Return to Transcripts main page
Joy Behar Page
Casey Anthony: Countdown to Freedom
Aired July 13, 2011 - 22:00 ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
ANNOUNCER: Coming up on THE JOY BEHAR SHOW, Texas Equusearch is suing Casey Anthony to recover over $100,000 it spent searching for Caylee at a time when the defense contended she was already dead.
Then Joy talks to Dorothy Clay-Sims of Casey Anthony`s defense team; on the brink of her release from prison, Joy finds out what Casey is really like.
Plus, you cut class, you pay a fine. That`s the law one California school district passed. As a former teacher, Joy has a lot to say about this one. That and more starting right now.
JOY BEHAR, HOST: Well, it`s four days until freedom for Casey Anthony. The 25-year-old may have been acquitted of murder, but her troubles stemming from this case are far from over. Yet another lawsuit has been filed against her. This time from the search group Texas Equusearch.
I`m going to talk to Casey Anthony`s lawyer in a just minute. But first I want to bring in Sunny Hostin, legal contributor to "In Session" on TruTV and former federal prosecutor.
Ok. Sunny, Texas Equusearch has filed a lawsuit versus Casey Anthony. She was actually served the papers in her jail cell. What does Equusearch want exactly?
SUNNY HOSTIN, LEGAL CONTRIBUTOR, "IN SESSION": Well, they want their money back, Joy. They`re saying that they spent about $112,000 in man- hours, in resources, looking for Caylee Anthony.
Now they`re saying that Casey Anthony committed fraud because she lied to them. If she knew that little Caylee had died an accidental death by drown, then she wasted everyone`s time. She falsely represented the facts and they want their money back.
I`ve got to tell you, I always wonder about this case because you would never imagine that something like this would come up post verdict, but here we are, talking about Equusearch`s lawsuit.
BEHAR: Ok. The founder, Tim Miller, spoke about it also. Watch this.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
TIM MILLER, FOUNDER, TEXAS EQUUSEARCH: We`ve done what we thought was necessary to do, and now we`ll see if the system`s going to work, and just hope we don`t get the same jury. I mean, that`s a fact.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
BEHAR: Does it seem like Equusearch could actually recoup some of their losses?
HOSTIN: You know, normally I would say no. This is a volunteer organization. You know, how are they going to really get their money back? But I`ve got to tell you, everything surrounding the Casey Anthony case doesn`t make sense for me sometimes when it comes to the law.
So does it pass the smell test? The legal smell test? Probably so. Will six jurors in a civil suit perhaps award Texas Equusearch some money, perhaps. So I think there may be something to the suit when normally I would say probably not. Here, Joy, maybe so. Maybe so.
BEHAR: Well, The lawyer who filed the defamation lawsuit against Casey for Zenaida Gonzalez filed an emergency motion today. What was that for?
HOSTIN: Well, you know, Zenaida Fernandez Gonzalez is the alleged nanny that Casey Anthony made up and said that that`s who took Caylee Anthony. Now she`s saying that her life was ruined because her name Zenaida Fernandez Gonzalez is so very unusual, everyone thought she was complicit in this. She`s suing her for defamation.
And now her lawyers are saying we want the videotape deposition to take place before she gets out because she`s -- this are all these reports, Joy, that she`s going to disguise herself. She`s going to leave the jurisdiction. She`s going to change her name.
They think if all of that happens they won`t get their opportunity to depose her. So they want to do it either before she gets out which would be on this Sunday, 17th, or they want the judge to compel her to show up at their offices the following Tuesday, July 19.
BEHAR: Ok. One more question. At the sheriff`s press conference yesterday, he mentioned they were looking to allegations of witness- tampering.
HOSTIN: Yes. Isn`t that something?
BEHAR: What`s that about?
HOSTIN: We don`t know who they`re talking about, they sort of remained mum on that. They did say it wasn`t Cindy Anthony, but I got to wonder, could it be Lee Anthony? Remember when he got on the witness stand, Jeff Ashton, the prosecutor, said, you wouldn`t talk to us, but now all of a sudden you felt compelled to go to the defense to talk about this case? So perhaps it`s Lee Anthony.
But we`re also speculating, we don`t know who they`re investigating, but they have met with witnesses. So they`re investigating someone.
BEHAR: Ok. This is the case that never ends, isn`t it?
HOSTIN: It really is.
BEHAR: Ok. Thank you very much Sunny.
HOSTIN: Thanks.
BEHAR: I now want to turn to one of Casey`s defense attorneys, Dorothy Clay-Sims; welcome to the show, Dorothy. Anything in that that you want to comment on?
DOROTHY CLAY-SIMS, DEFENSE ATTORNEY FOR CASEY ANTHONY: No.
BEHAR: No, ok. In watching the case, you seemed very close to Casey. You were whispering with her. What were you talking about with her when you were whispering with her?
CLAY-SIMS: That`s covered by attorney-client privilege.
BEHAR: Of course.
