Return to Transcripts main page


How Lies Destroy Lives

Aired January 18, 2013 - 19:00   ET


JANE VELEZ-MITCHELL, HOST: Lies, lies, lies, more lies. Casey Anthony, Jodi Arias, and now Lance Armstrong. Tonight, breaking news on all three of America`s most infamous liars, how secrets and lies destroy lives.


VELEZ-MITCHELL (voice-over): Tonight, breaking news in the cases of three of America`s most talked-about liars. We`re going inside the web of secrets spun by Lance Armstrong, Jodi Arias and Casey Anthony as new lies are exposed and the fallout of their toxic story explodes.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Lance Armstrong said he was a jerk, said he was arrogant, as he finally admitted using performance-enhancing drugs.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: A story a lot of people are talking about, Lance Armstrong`s conversation with Oprah Winfrey. Throughout the interview, Armstrong alluded to the persuasive culture of doping during his time in cycling.

LANCE ARMSTRONG, DISGRACED CYCLIST: And I was used to controlling everything in my life. I controlled every outcome in my life.

OPRAH WINFREY, MEDIA MOGUL: You`ve been doing that forever.

ARMSTRONG: Yes, especially when it comes to sport. Now, the story is so bad and so toxic, and a lot of it is true.

WINFREY: Did it feel wrong?

ARMSTRONG: At the time?

WINFREY: Uh-huh.



VELEZ-MITCHELL: Secrets and lies. Front and center.

Good evening, I`m Jane Velez-Mitchell.

And tonight, breaking news in the cases of three of America`s biggest liars.

Casey Anthony. She lied repeatedly about the disappearance of her precious little daughter Caylee, who turned up dead. Tomorrow night the movie based on her case airs on Lifetime, and it`s expected to be a ratings grabber.

Jodi Arias, now facing the death penalty for murder, lied when she said she was not with Travis Alexander when he was shot, stabbed 29 times and his throat slit ear to ear. Now, her side must try to convince the jury she killed him in self-defense.

But we`re starting with tonight`s liar No. 1 in the news, Lance Armstrong. The disgraced cyclist has finally admitted he was doping, taking performance-enhancing drugs during all of his seven Tour de France wins. He revealed this toxic secret to Oprah.


WINFREY: Was it a big deal to you, did it feel wrong?

ARMSTRONG: At the time?

WINFREY: Uh-huh.


WINFREY: It did not even feel wrong?



VELEZ-MITCHELL: It is scary. Armstrong ruined the lives of the people who spoke out against him, but is he really sorry? A former teammate`s wife, Betsy Andreu, one of the first people to blow the whistle against Armstrong, had this to say to CNN`s Anderson Cooper.


BETSY ANDREU, WIFE OF ARMSTRONG`S FORMER TEAMMATE: This is a guy who used to be my friend, who decimated me. He could have come clean. He owed it to me. He owes it to the sport that he destroyed.


VELEZ-MITCHELL: Lance told Oprah he recently talked to Betsy, and he wouldn`t reveal what was said except for this gem.


ARMSTRONG: I think she`d be OK with me saying this, but I`m going to take the liberty to say it. And I said, "Listen, I called you crazy. I called you a bitch. I called you all these things, but I never called you fat."

WINFREY: That`s one of the things she...

ARMSTRONG: She thought I said, "You`re a fat, crazy bitch."


VELEZ-MITCHELL: How obnoxious is that? What do these comments tell us about Lance Armstrong and his mentality now? A man who apparently did everything to win, even if it meant destroying the lives of anybody who got in his way.

Straight out to attorney and host of "Deadly Sins" on Investigation Discovery, Darren Kavinoky. Are these words that don`t really even feel like a sincere apology? They seem more like just a question and answer session, although I think Oprah did a great job, is this supposed to suddenly make it all vaporize and all OK?

DARREN KAVINOKY, HOST, INVESTIGATION DISCOVERY`S "DEADLY SINS": Well, if that was the intention, I think it fell well short of the mark. To me, it seemed forced; it seemed contrived. It did not feel like an authentic, sincere mea culpa. In what was supposed to be no-holds-barred interview, there was still some holding back.

And part of me just wonders if that`s Lance`s default position, if that`s just the way he is. He`s such a fierce competitor that whenever he`s challenged, he just retreats to that natural stance. But boy, as a viewer and somebody that was sitting on every word, I was still somehow hoping for more.

VELEZ-MITCHELL: He didn`t seem to -- his body language didn`t say, "I`m sorry."

Lance is asked specifically about all the people he has sued, basically illegally bullying them for speaking out against him. And they were telling the truth. Listen to his response from the Oprah Network.


WINFREY: You`re suing people, and you know that they`re telling the truth. What is that?

ARMSTRONG: It`s a -- it`s a major flaw, and it`s a guy who expected to get whatever he wanted and to control every outcome.


