Skip to main content

tv   MSNBC News Live  MSNBC  July 3, 2011 10:00am-11:00am EDT

10:00 am
>> this is the landry bag taken from the anthony house during a search warrant on, i believe, december 11 of 2008. this is the mate of the bag that served as caylee's coffin. remember we saw a photograph of an ad. they're sold in sets. there's a square one, a cylindrical one. this is the square one. the sicylindrical one is in thi bag.
10:01 am
states exhibit 264. i'd rather not take it out because it's not in very good condition. that bag was caylee's coffin. could i have photo state's exhibit 233? this is the photograph of the shorts that were found with the remains of caylee anthony. you'll recall from the medical examiner's testimony, it's very, very tattered from decomposition. state's exhibit 314. this is a photograph of caylee anthony wearing those very same shorts. could i have state's exhibit 237? this is a photograph of the lettering that was found in the bag with the remains of caylee
10:02 am
anthony. the last remnant of a shirt. remember the testimony was all that was left of the shirt was the stitching around the collar and these letters. could i have state's exhibit 13 please? there's a photograph of caylee marie anthony wearing the shirt in which she died, with not a strange er, but casey anthony. could i have 255 please? photo in evidence, and i'll need exhibit 288. this is a photograph of the
10:03 am
blanket that was with the remains of caylee that was found on december 11 of 2008. you'll notice in the middle of the photograph you see a particular character, winnie the pooh with piglet on his shoulders. exhibit 288 is the bedding that was on the bed that was han taned by the grandparents for all those months she was supposedly missing. you'll see the winnie the pooh theme, but also you'll see the
10:04 am
exact same figure on the bumper from caylee anthony's bed. this blanket was not taken from the home of some stranger. it was taken from the home of george and cindy anthony where cindy and caylee lived. the claim that some stranger abducted caylee anthony was no longer tenable. just as the claim that she had -- just as the claim that caylee was at zani's sleeping, just like the claim that she worked at universal studios, just like the claim that she left caylee at zani's house.
10:05 am
one by one those claims died. and by the time caylee's body was found, any suggestion that caylee was kidnapped and murdered by a stranger was gone. there was no question left that caylee anthony died at the hands of someone in that house. when we started this trial, the defense in opening statement made some statements. i want to first, of course, remind you that what the attorneys say, what i say, what defense counsel says is not evidence in this case. the evidence you must decide this case on is what comes from the witness stand or from these exhibits in evidence.
10:06 am
in opening statement, defense counsel gave you a very, very detailed explanation, story of how caylee anthony died, withdraw mat tiwith dramatic flare, he told you about casey anthony being awake ended in the morning screaming at her, where's caylee, where's caylee! about a frantic search for child, about the grandfather bringing her up, wet from having pulled her from the pool and laying her at casey's feet and screaming, this is your fault! this is your fault!
10:07 am
the judge will instruct you on the definition of reasonable dou doubt. he will tell you that a reasonable doubt is not a mere possible, a speculative, imaginary or forced doubt. such doubt must not influence you to return a verdict of not goility, if you have an abiding conviction of guilt. the defense's opening statement has not been established by any evidence in this case. >> objection, judge. move to strike. >> overruled. >> in fact, the only evidence presented in this case is that it did not happen. george anthony, the first witness you heard in this case,
10:08 am
told you that it did not happen. you may not speculate. you may not imagine, and there is simply no evidence in this case to support that contention, and you must, you must reject it. the defense's opening was not simply to create one villain. the defense was not satisfied with one. they suggested a second. they suggested someone that counsel referred to as morally bankrupt, roy kronk. the defense in opening suggested
10:09 am
to you somehow, and perhaps counsel will clarify this in his closing argument, that somehow george anthony disposed of caylee's body, and that george anthony was somehow -- actually, we'll concede george anti many is connected to the tape. the tape is from the house. that george anthony's connection to the tape somehow connects him to somehow placing the tape on caylee's body. remember defense counsel said follow the tape. but then in the same opening statement he suggested to you that roy kronk somehow took the body, kept it in another location and then returned it. in fact, one of their witnesses, dr. spitz suggested, what i
10:10 am
would submit to you, based on the evidence, the nonsensical proposition that someone came along, took the skull, took it home and put tape on it. ladies and gentlemen, you can't have it both ways. either george anthony is the person that put the tape on, which we know is not true, or roy kronk is the one that put the tape on. you can't do both. it's one or the other. either somebody put the tape on that child before the child decomposed, or they didn't. the arguments made by the defense in this case i would submit require you to suspend your common sense, to leave in pinellas county everything you know about how people think and act and why they do what they
10:11 am
