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

[Horace Finklestein]

It was incumbent upon Dr.S, who was doing a second autopsy on Caylee's skeletal remains, to have his findings analyzed, I saw something, here's a picture of it, doesn't work in a court of law.

I believe Dr.G used less invasive methods maybe including an endoscope, (lighting and camera) x ray and as for the dust on the inside of the skull it was noted and tested by Dr.G according to her depo, Dr.S saw it but never tested it, guess he should have, he also broke the skull and then has the gall to call her work shoddy.

And the fact that HE didn't bring a saw seemed to set that whole thing off. It was like "I didn't open the skull because I didn't bring a saw. I didn't bring a saw because only an idiot wouldn't have already sawed open the skull."What on Earth kind of person acts that way? Must be a mind-bendingly difficult person.

 

[minazoe]

I wish i could see what that tape looked like before they removed it from the hair...the way it was positioned and how it supposedly fell right down into place over the mouth, when they lifeted the skull.

in the photo of the tape after they removed it...it looks sticky and tangled and I can't imagine how it fits over the mouth or which way it lay in relation to the jaw etc.

probably obvious to anyone who would find a body and duct tape...well...it was either used in commision of the murder or as the actual weapon...

I think it might have been safer to say that it was used in commision of the crime.

just worried.

 

[Broderick]

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.

So amazed to hear duct tape leaves no residue. My experience is completely different but maybe I apply it wrong or don't use the magic brand he did.

 

[Puzzler]

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?

The tape was still stuck at both ends to Caylee's hair. No other sticky parts remained on the tape, presumably due to erosion of the tape's adhesive due to water and other environmental factors (decomposition being a likely one).
:cow:

 

[joypath]

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

YES, the guidelines also has the following "

NAME recognized that certain standards may not be applicable where they conflict with federal, state,
and local laws. Deviation from these performance standards is expected only in unusual cases when justified by considered professional judgment.
National Association of Medical Examiners
Standards Committee
August 12, 2005​

Again, the case in question is on a skeletonized individual, no soft tissue present.
AND, here's the entire standard:

Standard F21 Head​

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.​

Procedures are as follows:​

F21.1 the forensic pathologist shall inspect and describe scalp, skull, and meninges.
F21.2 the forensic pathologist shall document any epidural, subdural, or subarachnoid hemorrhage.
F21.3 the forensic pathologist shall inspect the brain ​

in situ prior to removal and sectioning.
F21.4 the forensic pathologist shall document purulent material and abnormal fluids.
F21.5 the forensic pathologist or representative removes the dura mater and the forensic pathologist inspects the skull.​

BBM these terms represent soft tissue or "stuff" that would surround the soft tissue, all MISSING in this case.

Deviations from the SUGGESTED protocols may be part of any particular OME.

 

[ZsaZsa]

So you think that KC went back in the woods later and put the tape on the skull? I can't imagine she would do that but it makes more sense to me now that the duct tape had to be put on later. I just don't know how long it would take for the body to be fully decomposed and skeletonized for the duct tape to stay attached to the skull?

The duct tape was attached to the scalp hair (still stuck to it) it was not stuck to the bones of the skull. It was holding the mandible in its anatomical location but that was not stuck to it either. All the skin that the tape was originally attached to had decomposed.
http://www.autopsyfiles.org/reports/Other/anthony, caylee_report.pdf

 

[ExpectingUnicorns]

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.

I think Dr Spitz did testify to turning it over to the State ~ after he hemmed and hawed around for a long while. I question if it is true for two reasons. First the manner of his answer; it was as though he finally spit this answer out because JA wasn't letting him get away with his other circular answers (he doesn't own a lab, etc). And, secondly, because he would have had a chain of custody receipt if he did turn it over to them.

Please don't think that a world renowned doctor would find any difficulty at all in accessing any lab he chose.

It was his autopsy he was giving testimony about and the lab results are part of his responsibility in that autopsy. It was in challenge to the state's ME. Why in the world would he have given the responsibility of the accuracy of his findings back to the State?

I call a foul on his answer that he gave it to the State. It just is not logical or responsible of him to have done that. Obviously, moo.

 

[LambChop]

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.

My mother is in her 80's and said she learned to make creamed spinach while watching a cooking show on TV after school when she was a kid.......There was no TV in the 30's for the average American much less for any family recovering from the depression. Sometimes at that age truth just does not make for a good story. I'm really surprised by some of the things Dr. Spitz came out with but then I remember some of the things my mother comes out with. She was a very intelligent woman business woman when she was younger and still is pretty sharp but once in awhile she leaves me shaking my head by saying something completely out of character. I think with Dr. Spitz there is just something that is not right with him. lol

 

[Etilema]

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?

Yes, even Dr. S. stated that the tape was not attached, though he had to be reminded that it WAS attached to the hair that was matted onto the skull. It was overlying the mouth/nose area, but it was not adhered to the skull. Again, even Dr. S. stated this, in spite of the fact that he wants us to believe the tape was applied directly to the skull.

