US Predator Video - DoD releases video of Predators at work in Iraq last year
NAME: US PREDATOR 090205N TAPE: EF05/0128 IN_TIME: 10:09:57:15 DURATION: 00:02:10:17 SOURCES: DoD DATELINE: Iraq, 2004 RESTRICTIONS: SHOTLIST: Department of Defense video, released Feb. 8 2005 ?: Shotlist details according to Pentagon Samarra, October 4, 2004 1. Target - high value target's home Najaf, August 4 2004 2. Target - enemy bus used for weapons transport Baghdad, October 4 2004 3. Target - insurgent planting IED's (improvised explosive device ) Fallujah, August 4 2004 4. Target - truck with 50-calibre machine gun in Fallujah, insurgents seen fleeing East of Baghdad, September 4 2004 5. Target - insurgents planting IED's (improvised explosive device) Najaf, August 4 2004 7. Target - building near shrine being used by snipers Baghdad/Fallujah. September/November 2004 8. Various Predator drone strikes July 4 2004 9. Target - Mortar tube positioned in courtyard STORYLINE: The US Air Force has released video clips of one of its most advanced and - it claims - effective weapons, in use against Iraqi insurgents. The hi-tech unmanned Predator drone airplane, firing Hellfire missiles using laser-targeting systems, has been repeatedly used to target insurgents from the air and, as the videos appear to show, with pinpoint accuracy. The footage, shot by on-board cameras, is claimed to show insurgents planting roadside bombs, firing at US positions and gathering to attack US formations. The devastating destructive power of the state-of-the-art weaponry is graphically demonstrated . One clip, apparently shot during an August battle in Najaf, shows a Predator respond to a call for air support and firing Hellfire missiles at a building allegedly housing a sniper. The entire ground floor of the building is engulfed by a massive fireball. Another clip purportedly shows insurgents gathered around armed trucks. The cross-hairs of the Predator lock onto one of the trucks and a missile destroys it. The Predators are operated 'on-screen' by virtual pilots more than 7,000 miles away at Nellis Air Force Base in Nevada. Predator crews, which have a pilot and sensor operator, run the craft 24 hours a day, rotating in three-hour shifts. Predator teams are trained to look for signs of insurgent activity such as the planting of roadside bombs. The US Air Force uses the planes for reconnaissance and attack missions, but ground troops also provide information about target locations. The Air Force has 58 Predators deployed around the world.
3d Hairy Monster Movie Character Green Feathered HipHop Dance style on Pink background 4K Apple Prores
3d Animation Hairy Monster Movie Character Pink Feathered HipHop Dance style on Green background 4K Apple Prores
OZONE - DEPLETING CHEMICAL
111 TRICHLOROETHANE IS A PRODUCT FOUND IN A TON OF PRODUCTS THAT HAS BEEN LINKED TO DEPLETING THE OZONE LAYER. 1990 PACKAGE ON THIS DISCOVERY. THE PRODUCT IS FOUND IN ADHESIVES, AUTO PRODUCTS, CARPET AND FABRIC CLEANERS, PESTICIDES, SHOE CARE PRODUCTS. ONCE RELEASED THE CHEMICAL SOARS UPWARD.
THE MYSTERY OF MARRIAGE (aka SECRETS OF MARRIAGE)
Intriguingly bizarre film comparing the courtship and mating rituals of humans with those of animals. <br/><br/>Scenario and Direction by Mary Field. Music arranged by W.E. Hodgson. Recordist A.F. Birch. Photographed and Produced by British Instructional Films Ltd. Welwyn Garden City.<br/><br/>A man strolls through the countryside whistling a song which echoes that of a bird seen sitting on a twig. He discovers his girlfriend who is hiding in the woodland picking flowers. When he finds her he booms: "I knew it was you!" and embraces her. She objects: "No, no!" (even though she likes it!). "Oh Stella, why won't you marry me?" he implores. "There are such thousands and millions of people in the world" she replies, "how can we be sure that we are really made for one another?" C/U of the couple - he is a classic spiv with pencil thin moustache and she is a classic 1930s beauty. He promises Stella that he will get a rise and they will buy a house (she can choose the furniture). This would be a great sequence for illustrating love's young dream in the 1930s.<br/> <br/>Narrator states: "Marriage, mating and the age old mystery of the universe. The secret of the attraction that draws one individual to another. This attraction is exercised by almost all living creatures and can be discovered even among the lower forces of life." We are then shown some microscope footage of mould! Time lapse photography is used to show how mould grows with a bizarre commentary about how mould searches for a partner but will only have a "cousinly embrace" if they meet a relative. Weird!<br/><br/>Time lapse photography of flowers growing (sweet peas?). Silly narration continues over these shots and footage of the Praying Mantis. A man preparing himself for "wooing" by polishing his hair and preening his moustache is compared to various animals including a Hunting Spider. Various C/Us of the spider capturing and wrapping up his prey. These are intercut with shot of man wrapping flowers (like the fly, a gift for his intended).<br/><br/>The mating techniques of the predatory spider are compared with those of humans. A young woman sitting in a bar on her own eyes up a man who sits at her table. He asks her "what's yours?" and she flirtatiously replies: "Well, I don't know". He buys her a glass of stout.<br/><br/>The mating rituals of sticklebacks, peacocks and other birds are compared to humans. "New spring clothes can encourage the shyest suitor to take up a courageous attitude in courtship" we are informed over nice shots of a man in a striped blazer strutting and chasing a women. He catches her beside a haystack and kisses her passionately. <br/><br/>A peacock displaying its tail is compared to a man in tails. Narrator discusses the fact that in the animal world strange choices are sometimes made in mates. A tall woman and a short man are used to show that this happens with humans too! <br/><br/>The antlers of a deer remind us that in courtship there is rivalry. Labyrinth spiders are shown. The narrator points out that they are apparently happy but the male is making no effort to entertain his mate. As the narrator observes: "It is fatal to allow anything feminine to become bored". <br/><br/>Interior of a railway station tea bar or similar. Signs for Oxo and Bovril visible behind the counter. A man in a white coat gives a male customer some horseracing tips. Woman leans on the counter looking sultry as a man in the foreground admires her. She is obviously bored with her mate. C/U of a spiders web with 2 or 3 spiders scuttling around it - implication being that she is trying to entrap the new man on the scene. She continues to pose. Another man comes to the counter and he and the woman look each other up and down. The man is served a cup of tea. The woman gives him her best "come hither" look. She bats her eyelids, he looks keen - licking his lips. The woman's mate stands up to his full height looking menacing, he grabs the woman's arm and moves her away along the counter.<br/><br/>C/U of a spider's web - one spider chases another. C/U of a fight between two female Praying Mantis - they are fighting over a man. The next section illustrates female rivalry. C/U of a woman's hand as she uses her fingers to take beauty cream from various pots on her dressing table. C/U of another woman's hands as she applies powder to her puff. C/U of a young woman applying lipstick. Shot of an older woman's reflection in the mirror as she applies lipstick. The two glamorous women are seen at their dressing tables making themselves look gorgeous. L/S of older woman standing up - she wears a long black evening gown and pearls. She fluffs out a long back train which drifts along behind her as she walks. She opens the door to another room to reveal a younger woman at another dressing table. The second woman stands up and as she does so the shoulder strap of her dress falls down revealing her shoulder. C/U of the first woman giving her a sultry stare - lesbians perhaps? or just love rivals. "That dress still look charming" states the elder - a cutting remark I suppose! C/U of the female Praying Mantis. <br/><br/>L/S of deer fighting - two males fighting over supremacy. Some young does watch. C/U of a woman who looks in a state of sexual arousal as she smiles and leans backwards hanging on to a fence, watching the start of a motorbike race. (This is all very strange stuff!) Various shots of a motorcycle race intercut with reaction shots of the female spectator. Quite fast editing. Very Eisenstein! The last shot of the woman is quite a contrast. She turns her head very slowly towards the camera. The mastery of the male! Next shot is a big C/U of a flower being turned towards the camera. Extreme C/U of flower - a gladiolus, presumably suggesting female genitalia to those in the know! Colour and form attract bees "that act as marriage makers." C/U of cells (?) C/U of the gladiolus. A wasp pops in and out of the flower collecting pollen. C/Us of a sweet pea. C/U of a model of a sweet pea in section. Tweezers are used to press down one of the petals which makes the stamen move out of the flower. The action is repeated. The tweezers point to part of the flower and through stop frame animation pollen appears on the flower.<br/><br/>M/S of a very dapper man in a suit smelling a flower he has in his button hole. He smiles to himself and looks roguish. C/U of the model of the flower. Our old friend "Bertie" - a model bee seen in several "Secrets of Nature" films appears and lands on the model flower. He presses down the petal, so forcing out the stamen which deposits pollen on Bertie's body. Bertie flies off. M/S of a beautiful woman dressed in a wedding gown with ornate head dress and veil. She turns demurely and looks at the camera. C/U of Bertie landing on the flower again. C/U of roguish man and "Stella" in an embrace. "The marriage has now been solemnised" states the narrator - is that what you call it?! The couple kiss passionately. He forces her backwards and they both disappear off frame as if she has sunk onto a bed! <br/><br/>C/U of pollen grains under a microscope. They grow long stalks then shoot out powder. C/U of more pollen grains. C/U of a graphic illustration of the pollination of a pea pod. We see a real pea pod growing through time lapse photography. We then see the pea pod opening out and the peas popping off one by one. C/U of a bean. C/U of Praying Mantis on a twig. C/U of the end of the insect from which a foamy substance is being produced. This attaches itself to the twig. Extreme C/U of the revolting foam stuff! This is a cushioning substance for the young of the insect. Cut to extreme C/U of woman knitting (just her hands and large amount of knitted fabric). Repeat of these two images - comparing human mother with insect mother. L/S of the insect on the twig. L/S of the woman knitting - she is sitting in an armchair in a living room setting. M/S of the eggs or pupae which are inside a piece of wood. Various C/Us of spider climbing along a twig. Extreme C/U of bulbous body of the spider - she carries babies in a cocoon. C/U of a stone being lifted up to reveal an earwig and eggs. C/U of earwig burrowing to make a hidey hole for her eggs. The earwig puts the eggs one by one into the burrow. Underwater shots of a stickleback moving twigs and other plant matter around to make a kind of nest. One fish can be seen inside the plant nest whilst another swims around protecting his mate who is presumably laying her eggs. L/S of a bird (some sort of grebe?) approaching its nest. M/S of three gulls sitting on cliffs. Various shots of birds and their nests. Various shots of a squirrel sitting on a branch and of its nest. <br/><br/>L/S of a man building a primitive dwelling from bamboo or similar wood. The man is black and dressed in a simple robe. M/S of middle eastern men building a wall of mud. Narrator speaks of "building a lair" M/S of a caucasian man in a raincoat and hat looking at a building site with a sign which reads: "Bijou Baronial Halls - Miniature Manorial Mansions �400 to �700. �10 down balance as rent. Carter & Field, Heavensville." M/S of three people sitting around an office table. This is presumably a young married couple in the office of Carter & Field enquiring about a new home. They are told that the lino will be laid free, �10 down and �50 instalments of a pound will sort things out and their furniture will be delivered in a plain van...<br/><br/>This section is about the young of plants and animals. Nature film of poppy seeds being tipped out of a seed head, a butterfly laying eggs on a mouldy pear, caterpillars hatching and snails leaving shells. Cheese mite struggling out of an egg, frog spawn developing through time lapse photography and newly hatched alligator. Plants drop their seeds, cucumber seedling seen growing in slow motion as is a cress seed. Earwig seen guarding her young. Hunting spider seen spinning cocoon. Baby spiders seen hatching - yeuch! Stickleback - devoted father - guards nest with eggs inside. Sticklebacks hatch and swim around. Various birds are seen feeding their young - these shots are intercut with footage of a woman leaving a bakery and going home to prepare a meal for her family. C/Us of her peeling potatoes. Mother sits at table with a babe in arms and other children around her. C/Us of the mother spooning food into open mouths of her children - just like baby birds.<br/><br/>Rabbits in a warren, cows, goats and horses with their young. Kangaroos that carry their babies in a pouch are compared with certain human tribes that carry babies in papooses.<br/><br/>Dandelion clock seen in C/U to illustrate creatures growing up and leaving home. The opening and closing of a seed head is seen through time lapse photography. The seeds fly through the air then land on the ground. The "parachute" opens and closes according to the amount of water in the air. Wild oats are seen growing through time lapse. Seeds drop off the stem: "Wild oats do actually sow wild oats" states the narrator then congratulates himself: "Oh, very good!" The thistle seed is seen in C/U. The progress of the seed through the air is shown through models.<br/><br/>Hunting spider is seen encouraging its young to leave the nest by biting holes in the web. Narrator speaks of the desire of the young to leave the home. The stickleback babies swim around and a baby goat is encouraged to explore. A posh young boy is seen in an upper class home. Mother is heard saying: "Now you can have a nice afternoon sitting down and reading your book". He seems more interested in a girl who is beckoning him from some rose bushes outside! He attempts to creep out without his mother seeing him but she catches him out! "Independence takes a long time for some of us to achieve" states the narrator.<br/><br/>Birds leave their nests. Some learn to fly. A little girl hides behind a tree trunk and powders her nose: "Actually growing up is only copying what we see adults do" states the narrator. He speaks of how some birds find it difficult to leave the nest - not so for the human bird! A glamorous girl jumps into a car with her boyfriend and speeds off leaving her distraught mother on the doorstep! Funny! Married couple walk through the countryside pushing a pram - it is the couple from the beginning. They spot another courting couple who sit on the fence where they used to sit. "It's a mystery this marriage business" states the man. Certainly is! Not made much clearer by this film really! <br/><br/>Note: A very bizarre and mysterious film. Where was it shown? In schools like the other Secrets of Nature films? Surely not?! If anyone knows more about this film please let us know. Percy Smith shot most of the nature footage in this film. Pathe have only reel 2 on film (described in records c, d and e). National Film and Television Archive holds complete copy - 3 reels.
CASEY ANTHONY TRIAL / SWITCHED P3
FTG FOR COVERAGE OF THE CASEY ANTHONY MURDER TRIAL / SWITCHED POOL NOTE: JUDGE'S COMMENTS ALWAYS IN CAPS 9:04:00 - DR. GARY UTZ RETURNS TO THE STAND 9:05:30 - we were going thru photos taken by investigator hanson. shows him next photo, it's a front view of pair of shorts. this garment has a number of holes? yes it does. had the shorts been torn or cut? i can't rule out some of defects occurred before decomp but a lot of what i see is consistent with clothing seen in decomp. 9:07:00 - photo is tag of shorts, circo brand, 24 months. next photo is another aspect of tag. 9:08:15 - next photo is of backside of tag. 9:12:00- pic of shorts and shirt tag 9:13:45 - after that my involvement was approx the same as someone else in office. It was dr. g's case. When did she take back responsibility for case? I believe she returned Friday afternoon. From then on was your involvement assisting? Correct. CROSS EXAM 9:14:50 - you are board certified ME? Forensic pathologist. What does that mean? Pathology is the study of disease. A pathologist is a physician most commonly involved in diagnosis of disease states. Pathologist also performs autopsies. Forensic path is a sub specialty, investigates cause and manner of death. 9:16:00 - in this case before remains were found, you were aware of hoopla surrounding missing child? Yes. it was discussed. But before remains are found, the ME office is a specatator. When remains were found there was more conversation in office? Yes. 9:17:10 - he took pics and surveyed scene? He did. Did supplemental report? He did. Dr. G came back into town and took over the case? That's correct. Why? She felt that it was important for her to be involved. She had good working relationship with law enforcement. I was relatively new in the office. 9:18:20 - it is a complicated case that requires the use of investigations that are not parts of our office so in a case like that was reasonable on her part ot coordinate that. She would have been involved in any rate even if it were my case. 9:19:15 - you talked about the duct tape. And looked at pictures? Correct. There was no duct tape on left side of skull? Not sure I understand your question. What do you mean by on ..you said in photos yesterday there was some duct tape adhered to hair matte on right side of skull? Yes. none on left side? It extended beyond midline up to left, certainly. The tape itself wasn't attached to skull. None on back either? No. completely encircling it, no sir. 9:21:10 - there were points of adherence also on left side. Did you removed duct tape? I did. Did you examine it? Took photo and looked at it briefly. Do anything to swab to preserve dna? I did not. Careful in handling it? Yes. wear gloves? Yes. suited up in ME clothing? Yes. put it in evidence bag? yes. it was released to field agent of FBI. Any human tissue on tape? Nothing I could ID as human tissue 9:22:35 - my goal at that point was to provide material to fbi lab for ID purposes and to provide the duct tape for analysis. You found no evidence of trauma on these remains? I did not see any evidence of trauma. See any broken bones? Portions of bone were disrupted but I did not analyze them. 9:23:40 - explains what healing fracture it. There was no indication of any prior injury? I didn't see any. In process of autopsy, did you reset the calverium? 9:24:25 - I suppose you mean cutting through the top of the skull? I did not. (casey crying) 9:24:45 - if body had been found 4 months before, would you have had more forensic evidence? Possible. Remember what size shorts were? I believe 24 months. 9:25:45 - were you involved in decisions to get further expert exam of remains? No sir. Did you examine remains with dr. schultz? Only initial exam that occurred on evening of the 11th. He's a forensic anthropologist at UCF. Did you participate in toxicology exams? No. 9:27:00 - know who dr. goldberger is? He's a toxicologist. You talked about location of mandible? Yes. bottom jaw? Correct. You said it was held in place by hair and roots? Yes. when you picked up remains from table, did you hold skull in your hand? Yes. and mandible didn't fall off? I did not. When it was moved, it didn't come off? It did not. 9:28:40 - you talked about your duties to determine cause of death? That's correct. You do not know from your exam the cause of death in this case? I did not make a determination of cause of death in this case. You do not know cause of death. I do not. The manner of death was determined by dr. G to be a homicide? Correct. 9:30:10 - you have not rendered an opinion as to manner of death? I have not. REDIRECT 9:31:10 - looks at photo of skull, left side. That is what you are referring to about tape going from right to left? Correct. What side of face is circled? Right side. It shows tape on both right and left side? Correct. WITNESS EXCUSED. 9:33:55 - DR. JOHN SCHULTZ CALLED TO STAND, UCF dept. of anthroplogy, specializes in forensic anthropology and archealogy. MA in human biology, Phd in anthropology, specializing in forensic anthro. 9:35:30 - talks about difference between forensic anthropology and archeology. Says forensic anthropology is studying human skeleton. 9:36:50 - tephonomy is study of body after death, changes in how skeleton may have been dispersed on site. Talks about human ID lab at U. of Florida. When there are skeletized remains, they can be sent there to be analyzed. Cases from all around state come to the lab. 9:38:40 - specialty is detecting human remains using ground penetrating radar. Non invasive, locates change in ground. Dissertation involves remote sensing tools. 9:39:50 - talks about relationship between UCF and local law enforcement, ME office. 9:41:00 - develop relationship with ME to be on call forensic anthropogist? Yes. around december 11, 2008, get a call from ME? I got a call from steve hanson and dr. g. I was asked if I was able to got to scene to participate in the recovery. 9:42:00 - was not at scene first day when skull was removed. Where did you go to assist? I went directly to ME office. When you arrived, had skull arrived? I don't remember. What is your first recollection of skull? I remember looking in bag, seeing skull and duct tape, didn't want to interfere with duct tape, laid bag so skull wasn't interfered with. 9:43:50 - I remember at one point I held the skull up so photos could be taken of underside. Shows witness photo of him holding skull. 9:44:50 - is there a term called anatomical position? Yes, that would the normal position it would be in. was the mandible in close to anatomical position? It was close. Was that surprising/ to see a mandible still retained on skull? Normally there needs to be something there to hold it in place. What was holding it in place? It would have been the hair that had moved to base of skull. Anything else? We can see leaf litter and roots. How about the tape? No because the tape was adhered to hair but I don't recall it holding mandible in place in this view. 9:46:50 - during exam of bones, did you find anything indicating trauma? No evidence of trauma. Did you do thorough excavation of site? I provided advisory role. I would not call it excavation. I would call this a recovery. What was the plan? On the 12th I arrived at the scene and we talked about how to process scene. It was difficult because we were dealing with small child, had additional parts of bones, some weren't ossified yet and it was a heavy wood environment, lots of plant material. 9:48:45 - I told everyone to be on hands and knees removing leaf litter and double checking all the material that was removed. Started where known material was and worked out from there. I started in area where skeletal remains were found. 9:49:30 - talks about screening, removing material and sifting it thru box with mesh. Did you tell them to use certain kind of mesh? I said go to a smaller size screen because the bones were so small. 9:50:45 - explains how the search was conducted with law enforcement, mapping process. 9:52:50 - talks about how to map a scene using a computer. 9:53:30 - when remains were found did you examine them? Yes, if I was there. I would always assess what bones were found and suspicious material. I had to determine if they were human bones. Did search area increase? Correct as we initially started in main area, additional csi's worked south of us and as additional remains were located, we expanded out further. 9:55:10 - witness tells jury about the photo of scene, shows the process involving removing vines and over growth. Screening of debris. Also shows flags and pails of debris. Is it important to know where bones are found? When trying to understand how remains may have been dispersed, you need to know where all remains were located. 9:57:50 - witness explains photo, shows flags being placed where items were found , also shows csi documenting evidence and collecting it. 10:00:15 - those bones you ID as human were transported to ME? Yes. next photo is of remains that were found. 10:01:15 - we're looking at vertebra, part of spine, they're separated, there's no soft tissue, we can see roots growing thru vertebra as well. What's important about this pic ..the vertebra .all these bones were found in one location. That says they were transported while they were all together. 10:03:30 - photo of bone fragment. We see bones and envelope. Is that how each bone is documented? Correct. 10:04:50 - this is fragment from other bone? Correct. Shown photo of two bones. 10:05:45 - what are these bones? We're looking at largest bones in body, femura, lower leg bones attached to pelvis. Witness shown split screen. Do these two bones related to each other? Yes, the top of these bones have been chewed on by animals. OBJECTION 10:07:15 - SIDEBAR 10:06:30 - RECESS 10:38:00 - testimony resumes 10:39:00 - references split screen, showing pics of bones. He's asked about how bones fit together. 10:40:45 - photo shows hand and finger bones. What is purpose of this photo? We're always going to document skeletal remains, so we take multiple views of skeleton. This image is documenting bones of the hand and our scales are in centimeters so I put quarter in pic to show how tiny the bones are. Many of these were found in the main area. 10:42:20 - looks at his notes .mapping finished on december 20th. Looks at photo of bones again. These bones are part of pelvis, top area. Each one of these would grow as three bones and then fuse. This one here we have carnivore damage on bottom. 10:44:15 - one of these was found almost completely buried in the muck. Looks at his notes. It's the left bone in pic. 10:45:15 - looks at pic of skeleton laid out in anatomical order after all the bones are recovered. How successful was this recovery effort? Even with adult skeleton with bones intact, its tough to collect majority of remains and teeth. I feel we were very succesful here. Collected all but one tooth, had most of spine, long bones, tiny bones of hands and feet. A few pieces here and there are missing. 10:47:00 - I would say very successful in what was recovered and mapping those bones as well. 10:47:40 - mapping tells about spatial relationship of bones, and relationship at dump site. 10:48:00 - witness looks at survey that denotes areas where bones were found. 10:49:00 - photo shows survey map where bones were found. Witness points out on map where bones were found. In area A is where the body and bags was placed into the woods. This is where initial separation of body parts occurred, such as skull, arms, lower limbs. 10:50:30 - I started in area A, the rest of the csi's were south of us and as additional remains were found we moved further south. When this area was searched, we would talk about how to expand the search. It progressed further south. 10:52:50 - what was found in area A? it was initial area with skull, bags, arms with hand bones, lower legs also found there, including left foot. Area B? shaft for upper arm bone. Area F? as we progressed further southeast, we found trunk of body with pelvis, lower legs were dragged to this area. At this point being dragged from area A by animals is lower trunk. 10:55:10 - area D we had only located one bone. Area E a hand bone was found there. In area D that was one bone of foot? Correct. Area F is where we did see carnivore damage on multiple bones. Area G is most of spinal columns with ribs attached. Separated out is lower veterbra 10:56;55 - consistent with animal moving them. Area H we start to see more of the ribs, separated. Area I, if we start at top of spine we have cervical vertibra, to thoraic, to lumbar. Area i found 20 of vertebra here. It's being dragged while relatively articulated. Decomp would have finished there. 10:58:50 - there would have been some tissue holding the bones together. Based on this dispersal pattern, was this body deposited in area as intact unit? It may have been relatively intact if we look at area F trunk and lower legs were articulated. No indication the body was dismembered.? No we did not see any evidence. 11:00:15 - we talked about the hip bone which was buried. What is the significance of that? When trying to interpret how long bones have been at site ..SIDEBAR. 11:04:30 - formally requests witness be accepted as expert. 11:05:10 - when trying to interpret how long skeleton may have been out of scene, many bones were under leaf fall so they had to be there before they fell. .that would tell us more than likely this area was a swampy area, was water southeast, so it's possible when area was flooded, silt and other material may have resulted in burial of this bone .would have happened sometime over the summer. 11:06:20 - it was close to a big palmetto trunk. Area F on map is lowest area. That is one of the bones with carnivore damage and there's going to be silt suspended in water and that process would have led to almost burying the bone. 11:07:15 - approximately how long were these remains in that area? We use mulitple lines of evidence and overall the bones were dry, competely free of soft tissue. They had no decomp odor, they had some erosion which would take time, and were found under leaf litter. The combination of that with root evidence. A period of six months could be possible. 11;08:40 - dispersal of bones primarily the result of animal activity. There was some animal chewing on the ribs. This area was processed well and remaining bones could have been taken away by animals. CROSS EXAM 11:09:40 - as forensic anthropologist, you examine bones yourself? Correct. Do you x ray bones? Yes. in your examination you found no evidence of any pre mortem trauma? No evidence. No broken bones or fractures? Not sure of your question. You found no evidence of fractures? No evidence of fractures. No evidence of twist of bones? No evidence. No evidence of any traumatic injury before her death? No evidence. 11:12:10 - how far is area from pavement of suburban drive? I did not do mapping, if I use scale on map I would think 25-30 feel maybe. I did not document the measurements. This map just shows elevation and lines? Yes. my job was not the mapping. Measurements provided to me by ronald murdoch. 11:13:55 - do you know when the dispersement took place? Not sure I understand question. We start with area A, primary site and all of those items were in bags? Originally when deposited out at the site. 11:15:00 - other areas with bones and fragments, there were no bag? no bags, but not sure about parts of bag. majority of what was found was all area A? I wouldn't say majority. It was found in area of A. and after inspecting contents of area A you discovered missing bones? I wouldn't agree with that because when we started processing scene, we had other people locating additional bones south of area A. 11:16:40 - we had a crew of people we separated them out and searched simultaneously. You don't have any scientific evidence when first dispersement from area A occurred? No. same question as to other areas? Yes. there's nothing that tells you how this child died? Not a question I would answer. All I look for is peri mortem trauma and I did not find that. 11:18:15 - when you looked at duct tape on skull, it was not covering nasal appature? No. REDIRECT 11:18:35 - nasal appature is hole on skull where nose would be. Tape was covering the mouth area. Was tape in position to cover nose? Possibly. Hard to tell because nose wasn't there any more? Correct. 11:20:00 - witness circles on photo what bones were found in area A. what was in area b? left humurous. 11:21:45 - what was in area F? we do have clavicles and parts of pelvis and both femur shafts and ribs. One part of a vertebra. Area G? see separation of bottom of spinal column. Area G had couple of ribs. Area H? we only had one, part of one vertebra. And a bunch of ribs. Area i? see more ribs and parts of 20 vertebra. 11:23:45 - NO FURTHER QUESTIONS. WITNESS EXCUSED. 11:25:30 - DR. JAN GARIVAGLIA, CHIEF MEDICAL EXAMINER FOR ORANGE, OSCEOLA SINCE 2004. Was ME is Bexar county in San Antonio for 10 years. Also in Atlanta and Jacksonville. Explains her education and training credentials. 11:28:10 - came under my jurisdiction. When did you first learn that remains of caylee had been found? The 11th I don't remember the time. I was alerted by my chief investigator steve hanson. What did you do? I was late for the airport, as I was walking out mr hanson told me they found remains. We weren't sure who it was at that point, I had engagement I could not get out of so I told dr. utz to handle it until I got back the next day.. also had them call dr. schultz. 11:30:00 - I didn't think my absence for night would matter. Returned following day? Yes. did you go back and review photos of scene and at your facility? Absolutely. I went out to the scene, reviewed photos, made suggestions. 11:31:45 - one of things you examined was hair matte? Eventually it came back to me, originally sent to FBI, I examined it then. Looks at photo on screen. 11:32:40- shows her another photo she reviewed. She says it's photo of hair matte.we see a lot of the roots that have grown thru the hair. We're looking at hair matte and roots that have grown thru the matte and some holes in the hair matte probably from insect activity 11:34:15 - shown another photo. We teased out some of the hair to take as a sample for possible toxicological use. 11:35:40 - next photo. That was taken at my direction. Again that's the scale next to one of the roots on the hair matte. 11:36:30 - some of items found with remains, did you examine them? Yes. recall a blanket? Yes. did you have that photographed? Yes. looks at photo of blanket. See pic of dirty blanket with leaf litter on it. This is the condition it came in? it was not cleaned, just unfolded. Certain portions where you can see figures? Yes. took photo to see them more clearly. Next photo is closeup. 11:38:40 - zooms in on figure on blanket. When you viewed that did it look familiar? Yes, it was winnie the pooh with piglet on his back. 11:39:20 - photo of other side of blanket. Did that blanket have plant material growing in it? Yes. photographed that as well. Closeup photo of plants and roots growing into blanket. 11:40:40 - what are we looking at? This is closeup of edge of blanket with winnie the pooh, shows roots lying on top of and thru the blanket. 11:41:10 - next photo. More of root growth on blanket. 11:42:00 - another photo of root material, more close up 11:42:45 - next photo, more root material growing into blanket 11:43:30 - also root material growing in black plastic bag? there were two bags and roots were growing thru the holes of both those bags. Shown photo of roots and bag. 11:44:30 - was there also canvas laundry bag with remains? Yes there was. Roots in that? Roots were growing on top of and into bag. shown photo of roots growing into the bag. 11:45:40 - were roots growing around everything? There were roots in bones, didn't see in shorts and the shirt was disintegrated. Certainly the blanket, two plastic bag and canvas bags. The lettering and stitching along hems were left of the shirt. 11:46:40 - how did you ID bones? We thought best ID was thru dna. It's tough to ID a child because we often use teeth, but it's tough with child. We were hoping we were going to get nuclear dna and at least mito dna. Did you send bone to FBI? Yes we did. 11:47:45 - photo of bone upon return from dna evaluation. The portion missing on this bone? They removed a piece of right tibia to test. Get results from FBI? Yes. they identified remains as caylee anthony. 11:49:00 - is manner of death determination a purely medical or scientific determination? It's basd on scientific principles and gathering all the info you can, all the history, medical history. Take all of those things and any scientific information and come up with opinion .SIDEBAR LUNCH RECESS 13:40:00 - court resumes with SIDEBAR 13:44:00 - casey walks back into courtroom. 13:46:30 - sows dr. G. some evidence bag, has laundry bag in it. state goes over more evidence with her. 13:47:40- evidence bag of body bag with vegetation. next bag has black plastic bag. 13:49:40 - more bags of evidence shown to dr. g., this is bag with the shorts. 13:50:45 - evidence bag with clothing brought in with the body. 13:52:15 - when we broke we were discussing cause and manner of death. what is manner of death? its the classification of death based on all info available to us ...scientific, scene, history, medical. 13:53:00 - also bring to bear your exp in forensic pathology? absolutely. manner of death in this case? yes. homicide. why? it's based on three main items . first, we know from observational studies that it is a red flag that when a child is not reported immediately to authorities, that's something we look for ... for foul play. this child was not reported missing for a long time. the other thing is the body was hidden. a child's body is thrown out in a field, that is one of things we look for when looking for homicide. the body is often found in closed containers, suitcase or plastic bag such as this case. that's a red flag for homicide. the last besides delay in reporting, and found in a field, would be the duct tape located on lower half of the face. there is no child that should have duct tape on its face when it dies or after they dies. we've seen that in cases of homicide 13:55:25 - cause of death is the injury or the diseases that initiates chain of events that results in death. it's the specific injury or disease that causes death. in this case, can you conclude cause of death? the cause of death was homicide of undetermined means. we can reliably say homicide but i don't know means by which it occurred. any objects found with body that could cause death? the only possible object would be duct tape, if that was over mouth and nose, suffocation with plastic bag would be the only other thing. 13:56:55 - were you aware of chloroform in this case? yes. could a child exposed to sufficient amount die as a result? absolutely. at this point, can you tell what caused her death? no, i believe we have enough evidence to say its a homicide, but don't have enough scientific information to say how the homicide occurred. was there any trauma to body? it's very decomposed so unless trauma hurt the bones, i can't say. i can't rule out any trauma cuz even a gun shot wound could not touch the bones. was there any injury to bones? no anti mortem injury to bones. were you aware of any illnesses the child had? i asked for a history of illness and i was told there were none. NO FURTHER QUESTIONS CROSS EXAMINATION 13:59:00 - you live in orlando? yes. for the period of time of about 4 mos prior to remains being found, you were aware of media surrounding this case? i was aware this was a big case. i don't watch the news. i was not aware as most people. were you aware there was a circus like atmosphere around anthony home? i do not know. i did know about speculation abuot this case. you knew if remains were found your office would be involved? no, i was hoping it was lake county, different jurisdiction. in fact, you came back to handle this case? that's true. you knew prior to finding the remains that chloroform was involved? i was told that by investigators at time we got the body. 14:01:10 - you reasoned perhaps chloroform could have been used to contibute to cause of death? that would be one of the possibilities we would examine. so you brought in an expert? i brought in a toxicologist who dealt with toxicology of bones. dr. goldberger from U of florida. you sent him piece of bone? from left femur. as a toxicologist, the request was to look for choloroform and other volatile chemicals? correct. 14:03:00 - he checked for volatiles and several other tests. he's limited in what he can do with bones. results were negative? correct. were you present when dr. werner spitz came to observe ....objection ...SIDEBAR 14:07:30 - did dr. werner spitz see autopsy? did he, no. were you aware he was coming down? i was informed by my office manager that mr baez had requested to bring in outside person in to watch autopsy. our policy is to come up with cause and manner of death and make that available to him once we were done. did dr. spitz did a second autopsy? sustained. 14:09:00 - dr. goldberger is MD? no, he's a phd. what did he test? bone, scrapings I took from inside of bone, the hair and soil that fell out of hair and that was for volatiles. then he tested bone, scrapings of bone marrow and washings from cranial cavity. 14:10:15 - tested for xanax. all results were negative? correct. you did not cut open cranium? no absolutely not. no trauma was found? no anti mortem trauma. we found post mortem trauma. there was no evidence of any form of trauma when the child was alive? on bones there was no evidence of trauma. 14:11:40 - you are confirming that despite investigations, toxicology report, there is no evidence to establish cause of death? it was a means of homicide that could not be determined. you called it a homicide as proposed to accident? the circumstances of the death did not fit anything but a homicide. and based on what det. melich told you? what did he tell me ...that the body wasn't reported missing for 31 days. some things you learned from the media? nothing from the media would have entered into a decision. i can't take anything they would say in something as grave as this. 14:13:15 - it probably was a homicide? not probably, that is the only logical conclusion based on scientific information we have based on observational information we have on homicides and children dying. we know in systematic observatonal studies, we look at all the accidental drownings for instance in my jurisdiction, 100 percent of the time EMS is called. it absolutely has something to do with this case. every death i investigate has to be put into cirmcumstances of death; you can never, ever detemine a manner of death except in rare instances just on examining body. we need to know how usually deaths occur. 14:14:50 - we have to know red flags for homicide. by my experience and by what is known about the way homicides occur i felt preponderence of evidence .... by not reporting child missing, the fact it is tossed in a field to rot in bag is clear indication the body was trying to be hidden, that it was found in bag is a big red falg and duct tape anywhere attached to that childs face is indication of homicide. 14:16:00 - we know 100 percent of the time that accidental deaths are reported unless there is a good reason not to be. no reason not to report. if you don't report it to authorities, you are risking that childs life. we know thats behavioral science. and we know thru all cases in our morgue, accidents are 100 percent reported unless there's a good reason not to. 14:16:50 - this death couldn't be an accident? 100 percent of time when a person finds a child they call 911 cuz there a chance child might live. what if a person finds a drowned body. what then? i am looking at behaviors that shows no matter how stiff that body is, they always call 911 in the hopes that the child could be saved. i'm looking at observational data. that's what we used. 14:17:55 - i explained to you the red flags that we know in forensics based on behavior ...i don't understand ..objection ...sustained. 14:19:00- i felt the manner of death was defensible scientifically based on systematic observational studies of how homicide, accidents and natural deaths occur. if these remains had been found 4-5 mos before, would you have had better scientific evidence? absolutely. you mentioned duct tape, was it in vicinity of lower mandible? correct. REDIRECT 14:20:50 - you were asked about a second autopsy. did you keep body in same condition as when you received it? yes we did except what we had to take for dna and toxicology testing. left roots in bones? yes, that's normal procedure. the absence of positive results for chloroform, does that exclude acute use? we would not expect to find any of those things in the bones, that was a long shot. we would not expect those results to be positive, even at time of death. 14:22:20 - assume caylee died and was discarded about june 16, six months before she was found, at the stage mr mason was asking you about, four months earlier, what would be its condition after 2 mos? it would certainly be skeletonized by then. so if it was found in august, you would expect it would have been skeletonized? yes, the internal organs would be completely gone. WITNESS EXCUSED. ? 14:24:15 - SIDEBAR 14:35:00 - jury is dismissed for a time, judge says they have to discuss some issues. 14:37:16 - attorneys are looking at a video it appears. 14:42:00 - ashton talks about submitting a video showing duct tape over the mouth, trying to show tape was sufficient size to cover nose and mouth. baez argues let's throw eveything against wall and see what stick. this impostion is a fantasy and it's not supported that can't be testified to. it goes to root of 403. 14:45:10 - judge talks about a decision by florida supreme court, may have similar application. says he needs to reread it. the case is 26 pages long. 14:46:00 - baez says there's been no testimony that this duct tape was in fact in this position as reflected in this video. references another court case. clearly shows presenation must be relevant and must accurately reflect oral testimony offered. there's not going to be any oral testimony this duct tape was in this position on this child's face. dr. warren could not testify to this. LET ME HEAR DR. WARREN'S TESTIMONY. I CAN BETTER MAKE AN INFORMED DECISION. THIS WILL BE A PROFER. SO THERE'S NO NEED TO MAKE OBJECTIONS AT THIS POINT MR. BAEZ 14:48:15 - dr.michael warren, forensic anthropologist, assoc. prof at u. of florida. director of human identification lab. 14:49:10 - you worked with dr. schultz on this case? yes sir. you examined the skull and other bones? i did. at some point the issue of duct tape and establishing whether it caused death came up? correct. how was this video created? it was created by taking photos of skull and photos of tape and photo that was found on the internet that was appropriate in orientation of child's face. why use pics of skull and face? both have photo scales and those are used to make sure the size of those images are comparable. 14:50:40 - have to match face to skull in terms of sizing. then use tape label to superimpose on face. skull is used to make one to one match with face? yes. is it possible without this superimposition to determine the end of caylees nose and mouth? no. are there certain rough estimates you can make based on research on avarage distances? previous studies for children and one study done at U of Michigan has some measurements but not ones we needed. is there any other way to demonstrate that duct tape could cover both nose and mouth other than this process? there's not. baez questions him 14:53:10 - recall being told duct tape was murder weapon? i don't recall questions from mr ashton about it being a murder weapon. those discussions were between me and dr. g. And mr ashton had these discussions too? i don't remember that, i remember talking about it being possible. happened early on, first day i was there with dr. g and dr. schultz. 14:54:20 - i suggested doing the superimposition to mr ashton. you weren't present when tape was removed from skull? no. you only saw a photo? that's true. the ones were tape is attached to hair matte? correct. LET'S GET TO THE POINT, WE'RE HERE TO DETERMINE 403 ISSUE. LETS' GET THERE. the hair matte was under skull? at base of skull. is it not normally at top? in decomposed skulls it is at the base. there's no scale on her face in that photo? no. 14:56:20 - you used just some photo you took off internet? correct. you would need to know how large child is? no i'd have to know where landmarks on face are. but children grow rapidly? they do. she could have been larger than time photo was taken? it looked recent. it's not an infant's photo. JUDGE: WHAT IS PURPOSE OF DEMONSTRATION? that's its possible the tape could cover both the child's nose and mouth 14:57:40 - A SKULL WAS UTLIZED, EXPLAIN THAT. we took photo for photographic scale. by using both skull and photo of tape and overlaying those images, you can make those scales the same size so you know size of skull relative to tape is real. now we are able to move from scale of skull to scale of tape. we're able to once we have skull scaled to photo, we can superimpose the tape over the image with the soft tissue. 14:59:10 - PHOTO USED IS PHOTO FROM M.E. OFFICE.yes. WILL THIS ANIMATION HELP YOU EXPLAIN TESTIMONY TO JURY. it illustrates it's possible. WITHOUT IT? i would be able to testify that it is possible without using animation. WHAT ARE DISADVANTAGES? disadvantage is it takes illustration of science out of explanation. 15:01:10 - witness steps down. judge asks what cases baez wants him to look at. RECESS UNTIL 3:15- judge needs to look at cases. 15:17:30 - JUDGE REFERENCE 2007 DECISION OF FLORIDA SUPREME COURT. INVOLVED FIRST DEGREE MURDER WITH FIREARM. THE COURT SAID THE FOLLOWING IN ITS OPINION: RELEVANT EVIDENCE PROVES OR DISPROVES MATERIAL FACT. IT IS INADMISSABLE IF PROBATIVE VALUE IS OUTWEIGHED BY PREJUDICE. THE PROPER APPLICATION REQUIRES BALANCING TEST BY TRIAL JUDGE. ONLY WHEN PREJUDICE OUTWEIGHS PROBATIVE VALUE IT MUST BE EXCLUDED. 15:19:00 - THIS RULE OF EXCLUSION IS DIRECTED AT EVIDENCE THAT INFLAMES JURY'S EMOTIONS. IF UNFAIR PREJUDICE OUTWEIGHS PROBATIVE VALUE, COURT SHOULD DETERMINE NEED FOR EVIDENCE, CHAIN OF INFERENCES AND EFFECTIVENESS OF LIMITED INSTRUCTION. 15:20:00 - THE EVIDENCE BEING SOUGHT TO BE INTRODUCED IS SUPERIMPOSED PHOTO OF VICTIM, THE SKULL AND PLACEMENT OF DUCT TAPE. DEFENSE SAYS EVIDENCE SHOULD BE EXCLUDED AND CITES TWO CASES. judge talks about case that used computer animation, published to jury as demonstrative evidence. court found it was case of first impression. concluded that video tape demo showed no blood, replicated no sounds and found no error in admitting the use of the computer generated animation. 15:21:55 - THIS CASE MAINLY DEALT WITH FIRST TIME USE OF COMPUTER GENERATION. WAS NOT HELPFUL TO COURT IN 403. IN NEXT CASE, THE BRANDON PEST CONTROL CASE, THIS CASE INVOLVED A VIDEO TAPE THAT WAS 15 MINS LONG THAT WAS TAKEN AT RESIDENCE IN QUESTION. IT SHOWED EXTERMINATION EQUIP AND POINTED OUT ITS UTILIZATION. IT ALSO HAD SOME COMPUTER ANIMATIONS THROUGHOUT. COURT CONCLUDED NARRATIONS CONTAINED THROUGHOUT WAS A SELF SERVING PROMOTIONAL TAPE SO COURT SAID IT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN INTRODUCED. 15:23:50 - IT DOES NOT GO THRU 403 ANALYSIS. IN LOOKING AT HTE FACTORS TALKED ABOUNT IN MCDUFFY THE COURT WILL MAKE FOLLOWNG OBSER: COURT NEEDS TO CONSIDER NEED FOR EVIDENCE. IN THIS CASE THERE HAS BEEN AN ISSUE DEALING WITH PLACEMENT OF DUCT TAPE UPON THE VICTIM AND THE LOCATION OF THIS DUCT TAPE. THE COURT WILL ALSO NOTE THAT THERE IS A NON DESCRIPT PIC OF CAYLEE AND THE UTILIZATION OF SKULL OF CAYLEE WHICH JURY HAS SEEN OVER LAST FEW DAYS. SKULL DOES NOT EXPOSE BLOOD. THE DR. HAS INDICATED THAT THIS WILL ILLUSTRATE HIS TESTIMONY. HE SAID IT WOULD BE HELPFUL. DOES THE EVIDENCE SUGGEST EMOTIONAL BASIS FOR VERDICT. IN HOMICIDE CASES EVIDENCE TENDS TO BE NOT NICE. THIS EVIDENCE, LIVE PHOTO OF VICTIM, SUPERIMPOSED IWTH SKULL DOES NOT HAVE TENDENCY TO SUGGEST EMOTIONAL BASIS FOR A VERDICT. 15:26:20 - NECESSEARY TO ESTABLISH MATERIAL FACT? BOTH SIDES HAVE DEBATED ITS RELEVANCY SO IT'S HIGHLY RELEVANT TO CONCLUDE BASED UPON ALL EVIDENCE WHETHER OR NOT THIS DUCT TAPE WAS PLACED IN A CERTAIN POSITION. THEREFORE BASED ON WHAT HAS BEEN PRESENTED, THE COURT WILL PERMIT THE WITNESS TO TESTIFY. LAST BUT NOT LEAST, PURSUANT TO ...IF REQUESTED BY DEFENSE, PURSUANT TO PIERCE, I WILL GIVE INSTRUCTIONS. 15:29:40 - baez tells judge that witness co authored report with dr. schultz and testimony is cumulative. ashton says dr. schultz testimony was not challenged. baez says ...he's off mic ..again. 15:31:40 - jury returns 15:32:40 - DR. MICHAEL WARREN CALLED TO THE STAND, forensic anthropologist, assoc. prof at u. of florida. director of human identification lab. 15:33:50 - ID lab consults with medical examiners when person has become skeletonized. been director two and a half years. was paramedic for 15 years, got MS and PhD at U. of Florida in forensic anthropology 15:35:20 - you are qualified as expert in forensic anthropology? yes, testified in probably 16 cases. submits witness as expert in forensic anthro 15:36:00 - my doctoral research was in fetal growth and development. also determining age at time of death. how did you become involved in this case? i was contacted by dr. g and schultz on dec 15 to assist in ID of remains. did you look at photos of remains too? yes. recall from photos when mandible was first found? yes. what was that position. it was still articulated, it was still in place. 15:37:45 - why is that noteworthy? that joint is a regular sinovial joint. it's lax and allowed movement, there's nothing to hold it in place once soft tissue decomposes. when remains are found on the sufface, it's very rare to find jaw articulatd with rest of skull. have you ever had a case where jaw in above ground remains was still in that position? yes, these are cases when i did human rights work in bosnia in which decedents had tape over their face. so you consitently find the mandible disarticulated from the skull? yes. 15:39:20 - familiar with photos and duct tape? yes. can you tell if tape would have been over nose and mouth? no the tape had moved. did you try to deterine if it was possible that a singel piece of duct tape could have covered the nose and mouth in one piece? i did. how? two methods, i consulted literature and scientific studies done on growing children to figure out normal distances between landmarks on a child's face. .... 15:41:00 - i was interested in nasal apperature, bottom of nose and the bottom of the teeth and oral airway. able to get estimates? estimates, not using those exact landmarks. what is the other method? i used video superimposition. what has it been used for? primarly used to exlucde possibility remains in question are those of particular person. SIGNAL LOSS FROM COURTHOUSE IN OUR TRAILER - TIME CODE WILL BE OFF BY A FEW SECONDS. 15:42:45 - putative, you take skull and take photos of that person and using a comparison method where you are able to superimpose that image on skull using anatomical landmark. you can determine if the photo is of unknown person. landmarks are bottom of teeth, references other tech terms 15:44:00 - how did you use that process here? i used that technique to scale the photo of skull with a photo provided me by fbi of tape. both had scales in them, we're able to know those two images are correct. that would help you put tape over skull, how do you then determine if a face was there? we'd go back to original technique ...take photo of skull, photo of decedent and then use landmarks. 15:45:30 - does that depict video showing that process? it does. will it help with your explanation? it does. objection, overruled. received into evidence 15:46:30 - judge reads instructions to jury about the evidence. used only to illustrate experts opinion. 15:47:00 - video is played for jury. not made public. only those in court can see. SIGNAL RETURNS FROM COURTHOUSE, TIME CODE IS ACCURATE. 15:53:10 - why is tape moved up and down on photo? to show we don't know where tape was. based on that video and your research, would the single piece of tape have covered both nose and mouth making breathing impossible? yes 15:55:10 - you were hired early in this case? i was consulted. yes. you never saw the duct tape while it was attached to hair matte? that's true. the photo you used to do this quicktime movies? I used photoshop. it should give precise measurements if you're scaling. the photo you used of caylee you grabbed from internet? correct. you have no scale on that photo? correct. only reason you showed it is to show it's possible this could have occurred? correct. it's possible tape could have covered the nose and mouth? correct you're not testifying that that actually happened? correct. 15:57:30 - you can't testify this duct tape had anything to do with caylee's death? correct. you can't say tape was associated with caylee after death? ask that again please. you don't know if that tape had to do with disposal or death? true. baez goes to drawing board. tries to draw scene where caylee was found, draws mandible and tape ...badly drawn. can't really tell what it is. 15:59:30 - more of baez drawing on board. the hair is generally up here? I cannot see it. witness stands down. 16:00:55 - the duct tape was attached to hair? that's my understanding. it was your understanding too that at one time her skull was inside three bags? objection, heresay....sustained. rephrase. based on evidence you're given, you knew caylees remains were in three bags? thats my understanding correct. could you see canvas bag? only in photographs. photos weren't clear in terms of what the opening looked like. can you close the bag? i've only seen photos. you have no idea if this tape was used to wrap caylees remains? objection, sustained. 16:03:00 - the duct tape was over mandible and some portion of mouth. that's because it was attached to the hair? the mandible was found articulate with the skull. the hair couldn't have gotten underneath all of this ....OBJECTION, APPROACH 16:06:40 - shows witness photo of hair matte. that was in wooded area off suburban? object ...when skull was found hair matte was on floor? on the surface. above it was mandible? based on photos i've seen, i wasn't at scene. for hair matte to be under skull, something had to make it roll there? yes. the duct tape made its way in that direction? correct. 16:08:15 - the video you showed of the possiblity that tape could have been in that position, that was graphic? it was. was it to appeal to jury's emotions? objections, APPROACH 16:11:57 - jury asked to step out again. 16:12:45 - PROFER continues ....was video for purpose of appealing to the jury? no. was it to demonstrate something of graphic nature? no. purpose of getting sympathy or getting jury angry? no. just to show tape could have covered nose and mouth? correct. end of questions 16:13:45 - five minute break 16:25:30 - did you know another piece of duct tape was found nine feet away? i was not aware of that. the possiblity in this demonstration, that was one possiblity? true. there are other possible scenarios in caylees death? correct. and the there are othe scenarios involving the duct tape? in terms of position of duct tape over face, no. there are other possilibites involving duct tape. yes. any quicktime movies of those? no sir. REDIRECT 16:26:55 - was tape on caylee's body before decomp? yes, it was placed on prior to decomp. that opinion is based on what? the mandible is still articulated with rest of cramium, it will always become disarticulated without something holding it in place. in your oponion could anything else have held it in place? no. how does tape during decomp keep the mandible in place? the mandible is stuck to soft tissue, when decomposition occurs, the duct tape stays in place and supports the mandible. 16:29:00- this photo shows hair is not under mandible but posterior? correct, under base of skull. during decomp how does hair end up not on top of skull? hair is attached to hair follicles, when decomp occurs it tends to slide down. not uncommosn to find birds nest of hair near base of skull. is that something you commonly see in deompc? correct. 16:30:00 - no further questions. 16:30:30 - there is root growth under mandible? i do see roots there. roots attached to hair? yes. can roots keep a mandible in place? that's possible. 16:31:40 - NO FURTHER QUESTIONS. 16:31:55 - does active decomp inhibit root growth? no. sustained. roots can't grow in hair until its fallen off skull ..sustained. are you familiar with plant growth and decomp? yes. you are not a botanist? no. but have you evaluated plant growth related to decomp? yes. could roots keep a mandible in place? it's possible under certain circumstances. in this case what would have to happen, would hair have to fall off? yes. until that point roots have nothing to grow in? yes. what would be holding that in place? the tape. RECROSS 16:34:00 - not a botanist? correct. you would defer to botanist? yes i would. you can't based on evidence know tracking of that duct tape? confused by question ... you can't testify to the position of the body at any point and time? no. or where hair was at one time or another? no. all we have are photos of tape stuck to hair? correct. no further questions. WITNESS EXCUSED. 16:36:30 - MICHAEL VINCENT CALLED TO STAND. returns to stand. csi with orange county sheriff. 16:36:50 - recovered insect evidence from trash in pontiac sunfire. approaches witness 16:38:00 - id's evidence bag of maggots. sent bag to dr. haskell 16:40:17 - id's bag as insect eggs, late stage of life cycle. sent it to dr. haskell. CROSS 16:41:20 - these collected on july 16? what was collected ...these pupae? no they were collected on august 28. but you processed vehicle on july 16? i did not process the vehicle. what do you mean ...you inspected trunk and items in trunk? yes. you're aware of entomology as a tool for law enforcement? yes. the insect was in later stages? yes. an entomologist can look at stage where maggot life is and can determine life cycle of that maggot? object. sustained. 16:43:00 - you have some training in entomology? yes sir. went to course at UF? i did. this course taught you there are different stages of insect? yes. an entomologist can take these stages and give you a pinpoint time of death? that's possible. you were aware of this evidence on july 16? no. you did see any insect activity in garbage or trunk on july 16? no. not in trunk of car. there was none that i saw. no further questions. witness excused. 16:46:00 - ROBIN MAYNARD CALLED TO STAND. csi with orange county. helped recover caylee remains. responsible for documenting collection of insect activity. collected over several days. 16:47:30 - witness id's her label on evidence bag. says its pupae collected 12/14/08. as she collected them she consulted with dr. haskell. 16:48:30 - she placed it in bag and sent to dr. haskell. witness IDs more bags of evidence, envelopes of bugs. was collected from scene in december 2008. 16:51:30 - witness IDs more bags of entomological evidence taken from scene, december 2008. location where item is collected also noted on bag. 16:53:30 - witness IDs more bags of entomological evidence taken from scene on suburban drive. sent it to dr. neil haskell 16:56:00 - witness IDs more bags of evidence. says its her label with her handwriting. piece of cardboard with pink remnants on it. 16:57:15 - no further questions CROSS 16:57:40 - collected evidence under direction of dr. neil haskell? yes. the job ws so thoroughly done he asked you to stop collecting? correct. the cardboard item was found in a lane? yes. we're also talking about beer bottles? correct. tires? correct. there were so many items in that area it got to the point where you stopped collecting? i was the lead in charge of sifting, i was not in primary search area. but you were there? correct. the items i had to deal with were being sifted, if they were bigger they weren't my responsibility. people threw things there all the time, it was a common dumping area? i can't say it was a common dumping area. there were multiple items ...sustained. this area is across from a school? not directly across. it is next to school? it's down the street. kids walk to school there? object. sustained. 17:00:00 - jury dismissed for the day 17:02:30 - BAEZ asks for mistrail based on video of skull and duct tape around face. based on profer this was a possibiilty. witness also said this was speculative. overwhelming prejudicial effect outweighed probative value. HAS NOT BOTH STATE AND DEFENSE ADVANCED VARIOUS THEORIES AS TO LOCATION OF THE DUCT TAPE? yes. AND DID NOT THE WITNESS TESTIFY THAT WAS ONE POSSIBLE SCENARIO AND THERE COULD BE OTHERS. witness did, not outweighed by video of child and skull in background. served only one purpose to inflame jury. YOU SAID THE PHOTO SHOWED DUCT TAPE WRAPPED AROUND THE HEAD. WAS IT WRAPPED AROUND OR SUPERIMPOSED. state: the testimony is that at some point the child had tape around nose, mouth or both. it was necessary to establish theory this tape was murder weapons. video itself showed tape moving above and below. it was a fair and necessary demonstration 17:07:10 - MOTION FOR MISTRIAL AT THIS TIME WILL BE DENIED. 17:00:30 - no further questions.
