectfully disagree, as even if it were an accident, Im thinkin administering duct tape rather than cpr speaks for itself...

.. statistical and human reaction is to try and resuscitate an accidental drowning victim not block their airways further with duct tape... jmo

 

[Velouria]

IMO, Dr. S came off as a pompous man who gets angry very easily. It seemed to me like he was ticked off that he did not get to participate in Dr. G's autopsy so he was determined to undermine her credibility from that point forward. Just because he is older and has more work experience, does not mean he knows more about this particular case. His attitude came across as, "I speak therefore, you should believe everything I saw no matter what it is, and everybody else is stupid".

Just my opinion.

:clap: because "Thanks" isn't enough.

Did you happen to see his testimony in the Spector trial? Talk about angry and flustered - he was absolutely INCENSED that anyone would question his ridiculous theories in light of his lengthy CV. It was beautiful to watch. :giggle:

 

[sappysoul]

:twocents: Not to confrontational but there are FIVE categories in box 37 on the US standard certificate of death that MOST (almost ALL) medical examiners/forensic pathologists/coroners utilize in classifying manner of death. They are natural, homicide, accident, suicide, "could not be determined" or undetermined. I've provided a link to the CDC, please note that there is another "choice" in box 37, "MANNER OF DEATH" which is "pending investigation" and it IS a choice one may ascribe to the death when the previous choices are IMMEDIATELY r/o or when a death certificate is needed for family utilization (ie. transport of the body to another state, insurance claims, inheritance/court issues). Death certificates CAN be amended IF more information is provided to the certifier (see box 45).

:truce: Neither "undetermined" not "pending investigation" are categories that a ME/coroner or forensic pathologist WANTS to use (IMVHO, no coroner who is NOT an M.D. should be using but that's a different discussion!) and will move heaven & earth to get a "solid" confirmation to "check off" one of the remaining 4 choices!:rocker:

BTW: :innocent: not releasing any forensic pathology "club members" secrets here, this is public information! As an addition service to our public health protection per se, the CDC collates the data from the death certificates, that data IS AVAILABLE if one were to research it to bolster one's statements in court (or at a cocktail party, depending on your social circle!:floorlaugh

I think we're talking about semantics here. I was talking about actual manners of death, not possible rulings. If a person is dead they died in one of 4 ways was my point.

 

[RR473]

I'm sorry, but I am a little confused. Why would the OME invite either the SA or the DT? They are workers of the state in the Medical Examiners Office. They are not attorneys for either side. They report what their findings are in an autopsy, not for the SA or the DT but for the victim. So, I don't understand why Dr S would think that he would be able to attend.

Because as you nicely put it Dr S is no attorney but a Medical Examiner.

 

[Mountain_Kat]

And I'll just slip this is here, despite the fact that it is slightly off topic: there does not need to be INTENT to murder in order to meet the requirements of First Degree murder under FL law. If a crime is committed against a child (aggravated child abuse), and the child dies during the commision of that crime, that fits the requirements for first degree murder.

So if ICA duct taped this child simply to keep her quiet, and Caylee died as a result of that duct tape...still first degree murder. If ICA used chloroform on this child, and Caylee died as a result of that, still first degree murder.

(And now I'm shutting up.)

 

[LongtimeMedic]

I just remembered this morning, one thing the jury saw that I've yet to see or hear mentioned, if I missed it redirect me, but the Jury saw JA go from a "fangs out" attack on Dr. Spitz, to a calm apologetic, backtracking JA explaining how he didn't mean to anger or inflame the Dr. The Drs. response?

Spitz: “That tells me about a shoddy autopsy, excuse me for the term, but you provoked it,”

JA: “I didn’t mean to provoke you,”

Spitz: “It upsets my better understanding of my profession that someone would do an autopsy and not examine the head,”

That exchanged definitely stayed with the jurors, especially the last quote.