Keeping Up With Casey Who?

UPDATE #2!
August 24, 11:40 AM

InSession has just announced that they will be carrying the hearing live at 9 AM tomorrow. It also appears that there is a possibility it will be live streamed by some TV stations.

UPDATE!
August 23, 7:08 PM

Casey Who?'s probation must be served. In a decision just released by the Appellate Court, it states that Judge Strickland's oral order for probation takes precedence over the written order. In addition it says that

The petitioner and her lawyers were well aware that her probationary placement was not to begin until her release from confinement. The petitioner may not, under these circumstances, take advantage of the administrative error of the Department of Corrections.

*****

I have to admit my real life has now become more interesting than tracking down Ms. Casey's every movement. Was she in Ohio? I don't really care. Where is she in Orlando? I don't care. Will she make money from the infamy her trial has given her? As of now, I don't see the money rolling in for her and that pleases me. As for her family, the same applies. It's a good thing I've never been a Dr. Phil fan. Whatever they have told him can stay off my DVR. I don't really have any interest in what they have to say. The verdict is in and we have to live with it.

What does interest me is the probation situation. Yesterday, the State Attorney General filed a reply to the defense motion. State's Assistant Attorney Frank George joined in the Attorney General's reply. The Attorney General's reply pretty much followed along with Judge Perry's ruling. Attorney Lisabeth Fryer just filed a reply. It said much the same as the original motion. All we have to do is wait for the Appellate Court to make its ruling.

Proof positive the media interest is waning in this case is the fact that there has been very little publicity about the hearing on Thursday where the State will be asking to be repaid by Ms. Casey based on her convictions for lying to Law Enforcement and causing the massive investigation. There has been virtually no mention of the hearing and have not heard of any live feeds that will be available.

So, it will be interesting to see if anyone actually streams it. I won't know. I'll be away for the hearing and will only get to read about it later! After three years of living and breathing this case, it's good to move on.

As for the civil cases, I will be following up on them. However, these cases tend to move at a snail's pace, and that suits me just fine right now. Let Ms. Who? sink into the background, forgotten for the most part. Let little Caylee linger in our hearts, forever.

Source:
FIFTH DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL
Check out the current news for all the documents in the appeal.

Casey Anthony Faces Civil Suits And Costs

I've managed to move on and now I am seeing the aftermath of Casey's not guilty verdicts. As is my personal preference, I am limiting coverage to the various lawsuits and financial issues that she will be facing for the near future.

On August 25th at 9:00 AM, there will be a hearing in which the prosecution will present the costs of the investigation. If you go back to the sentencing (part 1, part 2) Judge Belvin Perry laid out the lies Casey told to investigators and stressed the resources that LE put forth to find a missing child based on those lies. As we learned from the fraud hearing, there were fees attached. The last we heard about that was the hearing where it was discussed with Judge Stan Strickland. How much Casey would have to pay fell by the wayside as the murder trial loomed.

Next, Casey has to face the civil suit filed by Zenaida Gonzalez in 2008 for defamation. John Morgan served a subpoena to Casey and her civil attorney, Charles M. Greene for her to do a deposition on July 19, 2011 at his offices. Yesterday, he filed an emergency motion asking Judge Jose Rodriguez to allow him to take her deposition in the jail prior to her release. He based the motion on the fact that it has become known that it is likely that Casey will leave the jurisdiction upon her release and possibly adopt a new name and new appearance.

Her attorney has stated that he objects to the motion and that he considers it a"publicity stunt" that is "abusing the court process." He said he would not attend the deposition unless ordered to by the judge.

Next up is the TES motion filed by Tim Miller on July 12. In it, he is asking for reimbursement for the expenditures made in the search for Caylee Anthony. Although the amount he is asking is not in the motion, Mr. Miller has stated on various programs that the expenses ran about $112,000. He also stated that he is asking for an Internal Revenue audit of his books to back up his claims.

The motion is based upon the representations made to him by the Anthony family when he traveled to Orlando to assess the situation. Some key points he made in his motion were that:

P. 4, #25: Based on Cindy Anthony's request, Mr. Miller travelled to Orlando, Florida and met with CASEY ANTHONY, her parents, Cindy and George Anthony, and CASEY ANTHONY's attorney, Jose Baez, to determine whether or not TES could help with the search for Caylee, and whether it should dedicate its limited resources to the case.

P. 4, #26: Mr. Miller met with the Anthony family, including CASEY ANTHONY, Cindy and George Anthony told Mr. Miller, in the presence of CASEY ANTHONY, that Caylee was still alive. CASEY ANTHONY did not correct, question or otherwise comment on the representations made by her parents, Cindy and George Anthony, that Caylee was alive. In fact, CASEY ANTHONY likewise told Mr. Miller that Caylee was alive, and asked him to please bring her back.

There are over 40 paragraphs in the suit and well worth reading. TES is suing on two counts, FRAUD and UNJUST ENRICHMENT.

Jose Baez' opening statement to the court will come back to slap Casey if Mr. Miller and TES prevail in this suit:

P. 8 #55: CASEY ANTHONY gladly accepted the benefits conferred upon her by TES knowing, all the time that her daughter was deceased and that the search for her daughter was unnecessary, particularly to the extent that searchers were looking for a live child.

I was listening to InSession when Leonard Padilla announced that he is considering suing Casey Anthony for $200,000. Another one jumps on the bandwagon.

Finally, let's not forget that Casey has a tax lien against her for about $70,000 in unpaid income tax for the $200,000 she earned in 2008 by selling her daughter's pictures and videos to ABC.


Sources

Attorney Files Motion For Casey's Deposition In Civil Suit
Hearing in Casey Anthony civil case set for Friday
Casey Anthony's legal woes continue

Casey Anthony Murder Trial: Day 35 Closing Arguments

Happy 4th of July everyone! For once I am happy that my husband and I never travel on holidays. Our 4th will be the same as always. We have a barbeque for two capped off by a walk around the corner to watch the fireworks that are set off in the park just across the street from us. Ten years ago, we would just watch them over the trees from our back porch, but the trees have grown so much, we walk around the corner for an unobstructed view. Meanwhile, we will get to watch the fireworks in Judge Perry's courtroom as Linda Drane Burdick gives her rebuttal closing. I always remember Bill Sheaffer's comment that she uses a surgical knife to carefully dissect a witness. I expect her to do the same thing today with the defense's closing yesterday. Jury instructions will be read and the members of the jury will have to make one of the most difficult decisions of their lives. Let's hope they sift through all the evidence to come to a just verdict.

Judge Perry entered the courtroom at 8:30 sharp. Both sides had received copies of the final instructions. Mr. Baez wanted to clarify an issue. He was saying that he objected to the state having Ms. Burdick doing the rebuttal. He was of the opinion that it was not done as the court order indicated.

Perry stated that if she went beyond the rebuttal, all he would have to do is object.

Surprisingly, Jeff Ashton began speaking first. They split the rebuttal. Ashton addressed the science. He wanted to take a more measured and complex approach, indicating that Baez used a simplistic version. He said that, in a dispute between experts, it is up to the jurors to decide what they believe from what the experts said. He then isolated the science by subject matter.

The first was the forensic pathology and anthropology. He started by saying they heard from Dr. Garavaglia, Dr. Utz, Dr. Schultz, Dr. Michael Warren, and Dr. Werner Spitz.

All of them agreed that there is nothing in the bones that told us anything about how Caylee died. They also agreed that, because of the way the body decomposes, the mandible and the skull should not be together. They agreed that the skull and mandible were in anatomical position as if there were flesh holding them together.