Selecting hair color on an online avtar
Choosing a female avatar in an online avatar creator. Continuing to select a haircut and previewing her looks. A conceptual video game character creation software with user interface and 3D avatar preview.
Madalyn - Murray - O'Hair
INVESTIGATORS ARE DOING DNA TESTS ON BLOOD THAT WAS FOUND IN THE STORAGE UNIT OF A SUSPECT'S HOME...POLICE BELIEVE HE AND ANOTHER MAN MAY BE BEHIND THE DISAPPEARANCE OF OUTSPOKEN ATHEIST MADALYN MURRAY O'HAIR.
CASEY ANTHONY TRIAL / ISO P3
FTG FOR COVERAGE OF THE CASEY ANTHONY MURDER TRIAL / ANTHONY ISO CAM NOTE: JUDGE'S COMMENTS ALWAYS IN CAPS 9:04:00 - DR. GARY UTZ RETURNS TO THE STAND 9:05:30 - we were going thru photos taken by investigator hanson. shows him next photo, it's a front view of pair of shorts. this garment has a number of holes? yes it does. had the shorts been torn or cut? i can't rule out some of defects occurred before decomp but a lot of what i see is consistent with clothing seen in decomp. 9:07:00 - photo is tag of shorts, circo brand, 24 months. next photo is another aspect of tag. 9:08:15 - next photo is of backside of tag. 9:12:00- pic of shorts and shirt tag 9:13:45 - after that my involvement was approx the same as someone else in office. It was dr. g's case. When did she take back responsibility for case? I believe she returned Friday afternoon. From then on was your involvement assisting? Correct. CROSS EXAM 9:14:50 - you are board certified ME? Forensic pathologist. What does that mean? Pathology is the study of disease. A pathologist is a physician most commonly involved in diagnosis of disease states. Pathologist also performs autopsies. Forensic path is a sub specialty, investigates cause and manner of death. 9:16:00 - in this case before remains were found, you were aware of hoopla surrounding missing child? Yes. it was discussed. But before remains are found, the ME office is a specatator. When remains were found there was more conversation in office? Yes. 9:17:10 - he took pics and surveyed scene? He did. Did supplemental report? He did. Dr. G came back into town and took over the case? That's correct. Why? She felt that it was important for her to be involved. She had good working relationship with law enforcement. I was relatively new in the office. 9:18:20 - it is a complicated case that requires the use of investigations that are not parts of our office so in a case like that was reasonable on her part ot coordinate that. She would have been involved in any rate even if it were my case. 9:19:15 - you talked about the duct tape. And looked at pictures? Correct. There was no duct tape on left side of skull? Not sure I understand your question. What do you mean by on ..you said in photos yesterday there was some duct tape adhered to hair matte on right side of skull? Yes. none on left side? It extended beyond midline up to left, certainly. The tape itself wasn't attached to skull. None on back either? No. completely encircling it, no sir. 9:21:10 - there were points of adherence also on left side. Did you removed duct tape? I did. Did you examine it? Took photo and looked at it briefly. Do anything to swab to preserve dna? I did not. Careful in handling it? Yes. wear gloves? Yes. suited up in ME clothing? Yes. put it in evidence bag? yes. it was released to field agent of FBI. Any human tissue on tape? Nothing I could ID as human tissue 9:22:35 - my goal at that point was to provide material to fbi lab for ID purposes and to provide the duct tape for analysis. You found no evidence of trauma on these remains? I did not see any evidence of trauma. See any broken bones? Portions of bone were disrupted but I did not analyze them. 9:23:40 - explains what healing fracture it. There was no indication of any prior injury? I didn't see any. In process of autopsy, did you reset the calverium? 9:24:25 - I suppose you mean cutting through the top of the skull? I did not. (casey crying) 9:24:45 - if body had been found 4 months before, would you have had more forensic evidence? Possible. Remember what size shorts were? I believe 24 months. 9:25:45 - were you involved in decisions to get further expert exam of remains? No sir. Did you examine remains with dr. schultz? Only initial exam that occurred on evening of the 11th. He's a forensic anthropologist at UCF. Did you participate in toxicology exams? No. 9:27:00 - know who dr. goldberger is? He's a toxicologist. You talked about location of mandible? Yes. bottom jaw? Correct. You said it was held in place by hair and roots? Yes. when you picked up remains from table, did you hold skull in your hand? Yes. and mandible didn't fall off? I did not. When it was moved, it didn't come off? It did not. 9:28:40 - you talked about your duties to determine cause of death? That's correct. You do not know from your exam the cause of death in this case? I did not make a determination of cause of death in this case. You do not know cause of death. I do not. The manner of death was determined by dr. G to be a homicide? Correct. 9:30:10 - you have not rendered an opinion as to manner of death? I have not. REDIRECT 9:31:10 - looks at photo of skull, left side. That is what you are referring to about tape going from right to left? Correct. What side of face is circled? Right side. It shows tape on both right and left side? Correct. WITNESS EXCUSED. 9:33:55 - DR. JOHN SCHULTZ CALLED TO STAND, UCF dept. of anthroplogy, specializes in forensic anthropology and archealogy. MA in human biology, Phd in anthropology, specializing in forensic anthro. 9:35:30 - talks about difference between forensic anthropology and archeology. Says forensic anthropology is studying human skeleton. 9:36:50 - tephonomy is study of body after death, changes in how skeleton may have been dispersed on site. Talks about human ID lab at U. of Florida. When there are skeletized remains, they can be sent there to be analyzed. Cases from all around state come to the lab. 9:38:40 - specialty is detecting human remains using ground penetrating radar. Non invasive, locates change in ground. Dissertation involves remote sensing tools. 9:39:50 - talks about relationship between UCF and local law enforcement, ME office. 9:41:00 - develop relationship with ME to be on call forensic anthropogist? Yes. around december 11, 2008, get a call from ME? I got a call from steve hanson and dr. g. I was asked if I was able to got to scene to participate in the recovery. 9:42:00 - was not at scene first day when skull was removed. Where did you go to assist? I went directly to ME office. When you arrived, had skull arrived? I don't remember. What is your first recollection of skull? I remember looking in bag, seeing skull and duct tape, didn't want to interfere with duct tape, laid bag so skull wasn't interfered with. 9:43:50 - I remember at one point I held the skull up so photos could be taken of underside. Shows witness photo of him holding skull. 9:44:50 - is there a term called anatomical position? Yes, that would the normal position it would be in. was the mandible in close to anatomical position? It was close. Was that surprising/ to see a mandible still retained on skull? Normally there needs to be something there to hold it in place. What was holding it in place? It would have been the hair that had moved to base of skull. Anything else? We can see leaf litter and roots. How about the tape? No because the tape was adhered to hair but I don't recall it holding mandible in place in this view. 9:46:50 - during exam of bones, did you find anything indicating trauma? No evidence of trauma. Did you do thorough excavation of site? I provided advisory role. I would not call it excavation. I would call this a recovery. What was the plan? On the 12th I arrived at the scene and we talked about how to process scene. It was difficult because we were dealing with small child, had additional parts of bones, some weren't ossified yet and it was a heavy wood environment, lots of plant material. 9:48:45 - I told everyone to be on hands and knees removing leaf litter and double checking all the material that was removed. Started where known material was and worked out from there. I started in area where skeletal remains were found. 9:49:30 - talks about screening, removing material and sifting it thru box with mesh. Did you tell them to use certain kind of mesh? I said go to a smaller size screen because the bones were so small. 9:50:45 - explains how the search was conducted with law enforcement, mapping process. 9:52:50 - talks about how to map a scene using a computer. 9:53:30 - when remains were found did you examine them? Yes, if I was there. I would always assess what bones were found and suspicious material. I had to determine if they were human bones. Did search area increase? Correct as we initially started in main area, additional csi's worked south of us and as additional remains were located, we expanded out further. 9:55:10 - witness tells jury about the photo of scene, shows the process involving removing vines and over growth. Screening of debris. Also shows flags and pails of debris. Is it important to know where bones are found? When trying to understand how remains may have been dispersed, you need to know where all remains were located. 9:57:50 - witness explains photo, shows flags being placed where items were found , also shows csi documenting evidence and collecting it. 10:00:15 - those bones you ID as human were transported to ME? Yes. next photo is of remains that were found. 10:01:15 - we're looking at vertebra, part of spine, they're separated, there's no soft tissue, we can see roots growing thru vertebra as well. What's important about this pic ..the vertebra .all these bones were found in one location. That says they were transported while they were all together. 10:03:30 - photo of bone fragment. We see bones and envelope. Is that how each bone is documented? Correct. 10:04:50 - this is fragment from other bone? Correct. Shown photo of two bones. 10:05:45 - what are these bones? We're looking at largest bones in body, femura, lower leg bones attached to pelvis. Witness shown split screen. Do these two bones related to each other? Yes, the top of these bones have been chewed on by animals. OBJECTION 10:07:15 - SIDEBAR 10:06:30 - RECESS 10:38:00 - testimony resumes 10:39:00 - references split screen, showing pics of bones. He's asked about how bones fit together. 10:40:45 - photo shows hand and finger bones. What is purpose of this photo? We're always going to document skeletal remains, so we take multiple views of skeleton. This image is documenting bones of the hand and our scales are in centimeters so I put quarter in pic to show how tiny the bones are. Many of these were found in the main area. 10:42:20 - looks at his notes .mapping finished on december 20th. Looks at photo of bones again. These bones are part of pelvis, top area. Each one of these would grow as three bones and then fuse. This one here we have carnivore damage on bottom. 10:44:15 - one of these was found almost completely buried in the muck. Looks at his notes. It's the left bone in pic. 10:45:15 - looks at pic of skeleton laid out in anatomical order after all the bones are recovered. How successful was this recovery effort? Even with adult skeleton with bones intact, its tough to collect majority of remains and teeth. I feel we were very succesful here. Collected all but one tooth, had most of spine, long bones, tiny bones of hands and feet. A few pieces here and there are missing. 10:47:00 - I would say very successful in what was recovered and mapping those bones as well. 10:47:40 - mapping tells about spatial relationship of bones, and relationship at dump site. 10:48:00 - witness looks at survey that denotes areas where bones were found. 10:49:00 - photo shows survey map where bones were found. Witness points out on map where bones were found. In area A is where the body and bags was placed into the woods. This is where initial separation of body parts occurred, such as skull, arms, lower limbs. 10:50:30 - I started in area A, the rest of the csi's were south of us and as additional remains were found we moved further south. When this area was searched, we would talk about how to expand the search. It progressed further south. 10:52:50 - what was found in area A? it was initial area with skull, bags, arms with hand bones, lower legs also found there, including left foot. Area B? shaft for upper arm bone. Area F? as we progressed further southeast, we found trunk of body with pelvis, lower legs were dragged to this area. At this point being dragged from area A by animals is lower trunk. 10:55:10 - area D we had only located one bone. Area E a hand bone was found there. In area D that was one bone of foot? Correct. Area F is where we did see carnivore damage on multiple bones. Area G is most of spinal columns with ribs attached. Separated out is lower veterbra 10:56;55 - consistent with animal moving them. Area H we start to see more of the ribs, separated. Area I, if we start at top of spine we have cervical vertibra, to thoraic, to lumbar. Area i found 20 of vertebra here. It's being dragged while relatively articulated. Decomp would have finished there. 10:58:50 - there would have been some tissue holding the bones together. Based on this dispersal pattern, was this body deposited in area as intact unit? It may have been relatively intact if we look at area F trunk and lower legs were articulated. No indication the body was dismembered.? No we did not see any evidence. 11:00:15 - we talked about the hip bone which was buried. What is the significance of that? When trying to interpret how long bones have been at site ..SIDEBAR. 11:04:30 - formally requests witness be accepted as expert. 11:05:10 - when trying to interpret how long skeleton may have been out of scene, many bones were under leaf fall so they had to be there before they fell. .that would tell us more than likely this area was a swampy area, was water southeast, so it's possible when area was flooded, silt and other material may have resulted in burial of this bone .would have happened sometime over the summer. 11:06:20 - it was close to a big palmetto trunk. Area F on map is lowest area. That is one of the bones with carnivore damage and there's going to be silt suspended in water and that process would have led to almost burying the bone. 11:07:15 - approximately how long were these remains in that area? We use mulitple lines of evidence and overall the bones were dry, competely free of soft tissue. They had no decomp odor, they had some erosion which would take time, and were found under leaf litter. The combination of that with root evidence. A period of six months could be possible. 11;08:40 - dispersal of bones primarily the result of animal activity. There was some animal chewing on the ribs. This area was processed well and remaining bones could have been taken away by animals. CROSS EXAM 11:09:40 - as forensic anthropologist, you examine bones yourself? Correct. Do you x ray bones? Yes. in your examination you found no evidence of any pre mortem trauma? No evidence. No broken bones or fractures? Not sure of your question. You found no evidence of fractures? No evidence of fractures. No evidence of twist of bones? No evidence. No evidence of any traumatic injury before her death? No evidence. 11:12:10 - how far is area from pavement of suburban drive? I did not do mapping, if I use scale on map I would think 25-30 feel maybe. I did not document the measurements. This map just shows elevation and lines? Yes. my job was not the mapping. Measurements provided to me by ronald murdoch. 11:13:55 - do you know when the dispersement took place? Not sure I understand question. We start with area A, primary site and all of those items were in bags? Originally when deposited out at the site. 11:15:00 - other areas with bones and fragments, there were no bag? no bags, but not sure about parts of bag. majority of what was found was all area A? I wouldn't say majority. It was found in area of A. and after inspecting contents of area A you discovered missing bones? I wouldn't agree with that because when we started processing scene, we had other people locating additional bones south of area A. 11:16:40 - we had a crew of people we separated them out and searched simultaneously. You don't have any scientific evidence when first dispersement from area A occurred? No. same question as to other areas? Yes. there's nothing that tells you how this child died? Not a question I would answer. All I look for is peri mortem trauma and I did not find that. 11:18:15 - when you looked at duct tape on skull, it was not covering nasal appature? No. REDIRECT 11:18:35 - nasal appature is hole on skull where nose would be. Tape was covering the mouth area. Was tape in position to cover nose? Possibly. Hard to tell because nose wasn't there any more? Correct. 11:20:00 - witness circles on photo what bones were found in area A. what was in area b? left humurous. 11:21:45 - what was in area F? we do have clavicles and parts of pelvis and both femur shafts and ribs. One part of a vertebra. Area G? see separation of bottom of spinal column. Area G had couple of ribs. Area H? we only had one, part of one vertebra. And a bunch of ribs. Area i? see more ribs and parts of 20 vertebra. 11:23:45 - NO FURTHER QUESTIONS. WITNESS EXCUSED. 11:25:30 - DR. JAN GARIVAGLIA, CHIEF MEDICAL EXAMINER FOR ORANGE, OSCEOLA SINCE 2004. Was ME is Bexar county in San Antonio for 10 years. Also in Atlanta and Jacksonville. Explains her education and training credentials. 11:28:10 - came under my jurisdiction. When did you first learn that remains of caylee had been found? The 11th I don't remember the time. I was alerted by my chief investigator steve hanson. What did you do? I was late for the airport, as I was walking out mr hanson told me they found remains. We weren't sure who it was at that point, I had engagement I could not get out of so I told dr. utz to handle it until I got back the next day.. also had them call dr. schultz. 11:30:00 - I didn't think my absence for night would matter. Returned following day? Yes. did you go back and review photos of scene and at your facility? Absolutely. I went out to the scene, reviewed photos, made suggestions. 11:31:45 - one of things you examined was hair matte? Eventually it came back to me, originally sent to FBI, I examined it then. Looks at photo on screen. 11:32:40- shows her another photo she reviewed. She says it's photo of hair matte.we see a lot of the roots that have grown thru the hair. We're looking at hair matte and roots that have grown thru the matte and some holes in the hair matte probably from insect activity 11:34:15 - shown another photo. We teased out some of the hair to take as a sample for possible toxicological use. 11:35:40 - next photo. That was taken at my direction. Again that's the scale next to one of the roots on the hair matte. 11:36:30 - some of items found with remains, did you examine them? Yes. recall a blanket? Yes. did you have that photographed? Yes. looks at photo of blanket. See pic of dirty blanket with leaf litter on it. This is the condition it came in? it was not cleaned, just unfolded. Certain portions where you can see figures? Yes. took photo to see them more clearly. Next photo is closeup. 11:38:40 - zooms in on figure on blanket. When you viewed that did it look familiar? Yes, it was winnie the pooh with piglet on his back. 11:39:20 - photo of other side of blanket. Did that blanket have plant material growing in it? Yes. photographed that as well. Closeup photo of plants and roots growing into blanket. 11:40:40 - what are we looking at? This is closeup of edge of blanket with winnie the pooh, shows roots lying on top of and thru the blanket. 11:41:10 - next photo. More of root growth on blanket. 11:42:00 - another photo of root material, more close up 11:42:45 - next photo, more root material growing into blanket 11:43:30 - also root material growing in black plastic bag? there were two bags and roots were growing thru the holes of both those bags. Shown photo of roots and bag. 11:44:30 - was there also canvas laundry bag with remains? Yes there was. Roots in that? Roots were growing on top of and into bag. shown photo of roots growing into the bag. 11:45:40 - were roots growing around everything? There were roots in bones, didn't see in shorts and the shirt was disintegrated. Certainly the blanket, two plastic bag and canvas bags. The lettering and stitching along hems were left of the shirt. 11:46:40 - how did you ID bones? We thought best ID was thru dna. It's tough to ID a child because we often use teeth, but it's tough with child. We were hoping we were going to get nuclear dna and at least mito dna. Did you send bone to FBI? Yes we did. 11:47:45 - photo of bone upon return from dna evaluation. The portion missing on this bone? They removed a piece of right tibia to test. Get results from FBI? Yes. they identified remains as caylee anthony. 11:49:00 - is manner of death determination a purely medical or scientific determination? It's basd on scientific principles and gathering all the info you can, all the history, medical history. Take all of those things and any scientific information and come up with opinion .SIDEBAR LUNCH RECESS 13:40:00 - court resumes with SIDEBAR 13:44:00 - casey walks back into courtroom. 13:46:30 - sows dr. G. some evidence bag, has laundry bag in it. state goes over more evidence with her. 13:47:40- evidence bag of body bag with vegetation. next bag has black plastic bag. 13:49:40 - more bags of evidence shown to dr. g., this is bag with the shorts. 13:50:45 - evidence bag with clothing brought in with the body. 13:52:15 - when we broke we were discussing cause and manner of death. what is manner of death? its the classification of death based on all info available to us ...scientific, scene, history, medical. 13:53:00 - also bring to bear your exp in forensic pathology? absolutely. manner of death in this case? yes. homicide. why? it's based on three main items . first, we know from observational studies that it is a red flag that when a child is not reported immediately to authorities, that's something we look for ... for foul play. this child was not reported missing for a long time. the other thing is the body was hidden. a child's body is thrown out in a field, that is one of things we look for when looking for homicide. the body is often found in closed containers, suitcase or plastic bag such as this case. that's a red flag for homicide. the last besides delay in reporting, and found in a field, would be the duct tape located on lower half of the face. there is no child that should have duct tape on its face when it dies or after they dies. we've seen that in cases of homicide 13:55:25 - cause of death is the injury or the diseases that initiates chain of events that results in death. it's the specific injury or disease that causes death. in this case, can you conclude cause of death? the cause of death was homicide of undetermined means. we can reliably say homicide but i don't know means by which it occurred. any objects found with body that could cause death? the only possible object would be duct tape, if that was over mouth and nose, suffocation with plastic bag would be the only other thing. 13:56:55 - were you aware of chloroform in this case? yes. could a child exposed to sufficient amount die as a result? absolutely. at this point, can you tell what caused her death? no, i believe we have enough evidence to say its a homicide, but don't have enough scientific information to say how the homicide occurred. was there any trauma to body? it's very decomposed so unless trauma hurt the bones, i can't say. i can't rule out any trauma cuz even a gun shot wound could not touch the bones. was there any injury to bones? no anti mortem injury to bones. were you aware of any illnesses the child had? i asked for a history of illness and i was told there were none. NO FURTHER QUESTIONS CROSS EXAMINATION 13:59:00 - you live in orlando? yes. for the period of time of about 4 mos prior to remains being found, you were aware of media surrounding this case? i was aware this was a big case. i don't watch the news. i was not aware as most people. were you aware there was a circus like atmosphere around anthony home? i do not know. i did know about speculation abuot this case. you knew if remains were found your office would be involved? no, i was hoping it was lake county, different jurisdiction. in fact, you came back to handle this case? that's true. you knew prior to finding the remains that chloroform was involved? i was told that by investigators at time we got the body. 14:01:10 - you reasoned perhaps chloroform could have been used to contibute to cause of death? that would be one of the possibilities we would examine. so you brought in an expert? i brought in a toxicologist who dealt with toxicology of bones. dr. goldberger from U of florida. you sent him piece of bone? from left femur. as a toxicologist, the request was to look for choloroform and other volatile chemicals? correct. 14:03:00 - he checked for volatiles and several other tests. he's limited in what he can do with bones. results were negative? correct. were you present when dr. werner spitz came to observe ....objection ...SIDEBAR 14:07:30 - did dr. werner spitz see autopsy? did he, no. were you aware he was coming down? i was informed by my office manager that mr baez had requested to bring in outside person in to watch autopsy. our policy is to come up with cause and manner of death and make that available to him once we were done. did dr. spitz did a second autopsy? sustained. 14:09:00 - dr. goldberger is MD? no, he's a phd. what did he test? bone, scrapings I took from inside of bone, the hair and soil that fell out of hair and that was for volatiles. then he tested bone, scrapings of bone marrow and washings from cranial cavity. 14:10:15 - tested for xanax. all results were negative? correct. you did not cut open cranium? no absolutely not. no trauma was found? no anti mortem trauma. we found post mortem trauma. there was no evidence of any form of trauma when the child was alive? on bones there was no evidence of trauma. 14:11:40 - you are confirming that despite investigations, toxicology report, there is no evidence to establish cause of death? it was a means of homicide that could not be determined. you called it a homicide as proposed to accident? the circumstances of the death did not fit anything but a homicide. and based on what det. melich told you? what did he tell me ...that the body wasn't reported missing for 31 days. some things you learned from the media? nothing from the media would have entered into a decision. i can't take anything they would say in something as grave as this. 14:13:15 - it probably was a homicide? not probably, that is the only logical conclusion based on scientific information we have based on observational information we have on homicides and children dying. we know in systematic observatonal studies, we look at all the accidental drownings for instance in my jurisdiction, 100 percent of the time EMS is called. it absolutely has something to do with this case. every death i investigate has to be put into cirmcumstances of death; you can never, ever detemine a manner of death except in rare instances just on examining body. we need to know how usually deaths occur. 14:14:50 - we have to know red flags for homicide. by my experience and by what is known about the way homicides occur i felt preponderence of evidence .... by not reporting child missing, the fact it is tossed in a field to rot in bag is clear indication the body was trying to be hidden, that it was found in bag is a big red falg and duct tape anywhere attached to that childs face is indication of homicide. 14:16:00 - we know 100 percent of the time that accidental deaths are reported unless there is a good reason not to be. no reason not to report. if you don't report it to authorities, you are risking that childs life. we know thats behavioral science. and we know thru all cases in our morgue, accidents are 100 percent reported unless there's a good reason not to. 14:16:50 - this death couldn't be an accident? 100 percent of time when a person finds a child they call 911 cuz there a chance child might live. what if a person finds a drowned body. what then? i am looking at behaviors that shows no matter how stiff that body is, they always call 911 in the hopes that the child could be saved. i'm looking at observational data. that's what we used. 14:17:55 - i explained to you the red flags that we know in forensics based on behavior ...i don't understand ..objection ...sustained. 14:19:00- i felt the manner of death was defensible scientifically based on systematic observational studies of how homicide, accidents and natural deaths occur. if these remains had been found 4-5 mos before, would you have had better scientific evidence? absolutely. you mentioned duct tape, was it in vicinity of lower mandible? correct. REDIRECT 14:20:50 - you were asked about a second autopsy. did you keep body in same condition as when you received it? yes we did except what we had to take for dna and toxicology testing. left roots in bones? yes, that's normal procedure. the absence of positive results for chloroform, does that exclude acute use? we would not expect to find any of those things in the bones, that was a long shot. we would not expect those results to be positive, even at time of death. 14:22:20 - assume caylee died and was discarded about june 16, six months before she was found, at the stage mr mason was asking you about, four months earlier, what would be its condition after 2 mos? it would certainly be skeletonized by then. so if it was found in august, you would expect it would have been skeletonized? yes, the internal organs would be completely gone. WITNESS EXCUSED. ? 14:24:15 - SIDEBAR 14:35:00 - jury is dismissed for a time, judge says they have to discuss some issues. 14:37:16 - attorneys are looking at a video it appears. 14:42:00 - ashton talks about submitting a video showing duct tape over the mouth, trying to show tape was sufficient size to cover nose and mouth. baez argues let's throw eveything against wall and see what stick. this impostion is a fantasy and it's not supported that can't be testified to. it goes to root of 403. 14:45:10 - judge talks about a decision by florida supreme court, may have similar application. says he needs to reread it. the case is 26 pages long. 14:46:00 - baez says there's been no testimony that this duct tape was in fact in this position as reflected in this video. references another court case. clearly shows presenation must be relevant and must accurately reflect oral testimony offered. there's not going to be any oral testimony this duct tape was in this position on this child's face. dr. warren could not testify to this. LET ME HEAR DR. WARREN'S TESTIMONY. I CAN BETTER MAKE AN INFORMED DECISION. THIS WILL BE A PROFER. SO THERE'S NO NEED TO MAKE OBJECTIONS AT THIS POINT MR. BAEZ 14:48:15 - dr.michael warren, forensic anthropologist, assoc. prof at u. of florida. director of human identification lab. 14:49:10 - you worked with dr. schultz on this case? yes sir. you examined the skull and other bones? i did. at some point the issue of duct tape and establishing whether it caused death came up? correct. how was this video created? it was created by taking photos of skull and photos of tape and photo that was found on the internet that was appropriate in orientation of child's face. why use pics of skull and face? both have photo scales and those are used to make sure the size of those images are comparable. 14:50:40 - have to match face to skull in terms of sizing. then use tape label to superimpose on face. skull is used to make one to one match with face? yes. is it possible without this superimposition to determine the end of caylees nose and mouth? no. are there certain rough estimates you can make based on research on avarage distances? previous studies for children and one study done at U of Michigan has some measurements but not ones we needed. is there any other way to demonstrate that duct tape could cover both nose and mouth other than this process? there's not. baez questions him 14:53:10 - recall being told duct tape was murder weapon? i don't recall questions from mr ashton about it being a murder weapon. those discussions were between me and dr. g. And mr ashton had these discussions too? i don't remember that, i remember talking about it being possible. happened early on, first day i was there with dr. g and dr. schultz. 14:54:20 - i suggested doing the superimposition to mr ashton. you weren't present when tape was removed from skull? no. you only saw a photo? that's true. the ones were tape is attached to hair matte? correct. LET'S GET TO THE POINT, WE'RE HERE TO DETERMINE 403 ISSUE. LETS' GET THERE. the hair matte was under skull? at base of skull. is it not normally at top? in decomposed skulls it is at the base. there's no scale on her face in that photo? no. 14:56:20 - you used just some photo you took off internet? correct. you would need to know how large child is? no i'd have to know where landmarks on face are. but children grow rapidly? they do. she could have been larger than time photo was taken? it looked recent. it's not an infant's photo. JUDGE: WHAT IS PURPOSE OF DEMONSTRATION? that's its possible the tape could cover both the child's nose and mouth 14:57:40 - A SKULL WAS UTLIZED, EXPLAIN THAT. we took photo for photographic scale. by using both skull and photo of tape and overlaying those images, you can make those scales the same size so you know size of skull relative to tape is real. now we are able to move from scale of skull to scale of tape. we're able to once we have skull scaled to photo, we can superimpose the tape over the image with the soft tissue. 14:59:10 - PHOTO USED IS PHOTO FROM M.E. OFFICE.yes. WILL THIS ANIMATION HELP YOU EXPLAIN TESTIMONY TO JURY. it illustrates it's possible. WITHOUT IT? i would be able to testify that it is possible without using animation. WHAT ARE DISADVANTAGES? disadvantage is it takes illustration of science out of explanation. 15:01:10 - witness steps down. judge asks what cases baez wants him to look at. RECESS UNTIL 3:15- judge needs to look at cases. 15:17:30 - JUDGE REFERENCE 2007 DECISION OF FLORIDA SUPREME COURT. INVOLVED FIRST DEGREE MURDER WITH FIREARM. THE COURT SAID THE FOLLOWING IN ITS OPINION: RELEVANT EVIDENCE PROVES OR DISPROVES MATERIAL FACT. IT IS INADMISSABLE IF PROBATIVE VALUE IS OUTWEIGHED BY PREJUDICE. THE PROPER APPLICATION REQUIRES BALANCING TEST BY TRIAL JUDGE. ONLY WHEN PREJUDICE OUTWEIGHS PROBATIVE VALUE IT MUST BE EXCLUDED. 15:19:00 - THIS RULE OF EXCLUSION IS DIRECTED AT EVIDENCE THAT INFLAMES JURY'S EMOTIONS. IF UNFAIR PREJUDICE OUTWEIGHS PROBATIVE VALUE, COURT SHOULD DETERMINE NEED FOR EVIDENCE, CHAIN OF INFERENCES AND EFFECTIVENESS OF LIMITED INSTRUCTION. 15:20:00 - THE EVIDENCE BEING SOUGHT TO BE INTRODUCED IS SUPERIMPOSED PHOTO OF VICTIM, THE SKULL AND PLACEMENT OF DUCT TAPE. DEFENSE SAYS EVIDENCE SHOULD BE EXCLUDED AND CITES TWO CASES. judge talks about case that used computer animation, published to jury as demonstrative evidence. court found it was case of first impression. concluded that video tape demo showed no blood, replicated no sounds and found no error in admitting the use of the computer generated animation. 15:21:55 - THIS CASE MAINLY DEALT WITH FIRST TIME USE OF COMPUTER GENERATION. WAS NOT HELPFUL TO COURT IN 403. IN NEXT CASE, THE BRANDON PEST CONTROL CASE, THIS CASE INVOLVED A VIDEO TAPE THAT WAS 15 MINS LONG THAT WAS TAKEN AT RESIDENCE IN QUESTION. IT SHOWED EXTERMINATION EQUIP AND POINTED OUT ITS UTILIZATION. IT ALSO HAD SOME COMPUTER ANIMATIONS THROUGHOUT. COURT CONCLUDED NARRATIONS CONTAINED THROUGHOUT WAS A SELF SERVING PROMOTIONAL TAPE SO COURT SAID IT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN INTRODUCED. 15:23:50 - IT DOES NOT GO THRU 403 ANALYSIS. IN LOOKING AT HTE FACTORS TALKED ABOUNT IN MCDUFFY THE COURT WILL MAKE FOLLOWNG OBSER: COURT NEEDS TO CONSIDER NEED FOR EVIDENCE. IN THIS CASE THERE HAS BEEN AN ISSUE DEALING WITH PLACEMENT OF DUCT TAPE UPON THE VICTIM AND THE LOCATION OF THIS DUCT TAPE. THE COURT WILL ALSO NOTE THAT THERE IS A NON DESCRIPT PIC OF CAYLEE AND THE UTILIZATION OF SKULL OF CAYLEE WHICH JURY HAS SEEN OVER LAST FEW DAYS. SKULL DOES NOT EXPOSE BLOOD. THE DR. HAS INDICATED THAT THIS WILL ILLUSTRATE HIS TESTIMONY. HE SAID IT WOULD BE HELPFUL. DOES THE EVIDENCE SUGGEST EMOTIONAL BASIS FOR VERDICT. IN HOMICIDE CASES EVIDENCE TENDS TO BE NOT NICE. THIS EVIDENCE, LIVE PHOTO OF VICTIM, SUPERIMPOSED IWTH SKULL DOES NOT HAVE TENDENCY TO SUGGEST EMOTIONAL BASIS FOR A VERDICT. 15:26:20 - NECESSEARY TO ESTABLISH MATERIAL FACT? BOTH SIDES HAVE DEBATED ITS RELEVANCY SO IT'S HIGHLY RELEVANT TO CONCLUDE BASED UPON ALL EVIDENCE WHETHER OR NOT THIS DUCT TAPE WAS PLACED IN A CERTAIN POSITION. THEREFORE BASED ON WHAT HAS BEEN PRESENTED, THE COURT WILL PERMIT THE WITNESS TO TESTIFY. LAST BUT NOT LEAST, PURSUANT TO ...IF REQUESTED BY DEFENSE, PURSUANT TO PIERCE, I WILL GIVE INSTRUCTIONS. 15:29:40 - baez tells judge that witness co authored report with dr. schultz and testimony is cumulative. ashton says dr. schultz testimony was not challenged. baez says ...he's off mic ..again. 15:31:40 - jury returns 15:32:40 - DR. MICHAEL WARREN CALLED TO THE STAND, forensic anthropologist, assoc. prof at u. of florida. director of human identification lab. 15:33:50 - ID lab consults with medical examiners when person has become skeletonized. been director two and a half years. was paramedic for 15 years, got MS and PhD at U. of Florida in forensic anthropology 15:35:20 - you are qualified as expert in forensic anthropology? yes, testified in probably 16 cases. submits witness as expert in forensic anthro 15:36:00 - my doctoral research was in fetal growth and development. also determining age at time of death. how did you become involved in this case? i was contacted by dr. g and schultz on dec 15 to assist in ID of remains. did you look at photos of remains too? yes. recall from photos when mandible was first found? yes. what was that position. it was still articulated, it was still in place. 15:37:45 - why is that noteworthy? that joint is a regular sinovial joint. it's lax and allowed movement, there's nothing to hold it in place once soft tissue decomposes. when remains are found on the sufface, it's very rare to find jaw articulatd with rest of skull. have you ever had a case where jaw in above ground remains was still in that position? yes, these are cases when i did human rights work in bosnia in which decedents had tape over their face. so you consitently find the mandible disarticulated from the skull? yes. 15:39:20 - familiar with photos and duct tape? yes. can you tell if tape would have been over nose and mouth? no the tape had moved. did you try to deterine if it was possible that a singel piece of duct tape could have covered the nose and mouth in one piece? i did. how? two methods, i consulted literature and scientific studies done on growing children to figure out normal distances between landmarks on a child's face. .... 15:41:00 - i was interested in nasal apperature, bottom of nose and the bottom of the teeth and oral airway. able to get estimates? estimates, not using those exact landmarks. what is the other method? i used video superimposition. what has it been used for? primarly used to exlucde possibility remains in question are those of particular person. SIGNAL LOSS FROM COURTHOUSE IN OUR TRAILER - TIME CODE WILL BE OFF BY A FEW SECONDS. 15:42:45 - putative, you take skull and take photos of that person and using a comparison method where you are able to superimpose that image on skull using anatomical landmark. you can determine if the photo is of unknown person. landmarks are bottom of teeth, references other tech terms 15:44:00 - how did you use that process here? i used that technique to scale the photo of skull with a photo provided me by fbi of tape. both had scales in them, we're able to know those two images are correct. that would help you put tape over skull, how do you then determine if a face was there? we'd go back to original technique ...take photo of skull, photo of decedent and then use landmarks. 15:45:30 - does that depict video showing that process? it does. will it help with your explanation? it does. objection, overruled. received into evidence 15:46:30 - judge reads instructions to jury about the evidence. used only to illustrate experts opinion. 15:47:00 - video is played for jury. not made public. only those in court can see. SIGNAL RETURNS FROM COURTHOUSE, TIME CODE IS ACCURATE. 15:53:10 - why is tape moved up and down on photo? to show we don't know where tape was. based on that video and your research, would the single piece of tape have covered both nose and mouth making breathing impossible? yes 15:55:10 - you were hired early in this case? i was consulted. yes. you never saw the duct tape while it was attached to hair matte? that's true. the photo you used to do this quicktime movies? I used photoshop. it should give precise measurements if you're scaling. the photo you used of caylee you grabbed from internet? correct. you have no scale on that photo? correct. only reason you showed it is to show it's possible this could have occurred? correct. it's possible tape could have covered the nose and mouth? correct you're not testifying that that actually happened? correct. 15:57:30 - you can't testify this duct tape had anything to do with caylee's death? correct. you can't say tape was associated with caylee after death? ask that again please. you don't know if that tape had to do with disposal or death? true. baez goes to drawing board. tries to draw scene where caylee was found, draws mandible and tape ...badly drawn. can't really tell what it is. 15:59:30 - more of baez drawing on board. the hair is generally up here? I cannot see it. witness stands down. 16:00:55 - the duct tape was attached to hair? that's my understanding. it was your understanding too that at one time her skull was inside three bags? objection, heresay....sustained. rephrase. based on evidence you're given, you knew caylees remains were in three bags? thats my understanding correct. could you see canvas bag? only in photographs. photos weren't clear in terms of what the opening looked like. can you close the bag? i've only seen photos. you have no idea if this tape was used to wrap caylees remains? objection, sustained. 16:03:00 - the duct tape was over mandible and some portion of mouth. that's because it was attached to the hair? the mandible was found articulate with the skull. the hair couldn't have gotten underneath all of this ....OBJECTION, APPROACH 16:06:40 - shows witness photo of hair matte. that was in wooded area off suburban? object ...when skull was found hair matte was on floor? on the surface. above it was mandible? based on photos i've seen, i wasn't at scene. for hair matte to be under skull, something had to make it roll there? yes. the duct tape made its way in that direction? correct. 16:08:15 - the video you showed of the possiblity that tape could have been in that position, that was graphic? it was. was it to appeal to jury's emotions? objections, APPROACH 16:11:57 - jury asked to step out again. 16:12:45 - PROFER continues ....was video for purpose of appealing to the jury? no. was it to demonstrate something of graphic nature? no. purpose of getting sympathy or getting jury angry? no. just to show tape could have covered nose and mouth? correct. end of questions 16:13:45 - five minute break 16:25:30 - did you know another piece of duct tape was found nine feet away? i was not aware of that. the possiblity in this demonstration, that was one possiblity? true. there are other possible scenarios in caylees death? correct. and the there are othe scenarios involving the duct tape? in terms of position of duct tape over face, no. there are other possilibites involving duct tape. yes. any quicktime movies of those? no sir. REDIRECT 16:26:55 - was tape on caylee's body before decomp? yes, it was placed on prior to decomp. that opinion is based on what? the mandible is still articulated with rest of cramium, it will always become disarticulated without something holding it in place. in your oponion could anything else have held it in place? no. how does tape during decomp keep the mandible in place? the mandible is stuck to soft tissue, when decomposition occurs, the duct tape stays in place and supports the mandible. 16:29:00- this photo shows hair is not under mandible but posterior? correct, under base of skull. during decomp how does hair end up not on top of skull? hair is attached to hair follicles, when decomp occurs it tends to slide down. not uncommosn to find birds nest of hair near base of skull. is that something you commonly see in deompc? correct. 16:30:00 - no further questions. 16:30:30 - there is root growth under mandible? i do see roots there. roots attached to hair? yes. can roots keep a mandible in place? that's possible. 16:31:40 - NO FURTHER QUESTIONS. 16:31:55 - does active decomp inhibit root growth? no. sustained. roots can't grow in hair until its fallen off skull ..sustained. are you familiar with plant growth and decomp? yes. you are not a botanist? no. but have you evaluated plant growth related to decomp? yes. could roots keep a mandible in place? it's possible under certain circumstances. in this case what would have to happen, would hair have to fall off? yes. until that point roots have nothing to grow in? yes. what would be holding that in place? the tape. RECROSS 16:34:00 - not a botanist? correct. you would defer to botanist? yes i would. you can't based on evidence know tracking of that duct tape? confused by question ... you can't testify to the position of the body at any point and time? no. or where hair was at one time or another? no. all we have are photos of tape stuck to hair? correct. no further questions. WITNESS EXCUSED. 16:36:30 - MICHAEL VINCENT CALLED TO STAND. returns to stand. csi with orange county sheriff. 16:36:50 - recovered insect evidence from trash in pontiac sunfire. approaches witness 16:38:00 - id's evidence bag of maggots. sent bag to dr. haskell 16:40:17 - id's bag as insect eggs, late stage of life cycle. sent it to dr. haskell. CROSS 16:41:20 - these collected on july 16? what was collected ...these pupae? no they were collected on august 28. but you processed vehicle on july 16? i did not process the vehicle. what do you mean ...you inspected trunk and items in trunk? yes. you're aware of entomology as a tool for law enforcement? yes. the insect was in later stages? yes. an entomologist can look at stage where maggot life is and can determine life cycle of that maggot? object. sustained. 16:43:00 - you have some training in entomology? yes sir. went to course at UF? i did. this course taught you there are different stages of insect? yes. an entomologist can take these stages and give you a pinpoint time of death? that's possible. you were aware of this evidence on july 16? no. you did see any insect activity in garbage or trunk on july 16? no. not in trunk of car. there was none that i saw. no further questions. witness excused. 16:46:00 - ROBIN MAYNARD CALLED TO STAND. csi with orange county. helped recover caylee remains. responsible for documenting collection of insect activity. collected over several days. 16:47:30 - witness id's her label on evidence bag. says its pupae collected 12/14/08. as she collected them she consulted with dr. haskell. 16:48:30 - she placed it in bag and sent to dr. haskell. witness IDs more bags of evidence, envelopes of bugs. was collected from scene in december 2008. 16:51:30 - witness IDs more bags of entomological evidence taken from scene, december 2008. location where item is collected also noted on bag. 16:53:30 - witness IDs more bags of entomological evidence taken from scene on suburban drive. sent it to dr. neil haskell 16:56:00 - witness IDs more bags of evidence. says its her label with her handwriting. piece of cardboard with pink remnants on it. 16:57:15 - no further questions CROSS 16:57:40 - collected evidence under direction of dr. neil haskell? yes. the job ws so thoroughly done he asked you to stop collecting? correct. the cardboard item was found in a lane? yes. we're also talking about beer bottles? correct. tires? correct. there were so many items in that area it got to the point where you stopped collecting? i was the lead in charge of sifting, i was not in primary search area. but you were there? correct. the items i had to deal with were being sifted, if they were bigger they weren't my responsibility. people threw things there all the time, it was a common dumping area? i can't say it was a common dumping area. there were multiple items ...sustained. this area is across from a school? not directly across. it is next to school? it's down the street. kids walk to school there? object. sustained. 17:00:00 - jury dismissed for the day 17:02:30 - BAEZ asks for mistrail based on video of skull and duct tape around face. based on profer this was a possibiilty. witness also said this was speculative. overwhelming prejudicial effect outweighed probative value. HAS NOT BOTH STATE AND DEFENSE ADVANCED VARIOUS THEORIES AS TO LOCATION OF THE DUCT TAPE? yes. AND DID NOT THE WITNESS TESTIFY THAT WAS ONE POSSIBLE SCENARIO AND THERE COULD BE OTHERS. witness did, not outweighed by video of child and skull in background. served only one purpose to inflame jury. YOU SAID THE PHOTO SHOWED DUCT TAPE WRAPPED AROUND THE HEAD. WAS IT WRAPPED AROUND OR SUPERIMPOSED. state: the testimony is that at some point the child had tape around nose, mouth or both. it was necessary to establish theory this tape was murder weapons. video itself showed tape moving above and below. it was a fair and necessary demonstration 17:07:10 - MOTION FOR MISTRIAL AT THIS TIME WILL BE DENIED. 17:00:30 - no further questions.
