chloroform. and that, all the experts agree. including those called by the defense. let's talk about now another subject as far as the air examination, which is the odor of decomposition, the expert testimony. the defense's primary attack upon dr. vass is that he has developed a device which is designed for use by law enforcement and the military, and that if, by some miracle, that device were to be purchased by someone in the private sector, why they would want to, you can only guess, that dr.

vass would split with the other inventors 15% of whatever minimal royalty that oakridge national laboratory might get. that's the impeachment. that's the criticism. you saw dr. vass testify in this case and you have to judge his credibility. i submit to you that dr. vass is an unapologetic geek. he loves what he does. i mean, when have you ever seen a scientist on the stand in a criminal case say, and this is the cool part. dr. vass is an unpolliapologeti science geek. he loves the challenge of answering science question, whether it be how do you detect a body by the odor of

decomposition, maybe it's because it does work. counsel sneered at him because he has the scientific curiosity to wonder that something as bizarre as that might have a scientific basis. maybe he's right or maybe he's wrong, but to say that you should disbelieve him because he has that scientific curiosity, i would submit is inappropriate. judge him by what he said. judge him by who he is and what his experience is and judge him fairly. but getting back to that point, when you actually boil down what dr. vass said and what dr. ferten said, they really don't disagree that much. they both agree that the science of human decomposition odor has not developed to the level that there is a signature set of compounds that show human decomp. they both agree with that.

they both agree that the chemical signature from this car is consistent with a decompositional event. dr. ferten said yes, i believe those chemicals are from a decompositional event. so does dr. vass. dr. ferten agrees that it's possibly human. that's what dr. vass says. they don't really disagree that much. on much of anything. other than the final conclusion, because dr. vass told you that when you combine the science with his experience and what he smelled in that can, the odor he has smelled for 30 years. i asked him, do you have an opinion, based upon all of that, as to whether that odor was from human decomposition. his answer was i can find no other plausible explanation. i would submit to you that dr.

ferten's other explanation is not plausible. you know, counsel, in correct, wanted to just have dr. vass talk about the garbage from a photograph. without talking about what was actually there. i wanted dr. ferten to look at the garbage because i wanted you to see what was actually there. in his closing remarks, counsel made a claim that i would submit to you completely unsupports the evidence. he told you that these officers removed something from the garbage. that was absolutely unsupportable from the evidence in this case. there's no evidence of that. in fact the evidence is completely to the contrary. the officers testified they removed nothing from that garbage bag, that there was no food there then.

there is no food there now. all the imagination in the world is not going to create it. the only thing in that bag of an organic nature similar to food was the small bit of -- remnant of cheese that i passed around for you to look at. dr. ferten admitted that that cheese in that bag could never create an odor that would still be detectable by tim huntington, the defense's own expert two years later. the myth of the garbage has been disproven. that smell was not from garbage. it was from caylee.

let's talk about dna for a minute. the defense presented dna non-evidence. the defense called dna expert from the fbi to testify that she tested for dna on various items and there was none. she told you that she didn't expect to find any, that dna decomposes just like every other part of the body does. she had no expectation of finding dna on the tape that had been out there on the body for six months. the defense call ed dr. eichenbloom who provided us with a report. the judge instructed you on that. all he said was that well, i think i might have been able to find something. that was the essence of his

testimony. i think i might have been able to find something, but i might not. that's it. that's essentially what he said. even he admitted that the two things that were absolutely the most destructive to dna are moisture and heat. and it was highly unlikely that any dna found on the duct tape. i mean, think about it. if there's no dna on the duct tape that was attached, how can there be dna on the duct tape. they admitted that. that was non-evidence. it didn't mean anything. the defense called ten other witnesses to basically talk about non-evidence that the witnesses themselves admitted was meaningless. it doesn't mean anything. the fact that there's not dirt

on a shoe doesn't mean the shoe was in the place. we can go on and on with that. it just doesn't mean anything. the last area of forensic evidence was the hair examination. the hair examination, you heard from karen lowe and steven shaw. steven shaw was recalled by the defense. we went through that powerpoint with you about his research. those witnesses are not going to come up here and tell you more than the science will absolutely support. what they told you was that there is this artifact that has only been seen in hairs taken from decomposing bodies. that despite all of their efforts to recreate it from living human beings, they've been unable to do so. since they don't know exactly what causes it, they're not going to tell you that it couldn't happen any other way.

