there as a defense attorney and put forth a theory that you do not support with any evidence, you can't talk about it in your closing argument. >> i want to take note of the clock, approaching 11:00 a.m. on the east coast. we have been following this for the last two hours on msnbc sunday. a live look inside the courtroom in orange county, florida, orlando, where casey anthony stands as the defendant accused of murdering her 2-year-old daughter caylee. we're in closing arguments, for anyone who has lived under a rock for the last months and weeks as we've been following the trial. we have had the prosecution, the lead attorney, jeff ashton give his closing statements. i keep wanting to say opening statements. the closing, the opening for the day. the first hour and ten minutes or so of court time was taken up with that. they took a short recess for 15 minutes, now back going through some of the details. once they get through that and

all the setup, jose baez, the lead defense attorney, will take over and present his case for claiming her innocence, that she did not intentionally kill her daughter. before we get into the actual discussion from mr. baez, and judge belvin perry is giving instructions. let's go to little yeah luis an know outside the courtroom. what has been the tenor inside the courtroom this morning? can you hear a pin drop? is it very, very serious, business kind of thing? is there any circus atmosphere either inside or outside the courtroom? >> i think everywhere around this courtroom people are paying attention to exactly everything that's being said. i think most important out of everything that jeff ashton just laid out is the fact that he's telling, before the defense has an opportunity to present closing arguments, he's telling the jurors that the defense is

asking them to completely disregard their common sense. as we heard before, he has been underlining everything regarding the motive that casey anthony might have had. he's trying to explain in a very logical way, i have to say, which makes everyone watching pay close attention. he's not just telling you the facts and linking together all the pieces of evidence. but he's telling a story that turns out to be very credible. when somebody tells you a story, when somebody is a good story teller, you have no option but to listen closely and carefully. of course, we know casey anthony's fate is at stake. this is a first degree murder case in which she might lose her life in the end. ever one around us, the media center is paying attention. we have producers inside the courtroom and following twitter feeds an e-mails back and forth of how the jury is reacting. some jurors are taking notes. some are not. at this point i know the defense has laid out some type of

display for the jurors. how they will tackle their closing arguments we'll find out in a few minutes, alex. one thing they cannot mention is that casey anthony was molested by her family, by her father and brother. judge perry already ruled against that. so they will likely not have an explanation for her behavior. >> what's interesting, bringing up twitter, i want to tell everyone you can tweet me to @alexwit, do you think casey anthony is guilty of killing her daughter. the majority of responses this is she is guilty. that may be pre con shooefd. it may be to just the prosecutions thus far. let's see if jose baez -- be

sure to continue to tweet me. we'll bring up those responses later as well. lilly, thank you for following everything from orlando for us. back to you in the studio, randy and jonna, your expectations from jose baez, does he have an uphill battle, jonna? >> i think he does have a little bit of an uphill battle. he should probably focus on the reasonable doubt aspect, what the prosecution did not prove despite how well jeff ashton strung together his story. he should start there. what he won't be able to go into is an explanation as to her behavior because the sex abuse is off the table. >> if we hear anything of that, what's going to happen? will the judge intervene? >> they'll be an objection. >> that will be an objection. >> objection sustained. if he quonts, there will be a side bar. the jury is going to get cleared out and he'll threaten to hold mr. baez in contempt.

there's not going to be a mistrial. >> i always wanted him to explain the duct tape theory. the one witness -- the main witness who could have done that did not testify and now the little bit that the jury heard can't even be brought up, is stricken. >> dr. rodriguez. >> yes. can't be brought up in his closing arguments. those are two large gaping holes. that will be a problem for the defense even though they don't have the burden to prove anything, you have to explain it. >> i'm curious. nick has been in the control room listening to everything. they're delayed, not getting back on time. haggling over a photograph of casey anthony from younger days that's part of the exhibit that they're going to show. why would there be a haggling over a photograph of casey i wonder. >> it can be anywhere from what is the relevance of it, what does it mean? the judge has been very, very clear on, i don't want to hear sympathy in closing arguments