do. it's a trip down a rabbit hole into a bizarre world where men who love their granddaughters find them drown and do nothing, where men who love their granddaughters take an accident, a completely innocent act, and make it look like a murder for no reason. a world where a man who buries his pets will take the granddaughter who was the love of his life and throw her in a swamp. this is the world that the defense invites you to occupy. and a world where a guy who runs across a skull and reports it three times to the police and is
10:12 am
blown off by them, takes the skull and the mandible which is worth a lot of reward money, takes it home for four months, puts tape on it somehow and then brings it back and sets it back where it was and calls the police. in any world, even the most morally bankrupt, greedy, reprehensible reprabate, if they're motivated by money oopsz and want to report finding a child's skull that everyone in the country is looking for, and if all they're motivated by is money and the police are not
10:13 am
listening, you walk down the street, turn the corner, find any one of dozens of reporters and say come with me, i got a story for you. every single one of those reporters would be in that scene right then and there if that's what roy kronk had done. roy kronk, it's on tape. nobody wanted to listen to him, so he gave up. four months later, he came back, reported it it's still there. you can looked at the photographs of that body and without any assistance from expert testimony tell that body has been there for a very, very long time. it didn't just get set there. that tape didn't just get put on that skull. you know how you know that because the tape is decomposed just like everything else is. you've seen photographs of the
10:14 am
tape. you've got it in evidence. that tape has been out there for a very long time. you heard testimony from the -- ms. lowe, the fiber analyst, who told you that that tape didn't even have any cotton in it. we know it's the same tape as the tape in the garbage, but that tape had been out there for so long, it didn't even have cotton in it anymore. she couldn't even tell scientifically they were the same. everyone can see they are the same. that's how long it had been there. the tape did not just get out there a few days before. all the evidence says that that's impossible. >> look at the facts of this case and you will see that there
10:15 am
is absolutely no possibility, reasonable or otherwise, that george anthony had anything to do with disposing of this body. this is a doting grandfather who loved that child more -- literally more than life itself. you watched him on those hours and hours of videotapes in conversations with casey anthony. you saw the pain, you saw the anguish, you saw the questions that he wanted answers to because he didn't know, and you have his suicide note. january 22nd, 2009, george anthony was ready to end his life to be with caylee. and that note, when you read that note -- it's going to go back with you.
10:16 am
you can read it as many times as you want. there is absolutely no way that the man that wrote that note knew anything about what really happened to his granddaughter. that's what was killing him. he didn't know. he had nothing to do with this crime. but the evidence that casey did is overwhelming. casey's car, when it's retrieved from the tow yard on july 15 of 2008 reeked of death. the first witness you heard talk about it, simon burch, the gentleman with the english accent, manager of a tou yard, not a police officer, baugh guy for 30 years has been involved
10:17 am
in towing cars. he also spent two years in waste management which is also i think important. he told you -- he said, i have smelled everything that a human being can leave in a car when it gets towed. people leave groceries in a car, car gets towed, grocery rot in the back. five or six cars with with dead bodies on them. i've smld it all. yes, i will submit to you he smelled rotten milk, too. he told you when he approached that car the first time and leaned down to get the vin number, he smelled something and he knew what it was. he told you when he went back there with george anthony and
10:18 am
smelled that car, when the trunk was opened, he said to himself, whoa, i know what that is. mr. burch has no reason to lie about any of that. could have stopped there. he was very, very persuasive i submit to you. we didn't. we went further. you heard from professional witnesses, crime scene technicians who smelled it, unfortunately, on many occasions, unforgettable, unforgettable. the defendant's own father even at the time said i've smelled that before and i know what it smells like. but we didn't stop there. we got help from the one person who has studied the odor of
10:19 am
human decomposition more extensively than anyone else, dr. arpad vass, 20 years she spent, the last ten specifically studying the odor of human decomposition. he told you when he opened that can, he jumped back and said i know exactly what it is. but we're not just relying on his nose, but on science, too. he examined the evidence, examined the odor. what's important about what he did with the odor is he actually took a piece of the carpet, separated it from the trunk so the odor he was getting had to come from the carpet itself, in other words, not some ambient odor from something that had been in the car before, but from
10:20 am
the carpet itself. in fact, the defense's own expert, dr. furton, agreed that that process would render an odor from the carpet itself, submitted it to instrumental exam snags. now, both dr. vass and dr. furton agree that in this state of the science there is no signature set of chemicals that is indicative of only human decomposition. they both agree on that. all they can say, either one is that it's consistent. dr. vass, who has researched this more than anyone else says it's consistent, could it be from other sources, other things that were not found in the trunk? of course. but those things wouldn't smell like human decomposition. you could put together a coincidental group of chemicals to account for everything. you could throw in some gasoline, maybe throw in some
