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!

Casey Anthony Murder Trial: Day 13

I'm looking forward to today's testimony. We will first hear from Kristin Brewer of the Osceola County Sheriff's office. She is the handler of Bones, the dog she received from Dep. Forgey. After that, I'm not sure where the prosecution will head next. I'll let it be a surprise today!

Casey arrived in court and quickly sat down at the defense table. She seemed serious this morning and didn't have smiles for her attorneys.

It seemed as though the defense is trying to hide her as much as possible from the jury's view. She is seated on a chair that is lower, and there are piles of papers in front of her.

Judge Perry entered the courtroom and today's session came to order.

Baez renewed his previous objection to the testimony because of the “Harris” matter he mentioned yesterday. The judge said, as he did yesterday, it is the responsibility of the jury to decide the issue.

The jury was brought in.

Sgt.Kristin Brewer was the first witness called to the stand. Sgt. Brewer is a patrol supervisor with the Osceola Sheriff's Office. She handles Bones, the cadaver dog she received from the OCSO.

Handling Bones is her secondary job and has worked with him since 2005. When Bones was transferred to Osceola County, his paperwork came with him. She is the person who keeps and maintains the records for him.

Linda Burdick showed her Bones’ certification and records, excluding veterinary records. Brewer examined them and the exhibit was accepted into evidence.

When she first received Bones, she spent several weeks bonding with the dog and she spoke with Dep. Forgey about how he worked.

She trained Bones several times a week. They attended several independent schools. First was a basic cadaver course with Andy Rebman(sp?), the well-known expert in cadaver dog training.

Brewer identified the certificate from the school and went into detail about the types of training he had and under what conditions. She did not know where all the training aids were located and she kept records of his finds, missed alerts, and false alerts. He had no missed or false alerts. He found all the targets.

Brewer used a wide variety of training aids with him, as had Forgey.

The second trainining school they attended was a Water Seminar. The dog was put on a boat and had to locate a body. He also searched near water.

Again, Bones had a perfect record!

The third school they attended was a seminar on human remains detection.

Brewer continued to train Bones and work as needed in between the seminars.

Burdick asked if she trained Bones on distractions and Brewer told her she used toys, dog treats, food, and animal remains, among other things.

Bones was exposed to other dogs on searches and at the schools and seminars they attended.

She has never had any problems with Bones alerting to foods of any kinds.

Bones attended an advanced land searches workshop. Bones had to do the same type of training as at the other seminars. The sources were buried and hung and in other locations. Bones trained alert is to sit. When the source is hanging, but out of his sight, he tries to sit below it.

Bones also received his NNDAA certification at that time. This organization certifies both drug and cadaver dogs. This certification lasts for one year.

Burdick asked if Bones has been trained to locate residual odor.

Brewer said he had been. She also said that his favorite reward is his tennis ball.

Sgt. Brewer testified that she keeps track his training records and his real world records.

August 23, 2005, Bones was called out on a search and Bones did not alert. The area was excavated anyway and a deceased dog was found.

May 1, 2006, Bones did not alert. The area was searched and a dead animal was located.

May 10, 2006, Bones did not alert. The area was dug and another deceased dog was found.

September 5, 2006, Bones did not alert and the area was searched. A dead possum was found.

June 6, 2009, Bones did not alert and the area was searched. Small animal remains were found.

Bones has not given a false alert on any item, he has alerted and found human remains.

March 31, 2007, Bones alerted to several small bone fragments of a skeleton that had been removed.

October 8, 2007. Bpmes alerted to a body buried in the woods for two to three weeks.

October 28, 2007, Bones they did a sniff of the exterior of a residence and he alerted to the wall behind which an elderly woman was deceased.

Bones found a comforter a baby had been born on and later discarded in a landfill.

In March, 2008, Bones alerted to additional bones in the area where a skull had been found.

In May, 2009, Bones and she were called out for a water search. In doing a boat search of a large lake. Bones alerted in one area and a dive team located the body.

