One more for you Kimster - Thank you!
10:00
DIRECT EXAMINATION OF DR. SPITZ BY CM:
A medical doctor and forensic pathologist.
Medical school - University of Geneva 1946-50; Hebrew Medical School 1948-53 and received diploma to practice medicine. 1 year Internship and 5 year residency in pathology; and additional residency in pathology and forensic pathology. Forensic pathologist does autopsies - accident, suicides, homicides or natural deaths.
Academia - In 1959 he came to U.S. on a grant from the University of Maryland where he held an academic appointment and worked in the ME's office for the State of Maryland. In 1961 he left the U.S. and worked for 2 years at the University Medical School of Berlin and held an academic appointment. He then returned to Baltimore to the ME's office of the State of Maryland and was associate professor at Johns Hopkins University and the University of Maryland and assistant ME and then deputy chief ME for the State of Maryland. In 1972 he went to the ME's office of Wayne County, MI and was appointed chief medical examiner. He was also full professor at at Wayne State. He also taught toxicology at University of Windsor, Ontario.
He was also Chief Medical Examiner for Maycomb (sp) County, Mi.
He is a fellow in the American College of Pathologists and the Society of Clinical Pathologists, and fellow of Academy of Forensic Sciences. Serves as Vice President of the World Congress of Legal Medicine. He is licensed to practice medicine in all the countries of the European Union and in Michigan, Virginia, D.C. and Maryland.
He has received quite a number of awards. The awards from LE are from local police, FBI, various types of law enforcement organizations primarily because he gives courses and lectures and serves as consultant to them when asked to interpret various cases.
He has consulted - special consultant for Johns Hopkins, VA, Rockefeller Commission (Pres. Kennedy assassination), forensic panel for the house of representatives (MLK and JFK assassinations). He was involved in the case of Mary Joe Kapekny.
OBJECTION BY JA - beyond experience - SUSTAINED
What other cases?
OBJECTION BY JA - same - SUSTAINED
He has published 4 text books, the last in 2006. He has published 14 articles related to drowning. He has published 96 articles peer reviewed by other pathologists.
Expert witness - testified in all 50 states and in Canada, middle East and Europe. He has also worked for the United Nations and given opinions in court in Costa Rica. In the past 7 years, he has testified as an expert witness around 300 times - average of 30 times.
Witness is accepted as an expert in forensic pathology.
His first contact in this case was a call from JB's law firm and was asked to possibly, if he agreed to consult with the firm, and also whether he had special requests....
OBJECTION - hearsay and not responsive - SUSTAINED
He requested to attend the autopsy by Dr. G.
Did you request to be in attendance?
OBJECTION BY JA - May we approach?
Sidebar #4 10:21
He was not allowed to attempt the autopsy. He wanted to because it is useful to have seen the body in the condition as it was at that time so that he had the same exposure to the body. Also, if there are two people of the same specialty, there is an advantage. It is customary.
OBJECTION BY JA - OVERRULED
He conducted a second autopsy when the official autopsy was completed. He did this at the Bryant Funeral Home. He did not think Dr. G had completed her report at that time.
Remarkable first observations - he did not bring a saw because he felt the autopsy would have been completely done. He feels that profession dictates that there should be an examination of the interior of the head and that had not been done because the skull had not been done. He did this. He was shown an exhibit and took out a skull of an adult human being. He brought it because he thought it was necessary...
OBJECTION BY JA - SUSTAINED
He showed what opening of the skull was - a saw is used to saw the skull all the way around and to remove the cap so as to look at the interior of the cap. He took photos - Defense DY marked as D-26. (ICA looking away). CM had an enlargement of the photo. (ICA whispering to DS)
SIDEBAR #5 - no court reporter.
Photo represents the base of the skull with the lid off. Black flecks are seen on the inside of the skull which represent the last and permanent result of decomp. There should be about an ounce of this dust, but there isn't. The location of the spots indicate the position of the skull over the decomp process. Gravity determines the location of the spots. The skull was positioned during decomp with the left side of the skull down.
He reviewed Dr. G's autopsy report. What deficiencies did he find?
OBJECTION BY JA - OVERRULED
There were very few bones missing. The skull had not been opened. He did not find any discoloration of certain parts of the skull, no fractures. There was damage to long bones due to postmortem predation. (ICA wiping her face). He thought the bone had been opened....
OBJECTION BY JA - OVERRULED
He thought the ME had opened the bone to gain access to the bone marrow cavity. He learned later that that was not the case.
Based on this exam, the cause of death remained unknown.