Drs. Garavaglia, Utz, Shultz, and Warren all agreed that the only thing that could have held them together was the tape. The one who had the most experience, in Sarajevo testified that the only skulls with the mandibles intact were the ones that were duct-taped together.

Dr. Spitz' alternative was that someone else had come along afterwards, took the skull and the mandible someplace else, duct taped them together, and brought them back and put them in the spot they were found. Ashton pointed out that his findings were inconsistent with the fact that the duct tape was as degraded as the body. Then, there was the issue of the hair, Dr. Spitz blamed it on the ME's office faking the evidence.

The other difference of opinion was about the necessity to open the skull. Spitz said that since Dr. Garavaglia didn't, he called the autopsy sloppy. On cross, he could not say where there was any protocol. He finally he admitted there wasn't such a protocol.

Dr. Warren indicated it was not necessary to open a skull unnecessarily. It is not sloppy, it fact, it is dangerous to open the skull with a child, because the skull can fracture. Dr. Spitz said he didn't recall fracturing the skull, and he did.

They disagreed on the issue of "brain dust" or residue. Spitz said he could tell by looking at it, he knew it was and indicated the position the skull had originally rested. Dr. Goldberger did the saline wash and testified that it was not what Spitz said it was. Dr. Spitz had a problem with the arrangement of the hair mass based on this theory. Spitz had said that it was important to know the circumstances surrounding the death. Dr. Spitz didn't know much at all. His fund of information was insufficient to make a decision in the case.

The entomological evidence was next. They heard from Dr. Neil Haskell who had practiced 30 years in the field. They heard about Timothy Huntington, who is a bright young man, but had only been practicing for about three years.

They agreed that the evidence at the scene indicated that the body initially decomposed in some other location where the original flies could not get to her. She was then dumped in the swampy area. They both agreed it took place between June and July.

They only diverged on the single issue. They disagreed as to whether the trunk would have excluded the original colonizing flies. Haskell said it was, Huntington said it wasn't, even though he'd never dealt with a dead body in a trunk in real world conditions. He did one experiment with the pigs to decide. It was up to the jury to decide the credibility of these two experts.

Ashton next addressed the chloroform. The jury needed to understand what they were testing and what their perspective was. Ashton explained that Drs. Vass and Dr. Wise are used to looking at environmental air samples. Based on that experience, Wise said that the amount of chloroform was high. Dr. Vass studied decomposiing bodies and had found chloroform before, but not at those high levels. In addition, Dr. Wise explained why the quantification had no meaning because chloroform is a volatile gas.

Dr. Rickenbach tested a similar sample out of a can, and also the spare tire cover out of the box. He told the jury he actually found chloroform in that. She was surprised he found anthing at all. He found a much greater amount of chloroform in the sealed can. His amounts were equivalent to what Dr. Vass found, parts per million. Rickenbach had only studied liquid chloroform before. He said he found detectible amounts of chloroform in a car. It was the first time they had seen this. The amount of chloroform in the trunk was much less than would have been there a month before. The Anthony's aired out the car. There has been no evidence to explain where it came for and why. (objection/overruled)

Dr. Sigmond tested the trunk air four days after the liner had been removed. His method of capture was not as good as what Dr. Vass had used and he found chloroform in the air. He also testified that, by-products of chloroform formation were not found in the car. There were no constituents of dry cleaner material, for example. All that was found was chloroform and elements of human decomposition.

The expert testimony on the odor of decomposition was next. The defense's primary attack on Dr. Vass was about his "sniffer machine" and, if it were sold in the private sector, he and the other inventors would split 15% of the minimal royalties.

Ashton stressed that Dr. Vass is an unapologetic science geek who loves to solve scientific problems! Counsel sneered at Vass for his dowsing experiments. But, perhaps Dr. Vass is on to something. He urged the jury to judge him not by what the defense said about him, but by what testified to in court.

Dr. Vass and Dr. Furton both agreed that the science has not reached the point where they have a signature for the odor of decomposition. Dr. Furton agreed that the odor was possible human remains. Dr. Vass said that when he combined his science and experience, he recognized the odor of human decomposition when he opened the can.

Ashton said that Dr. Furton's other explanation was not plausible. He showed him the garbage which demonstrated that it was not the cause of the odor in the car.

In Baez’ closing, he accused the officers of removing food items from the garbage. The only food in the bag of was a small remnant of cheese. Dr. Furton agreed that the small amount of cheese could cause the odor that lasted two years. Ashton told the jury that the odor was not from garbage, it was from Caylee.

Ashton went on to say that the he defense presented non-DNA evidence. The FBI expert said she didn't expect to find any on the tape that had been on the body for six months. The defense called Dr. Eikelenboom, who gave his report two days before he testified, said only said that he thought he might be able to find some. He also agreed that the two most destructive things which would destroy DNA were moisture and heat.

The defense called ten other witnesses who testified to non-results which were meaningless.

Ashton then moved on to the hair experts. They said that there was an artifact only found in decomposing bodies. Since they didn’t know what causes it, they could only say what they thought, that it was consistent with a dead person.

To say there is no link between Casey Anthony and the death ignored all this testimony.

Ashton gave his version of reasonable doubt. He went through the defense reasons given by Mason yesterday. First was the duct tape. The defense connected the duct tape to the Anthony home. They agreed with that. If George Anthony had decided, for some reason, to put duct tape on Caylee's face and put her in the woods, the defense asserted that, on the 24th, he deliberately notified police of the theft of the duct tape on it to implicate his daughter. It didn’t make sense.

People don't make accidents look like murder. It's absurd. (objection/sustained)

When Caylee did turn up missing, the defense said that George didn't tell the police about the gas can missing. If he had wanted to implicate his daughter, he would have done it.

The police took the gas can, photographed it, and give it back to him. At that point, George Anthony stuck it in the garage and ignored it for four months. In December, when the body was found by the police, they took it into evidence.

George (the nefarious criminal) then took the incriminating duct tape to hang posters! It didn't make any sense, it was patently absurd. (Baez objected every time Ashton used the word absurd/overruled.)

Ashton then addressed the alleged drowning. George Anthony testified it didn't happen. Ms. Anthony was also given the opportunity to adopt that, and rejected it twice.

Counsel also asserted that the crime scene was staged. Baez said that George was connected to the tape and, in opening statements, the defense said that Kronk had used the tape. Kronk had only read their meter once and had no connection to the house.

Ashton put up a photograph of the site on December 11, 2008. The only thing that staged the scene was Mother Nature herself. There were vines growing around and through everything at the scene. The skull was not moved for six months, possibly less if animals used it.

The defense said that Roy Kronk took the remains. Dr. Schultz showed the grouping of the bones. It demonstrated how the body was disarticulated during decomposition. (objection/overruled) They showed that animals had chewed on the bones. They were not scattered by Roy Kronk, but by animals and acts of nature. Ashton showed other evidence photos to show that the hair and skull hadn't moved much, if at all.

The duct tape in another photograph showed that leaf litter had covered parts of it as it was wrapped around the mandible. It didn't just get washed there by water. It was there because Casey Anthony put it there. When the tape was lifted away from the mandible, there were strings that went under the mandible. It wasn't a coincidence, an accident, or water. It was a deliberate placing of the duct tape over the mouth and nose. The scene was not staged. It appeared as it was due to forces of nature.

