>>so will the judge be more strict on the prosecution ... >>by saying tainted i am wondering if the jury will find the remaining lineup of prosecution witnesses as credible ... i also sent a confusing that the judge said the prosecutors did this on purpose yet not with intent to cause a mistrial those are very strong words ... and especially what the defense has to motions for mistrial in today's and will remain there for purposes of appeal if drew peterson gets convicted ... >>was this a calculated gamble tactical to get this can it does look like there was any downside ... and as it lay the groundwork for an appeal in peterson's defense? >>as i just said it does lay the groundwork for the appeal however whether or not this was tactical are calculated on the part of the prosecution it's plausible ... the case appears to be thinner than we first thought and the prosecution is trying to get everything they possibly can in and they're taking risks and chances and it might mean that this might not be as strong a case as they had hoped ... >>desp

will he now be donned with a halo of credibility as the prosecution's chief witness? judge, what are you afraid of? ruby coming over the bench at you? but isn't it interesting how when a man puts a knife to his wife's throat and tells her she is going to die no one is clammerring for an arrest warrant. doesn't it make more sense to try to protect a woman alone in her own home than a cop in an open court with security all around him? and while all of this is going on there is a subtle bond created between the defendant and the jury. they sit together through tedious testimony. they share the same experiences. they laugh at the same jokes. it creates the impression the defendant is not so bad. from that point it is not much of a leap to decide that a seemingly responsible person couldn't possibly perform such a horrific crime. i have long believed that absence in it this experience is the very person who paid the dearest price, the victim. her photograph, not the undig anified one of her lying naked in a tub but one of her clothed should be prominently displayed on the p

the prosecution tried to recall the e-mail but by then it was too late.ge zimmerman's grades, now, public, and the picture of trayvon martin's body is posted on several blogs online. the question now, will this mistake him or hurt the state's case? we will take it to the legal panel for you. julia, do you think it is plausible that the world now, knowing that george zimmerman was a lousy criminal justice student, the prosecution's idea is to payment this guy as a dummy so you think it is, well, just a mistake? >>guest: well, first of all, i was a criminal justice major, but, no, i'm just kidding. i was, though. first of all, he is not a rocket scientist. is anyone surprised by that? no matter what either side is saying in this case, it is clear that george zimmerman probably overreacting when he killed that young man in some respect. you know, i actually think the fact that, if they did do this on purpose, it would hurt the prosecution case because they are lending to support to the fact he did note do this out of ill will but because he is dimwitted and

the prosecution tries to explain what happened. defendant arrests his own wife, throws her to the ground in front of his house in front of his kids, right and then when the prosecution tries to go into it the judge says. >> objection sustained. the judge is make his own objections before the defense makes theirs. and then the defense jumps up and says objection. >> judge jeanine: and let's tell the jury that she was acquitted and that she called the police 18 times. i don't want to argue this case. mark, the defense said in the opening the only reason that this case has gone forward is because of the media coverage and peterson would not be on trial because of that. and you were involved in that. were your ears ringing this week? they mentioned your name. >> i was down there two months working for greta's show. it is quite a compliment but i think they give greta and myself way too much credit. the mistake made by the police and the prosecution is the very things that were on the autopsy when we got that from the family dr. baden an

the prosecution said they had no evidence to support that claim. the lawyers say drew peterson murdered his elin nordegren -- his third wife. and according to police he is a suspect in the disappearance of the fourth wife. he claims to be innocent. lawyers questions an emergency medical technician who arrived at his house to find the third wife in the dry bathtub and asked if he staged the scene. he point out that one towel that appeared in a photograph during the investigation was not there when he worked on the body. mike tobin is like in joliet, illinois. help us make sense of the testimony, mike. report report first witness you talked about was a neighbor, who said he was intimidated by drew peterson. he got through his testimony with in shortage of controversy. they moved today to the paramedic who said he didn't see the towel in the bathroom. the dense cross-examine him about different thing he did not see while paying attention to the victim. the defense came out of the courthouse today and said they not worried about the towel at all. >> if

