MAGIC EYES RECAPS

[MuffyBee]

9:55 Thursday, June 9, 2011 Court is in session.

They just came back from a 5 minute recess...went to side bar...side bar is over.....

Linda is introducing something into evidence and Judge is reading a stipulation.  An OC meter employee made a 911 call and it is going to be played for them, it a true and accurate recording.

Orange County employees are telling 911 that Roy Kronk found a skull.  The operator is asking for information.  They tell them not to touch it.  Roy Kronk will wait for LE to get there.  This is a guy from utility customer service, name is Rusty.  Roy Kronk will be a OC vehicle.

The next state witness is Edward Turso.

He is employed by the OC Sheriff's office as a deputy.  He is in Sector 2 and was in Dec 11, 2008.  He arrived on scene to Suburban Drive to meet with Roy Kronk.  He has been shown his report and notes the time was 9:32am.  It was right at an intersection in a wooded area.  He met Roy Kronk and Roy Kronk told him he had to relieve himself in the woods and he found a skull.  Kronk led him into the woods, they passed the skull, then walked back to it.  Dep Turso walked over to the skull, looked at it and walked away.  Neither of them touched it.  He had Roy Kronk write a statement and he called his Sgt.  He taped off the scene.  Linda is done............

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

Did Mr Kronk tell you that he called 3 times in Aug?  Sustained.  Where you aware......sustained.  Did you have any conversations with Mr Kronk...sustained and the Judge tells him to move on.  Baez is asking Mason for help.  How far did you go into the woods?  20 feet from the street?  Was there grass that was mowed before you get into the wooded area?  I don't remember if there was a mowed section.  You don't recall or you don't remember?  I don't remember.  How far did you walk past the skull?  5 feet.  They walked back to the skull.  There was a fallen tree by it.  Do you remember seeing a bright red bag? No.  I just focused on the skull and the black bag next to it.  Baez wants a side bar............

[MuffyBee]

10:15am June 9, 2011, Court is in session.

Baez is up........

Dep Turso, told Mr Kronk to write a statement, he gave Mr Kronk, no other instructions.

Baez is done......

The witness is excused for the day.

JBP is taking another recess. The jury has been excused.  JBP is telling the gallery that crime scene photos are going to be shown next and that if you are queasy you need to leave.  If you show any reactions you will be escorted out by deputies. Recess for 10 minutes.

Poor baby Caylee. My heart is breaking all over again....

I wonder if Casey will have any reaction?   

[MuffyBee]

10:40  Thursday, June 9, 2011 Court is in session:

Returning from a 10 minute recess....

Next state witness is Jennifer Welch.

Back from recess, went right to a JBP called sidebar........sidebar over.

JBP says the pool camera is instructed to blur or pixelate the photos of the skull.  No one else or any journalist will use a cell phone or any other device will be allowed. Any gallery members using a camera will have it confiscated and be escorted out by deputies.

Jury is returned.  Linda is up.........

Jennifer Welch is a OC forensic unit employee for just over 5 years.  Her assignment is CSI.  She was a CSI in December of 2008.  She was called to a location on Suburban Dr.  The address was 8900 block of Suburban Drive, she arrived at 1125 hours.  It was raining on scene and dence vegetation, there were several LE present, none in the woods, they were stationed on the street.  A crime scene area had been taped off.  Part of her job is to take initial photos of the scene, prior to recovery of any evidence.  She took crime scene photos.  Linda is showing the first photo. She says they are looking at the dense vegetation, present at the crime scene area.  Next photo is up, it is a true and accurate photo of the woods as they were that morning.  It shows the path that led into the wooded area, she is showing the path to the wooded area with a blue pen.  Next photo, it fairly and accurately shows the exterior of the wooded area of the crime scene.  She is showing on this photo the path that led to the crime scene.  They are taken in a panoramic view of the area.  Next photo is the next section of woods as they were found that morning. She can't tell where the path is in this photo.  Next photo, is a fair and accurate portion of the woods as she found them that morning.  Can't see the path in this photo, it is out of the picture.  The item to the left of the photo is crime scene tape.  The next photo is of the wooded area and the street, it is a fair and accurate photo of the area that morning, Dec 11, 2008.  It is the vantage point to the East, she is pointing out the crime scene tape and LE vehicles.  Next photo is the beginning of the path that goes down to the crime scene, it is fair and accurate.  She is marking the pathway on this photo.  Linda is asking about an item that appears in the photo, it is a sign that advertises for Kinder Care Daycare.  Welch marks the path on this photo.  Next photo is shows a continuation of the pathway, it is fair and accurate.  Linda is pointing out raindrops on the photo.  Next photo is a fair and accurate condition of the woods as you go further down the path into the woods.  Welch is showing how the path goes through the wooded area.  Next photo is a fair and accurate view of the woods as they appeared that morning.  Welch is showing how the path made it's way through the woods.  Linda is asking what are the items that she is indicating.  They are hanging vines.  Next photo is a fair and accurate representation of the floor of the woods.  The office of the ME recovered a skull from this area.  Welch shows where the skull is.  Casey is crying or trying to.  Next photo is a fair and accurate representation of the skull as it was found by her and the ME.  She is showing which part is the top of the skull and which is the right side of the skull.  Next photo is the location of the skull from further back.  Welch is marking where the skull is found, West of the log.  Next photo is the view looking back at the road.  She is standing near the skull, looking West as she takes the photo, a light pole is in the photo.  Next photo is another angle of other evidence items, it shows the skull and other items of evidence.  Welch identifies the other items in the photo and where the skull is.  The skull is West of the log, then there is a black plastic bag and then at the NW area is a off- white canvas bag and there is a Disney bag.  Next photo is crime scene as she found it with other items taken into evidence.  Welch shows where the log is, the off-white canvas bag and the black plastic bag.  Next photo shows the area the skull was found in.  Welch says she is standing to the NW of the skull among the vegetation.  The vegetation obscured her view of the skull but she shows where the skull is and the front of the skull.  Next photo is  near where the skull was located.  Welch is pointing out the log in the photo, she is marking the log.  She shows the other evidence items, on the west side of the log.  The red item is a Disney bag.  There is a black plastic bag and off-white canvas bag.  Next photo is shows a view of the evidence items under the log.  Welch points out where the log is and where other items of evidence are.  In this photo you can see a pair of shorts.  Next photo shows a different vantage point of the evidence items.  Welch points out the skull, the pair of shorts and black plastic bag, barely visible is the Disney bag.  Next photo is a close-up image of the skull as she found it.  She points out the items, the skull and black plastic bag.  Next photo shows another angle of evidence items.  Welch points out the black plastic bag and a pair of shorts.  Next photo shows evidence items.  Welch points out a small section of beer bottle found on scene and a portion of the black plastic bag.  Next photo shows a view of the skull and other items of evidence.  Welch points out the black plastic bag and clothing remnants.  The clothing remnant is a collar with a tag still present.  She points out the front of the skull.  Next photo shows one of the evidence items.  Welch points out a close-up of the clothing remnants, she points out the collar with the tag. She points out the front of the skull with DUCT TAPE.  Next photo shows evidence items.  Welch points out the off-white canvass bag, the black plastic bag and the skull.  Prior to collection Welch could tell that no portion of the off-white canvas was in the black plastic bag.  Next photo is of evidence that was found.  Welch says her vantage point was standing to the east of the black plastic bag which would of been North NE of the skull.  You can see the off-white canvas bag and the black plastic bag, Linda shows her an item in the corner and she says it appears to be DUCT TAPE.  It is on the skull.  Next photo shows the evidence items from a different vantage point.  Welch says her vantage point was standing partially over the log to the SE of the skull, she leaned over the log to take the photo.  She points out the black plastic bag, the off-white canvas bag and the red plastic Disney bag and the skull.  Next photo shows a close up of items of evidence.  Welch  points out a close-up of the DUCT TAPE on the skull and the clothing item remnants, she points out the direction of the tag on the collar.  Next photo is another angle of the same evidence item, there is another item in the photo.  Welch points out it is a blanket, she thought it was a towel.  Next photo shows another vantage point.  Welch says it was a view pointing to Suburban Drive, it has the off-white canvas bag in it.  Next photo shows the scene as the ME arrived and began to remove the remains.  Welch shows which items are in the photo, the black plastic bag, the red plastic Disney bag, the skull with DUCT TAPE present and the chief ME is removing it from the scene.  Linda is done with the witness....

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

He is pleasing the court.  He wants to talk to her about her position.  As a CSI, the first thing she should do is document the scene?  Yes.  You want to try to show the jurors what it looked like when you arrived?  Yes.  Part of the reason is you never get a 2nd chance at a crime scene?  Yes.  Once people come in, it starts to become contaminated?  Yes.  If the body has been tampered with, it would affect everyone to determine what happened at that location?  Yes.  Some of the things you also look for is to see if the scene is stage?  Yes.  You need to be very careful of what may be a staged scene?  Yes.  That is because sometimes people try to conceal items of evidence?  They may.  Then there are some stages scenes where people try to make it look like something else happened there?  Yes.  That is why it is important to make sure the scene has not been tampered with?  Yes, that would be correct.  Baez is showing her a photo.  He is drawing her attention to the duct tape area.  Can you draw a circle around the duct tape?  Now is it fair to say that the duct tape is somewhat in the air in this photo?  It appears it could be.  You can see almost the entire width of the duct tape?  Yes.  Is this the front portion of the skull?  Yes.  Is this the end of the duct tape?  Yes, if that is the duct tape.  Is the skull flat on the ground, pointed?  I can't tell if it is flat on the ground but it appears to be pointed.  Shows her another photo.  Baez circles the duct tape, here you see the duct tape and not the skull?  Yes.  It appears to be lying on the surface?  I can't tell.  There end piece appears to be here and the other end piece down there?  It appears to be.  Baez shows her another photo.  This is a close up of the duct tape, correct? Yes.  This is the entire width of the duct tape?  Yes.  This appears to be the end of the duct tape? Yes. It appears to be an uneven edge?  Yes, it appears to be.  Baez shows her another photo.  We see now almost the entire width of the duct tape? Yes.  This appears to be the end of the duct tape?  It appears to be a section of the ending.  Baez shows her another photo.  This is Inv Hansen and he is collecting the skull at this time?  Yes.  He is also collecting the duct tape at the same time?  Is he applying force to lift it?  Yes, you would have to.  Is he also grabbing vegetation?  Yes.  He is also applying pressure?  He would have to to collect the skull.  He is not wearing any protective foot wear is he?  No.  The other guy in the photo is also not wearing protective foot wear?  No.  They could be standing on other items of evidence?  They could be.  Baez is done.....

