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

[Kelroy]

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.

My keywords were "indicate" versus "definitively demonstrate"; sorry for the confusion. I haven't seen anything yet that fully explains why Dr. G would say this proves or even necessarily demonstrates homicide rather than simply indicates it. I'm not saying she doesn't have a basis for that, I just wish she had explained it further. That's all.

I really hope this doesn't sound snarky; if it does, please forgive me: Yes, I'm aware that behavioral science is a science. I'm aware that not only is behavioral science a science, but so are history and economics and a host of other disciplines that perhaps the general public does not usually associate with science. (The latter two fall under the social sciences, of course.) So, yes, I do understand that not all science is conducted in a laboratory. I have a PhD in a social science discipline, and my long experience within academic institutions has made me well aware of the different branches of science.

I will concede, however, that I did not realize that medical examiners relied extensively on behavioral science in order to determine manner of death (until she said so on the stand); I was surprised by that, actually, though I have no reason to doubt it. When I questioned how her ruling was determined scientifically, I suppose I was referring more to some other statements she made that do not, at first glance, seem like facts that can be verified scientifically: "100% of accidents are reported" and "a child should not have duct tape on its face." I've no doubt that all accidents should be reported and that no child should have duct tape on its face, but these seem, at first glance, less verifiable facts than assumptions or beliefs. I'm sure Dr. G could explain further; she didn't get a chance to do so, however.

Still, I'm not impeaching this witness! As I said, I found her likable and credible. However, I had some questions about her statements that were not cleared up in direct or cross. I stand by my original assertion that I wish her ruling, based on those three red flags, could be further explained, and that it does leave some room for debate. She ruled the death a homicide of undetermined means; in a death penalty case that seems to depend on whether the death was a homicide or an accident, of course that's going to be debated. It's just not airtight, though nobody has said anything on the stand so far to discredit it. JMO.

And let me state, for the record, one more time: I found Dr. Spitz to be a terrible witness and I find Dr. Garavaglia's findings infinitely more credible.

 

[kaRN]

No comparison IMO. Dr G made common and scientific sense. Dr S should consider retirement IMO. It's awful to watch a brilliant career fumble and bumble like this. Medical Doctors, which he introduced himself as, have a responsibility to remain current in their field and I don't believe Dr S is even remotely.
He didn't test the cranial debris.
Imagine going for a second opinion, the Doctor finds a lump he believes the first one missed. They open you up to see it, so they can go HA I told you so, don't bother to biopsy and then sew you back up so they can tell the media what an incompetent the first Dr was. Thank god Dr S's patient was already dead and that no amount of malpractice on his part can prevent Caylee getting her justice.
MO

 

[LiveLaughLuv]

So, who's testimony did you find more credible about the remains? Dr. G. or Dr. S? IMO, Dr. S made himself completely unreliable by being all over the map with his answers when a simple statement of fact would have sufficed, contradicting himself numerous times and skirting the questioning when asked to clarify, and pulling the old "I can't remember." card when he didn't want to answer. And, of course, the whole ME staged the scene for pics ploy. My vote goes to Dr. G for these reasons. I'd love to know what everyone else think.

Dr. G...hands down...

I saw Dr. Spitz didn't know the true facts of how Caylee came to be found at Suburban or what it was that is allegedly gotten her there..he's just working the defenses theory. I don't see him working with the facts....I was so glad when JA asked him that question...what facts were you given about this case...

Dr. S needs to retire, I watched yesterday and he was definately fumbling for words...his raising his voice when he is doubted is just his character and style. I LOL when Dr. S told JA, I'm sorry, you provoked me...was priceless...just to show you how indignant he is...I think in the end, Baez will be disbarred and ICA will spend the rest of her natural life in prison...JMHO

Justice for Caylee

 

[Mare10]

Dr S said and even demonstrated how he thinks the body was moved and that someone put the mandible back on the skull. According to the DT two people moved the body, that would be GA and RK. This is ridiculous to me. My Dad was LE in NYC for almost 40 years and I know that he would not be able to put a skull back together correctly, GA was LE for not nearly as long and no medical background as far as I know. RK is a meter reader and I have not heard any info thus far that he has a medical background either. I think both could have tried but to have it anatomically correct is just ridiculous. Maybe VT studied anatomy? The only one with a medical background is CA and Lord, I hope they are not going to add more craziness to this heartbreaking case. Did I say ridiculous? JMO

 

[MissJames]

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.

