Dr G Medical Examiner

ABSOLUTELY!!! How anybody can say at this point in time that they think the evidence is weak is beyond me. NOBODY knows what the evidence is in it's entirety with the exception of LE, and as far as I'm aware, they haven't had the trial yet, so to make such a statement is bogus.

Nice try, but no cookie.



The topic isn't that the evidence is week. But how evidence can be through out of court, etc. Plenty of guilty people get off because of such things. It is an interesting subject.

The rules for handling evidence is tighter. OJ might have walked, but it was an eye opener for alot of folks. Local police departments knows to handle it better and keep from contaiminating it, etc. A trained LE who knowingly walks through a crime, mucking it up should be charged for a crime. They KNOW better.

On the flip side. The defense doesn't get to enter anything it wants either. I know a case where an undercover was id'ing a man. She claimed to called out to him in a small town bar using his full name. The Name he used was his father's first name, his first name and his last name. Which wasn't his name. She said he introduced himself that way in front of others. Small town, known folks since birth.. Such stuff wiouldn't have flown. What wasn't allowed in court was she had goofed id's before. That there was a guy living in the county with such a name, driving the same color/make car she claimed he took her to. And had attened the same bar. She iding this man was the only evidence against him. The best that was allowed was folks being allowed to testify that they never heard him call him self such. Including the Sheriff.

Courts and Judges.... You just never know.
 
I think this is a legitimate thread. Many of us are carried forward in this case by the emotions elicited by the acts of the family. I believe that tends to taint our interpretation of the evidence that has been presented to the public so far. We want this girl to be found guilty. I want this girl to be found guilty! However, unless the prosecution has more than what they've shown us, I can't help but feel uncertain of the outcome.
 
Well, Considering that Dr. Garavaglia is the ME for Orange and Osceola Counties and her office would do the autopsy if remains are found, (if there are enough remains to do an autopsy that is) it has a bit of relavance to this case. However, I think the poster was talking about how some evidence does not wind up in trial for various reasons and was using this episode as an example of that.

That is the way I read it. And it's a pretty factual situation in most cases. Not all evidence ends up in court. On both sides. And she is talking about the cases she deals with, the courts and the judges... The same one that Casey will be dealing with.

Folks need to realize that some will be tossed, so they don't freak out when it really happens. And it doesn't automaticly mean that KC will get off.

However, JB would have to explain why it shouldn't be admited in. He doesn't seem to know the correct way to do any of this stuff.
 
IMO...there are two groups of people in this case, The people who understand the evidence and the people who don't.
Fact..There is a missing little girl
Fact..There is evidence of a decomposing Anthony in missing little girls mommys trunk.

An Anthony died, Caylee is gone...Casey did not report her missing, did not care that she was missing. She was living a beautiful life right up until Cindy demanded to see Caylee, and got a tattoo to prove it.

Jurors will deliberate with those two facts mentioned above screaming out to them. Caylee is gone...A dead Anthony was in Casey's car...Jurors do not have to speculate on where little Caylee's body is...they do not have to speculate on where, how, when or why it all happened. They will be given the facts and witnesses will be brought in to support those facts, and what are those facts again....Caylee is GONE and there was a decomposing ANTHONY in Casey's trunk.
 
ABSOLUTELY!!! How anybody can say at this point in time that they think the evidence is weak is beyond me. NOBODY knows what the evidence is in it's entirety with the exception of LE, and as far as I'm aware, they haven't had the trial yet, so to make such a statement is bogus.

Nice try, but no cookie.

Not any more of a waste than the rant, psychic or dreams threads.
 
Except, except, think of this:

The stain, which we have heard nothing about. I have a feeling that stain holds keys that will be the death, either metaphorically or otherwise for Casey. The stain could hold skin cells from which they can get a complete DNA profile of Caylee. The hair, according to my cousin who will be a forensic pathologist next year, the hair seems to show chloroform. I'd bet my bottom dollar that the hair will show just which drugs were ever in Caylee's body. Think about hair strand tests that are done for people to get jobs! They can get a complete drug history from your hair!

Add in, the chloroform searches, the missing children search, the people who witnessed Casey's behavior AFTER Caylee went missing, the pictures of her snuggling with TonE at Blockbuster the same night, just an hour AFTER she supposedly was waiting on the steps at Sawgrass for the Invisananny. The pics from Fusion on the 20th, 4 days post missing child. There is sooo much here that I'm not even mentioning as you know.

