Casey Anthony trial: As it draws to a close, deep mysteries remain (The Christian Science Monitor)

On the eve of closing arguments, the Casey Anthony murder trial is ending exactly as it began – shrouded in mystery over what really happened to Ms. Anthony’s two-year-old daughter, Caylee.

Nearly 100 individuals testified and more than 400 pieces of evidence were presented to the jury in a month-long trial. But it is still unclear precisely how the toddler died.

There’s been no confession, no eye witnesses have come forward, and investigators have found no direct physical evidence capable of telling the tale with scientific certainty.

IN PICTURES: Key players in the Casey Anthony

Nonetheless, on Sunday morning in the Orlando courtroom of Chief Judge Belvin Perry, prosecutors will attempt to sidestep that glaring hole in their case while urging a jury of five men and seven women to find Casey Anthony guilty of the premeditated murder of her daughter.

If convicted, she faces a possible sentence of death by lethal injection.

Prosecutors have presented a theory that Ms. Anthony used chloroform to subdue her daughter and then murdered her by pressing pieces of duct tape over her mouth and nose.

They say she hid the body in the trunk of her car for several days until it began to decompose and smell. Then she dumped it in a wooded area about a quarter-mile from the family home. The skeletal remains were discovered six months later in December 2008.

Defense claims accidental drowningIn contrast, the defense theory is that Caylee accidentally drowned in the familya€™s swimming pool and her mother panicked. Rather than call 911, they say Casey and her father, George Anthony, engaged in a cover up to make the death look like the result of a kidnapping.

George Anthony denies any knowledge of how his granddaughter died or that he played any part in a cover up. Casey Anthony declined to testify at the trial.

Both the prosecution theory and defense theory share the same weakness a€“ there is no evidence proving one way or the other that the childa€™s death was an accident or an intentional act of murder. Instead, both the prosecution and defense cases are framed around circumstantial evidence that might point the jury one way or the other.

That’s why Sunday’s closing arguments are particularly important and could be decisive in whether Ms. Anthony is sentenced to death, receives a lesser punishment, or is acquitted.

Although the defense faces no legal obligation to prove or disprove anything in the case, Defense Attorney Jose Baez made shocking claims of sexual abuse and a cover up during his opening statement, many of which remain unproved. The danger for the defense is that jurors may hold it against Mr. Baez and his client.

But the real focus during jury deliberations, as Chief Judge Perry will instruct, must be on whether state prosecutors proved their case beyond a reasonable doubt.

Key evidenceAmong key pieces of evidence in the case:

DUCT TAPE – Prosecutors say the murder weapon was three pieces of duct tape, six to eight inches long, recovered near Caylee’s remains. Because some of the tape was found still attached to a mat of Caylee’s hair, they say it must have covered her mouth and nose and ended her life by suffocation. In a controversial move, prosecutors showed the jury an animated video of Caylee’s skull and face with pieces of duct tape superimposed over the image in various positions to show how it might have covered both her nose and mouth.

Defense attorneys objected to the video, saying it was meant to inflame the jury. They say no fingerprints were recovered on the tape and the only unidentified DNA detected on the duct tape excluded Casey Anthony as the donor. They add that there is no proof that the tape covered both the mouth and nose. If the tape only covered the mouth it could not be a murder weapon.

CHLOROFORM – A research scientist at the Oak Ridge National Laboratory in Tennessee detected traces of chloroform in the trunk of Ms. Anthony’s 1998 Pontiac Sunfire. Prosecutors say the evidence suggests that Ms. Anthony drugged her daughter with chloroform before killing her with duct tape. In addition, someone conducted Internet searches on the Anthony’s home computer for the words “chloroform,” and “how to make chloroform.” The searches were conducted when both of Ms. Anthony’s parents were at work.

Defense attorneys counter that Caylee’s remains were tested for the presence of chloroform and other drugs and no toxic substances were detected. They suggest the computer searches were done for curiosity because one of Casey’s friends had posted a gag photo showing a man and woman in a romantic restaurant with the caption: “Win her over with chloroform.” They say investigators never recovered any chemicals, mixing materials, or receipts related to the making of chloroform. Also, an expert in chemical analysis testified that chloroform is present in many household items, including bleach, and could have been in the trunk from an innocent source.

HAIR – A single nine-inch strand of hair was discovered in the trunk of Casey’s car. An FBI forensic expert said the hair was consistent with Caylee’s hair and that it showed signs of having come from a decomposing body. The same expert admitted on cross-examination that trying to identify hair as having come from a decomposing body is still an evolving area of forensic science.

SMELL – Several witnesses – including Casey’s father, George – testified that the lingering foul odor in Casey’s car in the summer of 2008 was the distinct smell of human decomposition. A cadaver dog signaled its handler that a dead body might be in the trunk. A research scientist at the Oak Ridge National Laboratory tested the molecular makeup of the odor and found it consistent with chemicals disbursed from a decaying human body.

In contrast, a University of Central Florida chemist tested the same odor from the car trunk but said he could not say conclusively that the detected compounds indicated the presence of human decomposition. He said there were other environmental sources that might produce the same compounds. An expert in forensic chemistry at Florida International University said the Oak Ridge tests were too experimental and were not reliable enough to be entered as evidence in a criminal trial. Findings like those from the Oak Ridge research have never before been entered as evidence in a criminal case.

Could Caylee have gone into the pool?SWIMMING POOL – The defense presented a series of photographs demonstrating that Caylee enjoyed swimming and was always eager to jump into the pool whenever given the opportunity. Casey’s mother, Cindy Anthony, testified that on June 16, 2008 she returned home from work and was alarmed to discover the ladder to the above-ground swimming pool was in place and that a side gate leading to the backyard was open. The defense also showed a photo of Caylee apparently opening a sliding glass door to the backyard on her own.