He read Dr. G's statements regarding duct tape. He understood there were sections of duct tape on the lower face, that were loosely on the face. There was not a shred of soft tissue on the skeleton. He saw pictures of the tape being to the right side of the lower face...
OBJECTION - OVERRULED
hanging on hair and roots of vegetation under the surface of the ground.
Dr. G's report indicated the duct tape was clearly placed prior to decomp and he has a problem with that. When duct tape is applied to the skin and the skin decomposes, it becomes loose on the fact. The roots and the hair are the only thing that kept the duct tape there. There was nothing on the bone that would suggest bone. He has difficulty identifying when it was placed, but it is his strong feeling and opinion that it was placed there to hold the lower jaw in place.
He would have expected there to be DNA on the duct tape if it had been placed on the face. Decomp is always less in an area of pressure where there is no air coming in. He thinks the duct tape was a later event - after decomp.
Adipocere is a stage of decomp when the tissue becomes slimy, smelly and soap like. It develops....
SIDEBAR # 6
It takes, under optimal conditions (warm), 10 or 12 days for adipocere to form. There was no indication of adipocere seen at autopsy.
Causes of death can be ruled out in this case. She could have died of certain conditions that at this point can't be seen. He cannot rule out accidental death.
Manner of death in this case - (homicide, suicide, natural causes or accident) he could not say in this case.
He has conducted or supervised about 60,000 autopsies in his 56 year career.
SIDEBAR #7
CROSS EXAMINATION BY JA:
Manner of death investigation requires additional information. He was given the first autopsy report, he went to the scene, went to the A's. He asked questions sufficient to allow him to have a good idea of what happened. He asked JB, CM, the A's. He read the police reports.
What were the predicating facts? He understood there was a period of a month between the disappearance of the child and when a police report was made. All the info needs to fit together. He knows the child was allegedly taken to a babysitter. He then stated he did not know if he had any facts of when Caylee was alive.
Did Dr. G have more info than he? He is aware of whatever she put in her report. He did not recall what that info was now. He recalled facts that he thought were necessary for him to form his opinion.
What do you recall about the facts leading up to her death? There was a pool in the house which creates a possibility of drowning and a month went by without the child being reported missing.
The failure of Dr. G to open the skull was a violation of protocol - especially in a case making national news.
OBJECTION BY JA as non-responsive
The protocol is that the head is opened in any individual where there is a possible involvement of the skull, meninges, brain and any structure that would theoretically benefit from an opening of the skull. There is no published protocol - he did not know where it is published. He does know he has been trained and has trained others this. He is a member of the committee that made the document that says it should be examined.
He thinks to not open the head is a failure of the autopsy. He feels it is a shoddy autopsy.
One reason to open the skull is to examine the brain. He would never have known how the head was positioned, if he had not opened it.
He did not agree that certain protocols are not necessary when the body is skeletonized.
He is somewhat familiar with his last book. He wrote most of the trauma sections. There are articles by Vass and Haskel?
OBJECTION BY CM - SUSTAINED
He agreed it is authoritative. It is not a book on protocols or on how to do an autopsy. The book shows that the head is opened in just about every type of autopsy performed. The chapter on Forensic Anthropology by Dr. Vass...
OBJECTION BY CM - bolstering - OVERRULED
Does Dr. Vass's chapter on forensic anthropology that Dr. Spitz edited talk about opening the skull? He again stated it is not a book on how to do autopsies, but it does talk about the findings in the head, which requires that the head be opened.
Are you familiar with the Minnesota doctrines - section 5? No. JA then gave the witness the document. He stated the document was written by lawyers, for lawyers, in legalese and he doesn't understand it. He was asked to read Section 5.
OBJECTION BY CM - SUSTAINED
The witness was asked to look at Section 5 and determine if he had ever seen it. He stated he had not seen it before.
Dr. G's failure to not open the skull violates HIS protocol? No. A proper exam requires it, especially a case of national significance.
High profile nature of this case? It is significant that the pathologist recognize that this case requires more questions to be answered than someone 85 who if found dead in bed from heart disease.
How many media interviews have you given in this case since being hired? He gave one in Orlando and a local paper in Detroit. How about TV 6 in Detroit this week? He stated that is the one he mentioned. He gave an interview to Tony P and one this week to a woman in Detroit, however that one did not discuss facts in this case. He did not recall being on the Today show in 2009 or 48 hours.
He was involved in Spector, O.J. Simpson, not Menendez.
He did not recall breaking the skull when he opened it. He agreed there was a crack.
