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

[Leah0107]

Among other's mentioned, a few things
1 Although I understand people make mistakes with names, it bothered me immensely that he misspoke Caylee's name. If you aren't in it for the fame, exposure, etc. and each case is high profile, at least get the victim's name right. - This is about HER. and what happened to her!
2) He seemed to do well when leading questions were asked or information was asked to be comfirmed (from the DT), but when asked, for example, to recall his understanding of circumstances surrounding the victim that caused him to draw his conclusion, he was stammered and couldn't come up with any knowledgeable or reasonable answer (horrible).
3. His defense of not 'having a lab' - wtf? How can you expect to do a thorough autopsy examination and not have at least arranged access to a lab.
4. Said it before and concur with others - the whole carry duct tape into the woods, pick up her skull, mandible falls and is reattached anatomically correct and then duct taped and replaced in the woods is ludicrous.

 

[Turnadot]

Then we'll just respectfully disagree, because Spitz stated the area, the petrous portion of the left temporal bone, had a waxy, soapy brown stain which he said is usually seen on the side decomposition occurred on, as it wasn't on the right side. plus both right and left petrous portion of the temporal bones cannot be seen without taking off the skull cap.

It appears though, that if the State is heading in the wrong direction, or they aren't including all the players, they aren't changing now regardless of what you show them. Which is unfortunate because some may get off.

Interesting. Do you have a citation? I don't remember that at all. Only that he referred to it as a dark brown residue.

 

[Hot Dogs]

In response to the sentence I bolded:

If so, I believe Dr. G will be able to truthfully respond that 100% of the time, people don't put duct tape over dead victim's faces because there is no reasonable or logical reason to do so.

Duct tape goes over live people's faces so they can't scream or breathe.

He will corner her with a hypothetical question and she will have no choice other than to agree. It won't be about what normal people would do... it will be about what people could do. She will have to agree that a person could apply duct tape after death.

 

[nickismom]

At the risk of sounding disrespectful, I'm confused as to whether Dr. Spitz even knew what city he was in. This was painful to watch.

 

[D96s]

I studied forensic anthropology, and cutting the skull open is not done for an anthropological examination. I don't remember ever seeing that done in any actual cases I saw or in any cases I read about.

Cutting the skull open in a skeletonized skull is NOT normally done. It is not part of the Florida Sate Medical Examiners Protocols nor is it in any protocol that Dr. S could cite.

 

[LongtimeMedic]

Dr. G. Hands down. All the way. SHE didn't crack Caylee's skull. I can't believe lightening didn't strike him for doing something like that. And she most certainly did not tamper with evidence. This is not some big conspiracy against Casey! And Dr. Spitz's theory was downright laughable. I find that the SIMPLEST explanation works, not the most out there and complex one. Apparently he's never heard of KISS.

I am just outraged at Dr. Spitz. No concern for the deceased, and he's right and everyone is in some vast conspiracy to frame a lying, stealing, nonworking, nonresponsible, no morals, no ethics, soulless woman who should have CHERISHED the gift of Caylee that God gave her but instead killed her and dumped her like trash.

It's like Dr. G said - God put that mandile there and no two year old should ever have duct tape on their face. I am going with reason and logic, not fantasy and senility. I don't care how much more experience he has, he is obviously stuck in a time that's at least three to four decades behind everyone and think's he God.

I got news for you, Dr. Spitz. You are not God, not by a long shot. God is the one laughing at you right now.

Are you aware if the area described by Dr Spitz that he found upon doing an autopsy after opening the cranium, which is very usual, was actually made of of decomposed tissue, and it would actually be the most likely place that a positive test for chemicals or drugs would have been rendered from. Dr Spitz did not do anything disrespectful by trying to help identify all of her killers by seeking any evidence he could find.

And while I know Spitz has a bad rap for being a "Hired Gun". I recall that he testifies for both State and Defense on cases regularly, and on a somewhat recent opinion, he was fired because he told the defense their client was guilty... I'll look for a link.

 

[Aedrys]

He will corner her with a hypothetical question and she will have no choice other than to agree. It won't be about what normal people would do... it will be about what people could do. She will have to agree that a person could apply duct tape after death.

