Casey AnthonyTrial (admits, children, evidence, alive)

[workingwithpain]

the old guy doc said they didn't open the head, but also said on re direct that when they did open it there was nothing to examine. again like tons of the defense cross they do not show the states evidence as wrong at all. as to the duct tape being put on after death, weeks after death that is too outrageous to even consider.

The reason there was nothing in the skull was because he did not have access to it until much, much later after the autopsy. The doctor requested to be present to observe the autopsy by Dr. G, but she refused. I can tell you that that is unusual. Usually MEs have no problem with having another ME observe the autopsy. I like Dr. G and have watched her TV show, which is why I was a little surprised at the emotion in her testimony. She didn't seem to have the objectivity she usually has in murder cases. That's not a good thing for a non-biased expert.

I don't know about you, but I never went to medical school and never obtained a medical license. Pathologists are usually the smartest of doctors out there. I therefore give these medical professionals and experts some respect. I do not believe for one second that Dr. Spitz gave ridiculous testimony about the skull and the significance of opening the skull during the autopsy soon after the remains were found. Seems to me that lots of information could have been obtained from whatever matter may have been found in the skull, like what kinds of chemicals were in the brain, if there were any toxic substances to have been found. That may have answered the question regarding the chloroform.

Yes, I agree that the photos of Caylee getting into the pool are compelling. Children are always drowning in pools in Florida during the summertime. Almost everybody in Florida has a pool. It's something people are viligent about, making sure kids can't get to the pool unsupervised. There has been testimony that the pool at the Anthony home was left unlocked during that time, which was unusual.

[didee]

I do not believe for one second that Dr. Spitz gave ridiculous testimony about the skull and the significance of opening the skull during the autopsy soon after the remains were found. Seems to me that lots of information could have been obtained from whatever matter may have been found in the skull, like what kinds of chemicals were in the brain, if there were any toxic substances to have been found. That may have answered the question regarding the chloroform.

This has been belabored in testimony ad nauseum. Dr Spitz was also unaware of the reported circumstances surrounding Caylee's death. The totality of the physical autopsy findings, in addition to the "facts" of the case, are what MEs use to determine manner of death. Spitz did not consider the "totality." Also, they were trying to preserve the small amount of fragile evidence that remained of the child, thus consciously choosing to leave the skull remains intact.

But maybe his testimony will lead someone on the jury with a reasonable doubt. I found him to be actually kind of confused and (self-admitted) not current. Admittedly, he was an expert, but he didn't have the whole picture and he was paid to testify for the defense. I don't question Dr G's findings at all.

[loveautumn]

All I'm saying is that it's possible the mistress just happened to forget that he said "maybe it was an accident". That makes more sense to me, if this happened at all, rather than him spilling his guts to her..that's just not George's personality, IMO. Or it's just a possibility that she didn't hear all of it or misunderstood...you know, pillow talk sometimes gets muffled.

Anyway, George denies ever even having an affair with her. I guess it's just he said-she said because there's absolutely no proof he said it. Just one person's word against anothers.

[workingwithpain]

Originally Posted by didee

This has been belabored in testimony ad nauseum. Dr Spitz was also unaware of the reported circumstances surrounding Caylee's death. The totality of the physical autopsy findings, in addition to the "facts" of the case, are what MEs use to determine manner of death. Spitz did not consider the "totality." Also, they were trying to preserve the small amount of fragile evidence that remained of the child, thus consciously choosing to leave the skull remains intact.

But maybe his testimony will lead someone on the jury with a reasonable doubt. I found him to be actually kind of confused and (self-admitted) not current. Admittedly, he was an expert, but he didn't have the whole picture and he was paid to testify for the defense. I don't question Dr G's findings at all.

Dr. Spitz would have had the entire ME report from Dr. G, which would include all the evidence you're talking about, the circumstances surrounding the death. Do you think that experts do their evaluation in a vacuum? Dr. Spitz reviewed Dr. G.'s autopsy and all the information she had when doing the autopsy. That information is always provided to the defense team, and the defense would have provided that information to Dr. Spitz. Otherwise, his review of the work of Dr. G. would have been worthless.

So you think Dr. Spitz would lie for money? LOL

Seems you have a positive bias in re Dr. G.

