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

[goldenlover]

He found a residue settled on the left side of the skull. We have no clue what the residue is because he didn't have it tested. He just proffered an opinion of what he thinks is it but he has no proof or evidence. I'm going to assume that Dr. Gs saline solution wash got enough of that residue that her toxicology analysis identified it. It's in her report.

If you take the word of the people that said they smelled decomposition because they have smelled it before and just "know" what it is, due to their occupation, life experiences, etc. For example, the tow truck drive that also worked for waste management. Everyone took his word that he knew the difference between the decomposition smell and the trash smell, yet he was just a tow truck driver with no actual training in the smell of decomposition.

Why is it so hard to belive that a forensic pathologist that has done over 60,000 autopsies and has years of education and experience, as well as has taught in his field for years and written textbooks on the field of pathology, does not know what the residue inside the skull was without testing it? He said it was sticky, etc. He knew that it was not dirt. He knew what it was. He also knows how to perform a complete autopsy.

 

[Tuffy]

I still see a lot of banter about the A&P of the Cranium. Let me make one unequivocal statement that anyone applying any logic to this discussion should readily agree with. One can examine the inside of a shoe box best by taking off it's lid than they can by using a light and looking through a few small small holes with restricted angles of view, with "a light". Period.

Answer that and your quest is complete. But of course this is merely MHOO

What answers the question for me is the fact that Dr. G did the exam her way, and Dr. S did the exam his way. Both came away with the same findings from the skull. The only difference is that Dr. S found Dr. G's methods shoddy. Cutting the skull in half did not yield any better result than leaving it intact.

So perhaps we can draw the conclusion that for some doctors the only way to thoroughly examine the skull is to saw it in half. Other doctors who might be more proficient with the use of instruments and scopes do not find it necessary to saw it in half.

 

[CN2Souls]

They use endoscopes and other techniques to diagnose disease in live persons because it is non-invasive and does not put the person through unnecessary surgery. Sometimes it is to give them a clue as to if further testing is needed and if it is it usually followed up by real exploratory surgery so they can actually see what is going on with their eyes.

Ask any physician..nothing is better than a visual exam. Many times thing are missed with these new techniques, but sometimes that outweighs the risks of surgery. In an autopsy, they are not worried about risking the health of the individual, therefore nothing would beat a visual inspection. Visual examination is not "old school". I had the chance to ask a physician about this last night. Endoscopes and the like are not usually used in an autopsy. Infarct, autopsy tools involve a lot of saws. Even in skelatal remains they need to examine the inside of the skill for fractures to see if the cause of death could have been a trauma to the head.

Yes, autopsy tools involve a lot of saws, Was forced to work with an ME in College, part of my requirements....

They only used the Saw on baby when that absolutely had to... :cry:

Did I say something about Endoscopes? :waitasec:

 

[LongtimeMedic]

Dr S didn't find anything that Dr G hadn't found (and don't try to get me to believe only what Dr S said. I'm talking evidence). And Dr S damaged the skull just to show some residue - that had already been tested by Dr. G.

In Dr Spitz's report, he notes:
, behind the petrous portion of the left temporal bone, spread over an approximately two inch diameter area. The location of the residue indicates that the lef t side of the sku" was down during most by far of the decomposition process, causing the sediment to precipitate to that area."
http://www.baynews9.com/static/arti...sey-anthony-2nd-autopsy-werner-spitz-0315.pdf

I find no mention of such findings in Dr G's report. Since Spitz was the second examiner, and the first rinsed the skull out with water, it makes it a highly reasonable assumption that the items are not listed in Dr G's report because she didn't see them.

Come on... "A cake of dark brown residue was adherent to the left side of the skull" and the State didn't even find it, or mention it for testing, and that's "outstanding work"??? JMHOO

 

[Sabrina2011]

In Dr Spitz's report, he notes:
, behind the petrous portion of the left temporal bone, spread over an approximately two inch diameter area. The location of the residue indicates that the lef t side of the sku" was down during most by far of the decomposition process, causing the sediment to precipitate to that area."
http://www.baynews9.com/static/arti...sey-anthony-2nd-autopsy-werner-spitz-0315.pdf

I find no mention of such findings in Dr G's report. Since Spitz was the second examiner, and the first rinsed the skull out with water, it makes it a highly reasonable assumption that the items are not listed in Dr G's report because she didn't see them.

