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

[grandmaj]

Wow interesting discussion About Dr. S. on the radio show right now.

 

[D96s]

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...

Nope - sorry, I'm not taking the Dr. word just because he demands I do. If brain matter where somehow recognizable visually to everyone the way a jaw bone is that would be different. But if he is going to hand me sludge, and tell me that it is brain matter because he says so I not buying it. I would want it analyzed. There is also no way that sludge wasn't full of "dirt" after laying in the garbage dump for six months. All that flooding, etc.

 

[ZsaZsa]

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?

Exactly! There was no "brain dust" whatever that may be, to test. If there was the least remnant of brain left he would have been duty bound to have it examined.
He was desperate to nitpick apart a perfectly thorough autopsy so he could come up with something/anything to justify his fee.

 

[ZsaZsa]

Wow interesting discussion About Dr. S. on the radio show right now.

Thanks. Almost forgot! Be back later....

 

[LongtimeMedic]

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.

Because the statement was made by a court agreed expert witness, Spitz's testimony is considered "opinion evidence". Experts are the only ones whose opinion is considered evidence. That fact he said it, leaves it up to the jury to decide how they want to weigh it. MOO

 

[ExpectingUnicorns]

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

It was contained in the two washings from the skull that were tested. Nothing showed up. She was testing for drugs, IIRC. I don't think she had interest in it if it didn't contain drugs.

 

[D96s]

Because the statement was made by a court agreed expert witness, Spitz's testimony is considered "opinion evidence". Experts are the only ones whose opinion is considered evidence. That fact he said it, leaves it up to the jury to decide how they want to weigh it. MOO

He didn't proffer it as an opinion. He proffered it as a fact.

 

[aeneas1]

Nope - sorry, I'm not taking the Dr. word just because he demands I do. If brain matter where somehow recognizable visually to everyone the way a jaw bone is that would be different. But if he is going to hand me sludge, and tell me that it is brain matter because he says so I not buying it. I would want it analyzed. There is also no way that sludge wasn't full of "dirt" after laying in the garbage dump for six months. All that flooding, etc.

guess i should have used a sarcasm icon...

 

[MissJames]

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

The evidentiary value would be for the jury, in making their decision,not for the State.

For me ,this argument has evolved into "arguing for arguments sake" so I'll take my little self off to the thread of Courtroom quotes . It's hilarious and I highly recommend it to all WSers !

 

[myallbluezoo]

The fact that anyone finds Dr. S' testimony to be credible at all baffles me. Makes me wonder if people watched the same testimony that I did.

 

[minazoe]

I am very concerned about the tape evidence. The state needs to readress the issue of decomposition and the lack of soft tissue evidence where it relates to the tape. I think they need to find more information on decomp under those kind of temps and conditions, such as the water...it makes sense to me that soft tissue would dissolve in the heat and water, and maybe would'nt remain adhered to the skull underneath the tape.

I worry that the jury will not know what to do, unless the prosecution comes back hard.

one thing that I think, is that everyone knows that it is possible and maybe even likely that the body could have been tampered with...small animals could have eaten that tape clean...the skull may have been kicked...moved, positioned. ...by Kronk.

so common sense should tell the jury, that just because this may have happened...it doesn't mean Caylee wasn't murdered by her mother.

 

[goldenlover]

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.

I do recall Dr. S. saying he did not test the scrapings of the residue himself but that he turned them over to the state and was not informed by them if they tested them or not. It is somewhere in his testimony, I am assuming during the cross exam by JA. If they did test them, why not release the results? Unless they don't want the jury to know what the reslults were. Sometimes what they do not present is just as informative as what is presented.

 

[allycat1208]

If I understood Dr. Spitz I think he said that if the duct tape was put on the skull before decomposition it would not have stuck which makes sense. Not knowing how long it would take during decomposition I can only than assume it would have to have been put on later in the decomposition period. But this does not make sense because I think that KC got rid of the body pretty early in the decomposition period. This is the only thing that Dr. Spitz made me rethink my opinion as to whether the duct tape was placed on the skull of Caylee before, during or after decomposition. I still though cannot imagine why RK would put it on her later if this is what JB is suggesting. Dr. Spitz may have had some other valid points.... what comes to mind is he stated that Dr. G never examined the insides of the skull. I don't remember if this is true but if true I would agree she may have left something out important. All in all though I feel as though he may be becoming senile because he did seem to remember many elements of the case. I can't imagine he was pretending to not remember, as some posts have suggested because I don't think he would want to look like an idiot. I still don't understand his comments on why hair was placed on the skull for a photo? This doesn't make sense.