I believe that with this being a crime against a child and add tot hat the check fraud charges that Lil Miss Casey won't see the light of day for a VERY long time, if ever again.

I have to believe this. I have tried to remove myself from the case and look at just what we do know so far and it still all looks pretty bad to me. Add in that she doesn't seem to have competent counsel and I think she's all set for life at Lowell (isn't that the women's prison there?).

Keep the faith and don't feed the defense!

:blowkiss:

About the drug testing of the hair - LE will need hair samples (more than 1 hair). The hair sample taken is disolved in the lab and tested. Essentially hair sample is destroyed in the process of testing.

My ONLY hope is that LE has enough Caylee hair to run these tests.

My final thought (and I do not know the answer) is if Xanax is detectable in the hair follicle....I sure hope so.
 
About the drug testing of the hair - LE will need hair samples (more than 1 hair). The hair sample taken is dissolved in the lab and tested. Essentially hair sample is destroyed in the process of testing.

My ONLY hope is that LE has enough Caylee hair to run these tests.

My final thought (and I do not know the answer) is if Xanax is detectable in the hair follicle....I sure hope so.

Oh, I do hope they have enough hair to run the tests. And I hope that Xanax is detectable in the hair follicle. I wonder how we can find out?
 
Oh and evidences of, semen, saliva, blood, urine, fingerprints, hair, DNA, mtDNA even, ALL of these are circumstantial evidences.

The only other option is direct evidence. Direct evidence consists of (and is not limited to), a confession, an eyewitness to the ACTUAL crime (seeing Johnny flee from a crime scene is circumstantial unless you see Johnny committing the crime), a video tape, etc.....

Circumstantial evidence is actually preferred in a court of law. Eyewitness testimony is about the most flawed evidence in existence. Of course, a video would be the ideal, but that's truly a rarity. Hell, even a confession isn't always reliable.

I HATE to see the statement of, "all they have is circumstantial evidence." It's one of the most absurd statements ever made, IMO.

EDIT: I did want to clarify that no one on this thread made the statement of, "all they have is circumstantial evidence." I wasn't talking about anyone here having made such a comment. I was talking about all the times I've heard someone stating this in the past.


Overwhelming circumstantial evidence will get a conviction..not that any jury is predictable. I wish someone would follow up the A family insistence that "all they have is circumstantial" with a simple question. " And your point is?"
 
Back before the days of CSI, a case could be tried with common sense and logic, means, motive and opportunity. This case has all that. AND it has scientific evidence that aligns nicely with the circumstantial.
It explains why there is no body. There is no body because of the lying, the computer searches, the strange anthony envrionment that permitted a 2 yr olds absence of 31 days to go unnoticed. NOBODY knew what KC did with her days or with her child for 2 1/2 years. No One...this is so sad...thats why her absence went unnoticed. I hope here, in America, that we haven't reduced ourselves to such black and white science or lack thereof, that we have actually created a mindset that will let this obvious murderess go free.


Can somebody clear this up?
Is this CSI reference to the modern technology and developments in forensic sciences or is it a reference to a tv show. I really can't tell.
 
Overwhelming circumstantial evidence will get a conviction..not that any jury is predictable. I wish someone would follow up the A family insistence that "all they have is circumstantial" with a simple question. " And your point is?"

LOL!

Oh so true. I think folks are confused on what kind of evidence that would be.

I know I have grounded my kid based upon circumstantial evidence. <wink>
 
Well, Considering that Dr. Garavaglia is the ME for Orange and Osceola Counties and her office would do the autopsy if remains are found, (if there are enough remains to do an autopsy that is) it has a bit of relavance to this case. However, I think the poster was talking about how some evidence does not wind up in trial for various reasons and was using this episode as an example of that.

Exactly my point, thank you.
 
We don't have all of the evidence. Was there long term exposure to a drug or chemical in the hair that was tested? Was the stain?
 
Can somebody clear this up?
Is this CSI reference to the modern technology and developments in forensic sciences or is it a reference to a tv show. I really can't tell.

