i think actually cuts in favor of acquittal rather than conviction move balance and when fit against the the late facts the time i mean by all accounts jer campbell no one sees and no one sees a germ i can go historically it's never laid a hand on the bed supposedly the mom leaves the house the two  she just knows it's not a mcafee she doesn't have to come down and say what else is she knows that there is no dead tissue no to product issued which which is indicative of an order and jury not just a fresh one two three hour injury austin explains how over time the body processes iron iron from the bruises and so something that's had longer to heal have a different color and one can't say that one bruise is exactly twenty three hours and ten seconds all by looking color you have a relative time when you have the same victim in the same area bought and he explains this and it makes sense and there's no just there's like there's there's a doctor case just what looks crash there's boy's mid brain which could indicate a three or forty zero injury or could have been from birth trauma and dr ralston says we don't know it could have been either or we don't know unless we can look under a microscope and unfortunately dr bowman who did but i want to go back to two contrasting this with again to the scenario the child the poor little boy dies on a friday morning it's so stupid that's blunt force trauma not an accident it's caused by an adult by the state's evidence he becomes ill with a runny nose and or a fever on monday or tuesday of that earlier that week he's not in daycare wednesday thursday or friday we have no information as to what she did with the child on wednesday  s the mom i'm sorry everybody's mother mrs cooper says that the only day that the child was with her that week is thursday so we have no idea maybe she stays home with with the child i don't know so i thursday she drops the child off with her mother and the child just sleeps sleeps with her until she gets picked up and then interest only apparently ms great wants to ever hear done so she brings the child to a relative of the defense who also has been watching children apparently the condition there is you can bring the child over as long as the child's not second the child goes from being too sick to go to daycare to not sick in that  to his cousin i was name eludes me but lives out of town where isn't her mother says no she's playing the so long she bought separate outfits for each child in fact left one of the outfits at my place and i think this is just to explain to provide a different explanation of why she's into work she likes to leave the child there because she wants to let him sleep but she doesn't sleep she makes him drink juice and put carpets carmex on his things i think to say that she can feel that she she's you know you can have it both ways she let the child sleep but can say that she had interaction with him to say that you know he looked fin so the child's eventually you know found unresponsive i'm guessing emergency room call it happens around nine forty because i believe the ambulance driver says we got some of that nine forty two so the call comes sure immediately before that by nine forty physician to get to the no signs of life takes about eight to ten minutes and then plus there being additional time for the body temp the core temperature drop five degrees but no one says dr boston's testimony fits if this child that on thursday a little boy was running and saying he was energetic courting of certain testimony these injuries that you indicate  that a child could be like that act in that manner so of what's the jury to do with that and then how did you explain that to the jury my understanding is the source of the the only person who dr pace you know also agreed with dr walston that the that even sustaining a liver injury earlier hypothetically the child would be able to walk  child would be happy and then there was a disagreement between the two on whether motoring would have been affected but i think the problem is because the argument is the child was beaten over time so while i believe so i don't think the father saw him much on that thursday the father last season thursday and it's as he's leaving i think mr campbell sister's house or something like that or do i that's what it was it was mr it was was the father sister's house was the daycare where he went to after the mother's house on thursday and dylan called sr comes there to see a marks at some point earlier re prior to that day i believe the testimony of of ms brady's mother was that the boy slept with her the entire time is this three hour window when she leaves at six fifteen in the morning and he's asleep and so it was a good time so there's mrs brady testify yes what days of the week was the child in daycare and she said monday or tuesday but not when it was yes but nobody asked her where the child was i believe she was asked i believe she didn't remember but on thursday the child is with the maternal grandmother gets in the morning yes and the child swap yes but later in the day the child goes to the paternal aunt  widely dancing laughing movie yes iraq right so did the state's expert say that a child that suffered that degree of liver injury and the programmers would not have been dancing around and laughing interacting on thursday morning afternoon early evening i believe that was the gist of what they were say but they said it some many words i would say so yes well i don't disagree with you that there's contradictions in the scientific evidence but proof is why experts there's one thing another expert says the other one the expert says is relates