Hair Loss 3D Animation - 4K Resolution
Hair Loss, Alopecia, Close-up, Three Dimensional, Animation - Moving Image
Shrek - Pixar - Technology
WE HAVE SEEN A REVOLUTION IN ANIMATION MOVIES WITH NEW COMPUTER TECHNOLOGY. P-D-I FIRST BROUGHT US THEIR BUG MOVIE CALLED "ANTZ," AND NOW THEY HAVE A NEW MOVIE-- "SHREK." JENNIFER ARTERBURN TAKES US INSIDE.
Rape DNA Kit
THE TENNESSEE BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION IS OVERWHELMED BY DNA RAPE KITS SINCE HOOKING UP TO THE NATIONAL DNA DATABASE.
CASEY ANTHONY TRIAL / SWITCHED P2
FTG FOR COVERAGE OF THE CASEY ANTHONY MURDER TRIAL / SWITCHED POOL NOTE: JUDGE'S COMMENTS ALWAYS IN CAPS 9:04:00 - DR. GARY UTZ RETURNS TO THE STAND 9:05:30 - we were going thru photos taken by investigator hanson. shows him next photo, it's a front view of pair of shorts. this garment has a number of holes? yes it does. had the shorts been torn or cut? i can't rule out some of defects occurred before decomp but a lot of what i see is consistent with clothing seen in decomp. 9:07:00 - photo is tag of shorts, circo brand, 24 months. next photo is another aspect of tag. 9:08:15 - next photo is of backside of tag. 9:12:00- pic of shorts and shirt tag 9:13:45 - after that my involvement was approx the same as someone else in office. It was dr. g's case. When did she take back responsibility for case? I believe she returned Friday afternoon. From then on was your involvement assisting? Correct. CROSS EXAM 9:14:50 - you are board certified ME? Forensic pathologist. What does that mean? Pathology is the study of disease. A pathologist is a physician most commonly involved in diagnosis of disease states. Pathologist also performs autopsies. Forensic path is a sub specialty, investigates cause and manner of death. 9:16:00 - in this case before remains were found, you were aware of hoopla surrounding missing child? Yes. it was discussed. But before remains are found, the ME office is a specatator. When remains were found there was more conversation in office? Yes. 9:17:10 - he took pics and surveyed scene? He did. Did supplemental report? He did. Dr. G came back into town and took over the case? That's correct. Why? She felt that it was important for her to be involved. She had good working relationship with law enforcement. I was relatively new in the office. 9:18:20 - it is a complicated case that requires the use of investigations that are not parts of our office so in a case like that was reasonable on her part ot coordinate that. She would have been involved in any rate even if it were my case. 9:19:15 - you talked about the duct tape. And looked at pictures? Correct. There was no duct tape on left side of skull? Not sure I understand your question. What do you mean by on ..you said in photos yesterday there was some duct tape adhered to hair matte on right side of skull? Yes. none on left side? It extended beyond midline up to left, certainly. The tape itself wasn't attached to skull. None on back either? No. completely encircling it, no sir. 9:21:10 - there were points of adherence also on left side. Did you removed duct tape? I did. Did you examine it? Took photo and looked at it briefly. Do anything to swab to preserve dna? I did not. Careful in handling it? Yes. wear gloves? Yes. suited up in ME clothing? Yes. put it in evidence bag? yes. it was released to field agent of FBI. Any human tissue on tape? Nothing I could ID as human tissue 9:22:35 - my goal at that point was to provide material to fbi lab for ID purposes and to provide the duct tape for analysis. You found no evidence of trauma on these remains? I did not see any evidence of trauma. See any broken bones? Portions of bone were disrupted but I did not analyze them. 9:23:40 - explains what healing fracture it. There was no indication of any prior injury? I didn't see any. In process of autopsy, did you reset the calverium? 9:24:25 - I suppose you mean cutting through the top of the skull? I did not. (casey crying) 9:24:45 - if body had been found 4 months before, would you have had more forensic evidence? Possible. Remember what size shorts were? I believe 24 months. 9:25:45 - were you involved in decisions to get further expert exam of remains? No sir. Did you examine remains with dr. schultz? Only initial exam that occurred on evening of the 11th. He's a forensic anthropologist at UCF. Did you participate in toxicology exams? No. 9:27:00 - know who dr. goldberger is? He's a toxicologist. You talked about location of mandible? Yes. bottom jaw? Correct. You said it was held in place by hair and roots? Yes. when you picked up remains from table, did you hold skull in your hand? Yes. and mandible didn't fall off? I did not. When it was moved, it didn't come off? It did not. 9:28:40 - you talked about your duties to determine cause of death? That's correct. You do not know from your exam the cause of death in this case? I did not make a determination of cause of death in this case. You do not know cause of death. I do not. The manner of death was determined by dr. G to be a homicide? Correct. 9:30:10 - you have not rendered an opinion as to manner of death? I have not. REDIRECT 9:31:10 - looks at photo of skull, left side. That is what you are referring to about tape going from right to left? Correct. What side of face is circled? Right side. It shows tape on both right and left side? Correct. WITNESS EXCUSED. 9:33:55 - DR. JOHN SCHULTZ CALLED TO STAND, UCF dept. of anthroplogy, specializes in forensic anthropology and archealogy. MA in human biology, Phd in anthropology, specializing in forensic anthro. 9:35:30 - talks about difference between forensic anthropology and archeology. Says forensic anthropology is studying human skeleton. 9:36:50 - tephonomy is study of body after death, changes in how skeleton may have been dispersed on site. Talks about human ID lab at U. of Florida. When there are skeletized remains, they can be sent there to be analyzed. Cases from all around state come to the lab. 9:38:40 - specialty is detecting human remains using ground penetrating radar. Non invasive, locates change in ground. Dissertation involves remote sensing tools. 9:39:50 - talks about relationship between UCF and local law enforcement, ME office. 9:41:00 - develop relationship with ME to be on call forensic anthropogist? Yes. around december 11, 2008, get a call from ME? I got a call from steve hanson and dr. g. I was asked if I was able to got to scene to participate in the recovery. 9:42:00 - was not at scene first day when skull was removed. Where did you go to assist? I went directly to ME office. When you arrived, had skull arrived? I don't remember. What is your first recollection of skull? I remember looking in bag, seeing skull and duct tape, didn't want to interfere with duct tape, laid bag so skull wasn't interfered with. 9:43:50 - I remember at one point I held the skull up so photos could be taken of underside. Shows witness photo of him holding skull. 9:44:50 - is there a term called anatomical position? Yes, that would the normal position it would be in. was the mandible in close to anatomical position? It was close. Was that surprising/ to see a mandible still retained on skull? Normally there needs to be something there to hold it in place. What was holding it in place? It would have been the hair that had moved to base of skull. Anything else? We can see leaf litter and roots. How about the tape? No because the tape was adhered to hair but I don't recall it holding mandible in place in this view. 9:46:50 - during exam of bones, did you find anything indicating trauma? No evidence of trauma. Did you do thorough excavation of site? I provided advisory role. I would not call it excavation. I would call this a recovery. What was the plan? On the 12th I arrived at the scene and we talked about how to process scene. It was difficult because we were dealing with small child, had additional parts of bones, some weren't ossified yet and it was a heavy wood environment, lots of plant material. 9:48:45 - I told everyone to be on hands and knees removing leaf litter and double checking all the material that was removed. Started where known material was and worked out from there. I started in area where skeletal remains were found. 9:49:30 - talks about screening, removing material and sifting it thru box with mesh. Did you tell them to use certain kind of mesh? I said go to a smaller size screen because the bones were so small. 9:50:45 - explains how the search was conducted with law enforcement, mapping process. 9:52:50 - talks about how to map a scene using a computer. 9:53:30 - when remains were found did you examine them? Yes, if I was there. I would always assess what bones were found and suspicious material. I had to determine if they were human bones. Did search area increase? Correct as we initially started in main area, additional csi's worked south of us and as additional remains were located, we expanded out further. 9:55:10 - witness tells jury about the photo of scene, shows the process involving removing vines and over growth. Screening of debris. Also shows flags and pails of debris. Is it important to know where bones are found? When trying to understand how remains may have been dispersed, you need to know where all remains were located. 9:57:50 - witness explains photo, shows flags being placed where items were found , also shows csi documenting evidence and collecting it. 10:00:15 - those bones you ID as human were transported to ME? Yes. next photo is of remains that were found. 10:01:15 - we're looking at vertebra, part of spine, they're separated, there's no soft tissue, we can see roots growing thru vertebra as well. What's important about this pic ..the vertebra .all these bones were found in one location. That says they were transported while they were all together. 10:03:30 - photo of bone fragment. We see bones and envelope. Is that how each bone is documented? Correct. 10:04:50 - this is fragment from other bone? Correct. Shown photo of two bones. 10:05:45 - what are these bones? We're looking at largest bones in body, femura, lower leg bones attached to pelvis. Witness shown split screen. Do these two bones related to each other? Yes, the top of these bones have been chewed on by animals. OBJECTION 10:07:15 - SIDEBAR 10:06:30 - RECESS 10:38:00 - testimony resumes 10:39:00 - references split screen, showing pics of bones. He's asked about how bones fit together. 10:40:45 - photo shows hand and finger bones. What is purpose of this photo? We're always going to document skeletal remains, so we take multiple views of skeleton. This image is documenting bones of the hand and our scales are in centimeters so I put quarter in pic to show how tiny the bones are. Many of these were found in the main area. 10:42:20 - looks at his notes .mapping finished on december 20th. Looks at photo of bones again. These bones are part of pelvis, top area. Each one of these would grow as three bones and then fuse. This one here we have carnivore damage on bottom. 10:44:15 - one of these was found almost completely buried in the muck. Looks at his notes. It's the left bone in pic. 10:45:15 - looks at pic of skeleton laid out in anatomical order after all the bones are recovered. How successful was this recovery effort? Even with adult skeleton with bones intact, its tough to collect majority of remains and teeth. I feel we were very succesful here. Collected all but one tooth, had most of spine, long bones, tiny bones of hands and feet. A few pieces here and there are missing. 10:47:00 - I would say very successful in what was recovered and mapping those bones as well. 10:47:40 - mapping tells about spatial relationship of bones, and relationship at dump site. 10:48:00 - witness looks at survey that denotes areas where bones were found. 10:49:00 - photo shows survey map where bones were found. Witness points out on map where bones were found. In area A is where the body and bags was placed into the woods. This is where initial separation of body parts occurred, such as skull, arms, lower limbs. 10:50:30 - I started in area A, the rest of the csi's were south of us and as additional remains were found we moved further south. When this area was searched, we would talk about how to expand the search. It progressed further south. 10:52:50 - what was found in area A? it was initial area with skull, bags, arms with hand bones, lower legs also found there, including left foot. Area B? shaft for upper arm bone. Area F? as we progressed further southeast, we found trunk of body with pelvis, lower legs were dragged to this area. At this point being dragged from area A by animals is lower trunk. 10:55:10 - area D we had only located one bone. Area E a hand bone was found there. In area D that was one bone of foot? Correct. Area F is where we did see carnivore damage on multiple bones. Area G is most of spinal columns with ribs attached. Separated out is lower veterbra 10:56;55 - consistent with animal moving them. Area H we start to see more of the ribs, separated. Area I, if we start at top of spine we have cervical vertibra, to thoraic, to lumbar. Area i found 20 of vertebra here. It's being dragged while relatively articulated. Decomp would have finished there. 10:58:50 - there would have been some tissue holding the bones together. Based on this dispersal pattern, was this body deposited in area as intact unit? It may have been relatively intact if we look at area F trunk and lower legs were articulated. No indication the body was dismembered.? No we did not see any evidence. 11:00:15 - we talked about the hip bone which was buried. What is the significance of that? When trying to interpret how long bones have been at site ..SIDEBAR. 11:04:30 - formally requests witness be accepted as expert. 11:05:10 - when trying to interpret how long skeleton may have been out of scene, many bones were under leaf fall so they had to be there before they fell. .that would tell us more than likely this area was a swampy area, was water southeast, so it's possible when area was flooded, silt and other material may have resulted in burial of this bone .would have happened sometime over the summer. 11:06:20 - it was close to a big palmetto trunk. Area F on map is lowest area. That is one of the bones with carnivore damage and there's going to be silt suspended in water and that process would have led to almost burying the bone. 11:07:15 - approximately how long were these remains in that area? We use mulitple lines of evidence and overall the bones were dry, competely free of soft tissue. They had no decomp odor, they had some erosion which would take time, and were found under leaf litter. The combination of that with root evidence. A period of six months could be possible. 11;08:40 - dispersal of bones primarily the result of animal activity. There was some animal chewing on the ribs. This area was processed well and remaining bones could have been taken away by animals. CROSS EXAM 11:09:40 - as forensic anthropologist, you examine bones yourself? Correct. Do you x ray bones? Yes. in your examination you found no evidence of any pre mortem trauma? No evidence. No broken bones or fractures? Not sure of your question. You found no evidence of fractures? No evidence of fractures. No evidence of twist of bones? No evidence. No evidence of any traumatic injury before her death? No evidence. 11:12:10 - how far is area from pavement of suburban drive? I did not do mapping, if I use scale on map I would think 25-30 feel maybe. I did not document the measurements. This map just shows elevation and lines? Yes. my job was not the mapping. Measurements provided to me by ronald murdoch. 11:13:55 - do you know when the dispersement took place? Not sure I understand question. We start with area A, primary site and all of those items were in bags? Originally when deposited out at the site. 11:15:00 - other areas with bones and fragments, there were no bag? no bags, but not sure about parts of bag. majority of what was found was all area A? I wouldn't say majority. It was found in area of A. and after inspecting contents of area A you discovered missing bones? I wouldn't agree with that because when we started processing scene, we had other people locating additional bones south of area A. 11:16:40 - we had a crew of people we separated them out and searched simultaneously. You don't have any scientific evidence when first dispersement from area A occurred? No. same question as to other areas? Yes. there's nothing that tells you how this child died? Not a question I would answer. All I look for is peri mortem trauma and I did not find that. 11:18:15 - when you looked at duct tape on skull, it was not covering nasal appature? No. REDIRECT 11:18:35 - nasal appature is hole on skull where nose would be. Tape was covering the mouth area. Was tape in position to cover nose? Possibly. Hard to tell because nose wasn't there any more? Correct. 11:20:00 - witness circles on photo what bones were found in area A. what was in area b? left humurous. 11:21:45 - what was in area F? we do have clavicles and parts of pelvis and both femur shafts and ribs. One part of a vertebra. Area G? see separation of bottom of spinal column. Area G had couple of ribs. Area H? we only had one, part of one vertebra. And a bunch of ribs. Area i? see more ribs and parts of 20 vertebra. 11:23:45 - NO FURTHER QUESTIONS. WITNESS EXCUSED. 11:25:30 - DR. JAN GARIVAGLIA, CHIEF MEDICAL EXAMINER FOR ORANGE, OSCEOLA SINCE 2004. Was ME is Bexar county in San Antonio for 10 years. Also in Atlanta and Jacksonville. Explains her education and training credentials. 11:28:10 - came under my jurisdiction. When did you first learn that remains of caylee had been found? The 11th I don't remember the time. I was alerted by my chief investigator steve hanson. What did you do? I was late for the airport, as I was walking out mr hanson told me they found remains. We weren't sure who it was at that point, I had engagement I could not get out of so I told dr. utz to handle it until I got back the next day.. also had them call dr. schultz. 11:30:00 - I didn't think my absence for night would matter. Returned following day? Yes. did you go back and review photos of scene and at your facility? Absolutely. I went out to the scene, reviewed photos, made suggestions. 11:31:45 - one of things you examined was hair matte? Eventually it came back to me, originally sent to FBI, I examined it then. Looks at photo on screen. 11:32:40- shows her another photo she reviewed. She says it's photo of hair matte.we see a lot of the roots that have grown thru the hair. We're looking at hair matte and roots that have grown thru the matte and some holes in the hair matte probably from insect activity 11:34:15 - shown another photo. We teased out some of the hair to take as a sample for possible toxicological use. 11:35:40 - next photo. That was taken at my direction. Again that's the scale next to one of the roots on the hair matte. 11:36:30 - some of items found with remains, did you examine them? Yes. recall a blanket? Yes. did you have that photographed? Yes. looks at photo of blanket. See pic of dirty blanket with leaf litter on it. This is the condition it came in? it was not cleaned, just unfolded. Certain portions where you can see figures? Yes. took photo to see them more clearly. Next photo is closeup. 11:38:40 - zooms in on figure on blanket. When you viewed that did it look familiar? Yes, it was winnie the pooh with piglet on his back. 11:39:20 - photo of other side of blanket. Did that blanket have plant material growing in it? Yes. photographed that as well. Closeup photo of plants and roots growing into blanket. 11:40:40 - what are we looking at? This is closeup of edge of blanket with winnie the pooh, shows roots lying on top of and thru the blanket. 11:41:10 - next photo. More of root growth on blanket. 11:42:00 - another photo of root material, more close up 11:42:45 - next photo, more root material growing into blanket 11:43:30 - also root material growing in black plastic bag? there were two bags and roots were growing thru the holes of both those bags. Shown photo of roots and bag. 11:44:30 - was there also canvas laundry bag with remains? Yes there was. Roots in that? Roots were growing on top of and into bag. shown photo of roots growing into the bag. 11:45:40 - were roots growing around everything? There were roots in bones, didn't see in shorts and the shirt was disintegrated. Certainly the blanket, two plastic bag and canvas bags. The lettering and stitching along hems were left of the shirt. 11:46:40 - how did you ID bones? We thought best ID was thru dna. It's tough to ID a child because we often use teeth, but it's tough with child. We were hoping we were going to get nuclear dna and at least mito dna. Did you send bone to FBI? Yes we did. 11:47:45 - photo of bone upon return from dna evaluation. The portion missing on this bone? They removed a piece of right tibia to test. Get results from FBI? Yes. they identified remains as caylee anthony. 11:49:00 - is manner of death determination a purely medical or scientific determination? It's basd on scientific principles and gathering all the info you can, all the history, medical history. Take all of those things and any scientific information and come up with opinion .SIDEBAR LUNCH RECESS 13:40:00 - court resumes with SIDEBAR 13:44:00 - casey walks back into courtroom. 13:46:30 - sows dr. G. some evidence bag, has laundry bag in it. state goes over more evidence with her. 13:47:40- evidence bag of body bag with vegetation. next bag has black plastic bag. 13:49:40 - more bags of evidence shown to dr. g., this is bag with the shorts. 13:50:45 - evidence bag with clothing brought in with the body. 13:52:15 - when we broke we were discussing cause and manner of death. what is manner of death? its the classification of death based on all info available to us ...scientific, scene, history, medical. 13:53:00 - also bring to bear your exp in forensic pathology? absolutely. manner of death in this case? yes. homicide. why? it's based on three main items . first, we know from observational studies that it is a red flag that when a child is not reported immediately to authorities, that's something we look for ... for foul play. this child was not reported missing for a long time. the other thing is the body was hidden. a child's body is thrown out in a field, that is one of things we look for when looking for homicide. the body is often found in closed containers, suitcase or plastic bag such as this case. that's a red flag for homicide. the last besides delay in reporting, and found in a field, would be the duct tape located on lower half of the face. there is no child that should have duct tape on its face when it dies or after they dies. we've seen that in cases of homicide 13:55:25 - cause of death is the injury or the diseases that initiates chain of events that results in death. it's the specific injury or disease that causes death. in this case, can you conclude cause of death? the cause of death was homicide of undetermined means. we can reliably say homicide but i don't know means by which it occurred. any objects found with body that could cause death? the only possible object would be duct tape, if that was over mouth and nose, suffocation with plastic bag would be the only other thing. 13:56:55 - were you aware of chloroform in this case? yes. could a child exposed to sufficient amount die as a result? absolutely. at this point, can you tell what caused her death? no, i believe we have enough evidence to say its a homicide, but don't have enough scientific information to say how the homicide occurred. was there any trauma to body? it's very decomposed so unless trauma hurt the bones, i can't say. i can't rule out any trauma cuz even a gun shot wound could not touch the bones. was there any injury to bones? no anti mortem injury to bones. were you aware of any illnesses the child had? i asked for a history of illness and i was told there were none. NO FURTHER QUESTIONS CROSS EXAMINATION 13:59:00 - you live in orlando? yes. for the period of time of about 4 mos prior to remains being found, you were aware of media surrounding this case? i was aware this was a big case. i don't watch the news. i was not aware as most people. were you aware there was a circus like atmosphere around anthony home? i do not know. i did know about speculation abuot this case. you knew if remains were found your office would be involved? no, i was hoping it was lake county, different jurisdiction. in fact, you came back to handle this case? that's true. you knew prior to finding the remains that chloroform was involved? i was told that by investigators at time we got the body. 14:01:10 - you reasoned perhaps chloroform could have been used to contibute to cause of death? that would be one of the possibilities we would examine. so you brought in an expert? i brought in a toxicologist who dealt with toxicology of bones. dr. goldberger from U of florida. you sent him piece of bone? from left femur. as a toxicologist, the request was to look for choloroform and other volatile chemicals? correct. 14:03:00 - he checked for volatiles and several other tests. he's limited in what he can do with bones. results were negative? correct. were you present when dr. werner spitz came to observe ....objection ...SIDEBAR 14:07:30 - did dr. werner spitz see autopsy? did he, no. were you aware he was coming down? i was informed by my office manager that mr baez had requested to bring in outside person in to watch autopsy. our policy is to come up with cause and manner of death and make that available to him once we were done. did dr. spitz did a second autopsy? sustained. 14:09:00 - dr. goldberger is MD? no, he's a phd. what did he test? bone, scrapings I took from inside of bone, the hair and soil that fell out of hair and that was for volatiles. then he tested bone, scrapings of bone marrow and washings from cranial cavity. 14:10:15 - tested for xanax. all results were negative? correct. you did not cut open cranium? no absolutely not. no trauma was found? no anti mortem trauma. we found post mortem trauma. there was no evidence of any form of trauma when the child was alive? on bones there was no evidence of trauma. 14:11:40 - you are confirming that despite investigations, toxicology report, there is no evidence to establish cause of death? it was a means of homicide that could not be determined. you called it a homicide as proposed to accident? the circumstances of the death did not fit anything but a homicide. and based on what det. melich told you? what did he tell me ...that the body wasn't reported missing for 31 days. some things you learned from the media? nothing from the media would have entered into a decision. i can't take anything they would say in something as grave as this. 14:13:15 - it probably was a homicide? not probably, that is the only logical conclusion based on scientific information we have based on observational information we have on homicides and children dying. we know in systematic observatonal studies, we look at all the accidental drownings for instance in my jurisdiction, 100 percent of the time EMS is called. it absolutely has something to do with this case. every death i investigate has to be put into cirmcumstances of death; you can never, ever detemine a manner of death except in rare instances just on examining body. we need to know how usually deaths occur. 14:14:50 - we have to know red flags for homicide. by my experience and by what is known about the way homicides occur i felt preponderence of evidence .... by not reporting child missing, the fact it is tossed in a field to rot in bag is clear indication the body was trying to be hidden, that it was found in bag is a big red falg and duct tape anywhere attached to that childs face is indication of homicide. 14:16:00 - we know 100 percent of the time that accidental deaths are reported unless there is a good reason not to be. no reason not to report. if you don't report it to authorities, you are risking that childs life. we know thats behavioral science. and we know thru all cases in our morgue, accidents are 100 percent reported unless there's a good reason not to. 14:16:50 - this death couldn't be an accident? 100 percent of time when a person finds a child they call 911 cuz there a chance child might live. what if a person finds a drowned body. what then? i am looking at behaviors that shows no matter how stiff that body is, they always call 911 in the hopes that the child could be saved. i'm looking at observational data. that's what we used. 14:17:55 - i explained to you the red flags that we know in forensics based on behavior ...i don't understand ..objection ...sustained. 14:19:00- i felt the manner of death was defensible scientifically based on systematic observational studies of how homicide, accidents and natural deaths occur. if these remains had been found 4-5 mos before, would you have had better scientific evidence? absolutely. you mentioned duct tape, was it in vicinity of lower mandible? correct. REDIRECT 14:20:50 - you were asked about a second autopsy. did you keep body in same condition as when you received it? yes we did except what we had to take for dna and toxicology testing. left roots in bones? yes, that's normal procedure. the absence of positive results for chloroform, does that exclude acute use? we would not expect to find any of those things in the bones, that was a long shot. we would not expect those results to be positive, even at time of death. 14:22:20 - assume caylee died and was discarded about june 16, six months before she was found, at the stage mr mason was asking you about, four months earlier, what would be its condition after 2 mos? it would certainly be skeletonized by then. so if it was found in august, you would expect it would have been skeletonized? yes, the internal organs would be completely gone. WITNESS EXCUSED. ? 14:24:15 - SIDEBAR 14:35:00 - jury is dismissed for a time, judge says they have to discuss some issues. 14:37:16 - attorneys are looking at a video it appears. 14:42:00 - ashton talks about submitting a video showing duct tape over the mouth, trying to show tape was sufficient size to cover nose and mouth. baez argues let's throw eveything against wall and see what stick. this impostion is a fantasy and it's not supported that can't be testified to. it goes to root of 403. 14:45:10 - judge talks about a decision by florida supreme court, may have similar application. says he needs to reread it. the case is 26 pages long. 14:46:00 - baez says there's been no testimony that this duct tape was in fact in this position as reflected in this video. references another court case. clearly shows presenation must be relevant and must accurately reflect oral testimony offered. there's not going to be any oral testimony this duct tape was in this position on this child's face. dr. warren could not testify to this. LET ME HEAR DR. WARREN'S TESTIMONY. I CAN BETTER MAKE AN INFORMED DECISION. THIS WILL BE A PROFER. SO THERE'S NO NEED TO MAKE OBJECTIONS AT THIS POINT MR. BAEZ 14:48:15 - dr.michael warren, forensic anthropologist, assoc. prof at u. of florida. director of human identification lab. 14:49:10 - you worked with dr. schultz on this case? yes sir. you examined the skull and other bones? i did. at some point the issue of duct tape and establishing whether it caused death came up? correct. how was this video created? it was created by taking photos of skull and photos of tape and photo that was found on the internet that was appropriate in orientation of child's face. why use pics of skull and face? both have photo scales and those are used to make sure the size of those images are comparable. 14:50:40 - have to match face to skull in terms of sizing. then use tape label to superimpose on face. skull is used to make one to one match with face? yes. is it possible without this superimposition to determine the end of caylees nose and mouth? no. are there certain rough estimates you can make based on research on avarage distances? previous studies for children and one study done at U of Michigan has some measurements but not ones we needed. is there any other way to demonstrate that duct tape could cover both nose and mouth other than this process? there's not. baez questions him 14:53:10 - recall being told duct tape was murder weapon? i don't recall questions from mr ashton about it being a murder weapon. those discussions were between me and dr. g. And mr ashton had these discussions too? i don't remember that, i remember talking about it being possible. happened early on, first day i was there with dr. g and dr. schultz. 14:54:20 - i suggested doing the superimposition to mr ashton. you weren't present when tape was removed from skull? no. you only saw a photo? that's true. the ones were tape is attached to hair matte? correct. LET'S GET TO THE POINT, WE'RE HERE TO DETERMINE 403 ISSUE. LETS' GET THERE. the hair matte was under skull? at base of skull. is it not normally at top? in decomposed skulls it is at the base. there's no scale on her face in that photo? no. 14:56:20 - you used just some photo you took off internet? correct. you would need to know how large child is? no i'd have to know where landmarks on face are. but children grow rapidly? they do. she could have been larger than time photo was taken? it looked recent. it's not an infant's photo. JUDGE: WHAT IS PURPOSE OF DEMONSTRATION? that's its possible the tape could cover both the child's nose and mouth 14:57:40 - A SKULL WAS UTLIZED, EXPLAIN THAT. we took photo for photographic scale. by using both skull and photo of tape and overlaying those images, you can make those scales the same size so you know size of skull relative to tape is real. now we are able to move from scale of skull to scale of tape. we're able to once we have skull scaled to photo, we can superimpose the tape over the image with the soft tissue. 14:59:10 - PHOTO USED IS PHOTO FROM M.E. OFFICE.yes. WILL THIS ANIMATION HELP YOU EXPLAIN TESTIMONY TO JURY. it illustrates it's possible. WITHOUT IT? i would be able to testify that it is possible without using animation. WHAT ARE DISADVANTAGES? disadvantage is it takes illustration of science out of explanation. 15:01:10 - witness steps down. judge asks what cases baez wants him to look at. RECESS UNTIL 3:15- judge needs to look at cases. 15:17:30 - JUDGE REFERENCE 2007 DECISION OF FLORIDA SUPREME COURT. INVOLVED FIRST DEGREE MURDER WITH FIREARM. THE COURT SAID THE FOLLOWING IN ITS OPINION: RELEVANT EVIDENCE PROVES OR DISPROVES MATERIAL FACT. IT IS INADMISSABLE IF PROBATIVE VALUE IS OUTWEIGHED BY PREJUDICE. THE PROPER APPLICATION REQUIRES BALANCING TEST BY TRIAL JUDGE. ONLY WHEN PREJUDICE OUTWEIGHS PROBATIVE VALUE IT MUST BE EXCLUDED. 15:19:00 - THIS RULE OF EXCLUSION IS DIRECTED AT EVIDENCE THAT INFLAMES JURY'S EMOTIONS. IF UNFAIR PREJUDICE OUTWEIGHS PROBATIVE VALUE, COURT SHOULD DETERMINE NEED FOR EVIDENCE, CHAIN OF INFERENCES AND EFFECTIVENESS OF LIMITED INSTRUCTION. 15:20:00 - THE EVIDENCE BEING SOUGHT TO BE INTRODUCED IS SUPERIMPOSED PHOTO OF VICTIM, THE SKULL AND PLACEMENT OF DUCT TAPE. DEFENSE SAYS EVIDENCE SHOULD BE EXCLUDED AND CITES TWO CASES. judge talks about case that used computer animation, published to jury as demonstrative evidence. court found it was case of first impression. concluded that video tape demo showed no blood, replicated no sounds and found no error in admitting the use of the computer generated animation. 15:21:55 - THIS CASE MAINLY DEALT WITH FIRST TIME USE OF COMPUTER GENERATION. WAS NOT HELPFUL TO COURT IN 403. IN NEXT CASE, THE BRANDON PEST CONTROL CASE, THIS CASE INVOLVED A VIDEO TAPE THAT WAS 15 MINS LONG THAT WAS TAKEN AT RESIDENCE IN QUESTION. IT SHOWED EXTERMINATION EQUIP AND POINTED OUT ITS UTILIZATION. IT ALSO HAD SOME COMPUTER ANIMATIONS THROUGHOUT. COURT CONCLUDED NARRATIONS CONTAINED THROUGHOUT WAS A SELF SERVING PROMOTIONAL TAPE SO COURT SAID IT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN INTRODUCED. 15:23:50 - IT DOES NOT GO THRU 403 ANALYSIS. IN LOOKING AT HTE FACTORS TALKED ABOUNT IN MCDUFFY THE COURT WILL MAKE FOLLOWNG OBSER: COURT NEEDS TO CONSIDER NEED FOR EVIDENCE. IN THIS CASE THERE HAS BEEN AN ISSUE DEALING WITH PLACEMENT OF DUCT TAPE UPON THE VICTIM AND THE LOCATION OF THIS DUCT TAPE. THE COURT WILL ALSO NOTE THAT THERE IS A NON DESCRIPT PIC OF CAYLEE AND THE UTILIZATION OF SKULL OF CAYLEE WHICH JURY HAS SEEN OVER LAST FEW DAYS. SKULL DOES NOT EXPOSE BLOOD. THE DR. HAS INDICATED THAT THIS WILL ILLUSTRATE HIS TESTIMONY. HE SAID IT WOULD BE HELPFUL. DOES THE EVIDENCE SUGGEST EMOTIONAL BASIS FOR VERDICT. IN HOMICIDE CASES EVIDENCE TENDS TO BE NOT NICE. THIS EVIDENCE, LIVE PHOTO OF VICTIM, SUPERIMPOSED IWTH SKULL DOES NOT HAVE TENDENCY TO SUGGEST EMOTIONAL BASIS FOR A VERDICT. 15:26:20 - NECESSEARY TO ESTABLISH MATERIAL FACT? BOTH SIDES HAVE DEBATED ITS RELEVANCY SO IT'S HIGHLY RELEVANT TO CONCLUDE BASED UPON ALL EVIDENCE WHETHER OR NOT THIS DUCT TAPE WAS PLACED IN A CERTAIN POSITION. THEREFORE BASED ON WHAT HAS BEEN PRESENTED, THE COURT WILL PERMIT THE WITNESS TO TESTIFY. LAST BUT NOT LEAST, PURSUANT TO ...IF REQUESTED BY DEFENSE, PURSUANT TO PIERCE, I WILL GIVE INSTRUCTIONS. 15:29:40 - baez tells judge that witness co authored report with dr. schultz and testimony is cumulative. ashton says dr. schultz testimony was not challenged. baez says ...he's off mic ..again. 15:31:40 - jury returns 15:32:40 - DR. MICHAEL WARREN CALLED TO THE STAND, forensic anthropologist, assoc. prof at u. of florida. director of human identification lab. 15:33:50 - ID lab consults with medical examiners when person has become skeletonized. been director two and a half years. was paramedic for 15 years, got MS and PhD at U. of Florida in forensic anthropology 15:35:20 - you are qualified as expert in forensic anthropology? yes, testified in probably 16 cases. submits witness as expert in forensic anthro 15:36:00 - my doctoral research was in fetal growth and development. also determining age at time of death. how did you become involved in this case? i was contacted by dr. g and schultz on dec 15 to assist in ID of remains. did you look at photos of remains too? yes. recall from photos when mandible was first found? yes. what was that position. it was still articulated, it was still in place. 15:37:45 - why is that noteworthy? that joint is a regular sinovial joint. it's lax and allowed movement, there's nothing to hold it in place once soft tissue decomposes. when remains are found on the sufface, it's very rare to find jaw articulatd with rest of skull. have you ever had a case where jaw in above ground remains was still in that position? yes, these are cases when i did human rights work in bosnia in which decedents had tape over their face. so you consitently find the mandible disarticulated from the skull? yes. 15:39:20 - familiar with photos and duct tape? yes. can you tell if tape would have been over nose and mouth? no the tape had moved. did you try to deterine if it was possible that a singel piece of duct tape could have covered the nose and mouth in one piece? i did. how? two methods, i consulted literature and scientific studies done on growing children to figure out normal distances between landmarks on a child's face. .... 15:41:00 - i was interested in nasal apperature, bottom of nose and the bottom of the teeth and oral airway. able to get estimates? estimates, not using those exact landmarks. what is the other method? i used video superimposition. what has it been used for? primarly used to exlucde possibility remains in question are those of particular person. SIGNAL LOSS FROM COURTHOUSE IN OUR TRAILER - TIME CODE WILL BE OFF BY A FEW SECONDS. 15:42:45 - putative, you take skull and take photos of that person and using a comparison method where you are able to superimpose that image on skull using anatomical landmark. you can determine if the photo is of unknown person. landmarks are bottom of teeth, references other tech terms 15:44:00 - how did you use that process here? i used that technique to scale the photo of skull with a photo provided me by fbi of tape. both had scales in them, we're able to know those two images are correct. that would help you put tape over skull, how do you then determine if a face was there? we'd go back to original technique ...take photo of skull, photo of decedent and then use landmarks. 15:45:30 - does that depict video showing that process? it does. will it help with your explanation? it does. objection, overruled. received into evidence 15:46:30 - judge reads instructions to jury about the evidence. used only to illustrate experts opinion. 15:47:00 - video is played for jury. not made public. only those in court can see. SIGNAL RETURNS FROM COURTHOUSE, TIME CODE IS ACCURATE. 15:53:10 - why is tape moved up and down on photo? to show we don't know where tape was. based on that video and your research, would the single piece of tape have covered both nose and mouth making breathing impossible? yes 15:55:10 - you were hired early in this case? i was consulted. yes. you never saw the duct tape while it was attached to hair matte? that's true. the photo you used to do this quicktime movies? I used photoshop. it should give precise measurements if you're scaling. the photo you used of caylee you grabbed from internet? correct. you have no scale on that photo? correct. only reason you showed it is to show it's possible this could have occurred? correct. it's possible tape could have covered the nose and mouth? correct you're not testifying that that actually happened? correct. 15:57:30 - you can't testify this duct tape had anything to do with caylee's death? correct. you can't say tape was associated with caylee after death? ask that again please. you don't know if that tape had to do with disposal or death? true. baez goes to drawing board. tries to draw scene where caylee was found, draws mandible and tape ...badly drawn. can't really tell what it is. 15:59:30 - more of baez drawing on board. the hair is generally up here? I cannot see it. witness stands down. 16:00:55 - the duct tape was attached to hair? that's my understanding. it was your understanding too that at one time her skull was inside three bags? objection, heresay....sustained. rephrase. based on evidence you're given, you knew caylees remains were in three bags? thats my understanding correct. could you see canvas bag? only in photographs. photos weren't clear in terms of what the opening looked like. can you close the bag? i've only seen photos. you have no idea if this tape was used to wrap caylees remains? objection, sustained. 16:03:00 - the duct tape was over mandible and some portion of mouth. that's because it was attached to the hair? the mandible was found articulate with the skull. the hair couldn't have gotten underneath all of this ....OBJECTION, APPROACH 16:06:40 - shows witness photo of hair matte. that was in wooded area off suburban? object ...when skull was found hair matte was on floor? on the surface. above it was mandible? based on photos i've seen, i wasn't at scene. for hair matte to be under skull, something had to make it roll there? yes. the duct tape made its way in that direction? correct. 16:08:15 - the video you showed of the possiblity that tape could have been in that position, that was graphic? it was. was it to appeal to jury's emotions? objections, APPROACH 16:11:57 - jury asked to step out again. 16:12:45 - PROFER continues ....was video for purpose of appealing to the jury? no. was it to demonstrate something of graphic nature? no. purpose of getting sympathy or getting jury angry? no. just to show tape could have covered nose and mouth? correct. end of questions 16:13:45 - five minute break 16:25:30 - did you know another piece of duct tape was found nine feet away? i was not aware of that. the possiblity in this demonstration, that was one possiblity? true. there are other possible scenarios in caylees death? correct. and the there are othe scenarios involving the duct tape? in terms of position of duct tape over face, no. there are other possilibites involving duct tape. yes. any quicktime movies of those? no sir. REDIRECT 16:26:55 - was tape on caylee's body before decomp? yes, it was placed on prior to decomp. that opinion is based on what? the mandible is still articulated with rest of cramium, it will always become disarticulated without something holding it in place. in your oponion could anything else have held it in place? no. how does tape during decomp keep the mandible in place? the mandible is stuck to soft tissue, when decomposition occurs, the duct tape stays in place and supports the mandible. 16:29:00- this photo shows hair is not under mandible but posterior? correct, under base of skull. during decomp how does hair end up not on top of skull? hair is attached to hair follicles, when decomp occurs it tends to slide down. not uncommosn to find birds nest of hair near base of skull. is that something you commonly see in deompc? correct. 16:30:00 - no further questions. 16:30:30 - there is root growth under mandible? i do see roots there. roots attached to hair? yes. can roots keep a mandible in place? that's possible. 16:31:40 - NO FURTHER QUESTIONS. 16:31:55 - does active decomp inhibit root growth? no. sustained. roots can't grow in hair until its fallen off skull ..sustained. are you familiar with plant growth and decomp? yes. you are not a botanist? no. but have you evaluated plant growth related to decomp? yes. could roots keep a mandible in place? it's possible under certain circumstances. in this case what would have to happen, would hair have to fall off? yes. until that point roots have nothing to grow in? yes. what would be holding that in place? the tape. RECROSS 16:34:00 - not a botanist? correct. you would defer to botanist? yes i would. you can't based on evidence know tracking of that duct tape? confused by question ... you can't testify to the position of the body at any point and time? no. or where hair was at one time or another? no. all we have are photos of tape stuck to hair? correct. no further questions. WITNESS EXCUSED. 16:36:30 - MICHAEL VINCENT CALLED TO STAND. returns to stand. csi with orange county sheriff. 16:36:50 - recovered insect evidence from trash in pontiac sunfire. approaches witness 16:38:00 - id's evidence bag of maggots. sent bag to dr. haskell 16:40:17 - id's bag as insect eggs, late stage of life cycle. sent it to dr. haskell. CROSS 16:41:20 - these collected on july 16? what was collected ...these pupae? no they were collected on august 28. but you processed vehicle on july 16? i did not process the vehicle. what do you mean ...you inspected trunk and items in trunk? yes. you're aware of entomology as a tool for law enforcement? yes. the insect was in later stages? yes. an entomologist can look at stage where maggot life is and can determine life cycle of that maggot? object. sustained. 16:43:00 - you have some training in entomology? yes sir. went to course at UF? i did. this course taught you there are different stages of insect? yes. an entomologist can take these stages and give you a pinpoint time of death? that's possible. you were aware of this evidence on july 16? no. you did see any insect activity in garbage or trunk on july 16? no. not in trunk of car. there was none that i saw. no further questions. witness excused. 16:46:00 - ROBIN MAYNARD CALLED TO STAND. csi with orange county. helped recover caylee remains. responsible for documenting collection of insect activity. collected over several days. 16:47:30 - witness id's her label on evidence bag. says its pupae collected 12/14/08. as she collected them she consulted with dr. haskell. 16:48:30 - she placed it in bag and sent to dr. haskell. witness IDs more bags of evidence, envelopes of bugs. was collected from scene in december 2008. 16:51:30 - witness IDs more bags of entomological evidence taken from scene, december 2008. location where item is collected also noted on bag. 16:53:30 - witness IDs more bags of entomological evidence taken from scene on suburban drive. sent it to dr. neil haskell 16:56:00 - witness IDs more bags of evidence. says its her label with her handwriting. piece of cardboard with pink remnants on it. 16:57:15 - no further questions CROSS 16:57:40 - collected evidence under direction of dr. neil haskell? yes. the job ws so thoroughly done he asked you to stop collecting? correct. the cardboard item was found in a lane? yes. we're also talking about beer bottles? correct. tires? correct. there were so many items in that area it got to the point where you stopped collecting? i was the lead in charge of sifting, i was not in primary search area. but you were there? correct. the items i had to deal with were being sifted, if they were bigger they weren't my responsibility. people threw things there all the time, it was a common dumping area? i can't say it was a common dumping area. there were multiple items ...sustained. this area is across from a school? not directly across. it is next to school? it's down the street. kids walk to school there? object. sustained. 17:00:00 - jury dismissed for the day 17:02:30 - BAEZ asks for mistrail based on video of skull and duct tape around face. based on profer this was a possibiilty. witness also said this was speculative. overwhelming prejudicial effect outweighed probative value. HAS NOT BOTH STATE AND DEFENSE ADVANCED VARIOUS THEORIES AS TO LOCATION OF THE DUCT TAPE? yes. AND DID NOT THE WITNESS TESTIFY THAT WAS ONE POSSIBLE SCENARIO AND THERE COULD BE OTHERS. witness did, not outweighed by video of child and skull in background. served only one purpose to inflame jury. YOU SAID THE PHOTO SHOWED DUCT TAPE WRAPPED AROUND THE HEAD. WAS IT WRAPPED AROUND OR SUPERIMPOSED. state: the testimony is that at some point the child had tape around nose, mouth or both. it was necessary to establish theory this tape was murder weapons. video itself showed tape moving above and below. it was a fair and necessary demonstration 17:07:10 - MOTION FOR MISTRIAL AT THIS TIME WILL BE DENIED. 17:00:30 - no further questions.
