Return to Transcripts main page


British Phone Hacking Scandal; Nancy Grace on Casey Anthony Trial

Aired July 18, 2011 - 21:00   ET


PIERS MORGAN, CNN HOST: Tonight, a woman at the center of the case that transfixed America and the world.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: As to the charge of first-degree murder, we, the jury, find the defendant not guilty.

MORGAN: Now she finally tells her side of the story. That's Nancy Grace.

NANCY GRACE, HOST, HLN'S "NANCY GRACE": Not guilty. The devil is dancing tonight.

MORGAN: Tonight, I'll turn the tables and cross-examine Nancy on the Casey Anthony trial.

Also, the story that's captivating newsrooms on both sides of the Atlantic. The hacking scandal and what it means to Rupert Murdoch's empire.


Good evening. A little later, I'm going to speak with Nancy Grace, the woman that put the Casey Anthony trial on the map and became a lightning rod for criticism of the woman that she dubbed tot mom.

But first the story making headlines around the world. The phone hacking scandal rocking News Corporation, the company led by Rupert Murdoch.

It's a world I know very well. I was editor of two major British tabloid newspapers for 11 years. I worked for News Corp as editor of the "News the World" 16 years ago from 1994 to 1995. I was also editor for the "Daily Mirror," a paper not owned by Rupert Murdoch from 1995 to 2004.

For the record, I do not believe that any story be published in either title that's ever gained in a unlawful manner, nor have I ever seen anything to suggest that. But the experience running those papers does give me a pretty good insight to how Rupert Murdoch operates both when you worked for and against him. In fact I wrote a detailed book about my time as editor called "The Insider: Private Diaries of a Scandalous Decade." And now I want to bring in Jessica Reif Cohen, senior media and entertainment analyst of Merrill Lynch, Porter Bibb, managing partner of Mediatech Capital Partners, John Coffee, Adolf Berle professor of law at Columbia, and Ken Auletta, the media writer for the "New Yorker" and author of "Googled: The End of the World as We Know It."

Ken Auletta, let me start with you. This is a quiet, unprecedented, extraordinary situation. We've seen two of Rupert Murdoch's top CEOs gone, resigned. We've seen two of Britain's top police officers, gone, resigned. Just today there's a development to that report. You have actually a whistleblower for the "Guardian" newspaper and the "New York Times" has been found dead. Or the police are stressing, they don't think it's suspicious.

Have you seen anything like quite like this? And as Rupert Murdoch prepares to address members of parliament in Britain tomorrow, how serious is this moment for him and his company?

KEN AULETTA, NEW YORKER MEDIA WRITER: I think it's dreadfully serious for Rupert Murdoch, and his family and his company. I mean the company itself I don't believe is in danger. It's a $32 billion revenue company. It's probably the second or third largest media company in the world.

But Murdoch's aura of invincibility is gone. His lieutenants are apples falling from the tree. His argument that it was just a few rotten apples has been discredited. It's really a barrel problem. And so he's got to deal with that, and he knows that in coming days, not just in his testimony tomorrow, but in coming days, there will be more apples that will be revealed to have been rotten. So he's got a lot to answer for.

MORGAN: I mean I can say from my experience editing a newspaper for him and this was, you know, five, six years before any of this phone hacking began, but certainly when I worked for him, he wanted his editors to be tough, to be ruthless, to be aggressive, all the things you'd expect from a tabloid newspaper, but always to operate within the law.

And I find it impossible, personally knowing the man, to believe that he would have known about law-breaking on his newspapers, let alone he would condone it.

AULETTA: But Piers, it's not just a question of what you knew, but whether you should have known. The fact of the matter is that his people were turning up the most unbelievable stuff from phone conversations that the prince had or Lady -- or Princess Diana or others?

How did he not ask his top people -- not ask the question, how did you get this? You know as an editor if your reporter comes into you with a story and says I got this, I think it's a page one story. And oh, my god, it's a great story, it is a page one story. But the first question you're going to ask is how did you get it, who were your sources?

Why weren't they asking those questions?

MORGAN: Well, I'm sure that the editors would be asking those question.

AULETTA: Well, then they're implicated.


