this is the laundry bag taken from the anthony house during a search warrant on, i believe, december 11th 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. there's a cylindrical one. this is the square one. the cylindrical one is in this bag.

state's exhibit 264. i'd rather not take it out. it's not in very good condition because that bag is caylee's coffin. could i have state's exhibit -- photo state's exhibit 233? this is the photograph of the shorts that were found with the remains of caylee anthony. you will recall in the middle of the 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

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 caylee marie anthony wearing the shirt in which she died. with not a stranger, but casey anthony. could i have 255, please? and i'll need exhibit 288. this is a photograph of the

blanket that was with the remains of caylee that was found on december 11th of 2008. you'll notice in the middle of the photograph, you see a particular character, winnie the pooh with piglet on the shoulders. exhibit 288 is the bedding that was on caylee's bed obtained by their grandparents for all those months that she was supposedly missing. you'll see the winnie the pooh theme but also, you'll see exact

same picture on the bumper from caylee anthony's bed. this blanket was not taken from the home of some stranger but 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 lo longer real. just as the claim that caylee was at zanny's sleeping, just like the claim that she worked at universal studios, just like the claim that she left caylee at zanny's house, 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's 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 the defense counsel says is not evidence in this case. the evidence that you must decide this case on is what comes from the witness stand or from these exhibits in evidence.

opening statement defense counsel gave you a very, very detailed explanation, story, of how caylee anthony died. with dramatic flare, he told you about casey anthony being awakened in the morning by her father screaming at her, where's caylee? where's caylee? about a frantic search for the child. about a 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!

the judge will instruct you on the definition of reasonable doubt. he will tell you that a reasonable doubt is not a mere possible, speculative, imaginary or forced doubt. such doubt must not influence you to return a verdict of not guilty if you have an abiding conviction of guilt. the defense's opening statement has not been established by any evidence in this case. >> 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 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 villian, the defense was not satisfied with one. they suggested a second. they suggested someone that counsel referred to as morally bankrupt. the defense in opening suggests

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 that george anthony is connected to the tape somehow. george anthony's connection to the tape somehow connects him to placing the tape on caylee's body. remember the -- defense counsel said follow the tape. but then in the same opening statement, he suggested to you that roy cronk somehow took the body, kept it in another location and then returned it and in fact, one of their witnesses, dr. spitz suggested

what i would submit to you is based upon the evidence, the nonsensical proposition, someone came along, took the skull, took it home and put tape on it. well, 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 cronk 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 penelis county everything you know about how people think and act and why they do what they do.

it is a trip down the rabbit hole into a bizarre world where men who love their granddaughters find them drowned 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

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 repribate, if they're motivated by money and they want to report finding a child's skull that everybody in the country is looking for and if all they're motivated by is money and the police are not

listening, you walk down the street, you turn the corner, you find anyone of dozens of reporters and say come with me, i got a story for you. and every single one of those reporters would be in that scene right then and there if that's what roy cronk had wanted. roy cronk probably saw, it's on tape, nobody wanted to listen to him. so he gave up. four months later, he came back, it was still there. he reported it was there. you can look at the photographs of that body and without any assistance from expert testimony can tell that body has been there for a very, very, very long time. it didn't just get set there. and that tape didn't just get put on that skull and you know how you know that, because the tape is decomposed just like everything else is.

you've seen photographs of the tape. you got it in evidence. that tape has been out there for a very long time. you heard testimony from the -- the fiber analyst who told you that that tape didn't even have any cotton in it. and we know it's the same tape as the tape in the garbage but that tape has been out there for so long, it didn't even have cotton in it anymore so she couldn't even tell scientifically they were the same. you know, everyone can see they are the same. but 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 is

absolutely no possibility, reasonable or otherwise that george anthony had anything to do with disposing of this body. he 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 anth y 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 22, 2009, george anthony was ready to end his life to be with caylee. and that note, when you read that note, you can go back to

you can read it as many times as you want, there's absolutely no way the man that wrote that note knew anything about what really happened to his granddaughter and 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 was retrieved from the tow yard on july 15th of 2008 wreaked of death. the first witness you heard talk about it. simon burke, gentleman with the english accent, manager of a tow yard. not a police officer. but a guy who for 30 years has been involved in towing cars.

he also spent a year in waste management which is -- 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 their groceries in the car, parked in a tow away zone, their car gets towed. the groceries rot in the back. dead body, five or six of them i've had cars that had dead bodies in them. i've smelled them all. i would submit to you he's smelled rotten milk, too, he told you when he approached the car the first time and leaned down to get the v.i.n. number, he smelled something. and he knew what it was. and he told you that when he went back there with george anthony and smelled that car when the truck was open, he said to himself, whoa! i know what that is.

and he has no reason to lie about any of that. could have stopped there. he was very, very persuasive, i submit to you. he didn't. he went further. you heard from professional witnesses, crime scene technicians who smelled it, unfortunately, on many occasions. unforgettable. unforgettable. exactly what i smelled. the defendant's own father even at the time that i smelled that before and i know what it smells like. but we didn't stop there. we got help from the one person who had studied the order of human decomposition more

extensively than anyone else. 20 years, he's spent studying the biochemistry of human decomposition. the last 10 specifically studying the odor of human decomposition. and he told you that 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, we're relying on science, too. he examined the evidence. he examined the odor. now, what's important about what he did with the odor is that he actually took a piece of the carpet separated from the trunk, so that the odor that 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 the carpet itself. in fact, the defense's own expert agreed that that process would render an odor from the carpet itself. submitted it to instrumental examination. now, both doctors agree that at this stage in 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 and dr. voss who has researched this more than anyone else says to you 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, put in gasoline, maybe throw in some chloroform bleach, throw in some

-- you could throw the chemicals together. but it wouldn't smell like human decomposition. the smell is unique. he tested the odor. he tested the carpet through two different instrumental examination, one for inorganic and one organic and he tested the paper towel and everything he tested came back to one specific thought, that there was a dead body in the back of casey anthony's car. now, the defense presented but dr. burton who is also experienced in this area. he's not as experienced as dr. voss because his main area of interest is individual human scent, in other words, the scent that you and i give off in life as individuals. some of his students do study decomposition but the thing that's interesting is he agreed that the odor coming from the

car is, in his opinion, from decomposition. he tried to propose some alternative sources of the 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. yeah, i mean, they -- i guess it was dr. huntington, the bug guy that tried to talk about there was maybe salami in the salami package. i showed it to him. it was not salami, it was paper and then dr. furton tried to talk about the cheese and i showed him the packages and there was a tiny bit of residue in it and ultimately, even he agreed that what was in that garbage was not sufficient. we have exploited the myth of garbage. even the doctor admitted 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 common life and experience have smelled common household products. i'm sure y'all have walked past dumpsters and you've got your husbands, take out the garbage. it took them too long. what garbage smells like is not beyond your experience. and ladies and gentlemen, when you remove a bag of garbage from the trunk, the smell goes with it. it doesn't stay in the trunk. it was there because caylee's body had been there. but that's not the only evidence you have.