Sorry I have to quote my own post,but too late ETA.
If any of this info is wrong,will a smarter ,less sleep deprived WSer clarify or correct :seeya: I probably should not post facts at 3:40 in the morning :crazy:

This is taking us OT,anyway,and we should move on,but I'd hate to leave anyone with incorrect info if I have facts wrong.
Move over Dr. Spitz .......................

 

[Mountain_Kat]

I haven't got a clue, lol. I think the defense was trying to show that if Caylee's skull was found upright on the ground, then how did the sediment stay in the upper left.

IIRC, in Melich's report, he stated the skull had been in the position it was found in for some time.

Right. And apparently, during some decomp stage, the skull had been laying on it's side.

But again, I have to ask, "So what?". Even if this "sediment" IS brain matter, it still doesn't advance the DT's theory. So for me personally, it's a big fat "so what?".

 

[Turnadot]

Right. And apparently, during some decomp stage, the skull had been laying on it's side.

But again, I have to ask, "So what?". Even if this "sediment" IS brain matter, it still doesn't advance the DT's theory. So for me personally, it's a big fat "so what?".

I agree with you, but we aren't chemists...

 

[Mountain_Kat]

I agree with you, but we aren't chemists...

Nor are we forensic anthropologists.

However, I am still able to reasonably determine Dr. S's credibility regarding THIS case.

1). He can't determine manner of death, and yet he admits that in order to determine manner of death, an ME needs to know all the facts surrounding a case. What does he know about the facts surrounding this case? By his own admission, nothing.

2). He claims that Dr. G broke protocol by not opening the skull. And yet when asked to cite this protocol, Dr. S admits that there is no formal protocol that states the skull must be opened. So, in essence, he is saying Dr. G simply didn't do what HE would have done. Big deal.

3). He claims the duct tape was attached to the actual skull, not soft tissue. I may not be a medical examiner, but even I know that if that were the case, the duct tape would still have been attached to the skull when recovered. Furthermore, something had to hold the mandible in place. How do you pick up a skull to attach duct tape without the mandilbe coming off? You don't. And Dr.S admits to that fact.

4). When asked, Dr. S didn't know the length of the pieces of duct tape, or even how many pieces of duct tape there were. He stated there were 2, plus the one found some distance away from the body. Anyone listening to the evidence knows this is not correct.

5). (and this was a biggie for me!) Dr. S stated that Dr.G should have been more thorough because this was a high profile case. So, Dr.S basically told this jury that the circumstance of the death of Caylee Anthony somehow mattered more than the death of any non-high profile child. How do I translate that? "I'm a media ."

I could go on and on. But the bottom line, for me, is that Dr. S obviously knows NOTHING about the facts surrounding this case, and he is simply giving his opinion in order to insert his name into a high profile case. Therefore, his testimony means nothing to me.

JMO

 

[sappysoul]

My keywords were "indicate" versus "definitively demonstrate"; sorry for the confusion. I haven't seen anything yet that fully explains why Dr. G would say this proves or even necessarily demonstrates homicide rather than simply indicates it. I'm not saying she doesn't have a basis for that, I just wish she had explained it further. That's all.

I really hope this doesn't sound snarky; if it does, please forgive me: Yes, I'm aware that behavioral science is a science. I'm aware that not only is behavioral science a science, but so are history and economics and a host of other disciplines that perhaps the general public does not usually associate with science. (The latter two fall under the social sciences, of course.) So, yes, I do understand that not all science is conducted in a laboratory. I have a PhD in a social science discipline, and my long experience within academic institutions has made me well aware of the different branches of science.

I will concede, however, that I did not realize that medical examiners relied extensively on behavioral science in order to determine manner of death (until she said so on the stand); I was surprised by that, actually, though I have no reason to doubt it. When I questioned how her ruling was determined scientifically, I suppose I was referring more to some other statements she made that do not, at first glance, seem like facts that can be verified scientifically: "100% of accidents are reported" and "a child should not have duct tape on its face." I've no doubt that all accidents should be reported and that no child should have duct tape on its face, but these seem, at first glance, less verifiable facts than assumptions or beliefs. I'm sure Dr. G could explain further; she didn't get a chance to do so, however.