10:21 am
chloroform, bleach, you could throw the chemicals together, but it wouldn't smell like human decomposition because the smell is unique. he tested the odor, the carpet, one for inorganic, one for organ irk, and he tested the paper towels. everything he tested came back to one specific cause, that there was a dead body in the back of casey anthony's carr. the defense presented dr. furton who is experienced in this area, not as experienced as dr. vass, because dr. furton's area is in individual scents, the scents that you and i give off in life as individuals. some of the students study human
10:22 am
decomposition. he admit thad the odor coming from the car was from human decomposition. he tried to present alternative sources of decomposition, such as milk or cheese. but ultimately he had to admit that the items that were in the car, that is the garbage, wasn't sufficient. i guess it was dr. huntington, the bug guy, who tried to talk about is there was maybe salami and remember i showed it to him, it was a piece of paper. dr. furton tried to talk about the cheese and the vel vitae packages. there was a tiny residue in it. and ultimately even he agreed that what was in that garbage was not sufficient. we have exploded the myth of the garbage as a source of this odor. even dr. furton admitted that,
10:23 am
no, this garbage wasn't sufficient to give the odor that was found on these items and, in fact, the odor that was still present by the testimony of their own expert, dr. huntington, that he still smelled two years later. you all in your clon life and experience have smelled common household garbage. i've sure you've walked past dumpsters, got your husband or wife to take out the garbage, it took a little too long. what garbage smells like is not beyond your experience. ladies and gentlemen, when you remove a bag of gar damage from a trunk, the smell goes with it. it doesn't stay in the trunk. it was there because caylee's body had been there.
10:24 am
but that's not the only evidence you have. you have a hair. a single hair was found in the trunk of casey anthony's car with an artifact that you heard, i'm sure more than you ever wanted to about, but an artifact which is only found in hairs attached to decomposing human bodies. and that particular expert testimony has not been rebutted by any other testimony you've heard in this case. you heard lengthy testimony from stephen shaw -- >> objection. >> overruled. >> you heard lengthy testimony from stephen shaw about a test he did, where he literally told you, i was trying to create this artifact in a hair taken from a living person.
10:25 am
i tried to find every method i could think of, every decomposition situation i could think of, to try to recreate this particular artifact, and he couldn't do it. no matter how hard he tried, he could not replicate it. now, defense counsel debated with him some photographs where there was some darkening and debated whether that was banding, wasn't banding. the fact is when you look at the things from the trunk of the car, the inside of the car, the same circumstance as this particular hair, they didn't have any markings at all, no decomposition of any kind. regardless of whether you debate whether having a hair buried in the dirt for a month can create something that looks like, so what? this hair wasn't in dirt for a
10:26 am
month. it was in the back of a car. the point is that that hair was from a dead body. how do we know that was caylee's body? two ways. the first is mid condrey y'all dna. that mitochondrial comparison proves that hair either came from soma ternl relative of casey anthony, which means it had to be either from caylee, casey, cindy, lee or cindy's mother. okay. we know it's not casey's because it's too long and casey's hair is treated. we know it's not casey's. we know it's not cindy's because it's the wrong color. it's not treated and it's too
10:27 am
long. we know it's not lee's because it's too long. lee's hair is short. this hair is nine inches long. we know it's not cindy's mother because cindy's mother -- cindy's mother had been in the car once, but cindy's moth ir's hair is treated and this hair is not. this hair could only come from caylee marie anthony. remember, the testimony is that the hairs actually taken from caylee's body also had the band just like the hair from the trunk. the only difference was the hairs from the broad difficult, the roots had completely decomposed, where the one in the trunk had not. as hard as it is to accept, when
10:28 am
casey anthony was at blockbuster on june 16 walking arm in arm with her boyfriend tony, caylee was in the trunk of her car in the early stages of decomposition. when casey returned to the house on the 17th or 18th, she backed her car into the garage with the intention of burying caylee in the back yard. she went to brian burner and borrowed a shovel. based upon the dog alert ms. the back yard, she in all likelihood actually took caylee's body back to the back yard and set it down
10:29 am
for a period of time. was digging too much work? perhaps. she decided instead to toss caylee's body in a swamp. the evidence in this case proves beyond any reasonable doubt that casey anthony decided on june 16th that something had to be sacrificed, that the conflict between the life that she wanted and the life that was thrust upon her was simply irreconcilable and something had to give. she chose to sacrifice her child for the life that she wanted. she took her child.
10:30 am
she took her life and she put her in the trunk and forgot about her. after a couple of days she couldn't forget anymore. she disposed of her body in a swamp. these are the facts that you have heard and these are the facts that prove beyond a reasonable doubt that casey anthony is guilty of murder in the first degree, and that that murder is premeditated. the defense says and will say that they can prove how caylee anthony died. let me echo the words of dr. jan garavaglia in this case, and she says. there is no good reason to put
10:31 am
duct tape over the face of a child. why would you put duct tape over the face of a child? there's two reasons. one is perhaps to silence them, but then why do you need three? remember in this case there wasn't one piece of duct tape placed over caylee's face. there were three. overlapping at angles placed over her face. why do you need three? what does three do that one does not? one would certainly violence her if for some reason that's what you wanted to do, as brutal as that would be. why do you need three?
10:32 am
you need three because your purpose is not to simply silence the child. your purpose is to make sure the child cannot breathe. the first piece goes over the mouth but that doesn't secure the nose. the second piece goes over the nose. but you could still have some gaps. so you have to be thorough. you have to have three, one, two, three. and then the child dies. there is simply no other reason. there is no other justification. there is no common sense. there's just no reason to put duct tape over the face of a child, living or dead.
10:33 am
and that, ladies and gentlemen, is proof beyond a reasonable doubt of how caylee died. because there simply is no other explanation for why you put duct tape over the nose and mouth of a child. based upon the photographs you is seen, it is crystal clear that that's where the tape was, that the medical examiner told you, the forensic anthropologist told you there's no question that that tape was on caylee's face before her body decomposed because otherwise the mandible wouldn't have been in place and it was. you can see the photographs of the tape. i don't want to show them to you again. you can look at them in deliberation. you can see the photographs. the duct tape is curved slightly under the jaw. there are even strands of the duct tape that go under the jaw. that tape was placed there with
10:34 am
one singular purpose. n now, we can only hope that the chloroform was used before the tape was applied so that caylee went peacefully, without fear. but go she did. and she died because she could not breathe. she died because she had three pieces of duct tape over her nose and mouth, and she died because her mother decided that the life that she wanted was more important. this murder was premeditated, and the defendant is guilty. thank you. >> ladies and gentlemen of the jury, we'll take a 15-minute recess at this time and ask you not to discuss this matter among
10:35 am
yourselves, nor with anyone else. we'll take a 15-minute recess at this time. well, there you have it, everyone. it is the end of the prosecution's closing arguments which is leaving some of us here in the studio at least, the two attorneys that i'm joined by, jonna spilbor as well as randy zelin, a little surprised. this went on just over an hour, maybe an hour and 15 minutes max. there was an anticipation, an estimation it would go up to four hours, we would be taking breaks during the closing arguments. what does that say to you, jonna? does that say he came in here very well prepared, very concise. brevity may be appreciated by the jury and the judge in these circumstances. does he come off as being confident? i know what i've got and laid it out nicely and succinctly? >> very easily, yes.
10:36 am
this is his first bite at the apple, he did an excellent job on closing argument. what strikes me the most is he did a terrific job steering the jury away from the elephant from the room and the elephant in the room is there was no evidence of the cause of death of this little girl. he navigated around that completely and brilliantly if i do say so. >> all right. randi, we were talking during this trial and you took issue with i want to say the order of events, the way things were presented by the lead prosecutor in this case, jeff ashton. tell me how you have done things differently? >> i have to tell you i'm sitting here and stunned. i literally was watching the clock. when are you going to tell these jurors what happened, the what, the when, the where and the how to get to the who and why? i was very critical of him as we were talking, what are you waiting for? the way he ended was amazing.
