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

[IfIMay]

The defense theory so far has been rather non-specific. What I understand is that they are saying is: Caylee accidentally drowned in the pool, neither Casey nor George called 911, George blamed Casey for the accident, George put duct tape on Caylee's face, Casey acted like nothing had happened and then told a bunch of lies about a nanny having Caylee after she was confronted by Cindy and the police, and Kronk moved the body. None of these things are yet explained with specifics by the defense.

It seems that their strategy is to try to convince the jury that these things could have happened without proving that they actually did happen. Some are givens, such as, nobody calling 911 for a drowned Caylee (a fact) and casey acting like nothing is badly wrong and told lies (both facts).

sounds pretty darn specific to me. :waitasec: And probably to GA. Prove it Baez. Otherwise, it's just noise.

 

[Turnadot]

Now you can either beat me for not knowing what she found other than dirt (considering she found something ) or tell me what she found and we can have a constructive conversation and maybe even I revise my opinion.

I'm not trying to beat you, I'm trying to understand how you can conclude Dr G's work was sloppy if you have no idea what she found inside Caylee's skull.

Autopsy report: http://blogs.discovery.com/criminal_report/2009/06/caylee-anthonys-autopsy-report.html

You can download it from there and read it, or read it here: http://www.docstoc.com/docs/7494800/Autopsy-report-Caylee-Anthony

 

[Tuffy]

Here is one thing I am surprised about as far as Dr G's testimony. Most of the time in court, the lawyers want the witness to answer yes or no to their questions. I am shocked that the DT let her talk so much and "speculate". She basically had the stage..Im just very surprised it was allowed by the DT. Were they napping? why didnt they object and make her just answer yes or no the absolute cause of death. the fact of the matter is Dr. G does not KNOW the cause of death other than her speculation that it was homicide. yes, what she said is rational and true, but she doe not KNOW that Caylee didnt drown.

BBM:

That is all that is going to come from most witnesses in most trials. Unless, there is film footage of the crime in progress, most of the time no one can state that they KNOW something. We come to reasonable conclusions from the evidence presented.

If the defense had objected to her elaborating. The state would have just continued questioning her until she gave the information they wanted out there.

 

[ZsaZsa]

sounds pretty darn specific to me. :waitasec: And probably to GA. Prove it Baez. Otherwise, it's just noise.

Who else but JB could take an accidental drowning, dress it up to look like 1st degree murder so as to deflect 'blame' from his client, with body snatcher hovering around the corner trying to collect reward money that was only offered for the safe return of Caylee.... and think anyone with two neurons would believe that?

 

[grandmaj]

Playing devil's advocate here. What if in the early stages of decomposition Caylee was laying on her left side. In the first week give or take a few days until she was deposited in the woods. Dr. S. agreed within two weeks under the conditions she would be mostly skeleton. Not much soft tissue left.

Now Dr. S. took scrapings. When asked what he did with them he couldn't remember if he did anything with them or gave them to anyone. He was working with Mr. Baez and said someone from the defense team told him the State or County or whomever was doing testing. Not on his scrapings,,,,, their own testing.

Now where are the scrapings? And if he was so confident that those scrapings were brain decomp why didn't he ask Baez to send them to an independent lab? Or did he and he doesn't know the results? Or did they come back without the theory being backed up? Not knowing where the intercranial scrapings are bothers me tons. Baez had tons of money back then. Not having access to a lab doesn't cut it. It is a very bad excuse for not proving that what he found was decomp of the brain. NOW that is what I call a "FAILURE" as Dr. S said about Dr. G.

Dr. G did not apparently have the same opinion. So she didn't do the scrapings. Why would she do scrapings on something she felt scientifically did not appear to be brain decomp... The failure would have been if she did think that was a factor, something more than dirt. She did not believe so.

The failure to prove this very important opinion rests on Dr. S. And he can't. Because while we are asked "please believe me" where is the proof? He ignored the next step which backs up his opinion. The scientific findings.