CLAY-SIMS: I can`t really discuss that.
BEHAR: Can`t blame a girl for trying.
So it seems as though the defense feels that Casey is a misunderstood girl; that, you know, people don`t like her, they still say she`s guilty even though the verdict was not guilty, the jurors are under the gun. People are furious.
What is it about -- what do you know about Casey that would go against that? Which would fly in the face of all of that criticism?
CLAY-SIMS: Well, actually what I saw, what was compelling to me was the testimony of the people that spent time with her, the guards in the jail were testifying at the request of the defense, and they were talking about how they observed her. She was in lockdown 23 out of 24 hours.
BEHAR: Yes.
CLAY-SIMS: And she was still respectful to them. She was kind to them. They were describing her behavior, and I think that you may be perhaps seeing a couple of hours out of somebody`s life, and that can`t define them. And the people that were watching her day in and day out for years were getting up and taking the stand and saying this woman was kind, this woman was respectful. We`d wake her up, she would not be angry. That`s the person that I saw.
BEHAR: I see. I don`t know that the person were so upset with her because they thought she wasn`t a nice person in some parts of her life. They just didn`t like her attitude and the way she didn`t -- you know, she didn`t report that the child was missing for so many days and all that time she was partying. And having a good time. She seemed unremorseful. All of that, I think, is what people are really angry about.
CLAY-SIMS: I understand. And I think --
BEHAR: You do?
CLAY-SIMS: I think that the grief specialist who testified explained that people who respond to trauma respond in so many different ways. And in fact, since this occurred I received emails, a number of emails from people who had had thing happen to them in their lives. And they described very similar responses.
So I think if there can be perhaps an open heart and compassion and -- stepping back, I think that would be helpful for everyone.
BEHAR: Do you really believe the whole story that Jose Baez presented in the beginning? Do you believe that Caylee drowned? That George found her, that George disposed of the body, that Roy Kronk moved the body, that George molested her? All of those things that he brought up, do you believe those things?
CLAY-SIMS: I think there were a number of things -- well, if you look at the testimony that took place, you look at the photographs of the child going in -- going up the ladder, you see the child with her hand -- you see Caylee with her hand on the door. She loved to swim. I think there was compelling evidence, compelling evidence that Casey did not murder her child. The burden was not on the defense --
BEHAR: I know that.
CLAY-SIMS: The burden was on the state to prove that she had motive. I don`t think they did that. I don`t think that they were able to do that, and that`s why that jury came back with a not guilty verdict. That was their responsibility, and they were not able to do that.
BEHAR: What was the idea of throwing out that George molested her? I don`t get that part. I know he threw it out to bring up reasonable doubt but then again, he never brought it up again for the rest of the trial because there was no way to prove that either.
Do you think that that`s really -- is that a kosher thing to do, really? To just bring up something like that and ruin the man`s reputation even though it`s probably not true?
CLAY-SIMS: Well, I think when a lawyer gives an opening statement, what that lawyer does is he explains to the jury what he believes the evidence will show. No lawyer can predict what`s going to be said, what the responses are --
BEHAR: Yes.
CLAY-SIMS: Et cetera I think that the jury did struggle, from what I understand from watching some of the television shows, some of the jurors, when they discussed the evidence they struggled with George`s testimony and his responses to things and the way in which he answered the questions.
BEHAR: But they made it look like he was guilty, like he was on trial for something.
CLAY-SIMS: I think that the defense`s job is to hold the state to the burden that they have. They have that burden, the defense doesn`t have a burden, and if there are weaknesses in the state`s case -- and there were a lot of weaknesses. For example, tremendous problems with those forensics. Why they would bring in the people they brought in I really don`t understand but I think that that might have been one of the reasons that the jurors --
(CROSSTALK)
BEHAR: They had their experts and you guys had your experts and they conflicted, isn`t that what happened?
CLAY-SIMS: Well, there`s a difference. For example, the botanical expert that testified for the defense talked about how she estimated that Caylee`s remains could have been there as little as two weeks. She wasn`t saying how long they were there. She was not going to be that specific. And an air potato vine that has a heart-shaped leaf can grow eight inches in a day.
So I think the defense`s witnesses weren`t going so far out on a ledge. They were not going to say that taking a can of air from a trunk is going allow you to conclude an odor of decomposition. I think that that -- that was --
BEHAR: Obviously they didn`t prove the case well enough to convict the girl, they did not.
Let me ask you one thing that`s been bothering me. There was a tape of her when they told Casey that the child`s remains were found, and she became hysterical -- she was so upset and weirded and crazy and like that, acting -- in response to the tape that they had found the child.
If she -- the child was dead and she accidentally killed her or the child died of an accident, why was she so upset that they found the remains?
CLAY-SIMS: See, that`s the point that --
BEHAR: That doesn`t make sense to me.
CLAY-SIMS: That`s what the trauma expert I think was talking about. You can`t predict how anyone`s going to respond to any event at any time.
BEHAR: I see.
