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

[faefrost]

While it's a pretty logical assumption that a childs skeletal remains found in trash bags with duct tape was a homicide, I don't think it's conclusive enough to list it as a homicide.
I don't believe it personally, but it's still possible that it was a cover-up of an accidental death.

JMO

It is the officer of the state who is serving in that forensic role to make that determination. That is Dr. G's job in this. That is her call to make. Things like this and the making of these calls are why County Coroners are constitutional officers in most states. There is a subtle but huge difference between Dr. G and Dr. S. Dr. S while he can voice an opinion on the matter and maybe try and persuade the jury that Dr. G is wrong, Dr. G does not need to do that. Her findings are on the official certified paperwork. What she puts there is what it is. There is nothing that Dr. S or any hired gun pathologist can come in and say that can change that. You will note that the presentation of Dr. G's findings are not that her opinion is the child was murdered. It is that "Caylee Marie Anthony's death has been RULED a homicide." Note that word. That is not something that is casually or callously used. Dr. S can babble opinions all he wants. Dr. G has the weight of the state constitution to make the formal ruling on the cause or manner of death. No one in that state can change that ruling, no matter how hard they argue. Only she can do so. In this matter she carries the same weight as the judge.

And that brings us into why Dr. S was not allowed into the autopsy. It is not a matter of courtesy. It is not a matter of dissing the defense. No the SA or state did not make a mistake or a bad call in keeping Dr. S out. Dr. S was not legally allowed to be there. Period. There was no courtesy to extend. Dr. G would have little to no flexibility in this case. There are rules that govern who can be allowed into autopsy's. They will not allow outside individuals, not governed by the protections and obligations of state services, into the autopsy of an unidentified child. That will be non negotiable in any county in North America.

When Dr. S or Baden or Lee whine about this on TV and declare that they have been allowed in hundreds of autopsies, they are being disingenuous. Yes they have been allowed into hundreds of autopsies. But only under one or more of the following conditions. 1. The identity was known through some positive identification. 2. The next of kin had given permission or 3. They were acting as a consultant to the state or county, for either consult or for educational purposes, and as such were covered as an agent or employee of the state and bound by applicable disclosure rules, and finally 4. I am betting in almost all of these cases, unless the good doctors were specifically hired for a consult or were within their own jurisdictions, all of the autopsies were on adults.

 

[RoseTree]

So much good info has been said here, really, some of you are such good posters that you typed just how I was feeling, but hadn't wrapped my brain around. I think that the jury will appreciate how Dr. G humanized Caylee, and they will see the many ways that she has been dehumanized by iCA. (not reported missing, no father listed, etc...) And also by Dr. S- calling her by the wrong name, etc....

Speaking of iCA, I bet she got a kick out of these big shot experts going along with her story. She must feel like big stuff!

 

[MissJames]

It is the officer of the state who is serving in that forensic role to make that determination. That is Dr. G's job in this. That is her call to make. Things like this and the making of these calls are why County Coroners are constitutional officers in most states. There is a subtle but huge difference between Dr. G and Dr. S. Dr. S while he can voice an opinion on the matter and maybe try and persuade the jury that Dr. G is wrong, Dr. G does not need to do that. Her findings are on the official certified paperwork. What she puts there is what it is. There is nothing that Dr. S or any hired gun pathologist can come in and say that can change that. You will note that the presentation of Dr. G's findings are not that her opinion is the child was murdered. It is that "Caylee Marie Anthony's death has been RULED a homicide." Note that word. That is not something that is casually or callously used. Dr. S can babble opinions all he wants. Dr. G has the weight of the state constitution to make the formal ruling on the cause or manner of death. No one in that state can change that ruling, no matter how hard they argue. Only she can do so. In this matter she carries the same weight as the judge.

And that brings us into why Dr. S was not allowed into the autopsy. It is not a matter of courtesy. It is not a matter of dissing the defense. No the SA or state did not make a mistake or a bad call in keeping Dr. S out. Dr. S was not legally allowed to be there. Period. There was no courtesy to extend. Dr. G would have little to no flexibility in this case. There are rules that govern who can be allowed into autopsy's. They will not allow outside individuals, not governed by the protections and obligations of state services, into the autopsy of an unidentified child. That will be non negotiable in any county in North America.