VELEZ-MITCHELL: Hey, that guy is you, buddy. Get ready for blow bank -- blow back.

People who Lance Armstrong attacked for telling the truth are now coming out of the woodwork, and they could turn the tables and sue him. Former teammate Floyd Landis is already part of a $30 million whistleblower lawsuit against Armstrong.

So I want to go to Joey Jackson, criminal defense attorney. How much money are we talking about here? How many people could sue him and for what?

JOEY JACKSON, CRIMINAL DEFENSE ATTORNEY: You know what, Jane? It`s going to be endless. There will be civil litigation. Let`s start with Floyd Landis. That`s a whistleblower lawsuit, right? Because if you`re using federal funds and you`re misusing them, someone can blow the whistle. And monies need to be recovered as a result or could be recovered as a result of those actions. So that`s huge.

Then of course, Jane, we know about the bonus lawsuit. He was paid out a bonus. The company did not want to pay it with the indication that, look, you`re using performance-enhancing drugs.

He says, "No, I don`t. I won. Pay me."

Now of course, they`re going to get -- they want the money back.

You know, look, we could go on and on and on about monies that he`s going to be tied up with paying, earnings that he got, which were ill- gotten gains as a result of fraud, as a result of misrepresentations. And so we`re going to see -- and I would say this, Jane -- for years to come, civil litigation in this case.

VELEZ-MITCHELL: Oh, yes. And he could end up potentially broke.

OK. Let`s take a look. This is his first wife in a parade we`re going to show you. And he may certainly have to pay her. And then he has a wife and a total of five kids. Again, that`s his first wife. Divorced. But he has another wife. He`s got five kids. He`s got two homes in Texas, one in Aspen.

"Forbes" magazine says a dozen years ago he was worth $28 million. But get this: one company, a sports insurance company that reportedly paid him $12 million for winning so much, they say, "We want our money back." OK, that`s 12 million with interest. So I`m -- I`m thinking he could end up, actually, in serious money problems.

Let`s go out to the phone lines. Susan, Florida, your question or thought, Susan.

CALLER: He seemed angry during this interview, and I also noticed that he kept pulling his lips in like people do when they`re lying. They`ll say something, and then they pull their lips back in like they`re trying to pull the words back.

VELEZ-MITCHELL: I agree with you. Yes, I agree with you. And Susan Constantine, body language expert, tell us what you saw because I didn`t see tears, that`s for sure. I didn`t see somebody who seemed really sorry. He seemed robotic.

SUSAN CONSTANTINE, BODY-LANGUAGE EXPERT (via phone): Yes. And let me answer the caller`s question. She`s right on point. When someone is frustrated or angry, their mouth stretches horizontally, and their lips will pull in.

You`ll notice, too, that he`ll put his hand over his mouth, meantime, and what he`s doing is trying to withhold words that he wants to spill, but he`s trying to keep them inside. Generally speaking, this is kind of a preview to when someone is going to be lying. What he has...

VELEZ-MITCHELL: Susan -- Susan, what struck me is look at his facial expression. It`s like a robot.


VELEZ-MITCHELL: There is no -- when I`ve done something bad, I`m like -- well, I will -- will project shame, I will project remorse. He`s projecting nothing. He might as well -- I said he sounds like a spokesperson for himself.

CONSTANTINE: Right. And Jane, the reason why that happens is because he lacks emotional intelligence. Your body language is nothing more than your emotions revealed. If you don`t have that barometer, if you don`t have empathy and concern for others, you`re not going to show that outwardly. That`s the reason why he`s robotic. If he were really sympathetic, you would see that his mouth would turn down in the corners.

VELEZ-MITCHELL: All right. All right, Susan, I`ve got to cut you off here, because I`ve got other things to get to. More of these bizarre comments. Lance admits now he controlled every outcome of his life and tried to take control, I think, of this interview with Oprah. Check this out.


WINFREY: In your opinion was it humanly possible to win the Tour de France without doping seven times in a row?

ARMSTRONG: Not in my opinion.

WINFREY: So when did you first start doping?

ARMSTRONG: We`re done with the yes and nos?

WINFREY: We`re done with the yes and nos.


VELEZ-MITCHELL: Darren Kavinoky, the problem with this interview, America loves to see a hero fall, and they will forgive if they seem contrite. But he still seems arrogant. He seems surly. He seems unemotional. And he`s going through the motions. There`s no catharsis where he breaks down and says, "Oh, my God." He doesn`t have that moment that we need.

KAVINOKY: That`s right. We love to see people fall, and then of course, we love to see them dust themselves off and recreate their lives, and -- and come back. America loves a comeback story, but in order to get there, we do have to be convinced collectively that what`s gone on is some authentic acknowledgment.

