Dr G Medical Examiner

[Hot Dogs]

Originally Posted by strawberry

See Page 3 (pdf page 2), last sentence in the paragraph starting "The circumstances of death"

http://www.docstoc.com/docs/7494800/...Caylee-Anthony

Right, I've read that and it is where I'm getting my information. It doesn't contradict what I'm saying - it supports what I'm saying.

[strawberry]

Originally Posted by Hot Dogs

Further, in her report she specifically states that this was a homicide but the cause of death is undetermined. The same report states that the duct tape would have covered the mouth and nose. Now, that would kill a child wouldn't it? They can't breathe and die. Wouldn't the cause of death then be asphyxiation by way of duct tape? But she doesn't say that because she cannot say it with certainty. She cannot be certain that the tape was applied before death and/or that the tape caused death. If she could say that with certainty it would have been in her report.

I just think this is all interesting. I don't mean any harm and don't think she is lying or anything.

I don't see where it says it was over the mouth and nose, or would have covered it. It says over the anterior portion of the lower skull, the mandible and part of the maxilla.

[megsy]

Originally Posted by Hot Dogs

<snip>

On the other hand, many people would characterize Casey as being an abnormal parent and quite out of the ordinary. I think many could imagine Casey finding an accidentally drowned Caylee and then not calling 911. A call to paramedics means that she loves her daughter, wants to try to save her life, and wants her around for the rest of her life. But again, many could instead imagine her packaging up Caylee with duct tape, dumping her in nearby woods and saying that an imaginary nanny has her and won't give her back. When the body is found, blame is supposed to go on the nanny who obviously applied the duct tape.

You are positively correct. Too bad the defense went with "her grandfather didn't call 911". It really was a bonehead move on their part dragging GA into this.

[strawberry]

Originally Posted by Hot Dogs

No. The autopsy report (medical examiner's report) specifically says the duct tape was placed prior to decomposition.

You're right..prior to decomposition, not premortem.

[Quiche]

Originally Posted by Hot Dogs

Further, in her report she specifically states that this was a homicide but the cause of death is undetermined. The same report states that the duct tape would have covered the mouth and nose. Now, that would kill a child wouldn't it? They can't breathe and die. Wouldn't the cause of death then be asphyxiation by way of duct tape? But she doesn't say that because she cannot say it with certainty. She cannot be certain that the tape was applied before death and/or that the tape caused death. If she could say that with certainty it would have been in her report.

I just think this is all interesting. I don't mean any harm and don't think she is lying or anything.

That's because any number of things could have killed her: Chloroform, duct tape over the airways, being put in a plastic bag... it's a crap shoot, but it's all murder. jmo

[strawberry]

Originally Posted by Hot Dogs

There is an interesting dichotomy.

Dr. Garavalia characterized a "normal parent" who would always call 911 if they found that their child had accidentally drowned. She says this is always the case. The situation with Caylee raised three red flags that pointed to homicide and that is what she concluded in spite of the cause of death being uncertain.

On the other hand, many people would characterize Casey as being an abnormal parent and quite out of the ordinary. I think many could imagine Casey finding an accidentally drowned Caylee and then not calling 911. A call to paramedics means that she loves her daughter, wants to try to save her life, and wants her around for the rest of her life. But again, many could instead imagine her packaging up Caylee with duct tape, dumping her in nearby woods and saying that an imaginary nanny has her and won't give her back. When the body is found, blame is supposed to go on the nanny who obviously applied the duct tape.

While I think she killed her, I think she did try and blame a nanny and if not the murder weapon, the duct tape was placed to blame the nanny. It's what she pictured a kidnapping would look like. People could have bought an accident, freak out and try and make it look like a kidnapping. I have no idea why they muddied that with GA and RK, unless she absolutely insisted she had nothing to do with it and/or they are trying to explain her nongrief. Which I have a hard time with myself. If it were an accident and she freaked she should show it somehow.

[Hot Dogs]

Originally Posted by strawberry

I don't see where it says it was over the mouth and nose, or would have covered it. It says over the anterior portion of the lower skull, the mandible and part of the maxilla.

It's on page 6453. I think the link you were using is incomplete. Try this one. Click to enlarge.

[katydid23]

Originally Posted by Quiche

That's because any number of things could have killed her: Chloroform, duct tape over the airways, being put in a plastic bag... it's a crap shoot, but it's all murder. jmo

Exactly. She could have been chloroformed first, then duct taped to keep her from throwing up or from crying or even breathing if she woke up.

[Donjeta]

Originally Posted by strawberry

While I think she killed her, I think she did try and blame a nanny and if not the murder weapon, the duct tape was placed to blame the nanny. It's what she pictured a kidnapping would look like. People could have bought an accident, freak out and try and make it look like a kidnapping. I have no idea why they muddied that with GA and RK, unless she absolutely insisted she had nothing to do with it and/or they are trying to explain her nongrief. Which I have a hard time with myself. If it were an accident and she freaked she should show it somehow.

If she had staged a scene to blame the nanny, IMO she wouldn't have placed it where Caylee was found but nearer Sawgrass Apartments or Blanchard Park or Zanny's parents' house, Universal or some other place non-existent nannies frequent. The dump site points to a domestic situation, not a nanny abduction.

[joypath]

Originally Posted by strawberry

I don't see where it says it was over the mouth and nose, or would have covered it. It says over the anterior portion of the lower skull, the mandible and part of the maxilla.

