MAGIC EYES RECAPS

[MuffyBee]

June 3, 2011 4:10pm Court is in session:

Jury is coming back in...........

Geraldo Bloise is on the witness stand........

Linda is showing him a box, he recognizes it as item #2, July 17, 2008 12:30am, piece of tire cover.  Next item#31 7-25-08 5pm, piece of spare tire cover.  Linda is introducing Item #1 a human hair, introducing Article#2 Dryer sheet.  Introducing Article #4, dirt.  Introducing Article #5 petri dish containing dirt residue.  Next Article #5 petri dish hair, next article #12 Dryer sheet. Next piece of hair, next Article 16 as a hair, next Article 17 as a hair, next Article 18 as a hair.  Next Article #19, as a hair.  Next Article 20 as a hair.  Next Article #21 as a hair.  Next Article #7, petri dish containing hair. Next Article #8 as a hair. Next Article #9 as vegetation.

Linda has no further questions.........

Baez is up and pleasing the court.

When he first got the car he did an exterior inspection, then an internal one, that would include the driver side the back seat and the trunk?  Yes.  Upon opening the door you smelled decomp?  Yes,  You don't know if it was human or not?  Yes.  That could be animal, meat or human?  Yes, to all.  You have smelled various bodies in stages of decomp?  Yes.  In various environments?  Yes.  One of the common things you see when you see a decomp body you see maggots?  Yes, depending on the stage.  Would you see thousand to hundred of thousands of maggots?  Yes.  That would include puparia?  Yes but that is not my expertise, so I don't feel comfortable talking about that.  I am not going to ask you to identify them.  OK.  When you go to ME, you mainly smell formaldehyde?  Yes.  That is what ME's use?  Yes but different areas, some have no chemicals, just the body. Do you smell formaldehyde and fecal matter at the ME too?  Yes.  It is hard to pinpoint, what comes from what?  Depends, if i do fingerprints of a decomp body that is unique, once you smell it you never forget that smell.  You can tell the difference between chemical and decomp, you will never forget that smell.  Does decomp smell change?  Yes, it can depending on the age of decomp.  Once a body orifices are exposed it smells different than a newly dead body?  Yes.  After you did you gas gauge experiment, you never took it for a spin, did you? No.  Did you get information about the car before you got it? No.  You weren't aware that Cindy put in the dryer sheets or sprayed it with Fe Breeze?  No.  Were those dry leaves sent out anywhere for analysis?  Yes.  Did they assist this investigation?  Not to my knowledge.  Did you focus on the trunk?  No.  You did a thorough search of the trunk. Correct.  Part of that search is using tweezers and pulling out hairs?  Yes.  You also vacuumed it with a filter?  Yes.  That could pick up the most minute particles?  Yes.  You also used an alternate light source?  Yes.  You used that to identify stains?  Yes.  When you did that you found a portion of the car that had a stain?  Yes.  It is not uncommon that trunks have stains?  It is possible.  Fairly common though right?  Yes.  You used a product called Blue Star?  Yes.  This was to help you identify blood?  Yes.  Blood would be important right?  Yes.  Blue Star is better than Lumanal?  Yes.  When you sprayed the stain area with Blue Star tell the jury what the results were.  Negative results.  You then went a step further and tried to get a presumptive result? Yes.  Tell the jury what the presumptive test was?  Negative results.  Did you swab for DNA even though the Blue Star and Presumptive tests were negative you also did a swab for DNA? Yes.  What were the results?  I don't know.  How many hairs did you find? 12 hairs in total.  When did you collect the first set of hairs?  July 17, 2008.  These hairs are of diff lengths?  Yes.  They were different sizes and colors?  I couldn't tell all the hairs.  How many hairs did you select by hand? 12 by hand.  Some where dark brown?  Don't remember.  Asked more stupid questions, sustained.  Did you find animal hair in the car?  I don't know.  You are experienced in trace recovery?  Yes.  He is telling the jury that trace evidence  is minute evidence.  As part of your job you don't want to contaminate any evidence, you wear a white jumpsuit and a hairnet and gloves and mask.  Yes.  This is all to protect evidence?  Right.  That is because we all shed 100 hairs a day?  Yes.  To find hairs in the trunk of the car is common?  I don't think that is very common.  Baez gives examples of hair transfer and the witness says that is possible.  How old is this car? 98.  Have you ever inspected older cars? Sometimes.  Those are usually much more dirty than a car that is a year old?  Depends on the owner.  Did you send each and every hair for Mitrochondrial DNA?  I don't know, I just sent them to the lab.  You send evidence to labs all the time?  Yes.  You are aware of where to send evidence? Correct.  Witness says he just puts DNA, he doesn't say Mitro DNA or reg DNA.  The lab makes that decision.  How many by vacuum?  11.  So now you have 23?  Yes.  How many times did you look for hair?  12 times.  Did you search the car well for hair?  Yes. This car is as thorough as you have been with any car?  I searched it more times than I have before.  Question about Dr Henry Lee, objection, JBP did loud SUSTAINED........went to side bar immediately.

Back from side bar.....

Linda moves to strike the question from the record, JBP won't but tells the jury to disregard it.
Baez says the defense went in to inspect the car?  Yes.  While we were there additional hairs were found?  Yes.  Were animal hairs found?  No, I destroyed the notes when I made my report.  You wrote this report Jan 1, 2009, this was 6 months after you inspected the car?  Yes.  He explains that is the date his supervisor saw it.  It was signed and dated after he wrote it.  Was it not reviewed till 6 months later?  Yes.  You testified about some garbage you received as evidence?  Yes, trash.  You had some trash that was given to you?  Yes.  Was it moist trash?  Yes.  Baez says OK we will talk trash.  In this trash there were multiple items?  Correct.  A bottle of chewing tobacco spit?  He can't find it.  Baez asks him if he can find it in his report?  He says he sees no spit, in his report, just a can of empty chewing tobacco.  He is talking about a bottle with brown liquid.  Baez asks him if this is chewing tobacco spit?  He doesn't know what is in it.  Baez asks about packages of food, objection, Sustained.
Baez is done

Linda up....When you referred to negative results of Blue Star, what did they refer to?  Blood.  How do you take notes?  Handwritten notes, log.  Do you take your notes and make a report, then can destroy your notes, based on LE policy?  Yes  He gives the legal decision he uses to destroy the notes.  Universal process is used to prevent precautions?  Yes.  Did the defense wear hair nets?  NO.  Based on your experience you have, do you have an opinion of what the odor of decomp is?  Yes, human decomposition, based on 23 years of experience, IT WAS THE SMELL OF HUMAN DECOMPOSITION.

Baez is up........

The notes destroyed can never be seen by the defense?  No.  Because you don't have the notes, we can't know if everything you noted is in your report. No, everything is in my report.

Did you testify saying decomp that means you can't tell if it was human and you answered correct?  It's possible.  You have now changed with LDB to HUMAN DECOMPOSITION?  She asked me my opinion of what I smelled with my experience, you didn't, I always put decomposition in my reports.

Witness is excused, subject to recall.

5:08 Jury is excused for the day

Any other matters JBP asks?  Nothing from state or defense.

Karen Lowe is the next witness tomorrow for hair-banding.  JBP wants a rough guesstimate when the state will wrap up?  LDB says Friday, June 17th, 2008.

Court is in recess till 9am tomorrow morning.

[MuffyBee]

Good Morning monkeys, looks like its almost time to start, let's hope we see a lot of this.  and quite a bit of this 

A saw one crazy pundit on Dr. Drew last night, I don't think she had ever heard of the case before..............we are lucky to still have a TV left, lol.

Just us for Caylee  ::justice2NJ:: ::justice2NJ:: ::justice2NJ::

[MuffyBee]

9:am Sat, June 4, 2011 Court is in session:

Next witness is Karen Lowe, FBI Agent:

Baez is renewing objections based on Frye Hearings, JBP is telling him he is kind of crazy and tells him why, has to do with a mini-Frye hearing, that is what they have Frye Hearings for.  Baez is trying to cite law but I can't understand him and I don't think the judge can either.  Something about a voir dire and a predicate.  JBP will just renew Baez's objections and it will be his previous rulings.  The state must lay a proper foundation.  If there is some problem they will voir dire her. The judge says I will just renew your objections.  Baez wants to voir dire the witness and JBP says well we had that at the Frye Hearing, so the simple answer to that is no.  Unless she testifies to something totally different than at the Frye Hearing about her qualifications at the Frye hearing, we have established that already.  Judge is trying to school Baez but it isn't working, JBP says you can maintain your objections but I have RULED!!!!!  JBP says we have wasted enough time. 

Bringing jury in:

Karen Korsbaeg Lowe is the next witness:

FBI CSI for FBI Quantico, VA

BA in Science, Master's in Science, various courses.  Spent over a year in training with hair and fibers.  She was qualified as an examiner for 13 years.  She has been an expert at trials all over the country, most of her testimony is about microscopic trace evidence, mostly hair.

Baez doing brief voir Dire.

This is the first time you have ever testified on hair banding?  Yes.  Side Bar.......Side Bar over.....
The topics you are going to cover today in your testimony, it was a 6 month course?  Yes.  The courses that you have taken on this topic you are going to testify on today, was it 3?  Yes, the year long training had 3 just on hair.  The rest is on the job training?  Yes.  Sustained no further questions.
End of voir dire, she is an expert on trace evidence and hair.

Jeff Ashton is up..............

How long has trace and hair evidence been around? Late 1800's. Hair from the 1930's.  Hair is done in the steps, Collection, Comparison and Identification.  Hair is not like DNA, one hair can not be said to come from one hair but they can be excluded with different characteristics.  Microscopically hair can be examined to find out race, how they were taken, other characteristics.  Are there signs of decomp related to hair, yes the first papers were in 1988, hairs that showed hair in apparent decomp.  A decomp banding made of air spaces.  Post mortem root band seems to be between soft and hard carotene.  In 1998 there was another case study on this.  Another paper was done on this same thing.  Another paper a two part paper done by Lych, they used 22 samples for decomp, they saw root banding at 2 days, 4 days etc, etc.  Hair under all kinds of weather and circumstances.  These were taken from known decomposed bodies.  One of them was hair taken from live hairs to see if they would get the same banding, they did not.  Does the research show what causes the post mortem decomp banding, no it just shows the banding.  Jeff is going to use a chart with this witness, the witness will step down to the chart.  The chart shows different Human Hair Roots and pictures of them, microscopically. 

Using the chart, Jeff asks her to explain the chart, antigen is active growth stage, the hair cuticle reacts with the internal root sheath.  They are shed before death and show no root banding.  The only hairs that we see with root banding is antigen hair, hairs still growing out of the head.  Decamp hair is tapered and can be hardened and come to a point.  The appearance of decamp can not be replicated by any known process other than decamp.  Shows four examples of apparent decamp root banding.

Witness is taking the stand again.  Done with the chart.  Is it a mathematically precise process, no it is a visual process, although they have found some math related, just not a standard yet.  When your doing an examination of a hair, are you looking at the hair in 2D or 3D.  She is looking at the hair through 3D.  She has hairs in a reference collection to compare hairs to.  They use known hair examples.  Guesstimate of decomp hairs over 2000 cases is a fair number, doesn't even want to guess at the number.  When you have seen decomp banding, where they already known to be of dead people?  Yes.  How frequently have you seen post mortem banding?  Yes.  Were you provided hair in the Caylee Anthony case?  Yes.  Showing her items.  She is shown a sample and recognizes it with her lab markings, shown another and recognizes it, shown another and recognizes it, shown another and recognizes it, shown another and recognizes it, shown another and recognizes it, shown another and recognizes it, shown another and recognizes it.  Where you given certain items from known individuals?  Yes.  Shows her item, she recognizes it, shows her another item, she recognizes it.  Shows another item and she recognizes it, from Cindy Anthony.  Shown another item and she recognizes it, from George Anthony.  Were you also submitted a hair brush as a purported hair brush and comb from Caylee Anthony.  She is shown a purported hair brush from Caylee Anthony and recognizes it.  She is shown a purported comb from Caylee Anthony and recognizes it.  How many hairs did you find from these items.  She is referring to notes.  At least 11 or more hairs.  In any of the hairs did you find any that showed decomp?  Yes, one did, Q-12.  Shows her Q-12, state exhibit 99.  the hair is a Caucasian hair that had a post mortem dark band.  She examined it with a stereo microscope and another microscope in 3d.  It was 9 inches long, light brown.  She compared it to a sample from Casey and Caylee, it did not compare to Casey's but it did compare to a hair from Caylee's hair brush.  She concluded they were similar.  Based upon that examination do you have an opinion that the hair in Q-12 had apparent decomp?  Yes.  Has that ever been found under other circumstances?  No, only decomp has been shown to show that root banding.  She re-mounted the hair and sent it to another lab.  Showing her another exhibit, she is opening with scissors.  She recognizes it as the portion of Q-12 that she sent for Mitro DNA.  Introducing that into evidence.  Why do you use the word apparent decomp?  Because that has not yet been shown to be replicated under any other circumstance so they still use the word apparent to be scientific.

