Return to Transcripts main page

Anderson Cooper 360 Degrees

Terror Attack in Afghanistan; Casey Anthony Murder Trial Continues

Aired June 28, 2011 - 22:00   ET


ANDERSON COOPER, CNN ANCHOR: Good evening, everyone.

We begin tonight with breaking news: a daring deadly suicide bombing attack on a hotel in Kabul, the Intercontinental, frequented by Westerners, six attackers in all, at least one blowing himself up. There you see the hotel still on fire -- the others spreading mayhem and murder for hour after hour until NATO choppers picked off three of them on the hotel roof and other security forces cleared the hotel.

Right now, all six bombers are reported dead. As for other fatalities, that is unclear.

Reporter Erin Cunningham managed to get close to the scene. He (sic) joins us now by phone.

What kind of details are we getting now about -- about how this attack played out?

ERIN CUNNINGHAM, JOURNALIST: Well, what it looks like is the Taliban fighters launched an assault on the hotels in which at least one blew themselves up at the front gate in order to allow the other gunmen to enter.

After that, they took positions on the roof of the hotel, where they were engaged in an hour-long gun battle with the Afghan police. Later on, the Afghan national army arrived at the scene, stormed the hotel and evacuated many of the guests.

It's unclear right now how many guests were actually staying at the hotel at the time. However, there were RPGs being launched, artillery fire. And it finally concluded with NATO attack helicopters coming to engage the insurgents on the roof.

COOPER: And, Erin, this clearly has hallmarks of other attacks that we have seen, even in Kabul itself and in Pakistan, small groups of gunmen, suicide bombers invading facilities and basically shooting who they can, blowing people up, and trying to create as much mayhem as possible. It also kind of echoes back to the Mumbai attacks in India.

What does it say the fact that this had to be brought to an end essentially by NATO helicopters and that Afghan security forces in the capital didn't seem up to the job of doing this themselves?


I think that's a major concern right now and a question that has to be answered by the Afghan security forces in the coming days as it becomes more clear how this attack unfolded. Now, the attack itself, while spectacular, isn't necessarily a strategic gain for the Taliban.

The Taliban cannot take the city, per se, but they can launch these high-profile attacks that draw a lot of attention. And then it falls on the Afghan security forces to end it quickly. So -- but there is still that divide between the Afghan security forces being able to stave off an attack and actually end it without calling on NATO for help.

COOPER: And you have an update on the death toll?

CUNNINGHAM: I just spoke with the Afghan -- the Kabul chief of police, rather, who said that 10 people were killed, but he did not distinguish between civilians and security forces. But this is in addition to the six attackers that were killed.

COOPER: Erin Cunningham, appreciate it. Stay say. Thanks, Erin.

"Keeping Them Honest" now in a story we first brought you last night, a story that is not going away because it concerns Michele Bachmann, a leading presidential contender, whose answers to some important questions are either incomplete, mistaken or flat-out wrong.

As you probably know, Congresswoman Michele Bachmann has built her political career campaigning against big government, and it's a platform she's now running on. But according to her own financial statements, Bachmann has personally benefited over the years from one of the biggest of big-government programs.

She denies it, despite what's written on her own congressional disclosure forms. Now, we have noticed that when confronted with those facts, the congresswoman dodges the question or tries to change the subject.

Watch what happened today when our producer Peter Hamby caught up with her in Myrtle Beach, South Carolina.


REP. MICHELE BACHMANN (R-MN), PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: And, again, we have answered that question so many times and everyone's tired of it, because at this point what we do know to be true is that my husband and I have never taken a dime. The farm belongs to my father-in-law.

People are interested in big issues. This is a big campaign. And so that's a talking point for the Democrat Party, and there's nothing to it. We have never gotten a dime.

(END VIDEO CLIP) COOPER: Never gotten a dime, she says. It's a talking point for the Democrats. It's basically the same answer she gave to FOX News over the weekend, although she said she didn't even get a penny, I believe it was.

She said even less to CBS News. Yet on several accounts, her answers simply do not seem to square with her own financial disclosures. The farm in question belonged to her late father-in-law. But according to "The Los Angeles Times," records show Congresswoman Bachmann is a partner in the company Bachmann Farm Family L.P. -- Limited Partnership.