When Dr. S or Baden or Lee whine about this on TV and declare that they have been allowed in hundreds of autopsies, they are being disingenuous. Yes they have been allowed into hundreds of autopsies. But only under one or more of the following conditions. 1. The identity was known through some positive identification. 2. The next of kin had given permission or 3. They were acting as a consultant to the state or county, for either consult or for educational purposes, and as such were covered as an agent or employee of the state and bound by applicable disclosure rules, and finally 4. I am betting in almost all of these cases, unless the good doctors were specifically hired for a consult or were within their own jurisdictions, all of the autopsies were on adults.

:tyou:

Probably the most important post concerning this subject!

Dr. G does this every single day,not to be an expert witness,but to determine cod or mod ,for the citizens she serves.
Thank you for making the distinction !

 

[Kelroy]

The DT doesn't just try to defend ICA,they have pulled some looloos . JB has had several Bar complaints lodged against him since this started. The Judge(s) often have to tell him how to write a proper motion. JB was sanctioned for not complying with a court order .He was called out again today,for the same thing and now has a possible Contempt charge hanging over his head.
And the very hinky money issue ,in the beginning of this case,is not over,IMO. I think JB may still be facing something related to that once this trial is concluded.
Today was a trial by ambush. Stunk to high heaven's and Dr. S ,who gave MANY INTERVIEWS AND MEDIA ROUNDS ABOUT THIS CASE (despite the fact he doesn't remember them) was right in the middle of it.

I don't begrudge or usually dislike most DT experts.I find their testimony fascinating. It's the history of THIS DT,that sets the stage for my distrust of their experts,and so far I've been right ,again,IMO.
ETA Are you aware that Dr. Baden ,a DT consultant ,changed his opinion of FACTS he had stated in the media,once he was hired by the DT? Cheney Mason also said she was obviously guilty ,in an interview,until he became part of the team.

I've never watched a trial before, and I don't know anything about Baden or any other consultants. But I think you make some good points. I don't have the animosity toward the defense team some of you who've been following the case a long time have, and I haven't even watched the entire trial (only about two weeks). From what I have seen, I really am annoyed by Baez and Mason, not so much for the legalities--which I freely admit I don't always understand--but for their unrelenting condescension to witnesses. And I have, on the whole, found most of the state's witnesses more convincing than those we've seen from the defense so far (you'll never see me defend Dr. Spitz!) I guess I was just responding to the general tenor of some posts I've seen, not just here but in the comments to news articles and so on.

 

[butwhatif?]

It is the officer of the state who is serving in that forensic role to make that determination. That is Dr. G's job in this. That is her call to make. Things like this and the making of these calls are why County Coroners are constitutional officers in most states. There is a subtle but huge difference between Dr. G and Dr. S. Dr. S while he can voice an opinion on the matter and maybe try and persuade the jury that Dr. G is wrong, Dr. G does not need to do that. Her findings are on the official certified paperwork. What she puts there is what it is. There is nothing that Dr. S or any hired gun pathologist can come in and say that can change that. You will note that the presentation of Dr. G's findings are not that her opinion is the child was murdered. It is that "Caylee Marie Anthony's death has been RULED a homicide." Note that word. That is not something that is casually or callously used. Dr. S can babble opinions all he wants. Dr. G has the weight of the state constitution to make the formal ruling on the cause or manner of death. No one in that state can change that ruling, no matter how hard they argue. Only she can do so. In this matter she carries the same weight as the judge.

And that brings us into why Dr. S was not allowed into the autopsy. It is not a matter of courtesy. It is not a matter of dissing the defense. No the SA or state did not make a mistake or a bad call in keeping Dr. S out. Dr. S was not legally allowed to be there. Period. There was no courtesy to extend. Dr. G would have little to no flexibility in this case. There are rules that govern who can be allowed into autopsy's. They will not allow outside individuals, not governed by the protections and obligations of state services, into the autopsy of an unidentified child. That will be non negotiable in any county in North America.

When Dr. S or Baden or Lee whine about this on TV and declare that they have been allowed in hundreds of autopsies, they are being disingenuous. Yes they have been allowed into hundreds of autopsies. But only under one or more of the following conditions. 1. The identity was known through some positive identification. 2. The next of kin had given permission or 3. They were acting as a consultant to the state or county, for either consult or for educational purposes, and as such were covered as an agent or employee of the state and bound by applicable disclosure rules, and finally 4. I am betting in almost all of these cases, unless the good doctors were specifically hired for a consult or were within their own jurisdictions, all of the autopsies were on adults.