Baez is pleasing the court.......

This goes back to the 1930's in the FBI Labs? People still have hair but the science has changed?  Yes.  What has changed is the FBI's position?  There have numerous trials.  Baez is asking stupid questions, I can't understand they are Sustained.  You have read reports organized by Congress, that is respected, is it not? She doesn't know how to answer.......going to side bar.  I am having a hard time typing for Baez, he is not making sense, so I can't type it by ear, lol. 

Mid morning recess.......

[MuffyBee]

10:25 Sat June 4, 2011 Court is in session:

Recess is over......

JBP is asking Baez about a paper called "Strengthening Forensic Science", Baez wants to use it but JBP said that it may or may not be a learned treatise.  Baez is citing law or trying to.  Showing that law to Jeff Ashton.  Baez is reading to fast and JBP tells him to slow down.  Baez is reading something into the record that hair analysis is unreliable.  JBP tells Baez that she did not say it was identical, she said it was similar.  She testified to this already.  Jeff Ashton wants this to be proffered cuz it makes no sense.  JBP wants to take it through the numbers with the witness, this is no different than what she testified to in her direct examination.  He is schooling Baez and told him you didn't even have this with you to ask her about it, now you do.  JBP says lets get her back in here and ask her about it.  JBP seems to be very tired of Baez but coping.

Karen Lowe is returning to witness stand........

Baez asks her if she is familiar with this report?  She says yes.  The Natl Academy of Science is respected and started by Congress?  Yes.  To give guidance on the scientific community on how to do things?  Well, it can but it is not all scientific, so yes and no.  Are you aware of the criticisms in this report about microscopic hair analysis?  Yes but some of it is not qualified and she agrees with some of it and not all of it.  You can't identify someone by their hair alone?  No.  JBP says did your lab try to do that? she says No.  Are you familiar with a forensic analyst by the name of Michael Malone?  Yes.  Are you familiar with the Gates case?  Yes.  A  man was convicted on Mr. Malone's hair testimony and this conviction was later overturned?  Yes.  It was overturned later by mitro DNA.  His testimony was correct according to you?  If he said the hairs were microscopically similar to the evidence.  You would agree with that?  Objection.  JBP is telling Baez not to even go any further.  Ashton asks would you say this is a scientific treatise but not basically written in stone?  Baez is asking her about another study, about accuracy rate of hair comparisons and Mitro DNA.  She doesn't agree, she has said a lot of times now that hair comparisons cannot be 100 percent.  Jeff says your honor the proffered statements of this examination have not gone against it, it has agreed with it.  This witness hasn't said there was an identification in this case.  He can't impeach her on what she hasn't said.  JBP is getting angry, he says I have made myself abundantly clear and Mr Baez heard me..........Baez is whimpering about I will not use other cases.  Baez is making no sense at all to me at this point.  I think the judge is lost too.

Returning the jury..........

Karen Lowe is back on the witness stand...

Baez is up.......

Ms Lowe we were discussing the history of hair analysis and then the Congressional report?  Yes.  It tried to look for a better way to introduce forensic science in the courtroom?  Yes.  You find this paper, authoritative?  Yes.  They were critical of hair analysis?  The criticism is about something they already do not do.  They use DNA.  They use nuclear DNA, instead of Mitro DNA.  Cindy, Casey and Caylee all have the same Mitro DNA?  Sustained.  That is the reason why one hair comes from one individual and  this was a problem the NES report saw in 2009?  Yes, they suggested doing DNA with hair.  This is the first time you have testified in banding in hair?  Yes.  Are you an expert in it?  My training experience gives me my knowledge and my on the job training and 4 papers on it.  You don't know what causes post mortem banding?  No.  You don't know when it develops?  No, it varies.  Not everyone who is deceased has post mortem root banding?  Yes.  You don't know how often hair banding comes up in deceased people?  No.  The testimony you have given here today is based on your training and on the job training using opinion?  Yes that together with all I know about it.  You really can't testify on this specific topic of post mortem banding?  I testified on what I know for sure, there was post mortem root banding on the hair in this case.  You have never rendered an opinion on an unknown person having a single root banding? No.  You requested more hairs?  Yes, I wanted more hairs.  You stated that if they found more than one hair with root banding it would make it a stronger case?  No.  I just wanted to know it was from a body and not some other random possibility what caused the root banding.  You wanted more hairs for no reason what so ever?  Sustained.  You did actually get more hairs?  I did.  When was the next time you got some hairs?  Refers to report.  Baez says never mind, we will start with your first report, you were given more hairs in your first report?  Yes.  These hairs had different characteristics?  Yes.  Throughout all the other hairs there were no decomp hairs?  Yes.  You did another report on more hairs on Aug 6th report?  None of those hairs had decomp.  After that you did another report on Aug 13th?  Sustained items not in evidence.  You did another report on Oct 6th you were given multiple items and vacuum sweepings?  None of the hairs had decomp.  You did a report on Oct 15th, correct?  Yes.  What did you find?  No hair with decomp.  You did a report on Oct 21? Yes. What did you find?  No hair with decomp.  Nov 6th you were given more items from the trash bag? Yes. What did you find?  No hair with decomp.  You did a report on June 25, 2009, of the items found in the car, what did you find?  Sustained.  Jeff wants to know which items?  Q319 through Q337 what did you find?  No hair with apparent decomp were found.  Where there any other items we have not discussed?  Yes.  What were your findings?  No hair with apparent decomp.  So after you tried to find more hairs to make your case stronger, LE helped you.  You couldn't make the case stronger?  Sustained.  Where there any other hairs that showed signs of decomp?  No, not from the car.  You still can't say that one hair was from a dead person?  No, not one 100 percent but it had the characteristics of post mortem banding.  There are no standards of what post mortem root banding?  Right it is my opinion.  There are no error rates as to the identification of this banding?  That is correct.  When did you first examine this hair, Q12?  July 21, 2008.  When you do these inspections the post mortem root banding should be at the root?  Yes.  This hair banding was not at the root, it was slightly above it?  Objection, side bar.........

Side bar over..........

Baez is up..........the pic you took of the Q12 hair, you never showed it to this jury?  Objection, item not in evidence.  Rephrase the question...ma'am at looking at that photo can you see where the band is?  I would like to look at it under a microscope.  Is that why you don't feel comfortable not showing this jury the photo?  Sustained, impeachment.  Ms Lowe, would you say that it is difficult to view a pic to view the characteristics of a hair but you wouldn't be able to capture the changes?  So it is difficult to know where the root ends in a photo?  Can be, depends on the hair.  Knowing these difficulties you still brought photos to show the jury?  Yes, because they showed root banding.  These articles you read don't come with hairs, they come with photos?  Yes.  Did you fail your first proficiency test?  Yes.  After your depo was taken your lab developed a study............objection relevance...Side Bar.....

Side bar over.........

JBP asks the name of this study?  Jeff Ashton says the study doesn't have a name, it is being done by Steven Shaw.  JBP asks her if any of her testimony has to do with this study of Steven Shaw?  She says no.  Objection sustained. 

Recess for 5 minutes............

Recess is over.........

Baez is up...........

Karen Lowe on witness stand:

Ms Lowe did you go to meetings on trying to reinforce that post mortem root bandings exist?  No, I think the most we will ever go to is that the hair came from a dead body.  You saw this hair and the root banding?  Yes.  At the time you examined this hair you didn't know who it belonged to?  I thought it was similar to a hair from a hair brush belonging to Caylee.  Were you told this brush belonged only to Caylee?  Yes.  Baez asked if she knew of anything to do with the brush being used by others? Objection.....sustained.  The little girl was still missing at this time?  Yes.  You can actually do nuclear DNA if you have a root?  Yes.  You have this hair with a root and you didn't send it for nuclear DNA?  Yes, there was no tissue on the root.  You are not the one to make that call?  Yes I am, I send it to Mitro or Nuclear DNA, sometimes I will ask the DNA examiner if they think it could have nuclear DNA.  So now we can say that the hair belonged to Caylee, Cindy, Casey or Cindy's mother?  Yes.  Finding hairs in a trunk is not that uncommon?  Yes, you shed up to 100 hairs per day.  If you shed a hair from one person to another that is called transfer? Right.  There is also something called secondary transfer? Yes.  You would want to know if this came from primary or secondary transfer? Not exactly.  Don't you want to know how a hair got there?  Depends.

Jeff Ashton up................

Are the standards you use long existent with FBI policy?  Yes, there is an accompanying statement, that it is not positive without DNA, it is just based on characteristics.  Was the hair with decomp an anagen hair or a tillagen hair?  It was an anagen hair.  Mitro DNA will have the same maternal line? Yes.  Did you eliminate the victim's mother as a suspect of the decomp root?  Yes.  It could have come from another maternal relative that had 9inch light brown hair?  Yes.  Was the decomp hair treated in anyway?  No.  Her hair in the hairbrush did not have a root band?  Yes.  The hair banding you found in the Q12 decomp hair and the hair you found of Caylee's hairbrush, the decomp was not something found in the hair from the hairbrush?  No.

Baez up..........
You don't know the treatments of Casey's hair?  Yes.  At then end of the day you can't say that Q12 came from a dead body?  No, it just had characteristics of a decomp hair.

Witness is Mike Vincent..............

Linda is up, he is the CSI for Orange County Sheriff's office.  He has a lot of prior LE experience.  He served in the Air force for 8 years as LE.  He has been in CSI with LE for 30 years. He is the assistant supervisor of Geraldo Bloise.  In July, 2008 he was the asst. supervisor of Geraldo Bloise.  He assisted with the examination of the Pontiac Sun Fire.  He initially collected stain samples for blood on the trunk liner, they came out negative.  He also collected air samples and piece of the trunk liner and put them in tin cans.  The collection of air samples began on July 21, 2008, he was assisted by people from the University of Florida.  He is telling the jury how air sample collecting began.  They tried to suck the air out of the trunk with a syringe then transferred the air into 2 teflar bags.  He also hung a filter to absorb the air, they performed the procedure, he watched.  The samples were sent to Oakridge Labs in Tennessee.  She is showing the witness a package, he notes his seal and his initials.  The tefflar bag  is sealed inside the brown envelope.  Did you also cut a sample of the stain from the trunk liner?  Yes.  Linda hands him a tin can and he recognizes it with his initials and seal and date, 7-22-08.  That item in the can, did you send it to Oakridge Labs?  Yes, it was shipped there.  On July 23, 2008, did you observe another attempt to collect air samples?  Yes.  How did it differ?  It was done by Dr. Sigmund, he put in a filter in the trunk and left it there for 30 minutes, then sealed it.  She hands him an envelope and he recognizes it as his initials and seal, the date is July 23, 2008.  Once it was collected and sealed and sent to Oakridge Labs in Tennessee.  On August 29th, did you conduct another examination to collect samples from it?  Yes.  Prior to doing this did you receive equipment to do this collection?  Yes, Dr Vass sent me a portable air pump and 9 test tubes and instructions on how to collect the air samples.  Did you use this equipment on the trunk? Yes on Aug 29th and Aug 30th.  He is explaining the air pump and the test tubes for the jury, he is explaining how it all worked.  He attaches the pump to the test tubes and then collected samples from the trunk and the forensic bay itself.  She handing him envelopes as a group, he is looking at all the envelopes, he recognizes them all because they have his label and his unit evidence tape.  He put all of these in another envelope and sealed and initialed that envelope.  Hands him one envelope, it is from the passenger side of the car, the collection process took 69 minutes.  Next one is passenger are and it took 69 minutes.  Next one is from the trash bag on Aug 30th, took 72 minutes.  Next one was inside the trunk, shut the trunk and let the pump run 69 minutes.  Next one passenger area, took 69 minutes.  Next one was air in the garage, it lasted 77 minutes on Aug 30th.  The next one is a blank one, that was shipped clean to check for contamination of the others.  Next one was from the air in the garage on Aug 30th, for 77 minutes, shipped to Dr. Vass.  Did you collect items from the wheel well and send them to Oakridge, Yes.  She hands him envelope, he recognizes it as a substance on the inside tire well, it was scraped off, it was sent to Dr Vass, the initials on the seal are Geraldo Bloise.  Did you collect other pieces of the stain on the spare tire cover on Oct 8th?  Yes.  Did you also collect pieces of the spare tire cover that were not stained?  Yes as a control. Hands him a can, it is sealed and initialed by him, it was sent to oakridge, it is a 6 inch by 6 inch stain of the spare tire cover.  Hands him a can, it is labeled by him, it is 2 and half by 2 inch spare tire cover. Which was the control piece?  The smaller one.  Did you collect hair standards and buccal swabs from Cindy, George and Lee? On Oct 7, 2008. Yes. Are these samples collected in the same fashion from each person?  Yes, he did the buccal swabs and the hair swabs all the same.  Hair was pulled with tweezers or the person will pull them out with their fingers. 
Linda hands them envelopes, first one is 2 buccal swabs from Cindy, next, 2 buccal swabs from George, next 2 buccal swabs from Lee.  They all went into sealed boxes into a sealed envelope, initialed by him.  Next envelope, one petri dish of hairs from George, next is one petri dish of hairs from Lee, next is one petri dish of hairs from Cindy. They were all sealed and initialed by him.  Did you examine gas cans?  Yes.  Showing him a pic of the metal red gas can with his info.  It is introduced into evidence and published to the jury.  Did you change or alter the gas can between the time you collected it and took a pic of it? No. Then he swabbed it for DNA and fingerprints, then returned the item to the Anthony's on Aug 13th at 1103 hours to Cindy.  It had no DNA or fingerprints.  Linda is introducing hair and buccal standards into evidence.  Linda is done........