CLAY-SIMS: There is really -- there`s just no way to do that.
BEHAR: Now, after the verdict, you guys were all caught on camera celebrating, which I mean some people can understand that. You had won the case. And other people -- especially on this network -- people were saying that it was kind of unseemly to be celebrating at that point when there is a dead child in the picture. How do you respond to these critics?
CLAY-SIMS: There wasn`t any planned celebration. We went through that restaurant every day on the way to our cars. What had occur is on the way through the restaurant we looked out and the owners of the restaurant locked the doors because they could see a crowd forming, and I think they were concerned for our safety. They then offered us food and drink.
There was a toast, but the toast was to the Constitution. We felt very strongly about our client`s innocence, and we were so grateful that she was not going to be executed for a crime that we believe very strongly she did not commit.
BEHAR: Do you think if they weren`t for a lesser crime she would have been convicted of it, maybe? Child neglect, manslaughter?
CLAY-SIMS: Well, there were several charges, and the only thing that she was found guilty of was --
BEHAR: Lying.
CLAY-SIMS: Lying to law enforcement.
BEHAR: So you admit she is a pathological liar, the girl, at least we have that, right?
CLAY-SIMS: Well, what we have is somebody who isn`t telling the truth, but we don`t know why. We don`t know what was going on in her head. And I think to speculate beyond that, I`m not willing to do. When Doctor (INAUDIBLE) talked about responses to -- trauma responses to grief, responses to anything in our life, you know, there`s lots of explanations for that.
BEHAR: Let me ask you something -- do you have children?
CLAY-SIMS: Yes.
BEHAR: Would you let Casey babysit your kids? You say she`s innocent.
CLAY-SIMS: Well, you know, my kids are older.
BEHAR: Well, let`s say they were younger. Would you leave her with your children?
CLAY-SIMS: I -- I liked Casey Anthony. I came to trust her. And that`s a really -- I felt the Casey Anthony that I knew, I felt very comfortable with her. I felt that the person that I became close to during that trial, I felt comfortable with her.
BEHAR: Well, I guess if you believe she`s completely innocent, then you would.
CLAY-SIMS: Well, again, my children are grown. I don`t quite know how to answer that question.
BEHAR: Your grandchildren -- how about your grandchildren?
CLAY-SIMS: I think Casey Anthony has been so unfairly represented in the press, the person that I know I felt very comfortable with.
BEHAR: Do you fear for her safety?
CLAY-SIMS: I do, I do.
BEHAR: Does she have any protection now?
CLAY-SIMS: That`s being taken care of.
BEHAR: Oh, yes. That`s good. Ok. Thanks very much.
CLAY-SIMS: Thank you very much.
BEHAR: Ok. We`ll be right back.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
BEHAR: We are continuing our conversation about Casey Anthony and the aftermath of her acquittal. Joining me now are George Parnham, criminal defense attorney who was also an attorney for Andrea Yates; and Marcia Clark, former O.J. Simpson prosecutor and the author of "Guilt by Association".
You both just heard my interview with Dorothy Clay-Sims, Casey`s defense attorney. Do you think -- I know this is a crazy question -- but do you think Dorothy Clay-Sims believes that Casey is innocent? Start with you, Marcia.
MARCIA CLARK, AUTHOR, "GUILT BY ASSOCIATION": Ok. I can`t tell -- I would guess based on your last question to her -- and by the way, Joy, beautiful interview. Well done.
BEHAR: Thank you.
CLARK: Yes. Based on the way she answered that last question, you asked her, would you trust her with your children. And boy, she evaded that like crazy. She ran all over the studio to avoid really answering that one directly and never really did in my opinion. Which tells you -- she believes that she was -- I think that she believes the case was not proven against Casey Anthony, but I think she does not necessarily believe she is innocent either.
BEHAR: George, as a defense attorney, do you have to believe your client?
GEORGE PARNHAM, CRIMINAL DEFENSE ATTORNEY: Quite frankly, Joy, I never get to that point. I always rely on reading the state`s evidence. I prefer in most instances for my client not to even discuss with me the situation unless I bring the matter up. So it`s -- it`s a matter of what evidence is there. And what I can use and what I can`t use.
BEHAR: Ok. Now Marcia, part of the conversation I had with Dorothy was about the toasting that they did after the verdict was read. And she said they were toasting the Constitution in the bar after the verdict. Are you buying that?
CLARK: No. Really? Here`s to the Sixth Amendment -- no. I have yet to hear any defense attorney or any really prosecutor either -- that`s not what you`re toasting. Come on. I understand that they`re celebrating. They all do. I mean everybody has some form of celebration when they, quote, "win a case".
I think it was probably poor judgment on their part to do it so close to the courthouse. At least go home, do it at somebody`s house, do it where the press can`t follow you. But I get it. And it did feel unseemly under all the circumstances, and yet they did win the case. They did win.