The state did not call Roy Kronk because his testimony of what he did was embellished, he spun a good yarn. They didn't put him up because his story was incredible. However, Ashton said that Kronk found the skull in August and tried to report it three times and was blown off by the police. The calls to his son were to impress him to help build the relationship. Kronk told a very dramatic story about the skull rolling out. It wasn't true. It was impossible. But, that didn't make him a morally bankrupt individual who would take Caylee's skull home and play with it.

Ashton explained about the two ways Casey could be found guilty of murder in the 1st degree. There were 1st degree and felony murder.

(Mason objected/misstatement of the law/Ashton was reading from the law/overruled.)

He also explained that the jury could have different opinions on 1st degree murder and reach a unanimous decision.

Ashton told the jury that they can reconstruct the events in any way they want. He then explained felony murder. There were two objections which were overruled. Ashton did a great job of providing the jury with various scenarios related to the case to show felony murder.

Ashton went on to talk about George. The jury saw hours of video tape of the family. He asked if there was anything in them that showed anything but a loving father and grandfather. He was perplexed as to why Casey wouldn't tell him anything. He was supportive of her and Casey called him a good father and a great grandfather. Nothing there showed a cover-up.

Most of Casey's conflict was with her mother. George was the thumb, he was not the Machiavellian monster the defense claimed he was. When Baez asked about the suicide letter, he asked if George felt guilt. Then, Baez said it wasn't a real suicide attempt. Ashton said that all George wanted to be with his granddaughter. This man was in pain. Through his handwriting, you could see the deterioration of his handwriting as the drugs and alcohol took effect. Ashton then read a few lines from the letter to focus the jury on what George was feeling at the time.

Ms. Burdick would speak next after a 15 minute recess.

Baez had a brief issue about the computer searches. It was about the Sci-spot hits and the inconsistencies between Net Analysis and Cacheback. They believed the Cacheback information is erroneous and false. They want the state to clarify this in their rebuttal. Ms. Burdick indicated that Mr. Baez had already put that in front of the jury. Judge Perry said they should provide the appropriate motion at the appropriate time. He can't chase after it.

The jury was returned and Ms. Burdick began her rebuttal.

She went into the advantages and disadvantages to being the last to speak. The advantage was that she was the last to speak before the judge tells the law. The disadvantage was that the jury was ready to deliberate after hearing from lawyers for so many hours. She asked them to indulge her for a few moments to get their final thoughts in. She wouldn't be getting out posters or pyrotechnics, it wasn't her style.

Burdick stated that when she gave her opening, she meant what she said. She made no promises she didn't keep. Through the testimony and exhibits, the state has proven all the charges against Casey Marie Anthony.

Mr. Baez had indicated that the jury would be asked to make decisions on emotion. She said that they would not do that. While it was an emotionally charged case, they would only ask them to make their decision on the testimony of the witnesses and the exhibits. She said that her biggest fear was that common sense would be lost in all the rhetoric of the case. She was fearful that they wouldn’t step back and take the evidence as a whole.

Mr. Baez talked about rabbit holes (objection/sustained). We want you to take the evidence as a whole. Mr. Baez, in his closing remarks used words like liar, perjurer, fraudulent. The trial is supposed to be a search for the truth. It is lying that perverts that process. During an argument, when the biggest liar (Casey Anthony through her attorneys) ever seen in a courtroom lies, the irony is rich indeed. (objection/overruled)

Accusing other people of lying is classic Casey Anthony. When she wanted to get the attention off herself, she lied about others. She had spent years lying. Mr. Baez had argued that the 31 days mean nothing.

Ms. Burdick said that a lie told convincingly, is still a lie. The defendant through counsel accused Yuri Melich, Jason Forgey, Gerardo Bloise, Dr. Vass and many of the witnesses of being liars.

She indicated that the OCSO was desperate in this case. If there was anything the people in the OSCO was desperate about, it was to find a little girl. They labored for hours to find her. They were joined by the FBI, FDLE, TES, citizens in looking for her. It was in vain. Even her parents were searching in vain.

False allegations of child abduction are not new. Such allegations drains resources away from the perpetrator, it buys the perpetrator more time. When Cindy Anthony went to pick her up, Casey Anthony said to her mother was that she wanted one more day. When she told her brother about the kidnaping, it was to buy time and draw attention away from herself.

Baez put of pictures of the sheriff’s deputies at the house that night, saying they took no action about the car. The police that night, had no reason to think Caylee Anthony was dead. The defendant was telling them she was alive and she asked for their help in finding her. The episode of her being handcuffed ended "like that" because they were there to help her find Caylee.

At Universal the three detectives said to her that they wanted to help her find her daughter and asked why she was lying. Casey was buying time, like she had done with her parents, her brother, and her friends.

The 31 days were meaningless? Mr. Baez had said that they went more to prove that the state wanted to prove she was a slut?

Law enforcement was trying to backtrack where she said she was conducting her own investigation. They were using her cell phone to try and track down Zenaida. As they backtracked, it became more and more apparent that the defendant was lying about everything. She asked the jurors to look at her 4 page statement, the only truth was Caylee's birth date.

The defense had stated that everybody grieves differently. It may be true, but responses to guilt are also predictable. What do guilty people do? They lie, they avoid, they run, they mislead their own family and the police. They divert attention from themselves and act like nothing is wrong. What she was doing was in no way indicative of grief. It was not indicative of someone who lost her child in an accident.

Casey said in the jail tapes that this was a time of desperation for her. She had no way to leave the area and she only wanted to stay away from her family. Her friends were easy to placate with lies.
Casey was running away from her family who would want to know where Caylee was. Her actions and responses during those 31 days answer the only question that remains. Who killed Caylee?

The question was no longer where Caylee was. The question was no longer what happened to Caylee. The only question was who killed Caylee. For the longest time, Caylee was alive, until her remains were found.

Casey's imaginary friends were lies. They were lies to for a specific purpose, to get Casey out of a jam. For the longest time, Caylee was alive, until her remains are found.

(Baez asked for sidebar/denied)

Once she was dead, there was a theory that it was and accident. There was no accident. On July 16, 2008, the detectives asked if Caylee could have had an accident (audio of the Universal interview). Mr. Baez suggested that the OCSO had murder on their minds. The jury just heard that suggestion made to Casey and she denied the possibility. Cindy suggested the pool scenario on August 16. (video visitation) When Caylee Anthony was found dead, surprise, surprise, it was an accident.

No one would ever make the accidental death of a child look like murder. Her behavior during the 31 days was inconsistent with an accident. Ms. Burdick went back to Dr. Garavaglia's testimony that parents whose kids have accidents call 911.

The defense brought up the fact that Casey was an amazing mother. Ms. Burdick debunked the idea since the friends had only seen her for short periods of time. Feeding and sheltering and clothing a child do not made a good mother, they make an adequate mother. In fact, however, it was the grandparents who provided for Caylee, not her mother. Burdick said the amazing mother was the one who tried to protect her child, even in death.

If it were an accident, Caylee would have been found floating in a pool, not in a swamp. If George Anthony had been home, he would have called 911, have tried CPR. He never would have scooped her into a bag and thrown her in the woods.

This argument of Casey being an amazing mother could not be followed to any logical conclusion. The way the remains were found showed complete indifference to the child. It showed how the person who disposed of her really felt about her.

She then showed a picture of the yard and spoke of how George Anthony landscaped it for her. He put a floor in the playhouse so Caylee wouldn't have to sit on the ground where and insect could crawl on her. In the jail videos, George tried over and over again to get Casey to talk to law enforcement, the FBI. Why would he want his co-conspirator to talk to the cops?