Baez is up........

When you processed the car on July 17, 2008, you tested for blood?  Yes.  That was caught on TV, right?  The test for blood was not on TV.  Just the bay the car was in was on TV?  When you tested with Blue Star were the cameras there?  I don't know.  Lots of stupid questions about how the media got there.  All sustained.  This is the very first time you have taken air samples?  Yes, I had never heard of it being done.  This was for you an experiment?  No, it was new but I wouldn't call it an experiment.  There were multiple tries to collect air samples? Yes.  You did it more than once because you couldn't do it right?  No.  They weren't being done by me.  You were part of this process right?  Yes, I observed.  First there was the syringe then the carbon filters then you got sent the little pump by Dr. Vass?  Yes.  The problem you had with air samples is that is air is free flowing right?  I don't know what you mean.  Was the air on different days, different air?  Yes.  Do you have any info of the air on this car on June 16, 2008? No.  Did you sample the air in the Anthony garage?  No.  The dumpster where this car was by for 3 weeks? No.  You attempted to get samples of the bay?  Yes.  To compare them to the air in the car?  What?  The forensic bay air is evidence in this case?  Yes.  Baez is making no sense but I am trying.  The reason you took other samples from places other than the trunk was to compare the samples to the trunk?  Correct, OK.  The problem is you took this on Aug 29, 2008, you didn't take it July 16th for air that was free flowing?  Correct.  So this air shouldn't be compared to the air in the trunk?  I don't understand your question.  Objection...Sustained.  You also sampled the trash air?  Yes.  You didn't take this on July 16th you took it on Aug 29th?  There was a significant difference of the air on July 16th and the air on Aug 29th?  I don't know.  Was the trash immediately taken to the dry room?  I don't know.  Showing him defense Exhibit C, not admitted to evidence.  Does this look like the trash when you first got it?  I don't know.  Do you see a difference in the trash in the other picture?  Yes.  Why was it put in the dry room?  I don't know you would have to ask Bloise.  You are his supervisor though right?  Yes but I don't know why he put it there.  With your common knowledge of being a human being that has trash and dealt with trash all your life, the odor would be significantly different if it was wet or dry?  Yes, the smell would be different.  When you took the air sample of the trash on Aug 29th the trash was dry?  That is possible, the trash was stored in a brown box.  The trash wasn't wet when you took the air sample, right?  Yes.  Showing the witness the metal pic gas can.  Linda wants him to lay a predicate that is the same gas can.  It is.  When you got the gas can, it is metal and had some gas dripping?  It was completely dry.  Pointing to an area, is that showing wetness?  No, it was dry.  You processed this can for fingerprints, did it have any?  No.  Wants to know if it has been wiped down?  It did not appear to have any fingerprints.  Baez is done....

Linda is up.....

The gas can was pointed out and he retrieved it using gloves, he took possession of it and carried it by it's handle.  The Pontiac Sun Fire where was it stored between July 15th and Aug 29th when you took those samples?  In the secured bay.  Did it ever smell any different?  No, it did not diminish in smell.  Was the garbage stored separately from the car the entire time?  Yes, it was.  Linda is done.

Witness is excused.

Judge is excusing the jury.  He is telling them he has worked out the kinks with the restaurant #1 and he is trying to work out the kinks in restaurant #2.  The hamburgers should be working out, lol.

JBP asking anything else, Linda says that an issue has arisen, they want computer forensic people to be exempted from the rule of sequestration so they can talk to them.  They want to talk to them for a limited purpose.  Baez says is this a person not on the witness list?  Mason says, you want a new consultant for what?  Linda says I have a new consultant working with me that will have to talk to the witnesses for a limited purpose.  She wants a 3 way conversation instead of relaying it down the grapevine.  Defense doesn't object, JBP allows it.  Linda did it the right way.  Mason says this last witness talks about trash like Geraldo and wants to know if they broke the rule of sequestration?  JBP says people use trash and garbage interchangeably.  Could also be called refuse or waste management.
They will have a matter in his hearing at 830am Mon morning but they won't be involved in that.

Court is in recess till 9am Monday morning.................

[MuffyBee]

Monday June, June 6, 2011, 9am Court is in session:

Dr Arpad Vass is the first witness up.

Jeff Ashton is up...........

Worked for Oakridge Natl Lab. BA In Science, Ph.D In Forensic Science, Master's In Forensic Science.  Met with Dr. Bass, developed a PH. Dissertation with Dr. Bass. In Forensic Science, he started working with Dr Bass at the Body Farm in Tennessee, with the post mortem interval.  Oakridge Natl, Lab, The Body Farm is a unique.  It studies all different types of corpses, donated to science.  They are actual Human Bodies.  Varied surroundings, some buried, some surface.  Dr. Vass was looking at post mortem interval.  Looking at the breakdown of human soft body tissue.  They analyze the fluid to determine how long a body has been dead.  There are 4 stages of decomposition of a human body. Fresh stage, bloat stage, active decay and the mummification or skeltonzation of the human body.

The cells are liquefying from the inside out.  Blisters, skin slippage is the first signs of decomp.  Then putrefaction, micro-organisms start breaking down the body causing liquefaction.  This is the fresh stage.  Next stage is the bloat stage, the generation of gas. Make chemicals that cause gas.  The orifices can be can become blocked so they gases build up in the body causing bloat.  Active decay is when the major decomp occur.  The last stage is mummification or skeleton stage.

He was looking at post mortem interval at the liquefaction phase, to screen for a variety of compounds.  There are only a few that could be useful to determine how long a body had been dead.  He published his findings.  He published a paper on 40 violative fatty acids.  In his 20 years working at the decay facility he published more papers did many tests.  During violative fatty acid tests, he worked at the body farm.  He went to Oakridge after his PH.d, in 1992.  The Dpt of Energy runs OakRidge Natl Lab. 4500 employees, national guests and many projects with many teams.  The Oak Ridge Natl Lab has a broad range of projects.  Dr Vass's work at the Oak Ridge Lab is in different fields.  After the third model he used of decomp, it was used as the international mark of time of death.  In early 2001 another project became his focus.  He had thought time of death was the most important thing to know, he then thought he was wrong and moved into the detection of clandestine graves.  It is always hard to find a clandestine grave.  Then the use of cavadar dogs or geo physic metal rods to discover bodies.  He was looking for a more universal way to find clandestine graves.  They looked at odor evolution at demop events.  They utilized the body farm, to study bodies buried at different depths and which chemicals were being produced during decomp.  There was an underground piping system to study these bodies.  They were trying to develop an instrument of odor detection.  He has experience the odor of decomp, over the years, 20 years at the facility, 50 bodies start to finish.  He looked at 100's of decomp bodies over his years.  The odor of human decomp is unique.  He has worked with animal decomp and the odor of that also, mostly pigs.  The odor of human decom is different than animal decomp, in his opinion.  Animals have a muskier scent, pigs have a sweeter scent, Human bodies have a totally different scent.  He published a paper in Journal of Forensic Science in 2004.

Side Bar............

Side bar over...............

Jeff Ashton up....Dr Vass's research continued after his paper he published in 2004.
They started to look at human bodies on the surface.  They were using different techniques to study these bodies. The were using a triple sorbent trap or TST trap.  They used an air pump though the trap do analyzes the odor compounds taken from the decomposing bodies.  He is explaining the process used to obtain the samples.  Too far over my head for me to type it all.  It permits him to detect even minute amounts of decomp odors.  He studied the above ground remains for 2 to 3 years.  He updated his findings of surface decomp bodies in 2008.  Judge Perry finds him an expert in this field over Baez objections.

Dr Vass was contacted by Yuri Melich in this case.  They began to send Dr Vass items in this case.  He was sent first a metal evidence can.  Being shown the can.  Dr Vass recognizes the box.  Jeff opens the box.  Dr Vass recognizes the can sent to him.  It is put into evidence over Baez's objections.  Side bar over metal can........Side bar over......

Metal can in evidence.  Dr Vass is talking about sending air pumps and triple sorbent traps to OC Forensic Unit.  He recieved the triple sorbent traps back.  He recognizes the packages of triple sorbent traps sent back to him.  They are received into evidence.

Morning recess until 10:40 am........

[MuffyBee]

Good Morning monkeys, had to start typing right away so didn't get a chance to say hello.  Here we go again, on the way to justice for Caylee.

Dr. Vass is sooo cool, he is so happy to be talking about dead bodies, I don't seem to mind, even this early in the morning.....lol.  Wonder if the jury is in shock!!!!!

Good to see all of you here, enjoy your coffee and breakfast while listen about the body farm...................Yikes..... 

Would already like to punch Baez a few times.....Dr Vass looks like he wants to punch him to, lol.

 

[MuffyBee]

Monday, June 6, 2011 court is in session.

10:40am back from morning recess.........

Dr. Vass is on witness stand.

Jeff Ashton is questioning him...............

With the items in this case were you assisted with them?  Yes, by Dr. Wise.  He made sure the instruments were working to analyze the odors in the case.  The first analysis done on the can, the lid was cracked and a syringe was used to obtain a small amt of the odor.  They used an instrument to test it.  They used the head space, a volume of air in the can, the can contained a sample of the car  liner.  Baez is objecting.......side bar.........Cindy is busy writing something or taking lots of notes on this testimony.  George is watching her.

Side bar is over..............

Dr Vass and Dr Watts went over the graph of the smell in the can.  There was a large peak of chloroform on the graph, Dr Vass is very familiar with chloroform.  The chloroform was shockingly high, unusually high.  So the next step, is they tried to narrow down the chloroform peak.  He was with Dr. Watts during the analysis.  The removed the carpet from the metal can and places it in a tedlar bag, designed to contain air samples for air testing.  They incubated it for 2 days at body temperature.  The tedlar bag is used because it won't change temperature.  They wanted to get what compounds they were getting from the carpet liner specifically.  They extracted 20 ml. they did a GCMS analysis.  They identified different compounds.  The result was they were able to identify 50 compounds from this sample.  GCMS instrument showed them, a very large peak was chloroform.  The amount was shocking, they have never seen chloroform in that amount that high before in 20 years.  Did you attempt to quantify the amount of chloroform.  Yes, the peak was chloroform and roughly approximated the amount of chloroform was in the parts of millions and this was only a minimum amount of chloroform that must of been on the trunk liner, it had already evaporated, as that is what chloroform does over time.  After all the evaporation was in the parts of millions? Yes.  They ran tests on other carpet liners and air samples to see if they had chloroform.  Admitted into evidence this report on other tests for chloroform.  Looking at graphs, can see the huge peak of chloroform, he is circling the tallest peak.  The actual number of chloroform is 16 million counts of chloroform, above 16 million.  This is from the carpet liner in this case.  Discussing other compounds found, they were normal compounds found from gasoline.  He was not surprised to see gasoline odor in a trunk that had a gas can in it.  Looking at a second chart of a sample car trunk liner from a junkyard, a similar car, make year etc.  It shows a chloroform peak, it is very short compared to the one in the case.  This peak was 5000 at the most.  That is as compared to 16 million found in the trunk liner in the case.  Dr Vass said he had never seen chloroform levels that high.  All of this was published to the jury.  They also tested it with another test, LIBS, laser induced, breakdown spectrometry.  Dr Vass got excited and had to be slowed down.  He is quite the character, lol.  Has gone completely over my head, can't even type what he is saying.....all I know is that it is cool and the electrons are going crazy!!!!!!!  He is talking about the laser.  Talking about light signatures from the laser.  The results of this test were used in his report.  The result was that he found a decomp event in the carpet liner.  Ashton shows him the report, he recognizes it and publishes it to the jury.  Baez objects and want to voir dire the witness as to that particular item.

Baez is up..........