But Casey would never want to get her hands dirty and a dead body would just be icky to her. I can't imagine her applying duct tape after Caylee's death for that reason. And the duct tape wouldn't stay on a decomposing face. It wouldn't stick if fluids were already coming out of her mouth. It wouldn't have been with the skull still if it was put on after death. If the purging fluids weren't enough, there was a hurricane and she was under water for months. The duct tape would no longer be there if it was put on after death and then the body going through a hot trunk then swamp conditions with a hurricane added in to boot. A person could TRY to apply duct tape after death, but that is not what happened here. We'd have a whole different case if the duct tape was applied after Caylee's death, believe me.

 

[samhunt]

Is Dr. Spitz's report posted anywhere? I must have missed the part where he said he opened the cranium, and I want to read about it.

Did he test the substance he found after opening the cranium?

 

[D96s]

Are you aware if the area described by Dr Spitz that he found upon doing an autopsy after opening the cranium, which is very usual, was actually made of of decomposed tissue, and it would actually be the most likely place that a positive test for chemicals or drugs would have been rendered from. Dr Spitz did not do anything disrespectful by trying to help identify all of her killers by seeking any evidence he could find.

And while I know Spitz has a bad rap for being a "Hired Gun". I recall that he testifies for both State and Defense on cases regularly, and on a somewhat recent opinion, he was fired because he told the defense their client was guilty... I'll look for a link.

There is no need to desicrate the skull to get that evidence. Dr. G GOT that evidence AND sent it in for analysis (something Dr. S didn't do) WITHOUT desicrating the skull.

 

[BritsKate]

Are you aware if the area described by Dr Spitz that he found upon doing an autopsy after opening the cranium, which is very usual, was actually made of of decomposed tissue, and it would actually be the most likely place that a positive test for chemicals or drugs would have been rendered from. Dr Spitz did not do anything disrespectful by trying to help identify all of her killers by seeking any evidence he could find.

And while I know Spitz has a bad rap for being a "Hired Gun". I recall that he testifies for both State and Defense on cases regularly, and on a somewhat recent opinion, he was fired because he told the defense their client was guilty... I'll look for a link.

Please, please, please provide a link for what I bolded because I have spent about 20 hours researching anthropological and osteological procedures and nowhere is it stated that cutting the calvarium is 'usual' in anything but routine autopsies. If it is your opinion please clarify. Thank you!

 

[treeseeker]

I have great respect for both Dr. G and Dr. S, and I think they both had important points. IMHO, two good scientists can disagree, and neither be dishonest or unknowledgeable. Dr. S is very professor-ish, kinda arrogant, but in all honesty Dr. is pretty confident herself. Both opinions should be taken together to come to the most reasonable conclusion - that's the best science, IMO.

 

[Aedrys]

Are you aware if the area described by Dr Spitz that he found upon doing an autopsy after opening the cranium, which is very usual, was actually made of of decomposed tissue, and it would actually be the most likely place that a positive test for chemicals or drugs would have been rendered from. Dr Spitz did not do anything disrespectful by trying to help identify all of her killers by seeking any evidence he could find.

And while I know Spitz has a bad rap for being a "Hired Gun". I recall that he testifies for both State and Defense on cases regularly, and on a somewhat recent opinion, he was fired because he told the defense their client was guilty... I'll look for a link.

There was NO TISSUE. She was a SKELETON. She was in water for six months at least, then animals ate the tissue off of her after that. I'm sorry to be so graphic, but there was not one iota of tissue left inside that skull. He had no reason to open that skull, and it is inexcusable that he also damaged it. There is no excuse for how he treated Caylee's remains, which were completely skeletonized. He was too greedy for money and fame. I don't care about his credentials, I don't like him and I'm glad Ashton shredded him apart on stand. He is an embarrassment to the medical community.

 

[MissJames]

I find it interesting that lay people are questioning the methods a 20+ year Medical Examiner used to examine Caylee's remains.
She was professional ,didn't get paid anything extra for doing her job ,hasn't been giving interviews to bolster her testimony. She has no dog in this in fight,so to speak.
I think she tries to get to the truth,and that includes exculpatory evidence,when LE is ready to charge an innocent person. That's not what she found here.
So I ask again,what makes a lay person believe they have a better way of doing Dr. G's job or the knowledge to even question the protocol she followed? I'm baffled.

