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

[Tuffy]

The round opening there is the foramen magnum we discussed earlier and D96s agreed that this would not be large enough to view the interior cranial vault. Am I missing something? Serious question.

I disagree, you could certainly look through the hole. You could with the naked eye, or with a scope. I still fail to see the scandal in not sawing her skull apart.

 

[GeekyGirl]

I disagree, you could certainly look through the hole. You could with the naked eye, or with a scope. I still fail to see the scandal in not sawing her skull apart.

Respectfully, I was directing my comment towards the conversation with D96s, I agree you can see through the hole, but in my experience, you can't see every surface of the vault with your eyes, which was the original assertion. I honestly don't know about using a scope, as I've never tried it, so I can't comment on whether that would possible or not.

 

[CN2Souls]

Just to Add:
1. This is a small little girl, Caylee Marie, Only 2 1/2 years old, skull
2. This was 6 months’ worth of decomposing, ( not 5 like most people state this ) June 16th- Dec 12th = 6 months
3. She was more than likely already skeletonized By July 15th
4. This is Florida (I will not go into gory detail) we have flesh-eating ants, to name a few of the 1000 of bugs and crawly things. They clean the body and Skull of almost everything.
5. The Hurricane Fay which Flooded that area with 24 inches of Water was on August 17-18th 2008
6. She was in a Double BLACK plastic bag in the 90- 100-degree Florida heat.
7. Human Brain is 78% water, 10% lipids and 8% protein , 2% inorganic Salt and Carbohydrates and only 2% Soluble organic substances. The Human Brain is like soft Custer or Flan it deteriorates very quickly after decomposing of the body.

 

[RR473]

I still fail to see the scandal in not sawing her skull apart.

That's disrespectful and shows lack of love to the deceased.
Or so they claim.

 

[D96s]

The round opening there is the foramen magnum we discussed earlier and D96s agreed that this would not be large enough to view the interior cranial vault. Am I missing something? Serious question.

There are several other foramens revealed when you remove the mandible that allow more access to the interior. You also have access (except in very few cases) through the Orbits (eye sockets). With access to all cranial foramens and the Orbits you can see all you need to see without removing the skull cap. Just seems senseless in a skeletonized skull.

 

[Scamperoo]

The round opening there is the foramen magnum we discussed earlier and D96s agreed that this would not be large enough to view the interior cranial vault. Am I missing something? Serious question.

Using an endoscope (camera and light source) this opening is plenty big enough, I find it hard to understand why you think Dr.G would eyeball the interior through the hole in the base of the skull (foramen magnum).

She is a consummate professional and used every tool at her disposal to maintain the integrity of the skull, there was truly no need to desecrate the remains further.

She may have even used a CCT if she thought it necessary. So what is the point of this discussion?

 

[GeekyGirl]

There are several other foramens revealed when you remove the mandible that allow more access to the interior. You also have access (except in very few cases) through the Orbits (eye sockets). With access to all cranial foramens and the Orbits you can see all you need to see without removing the skull cap. Just seems senseless in a skeletonized skull.

I'm staring at my anatomy reference and I'm just not seeing what you're seeing, but I'm not going to belabor the point. I'll check with the ME at my hospital tomorrow and see what her take on it is.

 

[D96s]

Using an endoscope (camera and light source) this opening is plenty big enough, I find it hard to understand why you think Dr.G would eyeball the interior through the hole in the base of the skull (foramen magnum).

She is a consummate professional and used every tool at her disposal to maintain the integrity of the skull, there was truly no need to desecrate the remains further.

She may have even used a CCT if she thought it necessary. So what is the point of this discussion?

Absolutely agree

 

[GeekyGirl]

Using an endoscope (camera and light source) this opening is plenty big enough, I find it hard to understand why you think Dr.G would eyeball the interior through the hole in the base of the skull (foramen magnum).

She is a consummate professional and used every tool at her disposal to maintain the integrity of the skull, there was truly no need to desecrate the remains further.

She may have even used a CCT if she thought it necessary. So what is the point of this discussion?

The point was that another person posted that you could flip a skull upside down and view the interior through the base of the skull if the mandible was disarticulated. That's not been my experience, so I asked for clarification since the statement was being presented as fact.

ETA: I don't disagree that she's a professional, or that she probably used any and/or all of the techniques. I'm not even saying that I think there was any reason to remove the skull cap, my only argument was to the original post, which mentioned none of these things, being presented as fact.

 

[CN2Souls]

Didn't she use:

Skeletal survey
Scintigraphy
Standard radiographs

Which all see better Then

Cut her Skull open and looking with the Naked Eye... That's OLD School...

 

[Tuffy]

The point was that another person posted that you could flip a skull upside down and view the interior through the base of the skull if the mandible was disarticulated. That's not been my experience, so I asked for clarification since the statement was being presented as fact.

Well, technically you can see through the hole. I don't know how thorough an exam you could do, but you can indeed see through that hole and view the interior of the skull. So really that part isn't incorrect.

I really feel that we're just arguing technique here. There is the "old school" method (sawing the skull in half) and the new method (using a scope) to view the interior of the skull. Dr. S and the DT are trying to say one way is more correct than the other. I, in my non-qualified opinion, do not see a scandal here.