I mean, the most classic case, of course, is a guy like Robert Downey Jr. We all sort of watched as onlookers with this perverse curiosity as he went through his -- his addiction and his downward spiral. And now, of course, he`s the comeback king and the poster child.

I just don`t think we`re going to get there with Lance Armstrong, not based on this interview.

VELEZ-MITCHELL; No. He seems cold, and he doesn`t seem like he`s really sorry.

In the Jodi Arias trials, speaking of liars, there are plenty of chilling similarities to, well, another famous liar, Casey Anthony. This weekend, Lifetime premiers "Prosecuting Casey Anthony," starring Rob Lowe. Check it out. We`ll discuss it on the other side.


ROB LOWE, ACTOR: Could have found her guilty of second degree or even manslaughter, but they weren`t interested in punishment. They didn`t believe that she should be punished at all.


VELEZ-MITCHELL: Casey Anthony`s trial turning into a huge dramatic production. And will Casey`s attorney, Jose Baez, even be allowed to defend her? Reports say he...



UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Who has her? Do you have a name?

CASEY ANTHONY, ACQUITTED OF MURDER: Her name is Zenaida Fernandez Gonzales.

JODI ARIAS, ON TRIAL FOR MURDER: I just wanted to offer any assistance that I could. I`m a really good friend of Travis`s.

CASEY ANTHONY: I still have that feeling, that presence. I know that she`s alive.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Jodi, this is over. This is absolutely over. You need to tell me the truth.

ARIAS: Listen, the truth is I did not hurt Travis.

JOSE BAEZ, CASEY ANTHONY`S DEFENSE ATTORNEY: For years she pretended she had a job and pretended she had a nanny.

JENNIFER WILMOTT, JODI ARIAS`S DEFENSE ATTORNEY: Jodi did not always tell the truth.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: I am very confident, just after talking to you a short period of time, you know where she is.



CASEY ANTHONY: I have no clue where she is.


CASEY ANTHONY: If I knew in any sense where she was, this wouldn`t have happened at all.


VELEZ-MITCHELL: An avalanche of lies exposed in the Jodi Arias murder trial, and we`re only at the halfway point.

Jodi is accused of stabbing her ex-boyfriend 29 times, slicing Travis Alexander`s throat ear to ear, and shooting him in the face. Jodi now claims it was all in self-defense after first saying she wasn`t there and then saying ninjas did it.

Well, the jury has just been sent home after the prosecution wrapped for 12 days, practically two weeks to think about the prosecution`s evidence, like the photos of the bloody crime scene, and Travis laying cold in the shower. There is a photograph of that as well as kinky sex photos taken hours before Travis died, like this picture of Jodi totally naked and wearing pigtails.

The jurors, they listened to Jodi`s litany of lies, all caught on tape. Have the jurors seen and heard enough to convict Jodi or is this case mirroring the trial of another infamous liar, Casey Anthony?

Well, Lifetime has a brand new movie called "Prosecuting Casey Anthony," starring Rob Lowe as Casey`s prosecutor. We`re going to show you some clips in just a moment.

But two beautiful women, two terrible deaths of innocent people. We all thought the evidence was sky high to convict Casey, but she went free. Could it all happen again in the Jodi Arias trial? We`re going to bring in our three top attorneys to debate it. Darren Kavinoky, host of "Deadly Sins"; Joey Jackson, criminal defense attorney. And we begin with Jason Lamb, criminal defense attorney who is in Phoenix, Arizona, where this trial`s occurring. Jason, could we see another Casey Anthony outcome?

JASON LAMB, CRIMINAL DEFENSE ATTORNEY: Well, you know, anything is possible. But you know what the big difference is between Jodi Arias and Casey Anthony? Casey Anthony kept her mouth shut. Jodi Arias, on the other hand, it`s like a game of three-card monte on a Manhattan street corner. What story is she going to tell now?

But now the case of Jodi Arias versus Travis Alexander begins, and the defense will put him and his character on trial.

VELEZ-MITCHELL: Well, you say that she didn`t speak at all, but she did get caught on tape talking behind bars, for example. The prosecution of Jodi Arias, well, they focused on her lies.

And you`ve got to remember in the Casey Anthony trial, the prosecution did the same thing. And they played the tapes of Casey lying to police about everything from her job to Zanny the nanny. There were jailhouse conversations. There were police interviews. Listen to this.


UNIDENTIFIED MALE: You`re telling me that Zenaida took your child without your permission?

ANTHONY: She`s the last person that I`ve seen with my daughter, yes.


VELEZ-MITCHELL: And we know there was no Zenaida, nanny.

And Jodi has proved to be just as glib and colorful a liar in her police interrogation tapes, claiming at one point, "Well, I was there but ninjas burst in and killed Travis." Listen to this.


UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Were they going after Travis? For what reason? You tell me this, but you give me no reason.

ARIAS: They didn`t discuss much. They just argued.


ARIAS: About whether or not to kill me.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: For what reason?

ARIAS: Because I`m a witness.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: A witness of what?

ARIAS: Of him, of Travis.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Of Travis` murder?

ARIAS: Yes, but I didn`t really witness it, didn`t see much.


VELEZ-MITCHELL: Back to our attorneys. Joey Jackson, so they have both of them talking. Will these lies convict Jodi or will these lies get her convicted of lying, just like Casey Anthony was convicted just of lying, but let go on the murder case?

JACKSON: Jane, fear not, there will be a conviction here for the following reason. In this particular case, right, we have cause of death. We have a body. We have a body that`s been analyzed. We have, tragically, a person who`s been shot, who`s been stabbed 27, 29 times, some say if you look at the autopsy report.

And so as a result of this -- and Casey Anthony, you know what? The report was 30 days later. You couldn`t find the body. By the time there was some semblance of it, there was, you know, significant evidence had been far removed.

Here you have all the evidence you need. And so when you match what the cause of death is versus the defense, which is self-defense, we know, right, that the force she used is not proportional to the defense post- conviction.

VELEZ-MITCHELL: But, but, but, but I have to say, Darren Kavinoky, there was a body, tragically, in little Caylee Anthony`s death. And remember the duct tape and remember the garbage bag. There was forensic evidence.

KAVINOKY: Horrific, but Jane, on -- clearly, in Casey Anthony we have conduct that`s unbecoming to a supposedly grieving mother, and we have lie and lie after lie. But on the central issue in the Casey Anthony case, you had an enormous question mark about exactly when and how the child died.

In this Arias case, you`ve got her captured on her own photographs being at the crime scene. And then when you layer that on those inconsistent stories, that`s where the case comes undone, I think, for her.

The other huge difference is that the jury in the Casey Anthony case was sequestered. It had no opportunity to hear any other outside information, and of course, that`s always something you have to do in a high-profile case.

VELEZ-MITCHELL: But this jury is not supposed to be reading the newspaper during their 12-day break.

KAVINOKY: They never are. They never are, and guess what? Sometimes they do.

VELEZ-MITCHELL: That`s not -- that`s not playing by the rules.

All right. On the other side of the break, we`re going to talk to Nathan Lezniewicz. He is a roommate -- he had been a roommate of Tony Lazarro, who dated of course, Casey Anthony. Does he see parallels in how Casey Anthony lies and how Jodi Arias lies, on the other side?



CASEY ANTHONY: Can someone let me -- come on.

CINDY ANTHONY, MOTHER OF CASEY: Casey, come on, sweetheart, settle down.

CASEY ANTHONY: Nobody is letting me speak. You want me to talk. Give me three seconds to say something. I`m not in control of any of this, because I don`t know what the hell is going on.

ARIAS: I would never stab him. If -- if I had it in me anywhere to kill him, the least I could have done was make it as humane as possible, quick or something, you know?


VELEZ-MITCHELL: Jodi and Casey should both be nominated for an Oscar.

Want to go to Nathan Lezniewicz. Thank you so much for joining us and sharing your insights. You knew Casey Anthony, because you were a roommate of Tony Lazarro. Casey dated Tony.


VELEZ-MITCHELL: You had an opportunity to really see Casey Anthony, hear her, and get a sense of who she was. Do you see parallels between the way that Jodi Arias lies and the way Casey Anthony lies?

LEZNIEWICZ: You know, as I`m looking at the Jodi case, and as I`ve been watching her in the courtroom and everything, and looking at some of those tapes, the interrogation tapes, then yes, you can definitely see a parallel in the line.

The way she told the first story about she wasn`t there to begin with, you know, then changed it to the next story about the masked men and that, and then she finally come out and did it, there is a difference there. I mean, Casey had never admitted to ever doing it, to ever killing Caylee Anthony, but Casey told a very, you know -- a series of very thought-out lies.

When you see Jodi acting out the masked gunman scene, remember when Casey said that she worked at Universal. I mean, she went as far as taking the police all the way out to Universal and walking them into Universal before saying, "Oh, yes, I don`t actually work here anymore."

VELEZ-MITCHELL: Well, look at these two, wearing the same kinds of shirts in court. This is what`s so fascinating. They`re both crying, and they are both wearing these what I would call librarian, Marion the librarian outfits.


VELEZ-MITCHELL: And so this is not the Casey you knew, right, wearing a pastel yellow shirt with her hair pulled back, looking like she could be taking books out of the library?

LEZNIEWICZ: No, no, ma`am. I think Casey was -- you know, I mean, she didn`t run around improperly dressed, but she was not the librarian type, and I don`t think this Jodi Arias is the librarian type either. And I think that they`re using that.

Remember the Casey Anthony case. I don`t think that she got off so much on a lack of evidence as much as a jury unwilling to sentence the librarian to life in prison or the death penalty. And I think that that is the angle that she`s going for in this case, Jodi is, with that look. It`s playing on that jury`s heart strings. I mean, cute, sweet, innocent old me could not have possibly done this.

VELEZ-MITCHELL: I agree with you. And I`ll never forget that moment after Casey was acquitted of the most serious charge of killing her daughter, and she comes out. And remember, her hair is down, and she looks like she`s going to a rock concert, Nathan, after the jury has no more power to do anything to her. Do you remember that?

LEZNIEWICZ: Yes, ma`am. Yes, ma`am, I do. And that was -- you know, that was Casey coming out of the courtroom. That was the Casey, not the Casey in the courtroom.

And the same thing here with Jodi. And the only thing that Jodi has working against her at this point was the severe backlash from the public in general that Casey Anthony was not convicted. So the public has had an opportunity to view all of that, and these jurors were well aware of that case, and they got to see all that. And you wonder if they`re still not outraged from the Casey Anthony trial that could make its way into this particular trial.

VELEZ-MITCHELL: You know, that is a fascinating point, and I`m so glad you brought that up. Could it bleed over -- and I don`t like to use the word `bleed` because these are gruesome cases -- could the spillover of the outrage from Casey Anthony being acquitted impact negatively this defendant, so that essentially this jury will not buy this act? Great question. More on the other side.



UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Who has her? Do you have a name?

CASEY ANTHONY, ACQUITTED OF DAUGHTER`S DEATH: Her name is Zenaida Fernandez Gonzales.

JODI ARIAS, ON TRIAL FOR TRAVIS ALEXANDER`S MURDER: I just wanted to offer any assistance. I was a really good friend of Travis.

ANTHONY: I still have that feeling, that presence. I know that she`s alive.

ESTEBAN FLORES, POLICE DETECTIVE: Jodi, this is over. This is absolutely over. You need to tell me the truth.

ARIAS: Listen, the truth is I did not hurt Travis.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: For years she pretended she had a job and pretended she had a nanny.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Jodi did not always tell the truth.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: I am very confident just by having talked to you in this short period of time that you know where she`s.

ANTHONY: I don`t.


ANTHONY: I have no clue where she is.


ANTHONY: If I knew in any sense where she was, this wouldn`t happen.


JANE VELEZ-MITCHELL, HLN HOST: Will the outrage over Casey Anthony`s acquittal impact this woman who is now on trial for the murder of her ex- boyfriend, Travis Alexander?

Jodi Arias at first denied, proved to be a very prolific, pathological liar. Then she said yes, I was there that night. But two ninjas burst in and they`re the ones who sliced Travis Alexander`s throat and stabbed him.

But you could see here that this photo which was taken just a little while before she kills him -- and there were other photos as well of Travis naked -- you have to wonder is sex a wild card in this trial. Remember, Jodi`s former flame Ryan Burns says -- he said -- he testified that just a couple days, less than a couple days after she kills Travis, they`re making out. She goes and visits a work colleague of the victim and makes out with him, and she was really into it.


RYAN BURNS, FORMER WORKMATE OF TRAVIS ALEXANDER: I never touched her breasts or nothing like that. At one point I had my hands on her thighs. She was, you know, things were -- she definitely seemed to be into the moment.


VELEZ-MITCHELL: The jurors literally saw every inch of Jodi in this trial. These x-rated, kinky photos remind me of Casey Anthony`s party pics, a little girl on girl dancing, going on. Do sexy images like these sway the jury?

We are back with Nathan Lezniewicz who knew Casey Anthony, because he was a roommate of Tony Lazzaro who Casey Anthony dated. Nathan, do you think Casey`s sex appeal unconsciously impacted the jurors in Casey`s case where they ultimately let her off on the big charge?

NATHAN LEZNIEWICZ, KNEW CASEY ANTHONY: I don`t think so. I don`t think it worked against her. I mean I don`t think that her clothes and her sexy behavior worked against her. I don`t think it will work against Jodi in this case. I mean any time you flip on the TV, we are constantly inundated with that. So I don`t think that we are as sensitive to those things as we were, say 20 or 30 years ago. I don`t think that factors as much into a jury, her behavior because I think that`s kind of commonplace amongst that age group these days.

VELEZ-MITCHELL: Well, you raise a very good point.

Joey Jackson, I was asking him could the sex appeal of the defendants give them a better chance. He certainly answered one part of the question saying well, it is certainly not going to hurt them. Because everybody knows as they say, what`s the matter with kids today, right? They always behave a little bit more advanced or sophisticated or promiscuous than the adults would want them to behave so that there`s sort of a built in understanding that these things will happen in terms of them going out or naked photos or things of that nature.