because sympathy has no place in this courtroom. those are the two things that come to my mind. relevance and sympathy. >> read for me casey anthony's face, both of you, during the closing arguments by the prosecution. >> again, my gut was, he is unpeeling me like i am an onion. i have to place to hide. how is this happening. she looked devastated, not as swung wrongly ak can you telled but devastated in that it's all coming out and hitting me in the face. >> there were furrowed brows at points. jonna, it didn't look like she was questioning what was said but that she was ticked off. >> yeah. like she was mad at the prosecutor. there was one point where she did shake her head as if she was disagreeing with what he was saying. just a moment ago, i don't know if the jury is back in the room or not, she was animated and cracked a little smile. it's very hard to get her.

we don't understand her. >> for all you detail people out there, the judge claimed that the prosecution, the state went 77 minutes and 8 seconds with their closing arguments. people like that kind of stuff. we'll compare later. do you think jose baez will go longer? >> longer. >> he is going to, and jonna, i have to give you credit for this. i think jeff ashton set a trap for jose baez. when i said he trusted the jury, i wasn't suggesting he won't have a great rebuttal. but to me it's like he's saying to baez, i set my fish, the line is out. i'm going to let you return and tire yourself out and then bring you in. he's setting a trap. he's going to have baez up there for hours, trying to fill everything in. ashton is going to get up there or ms. burdick is going to get up and say, are you kidding me?

common sense? why doesn't he say the man from mars is responsible for this. >> i'll be surprised if we don't see the superimposition of the live face of caylee and then they went and showed the skeletal remains which never should have been put into evidence, but since it was, i would be surprised if he didn't end with that. >> i'll go on a limb. jose baez, i still think he should front the ridiculousness of his opening. to get up and focus in on the when, the where, the how and the what and punch the holes that he did punch during the trial, and then sit down. he has then in my mind checked -- i don't know about check-mated, but checked jeff ashton on rebuttal. >> is dan conaway with us in florida? he's not right now. i was going to ask dan if he agrees. tell everyone what you think in terms of jose baez rebutting his

opening statements in his closing statement saying, i may have gone a little too far. tell me why you think that? >> i think you have to, a., because of common sense. i think to ignore it he has less credibility. i think he can take some chances. first of all, i think she's going to get a new trial if convicted and there's not going to be a mistrial. i really think they has to own the mistakes he made in his opening statement. this would have been a different trial if he had not said this is what happened and i'm going to show i don't. he hasn't even come close. he needs to own that mistakes and go back to saying here is why they don't have the what, the where, the when, they don't have the how. in fact, ashton in his closing argument, he didn't go anywhere near that. >> you talk about, though, he's taking some risks. a big risk for me, i'm liss stoeng him do that. sf jose baez comes in and says, i made a few mistakes, maybe put myself out there, wasn't able to prove these things. i'm going to look at that and

go, are you kidding me? you have a huge trial here. you come into this -- to me that was give him so much less credibility. i love saying this. we all have different opinions. >> if he ignored it and actually pretended as if he had done a great job, how would you look at him? to me that's less credible. i think you need to own the mistake. >> just so you know, by the way, i guess the court feed may not show us that. what you were just seeing, that right there, apparently they're covering up that picture. it's an old picture of casey. for some reason that is deemed to be inappropriate with the final presentation by the defense. jose baez has been setting up these large cards and they'll be showing them on easels.

we're looking at mr. hopkins, the alleged boyfriend, the alleged nanny, zani, any other person that was part of the story, if you will, by casey anthony. why would they put away a picture of her is interesting to me. >> does he yes mind people of these people's existence without having brought them into court. >> the reason they existed in her mind is because she was sexually abused. he's not allowed to go there during closing arguments. >> the grief expert did testify to talk about that people behave in strange ways in the face of unspeakable horrors. so perhaps what he's going to do is stay away from the sex abuse and simply discuss that this is a dysfunctional family. clearly i think even without him saying it the jurors have to believe as we all are believing there's something going on weird in this family. >> if it's a dysfunctional family, what does that have to

