“Dr. G” Special On Caylee Anthony Case To Air In January

“Dr. Jan Garavaglia has said her show, “Dr. G: Medical Examiner,” would stay away from the Casey Anthony case.

But Garavaglia, the chief medical examiner for Orange and Osceola counties, has changed her mind. Garavaglia is taping a special about the headline-making case at which she testified.

The special is tentatively titled “The True Story of Caylee Anthony.” It will premiere at 8 p.m. Jan. 1 on TLC and repeat Jan. 6 on Discovery Fit & Health. The series “Dr. G: Medical Examiner” returns with new episodes at 10 p.m. Dec. 30 on Discovery Fit & Health.

Why do the special? “It’s more about my take on the science I was involved in,” Garavaglia said. “I never wanted to think about that case again, but I keep getting asked about it.”

She sees the program as her chance to rebut what was said at trial and clear up some confusion. “I think some of it [the science] got confused in the spin,” she said.

Garavaglia stresses that she is not trying to do anything sensational about the case. “I wanted to do this low-key,” she said. “I’m not making a penny off this show. Anything for this episode will be donated to a children’s charity.”

Anthony was acquitted in July of murder in the 2008 death of her daughter, Caylee.

“They ask my opinion about the verdict, but my opinion doesn’t amount to a hill of beans,” Garavaglia said.

Others taking part in the program include former prosecutor Jeff Ashton, WFTV-Channel 9 legal analyst Bill Sheaffer and Amy Pavuk of the Orlando Sentinel.

No one from the defense is in the program. “It’s not about them,” Garavaglia said.”


Orlando Sentinel

This entry was posted in Child Abuse, child molestation, child sexual abuse, Crime, rape and abuse and tagged , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

One Response to “Dr. G” Special On Caylee Anthony Case To Air In January

  1. Andre' says:

    “It’s more about my take on the science I was involved in,” Im wondering if she is going to talk about this so called DNA testing. If I was sitting on a jury, a lawyer would have to try to convince me that what they are showing me on some picture card, is what they are really saying it is. Because Ill tell you right now, most jurors have no idea how to make the connection of DNA as evidence. Now lawyers do this all the time, they testify or get some scientist to explain how this is done, and it all maybe true. Personally I don’t see how DNA is a viable form of “proof”. Im open to an explanation that explains this to me, but as now, Im not seeing it.

Comments are closed.