The phone call that Casey made to her parents July 16, 2008 (objection/overruled) showed the real Casey. (audio)

Ms. Burdick said that when you use your common sense, you will know that Casey Anthony is a pathological liar. In the call, all she wanted was Tony's number and to cuss out her parents.

Casey Anthony was the only one to have access to every piece of evidence: the duct tape, the laundry bag, the blanket, the shorts, the car. There was no evidence that anybody else used that car. She texted Amy Huizenga that her father had run over a dead animal fifteen minutes before leaving it at Amscot. She left the trash bag as a decoy. The car was backed in next to the dumpster, which was another decoy to keep people away from the car.

George Anthony had no way to know where to find her car. They didn't know where she was or where the car was.

Finally, the shirt that said Big Trouble Comes In Small Packages. It wasn't one Cindy Anthony was familiar with, she never washed it. It was kept in the car, in the diaper bag or the backpack. She wore in at Ricardo Morales' apartment.

Someone killed Caylee Anthony. It wasn't George Anthony, he didn't have access to everything, Casey did. He did not try to cover up and lie.

Burdick then threw Casey into the mix concerning leaving the ladder down. Casey was twisting the knife in both her parents’ backs. Cindy and George were at home, at work, and missing their granddaughter. Where was Casey? She wasn't at home. She was at Tony's, but lied to her mother. Where's Caylee? Caylee's dead in the woods.

All the jury had to ask was who's life was better without Caylee? Was Cindy Anthony's life better? (911 call) Was George Anthony's life better? Mr. Ashton told the jury about that. Who's life was better? That's all you have to answer when Caylee Anthony's body was left by the road, dead. There's your answer. (pictures)

Casey Anthony Murder Trial: Day 33

Updated, 6:00
Scroll down to "Case Closed"

SIT AROUND AND WAIT!

Due to the unusual circumstances, I am posting the events of this morning early. I will be monitoring the situation and updating as events occur, if they do. Check back during the day!

Judge Belvin Perry appeared in the courtroom at 8:50 to hear Jose Baez again plead for the judge to reconsider his ruling for the Gentiva testimony. He pointed out to Perry that there were already some documents that have some of the information the prosecution already had.

Ms. Sims had a medical issue and will be in court shortly. She asked to speak to two of the state's computer experts. The defense contended that they are going to render new opinions not in reports and were unavailable to talk to Ms. Sims. The witnesses are Osborne and Stenger. Baez said he wanted Judge Perry to hold the state to the same standard that he held the defense to.

Baez also mentioned Dr. Goldberger and Dr. Warren were ready to testify. Again, he asked that all new opinions be proffered since there were no new reports.

Ms. Burdick stated that the witnesses from the Sheriff's offices were going to testify to things that Mrs. Anthony said during her testimony. Ms. Burdick said that the defense could speak to them now. Ms. Burdick said that she only heard of the desire to re-depose at 5:30 PM yesterday. She also told Mr. Baez what they would testify to, based on Mrs. Anthony's testimony. There was also an issue as to whether Mrs. Anthony could engage in a remote log-in to her work computer, and they had learned that she couldn’t.

Baez said it would take two days to do this research and he would have liked to have his computer people to look at it. The defense was not placed on notice and waited until their case was closed. He told Ms. Burdick it was in violation of Perry's order.

Judge Perry asked how much time he needed. Baez said he didn't know until he saw reports. Once he saw them, he could show it to his experts and see how long it would take.

Baez also said that Dr. Goldberger and Dr. Warren may also have new opinions.

Jeff Ashton said that Dr. Goldberger's opinion was given to the defense two years ago. It would go to refute Dr. Spitz' testimony concerning the sediment in the skull. Also, Goldberger is on the defense witness list.

Baez pointed out that he is not a forensic pathologist and can't testify to Dr. Spitz opinions.

Perry asked if he wanted to depose the witness. Baez went on pressing his case.

Jeff Ashton pointed out that Goldberger was only going to testify to the cranial wash, which was in his report. Baez said Goldberger never said what he found in his test. He's a toxicologist and cannot testify to that. He can't identify anything as organic matter. Baez argued he didn't open the skull and couldn't testify to that.

Baez was offered the balance of the morning to do the depositions. Perry said that if he wanted to do that, he could take this morning and they would be back tomorrow.

Perry made it clear that both sides had asked to have off tomorrow to prepare for closings. He said he will let the defense take the time and be back tomorrow and Sunday, and Monday, and Tuesday.

He also indicated that if it was a surprise to the defense, he would let them take the depositions, but he first wanted to see the reports to make sure the information was not there.

Jeff Ashton disagreed with Baez and said that he did the saline washes. Ashton indicated that it was not organic matter such as one would see from decomposition. Baez claimed the finding were not in the report.

Baez again couldn't say how much time he needed. Ashton said he'd pointed out the differences and the depositions would be short. Baez then said that Ashton was now admitting that there was new material and Jeff Ashton said, "NO, THERE WOULD NOT!"

Judge Perry said that the jury is sequestered. He said that they would recess on call whenever the defense was prepared.

Judge Perry also asked about a jury instruction about Dr. Rodriguez

So, at this point, we are all sitting around and waiting!.

Case Closed!

Finally, about 1:30 PM, the prosecution began its rebuttal case.

The first witness was John Camperlengo, the Chief Compliance Officer and General Counsel of Gentiva. He was questioned by Linda Burdick.

They discussed the company policy on retention of e-mails. There were a number of technical questions about how the records are kept. E-mails sent and received by employees are backed up at regular intervals and are maintained on the server and a back-up system when the server gets filled. Due to HIPPA laws, they must retain these records. They also keep records of individual computer terminals in their offices. They are also retained under a personal user ID. Gentiva also has a system that retains records of when people log in or log out of the system.

At this point, Judge Perry read a stipulation to Cindy Anthony's employment.

The records for Cindy Anthony were then discussed. They include the records for the week of March 17, 2008. Mr. Camperlengo identified the deleted e-mails of Cindy Anthony for that week. The exhibits were then entered into evidence. The log-in records were also identified by the witness and entered into testimony.
I'm going for the basics here, not how the system works!

For March 17, the records showed that she logged on at 8:02 AM. The log-out periods were in the area of 5:30. March 21, the first session was 8:43 AM. and logged out at about 5:30. The system would automatically log you out after five hours if not in use.

Then, the journal activity for the week was discussed. It contains all the activity dealing with records were documented. Finally, after a lot of technical discussion, Ms. Burdick had the witness go down to the afternoon portion of the document. She started with 2:27 PM and went down through 2:33 PM at the bottom of the screen. There were several changes made to patient profiles during that time frame. (Somehow, the numbers came out differently the second time Ms. Burdick stated them, suffice it to say, whatever the numbers were, they covered the time that Cindy said she was probably home Googling.)
Ms. Burdick then went to the March 21 records. The times were approximately from 2:37 PM until the end of the day. There was continuous activity throughout the afternoon until 4:06 PM.

There was discussion about individual passwords which are changed every 90 days. Mr. Camperlengo explained that it is an extremely secure system due to law.

Ms. Burdick then had the witness testify that Cindy was entering data on the system between 1 and 3 PM on March 17. She was. On March 21, she was also entering data between 1 and 2 PM.

Ms. Burdick was finished with the witness.

Jose Baez asked if he was contacted in the summer of 2009 for any of this data. Camperlengo testified he hadn't.

Baez had no further questions.

The witness was excused.

The next witness was Deborah Polisano, one of Cindy Anthony's co-workers at Gentiva.