but just no other way they can think of. that testimony, ladies and gentlemen, has not been refuted in this case. to say that there is no evidence to connect casey anthony to caylee's death ignores all of this evidence. i want to go to the next issue. i want to discuss with you is the issue of reasonable doubt. it is up to you to decide whether a doubt which has been proposed by counsel are reasonable doubts or whether they are speculative, imaginary, fanciful and absurd doubts. i'm going to go through some of the reasonable doubts proposed by counsel and subject them to a little bit of examination.

the first area i want to discuss with you is the duct tape. counsel went to great lengths to connect, as we already had, the duct tape in this case to the anthony home. on that, we agree. that duct tape on caylee anthony's face came from the anthony home. but here's -- so the argument then goes well, george anthony, having somehow discovered this drowning, which we'll talk to a few minutes ago, there's no evidence this actually happened, for some reason decides to dispose of the evidence of this completely innocent accident, and for some reason that no one

can even propose decides to put duct tape on caylee's face. now, getting past the fact that there's just no conceivable reason why anybody would put duct tape on the face of a dead child, i said it before, people don't make accidents look like murder. that's absurd. nothing has been presented to you to make that any less absurd. >> judge, i object. >> sustain. >> motion to strike, your honor. >> motion to strike granted. >> you have heard nothing in the evidence in this case to make that proposition any less absurd. now -- >> same objection, your honor. >> overruled.

>> but let us propose that we ignore all of that absurdity. and say that george anthony -- >> objection. paragraph 6 of your honor's order. >> overruled at this point. >> let's suppose that george anthony has in fact placed caylee's remains in the wooded area on june 16th of 2008 and placed duct tape over her mouth. the defense then asserts that on the 24th, for some reason, he deliberately notifies law

enforcement about this gas can with the duct tape on it. implying that in some way, he is attempting to implicate his daughter in something. for reasons which are completely inexplicable and not mentioned anywhere in the evidence. but he creates this issue about this duct tape by reporting that it's stolen. he gets the can back. no photographs are taken of it by law enforcement back in june when it happens. it's just reported. there's no way of knowing from that report whether duct tape was on it or not. it's just not mentioned. but somehow, the defense wants you to believe that that was part of the plan. that was part of his insidious plan to somehow implicate his daughter in something for some reason. they then tell you that when

caylee does turn up missing and the police are there searching, that george doesn't tell them about the gas can incident. if george is concocting a nefarious plan to implicate his daughter in this accident, then why doesn't he tell the police that first day? and counsel made great, great point to the fact that he didn't, but if counsel is correct, then he would have. he would have done it. of course, why he would give the police a piece of evidence implicating himself as much as anybody else, again begs the issue, but anyway, we go on. so the police take the item, which at the time they have no idea has anything to do with

anything. photograph it, and they give it back to him. so at this point, george anthony takes the can back and sticks it in the garage for four months. and doesn't do anything with it. doesn't try to connect it to the police. he just lets it sit there. and then in december, when the body is found, the police find the can with the duct tape in the garage. george doesn't point it out to them. they find it, because remember, george isn't even there. they find it and they take it into evidence. so what does this nefarious criminal then do? he takes the very same roll of duct tape which connects him to this death, and he uses it to

display posters? does any of this make sense. none of this makes sense. to assert that george anthony's use of the tape on the posters for his missing granddaughter is patently absurd. it doesn't make any sense. >> objection, judge. i would ref 6. move to strike. >> over ruled. >> the reason it doesn't make sense is because it's not, i submit, based on the evidence, true. if george anthony had absolutely no idea that that roll of duct tape had anything to do with the death of his granddaughter. he had no idea, because he wasn't involved, just as he told

