Anthony defense targets forensics

Associated Press

ORLANDO, Fla.

Defense attorneys again challenged the prosecution’s forensic evidence Tuesday in the Florida murder trial of Casey Anthony, who is accused of killing her toddler daughter nearly three years ago.

Forensic botanist Jane Bock testified that 2-year-old Caylee Anthony’s remains could have been in the woods for as little as two weeks when they were discovered in December 2008. Prosecutors contend the body was in the woods for more than six months, since the time she disappeared that summer.

The defense suffered a setback when Judge Belvin Perry ruled that its DNA expert Richard Eikelenboom could not testify about decomposition evidence found in Anthony’s trunk until a hearing takes place.

Anthony, 25, is charged with first-degree murder in Caylee’s death in summer 2008. She faces a possible death sentence if convicted and has pleaded not guilty. The state contends she used pieces of duct tape to suffocate her child. The defense says the toddler drowned in her grandparents’ swimming pool.

Casey Anthony was born in Warren in 1986 to George and Cindy Anthony, who lived in Howland before moving the family to Florida in 1989.

Bock told jurors she believed the roots could have grown through the bones, skull and a laundry bag containing the skeletal remains in just two weeks.

She said her estimate was “because of the pattern of leaf litter” she observed on photos of the scene in the woods where the remains were found. But Bock said she couldn’t tell just by looking at the photos how long the plants had been there.

Prosecutor Jeff Ashton seized on that uncertainty in his cross-examination and noted that photos Bock relied on to make her assessment weren’t taken until February 2009, more than seven weeks after the area was cleared of vegetation. He also showed Bock photos taken at the time of recovery and challenged her with more questions.

“Clearly, some of those leaves have been off the trees for longer than two weeks, were they not?” Ashton said.

Bock replied it was possible but also said they could have been there longer.

Perry restricted Eikelenboom’s testimony because he said the defense violated his pretrial order that all expert witnesses present detailed reports about what the subject of their testimony. Perry agreed with the prosecution’s argument that the report he provided was only a summary.