Frank George did direct. She was employed by Gentiva in Winter Park. She was Director of Clinical Management. She managed 20 to 25 people and field staff. She was Cindy's supervisor. She was responsible for oversight of her job performance.

In March of 2008, Cindy was a Manager of Clinical Practice who had responsibility for field staff and their paperwork. She was not required to leave work during the day to do her job. All employees had to sign in and out. They would be allowed to run errands, but would not necessarily have to log out of their computers. They would lock themselves after 15 minutes. The system would be running, but the user would have to log on again.

Cindy was a capable, hard-working employee. She would not take 2 to 3 hour lunches. If an employee were gone for that period of time, she would have to do their jobs for them. She also said that other people could use the computer, but they would have to log on under their own user ID. It is against policy for someone to use another's user ID. It was a compliance issue.

Mrs. Anthony could not work from home and could not log onto her Gentiva account from another computer. Ms. Polisano said, although it was possible to fix someone else's time card, she never did that.

Mr. George entered Mrs. Anthony's time card history report. He first discussed March 14 where it said PTO (Part time off). There had to be 8 hours to be accounted for a PTO. On March 17, she arrived at 8:00 and signed out ten hours later at 6:00 PM. On March 21, she worked for 9 hours.

Ms. Polisano would approve the time. The time cards are a computer form. She gets them on Tuesday morning and she checks them for accuracy. Mr. George asked if a salaried employee was expected to work more than a 40 hour week. Ms. Polisano said they were. She also said that there were no situations where she knew Cindy to be at home but on the records. There was no "comp time."

Mr. George also brought up the banking issue and asked how far the bank was from the office. It was a couple of blocks away.

Mr. George finished.

Jose Baez asked if employees were allowed to run errands during the day. They were, Ms. Polisano said. Baez asked it a Bank of America record was shown to show her concerning the bank. (objection sustained)

Jose Baez brought up the July 15 trip to the tow yard. Polisano couldn't say how long Cindy was gone, probably 1 ½ to 2 hours. He asked if she'd reviewed her computer records for that day. Polisano said that she hadn’t. Cindy did work on her computer both before and after she left. Polisano had to force her to leave that day.

Baez had no further questions.

Frank George asked her that if she had to do another employee's work, she would do it under her own password on her own computer. Ms. Polisano agreed.

Jeff Ashton examined the next witness, Bruce Goldberger. He is a professor of toxicology at UF. He gave his background, which includes forensic toxicology. He took samples from a small piece of the left femur, marrow from the left femur, did two washes of the cranial cavity, some hair, some matted hair...(Jose Baez called for a side bar.).

When Ashton returned to the podium, Goldberger added soil from the matted hair to the list of items he took from the Medical Examiner’s Office for testing.

Ashton had Dr. Goldberger describe how he physically conducted the saline washes. He said he sealed the skull with a thin coat of epoxy of some sort, added 30cc of saline solution, swished it around and poured it out. He did that twice.

He ran an analysis of the saline washes and found nothing that would suggest decomposition material in the cranial cavity.

When Jeff Ashton finished, Jose Baez asked about the femur. Ashton objected and Judge Perry said he opened the door! Baez asked for a side bar to explain why he asked. Baez asked if he collected bone marrow and Goldberger said he did.

Baez asked if the saline wash was a crude method. Goldberger said it was, but it was the best way he had without opening the skull.

Baez asked if he didn't look for DNA. He didn't sent the samples for any DNA analysis. (objection/sustained three times). He returned the materials to the Orlando Medical Examiner's Office.

Dr. Michael Warren was called next.

Jeff Ashton had him re-introduce himself to the jury. He is a forensic anthropologist and belongs to a scientific working group which works to develop best practices in a field.

Ashton asked if there were any protocols that call for the opening of a skull in a forensic case. Warren said it wasn't and it wasn't considered "best practice" and hasn't even been discussed.

Dr. Warren pointed out that you can look and feel inside the skull. There is no compelling reason to open it except to photograph it. There are two negative consequences to opening the skull. A person asking to do a second examination would have lost evidence. Secondly, it was unnecessary desecration to the remains. (my words)

Ashton also elicited that there is a special instrument that could be used, a dental mirror could be used, and a flashlight could be used. Warren said that there are no skulls in his lab that need to have the skulls opened at the present time.

With a child's skull, you could fracture the fragile bones. He was shown the picture taken of Caylee's skull when Dr. Spitz opened it to identify the fracture he caused. He said that when he had examined the base of the cranium and there had been no such fracture.

Ashton then discussed documents about the treatment of human skulls. None of them recommend the opening of the human skull. Ashton brought up the UN document dealing with genocide which does not recommend it as well.

Jose Baez was again back to cross. Baez brought up the video he mad (objection/scope/sustained)

Baez brought up that he is not a forensic pathologist and he can't testify to what a forensic pathologist could do. He said that he considered this case a case for anthropology. Baez brought up his eminent forensic pathologist, Dr. Werner Spitz. (objection) Then he showed Goldberger the National Medical Examiners' guidelines and asked if he was familiar with it. He said he was.

Jose Baez asked if his method would locate red marks indicating a suffocation death (objection/sustained) When asked if it were necessary to open the skull, that would be up to the ME to decide. Warren agreed.

There was another question that I missed (objection/side bar/sustained)

Warren did not do the cranial washes in this case. When asked if he reviewed the autopsy, he pointed out that it wasn't an autopsy, but a bone case. He'd never seen the autopsy report or Dr. Goldberger's report.

Next question was objected to/sustained and Mr. Baez was finished.

The next witness was Sgt. Kevin Stenger, with more computer forensics.

Linda Burdick did the direct examination. The latest analysis he had done ran from March 1 to March 21, 2008. This was additional analysis of the Anthony's desk top computer. He provided two disks with reports from Cacheback and Net Analysis.

Jose Baez stated that he wanted more time to study the disks. Ms. Burdick asked for them to be accepted and Baez asked they be accepted conditionally. Judge Perry overruled him and Baez asked for a side bar conference.

Stenger did key word searches on the deleted Firefox history for:

chlorophyll
hand sanitizer
neck-breaking
Gentiva

Doing this keyword searches, he found no searches for chlorophyll. The same happened in the Cacheback report.

Hand sanitizer was only searched by "sanitezer" and it didn't come up.

Next, he searched for "neck" and found two searches, one with "neck break" and one with "neck breaking" It was not a pop-up ad.

Meanwhile, Baez objected to each of these and was overruled.

Sgt. Stenger found no searches for "bamboo" either and there was no access to a Gentiva website.

In addition, Stenger used another tool and searched the text file created and searched for these terms as well in Microsoft Word.

He did the search with two forensic programs and one with a hex file and found nothing.

He did find one search on how to get rid of fleas.

Another impeachment for Cindy Anthony.

Jose Baez asked about Yahoo.com. He got Stenger to agree that there is all sorts of information on it. He said that all Stenger did was search for were the domain addresses that were on the files for a month. He said that if the addresses didn't have the search word in it, he couldn't know what was on the page (as if it were Yahoo). There was mention of a search that included a possible martial arts website. You can't tell what's on a site unless you visited it.

Baez pointed out that Stenger was only contacted after the prosecution decided to impeach Mrs. Anthony. Baez also pointed out that he didn't look up alcohol and another topic. Stenger said he didn't do it because he knew they were there.

Sandra Osborne was up next. She has also testified before.

She was asked to perform a search for key words as well. She used EnCase.