I feel that both could be used, and in this case both were used. In the end, there was no difference in the findings.

Dr. S wants to come into court and say that the other method is equal to shoddy work however. I don't feel that his testimony convinced me that that is true.

 

[RR473]

Respectfully, no thanks. There can't be any meaningful discussion between you and I if you're not even willing to read the document for yourself. I've referred you to the source, where you can learn for yourself. That's all I'm willing to do.

It's absolutely your right to form an opinion of Dr G's work in this case without reading her actual report, but it's my right not to get into what I see as a back and forth of me having to read the document for you and tell you what it says before we can engage.

I promise I don't mean that as snarky, I'm just unwilling, which is my own shortcoming.

Ok I read the document. She didn't find anything but dirt. Unless you tell me which page and line number you were thinking about.

 

[CN2Souls]

I deeply Respect Dr. S as well as CM in their time they were the VERY top in their Fields and used the "protocol" in and for their time...
However, this is 2011, and there are very high tech machine and protocol that up and coming scientist and lawyers are now using...

 

[GutFeeling!]

The point was that another person posted that you could flip a skull upside down and view the interior through the base of the skull if the mandible was disarticulated. That's not been my experience, so I asked for clarification since the statement was being presented as fact.

ETA: I don't disagree that she's a professional, or that she probably used any and/or all of the techniques. I'm not even saying that I think there was any reason to remove the skull cap, my only argument was to the original post, which mentioned none of these things, being presented as fact.

Actually the point is, for most of us, that this is Caylee we are talking about, and two professional witnesses. I doubt Dr G with her years of experience would do anything (or not do something) to put this case in doubt. She reported her findings, in short NEITHER of them actually came up with anything substantial from their findings. Sure Dr S said it was one thing but apparently it is above him to have his samples tested. Dr G on the other hand, taking a different approach did the wash AND sent it off for testing. The fact that he has more experience chalked up in years is totally lost on me when he is getting paid, for one day on a court stand, more than many people earn in a whole year, unlike Dr G who received nothing but she does still have her reputation in tact, unlike Dr S who has been known to be "out there" since Kennedy's autopsy.

I wonder if people questioning Dr G have ever actually watched her show (not you Geeky just in general). I do wish they would because you see a truer side of the lady than you do in a Q & A session in court. Her whole outlook is not what she can do for the deceased person, she knows there is nothing she can do, but she can bring some kind of closure to families, and that is what she strives for.

 

[GeekyGirl]

Ok I read the document. She didn't find anything but dirt. Unless you tell me which page and line number you were thinking about.

It's on page 8 of the autopsy PDF in the last paragraph, she found a tooth.

 

[D96s]

The point was that another person posted that you could flip a skull upside down and view the interior through the base of the skull if the mandible was disarticulated. That's not been my experience, so I asked for clarification since the statement was being presented as fact.

ETA: I don't disagree that she's a professional, or that she probably used any and/or all of the techniques. I'm not even saying that I think there was any reason to remove the skull cap, my only argument was to the original post, which mentioned none of these things, being presented as fact.

Above bolded by me. Let me state unequivocally that nothing I say should be taken by anyone as fact. I am only giving my opinions, or stating my own experiences here at Websleuths. I don't present myself as an expert in anything. With regard to the skull issue - I agree that it is much ado about absolutely nothing. I just personally do not see the need to saw off the skull cap on a skeletonized skull because in my experience there are enough foramens (particularily on the bottom) to allow access to every part of the interior. Not presenting that as fact. Just my opinion.

 

[RR473]

It's on page 8 of the autopsy PDF in the last paragraph, she found a tooth.

Was it Caylee's own tooth?

 

[GutFeeling!]

Was it Caylee's own tooth?

You can't be serious.

 

[RR473]

Was it Caylee's own tooth?

Whose else? RK's?

 

[GeekyGirl]

Actually the point is, for most of us, that this is Caylee we are talking about, and two professional witnesses. I doubt Dr G with her years of experience would do anything (or not do something) to put this case in doubt. She reported her findings, in short NEITHER of them actually came up with anything substantial from their findings. Sure Dr S said it was one thing but apparently it is above him to have his samples tested. Dr G on the other hand, taking a different approach did the wash AND sent it off for testing. The fact that he has more experience chalked up in years is totally lost on me when he is getting paid, for one day on a court stand, more than many people earn in a whole year, unlike Dr G who received nothing but she does still have her reputation in tact, unlike Dr S who has been known to be "out there" since Kennedy's autopsy.

I wonder if people questioning Dr G have ever actually watched her show (not you Geeky just in general). I do wish they would because you see a truer side of the lady than you do in a Q & A session in court. Her whole outlook is not what she can do for the deceased person, she knows there is nothing she can do, but she can bring some kind of closure to families, and that is what she strives for.

I have watched her show and I've met her in person. I find her to be a most impressive lady. I really never meant to imply that her work wasn't appropriate or that she had anything less than the best of intentions. I saw a post that presented something as a statement of fact that I felt to be untrue, or at the very least misleading, and I questioned whether the poster was a verified expert, that's all. Perhaps I shouldn't have taken it so far, I apologize.