MORGAN: And Rupert Murdoch -- I'm sure Rupert -- I don't know the man, I think tomorrow when he gets in front of these members of parliament, he'll probably argue, look, I'm in charge, as you said, of a $32 billion corporation. You know I cannot be expected to micromanage the methodology of every single part of his company. I mean would you expect him to?

AULETTA: No, I would not. But I would expect him to at least -- when he sees these salacious, delicious stories on page one that are as scandalous as they were, I expect him at least because -- when I profiled Murdoch at 95, I lived with him for 10 days. And he was calling his editors every day.

You came into his all-white office. And every newspaper of his from around the world, 130 at the time, were lined up. He saw those headlines. He would leaf through many of those papers.

I would expect he might have asked the question, how -- how are we getting all of this wonderful stuff?

MORGAN: Let's turn to Porter Bibb here. There's been lots of speculation and denial from the Murdochs that the newspaper division may simply be sold off in Britain. Again, I find that hard to believe because of the deep-rooted love that he has for those papers, and I was, as a former editor of "News of the World," pretty shocked to see the "News of the World" shut down after 168 years. It was his first newspaper that he bought in Britain. And it was something that he I think had huge respect and a personal admiration for.

Did it become too hot? Is the newspaper division for him now in Britain simply not making enough money to make it worth saving in a crisis like this?

PORTER BIBB, MANAGING EDITOR, MEDIATECH CAPITAL PARTNERS: Well, he's got to address several constituencies on this issue. One is the News Corp investors, and print obviously is a losing proposition, and News Corp has not made an effective transition to the digital domain for any of their newspapers, starting with "The Times" and "The Sunday Times of London" and going on down.

Even "The Wall Street Journal" is really -- is still a marginally profitable if that venture, for which he way overpaid by several billion dollars. But the other issue that he's got is in the UK he is seen by politicians and regulators as dominating the media with his heavy, de facto control interest in Sky News and BSkyB, and still the majority of the major national dailies.

So it's a matter of public record, Piers, that eight weeks before this whole Shakespearean drama hit the headlines, Rupert and some of his senior managers were meeting with financial advisers and investment bankers exploring the possibility of selling the entire News International conglomeration of newspapers.

That's probably going to be inevitable now, and who knows whether "The Wall Street Journal" and "New York Post" will be included.

MORGAN: Let me turn to Jessica Reif Cohen. A full disclosure from the start. Your firm is involved in the Murdoch purchase of BSkyB. It's now been put on the backburner because of this crisis.

Do you agree with that reading? Was your information that the Murdochs were considering selling their newspaper division?

JESSICA REIF COHEN, SENIOR MEDIA AND ENTERTAINMENT ANALYST, MERRILL LYNCH: No, I mean, we have no idea. And a lot of them what's been on the press. Some of it is true, maybe true and some of it not. So we really don't know. But from an investor perspective, I think everybody would be thrilled if News Corp spun out the newspaper division or sold it, but somehow separated it from the entertainment assets.

MORGAN: And let me ask you. I mean obviously, the BSkyB deal was a huge deal for News Corporation. Nine, 10 billion pounds, $16 billion. That's now looking like it's in serious jeopardy.

What it seems to brought (sic) to the focus is the significance of newspapers to News Corporation that used to be the financial cash cow. I mean when I was at "News of the World" it made $100 million a year profit at least. Now they're not so dominant.

Do you see a time coming as newspapers diminish in their importance, when the Murdoch's Corporation, News Corporation, with or without the Murdochs, Views newspapers as disposable assets to let them focus on television and movies, which make more money?

COHEN: Well, I mean, there's clearly an I affinity for newspapers by Rupert Murdoch. But newspapers now account for a very small percentage of total operating income, maybe $500 million. So it's less than 10 percent of the total company. And the UK properties are less than 10 cents of share of value. So they're really not that significant.

All of the growth has been in newer media so cable networks are now over 50 percent of the company's operating income, and there is tremendous growth in satellite assets like Star TV in India and Sky Tire in Italy, Sky Deutscheland is starting to turn around, and obviously BSkyB. They wanted full control because it's still relatively underpenetrated and still very much a growth engine and a free cash flow machine.

