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

[BG4pip]

Dr. G never said it was prior to death, she said it was prior to decomposition.

That is true, but that's exactly why I find her testimony unconvincing. The prosecutor's theory is that the tape was the death weapon, and Dr. G's testimony did not support that theory.

But there is no evidence to support Dr. S's theory, about tape being applied after decomposition, and it is refuted by plant growth entwining tape, hair, skull and jaw [indicating tape was applied before decomposition]. It also makes no sense -- I can't imagine why, after decomposition, anyone would tape the jawbone to the skull.

But, as many others have pointed out, there is another plausible theory, besides the prosecution's, that accounts for all of the evidence: the tape was applied after death, as decomposition was beginning, to prevent the leakage of fluids through the nose and mouth as decomposition began. For me to accept the prosecution theory regarding the cause of death, I would need evidence ruling out this alternative, and there is none.

I am withholding my judgment on the defense theory of accidental drowning until the defense rests. But I know this -- the defense would have had me leaning its way had this been its theory: Casey discovered Caylee's body in the pool. She panicked and put the body in the trunk and, a few days later, when the smell became too powerful, she dumped the body in the woods. Her partying while her daughter lay rotting in the trunk was due to her coping mechanism of pretending everything was OK when it was not. [I would not need the molestation story to prove her tendency to deny reality she did not wish to confront -- it's undisputed that she pretended to go to a nonexistent job every day for years, a behavior I find almost as chilling as her driving around with the body of her dead child in the trunk].

By injecting extraneous issues [eg. sexual molestation by George; George associating with a convicted kidnapper; Kronk being involved somehow in how the remains got to where they were], and silly claims [denying the body was in the trunk even though their own entymologist said the car had the smell of decomposition two years later; someone taped the jaw bone to the skull], the defense is forcing the jury to choose between the defense's incredible theory and the prosecution's credible but unproven theory.

 

[Nore]

I don't feel badly at all that this is likely the end of the career of Dr. Werner Spitz. He had his "distinguished career". His big mistake is that he has "gone to the rodeo" one too many times.

These career defense witnesses all seem to do this to themselves. And I don't even think it is for the money. It is for the fame, the glory, the "importance of being an expert". They have basked in the interviews asking for their much-desired opinions.

Dr. Henry Lee went so far as to suppress evidence in the first Phil Spectre case. While he did not suffer any legal consequences from that event, the judge in the case made it a point to go on record with HIS opinion of Dr. Lee. The Judge basically said "Dr. Lee lied".

Today Dr. Spitz was able to "act confused" when actually kind of gently put to the wall by Jeff Ashton. If he tries this crap in some other trial in the future, he may not meet up with a Prosecutor who has the class of Mr. Ashton.

To me, Spitz came of as forgetful and somewhat confused but with an underlying defensiveness bordering on outright anger at having his "opinions" questioned. In the meanwhile some of his statements were downright ludicrous. Plus his outright insult of Dr. G's work as being "shoddy" tells me that this old(er) dude has just "lost it".

I am old(er). I retired. My employer did not want me to retire. I recognized it was time for me to retire. From a job position in which I was still performing very well. To me, it is better to leave when you are still doing really, really well than to "ride it" to the point where you are not.

Tough to watch in some respects. But we all know excellence when we see it, and Dr. G. has it. Spitz does not.

--------------

I agree. I too am older, 79 to be exact. Trying to remember details are sometimes a chore for me. One has to be ready to admit their memory is not
what it once was. I work one night a week. I deal with many people of my own age or older. Men especially will not admit to being wrong at times. Dr. S. was good in his day but his day is over. Step aside and let the new forensic age (Dr.G.) take over. Dont tarnish your star....IMO. :seeya:

 

[USARDOG]

Knock it off with the age comments!

Did you all know that the US Equal Opportunity Laws consider age bashing as bad as racial commenting?

Not that we are governed by those laws here, but it shows how rude it is to consider age as a negative connotation.