Come on... "A cake of dark brown residue was adherent to the left side of the skull" and the State didn't even find it, or mention it for testing, and that's "outstanding work"??? JMHOO

And Dr S did what with this very important cake of dark brown residue. He said he has no lab to send it to. ??? 50 years doing this and he can find no lab? What was he going to do if he found other things, he should have been ready to test them, what was he hired for? Where did he conduct this autopsy that he has no equipment and no contacts after 50 years? If he has NO lab (as I heard him say) CALL Dr. G and ask her to test this, say to her "OMG you may not have noticed this, but this could be key to finding out who dun it... Dr G can you test it?" BUT no he did what? threw it out?

Going with this logic, he might very well have said he found a knife lodged in the back of the skull and can't believe Dr. G missed that too.. WHERE are these critical things he found, WHERE is the proof, WHERE are photos.

Right.. There are none.

 

[grandmaj]

In Dr Spitz's report, he notes:
, behind the petrous portion of the left temporal bone, spread over an approximately two inch diameter area. The location of the residue indicates that the lef t side of the sku" was down during most by far of the decomposition process, causing the sediment to precipitate to that area."
http://www.baynews9.com/static/arti...sey-anthony-2nd-autopsy-werner-spitz-0315.pdf

I find no mention of such findings in Dr G's report. Since Spitz was the second examiner, and the first rinsed the skull out with water, it makes it a highly reasonable assumption that the items are not listed in Dr G's report because she didn't see them.

Come on... "A cake of dark brown residue was adherent to the left side of the skull" and the State didn't even find it, or mention it for testing, and that's "outstanding work"??? JMHOO

Where is the photographic proof that there was a cake of dark brown residue or tests to back up the opinion?

 

[GutFeeling!]

If you take the word of the people that said they smelled decomposition because they have smelled it before and just "know" what it is, due to their occupation, life experiences, etc. For example, the tow truck drive that also worked for waste management. Everyone took his word that he knew the difference between the decomposition smell and the trash smell, yet he was just a tow truck driver with no actual training in the smell of decomposition.

Why is it so hard to belive that a forensic pathologist that has done over 60,000 autopsies and has years of education and experience, as well as has taught in his field for years and written textbooks on the field of pathology, does not know what the residue inside the skull was without testing it? He said it was sticky, etc. He knew that it was not dirt. He knew what it was. He also knows how to perform a complete autopsy.

Bolding completed by me
Because this is a court case, not a lecture hall. This needs to be proven, without a reasonable doubt. I am experienced in my field, nationally and internationally, I can stand up and sprout all my experiences, proving them is the key, you need to show the jury proof. the fact that he boasted all his history for me does nothing. I have known people that are excellent in their field, in their day, nowadays they wouldn't stand a chance. Writing a textbook is FULL of editors that make your writings clearer and points out areas which may be misconstrued or misunderstood.

If that is really your beliefs then why wouldn't you judge Dr G exactly the same. To paraphrase a friend "this is not her first rodeo." This isn't the first time she has been on the stand and been questioned about her findings. She is more up to date than Dr S. She'll be back for rebuttle and clear up this discrepancy, but sadly, many here will be long gone.

 

[GutFeeling!]

Where is the photographic proof that there was a cake of dark brown residue or tests to back up the opinion?

Or the results of the testing of that residue.

 

[grandmaj]

Again, no medical pathologist would do an autopsy and not note his/her findings in notes. Where are the notes? Was a report prepared for Baez? If not why? Why no report I cannot believe there is a Doctor who would not prepare a report.

 

[LongtimeMedic]

And Dr S did what with this very important cake of dark brown residue. He said he has no lab to send it to. ??? 50 years doing this and he can find no lab? What was he going to do if he found other things, he should have been ready to test them, what was he hired for? Where did he conduct this autopsy that he has no equipment and no contacts after 50 years? If he has NO lab (as I heard him say) CALL Dr. G and ask her to test this, say to her "OMG you may not have noticed this, but this could be key to finding out who dun it... Dr G can you test it?" BUT no he did what? threw it out?

Going with this logic, he might very well have said he found a knife lodged in the back of the skull and can't believe Dr. G missed that too.. WHERE are these critical things he found, WHERE is the proof, WHERE are photos.

Right.. There are none.

I'm still searching for any document showing the samples and remains returned to the State, I'll post it as soon as it's located. Keeping any of Caylee's remains or anything from the crime scene or any samples or evidence would have already landed Baez and Spitz in jail. Those things must be turned over to the State, it's the State's Evidence. If Baez or Spitz failed to return anything, Ashton would have already had a stroke by now. I'll find the document though.