MORGAN: I mean from a purely business point of view that the stock price of News Corp has been crashing for the last two weeks, is it now cheap? Do you think that these shares are now undervalued, given the scale of this crisis? COHEN: Yes, News Corp has lost over $8 billion of value since the crisis erupted in the last few weeks. And we can account for -- with the decline in BSkyB share price because you have risk (INAUDIBLE) in the stock. And even you know taking -- just saying they give away the UK newspapers which obviously wouldn't happen. They could sell it or spin it, but that's maybe $2 billion of the whole decline.

So $6 billion is more emotional, more about the unknowns, but I think at some point when we get through this, as long as the U.S. assets aren't touched and are pulled down with the scandal. This is UK-contained, then this is an amazing, amazing entry point to News Corp's stock.

MORGAN: Let me bring in Professor Coffee here.

Professor Coffee, obviously, there's been huge anger on both sides of the Atlantic to the Murdochs personally. Rupert Murdoch has been this kind of talisman figure in the media for a very long time. You don't get to be the most dominant media player in the world without attracting a fair share of snipers.

How much of that is justified? I mean again, looking at him dispassionately, do you think he's been primarily a force for good or a force for not so good in the media?

JOHN COFFEE, ADOLF BERLE PROFESSOR OF LAW AT COLUMBIA: I think he's probably led a race to the bottom. I think that the tabloid world has to respond to whoever is getting the most headlines and the most circulation.

Now I only am an expert on this criminal liability. I do not suggest that he faces a high risk of criminal liability, unless it can be shown that he did personally authorize either the payment of a bribe to a foreign governmental official, like a Scotland Yard officer, or News Corp hid bribes by falsifying their books and records.

And that latter possibility is really the more likely one because almost no company has disclosed that they're paying bribes. But somewhere in News Corp there's going to be liability if you hid bribes that were in fact paid.

MORGAN: And in terms of exposure to the American part of the company, am I right in thinking that if that is proven, if there were bribes being paid, either anonymously or in fake names, or whatever it may be, if it were paid by News International, a British company, does that still impact on the American part of the business?

COFFEE: There's two distinctions here. If the bribes are paid by News International, I think it is unlikely that U.S. prosecutors would want to go after bribery by a British company to British governmental officials. I think they would still be interested in the books and records of News Corp because News International is consolidated with News Corp. And those books and records fail to disclose that there were bribes paid. And frankly we've just heard that $8 billion in stock value has disappeared over the last couple of weeks. There'll be securities class actions over the fact that you never disclosed your business practices and when they were disclosed, your stock price fell like a stone.

MORGAN: Ken Auletta, finally for you, I mean, it's been said now that, appalling though this scandal has been, and I don't think any journalist can possibly defend some of the stuff that's been going on there in terms of phone hacking missing girls who turned out to be murdered and so on.

But in terms of the longer-term benefit for journalism, can you see that this could be a watershed moment that tactually the perils of new technology and so on, in investigative journalism, now being dealt with in such a high-profile manner, that people made a move on now and journalism itself may be better? Or do you worry conversely that all this attention on this means there may be further attacks on freedom of the press?

AULETTA: Well, I think you have to separate the questions. And it's a good question. One is I think there's no question that it will put the press -- make the press even less popular than we are today. So in that sense, it's not good for journalism. And we're all hit by that broad brush that we probably in many cases don't deserve.

On the other hand, you could argue that one of the things, the press is a very insular institution, and it's not used to criticism. And when it breaks out into the open this way and it's criticized, it tends to raise the consciousness of reporters and all journalists to say hey, wait a second, therefore, by the grace of God go, I don't want to go there. And maybe it forces us to re-think and to think about what lines we're going to draw and about what is permissible to do in the world of journalism. And that's a good thing if that happens.

MORGAN: Well, thank you, all, very much for your time. Ken, Jessica, Porter, and John Coffee.

Obviously tomorrow. is going to be a fascinating moment for Rupert Murdoch, for his company. He will defend himself and his business in front of the world's television cameras to British members of parliament. I think it will be an extraordinary spectacle and we'll know a lot more by the end of it.

Thank you all very much for your time.

COHEN: Thank you.

MORGAN: Coming up, I want to bring in a woman know the Murdochs very well personally and what ask her what the scandal would mean for the family business and indeed for the family itself.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK) MORGAN: Now I want to bring in a woman who knows the Murdochs very well personally. Vick Ward is a best-selling author, contributing editor of "Vanity Fair" as well for several Murdoch newspapers in the past.