3d animation,Concept Repair damaged hair,Particle effect
3d animation,Concept Repair damaged hair,Particle effect.
U OF M SPINOFF COMPANY LAUNCHES NEW FACE MASK (2021)
Face masks have been a part of our lives for nearly a year already since the pandemic began. Health officials say they're the simplest way to help prevent the spread of the coronavirus. But now, Claros Technologies — a spinoff from the University of Minnesota — has developed a mask it says is capable of killing the virus. "I think it's a great technology," said Mike Miller, the president of The Airtex Group, Claros's textile manufacturing partner. "Candidly, I think it's a game-changer." "The mask is, we basically created a new textile that has anti-viral properties," added Abdennour Abbas, the company's co-founder and an associate professor at the U of M. Could this new mask — called the Log3Mask — be a potent weapon in the fight against COVID-19? Claros says yes. "You've got the best performance on the market," Claros CEO Michelle Bellanca said. "It's killed 99.9% plus of bacteria and coronaviruses." That's a heady claim from a start-up company just 2 years old. Claros began as a spinoff in 2019, receiving a grant from the U.S. Department of Defense. "We started partnering with the DOD, for example, developing functional textile solutions for different military-grade applications," Bellanca said. "It was from that work that the anti-microbial, anti-viral functionality was born." Then, the pandemic hit. The Claros team, about 10 people, pivoted their research to stopping the spread. "We wanted to build the mask based on science," Abbas declared. He said the Log3Mask not only kills the virus but also blocks viral droplets from reaching the wearer, and the wearer's droplets from other people. "When you use regular masks, you are transmitting the virus when you touch the mask, you are transmitting the virus when you dispose of it, when you touch surfaces," Abbas noted. Claros said their mask is different in several ways. The company says three fabric layers, each with a different thread count and pore size, are able to block most droplets the size of coronavirus aerosols. Claros also developed a process it calls 'crescoating.' A proprietary zinc solution is infused into a fabric, then heated to form zinc nanoparticles 1,000 times smaller than a human hair. The company said the particles, now trapped in the fabric, won't leach out, even after 100 washes. The zinc is harmless to humans but deadly to the virus. "The thing with zinc is, over time, if it's exposed to humidity or water that's in our breath, it'll release ions," Andrew Gonzalez, the company's senior materials science engineer, explained. "It's these ions that will actually target the virus or the bacteria or other microbes, and that's what will kill them." Claros explained it this way. Those ions are zinc atoms that become positively charged by moisture. They're attracted to the coronavirus's protective envelope, called a capsid, and the spike protein the virus uses to attack healthy cells. "You can think of it as little arrows or little daggers that are going to punch through this envelope and expose the virus," Gonzalez said. KSTP Medical Expert Dr. Archelle Georgiou said metals like zinc have an electric charge. "That pull, like a magnet," she said. "It pulls on the virus itself, and it pulls so strongly like a magnet that it bursts apart the capsid." In the process, Georgiou said, the capsid and the spike proteins are destroyed. "It's like cutting your skin, right?" she noted. "You would bleed, so when you break apart the capsid, it's going to destroy whatever's inside of the virus itself, and that's how it causes viral death." Claros said those zinc atoms also bind to proteins in the virus's RNA — its genetic material — and changes their shape, making the virus inactive. The company said the Log3Mask can do all this within 10 minutes. KSTP spoke with Hamada Aboubakr and Sagar Goyal, who are both PhD-certified virologists at the University of Minnesota. They published a report about testing fabrics supplied by Claros that were embedded with the zinc nanoparticles. "Does this technology work, does it kill the virus?" KSTP asked Aboubakr. "Yes," he answered. "For testing, we used the coronavirus of pigs, called TGE," Goyal added. The university doesn't have the facilities to test for COVID-19 but both scientists said the TGE virus — a surrogate — is genetically similar enough to SARS-CoV-2, the virus affecting humans, to make this a valid test. "And if we are able to kill the surrogate, my considered opinion is that we can kill COVID-19, too," Goyal said. According to their report, the scientists compared fabric swatches embedded with the nanoparticles with those that were not. They exposed the samples to the TGE virus for three time periods: 10 minutes, 30 minutes, and one hour. "We found the treated samples, as compared to the untreated ones, are effective for inactivating the virus," Aboubakr declared. In other words, they claim the nanoparticle fabrics neutralized almost all the TGE virus in 10 minutes. "We could see a reduction in the virus by 99.9% or even more," Aboubakr said. But what about those nanoparticles holding up after 100 washes? "The real question is whether or not the nanoparticles are resilient in the fiber itself," Dr. Georgiou pointed out. "When you wash it, how long are those nanoparticles effective in that fabric?" Aboubakr and Goyal said they did multiple viral tests on samples provided by Claros, although they said they didn't know how many times they were pre-washed. "All the samples they provided us with were effective," Aboubakr said. "Actually, we repeated this work about six times, six duplicated tests on different days, and they gave us the same efficacy." The scientists said, during their tests, the zinc remained intact. But Aboubakr decided to do one more test. "I also did another experiment on bacteria, with a 100 times washed sample, and it is also effective against the bacteria," he said. Both men said they believe the mask works. Perhaps the happiest about all of this — outside of the Claros team — is Miller. "I think it's great technology," he explained. "We do all kinds of textile products." When the pandemic hit, Miller was worried about keeping Minneapolis-based Airtex running and his 85 employees working. "We wanted to make sure that our people have work to do, and they were closing down all the businesses," Miller recalled. "We felt it was essential to be an essential business." So, last April, Miller pivoted to making personal protective equipment, including the majority of masks for Claros, and the operation of the crescoating process. "These types of masks that you see around here, that I'm wearing, one will come off the line every 10 or 15 seconds," he said, pointing to his assembly line. Claros isn't releasing any specifics but said it's sold "tens of thousands" of Log3Masks since an initial rollout in December. There are three different models, ranging in price from $20 to $39. The company also said it's working on a plan to combine its Log3Mask with an N-95 mask. "Ten minutes seems to be pretty good," Goyal explained. "If there are, let's say 1,000 virus particles, deposited on your mask, they should be killed in about 10 minutes." Abbas said he's making all the testing data available to the public so people can check the studies themselves. He said Claros is focusing on children's safety as well as adults. "This is a very important point," he said. "If we want to prepare a safe way for our children and our teachers to go back to school, is to provide them a better way to protect themselves." They'll ask the U.S. Food and Drug Administration to approve that mask as a medical device. Claros said, besides selling the masks, it's also donating thousands of them to Minnesota shelters and senior centers. "When COVID hit, No. 1, we wanted to do something for the people," Miller said. "It's the right thing to do and I think it's a good thing, and it's good for people. That's what we're really all about."
CASEY ANTHONY TRIAL / SWITCHED P4
FTG FOR COVERAGE OF THE CASEY ANTHONY MURDER TRIAL / SWITCHED POOL NOTE: JUDGE'S COMMENTS ALWAYS IN CAPS 9:04:00 - DR. GARY UTZ RETURNS TO THE STAND 9:05:30 - we were going thru photos taken by investigator hanson. shows him next photo, it's a front view of pair of shorts. this garment has a number of holes? yes it does. had the shorts been torn or cut? i can't rule out some of defects occurred before decomp but a lot of what i see is consistent with clothing seen in decomp. 9:07:00 - photo is tag of shorts, circo brand, 24 months. next photo is another aspect of tag. 9:08:15 - next photo is of backside of tag. 9:12:00- pic of shorts and shirt tag 9:13:45 - after that my involvement was approx the same as someone else in office. It was dr. g's case. When did she take back responsibility for case? I believe she returned Friday afternoon. From then on was your involvement assisting? Correct. CROSS EXAM 9:14:50 - you are board certified ME? Forensic pathologist. What does that mean? Pathology is the study of disease. A pathologist is a physician most commonly involved in diagnosis of disease states. Pathologist also performs autopsies. Forensic path is a sub specialty, investigates cause and manner of death. 9:16:00 - in this case before remains were found, you were aware of hoopla surrounding missing child? Yes. it was discussed. But before remains are found, the ME office is a specatator. When remains were found there was more conversation in office? Yes. 9:17:10 - he took pics and surveyed scene? He did. Did supplemental report? He did. Dr. G came back into town and took over the case? That's correct. Why? She felt that it was important for her to be involved. She had good working relationship with law enforcement. I was relatively new in the office. 9:18:20 - it is a complicated case that requires the use of investigations that are not parts of our office so in a case like that was reasonable on her part ot coordinate that. She would have been involved in any rate even if it were my case. 9:19:15 - you talked about the duct tape. And looked at pictures? Correct. There was no duct tape on left side of skull? Not sure I understand your question. What do you mean by on ..you said in photos yesterday there was some duct tape adhered to hair matte on right side of skull? Yes. none on left side? It extended beyond midline up to left, certainly. The tape itself wasn't attached to skull. None on back either? No. completely encircling it, no sir. 9:21:10 - there were points of adherence also on left side. Did you removed duct tape? I did. Did you examine it? Took photo and looked at it briefly. Do anything to swab to preserve dna? I did not. Careful in handling it? Yes. wear gloves? Yes. suited up in ME clothing? Yes. put it in evidence bag? yes. it was released to field agent of FBI. Any human tissue on tape? Nothing I could ID as human tissue 9:22:35 - my goal at that point was to provide material to fbi lab for ID purposes and to provide the duct tape for analysis. You found no evidence of trauma on these remains? I did not see any evidence of trauma. See any broken bones? Portions of bone were disrupted but I did not analyze them. 9:23:40 - explains what healing fracture it. There was no indication of any prior injury? I didn't see any. In process of autopsy, did you reset the calverium? 9:24:25 - I suppose you mean cutting through the top of the skull? I did not. (casey crying) 9:24:45 - if body had been found 4 months before, would you have had more forensic evidence? Possible. Remember what size shorts were? I believe 24 months. 9:25:45 - were you involved in decisions to get further expert exam of remains? No sir. Did you examine remains with dr. schultz? Only initial exam that occurred on evening of the 11th. He's a forensic anthropologist at UCF. Did you participate in toxicology exams? No. 9:27:00 - know who dr. goldberger is? He's a toxicologist. You talked about location of mandible? Yes. bottom jaw? Correct. You said it was held in place by hair and roots? Yes. when you picked up remains from table, did you hold skull in your hand? Yes. and mandible didn't fall off? I did not. When it was moved, it didn't come off? It did not. 9:28:40 - you talked about your duties to determine cause of death? That's correct. You do not know from your exam the cause of death in this case? I did not make a determination of cause of death in this case. You do not know cause of death. I do not. The manner of death was determined by dr. G to be a homicide? Correct. 9:30:10 - you have not rendered an opinion as to manner of death? I have not. REDIRECT 9:31:10 - looks at photo of skull, left side. That is what you are referring to about tape going from right to left? Correct. What side of face is circled? Right side. It shows tape on both right and left side? Correct. WITNESS EXCUSED. 9:33:55 - DR. JOHN SCHULTZ CALLED TO STAND, UCF dept. of anthroplogy, specializes in forensic anthropology and archealogy. MA in human biology, Phd in anthropology, specializing in forensic anthro. 9:35:30 - talks about difference between forensic anthropology and archeology. Says forensic anthropology is studying human skeleton. 9:36:50 - tephonomy is study of body after death, changes in how skeleton may have been dispersed on site. Talks about human ID lab at U. of Florida. When there are skeletized remains, they can be sent there to be analyzed. Cases from all around state come to the lab. 9:38:40 - specialty is detecting human remains using ground penetrating radar. Non invasive, locates change in ground. Dissertation involves remote sensing tools. 9:39:50 - talks about relationship between UCF and local law enforcement, ME office. 9:41:00 - develop relationship with ME to be on call forensic anthropogist? Yes. around december 11, 2008, get a call from ME? I got a call from steve hanson and dr. g. I was asked if I was able to got to scene to participate in the recovery. 9:42:00 - was not at scene first day when skull was removed. Where did you go to assist? I went directly to ME office. When you arrived, had skull arrived? I don't remember. What is your first recollection of skull? I remember looking in bag, seeing skull and duct tape, didn't want to interfere with duct tape, laid bag so skull wasn't interfered with. 9:43:50 - I remember at one point I held the skull up so photos could be taken of underside. Shows witness photo of him holding skull. 9:44:50 - is there a term called anatomical position? Yes, that would the normal position it would be in. was the mandible in close to anatomical position? It was close. Was that surprising/ to see a mandible still retained on skull? Normally there needs to be something there to hold it in place. What was holding it in place? It would have been the hair that had moved to base of skull. Anything else? We can see leaf litter and roots. How about the tape? No because the tape was adhered to hair but I don't recall it holding mandible in place in this view. 9:46:50 - during exam of bones, did you find anything indicating trauma? No evidence of trauma. Did you do thorough excavation of site? I provided advisory role. I would not call it excavation. I would call this a recovery. What was the plan? On the 12th I arrived at the scene and we talked about how to process scene. It was difficult because we were dealing with small child, had additional parts of bones, some weren't ossified yet and it was a heavy wood environment, lots of plant material. 9:48:45 - I told everyone to be on hands and knees removing leaf litter and double checking all the material that was removed. Started where known material was and worked out from there. I started in area where skeletal remains were found. 9:49:30 - talks about screening, removing material and sifting it thru box with mesh. Did you tell them to use certain kind of mesh? I said go to a smaller size screen because the bones were so small. 9:50:45 - explains how the search was conducted with law enforcement, mapping process. 9:52:50 - talks about how to map a scene using a computer. 9:53:30 - when remains were found did you examine them? Yes, if I was there. I would always assess what bones were found and suspicious material. I had to determine if they were human bones. Did search area increase? Correct as we initially started in main area, additional csi's worked south of us and as additional remains were located, we expanded out further. 9:55:10 - witness tells jury about the photo of scene, shows the process involving removing vines and over growth. Screening of debris. Also shows flags and pails of debris. Is it important to know where bones are found? When trying to understand how remains may have been dispersed, you need to know where all remains were located. 9:57:50 - witness explains photo, shows flags being placed where items were found , also shows csi documenting evidence and collecting it. 10:00:15 - those bones you ID as human were transported to ME? Yes. next photo is of remains that were found. 10:01:15 - we're looking at vertebra, part of spine, they're separated, there's no soft tissue, we can see roots growing thru vertebra as well. What's important about this pic ..the vertebra .all these bones were found in one location. That says they were transported while they were all together. 10:03:30 - photo of bone fragment. We see bones and envelope. Is that how each bone is documented? Correct. 10:04:50 - this is fragment from other bone? Correct. Shown photo of two bones. 10:05:45 - what are these bones? We're looking at largest bones in body, femura, lower leg bones attached to pelvis. Witness shown split screen. Do these two bones related to each other? Yes, the top of these bones have been chewed on by animals. OBJECTION 10:07:15 - SIDEBAR 10:06:30 - RECESS 10:38:00 - testimony resumes 10:39:00 - references split screen, showing pics of bones. He's asked about how bones fit together. 10:40:45 - photo shows hand and finger bones. What is purpose of this photo? We're always going to document skeletal remains, so we take multiple views of skeleton. This image is documenting bones of the hand and our scales are in centimeters so I put quarter in pic to show how tiny the bones are. Many of these were found in the main area. 10:42:20 - looks at his notes .mapping finished on december 20th. Looks at photo of bones again. These bones are part of pelvis, top area. Each one of these would grow as three bones and then fuse. This one here we have carnivore damage on bottom. 10:44:15 - one of these was found almost completely buried in the muck. Looks at his notes. It's the left bone in pic. 10:45:15 - looks at pic of skeleton laid out in anatomical order after all the bones are recovered. How successful was this recovery effort? Even with adult skeleton with bones intact, its tough to collect majority of remains and teeth. I feel we were very succesful here. Collected all but one tooth, had most of spine, long bones, tiny bones of hands and feet. A few pieces here and there are missing. 10:47:00 - I would say very successful in what was recovered and mapping those bones as well. 10:47:40 - mapping tells about spatial relationship of bones, and relationship at dump site. 10:48:00 - witness looks at survey that denotes areas where bones were found. 10:49:00 - photo shows survey map where bones were found. Witness points out on map where bones were found. In area A is where the body and bags was placed into the woods. This is where initial separation of body parts occurred, such as skull, arms, lower limbs. 10:50:30 - I started in area A, the rest of the csi's were south of us and as additional remains were found we moved further south. When this area was searched, we would talk about how to expand the search. It progressed further south. 10:52:50 - what was found in area A? it was initial area with skull, bags, arms with hand bones, lower legs also found there, including left foot. Area B? shaft for upper arm bone. Area F? as we progressed further southeast, we found trunk of body with pelvis, lower legs were dragged to this area. At this point being dragged from area A by animals is lower trunk. 10:55:10 - area D we had only located one bone. Area E a hand bone was found there. In area D that was one bone of foot? Correct. Area F is where we did see carnivore damage on multiple bones. Area G is most of spinal columns with ribs attached. Separated out is lower veterbra 10:56;55 - consistent with animal moving them. Area H we start to see more of the ribs, separated. Area I, if we start at top of spine we have cervical vertibra, to thoraic, to lumbar. Area i found 20 of vertebra here. It's being dragged while relatively articulated. Decomp would have finished there. 10:58:50 - there would have been some tissue holding the bones together. Based on this dispersal pattern, was this body deposited in area as intact unit? It may have been relatively intact if we look at area F trunk and lower legs were articulated. No indication the body was dismembered.? No we did not see any evidence. 11:00:15 - we talked about the hip bone which was buried. What is the significance of that? When trying to interpret how long bones have been at site ..SIDEBAR. 11:04:30 - formally requests witness be accepted as expert. 11:05:10 - when trying to interpret how long skeleton may have been out of scene, many bones were under leaf fall so they had to be there before they fell. .that would tell us more than likely this area was a swampy area, was water southeast, so it's possible when area was flooded, silt and other material may have resulted in burial of this bone .would have happened sometime over the summer. 11:06:20 - it was close to a big palmetto trunk. Area F on map is lowest area. That is one of the bones with carnivore damage and there's going to be silt suspended in water and that process would have led to almost burying the bone. 11:07:15 - approximately how long were these remains in that area? We use mulitple lines of evidence and overall the bones were dry, competely free of soft tissue. They had no decomp odor, they had some erosion which would take time, and were found under leaf litter. The combination of that with root evidence. A period of six months could be possible. 11;08:40 - dispersal of bones primarily the result of animal activity. There was some animal chewing on the ribs. This area was processed well and remaining bones could have been taken away by animals. CROSS EXAM 11:09:40 - as forensic anthropologist, you examine bones yourself? Correct. Do you x ray bones? Yes. in your examination you found no evidence of any pre mortem trauma? No evidence. No broken bones or fractures? Not sure of your question. You found no evidence of fractures? No evidence of fractures. No evidence of twist of bones? No evidence. No evidence of any traumatic injury before her death? No evidence. 11:12:10 - how far is area from pavement of suburban drive? I did not do mapping, if I use scale on map I would think 25-30 feel maybe. I did not document the measurements. This map just shows elevation and lines? Yes. my job was not the mapping. Measurements provided to me by ronald murdoch. 11:13:55 - do you know when the dispersement took place? Not sure I understand question. We start with area A, primary site and all of those items were in bags? Originally when deposited out at the site. 11:15:00 - other areas with bones and fragments, there were no bag? no bags, but not sure about parts of bag. majority of what was found was all area A? I wouldn't say majority. It was found in area of A. and after inspecting contents of area A you discovered missing bones? I wouldn't agree with that because when we started processing scene, we had other people locating additional bones south of area A. 11:16:40 - we had a crew of people we separated them out and searched simultaneously. You don't have any scientific evidence when first dispersement from area A occurred? No. same question as to other areas? Yes. there's nothing that tells you how this child died? Not a question I would answer. All I look for is peri mortem trauma and I did not find that. 11:18:15 - when you looked at duct tape on skull, it was not covering nasal appature? No. REDIRECT 11:18:35 - nasal appature is hole on skull where nose would be. Tape was covering the mouth area. Was tape in position to cover nose? Possibly. Hard to tell because nose wasn't there any more? Correct. 11:20:00 - witness circles on photo what bones were found in area A. what was in area b? left humurous. 11:21:45 - what was in area F? we do have clavicles and parts of pelvis and both femur shafts and ribs. One part of a vertebra. Area G? see separation of bottom of spinal column. Area G had couple of ribs. Area H? we only had one, part of one vertebra. And a bunch of ribs. Area i? see more ribs and parts of 20 vertebra. 11:23:45 - NO FURTHER QUESTIONS. WITNESS EXCUSED. 11:25:30 - DR. JAN GARIVAGLIA, CHIEF MEDICAL EXAMINER FOR ORANGE, OSCEOLA SINCE 2004. Was ME is Bexar county in San Antonio for 10 years. Also in Atlanta and Jacksonville. Explains her education and training credentials. 11:28:10 - came under my jurisdiction. When did you first learn that remains of caylee had been found? The 11th I don't remember the time. I was alerted by my chief investigator steve hanson. What did you do? I was late for the airport, as I was walking out mr hanson told me they found remains. We weren't sure who it was at that point, I had engagement I could not get out of so I told dr. utz to handle it until I got back the next day.. also had them call dr. schultz. 11:30:00 - I didn't think my absence for night would matter. Returned following day? Yes. did you go back and review photos of scene and at your facility? Absolutely. I went out to the scene, reviewed photos, made suggestions. 11:31:45 - one of things you examined was hair matte? Eventually it came back to me, originally sent to FBI, I examined it then. Looks at photo on screen. 11:32:40- shows her another photo she reviewed. She says it's photo of hair matte.we see a lot of the roots that have grown thru the hair. We're looking at hair matte and roots that have grown thru the matte and some holes in the hair matte probably from insect activity 11:34:15 - shown another photo. We teased out some of the hair to take as a sample for possible toxicological use. 11:35:40 - next photo. That was taken at my direction. Again that's the scale next to one of the roots on the hair matte. 11:36:30 - some of items found with remains, did you examine them? Yes. recall a blanket? Yes. did you have that photographed? Yes. looks at photo of blanket. See pic of dirty blanket with leaf litter on it. This is the condition it came in? it was not cleaned, just unfolded. Certain portions where you can see figures? Yes. took photo to see them more clearly. Next photo is closeup. 11:38:40 - zooms in on figure on blanket. When you viewed that did it look familiar? Yes, it was winnie the pooh with piglet on his back. 11:39:20 - photo of other side of blanket. Did that blanket have plant material growing in it? Yes. photographed that as well. Closeup photo of plants and roots growing into blanket. 11:40:40 - what are we looking at? This is closeup of edge of blanket with winnie the pooh, shows roots lying on top of and thru the blanket. 11:41:10 - next photo. More of root growth on blanket. 11:42:00 - another photo of root material, more close up 11:42:45 - next photo, more root material growing into blanket 11:43:30 - also root material growing in black plastic bag? there were two bags and roots were growing thru the holes of both those bags. Shown photo of roots and bag. 11:44:30 - was there also canvas laundry bag with remains? Yes there was. Roots in that? Roots were growing on top of and into bag. shown photo of roots growing into the bag. 11:45:40 - were roots growing around everything? There were roots in bones, didn't see in shorts and the shirt was disintegrated. Certainly the blanket, two plastic bag and canvas bags. The lettering and stitching along hems were left of the shirt. 11:46:40 - how did you ID bones? We thought best ID was thru dna. It's tough to ID a child because we often use teeth, but it's tough with child. We were hoping we were going to get nuclear dna and at least mito dna. Did you send bone to FBI? Yes we did. 11:47:45 - photo of bone upon return from dna evaluation. The portion missing on this bone? They removed a piece of right tibia to test. Get results from FBI? Yes. they identified remains as caylee anthony. 11:49:00 - is manner of death determination a purely medical or scientific determination? It's basd on scientific principles and gathering all the info you can, all the history, medical history. Take all of those things and any scientific information and come up with opinion .SIDEBAR LUNCH RECESS 13:40:00 - court resumes with SIDEBAR 13:44:00 - casey walks back into courtroom. 13:46:30 - sows dr. G. some evidence bag, has laundry bag in it. state goes over more evidence with her. 13:47:40- evidence bag of body bag with vegetation. next bag has black plastic bag. 13:49:40 - more bags of evidence shown to dr. g., this is bag with the shorts. 13:50:45 - evidence bag with clothing brought in with the body. 13:52:15 - when we broke we were discussing cause and manner of death. what is manner of death? its the classification of death based on all info available to us ...scientific, scene, history, medical. 13:53:00 - also bring to bear your exp in forensic pathology? absolutely. manner of death in this case? yes. homicide. why? it's based on three main items . first, we know from observational studies that it is a red flag that when a child is not reported immediately to authorities, that's something we look for ... for foul play. this child was not reported missing for a long time. the other thing is the body was hidden. a child's body is thrown out in a field, that is one of things we look for when looking for homicide. the body is often found in closed containers, suitcase or plastic bag such as this case. that's a red flag for homicide. the last besides delay in reporting, and found in a field, would be the duct tape located on lower half of the face. there is no child that should have duct tape on its face when it dies or after they dies. we've seen that in cases of homicide 13:55:25 - cause of death is the injury or the diseases that initiates chain of events that results in death. it's the specific injury or disease that causes death. in this case, can you conclude cause of death? the cause of death was homicide of undetermined means. we can reliably say homicide but i don't know means by which it occurred. any objects found with body that could cause death? the only possible object would be duct tape, if that was over mouth and nose, suffocation with plastic bag would be the only other thing. 13:56:55 - were you aware of chloroform in this case? yes. could a child exposed to sufficient amount die as a result? absolutely. at this point, can you tell what caused her death? no, i believe we have enough evidence to say its a homicide, but don't have enough scientific information to say how the homicide occurred. was there any trauma to body? it's very decomposed so unless trauma hurt the bones, i can't say. i can't rule out any trauma cuz even a gun shot wound could not touch the bones. was there any injury to bones? no anti mortem injury to bones. were you aware of any illnesses the child had? i asked for a history of illness and i was told there were none. NO FURTHER QUESTIONS CROSS EXAMINATION 13:59:00 - you live in orlando? yes. for the period of time of about 4 mos prior to remains being found, you were aware of media surrounding this case? i was aware this was a big case. i don't watch the news. i was not aware as most people. were you aware there was a circus like atmosphere around anthony home? i do not know. i did know about speculation abuot this case. you knew if remains were found your office would be involved? no, i was hoping it was lake county, different jurisdiction. in fact, you came back to handle this case? that's true. you knew prior to finding the remains that chloroform was involved? i was told that by investigators at time we got the body. 14:01:10 - you reasoned perhaps chloroform could have been used to contibute to cause of death? that would be one of the possibilities we would examine. so you brought in an expert? i brought in a toxicologist who dealt with toxicology of bones. dr. goldberger from U of florida. you sent him piece of bone? from left femur. as a toxicologist, the request was to look for choloroform and other volatile chemicals? correct. 14:03:00 - he checked for volatiles and several other tests. he's limited in what he can do with bones. results were negative? correct. were you present when dr. werner spitz came to observe ....objection ...SIDEBAR 14:07:30 - did dr. werner spitz see autopsy? did he, no. were you aware he was coming down? i was informed by my office manager that mr baez had requested to bring in outside person in to watch autopsy. our policy is to come up with cause and manner of death and make that available to him once we were done. did dr. spitz did a second autopsy? sustained. 14:09:00 - dr. goldberger is MD? no, he's a phd. what did he test? bone, scrapings I took from inside of bone, the hair and soil that fell out of hair and that was for volatiles. then he tested bone, scrapings of bone marrow and washings from cranial cavity. 14:10:15 - tested for xanax. all results were negative? correct. you did not cut open cranium? no absolutely not. no trauma was found? no anti mortem trauma. we found post mortem trauma. there was no evidence of any form of trauma when the child was alive? on bones there was no evidence of trauma. 14:11:40 - you are confirming that despite investigations, toxicology report, there is no evidence to establish cause of death? it was a means of homicide that could not be determined. you called it a homicide as proposed to accident? the circumstances of the death did not fit anything but a homicide. and based on what det. melich told you? what did he tell me ...that the body wasn't reported missing for 31 days. some things you learned from the media? nothing from the media would have entered into a decision. i can't take anything they would say in something as grave as this. 14:13:15 - it probably was a homicide? not probably, that is the only logical conclusion based on scientific information we have based on observational information we have on homicides and children dying. we know in systematic observatonal studies, we look at all the accidental drownings for instance in my jurisdiction, 100 percent of the time EMS is called. it absolutely has something to do with this case. every death i investigate has to be put into cirmcumstances of death; you can never, ever detemine a manner of death except in rare instances just on examining body. we need to know how usually deaths occur. 14:14:50 - we have to know red flags for homicide. by my experience and by what is known about the way homicides occur i felt preponderence of evidence .... by not reporting child missing, the fact it is tossed in a field to rot in bag is clear indication the body was trying to be hidden, that it was found in bag is a big red falg and duct tape anywhere attached to that childs face is indication of homicide. 14:16:00 - we know 100 percent of the time that accidental deaths are reported unless there is a good reason not to be. no reason not to report. if you don't report it to authorities, you are risking that childs life. we know thats behavioral science. and we know thru all cases in our morgue, accidents are 100 percent reported unless there's a good reason not to. 14:16:50 - this death couldn't be an accident? 100 percent of time when a person finds a child they call 911 cuz there a chance child might live. what if a person finds a drowned body. what then? i am looking at behaviors that shows no matter how stiff that body is, they always call 911 in the hopes that the child could be saved. i'm looking at observational data. that's what we used. 14:17:55 - i explained to you the red flags that we know in forensics based on behavior ...i don't understand ..objection ...sustained. 14:19:00- i felt the manner of death was defensible scientifically based on systematic observational studies of how homicide, accidents and natural deaths occur. if these remains had been found 4-5 mos before, would you have had better scientific evidence? absolutely. you mentioned duct tape, was it in vicinity of lower mandible? correct. REDIRECT 14:20:50 - you were asked about a second autopsy. did you keep body in same condition as when you received it? yes we did except what we had to take for dna and toxicology testing. left roots in bones? yes, that's normal procedure. the absence of positive results for chloroform, does that exclude acute use? we would not expect to find any of those things in the bones, that was a long shot. we would not expect those results to be positive, even at time of death. 14:22:20 - assume caylee died and was discarded about june 16, six months before she was found, at the stage mr mason was asking you about, four months earlier, what would be its condition after 2 mos? it would certainly be skeletonized by then. so if it was found in august, you would expect it would have been skeletonized? yes, the internal organs would be completely gone. WITNESS EXCUSED. ? 14:24:15 - SIDEBAR 14:35:00 - jury is dismissed for a time, judge says they have to discuss some issues. 14:37:16 - attorneys are looking at a video it appears. 14:42:00 - ashton talks about submitting a video showing duct tape over the mouth, trying to show tape was sufficient size to cover nose and mouth. baez argues let's throw eveything against wall and see what stick. this impostion is a fantasy and it's not supported that can't be testified to. it goes to root of 403. 14:45:10 - judge talks about a decision by florida supreme court, may have similar application. says he needs to reread it. the case is 26 pages long. 14:46:00 - baez says there's been no testimony that this duct tape was in fact in this position as reflected in this video. references another court case. clearly shows presenation must be relevant and must accurately reflect oral testimony offered. there's not going to be any oral testimony this duct tape was in this position on this child's face. dr. warren could not testify to this. LET ME HEAR DR. WARREN'S TESTIMONY. I CAN BETTER MAKE AN INFORMED DECISION. THIS WILL BE A PROFER. SO THERE'S NO NEED TO MAKE OBJECTIONS AT THIS POINT MR. BAEZ 14:48:15 - dr.michael warren, forensic anthropologist, assoc. prof at u. of florida. director of human identification lab. 14:49:10 - you worked with dr. schultz on this case? yes sir. you examined the skull and other bones? i did. at some point the issue of duct tape and establishing whether it caused death came up? correct. how was this video created? it was created by taking photos of skull and photos of tape and photo that was found on the internet that was appropriate in orientation of child's face. why use pics of skull and face? both have photo scales and those are used to make sure the size of those images are comparable. 14:50:40 - have to match face to skull in terms of sizing. then use tape label to superimpose on face. skull is used to make one to one match with face? yes. is it possible without this superimposition to determine the end of caylees nose and mouth? no. are there certain rough estimates you can make based on research on avarage distances? previous studies for children and one study done at U of Michigan has some measurements but not ones we needed. is there any other way to demonstrate that duct tape could cover both nose and mouth other than this process? there's not. baez questions him 14:53:10 - recall being told duct tape was murder weapon? i don't recall questions from mr ashton about it being a murder weapon. those discussions were between me and dr. g. And mr ashton had these discussions too? i don't remember that, i remember talking about it being possible. happened early on, first day i was there with dr. g and dr. schultz. 14:54:20 - i suggested doing the superimposition to mr ashton. you weren't present when tape was removed from skull? no. you only saw a photo? that's true. the ones were tape is attached to hair matte? correct. LET'S GET TO THE POINT, WE'RE HERE TO DETERMINE 403 ISSUE. LETS' GET THERE. the hair matte was under skull? at base of skull. is it not normally at top? in decomposed skulls it is at the base. there's no scale on her face in that photo? no. 14:56:20 - you used just some photo you took off internet? correct. you would need to know how large child is? no i'd have to know where landmarks on face are. but children grow rapidly? they do. she could have been larger than time photo was taken? it looked recent. it's not an infant's photo. JUDGE: WHAT IS PURPOSE OF DEMONSTRATION? that's its possible the tape could cover both the child's nose and mouth 14:57:40 - A SKULL WAS UTLIZED, EXPLAIN THAT. we took photo for photographic scale. by using both skull and photo of tape and overlaying those images, you can make those scales the same size so you know size of skull relative to tape is real. now we are able to move from scale of skull to scale of tape. we're able to once we have skull scaled to photo, we can superimpose the tape over the image with the soft tissue. 14:59:10 - PHOTO USED IS PHOTO FROM M.E. OFFICE.yes. WILL THIS ANIMATION HELP YOU EXPLAIN TESTIMONY TO JURY. it illustrates it's possible. WITHOUT IT? i would be able to testify that it is possible without using animation. WHAT ARE DISADVANTAGES? disadvantage is it takes illustration of science out of explanation. 15:01:10 - witness steps down. judge asks what cases baez wants him to look at. RECESS UNTIL 3:15- judge needs to look at cases. 15:17:30 - JUDGE REFERENCE 2007 DECISION OF FLORIDA SUPREME COURT. INVOLVED FIRST DEGREE MURDER WITH FIREARM. THE COURT SAID THE FOLLOWING IN ITS OPINION: RELEVANT EVIDENCE PROVES OR DISPROVES MATERIAL FACT. IT IS INADMISSABLE IF PROBATIVE VALUE IS OUTWEIGHED BY PREJUDICE. THE PROPER APPLICATION REQUIRES BALANCING TEST BY TRIAL JUDGE. ONLY WHEN PREJUDICE OUTWEIGHS PROBATIVE VALUE IT MUST BE EXCLUDED. 15:19:00 - THIS RULE OF EXCLUSION IS DIRECTED AT EVIDENCE THAT INFLAMES JURY'S EMOTIONS. IF UNFAIR PREJUDICE OUTWEIGHS PROBATIVE VALUE, COURT SHOULD DETERMINE NEED FOR EVIDENCE, CHAIN OF INFERENCES AND EFFECTIVENESS OF LIMITED INSTRUCTION. 15:20:00 - THE EVIDENCE BEING SOUGHT TO BE INTRODUCED IS SUPERIMPOSED PHOTO OF VICTIM, THE SKULL AND PLACEMENT OF DUCT TAPE. DEFENSE SAYS EVIDENCE SHOULD BE EXCLUDED AND CITES TWO CASES. judge talks about case that used computer animation, published to jury as demonstrative evidence. court found it was case of first impression. concluded that video tape demo showed no blood, replicated no sounds and found no error in admitting the use of the computer generated animation. 15:21:55 - THIS CASE MAINLY DEALT WITH FIRST TIME USE OF COMPUTER GENERATION. WAS NOT HELPFUL TO COURT IN 403. IN NEXT CASE, THE BRANDON PEST CONTROL CASE, THIS CASE INVOLVED A VIDEO TAPE THAT WAS 15 MINS LONG THAT WAS TAKEN AT RESIDENCE IN QUESTION. IT SHOWED EXTERMINATION EQUIP AND POINTED OUT ITS UTILIZATION. IT ALSO HAD SOME COMPUTER ANIMATIONS THROUGHOUT. COURT CONCLUDED NARRATIONS CONTAINED THROUGHOUT WAS A SELF SERVING PROMOTIONAL TAPE SO COURT SAID IT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN INTRODUCED. 15:23:50 - IT DOES NOT GO THRU 403 ANALYSIS. IN LOOKING AT HTE FACTORS TALKED ABOUNT IN MCDUFFY THE COURT WILL MAKE FOLLOWNG OBSER: COURT NEEDS TO CONSIDER NEED FOR EVIDENCE. IN THIS CASE THERE HAS BEEN AN ISSUE DEALING WITH PLACEMENT OF DUCT TAPE UPON THE VICTIM AND THE LOCATION OF THIS DUCT TAPE. THE COURT WILL ALSO NOTE THAT THERE IS A NON DESCRIPT PIC OF CAYLEE AND THE UTILIZATION OF SKULL OF CAYLEE WHICH JURY HAS SEEN OVER LAST FEW DAYS. SKULL DOES NOT EXPOSE BLOOD. THE DR. HAS INDICATED THAT THIS WILL ILLUSTRATE HIS TESTIMONY. HE SAID IT WOULD BE HELPFUL. DOES THE EVIDENCE SUGGEST EMOTIONAL BASIS FOR VERDICT. IN HOMICIDE CASES EVIDENCE TENDS TO BE NOT NICE. THIS EVIDENCE, LIVE PHOTO OF VICTIM, SUPERIMPOSED IWTH SKULL DOES NOT HAVE TENDENCY TO SUGGEST EMOTIONAL BASIS FOR A VERDICT. 15:26:20 - NECESSEARY TO ESTABLISH MATERIAL FACT? BOTH SIDES HAVE DEBATED ITS RELEVANCY SO IT'S HIGHLY RELEVANT TO CONCLUDE BASED UPON ALL EVIDENCE WHETHER OR NOT THIS DUCT TAPE WAS PLACED IN A CERTAIN POSITION. THEREFORE BASED ON WHAT HAS BEEN PRESENTED, THE COURT WILL PERMIT THE WITNESS TO TESTIFY. LAST BUT NOT LEAST, PURSUANT TO ...IF REQUESTED BY DEFENSE, PURSUANT TO PIERCE, I WILL GIVE INSTRUCTIONS. 15:29:40 - baez tells judge that witness co authored report with dr. schultz and testimony is cumulative. ashton says dr. schultz testimony was not challenged. baez says ...he's off mic ..again. 15:31:40 - jury returns 15:32:40 - DR. MICHAEL WARREN CALLED TO THE STAND, forensic anthropologist, assoc. prof at u. of florida. director of human identification lab. 15:33:50 - ID lab consults with medical examiners when person has become skeletonized. been director two and a half years. was paramedic for 15 years, got MS and PhD at U. of Florida in forensic anthropology 15:35:20 - you are qualified as expert in forensic anthropology? yes, testified in probably 16 cases. submits witness as expert in forensic anthro 15:36:00 - my doctoral research was in fetal growth and development. also determining age at time of death. how did you become involved in this case? i was contacted by dr. g and schultz on dec 15 to assist in ID of remains. did you look at photos of remains too? yes. recall from photos when mandible was first found? yes. what was that position. it was still articulated, it was still in place. 15:37:45 - why is that noteworthy? that joint is a regular sinovial joint. it's lax and allowed movement, there's nothing to hold it in place once soft tissue decomposes. when remains are found on the sufface, it's very rare to find jaw articulatd with rest of skull. have you ever had a case where jaw in above ground remains was still in that position? yes, these are cases when i did human rights work in bosnia in which decedents had tape over their face. so you consitently find the mandible disarticulated from the skull? yes. 15:39:20 - familiar with photos and duct tape? yes. can you tell if tape would have been over nose and mouth? no the tape had moved. did you try to deterine if it was possible that a singel piece of duct tape could have covered the nose and mouth in one piece? i did. how? two methods, i consulted literature and scientific studies done on growing children to figure out normal distances between landmarks on a child's face. .... 15:41:00 - i was interested in nasal apperature, bottom of nose and the bottom of the teeth and oral airway. able to get estimates? estimates, not using those exact landmarks. what is the other method? i used video superimposition. what has it been used for? primarly used to exlucde possibility remains in question are those of particular person. SIGNAL LOSS FROM COURTHOUSE IN OUR TRAILER - TIME CODE WILL BE OFF BY A FEW SECONDS. 15:42:45 - putative, you take skull and take photos of that person and using a comparison method where you are able to superimpose that image on skull using anatomical landmark. you can determine if the photo is of unknown person. landmarks are bottom of teeth, references other tech terms 15:44:00 - how did you use that process here? i used that technique to scale the photo of skull with a photo provided me by fbi of tape. both had scales in them, we're able to know those two images are correct. that would help you put tape over skull, how do you then determine if a face was there? we'd go back to original technique ...take photo of skull, photo of decedent and then use landmarks. 15:45:30 - does that depict video showing that process? it does. will it help with your explanation? it does. objection, overruled. received into evidence 15:46:30 - judge reads instructions to jury about the evidence. used only to illustrate experts opinion. 15:47:00 - video is played for jury. not made public. only those in court can see. SIGNAL RETURNS FROM COURTHOUSE, TIME CODE IS ACCURATE. 15:53:10 - why is tape moved up and down on photo? to show we don't know where tape was. based on that video and your research, would the single piece of tape have covered both nose and mouth making breathing impossible? yes 15:55:10 - you were hired early in this case? i was consulted. yes. you never saw the duct tape while it was attached to hair matte? that's true. the photo you used to do this quicktime movies? I used photoshop. it should give precise measurements if you're scaling. the photo you used of caylee you grabbed from internet? correct. you have no scale on that photo? correct. only reason you showed it is to show it's possible this could have occurred? correct. it's possible tape could have covered the nose and mouth? correct you're not testifying that that actually happened? correct. 15:57:30 - you can't testify this duct tape had anything to do with caylee's death? correct. you can't say tape was associated with caylee after death? ask that again please. you don't know if that tape had to do with disposal or death? true. baez goes to drawing board. tries to draw scene where caylee was found, draws mandible and tape ...badly drawn. can't really tell what it is. 15:59:30 - more of baez drawing on board. the hair is generally up here? I cannot see it. witness stands down. 16:00:55 - the duct tape was attached to hair? that's my understanding. it was your understanding too that at one time her skull was inside three bags? objection, heresay....sustained. rephrase. based on evidence you're given, you knew caylees remains were in three bags? thats my understanding correct. could you see canvas bag? only in photographs. photos weren't clear in terms of what the opening looked like. can you close the bag? i've only seen photos. you have no idea if this tape was used to wrap caylees remains? objection, sustained. 16:03:00 - the duct tape was over mandible and some portion of mouth. that's because it was attached to the hair? the mandible was found articulate with the skull. the hair couldn't have gotten underneath all of this ....OBJECTION, APPROACH 16:06:40 - shows witness photo of hair matte. that was in wooded area off suburban? object ...when skull was found hair matte was on floor? on the surface. above it was mandible? based on photos i've seen, i wasn't at scene. for hair matte to be under skull, something had to make it roll there? yes. the duct tape made its way in that direction? correct. 16:08:15 - the video you showed of the possiblity that tape could have been in that position, that was graphic? it was. was it to appeal to jury's emotions? objections, APPROACH 16:11:57 - jury asked to step out again. 16:12:45 - PROFER continues ....was video for purpose of appealing to the jury? no. was it to demonstrate something of graphic nature? no. purpose of getting sympathy or getting jury angry? no. just to show tape could have covered nose and mouth? correct. end of questions 16:13:45 - five minute break 16:25:30 - did you know another piece of duct tape was found nine feet away? i was not aware of that. the possiblity in this demonstration, that was one possiblity? true. there are other possible scenarios in caylees death? correct. and the there are othe scenarios involving the duct tape? in terms of position of duct tape over face, no. there are other possilibites involving duct tape. yes. any quicktime movies of those? no sir. REDIRECT 16:26:55 - was tape on caylee's body before decomp? yes, it was placed on prior to decomp. that opinion is based on what? the mandible is still articulated with rest of cramium, it will always become disarticulated without something holding it in place. in your oponion could anything else have held it in place? no. how does tape during decomp keep the mandible in place? the mandible is stuck to soft tissue, when decomposition occurs, the duct tape stays in place and supports the mandible. 16:29:00- this photo shows hair is not under mandible but posterior? correct, under base of skull. during decomp how does hair end up not on top of skull? hair is attached to hair follicles, when decomp occurs it tends to slide down. not uncommosn to find birds nest of hair near base of skull. is that something you commonly see in deompc? correct. 16:30:00 - no further questions. 16:30:30 - there is root growth under mandible? i do see roots there. roots attached to hair? yes. can roots keep a mandible in place? that's possible. 16:31:40 - NO FURTHER QUESTIONS. 16:31:55 - does active decomp inhibit root growth? no. sustained. roots can't grow in hair until its fallen off skull ..sustained. are you familiar with plant growth and decomp? yes. you are not a botanist? no. but have you evaluated plant growth related to decomp? yes. could roots keep a mandible in place? it's possible under certain circumstances. in this case what would have to happen, would hair have to fall off? yes. until that point roots have nothing to grow in? yes. what would be holding that in place? the tape. RECROSS 16:34:00 - not a botanist? correct. you would defer to botanist? yes i would. you can't based on evidence know tracking of that duct tape? confused by question ... you can't testify to the position of the body at any point and time? no. or where hair was at one time or another? no. all we have are photos of tape stuck to hair? correct. no further questions. WITNESS EXCUSED. 16:36:30 - MICHAEL VINCENT CALLED TO STAND. returns to stand. csi with orange county sheriff. 16:36:50 - recovered insect evidence from trash in pontiac sunfire. approaches witness 16:38:00 - id's evidence bag of maggots. sent bag to dr. haskell 16:40:17 - id's bag as insect eggs, late stage of life cycle. sent it to dr. haskell. CROSS 16:41:20 - these collected on july 16? what was collected ...these pupae? no they were collected on august 28. but you processed vehicle on july 16? i did not process the vehicle. what do you mean ...you inspected trunk and items in trunk? yes. you're aware of entomology as a tool for law enforcement? yes. the insect was in later stages? yes. an entomologist can look at stage where maggot life is and can determine life cycle of that maggot? object. sustained. 16:43:00 - you have some training in entomology? yes sir. went to course at UF? i did. this course taught you there are different stages of insect? yes. an entomologist can take these stages and give you a pinpoint time of death? that's possible. you were aware of this evidence on july 16? no. you did see any insect activity in garbage or trunk on july 16? no. not in trunk of car. there was none that i saw. no further questions. witness excused. 16:46:00 - ROBIN MAYNARD CALLED TO STAND. csi with orange county. helped recover caylee remains. responsible for documenting collection of insect activity. collected over several days. 16:47:30 - witness id's her label on evidence bag. says its pupae collected 12/14/08. as she collected them she consulted with dr. haskell. 16:48:30 - she placed it in bag and sent to dr. haskell. witness IDs more bags of evidence, envelopes of bugs. was collected from scene in december 2008. 16:51:30 - witness IDs more bags of entomological evidence taken from scene, december 2008. location where item is collected also noted on bag. 16:53:30 - witness IDs more bags of entomological evidence taken from scene on suburban drive. sent it to dr. neil haskell 16:56:00 - witness IDs more bags of evidence. says its her label with her handwriting. piece of cardboard with pink remnants on it. 16:57:15 - no further questions CROSS 16:57:40 - collected evidence under direction of dr. neil haskell? yes. the job ws so thoroughly done he asked you to stop collecting? correct. the cardboard item was found in a lane? yes. we're also talking about beer bottles? correct. tires? correct. there were so many items in that area it got to the point where you stopped collecting? i was the lead in charge of sifting, i was not in primary search area. but you were there? correct. the items i had to deal with were being sifted, if they were bigger they weren't my responsibility. people threw things there all the time, it was a common dumping area? i can't say it was a common dumping area. there were multiple items ...sustained. this area is across from a school? not directly across. it is next to school? it's down the street. kids walk to school there? object. sustained. 17:00:00 - jury dismissed for the day 17:02:30 - BAEZ asks for mistrail based on video of skull and duct tape around face. based on profer this was a possibiilty. witness also said this was speculative. overwhelming prejudicial effect outweighed probative value. HAS NOT BOTH STATE AND DEFENSE ADVANCED VARIOUS THEORIES AS TO LOCATION OF THE DUCT TAPE? yes. AND DID NOT THE WITNESS TESTIFY THAT WAS ONE POSSIBLE SCENARIO AND THERE COULD BE OTHERS. witness did, not outweighed by video of child and skull in background. served only one purpose to inflame jury. YOU SAID THE PHOTO SHOWED DUCT TAPE WRAPPED AROUND THE HEAD. WAS IT WRAPPED AROUND OR SUPERIMPOSED. state: the testimony is that at some point the child had tape around nose, mouth or both. it was necessary to establish theory this tape was murder weapons. video itself showed tape moving above and below. it was a fair and necessary demonstration 17:07:10 - MOTION FOR MISTRIAL AT THIS TIME WILL BE DENIED. 17:00:30 - no further questions.