She was asked to search the entire hard drive for:

chlorophyll
hand sanitizer
bamboo

She found one occurrence in the Microsoft Word dictionary.

Hand sanitizer did not appear on the computer.

Bamboo yielded bamboo furniture, figurines, floor surfaces, lamps, rugs, panda bears, tiki bars and other household items. There was no reference to bamboo leaves.

She found three specific log-in names for Gentiva and found no evidence of any remote log in to Gentiva.

Jose Baez referred to the unallocated space and the possibility of the material being overwritten.
He stated that it's not done in order, but her answer didn't make that clear. She said that it is hard to tell what has been overwritten because it's been deleted.

Ms. Burdick asked why there can be fragments of a chat. Osborne explained that it is because part of it has been overwritten.

The witness was excused and Ms. Burdick presented stipulations to Judge Perry.

Yuri Melich made another appearance on the stand. Ms. Burdick handed him the documents that were introduced. The first records were those for Mr. and Mrs. Anthony's land line. Then, there were records for George Anthony's cell phone. Finally, Det. Melich identified the cell phone records of Cindy Anthony.

(This is going towards impeaching the June 16 call Cindy made to George about the ladder being in the pool.)

Melich was asked to see if there were any calls from the home to George Anthony's land line or cell phone during the week of June 16. He testified that there were none.

Baez started out by asking if he knew that George Anthony had multiple cell phones. Melich said he wasn't aware of that.

Baez showed records to Melich to show that George Anthony had a company cell phone. (objections/sustained) Baez asked if he ever pulled his work cell phone records. Melich said he was unaware of a work cell phone, as Mr. Anthony had never told him that he had one.

(Somehow, there was something in the document he was shown that indicated George Anthony had a work cell phone? There were a bunch of objections about its being used and we never found out what it was.)

Baez then asked if he knew that the Anthony's had "boost cell phones." (objection/no time frame/sustained). (Remember, they did not have their phones until July!)

Jose Baez had no more questions and the witness was excused.

Ms. Burdick said the state was finished with their rebuttal case.

There was discussion at the side bar. Then, Judge Perry left the bench.

Judge Perry returned to the bench and asked if the defense was ready. He must have thought they would want to do a brief sur-rebuttal about George Anthony's phones. Cheney Mason said that they wouldn't do that.

The jurors were excused until Sunday at 9:00 AM for closing arguments.

Then there was the motion for judgement of acquittal made by Cheney Mason as well as several motions for mistrial including the one dealing with the video super-imposition.

In his motion for acquittal, he said there was as much evidence for an accidental drowning as for the prosecution "fantasy." He pointed out the questions that had not been answered as to how and where she died. He said there was no evidence of premeditation, except for the prosecution's "fantasy."

He said that the prosecution had proved only that Casey told many falsehoods for many reasons. They proved that she was a very loving and devoted mother through the testimony of her friends.

There was no proof that Caylee was chloroformed or duct-taped. There was no DNA linking the crime to anybody. There was no evidence the duct tape was placed on the face at all. The chloroform death was all media hype. He asked Judge Perry to take the burden from the jury to guess how the child died.

Ms. Burdick responded that Mr. Mason was arguing matters that were for the jury to decide. She said that the defense, during their presentation showed no proof of innocence.

Judge Perry denied the motion of acquittal.

We are done for the day. Tomorrow, everyone can have fun. Sunday there will be closing arguments and jury instructions. See you Sunday at 8:30!

Radio Interview with Marc Germain on Talk Radio One

Update: Link added. Sprocket.

This evening, I was part of a panel discussing the Casey Anthony case and Cindy Anthony's fact-twisting testimony today with Marc Germain of Talk Radio One. As soon as the show is archived, I'll put up the link. I'm on with two other guests and it's the first segment right at 8:00pm PT. Sprocket.

Talk Radio One, June 23rd, 2011, show.

Directly under the "share this" link is a speaker image and next to that is an arrow. Click on the arrow to listen to the show. There are also links to download the MP3 file. Sprocket.

Casey Anthony Murder Trial: Day 10

Splitting Hairs

Yesterday, the prosecution introduced all of the exhibits which mostly relate to the Pontiac Sunfire that Casey Anthony drove. We got to see the spare tire cover as the box containing some of the contents of the trunk were individually tagged. Today, Karen Lowe, a hair and fiber analyst from the FBI will be up on the stand with the first of the forensic testimony concerning the hair banding. Since the defense has no expert to testify in their case in chief, the defense will have only one shot at debunking her testimony. At the Frey Hearing, they were unable to do so and the evidence was deemed admissible by Judge Perry. Ms. Lowe is now tuned up to the defense questions and should be more than ready to handle the cross with Jose Baez.

Judge Perry entered the courtroom and Baez renewed the defense objections based on Frye. They also object to the predicate and asked to voir dire her at some time.

I love what Perry said, "do you want to rehash what you hashed at the Frye Hearing?" Judge Perry explained that they were not to do a mini-Frye Hearing today. The state only has to lay a foundation.

Judge Perry noted Baez’ objections to her testimony and previous motions he had filed. If the state failed to lay a proper foundation to make she is qualified, then he will allow her to undergo voir dire. Baez referred to 97.05 and the judge said that it concerned opinion testimony.

Perry wanted to know why Baez wanted to voir-dire Lowe and he answered that he wanted to be sure she was qualified.

Perry again brought up the Frye Hearings and said that Baez had no objection to her qualifications then. As usual, the judge had case law on hand to rebut Baez' argument.

Baez then cited the judge's orders that the state has to provide a proper predicate. Perry told him the predicate is that she is qualified as an expert in her field.

When Baez attempted to continue his arguments, Perry said they had already wasted enough time, and brought in the jury.

Karen Lowe was called to the stand. Jeff Ashton took her through her CV. She has been qualified as a trace evidence examiner for 13 years and this is her 44th time testifying. She has testified all over the country at the state and local level. The majority of her testimony has touched on hair evidence.

Baez was then allowed to do a brief voir dire. Baez asked if it was the first time she was testifying on hair banding and she agreed.

Side-bar time again!

When Baez asked if she took a six-month training period in hair analysis, she said it was a six-month intensive course. Only a portion of the training dealt with hair banding. The rest of her training came from examination in the lab.

That was the end of the voir dire.

Jeff Ashton then proceeded to question this expert witness over the defense objections.

Ms. Lowe said that hair analysis has been done since the late 1700's and since the 1930's in the US by the FBI.

She explained the steps of her examination, collection, examination with a comparison microscope, and her conclusion if they come from the same source. Unlike DNA, hairs cannot be said to come from the same person, but that the characteristics are similar. Exclusion can also happen due to various hair characteristics.

These kind of examinations are done all over the world.

There are signs in hairs that relate to decomposition. There were articles published, one in 1988 by Nicholas Petraco. A post-mortem root band appeared at the transition of the hair from near the scalp and the hardened area of the hair in one specific stage of hair growth.

Ms. Lowe spoke rapidly, but did directly look at the jury while answering the questions.

There were also two papers by Lynch on the topic. In the peer-reviewed articles, it was explained that post-mortem root banding appears 2 to 15 days after death.

There were tests done where hairs from living people were left in environmental conditions which showed no root-banding.

They are not clear on what causes the root-banding.

Ashton then showed Ms. Lowe a poster she uses to explain root banding.

Then, she spoke of the training. Lowe explained that there are slides in their collection that they examine during their training.

In 13 years of experience, she's seen a fair number of examples of hair banding during her examination. This is the only case where she has seen a hair which was not taken from a known deceased individual.

