both steven shaw and karen lowe would only go so far. they told you that the banding that is found in the hairs that look similar to this cannot -- they cannot say it came from a dead body. and the reason for this, is quite simple. the reason is there is just the science is just not far enough for them to know. and something very interesting and unique happened in this case. they conducted a study right after we took their deposition when we went to washington, d.c. to take their deposition, steven shaw did his study on environmental effects on hair. you may remember this is only the second study that was ever done on environmental effects. the first one was done by a grad sdent out of john jay college. the second one was done by mr. shaw after i took his deposition. trying to validate their science is not the same as science. this is not dna. and that is why they wouldn't get on the stand and say it came from a dead body. for no other reason because they know it, they know that the science is still in its ongoing phase, and they had sim

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

you heard a lengthy testimony from steven shaw. >> objection. >> overruled. >> you heard lengthy testimony from steven shaw about a test that he did where he literally told you, i was trying to create this artifact in hair taken from a living person. i tried to find every method i could think of, every decomposition situation i could think of to try and re-create this particular artifact. and he couldn't do it. no matter how hard he tried, he could not replicate it. now, defense counsel debated with him some photographs where there was some darkening and debated whether that was banding, or it wasn't banding. the important thing about all that is that when you look at the hairs that actually came from a car from the trunk of the car or from inside of a car, the same circumstance of this particular hair, they didn't have anyone at all. nothing. no decomposition of any kind so regardless of whether you debate whether having a hair buried in the dirt for a month can create something that looks like, so what. this hair wasn't in her car, it was in the back of the car. the point is that that ha

the hair examination you heard from karen lowe and steven shaw. we went through that power point 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, there is and i 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 have been unable to do so. since they don't know exactly what causes it, they are not going to tell you that it couldn't happen any other way. but just no other waive they can think of. and that testimony, ladies and gentlemen has not been refuted in this case. to say that there is no testified 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, fanful and absurd doubts. i want

marcus white, steven shaw, the soil analyst who went and got every single pair of her shoes and didn't find any soil from the scene in her closet. also those collected. micha sigma who did the air samples. karen lowe, michael rickenbacher and laurie godison, ten different people, ten different state experts we had to call. so you can get all of the evidence so you could see that evidence either inculpates them or exculpates them. but the reason they continue prove this case is because it wasn't true. look at all these -- >>> look at all these tests that they ran. no fingerprints on the duct tape either at the scene or even on the gas can. no financinger prints on the duct tape at the scene. no fingerprints on the laundry bag. no dna on the duct tape. it was wrapped around her face, suffocated her to death as the state claimed. why isn't there dna? degradation, that is not enough. you heard the doctor testify about that. you her heather stuber testify about that. they wouldn't have testified if it continue be on there. f.b.i. searche for this and it came back negative and it has another