they say the prosecution can't prove that petersen left the bullet. >> the prosecution never wants toon where they are on their heels and making sure that the trial proceeds. this comes on the heels of a mistrial being made with regard to opening statements. the prosecution is a little bit behind the eight ball going forward. the reality is it would be very unlikely for him to throw it out with repbl dis. he could say there will be a mistrial and start from scratch again, they are only two days into the trial right now. or he may throw out that testimony. if he throws out the testimony that will hurt the prosecution. this is a circumstantial case, they need every little bit of evidence they can get in right now and you don't want to lose this testimony. >> richard the prosecution says the defense opened the door to this bullet top nick thei topic in their own questioning. is there anyway the judge could decide, let's go forward. >> the judge could decide to go forward. but what the prosecutor has done in this case is nothing short of outrageous. you don't in open statement saying the

we heard from a witness for the prosecution. making the case that it is more difficult for companies i mentioned, walmarts and microsoft and apples, you get those companies finance on wall street and this kind of era of a entrepreneurship has come to close. >> i don't think it has come to close. it had detour. start with something called sarbanes oxley which came from the government, not free market. what wall street did during this whole period, derivatives and the like and crazy instruments came in response to chronic instability, interest rates, currency caused by mistakes made by the federal reserve and others. chaos in the markets and people take the chance to make money off of it and markets are about that or try to hedge themselves against it. one thing that is wonderful about wall street and finance as a whole the extraordinary adaptability and creativity george gilder mentioned, hedge funds and the like. they were able to provide gains to pension funds one markets were stagnant and the creation of new instruments and cra

even the prosecution own witnesses say it is the root of evil. if we get rid of the incestuous relationship between government and wall street, we could see the bull market expansion we have never seen before. if you see my client is guilty and the problem is wall street and not big government evil to a great disservice to the future of this country. thank government directs investment. we know what happens then. look at solyndra then be will have 10,000 of those of polish tisch's direct. rather than wall street. the root of this problem was the housing market. what brought some money down was over investment in housing. why did that happen? why was there a massive over investment? because of government. fannie mae. freddie mac. fha. federal rules and bake regulators commanded they own mortgage-backed securities. the worst possible investment they could make federal regulators said they had to. that is responsible for bringing it down. this is my message to you. to restrain government put a muzzle and get rid of dodd/frank, regulations, tax incre

over the past few days we've heard from the prosecution and the defendants themselves the prosecution saying that they wanted three year jail sentences for the three women for the demonstration which they held in russia's main cathedral in february of this year the women themselves speaking to the court said that they never intended to cause any offense to the orthodox church or its believers by their protest in which they performed a so-called punk rock prayer calling on the virgin mary to rid russia vladimir putin now we've also heard support coming out for the three women on trial from celebrities in the music industry madonna it speaking about pussy riot during her concert in moscow also having her having the name of the group painted on her back madonna of course no stranger to controversy regarding the church herself and nine hundred eighty nine a single like a prayer the video for which caused such a controversy that some catholic church groups were calling for her to be excommunicated was also condemned by the vatican and is also being politicians from . great britain germany

mary kay's a narrow and forensic pathologist was on the witness stand testifying the prosecution asked her how she reached her conclusions that she was going to announce in front of the jury that day she said she used some of the analysis from doctors not listed on the witness list reach conclusions about the death of kathleen savio ... the judge looked up case lot and said he would instruct the jury not to pay attention to any of those doctors' names that dr. case mentioned and the testimony resumed it was only for 20 minutes and the jury has taken a break for lunch ... this is par for the course with this case lots of breaks lots of jurors having to leave the court room ... before court today we asked the defense attorney joel brodsky to give us his assessment of how things are going: >>earlier i said they haven't laid a glove on us ... after what we heard today they got a few jabs in but they did not hit us hard ... for the first time joel brodsky is not only allowing for the possibility that the prosecution's effective but he is complimenting them ... >>they have talent to prosecut

both the prosecution and defense as the judge for more time to prepare. another delay in the case of michael jackson, the 28-year-old accused of murdering -- michael johnson, the 28-year-old accused of murdering phylicia barnes in 2010. >> we are taking our time to go through everything. >> bo the prosecution and defense are asking for a mutual postponement, and including 17,000 pages of discovery already disbanded -- submitted by the state. >> we feel this is necessary to streamline what is relevant and what is not. >> according to court documents, the prosecution accuses johnson of asphyxiating jot -- barnes in her sister's apartment and then using a 35 gallon tub to move her body. johnson's lawyers still feel the case is weak. 11 news reached barnes father after news of the delay in hearing, and he said he is trying to remain positive. he said as long as he stays in jail we can live for another day. we believe he is a child murderer. johnson's lawyer is maintaining his innocence. >> as expected, the state did not comment. johnson was in court today wit

