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

[Tricksy]

If I'm reading that correctly, it says to remove the brain. So I would think this isn't speaking about skeletal remains.

I got the impression that it was directly referring to opening a skull to remove the brain too.

 

[anada75]

While I agree that Dr S's direct testimony was severely undermined by the cross examination, I disagree with some of the critiques.

I think calling Caylee "Casey" is understandable given the similarities of the names and the stress of the situation. Heck, I am borderline obsessed with this case, and I have mixed the names up once in a while!

Also, I think that some of the lapses in Dr S's knowledge about the circumstances of the case were the fault of the defense attorneys and not his own memory or lack of due diligence. I can imagine a possibility wherein he asked for all materials to be given so that he could make a determination, and Baez cherry-picked the ones he wanted to present.

I am not saying that lets Dr S off the hook completely for the holes in his assessment, but if he is used to working with defense teams that are more thorough, he might have just assumed he was getting complete information. JMO

 

[nssherlock]

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

Just using my common sense, which I believe the jury is asked to do, why would one further destroy the skeleton of the child if it is not necessary. I believe Dr G could do everything the DS pointed out using current technology, and did.

 

[Tuffy]

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.

How was Dr. G's opinion "not scientific", or "biased?" Because she took into consideration the surroundings and other facts of the death? These things are commonly used to determine the manner and cause of death.

 

[goldenlover]

You could be right, but Dr. S just threw that theory out the window for the DT. He said it was placed on the skull. Also, what reason would RK have to put duct tape on Caylee? It is not like he was trying to help colaborate KC's story. He would have received the reward (since that was what the DT is claiming he wantedd) no matter what condition Caylee's body was found in.

So then it comes to GA putting it on after her death. But that does not make any sense either to me. GA being a former detective would have known that tape could be traced back to the manufacter and to the house. Anyone who has watched a few forensic shows knows that. So to me if GA would have done it, the body would have been found with no evidence of any item from the house.

I don't think he said GA did it. He said "someone". With the duct tape being at the public searches and on the table at the search headquarters, anyone could have picked up the roll. Just because it was Henkel duct tape does not mean someone else in the state of Florda could not have it, either. Just playing devils advocate. RK is almost as strange as KC in some of his actions..his ex-wife has said he had a "duct tape" incident in the past..this is a strange case..looks to be getting even stranger.

 

[Trapshooter]

Due to the bone structure, you cannot see completely inside a human skull without opening it. (you cannot look in the eyes, etc. there are bones blocking it)

Because there are dips and crannies (laymen terms) INSIDE the skull that will collect residue... just like that in Caylee's skull that Dr. Spitz pointed out, that Dr G did not. Now if Dr S saw something by removing the cranial cap, that Dr G didn't see by NOT doing so... which is the more thorough physical examination of the remains. Answer that honestly and the questions answer itself provides the conclusion.

goldenlover with the mandible only attached by duct tape, would that not allow one to look inside the skull?

LongtimeMedic it is my understanding that Dr. Spitz only observed "debris" inside the skull. IIRC, it was dirt/mud. I will agree with you that removing the cranial cap is a more thorough autopsy. I just don't see the why the cranial cap would NEED to be removed since there was nothing inside the skull.

 

[LongtimeMedic]

Main thing I see in many threads here, and I know this is OT, but there is a distinct lack of objectivity here about the witnesses and counsel in the trial. You have to be able to put aside things like "... well so and so said that...", and look at things objectively, even if they disagree with what you want to hear or see. To do otherwise, some one needs to explain to me what the point is in having a trial or even more so watching it?? Just to convict??? Sorry, but that's not how our justice system works, and was never intended to.

It's natural and normal to have an opinion, and everyone does, but opinions don't afford one the benefit of excluding facts to help support their own beliefs and opinions.