VELEZ-MITCHELL: But maybe not. There could be some prudes on the Jodi Arias jury -- there`s 11 men and seven women and so you`ve got to wonder, is this sex appeal, which I call the wild card, going to help Jodi or hurt her? Did it help Casey? Obviously it did.

JACKSON: You know what, Jane, it is a fair point. I think it does because we as attorneys in a courtroom are always paranoid about our clients, how they dress, how they present themselves, their demeanor, their reactions to testimony and so certainly you would think that the nature of how she looks, how she appears, and the appeal she gives off would be something that could be potentially beneficial.

The problem though, Jane, is the evidence is so compelling, and you know, she`s already admitted to doing it, she`s just attempting to justify why she did it. I think it overcomes that, and ultimately, regardless, Jane, they convict.

VELEZ-MITCHELL: All right. Let`s go to the phone lines. Christine, North Carolina -- your question or thought.

CHRISTINE, NORTH CAROLINA (via telephone): Hey, Jane --


CHRISTINE: Love you and Rico.


CHRISTINE: I just want to -- I have two comments real quick because I have been thinking about the last couple days.


CHRISTINE: First of all -- and it is funny because you made fun of her doing the back bend in the interrogation room.


CHRISTINE: That was seductive.

VELEZ-MITCHELL: Seductive you feel?



CHRISTINE: I don`t believe it was yoga.

And my other thing is, you know, people haven`t talked about that men have gone through domestic violence also.

VELEZ-MITCHELL: Oh, absolutely. I mean Darren Kavinoky, there could be no worse example of domestic violence than a girlfriend, somebody you just had sex with slashing your throat, stabbing you 29 times, and shooting you.

By the way, this is the clip that this lovely lady from North Carolina was referring to, Jodi being interrogated by cops. She was so cool, calm, collected -- she did this, well, this woman says it is seductive. I agree with her, I think it might be an attempt to seduce the detectives.

DARREN KAVINOKY, ATTORNEY: Maybe and completely inappropriate in that context just like the dress and demeanor in the courtroom. You know, it is so fascinating talking about the sexuality component of it all. I think the biggest danger in all of that is the inauthenticity that`s revealed, the disconnect between how she showed up in all those photos versus how she shows up dressed as you described it, as a librarian in the courtroom.

There`s something there where it is almost like we`re witnessing a lie in action. It is one thing, all the lies she told in the interview process. There`s a lie that`s actually being perpetrated right there in real time in the courtroom. Although one part of it --


VELEZ-MITCHELL: In a way, it is almost like Jodi Arias is already thinking about the made for TV movie that`s going to be made about her case because there`s a made for TV movie about Casey Anthony`s case that airs tomorrow. And Rob Lowe who plays the prosecutor, Jeff Ashton, isn`t the only familiar face in the new Lifetime movie prosecuting Casey Anthony. I think you might recognize somebody else, too.


VELEZ-MITCHELL: Casey Anthony`s trial turning into a huge dramatic production. And will Casey`s attorney, Jose Baez even be allowed to defend her? Reports say he doesn`t have the experience required by the Florida bar to defend a death penalty case.


VELEZ-MITCHELL: And that reminds me, Nathan, of all the people said Jose Baez is an idiot, he is over his head. And yet at the end of the day, he got the acquittal. I find that nobody can predict what`s going to happen with these cases, Nathan.

LEZNIEWICZ: No ma`am, you`re exactly right. Nobody can predict what happened. What you were saying back before with the sexiness -- could that play in her favor there in the courtroom, you have to remember that what her defense is also, her defense is that she was abused. I don`t know how well that will sit in the minds of 11 male jurors, the abuse from the boyfriend. It might help her out, but they might see her in all the lies and go now you`re lying about this, too.

VELEZ-MITCHELL: That`s true.

LEZNIEWICZ: And I don`t know that -- I don`t know if the sex appeal can overcome that also.

VELEZ-MITCHELL: All right. Jason Lamm, your thoughts?

JASON LAMM, CRIMINAL DEFENSE ATTORNEY: You know, the fact of the matter is Jodi Arias has to take the stand. And she can sit in court, she can look like a librarian, and doesn`t matter at the end of the day if she`s a princess or a prostitute. This jury is going to judge the evidence in front of them.

At the end of the day, she`s going to have to get up on that witness stand. There are two people that were there that day that Travis Alexander was killed, one is dead. And under Arizona law, she, Jodi Arias is going to have to testify how she was in fear for her life and that`s why she took Travis Alexander`s. That`s just to get the ball rolling.

But like I said, the problem is she has told so many stories already, hey the jury is not going to know what to believe.

VELEZ-MITCHELL: All right. Thank you so much. Fantastic panel and Nathan. We`re going to stay all over the latest developments in the Jodi Arias trial.