I believe the reference is "our" exposure to television programs such as CSI has "tainted" the poulation with expectations of how things should be. And prior people could objectivley listen without the need for personal "knowlege" or "understanding" of scientific methods. Now we demand more before we come to a conclusion and expect things we see on such programs to be placed in front of us to enable us to make those decisions. Because we now think we are smarter for the better of having watch such television programs. When really unless we have a real education in these scientific areas what we see on these programs can have a negative affect on what we think is "reality."

I remember the greatest example of this. James Bonds underwater re-breather. The FBI actually called the movie producers and wanted to discuss their designs for this! And they had to tell them that "it was just the movies guys" its not real. Granted these programs base story lines on real issues and things that could happen but they do stretch the truth a tad, and even on the legal side of issues (science aside) they stretch the reality of what occurs. Such as how they interogate witneses and so forth. They have advisors, sure, but the elaborate considerably.

Now shows like DR. G??? yeah it may be considered a reality program by some but the show is "REAL," the cases are real, the people that died are dead, it is really an autobiography of her case files. The evidence I mentioned above for example is what happened in the crime she was discussing.
 
What we do have is expert witnesses to the smell of a dead body in the trunk.

Cindy is in the medical field and knows what a dead body smells like. Same with GA with his employment in LE years ago. He too smelled death.

On the stand, they will be told to answer yes or no. No explaining, etc. Just yes or no to the questions.

1) Have you ever smelled a dead body.
2) Did you state that the trunk smelled like a dead body.


Next would be the Scientific proof of a dead body being in the trunk. while some of it might get tossed, I really seriously doubt that all of it would. JB is going to try, but doubt he will get far.

The evidence that points to the body being Caylee will be the most damaging. That is why JB is screaming about that. He will try hard to get some if not all of that tossed.

Cindy can deny all she wishes in public. But on the stand she will have to say she smelled a dead body or she will have perjured herself. Same with GA.
 
I have watched the Dr. G medical examiner show since it first came on and I have known since this case broke that she is the ME for the Orlando area, and I was quite happy during Kevin Beary presser today to hear him say that Dr. G was on site with the findings of these remains, and I am also sure that this means she will do the Autopsy, she is one of the best in this country and I am sure that she will be able to get to the bottom of the cause and manner of death...So I think we should all rest assured that whenever we finally here the results on this poor child that they were done by one of the best there is...And the Defense is not going to be able to rattle her cage when it comes to trial time.
 
I am happy it's Dr. G. I have seen her show on TV and she seems like such a caring, compassionate person, and THOROUGH. She really cares about the victims and their families. It seems appropriate that she would handle the remains of that precious little child.
 
First time I ever watched Dr. G, I kept thinking that I had seen her somewhere else, before... then it hit me: I hadn't seen her physically... I had "seen" her in literary form in a series of books written by my favorite writer. I swear, she is the real life Kay Scarpetta. Ever since then it is Dr. G's face I see when reading a Scarpetta novel.
 
From what I have heard/read, Dr. G and her assistants will be the ones examining the remains of this tiny skeleton today.
 
JB filed an emergency motion late yesterday afternoon to allow his experts to watch as Dr. G performs the autopsy. He has also requested that his experts be present during DNA and other testing by the FBI in Quantico, VA. No word yet on whether a judge will rule in his favor.

Side note - it's very rare for the FBI to allow anyone in their lab, much less a defense expert.
 
I am happy it's Dr. G. I have seen her show on TV and she seems like such a caring, compassionate person, and THOROUGH. She really cares about the victims and their families. It seems appropriate that she would handle the remains of that precious little child.


ITA - I am an avid watcher of Dr. G and I didn't even connect the dots to realize this was her jurisdiction!! So imagine my excitment when I heard the news that it would be her. If there is anything to be found Dr. G. will find it, she is very thorough as posted above, this is what got me watching in the first place. I was always impressed with the fact that even if she found the obvious she would keep looking just in case.

It's apparent from previous posts that some think she's just a typical reality TV star but I must respectfully disagree, her show is on the Discovery Health channel and I find it very educational and informative. She is very professional, honest and seems to be a caring individual (as stated above).

As always JMO :)
 

Staff online

Members online

Online statistics

Members online
97
Guests online
4,034
Total visitors
4,131

Forum statistics

Threads
592,547
Messages
17,970,769
Members
228,805
Latest member
Val in PA
Back
Top