Return to Transcripts main page
Jane Velez-Mitchell
Does Video Show Casey Didn`t Dump Body?
Aired June 27, 2011 - 19:00 ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
JANE VELEZ-MITCHELL, HOST (voice-over): Tonight, is Casey Anthony able to stand trial? We finally learn the jaw-dropping reason why the trial was derailed suddenly this weekend. Questions from her own defense team lead to tests by three psychologists to evaluate Casey. We`ll tell you what they determined about her mental state.
CASEY ANTHONY, ON TRIAL FOR MURDER: I`m really not OK.
VELEZ-MITCHELL: Did Casey have a meltdown? Could she be faking it? Or is there another reason the defense made this drastic move? I`ll have the very latest explosive developments in this trial, and we`ll take your calls.
ISSUES starts now.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
VELEZ-MITCHELL: Good evening. I`m Jane Velez-Mitchell, coming to you live from the courthouse in Orlando, Florida.
Testimony continuing very late in a very dramatic day. Let`s go back into the courtroom right now, where Dominic Casey, a private investigator, is on the stand being cross-examined by the prosecution.
This is a guy who went through the woods, looking for little Caylee`s body a month before she was actually found in the very same vicinity where she was ultimately found. The defense trying to prove that, well, if he couldn`t find it, maybe the body wasn`t there. Let`s listen in.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Redirect.
ANN FINNELL, ATTORNEY FOR CASEY ANTHONY: Thank you.
May I approach the witness, your honor?
BELVIN PERRY, JUDGE: You may.
FINNELL: I`m showing you what`s been marked as state`s identification R.O., Mr. Casey, does that represent the first entry into the woods on November 15 or the 17th?
DOMINIC CASEY, PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR: The 15th?
FINNELL: Yes.
CASEY: Yes.
FINNELL: You went in twice, right?
CASEY: Yes.
FINNELL: Is that the first entry or the second entry?
CASEY: Well, the first entry would be more where the "X" is in the circle.
FINNELL: Could you put a "1" near the first entry?
CASEY: I don`t have a pen.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Did you have a blue pen?
CASEY: Yes. Thank you very much.
FINNELL: You`re welcome.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Oops, I`m sorry.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: I didn`t do it very well. That was my fault.
CASEY: There you go.
So I`ll put a 1 to the left of there. It`s not in the circle, and initial it, is that right?
FINNELL: That would be fine.
CASEY: There you go.
FINNELL: And put a "2" where the second entry was.
CASEY: I put a 2 and I initialed that.
FINNELL: Those are the entries at the woods. And could you draw a circle to show the area of the woods that you think you walked in, in the first and second time you actually entered the woods?
CASEY: There you go.
FINNELL: All right. Great. Now, you keep using the word "estimation." Why do you keep saying these are estimations?
CASEY: Well, No. 1, I didn`t have a tape measure.
FINNELL: You didn`t have a tape measure?
CASEY: No I didn`t have a tape measure, so I wouldn`t be able to measure it. And I`d be going off of three years of memory.
FINNELL: OK.
CASEY: And so I`m approximating where I would be.
FINNELL: Between November the 15th of 2008 and today, has anyone from law enforcement sat down with you and shown you pictures and asked you to explain where it was that you went on the -- during this excursion?
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Objection as to relevance, your honor.
PERRY: Overruled.
FINNELL: Between 2008 and today, has anyone from law enforcement sat down with you with a map like this and asked you to explain where you walked that day?
CASEY: The state attorney`s office did.
FINNELL: Did you draw a map for them?
CASEY: I put some circles or some "X`s."
FINNELL: How long ago was that, sir?
CASEY: I would say March of 2011.
FINNELL: March of 2011?
CASEY: Is that correct?
FINNELL: Is that correct, sir?
CASEY: I believe it was around March of 2011.
FINNELL: Your honor, may counsel approach sidebar, please?
PERRY: You may.
VELEZ-MITCHELL: All right. They are in sidebar right now. This has been an extraordinary day for so many reasons, not the least of which, it is past 7 p.m., and we are still in testimony.
I am here with Joe Episcopo, criminal defense attorney. We`ve been listening to this.
Now Joe, to me what the defense is trying to show is, if these two gentlemen went to look for the body in the same area where it was ultimately found a month later, and they couldn`t find the body, that feeds into the defense theory that somebody placed the body there, because Casey was already behind bars, so she couldn`t have placed the body there. I mean, I think it`s a good point for the defense. You don`t. Why not?
JOE EPISCOPO, CRIMINAL DEFENSE ATTORNEY: First of all, there`s nothing in the indictment about where the body was placed. The indictment says someone was killed.
Now, we already know that they`ve stipulated to the identity of the body, and Casey says she drowned. So there`s no other suspects to kill this child. Either they believe Casey, that the child drowned, or she did something worse.