They still own the land, which is now being farmed by others. When her father-in-law was farming on it, records show the company in which Michele Bachmann reportedly was a partner of got more than $145,000 in corn subsidies between 1995 and 2007, more than $105,000 in dairy program subsidies for the same period, 7,300 in livestock subsidies, all of this according to the Environmental Working Group, which gets its numbers straight from the Agriculture Department.

So that's more than a quarter million dollars in federal subsidies, big-government intervention in the free market, perfectly legal, of course, and no different from many other farmers. But remember the congresswoman opposed government intervention to bail out Detroit. She opposes the Affordable Health Care Act, Obamacare, as big-government intrusion into the free market.

Yet for years, she's been OK with government price supports and subsidies on the farm. Bachmann's own congressional financial disclosure form reveal she received between $32,000 and $105,000 of income from Bachmann Farm Family L.P. between 2006 and 2009.

Now, we can't say for sure about 2007 because the form is illegible. And we don't know about any farther back because the disclosure form only covers her time in Congress. So, when the congresswoman says she has never gotten a dime from the farm, she's contradicting her own disclosure filings.

It's possible her disclosure filings have been wrong year after year or maybe her recollection is wrong. In any case, you saw what happened when we asked her about it this evening. We invited her on the program tonight. She declined. Did the same thing last night.

She did, however, appear on all five morning network shows today, where not a single interviewer asked her directly about her family farm and her statements about it.

Sunday, when CBS' Bob Schieffer asked the right question, he got even less of an answer than we did, as Bachmann simply changed the subject. Watch.


BOB SCHIEFFER, HOST, "FACE THE NATION": What about farm subsidies? You benefit from farm subsidies on your family farm. Do you think we ought to think about cutting those back? BACHMANN: Well, I think everything needs to be on the table right now, every part of government. I will tell you one thing that should be on the table. Under Barack Obama the last two years, the number of federal limousines for bureaucrats has increased 73 percent in two years. I can't think of anything more reprehensible than seeing bureaucrats on their cell phones in the back -- 73 percent increase in the number of federal limousines in the last two years, for heaven's sakes.

SCHIEFFER: But, Congresswoman, you're not seriously saying that eliminating limousine service is anywhere equal to reducing farm subsidies?

BACHMANN: What I'm saying is that I think that's an easy one that we need to do. Clearly President Obama is not serious about cutting spending.


COOPER: Well, joining us now is chief political analyst Gloria Borger Erick Erickson, editor in chief of

Gloria, when it comes to income from her family's farm, the congresswoman says one thing. Her financial forms say another. They could be wrong or she could be wrong.


COOPER: Can she continue doing that or sort of dodging the questions, or will she have to explain the discrepancy at some point?

BORGER: She's going -- at some point she's going to have to do it, Anderson. And we will continue asking the questions, not because you want to play gotcha, but because when you're a presidential candidate, trust matters.

And these things can come back to haunt you. People want answers to these questions. Voting for president is a very personal vote. And I think back to the 2006 campaign, when Barack Obama -- when Senator Barack Obama was thinking about running, I should say, in 2006, he had a questionable land deal.

He came out and said it was a bone-headed mistake. And, Anderson, the 2008 campaign, it still came back to haunt him. Hillary Clinton asked about it. So you can be sure that other Republicans, if she gets a lot of traction, are going also to start asking her questions about this because it matters, because she's campaigned against big government.

And if she is in fact benefiting from big government, she ought to tell people exactly what occurred. And if she has a good explanation for it, give it.

COOPER: Erick, do you think it matters? Because you could say, well, look, it's not a lot of money over the course of several years, and this is nitpicking. ERICK ERICKSON, EDITOR IN CHIEF, REDSTATE.COM: You know, I do think it matters.

In fact, a number of conservatives I have talked to in the past year, when she first started hinting about this, this was the issue they raised. But, Anderson, I have got to tell you, listening to this report, when I was a lawyer, I dealt in some of these issues. And if it was a limited partnership and she was a limited partner, she couldn't have declined them if the general partner, who I assume was the father-in-law, wanted them.