There are more, but those examples should give you an idea of Bones record!

Bones, as a single purpose dog, is called out in other counties and states. Many of the searches end with no alert.

Bones signals when he is going to a final alert. He will pick up his head, his tail will become fluffy, he will leave her and not come back even when called because his's so interested in locating the scent.

I would certainly hope this is enough information to establish a foundation.

After a brief side bar, Ms. Burdick was allowed to begin questioning about this case.

Brewer responded to the Anthony home on Hopespring Drive on July 17, 2008 at about 8 PM. It was pretty dark during the search. It did not inhibit the dog's ability to do the search.

Dep. Forgey took her to the back yard and told her he wanted to have it searched. She wasn't aware that Forgey did a search. He said that he hadn't.

She then brought Bones to the back yard on lead and entered the back yard on the left side and put on his search collar. She took him off lead and told him to search. He checked the entire yard and spent 3 to 4 minutes. She saw he had an area of interest. After another search of the yard, he returned to the area and sat (his final trained alert).

Ms. Burdick published a picture of the back yard and Brewer indicated the area she indicated and marked the area where the dog alerted.

Dep. Forgey then told her that Gerus had alerted within 6 to 8 feet of the same area. However, when she returned the next day, there was dirt and mulch that was disturbed. Bones did not alert. She attributed this to the fact that the soil had been moved or that they had not dug enough.

I wish Ms. Burdick had been able to use the picture marked by Det. Forgey. It clearly showed that the dogs alerted in the same area. I suppose Jose Baez, in his cross examination forgot about that picture. I sure hope the jury didn't. Forgey's marked picture is to the right.

Jose Baez then cross-examined the witness.

Baez first asked if there was only one command for the dog to search. There weren’t different commands for various materials the animal should search for. Brewer agreed.

Baez then asked if Bones alerted to material from live persons. Det. Brewer answered that he would only if it was outside the body, like blood.

There was another question I missed here, about the trunks of cars they use in training.

Baez then asked if Dep. Forgey told her where his dog alerted. She explained that Forgey didn't show her. Baez asked her where 6 to 8 feet would be. Baez seemed to be trying to get her to say the only place Forgey could have meant was towards the swimming pool!

Baez mentioned she was never deployed inside the house or the screened porch. She pointed out that the OCSO didn't ask her to do it. She was not aware of any searches done in the home as it wasn't her case.

With that Brewer was excused.

The next witness called was Det. Sandra Osborne. She is a computer examiner for the OCSO. She's finishing up her 21st year there. She held many positions from patrol to sex crimes over the years.

She studied and went through a lengthy certification process to become a computer examiner. She has testified in Orlando County Courts.

Without objection, she was accepted as an expert in computer forensic analysis.

Regarding the case, she received Casey Anthony's cell phone, which was identified and entered into evidence.

Det. Osborne used Cellbrite to retrieve some of the data stored on the phone. It could not retrieve all the data from the phone.

The original purpose of taking the phone was to find references to Zenaida Fernandez-Gonzalez.

There was a brief discussion of Sim cards and Det. Osborne checked her records. The Nokia phone had a Sim card. The Sim card had the same information as the phone. She did not notice any data related to Zenaida, but she gave the information to the detectives to use.

Det. Osborne also received two computers. Charity Beasley gave her the phone as well as the Compaq laptop computer to find information about Zenaida. Awilda McBryde gave her the desk top computer, a Hewlett-Packard. She also received a Polaroid digital camera and Nikon Cool Pix camera as well.

She used Encase to examine the Nikon Cool Pix camera files. She located video files of Caylee Anthony as well. The video files were generated June 15, 2008. She reviewed the video and it was the one of Caylee at the nursing home.

She was able to learn that information from material embedded in the file. She was able to establish that the time settings on the camera were about two minutes off from the clock in her office.

Ms. Burdick went on to discuss the laptop.

Det. Osborne testified that she couldn't tell if the laptop was powered on or turned off. If a computer is powered on, she will note programs running, etc. and remove the batteries.

She explained that they remove the hard drive from the machine to examine it.

The desktop was then described. The hard drive had 160 gigabytes and was powered down when she received it. Det. Osborne used Encase with the computer. It is an industry standard as a reliable tool. It can examine every bit on a computer hard drive, whether the user can see it or not.

To protect the original evidence, the HP hard drive, she attached it to a write-blocker to prevent her computer from writing to it. Then, she can read the drive from a copy. The original hard drive was replaced in the machine and returned it to the family.

Osborne stated that shedoes not do extensive studies on cell phones, but she does evaluate the evidence extracted from the hard drive.

At that time, Judge Perry called for the morning recess.

When court reconvened, Linda Burdick continued with her examination of Dep. Osborne.

There was more technical information about Encase and what she can see of the material on the hard drive.

I am not a computer person when it comes to the technology. I'm most interested in the information she found! As time goes by, I want to see a huge chart with the computer usage, cell phone usage and location which will pinpoint what Casey Anthony was up to on any of the given days involved in this case.

Of note, there were two browsers on the computer, Microsoft Internet Explorer and Firefox. (I know from JWG at the Hinky Meter that this is very important to the case!) There was a third browser, Safari, usually used on Apple products.

There were two user accounts that were created by the owners. One was "Owner" and one was "Casey."

Her first task was to locate information about Zenaida and any idea where Caylee was. She went through the user folders and active files. She looked at the internet history and temporary internet files. She also looked for phone numbers and other such data to get to "know the user" and what they do on the computer.

She located references to Zenaida Gonzales in the temporary internet files. She found them on July 16th, 2008.

There were several internet searches for Zenaida Gonzalez on the morning of July 16th. The user was looking for one between the ages of 22 to 29 at various sites. There were no earlier searches for Zenaida.

As for the general usage of the computer, she found it appeared to be running most of the time. There were few documents, wills, and some personal paperwork. There was a lot of Windows Internet History. One file was 4 1/2 years old!

One of the accounts, the "owner" account was password protected. The password was rico23 which was originally set earlier in the year 2008, probably March.

There was another program, Net Analysis, that she used with some of the temporary internet files. She was able to tell which user account did the searches. The same was true of the history.

When the files were deleted, that information as to which user account was being used for a search was no longer available.

Osborne was asked to do searches for chloroform (with various spellings). She did them in August. She was able to confirm the keywords by the unallocated space on the hard drive. She stated she could view part or all of the internet record. They got a complete internet history from Mozilla Firefox. She alerted her sergeant to the situation, and he created the report from there.

Ms. Burdick then moved on to the computer owned by Ricardo Morales. She also removed the computer and copied the hard drive.

The picture of Caylee and Casey in his bedroom was on the computer. Oops! All of a sudden, she decided she wasn't sure if she recognized the computer and she didn't print out the records!

I thought I heard Jose Baez say something and Perry called a 5 minute recess. Meanwhile, the camera picked that time to Casey busy working on her defense!

Before the jury was brought back, Baez reminded th
e judge about the jury instruction about the bruise.

I would think it would not be necessary to read it EVERY time the jury sees the picture!

Judge Perry couldn't find the written paper, so he asked the court stenographer to do a keyword search on the word "bruise"!

The jury was returned to enjoy more computer forensic testimony!

Judge Perry "winged" the jury instruction about the bruise.

Linda Burdick was able to locate the information about the photo. It was among a collection of photos from the Globe that Yuri Melich gave her on a thumb drive. She found the same pictures on Ricardo’s computer.

The photo was taken was January 28, 2008. She got this information because when the file was downloaded from the camera, the date and other information was stored with the image.

The picture of Caylee and Casey with a guitar in her hand was shown next.

Baez had some sort of objection and there was a bench conference.

When they returned, the objection was overruled and Dep. Osborne was allowed to testify that the photograph was taken was... (objection, goes to camera, not computer). Baez had indicated that since Osborne had not examined Ricardo’s camera, she could not say that the date on the camera which was imported to the computer was accurate.