Top of the hour, Nancy Grace with the best moments from the trial this week, "NANCY GRACE MYSTERIES" tonight at 8:00 on HLN.


VELEZ-MITCHELL: Time for our must-see video of the day. Got to warn you, this is disturbing. Philadelphia subway station; a man borrows a lighter from a woman and then punches her in the face repeatedly then grabs her by the ankles and literally tosses her into the train tracks. Thank God a train wasn`t coming at that very second or she`d be dead. She was able to get off the tracks, back on the platform and she`s ok tonight. He has been arrested, thank gosh.



UNIDENTIFIED MALE: We received a whistleblower communication. The university was starting up its maternal deprivation work again.


VELEZ-MITCHELL: Tonight, growing controversy in America over primate experimentation in general. There`s been repeated attempts for example to pass the Great Ape Protection Act that would essentially ban research on great apes. And recently, a committee of the well-respected Institute of Medicine concluded most chimp experiments are now unnecessary.

The video you`re looking at gives you a glimpse into what we`re talking about. It is the issue of primates used for experiments in labs. But this video is not of the specific experiment at the University of Wisconsin-Madison that had some outraged.

There, baby monkeys are being separated from their mothers right after birth and later reportedly subjected to scary tests to provoke fear and anxiety and then they`re killed and dissected and their brains are studied. We would be happy to show you that video but the university declined to provide it.

Now look, everybody knows I`m an animal advocate. But tonight my role is to moderate our debate. On one side, Eric Sandgren, director of Research Animal Resources Center at the University of Wisconsin-Madison where the baby monkey experiments are being done.

On the other side, Rick Bogle of Madison, Wisconsin`s Alliance for Animals who has organized a campaign to stop these experiments, asking alumni at UW-Madison not to donate to the university until these monkey experiments are stopped.

So Eric, let`s begin with you. Tell us why you`re doing the experiments. What`s being done to these baby monkeys? How many are being used?

ERIC SANDGREN, UNIVERSITY OF WISCONSIN-MADISON: All right, thanks. I would like to start by talking about the procedure which seems to be so controversial, and in many cases in the laboratory and even in the wild for that matter, a mother monkey will reject its baby. When that happens in the wild, it will probably die, in the laboratory we try not to let that happen. We will give it to a foster mother. If there`s not a foster mother available, then we raise it in the nursery just as you raise a baby kitten if the mother wasn`t available. The animal is raised in a nursery until it can regulate its own temperature and then it is housed with another young monkey. And that happens anywhere from three to six weeks of age. It stays with that monkey for the rest of its life.

So that is the experimental procedure being used in this case. It is not as good for the offspring as being raised with a mother, but it is really not any different than something that`s used as part of standard husbandry when a mother rejects its baby. To us it doesn`t seem severe.

VELEZ-MITCHELL: Rick, why have you organized this campaign to stop these baby monkey experiments.

RICK BOGLE, ALLIANCE FOR ANIMALS: Well, this (inaudible) hasn`t been used for research at the University of Wisconsin basically since the days of (inaudible). I think that one thing that Dr. Sandgren said wasn`t quite accurate when this study came up for review in front of the oversight committees, two of the committee`s -- members of the committees spoke out in alarm and said that they considered this was a severe thing to be doing to these baby monkeys.

So to say that this is no different than just normal laboratory practices is really misleading. We know that monkeys that are -- infant monkeys that are taken away from their parents, from their mothers can start self-biting, self-mutilating within 35 days. Some of these monkeys are going to be left isolated, totally alone for up to 42 days.

We think that probably by the time they start biting themselves, they`ve already been severely traumatized and stressed. So -- and then they are going to take them over the next year and they`re going to frighten them repeatedly. So we think that there`s no reason to be doing this. The people we talked to, the experts in pediatric psychiatrists say that this has no likelihood of helping children at all.

VELEZ-MITCHELL: In this University of Wisconsin-Madison document, and I`m quoting the -- what does it say here -- protocol review. "At birth" -- this is a quote -- "At birth, infants will be removed from their mothers and placed immediately in an incubator with a surrogate stuffed animal, towel and/or blankets." It says, "Infants will form attachment bonds to these bonds which provide contact comfort as early as day one of life.

Now Matt Rozell of Animal Defenders International who`ve studied Rhesus monkeys in laboratory situations tells us a stuffed animal cannot replicate a mother`s love, adding the worst form of torture for humans is isolation and these primates suffer similarly.

Eric, your response and why.

SANDGREN: Ok, so this is not isolation. Isolation is when there`s nothing else with the monkey. Isolation would mean that there was not interaction with the animal care takers that deal with it all the time. So it is not isolation in that sense.