Ashton then showed Lowe a number of envelopes containing hairs. First was 87, which she identified. Next, exhibits 90, 93, 94, 95, 96, 97, 98, 99, 100, and 101.

There were also hairs from known individuals she received. IS, IT, IW (Cindy Anthony), and a sample from George Anthony.

She was also submitted a hairbrush which was a purported sample of Caylee Anthony's hair and comb which she identified. She identified the hair from the brush.

Upon examination of items, she found human hairs among the evidence. She found at least 11 hairs from the unknown exhibits. One of the hairs showed signs of decomposition (Q-12).

Upon examining the hair she identified it as a Caucasian head hair with a darkened band consistent with post-mortem-banding. She used a comparison microscope to conduct the comparison.

The hair was light to medium brown, with no root found. It was about 9 inches long.

None of the other hairs had signs of decomposition. She then compared it to the hair from the hairbrush.

The hair in Q12 was similar to the hair attributed to Caylee Anthony. It was dissimilar to Casey Anthony's hair. She did not compare it to Cindy Anthony's hair (which was blonde). It had the post-mortem root banding.

She preserved the section of the hair with the banding and sent the rest to be tested for mitochondrial DNA testing.

Lowe identified the hair sent for mitochondrial DNA.

Then, Ashton had Ms. Lowe explain why they used the term "apparent" decomposition. Lowe responded that the term was used to be conservative.

Jose Baez did the cross examination.

First, Baez said that hair examination had changed since the 1930's. She said that the equipment had changed, but the process of examination has stayed the same.

He brought out that she had read 4 articles as well as the National Academy of Science report. (Here comes the junk science argument.) As Baez headed in that direction, Ashton objected and they went to a side bar.

When the side bar broke up, Judge Perry sent the jury out for a 15 minute recess.

Judge Perry read the entire title of the report and told Baez that he first had to ask Ms. Lowe if she considered it an established source. He said that it may not be a scientific treatise.

Baez pointed out that Justice Scalia had referenced it and Perry wanted to know the case and reference.

Jose Baez pointed out the portion he wanted to question her about. Baez quickly read the language and Perry reminded him to slow down.

Perry said that he needed to get her to recognize it. He also pointed out that Ms. Lowe had pointed out that the hairs were consistent, not identical as referenced in the report.

Ashton asked that it be proffered to prove it was appropriate. Perry AGAIN pointed out that what Baez had read was what Lowe had said. He also pointed out that Baez didn't even have the document to read to her. (Now we know the reason for the break.)

The witness was returned to the stand and Baez asked her about the copy the judge had handed to her.

She said she had read the portion that pertains to her field. She recognized the organization and the reason for the study.

Lowe felt it offered guidance, although not all the authors were scientists.

Baez asked if she was aware of the criticism of microscopic hair analysis. She said that it was more related to the limitations of the methods, not the methods themselves.

Baez asked if her lab had used comparative hair analysis to positively identify people.

Lowe said she didn't know that her lab had done that.

Baez then took some time to read the section and brought up the name Michael Malone, who no longer works in the lab. He asked if she was familiar with the Gates case where Malone's testimony ended in a conviction based on hair analysis where he was positively identified by the hair alone.

According to Lowe, the testimony was proper as far as she knew. But it would be improper to say that the hairs were identical.

At that point, Perry put a stop to the discussion as they were not going to litigate another case here in court.

What a waste of time! Had Baez read her report more carefully, he would have seen she was already following the guidelines outlined in the report and there was nothing in the document which would discredit her work.

Jeff Ashton had her agree that the report was not a scientific treatise but a guideline. Lowe did agree with the principles in the report and her testimony was in line with that.

Baez then began to discuss another study. (Please don't ask me the details!) Ashton again pointed out that the proffered information in the study was consistent with Lowe's testimony.

After more back and forth, the judge sent a message to Baez, who finally got it. He would not ask about other cases.

The jury was brought back in and Baez continued. He immediately brought up the report. He repeated what he had said earlier during the proffer.

Lowe accepted that the study was useful for guidance. The "criticism" there is actually something she takes heed of, that there are limitations to the analysis without a nuclear DNA match versus a mitochondrial DNA match.

Let's remember here, she said from the beginning of her testimony on direct that the hair was consistent with Caylee Anthony, not definitely Caylee Anthony's hair.

Baez reiterated that this is her first time testifying about hair-banding. (He was trying to make her sound like a novice in the field.)

Then, he got into the fact that she doesn't know how long it takes for hair-banding to occur. She referred back to the study she had previously referenced. Baez indicated that she was not qualified to testify to hair-banding. This was the first case, according to her, where she had no body to refer to in the testing.

Baez tried to get Lowe to say that she had doubts about her results because she wanted additional hairs to test. Lowe disagreed with him. She had no doubts that what she was seeing was post-mortem root banding. Baez tried to say that she asked to have the hairs to make the case stronger. She disagreed.

Baez then went to her first report in August 1, 2008. Of the twelve items submitted from the vehicle, the only one hair she said was consistent with Caylee’s hair was the one with the post-mortem root banding.

She did another report on August 6 and none of the hairs tested then showed signs of decomposition.

On August 13, she was given items of Casey Anthony's clothing. (Objection: items not in evidence, sustained)

There was another report on October 8, 2008 where she was given items, and vacuum sweepings. None of those hairs showed apparent signs of decomposition.

In an October 15 report she was given an item and there were no hairs with decomposition found.

October 25, same results, November 6, same results, June 25, 2009, same results, and so on.

Sometimes we already know the answers to these questions. There was never another hair found with decomposition, just the one hair from the trunk.

Jeff Ashton was ready to offer a stipulation to move things along, but Baez said he was almost finished.

Baez kept saying that she couldn't make the case stronger because she couldn't find any more hairs with signs of decomposition.

Lowe then testified that she couldn't say with certainty that the hair came from a dead person.

Baez stated there are no standards for post-mortem root banding. Lowe stated it was her opinion which was confirmed by her supervisor. Baez got her to admit that there are no error rates for identifying root banding. (From what I know about scientific testing, error rates wouldn’t even apply here, anyway.)

Baez also pointed out that she did not show a photograph of the root banding because it is higher from the root.

Objection: Sidebar

Baez re-asked the question, however the photograph is not in evidence.

Lowe testified that the banding was located where it should be on the hair as seen under the microscope. With a photograph, it is difficult to see the hair properly as it doesn't capture the detail needed.

Baez did point out that she did have photographs of hairs to show the jury.

Baez then brought out that she failed her proficiency test in 2000.

Baez then tried to bring up the study the FBI had started after she studied the hair. Ashton objected because it was beyond the scope of direct and we had yet another bench conference.

Judge Perry dismissed the jury again and asked the name of the study. Ashton said it was an ongoing study by Steven Shaw and didn’t have a name yet. Ashton pointed out that Shaw would be a witness and would discuss the study then.

He asked Ms. Lowe if any of her testimony came from the study and she said none came from it.

The judge ruled the study was beyond the scope of the examination.

Baez asked if she attended any meetings to reinforce that root-banding is a sign of decomposition. She said she hadn't, but she did say there were discussions about articles and said that they doubted they could ever say without qualification that the hair came from a deceased person.

The hair that was associated with Caylee Anthony was based on a hair that came from a hair brush as identified as belonging to Caylee.

Baez tried to sneak in the fact that Cindy may have given them the wrong hair brush. That didn't work.

Baez went on to a missing child and a hair with a root... objection sustained.