you have the 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. 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 a lengthy testimony from steven shaw. >> objection. >> overruled. >> you heard lengthy testimony from steven shaw about a test that he did where he literally told you, i was trying to create this artifact in hair taken from a living person.

i tried to find every method i could think of, every decomposition situation i could think of to try and re-create 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, or it wasn't banding. the important thing about all that is that when you look at the hairs that actually came from a car from the trunk of the car or from inside of a car, the same circumstance of this particular hair, they didn't have anyone at all. nothing. no decomposition of any kind so 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 her car, it

was in the back of the car. the point is that that hair was from a dead body. now, how do we know that that was caylee's body? two ways. first is by mitocondrial d.n.a. it's done on the hair and also on casey anthony. that comparison proves that that hair came either from occasi-- from some maternal relative of caylee anthony. caylee, casey, cindy, lee, or cindy's mother. ok? well, we know it's not casey's because it's too long and casey's hair is treated. so 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 long. we know it's not lee's because it's too long. lee's hair is short. h this hair is 9 inches long and we know it's not cindy's mother because cindy's mother -- cindy's mother had been in the car once but cindy's mother's hair is treated and this hair is not. this hair could only come from caylee marie anthony. and 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 body, the roots had completely decomposed where the one in the trunk had not. as hard as it is to accept, when

casey anthony was at blockbuster on june 16th walking arm and arm with her boyfriend, tony. caylee was in the trunk of her car in the early stages of decomposition. when caylee -- 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 backyard. she went to brian burner and borrowed a shovel. based upon the dog alerts in the backyard, she in all likelihood actually took caylee's body back to the backyard and set it down

for a period of time. was digging too much work? perhaps. and 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. to live the life that she wanted. she took her child.

she took her life. and she put her in the trunk and forgot about it. after a couple of days, she couldn't forget it. 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 casey anthony is guilty of murder in the first degree. and that that murder is premeditated. the defense says and will say that we can't prove how caylee anthony died. let me echo the words of the medical examiner in this case. and she said, no one -- there is no good reason to put 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 silence her. if for some reason that's what you wanted to do. as brutal as that would be. why do you need three?

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. that doesn't secure the nose. the second piece goes over the nose. 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 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 that nose and mouth of a child and based upon the photographs that you have 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 tape was on caylee's face before her body decomposed because otherwise, the mandible wouldn't be 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 but 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

one singular purpose. 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. >> ok, ladies and gentlemen of the jury, we're going to take a 15 minute recess, at this time, i'm going to ask you not to

discuss this matter among yourselves nor with anyone else. we'll take a 15-minute recess at this timed. >> a stirring, stunning and chilling prosecution version over what happened to caylee anthony this morning. will it be enough to convict casey anthony? later this afternoon, the defense gets its turn. good morning. welcome to "america's news headquarters. ">> you're looking live inside the courtroom. judge perry on the bench after the jury leaves the room after hearing the closing argument of the prosecution saying the prosecutor did that casey anthony is guilty of premeditated murder. that carries the death penalty if it is decided that she's guilty. good to have you here. we're going to get straight to our coverage after weeks of testimony, the trial, this is one of the final and most critical stages because the jury will hear both sides of the last argument they will hear before they go in and make their

decision about casey anthony's guilt or innocence. our legal panel today, criminal defense attorney rachel kugle with us and fox news legal analyst peter johnson jr. and joining, defense attorney david wall. welcome to all of you. thank you for being with us this morning. peter, you first. prosecutor made a very compelling, very strong argument and do you think that he tied all of the evidence together because we know closing arguments can just be based on what was presented during the trial? >> obviously, it was a thoughtful presentation. i expected something a little bit longer and something a little bit more compelling at the beginning. what he did in detail was give in step by step, day by day, recounting the lies that were told by casey anthony with regard to the covering up of where the child was, that she was at the hard rock cafe, that she was with her rich friend in another city. that she was at hotels, that she was in places where the child was having a good time.

>> zanny the nanny. >> zanny the nanny, imaginary fictional character that was created by casey anthony allegedly by the prosecution's words to be an alibi for what she had done showing that casey anthony is a horrible person, a smart person, a pathological liar, a person with an impressive memory that could keep track of these lies. tried to dispel the notion that there's reasonable doubt. really instructing the jury in some ways as what reasonable doubt is and what moral certainty is and speculation is not a reasonable doubt. did what a lot of us suspected was going to happen, held the sword over jose baez's opening. trashed jose baez's opening saying he didn't prove what he said he was going to prove. there was an objection from the defense at that point. probably a valid objection in my view overruled by the judge

because of what the prosecution did was then shift the burden back to jose baez based upon his opening. >> to elaborate, that was on the sexual abuse allegation that was made in his opening argument. it took everybody by surprise where jose baez argued that casey anthony had been molested by her father for years and that was part of her pathological behavior which there never was any evidence, the judge said earlier in jury instructions presented during the trial. could that come up on appeal? >> it can come up on appeal. what i anticipated in this closing and what i didn't see, i was hoping for in some ways as an observer and as a participant in these things was that he would tear at the emotions of this jury. tear at the heartstrings of this jury. and even more compelling ways and leave this jury crying at the end. i don't know if this jury is crying. >> as a defense attorney, what do you do, what does jose baez do to try to counter some of this? not only did he sketch the

history of the alleged lies but talked about the specific evidence, the laundry bag and the duct tape that matched over the body at the home. what do you do now to counter this? >> i think what happens is, generally in any case, quite frankly is the prosecutor is trying to say use your common sense and look at the big picture and the defense attorney comes up and takes it apart piece by piece. the defense attorney wants to break it up and say let's not look at the big picture. let's look at the specific piece of evidence and problems with that evidence. a lot of the evidence in this case was complete junk science, in my opinion, and in many other commentators' opinions in this case. >> even the banding of the hair. >> absolutely the banding of the hair. >> the air samples, can of air. >> when you put it all together, though, david, if you jump in, you have a very strong circumstantial case, many would say. what's your position on that? because wasn't jose baez's now closing argument in a sense taken down a notch that he can't argue what he argued in his opening argument? >> absolutely.

not just taken down a notch but, excuse me, completely gutted. i mean, he promised things to this jury that went completely unfulfilled. when you too that like mark geragos did in the peterson case, the jury is left with a gaping hole. to create reasonable doubt, he'll have to pull a rabbit out of a hat. i don't know what he's going to do. this prosecution's closing argument was very strong, very compelling and some of the words that he used. that casey could put caylee out of the mind the way he could put the truth out of her mind and the desire from freedom and freedom from the burden of motherhood was really compelling because i think any parent can put themselves in the position of having to deal with children, how difficult parenthood is. how much you give up when you're a parent to your child. and when you decide to become a parent, you give that up with joy. >> casey anthony did not do that. >> she was going to get rid of her child. >> we'll take a quick break. the prosecution did talk about the ultimate sacrifice that

casey anthony made, her child. we'll have much more. >> in 10 minutes or so, the court will be back in session. jose baez will give his closing statement. we'll hear that. here's jeff ashton in one of the most stark moments in his closing argument just a few moments ago. >> a trip down the rabbit hole into a bizarre world where men who love their granddaughters find them drowned 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.