Regarding residue in skull, he did not do any chemical tests. He did scrape some of it and kept it for possible testing. He was then told it was tested by the County or someone or that some police lab tested. He didn't recall who told him that.
Is it dirt or debris? It is the sediment of decomposing brain and gravity. He stated the residue is a routine finding. It is not dirt.
He went to the remains site and is aware the area is occasionally under water. Could it be sediment of dirty water as it sits under water? He stated that the sediment is so common in skulls that it is almost as definitive a finding.... It speaks for itself. It would be fine if someone analyzes it and until such time it is his opinion that it is brain dust.
The skull was saline washed during autopsy.
In a Riverside CA case he opened the skull and found sleeping medication in the brain dust.
This sediment stayed put even after washing because it is sticky.
If he had been there with Dr. G, he would have insisted that the sediment be tested and there would not be an argument now.
HE IS NOT A CHEMIST. He doesn't have a lab.
It is his theory that the skull decomposed on its left side with the face slightly elevated. The hair would move, but maybe not fall on the left side. The hair would stay on the skull until someone moved it. Some of the hair would fall off the right side. The hair on the back would stay on the shrubbery due to the adipocere.
He was shown a photo and recognized it as the skull as it was at the ME's office (ICA is looking away). Did the hair mass fall to the back, not the side?
The child had long hair and the hair is sitting on the base of the skull. The hair on this picture speaks for itself, much of the hair is on the base of the skull. He used his handkerchief to demonstrate with his exemplar skull how the hair would be. He did not see any evidence in this picture of "fallen hair". Maybe the water washed around the hair and splashed the hair onto the bone - wetted the liquified scalp and glued it to the bone. He doesn't know if the water displaced the hair and not the residue.
He only looked at the hair in the pictures. He knows it is sticky because he has examined other hair. (ICA still not looking).
It is his opinion that the duct tape was applied after the skin had deteriorated or decomposed, possibly to hold the lower jaw to the rest of the face. IF the body is completely skeletonized, then the jaw is connected until the skull is picked up. In his theory, the person who applied the tape had to pick up the skull, pick up the mandible and apply the tape. He agreed when this skull was found, the mandible was in virtually its anatomical condition.
If you are trying to attach the mandible to the skull, would the tape have to be attached on both sides? He doesn't know. He remembers it being only on one side. He was aware there were 3 pieces of tape. What he gleaned for the picture is two on top of one another and they weren't very long to reach the other side. Maybe they needed the third to extend the total length across. JA told him each piece was 6 to 8 inches long. There was a 4th piece 9 feet away. His theory is that the tape was stuck directly to the skull. There would be no residue on the skull. He realized the duct tape was not stuck to the bone when found. The water would have removed some of the glue. The person could have taken the skull away to put the tape on. The hair would have stuck to the tape. He was not so sure the tape was really still in a condition that it enables stickiness due to the heat and water.
He was aware that Dr. Otz had to cut the hair to remove the tape.
Regarding S-215, he recognized it as a photo of the skull. Did the person who put the tape on, drape the hair back over the skull. The person who took the picture put the hair there. It wouldn't be the first time.
Regarding S-209, he recognized it as a photo of the skull as it was found at the scene showing the strands of hair draped over the skull (ICA still not looking). It is his opinion that someone draped the hair over the skull for the purposes of the photo. 209 and 215 looked different because someone rearranged it.
REDIRECT EXAMINATION BY CM:
Any other reasons for opening the skull other than general autopsy reasons? Yes - to see fractures on the inside that can't be seen from the outside, also there could be some coloring on the inside that could have been from hemorrhaging caused by smothering or asphyxiation.
He did not send the brain sediment off for analysis. He did learn that they were sent to Dr. Bruce Goldberger in Gainesville. No poison was found, no chloroform was found.
Regarding the duct tape, he doesn't know how many people handled the skull before it was photographed by the ME. It would have to have been manipulated, and in the process the hair had to be rearranged.
Witness is excused.
SIDEBAR #8
Jury excused to 9:00 a.m. Monday
HHJBP - 1/6/11 Order granting state's motion for sanction/motion to compel - make sure you read this in order to comply. Be prepared to work next Saturday, if necessary, up to 3pm. One witness a day is not going to get us where we need to be. I'm not going to hurry you - we will just extend the working hours - longer on Saturdays and if necessary we will extend the work hour to 5:30 to 6:00 and I will make that determination at the close of business Tuesday.
Court in recess until 9:00 a.m. Monday
