Casey Anthony: Will Forensic Evidence Lead to Conviction?

Casey Anthony’s defense team hopes that conflicting forensic evidence and interpretations by experts will raise questions in jurors’ minds.

Attorney Jose Baez told potential jurors in advance of the trial that they should take those conflicting interpretations to heart.

“It can be means to conclude reasonable doubt exists in this case,” he said.

From the Associated Press:

No witnesses saw what happened to 2-year-old Caylee Anthony, and only her killer knows exactly how she died. No one has confessed. So when her mother, Casey Anthony, goes to trial Tuesday on murder charges, the jury’s decision will likely come down to forensic evidence.

Prosecutors plan to have jurors smell the odor from her car, present evidence of chloroform in the 1998 Pontiac Sunfire and present photos that they say show her partying with friends after her daughter disappeared. They also likely will seek testimony from a botanist, a hair and fiber examiner from an FBI lab, and a cadaver dog handler.

Defense attorneys plan to call on their own team of experts. They hope to convince jurors it was impossible for Anthony to have left the body in the woods because she would have been in jail at the time their experts believe the body was left at the scene. They have a botanist who can testify about plant growth found around the remains. They also have an entomologist who they hope can refute prosecutors’ own bug expert, who claims that flies associated with decomposition were found in her car’s trunk.

Advertisements
Explore posts in the same categories: Uncategorized

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

You can comment below, or link to this permanent URL from your own site.

4 Comments on “Casey Anthony: Will Forensic Evidence Lead to Conviction?”

  1. Sherry Says:

    There may be two different interpretations of the forensics but there will also be two different ways of presenting the experts’ testimopnies-one would be simply, the other would be with complicated jargon. There are also two different levels of expertise and the prosecutors have the higher grade experts.

  2. One Op Says:

    I respectfully have a different opinion about the prosecutors having the higher grade experts. Not that promising if we go by what has transpired in the past.
    It is important that this trial goes forward with both sides presenting their case as they should for the purpose of the jurors hearing all the facts that will bring a verdict. If guilty, I certainly would like it to be “guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.” So far nothing in examining all the evidence in three years of foreplay has concluded that. However, who knows what still lurks to maybe wrap it all up in just days.

  3. Honeydog Says:

    MY Question is… Why was Baez permitted to mention ANYthing about ANY Evidence to the Jurors— much less something “Specific”— and FURTHUR make ANY Suggestions whatsoever about it leading to Reasonable Doubt— all IN ADVANCE of the Trial itself??? Are not these type of Statements reserved for “Opening” and/or at the “appropriate” point during the Trial??? I’ve never HEARD of this being done BEFORE the actual Trial even begins. I wonder if The Prosecution were allowed to “Plant THEIR Seed” IN ADVANCE TOO…

  4. zelda Says:

    YES,THAT IS INTERESTING……….


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s


%d bloggers like this: