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

[faefrost]

Right, but her ruling was based on an opinion as a *forensic pathologist, and other *FP's can and have been wrong in the past.
I'm not saying she is wrong- it was actually an issue I had hoped she would clarify for me on the stand.
It's highly significant in this case because of the DT's claims that it was an accidental death that was covered up...the very same reasons for DR G's findings for homicide.

I don't put much stock into what Dr S testified to. His defensiveness didn't portray conviction- He seemed more focused on being 'right' than finding justice for a murder victim.

But I also didn't Dr G's defensiveness.
Though when coupled with the totality of the evidence Dr G's testimony holds more weight IMO.

ETA:* ME

And HHJP's rulings stem from his opinions as a lawyer and member of the bar. Other lawyers and judges have been wrong in the past. It does not in any way lesson or leave room for second guessing his rulings. While JB can (and does) sit there and tell the judge he is wrong in open court, it doesn't exactly go over real well does it? Dr. G's authority in this matter comes from the same source as the judges and is equally as inviolate. Yes there may be some degree of self serving potential there. It is there at any point where the society has determined that the state or agents of the state must have clear and unequivocal decision making powers. Judges, Coroners, Sheriff's, Fire Chief's all have rather extreme and sometimes seemingly arbitrary powers because of this. These are not a flaws. These are not a violation of anybodies rights. They are the due process. At some point any arguments must stop and someone must be charged with making a determination for the society to function. These are the roles and individuals that do that. The counter to them is the process by which the individuals are selected for those roles. But once selected their rulings do carry the full force of the law and the constitution.

 

[gypsyblue]

I would like to know why neither Dr. G or Dr. S checked for the following? Did I miss it in the reports?




http://myweb.dal.ca/jvandomm/forensicbotany/limnology.html

Im gonna say no.... due to the fact that the defense would have used that testimony by Dr S and they didnt, because they cant, because it was not an accidental drowning....imo

 

[Turnadot]

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.

IMO, the fact that Dr Spitz didn't know the facts of this case; indicated that high profile cases deserve special treatment; that he's no longer up to date on current practice; accused the ME's office of a crime; his ridiculous duct tape theory; getting offended that Ashton dare question him; breaking Caylee's skull and not remembering; not being able to cite the protocol; saying, 'I don't know.' after every other question - - these will make a stronger impression.

And I'm sorry, but by Dr Spitz's own admission, his understanding of the profession is outdated.

As a matter of fact, according to tweets from the courtroom, several jurors laughed at Spitz, shook their heads, and smirked during his testimony.

When a jury laughs at an expert witness' opinions, it's a fairly good sign they're not impressed.

I remembered a post of yours earlier in this thread where you called for objectivity, yet when it comes to Dr Spitz's actual testimony, you can't find any fault with his conclusions; why is that? And I don't mean that as an attack, but an actual ME and more learned people than me think Spitz's testimony was a fail. How do you conclude it was not?

Insofar as Ashton, it seems his only "fault" in his cross is that he didn't show deference to Spitz.

 

[Peepers]

Here is one thing I am surprised about as far as Dr G's testimony. Most of the time in court, the lawyers want the witness to answer yes or no to their questions. I am shocked that the DT let her talk so much and "speculate". She basically had the stage..Im just very surprised it was allowed by the DT. Were they napping? why didnt they object and make her just answer yes or no the absolute cause of death. the fact of the matter is Dr. G does not KNOW the cause of death other than her speculation that it was homicide. yes, what she said is rational and true, but she doe not KNOW that Caylee didnt drown.

 

[D96s]

Originally Posted by RR473
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 G 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?

At the time Dr. G did the first autopsy they didn't even know it was Caylee. They had a child Jane Doe. Dr S had NO REASON to be present during that autopsy and it is the policy of the State of Florida not to allow other persons to be present during autopsies. I don't know how anyone can claim Dr. G made a mistake not allowing Dr S to be present. I don't even know why the Defense was even insisting Dr. S be present during the autopsy of a child Jane Doe unless they KNEW it was Caylee before the DNA evidence proved it.
The other case Dr S was referring to where he found traces of sleeping pills is not relevant. Why? Because he did not send Caylee's residue in for toxicology analysis. BUT, Dr G DID!! That means she found the same residue WITHOUT removing the skull cap. She just tipped the skull upside down.