BEHAR: Yes. Another thing, George, the jury foreperson said that when they first voted in the jury room it was really ten for not guilty and two for guilty. Now, I`m -- I saw "12 Angry Men", you know. And I think everybody`s seen that. It`s been a great civic lesson, that movie. But how difficult is it, George, for one or two jurors to actually change the minds of the other ten? Because that`s what happened. Yes.
PARNHAM: Sure, Joy, I think it`s extremely difficult, particularly if you have performed well either side in selecting or actually eliminating the jurors that you disapprove of and getting 12 individuals up there that are committed. If you`ve got 10-2, you`re going to have a very, very difficult time having two people persuade the remainder to see it in your favor.
BEHAR: Right. But if they stick to their guns, then what happens? You have a hung jury, right?
PARNHAM: We have a hung jury, and we redo it, deja vu all over again.
BEHAR: Oh, my God. I don`t know if I could go through it again. Thank you, guys, very much for weighing in.
We`ll continue in a minute with this. We`re not leaving them yet.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Tomorrow on THE JOY BEHAR SHOW, Roseanne Barr tells Joy why she`s so enraged over the Casey Anthony verdict.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
BEHAR: I`m back with my guests talking the Casey Anthony trial. Now, there was one report stating how the jury -- this kills me -- the jury didn`t like the fact that the prosecution never said good morning to them and they liked that the defense did. Marcia, do you think something as lame as that can influence the jury?
CLARK: Joy, well said. It can -- it can I think in the end -- I`m sorry, that was a good one. I think it can in that aggregate. I think that something that lame in and of itself would not necessarily do it. But you know, things can -- can conglomerate, you know, can combine to make a jury have a certain attitude. Especially if they`re coming in with some kind of formed attitudes.
Sometimes these nonverbal or verbal but non-relevant cues can have an impact on how favorably disposed the jurors can be to one side or another. Now said, that by itself whether they said good morning or not, by itself probably didn`t matter. But who knows how it combined with other things to make a difference in the matter?
BEHAR: Do you think that the O.J. jury liked Johnnie Cochran more than they liked your team? They liked that team better? He was very poetic, you know. Johnnie, he`s a real showman and everything. Do you think they just liked him better?
CLARK: I mean, I don`t know. I think we talked about this once before. Let me just say the jurors who came out and wrote a book said they did not. They said --
BEHAR: Really?
CLARK: Yes, they did. They said we saw through him. We knew he was a charming snake oil salesman, we didn`t care. And we actually felt that he and Shapiro talked down to us and we resented that. And they said you know it was really the evidence, it was about whatever.
And I don`t think, I don`t think that jurors ultimately do vote because they like one lawyer better than another. But I do think they vote because they like one defendant or victim better than another. It comes down to that popularity contest. So if they like a defendant, or they have some kind of sympathy or some kind of identification with the defendant, then they`re going to like that lawyer better, too.
BEHAR: Right.
CLARK: I mean that`s where it spills over. I don`t think it spills so much from the lawyer to the defendant as it does the reverse.
BEHAR: I see.
CLARK: So if they hate the victim, if they think the victim`s a gold digger, that kind of thing, that`s going to have an impact.
BEHAR: Of course.
CLARK: That`s where I think their sympathies go.
BEHAR: Now this is a sort of interesting thing that`s just come up. Texas Equusearch filed a civil lawsuit against Casey for the loss of over $100,000 which was spent during Caylee`s search.
Now George, shouldn`t Casey pay back that money since she knew Caylee was dead at that point? And where will she get the money?
PARNHAM: Well, you know, Equusearch went into this with open eyes, and they knew that obviously the trial had not yet begun, that she was entering a plea. They knew about the 31 days of partying and silence, no 911 calls so they took a shot. And it ended up empty, unfortunately for this child.
I -- I think when you take a risk or a gamble like that then it`s probably unfair to go against the party that you claim now was deceptive and forcing you to get involved.
BEHAR: What about Zenaida Gonzalez?
PARNHAM: I`m sorry.
BEHAR: What about Zenaida Gonzalez; so-called Zanny the nanny? That was defamation of character there. Shouldn`t she get some money out of her?
PARNHAM: Well --
BEHAR: George?
PARNHAM: Well, it`s fair game. You bet. I would take a shot at that if -- if there`s anything to it.
BEHAR: Ok. Thanks, guys, very much. We`ll be right back.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
BEHAR: Kidnapping victim Jaycee Dugard is sharing with the world the horrifying and traumatic details of her 18 years in captivity. Her book is out this week, and in it she talks about her captors, Phillip and Nancy Garrido, being sexually abused by both of them and giving birth to two children as a teenager, and while she was in captivity.
Joining me to talk about this horrific case is Dr. Michael Welner, chairman of the forensic panel and associate professor of psychiatry at the NYU School of Medicine. He`s also the developer of the depravity scale, which uses evidence to measure depravity of the most heinous of crimes. Welcome to the show, doctor.
DR. MICHAEL WELNER, NYU SCHOOL OF MEDICINE: Thank you.