So this -- all this stuff, all this remains business means nothing toward the proof of the indictment. Now, it could be a sentencing issue, but it has nothing to do with Casey...
VELEZ-MITCHELL: I know you`re saying all this, but the defense is saying that, "Hey, this totally throws out the prosecution`s claim that the duct tape was used as the murder weapon," because now what they can say is, "Hey, that duct tape was used by somebody who was putting the body there so that the jawbone couldn`t drop out."
Now since the prosecution has said that the duct tape is the murder weapon, if they can convince the jury that this body was moved there at some later time and not left there initially by Casey Anthony and that, therefore, the duct tape was used in order to move the body, then doesn`t that throw out the murder weapon?
EPISCOPO: They don`t need a murder weapon. They have a homicide. Four things. Remember: delay in reporting it, child hidden in a field in a bag, and they say they had duct tape on the face. What I`m saying here is that the homicide is the issue. The means has never been fully put forward by the state, and they don`t have to.
VELEZ-MITCHELL: I believe we`re getting back to more examination. This is Ann Finnell, and she has just appeared, this attorney, sort of out of nowhere. This is her first day, and now she`s doing a redirect. So let`s listen in.
CASEY: ... went to the state attorney`s office and did a deposition.
FINNELL: And there was a court reporter present like the one here today?
CASEY: There was a young lady like this.
FINNELL: All right. Prior to that time -- I`m talking about back in 2008 or 2009 when things were a little fresher in your memory -- did anyone with the Orange County Police Department or the sheriff`s office sit down with you and ask you to map out or detail where you`d been in the woods on November 15 or 16?
CASEY: Not to my knowledge at all. No.
FINNELL: OK. Now, on these days, November 15 and 16, did you have a tape measure with you?
CASEY: No, ma`am, I did not.
FINNELL: Were you trying to reference anything particular out there that would allow you to re-create this event three years later? Any particular markers in the woods or light poles, anything like that? Were you were trying to specifically make a mental note so that three years later you`d be able to testify to this event?
CASEY: Yes, absolutely. I took some still photographs.
FINNELL: OK. And you also, obviously, have this videotape?
CASEY: I have the videotape?
FINNELL: No, you`ve seen the videotape. We all have the videotape.
CASEY: Yes, correct.
FINNELL: And would you agree that the videotape is the accurate representation of where you were in the woods on those two dates?
CASEY: I would say it is, yes.
FINNELL: So when you reference the state`s exhibits R.P. and R.O. as estimations, these are your best guess three years later, is that right?
CASEY: Yes, ma`am.
FINNELL: OK. You don`t necessarily say that they`re absolutely accurate, correct?
CASEY: No. I wouldn`t say they`re accurate, no.
FINNELL: All right. All right. Thank you, sir. No further questions.
PERRY: Any additional questions, Mr. George?
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: No, sir.
PERRY: May Mr. Casey be excused?
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Yes, sir.
VELEZ-MITCHELL: OK. All right. Fascinating stuff coming to you live from Orlando, Florida. I`m right outside the courthouse. We`re going to have analysis in just a moment of all the latest developments, and there were so many today. I`m here with a team of experts.
All the latest on the Casey Anthony case in just a moment. Stay right there.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
PERRY: Miss Anthony is ill. We are recessing for the day.
CINDY ANTHONY, CASEY`S MOTHER: That`s the newest story out there.
CASEY ANTHONY: Surprise, surprise.
CHENEY MASON, CASEY`S ATTORNEY: Miss Anthony has a history of untruthfulness among family members and friends.
CINDY ANTHONY: What do you want me to tell Caylee?
CASEY ANTHONY: That mommy loves her very much.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Get out of the way, cameraman.
LEE ANTHONY, CASEY`S BROTHER: I was just angry about everyone in general that they didn`t -- that they didn`t want to include me.
CASEY ANTHONY: Do you want me to talk?
CINDY ANTHONY: All right. I`ll listen to you.
CASEY ANTHONY: Give me three seconds to say something. I`m not in control over any of this.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Get out of line! Get out of line!
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Get out of line! Get out of line!
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Get out of line! Get out of line!
PERRY: The court ordered that the defendant be examined by three psychologists.
The defendant is competent to continue to proceed.
CASEY ANTHONY: Besides me being here physically, I`m really not OK.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
VELEZ-MITCHELL: Jane Velez-Mitchell back with you live from Orlando, Florida. I`m right outside the courthouse.
Dramatic developments. Court ended, as you saw just moments ago. My gosh, it`s a quarter past 7. That is the latest, I think, it`s gone since this trial started.