A prosecutor asked Mrs. Anthony whether Casey had ever told her there had been a fatal accident in the pool. Cindy Anthony said her daughter had not. “In fact she continued to assert to you that the child was kidnapped by a baby sitter,” the prosecutor asked. “That’s correct,” Mrs. Anthony replied.

LIES – Casey lied to her friends, family, and the police concerning the whereabouts of Caylee. In late June and early July 2008, Casey told her friends and her mother that Caylee was with a nanny. Casey spent much of that time with her new boyfriend, partying at nightclubs, on shopping excursions, and getting a tattoo that read “Bella Vita” – Italian for beautiful life. Later, as questions about Caylee persisted, she said that Caylee had been kidnapped by the nanny. Investigators quickly determined that the nanny did not exist. They also discovered that Casey had falsely claimed to be working at Universal Studios.

Defense claims Casey Anthony had been abusedDefense attorneys had argued in their opening statement that Casey’s lies and her cold behavior after Caylee was missing were a product of years of sexual abuse by her father and brother. No evidence of such abuse was presented to the jury. During testimony, George Anthony denied ever abusing his daughter. It is unclear whether the defense will raise the issue during their closing argument.

ROY KRONK – Defense attorneys sought to suggest to the jury that Caylee’s skeletal remains had been moved or at least disturbed by the county meter reader, Roy Kronk, who called authorities on December 11, 2008 to report that he’d found a small skull in a wooded area near the Anthony’s house. What makes Mr. Kronk a wild card in the case is that he actually found the remains four months earlier in August, but police never followed up by checking the location.

In testimony, Kronk admitted that he moved the skull slightly with his meter reading stick and briefly picked up a bag of Caylee’s remains, but he denied moving evidence from the site or otherwise altering the evidence. The suggestion was that Kronk was hoping to collect a $255,000 reward for finding Caylee. But the reward was only offered for the safe return of the toddler.

IN PICTURES: Key players in the Casey Anthony

View the original article here

Casey Anthony trial: Records undercut mother's testimony on Internet search (The Christian Science Monitor)

Casey Anthony’s mother could not have performed home computer searches for “chloroform” on the dates and times she suggested in testimony last week, according to records introduced by prosecutors on Friday at the Casey Anthony murder trial.

The disclosure completely undercuts Cindy Anthony’s surprising testimony on June 23 that it was she – not her daughter – who conducted Internet searches for chloroform on the family’s home computer in March 2008.

The dramatic reversal came as prosecutors concluded their rebuttal case, bringing the evidence and testimony portion of the month-long trial to a formal end. Chief Judge Belvin Perry said closing arguments would begin Sunday morning.

IN PICTURES: Key players in the Casey Anthony trial

Mrs. Anthony’s earlier testimony was important because prosecutors allege that Casey Anthony used chloroform to subdue her two-year-old daughter, Caylee, before pressing pieces of duct tape over the toddler’s mouth and nose to suffocate her.

Many analysts had speculated that Cindy Anthony was shading the truth – and risking a potential perjury charge – in an effort to create reasonable doubt in the minds of the jurors and save her daughter from a spot on Florida’s death row.

Assistant State Attorney Linda Burdick had questioned how Mrs. Anthony could be home in the middle of the afternoon when payroll records from her employer showed that she had been at work when the Internet searches were conducted.

Mrs. Anthony said that, as a salaried employee who often worked overtime without pay, she had the freedom to go home early although her pay records would reflect a full day at work.

Shortly after Mrs. Anthony’s testimony, Ms. Burdick had investigators contact the employer.

The subpoenaed records were delivered by John Camperlengo, general counsel of Gentiva, the home health care company that employed Mrs. Anthony in March 2008.

Prosecutors sought production of the documents to prove that it was impossible for Cindy Anthony to conduct Google Internet searches on her home computer for chloroform on March 17 and March 21 in the middle of the afternoon because she was at work on both days.

Prosecutors argue that the searches were conducted by Casey when her parents weren’t home. The searches sought information about chloroform and the words “how to make chloroform.”

Computer forensic experts said the searches were conducted between 1:43 p.m. and 1:55 p.m. on March 17 and between 2:16 p.m. and 2:28 p.m. on March 21.

In her June 23 testimony, Mrs. Anthony was asked if she was home from work at those precise times. “It is possible,” she replied, twice.

“Were you, or weren’t you,” Burdick asked.

“If I had access to my work computer I could tell you when I left that day,” she replied.

Documents obtained from Gentiva show that someone was logged in on a Gentiva computer as Cindy Anthony and was updating computerized patient files at Cindy Anthony’s workstation in Winter Park, Fla., from 1:41 p.m. until 2:22 p.m. on March 17, and from 2:22 p.m. to 4:06 p.m. on March 21.

Mr. Camperlengo testified that the records were accurate and that they indicated that Mrs. Anthony was present in the company’s office on those dates and those times.

Mrs. Anthony had justified her “chloroform” search with the explanation that she intended to search for “chlorophyll” and that “chloroform” was suggested as an alternative search. She said she was worried that her dogs were eating bamboo leaves and wanted to learn more about chlorophyll to see if it might make them sick. She also said she was concerned about the use of hand sanitizers around young children like her granddaughter, Caylee.

Two computer forensic examiners from the Orange County Sheriff’s Office testified that they searched the Anthony’s home computer – including the section of the hard drive containing deleted files – for the words chlorophyll, hand sanitizer, and bamboo. They told the jury they found nothing for “chlorophyll” and “sanitizer,” and under “bamboo” they discovered items related to furniture, lanterns, floors, and tiki bars, but nothing about bamboo leaves.

At the close of the state’s case, Judge Perry asked defense attorney Jose Baez whether he wanted to put Mrs. Anthony back on the witness stand. The defense declined.

Also on Friday, defense attorney Cheney Mason renewed an earlier motion for a mistrial based on prosecutors introducing a video animation showing a photo of Caylee’s face superimposed over her skull with a piece of duct tape positioned over the mouth and nose.

Defense attorneys say there is no evidence of when the duct tape was applied to the toddler’s face and whether it was applied over both the mouth and the nose, or a different portion of the face.

Judge Perry denied the motion.

He also denied a renewed defense motion for judgment of acquittal. Such motions are routinely made by defense counsel prior to closing arguments and are routinely denied by trial judges. Judge Perry cited no reasons for denying both motions.

Casey Anthony is charged with first-degree murder in the death of her daughter. Prosecutors allege that Ms. Anthony hid Caylee’s body in the trunk of her car for several days before dumping it a wooded area a quarter-mile from the family home.

Defense lawyers say Caylee died in a swimming pool accident and that Casey panicked. They say she and her father, George, tried to cover up the death.

George Anthony denies any knowledge of how his granddaughter died and denies any involvement in a cover up.

IN PICTURES: Key players in the Casey Anthony trial

View the original article here

Casey Anthony murder trial: Has the defendant displayed grief? (The Christian Science Monitor)

Jurors at the Casey Anthony murder trial heard testimony on Wednesday from a grief expert who was called by defense attorneys to try to explain how a young mother might respond to the death of her child by partying at bars, getting a tattoo, renting movies, and going on shopping excursions.

Sally Karioth, a professor at Florida State University, said no two people grieve in exactly the same way. She said young adults, like Ms. Anthony, can sometimes be “reluctant grievers.”

The testimony came on the 31st day of the Orlando trial of the Florida mother accused of killing her two-year-old daughter, Caylee. If convicted, Ms. Anthony could face the death penalty.

IN PICTURES: Key players in the Casey Anthony trial

The testimony is important because it sought to address one of the most perplexing questions raised in the Anthony case. How could a young mother fail to tell her family, friends, and the police about her dead or missing child for 31 days while she partied with friends and acted as if nothing was wrong?

To set up Professor Karioth’s testimony, Defense Attorney Dorothy Sims presented an elaborate hypothetical example which was actually a detailed description of certain factors in Casey Anthony’s life as viewed under the defense theory of the case.

The woman in the hypothetical case was described as a 22-year-old mother of a young child who had a loving bond with the toddler. The woman also lives at home with her parents, who resisted the reality of her unwed pregnancy. Also living in the house was an older brother who was angry for being excluded from any discussion of the pregnancy.

“Add to it that during the 31 days after the child is gone, the mother leaves the home, rents movies, goes shopping, goes to bars, and gets a tattoo that indicated ‘Beautiful Life,’ ” Ms. Sims said.

Karioth said that a young person in such a situation might respond by saying that nothing had happened. They will often engage in risky behaviors, like drinking too much and spending money they don’t have. She added that some hope they can shop their way out of the problem.

Karioth said that people who come from uncommunicative families that don’t talk or feel or share, may engage in denial and what she called “magical thinking.”

As Karioth continued her testimony, Casey Anthony’s eyes turned red. Soon she had a Kleenex out and began dabbing tears away. What made that reaction particularly striking to many observers is that only a few hours earlier she had sat at the defense table cold and expressionless – appearing almost bored – as her father, George Anthony, sobbed on the witness stand while describing his decision to try to kill himself in January 2009 because of his own grief over the loss of his granddaughter, Caylee.

During cross-examination of Karioth, Assistant State Attorney Jeffrey Ashton offered a hypothetical example of his own. In his hypothetical the young mother – within a half day of the child’s death – goes to her boyfriend’s house, rents a movie, spends the night with him, returns secretly to her parents house, and then over the next month doesn’t tell anyone that the child has died or is missing. Then, for the next month, she lies to her mother and her friends by suggesting that the child is with a baby sitter.

a€?Is that conduct consistent with the type of denial you see in mothers,a€

“I would call that more magical thinking,” Karioth said. “If I can keep all these balls in the air, maybe it won’t be true that I’m fearful may have happened,” she said, suggesting a grieving mother’s possible reasoning.

Ashton asked the professor to consider an additional element to the hypothetical. a€?Leta€™s add that the mother deliberately killed the child,a€

Sims objected. She told the judge there was no evidence that the mother killed the child.

The exchange underscored the surreal aspect of offering “hypothetical” testimony to a jury that isn’t hypothetical at all.

Karioth said denial can be a coping mechanism.

“For guilt,” Ashton asked.

“It can be,” the professor said.

Ashton then asked about compartmentalization.

“Compartmentalizing traumatic episodes is a typical way of going on with your life,” Karioth explained.

“So one could compartmentalize an unspeakable act, put it in a box, and then go on and act as if nothing happened,” Ashton asked.

Karioth said questions dealing with psychology were beyond her expertise. But she said she has worked with people who engage in “magical thinking.”

She described a mother who had recently lost a child. The mother was concerned because it was dark outside and the weather was turning bad. The little boy had never been in the dark and the rain alone. Karioth said she told the mother she’d be right over. She found a blanket and some umbrellas and sat with the grieving mother until the rain stopped.

“Now that is magical,” she said, “but it is something we needed to do.”

Ashton asked one last question: “You will agree that the bond between a mother and child is hard to break, even with death.”

“I don’t think it breaks,” she said.

The trial is expected to continue on Thursday.

IN PICTURES: Key players in the Casey Anthony trial

View the original article here

Casey Anthony trial: Should investigators have found Caylee four months sooner? (The Christian Science Monitor)

The man who discovered the skeletal remains of two-year-old Caylee Anthony testified Tuesday in the murder trial of her mother that he tried three times in August 2008 to get the sheriffa€™s department to investigate what appeared to be a childa€™s skull in a wooded area not far from Cayleea€™s home.

Roy Kronk, a county meter reader, said he called the Orange County Sheriff’s Office on three consecutive days, but no one from law enforcement went into the swampy woods to investigate.

One deputy, after a cursory look around, even berated him for wasting the department’s time with a frivolous report.

Four months later on Dec. 11, 2008, Mr. Kronk said he returned to the same place in the woods near a distinctive log.

IN PICTURES: Key players in the Casey Anthony trial

He told the jury that he saw a plastic bag. “I held the bag up,” Mr. Kronk said. “The contents of the bag shifted and that’s when I discovered the skull. It was at my feet.”

Kronk’s testimony has been highly anticipated among those closely following the Casey Anthony murder trial. In most cases, Kronk would be hailed a hero for helping to bring closure to the grim vigil for the missing toddler. But defense attorneys are hoping to use the unusual circumstances surrounding the discovery of Caylee’s remains as a way to suggest reasonable doubt to the jury.

In his fiery opening statement, defense attorney Jose Baez accused Kronk of moving and hiding Caylee’s remains.

a€?We are not saying he had anything to do with her death, but he is a morally bankrupt individual who took her body and hid her,a€

It is unclear why Kronk – or anyone else – would risk the legal consequences of tampering with evidence. Defense lawyers have suggested that he needed money and was hoping to receive a $255,000 reward offered in the nation-wide search for Caylee. But hiding the remains would not boost the reward.

Rather than implicating Kronk in some ill-defined conspiracy, his testimony on Tuesday raises serious questions about the basic competence of investigators with the Orange County Sheriff’s Office.

Had law enforcement responded to Kronk’s first phone call to police on Aug. 11, forensic experts would have had a significantly better chance to lift fingerprints, DNA, or other direct physical evidence from the deteriorating duct tape found near Caylee’s skull.

The defense suggests that police conducted thorough searches in the wooded area and were unable to locate Caylee’s decomposing body because it had been moved and hidden for a period of time.

Prosecutors maintain it was not detected because the area was underwater for much of the summer due to a tropical storm and heavy rains.

The truth may never be known. Kronk testified that the first time he entered the wooded area on Aug. 11 a€“ less than two months after Caylee is thought to have died a€“ he saw a gray vinyl bag and what looked like it might be a small human skull. He said there was no peculiar odor in the area.

Later that night he called the sheriff’s department. “I don’t know what it is,” he told the dispatcher. “I’m not saying it is Caylee or anything. This could be nothing.”

Kronk was asked by Defense Attorney Cheney Mason whether he saw the same grey vinyl bag when he returned to the scene four months later on Dec. 11.

“No,” he said.

Kronk said he wasn’t sure the skull was real, or even a skull. He said he prodded the object with his meter-reader stick “and tipped it up. I apologize for doing so, but I didn’t know what it was.”

He added: “I gently pivoted it up.”

“It wasn’t stuck in the mud, was it?”

“No,” Kronk said.

Kronk’s testimony was different than the first written statement he gave to police in early 2009. In that statement he said that the bag opened and a small human skull with duct tape and hair dropped out.

“That was my original statement,” he acknowledged. He said he “made a mistake” in the statement.

“Did the skull come out in any way,” Mr. Mason asked.

“No sir.”

“You recognize that you said that under oath before, but now you are saying something else,” Mason said.

“That whole period for me is a little fuzzy,” Kronk said. “After finding what I found, it kind of unnerved me.”

Kronk’s testimony came on Day 30 of the first-degree murder trial of Casey Anthony, the Florida mother accused of using chloroform and duct tape to kill her toddler daughter. Prosecutors say she kept the child’s body in the trunk of her car for several days before dumping it in the wooded area around the corner from the family home.

Defense lawyers maintain that Caylee accidentally drowned and that her mother, Casey, panicked. Rather than call police, she hid the body with the help of her father.

George Anthony denies any involvement.

In other testimony on Tuesday, the defense team called Mr. Anthony to the stand and confronted him with accusations that he had an extra-marital affair with Krystal Halloway, a former volunteer in the Caylee search effort.

“Did you have a romantic relationship with her,” Baez asked.

“No sir,” he said. “To me that is very funny.”

Baez wasn’t done. “Were you ever intimate with her,” he asked.

“No sir. That also is very funny.”

Mr. Anthony acknowledged going “a few times” to Ms. Halloway’s home, but he said his actions were noble. She had told him she was dying of a brain tumor and he said he went to comfort her.

The defense attorney also asked whether Mr. Anthony had ever told Ms. Halloway that Caylee’s death was “an accident that snowballed out of control.”

“That conversation was never there. I never confided in any volunteers,” Mr. Anthony said.

“You never told Krystal Halloway while the two of you were being romantic that this was an accident that snowballed out of control,” Baez asked.

“I never did.”

On cross-examination, Assistant State Attorney Jeffrey Ashton threw in a zinger question of his own.

“Did you ever tell [Halloway] that while your daughter was home on bond that you grabbed her by the throat, threw her up against a wall, and said ‘I know you did something to Caylee, where’s Caylee,’ ” Mr. Ashton asked.

Mr. Anthony responded: “No sir. I’d never do something like that.”

The trial is set to resume Wednesday morning.

IN PICTURES: Key players in the Casey Anthony trial

View the original article here

Casey Anthony defense tries to put Florida prosecutors on trial (The Christian Science Monitor)

The defense in the Casey Anthony murder trial is seeking to turn the tables on the prosecution, attempting to put the state itself on trial for conducting what defense lawyers suggest was a lackluster and, at times, incompetent investigation into the death of Ms. Anthonya€™s two-year-old daughter, Caylee.

Although Chief Judge Belvin Perry is trying to head off the tactic by sustaining frequent prosecution objections at the trial, defense attorney Jose Baez is managing to raise substantial questions that could trouble at least some members of the jury.

The jurors have heard testimony that a “shoddy” autopsy was performed by the county medical examiner, that an FBI lab technician’s own DNA contaminated a piece of duct tape that the state alleges is the murder weapon, and that a crime scene investigator placed a bag of wet trash with live maggots from Ms. Anthony’s car into a drier to preserve the contents for long-term storage.

IN PICTURES: Photos of the Day

They have heard about heart-shaped residue that mysteriously disappeared from the surface of the duct tape/alleged murder weapon before it could be photographed. They also heard that investigators waited 3-1/2 months after tests showed the possible presence of chloroform in Anthony’s car before obtaining a warrant to search the Anthony home for evidence of chemicals, mixing instructions, chemistry equipment, or store receipts related to chloroform. Nothing was found.

In addition, the defense is suggesting that the state missed opportunities to conduct DNA testing on the maggots found in the trash bag in Anthonya€™s car. Two entomologists and a DNA expert have testified that such testing would have been possible. It was apparently not done.

The defense has also suggested that after the FBI discovered a second partial but inconclusive DNA profile on the duct tape/alleged murder weapon, the state could have had the item retested using more sophisticated technology. It did not.

Defense gambit not uniqueMr. Baez’s gambit is not unique. The defense tactic of attacking detectives and prosecutors as sloppy or worse is a standard feature of many trials. But this is no ordinary case. The state has charged Anthony with first-degree murder and is seeking the death penalty.

In addition, the saga of Anthony and her daughter, Caylee, has attracted a national following of self-appointed detectives, moral arbiters, and others who are parsing every utterance in Judge Perry’s Orlando, Fla., courtroom. Interest in the trial is so high that fistfights have broken out among those waiting in long lines outside the courthouse for a chance to witness the unfolding drama inside.

Although the state’s case moved forward quickly and efficiently for nearly three weeks, the defense side of the trial during the past five days has been slowed by a high number of prosecution objections and resulting sidebar conferences outside earshot of the jury. The in-court tension arises against a backdrop of an increasingly bitter struggle between the two camps behind the scenes.

At several points Perry has condemned what he termed “gamesmanship” and rivalry among the lawyers during the trial.

When a potential witness from a DNA laboratory in the Netherlands, Richard Eikelenboom, presented himself at the state attorney’s office last weekend for a possible deposition in advance of his expected testimony this week, Assistant State Attorney Jeffrey Ashton refused to see him. He told him to go away.

Mr. Ashton has sought to block portions of Mr. Eikelenboom’s testimony because he says the defense did not comply with a court order in December to fully disclose all opinions that each expert witness would offer at the trial.

Baez says he sought to comply with the order but that a trial is a dynamic process and he is trying to respond to unexpected issues. The judge said his order was clear and that Baez had willfully violated it.

The judge's unusual punishmentAs punishment, immediately before Eikelenboom began his testimony on Tuesday, Perry gave a special instruction to the jury that certain reports outlining the witness’s testimony had not been delivered prior to a court-imposed deadline and that as a result the jury “may consider this in considering the credibility of the witness.”

Such an instruction is highly unusual, particularly in a death-penalty case. A witness’s credibility usually speaks for itself without any pretestimony demerits assigned by a trial judge seeking to punish a defense attorney.

The punishment did not stop there. The judge also barred Baez from questioning Eikelenboom about the possibility of obtaining DNA profiles from a stain in the trunk of Anthony’s car. Prosecutors have suggested that the stain is from fluid that leaked from Caylee’s decomposing body onto the carpet lining the trunk. FBI tests found no DNA. And the state did not seek to perform more sophisticated tests.

Eikelenboom was expected to say that using the more advanced techniques in his lab, such testing might be possible. That testimony could be important to the defense because it would suggest the state has been less than diligent in using available science to help prove its case. At the same time it would highlight the circumstantial and speculative nature of some of the state’s evidence against Anthony.

Despite that pending issue, Eikelenboom was permitted to testify in general about DNA testing. He told the jury that even though the duct tape found with Caylee’s remains was severely weathered, with his techniques “you could expect to still find DNA.”

Pioneer of 'touch DNA'Eikelenboom is best known in the DNA community as a pioneer in the detection of “touch DNA” – skin cells left behind by an assailant or criminal as a result of rough-handling during criminal activity.

In 2006, Mr. Eikelenboom helped free an innocent man serving a life sentence in Colorado for a murder he didn’t commit. After re-creating precisely how the victim was dragged into a field by her killer, Eikelenboom and his laboratory were able to identify “touch DNA” on the victim’s shirt 20 years after the crime.

The innocent man, Timothy Masters, was a 15-year-old sophomore in high school at the time of the killing. He told police that he had seen the dead body in the field on his way to school but did not report it to police because he wasn’t sure it was real, according to a report in the Denver Post.

Police considered him a murder suspect in part because he did not call 911 and he seemed emotionless, according to the Post report. He was convicted in a circumstantial case with no physical evidence.

Eikelenboom identified three full DNA profiles from the victim’s shirt. It eliminated Mr. Masters and pointed, instead, to someone else on the detectives’ list of suspects.

In 2008, prosecutors moved to vacate Master’s conviction and he was released after serving nearly 10 years of his life sentence.

Work in JonBenet Ramsey caseEikelenboom was also asked by police in Colorado to investigate the unsolved murder of JonBenet Ramsey. Again, he identified DNA profiles by examining the precise points where the assailant grabbed the little girl’s clothing. The resulting DNA profile eliminated JonBenet’s parents as suspects in the killing.

During cross-examination, Ashton belittled Eikelenboom and his Dutch-based laboratory. He compared the company to a “mom and pop operation," and suggested he was working in a “barn.”

Eikelenboom said he and his wife converted a farm into a high-tech crime laboratory.

Ashton insisted that any DNA that might have been on the duct tape with Caylee’s remains would have long since degraded and been unusable in the hot, wet Florida weather.

“We only need a small amount of cells to get a DNA profile,” Eikelenboom said.

At the conclusion of his cross-examination Ashton asked Eikelenboom whether the defense team had asked him to retest the duct tape containing the as-yet unidentified DNA remnant.

"We mentioned that we could investigate this piece of tape,” Eikelenboom said.

Ashton shot back: “Are you aware if items at the defense’s request were sent for additional DNA testing?”

“No,” Eikelenboom answered.

The exchange was important because it potentially suggested to the jury that the defense did not want to retest the duct tape even though Baez was arguing that it should have been retested by the state.

“You were willing and able to test items from this case and you were willing and able to do it pro bono,” Baez asked during his redirect examination.

“Correct,” Eikelenboom said.

“The only reason you didn’t do it in this case is because the prosecution objected to you taking it,” Baez said.

The comment drew an immediate objection from Ashton before Eikelenboom could answer. The judge sustained the objection.

What the jury does not yet know is that a defense request to submit “items” to the Dutch laboratory was rejected by Perry. Instead, the defense team was directed to use a lab in Pennsylvania.

Baez apparently submitted for testing a pair of shorts and a laundry bag recovered with Caylee’s remains. But, according to Ashton, the defense never asked that the duct tape/murder weapon or carpet samples from the trunk of the car be retested for possible DNA.

IN PICTURES: Photos of the Day

View the original article here

Casey Anthony trial: bug expert says body couldn't have been in trunk (The Christian Science Monitor)

A forensic expert called by the defense in the Casey Anthony murder trial testified on Friday that he found no evidence to suggest that 2-year-old Caylee Anthony’s dead body had been hidden and began to decompose in the trunk of her mother’s car.

Timothy Huntington, an expert in the role of insects in the decomposition of human bodies, said he disagreed with the governmenta€™s theory that Ms. Anthony kept her daughtera€™s corpse in her car trunk for several days in 90-degree summer heat before dumping it in a wooded area not far from the family home.

a€?The evidence doesna€™t make sense anyway you look at it to say there was a body in the trunk,a€

IN PICTURES: Photos of the day

He said a dead body in the trunk would have attracted hundreds or thousands of flies that would have found their way to the decomposing body but failed to find their way back out of the car. Most of those flies would have died and remained visible in the trunk and throughout the passenger compartment of the car, he said.

Only a relatively small number of insects were found in the car. Huntington said they were associated with a bag of trash and were not the type of flies attracted in the initial stages of decomposition.

Huntington is the second forensic entomologist called to testify in the trial. Last Saturday, Neal Haskell testified during the governmenta€™s case that Cayleea€™s body could have been in the trunk of the car for three to five days.

He said the absence of large numbers of adult flies found in the car could have been because the body was contained in two plastic garbage bags.

Caylee’s skeletal remains were discovered in December 2008, six months after her disappearance. Her mother is charged with first-degree murder and faces the death penalty if convicted.

The issue of Cayleea€™s alleged presence in the car is a linchpin of the governmenta€™s case. Prosecutors are seeking to connect the toddlera€™s dead body to her mother on the theory that Anthony was the only person with access to her car.

During a blistering cross-examination, Assistant State Attorney Jeffrey Ashton sought to discredit Huntington’s testimony by emphasizing that Casey Anthony’s car contained a strong odor in the summer of 2008. Some witnesses have identified it as the distinctive stench of human decomposition.

Defense attorneys say the odor was a result of Anthony leaving a bag of garbage in the trunk of her car for an extended period in June 2008.

Huntington said he first examined the car two years later in July 2010.

“It still smelled, didn’t it,” Ashton asked.

a€?There was a smell in the trunk, yes,a€

“When has garbage stunk up a car for two years,” Ashton shot back.

Huntington said he didn’t know. “I’ve never left garbage in a car for a week,” he said.

The heated exchange between the aggressive prosecutor and the defense witness was one of many during Huntington’s day-long testimony. Some analysts believe Mr. Ashton helped the prosecution by battering away at Huntington, but others suggest Ashton’s attack-dog tactics may backfire by alienating individual jurors.

Overall, Huntington managed to point up a major inconsistency in the state’s case. The garbage bags containing the body would have to be tightly sealed, but even then a female fly can smell a food source several miles away, Huntington said.

The prosecutor wondered aloud: “Why can’t a trash bag sealed and wrapped keep bugs out? Isn’t that why we buy bags to keep bugs out of trash?”

Huntington replied: “If the smells can get out of a bag, that indicates that it is not air tight.”

Prosecutors were seeking to have it both ways. The car reeks of the stench of human decomposition, they suggest, but not enough to attract flies capable of detecting parts per billion traces of the scent of a human corpse. The trial is set to continue Saturday morning.

IN PICTURES: Photos of the day

View the original article here

Casey Anthony trial: Can duct tape be a murder weapon? (The Christian Science Monitor)

A forensic anthropologist testified in an Orlando, Fla., murder trial on Friday that a piece of duct tape found near a toddler’s skull was large enough to simultaneously cover the girl’s mouth and nose, bolstering a prosecution theory that duct tape was the murder weapon used by Casey Anthony to kill her 2-year-old daughter.

On cross examination, however, the same expert, Michael Warren of the University of Florida, said he did not know whether the duct tape actually caused the toddler’s death.

“You don’t know if that duct tape had anything to do with the disposal [of the body] or the death,” defense attorney Jose Baez asked.

“True,” Dr. Warren responded.

MONITOR QUIZ: Weekly News Quiz for June 5-10, 2011

The testimony came in the third week of the trial of Ms. Anthony, who is charged with first-degree murder for allegedly killing her daughter, Caylee, and then leaving the body in a wooded area a short walk from the family’s home.

During Warren’s testimony, prosecutors played a short video that Warren had prepared for the jury. The professor superimposed a photograph of Caylee’s face over the image of her recovered skull, and then positioned a proportioned section of duct tape over her face.

The video was played to demonstrate that the duct tape could have been used to suffocate Caylee.

Defense calls video 'highly prejudicial'Defense attorney Mr. Baez objected to the video presentation before it was played, calling it “highly prejudicial” to his client. He later filed a motion for a mistrial after the jury was dismissed for the day.

Judge Belvin Perry defended his decision to allow the jury to see the graphic video. The judge said Warren had testified that duct tape over the nose and mouth was only one possible scenario.

“But that is not outweighed by seeing this beautiful child with her face and skull in the background [of the video],” Baez said. “This inflamed the jury. He could have given that opinion without the video.”

Assistant State Attorney Jeffrey Ashton also defended showing the video. “This was the murder weapon, essentially,” he said.

“The testimony from the expert witness is that at some point that beautiful child did have duct tape over her face – the nose, the mouth, one or both,” Mr. Ashton said.

Judge Perry denied the motion for a mistrial.

Like several other major pieces of evidence introduced during the trial, the duct tape raised expectations among trial observers that the growing mystery surrounding Caylee’s death might be soon be solved. But by the end of the day, the best prosecutors could offer was an expert witness’s speculative opinion that duct tape could have caused Caylee’s death.

Earlier, Orange County Medical Examiner Jan Garavaglia, told the jury that based on an examination of Caylee’s skeletal remains and all other available evidence that she had concluded that the case was a homicide – an intentional killing. But she added that she, as medical examiner, was unable to uncover enough evidence to identify the means used to kill Caylee.

The duct tape is significant in the trial because it was found partly attached to Caylee’s skull and hair. The tape was sent to the FBI’s forensic laboratory to examine for possible fingerprints. But those tests came back negative.

Delay in discoveryPart of the problem is that Caylee had disappeared in mid-June 2008 and her remains were not discovered until Dec. 11, 2008. By that time, the body had been reduced to a skeleton and any associated evidence had been degraded or destroyed by weather.

The fact that duct tape was recovered near Caylee’s skull and was still affixed to some hair strongly suggests that it was attached at some point to her face, experts say. But there is no proof that it was attached in such a way to block both her nose and mouth. In addition, there is no proof of whether it was affixed to her face after she was already dead.

As Perry has pointed out to the jury, the jurors are entitled to decide whether expert opinions about the evidence are reliable or not. The burden of proof is that the prosecution establish evidence of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, not beyond and to the exclusion of any doubt.

The duct tape found with the skull is also important to the prosecution’s case because investigators say it is the same brand of duct tape used in the Anthony home. Pieces of the same brand of tape were on a pair of gas cans that Ms. Anthony borrowed when she ran out of gas shortly after Caylee’s disappearance.

Duct tape may also play a role during the defense case.

Ms. Anthony has pleaded not guilty. Her lawyer says Caylee died accidentally in the family swimming pool and that Ms. Anthony’s, father, George, helped cover up the death by making it look like a kidnapping and murder. Baez has suggested that the duct tape may lead back to Ms. Anthony’s father.

The trial is expected to continue Saturday morning.

MONITOR QUIZ: Weekly News Quiz for June 5-10, 2011

View the original article here

On the stand, Rod Blagojevich offers a few barbs and a lot of bluster (The Christian Science Monitor)

Chicago – They only had a single hour at the end of the day Thursday, but federal prosecutors got the opportunity they’ve been waiting for: a chance to finally interrogate former Illinois Gov. Rod Blagojevich before a jury of his peers.

Mr. Blagojevich is in the throes of a second federal trial in which he is convicted of 17 charges related to allegations that he participated in a pay-to-play scheme for President Obamaa€™s former US Senate seat. A mistrial on all charges except one a€“ Blagojevich was convicted last summer of lying to the FBI a€“ resulted in this bookend trial in which, unlike the first, the former governor is taking a stand.

In his five days of recently concluded testimony conducted by his defense lawyers, Blagojevich was repeatedly reprimanded by US District Judge James Zagel for filibustering in his response to questions, a habit that is considered part of his strategy. On Thursday, for example, Blagojevich testified that he considered appointing himself to the Senate seat so he could hunt down Osama bin Laden in Afghanistan.

RECOMMENDED: Six revelations about former Illinois governor Rod Blagojevich

The more Blagojevich wanders off point and the more his outlandish statements and jokey asides keep multiplying, the easier it will become to show that the alleged scheming heard on wiretap recordings had no intentional merit, the thinking goes.

In his defense testimony, Blagojevich outlined what he said was his true intent for Mr. Obama’s Senate seat: that it would go to Illinois Attorney General Lisa Madigan, the daughter of Illinois House Speaker Michael Madigan, Blagojevich’s chief political nemesis. According to Blagojevich, he wanted to award Ms. Madigan the seat so her father would support his legislative agenda that was deemed unpopular at the time. He added that although he considered up to 34 people for the post, he was just about to make the decision before the day of his arrest.

The prosecution opened in the late afternoon following nearly a full day of testimony conducted by the defense. Assistant US Attorney Reid Schar addressed Blagojevich by asking him, “You are a convicted liar, right? It’s fair to say, within hours of being convicted, you went and lied again.”

Mr. Schar was referring to statements Blagojevich made to the media last summer the day of his conviction. Blagojevich had suggested that the conviction of lying was flawed because the FBI did not record his interview. What Blagojevich neglected to tell reporters, Schar said, was that the FBI offered to record the interview.

Blagojevich retorted: “I don’t recall recording devices or anything like that in that interview."

The brief back-and-forth between both men was heated and often sarcastic. Schar’s questions did not follow a chronology, instead they appeared to be thrown at Blagojevich to create an imbalance in his answers. He quoted the former governor’s book and tried to show contradictions with previous testimony.

Blagojevich often made attempts to interject, which contributed to an interchange that was chaotic and infused with drama. In response to some questions that involved the wiretap recordings, he asked to see a transcript to verify his statements.

Early in the testimony, Schar quoted a recording in which Blagojevich is heard saying he would make a decision on the seat based on what was good for Illinois citizens a€?and good for me.a€

“Your oath, sir, doesn’t say you can make a decision based on what’s good for you, does it?” Schar asked.

The prosecution picks up its case Monday following a three-day break this weekend. With the jury exited from the room, Judge Zagel asked Schar how long he expected his cross-examination to continue.

Based on the previous hour, Schar said, he expects it will go on until “the leaves will start turning.”

RECOMMENDED: Six revelations about former Illinois governor Rod Blagojevich

View the original article here

Casey Anthony murder trial a test of cutting-edge forensic science (The Christian Science Monitor)

After years of lurid details in newspapers and tabloid television shows, the trial of a young Florida woman accused of murdering her 2-year-old daughter is set to begin Tuesday in Orlando.

The case is a tragedy, a mystery, and a real-life soap opera rolled into one, and it has attracted intense interest across the country. It may also become an important test of cutting-edge forensic science in the courtroom.

Casey Anthony is charged with first-degree murder in the death of her daughter, Caylee, who was last seen alive on June 16, 2008.

Gallery: Photos of the Day

Caylee's remains were discovered six months later in a wooded area not far from her home. Investigators say there appeared to have been duct tape over her mouth, possibly adorned with a heart-shaped sticker.

If convicted, Ms. Anthony, 25, could be sentenced to death. She insists she is innocent.

Because of extensive pretrial publicity, Chief Judge Belvin Perry selected the 12-member jury and five alternates in Clearwater, Fla., a hundred miles west of the Orlando courtroom where the two-month trial is to take place. The five-man and seven-woman jury will be sequestered throughout the trial to prevent exposure to what is expected to be blanket media attention, including live coverage on TRUtv and daily updates and discussions on talk shows.

CNN crime queen Nancy Grace has made it her mission to cover every twist and turn in the murder case. She rarely refers to Anthony by her name, preferring instead the tabloid-style moniker “Tot Mom.”

The mother emerged as a prime suspect after police were notified in mid-July 2008 that Caylee had been missing for a month. Anthony told deputy sheriffs she suspected a baby sitter had kidnapped her. Asked why she hadn’t contacted law enforcement officials earlier, she told the deputies that she had been conducting her own search and investigation.

A lawyer has also suggested that Anthony was worried that if she went to police the toddler would be harmed.

Police were unable to locate the person Anthony said was the baby sitter. A woman with the same name that Anthony provided to police told authorities shea€™d never met the mother or her daughter. She has since filed a defamation lawsuit against Anthony for harming her reputation.

Police quickly shifted their focus to Anthony when a number of her initial statements were found to have been false or deceptive. In addition, the young mother’s demeanor raised questions about her state of mind and why she did not seem upset or worried about Caylee.

Less than a week after Caylee went missing, Anthony was photographed laughing and partying at an Orlando night club, according to news reports. In addition, two weeks after Caylee’s disappearance, court records show, Anthony got a tattoo. It said: Bella Vita, Italian for “Beautiful Life.”

State prosecutors do not have direct evidence of Anthony’s involvement in her daughter’s death. No fingerprint-laden murder weapon has been recovered. The cause of death has not been determined. And no witnesses have come forward identifying the person or persons who dumped the body.

In addition, Anthony has made no incriminating statements either to investigators or to others that would amount to a confession. Throughout her pretrial detention, investigators have monitored her conversations with her parents and placed her in cells with potential informants who encouraged her to talk about her daughter.

What prosecutors do have is evidence of a stain and a foul smell that has lingered in the trunk of Anthonya€™s 1998 Pontiac Sunfire. A major portion of the statea€™s case against Anthony is aimed at proving to the jury that the foul odor is a remnant of the toddlera€™s decaying body.

Prosecutors have suggested that Anthony may have kept her daughtera€™s body in the trunk of her car for 11 days.

They plan to call as a witness Arpad Vass of the Oak Ridge National Laboratory in Tennessee. Dr. Vass used highly sensitive scientific instruments to test air and carpet samples from the trunk of Anthony’s car.

He said the odor in the trunk included the presence of compounds found during the early stages of decomposition of a dead human body, according to court documents. But he was unable to state with certainty that the odor was from a decaying human corpse.

Vass also found an unusually large indication of chloroform in a sample taken from the trunk, documents show. He said the quantity detected “was about 10,000 times greater than what we would expect.”

Investigators also discovered that someone had used a computer in the Anthony home to conduct Internet research into how to make chloroform.

Experts retained by defense lawyers say the scientific instruments Vass used are too new and untested to produce reliable evidence for use in a capital murder trial. They say the technology is promising but needs to be verified by other researchers and criminologists.

Defense lawyers have countered prosecution claims about the foul smell in the car by noting that at one point a bag of rotting garbage was left inside Anthony’s car trunk while it was parked outside in the hot sun for several days.

Prosecutors are also expected to present forensic evidence of a strand of hair found in the trunk of the car. Although several hairs were discovered – one of them, identified as Q12 – shows signs of post-mortem hair banding, according to court records.

Forensic experts say such banding can be an indication that the hair had fallen from the head of a corpse. But it is not the only possibility, they say.

Gallery: Photos of the Day

View the original article here