. verizon claims its 4lt is twice afast as at&t.

we're putting them to the test against the speed of a rescue unit. go ! they're downloading a music album. the first network to finish gets rescued. does your phone know that we're racing ? done ! verizon's done ! i've got seven left ! the fastest network in america. verizon.

built so you can rule the air. now powering the lg revolution. fiber one. almost tastes like one of jack's cereals. uh, forgot jack's ceal. [ jack ] wt's for breakfast? uh, try the number one! i've never heard of that. [ wife ] it's great. it's a sweet honey cereal, you'll lovet. yeah, this is pretty good. are you guys alright? yeah. [ male announcer ] half aays worth of fer. not that anyone has to know. fiber beyond recognition. fiber one. morning starts with arthritis pain... that's two pills before the first bell. [ bell rings ] it's time for recess... and more pills. afternoon art starts and so does her knee pain, that's two more pills. almost ne, but hang on... her doctor recommended aleve cause it can relieve pain all day with just two pills. this is lisa... who switched to aleve and fewer pills for a day free of pain. and get the all day pain relief oaleve in liquid gels.

> >> casey is smart. casey is quick. it is absolutely amazing how nimble casey anthony's mind is and the ability to come up with an appropriate and believable lie in an instant. she's impressive. she's actually got an amazing memory. i mean, imagine being able to remember the lies you told a year ago and incorporate that into a new lie. it's really quite impressive. >> back live now with our coverage of the closing arguments in the casey anthony trial. that was prosecutor jeff ashton who gave a very detailed

prosecution wrap-up of what he said happened to caylee anthony and his detailing the details about how her mother he says killed her and phil keating has been covering the trial from the beginning in the case in orlando. phil, give us a sense of what is going on in the courtroom now and how this prosecution closing argument has been received. >> that was a pretty quick summary of the six week case by assistant prosecutor jeff ashton, basically reminding this jury this woman, 25-year-old casey anthony is a liar, a very skilled liar and that her entire fictitious story about the nanny and her job at universal, all of those made up and the problem was going to be coming up as soon as caylee was going to be able to talk. as soon as caylee was going to be able to tell her grandmom and her grandfather that there is no zanny. there is no nanny. once the lies were going to come

to a screeching halt according to jeff ashton, that's when casey anthony decided to use the chloroform and the duct tape. you see the video of casey anthony earlier, she was weeping. she was sobbing. for the first 45 minutes, she was pretty stoic in there and unemotional visibly but once they got into showing some of the crime scene evidence, they showed the skull of her daughter. caylee anthony found in the woods. they also showed the shirt she was wearing that was found out in those woods. big trouble comes in small packages. her pair of shorts and what jeff ashton referred to as her coffin, a laundry bag which happened to match its partner, laundry bag, inside the casey anthony home. jeff ashton was succinct and here's, basically, one of his stronger points of the morning. >> so on that morning, casey knew she would not be staying at

that house. neither would caylee. because she knew that that night she was in the arms of her boyfriend and that caylee would be dead. >> and grimly, ashton also told the jury that on that date of june 16th, 2008 when the videotape from inside the blockbuster video store shows casey and her then boyfriend tony holding hands, renting a movie for their big romantic evening at his apartment, at that moment, little caylee was decomposing in casey's trunk. >> that's absolutely a chilling scenario that the prosecution has laid out, especially -- not just saying she wanted to live a free life and not being a mother but being so specific that she allegedly killed little caylee because she was about to talk at that age when she would be able to expose the lies.

>> yep. it's truly a very succinct 1 1/2, hour and a half by jeff ashton, of course, coming up here in five or eight minutes, jose baez will get his chance to present his closing argument and then the state will have a rebuttal by the end of the -- end of the day. >> all right. phil keating, thanks very much for staying on it. >> let's bring back our legal panel right now, criminal defense attorney rachel krugle is with us, fox news legal analyst peter johnson jr. and defense attorney david wall. thank you for being with us. david, back to you. i want to put up the charges that casey is actually facing here. and they start with capital murder. first degree murder. aggravated child abuse, aggravated manslaughter of a child, and then there are four counts of providing false information. that's when she had those initial conversations with police. the capital murder charge, do you believe became a potential reality, more of a reality for

the prosecution when it was learned late in this case, day 32, 33, near the end that cindy anthony had made searches on her computer at work and -- at home, rather, and not at work as she previously had stated, it was believed she was trying to potentially cover up for casey by process of elimination, casey had to have done those searches according to the prosecution. >> that's right, jamie. that was the issue, the one essential elements to the premeditation and now we learn that cindy could not have possibly done this. it was casey or somebody else but you know it was casey at this point. so that did serious, serious damage. i think the jury knows that cindy was covering, knows she was lying. and what that does is that puts now casey in a position where she wasn't before. far more damage has been done and now she seriously is looking at a first degree murder conviction because of that premeditation three months in advantage and that shows sort of

a cunning and a diabolical premeditation that adds to the case that will give the jury to hang their hat on when they're considering life and death in this case. that's why the defense should have verified cindy's employment records before they put her on the stand to begin with or left her on the sideline all together. that was a huge gaffe and huge mistake. it could end up costing casey anthony her life. >> the chloroform didn't become a critical issue in some ways in this closing as i expected that it would. the thing you have to consider is that the prosecution has a difficult job in many ways in this case. there is no time of death. there is no date of death. there is no empirically proven mechanism of death. there is no actual eyewitness evidence or admission that casey anthony took the body and dumped it in the swamp or in the woods. there are none of those factors. so what the prosecutor relies on

is something called conscientiousness of guilt. she knew she was guilty and acted in ways to cover up her guilt. that's the substantial piece of the prosecution's case. the prosecution knows that the scientific evidence is kind of here. kind of there. kind of new. maybe junk science and i would agree that, perhaps, it is junk science. >> when you put it all together. >> when you put it all together, though, we're still going to hear about dysfunction because judge perry threw the defense a life line and says you can't talk about molestation. you can't talk about incest but you can talk about dysfunction so if i'm on this jury and mr. baez invokes his opening in the same way that the prosecution decided to invoke his opening and maybe violate the rules and i say dysfunction of mr. baez, that jury will know that's a code word for those same things. >> rachel, is dysfunction enough to try to potentially get her

