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

now, both dr. vass and dr. furton agree that in this state of the science there is no signature set of chemicals that is indicative of only human decomposition. they both agree on that. all they can say, either one is that it's consistent. dr. vass, who has researched this more than anyone else says it's consistent, could it be from other sources, other things that were not found in the trunk? of course. but those things wouldn't smell like human decomposition. you could put together a coincidental group of chemicals to account for everything. you could throw in some gasoline, maybe throw in some chloroform, bleach, you could throw the chemicals together, but it wouldn't smell like human decomposition because the smell is unique. he tested the odor, the carpet, one for inorganic, one for organ irk, and he tested the paper towels. everything he tested came back to one specific cause, that there was a dead body in the back of casey anthony's carr. the defense presented dr. furton who is experienced in this area,

wise and dr. vasshe low parts per million range. dr. weiss gave you an ideal explanation of quantification. he said quantification would not have meant anything in this case. even if you quantify the amount of chloroform being given off by the carpet, it doesn't mean anything in terms of the amount of chloroform that was there a month before, because chloroform is volatile. it evaporates, so it wouldn't mean anything. but he does say, dr. vass says, based upon the qualitative analysis and the comparison between the amount of chloroform and the limits of his machine, it was somewhere in the low parts per million range. dr. rickenbach from the fbi tested a similar sample from a can but tested the actual spare tire cover in this box. remember, he received it in this box, not sealed, not in a can, not in plastic. in air permeable carton. what he told you was that he actually found chloroform, the technical chloroform in that. remember he told you he couldn't believe he found it, because chloroform is a vol

i think the only evidence was dr. vasseliable, unconfirmed new evidence that should never had been introduced there's no chloroform. the prosecution tried to say she made chloroform in her house. if she made chloroform in the house there would be an odor throughout the house. it is hard to do. the odor would stay for weeks and weeks, if it were chloroform. i think there is no evidence of chloroform. they did the hair. they looked for chloroform in the hair. and they didn't find it. >> greta: at least at this point, we are sort of left with a circumstantial case which can be as powerful as a direct evidence case. the jury will have to piece this together. dr. baden, thank you, sir. >> thank you greta. >> greta: straight ahead the tattoo artists who gave casey anthony the tattoo go on the record. one tells us about the scariest part of his interaction with casey anthony while caylee was missing. you will hear from him, next. [ whistle ] ♪ [ cat meows ] ♪ [ ting! ] [ male announcer ] travelers can help you protect the things

the dr. vass is an anthropologist. he's not a chemist. there were even some issues raised about whether there was some monnettary gain in using this equipment for a major trial. but i think that if you're going to use technology science in the courtroom, it's got to be reliable. it's got to be validated. it's got to be tested. it's got to be published. there's got to be peer review. it was lacking. it just never should have gotten into the hands of the jury. and i have to give them a lot of credit. because usually jurors don't understand the science. and it was essentially neutralized by ken ferton and others who discussed the pitfalls of doing science but not doing it the right way. the controls were not done at the same time as the samples. this is unheard of. so i'm just -- i'm shocked that it got into the courtroom in the first place. i think the jury made the right decision. science is wonderful. it gives you factual information if it's done right. if it's reliable. but i don't think that was the case here. >> sonny, larry's talking

dr. arpad vass said was consistent with the decomposition. that is when the defense was at the best and they had a lot to work with and this is not one of the cases that is overwhelming in terms of the forensics and this is stronger circumstantially, and frankly some of the strongest prosecution evidence was casey anthony, herself, her behavior and the demeanor after the child died. it is just hard to come up with an explanation that is consistent with innocence. >> let's talk about the options for the jury, because as you have pointed out and i have pointed out about this case what will happen if she is convicted of the first-degree murder, that would then turn into the prosecution that her attorneys recommended the death sentence here. >> and for folks who have not watched one of these before, if you get a first-degree murder conviction, we go to a second phase of the trial which is a bifurcated process, and one part of the trial is about guilt only, and we have been through the guilt part of the trial. and the second part is the penalty ph

when we talk about using fantasy forensics and someone like dr. vasser testified in the united states before, you're pitting this type of people against the defense experts. >> you're also saying that there was an effort or there's a sense that you think the jurors had that they were not getting the full picture. the prosecution was trying to pull something over their eyes. >> absolutely. they kept saying the duct tape was the murder weapon, the duct tape was the murder weapon. then they didn't bring roy kronk to the scene and turns out he moved the body. he picked up the bag and things shifted around. the prosecution also introduced 84 chloroform searches which turned out not to be true. i think they lost their credibility. >> so is then jose baez, was he underestimated? because i know a lot of you talking about this being his first case, underestimated? >> as linda and i were talking about it, he kicked somebody's butt yesterday, didn't he? he ended up getting the needle out of the arm of every expert i've talked to who said the case was strong foren