Casey Anthony Trial Thread #3

[Kurby]

can dr g be brought back to rebut this this guy and explain why she didn`t open the skullÉ

 

[denisem]

I appear to be at a disadvantage...I don't watch crime shows!

And also, regarding no brain...with the hole in the bottom of the skull, and empty eye sockets, I would imagine one can see quite a bit in there. And Dr G DID have the residue in the skull analyzed. Dr Spitz didn't because he doesn't have access to a lab?

ETA: IMHO

I'm just guessing in this day & age, some kind of high magnification fiber optic camera could be used to examine the inside of a skull through existing openings, making sawing of the skull unnecessary. In fact, couldn't that be a modern protocol used in order to preserve the evidence in an original manner as possible? (I.E., imagine Dr. Spitz's comments if Dr. G had sawed the skull & broken it - "shoddy work, I tell you!!")

I find it interesting that, although Dr. Spitz took the top of the skull off, he didn't test the residue and just looked at it. Shouldn't that be protocol -- testing what's inside the skull? One could argue that Dr. G. tested the inside and Spitz made an error in not testing it himself. <snip>

I would think someone of Dr. Spitz's credentials & reputation would have many, many contacts willing to do lab work on this case to confirm his scrapings.

 

[denisem]

I think JP handled it very well and put the explanation to the jurors in such a way that they're not thinking too much is up. He said something about needing to fit in another witness from out of state, and that this witness will return Monday. He was very matter-of-fact about it. What the jurors think every time there's an objection (and sustained or overruled), sidebar, or are dismissed for an unscheduled break, who knows. Not supposed to infer anything, but they ARE human.

No one can say HHJP is biased toward either side. He's a quick thinker, that one.

 

[CurlyGirl]

I would think someone of Dr. Spitz's credentials & reputation would have many, many contacts willing to do lab work on this case to confirm his scrapings.

For sure! Why can I picture Spitz telling some colleague "Yeah - you do this for me and when I take the stand I'll say that Dr. XYZ at LAB LMNOP examined the residue and get you connected to the case. Heck, they might call you in to testify!" Maybe I picture this because he seems like the kind of guy who likes to connect himself to high profile cases and would use this to get what he wanted?

 

[MaryAnnDVC]

I'm just guessing in this day & age, some kind of high magnification fiber optic camera could be used to examine the inside of a skull through existing openings, making sawing of the skull unnecessary. In fact, couldn't that be a modern protocol used in order to preserve the evidence in an original manner as possible? (I.E., imagine Dr. Spitz's comments if Dr. G had sawed the skull & broken it - "shoddy work, I tell you!!")

I would think someone of Dr. Spitz's credentials & reputation would have many, many contacts willing to do lab work on this case to confirm his scrapings.

Agreed, on both counts. And let's just say that Dr Spitz, since he's from outside the Orlando area, didn't have contacts in FL, surely...understanding the importance of lab analysis...he would have Baez/Mason get analysis done for him, no? And wouldn't Baez/Mason have WANTED that analysis? Or, did they stop where they thought it was "safe"...this renowned (or so I hear) ME stating that it's OBVIOUSLY "xyz", which just so happens to fit their case. Better to go with that, than to risk results that could hurt their case.

 

[MaryAnnDVC]

Dr. XYZ at LAB LMNOP

OBVIOUSLY "xyz",

Geez, it's getting twilight zone-y here.

Well, today is DH's birthday so I need to go gift shopping!! Luckily, we aren't celebrating until tomorrow when all the kids can be here.

 

[joviroxx]

Id love to hear opinions from more impartial people than myself LOL.. I know who I see it all and my explanations for things, but please, if you have a different opinion.. POST it... If anything, it makes me think. Of course Im rooting for the State and I think Casey is guilty as sin and little Caylee deserves justice but whoever thinks the State isn't quite cutting it, post!

 

[ugadog99]

The problem with this doctor is that he is unwilling to concede anything to Ashton during cross examination. That makes him come off looking argumentative just for the sake of arguing.

This is exactly what I thought about yesterday's young bug guy, too. He would never just say, "I don't know." There was always some "assumption" he was making. I'm having a difficul time accepting much of what either has to say just because they are making it so difficult to follow.

 

[MickeySP]

can dr g be brought back to rebut this this guy and explain why she didn`t open the skullÉ

Yes witnesses are usually dismissed with an admonishment that they can be called back - especially expert witnesses

 

[LisaR]

This is exactly what I thought about yesterday's young bug guy, too. He would never just say, "I don't know." There was always some "assumption" he was making. I'm having a difficul time accepting much of what either has to say just because they are making it so difficult to follow.

The defense had one witness that they called that was fantastic. She was also a witness for the state. I found her to be the most impartial person that has taken the stand. She didn't stammer around with her answers during cross-examination. She did not favor one side over the other. She didn't change her testimony compared to her deposition. She stuck to the facts as she knew them. I think she was the first witness the defense called but I could be wrong. If there were more honest, genuine people like her testifying, I think we would be further along.