Your not a physicist?  Correct.  Dr Martin performed this LIBS laser?  Correct.  Your not even allowed to touch it?  Sustained.  Dr Vass says he is laser qualified.  You were not present for this laser procedure?  Correct.  Next question is SUSTAINED.......JUDGE IS NOT HAPPY AND REMOVES THE JURY.......

JBP is citing case law to Baez.....schooling Baez......he is discussing how experts can testify in court.  Experts can use info and use info as they would when not in court.  It is their expert opinion.  They can have an expert opinion.  He is making it abundantly clear that experts can rely on other experts,  in the subject to express their opinions.  Baez was going in the wrong direction.  He wants to know what Baez is trying to get at, asks him to proceed without the jury.

Baez up....

What were the results of the LIBS examination?  Decomp.  Dr Vass refers to the report.  Baez wants to know what was found in the report.  You do not personally conduct LIBBS examinations?  The elements are common are they not?  Yes.  You are not a physicist?  No but I know all about it and can make a conclusion that they were decomp and confirms what his nose tells him.  Baez wants to know if these elements are found in nature.  Yes but these were elevated because it was DECOMP.  Baez is asking stupid questions that I can't understand and Dr. Vass tells Baez that, Baez just doesn't get it, lol.
The only comparison you did is a junkyard car and the car in the case?  Yes.  Baez objects to Dr Vass's testimony.  JBP over rules for now but wants state and defense to read law over the lunch recess so they can move faster.  Returning the jury.  The judge seems to want the state to lay a proper foundation to question Dr Vass about exams he did not do, himself.

Jury is returned. 

Mr Ashton is up, Dr Vass is on the witness stand.......

Chart is on the screen for the jury.  Dr Vass is explaining it to the jury.  Comparing samples from the junkyard carpet lining sample to the carpet lining in the case.  Dr Vass also performed some chemical tests on the carpet lining in the case.  This was to extract compounds not in gas form.  That analysis showed a presence of violative fatty acid.  It is the first compound liberated during decomp.  That was actually in the carpet itself.  When Dr Vass first opened the can, he jumped back a foot or two and he was shocked that little bitty can could contain such a powerful odor he knew it as human decomp after smelling human decomp for over 20 years.  He was also given scrapings from a substance in the wheel well, he is being shown an envelope containing those samples.  He recognizes them.  It is admitted into evidence.  Dr Vass performed exams on this sample.  It had acidic acid, it is a bi-product of human decomp, it is also a bi-product of manufacturing chloroform.  He is being shown a big brown box, Jeff is opening it up.  Dr Vass is looking at it.  He recognizes the items contained as being sent by Dr. Haskell.  Jeff tries to get it admitted into evidence, objection and side bar..........

Side bar is over.......

Dr Vass when you received this item in evidence, was it sealed?  Absolutely, fully sealed.  Baez is inspecting the box.  No further objections, received into evidence.

Jury is recessed for lunch till 1:30pm.

[MuffyBee]

Monday June 6, 2011 1:30pm Court is in session:

JBP asked that movies be approved for the jury to see.

Dr Vass is on the witness stand........

Jeff Ashton is up..........

Jeff is asking about additional tests.  These have to do with the paper towels in the trash bag in the trunk.  They found fatty acids on the paper towel's they make up adiopecere or grave wax, it is associated with grave wax.  He received back 8 triple sorbent traps.  He requested those for confirm that the carpet sample was the point source for the decomp odor.  The triple sorbent traps were able to confirm that the carpet sample was the source for the decomp odor.  The triple sorbent traps found a few compounds but not as many as the carpet liner.  The trash odor was not the same as the carpet liner decomp odor.  Dr Vass, says that as you walk down the street you may notice many odors, flowers, food, etc.....they are all made up of different compounds.  A rose may have 12 chemicals that make up that odor and garbage may have 20 chemicals that make up that odor, they may have some common compounds but each has it's own set of chemicals that gives it it's unique odor.  The 30 decomp chemicals, they eliminated any overlapping chemicals, they eliminated some from the gas, some from trash, squirrel remnants, etc...etc.  That left approximately 13 compounds of those, that left 7 significant compounds that were found significant to human decomposition.  Just because they overlapped did not mean they were not part of decomp but to be fair they eliminated them anyway.  Decomposition is cycles, early is different than late decomp.  It is rare that you would find all 30 significant decomp signals.  The source of the odor was human decomposition.  The scrapings from the tire well were had elements of decomp and puteric acid which is an element of decomp.  The findings of the paper towels, was adipocere, every one of the fatty acids, grave wax.  Taken all of the instrumental examinations and adding to that Dr Vass's olfactory senses, his opinion is that there was no other plausible explanation other than a human decomposing body in the trunk of that car!!!!!!

Baez up.........

You are not a chemist?  Correct.  You are not a Bio-chemist?  Correct.  His PhD is in Anthropology not chemistry. Dr Vass has two masters, neither in chemistry.  He has to consult with others about chemistry.  When is the last time you took a course in chemistry?  In the 1980's.  Have you allowed people to think you were a chemist?  No.  Have you read a Face Book Acct? Sustained.  Have you ever read a Wiki acct to say your a chemist? No.  Sustained.  Just more stupid questions, all sustained.  Are you gonna make money off of this case?  Not to my knowledge.  You have comprised and made a data base of compounds?  Yes.  How many chemical compounds are in this data base? 478.  Baez now writing on a huge note pad for the jury.  He asked him if he buried 4 bodies?  Yes.  You set up all the contraptions you testified to?  Yes.  It showed you what?  What was coming up to the surface.  How many days were the bodies buried, 17 days?  No, it took 17 days for the chemicals to get up to the surface.  Now this data base you have comprised, you have not turned over to the defense, have you sir?  Side bar
Objection over ruled.  You have not turned this data base over to the defense, have you?  It is not mine to turn over.  Do you know if it has been turned over? I thought you had been given the data base.  Baez says we were given a list of the chemicals not the data base.  This was a part of the grant, this data base?  Yes.  Without this money and these grants, you can't keep up your research?  Yes.  You are an inventor of this Labrador?  I am listed as one.  This Labrador uses this data base?  Partially.
Your purpose of the devices, the goal is to sell these to LE all over the country?  No, I had to file this according to the grant, it is just an aid to his research, it was developed as part of that grant and he had to file this to the people who gave them a grant.  Badgering, sustained.  Your goal is to sell these to LE all across the country?  No, my goal was to create a project to aid in finding clandestine graves.  Before that was done.......Sustained.  Next question.  You get royalties if this device is sold?  I don't know, if a licensee ever comes in I would get something maybe, relatively insignificant.  Sustained, asked and answered.  Baez is asking the same question about money, Dr. Vass is trying to answer, he would eventually get 15 percent.........Sustained.  You billed this Labrador to this case?  No, I did this voluntarily.  In 2006 did you start this?  That was way before this and it was the initial idea.  Objection, side bar...................

  Baez has me all confused, I can't type what he is asking, cuz none of it makes much sense, it is "and" this and "and" that and he just goes around and around in circles.  OK, my Baez rant is over for now.....just for now.....

Side bar over.......

Do you have to file a financial interest?  No.  In your report did you disclose that you had a financial interest in the data base?  No. The differences between a research lab and a forensic lab is you do experiments?  It is our product.  You have no protocol to follow?  The protocols are published.  Is that different than what you did in this case? I do not think so.  In the reports, those were buried bodies?  We used the same instruments and tests.  There is nothing in writing about procedures?  Yes, they are listed in those publications, yes.  Those are about buried remains?  Nothey were buried and surface.  Do you have quality control?  Yes, we have quality control, blanks and standards.  Is there anything in writing to show you had contamination?  I don't understand.  He finally answers that everything was done right and followed by Dr. Weiss,  I keep getting a diff name for the Dr that did the tests, not sure what it is.  Did you do qualitative and quantitative tests?  Yes.  This was a serious matter?  Yes.  Were you trying to do qualitative or quantitative analysis?  Both.  You did a prelim report in Aug?  Yes.  Not your final conclusions?  Yes.  You were aware sir that before you even wrote........objection, move to strike, approach....side bar.

IMO Baez is asking all of these stupid questions because he knows that every word that Dr Vass, said was taken to heart by the jury and he has no real way around it.  THERE WAS A DEAD BODY IN THAT DAMN CAR!!!!!!!!!   

Side bar over.........

You released your report on this case?  Were you made aware this was made public?  Yes, I was upset with all the media attention I was receiving and exchanged emails about it.  You were made aware some of your findings were released before you released your final report.  I was upset......Objection Sustained.  How many chemicals do you say that you found in the carpet sample?  54.  In your 2nd report you said how many chemicals?  I don't remember.  Baez is handing him his report to refresh his memory.  So in our prelim report you listed 54?  Yes.  In your 2nd report you said 51?  Yes and gives the reason to eliminated some in his prelim report due to duplication.  Baez is writing down a lot of numbers on his chart and Dr Vass is agreeing with it.  You came up with the same exact percentages?  Yes but I don't know what I eliminated from the prelim report.  Dr Vass says everything was corrected in the final report.  Baez is asking him about the junkyard car, why he got it and how many?  He put 3 cars because he took 2 samples from one car, they only used 2 junkyard cars.  Dr Vass later fixed the final report with a affidavit.  Baez is using bench notes and it is very confusing.  Objection, asked and answered.  Baez asking about the history of junkyard cars and history of Casey's car.  You did a qualitative and not a quantitative exam of those junkyard cars.  Yes, I don't know.  Baez is asking him about the smell of a rose and garbage, none of it makes sense.  Dr Vass is trying to answer but it makes no sense to him either and he is a genius. lol.  He says he doesn't know what makes a rose smell like a rose and garbage smell like garbage other than chemicals.  You do not know the chemical break ground of the items in the car?  No but they were just plastic and empty boxes, he does not know the chemical breakdown.  He did sample the air around the trash from the car.  Baez says yes but you did this in August and not July?  Correct.  He says again that the sample was not taken the same day as the air in the garage.  Just same nonsense over and over.  Vass can't really answer any of this, no matter how hard he tries.  You used a complicated table to verify the decomp odor in the trunk, did you not.  I did.  Do you have that table in front of you?  Yes.  Do you have the air sample from the trash in front of you?  Yes.  Baez is asking him about the air samples he put in his report, he is saying yes to each.  You did not use #118 from the state?  No, because the complete liner was removed then and it was not a valid comparison.  You used everything else?  Yes and now he is trying to explain how things work to Baez....good luck.  It is making sense to me.  The point source of the odor was in the liner, even though the liner was removed it still had traces of everything in it.  Baez is back to his big scribble pad and Dr Vass is agreeing to some overlaps.  Dr Vass is trying to explain it to him again.  Some things overlap and some things don't.  Casper my dog on my lap, gets it, lol.  Tries to get Dr Vass to get to agree with him and he won't.  Baez is now smiling, like he caught in him a lie.  Baez says out of 30 chemicals, you found 3?  Dr Vass can't answer it the way Baez wants.  Ashton is asking court reporter to read back the last question that didn't make sense, I can't hear her.  Dr. Vass says you cannot account for but you can't make conclusions on chemicals that you cannot account for?  What????

You are not a physicist?  No.  Can you account what chemicals were found in the Libbs report, calcium, magnesium, iron, sodium.......Mr Baez says these are every day chemicals and you are not a physicist? Yes, I am not a physicist.  Isn't that cool that the junkyard car had less chemicals than the one with a dead body in Florida?  lol  They tried to find a worse case car in a junkyard, environment, blood from a car wreck.  He didn't collect the junkyard cars but their lids may have been open.  Nothing else made sense.  JBP mercifully takes the afternoon recess......

Court is in recess............2:55

[MuffyBee]

Monday, June 6, 2011 Court is in Session.

Back from afternoon recess, 3:15pm

Dr Vass on the witness stand..............

Baez questioning.  Before I go further, while we are talking about the carpet liner samples.  You know they used a chemical called Blue Star?  Yes.  It is used to find blood with an alternating light source?  Yes.  Did you tell them to use Blue Star?  I don't recall that no.  Baez is looking through a report.  The spraying of a carpet sample with Blue Star was never done?  I didn't do that, no.  Someone just went and got the ingredients?  No, a chemist looked at that MSDS sheet of Blue Star and Fe Breeze and they would not have any effect on the chemicals in the trunk.  You are not a chemist, so you don't know that do you?  What did you find? Baez is writing them down on his big pad.  Calcium, Sodium, Magnesium, Iron and Carbon.  Dr Vass how many of these items would be found on a piece of soil you picked up from the ground.  Probably small amounts of each of them, I don't know.  And what you did was a qualitative analysis not a quantitative analysis?  Yes.  The paper towels, what you found was a fatty acid?  Yes.  The included Palmitic Acid, Stearic Acid, Oleic and Myrsistic?  Dr Vass says yes and also I think..........Palmitolaic.  Baez adds this to his pad.  You mentioned in your report these are like adipocere?  Same thing.  What is interesting about adipocere is it is made up of triglycerides, these all have carbons in them........he is talking to the jury about how fatty acid is made up in fatty tissue.  These paper towels were found in the trash in the trunk.  Adipocere could be from a hamburger?  No, well maybe but it would have be be raw and almost all fat.  You could find this same thing in chicken? No.  Dr Vass then tells Baez what adipocere is made of.  Lots of things need to happen to make up adipocere.  Can this fatty acid you found on these paper towels can be found in meat?  I don't know, maybe in mammals.  Did you also find THC?  Yes, the products of marijuana.  So these towels could of been touched by meat and someone with the munchies?  Dr Vass said the meat would have to be raw and you would have to have a bag over your head. It would have to be pounds of raw meat.  How did the marijuana get there?  I don't know, it just was, we were being thorough and it was there.  You have protocols when using this data base?  You have only used these protocols 2 times so far?  The first time at Barker Ranch in CA?  Objection...........side bar..........

Side Bar over.............

JBP is excusing the jurors for a brief matter that needs to be taken up outside of their presence.

Baez is questioning Dr Vass.......

You were sent soil samples from a ranch?  Yes.  You said they were signs of a decomp event?  Yes.  You then went to the location?  Yes.  You used devices to determine if there were bodies?  Yes.  And you did not find anything?  Yes but with a caveat at the depth we dug, we had just gotten to the depth of 40 years ago.  You stated then that the science was at it's infancy stage?  Objection.  Sustained.  Same question.  Sustained.  The only time you have used this specific data base to find a body was at the Barker Ranch?  No.  What is your way of coming up with bodies?  There is no error rate for this.  You can't compare this like a ruler.  In the previous time line, we did not understand geographic properties that would effect our search then.  Baez says no further questions on that.  Did you say Sir, this is at the infancy of this science and that you were frustrated?  Sounds like something I might say, I was frustrated.  Digging holes was very frustrating. 

Mr. Ashton is up................

You don't know till this day that there are bodies there are not? No sir.  JBP says the Barker Ranch has to do with the Charles Manson case?  Dr Vass, says it was 40 to 50 years ago but has nothing to do with this case.  JBP is schooling Baez that the Barker Ranch and what was done there has no bearing on this case, is irrelevant and totally different.  JBP says anything else before I return this jury?  No.

Returning the Jury 3:50pm...............

Dr Vass is on the witness stand, Baez is questioning..........

Dr Vass, protocols would also include proper selection of these samples?  Could have, yes.  You have protocols that would prevent having these not to contaminate these samples with areas with gasoline? Yes.  That is common sense.  You are aware that these samples were taken around gasoline?  Yes, it was a garage.  You were aware that spray cans, soft drinks etc etc... could cause false readings?  Yes but you can't take that out of context.  Those were written for environmental tests.  You don't want samples taken near trash or garbage?  Unless that is part of a crime scene.  You said in your protocol you don't want samples taken around trash or gas because of false readings?  Yes but that doesn't make sense here.  Can you tell the jury what divining rods are?  Objection..........yep you guessed it....side bar............side bar over..........

Dr Vass on the witness stand, Baez questioning...

Dr Vass you have testified about finding clandestine graves?  Objection.  Sustained.  Do you know what diving rods are?  Yes.  Can you make coat hangers into diving rods?  Yes.  Have you taught people how to do that?  Yes, it is a hobby of mine.  You have attempted to put electronic leashes on flies, have you not?  SUSTAINED.  This is the first time you have ever testified about your data base in a court of law?  Yes.  Is it the........sustained.  Are there any other papers that have the same findings that your data base has?  Yes, Dr. Staphalopouls.  He is located in Greece?  Yes.  The only person that agrees with you in the world......sustained.  The only other person in the world that does your type of study is in Greece?  Yes, that I know of.  And he uses a different data base?  Yes, he had a different study.  Sir, you testified under direct examination that the smell of human decomp is unique?  Yes, to me it is.  He asked you what your opinion was and you said that the smell of human decomp is unique.  Did you ever tell a newspaper that a rotten potato can smell like human decomp?  I may have said that but we looked at a rotting potato and the decomp composition is completely different.  One of the key markers that you have found is fluoride?  Yes some type of fluoride?  And in this case.....objection...sustained.  The positive control you used is the blanket of a child that was dead in a trunk for 3 months but you don't know any of the other circumstances that were the same as in this case?  Again you are twisting things around, if you eliminate the fluoride and the gasoline.  You still have 10 out of 30 and 8 were found in the trunk of the car.  That is 80 percent.  You did not collect any of the samples? Yes.  Not only did you not collect these items you do not know the history of these items?  Objection..sustained.  You have no idea of what was in this car in the Florida Pontiac Sun fire for the 10 years it was there?  No.  You have no idea of the history of the junkyard cars?  No.  And you have no idea of the history of the  car the blanket was found in?  No and I don't know the history of of a lot of trunks of dead babies.  Baez wants to strike that and JBP over rules him.  You do not know the history of any of these things?  Dr Vass says that is what is so cool about forensics, every case is different.  Sir, you are not a member of the Academy of Forensic Science? No.  You are not a member of any science group?  No and my background is so diverse that I wouldn't know which one to join.  Baez gets smart with Dr Vass and it is sustained.  Baez is done.

Jeff Ashton is up..........

Your career has centered around decomposition?  Yes.  Do you think you are going to have a financial gain from this case?  No.  Were you asked about this by Mr Baez in a deposition?  You mean the Inquisition? laughs.  Did you have to ask someone else about this because you had no idea about that?  Yes, I did.  In seeking out a control sample, was getting a contaminated sample going to a junk yard?  Absolutely.  You talked about compound diffusion,what did you mean?  Some samples cannot contaminate others.  What was the item that had the highest source of odor?  The spare tire cover.  Did you look up the composition of Blue Star?  No, someone sent me that,  I did look up Fe Breeze.  Did either of those contain chloroform? No.  The paper towels that contained fatty acid, you said it could of came from meat? explain how?  It would have to be a mammal, raw, sufficient size, decomposing, anaerobic environment, usually found within the human body.  So you would have to have pounds of rotting meat wrapped up in plastic and it had a very, high fat content?  Could it be caused by someone eating a hamburger and wiping their face?  No.  You were asked about the Stathopopuls study?  Was it one or two bodies?  Yes, two bodies that were found floating in the Med. Sea.  Did they have an overlap with the compounds you have?  Yes.  How did you come up with your positive control?  We had to find a child in a trunk who died, unfortunately we found a child that was wrapped in a blanket and left in a trunk in Montana for 3 months.  How did the test on this case compare to the one in Montana?  Four compounds were the same, the only one that wasn't there was the chloroform.  Did you test the Montana ones for fluoride?  No.  Do you know why the case here did not have fluoride?  Adults usually have Florine in their decomp because they have been drinking fluorinated water.  You will bio-cumulate Florine water in your bone and tissue.  In countries that do not have fluorinated water they will not have Florine in their bodies.  A small child like the one in Montana and Florida will not have ingested enough Florine in their lives for it to show up in there bodies.

Jeff is done......Baez is up........

Studies have not been done on this fluoride?  No.  You are telling this jury and give them info as an expert witness that has never been studied?  Fortunately, we have not had a lot of children to study.  These paper towels were found in the trash bag?  Yes.  Sir, you have no information that those paper towels and that stain have anything in common?  Yes, Dr Haskell, sent me those paper towels, on those paper towels he identified fly pupae.  Baez strikes question.  You have no first hand knowledge that those paper towels have anything to do with that stain in that trunk?  No but they were both there.   You have no idea how these fatty meat acids got on these paper towels.  Well they were attracting flies..........You found meat on those towels?  No, we found fatty acids.  Next question sustained...no further questions.

Dr Vass may stand down but he is not excused.  Jury can stand and stretch......sidebar....sidebar over......

Next witness will take too long so he is excusing the jury.  Movies have been approved.

Jury is excused at 4:40pm.

Jeff Ashton is telling JBP that the defense has served Dr Vass with a subpoena and they want it quashed according to Florida laws.  They want him to give his data base and testify about it.  The judge is looking up law.

Baez said the defense will withdraw the subpoena.  The defense wants to call Dr Vass in their state in chief and Jeff Ashton says they will let Dr Vass know he can go home until then.

Court is in recess till 9am, Tuesday, June 7, 2011.

[MuffyBee]

Good Morning monkeys,

Just wanted to let you know before I start typing for today's trial.  I will be away from the computer today from about 8:30am pst till later today.

Get my grand babies.....yay 

I will summarize this morning till they get here.  Things will be back to normal tomorrow.

Hoping for another good day of Justice for Caylee 

 ::justice2NJ:: ::justice2NJ:: ::justice2NJ::

[MuffyBee]

Tuesday, June 7, 2011 9:00am Court is in session:

States first witness is Geraldo Bloise.

Linda is up...........

Did you receive a trash bag from Awilda McBride?  Yes, July 16th 11:06pm.  He took possession from McBride.  He removed the items from the plastic bag and photographed each item as it was removed.
Showing the jury the trash bag as received from McBride, pic published to jury.  White trash bag with blue handles, it was contained in two brown bags, one on top, one under.  The pic shows the white trash bag on the brown paper bag.  The brown paper bag has some liquid on it.  The exterior of the plastic bag was a little wet.  The handles were not tied and the mouth of the bag was open.  He took a picture of the whole bag and then took the items out and took a pic of that, it is published to the jury.  He pulled the items out of the bag.  The pic shows the items after they were pulled from the bag.  Published to the jury.  He did a visual and photos of the items then he put them in a dry room.  Some of the items were wet but smelled like normal trash, did NOT smell like the car.  The items were in the dry room for from July 16th to July 18th and then they were place into a box into an evidence locker.  So they were in the dry room for 2 days.  The were then dry.  Showing a picture taken of the items July 16, 2008 when he received them.  A close up photo, everything is empty, published to the jury. 
He is pointing out a napkin in the close up photo.  He is pointing out napkins in a plastic bag, he put them in the plastic bag on the night he received them July 16th, 2008.  Published to the jury.  They are napkins or paper towels.  He eventually placed all of the items out on a table and photographed them.  Napkins, alum foil, empty box of cigs, bottle of Arm and Hammer detergent, coat hanger published to jury.  Next picture shows items he inventoried from trash bag, published to the jury.  Dryer sheet, foil, papers, bottle of Cyrstal Lite, other items...Next photo is a table full of items from the white plastic trash bag, published to the jury.  This is the entire contents of the plastic bag.  Next picture is of a receipt from Fusion Ultra Lounge, it was in the white trash bag.  Baez objects to it being put into evidence....overruled, published to the jury.  Next photo is a document from Full Sail University, it was in the white trash bag.  It is received into evidence and published to jury.  Linda is showing him a box, he recognizes it as the box he put all the trash items in, it has his seals and initials.  She hands him another box, he recognizes it with his initials and seals, it contains the paper towels from the trash bag.  She asks to introduce them and Baez objects because of chain of custody, one can be admitted, the other has to wait till the person who gave it to him testifies about it.  Bloise did a written inventory of all the items he collected from the white trash bag.  He is referred to it, there are 37 items in the bag.  He placed each of them into separate items.  They are...empty Cherry Coke can, empty Coke Classic, empty Milw Lite beer can, empty Sprite can, empty Copenhagen tobacco can, one hair pin, 3 plastic tie wraps, empty Dr Pepper plastic bottle, empty Coke can, empty Mt Dew can, Empty Oscar Meyer plastic container,  Cyrstal Lite bottle with brown liquid in it,  empty Kiwi shoe cleaner, empty Arm and Hammer detergent, empty Crystal Lite bottle, empty pizza box, empty Coke Classic can, empty Velveeta, empty Velveeta carton, empty Velveeta carton, empty Parliment cig box, empty Marlboro pack, empty Velveeta box, Doc Full Sail, 4 dryer sheets, 3 foil pieces, piece of fabric that says made in Honduras,  I missed some of the items, he was talking fast, lol.  37 items in total all items were empty but the bottle that had brown liquid.  Everything else was totally empty.  The dryer sheets were in the vehicle not the trash bag.  Linda is done....

Baez is up.....................trying to find his props.....

He is pleasing the court.  The trash you originally collected was wet?  Correct. Some were wet and some were dry.  You put them in the dry room to dry?  Yes.  Then they were dry?  Yes.  He is showing him a photo...these two photos look completely different because of what was done in the dry room.  You were testifying about things being empty after coming out of the dry room.  You had no idea that this would latter become critical evidence?  Correct.  So it was not your intention to destroy evidence but that is kinda what happened? Linda objects, Sustained.  Sir, you had no idea the evidence would be altered?  No, I just wanted to preserve it by the protocols we had.  I did not try to destroy any evidence, I followed protocol.  My question to you is that you had no idea that you were altering evidence before the jury saw it?  Sustained.  Was it you that packaged the paper toweling?  Yes.  They were at one time moist?  Yes and then they were placed in the dry room?  Yes.  and then they were placed in a plastic bag?  He is talking in circles.  You separated these towels and place in a plastic bag?  Yes.  You did not know later on that it would need to be tested for DNA?  No, I saw no blood or body fluid, just wet and he saw no forensic values for DNA.  You know that you can test for things other than blood for DNA?  Yes.  You can test saliva and semen for DNA?  Yes.  And sir it was not your intention to destroy evidence?  Objection. Sustained.  JBP tells Baez to move on.