No other questions from Linda.  JBP has the attorneys approach for side bar.  The witness is excused subject to recall. Side bar is over..........

Next witness is Steven Hanson.

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

He is the asst Chief ME for District 9.  He supervises all investigators but he also does CSI.  He went to the location of Suburban Drive at 11am, December 11, 2008.  He arrived and took photos.  Jeff shows him a photo.  It shows the South side of Suburban Drive.  It was raining when he arrived.  It is a photo surrounding the crime scene.  Jeff shows him a photo.  It shows the opening of the growth, the path that led into the area where the remains were found.  Hanson marks the path.  Jeff shows him another photo.  It shows a view moving further into the woods.  Hanson shows him the path and explains that you take photos of a large crime scene area then you take smaller photos as you get to the actual crime scene.  Jeff shows him another photo and he points out a plastic advertisement on the ground.  He shows the path down to the remains, it slightly curves to the right.  Jeff shows him another photo of the continuation of the path. Hanson points out the path.  Jeff shows him another photo that is further into the area in question.  In this photo do we see the first hint of the area we are talking about?  Yes and he circles a fallen log and the area is just beyond that.  Jeff shows him another photograph.  Hanson points out a line around the area of concern as he gets closer to it.  It was taken with flash.  The area was dark and raining but the pictures look better than it was that day because of the flash.

They are taking the lunch break until 1:30pm.   

[MuffyBee]

1:30pm Thursday June 8, 2011 Court is in session

State witness is ME Kevin Hanson.

Jeff is asking him about crime scene photos, that he, himself took.  First photos were of the crime scene area then as he got closer and closer to the remains.  Then photos of the skull and the remains area.  When he first started taking this series of photographs, he did not notice the duct tape.  He is now pointing out the duct tape on the skull.  This photo was taken with vegetation, then they started clearing out the vegetation.  They were taking pictures for 3 to 4 hours.  The next photo shows the vines cleared away and the fallen log removed. He put a blue line at the bottom of the photo where the log was removed.  They removed vines to better take photos of the remains.  Next photo is a close-up of the skull, after the vines have been cleared away and the log removed.  The ground had nothing removed.  This photo was taken from the opposite side from the other's were.  They moved outside of the area where the log was, it was taken from the other side, so you could now see the front of the skull.  The camera is probably 2 and a half feet off the ground.  It was a digital camera and had a flip out screen.  He was able to rotate the camera down and not have to get down on the ground.  In this photo you can see the duct tape.  He couldn't tell it was more than one piece at this point.  He circled the duct tape.  The duct tape was difficult to tell where it was because of the hair mat and the undergrowth, that photo shows exactly what they saw.  There was a great deal of leaf debris around the skull.  The recorded it exactly as found and then they started to make some changes.  He shows the jury the hair mat that he is talking about. It appeared to be all hair around the skull.  The matter on top of the skull was hair also.  Next photo shows the skull the duct tape and the bags.  The ME has to understand the remains scene better than the broad photos that the rest of the CSI take.  ME has the authority over the remains, LE owns the crime scene but ME has the remains.  He was hoping all of the bones were in the bag.  He considered the bags as containing additional remains, so he was in control over the bags and the skull, this was agreed to by LE. Next photo shows the skull the duct tape and the plastic bag.  This photo shows the skulls position.  It seemed to be embedded in the vines and leaf debris.  The debris was up to the mid eye socket.  He is showing on his own skull the leaf debris, it was just below his eye sockets and went around the circumference of the head.  The skull was angled, it was not straight up.  It was difficult to tell because of the leaf debris around it.  They decided to remove the skull and the tape together, with the leaf debris too, they wanted to recover all of the evidence around the skull.  They realized the duct tape and the hair mat were going to be important.  They tried to collect a large portion of the area to include the skull and the debris and put it in a paper bag for transport.  Next photo is a photo of him removing the skull from the ground.  One of the CSI was holding a bag open so he could hold the skull and the debris around it.  About 6 to 8 inches away from the skull and scooped up all of it and put it in a paper bag.  He scooped till he felt harder ground. He made sure that the hair mat and the tape was almost in the same position.  May have not been exact same position but as much as possible.  They collected the bag and the canvas bag next to it and they collected long bones that were in the same proximity.  They were all placed in a plastic shroud and then a body bag.  He collected cloth items, he later found out were shorts.  He also collected a large piece of cloth he later found out was a blanket.  He handed it over to Gary Utz.  He transferred the remains over to his office and he signed for all the other bones for the most part, going back and forth with additional remains.  His first trip to the crime scene was on Dec 11, 2008 his last trip was on Dec 17, 2008.  He kept going back for additional remains found.  Dr. John Shultz was at the crime scene.  He is the head anthropologist.  He was at the ME on Dec 11, 2008.  The remains were found in Orange County, Florida.  Jeff Ashton is done.........

Mason is up............

Says this is the only time I want to see you, laughs.  He is showing the ME a photo.  He is asking him what is lying in the grass?  ME says a machete and something else that looked like an arrow.  Did you use a machete?  No, do you know who used a machete?  There was some clearing of the woods before you got there?  It looked like someone had cut a path and cleared it a little bit but he didn't do it.  He only reviewed his own photos.  How many LE and CSI were on the scene?  Lots.  Was the media there?  Not at first but they got there later.  So you don't know how many people were there and where they went?  No.  Was the rotted log there when you got there. Yes.  Do you know who removed the log?  Yes sir, raises hand, that was me.  Mason shows him a photo.  Mason doesn't know how to use the equipment, Linda is helping him.  He asks Linda to stay there and help him, she says no, I don't work for you.  The witness can't see the photo, now he can.  He says he sees duct tape laying on the ground, is that correct?  There is a portion of the duct tape looking like it was laying on the ground.  Is there an edge there of the end of the tape?  I don't know if it was lying on the ground, it had just come off the skull.  Was there any scales used to take these photos? No sir.  Did this skull seem to be somewhat embedded, how deep was it?  I don't know, it was just in leaf debris.  When you were asked to come there and look at the scene, did you know that anyone had lifted the skull?  I had heard someone had kicked it.  Objection, Sustained.  On your watch, no one moved it?  Correct.  Mason shows another photo, do you see that sir?  Yes.  Do you know who all the other feet belong to?  Two of them were mine and the others were authorized to be there.  What reason did you have to gather the skull the way you did?  To gather as much as I could and the debris around it.  So if the duct tape was positioned flat....objection sustained.  If the duct tape was flat, the duct tape would have changed position?  It could have.  Dr Utz was the on call ME?  I don't know if he was on call but he got the remains when I went back to the office.  Later Dr. G came in and she took over?  Yes, it seemed that way, it was Dr stuff.  You went out there repeatedly?  Yes, I went out there and got the remains and took it back to the ME office.  Someone else put it together?  Yes.  Did you observe it?  No, I was doing my job.  Somebody was assembling the skeleton but it wasn't you?  Someone was.  Was it photographed?  Not by me.  Mason is taking a moment to talk to Baez.  The log you moved, did you photograph the whole log before you moved it?  I don't know.  Where did you move it to?  Off to the side.  Did you look at all the photo's you took?  Yes.  Do you have knowledge of a white board laying across the log, like a 2 by 4?  No, I never saw it and it shouldn't of been moved till I got there.  Witness is excused.

Next state witness is Dr. Jerry Utz.

He is the Chief Deputy ME for Orange County, since April 2008.  He has a BS and and MD and training in anatomic and clinical pathology and lots of other stuff and he is licensed to practice medicine in Florida and Ohio.  He was involved in the ME office's examination of Caylee Anthony.  He knew of her as a missing child first.  He then found out that remains were found, he was working and called by Dr. G.  She was leaving town and asked him to take over the investigation.  He had talked to Inv. Hanson and was prepared to receive the remains at the ME office.  He let the FBI have some of the remains.  The first thing he saw in this case, was a large bag that contained another bag that contained the bags and fabric and leaf litter.  There was another bag that contained the skull and the duct tape and the hair and leaf litter.  He then took photos of the items he received.  He shows him the first photo he directed to be taken.  In this photo he sees two plastic garbage type bags with yellow handles, mixed with leaf litter and debris and a long bone, a leg bone.  The off-white item is a laundry bag, a fabric laundry bag, mixed in with the other bags and the leaf litter.  Eventually these items were photographed separately.  The next photo is the skull with the duct tape and the leaf litter.  This is a human skull that is facing the ******* and it is upright and over the jaw and the facial bones are silver-grey colored tape, there is also hair that is extending over the top of the skull.  Next photo is of the skull, from directly above the skull, the skull has not been moved since the last photo.  Strands of hair are going down over the skull, the hair mat is partially shown in this photo.  Next photo is the skull from the side.  Looking at the right side and the back of the skull and the strands of hair and the mat of hair in the back.  You can also see the tape.  The tape appears to come around to the sides of the skull.  Next photo is the skull again at this time from the rear and left side and there is several leaves and twigs that are obscuring the skull, you can see the hair mat with a leaf over it.  He is circling the hair mat.  The thicker objects in the hair mat appear to be plant roots.  Next photo is of someone tilting the skull, it is being supported so the face part is perpendicular to the camera.  The hands are cradling the skull.  Looking at the skull face on so you can see the eye sockets and the hair that is partially covering the eye sockets.  Right below that is the tape, this is not in 3d, what part of the tape is this. The tape was not loose, they were stuck together, he thinks 3 pieces of tape.  Next photo is of the skull taken from a different angle.  The skull has been tilted so now the bottom is upward toward the camera.  This is the bottom of the jawbone or the mandible and your looking up from this direction and this is a portion of the tape and the rest of this is the hair and what appear to be plant roots and pieces of leaves.  Does the mandible stay in place?  It does.  Is that unusual?  It is, by this time of decomp the mandible is usually detached.  It is still attached because of the hair mat and the roots, the tape was still stuck to the hair, the fabric of the tape had stuck to the mandible.  You can see that in this picture and in another picture you can see the fabric of the tape stuck to the mandible and roots growing through it.  The hair and tape had to be cut, to keep the duct tape as much intact as possible.  Next photo is of the skull with the mandible removed.  Looking at the skull from the bottom and the mandible has been removed so you can see the upper jaw and some teeth.  Covering the back of the skull is the hair mat.  How did you remove the mandible?  After I removed the tape and part of the hair, the mandible was easily removed.  Have you ever seen remains this old with the mandible still part of the skull?  I have not.  Was this leaf debris under the skull or around the skull.  The skull was sitting on it in the paper bag when it was delivered to him.  Next photo has the mandible and tape still on the skull.  Goes back in time with the skull tilted down on the left side and your looking at the lower jaw.  They lifted the tape to show how the fabric backing of the tape is partially attached to the lower mandible.  Jeff is magnifying the photo.  You can see how the fabric that is coming from the tape is sticking into the mandible and some hair strands are still stuck to the tape.  Some of the tape is lightly adhering to the mandible, also plant roots.  The root appears to go under the tape and comes out. You can see multiple layers of tape?  Yes.  Next photo is of the tape after it ws removed.  This is what the tape looked like after it was separated from the remains.  You can see the layers of the tape and much of the fabric backing.  The tape was taken into evidence and then released to the FBI.  Jeff is showing the witness an evidence bag the tape was put in it and sent to the FBI.  Next photo is a close up photo of the emblem that appeared on the tape (Henkle) it was still clear in the deteriorated condition, the tape was not cleaned or cleared.  The emblem stood out clearly.  The next photo is of a fabric laundry bag.  Next photo is of a different aspect of the fabric laundry bag.  This is the fabric laundry bag, of canvas off-white.  The opening is a hard ring.  It seemed to be waterproofed.  Next photo is of the inside of the canvas laundry bag.  Taken looking directly into the opening of the bag, there are two handles.  There was nothing inside the bag, if there was it was just debris, it had not been cleaned.  Then next photo is of the canvas laundry bag label.  Next photo is also of the laundry bag label, says Whitney Design.  Jeff is going to fast for the jury and they spoke up.  Next photo is of the garbage bags with the yellow handles.  Seems to be pretty intact with a hole in the bottom.  The yellow handles are tied closed.  Next photo is a closer look at the ties of the bag tied closed.  The knot appears at the top of the bag.  The bag at the time it was found was torn. Next photo is a close up of the knot and how tight the bag was closed.  The opening is about a couple inches in diameter.  Next photo is a 2nd bag that was in the same large grouping that Inv. Hanson brought.  Another black garbage bag with yellow ties.  Next photo is a pair of shorts, striped, button still intact.