Casey Anthony`s attorneys just revealed their very latest weapon: a dramatic search video that could become the cornerstone of this defense. Watch and listen to this raw video that was played for the jury just minutes ago. Check it out.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Plastic bag right here. Plastic bag right here.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Yes.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
VELEZ-MITCHELL: All right. The defense claims that this video proves Casey could not have dumped little Caylee`s body, because two private investigators combed the very same wooded area where her remains were later found. That`s right. A month before the remains were found these two private eyes looked and did not see a child`s body there.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: What are you looking for in black plastic bags?
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: He`s looking for Caylee`s remains.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: That plastic bag right there?
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Yes.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
VELEZ-MITCHELL: Could this actually derail the state`s case? The video was shot in November of 2008 while Casey Anthony was already in jail. Now, if the body had already been put there, wouldn`t these two guys likely have found it? They looked and looked and looked.
This plays right into the defense claims that meter reader Roy Kronk was no innocent, as the police say, but that he actually moved the body. If jurors believe that, then the issue of how that duct tape got on Caylee`s month that prosecutors say is the murder weapon becomes an open question. That could spell reasonable doubt.
But the prosecution did get in a few shots and cast doubt on this crucial search video by cross-examining these private investigators. Check it out.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
LINDA DRANE-BURDICK, PROSECUTOR: Now, you did find out that people were secretly taping the Anthony family, and you tried to do that yourself, didn`t you?
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: No. Secretly tape them?
DRANE-BURDICK: You were trying to capitalize on your relationship with these individuals, correct?
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: There were no secret tapes of the Anthony family.
DRANE-BURDICK: You were trying to capitalize on your relationship with these individuals, correct?
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: No.
DRANE-BURDICK: At a point in time when their granddaughter is either missing or deceased?
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: You`re so wrong.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
VELEZ-MITCHELL: You`re so wrong. All right. Who was right and who is wrong? We had attorney Joe Episcopo. He`s right here with me. He says none of this matters.
I`m going to go out to Jayne Weintraub, criminal defense attorney. You are very close to the defense. Why do you think this does matter?
JAYNE WEINTRAUB, CRIMINAL DEFENSE ATTORNEY: Well, Jane, note the date and time, but you and I completely agree on this one. You`re absolutely correct.
VELEZ-MITCHELL: Well, that`s a shock.
WEINTRAUB: Right? You`re absolutely correct. I think that every time that the defense can chisel away the state`s theory in this case, it is putting the reasonable doubt where it needs to be.
And I disagree with Joe, although it`s not in the indictment, the state has a theory of how this murder happened. And that theory is the chloroform and the duct tape over the mouth. They`ve already attacked the chloroform all week with the forensics. Then they showed Dr. Spitz. Dr. Spitz came up, world-renowned medical examiner: couldn`t be the duct tape. It couldn`t have been there until after the death, because the skin would have fallen away and all of that, and there was no adhesion. We see about all the water. There would have been no adhesion for that duct tape.
And now today, we see for sure that body was moved. That body was not in the woods...
VELEZ-MITCHELL: All right, Joe, I`m going to give you a chance to respond, because you just heard Jayne Weintraub saying this is absolutely a home run for the defense.
EPISCOPO: Well, first of all, the state, if they prove aggravated child abuse, and that resulted in the death of a child, they still have first-degree murder there. They don`t have to really prove premeditated. They need to prove aggravated child abuse if they want the first degree.
And not only that, they also have the aggravated manslaughter, which is not felony murder but carries 30 years.
VELEZ-MITCHELL: OK. So let me -- let me try to translate into plain English. You`re saying that they don`t have to prove that she plotted the murder, because there`s another way to get to first-degree murder. That`s called felony murder, which is a murder committed in the course of committing a felony. The felony would be one of the counts that she`s also charged with, aggravated child abuse. So you take aggravated child abuse. You add felony murder. You can still get conviction on first-degree murder and the death penalty.
Still, it does poke a hole in, I believe, the whole issue of premeditation, and acknowledge that for a second. I mean, seriously.
EPISCOPO: The state`s not bound by that. They have that other choice.
WEINTRAUB: But Joe -- but Joe...
EPISCOPO: And remember, Casey has eliminated -- Casey has eliminated other suspects because she said the child drowned. If the jury doesn`t believe that theory, then the only other theory is that she did something so horrible that this child died as a result. There`s -- and the intent, by the way, the intent to commit the aggravated child abuse transfers to the homicide, and that`s how you get first-degree murder, felony murder.
VELEZ-MITCHELL: All right. I want to go to Tammy from Iowa.
By the way, as court ended late, we`ve got Beth Karas, who just walked in from the courtroom. She`s plugging in her microphone, so that she can give us the very latest. She was inside court just a moment ago, and we`re going to have her. She`s literally miking up right now.
But Tammy, Iowa, your question or thought, Tammy.
CALLER: My main question is -- I know it`s a long time ago -- about Jose Baez and Casey Anthony making googly eyes at each other. And I noticed it before it was ever even mentioned on TV.