Linda Burdick went back through the whole series of questions about the camera, the information imbedded, etc., all to get the date of that picture!

The camera was set to March 19, 2008 when the second picture was taken.

Ms. Burdick sat down and Jose Baez got up to cross the witness.

Baez said he wanted to clarify the user profiles on the computer. He asked if more than two people could use the computer. Yes, they could.

He then said that the password only means something only if a person hasn't told anyone or if the computer is turned off. Osborne agreed.

Baez asked if the password would be "alive" if the computer was not used for a while. Someone could use the password protected file, leave the computer running and someone else could come in and use it. She said she couldn't say if their might be an automatic reset after a period of time.

We can see where this is going!

Baez asked if the computer had the correct time. Osborne indicated that it did. He then asked if every computer and every camera she inspects has the correct time. Osborne responded that they didn't.

Baez then moved on to Ricardo Morales computer. He asked about a search for chloroform. Osborne said she found no searches or web pages for cholorform on the computer. Baez showed her the chloroform picture.

Baez had a hard time getting the whole picture up, even with the help of Ms. Burdick.

Osborne said she'd seen the photograph, but that she had not seen it on his Myspace page.

Baez asked her to describe the contents of the picture and read the caption. After she did so, he wanted her to explain how that picture would not show up on her inspection.

Osborne explained that there are multiple ways to post on MySpace and it could have been posted from another computer, phone, etc. It also could have been deleted and overwritten.

Baez was finished with his witness and Ms. Burdick did a brief re-direct. She asked if the pixels of the picture would be visible in her inspection. Osborne said she couldn’t Therefore, words embedded in a picture would not appear in a keyword search. Other than the picture, which was not on his computer, there were no searches for chloroform.

Baez did re-cross.

Osborne again said there were no searches or pictures related to chloroform.

The witness was excused and we could all go to lunch!

Court resumed at 1:30 and the jury returned without any discussion among the attorneys and Judge Perry.

Next on the witness stand was Sgt.Kevin Stenger. He is the Sergeant of Computer Crimes of Orange County. He's been in the Computer Crimes Unit since 2002 when the unit was formed. Ms. Burdick proceeded to have him list his credentials, which were substantial.

He was accepted as a computer forensics expert.

As Sandra Osborne's superior, he assisted her work for peer review. In addition, he assisted her with whatever she needed.

He took an active roll in preserving the chloroform keyword search.

The search was in unallocated space. He recognized that it was in a Mozilla Firefox history file which had been deleted. If not automatically deleted, a user can use a tool in the browser to manually delete the file. That browser does not store the user name of the person doing the searches. Internet Explorer would save it even in the deleted files.

Stenger was able to manually extract the information and use internet history tools to read the records stored in the file.

He used Encase to extract the file. He had a problem with the times where half the records were in daylight savings, the others weren't. He used a program called Cacheback to correct the problem.

The internet history began March 4, 2008 and ended March 21, 2008. He created two reports, one for each date, March 17 and March 21. Those dates contained information about searches for chloroform.

The report from March 17 and March 21 were introduced into evidence.

With that, Linda Burdick finished her direct examination.

Jose Baez did a cross-examination.

Jose Baez questioned Stenger about the searches. Stenger could not say when the files were deleted or by whom.

Baez also informed Stenger that these searches were done 3 months before Caylee Anthony died.

Baez went to the times of the searches and tried to get Stenger to say that on one occasion, the view of a chloroform page was only 7 seconds. He pointed out that was not the case here. Also, they were unable to reconstruct the page the person was viewing.

Sorry folks, I couldn't follow all the details.

One detail I heard was that after one of the searches the user went to MySpace.

With that, Ms. Burdick did re-direct.

She asked why he couldn't reconstruct the page because... and I lost him right there! Let it be enough, he couldn't reconstruct the page.

There was one question on re-cross by Baez.

He asked if one could find the author. The search was specific for chloroform. He said he couldn't.