you. you know, counsel showed you the big poster with the pictures of caylee walking into the pool and said that this hypothesis has not been rebutted. well, i respectfully disagree. because ladies and gentlemen, the two people that counsel asserts were present when that happened were george anthony and casey anthony. george anthony testified on that witness stand the first day of this trial it didn't happen. as ms. burdick will point out to you when she points, ms. anthony also was given the opportunity to adopt that and rejected it twice. that has been refuted. by the evidence in this case.

counsel also asserted to you that this crime scene was quote-unquote staged. here's the interesting part. he tells you on the one hand that george anthony is connected to the tape. remember he said in opening, follow the tape. but then on the other hand, he tells you that roy kronk is connected to the tape. dr. spits told you that somebody came along later and took the skull and taped it and in opening statement, the defense counsel told you that person was roy kronk. so they both got the tape, this rare kind of duct tape. roy kronk, who has no connection to the anthony family other than reading their meter once, who's never been in their house, who's never been in their garage, who has no way of knowing what kind of duct tape they have. which is it? who put the duct tape there? counsel has argued to you that the crime scene was staged.

could i have state's exhibit 82 published to the jury, please? you'll recall this is the photograph of the scene out there on suburban drive as it was found on december 11th of 2008 before anything was disturbed. this is in its pristine form. i will submit to you looking at this scene, it is clear that the only thing that is staged this scene is mother nature herself. this scene is covered in leaf litter. this is a two to three inch of leaf litter around the skull. there are vines literally growing over everything in this scene.

there are vines, you'll see in photographs, growing through everything in this scene. this scene is staged by mother nature and no one else. this skull has not been moved for six months. pardon me. maybe a little less, because the animals may have moved it before it decomposed. defense counsel told you in opening statement that roy kronk took the remains home and kept them. we presented the testimony of dr. john schultz, the forensic anthropologist who was in charge of the collection of the remains. we went through great lengths to show you how it was collected and in what groupings. the reason it was important was the grouping of the various bones demonstrates how the body

was disarticulated during decomposition. remember he talked about how there were certain areas where the ribs were found because the trunk would have been removed as a connected group of organs as it decomposed. that the vertebrae were found separately because that would decompose separately. the bones showed evidence of -- >> objection, your honor. >> overruled at this point. >> that the bones showed evidence of animal activity, that they had been chewed on. we didn't tell you that just to offend you or to make you mad. we told you that because it is essential for you to understand that bones were not scattered by roy kronk. they were scattered by animals and by acts of nature. could i have 207, please, in evidence?

again, you can see in this photograph, a little closer up of where the skull is. this skull has not been moved for months. it is surrounded by the hair, which has fallen directly from the top of the head. you can see it all around, pretty much evenly distributed around the skull. this is where the skull has sat since the hair has fallen off. it hasn't moved, at least not much. could i have state's 209?

>> the duct tape is partially covered by leaf litter along the sides. you'll see the duct tape actually goes around the jaws and the skull. this has been here so long that the leaf litter has actually covered parts of the duct tape. >> objection, relevance. >> overruled. >> could i have 218, please? in this photograph, you can clearly see that the duct tape wraps around the mandible. it didn't just get washed there by water. it's there because that's where casey anthony put it. it's there.

the jaw is in place because the tape is there. could i have 220? you can see in this photograph where the tape has been lifted away from the skull, from the mandible, excuse me. that there are strings from the tape that actually go under the mandible. that's not a coincidence. that's not an accident. that's not water. that's because the tape was placed over her mouth and her nose before she decomposed. you can take it off now. the scene was not staged.

