Susanann, I’m not questioning Spitz’s qualifications. I’m questioning why failing to open an intact skull means the ME’s autopsy was “shoddy”. Like sugaree said, there would be no need, since the skull was intact.
Haven’t these folks ever watched Bones - I mean, really -
Computer animations are always correct.
Bones never cuts open the skull - and they always get the guy.
So far, the only thing that actually has me scratching my head is the whole duct tape thing - I had assumed that there was some soft tissue left on the remains at that point that the duct tape was stuck to - now this expert says it was stuck to the skeleton only - which makes zero sense as the murder weapon.
So, in essence, the use of the duct tape is definitely questionable if this expert is right - but overall, she is still the only one with direct means, motive and opportunity plus a whole lot of questionable actions at the time.
As I said earlier - I’m not convinced it was intentional or planned - but she is definitely responsible, and the actions around it are suspect enough that she needs to be out of the population. I’m open to changing my mind, but so far nothing that the Defense has brought to the table changes the prosecutions case. (of course, I’m primarily reading the CNN snippets, but if there were truly any evidence that suggested she wasn’t responsible, we’d have seen it by now)
-
He already answered that. Certain trauma to the skull is only apparent in the inside, not the outside. From my own personal experience I can verify that there are cases where a slight crack is visible by looking at it on the inside, but does not show at all by looking at it from the outside. Duh???
-
Also, the inside of the skull might be stained by blood or whatever from certain types of injury but naturally not show anything on the outside.
-
As a side not, after years of watching Dr G on tv, this is very the first autopsy of Dr G that I have seen where she did not look inside of the skull - I find that rather odd. Her speculation regarding the tape was also perplexing.
-
Moreover, I don’t like the fact that the prosecution did not allow Spitz to attend the first official autopsy(what is up with that?) which would have necessarily avoided all of the contradictions - this example of the prosecution showcases the fact that the prosecution is not out to seek the truth via any avenue, rather, the prosecution is out to convince everyone that there scenario is what happened and they want to shut down any alternatives. If I was the government, I personally would seek out anything to find the truth whether it proved my theory right or wrong. I think the goal of the government should be to find the truth and not just to “win” a case. It is ok for the government prosecution to disagree with the defense, but it is not ok to try to shut them down or try to not let them bring up points.
Pardon my ignorance; I’m no pathologist, but what if cutting the skull opened destroyed any slight cracks to the interior? And I am curious as to what kind of injury could cause a crack to the interior of the skull with no sign of injury to the exterior. My understanding was that in head injuries, being thudded against the skull could cause scar tissue on the brain, but how could the soft brain crack the skull?
And how could a blood stain be visible while all flesh had decayed away? Wouldn’t the blood proteins also decompose?
Have you watched Dr. G do an autopsy on a skeletonized body? If so, did she open the skull?
I thought it was pretty petty not allowing a coroner of this stature to even watch the autopsy. Heck this guy was one of the pioneers of the modern approach to forensic autopsy. Regular MD’s did autopsy up until the 1960’s. Spitz is legendary in the field of forensic autopsy. Sure, he’s kind of old now and he’s obviously not as sharp. But, it wouldn’t hurt to let him watch.
I guess it’s the old cliche “us against them” attitude. Spitz works for the defense and suddenly he’s the enemy. :rolleyes: total crap.
Same thing with Dr Rodriguez.
Rodriguez wanted to bring up important facts about what happens when dead bodies are wrapped in duct tape, and the prosecution did not want him to tell us that information. What? I want to hear what Rodriguez has to say about duct tape on dead bodies, and I think the jury should hear that also.
I watch this trial, any trial, every trial to see all the different factors and things that might solve the crime, and I dont like it one bit when the prosecution does not allow facts to be presented. I want to know. The prosecution does not want me to know. It is as simple as that. Any time the prosecution does not want me to know facts about the case, any time the prosecution withholds evidence, any time the prosecution lies, then I switch my vote to not guilty no matter how “bad” the defendant might seem.
Susanann, I haven’t watched every minute of the trial, but when I’ve seen the judge sustain the prosecution’s’ objections, it’s been because the defense isn’t following the rules. The rules of evidence don’t favor one side over the other. If Baez isn’t being allowed to ask certain questions or submit something into evidence, it’s because he didn’t follow the rules.
This is not a defensible position, since you have no way of knowing what the entirety of the basis for the objection and its being sustained. The rules of evidence exist generally to keep things fair. What was the reason for the prosecution’s objection? I am relatively confident that the following scenario is unlikely:
Q: Dr. Rodriguez, what happens when dead bodies are wrapped in duct tape?
FROM THE PROSECUTION: Objection!
THE COURT: Grounds?
FROM THE PROSECUTION: Your Honor, we really don’t want anyone to hear this.
Does anyone know who is paying for Casey’s defense costs?
I imagine that between lawyers fees, expert witnesses, assorted psychological specialists, etc., the tab on this trial has to be in the 6-figure range, if not more.
The Anthony family can’t be rich, (George Anthony is a retired cop, right?) and Casey obviously didn’t have any of her own money, so where is the $$$ for a top-notch legal defense team coming from? (I understand Casey’s lawyer is apparently not the greatest, but all of the various experts that are being mentioned in this thread must cost someone a serious amount of cash)
Does the State of Florida have to pay for any of Casey’s assorted defense witnesses?