BBM In effort to clarify the terms, I offer THE textbook of Anatomy, Gray's Anatomy
http://www.bartleby.com/107/illus157.html


and to make it much clearer, offer http://www.getbodysmart.com/ap/skele.../tutorial.html


As cited ..."and part of the maxilla" clearly refers to the lower maxilla area simply because if it were the upper part, that would be inclusive of the lower. Note in all diagrams cited above, the nasal aperture is at the lower maxilla area aka the base of the upper jaw (along the palatal fissure)

[RR0004]

Originally Posted by joypath

BBM In effort to clarify the terms, I offer THE textbook of Anatomy, Gray's Anatomy
http://www.bartleby.com/107/illus157.html


and to make it much clearer, offer http://www.getbodysmart.com/ap/skele.../tutorial.html


As cited ..."and part of the maxilla" clearly refers to the lower maxilla area simply because if it were the upper part, that would be inclusive of the lower. Note in all diagrams cited above, the nasal aperture is at the lower maxilla area aka the base of the upper jaw (along the palatal fissure)

joypath...sorry if you've already opined on this, but what did you think of Dr. G.'s testimony?

[joypath]

Originally Posted by RR0004

joypath...sorry if you've already opined on this, but what did you think of Dr. G.'s testimony?

In a word, Spectacular.....and her responses to CM were on target! As stated by folks with whom I toil,
"BULLSEYE for a BULLY"

and while I'm at it, huge kudos to the other representative of the OME, Steve Hansen, perfection at the scene and on the stand!



of course, only my opinion.

[gxm]

Originally Posted by Hot Dogs

Further, in her report she specifically states that this was a homicide but the cause of death is undetermined. The same report states that the duct tape would have covered the mouth and nose. Now, that would kill a child wouldn't it? They can't breathe and die. Wouldn't the cause of death then be asphyxiation by way of duct tape? But she doesn't say that because she cannot say it with certainty. She cannot be certain that the tape was applied before death and/or that the tape caused death. If she could say that with certainty it would have been in her report.

I just think this is all interesting. I don't mean any harm and don't think she is lying or anything.

The one thing we know is that duct tape was applied to Caylee's face before decomposition. If the tape was applied before death, then it was very likely the cause of death. If it was applied after death, it was very likely meant to mislead LE and forensics. Either way = foul play. Only one person claimed that an imaginary nanny kidnapped her daughter. And only one person claimed to have spent 31 days trying to find (via partying) a daughter her defense has now admitted was dead the entire time.

I'm not trying to be argumentative but I think the point Dr. G made that you're missing is that no one puts duct tape over a child's mouth and nose for a good and wholesome reason. The fact that duct tape was applied to Caylee in this manner, either before or after her death, indicates foul play, as does tossing the body out like garbage in a trash bag, as does the custodial parent neglecting to alert the authorities that her child has been missing for a month.

[MissJames]

I know this is beating a dead horse,but you don't always need a COD to get a conviction,even a dp conviction.
Scott Peterson can explain it better than me.
Laci didn't put herself in the bay and Caylee didn't put herself in the trunk / woods.

People try to cover up murder by making it look like an accident.They don't try to make an accident look like a murder. This was pointed out by another poster and sums it all up for me.
What Dr. G drove home is,use your common sense.

[AppleGreen]

Maybe I am giving Casey too much credit but would she NOT realize that the duct tape she used would match up with the duct tape AT HER HOUSE? The duct tape with the writing all over it? I mean duh!

[MissJames]

Originally Posted by AppleGreen

Maybe I am giving Casey too much credit but would she NOT realize that the duct tape she used would match up with the duct tape AT HER HOUSE? The duct tape with the writing all over it? I mean duh!

Well,she spent 31 days doing ....what? Did she not realize she would be found out?

Yeah,I think you are giving her too much credit. She probably thought everyone's duct tape had Henkel on it

[donnam]

Originally Posted by Hot Dogs

She did? I think she did not.

"no reason to place duct tape on a deceased child"

[donnam]

Originally Posted by Hot Dogs

I watched her testimony and understand what she is talking about. But she could not say that the tape was applied before death because she does not know that with certainty. Saying that there is no good reason to put the tape on after death is not the same thing as saying it could not have been put on after death. That's all I'm trying to clarify.

In her written report she states that the tape was applied before decomposition. She doesn't say it was before death. If she had forensic medical certainty that it was applied before death she could have written that in her report. But she didn't.

BBM

Decomposition begins the moment we die.

[Reality Orlando]

Originally Posted by AppleGreen

Maybe I am giving Casey too much credit but would she NOT realize that the duct tape she used would match up with the duct tape AT HER HOUSE? The duct tape with the writing all over it? I mean duh!

My daughter wouldn't realize that duct tape was unusual. She would have thought all duct tape have that writing on it.

[donnam]

Originally Posted by Reality Orlando

My daughter wouldn't realize that duct tape was unusual. She would have thought all duct tape have that writing on it.

I am not sure my 19yo daughter even knows what duct tape is!

[Tuffy]

Originally Posted by MissJames

Well,she spent 31 days doing ....what? Did she not realize she would be found out?

Yeah,I think you are giving her too much credit. She probably thought everyone's duct tape had Henkel on it

Right on, Miss James! Casey did not plan this well, she was merely lucky for 31 days. Then her luck ran out, when mom tracked her down at her bf's place.

[Hot Dogs]

Originally Posted by donnam

Decomposition begins the moment we die.

You are talking about cellular decomposition. But what Dr. G was talking about when she wrote "prior to decomposition" in her report is an entirely different stage (kind/degree) of decomposition. She is talking about the stage where the jaw muscles, tendons and ligaments decompose to the point where the jaw actually detaches from the skull. She explains why she can say that and it is based on the tape holding the jaw in a pre-decomposition position.

So, although it is true that cellular decomposition begins immediately after death, that is not the stage of decomposition which she was referring to in her report.