When Baez asked Lowe about who decided on the type of DNA testing to be used, Lowe said it was part of her job to decide where it should go. If there was a small amount of tissue, she would consult with a DNA expert.

With mitochondrial DNA, it was determined that the questioned hair could have come from any of the maternal line. (Cindy Anthony, Casey Anthony, Caylee Anthony, Shirley Plesea, or Lee Anthony)

Baez moved on to hair shedding from a live person. There could be transfer of hair from one individual to another and there could even be secondary transfer.

Lowe pointed out that she wouldn't know that, but considered it.

Baez asked if, because there is only one hair, it was probably transfer or secondary transfer. Lowe said she didn't know how the hair got there.

Jeff Ashton then did re-direct.

He started by asking if the guidelines in the study was consistent with their procedures. Lowe said it was, and had been since the '70's. What Baez mentioned was already their policy. Her report came out a year before the study did and already followed the guidelines.

This hair was not naturally shed. This hair was still in its growth phase.

As to the one hair with apparent decomposition, the mitochondrial DNA indicated that it followed the maternal line of Cindy Anthony's family.

Casey Anthony's hair was dissimilar microscopically, but Q-12 could come from any maternal relative that had nine inch long brown hair. (That ruled out Cindy and Lee Anthony, and Shirley Plesea.)

The hair was untreated. Casey's hair was treated. (That ruled out Casey.)

The hair from the hairbrush purportedly belonging to Caylee Anthony did not have the root banding.

Assuming the two hairs belonged to Caylee, whatever happed to Q-12 was not natural.

Baez did re-cross. He asked if a pulled hair would be better for nuclear DNA. Since the hair Q-12 was a pulled hair...objection/sustained.

Lowe did not know the history of Casey Anthony's hair treatment and she couldn't say absolutely that the hair came from a dead body.

The next witness called was Mike Vincent, an assistant supervisor with the OCSO crime scene unit. He was in the Philadelphia police department with 11 years there with the crime scene unit. Gave his work history including attendance at over 30 crime-related courses.

He was the supervisor of Gerardo Bloise. He collected stain samples from the trunk liner of the Pontiac Sunfire. He also collected air samples from the vehicle and samples of the covering of the trunk cover which he sealed in tin cans.

The sampling began July 22, 2008. He worked with people from the University of Central Florida. He went through the entire process they used to collect the samples.

A Dr. Sigmond was able to suck out some air and transferred it into two teldar bags. He also hung a charcoal filter in the trunk.

He collected the filter which was sent to the Oak Ridge Lab in Tennessee.

Vincent identified the bag with the teldar bag and sealed in it.

He took a sample from the area of the spare tire cover the following day.

Ms. Burdick showed him a sealed evidence can which contained the piece of the spare tire cover. The can was sealed July 22, 2008. Vincent transferred the sealed can to the Oak Ridge Lab.

On July 23, 2008, he conducted another effort to collect air samples. Dr. Michael Sigmond opened the trunk and hung a carbon filter and another kind of filter and left them there for 40 minutes. Then, he opened the trunk and collected the samples. Vincent identified the package containing the filters.

It was also sent to Oak Ridge, Tennessee.

On August 29, 2008, he conducted another examination of the trunk to collect samples from it. Dr. Vass of the Oak Ridge Lab sent him a portable air pump, 9 test tubes and instructions on how and where to collect the samples.

He did tests on the vehicle, the garage, and the trash that was in the vehicle.

Vincent identified the evidence envelopes for these items as well.

In September, he also collected a substance on the inside of the spare tire well which was also sent to Dr. Vass.

On October 30, 2008 he also collected other pieces of the spare tire cover, including a part that did not have any stain on it.

Vincent identified the cans.

Vincent also assisted in taken standards (hair samples, buccal swabs) on Cindy, George, and Lee Anthony at the end of October. He reviewed the method of collection and then he identified the packages containing them.

Vincent also collected the gas cans from the Anthony home in August.

Finally, the gas can picture Baez wanted to use is going to end up in evidence!

Vincent did nothing to change the gas can prior to photographing it. He swabbed it for DNA and fingerprints. He was unsuccessful.

The cans were returned to the Anthony home on August 13, 2008.

Jose Baez the cross examined Mr. Vincent. He asked if when he did the test collection for blood did he know it was on television? Vincent said that the car was in the garage was and they were using the Blue Star. Vincent didn't believe they had any lights on at the time and did not call the media.

Baez tried to get in that it was done intentionally to be broadcast over the nation to no avail. (Always the media!)

Vincent said that collecting the air was a new process, but not an experiment.

Baez questioned if there were multiple attempts and tried to get the samples. He was trying to get Vincent to say they had some times when the process wasn't done correctly.

Vincent pointed out that Dr. Sigmond was the one who did the sampling.

Baez mentioned the syringe, carbon filters, and a pump used. Baez asked if the difficulty in collecting was that the air is a free flowing thing. Vincent didn't understand the question.

Baez asked if the air would come and go at different times. He was trying to get Mr. Vincent to say that the air collections would be invalid since there was some time had passed since the car was collected.

Notice it's Mr. Vass, Mr. Sigmond

Baez asked a number of questions which confused Vincent and me as well.

Vincent finally answered that they were testing to see what was contained in the air of the garage, the car, and the trunk.

Baez said that the samples were taken a month and a half later and the air is free-flowing. They are not representative of the air in the car on July 15 and 16.

Vincent said that the reason was to get the odor from the three locations, not the air itself..

There was more confusion then.

The air in the trash bag wasn't sampled until August 29. Baez asked if there was a significant difference. Vincent couldn't say.

Baez is fumbling and stumbling trying to get his idea across.

Baez asked if the trash was taken to a dry room when it was originally received. Vincent didn't know, Gerardo Bloise dealt with it.

To try and clarify, Baez showed Vincent defense exhibit C. He asked if the picture on the right looked different than when he received it. He said he didn't receive it. The other picture had the garbage spread out on brown paper. Vincent didn't know if it had been in the dry room.

It was established that the testing of the air was done after the trash was dried.

Baez tried to get Vincent to say that the smell would be significantly different from when it was wet.

Vincent said it could be. He also said it was POSSIBLE it was dry, but that it was stored in a brown box, but it wasn't moist or damp.

Baez held up the picture of the gas can and asked about its condition. Baez brought it up to the witness and asked if a shiny area was wet or slightly drying gas. Vincent said it wasn't wet and there was no gas in the can.

Baez twice asked if he thought the gas can was wiped down. Vincent said it did not appear to be wiped down and had no fingerprints.

On re-direct, Linda Burdick asked how he retrieved it. He said it was pointed out to him and he retrieved it with gloves, carrying it by the handle.

As to the Sunfire, it was stored in their garage the entire time. The odor in the vehicle was the same between July 15 and the time he took the samples. It hadn't diminished in any way.

The trash items were handled and photographed by Gerardo Bloise. The garbage was stored separately from the car.

The witness was excused, subject to recall.

It was 12:52 and Judge Perry dismissed the jury until Monday at 9 AM.

After the jury left, Linda Drane Burdick mentioned she needed to have two computer experts excluded from sequestration to discuss issues with a consultant. The consultant is not on the witness.

Jose Baez objected but couldn't figure out why, then, Cheney Mason objected, no, he didn't object after Ms. Burdick explained the situation in simple language.

Mason made some almost undecipherable comment about the trash which somehow involved a possible violation of the sequestration rule. Judge Perry didn't take it seriously and made a comment about trash/garbage.

Minor edits by DLT, 6/4/11, 4:48pm