Afternoon recess for 15 minutes.

[MuffyBee]

3:25 Thursday, June 9, 2011 Court is in session, afternoon recess is over.

The judge is telling the jury they are recessing for the day.  He does not want them speculating on the cause of recessing early for the day.

After the jury has left he tells the court that Casey Anthony is ill and they are recessing for the day.  The judge tells the media that no one wants to talk about it and the attorneys want to be left alone. 

[MuffyBee]

Good morning monkeys, I see people already, so she must of had a overnight cure, give her a bucket and move on..............She didn't even look up at one photo.  I was so mad yesterday, I was still going on about it last night lol.

Hoping for a good day of Justice for Caylee  ::justice2NJ:: ::justice2NJ:: ::justice2NJ::

[MuffyBee]

9:00am Friday, June 10, 2011 Court is in session:

Dr. Gary Utz its returning to witness stand.

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

Next photo shows a pair of shorts, very dirty and tattered with button intact.  It appeared the garment could of been torn or cut before decomp or after.  Next photo is the tag of the shorts.  "Circo Brand" from Target.  Next photo is from another tag on the shorts showing its composition and size 24 months.  Next photo is a the back of the same tag on the shorts, the washing instruction label.  The next photo are separate letters that would have eventually spelled "Big Trouble comes in Small Packages", they are showing the pink t-shirt on Caylee in split screen with the letters with the remains.  The next photo is the remnants of the shirt, the neck and the tag, size 3T. Last photo is of portion of a blanket and another portion of a piece of fabric he couldn't identify.  The duct tape was sent to the FBI.  His involvement in this investigation ended on the following Monday.  It then went to Dr. G.  She came back on Friday Dec 12, 2008 and took over the case. Jeff is done..........

Mason is up.

What do you do?  I am a forensic Pathologist.  What does that mean?  A Dr. that diagnoses disease states and performs autopsies and investigates death, cause of death and manner of death?  Before the remains were found you were aware of the hoopla surrounding this missing girl?  Just as a media watcher.  After the remains were found, Chief Hanson took pictures, made reports and came back to you, you were in charge?  Yes.  Dr G was gone elsewhere?  She was.  Dr. G came back into town and took over the case.  Do you know why?  She had a very good working relationship with the LE, he was new and didn't have that relationship.  Was did Dr. G take over for the media reasons?  No, she just felt the need to take the course, she would have been involved in any rate.  You would of stayed on that case if Dr. G. didn't come back and take over?  Yes.  There was no duct tape on the left side of the skull was there?  What do you mean by on?  You saw photos yesterday of the duct tape of the tape on the left side. There was none on the left side?  There was some.  There was no duct tape circling the skull.  No.  There was no duct tape stuck to the left side?  There was some adherence.  You did no examinations of the duct tape?  I did  not?  Were you wearing gloves?  Were you suited up?  I was.  You then released it to the FBI?  There was no human tissue on the DNA was there?  I didn't see any or test for any.  I was there to remove the duct tape.  Did you see any evidence of trauma?  No.  You saw any evidence of trauma to bones?  Some but no breaking.  Was there any healing fractures?  No.  Did you cut through the skull?  Removing the top part.  It was not done.  If that body was found 4 months prior, you might of found evidence of death?  Yes.  You were asked about clothing that was brought to you.  What size were the shorts? 24 months.  Where you involved in seeking further exams of these remains, with Dr. Shultz.  Only the exams of the early evening of Dec 11, 2011.  Dr. Shultz is an anthropology.  Did you do any texts for toxicology?  Objection. Sustained.  Did you work with Dr. G on this case?  I did not.  Did you work with a toxicologist on this case?  I did not.  Was the bottom jaw held in place by the hair and roots?  Yes.  When you picked up the remains from the table where they were presented?  Yes.  When you held the skull in your hands, the mandible did not come off?  It did not sir.  You have moments ago talked about the duty you have, to determine the cause and manner of death?  Yes.  You do not know the cause of death in this case?  I did not make the determination of cause of death in this case?  I do not.  The manner of death has been determined by Dr. G as a homicide. Yes.  Questions......sustained.  You have not rendered an opinion in the manner of death in this case?  I have not.  Mason is done............

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

Showing a photo of the skull, showing the left side and showing the tape on the left side.  Showing a photo, where he is lifting up the tape on the right side.  Tape is on the left side and the right side.  Witness is excused.

[MuffyBee]

9:33am Friday, June 10, 2011 Court is in session:

Dr. John Shultz is the witness.

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

Dr. Shultz is an Associate Professor of Anthropology.  He has a sub field of Forensic Anthropology.  He has degrees in Anthropology, Master in Human Biology.....human anatomy.  He has a PH.d in Forensic Anthropology.  He studies Forensic Archeology and taphotemy.  He spent five years at the Human Identification Laboratory.  He has studied many skeletonized bodies.  He specialty is detecting human remains and using ground penetrating radar.  When he arrived at UCF he worked with the ME's and the Sheriff's Dept.  He was the on call Anthropologist for the ME's Office. 

On Dec 11, 2008, he received a phone call from Steve Hanson and Dr. G.  To go to the remains scene of Caylee Anthony.  He did not go Dec 11, he went the next day but directly to the ME's office.  He looked in the bag and saw the skull and the duct tape on the bag.  He was there when the skull and the duct tape were photographed.  He was holding the skull up in one of the photos. Jeff is showing him a photo.  The mandible was close to the correct anatomical position.  He was surprised that the mandible was still intact.  It would usually of been separated at this level of decomp.  The tape was adhered to the hair.  The other bones that were brought in had no evidence of trauma.  He had an advisory role in the recovery of the rest of the remains, they were underneath the leaf litter.  The recovery was processed in a very careful manner.  The bones were of a small child and it was a heavily wooded area.  They decided to process the scene on their hands and knees, removing leaf litter and screen all leaf litter from initial location of skull and bags.  Screening means sifting for bones.  A mesh box would sift the material for remains and evidence.  Everything was sifted twice.  They used a very small size screen because the bones were so small.  The Sheriff's Dept took photos and documented the recovery stations.  Looking at a photo, is of a blue canopy, main area station...where the skull was found.  It is showing people on their hands and knees and using flags.  There was a mapping process to document the spacial relationship to where items were found.  They also mapped out all of the skeleton remains were found.  They used a computerized mapping process.  When remains were found, he would examine them.  Some of the bones found were not human and he let them know.  The search area increased in size and additional CSI came and found additional remains.  Talking about the canopy photo, showing the process, removing vines, plant debris, root debris, all the debris was collected and sifted for remains and evidence.  When items were located they would place numbered flags and photograph them.  The bones were then removed.  He wanted to know where bones were found and in what order.  The bones were disarticulated and found in many areas.  Next photo is of the process of recovery, flags being placed.  Showing a CSI on her hands and knees locating remains.  The CSI would place a flag, then place the bone in an evidence bag .  He told the Sheriff's office what were human bones and they were transported to the ME.  Next photo is of bones that were found.  A number of vertebrae, the spine, they are separated, no soft tissue and roots growing through it.  The important thing about this photo is that all of these vertebrae bones were transported at one time, they were in a different location than the skull. Next photo is of one of the bone fragments and the Manila envelope that was labeled where it was found and who recovered the remains.  Next photo is of 2 bones found, they are the largest bones in the body, the lower leg bones.  They are doing a split screen to show how the bones relate to each other.  The top of the bones have been chewed on by animals.  Casey is *crying* and being held by Ms Simms.  They are at side bar......side bar is over.

JBP is telling the jury it is time for morning recess.

[MuffyBee]

10:40am Friday, June 10, 2011 Court is in session.

Back from 20 minute morning recess.

Witness is Dr. John Schultz.