off? >> well, ultimately, as peter points out, there isn't a lot of science here. ultimately what this comes down to is those 31 days so the defense has to try to make some explanation for that 31 days and don't forget also that the defense doesn't have to follow the rules quite as closely as the prosecutor has to follow the rules. he's not worried about being appealed in that regard. so the defense can be a little more creative as we've seen throughout this case. the prosecutor has to be a little more tighter and more careful with his arguments than the defense. >> what happens if he tries to go into the sexual molestation issue? will he be shut down? >> he'll get an objection. usually that's pretty rare during closing arguments. we're going to go back down to the courthouse right now. the host of the judge alex show is joining us and also a former florida criminal court judge. thanks for joining us. >> my pleasure. thanks for having me. >> i have a couple of questions. my first one is what did you think of the jury instructions that happened before the closing arguments and the judge's

decisions on those? >> well, actually, the judge is a little frustrated because the instructions weren't prepared by both sides when they had a discussion about what they thought should come in and the charging conference, if you don't want the judge to give the instructions that he prepared, then you should draft up your own version and argue why that one should be given. as a result of that, they'll be meeting at lunch time to finalize the instructions but most of the instructions in a homicide case are pretty standard, pretty prefunctory but the judge's obligation is to give the right instructions. the standard ones can be found to be wrong after the case has concluded. that's why all this effort is being made. >> we know that the florida rules don't allow you to present anything in your closing arguments that has not been presented as evidence, probably why the judge ruled that the jury instructions and the closing argument could not bring up the sexual abuse that jose baez alleged in his opening remarks. do you think that that's

something that jose baez might have some action depending upon how this case turns out down the road especially since jeff ashton brought up that he hadn't proved his case. >> no, absolutely not. that's the one circumstance where commenting on the defense failure to prove something is not burden shifting. when the defendant in opening statement promises something that he intends to deliver as far as evidence is concerned, that opens the door and is considered fair reply or invited comment, that opens the door to the prosecution in closing arguments saying they did not prove any of this stuff that they promised you at the beginning. it's one of the rare times where you can say that the defendant didn't prove anything because otherwise it's burden shifting so the judge was completely right to overrule that objection by the defense. i think actually, the defense got a bone on this. they threw this dog a bone, so to speak, because there was no evidence of drowning either. but the judge allowed them to

infer from the limited evidence that there's a swimming pool, and the child knew how to climb the ladder to argue that and that's probably because it's a death case and that's the only reason. >> we're going to go back inside. it looks like things are back in session. stand by, judge. >> do i need to come down and see something? >> i will say that these were read into the record in testimony and i can qualify them by saying such, your honor. >> also a page here that's not in evidence. so i still object. this is actually a page that's not -- >> i would ask the instruction exhibits are for demonstrative purposes only and i would be happy to say so.

>> portions that are not discussed at all. see what i'm saying? >> i don't think they -- >> just a second. >> sorry. >> one at a time, mr. ashton. >> this is a part of the deposition. >> you don't have any problem with that, do you? >> well, yeah, i do. for the same reason i have problem with the other quotations. clearly this is not counsel's memory of what was said. this is an actual photograph itself. the other ones we can say well, he can say this is my memory of what they said, but clearly this is the actual one, itself. council necessarily didn't say

it that way. it wouldn't be the same. so they have to allow that. >> i don't think the standard is someone's memory. if i wanted to write down word-for-word what a witness said on the witness stand i could do so and regurgitate that in argument, the arguement to the jury. this was actually admitted in trial. and testified about. that is what i would like to do. i, of course, agree that it should be noted that they should rely on their own recollection, as to what i'm telling them. like, the same for mr. ashton. he made numerous statements that i. >> okay. anything else, folks? what i will do is the portion of the page, mr. ash top is exactly right. put white tape on that. yeah. [ inaudible ] >> i don't think it's out of

order. if the court can see here, this is the photograph in the middle is not one that has been introduced into evidence. it shouldn't used in any way, shape or form in the argument. counsel can make reference to it. he apparently is going to confirm imaginary friend. >> who is the photograph in the middle? >> well, we don't know, but we can assume that the looks of it that it's. >> it looks like my anthony at some stage. >> right. >> probably wasn't the best photograph to choose, but how is the state prejudice? >> well, because it makes her look young and this is some sort of child-like invention

that she has come up with, individuals, as opposed to a picture of her at age 22. up with of the photographs of miss anthony that was objected to was a smiling photograph taken at the orange county sheriff's office, because it had no relevance to the case. if they want to substitute that photograph, of a smiling casey anthony on july 15 or 16 of 2008, that might be more appropriate than having a picture of a child with an argument that her lying is child-like. and that she creates these individuals. it's not even a comment on the evidence, because i'm going to guess she is in eighth grade in that picture. >> what is the date of the photograph, folks?

>> i don't have the exact date of the photograph. but miss anthony is a young woman. >> that doesn't answer my question. how is she in the photograph? what is the date of the photograph? >> let's see if i can get the approximate date. >> the other representations aren't accurate either. though they are caricatures. there is no testimony about eric baker, as i recall. >> there was. >> judge, this is our case. >> i just need to know when the photograph was taken, folks. >> somebody knows what this

is. >> miss anthony, can she take a look. >> like 11th grade? >> no. i'm sure she is wearing makeup p then. >> jamie: prosecutors are arguing that photographs that jose baez, the counsel wants to present are prejudicial to the state because they show casey anthony as a young girl, estimating about eighth grade. jose baez says he doesn't necessarily know the exact date so they are reviewing some of the additional exhibits. >> eric: what is the importance of this, peter and rachel? when you have the arguments, not before the jury, but when they are deciding what they can or cannot present in the closing argument. >> it show what is a life and death struck this is, every image, everything seen by the jury is subject to intensive debate. one issue is was it shown to the jury before? was it in evidence? now they're arguing incredibly about what date the picture

was taken, was she in 11th grade? was she wearing makeup? what light will it depict the defendant in to the jury. prosecution is saying we're concerned about the argument made by the summation by the defense about the so-called imaginary friendses a if it was a child-like figment, not some evil, vicious part of a scheme to kill caylee anthony. >> eric: could they allude to -- eluding to showing casey as young woman, alluding to the sexual abuse that they have denied and the judge said they can't bring it up. to plant it in the jury's mind without bringing up and sustain objection from the other side? >> jose baez is trying to give us a taste of what he intends to do, depict casey as child-like, someone deals with the heavy issues in a child-like manner, fabricating imaginary friends i think was

the tite to feel piece of demonstrative evidence. that is what he is trying to do on some level here. >> jamie: why wouldn't the prosecutor know what evidence was coming in before this moment? >> this is the point to raise. it has been shown now, but it's also psychologically disturbing. if you are mr. baez and you are about to give the greatest closing of your life in a capital murder case to get into what the picture is, where did it come from? cover this up and that up. he says this is part of my theory of defense. >> jamie: i think the judge is ruling now if we can listen in. >> we have a moment to replace it with another photograph. >> interesting. >> interesting. >> eric: well, he denied the photograph. >> anything else? >> hi had a book of photographs, other things that i think he would have through a power point. have you had a chance to look

at those? >> the one i came up and looked at that he flipped through. >> that is it. we're showing any other. >> judge: the one thing we did agree is for some of the printed matter in there, that there are his statements. >> okay. >> right. >> not quotations. >> right.

>> for purposes of the record, the state used 77 minutes and eight seconds. out of the four hours that was given.

>> jamie: all right. we are waiting jose baez, the defense attorney for casey anthony to give his closing argument. he has his work cut out for

him. tall jury has heard so far is from the prosecution, piecing together the duct tape, the shovel, the chloroform. casey's behavior. the lies. that he says commonplace. and now as they review what jose baez can actually present, the jury is out of the room. they will soon return to hear what we would expect to be as peter johnson puts it the closing argument of jose baez's career. >> and the closing argument necessarily must focus on george anthony, which was a big part of the prosecution's closing argument. he becomes a critical, critical figure in the theory of accident. and in this theory of credibility. the credibility of george anthony was not touched on by the prosecution this morning. talked about him as a sympathetic figure, but we heard nothing or an explanation about the conflicting testimony about a mistress that he had denied so

vociferously. he denied a mistress that may have been disproven, he also denied sexual abuse and he denied he was involved with an accident, or saying there was an accidental drowning that snowballed out of control. so his credibility is going to become key. let's look and see if there is a full-throated attack on his credibility. >> jamie: he did it in an interesting way, didn't he, rachel? >> yeah. >> jamie: saying if you believe george anthony did this and that, you have to throw common sense out the window. >> this is was i was going to say about the prosecution having you look at the big picture. let's not forget also as judge perry pointed out that the prosecution has two and then some hours to address all of these points and to take peter's advice and put his case back together when he comes up for rebuttal. >> jamie: we are taking a look here, we can see the picture argued about whether or not it could come in. and casey looking on. >> eric: what is fascinating about this, as judge perry noted 77 minutes has been used.

they get four hours. in a prosecutor rebuttal we could have three more hours of closing statements. one would expect that that could touch on a lot of emotion. and as well as rebutting what we expect jose baez to say in a few minutes. phil keating has been following this throughout the whole trial and the case. what does baez have to do to bring george anthony in as he wants to? >> he is going to be talking about the clear social disflux within the anthony household. you can see this defense posterboard here that jose baez had made up graphically. although, the judge did not like the fact he used a photograph of casey anthony in the middle, surrounded by all of her imaginary friends. but the photo he used of casey anthony is when she was 15 or 16 years old and the judge felt that distorted reality. so baez having to cover up the

element with white paper. the fact this is a defense piece of evidence for the closing argument. that he is the one bringing up the imaginary friends as opposed to the prosecutor, he is going to get into this is a woman with issues. casey anthony had issues. she is a chronicle liar. >> eric: we have a problem with the audio so we'll get back to you in a minute. what is your opinion of the photo? did jose try to speak something in there or a legitimate effort to show she had imaginary friends her whole life? >> the issue is why isn't at it current picture? prosecution said it had not been in evidence. clearly, this is providing a stumbling block to the defense at this point in the pace of where they want to be and the trial and their ability to go

forward in a fluid way. but the lynch pin of the prosecution's case this morning and has been, that there is an equivalency between lying, deception and murder. if you believe that casey anthony is a chronic, pathological premeditated liar, you must believe she is capable of murder and she premeditated the particular murder. >> eric: do you think it will be enough? >> that is the argument and the so-called common sense argument. if you believe casey anthony is capable of this, based on this series of lies, the pattern of lie that she engaged in, she is also capable of committing this murder. that is the inhelicopter message that is a subliminal

message put forward. on the defense side we didn't get a reason to like the defendant in the case. never. >> eric: sometimes they say i think the person lied or is a liar but doesn't mean they murdered someone. >> in my opinion, that should have been the defense from the beginning. we're not going to the beginning but that would be my take on the whole thing. jurors are smarter and take it more seriously than any of us realize. i think jeff ashton won't get them with emotion alone, not in a first degree case for sure. >> jamie: pulling the quilt out of the bag, the bumper and shows it matched what caylee was wrapped in when she was left in the woods was upsetting, compelling. i want to bring david in. i have a jury question, since you raised that issue, rachel. at this point, the jury was told we're going to recess for 15 minutes. it's a lot longer than that. what are they thinking? >> they listen to the prosecution and it was very compelling. they are thinking what is

mr. baez going to tell us? how is he going to dig his client out of the hole? they are sitting on the edges of their seats waiting to hear this. i guarantee it. they will give him, you know, full, they are going to listen to him and listen to all the argument and give him what they should give him. an the attention necessary. but i'll tell you something, the prosecutor has three hours left in the total four hours of argument. guess what? he is going to use every minute of the three hours in his rebuttal. he will listen closely to what baez said and rebut every bit of that. he has more on top of that, more ammunition to give the jury. i think by the end of this, this happens frequently by the way. that the prosecutor's initial arguement is brief and they come back with a long, compelling, sometimes drawn out rebuttal argument. that is what is going to happen here. so baez gets one shop, one shot, one bite at the a to save his client's life. so he better do well and better not create a bunch of sidebars. he better be fluid and

continuous in his argument. tell them that there is reasonable doubt. >> the jury is going to come back in right now. jose baez will begin his closing argument. we don't want folks to miss a minute. stand by, david. thank you. >> shortly thereafter, wherever there is a logical break. >> yes, sir. >> all rise for the jury.

