i don t think it s going to keep mitt romney away. i really don t. why wouldn t a republican candidate want to take on donald trump to show their strengths and show they re presidential timber? you saw jon huntsman and ron paul do that. jon huntsman has had an ongoing war with donald trump playing out on twitter and elsewhere for a while and ron paul had an ongoing thing with donald trump, back to the conservative political action event where donald trump appeared in february and took aim at ron paul to never win the nomination. jon huntsman is having a harder time getting traction on it because jon huntsman is not doing well in the new hampshire polls. ron paul is in second place in the des moines register poll this weekend. ron paul is using it in that way. ron paul tends not to be the candidate who the other candidates like to be like. i don t think you re going to see many of them decide not to go along with this. profiles and courage. maggie haberman of politico.
want the defense experts to controvert and criticize the questions, involving the testimony where the prosecution is concerned and as it relates to the science, i think, the defense is favored, because skins. gregg: really? oh, yeah. science is in exact and when you talk about, there is no dna in the trunk. gregg: i ll take science any day over direct testimony from an eyewitness. i m with you, gregg, here there are experts, are not very good and they ve gone too far at every turn and if the jury doesn t find it credible, they ll strike everything they say. gregg: the most fallible evidence of all is eyewitness testimony. there is a reasonable doubt. hang on, you guys will stick around, lots more to talk about with our legal panel and they ll weigh in on the key evidence that could make the prosecution s case. next, don t go away. i m extremely confident i can bring a lot to the table.
don t foresee them. gregg: put on the screen, a summary of the prosecution s evidence. and, as our viewers look at that, let me pose the question to you. i mean, it just goes on and on, three pages here, of all of the evidence. it is pretty substantial, and even doing this 20, 25 years, have you seen a case this strong before? it is compelling and circumstantial, largely and what you have to do, is you have to attack the circumstance and from the defense s perspective, interestingly, what i would do from a defense point of view is say, this person is it is not the normal person and go into the paternity and her bizarre behavior and is the exact person who would conceal a murder and not call 911 and act irrationally and excuse the conduct, not by not holding her culpable gregg: if convicted, life or death. at the end they ll go with
joey, good witness, eloquent and, if the jury believes it, annihilates the defense argument of an accidental drawing. it would be problematic if they do but the defense missed a great opportunity. if you listen to what she says, what she says is on point but it s not medical evidence and talked about when someone reports and they don t report and talked about, you know, when and how should be should react and i would have attacked her on the side, are you talking about a medical opinion or an investigative opinion, because it doesn t make sense there was a murder here? what in the science, justifies what you say and i think the defense missed a real opportunities by not attacking. gregg: you know what else, anna sigga, with accidental drowning, jailhouse conversations, tape-recorded and played for the jury and interrogation, they float the idea, could it have been an accidental drowning and she dismisses it, casey anthony and
let alone a grandmother to act and not only did she talk about the smell in the car, when the jurors hear the 911 call and she first talks about the smell and the dead body and that her grandbaby is missing, that is what is going to reverberate with the jury and on top of the other evidence is going to send the jury quickly back with a guilty verdict here. gregg: i was watching the defense, which now a couple of days into their case, they called pathologist, dr. werner spitz to the witness stand and he disputed the prosecution theory of suffocation by duct tape but he, too, could not, joey, give a cause of death and could not substantiate and this is important, the defense claim of accidental drowning, if that is the best they can do, they are in trouble. that is a problem, but, here is what will happen, at the end of the day you have a battle of the experts and you know, gregg, what ends up happening is, the prosecution, they put on their case, they have experts, that say one ann