it appears as it does because of the forces of nature. the forces of water, forces of animal and the forces of decomposition. and any suggestion to the contrary, i would submit to you, is conclusively refuted by the evidence in these photographs. all these photographs you will have in the jury room with you. they are in a notebook. they are separated by sort of subject matter. you can look at them. take as much time as you like to look at them. when you've done that, you're going to see that this crime scene was not staged. it was not moved. that duct tape has been on caylee's face since the day that she died. just as the state's experts told you.

the state did not call roy kronk in this case, because roy kronk's testimony about what he did on december 11th, 2008 is embellished. roy likes to spin a good yard. but what roy said he did on december 11th is impossible. we didn't put roy kronk on to tell you a story that the evidence in the case just isn't true. i would also submit to you that roy's claim that he just happened upon that scene for the second time is equally uncredible. that doesn't mean that he staged the scene, that he stole all that stuff. what it means is that roy likes to spin a good yarn. i submit to you based on the evidence what occurred in this case is that roy found the skull

as he said he did back in august. tried to report it three times and he got blown off and said the heck with it. i'm over this. maybe it really wasn't. but then he starts communicating with his son. he starts telling his son. hey, i know where the skull is. and his son is impressed. he's trying to get this relationship with his son. he thinks wouldn't it be great to impress my son. so he goes back to the scene and it's still there. roy becomes a hero and roy tells a very, very dramatic story about lifting up a bag and the skull rolling out and it's dramatic and wonderful and fun, but it isn't true. roy found the skull, all right. absolutely. but not the way he said. it's just impossible. but that doesn't make roy kronk

a morally bankrupt individual who would take a little girl's skull home and play with it. the judge gave you some legal instructions and i want to talk about a few of them, the most important ones. the judge is going to instruct you on the main charge here which is murder in the first degree. there are two ways to commit murder in the first degree. one is called premeditated murder. the other is called felony murder. now, we get up here and we argue to you what we -- what scenario we believe the evidence supports. in this case, we told you that we believe the evidence in this case supports the scenario that casey anthony chloroformed caylee so that she would not suffer, placed duct tape over her nose and mouth to end her

life and disposed of her body, but you can come up with whatever scenario you want. it's up to you to put these facts together and decide in your own mind what you think happened. that's important in this circumstance. there are two ways to get murder in the first degree. the important thing is for you to know the following. during your deliberations, in order to find the defendant guilty of murder in the first degree, the state must convince you beyond a reasonable doubt of the defendant's guilt of either premeditated murder or felony murder. >> your honor, i would object to this statement of the law. >> i'm reading directly from this, your honor. >> overruled. >> either premeditated murder or felony murder. while you must all agree that the state has proven first degree murder beyond a reasonable doubt, you need not

be unanimous in your opinion as to whether that finding is based on premeditated murder or felony murder. in other words, what that means is that as you each individually assess these facts, you don't have to necessarily agree on whether it's premeditation or felony murder. you can think it's both. some can think it's one. some can think it's another. the important thing is that you all agree that it is first degree murder in some form. premeditated first degree murder is a fairly simple concept. it just -- the three elements is that caylee is dead. the death was caused by the criminal act of casey marie anthony and there was a premeditated killing of caylee marie anthony. killing is defined as killing -- killing after consciously deciding to do so and there is another, a more full description the judge will give you.

our position is that the facts in this case show beyond a reasonable doubt that this was a premeditated murder of a young child. but we know that you can reconstruct these events in any way you want. so you also need to know what felony murder is. felony murder has three elements. the first is the same, that is that caylee is dead. the second is the death occurred as a consequence of and while casey marie anthony was engaged in the commission of aggravated child abuse. or she died while casey was attempting to commit aggravated child abuse. and that casey is the person who killed caylee. now, aggravated child abuse is defined by two elements. the first is that the defendant knowingly or willfully committed

an act of child abuse upon caylee and in so doing caused great bodily harm, permanent disfigurement, permanent disability and that caylee was under 18 which there's no question that she was. child abuse is defined as the intentional infliction of mental, physical or mental injury upon a child or an intentional act that could reasonably be expected to result in physical or mental injury to a child or act of encouragement of another person to do that. the reason that we talk about this is you can postulate a number of -- >> objection. >> under brooks. >> overruled. >> a number of different hypotheses in this case. some might say well, maybe casey put the duct tape on caylee to keep her quiet. maybe she was being loud.