Yes, age bashing is in very poor form, however I believe comments about the state of DrS's mental health are very relevant to his testimony. As a medical professional without speaking to him directly, without seeing tests done on him or with him, I could not comment on the state of his mental health. However, it is my personal opinion formed watching him appear to have some difficulty putting the skull back together, appear to have some difficulty understanding the questions put to him as well as appear to have problems forming coherent answers to those questions, the doctor is possibly facing early stages of mental decline. Declines of this type are attributable to many causes, but decline corresponding to increased age is the most common among them. I would for example site from a University of Iowa, peer reviewed article titled; "Memory and the Aging Brain" by Steven W. Anderson, Phd and Thomas J. Grabowski, Jr. MD and I quote; "All people are at risk for dementia, with the greatest risk factor being increased age." http://www.uihealthcare.com/topics/medicaldepartments/neurology/memory/index.html

It is my personal opinion that the doctor in testifiying that duct tape was placed on the skull after the skull had undergone near total decomposition, has put fourth a theory that is so abstract and so lacking in evidence or logic, that it leaves me questioning the mental state of this professional. Given the other factors sited, his difficulty formulating coherent, relevant answers to direct questions, his apparent difficulty with manual dexterity, etc, age related dementia or a similar condition resulting in some level of decreased mental capacity should be considered. This would IMO, directly relate to the credibility or lack there of, of any testimony he may give, in spite of his extensive and honored background. This is not age bashing, but a realistic look at the relevance of his testimony and so directly relates to his credibility, which I personally found very lacking.

 

[katydid23]

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 . . .

Was he really trying to say that the duct tape was most likely applied to the skeleton ? I was kind of in shock when he was saying there is no reason to believe tape would leave residue on the skull,' Why would it?' was his answer I believe.

So he lays out his expert opinion that 'some one' came along and picked up the skull and the separated mandible, and then taped them back together.

Umm Wait...didn't that Henkel duct tape come from the Anthony house?

 

[Trident]

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.

I believe in most professions there are procedures done as a matter of course, so common, so necessary that they don't need to be written down.

My opinion only

 

[Apex-mom]

I was in awe of this Doctor... after having seen only snippets of his comments here and there, I was honestly blown away by all of his experience and credentials. I thought the direct examination furthered his credibility... but, alas... the bloom fell off the rose during cross. JA asked logical, reasonable questions and the veil of Dr. S-Super-Hero was pulled to the side... I did feel his answers on cross were very evasie, clouded, illogical and rather pointless. Which is why, imo, he got so defensive. He is a smart man (to say the least) and he knew he was looking flustered and answering questions in a roundabout way.

Thank goodness for JA!!! Another EXCELLENT CROSS that brought the defense team down a few notches. But I HATED seeing the image of CM and JB and ICA SMIRKING during his testimony!!! Did anyone get a screenshot of that?!?

 

[Trident]

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 . . .

I heard a lot of bumbling and possible obfuscation, but I didn't catch any outright lies. Can you give just one example?

 

[Z-sleuth]

There was, the very day Caylee was found. Judge Strickland ruled that since they couldn't ID the body as Caylee, the defense's expert had no right to be present during the autopsy.

LOL...and the irony of this is that the only people who knew for sure it was Caylee at that point were ICA's DT, because of course, ICA killed her and deposited her body off Suburban Drive.

 

[niaa]

I have been following true crime stories since I was around 8 years old when I found a copy of my grandfather's True Detective magazine in the bathroom one day. Being an avid reader, even at that young age, I was quickly "hooked" on true crime of all types. I used to save my candy money and allowances to go buy my own copies of "True Detective" and "True Crime."

I do feel that Casey Marie Anthony is guilty of first degree murder. I do think that she planned to kill, not only her daughter, but her parents, and possibly her brother, as well.

I do think that she chloroformed and then put duct tape over the airways of that precious little girl whose name was Caylee, and I do think that Casey sat there and watched her daughter struggle for her last breath until she could no longer fight for her life.

I do think that Casey then put Caylee's body into 2 black trash bags, put those bags holding her daughter's body into the laundry bag, and then stuck the entire deathbed into the trunk of her car.

I think she then proceeded to go to her boyfriend's apt., to go rent movies that evening, and then to spend the next 18 or so hours laid up in bed while her daughter's body began decomposing in the trunk of that car.

I think that at some point Casey took Caylee's remains back to her parents house and planned to bury them somewhere in that yard, spilling decompositional fluids in those areas where grass will no longer grow in the process.

When burying her little body was not possible, I think that at some point, either that day, or within a few days, Casey Marie Anthony took that bag that held her once beautiful and precious baby daughter and dumped it in the woods 15 houses from her parents' home.

