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

[Puzzler]

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.

To be fair, he did present pictorial evidence of the inside of the opened skull. A pixelated version can be viewed here:

http://img.ibtimes.com/www/data/images/full/2011/06/18/116141-forensic-expert-dr-werner-spitz.jpg

I would love to see a documented history of any specimens he may have taken and any analysis that may have been performed.

 

[CN2Souls]

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

Thank you

Human Brain is 78% water, 10% lipids and 8% protein , 2% inorganic Salt and Carbohydrates and only 2% Soluble organic substances.

The Human Brain is like soft Custer or Flan it deteriorates very quickly after decomposing of the body.

It begins to die in Approx 3 min after no oxygen is gotten to it...


IF he Saw....What he saw was more than likely where the brain rested during its decomposition, about 10-15 days...(the 3 days she was in ICA car trunk and the days she laid in the bags in the swamp before Hurricane Fay came on Aug 17-18 th. and moved her around)

This helps the Prosecutions Case.

 

[Tuffy]

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.

BBM:

I guess that's what I'm not seeing. I'm not seeing that Dr. S has offered any proof that shows their client didn't do it. I'm not seeing that Dr. S has offered anything other than his opinion that Dr. G did a shoddy autopsy. Then he wasn't even able to prove that!

Then he offered his opinion that the skull had been moved, had duct tape applied to it, then place in the woods again. Once more, he had no proof that it had happened.

Then he stated that the ME's office had altered/stage the crime scene photos. His evidence? He has know of it happening in the past. Well there you go!

You are correct though. The defense doesn't have to present any evidence. I doubt that we will see any from them.

So what are we to complain to the state about now?

 

[MD MOMMY]

Joypath did offer an insightful post yesterday (page 10, post 234)..

Thank you, I love Joypath's posts:great:

 

[grandmaj]

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.

Pathology samples are not subject to return. In a Medical Examiners office they are held for a while and then destroyed as medical waste. The body has long since been buried or cremated when those samples are no longer needed.

When did Dr. S. say that his sample was returned to the State? He didn't know what he did with it according to his testimony.

Are you saying that because Dr. S. was sloppy it is now the State's problem?

He was paid to do a second autopsy, he is a pathologist. He was in control of that sample not the state.

There is no record that he returned the sample to the State from his testimony.

The defense has to create reasonable doubt but if they want to advance their theory or pipe dream as it was....... they have to prove through the evidence that it is viable. So far epic fail and Dr. S helped the State not the defense IMO.

 

[RR473]

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.

He has. He showed the photos to the jury yesterday.

 

[ZsaZsa]

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.

It is hard to imagine how someone who claims to have done so many autopsies is guilty of very sloppy standards in a medico-legal case, yet feels free to criticize his peers so freely. He should know how to document his findings after doing 60,000 of them, don't you think?
First rule of medical record keeping, If it wasn't documented, it did NOT happen. Not only did Dr S not keep any records, he tries to convince the court now that he has perfect recall of what he saw and did, although his memory as to many other events has departed.
He cannot expect to call a substance 'brain dust' and not be laughed at when he fails to define exactly what that means.

 

[RR473]

Thank you

Human Brain is 78% water, 10% lipids and 8% protein , 2% inorganic Salt and Carbohydrates and only 2% Soluble organic substances.

The Human Brain is like soft Custer or Flan it deteriorates very quickly after decomposing of the body.

It begins to die in Approx 3 min after no oxygen is gotten to it...


IF he Saw....What he saw was more than likely where the brain rested during its decomposition, about 10-15 days...(the 3 days she was in ICA car trunk and the days she laid in the bags in the swamp before Hurricane Fay came on Aug 17-18 th. and moved her around)

This helps the Prosecutions Case.

What are you trying to say? That there was no brain residue?

 

[MissJames]

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

It's really not baffling if you know the history of this case,unfortunately. It revolves around the defense. There was $275,000 available to the defense at that time,so there was no lack of funds.
ICA sold pictures and videos of Caylee to ABC for $200,000 , one of her lawyers,(since suspended or disbarred in CA ) donated $70,000 and an anonymous donor donated $5,000.
(Sigh),Three years of backstory we can't go into here,but I don't believe the DT wanted reports done. Nothing to turn over to the State . :banghead:
HHJP is on top of that :woohoo:

 

[parker38]

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.

