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

[allycat1208]

The problem here is that Dr S contradicted himself. On direct he clearly said that there was no adhesive from the tape on the skull, but went on to suggest that someone had placed tape on a fully decomposed skull...which would surely leave behind some kind of adhesive when their was no decomp fluid present . :waitasec:

The only thing that makes sense to me was that the matted hair with a 'glob' of adhesive, and root growth kept the mandible in place....which both Dr's seemed to imply at some point in their testimony...but then they both went off in different directions.
I'm disgusted with the DT for not having an expert prepared for their testimony. At the very least they should have had his reports ready for him to refer to to refresh his recollection. And Dr S should be self-aware enough to know that after being involved in 60 000 autopsies, that one brain cannot recall every detail of every one performed.

Is there any reason why they can't test the 'brain dust' now to determine if it did contain the Iron, magnesium phosphate, sodium chloride etc, or if it was just sediment from the environment?

JMO

Dr. Spitz never said that there was no adhesive left on the skull because of the rain?

 

[ZsaZsa]

Here's your link to Autopsy Standards (standards/protocols are often interchangeable, particularly for someone that speaks multiple languages) according to N.A.M.E. or "The National Association of Medical Examiners" an organization that Dr. G. belongs to. Referring to page 13, Section F, Standard 21 which begins:

"Because some findings are only ascertained by in situ inspection, the scalp and cranial contents must be examined before and after the removal of the brain so as to identify signs of disease, injury, and therapy"

Standard/Protocol, call it what ya want, but it wasn't done.

I'll look for those other documents now...

http://thename.org/index2.php?option=com_docman&task=doc_view&gid=18&Itemid=71

The cranial contents were gone. The scalp was gone.
She did inspect in-situ. The cavity was empty except for the sandy dirt and one tooth. She irrigated the cavity with N/S.
She is looking inside an empty box.

 

[Quiche]

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.

Welcome to WS, Myallbluezoo, my sentiments exactly!

:welcome4::welcome4::welcome4:

 

[cuppy199]

That's a story from January that slings mud at Baez... how is that relevant to Forensics?

Explain HHJP's court order of the expert reports. Totally relevant to forensic reports.

 

[joypath]

Going to test my own memory here now....am I recalling these events correctly.......???

Back in January 2011 when the lack of a report from Dr S came before the court, didn't we have a thread running about it and and what was proven with links is that....

Dr S did the autopsy in 2008, but did NOT create a written report at the time

In 2011, when the deadline passed, Baez went before the court and stated that Dr S was ill and needed an extension or something?

During this timeframe, another member here found another case where Dr S was scheduled to appear as a defense expert witness and the docket in THAT case showed a continuance or something....this was backed up by a MSM news report that that particular case was being CONTINUED due to a hospitalization and illness of Dr S?

There was speculation at that time concerning his health.....and whether or not he actually AGREED to act as defense expert witness as Baez even stated in court that neither Spitz nor anyone in his office would return the phone calls of the ICA defense team?

Then came the news that Baez was going to make a "surprise" visit at some convention where experts who had not submitted reports to him were attending??

Am I recalling this correctly???

:rocker:To borrow a phrase, "ABSOLUTELY"....and while he was there, he solicited others for his expert witness stable.:innocent:

 

[LongtimeMedic]

The value of the results of the testing of the material that Dr. Spitz discussed is in the simple fact that it would be part of his consultant's report. As such, it would be used to BOLSTER his opinion(s) regarding the case. Chain of custody is a moot point, the remains had been turned over LEGALLY to whomever was declared responsible for the disposal.
The state WOULD and COULD consider whatever results the consulting expert presented and THEN choose to refute in any manner possible, SHORT of demanding that the defense give them the material.


:twocents: IMVHO:innocent: , Dr. Spitz presented a very poor consultant report and an even worse courtroom demeanor.

Just so I hear what you're saying, without a State's representative at the second autopsy, their "evidence" or "collections of samples" would be considered by the State as findings suitable for evidence in court, even though they came from the defense?

 

[Kentjbkent]

:rocker:To borrow a phrase, "ABSOLUTELY"....and while he was there, he solicited others for his expert witness stable.:innocent:

Defense attorneys said Spitz had suffered a perforated bowel after swallowing a chicken bone and is recovering, but would not be able to travel or testify until March.