i am not the only one saying that. even prosecution's own witness says the government is the root of the evil here. if we could get rid of what george gilder called the incestuous relationship between government and wall street we could solve some many problems and we could see a bull market expansion we have never seen before. i truly believe that and i believe if you hold my clients guilty and ruled that the problem in america is wall street and not big government she will be doing a great disservice to the future economy of this country, we will have government directing the investment. we know what happens when government direct investment. look what happened with solyndra? we have 10,000 solyndras if we have politicians rather than the people on wall street. one last point if i may. the root of this financial crisis was the collapse of the housing market. what brought down so many banks and insurance companies is how many financial institutions have over investment in housing and left out the question why did that happen? why was th

government working with the prosecution to try to counter article this article thirteen motion what's interesting is that this is really not just surprising news this is actually fleshing out what the u.s. government has been doing since early january of two thousand and eleven i mean the defense didn't learn that bradley manning had moved from quantico to fort leavenworth until according to to the defense's postings the the government found out that the defense knew about a secret high level want to pull meeting in january where the security of italian commander robert altman essentially said that nothing was going to change. furthermore there is a clearly. implication as i said of the chain of command from tenet general george flynn the quantico base commander of turndown bradley manning's. earlier article one thirty eight complaining about his treatment at quantico. the security battalion commander robert altman the to quantico brigade commanders the january commander. over for james part and then in the march incident in stripping was. home to denise farms the e-mails show that de

>> why are we embarrassed to bring out things that show what the prosecution what the picture they are trying to paint isn't what happened. what was interesting here is they had the medical examiner testify to all those injuries but he never said how a single one of them may have been caused. not was caused but even may have been caused. >> judge jeanine: but he wasn't there. he can only tell the jury what he saw. it is up to the prosecution to say in closidence is this, is that and. >> but they can't say it. there is no evidence. have you ever seen a medical examiner not say this is consistent with being punched or getting struck with a blunt object. >> judge jeanine: yes, i have. >> did they convict him? >> absolutely. absolutely. >> good thing we have judge burmila. >> judge jeanine: what did you say? >> good thing we have judge burmila and not judge jeanine. >> southbound it isn't it a ft that all the hearsay statements the witnesses don't know each other and can't get together and conspire. >> they don't need to know each other. it happens with one person saying it and it was broa

three years of behind bars that's the demand of the prosecution as the trial of the pussy riot is drawing to a close right here in moscow that follows the controversial protest stunt inside russia's main cathedral. shannon saudi fighters a said to have been captured in syria helping the rebels fight against president assad but all of this in a conflict the now sees more civil servants targeted for simply being employed by the government. the tolerance is put to the test in belgium as a candidate with mental health problems runs for public office however critics fear it's nothing more than a simple publicity stunt. life in the heart of moscow this is arts he younger over sushi welcome to the program prosecutors are demanding three year jail sentences for the members of a controversial feminist punk band pussy riot who staged a protest stunt in russia's main cathedral by the women musicians are on trial accused of inciting religious hatred in a case that's caused a storm not only among the russian public but also certainly abroad. joins us now outside the courthouse with details on this but

the prosecution had no eyewitnesses, no murder weapon and no cause of death. what they did have was a theory that emerged after the 9-1-1 call. >> bergman: based in large part on that smell and her disturbing behavior, the prosecution set out to prove that casey anthony killed her daughter and hid the body in the trunk of her car. they sought the death penalty. jeff ashton was on the prosecution team in charge of the forensic evidence. >> so what we have here... >> bergman: twenty years ago, ashton was the first prosecutor in the united states to get a conviction based on dna. now he wanted to use a new forensic method to convince the jury that the smell in the trunk of that car was the "smell of death." >> you can actually kind of detect it a little bit still, to this day. >> explain to us the introduction of the smell of death. >> the odor analysis. >> right. >> we had the trunk of a car, which was described by a number of lay witnesses as having an odor that was distinctly identifiable as human decomposition. i smelled it myself. and i can tell you, having s