I think she drove away and never looked back.

With all of that being said, I want the truth. I don't care if bits of the truth come from the defense experts or from the prosecution experts. I want to know what happened to that precious little girl, because until the truth is known, there is no way to truly honor that baby's life, nor a way to understand how she died.

I listen to each expert lay out their theory, their thoughts, their evidence, and at some point down the road, I hope that it will all make sense.

Sometimes, however, there are cases where a death never makes sense.

Sadly, I fear that all of the facts and thus the truth behind the death of this precious baby, Caylee Marie Anthony, will never be known.

I agree with most of your assumptions. The past couple of days of testimony have me wondering about the car and lack of bugs and the lack of early colonizers on the dump site. I'm totally convince body was in the car for a couple of days. One theory I have heard is that she completely cleaned the car trunk several times but intentionally left napkins with decomp in the trash trying to blame the trash for the order. If she cleaned very very well maybe that would explain the lack of early colonizer bugs. Remember the car wash of Tony's jeep. Just wondering if this was another cover. Did she know she had a receipt or there might be a surveillance video ? I suppose we'll never never know the truth.

 

[Turnadot]

I believe in most professions there are procedures done as a matter of course, so common, so necessary that they don't need to be written down.

My opinion only

I agree, but when someone is testifying as an expert witness and claiming the ME didn't follow protocol, they better be darned ready with a citation. It just looked bad, IMO, for him to call Dr G out, then not be able to cite the protocol.

My opinion...

 

[Quiche]

I believe in most professions there are procedures done as a matter of course, so common, so necessary that they don't need to be written down.

My opinion only

Maybe in the 1940's, 50's, 60's, and 70's... but, technology does change procedures. jmo

 

[IfIMay]

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?

so anyone can show up and attend an autopsy!? The victim was not identified. I sure don't want someone like hi around during the autopsy of any of my loved ones or me!


If he can't even be bothered to wear gloves or send his findings off to a lab to confirm.. well...

And what if Dr. G had said sure! come on, dude! then the defense didn't go with him as their expert (think Petraco), they would have jumped all over her having the nerve to allow someone in there to contaminate further.

 

[Apex-mom]

I have been following true crime stories since I was around 8 years old when I found a copy of my grandfather's True Detective magazine in the bathroom one day. Being an avid reader, even at that young age, I was quickly "hooked" on true crime of all types. I used to save my candy money and allowances to go buy my own copies of "True Detective" and "True Crime."

I do feel that Casey Marie Anthony is guilty of first degree murder. I do think that she planned to kill, not only her daughter, but her parents, and possibly her brother, as well.

I do think that she chloroformed and then put duct tape over the airways of that precious little girl whose name was Caylee, and I do think that Casey sat there and watched her daughter struggle for her last breath until she could no longer fight for her life.

I do think that Casey then put Caylee's body into 2 black trash bags, put those bags holding her daughter's body into the laundry bag, and then stuck the entire deathbed into the trunk of her car.

I think she then proceeded to go to her boyfriend's apt., to go rent movies that evening, and then to spend the next 18 or so hours laid up in bed while her daughter's body began decomposing in the trunk of that car.

I think that at some point Casey took Caylee's remains back to her parents house and planned to bury them somewhere in that yard, spilling decompositional fluids in those areas where grass will no longer grow in the process.

When burying her little body was not possible, I think that at some point, either that day, or within a few days, Casey Marie Anthony took that bag that held her once beautiful and precious baby daughter and dumped it in the woods 15 houses from her parents' home.

I think she drove away and never looked back.

With all of that being said, I want the truth. I don't care if bits of the truth come from the defense experts or from the prosecution experts. I want to know what happened to that precious little girl, because until the truth is known, there is no way to truly honor that baby's life, nor a way to understand how she died.

I listen to each expert lay out their theory, their thoughts, their evidence, and at some point down the road, I hope that it will all make sense.

Sometimes, however, there are cases where a death never makes sense.

Sadly, I fear that all of the facts and thus the truth behind the death of this precious baby, Caylee Marie Anthony, will never be known.

Amazing post. You're right on target!!!

 

[SurfieTX]

I believe in most professions there are procedures done as a matter of course, so common, so necessary that they don't need to be written down.