better the jury or seems to explain it in a way that they can understand the other expert doesn't come off as well i mean so the jury chooses what what do we do with that well i understand that there is a high degree of deference to a jury verdict and clearly the jury found something because they signed the guilty tuesday and then mr campbell finished the job on friday the state's theory of the case was that it was all at once and given the conflicting scientific information this counterintuitive theory that back up that theory of the case i think the jury had to have had a reasonable doubt and i understand that he did sign the verdict but i think considering all the evidence in a rational jury had had a that was introduced from this break about when the child was sick and when the child is is is taken away from a daycare where there be a mandatory reporter who would report anything they saw when they changed the child's diapers thank coun was repeatedly beating her child with this throughout the week which caused her to remove the child from day care to avoid detection yet there's multiple witnesses necrotic no doctor case testified after repeated sort of argumentative question from defense counsel but there were cells that were undergoing the roses in the liver  galas liver tissue that would mean that the liver and started feeling meaning you had been alive person if an amount of time after the injuries occurred there were a significant number make her face gain all these responses were as a result of defense counsel's questions that if you read the whole record even they seem argumentative and not properly worded at least for d just looking at a different must select selected slide from defense expert and making an opinion look it and i'm sorry to interrupt you but i'm going to go back to the product issue question and it's getting more  is the person to perform the original autopsy ok think the jury could take that into account as she was the only one who actually did firsthand analysis on caylee's body her initial conclusion was that the child within those three hours again going back to the definit suggestion here everybody would have gone on this beating spree throughout the week of her child dropping it off at multiple family members including many family member of her that i guess hoping to not get caught and then counting i guess on the child child while she was at work ever again this was between six am and nine am there was evidence that i think the defendant's own testimony that he had been out drinking and getting high the night before until everyone agree with that so presumably you would be making noise or whatever in the worst the worst that could happen but after i think that's a much more reasonable solution then then every brad beating the kid throughout the week and counting on all these two incidences and family members not discovering or covering up these potentially fatal injuries and of course this makes to you except dr austin's expert opinion this timeline would almost have to be accepted as well instead dr bowman and dr case both were testified consistently that there w a mistrial the first time correct yes what experts testified first trouble i'm not entirely sure i know dr defense witness to me i think he was cross examined by the state i'm not mistaken i don't remember record exactly but he was either a hostile state's witness or a fence w this way the state was trying you know some of his because some of it was agreed to everyone agreed that this child was beaten to death by an adult it was blunt force trauma was not an accident the kid didn't fall down the stairs and then after dr case called he was again called but more briefly as a defense witness and you could call him the defense expert but he did testify twice the defense case is not that we have to always we have to assume that  brady the shall the death of the i think that is the most likely thing and that it's only that there is a reasonable doubt as to germany campbell skill as to the idea that the relatives would cover for her the idea is that not so much that they would cover for her but the relatives of the much more likely than a professional daycare worker west know familiar contact with you to accept an innocent explanation and not call the police or not call the c f s whereas in someone who works for a daycare was purely doing this professionally thanks i have to i have to say something and you can sort it out also to get you to go down that route though why does the paternal maybe an amicable split you know for a change and so also again as the council's comment about the car crash again there was no scientific dying tissue with macrophages and this were separate areas there were separate cells of macrophages versus an area which has really so called argumentative cross examination  you guys trying to do his job and to say that there was a scientific basis you know for what she was saying is just great because this is just the one hour thing for car crash it's just just something that is gone but people do my job or to these verses look fresh to so little confidence in her that they just they relied on doctor case for that she didn't give any protests or money product to show she didn't have an explanation for the different color prisoners and of course she's the one who did take a sample of him a cigarette in the child's big brain back to different experience as to whether if this guy was out drinking and smoking pot in private wants to sleep but i want to make the right doctor case didn't give an explanation as to how he would have differently colored bruises on the grounds and the different