Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
New posts
New profile posts
Latest activity
Internet Search
Members
Current visitors
New profile posts
Search profile posts
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Forums
General Discussions
The Watercooler
For those watching the Casey A. trial.....
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="klmno" data-source="post: 438432" data-attributes="member: 3699"><p>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.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>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??</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>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.</p><p></p><p>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.</p><p></p><p>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.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="klmno, post: 438432, member: 3699"] 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. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Forums
General Discussions
The Watercooler
For those watching the Casey A. trial.....
Top