Linda is up.  Why do you need to dry these items?  To inspect them.  They let it dry because it preserves the condition, if the item is left wet it will become moldy.  The protocol says they must be dried. 

Baez is up.  As part of your protocol you dry evidence?  Correct.  Did you know air samples would be taken of the trash?  No.  You are aware.......objection...sustained. 

Witness is excused.

Next witness is Arpad Vass.

Jeff Ashton is up.

He is correcting a mistake he made yesterday about a can.  Jeff Ashton got cans mixed up.  Showing Dr Vass a can and asking him if he sees his initials on it and he is changing one can for another.  Objection overruled and can is submitted into evidence.  Jeff is done.

Baez is up....

Asked him about a can of evidence he examined.  Jeff asks for a side bar..........

Side bar is over.............

Dr Vass you mistakenly admitted the wrong piece of evidence in this case?  Apparently, yes.  One reason you are not...........sustained.  You are not accustomed to handling evidence?  No, we are not a forensic lab? Sustained.................Baez is done.

Dr Vass is excused.

Baez needs time to find things, court is in recess till 10:20.........

[MuffyBee]

Tuesday, June 7, 2011 10:20am Court is in session:

Next witness is Dr. Micheal Rickenbach.

He works for the FBI as a Forensic Tech.  He has been with the FBI for 20 years, 2 BA in Science, a Master's in Science and a Ph.D in Science.  He has testified many times. 

Judge Perry has excepted him as an expert in Forensic Science.

He examined a few items belonging to Caylee Marie Anthony.  He examined items during a break and recognized them.  Moving the first item into evidence, something in a black trash bag.  Moving next item into evidence it is the trunk spare tire liner.  Showing the Dr a box of evidence, he recognizes it and it is moved into evidence.  Next item is a box, he recognizes it.  Next item is a can in a plastic bag, he recognizes it.  All received into evidence.  Were you asked if you inspected these items for Chloroform?  Yes.  How?  He did a visual exam first then he took samples and placed them into a vial and did head space Chromatography.  First item is Q,  it is a piece of spare tire cover.  He opened the can observed the material inside and took a cutting and put it in a sealed glass vial then did head space Chromatography.  When you opened the can, how did you describe that smell in your report?  Baez asks for a side bar..........

Side bar over.........

What was the results of Q?  Residue of chloroform were on that specimen.  What is Q? It was a piece of spare tire cover, it was subjected to the same analysis, what was the result?  It had residue of chloroform.  Showing him Q, it was subjected to the same analysis, had the same result, residue of chloroform.  Q23 is a the spare tire cover, he shows the jury the part he tested.  Q23 had residues of chloroform.  Q24 is a piece of left side of trunk liner, it had residue consistent with chloroform.  The difference between consistent only one technique was positive, not both.  Q25 is right side of trunk liner, it was consistent with chloroform.  The results on the left and right side of the trunk liner were consistent with chloroform.  Jeff is done

Baez is up..........

Tell the jury about the GCMS is an instrument for the separation and analysis of chemicals.  It is very, very sensitive.  It can detect things down to very, very small amounts of chemicals.  Then you did a second test?  Yes, it is a little different, it uses a different filter.  Residue is usually found in a liquid state, these items had no liquid but the instrument found the residue in very, very small amounts.  You can find chloroform in household items?  Correct.  It can be in detergents and drinking water.  It can also be found in chlorine in a swimming pool?  I don't know.  If someone threw  a bathing suit...sustained.  Do you know anything else chloroform can be found in?  I just know cleaning products.  That would be found in small amounts, similar to these items, yes.  Baez just got out his big scribble pad.  Can you explain what a GCMS is?  It is a signal coming from the instrument, it detects it, with a graph.  The witness is going to the big scribble pad.  The FBI Dr is drawing a GCMS graph.  Looks to me like an EKG, don't know how else to describe it, a graph with points up and down.  There is a thing called a quantitative analysis and a qualitative analysis, what is the difference.  The FBI Dr says, qualitative tells you its there and quantitative tells you how much.  If you are going to report out an amount you need a standard.  He did two standards.  How did you determine they were at very, very low amounts?  By running two samples.  He found out using a known amount of chloroform, it was positive for chloroform.  It was not the most chloroform he had seen in 20 years.  It was not shockingly high.  Baez is breaking it down to item tested.  Q22 is a piece of a spare tire cover, it had residue of chloroform, very low levels.  Q23 was the spare tire cover, the entire cover, he ran a test on an area of it, it had low levels of chloroform.  Q24 was the left side of trunk liner, this was consistent with chloroform, consistent means one test detected it and the second method didn't pick it up.  Consistent is a tricky phrase right?  Yes.  Q25 was the right trunk liner, it was consistent with chloroform, one test was very low levels, 2nd test didn't pick it up.  Next item is Q44 a piece of the spare tire cover, it had residue of chloroform at low levels compared to positive control.  Q45 was a piece of the spare tire, it had residue of chloroform at low levels.  Did you test the steering wheel cover?  Side bar...........

Side bar is over................

Baez is still up, objection, sustained.  Dr, these levels, residue levels are equal to what you might find in a common cleaning product?  Yes.

Jeff Ashton is up.........

Did you find anything else that found cleaning products?  I didn't do analysis for cleaning products.  You talked about low levels, that is relative to high?  Yes.  Have you ever tested a dry item for chloroform?  No, they are usually liquid.  What might be a high or low quantity of a carpet sample?  I don't know, I have never done a test on one.  With regard to the spare tire cover, how did it come to you?  How was it packed?  Inside a cardboard box.  What effect would that cardboard box have on a substance like this?  It would leak out.  Were you surprised you got any level of chloroform off of these items?  Yes, it is a violative substance and I was very surprised to get any amount of chloroform but I was still able to get chloroform off that unsealed object.  High and low is intensity of the peak.  Sort of an idea of how much is there.  The control standard is one you mixed, a known amount of chloroform, a known amount of chloroform it was one hundred parts per million.  That is the standard he used to determine detect the qualitative positive control.  Later on he was asked to give quantity, it is a very rough estimate of the level he detected.  Q22 is a piece of spare tire cover in an air tight can, was that a better way to submit it in a can is the appropriate way to do it.  On Q22 he could find better how much chloroform was on it.  He later gave a percentage of it to the standard...it was 5 percent of the positive control.  A very rough estimate.  Q23 was about .1 percent, Q23 was the actual unsealed trunk liner.  The sealed item contained much higher levels of chloroform.  Q24 was in a sealed container and the rough percentage on that was 1 percent compared to positive control.  Q25 was roughly 2 percent.  Whatever the amount of chloroform is on the sample, would it have evaporated prior to it being put in the can?  It is possible.  If the trunk were left open for hours and the sample was taken 2 weeks before the sample was taken, would you expect it to evaporate?  Yes, I would expect less to remain than in a closed container. Other than testing for chloroform in liquid, have you ever tested chloroform in an air sample?  No, I have no first hand knowledge of air samples.  So your examples of high, low or shocking, you have no knowledge of that from your testing?  Correct, it was based on my testing, not air samples.  Objections all over ruled.  Jeff is done.

Baez is up and dropped his big scribble pad, smiled as he picked it up.  Dr. you testified that doing a quantitative amount is not the correct way to do it?  Yes.  You would not do that?  No, I would not give an amount because it is not appropriate in a court of law.  You have no experience in collecting chloroform in a solid carpet samples?  No.  So trying to guess how much would be wrong?  Yes, that is why I did it in a qualitative way.  To give a quantitative amount would be speculation?  Yes. 

Jeff is back up.

If no way to determine the amount of chloroform, how do you know it is in cleaning products?  It is just the amounts that are detectable.  So when you answered Baez you simply meant you have detected chloroform in cleaning products?  Yes.  Witness is excused, subject to recall.

Next state witness is Jason R. Forgey.

Linda is up..........

He works for the OC Sherrif's office, he is a canine handler.  He currently handles a German Shepard.  He has handled canines since 2001.  He cross trained with the Canine Unit, prior to going into the Canine Unit.  He transferred there in 2001.  He received a dog in 2001, he went into training and had a blood hound originally.  He trained with a dog and he went to scent training.  That training was 5 weeks long, 3 weeks in a classroom and 2 weeks in a field.  His first dog was Canine Garret.  He did follow up training of 2 training tracks a month.  He was tested with his dog quarterly.  He worked with Canine Garret for 10 to 11 months till he had to be put down.  Then he received Ike another blood hound, trained the same.  You teach the dog how to scent train.  He worked with Canine Ike years later in 2005, he gave him to another trainer.  He worked with other dogs at the same time.  He received Bones a cadaver dog.  A cadaver dog is a single purpose dog.  He is taught to find human decomp.  He was part of the 911 disaster.  He used Bones there.  He is explaining how you teach a cadaver dog.  You imprint him on the odor and then train him to do a final alert.  Like telling him to sit, then you reward him.  You put odor in one can and put out multiple cans and you reinforce when he gets the right one with a treat or a toy and praise.  I final trained alert is a sit or a down at finding decomp.  The dog is taught to work to source and then alert.  You will see his behavior change, body and breathing changes, he is finding the odor, working to source then give final trained alert.  You can see that there is a behavioral change then the dog will give a final, trained alert.  He trained Bones to do this.  Bones final, trained alert was a sit.  What sort of aid did you use to imprint bones on decomp?  He used rags with human decomp, rags soaked in a chest cavity of a dead person.  Then move to different training aides...he went next to human bones, placentas, chest cavity rags, pseudo scent of drowned victims.  A man made odor made to smell like a drowned victim.  The tablet puts out an odor to be like a drowned victim.  Other training aides were blood, tissue, grave dirt.  Bones was taken out of the canine unit because they wanted a full service dog not a one purpose dog.  Bones was tried to make a full service dog but he didn't work out, then they made the decision to retire Bones and he went home with a Capt of the agency.  He went to work at another agency to be used as a cadaver dog in Osceola County.  Forgey was the only cadaver dog user in the area.  Then Forgey got a full service dog, he got Gerris, a German Shepard.  Gerris came from Germany, he was 21 months old when Forgey got him his birthday was October 20th, he will be nine this October.  Gerris was sent through a full service training.  A 400 hour school of basic dog training, scent, man tracking, criminal apprehension.  Gerris was then certified by FDLE.  He was evaluated in all his training and passed his certification.  Forgey was tested with him.  After he was certified Gerris receive additional training in cadaver training, 100 hours.

My grand kids are here.  Stopping for now.  Time for kissing and hugging and feeding breakfast, it is only 9am here.   

[MuffyBee]

9am, Wednesday, June 8, 2011 Court is in session:

Baez is objecting to the dog handler that is going to testify first.  JBP schools him on the law and she is going to testify.

Kristine Brewer is the State's first witness.

Linda is up...............