White Rabbit walking cautiously across the field
White Rabbit walking cautiously across the field
CASEY ANTHONY TRIAL / SWITCHED P5
FTG FOR COVERAGE OF THE CASEY ANTHONY MURDER TRIAL / SWITCHED POOL NOTE: JUDGE'S COMMENTS ALWAYS IN CAPS 9:04:00 - DR. GARY UTZ RETURNS TO THE STAND 9:05:30 - we were going thru photos taken by investigator hanson. shows him next photo, it's a front view of pair of shorts. this garment has a number of holes? yes it does. had the shorts been torn or cut? i can't rule out some of defects occurred before decomp but a lot of what i see is consistent with clothing seen in decomp. 9:07:00 - photo is tag of shorts, circo brand, 24 months. next photo is another aspect of tag. 9:08:15 - next photo is of backside of tag. 9:12:00- pic of shorts and shirt tag 9:13:45 - after that my involvement was approx the same as someone else in office. It was dr. g's case. When did she take back responsibility for case? I believe she returned Friday afternoon. From then on was your involvement assisting? Correct. CROSS EXAM 9:14:50 - you are board certified ME? Forensic pathologist. What does that mean? Pathology is the study of disease. A pathologist is a physician most commonly involved in diagnosis of disease states. Pathologist also performs autopsies. Forensic path is a sub specialty, investigates cause and manner of death. 9:16:00 - in this case before remains were found, you were aware of hoopla surrounding missing child? Yes. it was discussed. But before remains are found, the ME office is a specatator. When remains were found there was more conversation in office? Yes. 9:17:10 - he took pics and surveyed scene? He did. Did supplemental report? He did. Dr. G came back into town and took over the case? That's correct. Why? She felt that it was important for her to be involved. She had good working relationship with law enforcement. I was relatively new in the office. 9:18:20 - it is a complicated case that requires the use of investigations that are not parts of our office so in a case like that was reasonable on her part ot coordinate that. She would have been involved in any rate even if it were my case. 9:19:15 - you talked about the duct tape. And looked at pictures? Correct. There was no duct tape on left side of skull? Not sure I understand your question. What do you mean by on ..you said in photos yesterday there was some duct tape adhered to hair matte on right side of skull? Yes. none on left side? It extended beyond midline up to left, certainly. The tape itself wasn't attached to skull. None on back either? No. completely encircling it, no sir. 9:21:10 - there were points of adherence also on left side. Did you removed duct tape? I did. Did you examine it? Took photo and looked at it briefly. Do anything to swab to preserve dna? I did not. Careful in handling it? Yes. wear gloves? Yes. suited up in ME clothing? Yes. put it in evidence bag? yes. it was released to field agent of FBI. Any human tissue on tape? Nothing I could ID as human tissue 9:22:35 - my goal at that point was to provide material to fbi lab for ID purposes and to provide the duct tape for analysis. You found no evidence of trauma on these remains? I did not see any evidence of trauma. See any broken bones? Portions of bone were disrupted but I did not analyze them. 9:23:40 - explains what healing fracture it. There was no indication of any prior injury? I didn't see any. In process of autopsy, did you reset the calverium? 9:24:25 - I suppose you mean cutting through the top of the skull? I did not. (casey crying) 9:24:45 - if body had been found 4 months before, would you have had more forensic evidence? Possible. Remember what size shorts were? I believe 24 months. 9:25:45 - were you involved in decisions to get further expert exam of remains? No sir. Did you examine remains with dr. schultz? Only initial exam that occurred on evening of the 11th. He's a forensic anthropologist at UCF. Did you participate in toxicology exams? No. 9:27:00 - know who dr. goldberger is? He's a toxicologist. You talked about location of mandible? Yes. bottom jaw? Correct. You said it was held in place by hair and roots? Yes. when you picked up remains from table, did you hold skull in your hand? Yes. and mandible didn't fall off? I did not. When it was moved, it didn't come off? It did not. 9:28:40 - you talked about your duties to determine cause of death? That's correct. You do not know from your exam the cause of death in this case? I did not make a determination of cause of death in this case. You do not know cause of death. I do not. The manner of death was determined by dr. G to be a homicide? Correct. 9:30:10 - you have not rendered an opinion as to manner of death? I have not. REDIRECT 9:31:10 - looks at photo of skull, left side. That is what you are referring to about tape going from right to left? Correct. What side of face is circled? Right side. It shows tape on both right and left side? Correct. WITNESS EXCUSED. 9:33:55 - DR. JOHN SCHULTZ CALLED TO STAND, UCF dept. of anthroplogy, specializes in forensic anthropology and archealogy. MA in human biology, Phd in anthropology, specializing in forensic anthro. 9:35:30 - talks about difference between forensic anthropology and archeology. Says forensic anthropology is studying human skeleton. 9:36:50 - tephonomy is study of body after death, changes in how skeleton may have been dispersed on site. Talks about human ID lab at U. of Florida. When there are skeletized remains, they can be sent there to be analyzed. Cases from all around state come to the lab. 9:38:40 - specialty is detecting human remains using ground penetrating radar. Non invasive, locates change in ground. Dissertation involves remote sensing tools. 9:39:50 - talks about relationship between UCF and local law enforcement, ME office. 9:41:00 - develop relationship with ME to be on call forensic anthropogist? Yes. around december 11, 2008, get a call from ME? I got a call from steve hanson and dr. g. I was asked if I was able to got to scene to participate in the recovery. 9:42:00 - was not at scene first day when skull was removed. Where did you go to assist? I went directly to ME office. When you arrived, had skull arrived? I don't remember. What is your first recollection of skull? I remember looking in bag, seeing skull and duct tape, didn't want to interfere with duct tape, laid bag so skull wasn't interfered with. 9:43:50 - I remember at one point I held the skull up so photos could be taken of underside. Shows witness photo of him holding skull. 9:44:50 - is there a term called anatomical position? Yes, that would the normal position it would be in. was the mandible in close to anatomical position? It was close. Was that surprising/ to see a mandible still retained on skull? Normally there needs to be something there to hold it in place. What was holding it in place? It would have been the hair that had moved to base of skull. Anything else? We can see leaf litter and roots. How about the tape? No because the tape was adhered to hair but I don't recall it holding mandible in place in this view. 9:46:50 - during exam of bones, did you find anything indicating trauma? No evidence of trauma. Did you do thorough excavation of site? I provided advisory role. I would not call it excavation. I would call this a recovery. What was the plan? On the 12th I arrived at the scene and we talked about how to process scene. It was difficult because we were dealing with small child, had additional parts of bones, some weren't ossified yet and it was a heavy wood environment, lots of plant material. 9:48:45 - I told everyone to be on hands and knees removing leaf litter and double checking all the material that was removed. Started where known material was and worked out from there. I started in area where skeletal remains were found. 9:49:30 - talks about screening, removing material and sifting it thru box with mesh. Did you tell them to use certain kind of mesh? I said go to a smaller size screen because the bones were so small. 9:50:45 - explains how the search was conducted with law enforcement, mapping process. 9:52:50 - talks about how to map a scene using a computer. 9:53:30 - when remains were found did you examine them? Yes, if I was there. I would always assess what bones were found and suspicious material. I had to determine if they were human bones. Did search area increase? Correct as we initially started in main area, additional csi's worked south of us and as additional remains were located, we expanded out further. 9:55:10 - witness tells jury about the photo of scene, shows the process involving removing vines and over growth. Screening of debris. Also shows flags and pails of debris. Is it important to know where bones are found? When trying to understand how remains may have been dispersed, you need to know where all remains were located. 9:57:50 - witness explains photo, shows flags being placed where items were found , also shows csi documenting evidence and collecting it. 10:00:15 - those bones you ID as human were transported to ME? Yes. next photo is of remains that were found. 10:01:15 - we're looking at vertebra, part of spine, they're separated, there's no soft tissue, we can see roots growing thru vertebra as well. What's important about this pic ..the vertebra .all these bones were found in one location. That says they were transported while they were all together. 10:03:30 - photo of bone fragment. We see bones and envelope. Is that how each bone is documented? Correct. 10:04:50 - this is fragment from other bone? Correct. Shown photo of two bones. 10:05:45 - what are these bones? We're looking at largest bones in body, femura, lower leg bones attached to pelvis. Witness shown split screen. Do these two bones related to each other? Yes, the top of these bones have been chewed on by animals. OBJECTION 10:07:15 - SIDEBAR 10:06:30 - RECESS 10:38:00 - testimony resumes 10:39:00 - references split screen, showing pics of bones. He's asked about how bones fit together. 10:40:45 - photo shows hand and finger bones. What is purpose of this photo? We're always going to document skeletal remains, so we take multiple views of skeleton. This image is documenting bones of the hand and our scales are in centimeters so I put quarter in pic to show how tiny the bones are. Many of these were found in the main area. 10:42:20 - looks at his notes .mapping finished on december 20th. Looks at photo of bones again. These bones are part of pelvis, top area. Each one of these would grow as three bones and then fuse. This one here we have carnivore damage on bottom. 10:44:15 - one of these was found almost completely buried in the muck. Looks at his notes. It's the left bone in pic. 10:45:15 - looks at pic of skeleton laid out in anatomical order after all the bones are recovered. How successful was this recovery effort? Even with adult skeleton with bones intact, its tough to collect majority of remains and teeth. I feel we were very succesful here. Collected all but one tooth, had most of spine, long bones, tiny bones of hands and feet. A few pieces here and there are missing. 10:47:00 - I would say very successful in what was recovered and mapping those bones as well. 10:47:40 - mapping tells about spatial relationship of bones, and relationship at dump site. 10:48:00 - witness looks at survey that denotes areas where bones were found. 10:49:00 - photo shows survey map where bones were found. Witness points out on map where bones were found. In area A is where the body and bags was placed into the woods. This is where initial separation of body parts occurred, such as skull, arms, lower limbs. 10:50:30 - I started in area A, the rest of the csi's were south of us and as additional remains were found we moved further south. When this area was searched, we would talk about how to expand the search. It progressed further south. 10:52:50 - what was found in area A? it was initial area with skull, bags, arms with hand bones, lower legs also found there, including left foot. Area B? shaft for upper arm bone. Area F? as we progressed further southeast, we found trunk of body with pelvis, lower legs were dragged to this area. At this point being dragged from area A by animals is lower trunk. 10:55:10 - area D we had only located one bone. Area E a hand bone was found there. In area D that was one bone of foot? Correct. Area F is where we did see carnivore damage on multiple bones. Area G is most of spinal columns with ribs attached. Separated out is lower veterbra 10:56;55 - consistent with animal moving them. Area H we start to see more of the ribs, separated. Area I, if we start at top of spine we have cervical vertibra, to thoraic, to lumbar. Area i found 20 of vertebra here. It's being dragged while relatively articulated. Decomp would have finished there. 10:58:50 - there would have been some tissue holding the bones together. Based on this dispersal pattern, was this body deposited in area as intact unit? It may have been relatively intact if we look at area F trunk and lower legs were articulated. No indication the body was dismembered.? No we did not see any evidence. 11:00:15 - we talked about the hip bone which was buried. What is the significance of that? When trying to interpret how long bones have been at site ..SIDEBAR. 11:04:30 - formally requests witness be accepted as expert. 11:05:10 - when trying to interpret how long skeleton may have been out of scene, many bones were under leaf fall so they had to be there before they fell. .that would tell us more than likely this area was a swampy area, was water southeast, so it's possible when area was flooded, silt and other material may have resulted in burial of this bone .would have happened sometime over the summer. 11:06:20 - it was close to a big palmetto trunk. Area F on map is lowest area. That is one of the bones with carnivore damage and there's going to be silt suspended in water and that process would have led to almost burying the bone. 11:07:15 - approximately how long were these remains in that area? We use mulitple lines of evidence and overall the bones were dry, competely free of soft tissue. They had no decomp odor, they had some erosion which would take time, and were found under leaf litter. The combination of that with root evidence. A period of six months could be possible. 11;08:40 - dispersal of bones primarily the result of animal activity. There was some animal chewing on the ribs. This area was processed well and remaining bones could have been taken away by animals. CROSS EXAM 11:09:40 - as forensic anthropologist, you examine bones yourself? Correct. Do you x ray bones? Yes. in your examination you found no evidence of any pre mortem trauma? No evidence. No broken bones or fractures? Not sure of your question. You found no evidence of fractures? No evidence of fractures. No evidence of twist of bones? No evidence. No evidence of any traumatic injury before her death? No evidence. 11:12:10 - how far is area from pavement of suburban drive? I did not do mapping, if I use scale on map I would think 25-30 feel maybe. I did not document the measurements. This map just shows elevation and lines? Yes. my job was not the mapping. Measurements provided to me by ronald murdoch. 11:13:55 - do you know when the dispersement took place? Not sure I understand question. We start with area A, primary site and all of those items were in bags? Originally when deposited out at the site. 11:15:00 - other areas with bones and fragments, there were no bag? no bags, but not sure about parts of bag. majority of what was found was all area A? I wouldn't say majority. It was found in area of A. and after inspecting contents of area A you discovered missing bones? I wouldn't agree with that because when we started processing scene, we had other people locating additional bones south of area A. 11:16:40 - we had a crew of people we separated them out and searched simultaneously. You don't have any scientific evidence when first dispersement from area A occurred? No. same question as to other areas? Yes. there's nothing that tells you how this child died? Not a question I would answer. All I look for is peri mortem trauma and I did not find that. 11:18:15 - when you looked at duct tape on skull, it was not covering nasal appature? No. REDIRECT 11:18:35 - nasal appature is hole on skull where nose would be. Tape was covering the mouth area. Was tape in position to cover nose? Possibly. Hard to tell because nose wasn't there any more? Correct. 11:20:00 - witness circles on photo what bones were found in area A. what was in area b? left humurous. 11:21:45 - what was in area F? we do have clavicles and parts of pelvis and both femur shafts and ribs. One part of a vertebra. Area G? see separation of bottom of spinal column. Area G had couple of ribs. Area H? we only had one, part of one vertebra. And a bunch of ribs. Area i? see more ribs and parts of 20 vertebra. 11:23:45 - NO FURTHER QUESTIONS. WITNESS EXCUSED. 11:25:30 - DR. JAN GARIVAGLIA, CHIEF MEDICAL EXAMINER FOR ORANGE, OSCEOLA SINCE 2004. Was ME is Bexar county in San Antonio for 10 years. Also in Atlanta and Jacksonville. Explains her education and training credentials. 11:28:10 - came under my jurisdiction. When did you first learn that remains of caylee had been found? The 11th I don't remember the time. I was alerted by my chief investigator steve hanson. What did you do? I was late for the airport, as I was walking out mr hanson told me they found remains. We weren't sure who it was at that point, I had engagement I could not get out of so I told dr. utz to handle it until I got back the next day.. also had them call dr. schultz. 11:30:00 - I didn't think my absence for night would matter. Returned following day? Yes. did you go back and review photos of scene and at your facility? Absolutely. I went out to the scene, reviewed photos, made suggestions. 11:31:45 - one of things you examined was hair matte? Eventually it came back to me, originally sent to FBI, I examined it then. Looks at photo on screen. 11:32:40- shows her another photo she reviewed. She says it's photo of hair matte.we see a lot of the roots that have grown thru the hair. We're looking at hair matte and roots that have grown thru the matte and some holes in the hair matte probably from insect activity 11:34:15 - shown another photo. We teased out some of the hair to take as a sample for possible toxicological use. 11:35:40 - next photo. That was taken at my direction. Again that's the scale next to one of the roots on the hair matte. 11:36:30 - some of items found with remains, did you examine them? Yes. recall a blanket? Yes. did you have that photographed? Yes. looks at photo of blanket. See pic of dirty blanket with leaf litter on it. This is the condition it came in? it was not cleaned, just unfolded. Certain portions where you can see figures? Yes. took photo to see them more clearly. Next photo is closeup. 11:38:40 - zooms in on figure on blanket. When you viewed that did it look familiar? Yes, it was winnie the pooh with piglet on his back. 11:39:20 - photo of other side of blanket. Did that blanket have plant material growing in it? Yes. photographed that as well. Closeup photo of plants and roots growing into blanket. 11:40:40 - what are we looking at? This is closeup of edge of blanket with winnie the pooh, shows roots lying on top of and thru the blanket. 11:41:10 - next photo. More of root growth on blanket. 11:42:00 - another photo of root material, more close up 11:42:45 - next photo, more root material growing into blanket 11:43:30 - also root material growing in black plastic bag? there were two bags and roots were growing thru the holes of both those bags. Shown photo of roots and bag. 11:44:30 - was there also canvas laundry bag with remains? Yes there was. Roots in that? Roots were growing on top of and into bag. shown photo of roots growing into the bag. 11:45:40 - were roots growing around everything? There were roots in bones, didn't see in shorts and the shirt was disintegrated. Certainly the blanket, two plastic bag and canvas bags. The lettering and stitching along hems were left of the shirt. 11:46:40 - how did you ID bones? We thought best ID was thru dna. It's tough to ID a child because we often use teeth, but it's tough with child. We were hoping we were going to get nuclear dna and at least mito dna. Did you send bone to FBI? Yes we did. 11:47:45 - photo of bone upon return from dna evaluation. The portion missing on this bone? They removed a piece of right tibia to test. Get results from FBI? Yes. they identified remains as caylee anthony. 11:49:00 - is manner of death determination a purely medical or scientific determination? It's basd on scientific principles and gathering all the info you can, all the history, medical history. Take all of those things and any scientific information and come up with opinion .SIDEBAR LUNCH RECESS 13:40:00 - court resumes with SIDEBAR 13:44:00 - casey walks back into courtroom. 13:46:30 - sows dr. G. some evidence bag, has laundry bag in it. state goes over more evidence with her. 13:47:40- evidence bag of body bag with vegetation. next bag has black plastic bag. 13:49:40 - more bags of evidence shown to dr. g., this is bag with the shorts. 13:50:45 - evidence bag with clothing brought in with the body. 13:52:15 - when we broke we were discussing cause and manner of death. what is manner of death? its the classification of death based on all info available to us ...scientific, scene, history, medical. 13:53:00 - also bring to bear your exp in forensic pathology? absolutely. manner of death in this case? yes. homicide. why? it's based on three main items . first, we know from observational studies that it is a red flag that when a child is not reported immediately to authorities, that's something we look for ... for foul play. this child was not reported missing for a long time. the other thing is the body was hidden. a child's body is thrown out in a field, that is one of things we look for when looking for homicide. the body is often found in closed containers, suitcase or plastic bag such as this case. that's a red flag for homicide. the last besides delay in reporting, and found in a field, would be the duct tape located on lower half of the face. there is no child that should have duct tape on its face when it dies or after they dies. we've seen that in cases of homicide 13:55:25 - cause of death is the injury or the diseases that initiates chain of events that results in death. it's the specific injury or disease that causes death. in this case, can you conclude cause of death? the cause of death was homicide of undetermined means. we can reliably say homicide but i don't know means by which it occurred. any objects found with body that could cause death? the only possible object would be duct tape, if that was over mouth and nose, suffocation with plastic bag would be the only other thing. 13:56:55 - were you aware of chloroform in this case? yes. could a child exposed to sufficient amount die as a result? absolutely. at this point, can you tell what caused her death? no, i believe we have enough evidence to say its a homicide, but don't have enough scientific information to say how the homicide occurred. was there any trauma to body? it's very decomposed so unless trauma hurt the bones, i can't say. i can't rule out any trauma cuz even a gun shot wound could not touch the bones. was there any injury to bones? no anti mortem injury to bones. were you aware of any illnesses the child had? i asked for a history of illness and i was told there were none. NO FURTHER QUESTIONS CROSS EXAMINATION 13:59:00 - you live in orlando? yes. for the period of time of about 4 mos prior to remains being found, you were aware of media surrounding this case? i was aware this was a big case. i don't watch the news. i was not aware as most people. were you aware there was a circus like atmosphere around anthony home? i do not know. i did know about speculation abuot this case. you knew if remains were found your office would be involved? no, i was hoping it was lake county, different jurisdiction. in fact, you came back to handle this case? that's true. you knew prior to finding the remains that chloroform was involved? i was told that by investigators at time we got the body. 14:01:10 - you reasoned perhaps chloroform could have been used to contibute to cause of death? that would be one of the possibilities we would examine. so you brought in an expert? i brought in a toxicologist who dealt with toxicology of bones. dr. goldberger from U of florida. you sent him piece of bone? from left femur. as a toxicologist, the request was to look for choloroform and other volatile chemicals? correct. 14:03:00 - he checked for volatiles and several other tests. he's limited in what he can do with bones. results were negative? correct. were you present when dr. werner spitz came to observe ....objection ...SIDEBAR 14:07:30 - did dr. werner spitz see autopsy? did he, no. were you aware he was coming down? i was informed by my office manager that mr baez had requested to bring in outside person in to watch autopsy. our policy is to come up with cause and manner of death and make that available to him once we were done. did dr. spitz did a second autopsy? sustained. 14:09:00 - dr. goldberger is MD? no, he's a phd. what did he test? bone, scrapings I took from inside of bone, the hair and soil that fell out of hair and that was for volatiles. then he tested bone, scrapings of bone marrow and washings from cranial cavity. 14:10:15 - tested for xanax. all results were negative? correct. you did not cut open cranium? no absolutely not. no trauma was found? no anti mortem trauma. we found post mortem trauma. there was no evidence of any form of trauma when the child was alive? on bones there was no evidence of trauma. 14:11:40 - you are confirming that despite investigations, toxicology report, there is no evidence to establish cause of death? it was a means of homicide that could not be determined. you called it a homicide as proposed to accident? the circumstances of the death did not fit anything but a homicide. and based on what det. melich told you? what did he tell me ...that the body wasn't reported missing for 31 days. some things you learned from the media? nothing from the media would have entered into a decision. i can't take anything they would say in something as grave as this. 14:13:15 - it probably was a homicide? not probably, that is the only logical conclusion based on scientific information we have based on observational information we have on homicides and children dying. we know in systematic observatonal studies, we look at all the accidental drownings for instance in my jurisdiction, 100 percent of the time EMS is called. it absolutely has something to do with this case. every death i investigate has to be put into cirmcumstances of death; you can never, ever detemine a manner of death except in rare instances just on examining body. we need to know how usually deaths occur. 14:14:50 - we have to know red flags for homicide. by my experience and by what is known about the way homicides occur i felt preponderence of evidence .... by not reporting child missing, the fact it is tossed in a field to rot in bag is clear indication the body was trying to be hidden, that it was found in bag is a big red falg and duct tape anywhere attached to that childs face is indication of homicide. 14:16:00 - we know 100 percent of the time that accidental deaths are reported unless there is a good reason not to be. no reason not to report. if you don't report it to authorities, you are risking that childs life. we know thats behavioral science. and we know thru all cases in our morgue, accidents are 100 percent reported unless there's a good reason not to. 14:16:50 - this death couldn't be an accident? 100 percent of time when a person finds a child they call 911 cuz there a chance child might live. what if a person finds a drowned body. what then? i am looking at behaviors that shows no matter how stiff that body is, they always call 911 in the hopes that the child could be saved. i'm looking at observational data. that's what we used. 14:17:55 - i explained to you the red flags that we know in forensics based on behavior ...i don't understand ..objection ...sustained. 14:19:00- i felt the manner of death was defensible scientifically based on systematic observational studies of how homicide, accidents and natural deaths occur. if these remains had been found 4-5 mos before, would you have had better scientific evidence? absolutely. you mentioned duct tape, was it in vicinity of lower mandible? correct. REDIRECT 14:20:50 - you were asked about a second autopsy. did you keep body in same condition as when you received it? yes we did except what we had to take for dna and toxicology testing. left roots in bones? yes, that's normal procedure. the absence of positive results for chloroform, does that exclude acute use? we would not expect to find any of those things in the bones, that was a long shot. we would not expect those results to be positive, even at time of death. 14:22:20 - assume caylee died and was discarded about june 16, six months before she was found, at the stage mr mason was asking you about, four months earlier, what would be its condition after 2 mos? it would certainly be skeletonized by then. so if it was found in august, you would expect it would have been skeletonized? yes, the internal organs would be completely gone. WITNESS EXCUSED. ? 14:24:15 - SIDEBAR 14:35:00 - jury is dismissed for a time, judge says they have to discuss some issues. 14:37:16 - attorneys are looking at a video it appears. 14:42:00 - ashton talks about submitting a video showing duct tape over the mouth, trying to show tape was sufficient size to cover nose and mouth. baez argues let's throw eveything against wall and see what stick. this impostion is a fantasy and it's not supported that can't be testified to. it goes to root of 403. 14:45:10 - judge talks about a decision by florida supreme court, may have similar application. says he needs to reread it. the case is 26 pages long. 14:46:00 - baez says there's been no testimony that this duct tape was in fact in this position as reflected in this video. references another court case. clearly shows presenation must be relevant and must accurately reflect oral testimony offered. there's not going to be any oral testimony this duct tape was in this position on this child's face. dr. warren could not testify to this. LET ME HEAR DR. WARREN'S TESTIMONY. I CAN BETTER MAKE AN INFORMED DECISION. THIS WILL BE A PROFER. SO THERE'S NO NEED TO MAKE OBJECTIONS AT THIS POINT MR. BAEZ 14:48:15 - dr.michael warren, forensic anthropologist, assoc. prof at u. of florida. director of human identification lab. 14:49:10 - you worked with dr. schultz on this case? yes sir. you examined the skull and other bones? i did. at some point the issue of duct tape and establishing whether it caused death came up? correct. how was this video created? it was created by taking photos of skull and photos of tape and photo that was found on the internet that was appropriate in orientation of child's face. why use pics of skull and face? both have photo scales and those are used to make sure the size of those images are comparable. 14:50:40 - have to match face to skull in terms of sizing. then use tape label to superimpose on face. skull is used to make one to one match with face? yes. is it possible without this superimposition to determine the end of caylees nose and mouth? no. are there certain rough estimates you can make based on research on avarage distances? previous studies for children and one study done at U of Michigan has some measurements but not ones we needed. is there any other way to demonstrate that duct tape could cover both nose and mouth other than this process? there's not. baez questions him 14:53:10 - recall being told duct tape was murder weapon? i don't recall questions from mr ashton about it being a murder weapon. those discussions were between me and dr. g. And mr ashton had these discussions too? i don't remember that, i remember talking about it being possible. happened early on, first day i was there with dr. g and dr. schultz. 14:54:20 - i suggested doing the superimposition to mr ashton. you weren't present when tape was removed from skull? no. you only saw a photo? that's true. the ones were tape is attached to hair matte? correct. LET'S GET TO THE POINT, WE'RE HERE TO DETERMINE 403 ISSUE. LETS' GET THERE. the hair matte was under skull? at base of skull. is it not normally at top? in decomposed skulls it is at the base. there's no scale on her face in that photo? no. 14:56:20 - you used just some photo you took off internet? correct. you would need to know how large child is? no i'd have to know where landmarks on face are. but children grow rapidly? they do. she could have been larger than time photo was taken? it looked recent. it's not an infant's photo. JUDGE: WHAT IS PURPOSE OF DEMONSTRATION? that's its possible the tape could cover both the child's nose and mouth 14:57:40 - A SKULL WAS UTLIZED, EXPLAIN THAT. we took photo for photographic scale. by using both skull and photo of tape and overlaying those images, you can make those scales the same size so you know size of skull relative to tape is real. now we are able to move from scale of skull to scale of tape. we're able to once we have skull scaled to photo, we can superimpose the tape over the image with the soft tissue. 14:59:10 - PHOTO USED IS PHOTO FROM M.E. OFFICE.yes. WILL THIS ANIMATION HELP YOU EXPLAIN TESTIMONY TO JURY. it illustrates it's possible. WITHOUT IT? i would be able to testify that it is possible without using animation. WHAT ARE DISADVANTAGES? disadvantage is it takes illustration of science out of explanation. 15:01:10 - witness steps down. judge asks what cases baez wants him to look at. RECESS UNTIL 3:15- judge needs to look at cases. 15:17:30 - JUDGE REFERENCE 2007 DECISION OF FLORIDA SUPREME COURT. INVOLVED FIRST DEGREE MURDER WITH FIREARM. THE COURT SAID THE FOLLOWING IN ITS OPINION: RELEVANT EVIDENCE PROVES OR DISPROVES MATERIAL FACT. IT IS INADMISSABLE IF PROBATIVE VALUE IS OUTWEIGHED BY PREJUDICE. THE PROPER APPLICATION REQUIRES BALANCING TEST BY TRIAL JUDGE. ONLY WHEN PREJUDICE OUTWEIGHS PROBATIVE VALUE IT MUST BE EXCLUDED. 15:19:00 - THIS RULE OF EXCLUSION IS DIRECTED AT EVIDENCE THAT INFLAMES JURY'S EMOTIONS. IF UNFAIR PREJUDICE OUTWEIGHS PROBATIVE VALUE, COURT SHOULD DETERMINE NEED FOR EVIDENCE, CHAIN OF INFERENCES AND EFFECTIVENESS OF LIMITED INSTRUCTION. 15:20:00 - THE EVIDENCE BEING SOUGHT TO BE INTRODUCED IS SUPERIMPOSED PHOTO OF VICTIM, THE SKULL AND PLACEMENT OF DUCT TAPE. DEFENSE SAYS EVIDENCE SHOULD BE EXCLUDED AND CITES TWO CASES. judge talks about case that used computer animation, published to jury as demonstrative evidence. court found it was case of first impression. concluded that video tape demo showed no blood, replicated no sounds and found no error in admitting the use of the computer generated animation. 15:21:55 - THIS CASE MAINLY DEALT WITH FIRST TIME USE OF COMPUTER GENERATION. WAS NOT HELPFUL TO COURT IN 403. IN NEXT CASE, THE BRANDON PEST CONTROL CASE, THIS CASE INVOLVED A VIDEO TAPE THAT WAS 15 MINS LONG THAT WAS TAKEN AT RESIDENCE IN QUESTION. IT SHOWED EXTERMINATION EQUIP AND POINTED OUT ITS UTILIZATION. IT ALSO HAD SOME COMPUTER ANIMATIONS THROUGHOUT. COURT CONCLUDED NARRATIONS CONTAINED THROUGHOUT WAS A SELF SERVING PROMOTIONAL TAPE SO COURT SAID IT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN INTRODUCED. 15:23:50 - IT DOES NOT GO THRU 403 ANALYSIS. IN LOOKING AT HTE FACTORS TALKED ABOUNT IN MCDUFFY THE COURT WILL MAKE FOLLOWNG OBSER: COURT NEEDS TO CONSIDER NEED FOR EVIDENCE. IN THIS CASE THERE HAS BEEN AN ISSUE DEALING WITH PLACEMENT OF DUCT TAPE UPON THE VICTIM AND THE LOCATION OF THIS DUCT TAPE. THE COURT WILL ALSO NOTE THAT THERE IS A NON DESCRIPT PIC OF CAYLEE AND THE UTILIZATION OF SKULL OF CAYLEE WHICH JURY HAS SEEN OVER LAST FEW DAYS. SKULL DOES NOT EXPOSE BLOOD. THE DR. HAS INDICATED THAT THIS WILL ILLUSTRATE HIS TESTIMONY. HE SAID IT WOULD BE HELPFUL. DOES THE EVIDENCE SUGGEST EMOTIONAL BASIS FOR VERDICT. IN HOMICIDE CASES EVIDENCE TENDS TO BE NOT NICE. THIS EVIDENCE, LIVE PHOTO OF VICTIM, SUPERIMPOSED IWTH SKULL DOES NOT HAVE TENDENCY TO SUGGEST EMOTIONAL BASIS FOR A VERDICT. 15:26:20 - NECESSEARY TO ESTABLISH MATERIAL FACT? BOTH SIDES HAVE DEBATED ITS RELEVANCY SO IT'S HIGHLY RELEVANT TO CONCLUDE BASED UPON ALL EVIDENCE WHETHER OR NOT THIS DUCT TAPE WAS PLACED IN A CERTAIN POSITION. THEREFORE BASED ON WHAT HAS BEEN PRESENTED, THE COURT WILL PERMIT THE WITNESS TO TESTIFY. LAST BUT NOT LEAST, PURSUANT TO ...IF REQUESTED BY DEFENSE, PURSUANT TO PIERCE, I WILL GIVE INSTRUCTIONS. 15:29:40 - baez tells judge that witness co authored report with dr. schultz and testimony is cumulative. ashton says dr. schultz testimony was not challenged. baez says ...he's off mic ..again. 15:31:40 - jury returns 15:32:40 - DR. MICHAEL WARREN CALLED TO THE STAND, forensic anthropologist, assoc. prof at u. of florida. director of human identification lab. 15:33:50 - ID lab consults with medical examiners when person has become skeletonized. been director two and a half years. was paramedic for 15 years, got MS and PhD at U. of Florida in forensic anthropology 15:35:20 - you are qualified as expert in forensic anthropology? yes, testified in probably 16 cases. submits witness as expert in forensic anthro 15:36:00 - my doctoral research was in fetal growth and development. also determining age at time of death. how did you become involved in this case? i was contacted by dr. g and schultz on dec 15 to assist in ID of remains. did you look at photos of remains too? yes. recall from photos when mandible was first found? yes. what was that position. it was still articulated, it was still in place. 15:37:45 - why is that noteworthy? that joint is a regular sinovial joint. it's lax and allowed movement, there's nothing to hold it in place once soft tissue decomposes. when remains are found on the sufface, it's very rare to find jaw articulatd with rest of skull. have you ever had a case where jaw in above ground remains was still in that position? yes, these are cases when i did human rights work in bosnia in which decedents had tape over their face. so you consitently find the mandible disarticulated from the skull? yes. 15:39:20 - familiar with photos and duct tape? yes. can you tell if tape would have been over nose and mouth? no the tape had moved. did you try to deterine if it was possible that a singel piece of duct tape could have covered the nose and mouth in one piece? i did. how? two methods, i consulted literature and scientific studies done on growing children to figure out normal distances between landmarks on a child's face. .... 15:41:00 - i was interested in nasal apperature, bottom of nose and the bottom of the teeth and oral airway. able to get estimates? estimates, not using those exact landmarks. what is the other method? i used video superimposition. what has it been used for? primarly used to exlucde possibility remains in question are those of particular person. SIGNAL LOSS FROM COURTHOUSE IN OUR TRAILER - TIME CODE WILL BE OFF BY A FEW SECONDS. 15:42:45 - putative, you take skull and take photos of that person and using a comparison method where you are able to superimpose that image on skull using anatomical landmark. you can determine if the photo is of unknown person. landmarks are bottom of teeth, references other tech terms 15:44:00 - how did you use that process here? i used that technique to scale the photo of skull with a photo provided me by fbi of tape. both had scales in them, we're able to know those two images are correct. that would help you put tape over skull, how do you then determine if a face was there? we'd go back to original technique ...take photo of skull, photo of decedent and then use landmarks. 15:45:30 - does that depict video showing that process? it does. will it help with your explanation? it does. objection, overruled. received into evidence 15:46:30 - judge reads instructions to jury about the evidence. used only to illustrate experts opinion. 15:47:00 - video is played for jury. not made public. only those in court can see. SIGNAL RETURNS FROM COURTHOUSE, TIME CODE IS ACCURATE. 15:53:10 - why is tape moved up and down on photo? to show we don't know where tape was. based on that video and your research, would the single piece of tape have covered both nose and mouth making breathing impossible? yes 15:55:10 - you were hired early in this case? i was consulted. yes. you never saw the duct tape while it was attached to hair matte? that's true. the photo you used to do this quicktime movies? I used photoshop. it should give precise measurements if you're scaling. the photo you used of caylee you grabbed from internet? correct. you have no scale on that photo? correct. only reason you showed it is to show it's possible this could have occurred? correct. it's possible tape could have covered the nose and mouth? correct you're not testifying that that actually happened? correct. 15:57:30 - you can't testify this duct tape had anything to do with caylee's death? correct. you can't say tape was associated with caylee after death? ask that again please. you don't know if that tape had to do with disposal or death? true. baez goes to drawing board. tries to draw scene where caylee was found, draws mandible and tape ...badly drawn. can't really tell what it is. 15:59:30 - more of baez drawing on board. the hair is generally up here? I cannot see it. witness stands down. 16:00:55 - the duct tape was attached to hair? that's my understanding. it was your understanding too that at one time her skull was inside three bags? objection, heresay....sustained. rephrase. based on evidence you're given, you knew caylees remains were in three bags? thats my understanding correct. could you see canvas bag? only in photographs. photos weren't clear in terms of what the opening looked like. can you close the bag? i've only seen photos. you have no idea if this tape was used to wrap caylees remains? objection, sustained. 16:03:00 - the duct tape was over mandible and some portion of mouth. that's because it was attached to the hair? the mandible was found articulate with the skull. the hair couldn't have gotten underneath all of this ....OBJECTION, APPROACH 16:06:40 - shows witness photo of hair matte. that was in wooded area off suburban? object ...when skull was found hair matte was on floor? on the surface. above it was mandible? based on photos i've seen, i wasn't at scene. for hair matte to be under skull, something had to make it roll there? yes. the duct tape made its way in that direction? correct. 16:08:15 - the video you showed of the possiblity that tape could have been in that position, that was graphic? it was. was it to appeal to jury's emotions? objections, APPROACH 16:11:57 - jury asked to step out again. 16:12:45 - PROFER continues ....was video for purpose of appealing to the jury? no. was it to demonstrate something of graphic nature? no. purpose of getting sympathy or getting jury angry? no. just to show tape could have covered nose and mouth? correct. end of questions 16:13:45 - five minute break 16:25:30 - did you know another piece of duct tape was found nine feet away? i was not aware of that. the possiblity in this demonstration, that was one possiblity? true. there are other possible scenarios in caylees death? correct. and the there are othe scenarios involving the duct tape? in terms of position of duct tape over face, no. there are other possilibites involving duct tape. yes. any quicktime movies of those? no sir. REDIRECT 16:26:55 - was tape on caylee's body before decomp? yes, it was placed on prior to decomp. that opinion is based on what? the mandible is still articulated with rest of cramium, it will always become disarticulated without something holding it in place. in your oponion could anything else have held it in place? no. how does tape during decomp keep the mandible in place? the mandible is stuck to soft tissue, when decomposition occurs, the duct tape stays in place and supports the mandible. 16:29:00- this photo shows hair is not under mandible but posterior? correct, under base of skull. during decomp how does hair end up not on top of skull? hair is attached to hair follicles, when decomp occurs it tends to slide down. not uncommosn to find birds nest of hair near base of skull. is that something you commonly see in deompc? correct. 16:30:00 - no further questions. 16:30:30 - there is root growth under mandible? i do see roots there. roots attached to hair? yes. can roots keep a mandible in place? that's possible. 16:31:40 - NO FURTHER QUESTIONS. 16:31:55 - does active decomp inhibit root growth? no. sustained. roots can't grow in hair until its fallen off skull ..sustained. are you familiar with plant growth and decomp? yes. you are not a botanist? no. but have you evaluated plant growth related to decomp? yes. could roots keep a mandible in place? it's possible under certain circumstances. in this case what would have to happen, would hair have to fall off? yes. until that point roots have nothing to grow in? yes. what would be holding that in place? the tape. RECROSS 16:34:00 - not a botanist? correct. you would defer to botanist? yes i would. you can't based on evidence know tracking of that duct tape? confused by question ... you can't testify to the position of the body at any point and time? no. or where hair was at one time or another? no. all we have are photos of tape stuck to hair? correct. no further questions. WITNESS EXCUSED. 16:36:30 - MICHAEL VINCENT CALLED TO STAND. returns to stand. csi with orange county sheriff. 16:36:50 - recovered insect evidence from trash in pontiac sunfire. approaches witness 16:38:00 - id's evidence bag of maggots. sent bag to dr. haskell 16:40:17 - id's bag as insect eggs, late stage of life cycle. sent it to dr. haskell. CROSS 16:41:20 - these collected on july 16? what was collected ...these pupae? no they were collected on august 28. but you processed vehicle on july 16? i did not process the vehicle. what do you mean ...you inspected trunk and items in trunk? yes. you're aware of entomology as a tool for law enforcement? yes. the insect was in later stages? yes. an entomologist can look at stage where maggot life is and can determine life cycle of that maggot? object. sustained. 16:43:00 - you have some training in entomology? yes sir. went to course at UF? i did. this course taught you there are different stages of insect? yes. an entomologist can take these stages and give you a pinpoint time of death? that's possible. you were aware of this evidence on july 16? no. you did see any insect activity in garbage or trunk on july 16? no. not in trunk of car. there was none that i saw. no further questions. witness excused. 16:46:00 - ROBIN MAYNARD CALLED TO STAND. csi with orange county. helped recover caylee remains. responsible for documenting collection of insect activity. collected over several days. 16:47:30 - witness id's her label on evidence bag. says its pupae collected 12/14/08. as she collected them she consulted with dr. haskell. 16:48:30 - she placed it in bag and sent to dr. haskell. witness IDs more bags of evidence, envelopes of bugs. was collected from scene in december 2008. 16:51:30 - witness IDs more bags of entomological evidence taken from scene, december 2008. location where item is collected also noted on bag. 16:53:30 - witness IDs more bags of entomological evidence taken from scene on suburban drive. sent it to dr. neil haskell 16:56:00 - witness IDs more bags of evidence. says its her label with her handwriting. piece of cardboard with pink remnants on it. 16:57:15 - no further questions CROSS 16:57:40 - collected evidence under direction of dr. neil haskell? yes. the job ws so thoroughly done he asked you to stop collecting? correct. the cardboard item was found in a lane? yes. we're also talking about beer bottles? correct. tires? correct. there were so many items in that area it got to the point where you stopped collecting? i was the lead in charge of sifting, i was not in primary search area. but you were there? correct. the items i had to deal with were being sifted, if they were bigger they weren't my responsibility. people threw things there all the time, it was a common dumping area? i can't say it was a common dumping area. there were multiple items ...sustained. this area is across from a school? not directly across. it is next to school? it's down the street. kids walk to school there? object. sustained. 17:00:00 - jury dismissed for the day 17:02:30 - BAEZ asks for mistrail based on video of skull and duct tape around face. based on profer this was a possibiilty. witness also said this was speculative. overwhelming prejudicial effect outweighed probative value. HAS NOT BOTH STATE AND DEFENSE ADVANCED VARIOUS THEORIES AS TO LOCATION OF THE DUCT TAPE? yes. AND DID NOT THE WITNESS TESTIFY THAT WAS ONE POSSIBLE SCENARIO AND THERE COULD BE OTHERS. witness did, not outweighed by video of child and skull in background. served only one purpose to inflame jury. YOU SAID THE PHOTO SHOWED DUCT TAPE WRAPPED AROUND THE HEAD. WAS IT WRAPPED AROUND OR SUPERIMPOSED. state: the testimony is that at some point the child had tape around nose, mouth or both. it was necessary to establish theory this tape was murder weapons. video itself showed tape moving above and below. it was a fair and necessary demonstration 17:07:10 - MOTION FOR MISTRIAL AT THIS TIME WILL BE DENIED. 17:00:30 - no further questions.