10:37 am
i might have mentioned it at the beginning because of primacy and recency. but in the end he told them why this is murder one. >> define primacy and recency. >> meaning you start strong and end strong. people remember what you first tell them and they remember the last thing you tell them. it's all the in between that gets lost. it took him over an hour to actually answer, as jonna just said, deal with the elephant in the room. how. why is this murder one as opposed to a terrible accident or maybe some ridiculously stupid thing i want to knock my kid out and i killed her but i didn't tend to kill her. three pieces of tape, what he's saying is she intended to kill her daughter. >> casey's reaction, jonna, through all this, she went through a myriad of difficult plays of emotions. >> kind of strange. i can't tell whether she's mad,
10:38 am
mad because she thinks she's being lied about to this jury or mad because she murdered her kid and got caught. her mother look like she was almost sleeping, she was looking down, wouldn't look at the prosecutor as he was making the argument. >> how about the tears, randy? >> my gut and oftentimes what makes defense attorneys and even prosecutors and people successful is the ability to go with your gut. i was looking at her saying, as you just said, which is i'm done. he unpeeled me. this guy unpeeled me. what were we thinking? this opening statement, i'm dead. >> we'll be joined by attorney ann bremner who is following things inside the courtroom. your takeaway, first of all,
10:39 am
with the blefity by which jeff ashton made his closing arguments. a lot of people thought it would go on for some time. >> i thought it was brilliant. brevity was the key. you heard his whole theme the whole time, the life she wanted versus the life she had. i could hear him getting to a close with that. that's what he ended with, so beautifully done. i think with the jury having heard the case this long, that's the best way to go, so organized, some compelling. low key in a lot of respects. with the theme that went through out, made sense come pelling with the call to arms and ended in time. >> what i -- as i was watching this, there were points where i was listening to the points being made by mr. ashton and i literally got sick to my stomach, envisioning the scenarios he was laying out. at those times i found myself looking at casey. is that what the jury is doing? do they take their eyes off the attorney? or are they watching casey the
10:40 am
entire time as they listen to what the attorney is saying? >> they will watch for her reactions. those times that made you sick to your stomach, i think i was sitting here, it brought tears to my eyes to think of caylee's last moments and god held her, she didn't suffer, that the chloroform took over her first. my god, they're probably looking at casey with daggers during that i would imagine. i think that's the key when you're giving a close rg argument as a prosecutor, you want the jury to look right at the accused those moments and fix on her and say, you know what? she did it. >> do you think there's a possibility that it may result in a hung jury, a case dismissal for now and we have to come back and do this all over again? >> i think that was such a compelling closing argument. i have to tell you, i wasn't
10:41 am
watching that at first, i was just listening, i kept thinking, is that jeff ash son? because he's usually so emotional and he just did a brilliant job, and it's the kind of closing that can result in a murder one conviction in this case because he made it, took the lies juxtaposed to the reality and took him right down that path. when you thought about her with her boyfriend with caylee decomposing in the trunk of the car, that's the kind of argument that's so compelling again that she did it. >> that was compelling to say the least. >> ann bremner, randy zelin, jonna spilbospilbor, we'll dock and pick up with casey anthony. we'll also get into the other news of the day as there's a 15 to 20-minute recess in orange county, florida. stay with us. i'm alex witt.