 

[goldenlover]

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.

Dr. S. said he turned them over to the state. He said he did not know what happened to them after that. No one got back to him regarding if they were tested or not. If they were not, that is the states fault.

 

[Oldsoul2]

I have a theory that really enlighten me when Dr. Spitz took the stand. I haven't read through this thread so I will apologize in advance if someone has already posted this. He testified that the tape had to have been put on after decomposition had already occurred because the tape would have stuck to the skin which would have decomposed and would not be present when he received the skull. In fact the tape was still present stuck to the actual skull. It then hit me. He was absolutely correct and it now makes sense. My theory about what happened from day one was that she wanted to make this look like a kidnapping or missing child case and hoped it would fall through the cracks, if they found the body, it would have been possible that the "kidnapper" had killed the child and disposed of her...hence the zanny story etc...so when Caylee was given too much chloroform and died, she must have panicked and didn't know where to put her, in the backyard at first, than in the trunk, then figuring out what she is going to do all the while the body is decomposing. She finally decided to put the duct tape before she actually put her in the final destination so that it was made to look like someone actually killed her. So, Caylee didn't die of asphyxiation and that is true, she died from overdose and the tape was the cover. Baez thought he had a homerun and mason made him repeat this several times but this makes it more obvious as to what really happened IMO. This means premeditation.

 

[minazoe]

If I understood Dr. Spitz I think he said that if the duct tape was put on the skull before decomposition it would not have stuck which makes sense. Not knowing how long it would take during decomposition I can only than assume it would have to have been put on later in the decomposition period. But this does not make sense because I think that KC got rid of the body pretty early in the decomposition period. This is the only thing that Dr. Spitz made me rethink my opinion as to whether the duct tape was placed on the skull of Caylee before, during or after decomposition. I still though cannot imagine why RK would put it on her later if this is what JB is suggesting. Dr. Spitz may have had some other valid points.... what comes to mind is he stated that Dr. G never examined the insides of the skull. I don't remember if this is true but if true I would agree she may have left something out important. All in all though I feel as though he may be becoming senile because he did seem to remember many elements of the case. I can't imagine he was pretending to not remember, as some posts have suggested because I don't think he would want to look like an idiot. I still don't understand his comments on why hair was placed on the skull for a photo? This doesn't make sense.

Dr. G did not open the skull, or remove the top of the skull to examine the inside.

 

[cuppy199]

Dr. S. said he turned them over to the state. He said he did not know what happened to them after that. No one got back to him regarding if they were tested or not. If they were not, that is the states fault.

Dr S said alot of things that didnt add up. He couldn't name the person he sent things to. Seems to fishy to me with something that he felt so strongly about and he couldn't remember.For a man with such a long career doing cases and you want me to believe he didnt keep the documentation to back it up on who from the state received it.

 

[ZsaZsa]

I do recall Dr. S. saying he did not test the scrapings of the residue himself but that he turned them over to the state and was not informed by them if they tested them or not. It is somewhere in his testimony, I am assuming during the cross exam by JA. If they did test them, why not release the results? Unless they don't want the jury to know what the reslults were. Sometimes what they do not present is just as informative as what is presented.

Have you seen his testimony transcribed yet? Could you provide a link to where he says that as I am not able to find that comment. What I saw was that he didn't know what happened to the 'brain dust'- he didn't test it and he didn't know if anyone else did.. and when challenged by JA got irritated...

 

[Mare10]

The OME found when examining the inside of the skull with light, sandy dirt (there is more but I don't want to type it, makes me cringe) but apparently also found adherent dirt. Perhaps this is what Dr S saw. I am quite sure as a professional of his caliber, if he thought it was something of great importance in such a high profile case he would have made sure to have it tested. I am not buying the funeral parlor routine. He could have tested it by just by making one phone call to the DT. They would have been there lickty split to get it to a lab. Then again it can just be a red herring or better yet the DT didn't want anything tested (no paper trail, just in case).

this is the link to the report: http://www.docstoc.com/docs/7634022/Casey-Anthony-Caylee-Anthony-FULL-autopsy-report

What I refer to is on page 8

 

[MissJames]

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...

I don't want to take this thread OT,so I only offer this link to further explain HHJP's court order of the expert reports,as it does pertain to Dr. Spitz' report .

http://articles.orlandosentinel.com...attorney-state-attorney-jeff-ashton-jose-baez

Discussion of what is contained in this article can be found in appropriate threads.:seeya: