dr. voss is he developed a device which is -- is designed for use by law enforcement in 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 we can only guess -- that dr. voss would split with the other inventors 15% of whatever minimal royalty oakridge national laboratory might get. that's the impeachment. that's the criticism. you saw dr. voss testify in this case and you have to judge his credibility. i submit to you dr. voss is an unapologetic geek. he loves what he does. when have you ever seen a scientist on the stand in a criminal kay say, "and this is the cool part." dr. voss is an unapologetic science geek. he loves the challenge of solving scientific questions. whether it be how do you detect a body about it odor of decomposition, or maybe devining does work. counsel sneered at him because he had the scientific curiosity to wonder if something as bizarre as that would have a scientific basis. maybe he's

weiss and dr. vossn was somewhere in the low parts per million range. dr. weiss gave you an excellent idea of quantification. he said it wouldn't have meant anything in this case, because even if you quantify the amount of chloroform in the -- 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 and dr. voss says, that based upon the qualitative analysis and the comparison between the amount of chloroform and the limits of his machine and the controls that it was somewhere in the low parts per million range. dr. rickenbach from the f.b.i. tested a similar sample out of a can, but also tested the actual spare tire cover in this box. remember, he received it in this box, not sealed, not a can, not in plastic. an affirm i can't believe cardboard -- permeable cardboard. what's interesting is that he told you that he actually found chloroform, tech

. >> chloroform began in this case by dr. voss. and that is how it all started. that is how this issue came up. and what happened was he testified that the reason they progressed was that the chloroform levels were shockingly high, unusually high. you all remember that. that was quite a moment in the courtroom. for this forensic and throw polgist, not a chemist, no matter how much his buddy william marcus wants him to be a chemist, he is not a chemist. i would like to be a race car drivers sometimes and sometimes i drive pretp pretty fast but t doesn't make me a race car driver. dr. voss is not a chemist. but all of the other chemists have different conclusions. we had to call the actual person who did the tests, the state didn't call marcus weiss because he would have come up here and he would have told you that all they did was a qualitative analysis. not a kwa kwan taytive quantits diswhrarks is huge. they want to have him testify about the levels when there are no levels. you can't determine how much is there because they didn't do that kind of test. so let's

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

>> how they process it is through the expert, dr. voss.e vapor component test, the sniff test, and i think that overall maybe some of the strongest evidence for the prosecution will be the most damaging and hurtful evidence for the prosecution on appeal. that evidence should have never come into the courtroom, and what's disturbing is that they didn't need it. four lay witnesses took the stand and said i have smelled death, and that was death. this test doesn't -- the smell test doesn't pass the frye standard, which is a u.s. supreme court test. why judge perry let it in is mind-boggling and lowers the standard. >> do you think that could help, let's say, potentially convict casey this time, but then on appeal, it's, like, oh-oh. >> after he said that i said she should go into court every day and take thank you judge. retrials always favor the defense. >> we've fwot to get to the defense. what they did was say that casey had been sexually abused by her father and caylee was accidentally drowning in the pool and the dad helped cover it up.

dr. voss and his machine was ridiculous. >> i want to jump in, because i want to talk about the forensics here, and richard herman stand by. >> okay. >> let's go to a former police detective. talk to me about the jury. they got a crash course in forensics, and dna, and the hair -- pieces of hair that were found in the trunk, and the shockingly high levels of chloroform in the trunk and in the carpet and on the wheel well. this was a 101 in forensics for these men and women. >> i think it was a bit overwhelming for the jury. we're surprised in such a short period of time they rendered a decision, and we were thinking it would be guilty on some account. but this is the first time, it's a test case on the cadaver dogs. the case was built circumstancely. it was a hard case to sell, and did mr. baez -- did he believe casey's lies, or was it orchestrated. it's a sad day for the criminal justice system, i believe. >> do you think it's possible that this jury given all the bits and pieces of the foren

then you have the sniffer machine that they say is junk science and dr. vosseen smelling the air in the trunk with this machine and telling us it had signs of decomposition. i disagree. i think that it goes to the weight and not the admissibility to the evidence. the methodology he used is proven and accepted. the methods he used to determine the elements is proven and accepted for a long time. however, if you assume that is junk science and shouldn't have come in you still have so much overwhelming evidence of decomposition that baez is trying to pick apart now. all of the people who smell the the decomposition. police officers. two k-9 dogs, the police officer. the judge on the appellate court is likely to say if it was error it is harmless error. the one that comes closest to being a problem is the video that morphed into from caylee's case to a skull with tape over it. that is a 403 analysis. the question is does the prejudicial effect substantially outweigh the probative value. it is a shocking thing to see. however, the proative value was astronomical. t