the prosecution made a couple of big blunders. they have one strike left. the judge him declared this a mistrial. one more mistake and this could be over. >>randy: that goes to show the desperation in the lack of the prosecution case. the evidence in this case makes the evidence in the casey anthony case look like who is trying to figure out who is buried in grant's tomb. there is no evidence. there is no confession. there is no weapon. the law enforcement personnel viewed this not as a crime seen but as an accident. so the only evidence they have is people from beyond the grave testifying. why in the call me to testify? >>arthur: trace, trace, it is interesting, very interesting --. >>trace: i saw the blue bath towel over the tub when the paramedics left and it was not there when they left. i have in the seen a lot incriminating evidence. he looks guilty but you have to prove it. >>arthur: you are correct. but, randy, he mentioned casey anthony. she clearly had an advantage because her victim's body had significantly decomposed. therefore, destroying the ev

catch us up here, what really was the problem with what the prosecution did? well, the testimony they tried to introduce that this witness was intimidated because drew peterson supposedly left a bullet in his driveway to try to intimidate him really constituted a prior bad act. anytime you try to introduce a prior bad act of a defendant, you have to give notice. the defense wants to litigate that the possibility of that evidence even being put forth in front of the jury. they didn't have an opportunity because the prosecution introduced the evidence while the witness was on the stand without giving any notice to the judge or the defense attorneys, and they're saying that's not fair. you can't unring this bell. the jurors have already heard this testimony from this witness, and now they're going to think the defendant is going around trying to scare people, and it's going to hurt his chances of getting a fair trial. jenna: duane, do you think in some ways or let me just say in both ways, what effect does this have on the jury? does it actually make the prosecut

the prosecution reply that it did not and the judge replied that the prosecution would have to tell the jury that the witness was not believable or that petersen had been denied ever during that ... you cannot force a defendant to take the stand on something like that ... >> but i feel that this is part of the witness' testimony why would this be a problem for him to say he felt intimidated by the defendants >> he could feel and tell why he was intimidated ... but the fact of the matter is if he found a bullet in his driveway that is so prejudicial to the defendant how are you going to be able to prove that it came from peter send it could have come from any way body.. so we will see lots of things like this happening and that would be something to consider for mistrial ... >> the judge seems furious about this ... >> he is and it's not that far into the trial where he would call a mistrial at dearly stage of this trial there is a 50-50 chance ... i cannot see special instructions to the jury and go on with the trial ... this is a very unfortunate thing these big issues will be coming u

agreement that is they have time to persuade the justice department not to prosecute the justice department gets an extension in the statute of limitations period to continue its investigation but that being said these sorts of agreements aren't entered into unless the government thinks dismissal that is non-prosecution is a probable outcome so obviously black why there's got to be delighted with this one thing that comes out these papers is that a lot of this is being done in a very very close relationship with the united states remember blackwater is a principal contractor for the department of state and it appears in many of these dealings and department of state is opening the door for blackwater and we have comparable incidents in many many other countries so they are basically. soldiers of fortune out there for hire and they're operating principle seems to be shoot first ask questions later. time now for an update of today's world news the rescue operation has been called the northwest iran were two stronger earthquakes razed villages true the ground on saturday

the prosecution has to establish the opposite. >> laura: they have to rebut. they can rebut. it could end up waiving the privilege. move on to harvey weinstein case. he and other very well to-do individuals across the country had been the subject of an extortion plot by this one individual debra, tell us what we know about this. we have all these people collectively $100 million or more family threats and so forth. >> i think we are very early on in this case and he was just arrested. what we do know is that he is charged with something called a hobbs act which is a very very serious crime that's punishable up to 20 years in jail. and it was an attempt at an extortion. what this is going to hinge on is whether his actions were enough for the prosecution to establish that he committed enough acts and attempts to commit this extortion. i do think that this is a relatively defendable case. i don't know that enough steps were taken. actually prove that he committed this hobbs act. >> laura: he is appear aspiring actor. he probably didn't get the role that he wanted in oceans 12.