The witness was excused.

The next witness was John Dennis Bradley from Cacheback. He owns a software development company. He is a former Canadian policeman. He spent 10 years in uniform and was transferred to the Computer Crime Unit. In 2000, he was transferrd to Major Crimes. He was then promoted to Sergeant and went back to uniform.

From there, he went to work for the Scotia Bank. He quit banking and went to work in the computer field.

The witness was accepted as an expert witness in forensic computer analysis.

He developed the Cacheback program. In giving his teaching experience, it is obvious this man is a Super-Techie!

He met Sgt. Stenger at a conference. Stenger asked him to look at a file he had. Stenger was having problems with the Firefox file and the word chloroform. Bradley copied the contents of the thumb drive and worked on his laptop.

Kudos to Ms. Burdick, she has this material down pat. For me, I can't figure out all the technical factors, let alone type them!

Apparently the file was 3.5 or so megabytes, and it was amazing that it was recoverable and not written over. However, there was no way to tell when it was deleted. That older version of Firefox, meant that the history had to be deleted manually.

The Cacheback program produced reports which were admitted into evidence and published to the jury.

The person who did these searches did Google searches. Other than that, without being able to read the report, I couldn’t quite follow what all this meant.

In the testimony about the report from March 17th, I did figure out that there was a search for chloroform!

Apparently, MySpace was included in there as well. There was then access to Photobucket, where the report showed activity there.

There was a Wikipedia search which led to other topics. It started with chloroform and went on to, alcohol, inhalation, death, self defense, hand-to-hand combat, head injuries, middle meningeal artery, ruptured spleen, chest trauma, internal bleeding, and hypovolemia

This list did not appear in the testimony easily, Ms. Burdick and Mr. Bradley had to go through every painful line and eliminate adware, cookies, and all sorts of internet junk that inhabits the contemporary computer. Back a few years, we at T&T covered the Mark Jensen trial. One key nail in his life sentence were the computer forensics. Covering that was a piece of cake, especially for one such as I who can use a computer but relies on my resident IT person for the fine points of keeping one in order!

This tedious, but necessary testimony was ended for a blessed 15 minute break.

After the break, Ms. Burdick and Mr. Bradley continued to wend their way through the March 17 records. Here’s a lit of what they found of significance.

Facebook - from a link, user activity

Too many auto generated things really interfere!

MySpace Profile

Adware go away!

MySpace/View Album

Facebook/Profile

View More Pics/MySpace

Facebook

We were then on to the March 21, 2008 report.

3:21:08 Beginning Time

Google Search - chloroform
Google Search: How to make chlorAform
How to make chloroform (same search)
Google Search result for chloroform
Instructables.com Making weapons out of household products
Google Search: Neck breaking
MySpace
MySpace: Read message

After the last two, it was determined that the remainder of the report only contained Facebook activity. (It filled quite a few pages from what I could see.)

Mr. Bradley was finished and Jose Baez began his cross.

(This was going to be painful.)

Baez said he wanted to put what Mr. Bradley into context. He went back to the fact that he was approached by Mr. Stenger because there was a bug in his program.

Bradley said that this case was extraordinary (due to the use of an outmoded Firefox 2 browser)..

Baez told Bradley that he worked all night to fix the problem and put something together for him.

Bradley said he spent a few nights and his spare time between giving classes at the conference solving the problem.

Baez said he was then hired for the case.

Bradley asked Baez to clarify "hiring" because he volunteered to come down as a witness. He was not concerned about remuneration, but he may be paid something.

Baez then asked if it was the advertising that concerned him.

He's done it again! I think the jury was getting the idea that Jose Baez thinks that the only reason people get involved in high profile cases is to get the same fame and fortune he desires. It didn’t work with Gerardo Bloise and the TV crew, it didn’t work with Dr. Arpad Vass, and it certainly didn’t work with Mr. Bradley!

When Baez asked if he advertised using the case, Bradley said that there was a link to an article about how his program might be used which Sgt. Stenger sent to him a few months earlier.