>> please be seated. >> the state recognizes the presence of the jury. does the defense? >> yes, sir, we do. >> you may proceed, mr. baez. >> thank you, your honor. if it pleases the court, my colleagues on the prosecution, good morning, ladies and gentlemen. i, too, would like to thank you on behalf of the defense for the sacrifices you have made as citizens of the state of florida. we know it came at a great sacrifice, and both sides saw how much attention you paid to the presentation of evidence in this case. it hasn't gone lost on us. we all have recognized that. i want to thank you both individually and collectively for that great sacrifice that you all made. thank you.

here we are. at the end of our journey. i have to tell you, i probably think you have more questions than you have answers. if you recall at the opening statements, the final thing that i told you at the end of the day when everything is said and done, the one question will never be answered, the key question in this this case will never be answered, it can never be proven. that is how did caylee die? that is why we're all here. really. there is no dispute that caylee has passed on there is no dispute whatsoever about that. so the key question as it relates to all manslaughter, child abuse and murder charges that you will be presented with is how did she die? what happened to her?

what is proven beyond and to the exclusion of every reasonable doubt? not just some, but every single one. and those questions were never answered. that evidence was never presented to you. there was a great things of things that you were probably looking for and never received. now, i'd like to explain to you that this is my last opportunity to speak with you individually. after i'm done, mr. mason will then stand up and cover the jury instructions and the law. then i will have one last opportunity to speak with you. generally, this is our moment. this is our opportunity to show you and explain to you what we think the evidence showed in this case. the state after we're done will then be able to get up

and have what is called a rebuttal argument. this is the hardest part for a defense lawyer, because i can never come back up and respond. and the reason it's done that way is because the state has the burden of proof here. so they get that last opportunity. they have the burden of beyond and to the exclusion of every reasonable, which is the highest standard in american jurisprudence. it's the highest standard that must be met, so that is why they are afforded that opportunity to have the last word. it wasn't because we tossed a coin and they won. it's because it's their burden. and you will recall when i told you in the very beginning when we did the jury selection and i had the unique student to speak to each and every one of you individually, i told you, this is not a two-sided

affair. the state has the only burden here. while the defense did put on a case and put on evidence and testimony, it was never required to do so. we could have sat back, not questioned anything, not one single witness and did absolutely nothing throughout the course of the trial and it still would have been the burden of thestate of florida to prove every element and every charge. you will recall when we talked at jury selection, we talked about elements and what they mean. mr. mason is going to come up and give you more detail to that. but that is the same burden. beyond and to the exclusion of every reasonable doubt. done that for obvious reasons. we're here for a serious matter. you let yo homes to come and resolve a serious question of fact. if you were not given the

fants you -- the facts you need, your guidance will be the law. the law will guide you to what your decision and what is a legal and just decision. judge perry will tell you that what is important is that you follow the law. we all have lived by the laws for many years and no one has the right when delib rating to base their decision on emotion. what i'd like to talk to you about and w i have broken down my final remarks to you are i want to start with my biggest fear. i want to tell you right up front what i fear may happen in this case. and i want to talk to you about it, explain why i feel that way. i want to then outline the

state's case. i want to talk about it piece-by-piece. my presentation will be a little bit longer than mr. ashton's, because i want to actually show you what i think the evidence showed. now you are going to have to rely on your recollection of how the evidence was presented. it's true. what we say is not evdence. but it's a guide for you to look at the evidence from a certain angle and a certain perspective. there were lots of delays in this trial. there were times we went at sidebar, there were times objections were raised. what you have to look at the evidence by is by what actually was testified to. sometimes it came out a little odd. sometimes it didn't come out with as much cohesiveness and the presentation wasn't as fine as both sides would have liked it to be. i certainly know that was the

case with us. but the problem is, this is the purpose of us coming up here and talking to you. to show you we think this has a connection to this. we want you to pay ateng to this fact, because of this. what came on later on. try to tie it in pieces together for you so you can look back and say yes, i remember that happening. but when it happened i wasn't so sure what it meant. but now that you explain it i understand what you are trying to say and what your point is. that is the purpose of what i'll do when i talk about the state's case. then i want to talk about the defense case. the presentation we put on. even though we weren't required to do something, even though the law says the defense has no burden and does not have to prove anything. then after that, as i mentioned, mr. mason will get up and give, explain what the

charges are and explain what must be proven and also explain the judge's instructions to you. and how they apply to the defense's case. how they apply to the state's case. to try to give you an understanding. we realize while you are all very educated people, you're not skilled in the area of the law. so this is something that we'll want to use to assist you in that regard. then finally i'll have my last remarks that i think are something, are points i think you should also consider before we sit down. as i mentioned, this s the toughest time when the verdict goes up, but of to understand the reason why. now let me start with my biggest fear. that is that this case deals with so much emotion. i know that there were times

where every single person in here felt something deep down inside. the law gives us a guidance as to what we should do when it comes to emotion; that is, the rules of the deliberation, what the law is, this case must not be decided for or against nip because you feel sorry for anyone. or are angry at anyone. that is because obviously we want you to base your verdict on the evidence, not on emotion. and while there were times where emotion was directly pointed at you, where things were done to draw into your emotion, to get you angry at someone ; to get you to discriminate against someone because they didn't act the way they should have acted.

they didn't conform with what we think is right or normal. they're different. that is not what the law is. the law says you must base your verdict on the evidence, not on emotion. and it's my biggest fear, because it's such a difficult thing for you to push aside. caee anthony was a beautiful, sweet, innocent child, that died far too soon. there is no doubt about it. that is not disputed by anyone. but to parade here up here to invoke your emotion would be improper. it's improper under the law and improper to the rules of your deliberation. i submit to you that that is the strategy and the way the state presented this case.

they started with, well, let me start with mr. ashton's remarks to you today because of the recent in your mind. mr. ashton started out showing you a video of little caylee. started talking to you about parenting. started talking to you about what a mother should and should not do. he went on for a great length of time talking about this beautiful child. not on his evidence. not on the evidence that was presented before you. it was to set up the emotion for what was to come. that is exactly how the case was presented. they didn't come right out of the gate and show you the evidence. they gave you two weeks of testimony that was completely irrelevant and served only one purpose; that was to paint casey anthony as a slut, as a party girl, as a girl who

lies, and has as absolutely nothing to do with how caylee died. you would dihonor the law and even caylee's memory if you were to base your decision on anything but the evidence. to use emotion to get you angry is improper. here is the proof. judge perry will read that to you. it's rule number three, but i ask that you make this rule number one. the state came out and paradeed all of these people, but what was unique is throughout the process, etch kept coming back with the same thing. casey was a good mother. caylee loved casey. what was funny is i wanted you all to see something. you may have wondered why i ask certain questions. i ask million of the questions as to how did caylee react to

casey. i thought it was important that you understand that of course a child cannot fake this. a child cannot fake love. a child knows when it loves someone. it behaves a certain way. i have brought those questions out and i asked them from both angles. how did casey treat caylee and vice versa? what this did, it wasn't to appeal to your emotion. it was specifically directed at the child abuse charges. we were here for a couple of months, at least six weeks as mr. ashton pointed out. but you didn't hear one single instance having anything to do with child abuse. not one. this prosecution was geared in such a manner that it was deliberate, it was methodical, it was thorough and detailed.

