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

[chefmom]

Can you add a "DUH?" option button please? This is not even a question. What would anyone have to gain by tampering with the scene of this crime? If LE wanted to tamper with the scene you better believe their would have been something found to directly link Casey. Her shoes? Her hair? Her fingerprints. DNA of some kind. LE had DNA from her by 12/11/08 when the remains were found. Surely, they would have taken it a step further and actually left some of it there.

This is getting crazy. Now I see why they were hoping to dumb down the jury.

Lol, gamom! I would, but I'm betting there are going to be some people who believe Dr. S. I really want to know what anyone might have found credible about his testimony. For me, I don't care how much CM went on about all of the things Dr. S has done in the past. I am well aware of his illustrious career. Having said that, I found his testimony today to be staged and for show. The fact the he even mentioned this as a high profile case I found to be tacky. JMO.

 

[bananarama]

Dr S was obviously unprepared. It was quite painful to watch. I'm sure Dr G will be called back during rebuttal to answer all of the questions raised by Dr S, including "brain dust" and why she felt it unnecessary to cut Caylee's skull open. Looking forward to hearing that.

 

[Donjeta]

I was prepared to respect him when hearing about his impressive credentials but they should have left it at that, it just went downhill from there. He didn't remember which interviews he had given, didn't know Caylee's name, didn't wear gloves, was unable to send samples to a lab if he was by himself in an autopsy, was completely insulting to the medical examiner's office employees and his theory about someone sticking duct tape to a skull made no earthly sense. Oh well.

But sure, Casey IS so important that everyone wants to frame her.

 

[Spookydancer]

Dr. G was doing her job on that fateful day in December......

Dr. S had monetary and his own selfish reasons (fame, attention) to become involved in this case.

Very well said....And for that reason my friend, Dr. G's testimony is most logical as far as crediblity. I certainly hope the jury understands the testimony that way as well!

 

[AlwaysShocked]

I don't feel badly at all that this is likely the end of the career of Dr. Werner Spitz. He had his "distinguished career". His big mistake is that he has "gone to the rodeo" one too many times.

These career defense witnesses all seem to do this to themselves. And I don't even think it is for the money. It is for the fame, the glory, the "importance of being an expert". They have basked in the interviews asking for their much-desired opinions.

Dr. Henry Lee went so far as to suppress evidence in the first Phil Spectre case. While he did not suffer any legal consequences from that event, the judge in the case made it a point to go on record with HIS opinion of Dr. Lee. The Judge basically said "Dr. Lee lied".

Today Dr. Spitz was able to "act confused" when actually kind of gently put to the wall by Jeff Ashton. If he tries this crap in some other trial in the future, he may not meet up with a Prosecutor who has the class of Mr. Ashton.

To me, Spitz came of as forgetful and somewhat confused but with an underlying defensiveness bordering on outright anger at having his "opinions" questioned. In the meanwhile some of his statements were downright ludicrous. Plus his outright insult of Dr. G's work as being "shoddy" tells me that this old(er) dude has just "lost it".

I am old(er). I retired. My employer did not want me to retire. I recognized it was time for me to retire. From a job position in which I was still performing very well. To me, it is better to leave when you are still doing really, really well than to "ride it" to the point where you are not.

Tough to watch in some respects. But we all know excellence when we see it, and Dr. G. has it. Spitz does not.

 

[LongtimeMedic]

To not remove the cranial cap is an incomplete autopsy. You'll also hear in the defenses case that the bone "scrapings" Dr G had analysed, were collected by Spitz as well. Dr G's autopsy was topical at best, and her opinions involved more subjective evidence than objective evidence. JMOO

 

[Melanie]

I was prepared to respect him when hearing about his impressive credentials but they should have left it at that, it just went downhill from there. He didn't remember which interviews he had given, didn't know Caylee's name, didn't wear gloves, was unable to send samples to a lab if he was by himself in an autopsy, was completely insulting to the medical examiner's office employees and his theory about someone sticking duct tape to a skull made no earthly sense. Oh well.

But sure, Casey IS so important that everyone wants to frame her.

I think when he said "I talked to "some people" at the house" kinda did it for me. He didn't read the police report, as stated on the stand, and didn't know Caylee's name. Yup, that pretty much sealed the deal for me. He also said by mistake "there was a pool in the house". Might just be his dialect, but he seemed all over the map except when being questioned by the defense team.

MOO

Mel

 

[megsy]

To not remove the cranial cap is an incomplete autopsy.

I'm not being snarky, but can you tell me according to whom? Where is it laid out that you must remove the cranial cap on skeletal remains?