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

 

[cleo612]

I had to leave and missed some of this, including all of JA cross! :banghead:

Anyway, I think this says it all!
snipped...

Dr. Werner Spitz said he believes the tape was placed on the body long after the flesh had disappeared to hold the jaw bone on, perhaps because someone wanted to move it. Spitz said the lack of DNA found on the tape would suggest it was placed on the girl's skull by someone who wanted to move it for some reason. The tape, he said, was intended to keep the jawbone from falling off. (RK under the bus or someone else?)


http://www.wftv.com/news/28279935/detail.html

Pathetic!

I am way behind as I laid down and took a very long nap this evening (grandbaby is off with relatives tonight so Nana got to sleep!), but I wanted to respond to this post.

When Dr. Spitz was testifying to this scenario today, the look on John Ashton's face was simply priceless--he could not have looked any more incredulous at the concocted tale he was hearing from this once renowned scientist.

At one time, Dr. Spitz was held in very high esteem--even in my own eyes. However, when I saw him testifying in the Phil Spector case, my admiration of him as an unbiased witness began to waiver. After seeing his testimony today, I no longer find him to be a credible man--no matter what his past accomplishments or accreditations.

Once an opinion can be elicited by payment or publicity, the theory presented must be able to be held up to the utmost of scrutiny.

When Dr. Spitz stated that since this is such a high profile case, it requires more diligence than would the case of an 85 yr old person dying at home in bed, he totally lost me.

Every case, no matter if high profile or of anonymity, should be given the same care and meticulous attention to details. It was obvious that Dr. Spitz sees these two such case examples in a much different light.

 

[Kelroy]

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.

I just said something like this in the 'Through a Juror's Eyes' thread--I wanted to wholeheartedly accept Dr. G's statements and conclusions, but I wish she had clarified them further. Now, Dr. Spitz didn't in any way cast doubt on her conclusions--imo, his testimony was fairly useless--but I don't yet understand why this was determined to be a homicide scientifically. Her red flags make total sense, yet I'd think a scientist would say they clearly indicate foul play rather than definitively demonstrate homicide. Maybe it's a small point, but I'd bet there are a fair number of medical examiners who would quibble with her conclusion. It doesn't change her ruling at all, but when somebody's facing the death penalty over whether this was a homicide or an accident, you'd better believe the defense is going to question it.

That said, yeah, I don't think from what I've read here that Dr. S had any basis to be present at that first autopsy, and of course he's less credible than Dr. G, imo.

 

[cleo612]

He had to submit not only a report, but also "any findings he would be testifying to" to the court in this case in advance. I think that covers the paperwork aspect.

No snark intended here--just trying to say what I think. My thoughts, words, and opinions are rhetorical and not in any way directed at the poster whose quotation appears above.

If I remember the timeline correctly, when Judge Perry told the defense team that he wanted written reports submitted by all experts, Dr. Spitz at the time was in the hospital for having swallowed a chicken bone.

This was a full 2 years after Dr. Spitz had done the second autopsy on Caylee's remains. His report did not even get sent out until a few months later (well over 2 years after having conducted said autopsy).

If he was so certain of his findings at the time of the autopsy, why did he not send that report out immediately? (Rhetorical and not in any way expecting a response, nor is this question directed to the poster whose quote appears above.)

By delaying for so long, the release of his autopsy report, it makes it appear as though he was waiting for the defense team to come up with a theory as to what happened so that he could word his report in order to bolster the defense's theory.

To me, that stinks of being complicit in concocting a bogus theory.

 

[GeekyGirl]

I just said something like this in the 'Through a Juror's Eyes' thread--I wanted to wholeheartedly accept Dr. G's statements and conclusions, but I wish she had clarified them further. Now, Dr. Spitz didn't in any way cast doubt on her conclusions--imo, his testimony was fairly useless--but I don't yet understand why this was determined to be a homicide scientifically. Her red flags make total sense, yet I'd think a scientist would say they clearly indicate foul play rather than definitively demonstrate homicide. Maybe it's a small point, but I'd bet there are a fair number of medical examiners who would quibble with her conclusion. It doesn't change her ruling at all, but when somebody's facing the death penalty over whether this was a homicide or an accident, you'd better believe the defense is going to question it.

That said, yeah, I don't think from what I've read here that Dr. S had any basis to be present at that first autopsy, and of course he's less credible than Dr. G, imo.

