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

[Serjen]

I have a question...if it was determined by looking into and at the skull, or even opening the skull, that there was no damage to it and therefore nothing to do with the skull was the cause/manner of death- then what does it matter about all this "brain dust vs dirt" debate? I'm being serious. Even if it was tested and determined to be one or the other, what difference would it make in the initial finding that there was no skull trauma?

 

[RR473]

I must not be making my question very clear. I'm not doubting the existance of the residue. You made the statement that the residue did not resolve in Dr Gs saline wash. I'm asking how do you know that? I only heard Dr S CLAIM or SAY that residue didn't resolve in Dr Gs wash. There is absolutely no evidence to back up his claim. He doesn't even know what that residue is so there is no way he can make that claim.

If it had been resolved in Dr G's liquid then it wouldn't have been there for Dr S to take photo of. Unless Dr G put them back after examining.

I said this in another post but will reiterate here. The fact that the residue was found on the left side of the skull meaning that is the way her head lay during decomp means nothing to me. Decomp happens quickly. She would have been totally skeletonized by late July or early August. That's when the residue would have settled. That also means little Caylee lay in that garbage dump another five months totally skeltonized before she was found. We know that garbage dump was frequented by animals and subject to flooding. I would find it harder to believe her little skull lie there for five months without being disturbed. Either the bag was kicked by animals, or filled with water during flooding, floating the skull a bit and it settled in another position. His finding means absolutely nothing to me.

On which side she got decomposed doesn't mean anything to me either.

 

[RR473]

I have a question...if it was determined by looking into and at the skull, or even opening the skull, that there was no damage to it and therefore nothing to do with the skull was the cause/manner of death- then what does it matter about all this "brain dust vs dirt" debate? I'm being serious. Even if it was tested and determined to be one or the other, what difference would it make in the initial finding that there was no skull trauma?

Brain dust could show traces of medication (Xanny, sleeping pills, etc.).

 

[GeekyGirl]

No - I'm not an expert in bones. I am quoting an expert.
That being said, I do have a B.S in Biology and I am a certified EMT-B for the state of Iowa. I volunteered for an all volunteer Ambulance Service for six years before we moved to Virginia last year.

But no I'm not an expert in Bones. I am only quoting what an expert said and also, I have held a skull before and can affirm that you clearly see inside the skull through the bottom with the jaw disarticulated.

Then we have similar experience, I volunteered for 10 years for an EMS agency in Virginia as an EMT and then Paramedic. I've also held skulls, and in my experience, while you can see through the foramen magnum, you cannot clearly see the entirety of the cranial vault. MOO

 

[D96s]

I have a question...if it was determined by looking into and at the skull, or even opening the skull, that there was no damage to it and therefore nothing to do with the skull was the cause/manner of death- then what does it matter about all this "brain dust vs dirt" debate? I'm being serious. Even if it was tested and determined to be one or the other, what difference would it make in the initial finding that there was no skull trauma?

Dr S is trying to back up the Defenses claim that the body was moved. He claims the body decomposed while the head lie to the left because the substance he found (that he CLAIMS is Brain Dust) was on the left.

Personally it means nothing to me. Decomp happens quick. Caylee was likely totally skeletonized by late July early Aug which means she lay in the garbage dump totally skeletonized for five months. We know that garbage dump she lay in was frequented by animals and subject to flooding. I would be more surprized if her little skull layed there for five months without being disturbed. The bag could have been kicked by animals or filled with water during a flood floating the skull for a bit. That finding by Dr S is meaningless to me.

 

[aeneas1]

In the photo he showed that there is a substance sitting on the left side of the skull and concluded that Caylee was put on her left side after death. The brain after death will resolve and melt down. Under the gravity the unresolvable substances will fall to the bottom.

exactly like silt, no?

 

[Scamperoo]

What a streatch... There is no way that Caylee's skull remained un-moved for the entire time becaue of: animal activity, flood... No, and if this is what you are basing co-conspirator theory on, you will never find them because she acted alone, I"d bet my last dollar on it, and there is no evidence pointing to anyone other than ICA... None whatsoever, including the residue issue as there are so many other ways to explain any discrepancies here.

I have to agree with you her skull must have been moved constantly in the beginning, the contents of the skull would have remained suspended in water and then shifted during predation by insects and animals, when these events ceased, that is when her skull came to rest as it did. Occam's razor....

 

[D96s]

Then we have similar experience, I volunteered for 10 years for an EMS agency in Virginia as an EMT and then Paramedic. I've also held skulls, and in my experience, while you can see through the foramen magnum, you cannot clearly see the entirety of the cranial vault. MOO

The foramen magnum is the small round opening in the bottom of the skull that admits the spinal cord. I agree if you're just looking through that hole you can't see very well. In just about every skeletonized skull the jawbone (Mandible) is disarticulated. I'm talking about looking up from the bottom of a skull with the jaw bone removed. You can easily see up into the cranial vault.

 

[crimesnooper]

Are you telling me that the medical examiners are not paid for their work?
I know what you will say: They are paid a fixed monthly salary but consultants are paid ...

The difference, IMO, is that the employee( ie ME) gets paid regardless of their findings, not true for a consultant.
The paid expert may get paid for initial work, but if it can't be used to support the case, that expert will not be at a trial.

 

[USARDOG]

No - I'm not an expert in bones. I am quoting an expert.
That being said, I do have a B.S in Biology and I am a certified EMT-B for the state of Iowa. I volunteered for an all volunteer Ambulance Service for six years before we moved to Virginia last year.

But no I'm not an expert in Bones. I am only quoting what an expert said and also, I have held a skull before and can affirm that you clearly see inside the skull through the bottom with the jaw disarticulated.