Vicky Ward, thank you for joining me. Obviously a hell of a mess.


MORGAN: For the Murdochs.

WARD: Yes.

MORGAN: How are they dealing with this, do you think?

WARD: Well, you know, Piers, I just got a call an hour ago, and Rupert wanted to tell me personally that you know he's not OK. Ever since he met with Milly Dowler, the murdered girl's parents, he hasn't felt the same. His voice has been cracking, the people around him are very concerned, his children are very concerned.

This is a man who is more devastated than he has ever been in his entire 80 years, and you know, he is appalled at what's gone on on his watch, and I think he's as anxious to get to the bottom of it as we all are.

MORGAN: Yes, I mean, I think as I said earlier during the panel, that having been one the editors, I know that whenever we tripped up over what are -- by these standards relatively minor indiscretions in terms of breaching the Press Complaints Commission code or whatever.

WARD: Right.

MORGAN: He was always -- he was always incredibly quick to be publicly censorious of me or whoever the editor was that was offending.

WARD: Right.

MORGAN: And remind us forcefully personally, you know, you've got to abide by the rules of the game. Whether that's Press Complaints Commission which is a regulatory body in Britain.

WARD: Right. In Britain.

MORGAN: Or by the law. So I just -- I cannot accept, although there is this huge witch hunt going on to bring him down personally, I don't accept that he himself would be party to illegal activity.

WARD: Well, I have to say, having been features editor at -- the new features editor of "The New York Post" myself and also having worked for him at "The London Times" back in England, and that the now defunct "Today" newspaper, I completely agree with you, Piers.

He became a friend to me when I was at the "New York Post." He would often stop by my office and talk to me. He would always want to know what tomorrow's headlines were. He would not in any way want to interfere with a story. I mean this is a man who cares so much about his legacy. He once said to me, all I want is for my kids to be decent people.

And what I enjoy more than anything else in the morning is getting up and looking at all my newspapers and then looking at the competition and seeing who has done better. And, you know, it was like -- he would -- you know and I loved the sort of image of him in his pajamas, strutting around on the floor --

MORGAN: I mean I want to say -- I want to say, Vicky, is, you know, I wouldn't want this to become a kind of valedictory.


MORGAN: This perfect kind of segment. Because the reality is, of course, he's not. He is a ruthless tough businessman who's built this enormous empire.

WARD: I agree.

MORGAN: And he's played -- he's played hard and fast and aggressively when he's at it to win. Now he's not the first guy that's done that, who wants power and so on. I can only go on my experience. And it's interesting, I mean people always assume that if you edit a paper for Murdoch that he constantly interfered.

WARD: Right.

MORGAN: Before stories were published and so on. That just did not happen. And I wrote a book of diaries, detailing my time there.

WARD: Right.

MORGAN: And he just didn't do that. That wasn't his thing. And what he would do is discuss them after you published them. But he assumed that his line managers, his editors, his managers and so on, would have done all the necessary --

WARD: Right.

MORGAN: -- checking to make sure that these stories were publishable according to the law of the land and that's why I think this will hit him so hard.

I mean knowing the family, what do you think he will be coming over as tomorrow when he appears in front of the MPs? And obviously a very, very difficult situation for him. He's never had to do this before.

WARD: Yes.

MORGAN: How do you think he will deal with this?

WARD: I think he will be -- I mean the one thing about Rupert is that -- yes, he can be ruthless, but actually we can just talk about this -- I think one -- he's ruthless, but also entrepreneurial. I mean he built an empire -- with great vision. And often at great personal risk. But tomorrow I expect to see a very, very sincerely contrite person.

MORGAN: I need to wrap this up. I think the problem is that the British press have always had a kind of demonic reputation and unfortunately this series of exposes of the "News of the World" for what they're up to in terms of Milly Dowler and so on has merely, I would suspect, re-affirmed to people their worst fears.

I think that it's not as simple as that you had bad apple here --

WARD: No, I don't either. I agree with that.

MORGAN: You have bad apples here that have simply gone way too far. That it's not indicative from my time on Fleet Street, I found most of those journalists behaved. And I think most journalists in Britain right now share a view that it's completely unacceptable.

WARD: Yes.