 

[RR473]

I'm not trying to beat you, I'm trying to understand how you can conclude Dr G's work was sloppy if you have no idea what she found inside Caylee's skull.

Autopsy report: http://blogs.discovery.com/criminal_report/2009/06/caylee-anthonys-autopsy-report.html

You can download it from there and read it, or read it here: http://www.docstoc.com/docs/7494800/Autopsy-report-Caylee-Anthony

Jeez, you are acting as if you're JA and I'm a defense witness.
Just tell me the damn thing she found instead of referring me to documents (assuming the answer IS in that document )

 

[D96s]

Originally Posted by RR473
Now you can either beat me for not knowing what she found other than dirt (considering she found something ) or tell me what she found and we can have a constructive conversation and maybe even I revise my opinion

.

I'm not trying to beat you, I'm trying to understand how you can conclude Dr G's work was sloppy if you have no idea what she found inside Caylee's skull.

Autopsy report: http://blogs.discovery.com/criminal_report/2009/06/caylee-anthonys-autopsy-report.html

You can download it from there and read it.

I would really like those who believe Dr. Ss rantings about "brain dust" to prove to me it was brain matter. Where is the evidence? These folks are insulting Dr. G when she has scientific analyses and evidence to back up her findings. If Dr S is not going to present evidence that what he found is brain matter (and no, I'm not just going to take his word for it), then I have nothing to tell me what he found was anything but dirt. So, even if Dr. G had only found dirt, then I would have no reason to believe what Dr. S found was anything different.

 

[seagull65]

both doctors very credible and reputable in my opinion, and not diametrically opposed in this case as the prosecutor tried to make it seem. I was very turned off by the prosecutor's treatment of Dr. Spitz and found it unnecessary. moo

 

[Turnadot]

both doctors very credible and reputable in my opinion, and not diametrically opposed in this case as the prosecutor tried to make it seem. I was very turned off by the prosecutor's treatment of Dr. Spitz and found it unnecessary. moo

OMG, here have you been? Good to see you posting!

I've so missed your opposing, but fair and balanced opinions here.

 

[cleo612]

Allow me to follow up - why would they invite Dr. Spitz to an autopsy of a child who remains had yet to be identified? He was not the medical examiner for Orange and Osceola counties in Florida. IIRC, he resides in Michigan.