3d hairy monster movie character dancing style with blue furry on pink background 4K
3d Animation hairy monster movie character dancing style with blue furry on pink background 4K (Luma Matte)
CASEY ANTHONY TRIAL / ISO P1
FTG FOR COVERAGE OF THE CASEY ANTHONY MURDER TRIAL / ANTHONY ISO CAM NOTE: JUDGE'S COMMENTS ALWAYS IN CAPS 9:04:00 - DR. GARY UTZ RETURNS TO THE STAND 9:05:30 - we were going thru photos taken by investigator hanson. shows him next photo, it's a front view of pair of shorts. this garment has a number of holes? yes it does. had the shorts been torn or cut? i can't rule out some of defects occurred before decomp but a lot of what i see is consistent with clothing seen in decomp. 9:07:00 - photo is tag of shorts, circo brand, 24 months. next photo is another aspect of tag. 9:08:15 - next photo is of backside of tag. 9:12:00- pic of shorts and shirt tag 9:13:45 - after that my involvement was approx the same as someone else in office. It was dr. g's case. When did she take back responsibility for case? I believe she returned Friday afternoon. From then on was your involvement assisting? Correct. CROSS EXAM 9:14:50 - you are board certified ME? Forensic pathologist. What does that mean? Pathology is the study of disease. A pathologist is a physician most commonly involved in diagnosis of disease states. Pathologist also performs autopsies. Forensic path is a sub specialty, investigates cause and manner of death. 9:16:00 - in this case before remains were found, you were aware of hoopla surrounding missing child? Yes. it was discussed. But before remains are found, the ME office is a specatator. When remains were found there was more conversation in office? Yes. 9:17:10 - he took pics and surveyed scene? He did. Did supplemental report? He did. Dr. G came back into town and took over the case? That's correct. Why? She felt that it was important for her to be involved. She had good working relationship with law enforcement. I was relatively new in the office. 9:18:20 - it is a complicated case that requires the use of investigations that are not parts of our office so in a case like that was reasonable on her part ot coordinate that. She would have been involved in any rate even if it were my case. 9:19:15 - you talked about the duct tape. And looked at pictures? Correct. There was no duct tape on left side of skull? Not sure I understand your question. What do you mean by on ..you said in photos yesterday there was some duct tape adhered to hair matte on right side of skull? Yes. none on left side? It extended beyond midline up to left, certainly. The tape itself wasn't attached to skull. None on back either? No. completely encircling it, no sir. 9:21:10 - there were points of adherence also on left side. Did you removed duct tape? I did. Did you examine it? Took photo and looked at it briefly. Do anything to swab to preserve dna? I did not. Careful in handling it? Yes. wear gloves? Yes. suited up in ME clothing? Yes. put it in evidence bag? yes. it was released to field agent of FBI. Any human tissue on tape? Nothing I could ID as human tissue 9:22:35 - my goal at that point was to provide material to fbi lab for ID purposes and to provide the duct tape for analysis. You found no evidence of trauma on these remains? I did not see any evidence of trauma. See any broken bones? Portions of bone were disrupted but I did not analyze them. 9:23:40 - explains what healing fracture it. There was no indication of any prior injury? I didn't see any. In process of autopsy, did you reset the calverium? 9:24:25 - I suppose you mean cutting through the top of the skull? I did not. (casey crying) 9:24:45 - if body had been found 4 months before, would you have had more forensic evidence? Possible. Remember what size shorts were? I believe 24 months. 9:25:45 - were you involved in decisions to get further expert exam of remains? No sir. Did you examine remains with dr. schultz? Only initial exam that occurred on evening of the 11th. He's a forensic anthropologist at UCF. Did you participate in toxicology exams? No. 9:27:00 - know who dr. goldberger is? He's a toxicologist. You talked about location of mandible? Yes. bottom jaw? Correct. You said it was held in place by hair and roots? Yes. when you picked up remains from table, did you hold skull in your hand? Yes. and mandible didn't fall off? I did not. When it was moved, it didn't come off? It did not. 9:28:40 - you talked about your duties to determine cause of death? That's correct. You do not know from your exam the cause of death in this case? I did not make a determination of cause of death in this case. You do not know cause of death. I do not. The manner of death was determined by dr. G to be a homicide? Correct. 9:30:10 - you have not rendered an opinion as to manner of death? I have not. REDIRECT 9:31:10 - looks at photo of skull, left side. That is what you are referring to about tape going from right to left? Correct. What side of face is circled? Right side. It shows tape on both right and left side? Correct. WITNESS EXCUSED. 9:33:55 - DR. JOHN SCHULTZ CALLED TO STAND, UCF dept. of anthroplogy, specializes in forensic anthropology and archealogy. MA in human biology, Phd in anthropology, specializing in forensic anthro. 9:35:30 - talks about difference between forensic anthropology and archeology. Says forensic anthropology is studying human skeleton. 9:36:50 - tephonomy is study of body after death, changes in how skeleton may have been dispersed on site. Talks about human ID lab at U. of Florida. When there are skeletized remains, they can be sent there to be analyzed. Cases from all around state come to the lab. 9:38:40 - specialty is detecting human remains using ground penetrating radar. Non invasive, locates change in ground. Dissertation involves remote sensing tools. 9:39:50 - talks about relationship between UCF and local law enforcement, ME office. 9:41:00 - develop relationship with ME to be on call forensic anthropogist? Yes. around december 11, 2008, get a call from ME? I got a call from steve hanson and dr. g. I was asked if I was able to got to scene to participate in the recovery. 9:42:00 - was not at scene first day when skull was removed. Where did you go to assist? I went directly to ME office. When you arrived, had skull arrived? I don't remember. What is your first recollection of skull? I remember looking in bag, seeing skull and duct tape, didn't want to interfere with duct tape, laid bag so skull wasn't interfered with. 9:43:50 - I remember at one point I held the skull up so photos could be taken of underside. Shows witness photo of him holding skull. 9:44:50 - is there a term called anatomical position? Yes, that would the normal position it would be in. was the mandible in close to anatomical position? It was close. Was that surprising/ to see a mandible still retained on skull? Normally there needs to be something there to hold it in place. What was holding it in place? It would have been the hair that had moved to base of skull. Anything else? We can see leaf litter and roots. How about the tape? No because the tape was adhered to hair but I don't recall it holding mandible in place in this view. 9:46:50 - during exam of bones, did you find anything indicating trauma? No evidence of trauma. Did you do thorough excavation of site? I provided advisory role. I would not call it excavation. I would call this a recovery. What was the plan? On the 12th I arrived at the scene and we talked about how to process scene. It was difficult because we were dealing with small child, had additional parts of bones, some weren't ossified yet and it was a heavy wood environment, lots of plant material. 9:48:45 - I told everyone to be on hands and knees removing leaf litter and double checking all the material that was removed. Started where known material was and worked out from there. I started in area where skeletal remains were found. 9:49:30 - talks about screening, removing material and sifting it thru box with mesh. Did you tell them to use certain kind of mesh? I said go to a smaller size screen because the bones were so small. 9:50:45 - explains how the search was conducted with law enforcement, mapping process. 9:52:50 - talks about how to map a scene using a computer. 9:53:30 - when remains were found did you examine them? Yes, if I was there. I would always assess what bones were found and suspicious material. I had to determine if they were human bones. Did search area increase? Correct as we initially started in main area, additional csi's worked south of us and as additional remains were located, we expanded out further. 9:55:10 - witness tells jury about the photo of scene, shows the process involving removing vines and over growth. Screening of debris. Also shows flags and pails of debris. Is it important to know where bones are found? When trying to understand how remains may have been dispersed, you need to know where all remains were located. 9:57:50 - witness explains photo, shows flags being placed where items were found , also shows csi documenting evidence and collecting it. 10:00:15 - those bones you ID as human were transported to ME? Yes. next photo is of remains that were found. 10:01:15 - we're looking at vertebra, part of spine, they're separated, there's no soft tissue, we can see roots growing thru vertebra as well. What's important about this pic ..the vertebra .all these bones were found in one location. That says they were transported while they were all together. 10:03:30 - photo of bone fragment. We see bones and envelope. Is that how each bone is documented? Correct. 10:04:50 - this is fragment from other bone? Correct. Shown photo of two bones. 10:05:45 - what are these bones? We're looking at largest bones in body, femura, lower leg bones attached to pelvis. Witness shown split screen. Do these two bones related to each other? Yes, the top of these bones have been chewed on by animals. OBJECTION 10:07:15 - SIDEBAR 10:06:30 - RECESS 10:38:00 - testimony resumes 10:39:00 - references split screen, showing pics of bones. He's asked about how bones fit together. 10:40:45 - photo shows hand and finger bones. What is purpose of this photo? We're always going to document skeletal remains, so we take multiple views of skeleton. This image is documenting bones of the hand and our scales are in centimeters so I put quarter in pic to show how tiny the bones are. Many of these were found in the main area. 10:42:20 - looks at his notes .mapping finished on december 20th. Looks at photo of bones again. These bones are part of pelvis, top area. Each one of these would grow as three bones and then fuse. This one here we have carnivore damage on bottom. 10:44:15 - one of these was found almost completely buried in the muck. Looks at his notes. It's the left bone in pic. 10:45:15 - looks at pic of skeleton laid out in anatomical order after all the bones are recovered. How successful was this recovery effort? Even with adult skeleton with bones intact, its tough to collect majority of remains and teeth. I feel we were very succesful here. Collected all but one tooth, had most of spine, long bones, tiny bones of hands and feet. A few pieces here and there are missing. 10:47:00 - I would say very successful in what was recovered and mapping those bones as well. 10:47:40 - mapping tells about spatial relationship of bones, and relationship at dump site. 10:48:00 - witness looks at survey that denotes areas where bones were found. 10:49:00 - photo shows survey map where bones were found. Witness points out on map where bones were found. In area A is where the body and bags was placed into the woods. This is where initial separation of body parts occurred, such as skull, arms, lower limbs. 10:50:30 - I started in area A, the rest of the csi's were south of us and as additional remains were found we moved further south. When this area was searched, we would talk about how to expand the search. It progressed further south. 10:52:50 - what was found in area A? it was initial area with skull, bags, arms with hand bones, lower legs also found there, including left foot. Area B? shaft for upper arm bone. Area F? as we progressed further southeast, we found trunk of body with pelvis, lower legs were dragged to this area. At this point being dragged from area A by animals is lower trunk. 10:55:10 - area D we had only located one bone. Area E a hand bone was found there. In area D that was one bone of foot? Correct. Area F is where we did see carnivore damage on multiple bones. Area G is most of spinal columns with ribs attached. Separated out is lower veterbra 10:56;55 - consistent with animal moving them. Area H we start to see more of the ribs, separated. Area I, if we start at top of spine we have cervical vertibra, to thoraic, to lumbar. Area i found 20 of vertebra here. It's being dragged while relatively articulated. Decomp would have finished there. 10:58:50 - there would have been some tissue holding the bones together. Based on this dispersal pattern, was this body deposited in area as intact unit? It may have been relatively intact if we look at area F trunk and lower legs were articulated. No indication the body was dismembered.? No we did not see any evidence. 11:00:15 - we talked about the hip bone which was buried. What is the significance of that? When trying to interpret how long bones have been at site ..SIDEBAR. 11:04:30 - formally requests witness be accepted as expert. 11:05:10 - when trying to interpret how long skeleton may have been out of scene, many bones were under leaf fall so they had to be there before they fell. .that would tell us more than likely this area was a swampy area, was water southeast, so it's possible when area was flooded, silt and other material may have resulted in burial of this bone .would have happened sometime over the summer. 11:06:20 - it was close to a big palmetto trunk. Area F on map is lowest area. That is one of the bones with carnivore damage and there's going to be silt suspended in water and that process would have led to almost burying the bone. 11:07:15 - approximately how long were these remains in that area? We use mulitple lines of evidence and overall the bones were dry, competely free of soft tissue. They had no decomp odor, they had some erosion which would take time, and were found under leaf litter. The combination of that with root evidence. A period of six months could be possible. 11;08:40 - dispersal of bones primarily the result of animal activity. There was some animal chewing on the ribs. This area was processed well and remaining bones could have been taken away by animals. CROSS EXAM 11:09:40 - as forensic anthropologist, you examine bones yourself? Correct. Do you x ray bones? Yes. in your examination you found no evidence of any pre mortem trauma? No evidence. No broken bones or fractures? Not sure of your question. You found no evidence of fractures? No evidence of fractures. No evidence of twist of bones? No evidence. No evidence of any traumatic injury before her death? No evidence. 11:12:10 - how far is area from pavement of suburban drive? I did not do mapping, if I use scale on map I would think 25-30 feel maybe. I did not document the measurements. This map just shows elevation and lines? Yes. my job was not the mapping. Measurements provided to me by ronald murdoch. 11:13:55 - do you know when the dispersement took place? Not sure I understand question. We start with area A, primary site and all of those items were in bags? Originally when deposited out at the site. 11:15:00 - other areas with bones and fragments, there were no bag? no bags, but not sure about parts of bag. majority of what was found was all area A? I wouldn't say majority. It was found in area of A. and after inspecting contents of area A you discovered missing bones? I wouldn't agree with that because when we started processing scene, we had other people locating additional bones south of area A. 11:16:40 - we had a crew of people we separated them out and searched simultaneously. You don't have any scientific evidence when first dispersement from area A occurred? No. same question as to other areas? Yes. there's nothing that tells you how this child died? Not a question I would answer. All I look for is peri mortem trauma and I did not find that. 11:18:15 - when you looked at duct tape on skull, it was not covering nasal appature? No. REDIRECT 11:18:35 - nasal appature is hole on skull where nose would be. Tape was covering the mouth area. Was tape in position to cover nose? Possibly. Hard to tell because nose wasn't there any more? Correct. 11:20:00 - witness circles on photo what bones were found in area A. what was in area b? left humurous. 11:21:45 - what was in area F? we do have clavicles and parts of pelvis and both femur shafts and ribs. One part of a vertebra. Area G? see separation of bottom of spinal column. Area G had couple of ribs. Area H? we only had one, part of one vertebra. And a bunch of ribs. Area i? see more ribs and parts of 20 vertebra. 11:23:45 - NO FURTHER QUESTIONS. WITNESS EXCUSED. 11:25:30 - DR. JAN GARIVAGLIA, CHIEF MEDICAL EXAMINER FOR ORANGE, OSCEOLA SINCE 2004. Was ME is Bexar county in San Antonio for 10 years. Also in Atlanta and Jacksonville. Explains her education and training credentials. 11:28:10 - came under my jurisdiction. When did you first learn that remains of caylee had been found? The 11th I don't remember the time. I was alerted by my chief investigator steve hanson. What did you do? I was late for the airport, as I was walking out mr hanson told me they found remains. We weren't sure who it was at that point, I had engagement I could not get out of so I told dr. utz to handle it until I got back the next day.. also had them call dr. schultz. 11:30:00 - I didn't think my absence for night would matter. Returned following day? Yes. did you go back and review photos of scene and at your facility? Absolutely. I went out to the scene, reviewed photos, made suggestions. 11:31:45 - one of things you examined was hair matte? Eventually it came back to me, originally sent to FBI, I examined it then. Looks at photo on screen. 11:32:40- shows her another photo she reviewed. She says it's photo of hair matte.we see a lot of the roots that have grown thru the hair. We're looking at hair matte and roots that have grown thru the matte and some holes in the hair matte probably from insect activity 11:34:15 - shown another photo. We teased out some of the hair to take as a sample for possible toxicological use. 11:35:40 - next photo. That was taken at my direction. Again that's the scale next to one of the roots on the hair matte. 11:36:30 - some of items found with remains, did you examine them? Yes. recall a blanket? Yes. did you have that photographed? Yes. looks at photo of blanket. See pic of dirty blanket with leaf litter on it. This is the condition it came in? it was not cleaned, just unfolded. Certain portions where you can see figures? Yes. took photo to see them more clearly. Next photo is closeup. 11:38:40 - zooms in on figure on blanket. When you viewed that did it look familiar? Yes, it was winnie the pooh with piglet on his back. 11:39:20 - photo of other side of blanket. Did that blanket have plant material growing in it? Yes. photographed that as well. Closeup photo of plants and roots growing into blanket. 11:40:40 - what are we looking at? This is closeup of edge of blanket with winnie the pooh, shows roots lying on top of and thru the blanket. 11:41:10 - next photo. More of root growth on blanket. 11:42:00 - another photo of root material, more close up 11:42:45 - next photo, more root material growing into blanket 11:43:30 - also root material growing in black plastic bag? there were two bags and roots were growing thru the holes of both those bags. Shown photo of roots and bag. 11:44:30 - was there also canvas laundry bag with remains? Yes there was. Roots in that? Roots were growing on top of and into bag. shown photo of roots growing into the bag. 11:45:40 - were roots growing around everything? There were roots in bones, didn't see in shorts and the shirt was disintegrated. Certainly the blanket, two plastic bag and canvas bags. The lettering and stitching along hems were left of the shirt. 11:46:40 - how did you ID bones? We thought best ID was thru dna. It's tough to ID a child because we often use teeth, but it's tough with child. We were hoping we were going to get nuclear dna and at least mito dna. Did you send bone to FBI? Yes we did. 11:47:45 - photo of bone upon return from dna evaluation. The portion missing on this bone? They removed a piece of right tibia to test. Get results from FBI? Yes. they identified remains as caylee anthony. 11:49:00 - is manner of death determination a purely medical or scientific determination? It's basd on scientific principles and gathering all the info you can, all the history, medical history. Take all of those things and any scientific information and come up with opinion .SIDEBAR LUNCH RECESS 13:40:00 - court resumes with SIDEBAR 13:44:00 - casey walks back into courtroom. 13:46:30 - sows dr. G. some evidence bag, has laundry bag in it. state goes over more evidence with her. 13:47:40- evidence bag of body bag with vegetation. next bag has black plastic bag. 13:49:40 - more bags of evidence shown to dr. g., this is bag with the shorts. 13:50:45 - evidence bag with clothing brought in with the body. 13:52:15 - when we broke we were discussing cause and manner of death. what is manner of death? its the classification of death based on all info available to us ...scientific, scene, history, medical. 13:53:00 - also bring to bear your exp in forensic pathology? absolutely. manner of death in this case? yes. homicide. why? it's based on three main items . first, we know from observational studies that it is a red flag that when a child is not reported immediately to authorities, that's something we look for ... for foul play. this child was not reported missing for a long time. the other thing is the body was hidden. a child's body is thrown out in a field, that is one of things we look for when looking for homicide. the body is often found in closed containers, suitcase or plastic bag such as this case. that's a red flag for homicide. the last besides delay in reporting, and found in a field, would be the duct tape located on lower half of the face. there is no child that should have duct tape on its face when it dies or after they dies. we've seen that in cases of homicide 13:55:25 - cause of death is the injury or the diseases that initiates chain of events that results in death. it's the specific injury or disease that causes death. in this case, can you conclude cause of death? the cause of death was homicide of undetermined means. we can reliably say homicide but i don't know means by which it occurred. any objects found with body that could cause death? the only possible object would be duct tape, if that was over mouth and nose, suffocation with plastic bag would be the only other thing. 13:56:55 - were you aware of chloroform in this case? yes. could a child exposed to sufficient amount die as a result? absolutely. at this point, can you tell what caused her death? no, i believe we have enough evidence to say its a homicide, but don't have enough scientific information to say how the homicide occurred. was there any trauma to body? it's very decomposed so unless trauma hurt the bones, i can't say. i can't rule out any trauma cuz even a gun shot wound could not touch the bones. was there any injury to bones? no anti mortem injury to bones. were you aware of any illnesses the child had? i asked for a history of illness and i was told there were none. NO FURTHER QUESTIONS CROSS EXAMINATION 13:59:00 - you live in orlando? yes. for the period of time of about 4 mos prior to remains being found, you were aware of media surrounding this case? i was aware this was a big case. i don't watch the news. i was not aware as most people. were you aware there was a circus like atmosphere around anthony home? i do not know. i did know about speculation abuot this case. you knew if remains were found your office would be involved? no, i was hoping it was lake county, different jurisdiction. in fact, you came back to handle this case? that's true. you knew prior to finding the remains that chloroform was involved? i was told that by investigators at time we got the body. 14:01:10 - you reasoned perhaps chloroform could have been used to contibute to cause of death? that would be one of the possibilities we would examine. so you brought in an expert? i brought in a toxicologist who dealt with toxicology of bones. dr. goldberger from U of florida. you sent him piece of bone? from left femur. as a toxicologist, the request was to look for choloroform and other volatile chemicals? correct. 14:03:00 - he checked for volatiles and several other tests. he's limited in what he can do with bones. results were negative? correct. were you present when dr. werner spitz came to observe ....objection ...SIDEBAR 14:07:30 - did dr. werner spitz see autopsy? did he, no. were you aware he was coming down? i was informed by my office manager that mr baez had requested to bring in outside person in to watch autopsy. our policy is to come up with cause and manner of death and make that available to him once we were done. did dr. spitz did a second autopsy? sustained. 14:09:00 - dr. goldberger is MD? no, he's a phd. what did he test? bone, scrapings I took from inside of bone, the hair and soil that fell out of hair and that was for volatiles. then he tested bone, scrapings of bone marrow and washings from cranial cavity. 14:10:15 - tested for xanax. all results were negative? correct. you did not cut open cranium? no absolutely not. no trauma was found? no anti mortem trauma. we found post mortem trauma. there was no evidence of any form of trauma when the child was alive? on bones there was no evidence of trauma. 14:11:40 - you are confirming that despite investigations, toxicology report, there is no evidence to establish cause of death? it was a means of homicide that could not be determined. you called it a homicide as proposed to accident? the circumstances of the death did not fit anything but a homicide. and based on what det. melich told you? what did he tell me ...that the body wasn't reported missing for 31 days. some things you learned from the media? nothing from the media would have entered into a decision. i can't take anything they would say in something as grave as this. 14:13:15 - it probably was a homicide? not probably, that is the only logical conclusion based on scientific information we have based on observational information we have on homicides and children dying. we know in systematic observatonal studies, we look at all the accidental drownings for instance in my jurisdiction, 100 percent of the time EMS is called. it absolutely has something to do with this case. every death i investigate has to be put into cirmcumstances of death; you can never, ever detemine a manner of death except in rare instances just on examining body. we need to know how usually deaths occur. 14:14:50 - we have to know red flags for homicide. by my experience and by what is known about the way homicides occur i felt preponderence of evidence .... by not reporting child missing, the fact it is tossed in a field to rot in bag is clear indication the body was trying to be hidden, that it was found in bag is a big red falg and duct tape anywhere attached to that childs face is indication of homicide. 14:16:00 - we know 100 percent of the time that accidental deaths are reported unless there is a good reason not to be. no reason not to report. if you don't report it to authorities, you are risking that childs life. we know thats behavioral science. and we know thru all cases in our morgue, accidents are 100 percent reported unless there's a good reason not to. 14:16:50 - this death couldn't be an accident? 100 percent of time when a person finds a child they call 911 cuz there a chance child might live. what if a person finds a drowned body. what then? i am looking at behaviors that shows no matter how stiff that body is, they always call 911 in the hopes that the child could be saved. i'm looking at observational data. that's what we used. 14:17:55 - i explained to you the red flags that we know in forensics based on behavior ...i don't understand ..objection ...sustained. 14:19:00- i felt the manner of death was defensible scientifically based on systematic observational studies of how homicide, accidents and natural deaths occur. if these remains had been found 4-5 mos before, would you have had better scientific evidence? absolutely. you mentioned duct tape, was it in vicinity of lower mandible? correct. REDIRECT 14:20:50 - you were asked about a second autopsy. did you keep body in same condition as when you received it? yes we did except what we had to take for dna and toxicology testing. left roots in bones? yes, that's normal procedure. the absence of positive results for chloroform, does that exclude acute use? we would not expect to find any of those things in the bones, that was a long shot. we would not expect those results to be positive, even at time of death. 14:22:20 - assume caylee died and was discarded about june 16, six months before she was found, at the stage mr mason was asking you about, four months earlier, what would be its condition after 2 mos? it would certainly be skeletonized by then. so if it was found in august, you would expect it would have been skeletonized? yes, the internal organs would be completely gone. WITNESS EXCUSED. ? 14:24:15 - SIDEBAR 14:35:00 - jury is dismissed for a time, judge says they have to discuss some issues. 14:37:16 - attorneys are looking at a video it appears. 14:42:00 - ashton talks about submitting a video showing duct tape over the mouth, trying to show tape was sufficient size to cover nose and mouth. baez argues let's throw eveything against wall and see what stick. this impostion is a fantasy and it's not supported that can't be testified to. it goes to root of 403. 14:45:10 - judge talks about a decision by florida supreme court, may have similar application. says he needs to reread it. the case is 26 pages long. 14:46:00 - baez says there's been no testimony that this duct tape was in fact in this position as reflected in this video. references another court case. clearly shows presenation must be relevant and must accurately reflect oral testimony offered. there's not going to be any oral testimony this duct tape was in this position on this child's face. dr. warren could not testify to this. LET ME HEAR DR. WARREN'S TESTIMONY. I CAN BETTER MAKE AN INFORMED DECISION. THIS WILL BE A PROFER. SO THERE'S NO NEED TO MAKE OBJECTIONS AT THIS POINT MR. BAEZ 14:48:15 - dr.michael warren, forensic anthropologist, assoc. prof at u. of florida. director of human identification lab. 14:49:10 - you worked with dr. schultz on this case? yes sir. you examined the skull and other bones? i did. at some point the issue of duct tape and establishing whether it caused death came up? correct. how was this video created? it was created by taking photos of skull and photos of tape and photo that was found on the internet that was appropriate in orientation of child's face. why use pics of skull and face? both have photo scales and those are used to make sure the size of those images are comparable. 14:50:40 - have to match face to skull in terms of sizing. then use tape label to superimpose on face. skull is used to make one to one match with face? yes. is it possible without this superimposition to determine the end of caylees nose and mouth? no. are there certain rough estimates you can make based on research on avarage distances? previous studies for children and one study done at U of Michigan has some measurements but not ones we needed. is there any other way to demonstrate that duct tape could cover both nose and mouth other than this process? there's not. baez questions him 14:53:10 - recall being told duct tape was murder weapon? i don't recall questions from mr ashton about it being a murder weapon. those discussions were between me and dr. g. And mr ashton had these discussions too? i don't remember that, i remember talking about it being possible. happened early on, first day i was there with dr. g and dr. schultz. 14:54:20 - i suggested doing the superimposition to mr ashton. you weren't present when tape was removed from skull? no. you only saw a photo? that's true. the ones were tape is attached to hair matte? correct. LET'S GET TO THE POINT, WE'RE HERE TO DETERMINE 403 ISSUE. LETS' GET THERE. the hair matte was under skull? at base of skull. is it not normally at top? in decomposed skulls it is at the base. there's no scale on her face in that photo? no. 14:56:20 - you used just some photo you took off internet? correct. you would need to know how large child is? no i'd have to know where landmarks on face are. but children grow rapidly? they do. she could have been larger than time photo was taken? it looked recent. it's not an infant's photo. JUDGE: WHAT IS PURPOSE OF DEMONSTRATION? that's its possible the tape could cover both the child's nose and mouth 14:57:40 - A SKULL WAS UTLIZED, EXPLAIN THAT. we took photo for photographic scale. by using both skull and photo of tape and overlaying those images, you can make those scales the same size so you know size of skull relative to tape is real. now we are able to move from scale of skull to scale of tape. we're able to once we have skull scaled to photo, we can superimpose the tape over the image with the soft tissue. 14:59:10 - PHOTO USED IS PHOTO FROM M.E. OFFICE.yes. WILL THIS ANIMATION HELP YOU EXPLAIN TESTIMONY TO JURY. it illustrates it's possible. WITHOUT IT? i would be able to testify that it is possible without using animation. WHAT ARE DISADVANTAGES? disadvantage is it takes illustration of science out of explanation. 15:01:10 - witness steps down. judge asks what cases baez wants him to look at. RECESS UNTIL 3:15- judge needs to look at cases. 15:17:30 - JUDGE REFERENCE 2007 DECISION OF FLORIDA SUPREME COURT. INVOLVED FIRST DEGREE MURDER WITH FIREARM. THE COURT SAID THE FOLLOWING IN ITS OPINION: RELEVANT EVIDENCE PROVES OR DISPROVES MATERIAL FACT. IT IS INADMISSABLE IF PROBATIVE VALUE IS OUTWEIGHED BY PREJUDICE. THE PROPER APPLICATION REQUIRES BALANCING TEST BY TRIAL JUDGE. ONLY WHEN PREJUDICE OUTWEIGHS PROBATIVE VALUE IT MUST BE EXCLUDED. 15:19:00 - THIS RULE OF EXCLUSION IS DIRECTED AT EVIDENCE THAT INFLAMES JURY'S EMOTIONS. IF UNFAIR PREJUDICE OUTWEIGHS PROBATIVE VALUE, COURT SHOULD DETERMINE NEED FOR EVIDENCE, CHAIN OF INFERENCES AND EFFECTIVENESS OF LIMITED INSTRUCTION. 15:20:00 - THE EVIDENCE BEING SOUGHT TO BE INTRODUCED IS SUPERIMPOSED PHOTO OF VICTIM, THE SKULL AND PLACEMENT OF DUCT TAPE. DEFENSE SAYS EVIDENCE SHOULD BE EXCLUDED AND CITES TWO CASES. judge talks about case that used computer animation, published to jury as demonstrative evidence. court found it was case of first impression. concluded that video tape demo showed no blood, replicated no sounds and found no error in admitting the use of the computer generated animation. 15:21:55 - THIS CASE MAINLY DEALT WITH FIRST TIME USE OF COMPUTER GENERATION. WAS NOT HELPFUL TO COURT IN 403. IN NEXT CASE, THE BRANDON PEST CONTROL CASE, THIS CASE INVOLVED A VIDEO TAPE THAT WAS 15 MINS LONG THAT WAS TAKEN AT RESIDENCE IN QUESTION. IT SHOWED EXTERMINATION EQUIP AND POINTED OUT ITS UTILIZATION. IT ALSO HAD SOME COMPUTER ANIMATIONS THROUGHOUT. COURT CONCLUDED NARRATIONS CONTAINED THROUGHOUT WAS A SELF SERVING PROMOTIONAL TAPE SO COURT SAID IT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN INTRODUCED. 15:23:50 - IT DOES NOT GO THRU 403 ANALYSIS. IN LOOKING AT HTE FACTORS TALKED ABOUNT IN MCDUFFY THE COURT WILL MAKE FOLLOWNG OBSER: COURT NEEDS TO CONSIDER NEED FOR EVIDENCE. IN THIS CASE THERE HAS BEEN AN ISSUE DEALING WITH PLACEMENT OF DUCT TAPE UPON THE VICTIM AND THE LOCATION OF THIS DUCT TAPE. THE COURT WILL ALSO NOTE THAT THERE IS A NON DESCRIPT PIC OF CAYLEE AND THE UTILIZATION OF SKULL OF CAYLEE WHICH JURY HAS SEEN OVER LAST FEW DAYS. SKULL DOES NOT EXPOSE BLOOD. THE DR. HAS INDICATED THAT THIS WILL ILLUSTRATE HIS TESTIMONY. HE SAID IT WOULD BE HELPFUL. DOES THE EVIDENCE SUGGEST EMOTIONAL BASIS FOR VERDICT. IN HOMICIDE CASES EVIDENCE TENDS TO BE NOT NICE. THIS EVIDENCE, LIVE PHOTO OF VICTIM, SUPERIMPOSED IWTH SKULL DOES NOT HAVE TENDENCY TO SUGGEST EMOTIONAL BASIS FOR A VERDICT. 15:26:20 - NECESSEARY TO ESTABLISH MATERIAL FACT? BOTH SIDES HAVE DEBATED ITS RELEVANCY SO IT'S HIGHLY RELEVANT TO CONCLUDE BASED UPON ALL EVIDENCE WHETHER OR NOT THIS DUCT TAPE WAS PLACED IN A CERTAIN POSITION. THEREFORE BASED ON WHAT HAS BEEN PRESENTED, THE COURT WILL PERMIT THE WITNESS TO TESTIFY. LAST BUT NOT LEAST, PURSUANT TO ...IF REQUESTED BY DEFENSE, PURSUANT TO PIERCE, I WILL GIVE INSTRUCTIONS. 15:29:40 - baez tells judge that witness co authored report with dr. schultz and testimony is cumulative. ashton says dr. schultz testimony was not challenged. baez says ...he's off mic ..again. 15:31:40 - jury returns 15:32:40 - DR. MICHAEL WARREN CALLED TO THE STAND, forensic anthropologist, assoc. prof at u. of florida. director of human identification lab. 15:33:50 - ID lab consults with medical examiners when person has become skeletonized. been director two and a half years. was paramedic for 15 years, got MS and PhD at U. of Florida in forensic anthropology 15:35:20 - you are qualified as expert in forensic anthropology? yes, testified in probably 16 cases. submits witness as expert in forensic anthro 15:36:00 - my doctoral research was in fetal growth and development. also determining age at time of death. how did you become involved in this case? i was contacted by dr. g and schultz on dec 15 to assist in ID of remains. did you look at photos of remains too? yes. recall from photos when mandible was first found? yes. what was that position. it was still articulated, it was still in place. 15:37:45 - why is that noteworthy? that joint is a regular sinovial joint. it's lax and allowed movement, there's nothing to hold it in place once soft tissue decomposes. when remains are found on the sufface, it's very rare to find jaw articulatd with rest of skull. have you ever had a case where jaw in above ground remains was still in that position? yes, these are cases when i did human rights work in bosnia in which decedents had tape over their face. so you consitently find the mandible disarticulated from the skull? yes. 15:39:20 - familiar with photos and duct tape? yes. can you tell if tape would have been over nose and mouth? no the tape had moved. did you try to deterine if it was possible that a singel piece of duct tape could have covered the nose and mouth in one piece? i did. how? two methods, i consulted literature and scientific studies done on growing children to figure out normal distances between landmarks on a child's face. .... 15:41:00 - i was interested in nasal apperature, bottom of nose and the bottom of the teeth and oral airway. able to get estimates? estimates, not using those exact landmarks. what is the other method? i used video superimposition. what has it been used for? primarly used to exlucde possibility remains in question are those of particular person. SIGNAL LOSS FROM COURTHOUSE IN OUR TRAILER - TIME CODE WILL BE OFF BY A FEW SECONDS. 15:42:45 - putative, you take skull and take photos of that person and using a comparison method where you are able to superimpose that image on skull using anatomical landmark. you can determine if the photo is of unknown person. landmarks are bottom of teeth, references other tech terms 15:44:00 - how did you use that process here? i used that technique to scale the photo of skull with a photo provided me by fbi of tape. both had scales in them, we're able to know those two images are correct. that would help you put tape over skull, how do you then determine if a face was there? we'd go back to original technique ...take photo of skull, photo of decedent and then use landmarks. 15:45:30 - does that depict video showing that process? it does. will it help with your explanation? it does. objection, overruled. received into evidence 15:46:30 - judge reads instructions to jury about the evidence. used only to illustrate experts opinion. 15:47:00 - video is played for jury. not made public. only those in court can see. SIGNAL RETURNS FROM COURTHOUSE, TIME CODE IS ACCURATE. 15:53:10 - why is tape moved up and down on photo? to show we don't know where tape was. based on that video and your research, would the single piece of tape have covered both nose and mouth making breathing impossible? yes 15:55:10 - you were hired early in this case? i was consulted. yes. you never saw the duct tape while it was attached to hair matte? that's true. the photo you used to do this quicktime movies? I used photoshop. it should give precise measurements if you're scaling. the photo you used of caylee you grabbed from internet? correct. you have no scale on that photo? correct. only reason you showed it is to show it's possible this could have occurred? correct. it's possible tape could have covered the nose and mouth? correct you're not testifying that that actually happened? correct. 15:57:30 - you can't testify this duct tape had anything to do with caylee's death? correct. you can't say tape was associated with caylee after death? ask that again please. you don't know if that tape had to do with disposal or death? true. baez goes to drawing board. tries to draw scene where caylee was found, draws mandible and tape ...badly drawn. can't really tell what it is. 15:59:30 - more of baez drawing on board. the hair is generally up here? I cannot see it. witness stands down. 16:00:55 - the duct tape was attached to hair? that's my understanding. it was your understanding too that at one time her skull was inside three bags? objection, heresay....sustained. rephrase. based on evidence you're given, you knew caylees remains were in three bags? thats my understanding correct. could you see canvas bag? only in photographs. photos weren't clear in terms of what the opening looked like. can you close the bag? i've only seen photos. you have no idea if this tape was used to wrap caylees remains? objection, sustained. 16:03:00 - the duct tape was over mandible and some portion of mouth. that's because it was attached to the hair? the mandible was found articulate with the skull. the hair couldn't have gotten underneath all of this ....OBJECTION, APPROACH 16:06:40 - shows witness photo of hair matte. that was in wooded area off suburban? object ...when skull was found hair matte was on floor? on the surface. above it was mandible? based on photos i've seen, i wasn't at scene. for hair matte to be under skull, something had to make it roll there? yes. the duct tape made its way in that direction? correct. 16:08:15 - the video you showed of the possiblity that tape could have been in that position, that was graphic? it was. was it to appeal to jury's emotions? objections, APPROACH 16:11:57 - jury asked to step out again. 16:12:45 - PROFER continues ....was video for purpose of appealing to the jury? no. was it to demonstrate something of graphic nature? no. purpose of getting sympathy or getting jury angry? no. just to show tape could have covered nose and mouth? correct. end of questions 16:13:45 - five minute break 16:25:30 - did you know another piece of duct tape was found nine feet away? i was not aware of that. the possiblity in this demonstration, that was one possiblity? true. there are other possible scenarios in caylees death? correct. and the there are othe scenarios involving the duct tape? in terms of position of duct tape over face, no. there are other possilibites involving duct tape. yes. any quicktime movies of those? no sir. REDIRECT 16:26:55 - was tape on caylee's body before decomp? yes, it was placed on prior to decomp. that opinion is based on what? the mandible is still articulated with rest of cramium, it will always become disarticulated without something holding it in place. in your oponion could anything else have held it in place? no. how does tape during decomp keep the mandible in place? the mandible is stuck to soft tissue, when decomposition occurs, the duct tape stays in place and supports the mandible. 16:29:00- this photo shows hair is not under mandible but posterior? correct, under base of skull. during decomp how does hair end up not on top of skull? hair is attached to hair follicles, when decomp occurs it tends to slide down. not uncommosn to find birds nest of hair near base of skull. is that something you commonly see in deompc? correct. 16:30:00 - no further questions. 16:30:30 - there is root growth under mandible? i do see roots there. roots attached to hair? yes. can roots keep a mandible in place? that's possible. 16:31:40 - NO FURTHER QUESTIONS. 16:31:55 - does active decomp inhibit root growth? no. sustained. roots can't grow in hair until its fallen off skull ..sustained. are you familiar with plant growth and decomp? yes. you are not a botanist? no. but have you evaluated plant growth related to decomp? yes. could roots keep a mandible in place? it's possible under certain circumstances. in this case what would have to happen, would hair have to fall off? yes. until that point roots have nothing to grow in? yes. what would be holding that in place? the tape. RECROSS 16:34:00 - not a botanist? correct. you would defer to botanist? yes i would. you can't based on evidence know tracking of that duct tape? confused by question ... you can't testify to the position of the body at any point and time? no. or where hair was at one time or another? no. all we have are photos of tape stuck to hair? correct. no further questions. WITNESS EXCUSED. 16:36:30 - MICHAEL VINCENT CALLED TO STAND. returns to stand. csi with orange county sheriff. 16:36:50 - recovered insect evidence from trash in pontiac sunfire. approaches witness 16:38:00 - id's evidence bag of maggots. sent bag to dr. haskell 16:40:17 - id's bag as insect eggs, late stage of life cycle. sent it to dr. haskell. CROSS 16:41:20 - these collected on july 16? what was collected ...these pupae? no they were collected on august 28. but you processed vehicle on july 16? i did not process the vehicle. what do you mean ...you inspected trunk and items in trunk? yes. you're aware of entomology as a tool for law enforcement? yes. the insect was in later stages? yes. an entomologist can look at stage where maggot life is and can determine life cycle of that maggot? object. sustained. 16:43:00 - you have some training in entomology? yes sir. went to course at UF? i did. this course taught you there are different stages of insect? yes. an entomologist can take these stages and give you a pinpoint time of death? that's possible. you were aware of this evidence on july 16? no. you did see any insect activity in garbage or trunk on july 16? no. not in trunk of car. there was none that i saw. no further questions. witness excused. 16:46:00 - ROBIN MAYNARD CALLED TO STAND. csi with orange county. helped recover caylee remains. responsible for documenting collection of insect activity. collected over several days. 16:47:30 - witness id's her label on evidence bag. says its pupae collected 12/14/08. as she collected them she consulted with dr. haskell. 16:48:30 - she placed it in bag and sent to dr. haskell. witness IDs more bags of evidence, envelopes of bugs. was collected from scene in december 2008. 16:51:30 - witness IDs more bags of entomological evidence taken from scene, december 2008. location where item is collected also noted on bag. 16:53:30 - witness IDs more bags of entomological evidence taken from scene on suburban drive. sent it to dr. neil haskell 16:56:00 - witness IDs more bags of evidence. says its her label with her handwriting. piece of cardboard with pink remnants on it. 16:57:15 - no further questions CROSS 16:57:40 - collected evidence under direction of dr. neil haskell? yes. the job ws so thoroughly done he asked you to stop collecting? correct. the cardboard item was found in a lane? yes. we're also talking about beer bottles? correct. tires? correct. there were so many items in that area it got to the point where you stopped collecting? i was the lead in charge of sifting, i was not in primary search area. but you were there? correct. the items i had to deal with were being sifted, if they were bigger they weren't my responsibility. people threw things there all the time, it was a common dumping area? i can't say it was a common dumping area. there were multiple items ...sustained. this area is across from a school? not directly across. it is next to school? it's down the street. kids walk to school there? object. sustained. 17:00:00 - jury dismissed for the day 17:02:30 - BAEZ asks for mistrail based on video of skull and duct tape around face. based on profer this was a possibiilty. witness also said this was speculative. overwhelming prejudicial effect outweighed probative value. HAS NOT BOTH STATE AND DEFENSE ADVANCED VARIOUS THEORIES AS TO LOCATION OF THE DUCT TAPE? yes. AND DID NOT THE WITNESS TESTIFY THAT WAS ONE POSSIBLE SCENARIO AND THERE COULD BE OTHERS. witness did, not outweighed by video of child and skull in background. served only one purpose to inflame jury. YOU SAID THE PHOTO SHOWED DUCT TAPE WRAPPED AROUND THE HEAD. WAS IT WRAPPED AROUND OR SUPERIMPOSED. state: the testimony is that at some point the child had tape around nose, mouth or both. it was necessary to establish theory this tape was murder weapons. video itself showed tape moving above and below. it was a fair and necessary demonstration 17:07:10 - MOTION FOR MISTRIAL AT THIS TIME WILL BE DENIED. 17:00:30 - no further questions.