 

[gypsyblue]

Stating that something hasn't happened isn't the same as saying it couldn't happen. Sadly, not all people care that much about their children that they cling to hope the child could be revived. I'm not sure how a person could believe that she willfully murder her child and yet insist that if she drowned she would do everything possible to save her. MOO

whoa....

 

[Hot Dogs]

I would like to know why neither Dr. G or Dr. S checked for the following? Did I miss it in the reports?

http://myweb.dal.ca/jvandomm/forensicbotany/limnology.html

I think that this protocol does not apply to this particular scenario.

Diatoms are living organisms. They should not be expected to be found in swimming pools with sterilizing agents such as Baquacil and chlorine. Diatoms would be found in natural bodies of water such as lakes, ponds, rivers, etc. Further, because Caylee's body was dumped in a natural swampy area, diatoms would be expected there and therefore could possibly be detected in her remains.

 

[sappysoul]

Stating that something hasn't happened isn't the same as saying it couldn't happen. Sadly, not all people care that much about their children that they cling to hope the child could be revived. I'm not sure how a person could believe that she willfully murder her child and yet insist that if she drowned she would do everything possible to save her. MOO

Not calling 911 is only one of the factors. She didn't base her findings only on that fact, instead clearly said she took several factors into account. If any ME was expected to base their findings by ruling out every thing that could possibly have happened then there would be A LOT more undetermined. Caylee could have died of a brain hemorrhage, she could have committed suicide. Just because no one has ever known a 3 year having the capacity for suicide doesn't mean one couldn't have the advanced reasoning skills needed. Granted they would have to be a "freak of nature" for lack of a better term but no one can say with 100% certainty it isn't possible. We have to rely on what is reasonable and logical based on what we know using science, including observational data.

 

[lg25]

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

He is no longer an medical examiner. He is a forensic pathologist and toxicology consultant.

He charged, for the Ryan Widmer trial (May 2010), $400/hour and $5000/day for court appearance.

 

[D96s]

Stating that something hasn't happened isn't the same as saying it couldn't happen. Sadly, not all people care that much about their children that they cling to hope the child could be revived. I'm not sure how a person could believe that she willfully murder her child and yet insist that if she drowned she would do everything possible to save her. MOO

The Defense wants us to believe that both George and Casey conspired to make NO ATTEMPT to save Caylee. When you say, "... sadly not all people care that much about their children that they cling to the hope..", etc. - by Dr G's stats ALL parents in Orange County Florida DO CARE. ALL PARENTS of drowned children that have come through her morgue have called 911. That is powerful testimony to me. 100% of the time. Now I'm to believe that this is not only the very first time an attempt wasn't made to save a drowning child, but it was done by 2 people - a parent and a grandparent? The odds of that statistically are astonomical and to me is proof that it was no accident. I have seen how much George loved Caylee. His love for Caylee is palpable. There is no way he wouldn't have made every attempt to save that child.

 

[Hot Dogs]

But the defense team has already laid out their theory of what happened to this child. Do you think I'm being unreasonable to expect them to now prove this theory? Or am I simply supposed to take their word for it?

The defense theory so far has been rather non-specific. What I understand is that they are saying is: Caylee accidentally drowned in the pool, neither Casey nor George called 911, George blamed Casey for the accident, George put duct tape on Caylee's face, Casey acted like nothing had happened and then told a bunch of lies about a nanny having Caylee after she was confronted by Cindy and the police, and Kronk moved the body. None of these things are yet explained with specifics by the defense.

It seems that their strategy is to try to convince the jury that these things could have happened without proving that they actually did happen. Some are givens, such as, nobody calling 911 for a drowned Caylee (a fact) and casey acting like nothing is badly wrong and told lies (both facts).

 

[Harmony 2]

I think that this protocol does not apply to this particular scenario.

Diatoms are living organisms. They should not be expected to be found in swimming pools with sterilizing agents such as Baquacil and chlorine. Diatoms would be found in natural bodies of water such as lakes, ponds, rivers, etc. Further, because Caylee's body was dumped in a natural swampy area, diatoms would be expected there and therefore could possibly be detected in her remains.

I was not aware that Bacquacil would kill the diatoms. Makes sense... I was thinking that the diatoms from the remains area (swamp like conditions) could be differentiated from the diatoms in a pool. Thanks Hot Dogs.. :seeya:

 

[RR473]

He is no longer an medical examiner. He is a forensic pathologist and toxicology consultant.