Maybe I missed something. Are you suggesting the defense knew for a fact in advance that these were indeed Caylee's remains?

~~~~Bolded by me

I am not a party to this avenue of debate, however, I do, quite firmly, believe that the defense team knew, unequivocally, that those remains were of Caylee Marie Anthony.

Why else would they have been so adamant in attempting to gain access to the crime scene where the remains were found, and even going to the point of filing motions in court to allow them to attend the autopsy?

Also, Dr. Spitz is not even a practicing medical examiner. He is retired, and was retired at the time that Caylee's remains were found. He had no business, whatsoever, being anywhere near the autopsy that Dr. G performed and before Caylee had even been identified.

 

[grandmaj]

Dr. Spitz went up to Jeff Aston after trial and told him he did a good job. He also told K. Belich that Jeff Ashton did a good job. Going for the link.

http://www.wftv.com/video/28281980/index.html

This is a trial. Paid Defense Witnesses who come up with alternative scientific theory know that the Prosecution will try to impeach their testimony.

 

[faefrost]

I'm not trying to beat you, I'm trying to understand how you can conclude Dr G's work was sloppy if you have no idea what she found inside Caylee's skull.

Autopsy report: http://blogs.discovery.com/criminal_report/2009/06/caylee-anthonys-autopsy-report.html

You can download it from there and read it, or read it here: http://www.docstoc.com/docs/7494800/Autopsy-report-Caylee-Anthony

Yeah any of Dr. S's commentary that "Dr. G did a sloppy autopsy" evaporated as soon as JA asked him "did you realize you broke her skull?" He did noticeable unintended physical damage to a child's skull during his autopsy. He broke the skull, and he did not notice doing so? He did not document doing so? he did not remember doing so? And he has the ballz to accuse another pathologist of doing a sloppy autopsy?

 

[D96s]

both doctors very credible and reputable in my opinion, and not diametrically opposed in this case as the prosecutor tried to make it seem. I was very turned off by the prosecutor's treatment of Dr. Spitz and found it unnecessary. moo

JA did exactly what he should do on cross and that is to question Dr. Ss every opinion and finding. That is exactly what he did. Dr Ss reaction (the huffy, "How dare you question me on my findings!!") was what was unreasonable. I also felt that Dr. S insulted everyones intelligence by demanding we believe his "findings" without proof or evidence. He didn't send the residue he found in for testing but instead demanded we believe it was "brain dust" because he said so. Insulting.

 

[Kelroy]

I hope it's okay to say this, but I feel GeekyGirl has kind of been unfairly interrogated here. She has some reasonable doubt as to whether the state has proven first-degree murder vs. manslaughter, which she has expressed very politely and without intending to derail the thread. I understand that most people here feel very vehemently about this case, but GeekyGirl has said nothing that should upset anyone; she's just expressing her opinion based on the case so far. I realize some people have tried to provoke posters on this board with their contrary opinions, but there's nothing outrageous or strident about GeekyGirl's views. As she's stated in a number of threads, she's actively trying to be objective about the case, though she knows it's an emotional one for most people.

She's never said she believes the defense, thinks Casey is a good person, or thinks Dr. G is incompetent. She's voiced questions and doubts . . . which I happen to share, though I think the state's case looks better every day.

Back on topic, I've come around to feeling very sorry for Dr. Spitz rather than simply being astounded by his evasiveness and inability to back up his findings. Yes, he still comes across as less credible on the stand than Dr. G, IMO.

 

[grandmaj]

~~~~Bolded by me

I am not a party to this avenue of debate, however, I do, quite firmly, believe that the defense team knew, unequivocally, that those remains were of Caylee Marie Anthony.

Why else would they have been so adamant in attempting to gain access to the crime scene where the remains were found, and even going to the point of filing motions in court to allow them to attend the autopsy?

Also, Dr. Spitz is not even a practicing medical examiner. He is retired, and was retired at the time that Caylee's remains were found. He had no business, whatsoever, being anywhere near the autopsy that Dr. G performed and before Caylee had even been identified.

I agree. They knew at least as far back as when D. Casey was in the woods in the same vicinity poking around. MOO But I believe that when Casey was out on bond she and Baez drove by the area at some point when he was picking her up at the house from time to time.

 

[PaulaF513]

Well, so far I'm aware of noone but KC who actually knows how Caylee died. Has she shared that with her DT? Obviously not, considering the opening statement given by Baez.

I think Dr S made sense about opening the skull if there could have been something of evidentiary value that wasn't overtly available upon visual inspection. I have to wonder why Dr G did not do it if that is established protocol in autopsies. I'm sure she felt she did a thorough job and I don't really think she would have been motivated by mere emotion because of the victim's identity.

That said, Dr S lost all credibility when he admitted to not testing the sediment that he claimed was residual brain matter. Then he completed the train wreck that was his testimony with his ridiculous theory that the duct tape had been applied to the bare skull.

Common sense, logic and reason are all important when tangible evidence is scarce and/or lacking. The esteemed doctor showed none by his pomposity seemed to expect the jury to merely take his word because of his reputation. I think he was silly.

 

[cleo612]

Well, so far I'm aware of noone but KC who actually knows how Caylee died. Has she shared that with her DT? Obviously not, considering the opening statement given by Baez.

I think Dr S made sense about opening the skull if there could have been something of evidentiary value that wasn't overtly available upon visual inspection. I have to wonder why Dr G did not do it if that is established protocol in autopsies. I'm sure she felt she did a thorough job and I don't really think she would have been motivated by mere emotion because of the victim's identity.