Thank you, this describes my concerns perfectly.

 

[Donjeta]

While I agree that Dr S's direct testimony was severely undermined by the cross examination, I disagree with some of the critiques.

I think calling Caylee "Casey" is understandable given the similarities of the names and the stress of the situation. Heck, I am borderline obsessed with this case, and I have mixed the names up once in a while!

Also, I think that some of the lapses in Dr S's knowledge about the circumstances of the case were the fault of the defense attorneys and not his own memory or lack of due diligence. I can imagine a possibility wherein he asked for all materials to be given so that he could make a determination, and Baez cherry-picked the ones he wanted to present.

I am not saying that lets Dr S off the hook completely for the holes in his assessment, but if he is used to working with defense teams that are more thorough, he might have just assumed he was getting complete information. JMO

With all his experience he must have known that it is customary to file a police report so there is no excuse for him to have assumed that he got complete information if he hadn't even seen that one. IMO.

It sounds to me like he was confident enough that he could wing it based on his illustrious past.

 

[Donjeta]

This was a full 2 years after Dr. Spitz had done the second autopsy on Caylee's remains. His report did not even get sent out until a few months later (well over 2 years after having conducted said autopsy).

Snipped for space.

I didn't know this. It's a concern IMO. In my field the protocol is that the report should be ready and filed within five days of meeting the patient. It tends to endanger the patient's rights if the report is based on hazy memory from two years ago.

It would take longer for a ME's report if you have to wait for lab results but he didn't send any samples to the lab, did he?

Hopefully he took very good notes. I wouldn't trust my memory if I was him and couldn't even keep the names and my interviews from last week straight.

 

[wallflower67]

I'm at work listening to the trial, and someone I worked with poked his head in and said, "Hey, that's Spitz. I did a pathology residency under him." I won't say what he said next, but his opinion of Spitz wasn't great. Just kind of funny that as I'm listening to it I discover someone who actually knew him! And I do highly respect my informant.

 

[sparkysmom]

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.

 

[MissJames]

Snipped for space.

I didn't know this. It's a concern IMO. In my field the protocol is that the report should be ready and filed within five days of meeting the patient. It tends to endanger the patient's rights if the report is based on hazy memory from two years ago.

It would take longer for a ME's report if you have to wait for lab results but he didn't send any samples to the lab, did he?

Hopefully he took very good notes. I wouldn't trust my memory if I was him and couldn't even keep the names and my interviews from last week straight.

I believe it was Jan/Feb/March that this issue of NONE of the expert witnesses the DT had listed had filed reports. This was an issue for the State,not even knowing what their opinions or testimony would be.They needed to do depos ,but had nothing to start with.HHJP after some go arounds with the defense had to COURT ORDER reports and opinions that the experts were going to testify to had to be in that report.He set a deadline. It passed. Long story you must read,but they admitted many of the experts listed would not be testifying (remember,the state was trying to depo these people who weren't even going to be called).
HH gave some leeway yesterday in Dr, Huntingtons testimony,but when the same thing happened at the start of this morning he put his foot down.
Baez is now facing contempt charges ,all based back to these reports.

 

[Donjeta]

Not sure this has been mentioned or not... Dr. Spitz also criticized Dr. G's autopsy by stating he had assumed they would have taken samples of the bone marrow for testing, but he realized they had not done so, which he felt was a big mis-step / errror. BUT he did not take a sample of the marrow either....(unless I totally missed it) Surprised JA did not bring that up...

You cannot claim someone did the wrong procedures, and then not complete it yourself...

Wonder how he thought they had identifed Caylee if not by DNA and how he thought they got DNA if not from bone marrow.

 

[Donjeta]

I believe it was Jan/Feb/March that this issue of NONE of the expert witnesses the DT had listed had filed reports. This was an issue for the State,not even knowing what their opinions or testimony would be.They needed to do depos ,but had nothing to start with.HHJP after some go arounds with the defense had to COURT ORDER reports and opinions that the experts were going to testify to had to be in that report.He set a deadline. It passed. Long story you must read,but they admitted many of the experts listed would not be testifying (remember,the state was trying to depo these people who weren't even going to be called).
HH gave some leeway yesterday in Dr, Huntingtons testimony,but when the same thing happened at the start of this morning he put his foot down.
Baez is now facing contempt charges ,all based back to these reports.