 

[grandmaj]

OK I have to apologize. As I was moderating I did miss the presentation of the pictures by Dr. S. So he did in fact present 2 pictures. I am re listening.

 

[Etilema]

So amazed to hear duct tape leaves no residue. My experience is completely different but maybe I apply it wrong or don't use the magic brand he did.

Of course duct tape DOES leave residue. At least in my experience! I'm with you!

 

[joypath]

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

To clarify: BAEZ was at the conference, Spitz was not!

Followed your BAEZ trail, not the saliva one (there's a joke in here)......j/k

 

[beach]

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?

For me, he just was not a credible witness.


yes, I like Dr. Garavaglia, but I really do say that w/o bias. I can respect that Dr. Spitz has enjoyed a stellar career but I found his testimony SORELY lacking. I almost felt a twinge of sympathy for him - that he should have just retired because I would really hate for this to be his swan song. It just wasn't good, imo. He made a terrible witness in this case.

 

[matou]

So amazed to hear duct tape leaves no residue. My experience is completely different but maybe I apply it wrong or don't use the magic brand he did.

My personal experience with wet duct tape is that is leaves sticky residue everywhere it leaks onto. I have duct tape marks and sticky residue all over my windows from taping up air conditioning units. If the duct tape was applied to a skull, the moisture would have gotten transferred onto the bone. Mike Holmes should have been called as a witness about the properties of duct tape, NOT Dr. Spitz. JMO

 

[ZsaZsa]

Of course duct tape DOES leave residue. At least in my experience! I'm with you!

After several months in a swamp?

 

[Broderick]

Yes, even Dr. S. stated that the tape was not attached, though he had to be reminded that it WAS attached to the hair that was matted onto the skull. It was overlying the mouth/nose area, but it was not adhered to the skull. Again, even Dr. S. stated this, in spite of the fact that he wants us to believe the tape was applied directly to the skull.

If I put myself on the jury with an open mind I would have been put off by the hostility and the evasive answers, but he really blew it to a layperson such as myself with how duct tape would have been applied to the skull and the real kicker was the residue issue to me. I have seen folks use it to hold up a window on a car and then struggle to get the residue off the window and door frame if it didn't take the paint with it. Just real world stuff that almost everyone has encountered in using duct tape on things. Those misteps makes everything questionable not to mention his take on gravity and hair placement.

 

[grandmaj]

For me, he just was not a credible witness.


yes, I like Dr. Garavaglia, but I really do say that w/o bias. I can respect that Dr. Spitz has enjoyed a stellar career but I found his testimony SORELY lacking. I almost felt a twinge of sympathy for him - that he should have just retired because I would really hate for this to be his swan song. It just wasn't good, imo. He made a terrible witness in this case.

I agree I do feel badly that his renowned career might go down in history after this and the Spector trial as being less than how powerful it was. I have to say that this man came up in a field at a time when this was the crossroads of forensic sciences. So I feel sorry that he placed himself in this position. But, I must also say I'm appalled by the unprofessionalism in his attacking Dr. G and failing to provide more back notes. And suddenly seems to have selective memory when crossed.

I have never heard of Dr. G. before this case. Never watched her show and didn't know she had one. So her testimony to me was a first experience in seeing her.

I felt she was credible, she followed the procedures of her office according to her, she went further to test for drugs even knowing they didn't expect to find drugs in the bones. She was articulate and she and her assistant kept good notes and prepared reports.

 

[matou]

After several months in a swamp?

I would think that the duct tape residue would have washed away with the decomposing skin it was attached to. Yuck, that was gross to explain.

 

[scandi]

Yes, even Dr. S. stated that the tape was not attached, though he had to be reminded that it WAS attached to the hair that was matted onto the skull. It was overlying the mouth/nose area, but it was not adhered to the skull. Again, even Dr. S. stated this, in spite of the fact that he wants us to believe the tape was applied directly to the skull.

I also heard on one of these shows that as well as being stuck to that bit of hair it was also stuck to the mandible in a few spots. I don't know if that is a fact, only that I heard it.

 

[joypath]

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?

The STATE would listen to/read the information provided by the defense consultant in either depos or reports. Information garnered by the STATE could be debated/argued/verified or ignored based on whatever it was. Yes, SAs frequently do discuss the defense reports with the participating STATE expert witnesses to "get an idea" where to go.



The DEFENSE consultant has an obligation to be as complete as possible in presenting the data as he/she sees it, the same data upon which he/she makes his/her opinion stated under oath on the stand. The defense is paying the consultant to review/evaluate the state documentation and if necessary conduct one's own investigation/testing.

The findings of a defense expert are suitable for the defense IF they so chose to present under oath, by that expert, on the stand.

Again, certain jurisdictions may have specific legal guidelines that everybody follows.