I have to respectifully disagree here. Were this so, if the jaw were removed the brain could fall out, with all the CSF. Removing the jaw in no way exposes the brain. Perhaps this will help. [ame="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Base_of_skull"]Base of skull - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia@@AMEPARAM@@/wiki/File:Gray193.png" class="image"><img alt="Gray193.png" src="http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/8/81/Gray193.png/250px-Gray193.png"@@AMEPARAM@@commons/thumb/8/81/Gray193.png/250px-Gray193.png[/ame]

One would have to remove the skull from the spine and then it would require all the "soft tissue' be also removed including the brain to see into the skull. At this point there would be much of the top and the sides of the skull visible. The jaw could remain in place for this and not be in the way as it is a semi circle of bone, not closed at the bottom.

 

[RR473]

The difference, IMO, is that the employee( ie ME) gets paid regardless of their findings, not true for a consultant.
The paid expert may get paid for initial work, but if it can't be used to support the case, that expert will not be at a trial.

Good point! Me thinks that the courts shouldn't allow consultant expert testimonies.

 

[ExpectingUnicorns]

LOL, I doubt any of us have enough knowledge to know if a scraping would produce any better results than two cranial washings. So I tried to search with the phrase "define cranial washing." The first two results were definitions of "Brainwashing." (Nada on cranial washings.)

But after all these finely drawn arguments I do feel a bit brainwashed. So, I will go back to my original position that I believe Dr G did do a thorough and complete autopsy, including a visual of the inside of the skull, with light (she doesn't say what kind of lighted instrument ~ and I don't believe she has to!). It amazes me that anyone can compare the two written reports and conclude that Dr Spitz did a more thorough or better autopsy. I will rely on Dr G's experience and discretion to know what she had to do in this case. I believe she has a reputation for being a truth seeker and that weighs a lot with me.

 

[D96s]

I have to respectifully disagree here. Were this so, if the jaw were removed the brain could fall out, with all the CSF. Removing the jaw in no way exposes the brain. Perhaps this will help. Base of skull - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

One would have to remove the skull from the spine and then it would require all the "soft tissue' be also removed including the brain to see into the skull. At this point there would be much of the top and the sides of the skull visible. The jaw could remain in place for this and not be in the way as it is a semi circle of bone, not closed at the bottom.

I'm not talking about a body still in the early stages of decomp. Of course you need to remove the skull cap then. I'm talking about looking into a skull that is completely skeletonized (no brain left. Empty) With the mandible removed, you can clearly see into the interior portion of the skull through the bottom.

 

[GeekyGirl]

The foramen magnum is the small round opening in the bottom of the skull that admits the spinal cord. I agree if you're just looking through that hole you can't see very well. In just about every skeletonized skull the jawbone (Mandible) is disarticulated. I'm talking about looking up from the bottom of a skull with the jaw bone removed. You can easily see up into the cranial vault.

I'm really not following you, I'm sorry. So you're saying that if the mandible (the lower jaw) is disarticulated, this uncovers is some other, wider opening that would allow you peer inside the skull? Because I even pulled out my Gray's and I'm just not seeing it. Not saying you're wrong, just that I'd like to know what I'm missing.

 

[Tuffy]

Not to the best of my knowledge. The mandible only forms the anterior, inferior articulation, not the base of the crainium. Removing the jaw would only expose the anterior side of the spinal vertebra (if the soft tissue were decomposed). Been there, done that.

Human skull, bottom view:

http://courses.washington.edu/chordate/453photos/skull_photos/human_skull_ventral.jpg

 

[katydid23]

My dad tried a lot of PI accident cases. He had a stable of expert witnesses which he relied upon. Sadly it is pretty much true that you can 'hire' a doctor to describe things in the way you need them to be described. They walk a fine line and avoid outright lying, but they can spin thing and leave things out when need be.

 

[norest4thewicked]

I was actually shocked at Dr. S testimony and just feel that he acted more like an angry and bitter man instead of an expert. I was embarrassed for the DT. They should have been embarrassed too.

 

[Jolynna]

It is possible but that's not really her defense, is it? That she covered up an accident because she's an abnormal parent I mean. The defense says she is a loving caring good parent and George made her cover it up, for unfathomable reasons of his own.

Exactly! Worse than that, ICA isn't saying SHE covered anything up (well she didn't call 911...but that was George's fault because he scared her into not calling 911). "Not calling 911 is all ICA did wrong",according to JB--who vividly demonstrated how George scared ICA.

George covered up and out of fear ICA ran off and partied.

According to ICA's crack defense team's famous, world-renowned, expert's extensive and flawless investigation, it is clear that after the body had skeletonized on Suburban, a morally bankrupt body snatcher came along, took Caylee's skull and mandible and attached the skull and mandible together in the anatomically correct position with the same rare Henkel duct tape that is identical to the duct tape George put on his gas can. Then the morally bankrupt body snatcher returned the skull with the taped on mandible back to its original position so he could be rich and famous.

Dr. Spitz stuck duct tape on his arm and pulled it off to make his case that the lack of DNA and skin on the sticky side of the tape definitively proves the tape went over bones and not tissue.

Unless ICA's "expert" is lying or mistaken ICA couldn't have put tape over Caylee's face to stop up fluid because the tape didn't go Caylee's face until Caylee's face had skeletonized.

ICA's world-renowned expert says so.

imo

 

[STEADFAST]

View of skull from the bottom with the mandible removed.

 

[GeekyGirl]

View of skull from the bottom with the mandible removed.

The round opening there is the foramen magnum we discussed earlier and D96s agreed that this would not be large enough to view the interior cranial vault. Am I missing something? Serious question.