My opinion only

I do agree with you. The most salient point from Dr. Spitz that I came away with was that he opened every skull regardless. That was the way he was trained. Didn't matter if there was a brain inside or spine attached. That's just what he did on every case.

That said, protocols do change in medicine - especially with the advances in CT/MRI/endoscopy techniques. And that doesn't mean that Dr. G's work was "shoddy," at all. Just a little more advanced with advanced technology.

Dr. Spitz admitted himself that he would not routinely send specimens to a lab unless he had a helper. Again, that's his training, but not the norm these days.

While I can appreciate his education and experience, just because he does things "this way" and others do things "that way," it doesn't mean he is "right," just merely different in his approach and habits by way of training.

The older jurors, IMO, will appreciate his experience and technique and the younger ones may not. It's a crap shoot, as far as I am concerned. Medicine changes RAPIDLY these days (Oprah and her 'full body scans,' anyone?).

 

[Trident]

Maybe in the 1940's, 50's, 60's, and 70's... but, technology does change procedures. jmo

ITA, but sometimes the changes are not for the better. I remember when the doctor came to your home and treated the patient, and the more I read about the good old days, the more I think my grandmother's remedies were more effective and probably a lot cheaper than the "stuff", lol, they prescribe today.

That said, I voted for Dr. G, because she is really immersed in her profession, and from what I've seen, she is about top of the class.

However, I believe Dr. S may have been put in a bad position by the DT, and that is inexcusable.

I further believe, when there is a HIGH profile case like this one, Dr. S is correct - every I needs to be dotted and every T needs to be crossed. Maybe Dr. G was a little soft on that one and who can blame her, she's a mother after all. Then again, maybe she wasn't, and she is totally correct, but I wish she had opened the skull (I've seen her do it before), and taken away every tiny bit of doubt.

 

[Sleuth5]

I believe in most professions there are procedures done as a matter of course, so common, so necessary that they don't need to be written down.

My opinion only

That's entirely true. In the case of a classic autopsy, the skull opening would be a given. Perhaps that was his point -- but he couldn't have it both ways, since he'd already qualified that the state of the body precluded certain "usual" procedures.

 

[kathyn2]

I think Dr. G. much more believable. Dr. S looks like a guy that is just paid to say whatever anyone wants him to say. If you pay him enough he will find a way to stick up for your point of view. His story made no sense at all today.

 

[dr dona]

An earlier post was correct---with brain tissue present the calvarium is removed to look at brain tissue- for bleeding and also to provide an apperture to remove the brain. In this case where the remains are skeletonized the skull is usually left intact. The postmortem exam is more of an anthropolgic exam since there are no organs etc. I have never seen the skull split on this type of an exam. The bones are left intact except to get marrow from long bones for DNA analysis.
So, I think Dr G was correct!!!!!!

 

[Mama-cita]

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?

Excuse me but what right did he have to be at an autopsy when the remains had not been identified? Additionally if it is against the operating procedures of a medical examiners office to allow outside people on an autopsy why should they change the rules, because KC is special? Geesh. They wanted access to the crime scene too, which ALSO must be thoroughly investigated by the professionals and RELEASED prior to being examined by the defense.

 

[SurfieTX]

ITA, but sometimes the changes are not for the better. I remember when the doctor came to your home and treated the patient, and the more I read about the good old days, the more I think my grandmother's remedies were more effective and probably a lot cheaper than the "stuff", lol, they prescribe today.

That said, I voted for Dr. G, because she is really immersed in her profession, and from what I've seen, she is about top of the class.

However, I believe Dr. S may have been put in a bad position by the DT, and that is inexcusable.

I further believe, when there is a HIGH profile case like this one, Dr. S is correct - every I needs to be dotted and every T needs to be crossed. Maybe Dr. G was a little soft on that one and who can blame her, she's a mother after all. Then again, maybe she wasn't, and she is totally correct, but I wish she had opened the skull (I've seen her do it before), and taken away every tiny bit of doubt.

True, however, ethics apply here as well. I lost ALL respect for him when he disparaged Dr. G's findings and basically accused her of tampering with evidence. If he is truly "old school," then he would know better than to make those remarks in a court of law. After all, if he is so sure of his findings and opinions, there should be no need to criticize his peer. The findings should rest on their/his own laurels. MOO.