 

[goldenlover]

Very well said....And for that reason my friend, Dr. G's testimony is most logical as far as crediblity. I certainly hope the jury understands the testimony that way as well!

He did say in his interview with the Orlando paper that he had not submitted a bill and did not know or care if he was being paid.

 

[Trapshooter]

Dr. G!!!!

This is a no-brainer!!! There was absolutely NO need for Dr. G to open the skull because it was EMPTY!!!! :banghead: She "cleaned" the skull with a saline solution, that's all she could do!!!

I am not buying the lies that Dr. Spitz is spewing! :furious: I think he was making up lies as he went along! When he said that "someone had placed the hair there to be photographed" was a WASTE, A HUGE WASTE!!!! :furious:

 

[littlemisslegal]

Dr G by a long long shot Dr. S didn't seem to know any of the facts surrounding the case...it was really surprising he didn't seem to know the case at all. I heard him say he didn't know about when 'Casey' was first missing before her body was found... wow.

wonder if he still believes a babysitter took her? i listened and at that point thought - does he not know there was no zanny? from that moment on, i was torn in my opinion between his impressive case of kennedy and
some comments. i thought omg- your kidding right?

another question of the day
did you break the skull? noticed casey had her own lil sidebar with her STAFF when he said ashton provoked him - omg once again!!

 

[goldenlover]

To not remove the cranial cap is an incomplete autopsy. You'll also hear in the defenses case that the bone "scrapings" Dr G had analysed, were collected by Spitz as well. Dr G's autopsy was topical at best, and her opinions involved more subjective evidence than objective evidence. JMOO

Exactly, what the prosecutors case is missing is some objective, scientific evidence...she could and should have done that.

 

[LongtimeMedic]

I'm not being snarky, but can you tell me according to whom? Where is it laid out that you must remove the cranial cap on skeletal remains?

I seen my share of autopsies and have never heard of, nor seen of an autopsy where this has not been done... can you point one out to me that it wasn't, in the absence of severe skull damage of course?

 

[Trapshooter]

To not remove the cranial cap is an incomplete autopsy. You'll also hear in the defenses case that the bone "scrapings" Dr G had analysed, were collected by Spitz as well. Dr G's autopsy was topical at best, and her opinions involved more subjective evidence than objective evidence. JMOO

Respectively quoted....LongtimeMedic WHY would the cranial cap need to be removed? If the skull is EMPTY, one should be able to view the entire interior of the skull!!! So wouldn't that negate the removal of the cranial cap?

 

[BritsKate]

To not remove the cranial cap is an incomplete autopsy. You'll also hear in the defenses case that the bone "scrapings" Dr G had analysed, were collected by Spitz as well. Dr G's autopsy was topical at best, and her opinions involved more subjective evidence than objective evidence. JMOO

Please show me where that is stated when the remains are completely skeletonised though because I have been looking all day at anthropological and osteological studies and I cannot find that listed as procedure or protocol anywhere.

Help please?

And I realise it would be SOP for a routine autopsy but when there is absolutely no soft tissue remaining...

 

[megsy]

I seen my share of autopsies and have never heard of, nor seen of an autopsy where this has not been done... can you point one out to me that it wasn't, in the absence of severe skull damage of course?

I hope you don't think I'm questioning your credentials ... I certainly don't have any regarding this case.

I guess where I'm confused is that in Dr. G's testimony, and if I'm remembering correctly, when asked if she opened the skull she replied, "Absolutely not" and then said something about it not being protocol?

I'm just confused. Thanks

 

[Hali]

To not remove the cranial cap is an incomplete autopsy. You'll also hear in the defenses case that the bone "scrapings" Dr G had analysed, were collected by Spitz as well. Dr G's autopsy was topical at best, and her opinions involved more subjective evidence than objective evidence. JMOO

I posted this link on a different thread: http://www.forensicpathologyonline....ent&view=category&layout=blog&id=55&Itemid=81

It is copywritten, so cannot be cut/pasted. It begins that for a controversial death, the autopsy be thorough in scope. Section h, #vi speaks specifically about the skull.

 

[littlemisslegal]

noticed dr s was a lil quick with his put downs- when asked about how to do a process in autopsy he asked ashton if he wants to tell him or show how to do it

 

[pinkfly]

Jeff Ashton showed us the truth....no question about that in my mind.

 

[goldenlover]

Just not sure a ME, who is a scientist, should give an opinion based on her own bias. Dr. G should have said both manner and cause of death were undetermined that is all she could determine. She cannot be sure it was not some type of accident by her scientific findings, so why even offer an opinion at all on manner of death? She came across as biased and arrogant. Dr. Spitz came across as a very intelligent, experienced scientist and only gave his opinion based on scientific evidence and his experience.