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

[Puzzler]

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.

I didn't get that Dr. S. saw anything Dr. G. did not. The following is from Dr. G.'s autopsy (any typos are mine, I had to type it in from the scanned report):

"Examination of the skull reveals no evidence of antemortem trauma. The inner aspect of the cranial cavity is examined with light and reveals sandy dirt and an attached small incisor which is adhered to the inside of the calvarium with dirt."
http://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnn/2009/images/06/19/caylee.anthony.autopsy.pdf

Dr. G did not identify exactly where in the cranium this "sandy dirt" and attached incisor were. So Dr. S was correct in saying he could make no determination of how the skull was positioned while this substance was deposited. Dr. S. thought it was brain residue, but did not test this assumption (by having the residue tested). Dr. G. didn't test her assumption that it was dirt either, so that one's a draw.

At this point, I do wish Dr. G. had opened the skull (so as not to have been attacked on the quality of her work). However, I also think that her decision not open the skull was reasonable under the circumstances. (Lay opinion, and MOO.)

 

[Quiche]

I don't think that it was ever stated that Dr. G didn't look inside the skull. She just said that she didn't saw it in half.

What great information did Dr. S gain by sawing the skull in half? None that I heard.

Aren't there also little cameras on flexible wands? GMAB, there are a dozen ways, in this century, to look into an empty skull without sawing it in two. Sheesh, this Werner didn't even wear gloves! I mean, whoa, get with the program!

:floorlaugh:

 

[Tuffy]

It appeared the one thing that Dr. S was able to remember clearly about this case is that it is high profile. Why mention that when discussing how thorough an autopsy should be if you're not implying a "lesser" case wouldn't warrant the same type of detail?

I'm lost how someone can say Dr. S. based his opinion on objective scientific evidence, experience, etc. when he himself couldn't say exactly what he based his opinion on. I'm also lost how Dr. G. can be considered biased because she used knowledge of the case in order to come to her opinion. I'd like to know of another ME anywhere who found a child (not reported missing) with duct tape on their body, in several bags and dumped in a swamp as a possible accident, suicide or natural causes death. If someone can show me this then I'll agree that Dr. G. was totally subjective and biased in her opinion.

BBM:

Dr. S didn't just imply it, he stated during his testimony that when doing a high profile case he would ask more questions than for 85 year old non-high-profile case.

He gave himself away left and right today.

 

[Turnadot]

I have, but I'll go review it, which part are to pointing to?

I'm not actually, it just sounds like you're educated about this and I just wanted your general opinion of Dr G's work. I like Dr G, but hearing opinions from others who work in that field are nice to have.

My opinions of her work is a lay opinion, so really I haven't a clue what I'm talking about in that regard.

 

[Boytwnmom]

washed with a saline solution that had produced a tooth and so whatever was in there was disturbed. Gravity was not the cause of the location of the sediment at the time Dr S examined it..

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!!!

 

[ascerbic]

Knock it off with the age comments!

Did you all know that the US Equal Opportunity Laws consider age bashing as bad as racial commenting?

Not that we are governed by those laws here, but it shows how rude it is to consider age as a negative connotation.

Can we comment on head bobbing? In the video of Judge Perry spanking JB, his head was noticeably bobbing and I don't think I have seen that before. That might be a "tell" to say when he is done fooling around.

 

[gamom]

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!!!

Dr. G missed what? dirt on the left side of the skull? To say it was decomp residue would mean that it was TESTED and confirmed to be so. Dr. S already said he never had it tested. What is the point of the DT hiring Dr. S to do an autopsy if he was not going to actually try to find the cause/mean of death? Dr. G ran several tests. Even tests on the remendants found in the skull. She was able to gather this by using saline in the skull opening. If he is going to say her findings were inaccurate, then I would like to see the tests that he did that show something different.

It is easy to argue someone is wrong when you don't have to show exactly how they were wrong. He can't even show that there is a protocol that states you should cut the skull.

 

[Tuffy]

I didn't get that Dr. S. saw anything Dr. G. did not. The following is from Dr. G.'s autopsy (any typos are mine, I had to type it in from the scanned report):

"Examination of the skull reveals no evidence of antemortem trauma. The inner aspect of the cranial cavity is examined with light and reveals sandy dirt and an attached small incisor which is adhered to the inside of the calvarium with dirt."
http://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnn/2009/images/06/19/caylee.anthony.autopsy.pdf

Dr. G did not identify exactly where in the cranium this "sandy dirt" and attached incisor were. So Dr. S was correct in saying he could make no determination of how the skull was positioned while this substance was deposited. Dr. S. thought it was brain residue, but did not test this assumption (by having the residue tested). Dr. G. didn't test her assumption that it was dirt either, so that one's a draw.

At this point, I do wish Dr. G. had opened the skull (so as not to have been attacked on the quality of her work). However, I also think that her decision not open the skull was reasonable under the circumstances. (Lay opinion, and MOO.)

BBM:

The defense would have then had a doctor testify that Dr. G shouldn't have sawed the skull in half because it wasn't protocol.

 

[Melanie]

Agree. The inside of the skull can be scraped with out cutting the skull.