Exactly! He was there to poke holes in the states
ME. Nothing more, nothing less.
But I don't think Baez thought it would end up foolish.

 

[ZsaZsa]

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

I am not sure what he was paid. I have seen his fees listed on this site as $400 per hr or $5K per day in Court appearance. JB had over $275K at his disposal IIRC, to pursue Ms Anthony's defense,before she was declared indigent..

 

[Marina2]

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.

The remains had already been released by the state. They were no longer property of the state and lie in a funeral home where Spitz did his autopsy. Nothing ever went back to the state from that funeral home. CA and GA took possession of the remains and had her cremated a couple of months later.

 

[ZsaZsa]

What are you trying to say? That there was no brain residue?

How could we know what it was? I am not aware of a substance called Brain Dust as existing in human anatomy/physiology but if there was some 'residue' of any brain material it should be examined in the Lab for correct identification. Dr S did not do that. Not only did he not do that, he forgot to write anything about it for over 2years, until the court compelled him to come up with a report.

 

[aeneas1]

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 didn't have to test it because he's examined countless skulls in the past and knows by just looking at it what it was, just like he knows what a mandible is by just looking at it. of course he seemed pretty confused when asked if could simply be silt given, you know, it had spent so much time under water...

 

[LongtimeMedic]

Only because I'm an "ATD" type person, Werner Uri Spitz, M. D. is a retired Medical Examiner.


He is an M.D. with a board certified specialty in pathology, specifically anatomical and forensic.

No disrespect intended here, but do you ever refer to any text or papers on forensic examination that were penned entirely or partially by Dr. Werner Spitz, and if so, have those documents ever been used in assisting you at making any decisions in how you conclude or handle any of your cases?

 

[cyberborg]

How could we know what it was? I am not aware of a substance called Brain Dust as existing in human anatomy/physiology but if there was some 'residue' of any brain material it should be examined in the Lab for correct identification. Dr S did not do that. Not only did he not do that, he forgot to write anything about it for over 2years, until the court compelled him to come up with a report.

I think Dr S had nothing of significance particularly when he performed the autopsy so did not write a report and moved on. As the DT got desperate they needed something from him to help them so he ran with the skull not opened, speculation on the duct tape and, accusations on the photo accuracy ... Since the DT needed to neutralize Dr G (just like GA) and needed to address the duct tape ... Even though this is supposed to be an accident?

 

[D96s]

What are you trying to say? That there was no brain residue?

There was no evidence that brain residue was present. Someone else suggested we all should just take his word for it because of who he is. I don't care who he is. He needs to back up his assumptions with evidence, just like everyone else. That other person (sorry - I don't remember the posters name) also suggested that we believe those that say there was decomp in the trunk just because people say they smelled it and knew it to be decomp because they've smelled it before. Wrong. I based my conclusion that there was decomp in the trunk on the science and the dog evidence. I'm not going to take this Drs word just because he demands I do. In my opinion, there was no brain dust. Not sure the relevance even if there was.

 

[Quiche]

Well, this whole discussion is for naught, because apparently, Dr. Spitz did his autopsy on Casey.

 

[RR473]

How could we know what it was? I am not aware of a substance called Brain Dust as existing in human anatomy/physiology but if there was some 'residue' of any brain material it should be examined in the Lab for correct identification. Dr S did not do that. Not only did he not do that, he forgot to write anything about it for over 2years, until the court compelled him to come up with a report.

He's lazy.

 

[LongtimeMedic]

The remains had already been released by the state. They were no longer property of the state and lie in a funeral home where Spitz did his autopsy. Nothing ever went back to the state from that funeral home. CA and GA took possession of the remains and had her cremated a couple of months later.

Then the evidentiary value of anything collected by the defense was not going to be considered by the State. Right or wrong, they had released custody of the remains. Any "substances, scrapings, sticky stuff or other could not be used as evidence, it would immediately be impeached as "tainted" and no official chain of custody. MOO