Then today especially I noticed it, in the morning when she was all smiley and when he came in and stuff and she was looking at him and batting her eyelashes. How does a judge ignore that?
VELEZ-MITCHELL: You know what? I don`t -- I don`t buy that. With all due respect, Tammy, I know Jose Baez, and whatever you think of this case or Casey, I don`t think he is making goo-goo eyes at Casey Anthony.
Ten seconds. What happened in court, Beth Karas?
BETH KARAS: Well, with Dominic Casey and before him, Jim Hoover, on the stand jurors once again sat up and were taking much more notes, tiring obviously, of the forensic evidence they had been hearing so many days ago. Taking notes, watching that monitor in front of them. There were monitors throughout the jury box.
VELEZ-MITCHELL: More in a second. This is big stuff. Stay right there.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
FINNELL: The woman you`re talking with?
CASEY: Jeanette Lucas.
FINNELL: And what is Jeanette Lucas` profession, to your knowledge?
CASEY: To my knowledge she is a psychic.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
VELEZ-MITCHELL: All right. When you`re looking at this video that was played in open court today, you see this guy, Dominic Casey, traipsing through the woods where Caylee`s body was ultimately found, and he was talking to somebody on the cell phone. The question is: who is that someone he`s talking to who has led him to this area where the body is discovered just a month later? He claims he`s on the phone with a psychic.
Now, he worked for Cindy and George, but he insisted -- or one of the two private investigators insisted, no, Cindy, and George did not lead us there.
My question is, do you believe -- do you believe that a psychic really led him to this exact spot? I want to go to Cheryl Arrutt. You`re a forensic psychologist. You`ve watched and listened to this testimony. Is it believable? Because frankly, I hate to say it. I don`t believe in psychics.
CHERYL ARRUTT, FORENSIC PSYCHOLOGIST: Well, I think that`s going to go to the jury, and it`s going to be very telling which way the jury goes on this. If they believe in psychics, they will have more credibility. And if they don`t, this may cost them.
I know there are a lot of shows about psychics who solve crimes, so that may have some influence. But it`s all about what the jury does.
VELEZ-MITCHELL: Well, all right. Beth Karas, they lost me at psychic. OK? I don`t believe that psychics, and please, don`t inundate me with hate mail. I mean, honestly, yes, there are psychics who have suffered things, but I am skeptical. Let me -- let me rephrase it. I`m skeptical that a psychic led them to this exact spot. My skeptical side says maybe they got a hint from someone else and then they called the psychic on the way there so they would have the cover of saying that a psychic was leading them there when, in fact, there was another reason, another person who had told them to go in that direction -- Beth Karas.
KARAS: Anything is possible. We`re not going to hear what the psychic said to him, because that`s hearsay. He had a conversation with her. She led them there and that`s it. So your scenario was possible.
It`s also possible people knew Roy Kronk had called in three times. Although I don`t know. It wasn`t until the body was discovered that it seemed like the public was aware that a call had been placed three consecutive days there.
But don`t forget: this was two months after Roy Kronk`s initial calls in that same area. Well, I`ll tell you, whatever happened, they were pretty darn close to her remains.
VELEZ-MITCHELL: Or the remains weren`t there. That`s what the defense is arguing.
Now, I`ve got to ask you, Joe Episcopo: when you hear this psychic issue, does that send off alarm bells? Could that hurt them with the jury, the defense?
EPISCOPO: I don`t know. When you`re looking for somebody or something, you`ll use anything you can to find them. There`s nothing wrong with having a psychic coming in there. If they`re wrong, they`re wrong. Maybe they get lucky and get it right.
VELEZ-MITCHELL: Well, I have to say this. And I`m going to show this to you in just a minute when we come back from break. But I went there. And it is the most obvious place to look for a body, given that it is around the corner from the Anthony home. It`s the only area that doesn`t have any houses.
So anybody with half a brain, I would think that would be the first place they would go. And that`s why I`m so shocked that the child wasn`t found much sooner, although the entire area was underwater.
So I think that`s something that we really have to look at. Were they just going to the obvious place?
And when we come back, I`m going to play the exact route for you from the Anthony home to around the corner to where the body was found. You`re going to see for yourself exactly how close it is. Watch next.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
VELEZ-MITCHELL: And we are going down Hope Spring Drive, the most average American street you will ever see; just home after home, neat manicured lawns. And what`s kind of interesting is that there seems to be a lot of law enforcement living here.
There`s one car that says "Police" and in a little bit you`re going to find another car that says "Police" or "Law Enforcement" on it. And we`re just going to go down to the end of the block. Yes, there`s a sheriff; a sheriff`s vehicle there.
We`re just going down to the end of the block, and at this point we`re going to make a right and we`re going to leave Hope Spring Drive and we`re going to get on Suburban. We`ve all heard these phrases over and over again. We`re turning onto Suburban Drive right now.