Bradley also explained that the problem was that Firefox 2 was outdated and his software didn't deal with it (a rather time-consuming professional courtesy mixed with probably a curious mind).

Bradley said he had not sent out any promotional material involving the case. He only linked to the article because Sgt. Stenger sent it out to them.

Baez then went on to ask a series of questions as to how long the person visiting the sites had stayed on them before moving on to something else. The range went from a second or two to a couple of minutes.

Bradley then explained that his role was to decode the data. Based on the clues left behind, they would have to do experiments to find out why such visits to a site showed up (hinting the visit could have possibly been longer).

After going over the rambling Wikipedia search mentioned earlier, Bradley said that, after looking at the site, many words are underscored as a link and the user clicked on them in rapid succession.

Having been to that site a couple of times, I know it is almost impossible NOT to click on one of those links!

Baez went through all the searches and regularly asked Mr. Bradley if he was aware that a particular topic had nothing to do with the case.

At this point, I developed a headache and I don't know why Baez kept asking this super-geek if the investigators told him that thus and such was not related to the case!

At a certain point, Baez asked Mr. Bradley if this was more surfing the net than reading. Bradley pointed out that what goes on on the screen was different than what goes on behind the scene.

Baez then continued with his line-by-line questioning and highlighting the time intervals.

Baez then said that Mr. Bradley came on the case, it was in 2009. Baez asked him if it would have been better evidence to show the page, and not the link. He aslo asked him questions about the content of the pages, which had nothing to do with Bradley’s role in the case.

He also asked if a computer examiner could ever tell if the person had read the page. He also asked if the URLs and their topics was not telling anything about the user.

Mr. Bradley pointed out that it could, and could set a context. In addition, he pointed out that he only decoded the pages and was not asked to do any continued review. He only decoded the two dates mentioned.

Finally, Linda Burdick made an objection dealing with the fact that Bradley's job was only to deal with the decoding of the Firefox Browser 2, and not the content of the web pages as they appeared in 2008, 18 months before he was asked to help.

Baez then yielded the floor to Ms. Burdick.

She did a re-direct which straightened out some of the issues Baez had raised. One of them was that web pages change frequently and Bradley did not know when the crime occurred, just that it was a while ago.

One of the best questions she asked was that Mr. Bradley would have no knowledge if some of the pages had been printed out, he could not know if the contents of a web page were the same after 18 months (when he started working on decoding the files).

She also brought out that one site dealing with chloroform had been visited 84 times!

On that high note, Ms. Burdick completed her re-direct.

Jose Baez then decided to re-cross the witness.

Baez then handed the witness a report someone else had written. Linda Burdick objected that he could not testify to someone else's report. Judge Perry sustained the objection and Baez took the report back from the witness and read from it that the site which he had said had been visited 84 times, had only been visited once.

Ms. Burdick objected. Baez pointed out that it was a Cacheback report. Judge Perry called them to the bench.

When the bench conference broke up, Judge Perry dismissed the jury for the day.

Then, everybody sat down again, including Mr. Bradley.

Everyone was excused until the morning, including Mr. Bradley.

Judge Perry told Bradley that "they" would explain it to him.

They lawyers approved the movies X-Men and Hangover Two for the jury’s viewing pleasure.

Perry said court was in recess, but didn't mention the time! Let's hope it's 9 AM tomorrow morning!

It’s obvious that something interesting happened at that bench conference. My main thoughts are about the mysterious report Baez tendered to the witness. First, Baez had asked Bradley if it was his report. Bradley looked at it and said it wasn’t his. If that’s the case, whose report is it? How could Baez hand it to Bradley and, once he knew it wasn’t the witness’ report, then start to quote from it.

It was not identified by the witness as his product. It wasn’t entered into evidence. Where did it come from and why was Linda Drane Burdick smiling after court was ended for the day? Why was Casey apparently angry with her defense team?

Tune in tomorrow to find out!