Showing a photo of a bone, this is a fragment of bone that fits into the bone in the other photo.  Next photo is bones taken at Dr. Schultz direction, hands and finger bones.  The purpose of this photo is to document it.  He placed a quarter in the photo to demonstrate how tiny the bones were.  The recovery effort of the remains took from Dec 11, 2008 till the mapping was finished Dec 20, 2008.  Showing next photo of bones found during recovery.  The bones represent part of the pelvis, one of them has some animal damage and some adiopecere (grave wax)  one of these bones was found almost completely buried in the muck.  The pelvis bone in the left of the photo was the one almost completely buried.  Next photo is of the skeleton layed out in anatomical order after all the bones were recovered.  They found all but one tooth and all of the spine, many of the ribs and the long bones and bones of the hands and feet.  Just a few bones were not recovered.  The 9 day effort was a successful recovery, because of the degree of decomp and animal activity and time at the site.  Next photo is a survey showing where the bones were found.  He is explaining where the bones were found to the jury.  This map shows where all the bones were found.  He has a list, where all the bones were found.  In Area A they found primary deposit area, where the body was placed in the woods.  He goes on to say he can tell how the body was dispersed and scattered throughout the area.  They started at Area A and moved south.  When an area was searched he would talk to CSI Susan Mearce.  Then they expanded west and east.  They kept expanding till no more remains were found.  They cleared the whole area for surface debris and even the ground was scraped.  In Area A they found the initial area, the skull, the bags, the hand bones, the legs were found there as well as the left foot.  In Area B the upper arm bone was found.  In Area F they found the trunk of the body and the lower legs were dragged to this area, the lower legs were still attached.  In Area D they only found one bone, for the right foot, had carnivore damage, no other bones of the right foot was found.  In Area E they found one hand bone.  In Area G they had most of the spinal column and most of the ribs attached, this was consistent with animal damage.  Area H, ribs that are separated.  Area I had they found 20 vertebrae.  As the trunk was dragged through the woods, it stayed attached.  It probably still had tissue when it was dragged by an animal.  Based upon this dispersal pattern, his opinion that this body was deposited in Area A as almost a complete unit.  There is no indication that the body was dismembered by a tool.  It was a natural decomposition event.  The one particular bone they found that was buried is important because.........Side bar.........Side bar is over....

Jeff is asking for the witness to be considered an expert in Forensic Anthropology.  He is explaining dispersal at the scene and how long the body had been at the scene.  The one bone was almost completely buried.  The whole area had been flooded at one time.  This bone was buried sometime over the summer.  It was close to the Palmetto trunk.  It was in the lowest area, deposited by an animal, then almost completely buried.  Based on this, his opinion is that the remains were dry, no decomp odor, slight erosion on the bone, it appeared to have been there for around 6 months.  The dispersal of the bones was done by animal activity.  The bones were chewed on and there are missing bones, they could of been chewed and nothing remained of them.  Jeff is done..........

Mason is up.............

You examine the bones yourself?  Correct.  Did you x-ray the bones?  Yes.  In the examination of the bones and x-ray of the bones you found no evidence of prior fractures?  No.  No evidence of twists or torquing of bones?  No.  No evidence that this child had any trauma before her death?  No evidence.  Mason is showing him the map of bones from the recovery site.  How far is Area A from the pavement of the road?  Without a ruler, I would say 25 feet.  Did you participate in the measurements at all?  No, I already said that.  So this map just shows the area of the remains?  Yes.  When I ask you how far the skull was from the edge of the pavement?  You can't tell me?  If I had a ruler.  Do you know when the dispersement took place?  What are you asking me?  You know what was located in Area A?  They were all located in bags originally?  Yes.  The other areas were there were bones but no bags?  I couldn't tell you.  The majority of the bones were found in the Area A with the bags?  Yes.  It was only after you recovered the bones from Area A that you knew there were missing bones?  No, I wouldn't say that, people were finding bones outside of Area A while we were still at Area A.  You don't have any scientific data to show us when Area A were dispersed? No.  Same with B,C,D,E,F and I?  Yes.  You do not know how this child died?  I wouldn't answer that question.  Duct tape was not covering the nasal aperture?  No.  Mason is done........

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

What is the nasal aperture?  The hole where the nose would of been.  Do you know if the tape was covering the nose?  No.  The nose wasn't there anymore?  No.  Jeff is showing him a photo of the remains map.  He is referring to his report.  What was found in Area A, he is showing him on the map.  What was in Area B?  He is showing him on the map.  What was in Area F?  He is showing him on the map, clavicles, parts of pelvis and leg bones.  What was in Area G?  That is where we see separation of the spinal column and some ribs.  In Area H there were just a few bones.  In Area I they found 20 vertebrae.  Jeff is done........

The witness is excused.

[MuffyBee]

11:30am Friday, June 10, 2011 Court is in session.

Next witness is Dr. Jan Garavaglia.

She is Chief ME for Orange and Osceola Counties.  Prior to this she was employed as a ME in other areas.  She is a MD.  Internship in St. Louis.  She has a ton of education.  Goes on and on, she is board certified in many areas.

She became involved in the death of Caylee Marie Anthony on Dec 11, 2008.  She was alerted by Steve Hanson.  She was late for the airport and had ran back in and was told that they had found remains.  She was not sure who it was at that time.  She had an engagement she could not get out of, she told Dr. Utz to handle it. Recovery is a long process and her absence for the night would not matter.  She returned the following evening.  She then reviewed the photos of the scene and the ones taken at the ME office.  She went out to the scene, reviewed all the photos and made suggestions of what should be done and got other consultants in.  He is showing her a photo she reviewed.  It is of the hair mat and the roots that have grown through the hair.  Next photo shows hair mat and the roots that have grown completely through the hair mat and holes in the hair mat, probably from insect activity.  Next photo shows they teased out some of the hair from the hair mat to test for toxicological examination.  It also shows the length of the hair, it is more than six inches in length.  Next photo shows is of the hair and the roots with a scale to show the size. Did you examine a baby blanket?  Yes.  Did you have that photographed?  Yes.  He is showing her a picture of the blanket.  This blanket came into the ME office in this condition, just unfolded.  She can detect some figures on the blanket.  She took a close-up of the figures.  The next photo shows the figures.  The figure is Winnie the pooh with Piglet on his back.  Next photo shows the other side of that blanket.  That blanket had plant material growing in it.  The next photo shows the amount of plant activity growing through the blanket.  Next photo shows a scale with the blanket, shows lots of plant and root growth.  Next photo shows another photo of the root material in the blanket with a scale.  Next photo shows the same same blanket with root material and a scale from a different side.  There was also root material growing in the 2 plastic bags through the holes in the bags.  Next photo shows the root material growing through the black plastic bags.  There was also a canvas laundry bag with a shiny inside and the roots were only growing up and over the canvas bag.  Next photo shows the plant growth on the canvas bag.  There were roots in bones and the bags and the blanket. The t-shirt was disintegrated and the shorts had no plant growth.  To assist in identifying this child was through Nuclear DNA, they sent a bone off to the FBI to get DNA evaluation.  Showing a photo of the bone after it came back from DNA testing.  The portion that is missing from this bone was used for DNA testing, it was the right tibia.  She received a report from the FBI, that the remains were that of Caylee Marie Anthony.  She is to determine cause of death and manner of death.  Manner of death is based on scientific principles and gathering all the info of the case, medical history all scientific information to come up with an opinion.  Objection...Side bar

JBP is recessing for lunch until 1:30pm.

[MuffyBee]

1:46pm Friday June 10, 2011 Court is in Session.

Dr. Jan Garavaglia is back on witness stand.

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

Dr. Jan Garavaglia is the Chief ME for Orange and Osceola Counties. Jeff is showing her items marked for evidence.  First item contains the canvas laundry bag.  Next item is baby blanket, next item is body bag with leaf litter, next item is tied black plastic bag, next item is untied black plastic bag, next item is shorts, next item is t-shirt, letters and stitching, next item is the hair mat. 

Manner of death is the classification of death based on all the information avail to us.  Accident, homicide, etc.  She brings in to bear all her experience.  Her opinion is manner of death is HOMICIDE.  Based on 3 main items.  First a red flag is when a child is not reported to authorities with an injury, that is foul play.  2nd is that the child's body was hidden also it is often found that these children's bodys are in suitcases or plastic bags like in this case.  Another flag would be the duct tape.  There is no reason for a child to have duct tape on their face.  There is no reason for a child to have duct tape after they died. The cause of death is the chain of events that led up to the child's death.  What led up to the death.  She cannot render a medical conclusion of cause of death.  She can reliably say it is a homicide but she does not know what means it would of occurred.  The possible object with the body was duct tape that could of caused death or suffocation with a plastic bag.  She is aware of the chloroform in this case, a child subjected to a large amount of chloroform could of caused a child's death.  She doesn't have enough scientific cause to say what was the cause of death but it certainly was a homicide.  She can't rule out any trauma because the body was so decomposed.  Their was no antemortem injury to the bones that would of created death.  There was no history of illness to cause the child's death.  Jeff is done.........

Mason is up...............

You live in Orlando?  Yes.  For the period of time of 4 months you were aware of the media attention that was caused by this case, she does not watch news but she had heard of this case.  Did you know there was circus-like activity around the Anthony's home?  No.  Was she aware that it would be in her district?  No, she was hoping it would be in Lake County.  She was told by investigators about chloroform involved.  Did you bring in an expert for chloroform?  I brought in an expert, a toxicologist, of bones.  You sent him a piece of bone from the left femur?  Yes.  She sent Dr. Goldburger a piece of the left femur to test for chloroform and other volatile chemicals.  Meaning that you were looking for chemicals that could of contributed to this child's death?  Yes.  He did a myriad of tests?  No, it was very limited what he could do with bone.  When he was  done, the tests were negative to each and every test?  That is correct.  Were you present when Dr. Warner Spitz.......Objection...side bar....side bar over......Did the defense team's Dr. Warner Spitz attend the autopsy?  No, she was informed by her office that someone from the defense wanted to come but it is office policy that no one is allowed to come.  Were you aware that Dr. Spitz performed a 2nd autopsy?  Objection.......sustained.  What tests did Dr. Goldburger perform.  Tested her hair, scrapings from the bone marrow, bone, tested the washing she did of the cranial cavity.  All were tested for chloroform and Xanax. You did not cut open the cranial?  No, absolutely not.  You found no antemortem trauma?  No.  We found post-mortem trauma of animal activity.  You never found about any trauma to this child did you?  No, I did not.  You are confirming that despite all of this testing there is no scientific causes of this child's death.  You call it a homicide instead of an accident?  No, the circumstances involved only supported a homicide.  Nothing from the media was entered into her decision.  She would not place any suggestions into her saying it was ONLY A HOMICIDE.  What scientific information did you use?  Systematic observational studies, all the accidental causes, accidental drownings are immediately called in.  Everything has to be put into the circumstance of death, all studies, all known information.  By her experience and what is know by the way homicides occur, there is no logical explanation to not report a child missing and toss it into a field and leave it to rot.  Even hiding a child's body is indication and duct tape anywhere on a child is indication.  What of this is scientific?  Accidental deaths are reported and if you do not report and injury to authorities you are risking a child's life.  We know through our morgue that accidents are reported.  You are telling this jury that this death was not 100% accidental?  What if someone finds a totally dead child that was obviously drowned? They call 911.  No matter how stiff a body is, they want help to save that child.  He is badgering her. Objection....sustained.  Cause of death you don't know, manner of death was homicide?  Yes, the manner of death was defensible as homicide.  From other cases?  Yes.  If these remains were found 4 months before you would of had a better chance of finding cause of death?  Absolutely.  You said the duct tape was only on the lower mandible?  Yes.  Mason is done...............