MORGAN: I also think it's important to work out that, you know, people may be being arrested here, but we saw one of the journalists today who was arrested in June being cleared and no further action to be taken.

WARD: Right.

MORGAN: So I think we need to wait until we see who gets charged, what the evidence is.

WARD: I agree.

MORGAN: We see court cases and actually get to the bottom of this, rather than everybody jumping in with their size nine boots right now, effectively convicting everyone.

WARD: I think we have to wait. We don't know. We just don't know enough. And you know --

MORGAN: We don't. But Vicky, I have to --


MORGAN: Vicky, I have to leave it there. Thank you for your time. We will know a lot more I suspect when Rupert Murdoch meets the MPs tomorrow. It's going to be a dramatic moment. And thank you for your time.

WARD: Thank you, Piers.

MORGAN: Next, over to who knows more about the Casey Anthony trial than anybody else. Nancy Grace speaks out to the case that gripped the nation.


MORGAN: Casey Anthony is a free woman tonight. She walked out of a Florida jail early yesterday morning after a jury found her not guilty in the death of her 2-year-old daughter.

No one is more outraged by that verdict than Nancy Grace. Her new book is "Death on the D-List." And Nancy Grace joins me now.

Nancy, you followed the story probably more closely than anybody else, and you were clearly pretty outraged by the verdict. At the same time, you reiterated your faith in the American justice system.

So what do you think went wrong here?

GRACE: Well, Piers, number one, thank you for having me. I guess that at this point, knowing that tot mom has walked free, leaves more of a sense of extreme disappointment, a feeling of being let down. Because those of us that have devoted I would say my entire adult life to public service -- well, since the murder of my fiance back in 1979 -- to see a miscarriage of justice in a system that we hold so dear -- I mean, Piers, the justice system is something that I've held on to and believed in since Keith's murder many years ago.

And to see it fail is deeply upsetting to me. Amidst claims that she's fielding million-dollar offers and is considering plastic surgery and marriage proposals, it's very upsetting, Piers. It's extremely upsetting.

MORGAN: I mean here's the thing, Nancy, playing devil's advocate here because I could tell the passions are running high throughout your coverage --

GRACE: Of course, you're going to play devil's advocate.


GRACE: I'm ready. I know what that means.


MORGAN: Well, listen, I mean you had an extraordinary run of success covering your trial. You made it your own. HLN had fantastic ratings. And you know --

GRACE: Whoa, wait, wait, wait, wait, wait. I didn't make anything my own. This story is not my story. This story is Caylee's story. And I remember the night that we first heard about the case. Every day, every morning around 5:00 a.m., between 5:00 and 7:00 a.m., I get a list of about 70 to 80 cases.

I start reading them along with my executive producer, Dean. We go through those and many, many others. We go to every Web site, every news outlet to find the case we're looking for to cover that night. And when I heard the tot mom's story, I heard about Caylee, I said that's it. That's the case we need to do tonight. That one. And my EP agreed. That was a long time ago. But it's not my case. This is Caylee's case. And it is every parent in America's case. As a warning.

MORGAN: I suppose the question from me to you as a legal brain is the inconsistency really between continuing to support the system if you feel that it failed so much. What would you do differently in light of this trial, given that you believe it's such a miscarriage of justice?

What else could be -- I mean, you know, I'm going to be fair that we do --

GRACE: Piers, Piers, Piers, come on.

MORGAN: Hounded mercilessly.

GRACE: You're super smart. Here's the deal. That's just like somebody saying yes, I believe in God but I don't want to go to church because I hate organized religion. What a line.

Look, the justice system is made up of people. People have faults. It's not perfect. When I tried cases in Intercity Atlanta for a decade, I went to every jury trial, knowing it was a crapshoot. Knowing it all depended on the jury that I put in the box, the 12 I put in the box, and -- whoa, that's old. But it was a scary thing for me, because I was always convinced that I could lose the case, and there would be a miscarriage of justice. And there was one here.

Does that mean I don't believe in our justice system? No. To believe in our justice system and hold it dear, you accept it, warts and all.

MORGAN: I get all. I've made it very, very clear in my coverage of this that I just don't know anybody who would not report a missing child for 31 days. That alone is appalling negligence. And I don't really buy into the post traumatic thing.