do with casey potentially murdering her daughter? does it explain it, does it justify it? >> no. what it does is assuming this is somewhere between a tragic accident and just complete, you're a moron to knock your kid out with clower form, it takes you out of the premed case. they're using the behavior to back into the premeditation. in other words, the behavior, the tattoo, the dancing, the lies, backs you into the premeditation. you get out of the premeditation by showing her behavior was the rult of a completely insane way of dealing with this tragedy. >> jonna, you're a defense attorney. get inside the head or the temperament right now of jose baez? he's standing onto perhaps the most important stage of his can rear right now any minute? >> he's got a really tough row to hoe. he's coming up against a prosecutor who did a brilliant closing argument and initial

phase. he's got a lot of -- probably some legal errors in the case that he knows in the become of his mind that even if he loses, the appellate court will fix it for him. he's got to do a really good joob. again, he's got a lot of explaining to do. >> how much does a defense attorney have to roll with the punches? instantly change things. you know he's prepared. >> you can't try a case without being able to do that. cross examination. >> he now understands there are a few places he won't be able to go. do you think he's is a wear of the tactic used by jeff ashton, going relatively short and sweet, getting right to the point because he's going to come back on rebuttal. do you think that's on the become of his mind, where he says, oh, that's the tactic this guy used? >> i hope so. if not, he might be incompetent. i don't want to say that. he has to know that's what the prosecutor is going to do. >> i don't think anyone, and

i'll include mr. baez and us even sitting here expected jeff ashton o go 77 minutes. >> i know. we were projecting four hours, half a day. >> i don't think mr. baez was anticipating 77 minutes. quite frankly, if this were a tv movie, baez would get up there with like 30 pages of notes, rip them up in front of the jury, take a moment and wing it and do a brilliant job. >> that's only for the movies. >> like i said, a tv movie. >> look at this. he's getting everything in place. casey sort of getting herself settled. is this typical? he's coming out to give closing arguments. it seems like they're taking an awful long time. >> things happen in a courtroom. we don't know what's going on. if i were jose baez right now, i would be freaking. i really would be. right now is one of the moments

in life where you either rise to the occasion or just get crushed. i think the world is going to be very curious in seeing which way he goes. >> getting word they're returning the jury. we'll watch that. go ahead with your thoughts, jonna. >> you don't want to be at the brink of your closing argument and say, oh, the thing in the middle of the white board, check that out. >> it does make it look as if he hasn't followed the judge's instructions again. that's something he's chronically done which has got to be an irritant. we know it's an irritant to judge belvin perry. it has to be to the jury as well. >> you almost hope at some level that plays into the jury's mind as they start to feel badly for him and get the sense that she's not getting a fair shake and he's not getting a fair shake and we're not going to convict her of murder one and perpetuate the unfair shake. >> interesting perspective.

clearly we have our eyes trained on this as i know you do, too. jose baez looks like he's ready to go. let's bring up the mics in there and see what we're hearing. >> does the state recognize the presence of the jury? and does the defense? >> yes, sir, we do. >> you may proceed, mr. baez. >> thank you, your honor. may it please the court, my colleagues and the prosecution. good morning, ladies and gentlemen. i, too, would like to thank you on behalf of the dephones for the sacrifices you have made as citizens of the state of florida. we know that it came at a great sacrifice and both sides saw how much attention you've 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've all made. thank you.

here we are at the end of our journey and i have to tell you that i probably think you have more questions than you have answers. and if you recall at 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 case will never be answered. it can never be prove even, and that's why did callie die? that's why we're all here. there's no dispute caylee has passed on, no dispute whatsoever about that. really, the key question, as relates to all manslaughter, child abuse and murder charges that you're going to 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. in fact, there was a great deal of thing that you probably were looking for and never received. this is my last opportunity to speak with you individually. after i am done, mr. mason will then stand up and cover the jury instructions and the law and then i will have one last opportunity to speak with you. but 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 get to stand up and have what's called a rebuttal argument. this is the hardest point for a defense lawyer because i can never come back up and respond. the reason it's done that way is because the state has the burden of proof here. they have the burden beyond and to the exclusion of every reasonable doubt which is the highest standard in american juris prudence, the highest standard that must be met. that's why they're afforded the opportunity to have the last word. it wasn't because we tossed a coin and they won. it's because it is their burden. you'll recall when i told you in the very beginning, when we did the jury selection and i had the unique opportunity to speak to each and every one of you individually, i told you it's not a two-sided affair.

the state has the only burden here. while the state did put on a case and did put on evidence and testimony, it was never required to do so. we could have sat back, not questioned one single witness and did absolutely nothing throughout the course of this trial and it still would have been the burden of the state of florida to prove every element in every charge. you'll 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 a little more detail as to that. but that's the same burden, beyond and to the exclusion every reasonable doubt. that's for obvious reasons. we're here for a serious matter. you all left your homes to come and resolve a serious question of fact, and if you were not

given the facts you need, your guidance will be the law. the law will guide you as 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 laws -- we all have lived by these laws for many years and no one has the right when deliberating to base their decision on emotion. now, what i'd like to talk to you about and how i've broken down my final remarks to you are, i'm going to start with my biggest fear. i'm going to tell you right up front what i fear may happen in this case. i want to talk to you about it and 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're going to have to rely on your recollection of how the evidence was presented. it's true. what we say is not evidence. 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, times objections were made. 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 have been. 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 attention to this fact because of this and what came on later on and try and tie it and piece it together for you. to you can say yes, i remember that happening, but when it happened i wasn't sure what it meant. but now that you explain it, i understand what you're trying to say and what your point is. that's the purpose of what i'm going to do when i talk about the state's case. and then i want to talk about the defense's case, the presentation that we put on, even though we weren't required to do anything, even though the law says that 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 way -- to the defense's case, how they apply to the state's case. try and give you an understanding. we realize while you're all very educated people, you're not skilled in the area of the law. sew this is something that we want to use to assist you in that regard. and then finally i will have my last remarks that i think are something that -- something that i think are points that you should also consider before we sit down. as i mentioned, it is going to be the toughest time when ms. drane-burdick goes up. but you have to understand the reason why. now, let me start with my biggest fear, and 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, and that is your rules of deliberation, what the law is, is that this case must not be decided for or against anyone because you feel sorry for anyone or are angry at anyone. and that's because obviously we want you to base your verdict on the evidence, not on emotion. and while there were times where emotion was directly -- was directly pointed at you, where things were done to draw into you're motion, 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. it's my biggest fear because it's such a difficult thing for you to push aside. caylee anthony was a beautiful, sweet, innocent child who died far too soon no doubt about it. that is not disputed up here. but to parade her up here to evoke you're motion is improper. it's improper as to the law and improper as to the rules of your deliberation. i submit to you that that is the strategy and the way the state

presented this case. let me start with mr. ashton's remarks to you today because they're the most 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 presented before you. it was to set up the emotion for what was to come. and that is exactly how this case was presented. they didn't come out the gate and show you the evidence. they gave you two weeks of testimony that was completely irrelevant and served only one purpose, to paint casey anthony as a shut, as a party girl, as a girl who lies and has absolutely

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

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

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

instances. there was 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 changed that will forever change the life of casey anthony, and something forever 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. what came forward? what was put before you? i agree where one statement 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 reasonable 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 want you to tell us what was proven happened. and that's the difference here. you know what? we can go on and speculate all day long as to the different theories that were posed before you, as to the different possibilities. but 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 proven. and that's 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 spared no expense, utilized the finest crime labs in the country, the fbi laboratory. but yet with all of the resources -- and used not only

established areas of forensic science, but created new ones, ones that were never testified before in front of a jury. you are the first jury to ever hear some of the evidence in this case, this type of evidence, air evidence, the very first. you're the first ones in the state of florida to ever hear hair banding evidence. you're the first ones in the state of florida to ever hear a trainer testify about his dog. you're the first one to ever hear any of these types of evidence and that's what i told you from the very beginning, that this prosecution would raise to the level of desperation to make up for their lack of evidence. now, back to what i was saying with their initial setup, the way the case was presented the first couple weeks. you see, the strategy behind that is, if you hate her, if you

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

made it unique, what made it different is not what happened but who it happened to. 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's something wrong here, something not right. and that's what makes this post-death behavior relevant. it explains it. but at the end of the day it is irrelevant to the number one question that you all came here to answer. how did she die? i will jump and piggyback off what mr. ashton said and ask you not to speculate as to that fact.

>> now, i want to start with the car. what's unique about the car is again what i told you at the very 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, if not triple. and i think i showed you that that ended up being true. all of the discussion that came around with being irrelevant evidence ended up being posed as to the car. now -- and i say that for this, because what the car does, is it tells you how caylee may or may not have been transported. it doesn't explain how she died

in any way, shape or form. you may be asking, well, why did you spend so much time fighting it. well, we weren't about to allow the state to put a square peg through a round hole and that's that. because 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? and there was testimony that came out. and was there, in fact, actually 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 casey acted inappropriately and made some 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. there's no doubt about that. that question was never contested. that issue was never debated. but if there are crimes associated with those acts, the state of florida has the ability to charge her with whatever crimes they feel those acts warrant. they don't have the right to overcharge or inflate the case, to make it something that it's not, just because it's entertainment, just because everybody wants to know, just because there's some mystery. you heard tons and tons of evidence of how this case, the media and the way it all came about, how it influenced

people's actions, decisions for both sides. but we can't lose focus of what it actually -- what actually occurred and the answers you're supposed to answer here for us during your deliberations. >> i want to start off with the issue of the car. >> now, you'll recall i used these boards during my opening statement when i explained certain things, and i think going back to them will kind of help you with the timeline of

things. you'll recall that on the 27th -- actually you'll recall that caylee was last seen on june 16th according to george anthony, the testimony of george anthony. i will remind you that the indictment reads from june 15th, not june 16th. and that is very important for you to consider, and that raises the question, does even the state of florida believe that she was last seen. >> objection, your honor. the indictment itself is not evidence. it is charged in a way that says between certain -- >> sustained. let's move on. >> look at the indictment, look at all the instructions -- >> objection. >> move on. >> you'll recall tony lazzaro

testified -- and he was the young man that was dating casey. you'll recall on the 20th of june, casey ran out of gas and tony went to the apartment to pick -- tony went to help her get gas. they went to the anthony home, and in the back yard there is the shed where they got the gas cans from. you'll recall his testimony, and his testimony was clear that when they went to pour the gas, casey did not try to block him away, casey did not say, hey, don't get near my trunk. in fact, they poured the gas in the car, they opened the trunk and they put -- and she put the gas cans in the trunk of the car. she could have easily put them in the front seat, could have done whatever she wanted. she could have told him, go

away, i've got this. she could have never gotten assistance from tony lazzaro at all if she had a body, as suggested by the state, in the trunk of the car or if the smell had been there, this young man would have smelled it. remember, he put up with his hand and he said like that, it's right here. you've seen pictures of the car. the gas gauge, the place where you put -- the gas tank is right next to the back of the car. why didn't he smell it? what happened there? well, there's a reason for that and that's because the car didn't smell at that time. that's the only logical conclusion. you'll also remember a young lady by the name of maria kish, she was a very attractive girl

with glasses, one of tony lazzaro's roommates' girlfriend. you may not have noticed the bombshell that hit when mr. george asked her about ever getting in that car. he got an answer he didn't expect. and that was, yeah, i was in casey's car. and was it during the time she was living with tony? she answered yes. remember they all went to mcdonald's, all four of them got in that car and maria and her boyfriend sat in the back seat and they didn't smell anything. but yet two years later it still smells and all of these people are smelling this smell. why wouldn't it smell that bad when it was most recent? why is it not smelling to these people? we'll get into who smelled what. take that into consideration when you look at this.