And you`re going to flip out when you see how close this location is where little Caylee`s body was found. It is literally -- it`s not an exaggeration to say almost in the Anthony family`s backyard.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
VELEZ-MITCHELL: All right. Now you too could say that you have driven from the Anthony home to the scene where little Caylee`s remains were found. It takes exactly a minute and 10 seconds and we were not speeding.
I want to go out to bounty hunter Leonard Padilla, who bailed Casey out and said oh, you`re not cooperating and let her go back in the jail. What do you make of the testimony of these two private investigators today who appeared for the defense and essentially said we went through that area -- where you saw that "For Sale" sign -- with a fine-toothed comb and we videotaped ourselves going through it. We didn`t find a body, and that`s because essentially the defense wants us to believe it wasn`t there. It was placed there after Casey was behind bars, therefore, she is innocent.
Your thoughts, Leonard Padilla?
LEONARD PADILLA, BOUNTY HUNTER: The body was there. But if you`ll notice they keyed on the same area that Kronk keyed. Their tip, their information came from the same source, and it was a situation where the pavers is where they keyed in.
Now, if you look at the different --
VELEZ-MITCHELL: When you say the same source -- hold on a second. You`re saying the same source, but they`re saying under oath in court that a psychic led them there. You`re saying you don`t buy the psychic?
PADILLA: Cindy said she did the chloroform searches under oath. No, I don`t buy the psychic thing, unless somebody fed the information to the psychic. It`s a situation where the psychic regurgitated it to him. Or Dominic Casey is just saying -- he`s talking to the psychic about this and his talking to his daughter. Who know who he`s talking to.
VELEZ-MITCHELL: Well, listen. I know you have a whole conspiracy theory --
PADILLA: No. It`s not a conspiracy.
VELEZ-MITCHELL: -- that we can`t go into because it would take like an hour and a half. But basically your conspiracy theory is that Casey allegedly revealed the location, cops overheard it and they didn`t go there because that would be fruit from the poison tree. They told somebody who was the girlfriend of Roy Kronk and he went there.
This is your theory. Nobody has proved it --
PADILLA: Absolutely.
VELEZ-MITCHELL: -- in any way, shape, or form. It`s your opinion and not mine.
PADILLA: You got it.
VELEZ-MITCHELL: But suffice it to say, Leonard Padilla, that you don`t buy the idea that they innocently traipsed over there led by a psychic.
I want to bring in Jayne Weintraub because Jayne, it seems like a lot of people aren`t buying the whole psychic angle and they think maybe they`re trying -- there`s another snow job going on.
JAYNE WEINTRAUB, CRIMINAL DEFENSE ATTORNEY: Well, you know what? You don`t have to believe the psychic or not. All you have to believe is the videotape that was played in the courtroom and published to the jury. And what the videotape shows very clearly is the body wasn`t there. That`s plain and simple. And nobody, nobody is going to come in and say that that was PhotoShopped or not accurate. It was accurate.
And we also know that Roy Kronk wasn`t just the Good Samaritan three times calling demanding that they go, demanding that they look, insisting that they look, and they did and they didn`t see it. So he moved the body.
He was also indicted for duct taping his ex-wife and kidnapping her. So you know what they`re saying and laying a foundation.
VELEZ-MITCHELL: How many people can they blame, Joe Episcopo? Are they going to blame Roy Kronk? Are they going to blame George Anthony? I mean at a certain point they`re claiming it was an accidental drowning, and I do not buy this whole argument that Roy Kronk took the body and hid it and then placed it there again because he wanted to win the lottery. I don`t buy it.
JOE EPISCOPO, CRIMINAL DEFENSE ATTORNEY: Jane, what do you mean by blame? Blaming the homicide or blaming the moving of the body? What do you say blame? There are no other suspects. Casey eliminated them all. The child drowned. If they don`t buy that, then she did it. Do you understand? So who`s there to blame?
VELEZ-MITCHELL: Well, I think this is part of whole effort by the defense to create confusion, Beth Karas. They`re so --
EPISCOPO: So the jury is going to be confused?
VELEZ-MITCHELL: There`s such confusion here, and in confusion there can be reasonable doubt.
BETH KARAS, CORRESPONDENT, "IN SESSION": The defense never did say in opening statement what happened to the body from the time George is holding a dripping, dead, drowned Caylee in her arms until they say Roy Kronk possessed her months later. So maybe -- I don`t know. Maybe they`re going to say that they tried to do something nice with the body, and he somehow found her and took her away. I don`t know.
VELEZ-MITCHELL: And then replaced her?
KARAS: I don`t know. I don`t understand it.
VELEZ-MITCHELL: I know. We, none of us know.