I know there are some experts that believe this has been done before. I can't remember any case like this. So I'm totally with you on her failings as a mother, the appalling negligence, the fact that she didn't report it, the fact she went partying, all that stuff.

But here is where I have a slight issue against your position. And it's involving the system itself. The jurors have been taken a lot of flak. Some of them have been hounded away from their homes, which I think is reprehensible.

GRACE: You mean one of them. Wait a minute, one of them. Let's get the facts straight. There's only one juror.

MORGAN: The point I am going to make is this: 90 percent of all of the legal experts I've had on, when I have really pushed them, all said there was not enough hard evidence to link her to the murder of her child. Lots of circumstantial evidence, and the beyond a reasonable doubt element is the one that is clearly the debatable point.

But none of them would blame the jurors for failing to be absolutely certain that she was directly, inexorably to the murder of that child. You don't agree with that. Why?

GRACE: OK. Number one, to my knowledge, there is one juror that voluntarily quit her job and says she doesn't want to go home because she is afraid. Afraid of what? She hasn't had a single threat. No one has said a word to her.

Did she voluntarily leave her job, or does she think she is she going to do a tell-all book and make a lot of money? I would inspect her motives.

So there's not a lot of jurors or even several jurors that have been hounded out of their homes. That's number one.

Number two, I don't know who the legal experts you've had on are, but having tried over 100 cases and taken guilty pleas in thousands of cases, and argued before state supreme courts, I would be willing to suggest that your experts are wrong, because under our law, circumstantial evidence is deemed equal to direct evidence, such as an eye witness.

In many, many cases, Piers -- and you know this very well. In many cases, you don't have an eyewitness to a crime. Murders, rapes, child molestations, they don't happen out on the street all the time. They happen behind closed doors. So often there is not direct evidence of a crime.

The state relies on circumstantial evidence, as they did in this case. Now, you're telling me that they don't think there was enough hard evidence. And I assume that you are referring to direct evidence. There was a mountain of evidence pointing to guilt in this case.

And I knew, Piers -- and you can laugh into your fist if you want, but on day two of jury deliberations, when the juror came in wearing a suit that morning, he knew they were going to announce a verdict. And what that says to me is that in less than, say, eight hours, they had gone through weeks of testimony. They didn't even go through all of the testimony before they reached their verdict. And I think that that's wrong.

MORGAN: I agree with you that the amount of time they spent deliberating was completely unacceptable for a case of this complexity. And I would certainly criticize them for that. But I still come back to the main legal point, which, you know, very eminent lawyers have said to me, on both sides of the argument -- many of them agreeing that if had been left to them, they would have convicted, but they could understood why the jury felt there just wasn't enough to be completely certain what had happened.

If I was on a jury, I would want to see from my fellow jurors, wouldn't you? You must accept that? GRACE: Well, once again, under our American system of jurisprudence, the law is that you don't have to explain to a jury -- although I would like to explain to a jury exactly how a murder occurred, but should a defendant, such as Tot Mom Casey Anthony, get a gold star or a benefit because we cannot determine cause of death, because she had the body hidden for so long it decomposed out in a swamp?

And when I think of this child being thrown out in a swampy, makeshift pet cemetery, for her body to decompose, for animals to pull her limbs apart and gnaw on her bones, why should Tot Mom get a benefit because the child was so decomposed?

The law says she does not. And your question was dead on, Piers. You said a lot of people don't know how it happened. I don't know how it happened. I don't know, did she smother her, did she put tape over her nose and mouth, did she give her too much chloroform? I don't know that.

But I know this child was killed. I know she lied about it, I know she put the child in the car trunk and put tape over her mouth and nose, and she died.

MORGAN: Nancy, look, powerful stuff from you. I would expect nothing else. When we come back after the break, I want to talk to you about Casey Anthony, now she's been released and what kind of life we can expect to see her leading.

GRACE: The sweet life. She had it tattooed on her shoulder, Piers.


MORGAN: Back with my guest Nancy Grace, who is already pretty fired up by this. And I know your passions run high on this. I can only imagine how you felt when you say Casey Anthony walk free. What did you feel when you watched those images?

GRACE: Well, I felt a huge disappointment. And then there is one shot of her where she has this kind of an eerie grin once she gets into the car. And it -- it really just gives you a chill.