BEHAR: This to me is one of the most heinous stories that I have ever heard. You know, 18 years in captivity, being raped on a regular basis, being, you know, abused verbally and physically, being left in the back in horrifying conditions. And while I was watching Diane Sawyer`s interview with her the other night, it dawned on me that it was 18 years. I was married to my first husband, my only husband, for 16 years. And when I got divorced, I thought, oh, my God, that was such a long time to be married. Of course, now I realize, so many years later, it isn`t. That`s how personal it hit me like that, it was like, my God, 18 years in that situation. I mean, is this one of the worst crimes you`ve ever encountered?
WELNER: Well, the purpose of the depravity scale search -- and your audience can actually participate in it at www.depravityscale.org -- is to actually look at intent, victimology, actions and attitude of specific crimes to say, well, what about this crime makes it so awful as opposed to just our kneejerk reaction which we`re all vulnerable to.
But say you`re on a jury, what would distinguish it by virtue of the depravity scale research is you have a vulnerable person. She was a child, A. B, he involved another person in order to carry out the depravity that he did. He couldn`t have done this without his wife`s complicity.
BEHAR: Right.
WELNER: Further more, he involved his wife to keep from getting captured. He even involved Jaycee to keep from getting captured. Then as you said before, the amount of suffering, getting raped countless times over such a period --
BEHAR: Having babies without any medical assistance, to just give birth to children in a backyard.
WELNER: Yes. To be in a position where she`s helpless, and the idea of being ripped away from your family with no hope of being restored. Those are actions that cause a grotesque amount of suffering.
BEHAR: Grotesque.
WELNER: And what we can find from his attitudes are a relish in what he did. He had no problem sexually violating her. And an indifference to his impact on her life. So you have a variety of different examples of intent, victimology, actions, and attitude. And the research is aiming to give courts an evidence-based consistent way of fairly distinguishing the severity of crime. So the theater or people being overcharged or the system where some evidence doesn`t get in and other evidence doesn`t get in, it`s evidence-driven on intent, actions, attitude, and victimology. And the public has a say in it.
BEHAR: Let me talk about the victim for a second. There were opportunities for her I guess to escape, and she just couldn`t do it. And I`ve heard this about Elizabeth Smart also. With -- you worked on that case, right?
WELNER: Yes.
BEHAR: What happens to a child when she feels she can`t escape?
WELNER: Well, the -- Elizabeth Smart, who`s been quite open with me and others, that she was terrified of Brian David Mitchell, that he menaced her enough and at the right times and with the help of his dependent wife to keep her from taking risks. She hoped he would die before --
BEHAR: Elizabeth?
WELNER: She hoped that he would die at some point and then she would be free. It was different with Jaycee Dugard. When you are captive for 18 years, your relationship with your captor gets into your DNA. It`s all you know. It becomes your life. Elizabeth Smart was very well routed into her earlier life before she was kidnapped. She was away for nine months. She endured unspeakable terror, but she remembered that life.
Jaycee Dugard`s life was taken over. When you`re -- it`s like you said with your husband, it`s a lifetime. What do you even remember from your childhood as a point of reference? You lose your point of reference. Your point of reference is your tormentor, that`s unbelievable.
BEHAR: How about in the beginning, though, when it first happens? Is there no thought -- or was she just fearful that he would kill her or something, because there is that.
WELNER: She was a child.
BEHAR: yes. My God.
WELNER: She was a child. And what child expects to be in a situation where, again, she wasn`t down the street, she was in a place completely unfamiliar to her, where he controlled the environment and menaced her with a stun gun.
BEHAR: What`s so appalling is that the police and the social workers went there 60 times and they could not help this child. And the neighbors -- it`s just -- it`s the most despicable case. I just -- I don`t think these people should be walking the earth anymore.
WELNER: Joy --
BEHAR: These two, Nancy and Phillip. Let me show you something that Jaycee said about Nancy. Watch this.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
JAYCEE DUGARD: In some ways she`s just as manipulative, because she would cry and say, I can`t believe that he did this. I wish he would have got a headache that morning that he took you.
DIANE SAWYER: And she knew everything?
DUGARD: Yes. She knew everything. Everything. What makes somebody do that in the first place? Take somebody else`s child just to satisfy your husband? And I don`t know, she`s just as evil as Phillip.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
BEHAR: It`s interesting, the wife -- and you talked about Elizabeth Smart`s case was a similar -- remember these, Heda Nussbaum (ph), remember that case? That was another one.
WELNER: You have a dominant person who smells someone with a dependent personality, recognizes that she`ll get so attached to the relationship that he can do anything, and he can have her do anything. And he pushes it as far as his fantasy will take him. That`s what Brian David Mitchell did. And that`s what Phillip Garrido did.
BEHAR: And Nancy just had no mind of her own?
WELNER: She had a mind of her own, but she had her priorities. And she was so desperate emotionally to stay in the relationship that she would consciously -- not as a byproduct of mental illness -- she would consciously follow his directives, because he was dominating and driving the relationship.