If we're talking about dust, couldn't the dust be obtained via scrapings, and not cutting the skull in half with a saw?

In looking at the skull (and I'm no expert) I would "think" that scraping would be the way to go vs. mutilating her any further.

Again, I'm clueless - just thinking out loud.

MOO

Mel

 

[LongtimeMedic]

And what did DR. S find upon opening that child's skull that changed anything?

The only difference I see is that it 'helps' sway the jury towards an obvious lie about Roy Kronk.

He show what Dr G didn't and couldn't without opening the cranium... plain and simple.

 

[denisemb]

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)

Couldn't it be possible to inspect the inside of a skeletonized skull using some kind of endoscope, high magnification fiber optic camera, x-ray and/or ultrasound without opening it?

Just curious...TIA

 

[Melanie]

BBM:

The defense would have then had a doctor testify that Dr. G shouldn't have sawed the skull in half because it wasn't protocol.

true - you can't win can you? I suspect they would say "you cut the skull open, you destroyed evidence, blah blah blah".

Pure speculation on my part.

Mel

 

[GeekyGirl]

I disagree. Dr. G used FACTS surrounding the circumstances of the deceased child to help her come to her findings. Those FACTS are crucial to the determination, imo. Dr. S knew next to nothing, other than there was a pool that he remembered, about the time right before the child's death. Science routinely takes surrounding circumstances and facts into evidence when they attempt to make determination or conclusion.

I think it is hard to label Dr. G as arrogant and not do the same for Dr. Spitz.
I found him quite arrogant and stubborn, although I respect his lofty wisdom and experience.

What bothered me about Dr G's testimony is that she said that there is no reason for the duct tape to be applied postmortem. While I respect that she is an expert, this is speculation on her part. If it were a FACT that there was no reason to apply the duct tape postmortem, and antemortem placement would have killed her, why is it not listed as COD?

 

[LongtimeMedic]

In side a skull is NOT a simple, smooth, rounded capsule. It is like a canyon in there , with ridges, fissures, openings you can see through, and some you can't. It's not like a hollow ball. You can't examine the canyon without climbing in, period.

 

[Quiche]

Well, all in all, I was highly entertained by Spitz's testimony, sure wasn't falling asleep!

eta: ...and because it was so absurd, imo, there's no threat to the truth in this case. Pure entertainment.

 

[Boytwnmom]

are an essential part of the determination of manner of death. The body is not examined in a vacuum to determine manner of death. All of the circumstances surrounding the decedent's death are investigated in order to render a determination. This is just a basic part of what the ME does.

I disagree. Dr. G used FACTS surrounding the circumstances of the deceased child to help her come to her findings. Those FACTS are crucial to the determination, imo. Dr. S knew next to nothing, other than there was a pool that he remembered, about the time right before the child's death. Science routinely takes surrounding circumstances and facts into evidence when they attempt to make determination or conclusion.

I think it is hard to label Dr. G as arrogant and not do the same for Dr. Spitz.
I found him quite arrogant and stubborn, although I respect his lofty wisdom and experience.

 

[LongtimeMedic]

true - you can't win can you? I suspect they would say "you cut the skull open, you destroyed evidence, blah blah blah".

Pure speculation on my part.

Mel

They could have avoided the entire issue and allowed Spitz to be present at the first autopsy, and then everyone would have seen the same things. That would have streamlined things a bit, no?

 

[sappysoul]

BBM:

Dr. S didn't just imply it, he stated during his testimony that when doing a high profile case he would ask more questions than for 85 year old non-high-profile case.

He gave himself away left and right today.

Yes, I caught that. I guess if you're an 85 y.o. murder victim you wouldn't want Dr. S. doing your autopsy. I wonder at what age we should stop caring about the cause of someone's death?

 

[Puzzler]

Actually what she said was ante mortem......which I think means before death.

I'm referring to the autopsy. Are you referring to testimony?

 

[katydid23]

Yes, I am saying it was a credible one. He has no reason to lie and he presented scientific evidence he used to come to that conclusion. He did not say it was for staging purposes, he did not know why someone would duct tape the mandible to the skull, but he believes it was done and told us why he thought that.

In the last part of the cross exam he was shown a photo of the skull on brown paper, he said that was set up for the photograph and the hair placed on top because it did not match the photo taken at the crime scene as to the position of the skull and hair as it was photographed at the crime scene. That photograph was taken in the ME's office.

I am not sure that he had no reason 'to lie.' He is a professional witness. That is how he makes his living. He said he does 30 cases a year. He cannot to to a trial and say whatever he wants to. It HAS TO line up with the defense's theory or he will not take the stand. Which is why he had to lay out his theory of someone putting the mandible back together and taping it, then putting it back on the dump site.

And did you notice he even threw a Kronk scenario in there for good measure? He said ' maybe someone took the body, went somewhere else, put the mandible back in place, duct taped it together, and then came back at a later time and planted the body.' WHY WOULD HE PUT THAT SCENARIO OUT THERE ? Sounds like he was asked to say something along those lines. He certainly did not get that scenario from any Medical Examination he had done. Disgusting, if you ask me.