What I'd really like to know, Piers, is who foot the bill for that private jet that picked her up at Orlando Executive Airport, and we think deposited her somewhere in California? That's what I'd like to know.

I think I've got a bead on it, that it was somehow connected to a lawyer once on her defense team, that later fell off the defense team, apparently due to Bar complaints. But the bill for the private plane went to the same address as his office. So I think I know where the private plane came from.

Whether she was really on the plane, I don't know. I doubt she's lingering in the Florida area. I think she's going on to the next bigger, better deal out in California MORGAN: But simply, should she be vilified now? She's been released. She's through a court case. A jury of her peers has reached a verdict. And on that basis, she has been acquitted of killing her child.

If we respect the legal process, and the legal system, should she now be vilified in public? Or should she be allowed to lead the life she wants to lead?

GRACE: Of course she should lead the life she wants to lead. That's what she wanted to do all along, Piers. That's why she killed her child. That's why she got the tattoo, the Sweet Life. That's why she partied on a stripper pole in a mini skirt and a pushup bra, while Caylee was missing, i.e. rotting. Her child was rotting.

Do you think I could put my head down on a pillow, knowing 15 houses away from where I slept every night, my child was laying in a swampy water muck? No.

So, sure, live it up, Casey Anthony, go ahead. But you're forgetting the justice system doesn't exist in a vacuum. You're forgetting something called the Bill of Rights. I know you Brits don't have that, but we do.

And the very first one is freedom of speech. Now why are you suggesting that the world can't comment on Tot Mom's not guilty verdict and her choice of life-style? Hey, maybe she'll turn into sister -- Mother Teresa, for all I know, and do good works for the rest of her life.

But you know, I'm not a betting person. But if I were, I would bet she's not going to turn into Mother Teresa. And I would bet that she is going to make all the money she can and run right through it in on a high life-style. That's what I think is going to happen.

MORGAN: I mean, the Brits don't have the Bill of Rights, that's true. But nor do we have trial by television. We don't allow television cameras --

GRACE: Trial by television. That didn't happen. Because if that had happened, the jury certainly wasn't listening to me. They came up with a not guilty.

MORGAN: You see, that in itself, I think the jurors then begin to see themselves as kind of bit part actors, because they are being beamed to the world every day. And wherever you've seen these trials by television involving notorious or famous people, the results normally go the wrong way to public opinion and create sort of this kind of frenzy afterward.

GRACE: The results go the wrong way to public opinion? What does that mean?

MORGAN: It means that public opinion had been driven I think by the saturation coverage on television and all of the commentary, so that most people were directed to believe -- and, you know, I'm sure you wouldn't deny the fact you were directing people to think this -- that this woman killed her child.

GRACE: Actually, I have a lot more respect for my viewers than that. I think they can make up their own minds. And also, it's funny that you would say that, because in our Constitution, I guess you can compare it to the legislative history -- the legislative minutes when laws are enacted in our country.

Someone is taking down everything that is being said as laws are passed by Congress. We have something similar to that when the Constitution was written. And our forefathers openly discussed, Piers, how they wanted every courtroom in America to be big enough for the entire community to hear the trial.

So there is no closed-door justice or secret proceedings. The people that watched this trial, including myself, made their decision. Just because it doesn't agree with the jury's decision is a whole other can of worms. But America can listen and hear and evaluate the evidence, just as well as you and I can.

So that was their decision. I'm sure you saw the "USA Today" poll that said two thirds of Americans believe they are guilty. That's their right to have an opinion and voice it.

MORGAN: Nancy, when we come back, I want to talk to you about your days as a prosecutor, and the tragedy that you already referred to that led you to becoming a lawyer in the first place.



GRACE: We have had people working overtime, triple time, weekends, unpaid. Nothing in it for any of us. Except we believe he killed her.


MORGAN: That was from your days as a prosecutor, Nancy. Got to say, love the hair there.

GRACE: Thank you. Jealous?

MORGAN: Tell me about the -- I also love the fact that even then you could tell that you had this kind of fire brand attitude. Looking at you there, smashing your stick on the table.

You were an aggressive prosecutor, very direct in your eye contact with the juror there. It was clearly something that was a passion for you. I'm assuming that the passion for you was driven not least by the fact you yourself had been through this appalling tragedy with your fiance being killed by a coworker.