 

[Nancy]

Once again I find myself alone on an island.

I think this was a bad day for the state.

Fire away.

can you explain why? what did you hear that made you think the defense really undermined the state? I like to hear different theories.

interesting fact - non case related.

we`re starting to wash all the crib sheets and cloths from dd (just 2 months younger then caylee) and he brings me up a pile of sheets to fold.

all winnie the pooh. i take one look at them and make this face that makes dh say - whats wrong - he`s not watching the trial so he doesn`t know winnie was what caylee had

awww, that would make me sad too.

 

[joviroxx]

So , this will be contempt charge number 2 for Baez? Nice....

 

[ugadog99]

speculation. i dont' think `someone`went back and put the tape on her after she had decomposed - the tape was there (imho) prior to it. be it before death or after i don`t think we`ll ever know but it wasn`t after decomposition - that i`m pretty sure of

I agree. I just thought the end of the day today was bizarre. If we had been left with Dr. Spitz's testimony prior to cross, I would have leaned more toward the defense. After Ashton was done though, I was swinging back to the state side...again.

 

[MaryAnnDVC]

interesting fact - non case related.

we`re starting to wash all the crib sheets and cloths from dd (just 2 months younger then caylee) and he brings me up a pile of sheets to fold.

all winnie the pooh. i take one look at them and make this face that makes dh say - whats wrong - he`s not watching the trial so he doesn`t know winnie was what caylee had

I don't think I'll look at Winnie the Pooh baby decor the same after this.

Yes witnesses are usually dismissed with an admonishment that they can be called back - especially expert witnesses

Lisa! Ooooo...would love your thoughts about everything!

Oh crap...focus Mare! Sidetracked again. I'm on my way out the door to go gift shopping! Later...

 

[MaryAnnDVC]

I agree. I just thought the end of the day today was bizarre. If we had been left with Dr. Spitz's testimony prior to cross, I would have leaned more toward the defense. After Ashton was done though, I was swinging back to the state side...again.

I do that all the time with cases I follow..."that sounds good"..."well, so does that!" I just honestly think at the end of the day, the state's case is more solid. I am doubting she'll get convicted of Murder 1 tho, if only that "confusion = reasonable doubt".

I wonder if any of the jurors will speak publicly afterward. No matter what the verdict, they will get ripped to shreds by someone in the media (like Linda Kenny Baden, if guilty), and/or Baez & Co. I think I'd rather just go home and get on with life. As much as possible...this case is going to stay with these jurors forever.

SHOPPING!!!!

 

[usnuzuloose]

So , this will be contempt charge number 2 for Baez? Nice....

Okay I am out of the loop when did the first one occur?

 

[usnuzuloose]

I don't think I'll look at Winnie the Pooh baby decor the same after this. Lisa! Ooooo...would love your thoughts about everything!

Oh crap...focus Mare! Sidetracked again. I'm on my way out the door to go gift shopping! Later...

 

[Nik's Mom]

Id love to hear opinions from more impartial people than myself LOL.. I know who I see it all and my explanations for things, but please, if you have a different opinion.. POST it... If anything, it makes me think. Of course Im rooting for the State and I think Casey is guilty as sin and little Caylee deserves justice but whoever thinks the State isn't quite cutting it, post!

Even though I think Casey is guilty, I think I am remaining impartial in all of this. There have been days where I thought the defense has made some good points. For example, I wonder why Dr. G didn't cut through the top part of the skull if that is normal protocol. But the dr. who testified today, couldn't really say if that was protocol or not. That's why I said in an earlier post that I thought today might have been a wash out. No clear winner for today, in my opinion.

I agree that I wish the prosecution would put on a stronger case. But this is a circumstantial case, so I can imagine that it is hard to do.

I know we are all totally disgusted in what we believe Casey did to her child. But I still try to hear testimony with an open mind. There are times when I feel the prosecution isn't doing the best job, and there are times when I feel the defense isn't either.

 

[Nik's Mom]

Okay I am out of the loop when did the first one occur?

Some time in January, I think.

Why didn't Cheney Mason correct Jose Baez about this before it happened. I know he is supposed to be the veteran in the group. He should have let him know that this was a bad idea. Or did Jose knowingly do it? I hope not.

 

[Kurby]

]I know we are all totally disgusted in what we believe Casey did to her child. But I still try to hear testimony with an open mind. There are times when I feel the prosecution isn't doing the best job, and there are times when I feel the defense isn't either.

This is why i'm trying NOT to remember this trial is about the death of a child.

i'm trying to separate the emotional side from the logic/evidence side. most of the time it's not that hard because the medical stuff is sooooo technical but sometimes, when they bring in photos of her it's not that easy.