maybe she put it on to keep her quiet and put it on too tight and caylee died by accident. i would submit not really consistent with what we have here, but, you know, someone could think that. the reason i bring this out is because if that is what you think happened, that is felony murder. as the court will define it for you. that's felony murder. because it is the intentional act that could reasonably be expected to result in physical or mental injury to the child. if that's something that you're thinking about, just want you to know that's also first degree murder. >> objection. >> overruled. >> or, if you choose to believe that she used the chloroform to

sedate caylee so she could spend time with her boyfriend, as bizarre as that seems, but let's say she used chloroform in the trunk of the car to sedate caylee so she could have a good time with tony on the 16th and caylee accidentally died. it's still first degree murder. because that act is aggravated child abuse and if she dies as a consequence and result, it's first degree murder. regardless of how you put these facts together, and again i submit to you that the one that makes the most sense is that this is premeditated. it is. but any way you slice it, any way you put it together, casey anthony is guilty of murder in the first degree in this case. i want to talk a little bit

about george. you have seen hours of videotape of george and cindy with casey and sometimes just with casey. those give you a window into this relationship between them. an unguarded relationship between these three people. is there anything in any of those conversations that shows george anthony is anything other than a loving father and a loving grandfather?

who is outraged and perplexed as to why his daughter won't tell them something. throughout all of these conversations, he is supportive. he is helpful to casey. he's loving to her. she even says to him on more than one occasion, when he expresses some guilt about not having been a better father, she says to him over and over again, you were the best dad. you were a great dad. you were a great grandfather. there's nothing in any of those tapes that would suggest in any way that he's setting her up in some bizarre fashion. most of her more frictional relationship is with her mother. most of the arguments to the extent they occur are with her mother, not with her father.

george is, remember the thumb, george is the thumb, we're the five fingers and george is the thumb. it's almost a little silly in a way, but george is not this self-interested monster that counsel has suggested. the last time george anthony testified, mr. baez brought up the suicide. you'll recall that he asked mr. anthony, you know, didn't you attempt to commit suicide. mr. anthony said that he did. mr. baez asked him, well, didn't you express some guilt in the suicide letter? that's of course before you actually would have had a chance to see it. now, of course, mr. baez seems to be telling you it wasn't really a suicide attempt. it was a couple of beers and some blood pressure medication.

that's not what george anthony said. he took blood pressure medication, ang mxiety medicine. because he wanted to die. he wanted to be with caylee. he was tired of all of it. he was tired of the questions. he was tired of not knowing. he just wanted to be with his granddaughter. you cannot read this letter and not see that this man was in pa pain. you could seen see the effects of the drugs and alcohol as his handwriting deteriorates through this letter. this is not some self-serving, slib r deliberately created manifesto. this is the cry of a man who just doesn't understand the world anymore.

he doesn't understand what happened to his granddaughter. he doesn't understand why his daughter won't tell him. he just doesn't understand, and he's just tired. caylee marie, i miss her. i miss her. i want my family back. i sit here falling apart because i should have done more. she was so close to home. why was she there? who placed her there? why is she gone? why? for months, you and i, especially you, always questioned why. i want this to go away for casey. what happened? why could she not come to us, especially you? why not lee? who was involved in this stuff for caylee? before that, he says, i blame

myself for her being gone. you know for months, as a matter of fact, for a year or so, i brought up stuff only to be told not to be negative. to denigrate that pain by suggesting that that is an insincere selfish, self-serving statement, i believe belies the facts. i'm going to sit down now and ms. drane burdick will address other areas in the case. i want to end by thanking you for all your sacrifices and all of your time and to wish you well in the decision that you're about to make. thank you. >> okay. lanl of the jury, we'll take

a -- do you want a 15 minute one or a special one? >> special. >> we'll take a 20 minute special recess to the hour of 10:00. >> all rise for the jury. >> we have been watching the closing arguments in the casey anthony trial and there she is. we just heard from jim ashton. it was a highly dramatic day yesterday. he gave a very short close, about an hour and 17 minutes followed by the defense that went pretty much for the rest of the day, interrupted by some pretty intense moments that got the judge to the point where he said enough is enough.