Still, I'm not impeaching this witness! As I said, I found her likable and credible. However, I had some questions about her statements that were not cleared up in direct or cross. I stand by my original assertion that I wish her ruling, based on those three red flags, could be further explained, and that it does leave some room for debate. She ruled the death a homicide of undetermined means; in a death penalty case that seems to depend on whether the death was a homicide or an accident, of course that's going to be debated. It's just not airtight, though nobody has said anything on the stand so far to discredit it. JMO.

And let me state, for the record, one more time: I found Dr. Spitz to be a terrible witness and I find Dr. Garavaglia's findings infinitely more credible.

Dr. G. explained in her testimony that she relied on observational data in making her ruling. She also stated that it is extremely rare that you can determine manner of death by only looking at the body. In reality it is also extremely rare that a death can be called a homicide with 100% certainty even with hard scientific evidence. For example for those who remember the Westerfield trial in CA where Danielle Van Dam's body was found dumped and decomposed. Danielle's blood and hair were found inside his home and RV. That, in and of itself, is not 100%, absolute proof they got there during the commission of a homicide. Even the mother admitted Danielle had recently been in his home and neighbors saw her and a friend around the RV. LE and the ME had to look at the circumstantial evidence (MUCH of it based on his behavior after the murder) to make their case. Not one single person that I can recall EVER questioned the ME ruling of homicide in that case. Is it because it is a mother accused in this case that some people seem to be uncomfortable with a child found duct taped and dumped in a swamp being ruled a homicide?

Imagine for a moment that Casey killed Caylee (w/o using chloroform) on June 16th, dumped her body and then reported her missing. Casey successfully pulls off the role of grieving mother (yep, I know that's a stretch :crazy. The body is found dumped in December as it actually was. Would anyone even think twice about the ME ruling it a homicide? I seriously doubt it. Now add in we have the decomp smell in the trunk, traces of chloroform and a partying mother who didn't report her child missing and is a proven liar. And people question it? I just don't get it.

 

[Jack]

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.

Homicide as a manner of death means anything other than a natural death, it doesn't have to mean murder or foul play. Homicide can include any act of negligance or ommision that results in death. Homicide doesn't have to be criminal unless there was an intentional act, or even wreckless disregard. IMO, the medical examiner doesn't look for a criminal act, they look for the cause of death and if it isn't natural (as by disease or illness), then it is a homicide. Then they turn to the means of death. Without soft tissue it is difficult to find the means of death, but not impossible in some cases. Say if someone was bashed over the head or shot you could see evidence of that on the skeleton. If someone was smothered or suffocated it would be next to impossible to say that 100% if the remains are skeletonized so it would make sense that the means of death would be ruled as undetermined.

Her investigation revealed no known or suspected illness or disease, this was enough to rule the manner of death as a homicide. Her opinion was further supported by the way the remains were found. When someone dies of illness or disease you don't normally put duct tape on them anywhere, triple bag them, or place their body in a dumping ground without telling anyone they died. So it is absolutely accurate to rule as a homicide. Since there was no soft tissue left to tell exactly where the duct tape had been placed it was not possible to say the means of death was by suffocation so it makes sense that the ME ruled the means of death as undetermined.

You probably already understood all that and were looking for a scientific reason. So I would say science has a broad definition and it doesn't always mean test tubes and lab coats.

 

[LiveLaughLuv]

Spitz told the court that he believes the duct tape was placed on Caylee after her body decomposed, to keep her jawbone attached to her skull, because of the lack of “entomological evidence found on the duct tape.” If tape was placed on the skin, DNA would have been left on it.

He also shared that the medical examiner should have opened Caylee’s skull as well, saying that by opening up the skull you could see fractures or other things that you couldn’t see from the outside.

Upon opening the skull, Spitz found “a cake of dark brown residue” on the left side of the skull, indicating that the left side of the skull was down during the decomposition process, causing sediment to precipitate to the area.