That said, Dr S lost all credibility when he admitted to not testing the sediment that he claimed was residual brain matter. Then he completed the train wreck that was his testimony with his ridiculous theory that the duct tape had been applied to the bare skull.

Common sense, logic and reason are all important when tangible evidence is scarce and/or lacking. The esteemed doctor showed none by his pomposity seemed to expect the jury to merely take his word because of his reputation. I think he was silly.

~~~~Bolded by me

Dr. Spitz was asked to provide documentation or at least a cite as to where this is "established protocol." He was unable to provide such documentation or cite, therefore, it must be concluded that there is no such "established protocol."

I think that the "established protocol" to which Dr. Spitz referred was just his own standard operating procedure. That does not mean that someone else's standard operating procedure is incorrect, especially given that there apparently exists no standard authority or protocol.

 

[Ssejors]

Well, so far I'm aware of noone but KC who actually knows how Caylee died. Has she shared that with her DT? Obviously not, considering the opening statement given by Baez.

I think Dr S made sense about opening the skull if there could have been something of evidentiary value that wasn't overtly available upon visual inspection. I have to wonder why Dr G did not do it if that is established protocol in autopsies. I'm sure she felt she did a thorough job and I don't really think she would have been motivated by mere emotion because of the victim's identity.

That said, Dr S lost all credibility when he admitted to not testing the sediment that he claimed was residual brain matter. Then he completed the train wreck that was his testimony with his ridiculous theory that the duct tape had been applied to the bare skull.

Common sense, logic and reason are all important when tangible evidence is scarce and/or lacking. The esteemed doctor showed none by his pomposity seemed to expect the jury to merely take his word because of his reputation. I think he was silly.

Well this "Mock Juror" doesn't buy his story, and I AM insulted that he figures he can use his credentials, his half century of experience and his word to insist i believe him.

 

[TorisMom003]

I'm seeing what may be something like a self-fulfilling prophesy within the ME office on this issue. Since they are the authority which declares manner of death, they create and control the statistics regardless of what actually happened. This situation involves cause of death being undetermined.

In spite of the 3 red flags, it is the duct tape over the mouth and nose which triggers the declaration that this is a homicide and not an accident. Because nobody puts tape on the face of a fatal accident victim.

But if somebody actually did put tape on the face of a child who had accidentally drowned it would be declared a homicide anyway. It looks like it would be close to impossible for the ME to say that it was an accidental drowning death of a child but then somebody put duct tape on their face. The duct tape demands the manner as homicide no matter what actually happened.

One could say, well, the ME might allow for an "exception to their 100% statistic" if they had a confession. But in a way that is what we have here. Casey by way of her defense is confessing that Caylee accidentally drowned and then afterwards duct tape was placed on her face. She is confessing that she told countless lies to cover up that this is what really happened. The state is refusing that "confession" and is prosecuting for murder with the full support of the ME who says that it is murder.
Even if there is an acquittal and Casey is declared innocent of the charges, the ME office will still count this as a Homicide and not an accident. Their "100% rule" will remain perpetually.

RBBM

This is not entirely accurate IMO. KC had plenty of chances to "confess" to the accidental death of Caylee before Caylee had been found. LE interviewed KC and told her that if it was an accident it was something that they could work through (paraphrasing of course). KC was adamant that Zanny had taken Caylee and refused to return her, that Caylee was a kidnapped child.

Kc did not claim accident at that time because she did not think of it yet. Once KC realized that she had to come up with some type of defense, she then claimed accident. KC still has not "confessed" through her defense team because KC still has not taken the blame for anything to do with how Caylee died or how and where Caylee was found.

Dr G was a professional on the stand. Dr S was not. Dr G is realiable and believable. Dr S is not.

MOO

 

[matou]

I believe that Spitz was the shoddy medical examiner since he examined Caylee's bones without wearing gloves yet he claims the duct tape was "a later event" and placed on her after death (after she decomposed?). Prints can transfer onto bone and he contaminated evidence. Unbelievable. JMO