OK it sounds like they wanted to wait until they've decided what lie they're going to go with.

 

[RR0004]

I've never watched a trial before, and I don't know anything about Baden or any other consultants. But I think you make some good points. I don't have the animosity toward the defense team some of you who've been following the case a long time have, and I haven't even watched the entire trial (only about two weeks). From what I have seen, I really am annoyed by Baez and Mason, not so much for the legalities--which I freely admit I don't always understand--but for their unrelenting condescension to witnesses. And I have, on the whole, found most of the state's witnesses more convincing than those we've seen from the defense so far (you'll never see me defend Dr. Spitz!) I guess I was just responding to the general tenor of some posts I've seen, not just here but in the comments to news articles and so on.

To know this team is not to love them.
How does the saying go..."Familiarity breeds contempt"?
Surely there are many who are way too familiar with the way this team operates to feel anything but contempt.
But...I know I want to see Casey get the best defense possible because the VERY LAST thing I want is for a guilty verdict to be overturned on appeal.

 

[RR0004]

I just said something like this in the 'Through a Juror's Eyes' thread--I wanted to wholeheartedly accept Dr. G's statements and conclusions, but I wish she had clarified them further. Now, Dr. Spitz didn't in any way cast doubt on her conclusions--imo, his testimony was fairly useless--but I don't yet understand why this was determined to be a homicide scientifically. Her red flags make total sense, yet I'd think a scientist would say they clearly indicate foul play rather than definitively demonstrate homicide. Maybe it's a small point, but I'd bet there are a fair number of medical examiners who would quibble with her conclusion. It doesn't change her ruling at all, but when somebody's facing the death penalty over whether this was a homicide or an accident, you'd better believe the defense is going to question it.

That said, yeah, I don't think from what I've read here that Dr. S had any basis to be present at that first autopsy, and of course he's less credible than Dr. G, imo.

I just can't for the life of me see how Dr. G. could ever reconcile duct tape on an accident victim.

 

[GutFeeling!]

I just said something like this in the 'Through a Juror's Eyes' thread--I wanted to wholeheartedly accept Dr. G's statements and conclusions, but I wish she had clarified them further. Now, Dr. Spitz didn't in any way cast doubt on her conclusions--imo, his testimony was fairly useless--but I don't yet understand why this was determined to be a homicide scientifically. Her red flags make total sense, yet I'd think a scientist would say they clearly indicate foul play rather than definitively demonstrate homicide. Maybe it's a small point, but I'd bet there are a fair number of medical examiners who would quibble with her conclusion. It doesn't change her ruling at all, but when somebody's facing the death penalty over whether this was a homicide or an accident, you'd better believe the defense is going to question it.

That said, yeah, I don't think from what I've read here that Dr. S had any basis to be present at that first autopsy, and of course he's less credible than Dr. G, imo.

I think a major problem you may be having is the word "science."
Science doesn't always happen in a lab with beakers and bunsen burners, or biology or physics. There is also behavioural science - linguistics is a science.

I can still hear my Year 7 teacher at the front of the room saying "there are two groups of sciences. Life Science and Physical Science." and I can still remember having to make a list under those 2 headings. I am a Grandmother now, I wish I could forget this, it had been useless my whole life - until now lol
JB should study nomology

I don't quite understand your "foul play" versus "homicide."
Homicide IS foul play. Foul play is "unfair or treacherous conduct especially with violence." (I think that is from dictionary online). You then mentioned hat a scientist may think ... that's when we go back up to the first paragraph.

 

[Donjeta]

if this happened to be a somewhat common occurrence, perps duct taping their victims out of fear that a purge, or subsequent purges, might make a mess and give them away then, maybe, i might buy into it, reluctantly. but when has anyone ever heard of someone doing anything remotely similar to this, whether it was with duct tape, a plastic bag, etc.? maybe i just don't follow enough murder cases. the idea of casey a) worrying about something like this and b) being smart enough to recognize/anticipate something like this strikes me as beyond far-fetched. jmho. on the other hand if one googles suffocation using duct tape....

I might be more inclined to buy this explanation if Casey had otherwise behaved in a way that makes it seem like she worries about making a mess and things giving her away. Eg. if she hadn't kept a dead body in her trunk, if she hadn't used things from her home to throw her away, if she hadn't thrown her away on the next street from her home, if she hadn't lied to LE in a way that was sure to get her in a mess... etc.