BEHAR: The other part about this story is that she`s had these two children. The girl is remarkable, if you watch her, I mean what do you make of all that? That she seems to have her act together in some ways, and she raised these two kids. She taught them what she knew. She was only 13, so she knew how to read and write at that point. And she gave them whatever she could give them. How is this family going to survive this trauma?
WELNER: She has remarkably found a way to surround her relationship with these children with love. It defines that relationship. It is the totality of that relationship. So everything around her that made no sense and was evil and was disgusting is separated. There`s nothing disgusting about how she relates to her children.
BEHAR: Right.
WELNER: Now consider this -- last night we were talking about Casey Anthony and the phenomenon of the disposable child. How many relationships in this country are divorced, there`s a child, the child lives with the mother, the mother hates the child because the child looks like the father or the child`s close to the father.
Here is a woman with two children. She has every reason to be disgusted by her children, and she immerses them in love. That is an example for others to get over their pain, because the children never asked to be born. Those two kids never asked to be born. If you love the children, you detoxify the evil that`s in their past. He may be evil, but she isn`t. And she can define the children and their destiny that way.
And someone has to speak for the children because they`re not disposable. Casey Anthony proves the opposite. And Jaycee Dugard proves that very point, that children are precious, even when they have unspeakable baggage.
BEHAR: Do you think that between zero and 13 she must have gotten so much love from her own family that she was able to give it to the children?
WELNER: It`s hard to tell. Hard to tell.
BEHAR: And let`s talk about her mother`s guilt. Her mother was saying that she felt guilty that she didn`t kiss the girl goodbye that day because she was running to work and she was -- I mean, imagine the guilt. I don`t think I could survive it as a parent. As Jaycee`s mother, I do not believe that I could survive it. I would be waiting for the day that I would be dead. That`s what -- I know that sounds dramatic, but I can`t imagine living for the rest of my life knowing that my child went through that. And that these two evil mongers are still alive on this planet. I couldn`t do it.
WELNER: I sat with the mother a week and a half ago in New Orleans. Her 14-year-old walked to the store five minutes away, five minutes away, and was brutally sexually assaulted and murdered. And I sat with the mother 15 years later. And she`s broken. And you see it in her face.
BEHAR: Can`t survive it.
WELNER: It wasn`t her fault, and she had no control. But that`s the nature of the way attachment should be. It`s the murder that makes no sense. It`s the attachment that is all that is right with this world and should guide all of us.
BEHAR: OK. On that note, I must thank you again for being so brilliant. Thank you. We`ll be right back.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
BEHAR: In a new interview with "G.Q." magazine, actress Mila Kunis compared the whole notion of friends with benefits to communism. While good in theory, she said in execution, it fails. Now, to me, a friend with benefits is a man with $80 million in the bank and 80 days to live.
Here to discuss this and more in pop culture news are comedian Margaret Cho. Carson Kressley, host of "Carson`s Nation" on OWN Channel, and Sarah Bernard, host of "The Thread" on Yahoo.
OK, Mila went on to say this about friends with benefits. "It`s two people who like each other having sex, not a random hookup. And when two people who like each other have sex, eventually someone catches feelings and everyone is [ bleep ]." They`ll bleep that.
(CROSSTALK)
BEHAR: Have you ever had friends with benefits, Margaret?
MARGARET CHO, COMEDIAN: I live it. You know, that`s my life. That is all I do. I`m married, I have an open marriage, because I think a successful marriage -- to have a successful marriage you have to sleep with a lot of different people. You know, it takes a village.
SANDRA BERNARD, "THE THREAD" ON YAHOO: You should be a marriage counselor.
CARSON KRESSLEY, HOST, "CARSON NATION": It takes all of San Francisco.
(CROSSTALK)
CHO: That`s what I mean. I have a healthy appetite. I`m a big girl, I want it all.
BEHAR: Can gay men pull this off, Carson?
KRESSLEY: I think, yes. I would --
BEHAR: You`re out of the closet, aren`t you?
KRESSLEY: I am, yes, Joy. I`m so far out I`m in Cleveland by now. No, but you know, friends with benefits to me sounds like you have health insurance, of course I`ll sleep with you. I`ve got a toothache right now, can we go to the dentist in the morning, after I`m done doing you?
BERNARD: You guys are totally unrealistic. It`s not going to work.
BEHAR: Why not?
BERNARD: Well, because of what she said. Somebody starts liking the person, and then the other one inevitably feels bad. So now that she`s going on a date with this Marine in November, maybe that`s --
(CROSSTALK)
BERNARD: It may not happen.
BEHAR: Because her --
BERNARD: She might be too busy. She`s doing a lot of movies.
(CROSSTALK)
KRESSLEY: I`ll go on the date with the Marine. Take one for the team.
BEHAR: Can I say -- I`m not -- I`m not a P.R. person, but that`s a bad move.
BERNARD: What, to do it or not to do it?
