Wouldn't miss it - I love Dr G.
Last edited by logicalgirl; 11-05-2011 at 04:16 PM. Reason: as usual..spelling...
When there is Justice - there is Peace.
i would like to watch this, sure hope i can remember the date and channel and even more so, that we get this channel..
Let me see.....
Duct tape obscuring what used to be her airways.
Kidnapping/death not reported.
Body hidden away.
Mother lies in answer to her own family and LE'S questions.
Do I really need a Scientist to come and explain what those facts could possibly mean.....
We can say there is no proof the duct tape was responsible for her death and believe it if we choose to but the fact remains it was there and it was the size and shape of her face, entangled in her hair and wrapped around the bottom portion of her skull. It does not take an active imagination to figure out why the duct tape was there only common sense and you don't have to be an expert to figure it out, that is correct. However, JB knows that in order to introduce the duct tape as evidence in court and HOW it could have caused Caylee's death an expert had to testify which would be Dr. G. His comment could only be interpreted by a small majority of the population with no experience in court procedures to be believed that ANYONE, anyone could have gotten on the stand to introduce that evidence in court.
Absense of proof that anyone other than KC disposed of her child like it was trash seems to be clear. Since KC has not attempted to tell the truth since her release the majority will believe she is, in fact, responsible for the death of her child. Common sense prevails. Those who are "care givers" and supporters for KC now will find it very difficult to just walk away from her after her probation is up. Clearly KC has history and is a destructive force and she has only just begun. We have not heard the last from her. I would be afraid, very afraid to have contact with her. jmo
A lie will go round the world before the truth gets its pants on - Charles Spurgeon
Anakerie, atthelake, coco puff, Cortne, dog.gone.cute, gogrannypop, gramcracker, Horace Finklestein, IfIMay, Intermezzo, jane the dood, JSV, MissJames, Nore, nssherlock, Oakley, okiedokietoo, PMLsmom, Prentiss, Purple Iris, RR0004, theBritster, TorisMom003, Truthwillsetufree, watcher9, Well Done 99, wonders, ZsaZsa
“The fact that Casey Anthony was the last person to have custody of her daughter, failed to report her missing (or dead) for 31 days, consistently lied once confronted, and the child was found dead and hidden, and she failed to tell what actually happened despite repeated opportunities to do so to her family, friends or law enforcement, (even when faced with the death penalty) was sufficient to find her guilty -- not necessarily of premeditated murder, but certainly all lesser charges. The duct tape and other forensic evidence provided additional, but not necessary, evidence. “
Quote from: Judge H. Lee Sarokin
Retired in 1996 after 17 years on the federal bench
Contradictions do not exist. Whenever you think you are facing a contradiction, check your premises. You will find that one of them is wrong.
So what was Dr. Spitz's testimony based on? He examined skeletal remains just like Dr G, what was his scientific confirmation?
What scientific confirmation did he have to hypothesize that the medical examiner or her office staged the photos of Caylee's remains?
What scientific confirmation did he have to testify that the duct tape was applied after the body fully decomposed because someone wanted to move it?
Dr Spitz accused Dr G of shoddy work because she did not open the skull on a thoroughly decomposed body even though there is no official protocol on that, not even in the book on forensic investigation that Dr Spitz has co-written
Dr Spitz testified that the dried sediment found in the skull was from Caylee BUT upon cross examination he admitted that the sediment was not chemically proven to be from Caylee's body.
"There are three kinds of intelligence: one kind understands things for itself, the other appreciates what others can understand, the third understands neither for itself nor through others. This first is excellent, the second good, and the third useless.
Didn't Casey babysit for Holly G's kids? And she was a mom for almost 3 years? That's experience.
And didn't she hold a job until she had Caylee? That's experience.
Nothing about what happened June 16th,'08 indicates there was an accident. There was a cover up of a murder . The murder included 3 strips of duct tape over a toddlers face,then dumping her body to rot in the woods.
Casey was a selfish sociopath. We all need to keep our eyes open and recognize one when we see them ,because everyone in their path is a potential victim. JMO
Always ,just my opinion
We never saw it coming .Please talk to your teen even if you don't think you need to !
Far more teens commit impulsive suicide without chronic depression Miss U James
She can pick up the phone to call because the protestors are hanging around being noisy outside her house - then she is mature enough to call 911 when her baby girl "drowns".
"Drowns" - right. Absolutely brings to mind that the first action would be to bag "that child" and throw her in a swamp down the road - first duct taping her face. Yeah sure - that's a sure sign of immaturity and fright alright..
When there is Justice - there is Peace.
1. That no drowning in Orange that has lead to a death has gone unreported. Since she has the stats, I don't suppose that's an opinion.
2. That no accidental drowning victim has been tossed in the woods like trash. Since she has the stats, I don't suppose that's an opinion either.
3. That no accidental drowning victim in Orange County has been duct taped in order to make the drowning look like a murder, or suffocation, or any other form of death. Actually, no duct tape on drowning victims at all. Since she has the stats...well, you know.
The hypothetico-deductive method:
1.Gather data (observations about something that is unknown, unexplained, or new)
2.Hypothesize an explanation for those observations.
3.Deduce a consequence of that explanation (a prediction). Formulate an experiment to see if the predicted consequence is observed.
4.Wait for corroboration. If there is corroboration, go to step 3. If not, the hypothesis is falsified. Go to step 2
This is called science, JB. When Dr. G tried to work with an accident theory, and given all of the stats that she had at her discretion, she continually went back to step 2. Then she tried the homicide theory. It passed all steps.
Assuming Dr. Spitzer-schnizel went through all of these steps, which I think he was too pompous to do, and actually used the evidence and not his OPINION/FANTASY that maybe LE or Kronk or Zenaida staged the scene, he would have deduced the same as Dr. G. But he was paid to do otherwise...