[workingwithpain]

Originally Posted by loveautumn

All I'm saying is that it's possible the mistress just happened to forget that he said "maybe it was an accident". That makes more sense to me, if this happened at all, rather than him spilling his guts to her..that's just not George's personality, IMO. Or it's just a possibility that she didn't hear all of it or misunderstood...you know, pillow talk sometimes gets muffled.

Anyway, George denies ever even having an affair with her. I guess it's just he said-she said because there's absolutely no proof he said it. Just one person's word against anothers.

See, it makes sense to me that George would confide in a woman with whom he was having an intimate affair. Maybe he just had to have someone to talk to.

The fact that George denies ever having an affair with the woman actually leads me to question his credibility. They have text messages between the two. He had a relationship with her, and it shouldn't be too difficult to prove that it was a romantic relationship. For example, if this woman had confided in any of her friends that she was having this affair PRIOR to the publicity about the case, that would be corroboration. It wouldn't take much investigation to find information to validate the affair. If the defense has done that investigation they will use it if they need to use it.

There is a way to debunk the claim by the mistress or to corroborate the claim. It just takes a little bit of investigation.

[Magritte25]

Originally Posted by workingwithpain

Remember this old saying? You can't judge a book by its cover.

If Casey Anthony were being animated, she would be accused of being without concern for her dead child. If she cried (oh, she actually has cried), she will be accused of crocodile tears. There's no way this woman can win in the arena of that courtroom. No matter what she looks like, how she reacts, she will be raked over the coals.

I have had the same thought many times over the last few weeks. She is damned if she does, damned if she doesn't.

[Magritte25]

Originally Posted by workingwithpain

The judge in jury instructions at the end of the case explains the law as well as how they are to determine the credibility of witnesses. Those things are specifically spelled out in jury instructions. The judge tells the jury to consider things like the manner in which a witness testifies, whether or not the witness was in a position to know about the things to which they are testifying, etc., etc. The judge instructs the jury regarding how much weight they should give to testimony and why.

Do you know anyone who has never, ever told a lie about anything?

TAINTED EVIDENCE:
tainted evidence legal definition of tainted evidence. tainted evidence synonyms by the Free Online Law Dictionary.

Again, in total agreement.

I am liking your posts WWP.

[Magritte25]

Originally Posted by zonababe

Can someone tell Lee Anthony that inviting your brother to a baby shower would be like inviting your sister to your bachelor party? His feelings shouldn't be hurt about not being invited to a baby shower.

It depends on the culture/traditions for a particular family/area to say whether its odd for a man to be expected to be invited to a shower or not. Not an across the board, one answer thing.

[didee]

Dr. Spitz would have had the entire ME report from Dr. G, which would include all the evidence you're talking about, the circumstances surrounding the death. Do you think that experts do their evaluation in a vacuum? Dr. Spitz reviewed Dr. G.'s autopsy and all the information she had when doing the autopsy. That information is always provided to the defense team, and the defense would have provided that information to Dr. Spitz. Otherwise, his review of the work of Dr. G. would have been worthless.

So you think Dr. Spitz would lie for money? LOL

Seems you have a positive bias in re Dr. G.

I never said, nor am I inferring, that Spitz lied. He voiced his opinion that the autopsy was shoddy.

I watched the testimony. He could not answer questions about the circumstances. He thought the child had been kidnapped by a nanny and couldn't remember any other details. Those words came out of his own mouth. The video clips were on the news.

[dreamofmonterey]

Originally Posted by Annie53

I am not debating whether of not she was deposed.

I simply stated that I do not believe she was home that day or that she googled chlorophyl because she thought her Yorkie ate some bamboo.

IMO, she is lying in a desperate attempt to save her daughter's life.......and actually.......I can't blame her. Many, many mothers would lie to save their child's life.

There was also the MySpace and Im'ing at the time of those searches, and Cindy didnt use IM on that computer. Oh and "shot girls" lol some party site or something mentioned at trial today

Its obvious this is a dysfunctional enabling family that covers up. No one else but Casey had a motive to get rid of Caylee, Caylee was learning to talk, would have started to tell her grandparents what was going on, etc...as mentioned by another poster. As a narcissist, Casey was elated after Caylee died, whether accident or on purpose, that we may not know.