 

[cleo612]

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.

~~~Bolded by me

I hope I can say this without getting myself into trouble. Mods, please note that I am truly not trying to be snarky in any way.

Are you saying that Dr. Spitz's theory of how that duct tape came to be placed on little Caylee's skull was a credible one?

In my opinion, that was the most convoluted, contrived, unbelievable, and condescending testimony I have ever heard come from an expert's mouth. There is absolutely NO evidence to suggest that anyone ever picked up that skull, realigned the now detached mandible, and then placed duct tape on it to hold the mandible in place, just for staging purposes. What possible reason would a person have for doing such a thing?

Even though I find totally ludicrous the entire concept of duct taping a person's face and airways to prevent spillage of decompositional fluids, it certainly would make much more sense than what Dr. Spitz was trying to peddle on the witness stand today.

I won't even go into what I think about him accusing medical examiner staff of "staging" little Caylee's skull for photography purposes. I am going to sit on my hands for that.

 

[Tuffy]

Advances in technology, IIRC.

Why physically open the skull if she doesn't need to, KWIM?

Also, even if Dr G did do an incomplete autopsy, DR S., showed on the stand today that he can't believed. Dr G is still credible at least.

Also, Dr. S couldn't point to a single published protocol stating that it is always done. He could not point to anything that describes an exam that doesn't include sawing the skull in half, as incomplete.

 

[Broderick]

I don't think he said GA did it. He said "someone". With the duct tape being at the public searches and on the table at the search headquarters, anyone could have picked up the roll. Just because it was Henkel duct tape does not mean someone else in the state of Florda could not have it, either. Just playing devils advocate. RK is almost as strange as KC in some of his actions..his ex-wife has said he had a "duct tape" incident in the past..this is a strange case..looks to be getting even stranger.

Getting a real kick out of this thread. So Kronk has a duct tape fetish I presume and picked the skull up, positioned the mandible in place and applied three places of duct tape to hold it in place and then possibly one piece he didn't use he left 9 feet away. Then he put the skull back in the sediment carefully. Ok.

 

[Hot Dogs]

Dr G's autopsy was topical at best, and her opinions involved more subjective evidence than objective evidence. JMOO

I think that Dr. G's autopsy report (medical examiners report) is objective evidence. But her testimony on the stand had big doses of subjectivity.

In her report she specifies that the duct tape was applied before decomposition, but she does not say that this was before death. That is objective. On the stand she says it was applied before death because, well... that's how it happens in the real world. That is subjective.

Now, there have been a good number of Websleuthers who have theorized that maybe Casey applied the duct tape after death to prevent the leakage of bodily fluids. They theorize this for both a murder and for an accidental death with subsequent cover-up. By definition, those posters are disagreeing with Dr. G's proclamation that the tape was applied before death. Additionally, this is also true for anyone who theorizes that Casey applied the tape after death to make it look like somebody had murdered Caylee (maybe to mimic a kidnap scenario where the tape is used to silence a noisy child).

 

[Turnadot]

Main thing I see in many threads here, and I know this is OT, but there is a distinct lack of objectivity here about the witnesses and counsel in the trial. You have to be able to put aside things like "... well so and so said that...", and look at things objectively, even if they disagree with what you want to hear or see. To do otherwise, some one needs to explain to me what the point is in having a trial or even more so watching it?? Just to convict??? Sorry, but that's not how our justice system works, and was never intended to.

It's natural and normal to have an opinion, and everyone does, but opinions don't afford one the benefit of excluding facts to help support their own beliefs and opinions.

Like Dr Spitz, for example.

 

[Tuffy]

Main thing I see in many threads here, and I know this is OT, but there is a distinct lack of objectivity here about the witnesses and counsel in the trial. You have to be able to put aside things like "... well so and so said that...", and look at things objectively, even if they disagree with what you want to hear or see. To do otherwise, some one needs to explain to me what the point is in having a trial or even more so watching it?? Just to convict??? Sorry, but that's not how our justice system works, and was never intended to.

It's natural and normal to have an opinion, and everyone does, but opinions don't afford one the benefit of excluding facts to help support their own beliefs and opinions.

BBM:

I don't see where Dr. G is excluding facts. If anything it is Dr. S that excluded (or didn't know about) facts in this case. IMO, Dr. G used the facts to reach a reasonable conclusion.

 

[Trapshooter]

I don't think he said GA did it. He said "someone". With the duct tape being at the public searches and on the table at the search headquarters, anyone could have picked up the roll. Just because it was Henkel duct tape does not mean someone else in the state of Florda could not have it, either. Just playing devils advocate. RK is almost as strange as KC in some of his actions..his ex-wife has said he had a "duct tape" incident in the past..this is a strange case..looks to be getting even stranger.

goldenlover you might want to search this forum for entire threads devoted solely to the duct tape. It was a RARE Henkel brand duct tape that was no longer being manufactured. IIRC, several posters here from Florida actually tried to find the "rare Henkel" tape in Orlando stores and were unsuccessful.

 

[LongtimeMedic]

goldenlover with the mandible only attached by duct tape, would that not allow one to look inside the skull?

LongtimeMedic it is my understanding that Dr. Spitz only observed "debris" inside the skull. IIRC, it was dirt/mud. I will agree with you that removing the cranial cap is a more thorough autopsy. I just don't see the why the cranial cap would NEED to be removed since there was nothing inside the skull.

It has to be opened and looked inside of, because after decomp is done, inside the cranium and inside the bone cores are the only places cryptic evidence will be found. The rest of the body is GONE. Why would you NOT want to know what's INSIDE what you have left?? Makes no sense.

Addendum: removing the cranial cap showed which side the of the head was laying towards gravity, as decomp residue was on the left side, not the back, and DR G MISSED THAT!!!

 

[chefmom]

Main thing I see in many threads here, and I know this is OT, but there is a distinct lack of objectivity here about the witnesses and counsel in the trial. You have to be able to put aside things like "... well so and so said that...", and look at things objectively, even if they disagree with what you want to hear or see. To do otherwise, some one needs to explain to me what the point is in having a trial or even more so watching it?? Just to convict??? Sorry, but that's not how our justice system works, and was never intended to.

It's natural and normal to have an opinion, and everyone does, but opinions don't afford one the benefit of excluding facts to help support their own beliefs and opinions.

I completely agree with you, LM! I would also add that just because one side or the other parades an expert, famous or not, before the jury to dispense opinion does not mean that the jury must take that experts opinion over common sense and logical reasoning. Many of the things that Dr. S opined today stretched the very fabric of reason, IMO, and were therefore unreliable. JMO, of course.

 

[Broderick]

It has to be opened and looked inside of, because after decomp is done, inside the cranium and inside the bone cores are the only places cryptic evidence will be found. The rest of the body is GONE. Why would you NOT want to know what's INSIDE what you have left?? Makes no sense.

x-rays and the opening are sufficient.

 

[Mountain_Kat]

It isn't so much a matter of which doctor I find more credible, but which doctor I believe has a broader scope of knowledge with respect to the specifics of THIS case.

In my opinion, that would be Dr.G.

 

[Quiche]

I don't think Dr. Spitz could have found an opinion explicit to this case if it was handed to him, and I think it was, he just forgot! His interviews, the victim's name, that he broke the skull, that salt water is saline, that... oh my.

Dr. G. for certain. mo

 

[gamom]

Advances in technology, IIRC.

Why physically open the skull if she doesn't need to, KWIM?

Also, even if Dr G did do an incomplete autopsy, DR S., showed on the stand today that he can't be believed. Dr G is still credible at least.

Dr. G when asked if she cut the skull said "Absoulutely NOT!" she was mortified by that question. I took that to mean a little sense of humanity. As if to say "Caylee's little body was mutilated enough already. She had animals chewing on her little bones. We searched for days upon days to make sure we found every one of her missing teeth and every one of her tiny bones. Cutting the skull would have given me no more facts then I already had without cutting the skull. I wanted this little girl to be barried as whole as possible"

OF course those are not Dr. G's words, but that is the perception I gained from her testimony.