but what it did was it allowed them to delay their rebuttal until today. let's talk a little bit about the strategy here on the part of the prosecution. i am joined this morning by joseph, karen and meg. hello, i'm chris jansen. what did you think? >> i have to tell you, that rebuttal absolute flopped. it was one of the worst rebuttals i heard in a long time. he wept out of his way to highlight evidence that did not help him. stick to what got you here. show photos of the tattoo. show photos of that beautiful little girl. pull on the jurors' heart strings. it was an absolute flop. >> as we sat here yesterday, karen and our legal panel was saying what he thought he should do, they say you always go for the emotion. when you have the rebuttal, first of all, you have the opportunity as the prosecutor to be the last one who leaves your message with the jury.

would you have done it that way. >> no. i would do the flow chart approach, but that's usually in technical patent type cases or i take the three best elements i think i can win on and i will stand up for 10 or 15 minutes and drive those points home and sit down and hopefully there will be a tear or two shed. >> meg in orlando, you were with us yesterday as we were talking about what we thought that the prosecution would do here on rebuttal. what do you think? >> i agree with joseph. that was very boring on top of everything else. there was no reason for ashton to say everything he said. he also tossed a bone to the defense by saying kronk is a liar. that means he said something different yesterday than he said today. that's going to confuse the jury completely. also the jury's ready to go. they are ready to deliberate. they figured we're done. we spent eight or nine hours yesterday. they figured ashton would get up

15 minutes maybe and it's been an hour. we still have to hear from linda drane burdick. they think when is this going to end? ashton should have got up, 15 minutes, hit the three key points, sit down. end with a bang. hopefully linda is going to do that. i'm hoping she's going to do the mother thing and pull heart strings. if she drones on for an hour again, the defense is going to get a better verdict than i would have anticipated. >> what can you tell us about her, her style as a lawyer? what would you expect waysed on past experience? >> with linda, i hope, i do think she's going to be short and pull at the emotion and she will say, because she's a female and we do use our gender in cases, at least i do, and most women do, we use our gender and we can. she's going to pull on the seven women juro, if you're a mother, you understand, there's

no way you can hurt a child who is two and a half years old. they're precious. show pictures of caylee and do a lot of emotional pull. sit down. 15 minutes, 20 minutes tops. is what i'm thinking she's going to do and hoping she's going to do. >> seven women and five men on this jury. i was thinking about the people who line up for this trial. they are mostly women. some of them have taken vacation. they've flown across the country. all of them say the same thing to meg's point. they are moms drawn here by their heart-felt sorrow for what they believe happened to this little girl. is that what linda drane burdick needs to play on? >> absolutely. when you're a trial attorney, they tell you women are more likely to find guilt. obviously in this -- >> why is that? >> those are just the statistics. i don't know why what is.