GRACE: Yes. There is Keith. He got that black eye from a baseball. Keith was in school on baseball scholarship to get his degree in geology and was almost through. And was working a summer job at a construction site. And he left at lunchtime to go get soft drinks for everyone.

And when he -- when he pulled back into the site, a co-worker that had been fired was angry and had showed up with the site with a gun. And the theory was that he was waiting for the boss that fired him, but when he saw the truck, he just opened fire.

And he shot Keith five times in the face, the neck and the head. Keith was still alive when he made it to the hospital. But he did not live.

MORGAN: I can see even now, Nancy, this is clearly a hugely traumatic part of your life. It makes you very emotional. I'm not surprised to talk about it now. And seeing these pictures of you and Keith together must bring back all sorts of memories for you.

What happened to him spur you on to do? When you remember your feelings at the time, did it drive you on to finding justice for others? Was it as simple as that?

GRACE: You know, Piers, it's so complicated. I actually very rarely discuss it I -- other than alluding to it briefly if I'm asked questions about it. You know, Piers, people always talk about closure. And they throw that around as far as Cindy and George Anthony now. They have closure. It's all over.

There is no closure. It's like breaking your arm. And you never get it set. But you learn to flip a pancake or sweep the floor, not the way you did before, but in a different way.

Yes, it affected my life. I went nearly 30 years without being able to really seriously entertain marriage or a family. In fact, the word "marriage" would actually give me -- I would physically have a shake when it was brought up. And I remember it was like a dark swirl after his murder.

I couldn't eat. I couldn't drink anything. I lost down to about 89 pounds. I dropped out of school. I was at my parents' home. I couldn't stand to hear the TV, the radio, in the car. I couldn't stand to hear a clock tick.

It was just too much. And I ultimately -- I went to go stay with my sister in Philadelphia. She was a professor at the Wharton School of Business at the time. And I would just sit on a park bench and watch students go by while she was teaching.

And it dawned on me there that I had no idea what law school even was, but that I would go to law school, and that somehow I could make a difference. I had planned to be a English Shakespearean professor, hopefully at a graduate level. And I couldn't imagine being in a classroom the rest of my life. And that had been my dream.

And I'm sorry to say that since that time, I've never had the heart to open up a single Shakespearean play or sonnet. I just can't. That was the different life and a different dream and a different girl. That girl is gone. But what I have now is a life that's been dedicated to seeking justice and very late in life, God heard my prayers and answered them 10,000 times over by giving me twins and a husband that loves me and accepts me like I am. So it was not what I planned, but God gave me something very different.

MORGAN: Nancy, we'll take another short break. When we come back, I'll talk to you about your new marriage and the children that you have. The way you were able to rebuild your life and propel your career into becoming one of the most high-profile defenders of justice that this country has.

GRACE: Thank you, Piers.


MORGAN: Back with my guest, Nancy Grace. Nancy, before we went to the break, obviously very emotional hearing you can talk about your fiance who was killed. And you alluded to the fact you've been able to rebuild your life now, get married and have children the way you, at one stage, never thought you would be able to do.

What do you think? When you get all this attention now -- and you've had all this success and you are so high profile and you get criticized and praised in equal measure. When you get criticized, what do you think is the biggest misconception about you?

GRACE: Oh, Piers, come on, you've been through this, I'm sure. All the criticism and all of the praise, it doesn't -- it's not worth the salt that goes on my bread, because TV is fickle. You can be loved one day and hated the next day. One day, you're getting an award. And the next day, you're getting a death threat.

So what does it al mean? It doesn't mean anything. What matters to me is that I try to do the right thing on air and off air. And what my children think of me and what they'll read about me on the Internet, what my husband thinks about me and my parents and my family, that's what matters to me.

What Keith thinking about me, how I have lived my life since he was murdered. I know he's watching. I know he's cheering me on. That's what matters to me.

MORGAN: Well, Nancy, you've been incredibly honest in this interview, more than I thought you were going to be about that part of your life. And personally, I love watching your show. I think you're a force for good. And I think that you are ballsy and aggressive. But at your heart, you want to bring justice to people like Caylee Anthony. And long may you continue.

Thank you for joining me tonight.

GRACE: Thank you, friend.

MORGAN: That was Nancy Grace. That's all for us tonight. "AC 360" starts right now.