10:42 am
10:43 am
10:44 am
diabetes testing? it's all the same. nothing changes. then try this. freestyle lite® blood glucose test strip. sure, but it's not gonna-- [beep] wow. yep, that's the patented freestyle zipwik™ design. did it just-- [both] target the blood? yeah, drew it right in. the test starts fast. you need just a third the blood of one touch.® that is different. so freestyle lite test strips make testing... easy? easy. great. call or click-- we'll send you strips and a meter, free. free is good. freestyle lite test strips. call or click today. 44 past the hour. other news now as we cover the
10:45 am
casey anthony closing arguments, a messy oil spill in montana near the yellowstone river friday night, an underwater exxon oil pipeline burst that sent as many as 1,000 gallons into the river. the leak was stopped. officials say there's no threat to drinking water or to residents. in new mexico, hundreds of the los alamos laboratory employees are returning back to work as officials say the wildfire no longer poses a threat. no timetable as when they'll lift the bar. the fire has charred more than 177 square miles, the most in new mexico history. an accident at an orlando amusement park claims the life of a worker there. it happened yesterday in magical midway, the 30-year-old was working on the star flier ride when he somehow got injured and was left dangling in a harness
10:46 am
40 feet off the ground. when rescuers reached him, it was too late. park officials say that ride is closed during the investigation. the escaped six flags back boone in new jersey has been captured. it included sightings on porches, back roads. the ba boone was finally tracked down in a lay lost where a farm hand taking care of chores spotted the three-foot animal. >> we were setting hey on top here, just stacking it. all of a sudden the baboon is behind me. he had nowhere to jump out. >> police tranquilized the baboon and returned to it the park. more on the closing arguments in the casey anthony trial. we're taking a short break as is the judge and yuri and all the attorneys in the courtroom in orange county, florida. we'll take a break and be right
10:47 am
back after a short break. ♪ ♪ [ female announcer ] the counter. in most homes, it gets all the action. bring it. in this lab demo, one sheet of bounty leaves this surface as clean as 2 sheets of the bargain brand. ♪ why use more when you can use less? ♪ super durable. super absorbent. super clean. bounty. the one-sheet clean picker-upper. discover customersl are getting five percent cashback bonus at the pump... and at many of the places their summer plans take them.
10:48 am
it pays to switch, it pays to discover. the motorola expert from sprint. its powerful tools help you work faster and smarter so you can get back to playing "angry birds." it lets you access business forms on the go, fire off e-mails with the qwerty keypad, and work securely around the world so you can get back to playing "angry birds." it's the android-powered phone that mixes business with pleasure. so let's get our work done, america, so we can all get back to playing "angry birds." the motorola expert from sprint. trouble hearing on the phone? visit
10:49 am
10:50 am
she knew that that night she would be in the arms of her boyfriend and caylee would be dead. >> there you see the lead prosecutor, havi made those statements in his closing statements. that happened just in this last hour. that was just the last hour, jeff ashton. we'll continue the coverage of the closing arguments. what's been interesting is jeff ashton wrapped things up. by some accounts a lot more quickly than had been expected. it only took about an hour, hour an ten minutes. the point was made by jonna spilbor that he will have another opportunity to come back and rebut that which the defense will present any moment.
10:51 am
that judge gave about a 15-minute break. we'll see how on time they are. with regard to how this was done, randy, you did take some issue. having thought about this last 15 minutes, if order in which the prosecutor went around, do you think in his case he left the jurors with a pretty compelling case for casey's guilt? i'm going to go out on a limb and say something else that he may have consciously done, which is trusted this jury. he didn't go into so much of the stuff that most lawyers would go into. he talked about the lies, didn't spend a lot of time on the behavior. didn't spend a lot of time of the chlorophyl versus chlorophyl versus chloroform. it's almost as if he said, all right, guys, i think you've enough of that. you know what happened here. i'll drive one thing home, the
10:52 am
chronology and the three pieces of duct tape. to me i'm going to keep coming back to that. that blew me out. >> both of you are defense attorneys in this studio with me. jonna, what do you think about his tactic? do you agree? do you hi he trusted the jury, is that a wise thing to do? >> no and no. i think he might be saving his best for last. don't forget. hoye say baez has a lot of explaining to do to try to connect those dots. i think it would be very wise for jeff ashton to come back after that and start talking about the searches on the computer and the chloroform and chlorophyl and really cut him to the quick. if he's smart, that's probably what he's going to do. i did find it interesting that the beginning of his closing argument all flowed around the motive which nobody needs to prove. he spent a lot of time about this being the life she wanted. >> do you think people can relate to that. >> answer the why. >> you always want to know why.