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

The defense wanted to do a 2nd autopsy?  Yes.  Did you keep the body the same way as it was?  Yes.  Except for the items we sent for testing.  You kept everything intact for them?  Yes.  Did the testing for the substances you did from the bones and hair, did you think you would find anything?  No, not from bones.  At the stage of 4 months earlier, which would of been August after 2 months, what would the body be like?  Skeletonized, internal organs completely gone.  Dr G is excused.

[MuffyBee]

2:35pm Friday, June 10, 2011 Court is in session.

There is a matter going to be taken outside of the jury's presence.  He is excusing the jury.  He is giving them some deserts to enjoy and a special break. 

Casey is visibly upset and not sad, she is mad, mad, mad.

Jeff Ashton is asking the court to explain to the media that they are going to show photos of the skull and they are to be pixelated or blurred.  Baez wants a proffer for this tape.  He is showing a tape to the judge and gallery.  Casey is very, very mad.  Casey is definitely watching this and she is MAD, MAD, MAD!!!!  Baez is upset and has his arms crossed.  In Session's says that the CD is showing Caylee's smiling face superimposed with images of her skull.  The judge wants to know what is the relevance of this CD?  Jeff Ashton says this is a graphic representation of showing that a single piece of duct tape could of killed her.  The skull has to be there to show a one to one ratio of the duct tape.  The tape shows that the duct tape was the murder weapon.  Baez says that he has heard a lot of testimony about chloroform being the cause of death and now this fantasy tape shows a different cause.  This goes to 403 that it can't be used.  He says these images are disgusting and have no relevance.  Baez says that the ME or the anthropologist could do this without this graphic depiction.  The judge is telling them to reference McDuffy V State.  The judge needs to re-read it, he hasn't read it in awhile.  Baez tries to talk and JBP cuts him off.  Baez says if 403 was ever created for a matter it was created for this matter.  There is no testimony and can be no testimony that the duct tape was in this position.  He is also citing Pierce V State.  He goes on to cite the case.  He says there is no testimony that this duct tape was on this child's face.  One piece was found 9 feet away.  Judge tells Baez that this is going to be a proffer and he wants no objections.

Next witness is outside of juror's presence. Michael Warren.

He is a forensic anthropologist.  He is an Asst Professor of Forensic Anthropology. Did you work with Dr. Shultz in this case?  I did.  They took photos of the decedents skull and photos of the actual duct tape and photos of the actual child.  The scales in the photo are exactly comparable.  There is no way to match the tape to the child's skull because it has no soft tissue.  By using the skull and the photo, he can make sure that the tape is in the right place.  It is not possible without this evidence that he can decide where the tape would have been.  There are some measurements out there but not the one's that he needed.  Using other methods would not be as an exact as this evidence.  Jeff is done proffering....

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

When did you find out about duct tape being a murder weapon in this case?  The first day but Mr. Ashton was not there.  He made the suggestion to Mr. Ashton.  You weren't present when the duct tape was removed from the skull?  No, I wasn't.  So you only know from photographs what the hair mat and skull looked like?  Objection.  The hair mat was underneath Caylee's skull.  Yes.  When she was alive, the hair was not in a hair mat.  You don't know when this photo was taken?  No.  Children grow rather rapidly, don't they?  Yes.  The photo looked like it was close to the time she died. 

Judge asks Dr. what is the purpose of this demonstration?  A skull was utilized, explain to me why?  We took a photo of the skull with a scale and a photo of the duct tape with a scale, he can then use the photo of Caylee is a landmark. Judge asks, is the skull in the photo necessary for you to explain this evidence?  Without the animation?  Yes but not as clearly.  It takes the science out of the demonstration. 

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

There has not been significant growth between the photo and the photo of the skull?  Yes.  Jeff is done..............

Judge is asking Baez about case law he wants him to look at.  Baez gives him more case law.  Recess until about 3:15 pm......Court is in recess.

[MuffyBee]

3:35pm Friday June 10, 2011 Court is in session.

State's witness is Dr. Michael Warren.

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

He is Associate Professor of Forensic Anthropology at the University of Florida, he is the Director the the Human Identification Laboratory.  He has lots of education.  He has been qualified to be an expert witness 16-18 times, in Florida, Alabama and New York.

The judge declares him an expert witness.

He has a special interest in children forensics.  He became involved in the death of Caylee Marie Anthony by Dr. G and Dr. Shultz.  He traveled to Dr. G's office.  He saw what position the mandible was in when it was first found. It was still articulated at the TMJ.  That is  noteworthy because that joint is very lax.  There is nothing to hold that jaw in place after surface decomposition.  In his history he has had cases where the jaw was still intact.  The decedents had tape over their face, other than that he has never seen it.  He is familiar with the position of the duct tape but the duct tape had moved.  He determined that a single piece of duct tape would of been sufficient to cover both nose and mouth.  He did scientific studies to find out various landmarks on a child's face.  Which anatomical features were you interested in?  The nasal aperture and he bottom of the teeth and or airway.  He was able to get estimates from one landmark from the middle of the eye to the bottom of the chin.  The other method he used was video superposition. It is primarily used to identify the descendant.  You take a video of that skull and a photo of that person and you super impose.  You compare landmarks, the bottom of the teeth and the edge of the orbits, the root of the nose and the contours of the skull.  In this case ID of the skull was not necessary?  Correct.  I used that technique to super-impose a photo of the duct tape with a scale on it and a photo of the skull with a scale on it and a photo of the decedent, when she was alive.  Does what you created, help explain your testimony?  Yes it would.  The tape is received into evidence.  JBP is instructing the jury that this evidence is only to illustrate the expert's opinion, the expert's opinion is to be only believed if you believe he is an expert in that field.  Like all other witnesses you can give it whatever weight you want.

Showing the Video to the court.....

Casey is showing no emotion now.  Simms is talking to her, while the video is playing.  Casey seems calm but not watching the video again.

Video is over....Dr. Warren says a single piece of tape would of made breathing impossible.  Jeff is done...........

Baez is up and brought an easel.......

He is pleasing the court.  You were hired very early in this case?  Yes.  You never saw the duct tape attached to the hair mat?  No, just photos.  What is the program you used to design this video?  Quick time with Photo Shop.  It doesn't give you precise measurements?  Yes it can give you very precise measurements.  You don't know how old that photo you got of Caylee is?  You got it off the internet?  Yes.  You are showing that a single piece of duct tape could of covered both her nose and mouth?  Yes.  You can't testify that duct tape had anything to do with her death?  True.  Baez is drawing on his big pad.  He is showing the ground and the mandible and the skull on top, the duct tape was found in front attached to the hair?  Yes.  He is using pens of many colors.  The hair is generally on top of the head?  I can't see it. The witness stands down to look at the big pad.  The duct tape was attached to her hair?  Yes.  It was your understanding too, based on consultation at the scene?  Objection........Sustained.  Based on the evidence you were given to form your opinions that Caylee Marie's remains were in 3 bags?  Yes.  Were you able to see the canvas bag?  No.  Were you able to see the shape of the bag?  No.  Can you close that bag?  I don't know, I have only seen photos of that bag after it was recovered.  Objection....Sustained.  You don't know where the duct tape was?  Yes, it was over the mandible and the mouth.  There is no way that the body would of............objection....side bar.......side bar is over.....

He is showing the witness an item of evidence.  It is a photo where you can clearly see the hair mat.  When the skull was found the hair mat was on the surface?  Yes.  Slightly above it was the mandible?  Yes.  In order for the hair mat to be underneath the skull on the surface.  The skull must of been moved that way?  Correct.  That was quite graphic?  It was. Was that to appeal to the jury's emotions?  Objection.....side bar.......

[MuffyBee]

4:12pm Friday June 10, 2011 Court is in session.

State's witness is Dr. Michael Warren.

Side bar is over, the judge asked the jury to step out for a minute.

Baez is proffering.  You asked for this movie to be prepared?  Yes.  Was it for the purpose to appeal to the jury?  No.  Was it for the purpose to show the jury something of a graphic nature?  No.  Was it to make the jury emotional?  No.  It was just for the purpose of demonstrating to the jury?  Yes.

Judge calls for a 5 min break........break is over. 4:25pm

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

You are aware another piece of duct tape was found 9 feet away?  I was not aware of that?  What you showed us was just one possibility?  True.  There are other possible scenarios that could involve both her death and the duct tape?  NO.  What I am saying that there are other possibilities that could involve her death.  Yes.  You have no quick time movies of that, do you?  No

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

The duct tape was place prior to decomposition.  That mandible was held in place by the duct tape.  The duct tape was never stuck to the bone, when the tissue decomp the hair stuck to the tape, keeping the mandible in place.  Jeff is showing him a photo. This is the photo that Mr. Baez showed you?  Yes.  The hair is not under the mandible, when the scalp decomposes the hair slides down and settles around the base of the skull, often called a bird's nest.  Hair preserves fairly well, it lasts awhile.  Jeff is done......

Baez is up........

Baez is showing him a photo.  There is root growth under the mandible?  Yes.  Do you see roots attached to the hair mat?  I do.  The roots could also keep the mandible attached to the skull?  That's possible. Baez is done........

Jeff is up......

Are you familiar with plant growth involving decomp?  Yes.  Roots can keep a mandible in place but the hair would of had to fall off first?  Correct.  So the only thing holding the mandible in place would be the tape?  YES

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

You are not a botanist? No.  You don't know the position of that body?  No.  Or where the hair was?  No.  All you have is hair stuck to duct tape.  Yes.