Abstract 3d rendering of twisted lines. Modern background design, illustration of a futuristic shape
Abstract 3d rendering of twisted lines. Modern background design, illustration of a futuristic shape
CASEY ANTHONY TRIAL / ISO P2
FTG FOR COVERAGE OF THE CASEY ANTHONY MURDER TRIAL / ANTHONY ISO CAM NOTE: JUDGE'S COMMENTS ALWAYS IN CAPS 9:04:00 - DR. GARY UTZ RETURNS TO THE STAND 9:05:30 - we were going thru photos taken by investigator hanson. shows him next photo, it's a front view of pair of shorts. this garment has a number of holes? yes it does. had the shorts been torn or cut? i can't rule out some of defects occurred before decomp but a lot of what i see is consistent with clothing seen in decomp. 9:07:00 - photo is tag of shorts, circo brand, 24 months. next photo is another aspect of tag. 9:08:15 - next photo is of backside of tag. 9:12:00- pic of shorts and shirt tag 9:13:45 - after that my involvement was approx the same as someone else in office. It was dr. g's case. When did she take back responsibility for case? I believe she returned Friday afternoon. From then on was your involvement assisting? Correct. CROSS EXAM 9:14:50 - you are board certified ME? Forensic pathologist. What does that mean? Pathology is the study of disease. A pathologist is a physician most commonly involved in diagnosis of disease states. Pathologist also performs autopsies. Forensic path is a sub specialty, investigates cause and manner of death. 9:16:00 - in this case before remains were found, you were aware of hoopla surrounding missing child? Yes. it was discussed. But before remains are found, the ME office is a specatator. When remains were found there was more conversation in office? Yes. 9:17:10 - he took pics and surveyed scene? He did. Did supplemental report? He did. Dr. G came back into town and took over the case? That's correct. Why? She felt that it was important for her to be involved. She had good working relationship with law enforcement. I was relatively new in the office. 9:18:20 - it is a complicated case that requires the use of investigations that are not parts of our office so in a case like that was reasonable on her part ot coordinate that. She would have been involved in any rate even if it were my case. 9:19:15 - you talked about the duct tape. And looked at pictures? Correct. There was no duct tape on left side of skull? Not sure I understand your question. What do you mean by on ..you said in photos yesterday there was some duct tape adhered to hair matte on right side of skull? Yes. none on left side? It extended beyond midline up to left, certainly. The tape itself wasn't attached to skull. None on back either? No. completely encircling it, no sir. 9:21:10 - there were points of adherence also on left side. Did you removed duct tape? I did. Did you examine it? Took photo and looked at it briefly. Do anything to swab to preserve dna? I did not. Careful in handling it? Yes. wear gloves? Yes. suited up in ME clothing? Yes. put it in evidence bag? yes. it was released to field agent of FBI. Any human tissue on tape? Nothing I could ID as human tissue 9:22:35 - my goal at that point was to provide material to fbi lab for ID purposes and to provide the duct tape for analysis. You found no evidence of trauma on these remains? I did not see any evidence of trauma. See any broken bones? Portions of bone were disrupted but I did not analyze them. 9:23:40 - explains what healing fracture it. There was no indication of any prior injury? I didn't see any. In process of autopsy, did you reset the calverium? 9:24:25 - I suppose you mean cutting through the top of the skull? I did not. (casey crying) 9:24:45 - if body had been found 4 months before, would you have had more forensic evidence? Possible. Remember what size shorts were? I believe 24 months. 9:25:45 - were you involved in decisions to get further expert exam of remains? No sir. Did you examine remains with dr. schultz? Only initial exam that occurred on evening of the 11th. He's a forensic anthropologist at UCF. Did you participate in toxicology exams? No. 9:27:00 - know who dr. goldberger is? He's a toxicologist. You talked about location of mandible? Yes. bottom jaw? Correct. You said it was held in place by hair and roots? Yes. when you picked up remains from table, did you hold skull in your hand? Yes. and mandible didn't fall off? I did not. When it was moved, it didn't come off? It did not. 9:28:40 - you talked about your duties to determine cause of death? That's correct. You do not know from your exam the cause of death in this case? I did not make a determination of cause of death in this case. You do not know cause of death. I do not. The manner of death was determined by dr. G to be a homicide? Correct. 9:30:10 - you have not rendered an opinion as to manner of death? I have not. REDIRECT 9:31:10 - looks at photo of skull, left side. That is what you are referring to about tape going from right to left? Correct. What side of face is circled? Right side. It shows tape on both right and left side? Correct. WITNESS EXCUSED. 9:33:55 - DR. JOHN SCHULTZ CALLED TO STAND, UCF dept. of anthroplogy, specializes in forensic anthropology and archealogy. MA in human biology, Phd in anthropology, specializing in forensic anthro. 9:35:30 - talks about difference between forensic anthropology and archeology. Says forensic anthropology is studying human skeleton. 9:36:50 - tephonomy is study of body after death, changes in how skeleton may have been dispersed on site. Talks about human ID lab at U. of Florida. When there are skeletized remains, they can be sent there to be analyzed. Cases from all around state come to the lab. 9:38:40 - specialty is detecting human remains using ground penetrating radar. Non invasive, locates change in ground. Dissertation involves remote sensing tools. 9:39:50 - talks about relationship between UCF and local law enforcement, ME office. 9:41:00 - develop relationship with ME to be on call forensic anthropogist? Yes. around december 11, 2008, get a call from ME? I got a call from steve hanson and dr. g. I was asked if I was able to got to scene to participate in the recovery. 9:42:00 - was not at scene first day when skull was removed. Where did you go to assist? I went directly to ME office. When you arrived, had skull arrived? I don't remember. What is your first recollection of skull? I remember looking in bag, seeing skull and duct tape, didn't want to interfere with duct tape, laid bag so skull wasn't interfered with. 9:43:50 - I remember at one point I held the skull up so photos could be taken of underside. Shows witness photo of him holding skull. 9:44:50 - is there a term called anatomical position? Yes, that would the normal position it would be in. was the mandible in close to anatomical position? It was close. Was that surprising/ to see a mandible still retained on skull? Normally there needs to be something there to hold it in place. What was holding it in place? It would have been the hair that had moved to base of skull. Anything else? We can see leaf litter and roots. How about the tape? No because the tape was adhered to hair but I don't recall it holding mandible in place in this view. 9:46:50 - during exam of bones, did you find anything indicating trauma? No evidence of trauma. Did you do thorough excavation of site? I provided advisory role. I would not call it excavation. I would call this a recovery. What was the plan? On the 12th I arrived at the scene and we talked about how to process scene. It was difficult because we were dealing with small child, had additional parts of bones, some weren't ossified yet and it was a heavy wood environment, lots of plant material. 9:48:45 - I told everyone to be on hands and knees removing leaf litter and double checking all the material that was removed. Started where known material was and worked out from there. I started in area where skeletal remains were found. 9:49:30 - talks about screening, removing material and sifting it thru box with mesh. Did you tell them to use certain kind of mesh? I said go to a smaller size screen because the bones were so small. 9:50:45 - explains how the search was conducted with law enforcement, mapping process. 9:52:50 - talks about how to map a scene using a computer. 9:53:30 - when remains were found did you examine them? Yes, if I was there. I would always assess what bones were found and suspicious material. I had to determine if they were human bones. Did search area increase? Correct as we initially started in main area, additional csi's worked south of us and as additional remains were located, we expanded out further. 9:55:10 - witness tells jury about the photo of scene, shows the process involving removing vines and over growth. Screening of debris. Also shows flags and pails of debris. Is it important to know where bones are found? When trying to understand how remains may have been dispersed, you need to know where all remains were located. 9:57:50 - witness explains photo, shows flags being placed where items were found , also shows csi documenting evidence and collecting it. 10:00:15 - those bones you ID as human were transported to ME? Yes. next photo is of remains that were found. 10:01:15 - we're looking at vertebra, part of spine, they're separated, there's no soft tissue, we can see roots growing thru vertebra as well. What's important about this pic ..the vertebra .all these bones were found in one location. That says they were transported while they were all together. 10:03:30 - photo of bone fragment. We see bones and envelope. Is that how each bone is documented? Correct. 10:04:50 - this is fragment from other bone? Correct. Shown photo of two bones. 10:05:45 - what are these bones? We're looking at largest bones in body, femura, lower leg bones attached to pelvis. Witness shown split screen. Do these two bones related to each other? Yes, the top of these bones have been chewed on by animals. OBJECTION 10:07:15 - SIDEBAR 10:06:30 - RECESS 10:38:00 - testimony resumes 10:39:00 - references split screen, showing pics of bones. He's asked about how bones fit together. 10:40:45 - photo shows hand and finger bones. What is purpose of this photo? We're always going to document skeletal remains, so we take multiple views of skeleton. This image is documenting bones of the hand and our scales are in centimeters so I put quarter in pic to show how tiny the bones are. Many of these were found in the main area. 10:42:20 - looks at his notes .mapping finished on december 20th. Looks at photo of bones again. These bones are part of pelvis, top area. Each one of these would grow as three bones and then fuse. This one here we have carnivore damage on bottom. 10:44:15 - one of these was found almost completely buried in the muck. Looks at his notes. It's the left bone in pic. 10:45:15 - looks at pic of skeleton laid out in anatomical order after all the bones are recovered. How successful was this recovery effort? Even with adult skeleton with bones intact, its tough to collect majority of remains and teeth. I feel we were very succesful here. Collected all but one tooth, had most of spine, long bones, tiny bones of hands and feet. A few pieces here and there are missing. 10:47:00 - I would say very successful in what was recovered and mapping those bones as well. 10:47:40 - mapping tells about spatial relationship of bones, and relationship at dump site. 10:48:00 - witness looks at survey that denotes areas where bones were found. 10:49:00 - photo shows survey map where bones were found. Witness points out on map where bones were found. In area A is where the body and bags was placed into the woods. This is where initial separation of body parts occurred, such as skull, arms, lower limbs. 10:50:30 - I started in area A, the rest of the csi's were south of us and as additional remains were found we moved further south. When this area was searched, we would talk about how to expand the search. It progressed further south. 10:52:50 - what was found in area A? it was initial area with skull, bags, arms with hand bones, lower legs also found there, including left foot. Area B? shaft for upper arm bone. Area F? as we progressed further southeast, we found trunk of body with pelvis, lower legs were dragged to this area. At this point being dragged from area A by animals is lower trunk. 10:55:10 - area D we had only located one bone. Area E a hand bone was found there. In area D that was one bone of foot? Correct. Area F is where we did see carnivore damage on multiple bones. Area G is most of spinal columns with ribs attached. Separated out is lower veterbra 10:56;55 - consistent with animal moving them. Area H we start to see more of the ribs, separated. Area I, if we start at top of spine we have cervical vertibra, to thoraic, to lumbar. Area i found 20 of vertebra here. It's being dragged while relatively articulated. Decomp would have finished there. 10:58:50 - there would have been some tissue holding the bones together. Based on this dispersal pattern, was this body deposited in area as intact unit? It may have been relatively intact if we look at area F trunk and lower legs were articulated. No indication the body was dismembered.? No we did not see any evidence. 11:00:15 - we talked about the hip bone which was buried. What is the significance of that? When trying to interpret how long bones have been at site ..SIDEBAR. 11:04:30 - formally requests witness be accepted as expert. 11:05:10 - when trying to interpret how long skeleton may have been out of scene, many bones were under leaf fall so they had to be there before they fell. .that would tell us more than likely this area was a swampy area, was water southeast, so it's possible when area was flooded, silt and other material may have resulted in burial of this bone .would have happened sometime over the summer. 11:06:20 - it was close to a big palmetto trunk. Area F on map is lowest area. That is one of the bones with carnivore damage and there's going to be silt suspended in water and that process would have led to almost burying the bone. 11:07:15 - approximately how long were these remains in that area? We use mulitple lines of evidence and overall the bones were dry, competely free of soft tissue. They had no decomp odor, they had some erosion which would take time, and were found under leaf litter. The combination of that with root evidence. A period of six months could be possible. 11;08:40 - dispersal of bones primarily the result of animal activity. There was some animal chewing on the ribs. This area was processed well and remaining bones could have been taken away by animals. CROSS EXAM 11:09:40 - as forensic anthropologist, you examine bones yourself? Correct. Do you x ray bones? Yes. in your examination you found no evidence of any pre mortem trauma? No evidence. No broken bones or fractures? Not sure of your question. You found no evidence of fractures? No evidence of fractures. No evidence of twist of bones? No evidence. No evidence of any traumatic injury before her death? No evidence. 11:12:10 - how far is area from pavement of suburban drive? I did not do mapping, if I use scale on map I would think 25-30 feel maybe. I did not document the measurements. This map just shows elevation and lines? Yes. my job was not the mapping. Measurements provided to me by ronald murdoch. 11:13:55 - do you know when the dispersement took place? Not sure I understand question. We start with area A, primary site and all of those items were in bags? Originally when deposited out at the site. 11:15:00 - other areas with bones and fragments, there were no bag? no bags, but not sure about parts of bag. majority of what was found was all area A? I wouldn't say majority. It was found in area of A. and after inspecting contents of area A you discovered missing bones? I wouldn't agree with that because when we started processing scene, we had other people locating additional bones south of area A. 11:16:40 - we had a crew of people we separated them out and searched simultaneously. You don't have any scientific evidence when first dispersement from area A occurred? No. same question as to other areas? Yes. there's nothing that tells you how this child died? Not a question I would answer. All I look for is peri mortem trauma and I did not find that. 11:18:15 - when you looked at duct tape on skull, it was not covering nasal appature? No. REDIRECT 11:18:35 - nasal appature is hole on skull where nose would be. Tape was covering the mouth area. Was tape in position to cover nose? Possibly. Hard to tell because nose wasn't there any more? Correct. 11:20:00 - witness circles on photo what bones were found in area A. what was in area b? left humurous. 11:21:45 - what was in area F? we do have clavicles and parts of pelvis and both femur shafts and ribs. One part of a vertebra. Area G? see separation of bottom of spinal column. Area G had couple of ribs. Area H? we only had one, part of one vertebra. And a bunch of ribs. Area i? see more ribs and parts of 20 vertebra. 11:23:45 - NO FURTHER QUESTIONS. WITNESS EXCUSED. 11:25:30 - DR. JAN GARIVAGLIA, CHIEF MEDICAL EXAMINER FOR ORANGE, OSCEOLA SINCE 2004. Was ME is Bexar county in San Antonio for 10 years. Also in Atlanta and Jacksonville. Explains her education and training credentials. 11:28:10 - came under my jurisdiction. When did you first learn that remains of caylee had been found? The 11th I don't remember the time. I was alerted by my chief investigator steve hanson. What did you do? I was late for the airport, as I was walking out mr hanson told me they found remains. We weren't sure who it was at that point, I had engagement I could not get out of so I told dr. utz to handle it until I got back the next day.. also had them call dr. schultz. 11:30:00 - I didn't think my absence for night would matter. Returned following day? Yes. did you go back and review photos of scene and at your facility? Absolutely. I went out to the scene, reviewed photos, made suggestions. 11:31:45 - one of things you examined was hair matte? Eventually it came back to me, originally sent to FBI, I examined it then. Looks at photo on screen. 11:32:40- shows her another photo she reviewed. She says it's photo of hair matte.we see a lot of the roots that have grown thru the hair. We're looking at hair matte and roots that have grown thru the matte and some holes in the hair matte probably from insect activity 11:34:15 - shown another photo. We teased out some of the hair to take as a sample for possible toxicological use. 11:35:40 - next photo. That was taken at my direction. Again that's the scale next to one of the roots on the hair matte. 11:36:30 - some of items found with remains, did you examine them? Yes. recall a blanket? Yes. did you have that photographed? Yes. looks at photo of blanket. See pic of dirty blanket with leaf litter on it. This is the condition it came in? it was not cleaned, just unfolded. Certain portions where you can see figures? Yes. took photo to see them more clearly. Next photo is closeup. 11:38:40 - zooms in on figure on blanket. When you viewed that did it look familiar? Yes, it was winnie the pooh with piglet on his back. 11:39:20 - photo of other side of blanket. Did that blanket have plant material growing in it? Yes. photographed that as well. Closeup photo of plants and roots growing into blanket. 11:40:40 - what are we looking at? This is closeup of edge of blanket with winnie the pooh, shows roots lying on top of and thru the blanket. 11:41:10 - next photo. More of root growth on blanket. 11:42:00 - another photo of root material, more close up 11:42:45 - next photo, more root material growing into blanket 11:43:30 - also root material growing in black plastic bag? there were two bags and roots were growing thru the holes of both those bags. Shown photo of roots and bag. 11:44:30 - was there also canvas laundry bag with remains? Yes there was. Roots in that? Roots were growing on top of and into bag. shown photo of roots growing into the bag. 11:45:40 - were roots growing around everything? There were roots in bones, didn't see in shorts and the shirt was disintegrated. Certainly the blanket, two plastic bag and canvas bags. The lettering and stitching along hems were left of the shirt. 11:46:40 - how did you ID bones? We thought best ID was thru dna. It's tough to ID a child because we often use teeth, but it's tough with child. We were hoping we were going to get nuclear dna and at least mito dna. Did you send bone to FBI? Yes we did. 11:47:45 - photo of bone upon return from dna evaluation. The portion missing on this bone? They removed a piece of right tibia to test. Get results from FBI? Yes. they identified remains as caylee anthony. 11:49:00 - is manner of death determination a purely medical or scientific determination? It's basd on scientific principles and gathering all the info you can, all the history, medical history. Take all of those things and any scientific information and come up with opinion .SIDEBAR LUNCH RECESS 13:40:00 - court resumes with SIDEBAR 13:44:00 - casey walks back into courtroom. 13:46:30 - sows dr. G. some evidence bag, has laundry bag in it. state goes over more evidence with her. 13:47:40- evidence bag of body bag with vegetation. next bag has black plastic bag. 13:49:40 - more bags of evidence shown to dr. g., this is bag with the shorts. 13:50:45 - evidence bag with clothing brought in with the body. 13:52:15 - when we broke we were discussing cause and manner of death. what is manner of death? its the classification of death based on all info available to us ...scientific, scene, history, medical. 13:53:00 - also bring to bear your exp in forensic pathology? absolutely. manner of death in this case? yes. homicide. why? it's based on three main items . first, we know from observational studies that it is a red flag that when a child is not reported immediately to authorities, that's something we look for ... for foul play. this child was not reported missing for a long time. the other thing is the body was hidden. a child's body is thrown out in a field, that is one of things we look for when looking for homicide. the body is often found in closed containers, suitcase or plastic bag such as this case. that's a red flag for homicide. the last besides delay in reporting, and found in a field, would be the duct tape located on lower half of the face. there is no child that should have duct tape on its face when it dies or after they dies. we've seen that in cases of homicide 13:55:25 - cause of death is the injury or the diseases that initiates chain of events that results in death. it's the specific injury or disease that causes death. in this case, can you conclude cause of death? the cause of death was homicide of undetermined means. we can reliably say homicide but i don't know means by which it occurred. any objects found with body that could cause death? the only possible object would be duct tape, if that was over mouth and nose, suffocation with plastic bag would be the only other thing. 13:56:55 - were you aware of chloroform in this case? yes. could a child exposed to sufficient amount die as a result? absolutely. at this point, can you tell what caused her death? no, i believe we have enough evidence to say its a homicide, but don't have enough scientific information to say how the homicide occurred. was there any trauma to body? it's very decomposed so unless trauma hurt the bones, i can't say. i can't rule out any trauma cuz even a gun shot wound could not touch the bones. was there any injury to bones? no anti mortem injury to bones. were you aware of any illnesses the child had? i asked for a history of illness and i was told there were none. NO FURTHER QUESTIONS CROSS EXAMINATION 13:59:00 - you live in orlando? yes. for the period of time of about 4 mos prior to remains being found, you were aware of media surrounding this case? i was aware this was a big case. i don't watch the news. i was not aware as most people. were you aware there was a circus like atmosphere around anthony home? i do not know. i did know about speculation abuot this case. you knew if remains were found your office would be involved? no, i was hoping it was lake county, different jurisdiction. in fact, you came back to handle this case? that's true. you knew prior to finding the remains that chloroform was involved? i was told that by investigators at time we got the body. 14:01:10 - you reasoned perhaps chloroform could have been used to contibute to cause of death? that would be one of the possibilities we would examine. so you brought in an expert? i brought in a toxicologist who dealt with toxicology of bones. dr. goldberger from U of florida. you sent him piece of bone? from left femur. as a toxicologist, the request was to look for choloroform and other volatile chemicals? correct. 14:03:00 - he checked for volatiles and several other tests. he's limited in what he can do with bones. results were negative? correct. were you present when dr. werner spitz came to observe ....objection ...SIDEBAR 14:07:30 - did dr. werner spitz see autopsy? did he, no. were you aware he was coming down? i was informed by my office manager that mr baez had requested to bring in outside person in to watch autopsy. our policy is to come up with cause and manner of death and make that available to him once we were done. did dr. spitz did a second autopsy? sustained. 14:09:00 - dr. goldberger is MD? no, he's a phd. what did he test? bone, scrapings I took from inside of bone, the hair and soil that fell out of hair and that was for volatiles. then he tested bone, scrapings of bone marrow and washings from cranial cavity. 14:10:15 - tested for xanax. all results were negative? correct. you did not cut open cranium? no absolutely not. no trauma was found? no anti mortem trauma. we found post mortem trauma. there was no evidence of any form of trauma when the child was alive? on bones there was no evidence of trauma. 14:11:40 - you are confirming that despite investigations, toxicology report, there is no evidence to establish cause of death? it was a means of homicide that could not be determined. you called it a homicide as proposed to accident? the circumstances of the death did not fit anything but a homicide. and based on what det. melich told you? what did he tell me ...that the body wasn't reported missing for 31 days. some things you learned from the media? nothing from the media would have entered into a decision. i can't take anything they would say in something as grave as this. 14:13:15 - it probably was a homicide? not probably, that is the only logical conclusion based on scientific information we have based on observational information we have on homicides and children dying. we know in systematic observatonal studies, we look at all the accidental drownings for instance in my jurisdiction, 100 percent of the time EMS is called. it absolutely has something to do with this case. every death i investigate has to be put into cirmcumstances of death; you can never, ever detemine a manner of death except in rare instances just on examining body. we need to know how usually deaths occur. 14:14:50 - we have to know red flags for homicide. by my experience and by what is known about the way homicides occur i felt preponderence of evidence .... by not reporting child missing, the fact it is tossed in a field to rot in bag is clear indication the body was trying to be hidden, that it was found in bag is a big red falg and duct tape anywhere attached to that childs face is indication of homicide. 14:16:00 - we know 100 percent of the time that accidental deaths are reported unless there is a good reason not to be. no reason not to report. if you don't report it to authorities, you are risking that childs life. we know thats behavioral science. and we know thru all cases in our morgue, accidents are 100 percent reported unless there's a good reason not to. 14:16:50 - this death couldn't be an accident? 100 percent of time when a person finds a child they call 911 cuz there a chance child might live. what if a person finds a drowned body. what then? i am looking at behaviors that shows no matter how stiff that body is, they always call 911 in the hopes that the child could be saved. i'm looking at observational data. that's what we used. 14:17:55 - i explained to you the red flags that we know in forensics based on behavior ...i don't understand ..objection ...sustained. 14:19:00- i felt the manner of death was defensible scientifically based on systematic observational studies of how homicide, accidents and natural deaths occur. if these remains had been found 4-5 mos before, would you have had better scientific evidence? absolutely. you mentioned duct tape, was it in vicinity of lower mandible? correct. REDIRECT 14:20:50 - you were asked about a second autopsy. did you keep body in same condition as when you received it? yes we did except what we had to take for dna and toxicology testing. left roots in bones? yes, that's normal procedure. the absence of positive results for chloroform, does that exclude acute use? we would not expect to find any of those things in the bones, that was a long shot. we would not expect those results to be positive, even at time of death. 14:22:20 - assume caylee died and was discarded about june 16, six months before she was found, at the stage mr mason was asking you about, four months earlier, what would be its condition after 2 mos? it would certainly be skeletonized by then. so if it was found in august, you would expect it would have been skeletonized? yes, the internal organs would be completely gone. WITNESS EXCUSED. ? 14:24:15 - SIDEBAR 14:35:00 - jury is dismissed for a time, judge says they have to discuss some issues. 14:37:16 - attorneys are looking at a video it appears. 14:42:00 - ashton talks about submitting a video showing duct tape over the mouth, trying to show tape was sufficient size to cover nose and mouth. baez argues let's throw eveything against wall and see what stick. this impostion is a fantasy and it's not supported that can't be testified to. it goes to root of 403. 14:45:10 - judge talks about a decision by florida supreme court, may have similar application. says he needs to reread it. the case is 26 pages long. 14:46:00 - baez says there's been no testimony that this duct tape was in fact in this position as reflected in this video. references another court case. clearly shows presenation must be relevant and must accurately reflect oral testimony offered. there's not going to be any oral testimony this duct tape was in this position on this child's face. dr. warren could not testify to this. LET ME HEAR DR. WARREN'S TESTIMONY. I CAN BETTER MAKE AN INFORMED DECISION. THIS WILL BE A PROFER. SO THERE'S NO NEED TO MAKE OBJECTIONS AT THIS POINT MR. BAEZ 14:48:15 - dr.michael warren, forensic anthropologist, assoc. prof at u. of florida. director of human identification lab. 14:49:10 - you worked with dr. schultz on this case? yes sir. you examined the skull and other bones? i did. at some point the issue of duct tape and establishing whether it caused death came up? correct. how was this video created? it was created by taking photos of skull and photos of tape and photo that was found on the internet that was appropriate in orientation of child's face. why use pics of skull and face? both have photo scales and those are used to make sure the size of those images are comparable. 14:50:40 - have to match face to skull in terms of sizing. then use tape label to superimpose on face. skull is used to make one to one match with face? yes. is it possible without this superimposition to determine the end of caylees nose and mouth? no. are there certain rough estimates you can make based on research on avarage distances? previous studies for children and one study done at U of Michigan has some measurements but not ones we needed. is there any other way to demonstrate that duct tape could cover both nose and mouth other than this process? there's not. baez questions him 14:53:10 - recall being told duct tape was murder weapon? i don't recall questions from mr ashton about it being a murder weapon. those discussions were between me and dr. g. And mr ashton had these discussions too? i don't remember that, i remember talking about it being possible. happened early on, first day i was there with dr. g and dr. schultz. 14:54:20 - i suggested doing the superimposition to mr ashton. you weren't present when tape was removed from skull? no. you only saw a photo? that's true. the ones were tape is attached to hair matte? correct. LET'S GET TO THE POINT, WE'RE HERE TO DETERMINE 403 ISSUE. LETS' GET THERE. the hair matte was under skull? at base of skull. is it not normally at top? in decomposed skulls it is at the base. there's no scale on her face in that photo? no. 14:56:20 - you used just some photo you took off internet? correct. you would need to know how large child is? no i'd have to know where landmarks on face are. but children grow rapidly? they do. she could have been larger than time photo was taken? it looked recent. it's not an infant's photo. JUDGE: WHAT IS PURPOSE OF DEMONSTRATION? that's its possible the tape could cover both the child's nose and mouth 14:57:40 - A SKULL WAS UTLIZED, EXPLAIN THAT. we took photo for photographic scale. by using both skull and photo of tape and overlaying those images, you can make those scales the same size so you know size of skull relative to tape is real. now we are able to move from scale of skull to scale of tape. we're able to once we have skull scaled to photo, we can superimpose the tape over the image with the soft tissue. 14:59:10 - PHOTO USED IS PHOTO FROM M.E. OFFICE.yes. WILL THIS ANIMATION HELP YOU EXPLAIN TESTIMONY TO JURY. it illustrates it's possible. WITHOUT IT? i would be able to testify that it is possible without using animation. WHAT ARE DISADVANTAGES? disadvantage is it takes illustration of science out of explanation. 15:01:10 - witness steps down. judge asks what cases baez wants him to look at. RECESS UNTIL 3:15- judge needs to look at cases. 15:17:30 - JUDGE REFERENCE 2007 DECISION OF FLORIDA SUPREME COURT. INVOLVED FIRST DEGREE MURDER WITH FIREARM. THE COURT SAID THE FOLLOWING IN ITS OPINION: RELEVANT EVIDENCE PROVES OR DISPROVES MATERIAL FACT. IT IS INADMISSABLE IF PROBATIVE VALUE IS OUTWEIGHED BY PREJUDICE. THE PROPER APPLICATION REQUIRES BALANCING TEST BY TRIAL JUDGE. ONLY WHEN PREJUDICE OUTWEIGHS PROBATIVE VALUE IT MUST BE EXCLUDED. 15:19:00 - THIS RULE OF EXCLUSION IS DIRECTED AT EVIDENCE THAT INFLAMES JURY'S EMOTIONS. IF UNFAIR PREJUDICE OUTWEIGHS PROBATIVE VALUE, COURT SHOULD DETERMINE NEED FOR EVIDENCE, CHAIN OF INFERENCES AND EFFECTIVENESS OF LIMITED INSTRUCTION. 15:20:00 - THE EVIDENCE BEING SOUGHT TO BE INTRODUCED IS SUPERIMPOSED PHOTO OF VICTIM, THE SKULL AND PLACEMENT OF DUCT TAPE. DEFENSE SAYS EVIDENCE SHOULD BE EXCLUDED AND CITES TWO CASES. judge talks about case that used computer animation, published to jury as demonstrative evidence. court found it was case of first impression. concluded that video tape demo showed no blood, replicated no sounds and found no error in admitting the use of the computer generated animation. 15:21:55 - THIS CASE MAINLY DEALT WITH FIRST TIME USE OF COMPUTER GENERATION. WAS NOT HELPFUL TO COURT IN 403. IN NEXT CASE, THE BRANDON PEST CONTROL CASE, THIS CASE INVOLVED A VIDEO TAPE THAT WAS 15 MINS LONG THAT WAS TAKEN AT RESIDENCE IN QUESTION. IT SHOWED EXTERMINATION EQUIP AND POINTED OUT ITS UTILIZATION. IT ALSO HAD SOME COMPUTER ANIMATIONS THROUGHOUT. COURT CONCLUDED NARRATIONS CONTAINED THROUGHOUT WAS A SELF SERVING PROMOTIONAL TAPE SO COURT SAID IT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN INTRODUCED. 15:23:50 - IT DOES NOT GO THRU 403 ANALYSIS. IN LOOKING AT HTE FACTORS TALKED ABOUNT IN MCDUFFY THE COURT WILL MAKE FOLLOWNG OBSER: COURT NEEDS TO CONSIDER NEED FOR EVIDENCE. IN THIS CASE THERE HAS BEEN AN ISSUE DEALING WITH PLACEMENT OF DUCT TAPE UPON THE VICTIM AND THE LOCATION OF THIS DUCT TAPE. THE COURT WILL ALSO NOTE THAT THERE IS A NON DESCRIPT PIC OF CAYLEE AND THE UTILIZATION OF SKULL OF CAYLEE WHICH JURY HAS SEEN OVER LAST FEW DAYS. SKULL DOES NOT EXPOSE BLOOD. THE DR. HAS INDICATED THAT THIS WILL ILLUSTRATE HIS TESTIMONY. HE SAID IT WOULD BE HELPFUL. DOES THE EVIDENCE SUGGEST EMOTIONAL BASIS FOR VERDICT. IN HOMICIDE CASES EVIDENCE TENDS TO BE NOT NICE. THIS EVIDENCE, LIVE PHOTO OF VICTIM, SUPERIMPOSED IWTH SKULL DOES NOT HAVE TENDENCY TO SUGGEST EMOTIONAL BASIS FOR A VERDICT. 15:26:20 - NECESSEARY TO ESTABLISH MATERIAL FACT? BOTH SIDES HAVE DEBATED ITS RELEVANCY SO IT'S HIGHLY RELEVANT TO CONCLUDE BASED UPON ALL EVIDENCE WHETHER OR NOT THIS DUCT TAPE WAS PLACED IN A CERTAIN POSITION. THEREFORE BASED ON WHAT HAS BEEN PRESENTED, THE COURT WILL PERMIT THE WITNESS TO TESTIFY. LAST BUT NOT LEAST, PURSUANT TO ...IF REQUESTED BY DEFENSE, PURSUANT TO PIERCE, I WILL GIVE INSTRUCTIONS. 15:29:40 - baez tells judge that witness co authored report with dr. schultz and testimony is cumulative. ashton says dr. schultz testimony was not challenged. baez says ...he's off mic ..again. 15:31:40 - jury returns 15:32:40 - DR. MICHAEL WARREN CALLED TO THE STAND, forensic anthropologist, assoc. prof at u. of florida. director of human identification lab. 15:33:50 - ID lab consults with medical examiners when person has become skeletonized. been director two and a half years. was paramedic for 15 years, got MS and PhD at U. of Florida in forensic anthropology 15:35:20 - you are qualified as expert in forensic anthropology? yes, testified in probably 16 cases. submits witness as expert in forensic anthro 15:36:00 - my doctoral research was in fetal growth and development. also determining age at time of death. how did you become involved in this case? i was contacted by dr. g and schultz on dec 15 to assist in ID of remains. did you look at photos of remains too? yes. recall from photos when mandible was first found? yes. what was that position. it was still articulated, it was still in place. 15:37:45 - why is that noteworthy? that joint is a regular sinovial joint. it's lax and allowed movement, there's nothing to hold it in place once soft tissue decomposes. when remains are found on the sufface, it's very rare to find jaw articulatd with rest of skull. have you ever had a case where jaw in above ground remains was still in that position? yes, these are cases when i did human rights work in bosnia in which decedents had tape over their face. so you consitently find the mandible disarticulated from the skull? yes. 15:39:20 - familiar with photos and duct tape? yes. can you tell if tape would have been over nose and mouth? no the tape had moved. did you try to deterine if it was possible that a singel piece of duct tape could have covered the nose and mouth in one piece? i did. how? two methods, i consulted literature and scientific studies done on growing children to figure out normal distances between landmarks on a child's face. .... 15:41:00 - i was interested in nasal apperature, bottom of nose and the bottom of the teeth and oral airway. able to get estimates? estimates, not using those exact landmarks. what is the other method? i used video superimposition. what has it been used for? primarly used to exlucde possibility remains in question are those of particular person. SIGNAL LOSS FROM COURTHOUSE IN OUR TRAILER - TIME CODE WILL BE OFF BY A FEW SECONDS. 15:42:45 - putative, you take skull and take photos of that person and using a comparison method where you are able to superimpose that image on skull using anatomical landmark. you can determine if the photo is of unknown person. landmarks are bottom of teeth, references other tech terms 15:44:00 - how did you use that process here? i used that technique to scale the photo of skull with a photo provided me by fbi of tape. both had scales in them, we're able to know those two images are correct. that would help you put tape over skull, how do you then determine if a face was there? we'd go back to original technique ...take photo of skull, photo of decedent and then use landmarks. 15:45:30 - does that depict video showing that process? it does. will it help with your explanation? it does. objection, overruled. received into evidence 15:46:30 - judge reads instructions to jury about the evidence. used only to illustrate experts opinion. 15:47:00 - video is played for jury. not made public. only those in court can see. SIGNAL RETURNS FROM COURTHOUSE, TIME CODE IS ACCURATE. 15:53:10 - why is tape moved up and down on photo? to show we don't know where tape was. based on that video and your research, would the single piece of tape have covered both nose and mouth making breathing impossible? yes 15:55:10 - you were hired early in this case? i was consulted. yes. you never saw the duct tape while it was attached to hair matte? that's true. the photo you used to do this quicktime movies? I used photoshop. it should give precise measurements if you're scaling. the photo you used of caylee you grabbed from internet? correct. you have no scale on that photo? correct. only reason you showed it is to show it's possible this could have occurred? correct. it's possible tape could have covered the nose and mouth? correct you're not testifying that that actually happened? correct. 15:57:30 - you can't testify this duct tape had anything to do with caylee's death? correct. you can't say tape was associated with caylee after death? ask that again please. you don't know if that tape had to do with disposal or death? true. baez goes to drawing board. tries to draw scene where caylee was found, draws mandible and tape ...badly drawn. can't really tell what it is. 15:59:30 - more of baez drawing on board. the hair is generally up here? I cannot see it. witness stands down. 16:00:55 - the duct tape was attached to hair? that's my understanding. it was your understanding too that at one time her skull was inside three bags? objection, heresay....sustained. rephrase. based on evidence you're given, you knew caylees remains were in three bags? thats my understanding correct. could you see canvas bag? only in photographs. photos weren't clear in terms of what the opening looked like. can you close the bag? i've only seen photos. you have no idea if this tape was used to wrap caylees remains? objection, sustained. 16:03:00 - the duct tape was over mandible and some portion of mouth. that's because it was attached to the hair? the mandible was found articulate with the skull. the hair couldn't have gotten underneath all of this ....OBJECTION, APPROACH 16:06:40 - shows witness photo of hair matte. that was in wooded area off suburban? object ...when skull was found hair matte was on floor? on the surface. above it was mandible? based on photos i've seen, i wasn't at scene. for hair matte to be under skull, something had to make it roll there? yes. the duct tape made its way in that direction? correct. 16:08:15 - the video you showed of the possiblity that tape could have been in that position, that was graphic? it was. was it to appeal to jury's emotions? objections, APPROACH 16:11:57 - jury asked to step out again. 16:12:45 - PROFER continues ....was video for purpose of appealing to the jury? no. was it to demonstrate something of graphic nature? no. purpose of getting sympathy or getting jury angry? no. just to show tape could have covered nose and mouth? correct. end of questions 16:13:45 - five minute break 16:25:30 - did you know another piece of duct tape was found nine feet away? i was not aware of that. the possiblity in this demonstration, that was one possiblity? true. there are other possible scenarios in caylees death? correct. and the there are othe scenarios involving the duct tape? in terms of position of duct tape over face, no. there are other possilibites involving duct tape. yes. any quicktime movies of those? no sir. REDIRECT 16:26:55 - was tape on caylee's body before decomp? yes, it was placed on prior to decomp. that opinion is based on what? the mandible is still articulated with rest of cramium, it will always become disarticulated without something holding it in place. in your oponion could anything else have held it in place? no. how does tape during decomp keep the mandible in place? the mandible is stuck to soft tissue, when decomposition occurs, the duct tape stays in place and supports the mandible. 16:29:00- this photo shows hair is not under mandible but posterior? correct, under base of skull. during decomp how does hair end up not on top of skull? hair is attached to hair follicles, when decomp occurs it tends to slide down. not uncommosn to find birds nest of hair near base of skull. is that something you commonly see in deompc? correct. 16:30:00 - no further questions. 16:30:30 - there is root growth under mandible? i do see roots there. roots attached to hair? yes. can roots keep a mandible in place? that's possible. 16:31:40 - NO FURTHER QUESTIONS. 16:31:55 - does active decomp inhibit root growth? no. sustained. roots can't grow in hair until its fallen off skull ..sustained. are you familiar with plant growth and decomp? yes. you are not a botanist? no. but have you evaluated plant growth related to decomp? yes. could roots keep a mandible in place? it's possible under certain circumstances. in this case what would have to happen, would hair have to fall off? yes. until that point roots have nothing to grow in? yes. what would be holding that in place? the tape. RECROSS 16:34:00 - not a botanist? correct. you would defer to botanist? yes i would. you can't based on evidence know tracking of that duct tape? confused by question ... you can't testify to the position of the body at any point and time? no. or where hair was at one time or another? no. all we have are photos of tape stuck to hair? correct. no further questions. WITNESS EXCUSED. 16:36:30 - MICHAEL VINCENT CALLED TO STAND. returns to stand. csi with orange county sheriff. 16:36:50 - recovered insect evidence from trash in pontiac sunfire. approaches witness 16:38:00 - id's evidence bag of maggots. sent bag to dr. haskell 16:40:17 - id's bag as insect eggs, late stage of life cycle. sent it to dr. haskell. CROSS 16:41:20 - these collected on july 16? what was collected ...these pupae? no they were collected on august 28. but you processed vehicle on july 16? i did not process the vehicle. what do you mean ...you inspected trunk and items in trunk? yes. you're aware of entomology as a tool for law enforcement? yes. the insect was in later stages? yes. an entomologist can look at stage where maggot life is and can determine life cycle of that maggot? object. sustained. 16:43:00 - you have some training in entomology? yes sir. went to course at UF? i did. this course taught you there are different stages of insect? yes. an entomologist can take these stages and give you a pinpoint time of death? that's possible. you were aware of this evidence on july 16? no. you did see any insect activity in garbage or trunk on july 16? no. not in trunk of car. there was none that i saw. no further questions. witness excused. 16:46:00 - ROBIN MAYNARD CALLED TO STAND. csi with orange county. helped recover caylee remains. responsible for documenting collection of insect activity. collected over several days. 16:47:30 - witness id's her label on evidence bag. says its pupae collected 12/14/08. as she collected them she consulted with dr. haskell. 16:48:30 - she placed it in bag and sent to dr. haskell. witness IDs more bags of evidence, envelopes of bugs. was collected from scene in december 2008. 16:51:30 - witness IDs more bags of entomological evidence taken from scene, december 2008. location where item is collected also noted on bag. 16:53:30 - witness IDs more bags of entomological evidence taken from scene on suburban drive. sent it to dr. neil haskell 16:56:00 - witness IDs more bags of evidence. says its her label with her handwriting. piece of cardboard with pink remnants on it. 16:57:15 - no further questions CROSS 16:57:40 - collected evidence under direction of dr. neil haskell? yes. the job ws so thoroughly done he asked you to stop collecting? correct. the cardboard item was found in a lane? yes. we're also talking about beer bottles? correct. tires? correct. there were so many items in that area it got to the point where you stopped collecting? i was the lead in charge of sifting, i was not in primary search area. but you were there? correct. the items i had to deal with were being sifted, if they were bigger they weren't my responsibility. people threw things there all the time, it was a common dumping area? i can't say it was a common dumping area. there were multiple items ...sustained. this area is across from a school? not directly across. it is next to school? it's down the street. kids walk to school there? object. sustained. 17:00:00 - jury dismissed for the day 17:02:30 - BAEZ asks for mistrail based on video of skull and duct tape around face. based on profer this was a possibiilty. witness also said this was speculative. overwhelming prejudicial effect outweighed probative value. HAS NOT BOTH STATE AND DEFENSE ADVANCED VARIOUS THEORIES AS TO LOCATION OF THE DUCT TAPE? yes. AND DID NOT THE WITNESS TESTIFY THAT WAS ONE POSSIBLE SCENARIO AND THERE COULD BE OTHERS. witness did, not outweighed by video of child and skull in background. served only one purpose to inflame jury. YOU SAID THE PHOTO SHOWED DUCT TAPE WRAPPED AROUND THE HEAD. WAS IT WRAPPED AROUND OR SUPERIMPOSED. state: the testimony is that at some point the child had tape around nose, mouth or both. it was necessary to establish theory this tape was murder weapons. video itself showed tape moving above and below. it was a fair and necessary demonstration 17:07:10 - MOTION FOR MISTRIAL AT THIS TIME WILL BE DENIED. 17:00:30 - no further questions.