(CROSSTALK)
CHO: She has to go.
BERNARD: But now there`s another Marine that`s asked Justin Timberlake to come to her Marine ball in November.
(CROSSTALK)
BERNARD: A woman.
BEHAR: Oh, there is no end to this now.
(CROSSTALK)
KRESSLEY: Nobody asks me about their balls.
(CROSSTALK)
BERNARD: Now that you said that, I bet you -- you should check Youtube a little later.
KRESSLEY: I`m going to do a video tonight. Take me to your balls.
BEHAR: So seriously, do you really -- let`s say seriously (ph), would you do the friends with benefits? You agree with this?
CHO: I absolutely agree with it.
BEHAR: You too?
KRESSLEY: I wouldn`t. No, it`s too messy.
BEHAR: It`s too messy? So you and Sarah agree.
BERNARD: You guys have hearts of coal.
(CROSSTALK)
KRESSLEY: Let`s get married.
(CROSSTALK)
BEHAR: Even Jean-Paul Sartre and Simone de Beauvoir had to call off that open marriage thing. They both got jealous of each other.
KRESSLEY: What about the guy with the 16 wives or something, that show--
BEHAR: Yes, sister wives.
KRESSLEY: Sister wives. They seem to work it out.
BERNARD: It`s always the guy with the many wives. It should be the other way around.
KRESSLEY: Right, good point.
BEHAR: All right, let`s talk about Larry David, because my pal -- I love Larry -- he is coming under fire for an episode of "Curb Your Enthusiasm" in which he coaches a 13-year-old girl scout on using a tampon for the first time through a bathroom door. Watch.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
LARRY DAVID, ACTOR: OK, there`s a tube, right?
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Yes.
DAVID: There`s an outer tube and an inner tube.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Inner tube?
DAVID: Put the outer tube in your vagina! And--
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: I don`t know what I`m doing. I`ve never done this before.
DAVID: Take the -- take the outer tube, take your thumb and middle finger --
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: What?
DAVID: And push that tube forward. It comes out of the plastic!
(END VIDEO CLIP)
BEHAR: OK. Margaret, on a scale of one to Tracy Morgan, how do you rate this?
CHO: I think it`s hilarious. I mean, it -- all of his humor is about the awkwardness and uncomfortability of being a human being. And I think this is just classic what he does.
BEHAR: Yes.
CHO: I laughed. I think it`s funny.
BEHAR: His whole schtick and his whole persona is that he is inappropriate. So this is part and parcel, do you agree?
KRESSLEY: Yes, I mean, you know, there was criticism because he was doing this on his show. It`s on his show. It`s a TV show. He`s acting. The actress is probably not 13 years old. It`s a show for adults. You know, it`s called entertainment. It`s OK.
BEHAR: What do you think, Sarah?
BERNARD: I think it`s gross. It totally freaked me out. It`s really gross. But you know what else? There was an article in "The Post" that talked about how later in the season there`s another issue where he makes a vagina joke about a 13-year-old girl --
BEHAR: Yes, it`s a second one, right.
BERNARD: If he`s going to go down this road again and again where there`s awkward sexual personal vagina issues about a 13-year-old girl, and this is going to be a repeated thing, I think he`s going to get in trouble. It`s walking a line that`s really uncomfortable.
(CROSSTALK)
BEHAR: So you think it`s the repetition of it you think that`s worse than just doing it once?
BERNARD: I think maybe that really is it. If you do it once, OK, fine, but it`s like remember, we -- when we were talking about the Anthony Weiner thing, it was like people would forgive him until he started sexting teenagers. When you get to some issue like this, it`s just -- it`s crossing the line.
(CROSSTALK)
KRESSLEY: Anthony Weiner was a real person, in real life. This is a TV show.
(CROSSTALK)
BERNARD: Larry`s real.
KRESSLEY: But it is a TV show. Right?
BERNARD: No, it is. I know it`s for an older audience. But it is one of those lines, I`m laughing, and then I`m like, I feel gross.
BEHAR: Yes, kind of gross, but also funny.
CHO: It was also one of those really cheap tampons too? I like them- -
(CROSSTALK)
CHO: Super-plus Playtex that goes -- when you put it in. It`s like - -
(CROSSTALK)
KRESSLEY: Open the door and you go--
CHO: Yes, a good feeling.
KRESSLEY: I agree.
CHO: What do you know about this?
KRESSLEY: I am just trying to remember back to when I had my first period, OK? Be a little sensitive.
BEHAR: That was last week. OK. Next up, a Harvard professor is suggesting that extremely obese kids with a BMI in the 99th percentile be taken away from their parents until they learn proper nutrition and the perils of obesity. Carson, do you think they should do that?
KRESSLEY: I don`t think they should take away the kids from their parents. I think they should take away the Captain Crunch from the kids.
BEHAR: Well, they can`t seem to do that.
KRESSLEY: Parenting is like -- I don`t know anything about parenting. I don`t even have a goldfish. But you have to make choices for your kids about what they`re going to eat. You`re responsible, you`re the parent. So I think maybe they`re kind of right. They would take kids away if you were like not feeding your kid.
BEHAR: Yes. That`s true.
KRESSLEY: So maybe if you`re overdoing it --
BEHAR: But it`s neglect. Is this the same idea as neglect for a fat kid?
CHO: I think maybe the whole family needs to be in therapy. If there`s something like that, it`s the whole family -- there`s something wrong with the entire dynamic. So everybody has to go.
BERNARD: Everybody has to be separated --
CHO: They will all have to go together to some kind of counseling, some kind of therapy, some kind of education, because it`s very -- it is extreme.
BEHAR: I don`t understand how somebody gets to be in the 99th percentile.
(CROSSTALK)
BERNARD: There`s a long road to that. You don`t just expand and blow up. I think people don`t know how to eat. There was that great article about how McDonald`s finally introduced oatmeal. But it actually has as many calories as a cheeseburger.
BEHAR: I say do not give these kids a time-out in the pantry. That`s the whole thing. We`ll have more in just a minute.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
BEHAR: I`m back with my lovely panel. And after 300 wins, beauty queen and star of TLC`s "Toddlers in Tiaras" Eden Wood (ph) is retiring from the pageant circuit at the ripe old age of 6. Apparently she`s going to move to Boca Raton and play mahjong. And I say, good for her. OK. So what do you think of that?
CHO: I think it`s, well, good. Let her be a kid. But is she going to be able to get a childhood at all? She`s not really -- she`s got all these products and --
(CROSSTALK)
BEHAR: I`m working like a pack animal, OK, and this little 6-year-old is able to retire.
(CROSSTALK)
BERNARD: She`s not retiring at all. She`s just focusing on her merchandising. She sells, what`s her name, Elle Woods -- no, Eden Wood, princess canape bag you can buy. You can buy her memoir.
(LAUGHTER)
BEHAR: She`s like the new Bethany Frankel (ph).
KRESSLEY: A merchandising empire.
BERNARD: She already does mall tours, and even her mom says maybe this is a new way, if you don`t want to go the Disney circuit, this is a new way to turn into a Miley Cyrus.
BEHAR: She says she wants to be the next Oprah, which means what, she wants to do a yo-yo dieter? What does it mean?
KRESSLEY: I don`t know. Oprah never did pageants.
(CROSSTALK)
BEHAR: -- powerful like Oprah.
KRESSLEY: Right.
BERNARD: But the thing is, I think she just wanted to stop the whole association with the pageants. Because people were really criticizing her, criticizing her mom, criticizing her agent. So now if she stops that but continues everything else, then maybe people will come to her with a fabulous reality show.
BEHAR: So do you think that`s why she`s retiring? Because people are criticizing "Toddlers in Tiaras?"
BERNARD: She looks creepy, she looks like Anna Nicole Smith.
(CROSSTALK)
KRESSLEY: I think she quit because she started getting beat. Isn`t what she said on the show? She`s like, I`m not doing this anymore because I don`t win. And I was like, OK, good idea.
BEHAR: Well, she`s planning a singing career.
KRESSLEY: OK.
BEHAR: So do you think -- I mean, that`s dangerous in this business also because then they become like Miley Cyrus and the rest of these girls, who are so cute and cute in their tweens, and then they act like a bunch of little putans (ph) when they`re 20 and 19. You know what I mean? That`s not right.
KRESSLEY: Because by the time they`re 19, they`re like 34 on the inside.
BEHAR: Exactly.
KRESSLEY: They`ve done everything.
(CROSSTALK)
BERNARD: She went on that show "The Talk" and they basically panned her.
BEHAR: Oh, I heard about that.
BERNARD: They named her single cutie-patooty (ph) or something like that.
BEHAR: There was smirking or something she was doing her little Shirley Temple thing, and her mother was furious, and really issued like a statement about it. Furious, yes.
KRESSLEY: She tried to mess up Julie Chen`s (ph) hair.
BERNARD: She did. Didn`t work.
KRESSLEY: She got so mad.
CHO: I think people are just creeped out by beauty pageants for children, just because it`s JonBenet Ramsey and people have -- there`s an ugliness associated with that industry, and children, you know, being competitive with each other and then dressing up these little girls as women.
BEHAR: It doesn`t look right.
(CROSSTALK)
KRESSLEY: It`s extreme and weird and they have like false teeth and giant hair.
(CROSSTALK)
BEHAR: They have perkier boobs than I do.
OK, look out for Margaret Cho`s "Cho-Dependent" (ph) concert -- film? Is it a film?
CHO: It`s a concert film.
(CROSSTALK)
BEHAR: And it`s making the rounds at film festivals. Very good. And on DVD in the fall. And check out "Carson Nation" Friday at 2 p.m. on OWN. Thank you for watching. Good night, everybody. Thank you.
KRESSLEY: Thank you.
END