10:53 am
i think the one thing that did strike me as a little weird, the videos he showed at the beginning of his closing argument, getting back to primacy and recency, i think that put casey in a positive light and makes it more difficult for the jury to believe the premeditation. again -- i still believe at the end of this day this was probably somewhere between a horrible accident and recklessness. it wasn't premeditated. i think jeff ashton stayed away from trying to go too ". he's trying to pound a square peg into a round hole. still didn't give you the when, the where, didn't give you the how and didn't go into the use of the chloroform which to me is telling on the lack of premeditation. >> what we do have is jeff ashton talking about how casey spent her time between when allegedly caylee died and when the whole gig was up. let's listen to what jeff ashton
10:54 am
says, some of the things she does. listen to this. >> casey anthony was at blockbuster on june 16th walking arm in arm with her boyfriend tony. caylee was in the trunk of her car in the early stages of decomposition. when casey returned to the house on the 17th or 18th, she backed her car into the garage with the intention of burying caylee in the back yard. she went to brian burner and borrowed a shovel. based upon the dog alerts in the back yard, she in all likelihood actually took caylee's body back to the back yard and set it down for a period of time.
10:55 am
was digging too much work? perhaps. and she decided instead to toss caylee's body in a swamp. >> extraordinary words right there. i want to bring in dan conoway down in orlando. you hear that and it's something everyone can envision, casey at blockbuster, strolling down the aisles with her boyfriend. all the while, potentially the body of her daughter decomposing in the back of her car. how did the jury rea act to those kinds of statements? >> i think, alex, the way anyone would react. that's with horror, absolute horror. i'm sure that's how the jury reacted. i noticed two other things, one was the way casey anthony simply sobbed. and you have to wonder if finally hearing the alleged truth, at least according to the
10:56 am
prosecution, was getting to her and the jurors saw that. also, i thought the prosecution did a great job in distancing two other people from potentially being involved in this case. one, george, to the meter reader. he showed during his losing argument how it's preposterous to think that eerth george or the meter reader were really involved in this in any way. it really had to be the only reasonable solution, the only logically reasonable solution, that jurors don't leave their common sense at the door, is that kis casey anthony did this in a premeditated murder. i like this closing argument. >> if you take out the george anthony factor and the roy kronk factor as you suggested there, how much does that blow a hole into hoe sigh bias's defense and that which he may discuss. let's tell everyone the court has reconvened, going through
10:57 am
setups and things like that. once they start testimony, we'll take you there live. how much of a problem does this pose of jose baez? >> i think it creates a major problem for him that he's going to have to try and address. i think that was jeff ashton's whole tactic, was to go ahead. he gets to go first. then he gets to go last. he can tie up anymore facts he wants to talk about at the end, but he wanted to blow up those arguments about other common sense rational scenarios that mr. baez is going to try to present and has been trying to present. i think jeff ashton did an excellent job. >> okay, dan. thank you for standing by on that. jonna and randy, is there going to be a time limit under which the rebuttal phase will happen, that jeff ashton will be able to address the court or can he go on as long as he wants to to take point by point that which jose baez says?
10:58 am
>> not necessarily a time limit. with rebuttal, you're not supposed to go back to what you said first go-around. you're supposed to take those things that mr. baez says and rebut them. so the time limit is built into the fact that however long mr. baez goes and brings things up and brings things up to say here is why there's reasonable doubt or why she's not guilty, mr. ashton can get up and say no, here is why she is. >> okay. so was it smart then, jonna, to have level of brevity in his closing statements because he doesn't -- if he can't go back to what he's already said, only about an hour and ten minutes' worth of information relayed there. >> that's true. but i do think it was very smart. he's going to have to go back strong on the arguments that the prosecution contends are ridiculous, that the defense is going to put forth in their closing argument. remember what jose baez did, he promised a lot, gave us essentially affirmative defenses
10:59 am
and fe short of, quote, unquote, proving them. >> remember what the judge's instructions were this morning. point number three of the 16 was you can't go anywhere in your discussion today that you haven't already proven. in other words, he doesn't want to go to these hypothetical things again. because it's not a summarization of what the court heard. >> there's a problem with that, and potentially a legal problem which is, as a defendant, i don't have a burden to do anything. i could sit there and read the "st. petersburg times" and it's up to the prosecution to prove my gimt beyond a reasonable doubt. i think judge perry has gone i think a little too dangerously close to potentially reversible error because, again, he's basically saying you can't talk about what you haven't proven. well, i don't have to prove anything. >> which is true. but there are a million reasons why this case is going to be appealed if there is a conviction.


info Stream Only

Uploaded by TV Archive on