And Beth Karas, you`re celebrating your 17th year with "In Session". You were previously a prosecutor. You don`t know. You can`t even imagine the chefs and the homemakers on the jury are going to have to do with all of this information.
KARAS: And I want to say this videotape made on two days November 15th and 16th. I was there. I saw how he`s marking it on the map and I know where the remains were found. He`s not in that area. He goes back on a third day without Jim Hoover, it`s not videotaped and that`s where he says he`s close to the remains. He marks on the aerial photo an area very close to the remains, but that`s not on video.
VELEZ-MITCHELL: Ok. I want to talk about a whole different subject. This Saturday we all came to court. There was a hullabaloo. The judge sent everybody home. We were like, what happened?
This morning we found it was a cliff-hanger, and it turns out that the defense, because of a quote-unquote confidential communication from Casey Anthony to the defense team decided, whoops, we need to have her examined to determine whether she is competent or not. Now, Casey was examined by three psychological experts over the weekend.
So what exactly is the legal definition of incompetent? Casey Jordan broke it down for us. Listen to this.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
CASEY JORDAN, CRIMINOLOGIST: I hate to speak in lay terms, but picture somebody who is to the point where they need a straitjacket, a rubber room in what we would call in Lala-land. That`s when you see -- or people who are truly demented.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
VELEZ-MITCHELL: All right. So I want to go out to Steve Greenberg, who is a very famous criminal defense attorney who was on the defense team for Drew Peterson. You know, the cop whose wives keep disappearing. Welcome to our show.
What do you make of this request for a competency hearing? And by the way, the judge decided Casey Anthony is competent to stand trial, and that`s why the trial proceeded today.
STEVE GREENBERG, CRIMINAL DEFENSE ATTORNEY: Right. Well, the judge didn`t really decide. The psychiatrist that he appointed decided she was.
But you have to do that. If you think that your client is a little bit off or there`s a problem -- this is a death case -- you want to do that. Plus, what they`re doing also is building mitigation. You don`t really know because the reports weren`t released what these psychiatrists and psychologists found and what they said.
Maybe they found some kernels of mitigation so that if it does go ahead -- does go to a death penalty hearing, they can say, even during the trial she was deteriorating. And we don`t sentence people to death who are mentally defective or having a difficult psychological time.
Although I don`t think no matter what the evidence is and no matter what the jury finds, we don`t sentence moms to death for killing their own kids.
VELEZ-MITCHELL: Well, look. There`s a couple possibilities. One is that she just had a meltdown because of the stress. I mean her brother testifying and crying; the chance that her dad would be brought up on the stand and cross-examined by her own attorneys about how he allegedly molested her. It`s a lot of pressure.
I mean listen, the reporters and the lawyers around here are crumbling under the pressure. You can imagine Casey Anthony. But a lot of people think that she may have been feigning some kind of meltdown just to postpone judgment day.
I think we have some video of her -- she`s cried a lot but she`s also acted very kooky in court today. Smiling and giggling. We`re going to try to find that video. I want to ask Jayne Weintraub; we have her crying, we have her giggling. Look at her kind of laughing and giggling today. Is she having a meltdown Jayne, or is she faking a meltdown?
WEINTRAUB: First she`s not feigning or faking anything and she`s not asking for the competency exam. The lawyers asked for it. This is not a game. This is a very, very serious situation.
The lawyers are working 16, 18 hours a day on both sides, and she`s up. Casey Anthony is up. I`m sure she`s not sleeping, and it`s emotional.
But number two is I disagree with Casey Jordan`s explanation, being incompetent means also not being able to assist your lawyers. It means not understanding and appreciating the consequences of the process at the time. Maybe it was a disagreement about whether or not to testify because that`s the only scenario --
(CROSSTALK)
VELEZ-MITCHELL: Yes, I think we`re going to get to that right after the break. Could this be a battle inside the defense over whether or not Casey should testify? And did they tell her, honey, if you want to testify, you`re crazy? Ok.
Got to leave it right there. But we`re only leaving it right there for a second. We have more on the other side of the break.
And Nancy Grace is following all the drama in the courtroom. She is also going to have the very latest developments in just about 20 minutes at the top of the hour. So we are wall-to-wall Casey Anthony.
We`re going to talk in a moment about whether Casey is going to testify, and is that what the competency issue was all about? Stay right with us.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
LEE ANTHONY, BROTHER OF CASEY ANTHONY: I was very angry at my mom, and I was also angry at my sister. I mean I was just angry at everyone in general that they didn`t -- that they didn`t want to include me and didn`t find it important enough to tell me, especially after I had already asked.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
VELEZ-MITCHELL: Well, another reason that people are speculating this competency issue came up where Casey over the weekend had to be evaluated by three psychologists and ultimately it was determined yes, she is competent to stand trial. There was concern that maybe she had cracked, literally just lost it. The stress of this trial has got to be enormous.
