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

[Turnadot]

Exactly, because they did not have a positive ID on the remains.. WHAT if that had been my missing child (if I had one) I would feel so offended and violated that every agency and renegade doctor or self appointed Baez expert from around the world all descended into the facility of the agency with legal jurisdiction over the remains (DR. G.) And all pulled apart my child.

I would be LIVID if a circus erupted around my child and then what IF they discover it was not Caylee.. then they just say "oh sorry, here is your leg bone back"

They had to keep order.. they are not covering up anything in the Autopsy and its done with decorum.

Yeah, it would have been nonsensical and probably a legal violation of some sort, because I can imagine the parents of the child suing the pants off the State of Florida.

 

[gamom]

I think Dr. G indicated that it is unusual to open the skull in such a case, and I believe her. However--and this is a small point--I don't think it's because she thought cutting the skull would be "desecration" or "mutilating" Caylee. I just don't think medical examiners view cutting up a body or skeleton as disrespectful or inhumane; that's what they do--it's their job to get to the bottom of a person's death, and I actually think it's more respectful to do what it takes. I guess I'm just saying that I can't imagine someone who does autopsies for a living would find it wrong to cut a skull in half, no matter how young the victim; it's science. I've just seen several people say Dr. G was being "respectful" by not cutting the skull, and I simply don't think any scientist would think of it as a matter of respect or disrespect, but as a matter of scientific protocol. JMO.

Anyway, I think Dr. G was far more credible than Spitz. I have a lot of problems with her "100% of all accidents are reported" statement, but she seems much more informed and logical than this guy, for whom I kind of felt sorry, to be honest.

BBM, I thought she said "100% of the accident drownings that have come through HER morgue had been reported"

 

[D96s]

To not remove the cranial cap is an incomplete autopsy. You'll also hear in the defenses case that the bone "scrapings" Dr G had analysed, were collected by Spitz as well. Dr G's autopsy was topical at best, and her opinions involved more subjective evidence than objective evidence. JMOO

We're talking a out skeletonized remains. Why remove the cranial cap when you can look up through the bottom? That seems Ludacrous to me. And now scopes are used. You remove the cranial cap when you have someone in very early decomp stages. Can we all just be rational?

 

[Boytwnmom]

that Dr G didn't. She just managed to find it without further desecrating the body. As a medical examiner she has compassion for the victim. As a hired gun for the defense Dr S has compassion for the accused. While that may be perfectly ok under our system I will defer to the ME as having the nobler and more worthy of respect position so I'm still glad that she didn't needlessly cut open the poor child's skull. To what purpose? And Dr S broke her skull and then tried to lie about it-that said about all I needed to know about the "good" Dr.

I didn't get that Dr. S. saw anything Dr. G. did not. The following is from Dr. G.'s autopsy (any typos are mine, I had to type it in from the scanned report):

"Examination of the skull reveals no evidence of antemortem trauma. The inner aspect of the cranial cavity is examined with light and reveals sandy dirt and an attached small incisor which is adhered to the inside of the calvarium with dirt."
http://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnn/2009/images/06/19/caylee.anthony.autopsy.pdf

Dr. G did not identify exactly where in the cranium this "sandy dirt" and attached incisor were. So Dr. S was correct in saying he could make no determination of how the skull was positioned while this substance was deposited. Dr. S. thought it was brain residue, but did not test this assumption (by having the residue tested). Dr. G. didn't test her assumption that it was dirt either, so that one's a draw.

At this point, I do wish Dr. G. had opened the skull (so as not to have been attacked on the quality of her work). However, I also think that her decision not open the skull was reasonable under the circumstances. (Lay opinion, and MOO.)

 

[Sedona722]

I think my respect for Dr. S.'s credibility went down dramatically when he insisted there were protocols in place that called for opening the skull, but couldn't recall where these protocols exist.

Also, it seemed to me, Dr. S was implying opening the skull on a recently deceased person whose skin, tissue, brain, muscles, etc. etc. are still intact. Of course you open the cranium then during autopsy, but an empty skull..... Yikes give me a break!

Dr. G was within her rights to not saw the skull in half. She testified that she could look into it and she did a washing to gain any debrie from it.

 

[Sabrina2011]

To further illuminate the point that Dr S should never have been allowed in the original autopsy..

In aruba where Natalie Holloway went missing, they recently found a part of a jaw bone.. everyone was SURE it was her (lets assume there was more than a girls jaw bone) so they let all these strangers in. Well it turns out it was not her.

so that is just a no no.

 

[katydid23]

Court Motion... very common.

Why would the court allow that? The remains were not yet identified. He had no right to force his way into the autopsy of an UNIDENTIFIED child.

 

[tsitra01]

This is a bit complicated. I partly believe Dr. G and PARTLY Dr. S.
I don´t agree with Dr. G that it is a given that the tape was placed on Caylee prior to her death. I think it could have been placed on her after death to stop spilling from mouth and nose, but NOT after it was skeletonized, only slightly into decomposition.
Dr. S´ theory is plain crazy in my opinion.

SATA, I agree with Dr G. Also just as she stated. If the mouth and nose were leaking the tape would not stick as well as it obviously did to hold the mandible on as it did. Did she expound on why she felt prior?

 

[gngr~snap]

I voted Dr G.! :woohoo:
I'm not even gonna waste my breath explaining why...:floorlaugh:

 

[GeekyGirl]

I don't see using comon sense to come to medical conclusions a problem. We use common sense to come up with MANY conclusions in the medical community. Part of the job of a ME is to use logic, science, and the circumstantial evidence given from outside sources to come to a cause of death. The fact that she did not list that in the COD in her report says more about her crediablity to me. She could use it to determine that little Caylee did not die of natural causes or accidential since under normal cases little kids don't just die with tape on their face, nor do they have an accident that is not reported, die and get doubled bagged and tossed in cases of accidents. So that can lead her to a homicide. She can not say the tape actually killed her, because she does not know that to be fact. She can just say there is no reason (common sense) to put tape on a child after death and the only reason one would put tape on a childs mouth and nose before death would be to stop them from breathing. (common sense)

If the defense wants to argue the reason someone MIGHT use tape on the nose or mouth before or after death, then have at it. Seems to me they agree there is no logical reason which is why they have decided to say the tape was never around her nose or mouth. :twocents:

I should have clarified. I understand why she said it, and I don't disagree that it's a valid opinion to have. I get upset when I hear people repeat it as a fact rather than an opinion.

 

[cleo612]

They could have avoided the entire issue and allowed Spitz to be present at the first autopsy, and then everyone would have seen the same things. That would have streamlined things a bit, no?

No.

They did not even have an identification of the skeletal remains at that point.

Dr. Spitz had no legal, moral, ethical, or scientific basis for attending the first autopsy.

 

[Quiche]

Why would the court allow that? The remains were not yet identified. He had no right to force his way into the autopsy of an UNIDENTIFIED child.

Yeah, this is another thing that sends my hinky meter too high!

 

[STEADFAST]

BBM, I thought she said "100% of the accident drownings that have come through HER morgue had been reported"

Yes, and she said they had actually gone back and checked that data.

 

[CarolinaWoman]

Dr S likes the spotlight and high profile cases. This was pitiful the ramblings of an elderly man. Not to detract from what Dr S might have been years ago.

Dr S didn't recall his interview with Tony Pipitone with WKMG:

http://www.clickorlando.com/video/28248341/index.html

I can only assume the DT, with those they have called thus far, must be trying to confuse the jury. If I was on the jury I would be a tad upset having to listen to the same questions and all the ramblings of Dr S. Thank goodness it was only a half day session. I don't think Dr S could hang in there like the 'bug doc' yesterday without blowing his top.

 

[cleo612]

Court Motion... very common.

Court motion was denied, as I recall, based on exactly what I said in my previous post. There was no identification yet of the skeletal remains.

 

[STEADFAST]

I will be very happy when the transcripts of Dr. S's testimony come out so that his many lies can be demonstrated. I have never seen a witness tell this many lies (that I knew were lies.) He didn't even try to stick to lies that were unprovable. He just blatantly lied about things and seemed completely unfazed when called on them. Hey, wait a minute . . .

 

[Quiche]

I should have clarified. I understand why she said it, and I don't disagree that it's a valid opinion to have. I get upset when I hear people repeat it as a fact rather than an opinion.

There is a Supreme Court of Florida that sets a precedence that there is no logical reason for duct tape to be placed after death. HHBP has mentioned the case in reference. Florida vs. Huck If I have this wrong, can someone let me know, tia.

http://www.floridasupremecourt.org/clerk/briefs/2004/2001-2200/04-2046_JurisAns.pdf

 

[gamom]

In side a skull is NOT a simple, smooth, rounded capsule. It is like a canyon in there , with ridges, fissures, openings you can see through, and some you can't. It's not like a hollow ball. You can't examine the canyon without climbing in, period.

Medicine has come along way. I had a colonoscopy recently and learned that thankfully you can examine the canyon with out climbing in. The little camera they stuck up there was very flexible and went into every ridge, fissures and opening. Not sure what a autoposy uses, but rest assured, if the skull needed to be cut in order to see everything, there would be a policy or a guidleline published out there somewhere. I will preface by saying, I work in the medical community and there is a guideline published in the medical community for EVERYTHING w/ all of malpractice suits out there. Its unreal.

 

[2goldfish]

I don't see using comon sense to come to medical conclusions a problem. We use common sense to come up with MANY conclusions in the medical community. Part of the job of a ME is to use logic, science, and the circumstantial evidence given from outside sources to come to a cause of death. The fact that she did not list that in the COD in her report says more about her crediablity to me. She could use it to determine that little Caylee did not die of natural causes or accidential since under normal cases little kids don't just die with tape on their face, nor do they have an accident that is not reported, die and get doubled bagged and tossed in cases of accidents. So that can lead her to a homicide. She can not say the tape actually killed her, because she does not know that to be fact. She can just say there is no reason (common sense) to put tape on a child after death and the only reason one would put tape on a childs mouth and nose before death would be to stop them from breathing. (common sense)

If the defense wants to argue the reason someone MIGHT use tape on the nose or mouth before or after death, then have at it. Seems to me they agree there is no logical reason which is why they have decided to say the tape was never around her nose or mouth. :twocents:

ITA ... dr G could not conclusively say because, as one example, maybe ICA shot caylee in the side for not dying fast enough with tape, perhaps she was od'd and then taped and the OD killed her before the tape could, etc and so on.

 

[Z-sleuth]

Dr. G missed what? dirt on the left side of the skull? To say it was decomp residue would mean that it was TESTED and confirmed to be so. Dr. S already said he never had it tested. What is the point of the DT hiring Dr. S to do an autopsy if he was not going to actually try to find the cause/mean of death? Dr. G ran several tests. Even tests on the remendants found in the skull. She was able to gather this by using saline in the skull opening. If he is going to say her findings were inaccurate, then I would like to see the tests that he did that show something different.

It is easy to argue someone is wrong when you don't have to show exactly how they were wrong. He can't even show that there is a protocol that states you should cut the skull.

This.