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

that's how bad it is. then the car is towed on the 30th. you'll recall mr. simon birch testifying that they sent out their notice. what happened this entire week? why did mr. anthony wait until the 15th to pick up the car? why? remember this fact, mr. burch said when mr. anthony went to pick up the car, he showed up with a gas can. he knew the car was out of gas. an important and even more important fact that you should remember is not only did he know it was out of gas, he knew 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. i said would you have known it was there for three days? no, as tow people we go pick it up. we would have no idea how long a car has been at a certain place. he told us it was there for three days. mr. anthony got up on the stand and he said, i called when i got to work. i found out it was there three days when i got to work. i asked him, did you call mr. birch to let him know it had been there for three days? he said no. so how in the world did mr. birch know that the car was at the amscot for three days? he knew because george anthony told him. george anthony knew that that car was at the amscot. he knew that that car was out of

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

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

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

told you there were two cars. if you believe him, you have to believe that yuri melich, if you believe hip, you have to believe that the other witnesses were lying to you. michael vincent, the other csi person who said he smelled a dead body, mr. arpad vass, and we'll get into that later. cindy anthony said it because this was her third call and she wanted the police to get there quicker. simon burch who runs the police tow yard. now, you may recall that mr. burch didn't make his statement until nine days later, after it was broadcast all over the news

and, in fact, referenced news reports during his statement to the police. you had george anthony who did an incredible job of pointing out that your knowledge the first night upon arriving as soon as he arrived. and of course you have mr. neal haskell. now who didn't smell it. you may recall the one at the check cashing place, you may recall that she said she smelled garbage.

tone nnlazzaro. charity beasley. clint house, he didn't smell it either. sergeant hosey, he said he smelled something. he's at the home, he's hearing lies, 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 trunk of the car for three weeks that that is probably the source of the odor.

deepty eberlin said he didn't smell anything. the lead detective, who again like hosey was advised by george anthony and still did nothing. his name is escaping me. fletcher, yes. brandon fletcher. a corporal who said he did not smell anything an came in and out of that garage and the trunk was open. adrianna acevedo, another police officer who was there and said she did not smell anything. i know you heard a lot of evidence about the smell of this car, and if you look at once

casey is arrested how many people you have to eliminate who didn't do anything. cindy's explanation of the reason why she said that. that leaves one person. and even if you look at all of these people and give them the credibility that they deserve, you still have an abundance of people who did not smell something. this is a reasonable doubt. 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's trying to protect her.

these are a significant amount of people from various backgrounds who have no interest in helping casey anthony. and that's why you need to consider this and that's why you may have a reasonable doubt as to what 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. he was a heavy set guy who came up here and he testified about casey borrowing a shovel. now, if you think 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 recall that mr. burner didn't see what was done with the shovel. you'll recall that the shovel was borrowed for 45 minutes, and you'll also recall that casey came back, she wasn't sweaty. and what the state wants you to believe is that casey anthony in broad daylight was going to go borrow a neighbor's shovel, even though you all saw that they have four or five of them in the shed, and bury her daughter in the backyard. how does that even pass muster at all? i think what maybe some said

that is not rational. they said she buried her like they buried their pets. they're saying come, let's go sbek spec late as to what happened to this shovel. they speculate casey took that shovel and tried to open up the shed lock to get the gas cans. you can easily speculate she was doing whatever with that shovel. we brought you the evidence forward, not the state of florida, we had the people from the nib nib who inspected the shovel and there is absolutely no evidence, no dna, no hairs,

no soils that match the actual scene. so let's speculate, shall we? that's not proper. that's not the la uh. that's not your job. but that's what they're asking you to do. now, 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 -- and i brought it to you because i think what's important here for you to remember is that this evidence was changed.

this evidence was offered, whatever evidence was used to exculpate casey was destroyed, put intentionally into a dry room. you don't know what food is in there. all you know is they want to dry it out. they want to -- and a piece of velveeta cheese with fingerprint dust on it. they want you to know who cut the cheese, but they don't want any other evidence to come out as to what was actually in the trash of that car. mr. ashton can do all he wants with the garbage and say where was the spit? we could see spit was in there. of course you can't find anything. it was altered, it was destroyed. that's not what a police officer's job is to do. that's not what