She is a supervisor of the Osceola County Sheriff's office.  She started out in patrol, then traffic unit, then tactical unit, back on patrol, collateral duty with a canine.  Her primary duty is a patrol supervisor.  Her dog is named Bones.  Bones came from the Orange County Sheriff's Office.  She did dog obedience and tracking trainer as a hobby, prior to her working with work canines.  Bones was given to her to work with, he was already a trained dog.  His training paperwork came with him from Dep. Forgey.  He then kept up his training records since she got him in 2005.  Linda is showing the witness his training records.  They are true and accurate of the majority of Bones training records, excluding vet records. They are introduced into evidence, after the judge reviews them.  Dep Brewer first bonded with the dog in 2005.  Dep Forgey met with her to discuss Bones about his cadaver searches with Bones.  She and Bones then had regular training sessions, several hours a week.  She kept a training log.  Bones and she attended training programs:  Basic Cadaver Course by Amy Redman, who is an authority on Cadaver Dog Training.  Linda shows her a certificate she got for that course.  It was a multi-day course, Bones was taken through, wood, glass, high grass, pavement, the targets must be found.  Sometimes the trainer knew where, sometimes they didn't.  Bones performance was very good, he had no false alerts and no misses.  He was able to find all targets.  Dep Brewer has trained him on human blood, placenta, bones, teeth, semen, human tissue.  They attended several schools the next one was: A Water Seminar.  All the targets are in water, the shoreline.  He must be able to locate a source in the water or by it.  Different sources were used, a written record was kept.  Bones had no false alerts or misses.  Linda shows her a certificate of completion for that seminar.  She trains with him, with distractors, items she does not want him to alert to, toys, dog treats, food, animal remains.  Multiple dogs do not distract him either.  She has never had any problems with Bones alerting to food sources.  His next training seminar was:  The Advanced Land Seminar, sponsored by Country Class Canines, Lisa Higgins was the leader.  She has a long history in canine training.  Bones was required to complete a course, in buried, hanging, surface, diff depths, diff levels of decomp.  Bones final trained alert is a "sit".  Bones will look up above him if it is hanging and then sit below.  The date of that training was 3-19-09.  It was also his NNDDA Certification date.  Linda shows the witness his records and Certificate from that seminar.  Bones has been trained on residual odor, the item was placed and then removed and the odor has remained.  They took cold human blood put it on a tile, then removed it and Bones could still alert to where it was.  They also did this with a human body.  Bones reward is a tennis ball.  He is never rewarded with food, he is given that for being a good dog, lol.  She also keep tracks of Bones "real world" calls, not training.  He did one on Aug 3, 2005, he was called out for a search, he did not alert on that day.  It was later searched and they found a dead dog.  In May 2006, Bones was called out and Bones did not alert, it was searched and a dead animal was located.  On May 10, 2006, Bones was called out and did not alert, it was dug and it was a dead dog.  on Sept 5, 2006, Bones was called out to a search, he did not alert, they later searched and they found a dead opossum.  On June 6, 2009, Bones was called out, he did not alert, they later searched and they found small animal remains.  Bones has never falsely alerted on any occasion.  Bones has alerted and human bones were located.  On Mar 1, 2007, Bones was called to a location and alerted to several small bone fragments from a skeleton.  On Oct 8, 2007, Bones was called to a location, to find a dead body buried in the woods for 2 to 3 weeks, Bones found and alerted exactly on the area where the body was later dug up.  On Nov 8, 2007, Bones was called out to find an elderly lady deceased, he gave the final alert outside of her wall.  Bones was called out to a landfill in Highlands County, he searched for several days, Bones alerted to a comforter that a baby had been born on.  It was discarded in the trash.  On March 6, 2008, Bones was called out to search, a human skull had been found, Bones alerted on additional bones in the area.  He was called out May 14, 2009, he did a water search for young male who had drowned, they did a boat search of a large Lake, Bones alerted to an area of the water and they found his body.  On May 19, 2009, Bones was called out to a burned human body, Bones alerted to it.  In Dec 2010, Bones was called out to two bodies buried, Bones alerted to the graves.  Bones is a single purpose dog, Cadaver only.  He is called to many counties and out of state.  Dep Brewer can tell when Bones gives her indicators that he is on to a scent.  He picks his head up, paws, leave her and not come back when called because he wants the odor so bad. 

Side bar..........

[MuffyBee]

9:50 am, Wednesday, June 8, 2011 Court is in session:  Side Bar is over

Kristine Brewer is the witness.  She is the canine handler of Bones........

Linda is up........

On July 17, 2008, she and Bones were called to the Anthony's residence.  It was pretty dark already but still light enough to see.  Darkness does not matter to the canine.  They went to the back yard, just her and Dep Forgey, she was given no other info other than another dog had already searched.
She walked to the back yard with Bones on lead through the gate, just past the gate she put his search collar on and she took him off lead.  Bones did a search of the yard, the swimming pool, the whole yard, he kept going back to one area and gave a final alert.  He sat.  This was his trained final alert.  Linda is publishing a photo to the jury.  Sgt Brewer shows the area of the trained final alert.  She shows with a pen an area by the bench and the playhouse.  She then put Bones up and then Dep Forgey says his dog alerted there too.  When she came back the next day the surface had been changed, there were several crime scene units there and they had disturbed the dirt.  She ran Bones that day and he had no alerts.  Her opinion is that whatever he alerted on had been moved.

Baez is up...............

He is pleasing the court.  He is asking the alerts the cadaver dog does, she doesn't say find me some bones, some decomp fluid?  No.  The dog can alert on something from a live person, a drop of blood from a fingernail can cause it?  Yes.  Your training tells you to not use an old car?  Yes.  You try to train him without a bleeding person around?  Yes.  Showing her the photo of the final alert in the backyard.  He is asking him about where Dep Forgey's dog alerted 6 -8 feet away?  She doesn't know exactly where the other dog alerted.  He is asking her more about where the other dog hit and she doesn't know.  You were they for 2 days and you never employed your dog inside the house?  Right.  Where you told you could not deploy your dog in the house or the screened porch?  No, they didn't ask me.  Are you aware of any dog searches inside the home?  No.  Baez is done.

Sgt Brewer is excused.

Next witness is Sandra Osborne.

Linda is up.

Sandra is a Computer Forensic expert for the Orange County Sheriff's office.  She has lots of computer training and she holds two certificates in training.  She received classroom instruction and was tested.  She had to do computer forensics.  In the last 4 years, she has done 100's of exams of computers.  She has testified as an expert witness in court before.

JBP is accepted as an expert witness in Forensic Computer Analysis.

Det Osborne, received items from the case of Caylee Marie Anthony.  The first item was a cell phone owned by Casey.  Linda is showing her evidence, she recognizes it, the label is hers and she sealed the package.  It is a Nokia Cell Phone.  She got forensic data from this phone.  She used a tool called Cell Bright.  She retrieved text messages, pics, whatever is in the phone.  Sometimes the phone can hamper the way she extracts data, other things can hamper the extraction the data.  She tried to find Zenaide Fernandez-Gonzales, she was not able to find her on it.  She could only extract so much info on that phone due to soft ware.  She is talking about Sim Cards.  Casey's Nokia phone did have a Sim card.  She used the Sim card to extract data from it.  The Sim Card had no more info on it than the phone had.  She gave the data she found and gave it to detectives.  It was an easily readable report.  She also received a laptop computer from Det Beasley.  She received a desk top computer as well.  Gives both serial numbers.  She received the desktop on July 17th from Awilda McBride.  She received a Polaroid Digital Camera and a Nikon Cool Pics Camera.  She used a N-case software to extract info from the digital cameras.  She received all files from the cameras.  She located video files of Caylee Anthony.  She was able to determine the date of the video files.  The dates from the Nikon Cool pics camera was June 15th 2008, the video was taken at a nursing facility.  The date and time of this video was embedded in the camera.  The date and time settings were almost the same as real time.  July 21, 2008 and 10:56am, there was a two min difference.  She examined the laptop.  She examined the desktop, it was a Hewlett Packard computer.  It was not on at the time.  She used different tools to examine it.  She used the N-case Software.  It is a standard used in the computer forensic world.  She has used it since 2006.  It is a reliable way to extract info from computers.  N-Case tool can examine every bit on a hard-drive.  She protected the original hard drive and removed the cables from the hard-drive.  Her soft ware did not change anything on the computer, it was in a read only mode.  She worked on a copy of the hard drive not the original hard drive.  The computer was returned to the family after a copy was made of the hard drive.  She stored them on 2 different sources, she has one with her in court.  JBP is calling a 15 minute recess.

[MuffyBee]

10:50 am, Wednesday, June 8, 2011 Court is in session:

15 minute recess is over.........

Det Osborne is still on the witness stand, she is a computer forensic expert.

Linda is up..........

Det Osborne is explaining the soft ware N-Case.  She says she can see all the info on the hard drive, even deleted and in the un-allocated space.  They are talking about the HP desktop computer.  She is talking about the computer BIOS.  She conducted it was July 18, 12:13 pm.  The clock in the computer was the same time.  She notes all the browsers and other applications.  It had Windows XP.  It had Mozilla Fire fox browser, Safari and Internet explorer.  She was asked to find any info on Zenaida Fernandez- Gonzales and Caylee Marie Anthony.  She found recent activity to find Zenaida, in the morning of July 16th , 2008.  From people search, high school re-unions etc.  Age from 22-29 in Orlando and Jacksonville.  She found no other info on Zenaida on the computer.  She is explaining how she searched the history of the computer.  She used Net-Analysis.  She could tell which user is making the search, the temporary internet files log which user account is being used.  That is also true with the internet history and the cookies.  Det Melich asked her to perform a key word search for chloroform in late Aug 2008.  She used N-Case software to do this.  She found searches for chloroform in deleted space on the hard-drive.  She was then able to view the deleted space.  She got a complete internet history from Mozilla Fire fox for chloroform.  It had never been overwritten.  It was the complete search.  She alerted another individual that she found hits on chloroform.  It was a complete file and she turned it over to her Sgt.  He then took it and copied it out to another source and examined it on his own machine.  She also looked at a computer owned by Ricardo Morales, she received it in Oct 2008 from Det Allen.  She examined his hard drive and booted it into her program.  It was an Apple computer.  The date and time were Oct 28th, 3:24pm when  she received it, it was set to 3 hours later, same date.  She is showing a photo of Casey holding Caylee in Ricardo Morales apt, she says she found that pic on his computer.  She was searching for a pic of Caylee with the pink t-shirt on.  Once an image is found on the computer she can find out when the image was taken, the date is embedded in the file.  JPB says they are taking a 5 minute recess.

Recess is over............

11:35am.  Baez wants an instruction read to the jury about the bruise under Caylee's eye in this photo with Casey in the pink shirt at Ricardo's apartment.  JBP is looking for it.  Can't find it, he is going to put something together very quickly, they are returning the jury.  He is telling them to disregard the bruise under the eye in the photo, it was not a result of abuse or anything of that nature.  The witness finds the photo on the thumb drive and computer of Ricardo Morales, it was later sold to the Globe.  The photo was put on the computer Jan 28, 2008.  Showing another picture of Casey and Caylee in Ricardo's apt.  They are sitting on the couch, Caylee is in the pink t-shirt "Big trouble", Casey is playing a guitar.  Baez asks for side bar.................

Side bar over.....................11:50pm.  The camera that took this photo was a Cannon Powershot HD70, the date the pic was embedded in the computer, March 18, 2008.  Linda is done............

Baez is up.................

There are 2 user created profiles on this computer? Yes.  That doesn't mean that only 2 people were using this computer?  No.  There could be multiple people that were using these profiles?  Correct.  So, if I used the owner profile and the computer stays on, I don't have to use the password?  Depends on the setting on the computer.  You don't know that information?  No.  So anyone could go go the computer and use that profile?  Yes.  Do you know the date and time the searches were done for chloroform?  No.  You never saw the Cannon Powershot Camera? No.  You don't know if the date and time were set correctly on the camera?  Objection, sustained.  You don't know if everyone sets a date and time on their camera?  No.  You were asked to perform searches on Ricardo Morales's computer for chloroform?  Correct.  You didn't find any pictures referencing chloroform on that computer?  No.  He is  now showing her Defense Exhibit 1,  The picture on Ricardo's computer showing, "win her over with chloroform".  This was posted on Ricardo's My Space Acct.  If Ricardo Morales posted this on his my-space why was it not on his computer you examined?  It would not appear on his computer, you can post on someone else's computer, or on a phone or on a different computer or it could of been deleted on the computer in the unallocated space and overwritten.  That could of happened to any computer you have examined?  Yes.  Baez is done.

Linda is up...............

If you are doing a keyword search, would the pixels of the picture be found on the computer?  No,  Words embedded in a picture are not going to appear in a keyword search, they are pixels.  Ricardo's computer had no search hits for the word chloroform.

The witness is excused. 

JBP is recessing for the lunch break.  Will resume at 1:30pm.

[MuffyBee]

Oh no, I have typed since lunch and hit a button to send it and lost it all again.    I forgot to save it to notepad.    I tried everything to get it back but it is gone.

Ok, here is what I remember.  Kevin Stenger was up first and he showed us that Casey looked up chloroform and he is a det from the Orange County Sheriff's office.  He then asked John Bradley to help him with his search of the deleted internet history, that seemed to be deleted all the same day.  It was a huge file and was contiguous.  John Bradley was declared an expert in computer forensics and he showed the jury his report of how Casey searched for chloroform, head injury and lots of other weird things, lol.  Baez tried to make it seem as if she only spent seconds to do it and then went to My Space but My Space was just an ad or a cookie and John Bradley took us through the whole deleted history up until she was looking up, internal bleeding, some kind of injury to an artery and lots of crazy things, they were all done at the same time and the history seemed to be deleted all at once.  Linda was doing a really good job and Baez didn't seem to try much to get anything stopped.  It is what it is.

Sorry about losing everything, my hubby can't believe I did that again and I am kicking myself, lol.  I am going back to typing in note pad and saving it.  Anyway, Linda looked good and the witnesses were pretty easy to understand and the jury got to see it all in writing.  Casey looked like, uh oh, they caught me and she forgot to draw half her eye brows on. 

[MuffyBee]

3:20pm, Wed June 8, 2011.  Court is in session. 

John Bradley is on the witness stand.