you saw in those 30 days every movement of where casey went and every single thing she did. if there was one instance of child abuse, you would have heard it. you would have seen it. it would have become clear. so if you look at the child abuse charges, ask yourself when did someone get on this stand and tell me or demonstrate in any way that caylee was abused? child abuse cases are sad and one of the most horrible crimes imaginable. but one thing is for cerin, if there is an abused child, people know it. people see bruises. people see different things about that child. there will be broken bones at times and different instances.

nothing other than the fact that this child was loved and well taken care of. and from one moment to the next, something happened. something changed. something change that will forever change the life of casey anthony and something changed that ended the life of caylee anthony. it was sudden and immediate. not deliberate. not repeated. not premeditated but something from one moment to the next. you have to rely on the evidence. looking for it. what was heard? what was put before you? i agree with one statement that mr. ashton said. you can't speculate. don't speculate. don't guess. it has to be proven to you beyond and to the exclusion of every single doubt. if you don't know what happened, it wasn't proven.

we don't want you to tell us what you think happened. we have want you to tell us what was proven happened. that is the difference here. we can go on and speculate all day long as to the different theories posed before you. to the different possibilities. the truth of the matter is, it must be what was proven. there are no mysteries to solve here there should be no mystery before you right now. if you have questions, then it was not power play. that is as simple as it goes. it's as simple as it gets, because that is exactly what is done. now you have seen this checkbook prosecution. where they spare nod expense. utilized the typest crime labs in the country, the f.b.i. laboraty. but with all the resources,

used not only established areas of forensic science but created new ones. ones that were never testified before in front of a jury. you were the first jury to ever hear some of the in evidence the case. the type of evidence. air evidence. the very first. you are the first ones in the state of florida to ever hear hair banding evidence. the first ones in the state of florida to ever hear a rainer testify about his dog. you are the first one to ever hear any of these types of evidence. that is what i told you from the beginning, that this prosecution would raise the level of desperation. to make up for the lack of evidence. back to what i was saying for the initial setup, the race the case was presented in the first couple of weeks. the strategy behind is it if

you hate her, if you think she is a lying no-good slut, then you will start to look at this evidence in a different light. you will start to oh,, wait a minute. maybe i'm seeing something that is not there. start to discriminate against her rather than give her standard afforded to each and every citizen in our country. that the state and the government come in here to prove their case beyond every exclusion of every reasonable doubt. we can get away from that if we can get a jurto hate her. we can get away with that if we paint her in a certain light that has nothing to do with the evidence. more to do with who she is. i told you at the beginning of this case, this was an accident that snowballed out of control. while it was a common accident, what made it unique, what made it different is not what happened, but who it

happened to. and you all sat here and saw some bizarre things throughout the course of this trial. bizarre things that have been going on long before caylee was ever born and throughout her early life. you saw all of these things. this is not stuff that is new. there is something wrong here. something not right. that is what makes this post-death behavior relevant. it explains it. but at the end of the day, it's irrelevant to the number one question. that you came here to answer. how did she die? i will jump and piggyback off of what mr. ashton said and ask you not to speculate as to that fact.

now i want to start with the car. okay? what is unique about the car is what i told you about at the beginning. the car does not shed any light on how caylee died. period. i told you all it will double the length of this trial. it's not -- if not triple. i think i showed you that would end up being true. all of the discussion that came around with being irvl rant evidence ended up being posed as to the car. i say that for this. because what the car does is it tells you how caylee may or may not been transported. it doesn't explain how she

died in any way, shape, or form. you may be asking why did you spend so much time fighting it? well, we weren't allowed -- weren't about to allow a state to put a square peg in a round hole. that is that. there are just as many questions as there are answers relating to the car. who had possession of it all the time? did george anthony have access to it? there was testimony that came out. was there, in fact, a body in the back of the car? at the end of the day, we come back to does it tell us how she died? no. we all know that casey acted inappropriately and made mistakes and bad decisions. she should have called the police. she should have not attempted to block this out. she should have reported her

death. no doubt about that. that question was never contested. that issue was never debated. if there are crimes associated with those acts, the state of florida has the ability to charge her with whatever crime they feel the acts warrant. they don't have the right to overcharge or inflate the case. to make it something it's not, just because it's entertainment. just because everybody wants to know. just because there is some mystery. you heard on thes and on thes of evidence of how -- tons of evidence of the media and the way it came about, how it

influenceed people's actions, decisions, for both sides. but we can't lose focus on what actually occurred. that is the answer you're supposed to answer here for us in your deliberations. i want to start off with the isue of the car. now, you will recall i used these boards in my opening statement when i explained certain things. i think going back to them will help you with the timeline of things. you will recall that on the

27th -- actually, you will recall that caylee was last seen on june 16, according to george anthony. the testimony of george anthony. i will remind you that the indictment reads from june 15, not june 16. that is important for you to consider. that raises the question does even the state of florida believe she was last seen. >> objection. the indictment itself is not evidence. charged in a way that says between certain. >> look at the indictment, look at all of the instructio instructions.

>> you recall that tony lazara testified, he was the young mandating casey and you recall on the 20th of june, casey ran out of gas. and taupeny went to the -- tony went to help her get gas. they went to the anthony home and in the backyard, there is the shed where they got if gas cans from. you recall his testimony. his testimony was clear. that when they went for the gas, casey did not try to block him away and casy did not say hey, don't get near my trunk. they poored the gas can, they poured the gas in the car. they opened the drunk. they put the gas can in the trunk of the car. she could have put them in the front seat or done what she wanted or told them go away, i

got this. she could have never got ain analysis tans from tony at all. if she had a body as suggested by the state in the trunk of a car. or if the smell had been there. this young man would hav smelled it. remember he put up with his hand and went like that and went it's right here. you have seen pictures of the car. the gas gauge, the place you put gas in the gas tank, excuse me, is next to the back of the car. wife didn't he smell it? what happened there? there is a reason for that. that's because the car didn't smell at that time. that is the only logical conclusion. you will remember a young lady by the name of maria kisch. she was a very attractive girl with glasses.

one of tony lizarro's roommate's girlfriend. you may not remember the bombshell that hit when george asked her about ever getting in the car. an answer he didn't expect. the answer was yeah, i was in casey's car. was it during the time she was living with tony? she apsed yes. reason, they went -- she answered yes. remember, they all went to mcdonald's. they got in the car and maria and her boyfriend got in backseat and they didn't smell anything. but yet, two years later, it still smells. all of the people are smelling the smell. wife didn't it smell that bad when it was most recent? why is it not smelling to these people? are we going to get into who smelled what? but take it in consideration when you look at this.

then you recall the incident with the gas can. that was reported missing to the police on june 24. i labored over the gas can throughout the trial because i think the issue is obvious. who in the world reports gas cans missing? who -- not even the state of florida, how many times in the united states has someone called the police and said someone stole my gas can? and why is that tucket tape on there? why are there so many lies surrounding the gas can and the duct tape? it's not a coincidence. if, so it would be incredible coincidence. you couldn't have odds worst than the lottery. that's how bad it is.

