challenged the admission of any evidence, they did not consider that issue. Writing for the panel, Messano admitted it was a "close question" as to whether the state, as Lodzinski argued, had failed to prove she had caused Wiltsey's death purposely and knowingly, as state law required for a murder conviction. "The State's arguments in response largely miss the mark" he wrote, but after explaining why its precedents were inapposite he agreed that jurors could have reasonably inferred that the concealment of Wiltsey's body indicated his death had been deliberately caused and that Lodzinski, the last person seen with him, was responsible. Her inconsistent statements and omission of Florida Fulfillment from her work history could also have supported a jury's inference that she had killed Wiltsey, Messano added. Lodzinski argued that the delay in bringing the case specifically injured her by allowing the state to find more witnesses for the blanket than it had in 1992. Also, one of her witnesses, who reported seeing Wiltsey at the carnival, was unable to testify in person due to her age and inability to travel, so she testified via Skype; another could not remember that evening and Lodzinski had to suffice with reading her contemporaneous account to the jury. Messano found no harm to Lodzinski in the delay. There was no evidence the state had delayed the trial to its advantage, and "[a]t most, the State's failure to show the blanket to more people in 1992, when investigators showed it only to defendant and her parents, evidences negligence." The shortcomings of the two witnesses did not prevent Lodzinski from presenting other witnesses who had seen Wiltsey or a boy matching his description at the carnival. Messano also noted that the delay helped her defense in that she was able to locate the Arizona man who claimed his cellmate had confessed the killing to him. After recounting the circumstances of the foreman's removal, Messano held that that was the appropriate remedy as Nieves had found that deliberations had not gone on long enough for the jurors to have formed opinions or the dismissed foreman's to have had a significant impact on other jurors. He also noted that Lodzinski had not established a basis for mistrial on her other theory, that the juror had been seen as leaning towards a not guilty verdict, beyond a newspaper report that the remaining jurors told the newly seated