H
HaoZi
Guest
It doesn't.
For those watching the Casey A. trial.....
- Thread starter klmno
- Start date
It doesn't.
H
HaoZi
Guest
Did he just say "crapola"?
DammitJanet
Well-Known Member
Ashton is a bulldog. That witness they had on all morning was not real credible to me.
As far as the "price of the defense team' well I am not sure that they are completely pro bono. I do believe that she has received some funds from somewhere at some time.
Oh puleeze....that guy is giving us the latin root for manipulate...ugh...like anyone who ever took latin couldnt do!
As far as the "price of the defense team' well I am not sure that they are completely pro bono. I do believe that she has received some funds from somewhere at some time.
Oh puleeze....that guy is giving us the latin root for manipulate...ugh...like anyone who ever took latin couldnt do!
klmno
Active Member
He seemed to be holding a vendetta (sp) against the ME due to not being allowed in the original autopsy and seems to think they should have corroborated with him during the autopsy- really? He was hired by the defense team before the autopsy and doesn't that mean they hadn't even officially identified the body yet? Either way- how stupid would it be for a public agency who's supposed to be conducting an objective medical type procedure to corroborate with someone hired by the defense team?
This testimony was very interesting. My husband almost fell of the couch. He has used Dr. Spitz in trials before and admits he is certainly a well respected expert in his field. A lot of what he said is true but he got caught up in it all and should have just stuck to the evidence without his unsupported opinions and theories. It made him look bad and I believe the jury will disregard much of what he said.
Nancy
Nancy
H
HaoZi
Guest
Spitz has always been respected in his field, but I have to admit he does sound like he's getting senile. I heard them saying something about some of the jurors "smirking" during his testimony.
This also says something about him in the last few years - http://losangelestrials.blogspot.com/2009/02/phil-spector-trial-dr-werner-spitz.html
This also says something about him in the last few years - http://losangelestrials.blogspot.com/2009/02/phil-spector-trial-dr-werner-spitz.html
klmno
Active Member
I heard that about the jurors smirking, too. It wasn't clear to me if they smirked because they found his theory unbelievable or they smirked because he had proven a point in spite of Ashton's efforts to disprove his theory. One commentator seemed to think it was because they thought his theory was absurd. Oh- because the defense threw the ME under the bus by insinuating they had monkeyed with the evidence, after the defense already threw George and others under the bus trying to save Casey's life. The biggest thing that sticks out in my mind- he reminded me of Reagan as alzheimers was sstarting to set in on him- he was very intelligent and obviously well-meaning but intermittently would lose his train of thought and couldn't remember things- often. If this guy has been a professional for 56 years, he has to be at least in his late 70's. I think it's time for him to retire.
H
HaoZi
Guest
There were a number of times he was squinting at stuff, too. It's like, you have two pairs of glasses on you, wear one! He also covered his mouth a lot, and whether or not it's true that it's a sign of deception, most people will process it that way even if they didn't consciously register it at the time. Same thing with the nose rubbing he was doing, showing that he was nervous.
DDD
Well-Known Member
I can't disagree that he showed signs of aging but on the other hand it did seem reasonable to me that the skull should have been opened to see what, if anything, remained. It also made sense to me that the position of the hair would change if the body was moved. Of course, I don't know how they could remove the body part without moving it.
Have to say that the young expert was dissed because he had nowhere near the experience of the more experienced expert on bugs...now the old man is being dissed because he is old and cantankerous. Darned if you do and darned if you don't. DDD
Have to say that the young expert was dissed because he had nowhere near the experience of the more experienced expert on bugs...now the old man is being dissed because he is old and cantankerous. Darned if you do and darned if you don't. DDD
H
HaoZi
Guest
I think the main problem with Spitz was that he contradicted himself a number of times, or that's how I understand it. I only caught part of his testimony. As much experience as he has as both an expert and expert witness, it shouldn't have been that easy for Ashton to get a rise out him like he did. He's hired for the defense, so his job is to muddle Ashton's case, which he couldn't do much of without lying outright. I think that is where the discomfort and deception come in - how to answer without verifying the State's case or committing perjury.
DDD I agree with a lot of what you are saying. It is true that in most criminal cases the state has enormous resources at their disposal and the defendand often has very little money if any, certainly not enough to be able to hire the best experts and attorneys. That puts the defendant at a huge disadvantage. I believe that is one of the reasons my husband loves criminal defense work, because he wants to make sure every client he comes in contact with is represented as well as he possibly can and because he thinks it is unfair that the state has unlimited resources and the average individual has so little.
Having said that, Dr. Spitz is the best in his field. He should not be remembered by this fiasco, yet he will be. It's just another example of someone being thrown under the bus by this defense attorney, another reputation ruined in the name of his client. Dr. Spitz testified to things he should not have, it was fair game to go after him. It made him look ridiculous and senile. He was not well prepared by the defense for this case. Dr. Huntington tried to pawn off a science experiment using a bare pig, unwrapped, to compare to a child wrapped in two blankets, two plastic bags and a canvas bag. When he first told Baez he was going to do the experiment Baez should have told him to replicate as best he could the same conditions. It's what any good criminal defense attorney would do.
There is nothing wrong with vigorously defending your client. There is nothing wrong with getting a dressing down by the judge. There are ways to agressively defend your client. Baez is over his head in this and he should have known it. He is playing with his cleints life.
Having a criminal defense attorney for my husband I am very partial to the defense, and so this case was difficult for me in the beginning, but the evidence is overwhelming and her attorneys are doing a horrible job. by the way what Baez tried to do today with the first witness is inexcuseable. It was not inadvertant, it was on purpose. He should be held in contempt of court. She still deserves the best defense possible.
Nancy
Having said that, Dr. Spitz is the best in his field. He should not be remembered by this fiasco, yet he will be. It's just another example of someone being thrown under the bus by this defense attorney, another reputation ruined in the name of his client. Dr. Spitz testified to things he should not have, it was fair game to go after him. It made him look ridiculous and senile. He was not well prepared by the defense for this case. Dr. Huntington tried to pawn off a science experiment using a bare pig, unwrapped, to compare to a child wrapped in two blankets, two plastic bags and a canvas bag. When he first told Baez he was going to do the experiment Baez should have told him to replicate as best he could the same conditions. It's what any good criminal defense attorney would do.
There is nothing wrong with vigorously defending your client. There is nothing wrong with getting a dressing down by the judge. There are ways to agressively defend your client. Baez is over his head in this and he should have known it. He is playing with his cleints life.
Having a criminal defense attorney for my husband I am very partial to the defense, and so this case was difficult for me in the beginning, but the evidence is overwhelming and her attorneys are doing a horrible job. by the way what Baez tried to do today with the first witness is inexcuseable. It was not inadvertant, it was on purpose. He should be held in contempt of court. She still deserves the best defense possible.
Nancy
Last edited:
klmno
Active Member
Good point- I found it very interesting that he cracked the skull then said he didn't know that he had- and I believe he was telling the truth- or maybe he didn't remember.
There are 3 good points in here, too- however he came across to me as trying to say the ME intentionally tampered with evidence rather than that stating the obvious- that the skull and hair around it had to be picked up and transported, etc. As far as the skull not being opened for the autopsy- that starts getting above my head. I think he did make a good and sound point that it should have been. But because I heard 2 experts on tv debating this a week or so ago, the other side of that argument is that the only thing it proved was that Caylee's body started decomposing while she was on her side and that more than likely would be while in the trunk of the car. I don't know how long it takes for that matter to settle in the head and don't recall that question being asked- maybe that will come out during the rebuttal. He did say that at some point during decomposition, it becomes sticky enough to attach and "stay" where it gravitated to. That would be my question- are you talking 3-5 days or months??
I noted that, too. I tend to think part of that was just being an aging expert and becoming a little cantankerous along the way but I also think he is really steamed over not being allowed to "assist" in the autopsy- the original one. But honestly, that would have just been wrong for any expert hired by the defense to be part of any sort of laboratory fact-finding.
And let's keep in mind- it didn't sound like he'd really received all the facts about the situation leading up to the discovery of the body and he said himself that facts surrounding the situation can influence the findings of the ME. That, along with his lack of memory and possible loss of cognitive ability, leaves me having more confidence in the prosecution's expert, even if she should have opened the skull but didn't.
Look at it like this- if it was your loved one and you were trying to determine what killed them, which of these experts would you have more confidence in finding the truth? I dare say Dr. G will be called back to the stand during rebuttal.
klmno
Active Member
So, Nancy, are you and your husband willing to travel out of state for a while and he represent a mom of a difficult child and a difficult child who's getting ready to be released from Department of Juvenile Justice in about 6 mos to fight for what is in their best interests against a state that only cares about doing what's cheapest???
Just wondering because I think difficult child and I might need an attny again in the not-so-distant future.
Just wondering because I think difficult child and I might need an attny again in the not-so-distant future.
H
HaoZi
Guest
How many years before we see Baez on Celebrity Rehab or some such? If he's not drinking/taking/smoking/snorting something now, I'm betting he will be soon.
DammitJanet
Well-Known Member
Nancy...I have been worried that you would be mad at me because of what I have been writing about Casey's defense team because of your husband. I hope you know I am not lumping all defense lawyers into one pot. I am just very passionate about this case and her lawyers are an target since they are right there in the forefront. I really hate the way Baez tends to smirk constantly. To my eyes it comes off very arrogant and just plain wrong in this type of case.
I do find your input very valuable because you have more inside information than most of us I would think.
I do find your input very valuable because you have more inside information than most of us I would think.
donna723
Well-Known Member
There was no reason for him to have participated in the original autopsy! That would have been really jumping the gun, wouldn't it? Casey wouldn't have even been charged then. Dr. G is the chief medical examiner for Orange and Osceola counties. Unless I'm way off in left field here, she (or someone in her office) would have to do the autopsy and officially rule it a homicide first before charges of murder could be filed against anyone!
The ol' guy sounded elitist and superior to me, and no matter how the autopsy was done, he would have disagreed with something. He went on and on about Dr. G not removing the top of the skull. Not to be too graphic here but if the skull was reduced to nothing but bone and the little bit of stuff inside, you wouldn't need to take the top off of it to see the inside of it! And he went on about what angle it was on when they found it ... what difference does that make! They already know that the body was disturbed by animals some time after it was dumped, and that whole area was underwater at one time after storms. Yet they wasted all day yammering on about it!
The ol' guy sounded elitist and superior to me, and no matter how the autopsy was done, he would have disagreed with something. He went on and on about Dr. G not removing the top of the skull. Not to be too graphic here but if the skull was reduced to nothing but bone and the little bit of stuff inside, you wouldn't need to take the top off of it to see the inside of it! And he went on about what angle it was on when they found it ... what difference does that make! They already know that the body was disturbed by animals some time after it was dumped, and that whole area was underwater at one time after storms. Yet they wasted all day yammering on about it!
Similar threads
