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

[yllek]

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

This was a court-ordered report, not one that Dr. Spitz authored as part of his normal autopsy procedure. I find that appalling. He accused Dr. G of being shoddy for not doing things as thoroughly as he would have done in a "national case". Yet, he did not write a report when he did the second autopsy of little Caylee Marie Anthony. He did his autopsy at the end of 2008. The report is dated March 2011. What a crock, imo...

 

[D96s]

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.

What did he find that was so significant? First - I have no problem believing Caylees head was laying to the left during decomp. She laid in that garbage dump for six months. Decay happens quicklly - so we can assume she was skeletonized by late July early Aug. That means she was there for five months, in that garbage dump that we know was subject to flooding and frequented by animals. I"d be more surprized if that skull hadn't moved. Animals could hit the bags - water could have flooded the bags, etc. His findings are irrelevant to this case in my opinion.

 

[RR473]

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.

Then how come Dr S saw something that Dr G hadn't seen?

 

[MissJames]

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.

BBM Expert witness from either side DO.
IIRC you said Dr. Spitz stated in his testimony that he gave the State samples of the residue he scraped. His testimony can be viewed at any of Orlando news links. I posted links to complete video of his testimony last night.
His report,all 2 pages have also been linked for you,so I can't wait to see what you come up with.

 

[LongtimeMedic]

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.

It's not the burden of the defense to solve the States case, not to show "proof" of anything except their client didn't do what the State says she did. That is the States job! To point to anything that provides reasonable doubt to the jury, that is the defenses job.

Besides that, unless an officer of the court were present at the second autopsy, it means nothing investigatively for the State, and any samples obtained by the defense, would be discarded by the State as soon as they got it. If you're looking to complain, complain to the State and ask "Why didn't you see or mention that??? that could be the one thread that unravels the entire case if it breaks!!!" Demand from the State, not the Defense.

 

[grandmaj]

Thanks Carole. But.......


The report was written years later when the judge ordered reports I believe it was in January 2011. Up until that point Mr. Baez was claiming he had no report from Dr. S. Dr. S did not have any notes to back up his findings. How many forensic pathologists or Scientists have appeared to testify without notes? 1. Dr. Spitz.

No pictorial evidence of his findings. Why? If he found something that was as important as he says why no evidence to show the jury? I don't buy it. That is not how a forensic pathologist performs an autopsy and that is not how a good witness would appear in court. Just his word no evidence.

When asked what he did with the residue scrapings he hemmed and hawed and never gave a direct answer instead turned to the injustice of not having a lab and the State does. Well what happened to the specimen he took? There is no evidence he found anything.

 

[D96s]

This was a court-ordered report, not one that Dr. Spitz authored as part of his normal autopsy procedure. I find that appalling. He accused Dr. G of being shoddy for not doing things as thoroughly as he would have done in a "national case". Yet, he did not write a report when he did the second autopsy of little Caylee Marie Anthony. He did his autopsy at the end of 2008. The report is dated March 2011. What a crock, imo...

He even implied that a high profile "national case" should get a better more thorough autopsy than anyone else.

 

[LongtimeMedic]

BBM Expert witness from either side DO.
IIRC you said Dr. Spitz stated in his testimony that he gave the State samples of the residue he scraped. His testimony can be viewed at any of Orlando news links. I posted links to complete video of his testimony last night.
His report,all 2 pages have also been linked for you,so I can't wait to see what you come up with.

I stated I thought that was his testimony. If you've read the transcript and it was not, that my impression at the time those records were not released, was simply wrong. I fall on the sword for not hearing exactly what he said. I'll check the links though gladly.

 

[Sabrina2011]

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.

Ok, still brings me full circle :seeya: if that residue might actually still be in the photo, and Dr S made such a big deal of its presence, then how the heck did someone of his stature allow this to not get tested as he indicated how important it was, there was ample opportunity for him to call any number of professionals to get this tested. So we must assume since he did not, it was not important or we'd have a lab analysis on it. Its like he had this moment in time when it was in his hands, and he chose not to test it... (because my gut tells me he thought it was really nothing) but suddenly when he felt backed against the wall he got a bit defensive on the stand an then tried to recount things that were missed.

Well he did no better if he let that get away

Personally I feel they found all they could with skeletonized remains. It is what it is, sadly

 

[ZsaZsa]

Thanks Carole. But.......


The report was written years later when the judge ordered reports I believe it was in January 2011. Up until that point Mr. Baez was claiming he had no report from Dr. S. Dr. S did not have any notes to back up his findings. How many forensic pathologists or Scientists have appeared to testify without notes? 1. Dr. Spitz.

No pictorial evidence of his findings. Why? If he found something that was as important as he says why no evidence to show the jury? I don't buy it. That is not how a forensic pathologist performs an autopsy and that is not how a good witness would appear in court. Just his word no evidence.

When asked what he did with the residue scrapings he hemmed and hawed and never gave a direct answer instead turned to the injustice of not having a lab and the State does. Well what happened to the specimen he took? There is no evidence he found anything.