The initial autopsy and photos had showed that the duct tape found on the remains was stuck to the hair and not the mandible bone.

“If the skull was once lying on its left side, as clearly evidenced by the location of the sediment, it is highly unlikely that both the skull and the mandible, which would have been disarticulated during decomposition would roll back to an almost perfect anatomical position.”

During cross-examination, Prosecutor Jeff Ashton pointed out that Caylee’s skull was found in an upright anatomical position, and that if the skull was found how Spitz described, wouldn’t the mass of hair be on the same side as well.

But Spitz responded not necessarily, and stated that water could have moved the hair. He also revealed that someone may have tampered with the evidence and put the hair over the skull while taking photos.
“It wouldn’t be the first time,” he added.

http://www.christianpost.com/news/c...-staged-defense-threatened-of-contempt-51310/


I take great offense at Dr. S suggesting the ME office tampered with the evidence to prove it's theory, IMO...he seems to be in need of retirement if this is how he wants to end his career...Is he being paid?

He also seemed to have contradicted himself and really didn't investigate Caylee's death for he didn't know the facts or the why's of Caylee's alleged kidnapping...

How can anyone find that tattered duct tape was placed after total decomposition for there was no DNA was found...did he know that Caylee is alleged to have been lying where she was found for over 5 months? Did he know Caylee's remains were found in a swampy area that is used as a dump site for garbage? Did he not see the duct tape appeared to be tattered and weathered by the storms and elements? Did he know how the scavengers ate at Caylee's remains, scattering her skeletal remains over several areas of that swamp? How did her hair not float away or that it was the duct tape that held in there along with her mandible?

I truly think it's time for Dr. Spitz to hang up his shingle...he really appeared quite foolish and those who know of his reputation might feel embarrased for him...his testimony should be seen as if he was paid tens of thousands of dollars for it...he appears to be a bought witness but why, I just don't know...JMHO

Justice for Caylee

 

[Donjeta]

I will concede, however, that I did not realize that medical examiners relied extensively on behavioral science in order to determine manner of death (until she said so on the stand); I was surprised by that, actually, though I have no reason to doubt it. When I questioned how her ruling was determined scientifically, I suppose I was referring more to some other statements she made that do not, at first glance, seem like facts that can be verified scientifically: "100% of accidents are reported" and "a child should not have duct tape on its face." I've no doubt that all accidents should be reported and that no child should have duct tape on its face, but these seem, at first glance, less verifiable facts than assumptions or beliefs. I'm sure Dr. G could explain further; she didn't get a chance to do so, however..

Snipped for space and BBM.

I think we all know that it's not true that 100 % of accidents are reported. But did she really say that?

IIRC she said something to the effect that all children's accidental drownings that her office had investigated were reported unless there was a good reason not to.

You could argue that it's a circular argument. If you use reported/not reported as a factor in making the accident/homicide distinction then it's not surprising to find that accidents were reported. Sure, otherwise they wouldn't have been classified as accidents.

But it makes sense and fits the normal every day experience. If a parent finds her child in dire straits normally the first instinct is to try and get help and not cover one's azz.

 

[Wishbone]

ICA strikes again thru her expert's testimony. Dr. G's reputation maligned by branding her autopsy "shoddy". When will the madness stop!!!!

 

[sappysoul]

Homicide as a manner of death means anything other than a natural death, it doesn't have to mean murder or foul play. Homicide can include any act of negligance or ommision that results in death. Homicide doesn't have to be criminal unless there was an intentional act, or even wreckless disregard. IMO, the medical examiner doesn't look for a criminal act, they look for the cause of death and if it isn't natural (as by disease or illness), then it is a homicide. Then they turn to the means of death. Without soft tissue it is difficult to find the means of death, but not impossible in some cases. Say if someone was bashed over the head or shot you could see evidence of that on the skeleton. If someone was smothered or suffocated it would be next to impossible to say that 100% if the remains are skeletonized so it would make sense that the means of death would be ruled as undetermined.