[MuffyBee]

4:35 Friday, June 10, 2011 Court is in session.

Next state's witness is Michael Vincent.

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

He is a CSI, from Orange County Sheriff's office. He has testified previously in this case.  Did you collect insects in this case from the Pontiac Sun Fire?  Yes, I did.  Linda is showing him a piece of evidence.  It is one small vial containing maggots in a preserving solution, he collected and sealed it in an envelope and sent it to Dr. Haskel.  It came from the trash bag in the trunk.  Next item is vial of insect pupae, it was sealed by Inv. Welsh and shipped by him to Dr. Haskel. Linda is done.

Baez is up.......

You inspected the trunk and the items found in the trunk on July 17, 2008. You didn't collect this evidence on that day?  No.  An entomologist can tell what stage an insect is in?  Objection......sustained.  You have some training in entomology?  Yes sir.  You went to a course in entomology? Yes, sir.  This taught you that insects go through life stages?  Yes.
They can help pinpoint time of death? Yes.  You saw insect activity in the trunk?  No.  Baez is done.  Witness is excused.

Next witness is Robin Maynard

She is a CSI with the OC Sheriff's office.  She helped with the crime scene in Dec 2008. Linda hands her a piece of evidence, it is pupae collected 12-14-08 at the crime scene.  She relayed that she collected it and consulted with Dr. Neil Haskel.  She documented the location of the collection, she sealed it and sent it to Dr. Haskel. The next item is insect evidence collected on Suburban Dr, Dec 2008, sent it to Neil Haskel.  Next item is insect evidence, sent to Neil Haskel.  Next item is insect evidence, sent to Neil Haskel. A lot more insect samples were collected by her and sent to Neil Haskell. All items indicated where they were collected and the date. Next item is a red heart sticker on a piece of cardboard.  Linda is done....

Baez is up.......

The insect collection you did was done by several people?  Yes.  It was throughly done?  Yes.  To the point where Dr. Haskel said he had enough samples?  Yes.  You said that the red heart sticker on cardboard was found in a lane?  Yes.  Was other garbage including a beer bottle there too?  Yes.  So many items that you stopped collecting them?  I don't know there were lots of people collecting them.  This was a local dumping place?  I wouldn't say that?  It is by a school?  Yes.  Kids walk to school there?  I don't know.  Baez is done.

The judge is excusing the jury for the day.  He asked them how the desert lady was.

Baez is asking for a mistrial due to the highly prejudicial evidence admitted today.  The video of the super-imposed skull and photos.  The judge asks him one question.  Has not both the state and the defense advance theories about the locations of the duct tape?  Yes.  Did the expert say that there could be other possibilities?  Yes but it can't be out weighed by that beautiful child and a skull super imposed with duct tape. Jeff says the witness said that beautiful child did have duct tape over her face, her mouth, her nose or both.  That video was sufficient to show that child could be killed with duct tape.  It was a fair and necessary demonstration for this case.  JBP asks when does the defense want him to rule on the mistrial?  The judge says he can rule on a mistrial up until the time the jury reaches a verdict.  Correct?  The judge could rule on this evidence at the time a verdict is reached.

Request for a mistrial DENIED. 

[MuffyBee]

9pm Saturday June 11, 2011 Court is in session:

Next state witness is Neil Haskell.

Forensic Entomologist, various degrees from Purdue University.  Lots of experience in forensic Entomology.  Qualified as an expert witness in 28 states and Canada, Germany, Spain, Belize.  He is made an expert in forensic entomology.  Entomology is the study of insects.

He was contacted in 2008 in the death of Caylee Marie Anthony, in early Sept, 2008. Michael Vincent sent him insects from the car.  Larvae and pupae.  He received the first two samples in early September. He asked for a possibility for adults of the species. Michael Vincent then looked in the trash bag and sent him adults and the trash bag from the trunk. He sent the adults to someone else in his field to identify.  In his report to them, he stated that they would be regularly found in stages of decomp.  That is from the witnesses own testimony too.  The flies were found in the paper towels from the white plastic bag in the trunk.  All of them found were dead.  He found an abundance of puparia, larvae and adult flies on the paper towels.  The flies were on the towels, attracted to the substance on the towels, he thought that it was decomposition fluid on the paper towels.  The paper towels were analyzed by Dr. Arpad Vass.  He stated that the material was adiopocere.  He knows himself what adiopocere is.  He next he looked at time lines of the paper towels and impact of decomp and temperatures and the age of the insects.  In addition to the tiny flies he found a leg of a fly called blowfly.  A southern species of a blowfly.  These flies are frequently found in decomp, human and otherwise.  If the body of a young child was in that trunk for a long time and then moved to another location?  Absolutely, at the time of death, decomp begins and there is a progression....associated with the different stages of decomp, different insects come into feed.  The blowflies are the first ones in.  They are there immediately, esp if temps are hot.  As the body decomp changes the insects change.  The florid fly comes next and the decomp has progressed.  The decomp usually is seen within just a few days in heat.  They are very tiny.  They then lay eggs.  They can get in to very small openings.  He has recovered them in cracks in concrete.  He found an absence of the early decomp flies and a greater amount of the latter decomp flies.  That tells him that the body had to be deposited very early into the trunk and the first set of flies had left and now the florid flies had colonized the decomp.  Trunks can exclude the blowflies from the most part, especially if the car is well sealed.  The body being wrapped in plastic bags would lessen the amount of blowflies.  If it is totally closed and wrapped it can delay the blowflies to the point the decomp is so late, they no longer want it.  The amount of time the body was in the car, was 3, 4 or 5 days, in his opinion.  The significance of heat in the trunk is important, the flies are cold blooded and the growth development is very fast, to larvae and puparia.  At some point he found out the remains of Caylee had been found.  He came to Florida on Dec 16, 2008.  Between Dec 11 and the day he came he consulted with people on the remains scene.  He went to the remains scene and the impound lot and the ME's office.  He took a large number of specimens from the scene and the ME's office.  Took samples to be examined, he followed chain of custody and then examined the insect samples following protocols under microscopes.  Once they identify the insect they relate it to known growth development.  Life cycle of the insects is temperature dependent.  What he found from the ME's office he found insects from advanced decomp.  He found two species of blowfly puparia and Florid flies and Housefly species.  Then he found a species of the soldier fly, all hatched out.  All were present in advanced decomp events.  He found he went through life cycles of many species but it could of been earlier than those life cycles.  In his opinion the body was placed in the woods after it had been in the trunk.  In his opinion the body was placed by Suburban Dr for many, many months....based on the recovery scene..early June or July.  It was placed there as a decomposing body not skeletal remains. In his opinion it had considerable soft tissue left when it was place in the woods. The body was not in the trunk very long due to temperatures in the trunk, it was then placed in the woods off of Suburban.  Jeff is done.........

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

He is pleasing the court.  You were first consulted by Dr. Vass?  Yes, they were talking about another case and he mentioned this case. He and Dr. Vass go back 25 years with the Body Farm.  Dr. Vass is an anthropologist, he was studying with Dr. Bass.  The statements that you made to Dr. Vass that these were coffin flies, that was before you had seen any of the samples?  I don't remember.  Looking at a copy of his report, he received items from the trash, the first two vials received.  They were not from the trunk, they were from the trash bag.  They were the Florid flies, look like fruit flies, gnat size.  Baez says these flies are found anywhere?  Yes the can be found lots of places.  In your report these can be found in garbage?  They were found in a trash bag you changed it...laughter.  These came from a trash bag in the car.  You wanted some adult flies?  Yes.  He checked the trunk and that turned up negative results?  Correct. Then he told you he found some more insect activity in the trash bag from the trunk.  He found and sent more Florid flies from the paper towels in the trunk, there were some adults. DNA can be grabbed from lots of things?  Yes.  You can get DNA from insects?  Yes.  These paper towels were sent for DNA analysis?  I don't know.  I sent them for a bio-chemistry test to Dr. Vass?  Yes.  On the actual paper towels?  Yes, it was adiopocere.  What tests did he run?  I don't know, I trusted him to do the right tests.  You can't tell this jury what was done to these paper towels only what Dr. Vass told you?  Correct.  A blowfly leg was found on the paper towel in the trash bag?  Yes.  They are the early colonists for decomp, they are also found in your house?  Only if there is unprocessed meat.  You can find them on your window  sill?  Not mine.  Other houses can have them?  Yes.  Blowflies lay lots of eggs?  Tens of thousands.  All you could find is part of a leg?  Yes.  You can find parts of blowflies in any garbage?  Yes.  Later he examined filters from vacuum cleaners, there were some Florid flies and other carrion insects.  Baez is showing him a report.  This was sent to you in early 2011?  Yes.  Almost 3 years later you got the vacuuming of the car?  Yes.  You were able to pick out a few more insects?  Yes.  They came from decomposing fluids.  Do you know if they got into the trash or didn't make it into the trash.  It is my opinion they were in the trunk, they didn't get into the trash bag.  This wasn't very many insects?  Correct.  Part of your job is to do a PMI (post mortem interval)  to show how long a person might be deceased, or how long the insects might be attracted to an item.  In July, 2008 you could of had a better PMI if you had access to the trunk.  Lots of questions that I can't understand.  If you got entomological evidence on July 16th, 2008 you could of traced it back?  Depends on what was in the car on July 16th, 2008.  You weren't give items on July 16, 2008, you weren't contacted till Sep 2008. Correct.  In Dec you came down and conducted a investigation of the remains scene?  Yes.  It was the biggest scene you had been in?  Yes, the biggest in 30 years.  What was collected at the remains scene was all that could of been found?  I thought they did an excellent job.  Lots of LE and diff agencies were there?  Yes.  Most of the insects he saw from the scene were at the ME's office.  The witness is looking at his report.  He found specimens of different insects from the scene.  Baez is asking him about his report.  I can't hear him very well, he is away from the mic.  Baez is drawing on his big pad.  You have evidence that the body decomposed earlier in another area?  Yes.  The reason you feel so confident with these findings is because you go to see how thorough the remains scene was collected?  Yes.  Asking him about water, objection...sustained.  Tell us Dr. Haskell does submersion in water wash away certain blowfly evidence, would that change your opinion, objection...Sustained.  Isn't it true sir that eggs or larvae were washed off during the early portion of decomp, that would account for the small amount of insects?  If that is what I said, yes.  Asking him about samples he received.  He was hired in Sep 2008?  That is when I started working on the case, yes.  Then you went to the remains scene and the ME's office?  Yes.  You submitted reports?  Yes.  When did you do the report for Dec 2008?  He signed off on his reports almost a year after Dec 2008?  Yes.  Sir, you have been retained by the states attorney's office?  How much have you been paid.  20-22k, from the state, he still hasn't been sent any payment from Baez.  Baez says the check is in the mail.  By the time you send your final bill you will be in the area of 30 to 40K?  I don't know.  Baez is done...............