then the car is towed on the 30th. you recall mr. simon birch testifying after four days they sent out their notice. so what happens this entire week? why did mr. anthony wait until the 15th to pick up the car? why? remember tis fact. mr. birch said when george anthony went to pick up the car, he showed up with gas can. he knew the car was out of gas. an even more important fact that you should remember, not only did he know it was out of gas, he knew that the car had

been at the amscot for three days. remember that? he said mr. anthony told me it had been there for three days and i asked him would you have known it was there for three days? no. i tell people we just go pick up a the tow yard. we would have no idea the car has been at a cern place. but he told us it was there for three days. though mr. anthony heard that testiny, he got up here on the stand and he said i called when i got to work. i found out that it was there three days when i got to work. i asked them, did you call mr. birch to let him know it had been there for three days? no. so how in the world did mr. birch know that the car was at the amscot for three days? he knew because george abbottny told him. george anthony knew that the car was at the amscott. he knew that the car was out of gas. he showed up to pick up the

car with his key. when he got there, you all remember that he smelled the smell of death. he smelled the smell that you never forget. he did what every responsible parent would do, that is nothing. just go home and go to work. nothing. don't call to find out if my daughter is alive who i haven't seen since the 24th of june. i don't call to find out if my granddaughter is alive since i haven't seep her since the 16th. he document do any of those things. that is because he wanted to distance himself from this situation. he knew. there is evidence of that. that was a presented to you. he knew something, he knew she

was dead. this evidence doesn't make sense. if the state of florida had done as much work trying to track the comings and going of george anthony as they did casey, you probably would have seen more. you'd probably have more answers, but you don't. now july 15 comes around.

>> july 15 comes around, and as mr. ashton points out, all hell breaks loose. now we take a look at who actually smelled what in the car. you have csi bloise who testified that depending on who was asking the questions you may recall, if mr. amberdic asked him, it was human decomposition. when i questioned him, oh, it was decomposition. he went back and forth. you may recall that time. you have deputy forgey and his dog who was advised that this is the suspect's vehicle. you may recall we did a small thing where i had each and every person who witnessed the dog inspection, and they all said there was only one car. but deputy forgey lied to you

and he told you there were two cars. if you believe him, you have to believe uri, michael vincent and bloige were lying to you. michael vincent, the other csi person who says he smelled a dead body. mr. arpodboss -- we will get into him a little later. cindy anthony who said that in her 911 call but said since this was her third call and she wanted the police to get there quicker. simon birch who runs the police tow yard. now, you may recall that mr. birch didn't make his statement until nine days later after it was broadcast all over the news and in fact

referenceed news reports in his statement to the police. you have george anthony who did an incredible job of pointing out the uri of pointing out as soon as he arrived, and you have dr. neil haskell, the $4,000 man. the anthromologist who explained several theories. now let's take look at who didn't smell what. karen sanchez at the amscott check cashing place where the car was. you may recall she said she smelled garbage. tony lazarro who went and got casey, got the gas can for

casey. and was right near the drunk on the 20th. charity beasley, a police officer who picked up the car and took it to the tow yard. maria kish, the girli smoke about earlier who sat in the backseat. with her boyfriend. he didn't smell it either. sergeant hosey. now he said he smelled something. he is a sergeant. there is a missing child. he is at the home. he is hearing lies. but yet he didn't think it was sufficient to call the crime scene investigators. why? because the trash seemed like a plausible alternative. it was understandable. if trash is in the drunk of the car for three weeks that that is probably the source of

the odor. deputy ryan eberland. this was the young man who handcuffed casey. he said he didn't smell a thing. uri melich, the lead detective, who again like jose was advised by george anthony and still did nothing. his name is escaping me. fletcher, yes. brendan fletcher. corporate who said he did not -- corporal who said he did not smell anything. came in and out of that garage and that the trunk was open. adriana acevedos, another police officer who was there that said she did not smell anything. now i know you heard a lot of evidence about the smell of this car. if you look at once casey is

arrested how many people you have to eliminate, -- you didn't do anything. cindy's explanation of the reason why she said that, at least one person. even if you look at all of the people, and give them the credibility that they deserve, you still have an undance of people who did not smell something. this is a reasonable. when you have this many people, this many people who are telling you a certain thing, you have to have some doubt. this is not one individual like her boyfriend who is trying to protect her.

this is significant amount of people from various backgrounds who have no interest in helping casey anthony. that is why you need to consider this. that is why you may have a reasonable doubt as to who smelled what. now, the state of florida talked to you and presented to you a neighbor by the name of brian burner. you may recall this is the individual. a heavy-set guy. he came up here and he testified about casey borrowing a shovel. if youhink about mr. burner's testimony, you

may recall that the police told him to close his eyes and try to remember the day that this all occurred. you will recall that mr. burner didn't see what was done with the shovel. you recall that the shovel was borrowed for 45 minutes. and you will also recall that asey came back and she wasn't sweaty. what the state wants you to believe is casey anthony in broad daylight was going to go borrow a neighbor's shovel, even though you all saw they have four or five of them in the shed and bury her child in the background. is that reasonable? how does that even pass muster at all? i think what may be my colleague's response was look at all of herctions? they are not rational. i would agree with that.

mr. ashton said something interesting. bury her like she buried their pets. okay? well, i will get back to that in a minute but i'd like for you to remember that. okay. let's speculate now. that is what they are doing. they are saying come, let's go speculate as to what happened with the shovel. you can easily speculate that casey took that shovel and tried to open up the shed lock to get the gas cans. you can easily speculate that she was doing whatever with that shovel. that shovelwas tested. that shovel was inspected by the f.b.i. we brought you the evidence forward. not the state of florida. we had the people from the f.b.i. who inspected the shovel. there is no evidence, no dna,

no hairs, no soils that match the actual scene. there is no evidence of that. so let's just speculate, shall we? that is not proper. that is not the law. that is not your job. that is what they want you to do. that is what they are asking you to do. you saw tons of testimony about the trash and the garbage. and i can't count how many times i brought this up to you and showed it to you. and said take a look at this. i brought it to you because i think what is important here for you to remember is that this evidence was changed. this evidence was altered. whatever evidence could be

used to excall vate caylee was destroyed, put in a dry room. you don't know what food is in there. all you know that is they want to dry it out. you were passed velveta cheese with fingerprint dust on it do you remember that? black powder. fingerprint dust. they want you to know who tut the cheese. but they don't want any other evidence to come out to what was in the trash of the car. mr. ash top can do all the little show he wants and show them the garbage and say here is the spit in here? we can see there is spit in there. can this create a smell? of course you can't find anything. it was altered, destroyed. that's not what a police officer's job is to do. that is o