Fireworks slow motion 4k - particles explosion portal and circle
Exploding, Sparks, magic, Circle, Door
Dermatology. Structure of the hair. Demo
Cross section of skin with hair. 3D Computer animation. Focus on the hair.
CASEY ANTHONY TRIAL / ISO P4
FTG FOR COVERAGE OF THE CASEY ANTHONY MURDER TRIAL / ANTHONY ISO CAM NOTE: JUDGE'S COMMENTS ALWAYS IN CAPS 9:04:00 - DR. GARY UTZ RETURNS TO THE STAND 9:05:30 - we were going thru photos taken by investigator hanson. shows him next photo, it's a front view of pair of shorts. this garment has a number of holes? yes it does. had the shorts been torn or cut? i can't rule out some of defects occurred before decomp but a lot of what i see is consistent with clothing seen in decomp. 9:07:00 - photo is tag of shorts, circo brand, 24 months. next photo is another aspect of tag. 9:08:15 - next photo is of backside of tag. 9:12:00- pic of shorts and shirt tag 9:13:45 - after that my involvement was approx the same as someone else in office. It was dr. g's case. When did she take back responsibility for case? I believe she returned Friday afternoon. From then on was your involvement assisting? Correct. CROSS EXAM 9:14:50 - you are board certified ME? Forensic pathologist. What does that mean? Pathology is the study of disease. A pathologist is a physician most commonly involved in diagnosis of disease states. Pathologist also performs autopsies. Forensic path is a sub specialty, investigates cause and manner of death. 9:16:00 - in this case before remains were found, you were aware of hoopla surrounding missing child? Yes. it was discussed. But before remains are found, the ME office is a specatator. When remains were found there was more conversation in office? Yes. 9:17:10 - he took pics and surveyed scene? He did. Did supplemental report? He did. Dr. G came back into town and took over the case? That's correct. Why? She felt that it was important for her to be involved. She had good working relationship with law enforcement. I was relatively new in the office. 9:18:20 - it is a complicated case that requires the use of investigations that are not parts of our office so in a case like that was reasonable on her part ot coordinate that. She would have been involved in any rate even if it were my case. 9:19:15 - you talked about the duct tape. And looked at pictures? Correct. There was no duct tape on left side of skull? Not sure I understand your question. What do you mean by on ..you said in photos yesterday there was some duct tape adhered to hair matte on right side of skull? Yes. none on left side? It extended beyond midline up to left, certainly. The tape itself wasn't attached to skull. None on back either? No. completely encircling it, no sir. 9:21:10 - there were points of adherence also on left side. Did you removed duct tape? I did. Did you examine it? Took photo and looked at it briefly. Do anything to swab to preserve dna? I did not. Careful in handling it? Yes. wear gloves? Yes. suited up in ME clothing? Yes. put it in evidence bag? yes. it was released to field agent of FBI. Any human tissue on tape? Nothing I could ID as human tissue 9:22:35 - my goal at that point was to provide material to fbi lab for ID purposes and to provide the duct tape for analysis. You found no evidence of trauma on these remains? I did not see any evidence of trauma. See any broken bones? Portions of bone were disrupted but I did not analyze them. 9:23:40 - explains what healing fracture it. There was no indication of any prior injury? I didn't see any. In process of autopsy, did you reset the calverium? 9:24:25 - I suppose you mean cutting through the top of the skull? I did not. (casey crying) 9:24:45 - if body had been found 4 months before, would you have had more forensic evidence? Possible. Remember what size shorts were? I believe 24 months. 9:25:45 - were you involved in decisions to get further expert exam of remains? No sir. Did you examine remains with dr. schultz? Only initial exam that occurred on evening of the 11th. He's a forensic anthropologist at UCF. Did you participate in toxicology exams? No. 9:27:00 - know who dr. goldberger is? He's a toxicologist. You talked about location of mandible? Yes. bottom jaw? Correct. You said it was held in place by hair and roots? Yes. when you picked up remains from table, did you hold skull in your hand? Yes. and mandible didn't fall off? I did not. When it was moved, it didn't come off? It did not. 9:28:40 - you talked about your duties to determine cause of death? That's correct. You do not know from your exam the cause of death in this case? I did not make a determination of cause of death in this case. You do not know cause of death. I do not. The manner of death was determined by dr. G to be a homicide? Correct. 9:30:10 - you have not rendered an opinion as to manner of death? I have not. REDIRECT 9:31:10 - looks at photo of skull, left side. That is what you are referring to about tape going from right to left? Correct. What side of face is circled? Right side. It shows tape on both right and left side? Correct. WITNESS EXCUSED. 9:33:55 - DR. JOHN SCHULTZ CALLED TO STAND, UCF dept. of anthroplogy, specializes in forensic anthropology and archealogy. MA in human biology, Phd in anthropology, specializing in forensic anthro. 9:35:30 - talks about difference between forensic anthropology and archeology. Says forensic anthropology is studying human skeleton. 9:36:50 - tephonomy is study of body after death, changes in how skeleton may have been dispersed on site. Talks about human ID lab at U. of Florida. When there are skeletized remains, they can be sent there to be analyzed. Cases from all around state come to the lab. 9:38:40 - specialty is detecting human remains using ground penetrating radar. Non invasive, locates change in ground. Dissertation involves remote sensing tools. 9:39:50 - talks about relationship between UCF and local law enforcement, ME office. 9:41:00 - develop relationship with ME to be on call forensic anthropogist? Yes. around december 11, 2008, get a call from ME? I got a call from steve hanson and dr. g. I was asked if I was able to got to scene to participate in the recovery. 9:42:00 - was not at scene first day when skull was removed. Where did you go to assist? I went directly to ME office. When you arrived, had skull arrived? I don't remember. What is your first recollection of skull? I remember looking in bag, seeing skull and duct tape, didn't want to interfere with duct tape, laid bag so skull wasn't interfered with. 9:43:50 - I remember at one point I held the skull up so photos could be taken of underside. Shows witness photo of him holding skull. 9:44:50 - is there a term called anatomical position? Yes, that would the normal position it would be in. was the mandible in close to anatomical position? It was close. Was that surprising/ to see a mandible still retained on skull? Normally there needs to be something there to hold it in place. What was holding it in place? It would have been the hair that had moved to base of skull. Anything else? We can see leaf litter and roots. How about the tape? No because the tape was adhered to hair but I don't recall it holding mandible in place in this view. 9:46:50 - during exam of bones, did you find anything indicating trauma? No evidence of trauma. Did you do thorough excavation of site? I provided advisory role. I would not call it excavation. I would call this a recovery. What was the plan? On the 12th I arrived at the scene and we talked about how to process scene. It was difficult because we were dealing with small child, had additional parts of bones, some weren't ossified yet and it was a heavy wood environment, lots of plant material. 9:48:45 - I told everyone to be on hands and knees removing leaf litter and double checking all the material that was removed. Started where known material was and worked out from there. I started in area where skeletal remains were found. 9:49:30 - talks about screening, removing material and sifting it thru box with mesh. Did you tell them to use certain kind of mesh? I said go to a smaller size screen because the bones were so small. 9:50:45 - explains how the search was conducted with law enforcement, mapping process. 9:52:50 - talks about how to map a scene using a computer. 9:53:30 - when remains were found did you examine them? Yes, if I was there. I would always assess what bones were found and suspicious material. I had to determine if they were human bones. Did search area increase? Correct as we initially started in main area, additional csi's worked south of us and as additional remains were located, we expanded out further. 9:55:10 - witness tells jury about the photo of scene, shows the process involving removing vines and over growth. Screening of debris. Also shows flags and pails of debris. Is it important to know where bones are found? When trying to understand how remains may have been dispersed, you need to know where all remains were located. 9:57:50 - witness explains photo, shows flags being placed where items were found , also shows csi documenting evidence and collecting it. 10:00:15 - those bones you ID as human were transported to ME? Yes. next photo is of remains that were found. 10:01:15 - we're looking at vertebra, part of spine, they're separated, there's no soft tissue, we can see roots growing thru vertebra as well. What's important about this pic ..the vertebra .all these bones were found in one location. That says they were transported while they were all together. 10:03:30 - photo of bone fragment. We see bones and envelope. Is that how each bone is documented? Correct. 10:04:50 - this is fragment from other bone? Correct. Shown photo of two bones. 10:05:45 - what are these bones? We're looking at largest bones in body, femura, lower leg bones attached to pelvis. Witness shown split screen. Do these two bones related to each other? Yes, the top of these bones have been chewed on by animals. OBJECTION 10:07:15 - SIDEBAR 10:06:30 - RECESS 10:38:00 - testimony resumes 10:39:00 - references split screen, showing pics of bones. He's asked about how bones fit together. 10:40:45 - photo shows hand and finger bones. What is purpose of this photo? We're always going to document skeletal remains, so we take multiple views of skeleton. This image is documenting bones of the hand and our scales are in centimeters so I put quarter in pic to show how tiny the bones are. Many of these were found in the main area. 10:42:20 - looks at his notes .mapping finished on december 20th. Looks at photo of bones again. These bones are part of pelvis, top area. Each one of these would grow as three bones and then fuse. This one here we have carnivore damage on bottom. 10:44:15 - one of these was found almost completely buried in the muck. Looks at his notes. It's the left bone in pic. 10:45:15 - looks at pic of skeleton laid out in anatomical order after all the bones are recovered. How successful was this recovery effort? Even with adult skeleton with bones intact, its tough to collect majority of remains and teeth. I feel we were very succesful here. Collected all but one tooth, had most of spine, long bones, tiny bones of hands and feet. A few pieces here and there are missing. 10:47:00 - I would say very successful in what was recovered and mapping those bones as well. 10:47:40 - mapping tells about spatial relationship of bones, and relationship at dump site. 10:48:00 - witness looks at survey that denotes areas where bones were found. 10:49:00 - photo shows survey map where bones were found. Witness points out on map where bones were found. In area A is where the body and bags was placed into the woods. This is where initial separation of body parts occurred, such as skull, arms, lower limbs. 10:50:30 - I started in area A, the rest of the csi's were south of us and as additional remains were found we moved further south. When this area was searched, we would talk about how to expand the search. It progressed further south. 10:52:50 - what was found in area A? it was initial area with skull, bags, arms with hand bones, lower legs also found there, including left foot. Area B? shaft for upper arm bone. Area F? as we progressed further southeast, we found trunk of body with pelvis, lower legs were dragged to this area. At this point being dragged from area A by animals is lower trunk. 10:55:10 - area D we had only located one bone. Area E a hand bone was found there. In area D that was one bone of foot? Correct. Area F is where we did see carnivore damage on multiple bones. Area G is most of spinal columns with ribs attached. Separated out is lower veterbra 10:56;55 - consistent with animal moving them. Area H we start to see more of the ribs, separated. Area I, if we start at top of spine we have cervical vertibra, to thoraic, to lumbar. Area i found 20 of vertebra here. It's being dragged while relatively articulated. Decomp would have finished there. 10:58:50 - there would have been some tissue holding the bones together. Based on this dispersal pattern, was this body deposited in area as intact unit? It may have been relatively intact if we look at area F trunk and lower legs were articulated. No indication the body was dismembered.? No we did not see any evidence. 11:00:15 - we talked about the hip bone which was buried. What is the significance of that? When trying to interpret how long bones have been at site ..SIDEBAR. 11:04:30 - formally requests witness be accepted as expert. 11:05:10 - when trying to interpret how long skeleton may have been out of scene, many bones were under leaf fall so they had to be there before they fell. .that would tell us more than likely this area was a swampy area, was water southeast, so it's possible when area was flooded, silt and other material may have resulted in burial of this bone .would have happened sometime over the summer. 11:06:20 - it was close to a big palmetto trunk. Area F on map is lowest area. That is one of the bones with carnivore damage and there's going to be silt suspended in water and that process would have led to almost burying the bone. 11:07:15 - approximately how long were these remains in that area? We use mulitple lines of evidence and overall the bones were dry, competely free of soft tissue. They had no decomp odor, they had some erosion which would take time, and were found under leaf litter. The combination of that with root evidence. A period of six months could be possible. 11;08:40 - dispersal of bones primarily the result of animal activity. There was some animal chewing on the ribs. This area was processed well and remaining bones could have been taken away by animals. CROSS EXAM 11:09:40 - as forensic anthropologist, you examine bones yourself? Correct. Do you x ray bones? Yes. in your examination you found no evidence of any pre mortem trauma? No evidence. No broken bones or fractures? Not sure of your question. You found no evidence of fractures? No evidence of fractures. No evidence of twist of bones? No evidence. No evidence of any traumatic injury before her death? No evidence. 11:12:10 - how far is area from pavement of suburban drive? I did not do mapping, if I use scale on map I would think 25-30 feel maybe. I did not document the measurements. This map just shows elevation and lines? Yes. my job was not the mapping. Measurements provided to me by ronald murdoch. 11:13:55 - do you know when the dispersement took place? Not sure I understand question. We start with area A, primary site and all of those items were in bags? Originally when deposited out at the site. 11:15:00 - other areas with bones and fragments, there were no bag? no bags, but not sure about parts of bag. majority of what was found was all area A? I wouldn't say majority. It was found in area of A. and after inspecting contents of area A you discovered missing bones? I wouldn't agree with that because when we started processing scene, we had other people locating additional bones south of area A. 11:16:40 - we had a crew of people we separated them out and searched simultaneously. You don't have any scientific evidence when first dispersement from area A occurred? No. same question as to other areas? Yes. there's nothing that tells you how this child died? Not a question I would answer. All I look for is peri mortem trauma and I did not find that. 11:18:15 - when you looked at duct tape on skull, it was not covering nasal appature? No. REDIRECT 11:18:35 - nasal appature is hole on skull where nose would be. Tape was covering the mouth area. Was tape in position to cover nose? Possibly. Hard to tell because nose wasn't there any more? Correct. 11:20:00 - witness circles on photo what bones were found in area A. what was in area b? left humurous. 11:21:45 - what was in area F? we do have clavicles and parts of pelvis and both femur shafts and ribs. One part of a vertebra. Area G? see separation of bottom of spinal column. Area G had couple of ribs. Area H? we only had one, part of one vertebra. And a bunch of ribs. Area i? see more ribs and parts of 20 vertebra. 11:23:45 - NO FURTHER QUESTIONS. WITNESS EXCUSED. 11:25:30 - DR. JAN GARIVAGLIA, CHIEF MEDICAL EXAMINER FOR ORANGE, OSCEOLA SINCE 2004. Was ME is Bexar county in San Antonio for 10 years. Also in Atlanta and Jacksonville. Explains her education and training credentials. 11:28:10 - came under my jurisdiction. When did you first learn that remains of caylee had been found? The 11th I don't remember the time. I was alerted by my chief investigator steve hanson. What did you do? I was late for the airport, as I was walking out mr hanson told me they found remains. We weren't sure who it was at that point, I had engagement I could not get out of so I told dr. utz to handle it until I got back the next day.. also had them call dr. schultz. 11:30:00 - I didn't think my absence for night would matter. Returned following day? Yes. did you go back and review photos of scene and at your facility? Absolutely. I went out to the scene, reviewed photos, made suggestions. 11:31:45 - one of things you examined was hair matte? Eventually it came back to me, originally sent to FBI, I examined it then. Looks at photo on screen. 11:32:40- shows her another photo she reviewed. She says it's photo of hair matte.we see a lot of the roots that have grown thru the hair. We're looking at hair matte and roots that have grown thru the matte and some holes in the hair matte probably from insect activity 11:34:15 - shown another photo. We teased out some of the hair to take as a sample for possible toxicological use. 11:35:40 - next photo. That was taken at my direction. Again that's the scale next to one of the roots on the hair matte. 11:36:30 - some of items found with remains, did you examine them? Yes. recall a blanket? Yes. did you have that photographed? Yes. looks at photo of blanket. See pic of dirty blanket with leaf litter on it. This is the condition it came in? it was not cleaned, just unfolded. Certain portions where you can see figures? Yes. took photo to see them more clearly. Next photo is closeup. 11:38:40 - zooms in on figure on blanket. When you viewed that did it look familiar? Yes, it was winnie the pooh with piglet on his back. 11:39:20 - photo of other side of blanket. Did that blanket have plant material growing in it? Yes. photographed that as well. Closeup photo of plants and roots growing into blanket. 11:40:40 - what are we looking at? This is closeup of edge of blanket with winnie the pooh, shows roots lying on top of and thru the blanket. 11:41:10 - next photo. More of root growth on blanket. 11:42:00 - another photo of root material, more close up 11:42:45 - next photo, more root material growing into blanket 11:43:30 - also root material growing in black plastic bag? there were two bags and roots were growing thru the holes of both those bags. Shown photo of roots and bag. 11:44:30 - was there also canvas laundry bag with remains? Yes there was. Roots in that? Roots were growing on top of and into bag. shown photo of roots growing into the bag. 11:45:40 - were roots growing around everything? There were roots in bones, didn't see in shorts and the shirt was disintegrated. Certainly the blanket, two plastic bag and canvas bags. The lettering and stitching along hems were left of the shirt. 11:46:40 - how did you ID bones? We thought best ID was thru dna. It's tough to ID a child because we often use teeth, but it's tough with child. We were hoping we were going to get nuclear dna and at least mito dna. Did you send bone to FBI? Yes we did. 11:47:45 - photo of bone upon return from dna evaluation. The portion missing on this bone? They removed a piece of right tibia to test. Get results from FBI? Yes. they identified remains as caylee anthony. 11:49:00 - is manner of death determination a purely medical or scientific determination? It's basd on scientific principles and gathering all the info you can, all the history, medical history. Take all of those things and any scientific information and come up with opinion .SIDEBAR LUNCH RECESS 13:40:00 - court resumes with SIDEBAR 13:44:00 - casey walks back into courtroom. 13:46:30 - sows dr. G. some evidence bag, has laundry bag in it. state goes over more evidence with her. 13:47:40- evidence bag of body bag with vegetation. next bag has black plastic bag. 13:49:40 - more bags of evidence shown to dr. g., this is bag with the shorts. 13:50:45 - evidence bag with clothing brought in with the body. 13:52:15 - when we broke we were discussing cause and manner of death. what is manner of death? its the classification of death based on all info available to us ...scientific, scene, history, medical. 13:53:00 - also bring to bear your exp in forensic pathology? absolutely. manner of death in this case? yes. homicide. why? it's based on three main items . first, we know from observational studies that it is a red flag that when a child is not reported immediately to authorities, that's something we look for ... for foul play. this child was not reported missing for a long time. the other thing is the body was hidden. a child's body is thrown out in a field, that is one of things we look for when looking for homicide. the body is often found in closed containers, suitcase or plastic bag such as this case. that's a red flag for homicide. the last besides delay in reporting, and found in a field, would be the duct tape located on lower half of the face. there is no child that should have duct tape on its face when it dies or after they dies. we've seen that in cases of homicide 13:55:25 - cause of death is the injury or the diseases that initiates chain of events that results in death. it's the specific injury or disease that causes death. in this case, can you conclude cause of death? the cause of death was homicide of undetermined means. we can reliably say homicide but i don't know means by which it occurred. any objects found with body that could cause death? the only possible object would be duct tape, if that was over mouth and nose, suffocation with plastic bag would be the only other thing. 13:56:55 - were you aware of chloroform in this case? yes. could a child exposed to sufficient amount die as a result? absolutely. at this point, can you tell what caused her death? no, i believe we have enough evidence to say its a homicide, but don't have enough scientific information to say how the homicide occurred. was there any trauma to body? it's very decomposed so unless trauma hurt the bones, i can't say. i can't rule out any trauma cuz even a gun shot wound could not touch the bones. was there any injury to bones? no anti mortem injury to bones. were you aware of any illnesses the child had? i asked for a history of illness and i was told there were none. NO FURTHER QUESTIONS CROSS EXAMINATION 13:59:00 - you live in orlando? yes. for the period of time of about 4 mos prior to remains being found, you were aware of media surrounding this case? i was aware this was a big case. i don't watch the news. i was not aware as most people. were you aware there was a circus like atmosphere around anthony home? i do not know. i did know about speculation abuot this case. you knew if remains were found your office would be involved? no, i was hoping it was lake county, different jurisdiction. in fact, you came back to handle this case? that's true. you knew prior to finding the remains that chloroform was involved? i was told that by investigators at time we got the body. 14:01:10 - you reasoned perhaps chloroform could have been used to contibute to cause of death? that would be one of the possibilities we would examine. so you brought in an expert? i brought in a toxicologist who dealt with toxicology of bones. dr. goldberger from U of florida. you sent him piece of bone? from left femur. as a toxicologist, the request was to look for choloroform and other volatile chemicals? correct. 14:03:00 - he checked for volatiles and several other tests. he's limited in what he can do with bones. results were negative? correct. were you present when dr. werner spitz came to observe ....objection ...SIDEBAR 14:07:30 - did dr. werner spitz see autopsy? did he, no. were you aware he was coming down? i was informed by my office manager that mr baez had requested to bring in outside person in to watch autopsy. our policy is to come up with cause and manner of death and make that available to him once we were done. did dr. spitz did a second autopsy? sustained. 14:09:00 - dr. goldberger is MD? no, he's a phd. what did he test? bone, scrapings I took from inside of bone, the hair and soil that fell out of hair and that was for volatiles. then he tested bone, scrapings of bone marrow and washings from cranial cavity. 14:10:15 - tested for xanax. all results were negative? correct. you did not cut open cranium? no absolutely not. no trauma was found? no anti mortem trauma. we found post mortem trauma. there was no evidence of any form of trauma when the child was alive? on bones there was no evidence of trauma. 14:11:40 - you are confirming that despite investigations, toxicology report, there is no evidence to establish cause of death? it was a means of homicide that could not be determined. you called it a homicide as proposed to accident? the circumstances of the death did not fit anything but a homicide. and based on what det. melich told you? what did he tell me ...that the body wasn't reported missing for 31 days. some things you learned from the media? nothing from the media would have entered into a decision. i can't take anything they would say in something as grave as this. 14:13:15 - it probably was a homicide? not probably, that is the only logical conclusion based on scientific information we have based on observational information we have on homicides and children dying. we know in systematic observatonal studies, we look at all the accidental drownings for instance in my jurisdiction, 100 percent of the time EMS is called. it absolutely has something to do with this case. every death i investigate has to be put into cirmcumstances of death; you can never, ever detemine a manner of death except in rare instances just on examining body. we need to know how usually deaths occur. 14:14:50 - we have to know red flags for homicide. by my experience and by what is known about the way homicides occur i felt preponderence of evidence .... by not reporting child missing, the fact it is tossed in a field to rot in bag is clear indication the body was trying to be hidden, that it was found in bag is a big red falg and duct tape anywhere attached to that childs face is indication of homicide. 14:16:00 - we know 100 percent of the time that accidental deaths are reported unless there is a good reason not to be. no reason not to report. if you don't report it to authorities, you are risking that childs life. we know thats behavioral science. and we know thru all cases in our morgue, accidents are 100 percent reported unless there's a good reason not to. 14:16:50 - this death couldn't be an accident? 100 percent of time when a person finds a child they call 911 cuz there a chance child might live. what if a person finds a drowned body. what then? i am looking at behaviors that shows no matter how stiff that body is, they always call 911 in the hopes that the child could be saved. i'm looking at observational data. that's what we used. 14:17:55 - i explained to you the red flags that we know in forensics based on behavior ...i don't understand ..objection ...sustained. 14:19:00- i felt the manner of death was defensible scientifically based on systematic observational studies of how homicide, accidents and natural deaths occur. if these remains had been found 4-5 mos before, would you have had better scientific evidence? absolutely. you mentioned duct tape, was it in vicinity of lower mandible? correct. REDIRECT 14:20:50 - you were asked about a second autopsy. did you keep body in same condition as when you received it? yes we did except what we had to take for dna and toxicology testing. left roots in bones? yes, that's normal procedure. the absence of positive results for chloroform, does that exclude acute use? we would not expect to find any of those things in the bones, that was a long shot. we would not expect those results to be positive, even at time of death. 14:22:20 - assume caylee died and was discarded about june 16, six months before she was found, at the stage mr mason was asking you about, four months earlier, what would be its condition after 2 mos? it would certainly be skeletonized by then. so if it was found in august, you would expect it would have been skeletonized? yes, the internal organs would be completely gone. WITNESS EXCUSED. ? 14:24:15 - SIDEBAR 14:35:00 - jury is dismissed for a time, judge says they have to discuss some issues. 14:37:16 - attorneys are looking at a video it appears. 14:42:00 - ashton talks about submitting a video showing duct tape over the mouth, trying to show tape was sufficient size to cover nose and mouth. baez argues let's throw eveything against wall and see what stick. this impostion is a fantasy and it's not supported that can't be testified to. it goes to root of 403. 14:45:10 - judge talks about a decision by florida supreme court, may have similar application. says he needs to reread it. the case is 26 pages long. 14:46:00 - baez says there's been no testimony that this duct tape was in fact in this position as reflected in this video. references another court case. clearly shows presenation must be relevant and must accurately reflect oral testimony offered. there's not going to be any oral testimony this duct tape was in this position on this child's face. dr. warren could not testify to this. LET ME HEAR DR. WARREN'S TESTIMONY. I CAN BETTER MAKE AN INFORMED DECISION. THIS WILL BE A PROFER. SO THERE'S NO NEED TO MAKE OBJECTIONS AT THIS POINT MR. BAEZ 14:48:15 - dr.michael warren, forensic anthropologist, assoc. prof at u. of florida. director of human identification lab. 14:49:10 - you worked with dr. schultz on this case? yes sir. you examined the skull and other bones? i did. at some point the issue of duct tape and establishing whether it caused death came up? correct. how was this video created? it was created by taking photos of skull and photos of tape and photo that was found on the internet that was appropriate in orientation of child's face. why use pics of skull and face? both have photo scales and those are used to make sure the size of those images are comparable. 14:50:40 - have to match face to skull in terms of sizing. then use tape label to superimpose on face. skull is used to make one to one match with face? yes. is it possible without this superimposition to determine the end of caylees nose and mouth? no. are there certain rough estimates you can make based on research on avarage distances? previous studies for children and one study done at U of Michigan has some measurements but not ones we needed. is there any other way to demonstrate that duct tape could cover both nose and mouth other than this process? there's not. baez questions him 14:53:10 - recall being told duct tape was murder weapon? i don't recall questions from mr ashton about it being a murder weapon. those discussions were between me and dr. g. And mr ashton had these discussions too? i don't remember that, i remember talking about it being possible. happened early on, first day i was there with dr. g and dr. schultz. 14:54:20 - i suggested doing the superimposition to mr ashton. you weren't present when tape was removed from skull? no. you only saw a photo? that's true. the ones were tape is attached to hair matte? correct. LET'S GET TO THE POINT, WE'RE HERE TO DETERMINE 403 ISSUE. LETS' GET THERE. the hair matte was under skull? at base of skull. is it not normally at top? in decomposed skulls it is at the base. there's no scale on her face in that photo? no. 14:56:20 - you used just some photo you took off internet? correct. you would need to know how large child is? no i'd have to know where landmarks on face are. but children grow rapidly? they do. she could have been larger than time photo was taken? it looked recent. it's not an infant's photo. JUDGE: WHAT IS PURPOSE OF DEMONSTRATION? that's its possible the tape could cover both the child's nose and mouth 14:57:40 - A SKULL WAS UTLIZED, EXPLAIN THAT. we took photo for photographic scale. by using both skull and photo of tape and overlaying those images, you can make those scales the same size so you know size of skull relative to tape is real. now we are able to move from scale of skull to scale of tape. we're able to once we have skull scaled to photo, we can superimpose the tape over the image with the soft tissue. 14:59:10 - PHOTO USED IS PHOTO FROM M.E. OFFICE.yes. WILL THIS ANIMATION HELP YOU EXPLAIN TESTIMONY TO JURY. it illustrates it's possible. WITHOUT IT? i would be able to testify that it is possible without using animation. WHAT ARE DISADVANTAGES? disadvantage is it takes illustration of science out of explanation. 15:01:10 - witness steps down. judge asks what cases baez wants him to look at. RECESS UNTIL 3:15- judge needs to look at cases. 15:17:30 - JUDGE REFERENCE 2007 DECISION OF FLORIDA SUPREME COURT. INVOLVED FIRST DEGREE MURDER WITH FIREARM. THE COURT SAID THE FOLLOWING IN ITS OPINION: RELEVANT EVIDENCE PROVES OR DISPROVES MATERIAL FACT. IT IS INADMISSABLE IF PROBATIVE VALUE IS OUTWEIGHED BY PREJUDICE. THE PROPER APPLICATION REQUIRES BALANCING TEST BY TRIAL JUDGE. ONLY WHEN PREJUDICE OUTWEIGHS PROBATIVE VALUE IT MUST BE EXCLUDED. 15:19:00 - THIS RULE OF EXCLUSION IS DIRECTED AT EVIDENCE THAT INFLAMES JURY'S EMOTIONS. IF UNFAIR PREJUDICE OUTWEIGHS PROBATIVE VALUE, COURT SHOULD DETERMINE NEED FOR EVIDENCE, CHAIN OF INFERENCES AND EFFECTIVENESS OF LIMITED INSTRUCTION. 15:20:00 - THE EVIDENCE BEING SOUGHT TO BE INTRODUCED IS SUPERIMPOSED PHOTO OF VICTIM, THE SKULL AND PLACEMENT OF DUCT TAPE. DEFENSE SAYS EVIDENCE SHOULD BE EXCLUDED AND CITES TWO CASES. judge talks about case that used computer animation, published to jury as demonstrative evidence. court found it was case of first impression. concluded that video tape demo showed no blood, replicated no sounds and found no error in admitting the use of the computer generated animation. 15:21:55 - THIS CASE MAINLY DEALT WITH FIRST TIME USE OF COMPUTER GENERATION. WAS NOT HELPFUL TO COURT IN 403. IN NEXT CASE, THE BRANDON PEST CONTROL CASE, THIS CASE INVOLVED A VIDEO TAPE THAT WAS 15 MINS LONG THAT WAS TAKEN AT RESIDENCE IN QUESTION. IT SHOWED EXTERMINATION EQUIP AND POINTED OUT ITS UTILIZATION. IT ALSO HAD SOME COMPUTER ANIMATIONS THROUGHOUT. COURT CONCLUDED NARRATIONS CONTAINED THROUGHOUT WAS A SELF SERVING PROMOTIONAL TAPE SO COURT SAID IT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN INTRODUCED. 15:23:50 - IT DOES NOT GO THRU 403 ANALYSIS. IN LOOKING AT HTE FACTORS TALKED ABOUNT IN MCDUFFY THE COURT WILL MAKE FOLLOWNG OBSER: COURT NEEDS TO CONSIDER NEED FOR EVIDENCE. IN THIS CASE THERE HAS BEEN AN ISSUE DEALING WITH PLACEMENT OF DUCT TAPE UPON THE VICTIM AND THE LOCATION OF THIS DUCT TAPE. THE COURT WILL ALSO NOTE THAT THERE IS A NON DESCRIPT PIC OF CAYLEE AND THE UTILIZATION OF SKULL OF CAYLEE WHICH JURY HAS SEEN OVER LAST FEW DAYS. SKULL DOES NOT EXPOSE BLOOD. THE DR. HAS INDICATED THAT THIS WILL ILLUSTRATE HIS TESTIMONY. HE SAID IT WOULD BE HELPFUL. DOES THE EVIDENCE SUGGEST EMOTIONAL BASIS FOR VERDICT. IN HOMICIDE CASES EVIDENCE TENDS TO BE NOT NICE. THIS EVIDENCE, LIVE PHOTO OF VICTIM, SUPERIMPOSED IWTH SKULL DOES NOT HAVE TENDENCY TO SUGGEST EMOTIONAL BASIS FOR A VERDICT. 15:26:20 - NECESSEARY TO ESTABLISH MATERIAL FACT? BOTH SIDES HAVE DEBATED ITS RELEVANCY SO IT'S HIGHLY RELEVANT TO CONCLUDE BASED UPON ALL EVIDENCE WHETHER OR NOT THIS DUCT TAPE WAS PLACED IN A CERTAIN POSITION. THEREFORE BASED ON WHAT HAS BEEN PRESENTED, THE COURT WILL PERMIT THE WITNESS TO TESTIFY. LAST BUT NOT LEAST, PURSUANT TO ...IF REQUESTED BY DEFENSE, PURSUANT TO PIERCE, I WILL GIVE INSTRUCTIONS. 15:29:40 - baez tells judge that witness co authored report with dr. schultz and testimony is cumulative. ashton says dr. schultz testimony was not challenged. baez says ...he's off mic ..again. 15:31:40 - jury returns 15:32:40 - DR. MICHAEL WARREN CALLED TO THE STAND, forensic anthropologist, assoc. prof at u. of florida. director of human identification lab. 15:33:50 - ID lab consults with medical examiners when person has become skeletonized. been director two and a half years. was paramedic for 15 years, got MS and PhD at U. of Florida in forensic anthropology 15:35:20 - you are qualified as expert in forensic anthropology? yes, testified in probably 16 cases. submits witness as expert in forensic anthro 15:36:00 - my doctoral research was in fetal growth and development. also determining age at time of death. how did you become involved in this case? i was contacted by dr. g and schultz on dec 15 to assist in ID of remains. did you look at photos of remains too? yes. recall from photos when mandible was first found? yes. what was that position. it was still articulated, it was still in place. 15:37:45 - why is that noteworthy? that joint is a regular sinovial joint. it's lax and allowed movement, there's nothing to hold it in place once soft tissue decomposes. when remains are found on the sufface, it's very rare to find jaw articulatd with rest of skull. have you ever had a case where jaw in above ground remains was still in that position? yes, these are cases when i did human rights work in bosnia in which decedents had tape over their face. so you consitently find the mandible disarticulated from the skull? yes. 15:39:20 - familiar with photos and duct tape? yes. can you tell if tape would have been over nose and mouth? no the tape had moved. did you try to deterine if it was possible that a singel piece of duct tape could have covered the nose and mouth in one piece? i did. how? two methods, i consulted literature and scientific studies done on growing children to figure out normal distances between landmarks on a child's face. .... 15:41:00 - i was interested in nasal apperature, bottom of nose and the bottom of the teeth and oral airway. able to get estimates? estimates, not using those exact landmarks. what is the other method? i used video superimposition. what has it been used for? primarly used to exlucde possibility remains in question are those of particular person. SIGNAL LOSS FROM COURTHOUSE IN OUR TRAILER - TIME CODE WILL BE OFF BY A FEW SECONDS. 15:42:45 - putative, you take skull and take photos of that person and using a comparison method where you are able to superimpose that image on skull using anatomical landmark. you can determine if the photo is of unknown person. landmarks are bottom of teeth, references other tech terms 15:44:00 - how did you use that process here? i used that technique to scale the photo of skull with a photo provided me by fbi of tape. both had scales in them, we're able to know those two images are correct. that would help you put tape over skull, how do you then determine if a face was there? we'd go back to original technique ...take photo of skull, photo of decedent and then use landmarks. 15:45:30 - does that depict video showing that process? it does. will it help with your explanation? it does. objection, overruled. received into evidence 15:46:30 - judge reads instructions to jury about the evidence. used only to illustrate experts opinion. 15:47:00 - video is played for jury. not made public. only those in court can see. SIGNAL RETURNS FROM COURTHOUSE, TIME CODE IS ACCURATE. 15:53:10 - why is tape moved up and down on photo? to show we don't know where tape was. based on that video and your research, would the single piece of tape have covered both nose and mouth making breathing impossible? yes 15:55:10 - you were hired early in this case? i was consulted. yes. you never saw the duct tape while it was attached to hair matte? that's true. the photo you used to do this quicktime movies? I used photoshop. it should give precise measurements if you're scaling. the photo you used of caylee you grabbed from internet? correct. you have no scale on that photo? correct. only reason you showed it is to show it's possible this could have occurred? correct. it's possible tape could have covered the nose and mouth? correct you're not testifying that that actually happened? correct. 15:57:30 - you can't testify this duct tape had anything to do with caylee's death? correct. you can't say tape was associated with caylee after death? ask that again please. you don't know if that tape had to do with disposal or death? true. baez goes to drawing board. tries to draw scene where caylee was found, draws mandible and tape ...badly drawn. can't really tell what it is. 15:59:30 - more of baez drawing on board. the hair is generally up here? I cannot see it. witness stands down. 16:00:55 - the duct tape was attached to hair? that's my understanding. it was your understanding too that at one time her skull was inside three bags? objection, heresay....sustained. rephrase. based on evidence you're given, you knew caylees remains were in three bags? thats my understanding correct. could you see canvas bag? only in photographs. photos weren't clear in terms of what the opening looked like. can you close the bag? i've only seen photos. you have no idea if this tape was used to wrap caylees remains? objection, sustained. 16:03:00 - the duct tape was over mandible and some portion of mouth. that's because it was attached to the hair? the mandible was found articulate with the skull. the hair couldn't have gotten underneath all of this ....OBJECTION, APPROACH 16:06:40 - shows witness photo of hair matte. that was in wooded area off suburban? object ...when skull was found hair matte was on floor? on the surface. above it was mandible? based on photos i've seen, i wasn't at scene. for hair matte to be under skull, something had to make it roll there? yes. the duct tape made its way in that direction? correct. 16:08:15 - the video you showed of the possiblity that tape could have been in that position, that was graphic? it was. was it to appeal to jury's emotions? objections, APPROACH 16:11:57 - jury asked to step out again. 16:12:45 - PROFER continues ....was video for purpose of appealing to the jury? no. was it to demonstrate something of graphic nature? no. purpose of getting sympathy or getting jury angry? no. just to show tape could have covered nose and mouth? correct. end of questions 16:13:45 - five minute break 16:25:30 - did you know another piece of duct tape was found nine feet away? i was not aware of that. the possiblity in this demonstration, that was one possiblity? true. there are other possible scenarios in caylees death? correct. and the there are othe scenarios involving the duct tape? in terms of position of duct tape over face, no. there are other possilibites involving duct tape. yes. any quicktime movies of those? no sir. REDIRECT 16:26:55 - was tape on caylee's body before decomp? yes, it was placed on prior to decomp. that opinion is based on what? the mandible is still articulated with rest of cramium, it will always become disarticulated without something holding it in place. in your oponion could anything else have held it in place? no. how does tape during decomp keep the mandible in place? the mandible is stuck to soft tissue, when decomposition occurs, the duct tape stays in place and supports the mandible. 16:29:00- this photo shows hair is not under mandible but posterior? correct, under base of skull. during decomp how does hair end up not on top of skull? hair is attached to hair follicles, when decomp occurs it tends to slide down. not uncommosn to find birds nest of hair near base of skull. is that something you commonly see in deompc? correct. 16:30:00 - no further questions. 16:30:30 - there is root growth under mandible? i do see roots there. roots attached to hair? yes. can roots keep a mandible in place? that's possible. 16:31:40 - NO FURTHER QUESTIONS. 16:31:55 - does active decomp inhibit root growth? no. sustained. roots can't grow in hair until its fallen off skull ..sustained. are you familiar with plant growth and decomp? yes. you are not a botanist? no. but have you evaluated plant growth related to decomp? yes. could roots keep a mandible in place? it's possible under certain circumstances. in this case what would have to happen, would hair have to fall off? yes. until that point roots have nothing to grow in? yes. what would be holding that in place? the tape. RECROSS 16:34:00 - not a botanist? correct. you would defer to botanist? yes i would. you can't based on evidence know tracking of that duct tape? confused by question ... you can't testify to the position of the body at any point and time? no. or where hair was at one time or another? no. all we have are photos of tape stuck to hair? correct. no further questions. WITNESS EXCUSED. 16:36:30 - MICHAEL VINCENT CALLED TO STAND. returns to stand. csi with orange county sheriff. 16:36:50 - recovered insect evidence from trash in pontiac sunfire. approaches witness 16:38:00 - id's evidence bag of maggots. sent bag to dr. haskell 16:40:17 - id's bag as insect eggs, late stage of life cycle. sent it to dr. haskell. CROSS 16:41:20 - these collected on july 16? what was collected ...these pupae? no they were collected on august 28. but you processed vehicle on july 16? i did not process the vehicle. what do you mean ...you inspected trunk and items in trunk? yes. you're aware of entomology as a tool for law enforcement? yes. the insect was in later stages? yes. an entomologist can look at stage where maggot life is and can determine life cycle of that maggot? object. sustained. 16:43:00 - you have some training in entomology? yes sir. went to course at UF? i did. this course taught you there are different stages of insect? yes. an entomologist can take these stages and give you a pinpoint time of death? that's possible. you were aware of this evidence on july 16? no. you did see any insect activity in garbage or trunk on july 16? no. not in trunk of car. there was none that i saw. no further questions. witness excused. 16:46:00 - ROBIN MAYNARD CALLED TO STAND. csi with orange county. helped recover caylee remains. responsible for documenting collection of insect activity. collected over several days. 16:47:30 - witness id's her label on evidence bag. says its pupae collected 12/14/08. as she collected them she consulted with dr. haskell. 16:48:30 - she placed it in bag and sent to dr. haskell. witness IDs more bags of evidence, envelopes of bugs. was collected from scene in december 2008. 16:51:30 - witness IDs more bags of entomological evidence taken from scene, december 2008. location where item is collected also noted on bag. 16:53:30 - witness IDs more bags of entomological evidence taken from scene on suburban drive. sent it to dr. neil haskell 16:56:00 - witness IDs more bags of evidence. says its her label with her handwriting. piece of cardboard with pink remnants on it. 16:57:15 - no further questions CROSS 16:57:40 - collected evidence under direction of dr. neil haskell? yes. the job ws so thoroughly done he asked you to stop collecting? correct. the cardboard item was found in a lane? yes. we're also talking about beer bottles? correct. tires? correct. there were so many items in that area it got to the point where you stopped collecting? i was the lead in charge of sifting, i was not in primary search area. but you were there? correct. the items i had to deal with were being sifted, if they were bigger they weren't my responsibility. people threw things there all the time, it was a common dumping area? i can't say it was a common dumping area. there were multiple items ...sustained. this area is across from a school? not directly across. it is next to school? it's down the street. kids walk to school there? object. sustained. 17:00:00 - jury dismissed for the day 17:02:30 - BAEZ asks for mistrail based on video of skull and duct tape around face. based on profer this was a possibiilty. witness also said this was speculative. overwhelming prejudicial effect outweighed probative value. HAS NOT BOTH STATE AND DEFENSE ADVANCED VARIOUS THEORIES AS TO LOCATION OF THE DUCT TAPE? yes. AND DID NOT THE WITNESS TESTIFY THAT WAS ONE POSSIBLE SCENARIO AND THERE COULD BE OTHERS. witness did, not outweighed by video of child and skull in background. served only one purpose to inflame jury. YOU SAID THE PHOTO SHOWED DUCT TAPE WRAPPED AROUND THE HEAD. WAS IT WRAPPED AROUND OR SUPERIMPOSED. state: the testimony is that at some point the child had tape around nose, mouth or both. it was necessary to establish theory this tape was murder weapons. video itself showed tape moving above and below. it was a fair and necessary demonstration 17:07:10 - MOTION FOR MISTRIAL AT THIS TIME WILL BE DENIED. 17:00:30 - no further questions.