Jeff is up and asks Baez to leave his drawings.  Is there a difference between trash and garbage?  Yes, garbage is decomposing material, versus trash that is non-organic.  Is that significant?  Yes.  Insects will not go to non-organic material.  There was no organic material in the trash bag from the trunk.  Only empty food containers that the insects would not want to raise families in.  The majority of the Florids were on that paper toweling, attracted to the adipocere or picked up in the decomp fluids when they were mopped up by the paper towels.  The insects would of gone with the fluids in the paper towels.  Then they went through there life cycles in the paper towels.  There was no plants decomposing in that trash bag.  There was an unusual lack of blowflies in the trunk because the blowflies couldn't get it or it was too decomposed for the mother flies to want to lay eggs there.  A portion of decomp happened in the trunk, then was moved to the remains site.  Jeff is done.

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

Sir, you were present when they collected the trash or garbage?  No.  Your definition of trash or garbage could be different than mine?  Yes.  You were not present when this bag was collected and you don't know if it was soaking wet when it was collected?  There is nothing to suggest that it was.  Baez is showing him a picture.  Photos of two states exhibits.  Judge instructs Baez how to do this.  Shows him the photo of actual items of evidence.  Then asks him if he saw them as they were collected before drying?  He says probably not.  Shows him a picture of the items before they were dried, I can't hear Baez.  Baez asks him if he inspected the trunk for ways for flies to get in?  He said no. Baez is done.

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

Jeff shows him the same photo and asks him if he sees organic items?  He says no. Jeff is done.

Baez is up and asks him if he sees any organic matter in the photo and he says no.

The witness is excused. Taking the morning recess.

4 6/11 10:35:50 a.m.

9:50am Sat June 11, 2011 Court is in session.

Next states witness is Jennifer Welch.

She has testified in this case previously.  You were at the remains scene on Dec 11, 2008.  How long were LE at the remains scene?  10 days.  She took photos of items as they were collected.  There were 50 or more people at the crime scene.  To document the scene they set up a baseline and search lanes and then a grid.  As items were found then were flagged prior to the collection.  There was a wall of vegetation, hanging vines, trees, Palmetto trunks, there was leaf litter and then roots in the surface then larger roots.  It was difficult to walk on the surface due to large amounts of vegetation, as they cleared it was still difficult.  To assist to clear the area they were provided tools. Linda is showing a photo to the witness.  It shows a machete and a cover for the machete, they are standard issue items from the CSI.  They were owned by the OC Sheriff's Office, she doesn't recall these items already at the scene.  Linda is showing her another photo of large roots on the surface of the scene after some clearing and an evidence flag.  They cleared the west of the baseline they set up and this photo is taken after it was cleared 0-4 inches.  Next photo shows an evidence flag to indicate a bone.  This bone was collected and she made a measurement of how far in the ground this bone was.  Next photo shows the depth this bone was found.  Next photo shows the bone she collected that was partially buried.  In addition to photography she collected and document at the remain scene.  She collected over 390 items of evidence.  It included bottles and trash and pieces of black plastic bags that were scattered throughout the scene.  She collected a piece of duct tape near the area where the skull was collected to the SW.  Showing her an envelope of an item she collected at the remains scene, it is a piece of duct tape collected at the scene.  The witness extracts it from the bag and show it to the jury.  There are markings on the duct tape it says Henkle Consumer Adhesive. Did you also collect on the scene plastic paint strips with words?  Yes I did.  She hands the witness an envelope and the witness opens the envelope.  It is pink wording strips.  Lettering she found at the remains scene.  The witness shows the items to the jury.  She is holding up pink strips of lettering that say "Big Trouble Comes in Small Packages". They are dirty, aged and stained.  Linda is done............

Baez is up........

He is showing the witness a photo of the wooded area and the street of Suburban.  He wants to know how far the grass area is?  She doesn't know.  He wants her to guess the distance from the street to the grass?  10ft.  He asked her how far into the woods was the skull found?  She is referring to a report.  According to a report written by a CSI it was 19 feet, 8 inches.  He wants the witness to stand down to show the jury how far that is.  She steps down, he has her hold one end of the measuring tape and he holds another to show 19 feet, 8 inches.  The grass area was 10 feet?  Yes.  So this is how far the skull would be?  Yes but it was hidden by vegetation.  The duct tape that was just introduced into evidence, where was this item found?  To the SW of the skull.  How far away?  She doesn't know.  Was it in Area A?  No.  It wasn't in the area where the bag and the skull was collected?  That is correct.  That is the same kind that was found with the skull?  Yes, it had the same emblem.  He is showing her a photo of stones.  Where they found where the remains were?  One was.  Were they stone pavers?  Yes, they could be consistent with stone pavers.  Baez is done.

The witness is excused. Taking a recess till 11:30am.

[MuffyBee]

9:50am Sat June 11, 2011 Court is in session.

Next states witness is Jennifer Welch, CSI.

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

She has testified in this case previously.  You were at the remains scene on Dec 11, 2008.  How long were LE at the remains scene?  10 days.  She took photos of items as they were collected.  There were 50 or more people at the crime scene.  To document the scene they set up a baseline and search lanes and then a grid.  As items were found they were flagged prior to the collection.  There was a wall of vegetation, hanging vines, trees, Palmetto trunks, there was leaf litter and then roots in the surface then larger roots.  It was difficult to walk on the surface due to large amounts of vegetation, as they cleared it was still difficult.  To assist to clear the area they were provided tools. Linda is showing a photo to the witness.  It shows a machete and a cover for the machete, they are standard issue items from the CSI.  They were owned by the OC Sheriff's office, she doesn't recall these items already at the scene.  Linda is showing her another photo of large roots on the surface of the scene after some clearing and an evidence flag.  They cleared the west of the baseline they set up and this photo is taken after it was cleared 0-4 inches.  Next photo shows an evidence flag to indicate a bone.  This bone was collected and she made a measurement of how far in the ground this bone was.  Next photo shows the depth this bone was found.  Next photo shows the bone she collected that was partially buried.  In addition to photography she collected and document at the remain scene.  She collected over 390 items of evidence.  It included bottles and trash and black plastic bag pieces that were scattered throughout the scene.  She collected a piece of duct tape near the area where the skull was collected to the SW.  Showing her an envelope of an item she collected at the remains scene, it is a piece of duct tape collected at the scene.  The witness extracts it from the bag and show it to the jury.  There are markings on the duct tape it says Henkle Consumer Adhesive. Did you also collect on the scene plastic paint strips with words?  Yes I did.  She hands the witness an envelope and the witness opens the envelope.  It is pink wording strips.  Lettering she found at the remains scene.  The witness shows the items to the jury.  She is holding up pink strips of lettering that say "Big Trouble Comes in Small Packages". They are dirty, aged and stained.  Linda is done............

Baez is up........

He is showing the witness a photo of the wooded area and the street of Suburban.  He wants to know how far the grass area is?  She doesn't know.  He wants her to guess the distance from the street to the grass?  10ft.  He asked her how far into the woods was the skull found?  She is referring to a report.  According to a report written by a CSI it was 19 feet, 8 inches.  He wants the witness to stand down to show the jury how far that is.  She steps down, he has her hold one end of the measuring tape and he holds another to show 19 feet, 8 inches.  The grass area was 10 feet?  Yes.  So this is how far the skull would be?  Yes but it was hidden by vegetation.  The duct tape that was just introduced into evidence, where was this item found?  To the SW of the skull.  How far away?  She doesn't know.  Was it in Area A?  No.  It wasn't in the area where the bag and the skull was collected?  That is correct.  That is the same kind that was found with the skull?  Yes, it had the same emblem.  He is showing her a photo of stones.  Where they found where the remains were?  One was.  Were they stone pavers?  Yes, they could be consistent with stone pavers.  Baez is done.

The witness is excused. Taking a recess till 11:30am.

[MuffyBee]

11:35am Sat June 11, 2011 Court is in session.

Next witness is Ronald Murdock.

He is a Forensic Supervisor at the OC Sheriff's Office.  He goes to major crime scenes and has administrative duties.  He had supervisory duties over the remains crime scene.  He arrived on Dec 12, 2008.  He assisted in diagramming that scene, he used Total Station to diagram the remains scene.  He got the information to put in from Jennifer Welch.  He used other landmarks, roadway, lights.  That included the documentation where each bone was flagged and recovered.  He grouped those bones into various areas, he met with Dr. Shultz about documenting the bones.  Did you document a piece of duct tape that was found away from the skull?  Yes.  The Total Station program was on his lap top, it allowed him to print out the various screens from the Total Station program.  She is handing the witness those printouts.  First item is a diagram of the remains scene and all of the bones in those areas, the roadway, other landmarks and the duct tape.  Looking at another print out, it shows just the circled area where the bones were located.  He is publishing those two exhibits from his laptop.  First one has the bones in the diagram.  It is an overview of the roadway of Suburban Dr and the location of the bones.  The bones are circled in red.  He is zooming in on the bones.  Some areas have lots of bones, esp A and I.  There are so many bones it looks like an ink blot.  Lots of dots, the skull is one of those dots.  The system he utilized gives him the distance from Suburban Dr to the center of area A is 19 .8 feet.  The other line represents the brush line of grass that the county maintains.  The edge of the roadway to the wooded area is approx 5 feet.  Next photo shows the circled areas, the letter D-1 was a piece of duct tape.  He gave all the duct tape, the letter D.  It was a piece of Henkle Duct Tape.  There are two other pieces of duct tape that was not Henkle Duct Tape.  He used a surveying company to diagram the remains scene.  He also participated in a search warrant of the Anthony's house on Dec 11, 2008.  He was in charge of the evidence located at the Anthony house.  She is showing him a photo it shows the evening hours of Dec 8, 2008.  It shows the item and clothes found in a shed on the Anthony property.  Next photo shows the interior of another shed as it existed on Dec 11, 2008.  There is an item in this photo that was collected.  He is circling it on his monitor.  She is showing him the item.  It is the red metal gas can with another item of evidence attached.  Next photo shows a variety of stickers that were collected at the Anthony residence.  Baez asks for side bar.......sidebar is over. 12:07pm