He charged, for the Ryan Widmer trial (May 2010), $400/hour and $5000/day for court appearance.

Would it make you happy if I had said "Because as you nicely put it Dr S is no attorney but a forensic pathologist"?

 

[Marina2]

I think that this protocol does not apply to this particular scenario.

Diatoms are living organisms. They should not be expected to be found in swimming pools with sterilizing agents such as Baquacil and chlorine. Diatoms would be found in natural bodies of water such as lakes, ponds, rivers, etc. Further, because Caylee's body was dumped in a natural swampy area, diatoms would be expected there and therefore could possibly be detected in her remains.

If I were the DT I would definitely want to test for diatoms since the presence of them in her bone marrow would indicate a drowning. Diatoms aren't as likely to be found in pool water for the reasons you state but I think they have been found nonetheless. The thing is, absence of diatoms does not indicate that the victim didn't drown. You have to have circulating blood after breathing in the water with diatoms for a long enough time for the diatoms to reach the marrow. This doesn't always happen and there were no lungs to check for the presence of them there. I don't believe the diatoms would present in her marrow from lying in the swamp either.

I guess this could still be done though. Didn't the state preserve a portion of bone for further testing? I wonder too why neither did this test as she could have drowned in any body of water, not just a swimming pool.

ETA: Baquacil doesn't kill algae so there is a chance diatoms would be in the Anthony pool.

 

[lg25]

Would it make you happy if I had said "Because as you nicely put it Dr S is no attorney but a forensic pathologist"?

It would make me happy if you added "paid consultant".

 

[GeekyGirl]

The Defense wants us to believe that both George and Casey conspired to make NO ATTEMPT to save Caylee. When you say, "... sadly not all people care that much about their children that they cling to the hope..", etc. - by Dr G's stats ALL parents in Orange County Florida DO CARE. ALL PARENTS of drowned children that have come through her morgue have called 911. That is powerful testimony to me. 100% of the time. Now I'm to believe that this is not only the very first time an attempt wasn't made to save a drowning child, but it was done by 2 people - a parent and a grandparent? The odds of that statistically are astonomical and to me is proof that it was no accident. I have seen how much George loved Caylee. His love for Caylee is palpable. There is no way he wouldn't have made every attempt to save that child.

I've never said that I buy into GA being involved, I don't. I agree that would be an unreasonable scenario to me. But again, how can you reconcile the fact that you believe Casey would willfully murder her child, but make every attempt to save her if a drowning occurred? MOO

 

[RR473]

At the time Dr. G did the first autopsy they didn't even know it was Caylee. They had a child Jane Doe. Dr S had NO REASON to be present during that autopsy and it is the policy of the State of Florida not to allow other persons to be present during autopsies. I don't know how anyone can claim Dr. G made a mistake not allowing Dr S to be present. I don't even know why the Defense was even insisting Dr. S be present during the autopsy of a child Jane Doe unless they KNEW it was Caylee before the DNA evidence proved it.
The other case Dr S was referring to where he found traces of sleeping pills is not relevant. Why? Because he did not send Caylee's residue in for toxicology analysis. BUT, Dr G DID!! That means she found the same residue WITHOUT removing the skull cap. She just tipped the skull upside down.

Dr G Poured some liquid in the skull, shook it and examined the emptied liquid which I believe wasn't anything other than dirt. However Dr G did not test the "residue" which had to be scraped first.

Dr S's shortcomings can't be used as an excuse for Dr G.

 

[Turnadot]

Dr G Poured some liquid in the skull, shook it and examined the emptied liquid which I believe wasn't anything other than dirt. However Dr G did not test the "residue" which had to be scraped first.

Dr S's shortcomings can't be used as an excuse for Dr G.

Despite the hyperbole, Dr G found more than just dirt. The autopsy report is available.

Dr S didn't test the residue either, so I can conclude his work on Caylee wasn't any better than Dr G's? What good is it to scrape, if he's just going to ignore it?

 

[RR473]

It would make me happy if you added "paid consultant".

Are you telling me that the medical examiners are not paid for their work?
I know what you will say: They are paid a fixed monthly salary but consultants are paid ...

 

[cleo612]

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

I saw Dr. Daniel Spitz on one of the HLN programs this past week. I cannot recall which program, but it was one of them following the trial.

Dr. Daniel Spitz stated that he felt this was a case of homicide and felt that Casey was guilty of first degree murder.

Interesting contrast to the "high profile" opinion of his aged father.