Linda is up...........

He is still explaining the report of the deleted history.  He sees a cookie on the system that came from My Space.  He sees auto-generated ad ware.  Linda is showing him his report page by page.  He is pointing out hits on Face Book, it is auto-generated.  The user is now on Face Book.com.  Linda is introducing a new page into evidence from March 21, 2008.  It is another CacheBack page.  The entry 3-21-08 is for user generated activity for Chemistry/chloroform.com, that is the way it looks today and could be the way it looked back then.  He is talking about the next entry Linda is showing him the search term is for "how to make chloroform"  the next one is similar but "how to make chloroform" correctly.  The user at the time misspelled chloroform on the first try.  Some of these items might have been bookmarked.  Next items are system generated the next one user generated is a search for chloroform.  This is the result for that search.  Next one is an entry for instructables.com for "making weapons out of household items".  Next one is for a search result for a google search, a search for "neck breaking" it appears to be a genuine search.  The next one is a wiki.com search for "My Space".  Next entry is for Face Book.com site, request, read message.  Linda shows the witness the remainder of the report, it appears to be Face Book activity through the remainder of the report except for 2 add tracking items.  The rest of the pages of the report are Face Book activity.  He is going through lots of pages.  Some are ad tracking.  He was not asked to perform any other examinations by the Orange County Sheriff's office.  Linda is done.........

Baez is up..............

You were originally approached by Sgt Stenger?  Yes.  He approached you because he was using your soft ware and there was a bug in it.  Well, no not really, this was an extraordinary case.  You stayed up all night trying to fix it?  Yes.  You don't just look at this blindly you worked all night and you put something together for him.  Yes.  I was here for 3 days and worked on it for him.  After that you were hired for this case?  Can you clarify that?  You were asked to be a witness for this case?  Yes, I did that for free.  I could get paid but I am not sure.  You haven't discussed what you are going to be paid?  No.  Is it the advertising that your concerned about?  What?  This is a high profile case and you have a link on your soft ware page for this case?  Yes, I put that up recently to show how CacheBack might be used.  If i go to your website, I will find an article about this case?  Yes.  Do you consider that an advertisement?  It is subtle and it was put up after 2 years.  It doesn't hurt the promotion of your product either?  I am not overwhelmed with calls for it.  It says you are the number one choice for forensic computer work?  Yes but that was up there before this case.  Baez is showing the witness how long the user was looking chloroform before another website came up?  This is a 57 page document, where should I look?  Baez gives him a page to look at.  It is March 18, 2008 at 2:43pm. Baez wants to know how long between the search for chloroform  was 7 seconds before a page comes up?  Yes.  The next time someone looked up chloroform how long before another page comes up?  1 second later.  OK so you got 7 seconds then 1 second.  The witness says let me explain something to you first.  Baez is badgering him and Linda objects.  The judge lets the witness explain.  He is explaining the seconds disparity, he is explaining that he can't replicate that.  Baez giggles and says that's OK.  Baez now asks about peroxide and then someone types in?  I can't say someone typed that in but it was a search for self-defense on wiki.com.  So someone searched for wiki.com for self-defense.  So wiki may have links that come up and may have been clicked on?  Yes. So after that it was reality based self-defense?  I didn't know what RBSD was, it was just an acronym.  That one was for hand to hand combat?  Did the investigators tell you that hand to hand combat  had anything to do with this case?  No sir.  And the next one was head injuries?  Did they tell you that had anything to do with this case.  And the next one is Meningeal Artery? Yes.  Did the investigators tell you that had anything to do with this case?  The next one was for chest injuries and internal bleeding?  Did the investigators tell you that anyone was internally bleeding 3 months before this case?  No sir.  Someone is looking at Hypbobelemia?  Yes sir.  Did anyone tell you that Hypobelemia had anything to do with this case.  No sir.  Baez shows him the next thing.  It is the first chloroform search there.  Now that is at 3:16.30?  No, there are 2 chloroform searches before that.  Baez says, he is sorry, he is going backwards.  Is there a My Space before that one?  No.  Baez is asking him about all the searches for chloroform.  The first search is how long?  Approx 17 seconds.  Going to the next search for the prior search for chloroform, how long is that search?  2 mins 25 seconds.  The next search for chloroform and the next page?  21 seconds.  Baez says when you gave us the 2 mins and 25 secs was there any other pages that came up between them?  No.  So that is the longest time anyone spent looking at chloroform?  The one talking about chloroform habit?  Did you look at that page?  Yes I did.  It was information about a chloroform habit in the 1800's?  Yes.  The next one is "how to make weapons out of household items".  Did the investigators tell you that someone is making weapons at their house and that is relevant?  No.  What is the next one you have?  You mean search?  Yes, what is the next one you have?  It is a Google search for neck-breaking.  Do you have anything prior to that for self-defense for women?  The witness is going back to look.  He can't find anything for that.  Did you look that up?  I don't know anything about a book, unless you can enlighten me.  Baez goes up to show him.  Baez is walking back, smirking all the way. Baez asks about another entry, the witness says they may have two different reports and Baez says he will just move along.  Do you see at 3-23-08 the site home security basics?  Yes but I don't know what that is.  Do you see the next one at blogger.com about Zombie's.com.  Do they tell you that zombies have anything to do with this case?  Does this appear to be someone fast surfing to you?  His answer is basically 3 years later I could not replicate this.  Things could of been clickable options or cookies, what was auto inserted or anything? Baez says if you go to the next one that would take you to funny.com, that would be funny household weapons?  Yes.  Next there might be some banner ads?  Yes.  Then you have neck breaking?  How long before they click to fighting arts.com?  1min 54 sec.  That is a Kung fu site is it not?  I don't know.  All of these searches have to do with funny household items and etc.  I agree.  Then you have the word shovel.  Yes, on wiki.com.  Are you aware of the movie Shovel?  No.  When you were consulted in 2009, that was only a few months after this case came about?  Yes, apparently so.  Those links were available at that time, would you have been able to tell the jury the actual page rather than a link?  Sustained.  The link doesn't tell you anything about the actual website?  Yes.  Some could be jokes, some could be medical facts...ect.  Yes, I would agree with that.  The user may not even be looking at this stuff?  Objection, sustained.  A computer examiner could never testify to what a person is reading on the computer?  Correct. At the end of the day sir, the information you that could be gleaned from here could not mean anything.  No, they could be very relevant.  Keep in mind that we are talking about Fire Fox so I have no idea what other browser was being used.  We are talking about a little over 3 mins in time, they were looking at these items?  Yes but that is just decoding.  So the only dates you were given was the month of March?  No, I wasn't given the month of March.  I was given certain things to work with.  Oh so, you weren't even given the whole month of March?  Correct, I was given stuff to decode.  Baez is asking about who was on the computer and the witness says it was user generated use with Fire Fox.  Baez says if you take everything into consideration you can't put into context how this 3 minutes were put into context during the month of March?  That is correct.  Objection..Sustained.  Baez is done........

Linda is up.............

The issue Sgt Stenger ran into was decoding the deleted information from the Fire Fox browser.  Why was he not able to decode that?  He didn't have the soft ware to complete it.  So you worked with him in December of 2009?  Yes.  Where you aware that the history was from 2008?  I don't know.  Are you aware that websites can change dramatically?  Yes.  When Mr. Baez says that all it take is 7 seconds?  Well that is not true, the Google is looking for it and takes a certain amount of time, not the time they were looking at it.  When someone types into a search engine How to Make Chloroform, they are trying to figure out how to make chloroform?  Objection, sustained.  The wiki doesn't always keep you on their page, you can click off of it?  Yes.  You can't tell if items were printed off the internet for later review.  That is correct?  Does the passage of time change how the site would of appeared?  Yes.  Can you tell how that website would appear 18 months later? Yes, were you just trying to tell the jury what searches were made?  Yes.  The searches that were made, that whole time frame encompassed an hour?  That is correct.  The one for chemistry.com/chloroform how many times was that site visited?  84 times.  Linda is done........

Baez is up.............

The witness shows Baez what he is looking for, lol.  Baez takes the report from the witness and hands it back to him.  That is the copy of the report you submitted?  No, I didn't submit it, someone else did.  Baez can't ask him about someone else's report.  Objection..sustained.  They are going to side bar..........

Side bar is over......

The judge is letting the jury go for the day.  He wants someone to verify if Sgt. Stenger is still in the building.  He was a previous expert witness for the state today.  John Bradley is excused till the morning. JBP asks if there is anything else?  There is nothing else, court is in recess till 9am tomorrow morning.  JBP asks if the jury can watch Hangover 2 and X-Men?  No objections.

[MuffyBee]

Good Morning monkeys 

Here is to hoping lots of good stuff comes out today.  I would love to see Lee back on the stand, I can't wait to see what he got limited-use immunity for. 

See ya in court.  ::justice2NJ:: ::justice2NJ:: ::justice2NJ::

[MuffyBee]

9:00am, Thursday, June 9, 2011 Court is in session:

State witness John Bradley is back on the stand.........

Baez is up for recross...............

John Bradley is a computer forensic expert for the state.  Baez is pleasing the court.  John Bradley says he had the headers and the footers for the history he decoded.  He was asked to do that because OC had done a net analysis.  He used a different software. He was given one deleted Fire Fox 2 history file.  Baez is showing him a copy of a report and he asks if it is authored by him, lol.  When he mentioned the 84 hits to SySpot.com, he did not have the whole URL for that.  He is correcting Baez on what reports that he is looking at.  He is approaching the witness with a report not created by him.  He did not perform that report at all.  All he can testify to is the URL links that he found.  They do not refer to 84 hits?  Mr Bradley says that it does not refer to the URL site, it just counts how many times it was hit.  Baez asks about the page refreshing and Bradley doesn't know.  He was brought in 9 months later....Sustained and he is arguing with the judge about it.  There are no other internet searches in Apr, June, July 2008?  He doesn't recall looking at anything outside the month of March.  Linda asked about printing out pages but you have no evidence that any pages were printed out, unless the printer left an artifact?  Correct.  Mr Bradley can't speak to what was found or not found, he does not know.  He was given no information but the data file.  Baez is done..............

Linda is up..........

The data file you were given encompassed a time in March 2008?  Yes.  The tab will only refresh if they page is open?  He explains that the page is not refreshed unless the user asks it to be refreshed.  The time sequence we alluded to, will a page remain active and use a new page and the old page will remain open.  Any succession on the internet history does not mean one tab is open and another tab is closed?  The site we are talking about is a blog?  I don't know which one?  The Syspot?  Sustained.  Anyone can write a blog?  Sustained. 

The witness is excused. Sidebar...........

Sidebar is over..........

[MuffyBee]

9:20am, Thursday June 9, 2008 Court is in session:

Next state witness is Lee Anthony.

Mr Frank is up..............

On July 16, 2008 you were doing some searching on the Anthony family desk computer?  In Aug 2008 did Casey return home?  Yes, she did.  Did Casey then tell you a different story about what happened to Caylee?  Yes she did, she told me that Zanny and her sister met her at a Jay Blanchard Park and Zanny held Casey down and took Caylee from her with the help of her sister.  She was held by her wrists, they were sitting on a park bench and she was held down.  Casey told him why but he doesn't recall.  Mr Frank is referring him to his deposition.  He is showing him the Depo of July 30, 2009. Lee is reading the lines he was asked to.  What was the reason Caylee was being taken?  Casey wasn't being a good mother and was taking Caylee from her to teach her a lesson and not to go to the police.  She gave him a detailed description of Zanny, 5 feet 10 inches, long hair, good complexion, 100 lbs and she tanned, she was Hispanic.  Casey saw Caylee being taken from her, Lee doesn't recall again, having his memory refreshed.  Showing him a depot taken in Feb 2009, Lee says Casey was shocked at what was happening and it felt surreal to her.  She did not do anything to stop Caylee from being taken from her because she was scared.  Then Zanny was controlling her through My Space, she had Casey's PW and was sending her messages on what to instruct her to do.  She went to the places Zanny told her to go to.  Timer55 was the My Space PW.  Timer55 meant she did not create it but she thought it meant it was the date Caylee was taken from her till the day of Caylee's Birthday and she would be given back in 55 days.  She said she did not create this PW, Zanny did.  She did not say how Zanny was able to change her PW.  Mr George is done..........

Baez is up............

Your sister told you another story about imaginary Zanny the Nanny?  She told me another story about Zanny the Nanny.  She told Casey to go to places to see Caylee?  Yes.  Was there anymore detail into that?  Like stores and places like that?  Yes, to look for Caylee, walk around.  None of these imaginary My Space posts of this imaginary Zanny the Nanny panned out?  Casey never was successful in meeting Caylee and Zanny the Nanny never materialized?  No.

Witness is excused.

Linda is telling JPB the defense wants time to discuss the next event about to occur, they are at side bar.......

JBP called for a 5 minute recess.