The why I think is a very important question, and that has to do with the character of anxiety disorders in this country. 50 million people have anxiety disorders in the country, those are adults. Generally those develop early in life -- most of them due to adverse events when the human individual is young. Also there`s a strong genetic component.

If we want to treat this effectively, we have to understand how this comes about. In order to understand how it comes about, we can`t just look at the behaviors, we have to understand the mechanisms, have to understand if it is based --

VELEZ-MITCHELL: All right, we`re going to take a brief break. When we come back, we`re going to talk about whether studying monkeys can help us with humans, whether it is apples and oranges as some critics claim. Stay right there.



UNIDENTIFIED MALE: This is Kim, number 16569. Depression, aggressive behavior and self-mutilation are industry buzz words that describe the behaviors of monkeys gone mad from isolation and boredom.


VELEZ-MITCHELL: That`s not the experiment that we`re talking about but we`re giving you a sense of the generic issue of animal experimentation, particularly primates. Here is a clip from "In Defense of Animals" about a monkey being frightened by a tiny airplane as part of a scientific experiment.


UNIDENTIFIED MALE: First (inaudible) a large piece of hardware, a transmitter and heart monitor under the skin of their backs. Then these young monkeys are returned to their outdoor enclosure and (inaudible) lab workers scare the monkeys by flying a remote control airplane over its head while monitoring their heart rates.


VELEZ-MITCHELL: Again, this video is not from the University of Wisconsin-Madison. Critics say it applies in that it`s a primate being subjected to scare tactics and instead of tiny airplanes UW-Madison is using snakes, live snakes, to instill fear.

The Humane Society of the United States says it has quote, "deep concerns about maternal deprivation experiments on monkeys including those being conducted at the University of Wisconsin for decades. We have seen the purposeful suffering inflicted upon animals in this type of research and at enormous cost to taxpayers. It`s time to move away from these experiments and spend our money on better research so that we can truly address anxiety and depression in our children."

Eric, maternal deprivation was reportedly done at your university many decades ago and it was eventually stopped. Your response to critics who say you`re going backwards.

SANDGREN: We`re not at all going backwards. For one thing this is not the kind of maternal changes that were in effect a long time ago. This is a very much milder change. It produces an increase in anxiety but it doesn`t interfere with the ability of the animals for example to interact with other monkeys and form social bonds.

The key is the reason we`re doing this and the reason we`re doing this is to find out what part of the brains are affected when an individual was anxious and to find out what chemicals in the brain are involved it in that. Once we have that information we can develop a rational treatment. That`s how drugs work. They target chemicals in the brain or in other parts of the body. That`s the point. So it`s very much moving forward.

VELEZ-MITCHELL: Ok. Again these photos are not of the experiment we`re talking about. These are other experiments involving monkeys. Rick Bogle, your response?

BOGLE: Well, I think that Eric`s misleading you. The idea that we`re going to study the brains of monkeys and come up with some sort of magic pill that`s going to solve the problems that Dr. (inaudible) himself says he`s trying to get a cure or prevent is just absurd. He says it`s everything -- it`s sexual abuse, physical abuse, neglect, poor parenting.

The list of things that he says that this new molecular pathways that he claims he`ll be able to discover and create a medication to treat are so far reaching that anybody that looks at it, I think, would just understand immediately that it`s just pie in the sky.

VELEZ-MITCHELL: On the other side of the break, final arguments.


VELEZ-MITCHELL: UW Madison says it hopes to develop new treatments to deal with anxiety and depression that start in childhood. Critics say you`re not going to gain any useful information from baby monkeys because it`s apples to oranges. That you cannot learn about human children being subjected to physical or sexual abuse or drug addiction or alcoholic parents, or being sent to a foster home -- real world problems -- by taking baby monkeys and scaring them with snakes.

Animal Defenders International says "torturing baby monkeys is not going to benefit people."

So I want to go to final arguments. Let`s start with Eric. What`s your response to the critics that say these should be ended, these tests?

SANDGREN: Well, if they want to end them because they think they won`t allow us to learn anything, they`re mistaken. The monkey and the human are very similar in this respect. And we`ve already learned a tremendous amount about human anxiety and its mechanisms. And actually I think there`s a very good possibility that this will allow us to come up with some sort of a magic bullet that can treat a large fraction of the anxiety in human patients in this population and let`s come back in ten years and find out.


BOGLE: So right now there`s baby monkeys huddling in their small incubators and they`re going to be left there for weeks on end and then ahead of them is just a year of being frightened, serial tests and spinal taps and I hope people will get involved and call the university and go to the Web site and get involved and try to put an end to this once and for all.

VELEZ-MITCHELL: You`ve heard both sides. One thing I can say unequivocally, baby monkeys cannot speak for themselves. They are close to humans but they are definitely not that close.

Thank you, viewers, for participating in this important debate. It`s something that we all need to think about.

Nancy`s next.