Next photo shows a photo of Casey Anthony's bedroom on Dec 11, 2008.  Witness is refreshing his memory of the room.  Next photo is another photo of the same room.  Baez is objecting to these photos, over-ruled.  Next photo is of stickers found in Casey Anthony's room on Dec 20, 2008.  Next photo is of Caylee's bedroom.  It was taken Dec 11, 2008.  He collected items of evidence from Caylee's bedroom, she is showing him those items.  First item is Winnie the Pooh bedding from Caylee Anthony's bedroom.  Next item is Winnie the Pooh bedding items collected from the office room, dresser drawer in the Anthony's home Dec 11, 2008.  He collected items from the Anthony's garage on Dec 11, 2008.  First photo is of the Anthony's garage.  Next photo is a close-up of items in the Anthony garage.  It shows black plastic bags with yellow handles, they have items in them.  The items in those bags were removed and photographed.  The first item is in the next photo, it shows an off-white canvas laundry bag, brand name Whitney Design.  Linda hands him next evidence item it is the actual off-white canvas laundry bag, brand name Whitney Design found in the black plastic bag in the Anthony's garage on Dec 11, 2008.  He also collected various garbage bags, collected from the Anthony residence.  Linda hands him several bags, they contain the black garbage bags with yellow handles found in the Anthony garage on Dec 8, 2011.  One bag was found in a suitcase.  One bag was found inside of a cooler.  Next item is a black garbage bag with yellow handles from the south shed.  Next item is 2 black garbage bags with yellow handles, inside of a dog crate in the Anthony garage.  One of the black plastic garbage bags with yellow handles was packaged with the canvas laundry bag it contained, when found in the Anthony's garage.  Linda is done.........

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

The diagram you showed us earlier showed us a piece of Henkle Duct Tape outside of the Area A?  Yes.  Can you tell us how far it was away from the skull?  Approx 6.27 feet.  The search warrant for the Anthony home, you knew you were looking for a special duct tape?  Yes, I knew it had a brand name.  You didn't find any in the garage?  No.  Did you find it in an area with other tape?  I don't recall.  You didn't find the Henkle brand wrapped around any pipes or wires?  No, it would of been collected if found.  You collected the items?  I was in charge of collecting the items.  You went into the attic?  Someone did.  They didn't find any Henkle duct tape?  No.  You searched the pool, the shed, it was thoroughly searched and you found no Henkle duct tape?  No, we didn't find any other than on the gas can.  How many people were searching the Anthony home?  10 people.  The gas can was the only item you found Henkle brand duct tape was on the round red gas can?  Yes.  Baez is showing a photo of one of the sheds.  You took all of these items out of the shed?  Yes.  There was no Henkle brand duct tape on any of these items?  No.  Not on the shovel, the saw, the lawn equipment?  No.  This lawn mower had no Henkle brand duct tape?  No.  Was there a lock on that shed?  Yes.  How was that shed opened.  I am not sure.  Except for the bedding you only collected black garbage bags?  The witness is looking over the evidence collected.  That shed had a black garbage bag collected.  As it relates to any duct tape, the only place you found Henkle duct tape was on the red, round gas can?  Yes.  Did you ever find the roll of Henkle brand duct tape?  No.  Did you search the cars on the property?  Yes.  You found no Henkle brand duct tape in them?  No.  Witness is excused.

 

[MuffyBee]

12:41 Sat June 11, 2011 Court is in session.

Next state witness is Gerald J. Johnston.

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

He owns the land survey firm, Allen and Company.  He provided a survey for the OC Sheriff's Office, in Dec 2008.  He has seen the video and the animation of what he provided, he used measurements provided to him.  Linda is showing him a piece of evidence, it is a CD of the video he provided of the crime scene.  The jury is now seeing the video.  It is in 3D, it is a combination of the ground topography conditions seen that day.  They stripped away the trees to show what was going on, on the ground.  The pavement is several feet higher than the woods as it falls away from the road.  It shows all views of a 3-Dimensional Fly Through of Suburban Drive on Dec 11, 2008.  It shows that trees were removed to show the ground.  It shows that the ground cover had been removed by CSI before this was taken.  It is now showing where flags indicated bones that were recovered from the OC Sheriff's items, he was provided those measurements by the OC Sheriff's Office.  Witness is excused.

The judge is dismissing the jurors for the day.  Court is in recess till Monday morning at 9am.

[MuffyBee]

9:00am Monday June 13, 2011 Court is in session.

First state witness is Stephen Shaw.

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

Stephen Shaw is Hair and Fiber Examiner for the FBI.  He has been employed as this for 6 years.  He has 2 degrees in hair and textile.  He has had additional training as a hair and fiber examiner for one year at the FBI including ID tests, matching tests, oral boards and final tests.  He has previously testified as an expert in court 12 times, Florida, NY, CA, other  states.  The judge makes him an Hair and Fiber Identification expert.

In Dec 2008, he became involved with a hair in the case of Caylee Anthony.  It was the part of the quality assurance procedure.  They have another examiner perform the same tests to make sure the first one was correct.  It confirmed the apparent decomp and microscopic similar from the sample hair to the hair brush.  He was given a hair mass to examine it was submitted by OC Sheriff's office.  He examined the hair mass, hairs microscopically and compared it to the hair from the trunk of the vehicle.  He found decomp on a hair in the hair mass, it was at a later stage of decomp.  It had the band and the root but it had a brushed like appearance related to later decomp.  All of the hairs were microscopically similar.  This hair and the hair mass were consistent to each other and the hair found in the trunk.  He has done research in the FBI for decomp found in hair.  The preliminary results are from 600 hairs from living persons, stored in different locations, indoors in water, out doors in sunlight cars and car trunks in different climates and in different locations.....time periods varied....he then examined the root ends of the hairs, none had root banding.  Known deceased hairs he tested confirmed post-banded hairs. Examiners did make mistakes on two of the hairs, they eventually compared these hairs and confirmed they were not death banded. Side bar.........Side bar is over.  Baez wants a proffer over the power point demonstration.  Baez says he had no knowledge, lol.  Of the power point demo.  Baez wants things to be done in a just way.........Oh brother, lol.  Ashton says that everything in the power point has been provided to the defense.  Baez is still going on and on and says he only got the photos and they are black and white photos, color is different.  If it is going in living color, there is a difference.  Now he is worried about living,,,,,,,geesh.  The only one he is worried about living is his beloved Casey.  Yuck.....

Looking at photos on the monitor, they are hairs used in the study he performed.  Hairs from living people before and after they were studied. Baez wants to know if the dark area in the living samples, show decomp and he says no.  It is not apparent decomp.  It is something natural in someones hair.  Next photo is hair stored in the trunk of the vehicle they are from a living person, more photos from living people, none had the band.  The darkening in the root area is not a band.  When you refer to the banding what do you mean?  Band has to be above the root bulb and it has to be opaque of a certain thickness, in a known dead person's hair.  The decomp in living hair is not the same. The testimony can be confusing antemortem means from a living person and postmortem means from a dead person. Prior to this case was this banding known?  Yes.  Showing more slides of hair in the tests. These are postmortem hairs.  Baez is just going on and on asking about the test done on Hair-Banding by the FBI.  Jurors are not in the court during this proffering.  Baez asks if the climate is the number one factor in decomp?  Yes, in the rate of decomp.  He said hairs in warmer climates will produce bands faster, lol. Baez is done, done, done and I bet he wished he never asked that question, lol. Are there are differences in hair from adults and children?  No, we don't can't tell if a hair came from a child or a an adult.  A hair from a young child can be thinner.  There were two children in the test, there were no difference in the findings.  Were any of these hairs exposed to trash or garbage?  No, not that I am aware of.  Mr Baez is done, he says they may be cumulative and the power point says it is improper bolstering and improper climates.  He says we are talking apples and oranges.  Also 403, an unfair prejudice, we were given this at the last possible second and we can't do a similar study.  Judge says it is not a 403, it is a 6th amendment right.  Baez says it is both.  The power point is just not fair.  Judge is asking when this study was done?  March, 2011.  They told the state and the defense then that it was done.  The judge wants to know when and what was told to the state and the defense of this study.  Ms Lowe told the state and the defense of this study in Mar 2011.  It was provided to the state in color photos and the fact the study had been done in May.  They were emailed in color.  Jeff Ashton says the state and defense were told by a teleconference that the study was done.  Arrangements were made over numerous photos.  The photos were requested and sent to the local FBI in color.  They have been provided in color many times.  The state has them in color, Jeff did not know that the defense printed them out in black and white.  The state emailed them in color.  He is not responsible for the defense printing them out in color.  Ms Simms says some were sent last week.  Jeff says they were not aware they had black and white photos that were not acceptable.  Ms Simms is complaining about when she got the photos and the day she got them.  She has not been able to cross examine in deposition all of this experiment.  She requested but she was not given color copies or make her own.  The FBI says it could not release it because it was currently research material.  Jeff Ashton is addressing the improper bolstering argument.  This does not come under improper bolstering.  Baez has a concern of finding himself in the middle of trial and he can't do a thing about this power-point.  He has done every single thing they can and the FBI has been wonderful, however it is still unfair.......just unfair.  He has never done anything about this unfortunately but Ms Simms has.  This test began after the depo was taken after Mr Shaw was deposed.  Ashton says that the FBI offered to have this examined in person and the defense did not do it.  This study was contemplated before this case.  This case spurred him on but it had already been contemplated.  Judge now says what Casey is charged with......the state has indicated that they seek the Death Penalty.  Rule 3.220 says the state must provide certain things to the defendant, it is not the FBI's responsibility to provide it, it is the state.  He goes on to say that he finds it troubling that the state in the 9th hour provides a power-point in color that was not provided to the defense.  The power-point is denied.  However, the the expert has testified and it will stay as is.  It is the state of Florida not the FBI responsibility for this power-point, it will not be shown to the jury.  The FBI expert can testify about it but the photo's from the power point can not be used.  The defense could open the door to the power point if it asks anything about the photos.  Recess for five minutes. 10:15