i can't generalize everybody. in a case like this, with a mom, most moms would be curled up, i could tell you, i used to do division of youth and family services. not just chloroform, women who killed their kids, giving them alcohol so they can go out, benzene, zoloft, here in these cases, here in new york, went partied, threw up in a bucket and drowned her child in a bucket. she called the police. in every one of those cases, even though they were the cause of the harm, they called up. that's what seven women on the jury is going to do. they're going to say even if you were at fault, you're going to call the police. you're going to do something. you're going to make some attempt to save your child. >> you got to go for that sort of practical thing, like what was she doing in all that time she was missing. we're going to take a quick break. we're in a 20 minute recess here

and then the prosecution will, with linda drane burdick wrap up its case. then the charge and finally the jurors who have to be anxious at this point after 35 days in court are going to be anxious to get this case and deliberate. we'll be back with more on this 4th of july on msnbc. [ p.a. announcer ] announcing america's favorite cereal

is now honey nut cheerios! yup, america's favorite. so we're celebrating the honey sweetness, crunchy oats and... hey! don't forget me!! honey nut cheerios. make it your favorite too! getting past the fact that there's just no conceivable reason why anybody would put duct tape on the face of a dead child dish said it before, people don't make accidents look like murder. that's absurd. and nothing has been presented to you to make that any less absurd. >> jeff ashton, the lead prosecutor, is there with the rebuttal which he just ended after about an hour and we are

in a 20-minute break, and joseph, let me ask you, because that is a common sense appeal, and did he lose it point by point by point and could he have stuck with some of the more common sense themes? >> absolutely. he lost the jury, when he went close to 40 minutes outlining the junk science what i call the junk science. >> but doesn't it say to you yesterday that when they were talking about the, as they put pit fantasy of forensics, that that got to the prosecution, and they felt obviously a need that they had t respond to that in a point by point by point way. >> and obviously the defense made a point and hung their hat on that this was junk science and not allowed in court and first time allowed in court and not much peer review on these topics. and yes, they scored point, and what the prosecution tried to do and fell flat in attempts is to

try to rehabilitate it and bring it back to life, but at the point they tried to bring out the xhcommonsense approach, it s too late, and spending 40 minutes on expert testimony bright and early in front of a jury sitting for many, many hours is a mistake. >> we will be back with more on the casey anthony trial after this. an accident doesn't have to slow you down. with better car replacement, available only from liberty mutual insurance, if your car's totaled, we give you the money to buy a car that's one model-year newer... with 15,000 fewer miles on it. there's no other auto insurance product like it. better car replacement,

available only from liberty mutual. it's a better policy that gets you a better car. call... or visit one of our local offices today, and we'll provide the coverage you need at the right price. liberty mutual auto insurance -- responsibility. what's your policy? a lot of peo and those people are what i like to call wrong. take metamucil. sure it helps you keep regular, but it doesn't stop there. metamucil is the only leading fiber supplement with psyllium, which gels to help remove waste and reduce cholesterol. it can multi-multitask. it's so 2012. look at it! it's doing over a million different things right now. metamucil. ask more of your fiber.

the myth of the garbage has been disproven. that smell was not from garbage. it was from caylee. this crime scene was not staged. it was not moved. that duct tape has been on caylee's face since the day that she died. >> jeff ashton rebutting what the defense had to say yesterday in their closing arguments, and this jury will hear no more from the defense, but there is one more prosecutor who will come before this jury and try to

convince them that casey anthony killed her 2-year-old daughter caylee. i want to thank the panel for being with us, and joseph debennadetto and mick strictler down in orlando will continue to be with us, and we will continue our coverage on msnbc right after this. [ female announcer d yourself sometimes cleaning up after your dishcloth? bounty extra soft can help. it's super durable, and in this lab test bounty extra soft leaves this surface three times cleaner than a dishcloth. even with just one sheet. super clean. super soft. bounty extra soft. in the pink pack. and try bounty napkins. whose long day starts with arthritis pain... and a choice. take tylenol arthritis and maybe up to six in a day... or choose aleve and two pills for a day free of pain. happy chopping.

coming up on the top of the hour, hello, i'm chris jansing and happy fourth of july, the developing store i are on msnbc, orlando, florida, the site of the casey anthony trial. we are about to get under way, because they called a 20-minute break and after that prosecutor linda drane-burdick will finish the rebuttal and that means that the state will end the case and this jury will probably, finally in the next couple of hours begin to deliberate the fate of casey anthony. lil lilia luciano has been following the case.