This may answer some of your questions: http://articles.cnn.com/2010-03-19/justice/casey.anthony.indigency_1_caylee-anthony-george-and-cindy-anthony-defense?_s=PM:CRIME
Casey’s defense is being paid by Florida public funds. She’s been declared indigent.
Cheney Mason argues here in a video for more money. He says the defense lawyers are working pro bono (not getting paid). The defense money is only for defense investigators, expert witnesses, travel, exhibits etc.
If it does not smell unfit… then you must acquit!
I became curious about the frizzy haired female attorney that’s always sitting beside Casey Anthony. Casey often is seen crying on her shoulder.
Her name is Dorothy Sims Clay. She’s got a practice that specializes in medical malpractice.
Here’s what she said when she joined the defense team.
Man, did she ever get lied too. She was supposed to cross exam the various scientific experts. Instead she’s turned into a babysitter? Wow. I guess Baez ego demanded that he do the cross exams himself. Bad for Casey that their expert attorney in medical and science is used for a shoulder to cry on. I can’t recall her cross-examining even one witness in this trial.
http://www.palmbeachpost.com/blotter/casey-anthony-defense-team-announces-new-attorneys-914891.html
Dorothy Clay Sims even wrote a book on exposing Deceptive Defense Doctors. From the Amazon comments, it’s used by other lawyers to prepare for depositions. Sounds like this lady knows her stuff. Plus she makes one heck of a babysitter for Casey. 
Another book — Prepare for defense medical exams.: An article from: Trial
http://www.amazon.com/Prepare-defense-medical-exams-Trial/dp/B00082ZML2/ref=sr_1_2?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1308632003&sr=1-2
I find it incredible she’s sitting at the defense table while Baez fumbles around with the cross examinations.
How can the prosecution best poke holes in the defense’s cockamamie theory? I think they have to keep it simple.
I think the prosecution needs to pound it into the jurors’ heads: If Caylee drowned accidentally, there was nothing to cover up.
And what was the cover-up supposed to be? Casey’s lie about a nanny? A month later? George would have at least come up with a story, so that Caylee’s disappearance could be reported immediately.
Why not just say Caylee was alone in the yard or in Casey’s car for a few minutes and then she was gone?
(And why does Casey say “nanny”? Caylee didn’t have nannies, she had babysitters. Pretentious bitch.)
Someone must have read my post last night. 
Dorothy Clay Sims is handling the witnesses this morning.
Seems like the defense is wasting time nit picking forensic evidence. They may be scoring a few points but I doubt the jury really cares. I think the jury is looking at the bigger picture. The thirty day delay in reporting the child missing, dumping the body down the street from the family home, the stinky car, Casey’s care free attitude when the child was missing. That’s the stuff that sending this woman to the death house. quibbling about an autopsy decision isn’t going to save this woman.
Friday - the young bug expert does an experiment on a pig in a trunk. Not a pig wrapped in a blanket and in two plastic bags like Caylee. It’s hard to relate the experiment with the real life events. Common sense tells us all those wrappings limited access to flies.
Sat. Spitz harps on the skull not being opened. A valid point. But means nothing what so ever whether Casey killed the child. His theory about someone mysteriously putting duct tape on a bare skull is just bizarre and frankly pretty unbelievable.
Mon - a retired botanist professor tells us the skull could have been in the woods for only two weeks. WTF? One glance at the original crime scene photos shows leaves almost 8 to ten inches thick. Heck, the skull was buried up to the nose cavity in leaves. I can’t see the jury giving this testimony any weight.
A DNA expert gives fascinating testimony about cutting edge low profile DNA tests. Stuff they do routinely in Europe, but not in the U.S. (yet). Great potential for this case. Sadly, the prosecutor convinced the judge not to allow this guys lab to do any testing. So he has nothing to say that directly relates to the Anthony case. If I were on the jury, I’d be just a bit pissed that this judge ruined a chance to get some meaningful, advanced dna tests done. I bet five years from now our FBI lab will be doing these tests routinely.
The chemical lab test guy - I have no idea why he was called. Baez wasted a lot of time nit picking these trivial lab notes. None of those minor issues effected the results of the air sample tests. As a juror, I’d consider those two hours lost a waste of my time.
Normally, the jury wouldn’t care. However, Baez claimed in his opening statement that he would prove the swimming pool theory. He effectively shifted the burden of proof onto Casey, so the prosecution can win not just by proving their own case but by discrediting the defense.
(bolding mine) - I ask “so what” - what would the dna test(s) have proven? we already know who the body is, or are they saying that they might have found killer dna somewhere?
Ordering special low profile dna tests would be a gamble. If Casey’s DNA is found on that duct tape then she’s in deep shit. I’m surprised the prosecution fought this test because it could have helped them.
Or, if a third party dna is found then it muddies up the case because a mystery person is introduced.
They said during testimony that finding Caylee’s dna on the duct tape would help prove it was wrapped around her mouth. Since no DNA was found (except a FBI tech’s) then there’s little proof the tape was wrapped on her face. Defense claims the tape was used to secure the blanket or maybe the plastic bags around the body.