I mean just the horror of looking at photos of Caylee`s skull, which I was in the courtroom and saw that. That was very depressing. And then hearing your mother weep on the stand, your brother weep on the stand, and I personally feel that -- I`m going to throw this out to Rob Dick. You spent a lot of time with Casey Anthony because you were security for her.
I think the idea that she`s going to sit there and the possibility that her lawyers will bring her dad up to the stand and cross-examine him about her claims that George molested Casey while she is sitting there, I personally think that would make anybody crack. What do you think, Rob?
ROB DICK, FORMER SECURITY FOR CASEY ANTHONY: It`s a situation of when you`re in her presence, you can identify that she has some issues. There`s problems with her. Unfortunately, she doesn`t fall under the legal scenario of her being incompetent. She definitely has issues; I mean definite problems.
You see that all through the trial. I mean the hardest time she cried is over --
(CROSSTALK)
VELEZ-MITCHELL: We all have issues. That`s why this show is called ISSUES because we all have issues.
DICK: The hardest she cried was over Lee. She never cried like that over Caylee.
VELEZ-MITCHELL: Well, you`re making a very good point. Let me ask you this -- do you think -- a lot of people are speculating that maybe the reason that the defense asked for the competency hearing was to protect themselves because she`s insisting "I`m getting on the stand" and her defense attorneys are trying to convince her no, you don`t want to do that. She thinks she can just basically talk her way out of anything. What do you think about that, Rob? You spent time with Casey Anthony.
DICK: I have no doubt, too. I mean, Casey in her mind, she is smarter than you, I, or anybody else, any of the prosecution or anything else. She knows it all. And she gets on that stand, Baez or Cheney Mason, they are not going to be able to control her.
I don`t care if they go through what exactly is going to be question and answer. She will think that she is smarter than everyone, and she will go in a different direction. I do not think they can put her on the stand.
VELEZ-MITCHELL: So just for legal reasons, Joe Episcopo, how does the defense attorneys -- how do they protect themselves by asking for this hearing if she is clamoring to get on the stand against their advice?
EPISCOPO: How about this, Jane? How about she`s losing the trial and they want a mistrial and try this again with a different jury? That`s what the competency issue would have helped them with. They could have got a mistrial and started all over again and done the defense properly and made it a whodunit.
VELEZ-MITCHELL: Look how she`s giggling. The one on the left today is her giggling in court. She was just absolutely cheerful, Beth Karas, and I noticed this in the morning. That`s why we thought maybe a plea deal or something, and then the judge comes out and says she`s competent to stand trial.
But she continued to giggle. Gosh, I can`t make -- I honestly -- she is an enigma. And that`s one of the reasons we`re fascinated with her Beth.
KARAS: Well, she was going through a multiple page document before the judge took the bench. We think that it was the evaluation of her. So that`s what she was looking at. They`re finding that she was competent and the reasons why. She may learn something from that.
VELEZ-MITCHELL: Yes. Well, I wonder though when she`s looking through all at that stuff if she`s reading through anything or if she`s just doing what actors do when they pretend to read a book. Kind of just glancing down and going so focused on the page.
Tim, South Dakota. Your question or thought, Tim?
TIM, SOUTH DAKOTA: Yes, Jane. I`ve been watching this program. My question to you is this. If the body is decomposed and it`s already into a skeleton and the body was planted, first of all, they went into a forest and there was nothing there in November and they found the body in December. So how do you plant a skeleton?
Second of all, if it was planted by the meter reader, how did he know to go into the forest to find it in the forest? Wouldn`t that be accessory to murder?
VELEZ-MITCHELL: All right. Wow. Again, I think -- thank you, Tim, South Dakota for your questions.
But Steve Greenberg, criminal defense attorney, I think this is precisely the kind of thing that the jury is going to get stuck on, because there is so much now that has been thrown against the wall in this case. Sometimes when we try to -- even the attorneys -- everybody`s head is spinning with the amount of just data and stuff the defense has thrown into this case.
GREENBERG: And they`re doing a fine job on that, Jane. That is the only thing they`re doing a fine job on. What one of the guests said earlier was unless they can prove this theory that the defense put out there, they said this child drowned, what evidence have they presented that this child drowned? They`ve got none.
The only way they can prove that is to call Casey Anthony to testify to that. They can`t call her because they stood up in front of the jury at the beginning and they said our client is a liar. Now, we want you to believe her though when she tells you this stuff.
All this fancy science, all this CSI; the one key fact, no science for. They boxed themselves in, and none of the rest is going to matter because they`re not going to be able to prove a drowning.
VELEZ-MITCHELL: Well, I think you`re talking like a lawyer and a very good one at that. I`m thinking like a juror and I`m looking at those picture of little Caylee, climbing that staircase and in the water; subliminally I`m thinking it could happen. And that`s all you need is one person who thinks like that.