Read more: http://www.wlwt.com/news/26613489/detail.html#ixzz1PmBs91hW

 

[Quiche]

I thought the most compelling evidence given so far on the issue of whether or not the bones had been moved was Dr. Shultz, who said that it was evident that the bones had been moved while they were still connected with soft tissue. I thought it was especially important that the spine bones were found in anatomical order, as well as right hand being together with the right arm, etc. Whether the skull was sitting up, down, or sideways when it was found, no one but a forensic anthropologist could have lined all those vertebrae back in order nor told the left thumb bones from the right thumb bones in my opinion.

I wonder why they didn't ask Dr. Spitz about that? To me that tells me a lot more than that the skull was lying on its left side.

Exactly, all this talk about the skull is a convenient distraction, and even so, it doesn't do much good. jmo

 

[Kentjbkent]

That's a story from January that slings mud at Baez... how is that relevant to Forensics?

It is actually a link about this very issue since January is when it was originally addressed in court....

Not sure if you were following the case prior to joining us here recently, but if not, this link may be helpful for you to read to "take you back to the beginning of the Spitz saga"...in January....

[ame="http://www.websleuths.com/forums/showthread.php?t=126348"]2011.01.25 Defense Requests More Time to Submit Expert Reports - Websleuths Crime Sleuthing Community[/ame]

 

[LongtimeMedic]

:twocents: Werner U. Spitz, M.D. is/was both an author and editor of many chapters within professional texts, that said, those texts and the subsequent revisions to said texts are frequently utilized as reference material.
Certain OMEs have a marvelous concept utilized within the practice of pathology, a team approach, where every necessary resource is utilized in DIFFICULT cases. Does one :innocent: place more "weight" on the opinions of texts BECAUSE they were edited by Dr. Spitz, absolutely NO.


my opinion ONLY
links to show Dr. Spitz's publication history (brief)

http://www.ncjrs.gov/App/publications/Abstract.aspx?id=235642
http://bookmooch.com/detail/0398075441
and for those who really really want Ebay bonus points,
http://www.ebay.com/ctg/Spitz-And-F...J-Spitz-M-D-Werner-U-Spitz-M-D-2006-/43559691

PS: note the Spitz, M.D. team are "keeping it in the family"

So did he do a poor job, or report false findings? Or did he simply state his legal opinion, based on his findings to be weighed by the jury? And... which physical exam was more thorough?

 

[grandmaj]

That's a story from January that slings mud at Baez... how is that relevant to Forensics?

It is relevant to the discussion that Dr. S did not file a report under an order for discovery. If we are going to discuss the importance of this testimony we must look at all of the factors.

A paid consultant not submitting a report and the failure of the defense to share discovery becomes an issue of the overall weight one might give Dr. S's., testimony.

The opening post is...... Do you believe Dr. S., or Dr. G. ,,,,, so it is on topic.

 

[ZsaZsa]

Going to test my own memory here now....am I recalling these events correctly.......???

Back in January 2011 when the lack of a report from Dr S came before the court, didn't we have a thread running about it and and what was proven with links is that....

Dr S did the autopsy in 2008, but did NOT create a written report at the time

In 2011, when the deadline passed, Baez went before the court and stated that Dr S was ill and needed an extension or something?

During this timeframe, another member here found another case where Dr S was scheduled to appear as a defense expert witness and the docket in THAT case showed a continuance or something....this was backed up by a MSM news report that that particular case was being CONTINUED due to a hospitalization and illness of Dr S?

There was speculation at that time concerning his health.....and whether or not he actually AGREED to act as defense expert witness as Baez even stated in court that neither Spitz nor anyone in his office would return the phone calls of the ICA defense team?

Then came the news that Baez was going to make a "surprise" visit at some convention where experts who had not submitted reports to him were attending??

Am I recalling this correctly???

You are!
I had forgotten a lot of that.
So many devious underhanded things done by this DT that it's hard to keep up...
yes, Dr S would not return his calls- he had to admit that in court :floorlaugh:

 

[Marina2]

Umm- He said he didn't know what he did with it.
This vital material that supposedly was overlooked by Dr G.
He doesn't know what happened to it, he only remembers that he didn't test it.

His testimony about testing the sediment is at this link at 6:06. He said he did not test it but saved it for further testing. Then he was told that the state tested it. He said until test results showed anything different his opinion would be that it was brain dust. Another interesting part is at 14:48 where he says he would have insisted that it be tested if he were at the original autopsy.

http://www.wftv.com/video/28281844/index.html

 

[LongtimeMedic]

You are!
I had forgotten a lot of that.
So many devious underhanded things done by this DT that it's hard to keep up...
yes, Dr S would not return his calls- he had to admit that in court :floorlaugh:

Ya ever think that Baez and company had run out of funds?? I doubt a hired gun like Spitz will answer your calls when he's waiting on a check.

 

[Etilema]

"Please note - this is a message board, not a blog. Thank you"... Sincerely, Tricia Griffith and the Websleuths Family

OT: I love this and also wish that WFTV would stop calling their live chat a "live blog" and the participants in their live chat "bloggers"!!

 

[allycat1208]

BBM. But the duct tape was not stuck onto the skull when it was found. It was near it, as if it had fallen off, as would be expected once the skin decomposes. It was, however, stuck to some of the hair (which had also fallen off during decomposition).

Are you sure? If this is true then maybe the tape was only on the bag itself and got on the hair from the bag?

 

[beach]

Going to test my own memory here now....am I recalling these events correctly.......???

Back in January 2011 when the lack of a report from Dr S came before the court, didn't we have a thread running about it and and what was proven with links is that....

Dr S did the autopsy in 2008, but did NOT create a written report at the time

In 2011, when the deadline passed, Baez went before the court and stated that Dr S was ill and needed an extension or something?

During this timeframe, another member here found another case where Dr S was scheduled to appear as a defense expert witness and the docket in THAT case showed a continuance or something....this was backed up by a MSM news report that that particular case was being CONTINUED due to a hospitalization and illness of Dr S?

There was speculation at that time concerning his health.....and whether or not he actually AGREED to act as defense expert witness as Baez even stated in court that neither Spitz nor anyone in his office would return the phone calls of the ICA defense team?

Then came the news that Baez was going to make a "surprise" visit at some convention where experts who had not submitted reports to him were attending??

Am I recalling this correctly???

I am sure you are correct about everything expect the last 2 paragraphs: concern on whether he had actually agreed to follow through on behalf of the DT - not sure. I just know he was recovering from some surgery and it was a pretty serious condition, considering his age.

I know the convention you are talking about and JB did attend. It was suspected he was trying to catch up with several of the experts who were jumping ship at the last minute, but I do not think Spitz was one of them. I don't even recall him being there... :waitasec: I think he was trying to catch up with the female expert who was vacationing in Fiji. Shoot, there have been so many, I can't even recall who that was and what kind of expert at this point anymore. Not even sure if she is still on the list and expected to testify.

 

[Kentjbkent]

So did he do a poor job, or report false findings? Or did he simply state his legal opinion, based on his findings to be weighed by the jury? And... which physical exam was more thorough?

I vote Dr G! :rocker:

 

[Etilema]

Dr. Spitz never said that there was no adhesive left on the skull because of the rain?

No--he said "why would there be" any adhesive left on the skull. He said when he put duct tape on his arm and pulled it off there was no adhesive left behind. What's the difference between that and bone, he asked.

 

[beach]

That's a story from January that slings mud at Baez... how is that relevant to Forensics?

I can tell you how it is relevant.

Dr. Spitz conducted the 2nd autopsy on Dec. 23 & 24th, 2008. However, he submitted no written report of his findings until March, 2011. That would be 2 yrs. 3 months AFTER he conducted his examination.

Baez had a discovery deadline to produce the report and he proffered to HHJP that Dr. Spitz had not written a report. Baez needed MORE time to submit Dr. Spitz's report because he proffered to the Court that Dr. Spitz was recovering from a medical issue and was not well enough to work at the time.

So, I gotta say...considering that Dr. Spitz could not even recall the Anthonys last name yesterday and he couldn't remember several things when asked on cross-exam, I have a very, very serious problem believing the man could conduct an autopsy in 2008 and remember everything well enough to write a complete, succinct, ACCURATE report over 2 years later.