Her investigation revealed no known or suspected illness or disease, this was enough to rule the manner of death as a homicide. Her opinion was further supported by the way the remains were found. When someone dies of illness or disease you don't normally put duct tape on them anywhere, triple bag them, or place their body in a dumping ground without telling anyone they died. So it is absolutely accurate to rule as a homicide. Since there was no soft tissue left to tell exactly where the duct tape had been placed it was not possible to say the means of death was by suffocation so it makes sense that the ME ruled the means of death as undetermined.

You probably already understood all that and were looking for a scientific reason. So I would say science has a broad definition and it doesn't always mean test tubes and lab coats.

There are actually 4 manners of death- homicide, accident, natural causes and suicide.

 

[ZsaZsa]

Snipped for space and BBM.

I think we all know that it's not true that 100 % of accidents are reported. But did she really say that?

IIRC she said something to the effect that all children's accidental drownings that her office had investigated were reported unless there was a good reason not to.

You could argue that it's a circular argument. If you use reported/not reported as a factor in making the accident/homicide distinction then it's not surprising to find that accidents were reported. Sure, otherwise they wouldn't have been classified as accidents.

But it makes sense and fits the normal every day experience. If a parent finds her child in dire straits normally the first instinct is to try and get help and not cover one's azz.

What she told CM was that "even if the child was found stiff, 100% of accidental drowning deaths of children are reported,because of the parents hope that the child can still be saved".

 

[Donjeta]

What she told CM was that "even if the child was found stiff, 100% of accidental drowning deaths of children are reported,because of the parents hope that the child can still be saved".

That's presuming the parents find the child drowned. Which of course is alleged to have happened here but it's not always the case.

But I really think even complete strangers tend to report a drowned child they find, if not 100% of the time then very close, because, why wouldn't they? It's the right thing to do.

Of course this sort of argument is very hard to prove conclusively because if someone does NOT report a drowning accident it may not come to the ME's attention or it comes to their attention too late to determine cause of death.

 

[ZsaZsa]

That's presuming the parents find the child drowned. Which of course is alleged to have happened here but it's not always the case.

But I really think even complete strangers tend to report a drowned child they find, if not 100% of the time then very close, because, why wouldn't they? It's the right thing to do.

Of course this sort of argument is very hard to prove conclusively because if someone does NOT report a drowning accident it may not come to the ME's attention or it comes to their attention too late to determine cause of death.

Is there any logical reason someone would not report an accident?
(Apart from ICA of course) :crazy:

 

[GeekyGirl]

Snipped for space and BBM.

I think we all know that it's not true that 100 % of accidents are reported. But did she really say that?

IIRC she said something to the effect that all children's accidental drownings that her office had investigated were reported unless there was a good reason not to.

You could argue that it's a circular argument. If you use reported/not reported as a factor in making the accident/homicide distinction then it's not surprising to find that accidents were reported. Sure, otherwise they wouldn't have been classified as accidents.

But it makes sense and fits the normal every day experience. If a parent finds her child in dire straits normally the first instinct is to try and get help and not cover one's azz.

And therein lies the rub, at least for me, ITA that it's reasonable to assume that a normal parent's first instinct would be to try and get help, or if they didn't immediately seek help (I've had situations where parents just totally froze), they certainly reported the accident once reality set in. But nothing in Casey's behavior prior to June 16th would indicate to me that she's "normal" in the context of this scenario, so making assumptions about her behavior based on what a "normal" parent would do aren't particularly useful to me in trying to understand what actually happened that day. Again, I'm not arguing that she wasn't responsible, because I think she is, it's just that I think her behavior and reactions are so *abnormal* that I can't say with any certainty that she wouldn't try and cover up an accidental death if it suited her purposes at the time.

 

[sappysoul]

What she told CM was that "even if the child was found stiff, 100% of accidental drowning deaths of children are reported,because of the parents hope that the child can still be saved".

I would venture to guess that even if you KNEW your child couldn't be saved you'd still call the police instead of putting them in a bag and throwing them in a swamp. JMHO

 

[GeekyGirl]

I would venture to guess that even if you KNEW your child couldn't be saved you'd still call the police instead of putting them in a bag and throwing them in a swamp. JMHO

Of course I would, but then again it would never occur to me to steal money from my family and friends, lie even in the face of a mountain of evidence, create a fake job, fake people... Well, you get my point. MOO