BTW... the defense bears no burden of proof in anything they present... that was the State's job to prove that, some think they were successful, others feel they weren't.

 

[CN2Souls]

Let me add this...
There is a Difference when doing an Autopsy on a body that has just passed away,
Verses
A body that is a complete skeleton, and has been out in the elements with the animal, insects and Flood waters...

 

[Sabrina2011]

I have read more autopsy reports in my life than I care to remember. I just read Dr. S and my opinion is "typical" defense template autopsy report.. Not thorough. In other words, I think its a bad report.

 

[Deleted member 39678]

Come on... "A cake of dark brown residue was adherent to the left side of the skull" and the State didn't even find it, or mention it for testing, and that's "outstanding work"??? JMHOO

Why didn't Dr Spitz have the brown residue tested? If there was something there for the jury to see that would help ICA's case,you bet that he would have that test done.I think that the jury will see that as well.He's another hired gun.

 

[D96s]

If you take the word of the people that said they smelled decomposition because they have smelled it before and just "know" what it is, due to their occupation, life experiences, etc. For example, the tow truck drive that also worked for waste management. Everyone took his word that he knew the difference between the decomposition smell and the trash smell, yet he was just a tow truck driver with no actual training in the smell of decomposition.

Why is it so hard to belive that a forensic pathologist that has done over 60,000 autopsies and has years of education and experience, as well as has taught in his field for years and written textbooks on the field of pathology, does not know what the residue inside the skull was without testing it? He said it was sticky, etc. He knew that it was not dirt. He knew what it was. He also knows how to perform a complete autopsy.

I don't take the word of those who say the smell in the truck was human decomp simply because they've smelled it before. Period. I'm relying on the science and the dogs to come to my conclusion that there was a body decaying in that trunk. And no, I'm not going to take the word of Dr S without evidence. I don't care who he is. I frankly was insulted by his demanding we believe him just because he says so. He did not know it was not dirt. He is not above science.

 

[MissJames]

/Sigh

Hence the 806 day wait for his report.


Dr. S- Would you like me to write the report now?

JB - No TY Dr. We will call you back closer to the trial...I have some things.. I need to... Work out.

JB scrambles for more help.

The report was only written because HHJP court ordered it done. The DT would only give the the SA's their witness list and the experts area of expertise. Scuffle,scuffle,scuffle,HHJP had to finally court order reports that contained the experts opinions that they would be testifying to at trial.Only opinions given in the report were to be allowed in as testimony.
You can't have trial by ambush and that is what the DT was trying to do.
Still are,based on the stuff they tried to pull yesterday with the first witness.
BTW, Some of the expert witnesses that the State was attempting to depo were not even going to be called to testify for the defense.This little factoid came out when there were no reports from them,even after the Court Order.
The Casey Anthony DT,how LOW can you go :loser:

 

[carole]

Again, no medical pathologist would do an autopsy and not note his/her findings in notes. Where are the notes? Was a report prepared for Baez? If not why? Why no report I cannot believe there is a Doctor who would not prepare a report.

Link to Dr. Spitz report -- http://www.baynews9.com/static/arti...sey-anthony-2nd-autopsy-werner-spitz-0315.pdf

 

[RR473]

Going with this logic, he might very well have said he found a knife lodged in the back of the skull and can't believe Dr. G missed that too.. WHERE are these critical things he found, WHERE is the proof, WHERE are photos.

Right.. There are none.

Photo or photos (sorry can't remember) were shown to the jury yesterday.

 

[Sabrina2011]

Photo or photos (sorry can't remember) were shown to the jury yesterday.

The Jury saw photos of the very critical brown cake like substance over the 2 to 3 inches of the interior of the skull?

 

[CN2Souls]

Most of the time the head is opened in order to see and removal of the brain and see if there was bleeding, or other abnormalities.
Any need to see Skull bone abnormalities would be done with "other" equipment.
Seeing how there was such a long time in the elements and Decomposition To the point of her being a skeleton.
There would be nothing really to see.

 

[RR473]

The Jury saw photos of the very critical brown cake like substance over the 2 to 3 inches of the interior of the skull?

Don't know what they saw but as far as I understood Dr S was referring to a residue in the picture that shows Caylee was left to decompose on her left side.