JB said he did not write any report on his findings. When the Court asked for one, they had to wait for him to recover after a hospitalization.
I can't imagine any professional would expect to have his now over 2 years late report taken seriously, no matter what it contained.

 

[sappysoul]

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.

Apples and oranges IMO. The tow truck driver said he had towed cars which contained dead bodies and had first hand experience with the smell. He wasn't asked to identify something he had no prior experience with. This was used to bolster other evidence, the state did not stop at his opinion. They tested the trunk liner and the trunk air for decomp. Dr. S. OTOH is asking the court to just take his word for it.

 

[katydid23]

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. Endocsopes and the like are not usually used in an autopsy. Infact, 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, HOWEVER in this particular case the skull was only the width of an eggshell. So imo, there would be no fractures that would only be visible on the inside of the skull.

 

[yllek]

Then how come Dr S saw something that Dr G hadn't seen?

We don't know that he did; he just says he did. Dr. G may have collected samples for testing, but not the total amount of debris. I am no expert and just pondering. I am anxious to hear Dr. G testify again, in rebuttal to the claims made by Dr. Spitz. She is the only one that can tell us why she chose her methodology, what she found, and whether she extracted samples or intended to clear the skull completely and failed to do so (or some other option).

 

[Sabrina2011]

JB said he did not write any report on his findings. When the Court asked for one, they had to wait for him to recover after a hospitalization.
I can't imagine any professional would expect to have his now over 2 years late report taken seriously, no matter what it contained.

THIS is more baffling by the minute! What Pathologist, MD or whatever does a 2nd Autopsy in a high profile case and does NOT write a very detailed report and take photos. (my first concern was he conducted the autopsy at the funeral home, not good... he should have used a real facility, hospital autopsy room whatever, many choices for a man of his stature)

Could this be a case of very limited funds paid to him so he did the best he could with the $5.00 he got?? What could explain the short cuts.. that is exactly what they seem to be

 

[cyberborg]

The Defense experts are duty bound to criticize and find fault in methods and procedures. When Dr S saw the skull was not opened he saw it as a golden opportunity together with the residue left over from saline washing. Yes ... It dried on the left side not decomposed.

Dr S was able to have an early day that day since he could cite an old fashioned technique, he had his goods and could go back to the hotel. Job done. No need to take it further.

 

[allycat1208]

Why did Dr. Spitz say that there was hair place on the skull for a photo? I'm in a fog about that. What was he talking about?

 

[RR473]

Ok, still brings me full circle :seeya: if that residue might actually still be in the photo, and Dr S made such a big deal of its presence, then how the heck did someone of his stature allow this to not get tested as he indicated how important it was, there was ample opportunity for him to call any number of professionals to get this tested. So we must assume since he did not, it was not important or we'd have a lab analysis on it. Its like he had this moment in time when it was in his hands, and he chose not to test it... (because my gut tells me he thought it was really nothing) but suddenly when he felt backed against the wall he got a bit defensive on the stand an then tried to recount things that were missed.

Well he did no better if he let that get away

Personally I feel they found all they could with skeletonized remains. It is what it is, sadly

How is it possible that a residue taken from inside of skull can be "nothing"?

You ask me why he didn't test it. Well as you know he's lazy and is only there for money and fame. Maybe he suspected that Zanny is in there. Maybe ...
How do I know?

 

[MissJames]

Then how come Dr S saw something that Dr G hadn't seen?

He is saying that now,but has no documented proof of it. Show us a picture ,a sample ,a lab report on what it was. But he doesn't have any of that.
And he called Dr. G shoddy ?:maddening:What scientist in any field,does not document their findings?
I don't believe he did see something Dr. G did not see,just like I don't believe he got info back in Dec. 08 from Cheney Mason. Dr. S said that's who he talked to get info ,but at that time Cheney Mason was not ICA's attorney.As a matter of fact, during that time Cheney Mason gave a TV interview stating ICA was obviously guilty and would probably get LWOP.

So I believe he wrong when he said he saw something that Dr.G did not and I believe he was wrong when he said he got his info from Cheney Mason.

The man did not even know the body he was going to autopsy was completely skeletonized. Really? :waitasec: Nobody told him?

 

[yllek]

JB said he did not write any report on his findings. When the Court asked for one, they had to wait for him to recover after a hospitalization.
I can't imagine any professional would expect to have his now over 2 years late report taken seriously, no matter what it contained.

Not to :deadhorse:

But, the man can't remember giving an interview last week and we are supposed to trust the contents of the autopsy report he wrote over 2 years after the fact (when he has 60,000 other autopsies stored in that memory bank).

It's preposterous, imo...

 

[RR473]

Why did Dr. Spitz say that there was hair place on the skull for a photo? I'm in a fog about that. What was he talking about?

I guess (because the photos were not shown to the public) there were two photos of skeletal remains arranged differently.