More in a moment.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
VELEZ-MITCHELL: Wait, wait, wait. Is there a big party scene here in Orlando?
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Yes.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: What?
(END VIDEO CLIP)
VELEZ-MITCHELL: All right. That was -- I was out and about on the town Friday, checking out the local club scene with my little flip camera. And, boy, this is a hot party town. Those are the type of places Casey Anthony was into. And let me tell you, if a teenager or young woman wants to go dirty dancing until dawn, there are plenty of options in this town. It is not all Disney World.
But I want to go to Beth Karas, you got some inside information about why court went until about 7:15, the longest it has gone since the trial started.
KARAS: And for now, the death penalty expert, we haven`t seen since jury selection, made a cameo appearance today. This was her witness. She can`t be here tomorrow. I know this because producer Michael Christian and I dashed out and into the elevator to beat the crowd and before the elevator doors closed, there was Cheney Mason. All the lawyers are still in court, everything is still happening in the courtroom and he`s in the elevator. We looked at him and said, you left so fast, he`s bolting and he explained to us that (INAUDIBLE) she could not be here tomorrow and did not say whether she would be here the rest of the week. She`ll be here for the penalty phase --
(CROSSTALK)
VELEZ-MITCHELL: You`re answering an important question. We`re all wondering, wait, does this mean court is going to go to 7:30 or 7:15 every night because the judge wants it to end before the Fourth of July?
KARAS: Maybe until 6:00 every night.
VELEZ-MITCHELL: Maybe until 6:00.
KARAS: My prediction is Casey is no longer going to testify. The defense will rest before Thursday. I think Thursday was the outside date in case they put her on and I think they could rest in two days. But that`s my prediction.
VELEZ-MITCHELL: Wow. So you think we`re going to be on trial watch next weekend?
KARAS: Oh, yes.
(CROSSTALK)
VELEZ-MITCHELL: Oh yes. You heard it here. You`re going to be on trial watch with us. I don`t care if you`re at the beach. You have to come in and join us for trial watch. All right. We`re going to be talking some interesting stuff.
We have been talking about this whole issue of Casey, perhaps wanting to take the stand and that`s why her attorneys said let`s see if she`s cuckoo for cocoa puffs. Casey Anthony we know, seriously, doesn`t have credibility when it comes to telling the truth.
I want you to listen to this exchange that she had with detective Uri Melich because it might give you a hit as to how a cross examination might go if she does testify. Check it out.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Everything that`s coming out of your mouth is a lie -- everything. And unless we start getting the truth, unless we start getting the truth, we`re going to announce two possibilities with Caylee. Either you gave Caylee to someone and you don`t want anyone to find out because you think you`re a bad mom or something happened to Caylee and Caylee is buried somewhere or in a trash can and you had something to do with it. Either way right now it is not a very pretty picture.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
VELEZ-MITCHELL: Well, Jayne Weintraub, how does she handle that kind of cross examination?
WEINTRAUB: Look, she`s going to have to -- if she did testify, she would have to just say up front over and over again, I lied, I lied. And the prosecutor at some point is going to give it up on cross examination because the question is going to be, isn`t everything that you`re saying lying? That`s why, especially in a death penalty case, it is very, very extraordinary and unusual for a defendant to take the witness stand because in the event that she is convicted, if she did testify, and she did want to testify in what I call the god forbid stage, she would have no credibility left for the second phase.
(CROSSTALK)
VELEZ-MITCHELL: All right. Yes or no question. Jayne Weintraub, do you think this case is going to be over by the end of this week? Yes or no? Five seconds?
WEINTRAUB: Yes.
VELEZ-MITCHELL: You do?
WEINTRAUB: I do.
VELEZ-MITCHELL: Yes. Ok. Well, she`s close to the defense.
All right, final thoughts from bounty hunter Leonard Padilla in a moment. Stay right there.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
VELEZ-MITCHELL: Bounty hunter Leonard Padilla, what does the state have to do in its rebuttal case?
PADILLA: I don`t know if they can do anything. Let me tell you, Jane, what was proved today is that Kronk, Hoover, and the other detective were 70 to 100 feet off. They proved that; they weren`t nowhere near the body. The body was there the whole time from June when she dumped it.
VELEZ-MITCHELL: So you don`t think the defense hit a home run with their testimony today?
PADILLA: No. No. Absolutely not. The jurors are going to figure that out. The body was there, the people were looking 150 feet off to 170 feet to the left. If they take the jury out there and show them where the body was found, and that Hoover and his buddy and Kronk, they were 70 feet off, she`s -- that`s all the state has to do.
VELEZ-MITCHELL: Got to leave it there. All right. We`re all over this.
"Nancy Grace" is up next and she`s got all the latest.
END