 

[BritsKate]

Is Dr. Spitz's report posted anywhere? I must have missed the part where he said he opened the cranium, and I want to read about it.

Did he test the substance he found after opening the cranium?

Links gladly given:

Spitz report:
http://www.clickorlando.com/download/2011/0314/27194964.pdf

ME report:
http://www.wesh.com/download/2009/0619/19802034.pdf

 

[LongtimeMedic]

Is Dr. Spitz's report posted anywhere? I must have missed the part where he said he opened the cranium, and I want to read about it.

Did he test the substance he found after opening the cranium?

He did no testing, but I thought I understood him to say specimens he collected were handed over to the State. It would be remains/evidence... he nor Baez could keep anything he collected, even if they wanted to. Even if Baez had it sent out to a lab, there would be a report, and I'm not aware there is one.

 

[Turnadot]

Are you aware if the area described by Dr Spitz that he found upon doing an autopsy after opening the cranium, which is very usual, was actually made of of decomposed tissue, and it would actually be the most likely place that a positive test for chemicals or drugs would have been rendered from. Dr Spitz did not do anything disrespectful by trying to help identify all of her killers by seeking any evidence he could find.

And while I know Spitz has a bad rap for being a "Hired Gun". I recall that he testifies for both State and Defense on cases regularly, and on a somewhat recent opinion, he was fired because he told the defense their client was guilty... I'll look for a link.

1) Caylee lay in a trunk for days, perhaps on her left side. It's not significant that she decomposed on her left in the trunk, yet her skull was found upright.

2) Did Dr Spitz take a sample of the decomposed tissue and test it for chemicals or drugs?

If not, why?

 

[gamom]

Again, this makes the assumption that Casey is reasonable and/or logical, when by all accounts, she wasn't.

Too bad for her the jury will be instructed that they must use REASON when determining beyond a RESONABLE doubt and since she has not been diagnosed with any illness and has been determined to be mental sane then she is in trouble if her story does not involve reason and logic.

 

[MissJames]

Interesting. Do you have a citation? I don't remember that at all. Only that he referred to it as a dark brown residue.

Yes,links please. Wiki anything can be written by John Q. Public so they don't count :crazy: IMO

 

[Puzzler]

Not sure if I can post you a link here but if I can here it is: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/81/Gray193.png
And the superior ridge of the petrous portion of the left temporal bone stain would be hidden from view from the foramen magnum. The only reason I brought up cribriform plate, is because you can't see it from below either, it is the bottom, how can you see what's there if you don't look?? Like Spitz said... why do an autopsy from the neck down only??

You may be missing my point, but I'm not trying to argue with you, just point out that the doc said Caylee decomposed left side head down, and we have a detective that says the skull was virtually unmoved because of vegitation, and he says it was upright and unmoved for six months! That's a HUGE discrepancy! At least let's don't totally sit back and watch the State fail, and her and all her co-conspirators walk!

I don't think the state has said anything to preclude the skull resting on its left side for the majority of its decomposing and then being shifted upright by water or some other force (think hurricane Faye). Given that the duct tape and hair together created an encircling band around the "the anterior portion of the lower skull, including mandible and a portion of the maxilla" (quoting the autopsy report), I don't see why the mandible wouldn't have shifted upright with the rest of the skull. The movement from the skull resting on its left side to resting upright could easily have be a very small one--well within the "virtually unmoved" scenario.
:cow:

Nothing in Dr. Spitz's testimony or report has convinced me the body was taped post-decomposition. You and Dr. Spitz have, however, convinced me that Dr. G. should have opened Caylee's skull during her examination.

 

[D96s]

He did no testing, but I thought I understood him to say specimens he collected were handed over to the State. It would be remains/evidence... he nor Baez could keep anything he collected, even if they wanted to. Even if Baez had it sent out to a lab, there would be a report, and I'm not aware there is one.

Nope - he did not say he collected any speciments at all. In fact, he testified that he collected no specimens. As it turned out, he didn't need to. Dr. G had already collected all evidentary specimens from the skull cavity and had it analysed.