And also it's not a well-known fact, but it is, in fact, a fact, that if the limited partnership was renting land to another farmer who took ag subsidies, those ag subsidies were attributed to the owner of the land, not the person leasing the land. So that could be it. She's going to have to explain what the issue it.

There may be no "there" there.

COOPER: Right.

BORGER: Right.

ERICKSON: She did vote to end ag subsidies, even though she apparently was getting money for them, which is commendable. But she definitely needs to do a detailed answer on this.

COOPER: Yes. I believe the time in question is when her father- in-law was actually operating the farm. I think it's now operated by somebody else.

But, Gloria, Bachmann's former chief of staff said today that she's not qualified to be president and endorsed Tim Pawlenty instead.

BORGER: Right.

COOPER: How much stock can you put on a former employee saying something like that? Or do we know the track record of this person? Did they end badly?

BORGER: Well, yes, he's a Pawlenty guy. And you can always come out and say, as Sarah Palin did of those former McCain aides, well, they just didn't like me and that's why they're saying these things about me.

But he's not just saying that Tim Pawlenty is -- is more qualified on the issues or I agree with him on the issues. He was quite specific about it. He called her campaign offices wildly out of control and said that she was without any leadership experience or real results from her years in office.

Experience is really an important issue this year for Republicans, because they claim that Barack Obama's problem was that he had no experience. And so they say they need to run somebody who can show that they have the experience to lead that Barack Obama did not have. So, this is a pretty strong criticism. COOPER: And, Erick, do you think she could be the Republican nominee?

ERICKSON: You know, if I had to call the race today, Anderson, probably not.

But she's making some impressive gains in places I wouldn't think she would make gains. There's a poll out today she's ahead of Romney in Oregon. I think ultimately what's going to happen is what so often happens with meteoric rises, is there's also going to be a meteoric crash when the other candidates decide to pile on her.

It's going to happen to Romney. It will happen to her. There will be a huge pile-on, not by the media, but by Republicans.

COOPER: And, Erick, what does this do to Sarah Palin? I mean, I know Palin is in Iowa for the premiere of this new movie about her called "The Undefeated."



COOPER: But what do you think this means for Sarah Palin?

ERICKSON: Well, you know, I realize there are a lot of Palin fans out there who think Palin is the only person who can get into the race. But there are a lot of people who aren't necessarily against Palin, but are thinking, well, what's the rationale for her to get in it? If Rick Perry, the governor of Texas, gets in as well, there becomes a decreasing rationale for her to get in.

Now, I got a preview of the movie. And I understand why the campaign is doing this. They want to rehabilitate her image. If it works, maybe she will get in. But I got to think there are not a lot of people who are suspicious of Palin or not already her fans who are going to pay to get a movie ticket and go see this movie.

COOPER: It's also interesting, Gloria, because Sarah Palin is sort of, for some, sucking up the oxygen in early-voting states before the rest of the Republican field can really get a foothold.

BORGER: Right. Yes. She goes to New Hampshire the day Mitt Romney announces. She goes to Iowa the day after Michele Bachmann announces.

You know, I think she's become sort of the political equivalent of a wedding crasher. She's kind of going to these parties that these people don't really want her at. And that's because I think -- and I still believe she's not going to run. Maybe Bristol Palin will tell us, because she says she knows.

I still think she's not going to run, but she wants to be kingmaker. And I think one way to do that is to convince Republicans that you're still relevant to the party, beyond tweeting now and then. And I think that's what this is all about. COOPER: Gloria, Erick Erickson, I appreciate it. Thanks very much.


COOPER: Let us know what you think. We're on Facebook or follow me on Twitter @AndersonCooper. I will try to be tweeting in the hour ahead.

Up next: a remarkable new appearance by Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords and a true dilemma in the case of the alleged gunman, Jared Loughner. Can he be forced to take drugs to make him mentally fit enough to stand trial? What does the law say? What do doctors say? We're going to get a ruling by a judge tomorrow. Tonight, Sunny Hostin and Dr. Sanjay Gupta join me to discuss it

And later: more eye-opening testimony in the Casey Anthony trial, including the meter-reader who found little Caylee's body and whether he contaminated evidence by touching her body. Also, Casey's dad back on the stand, answering allegations about an affair -- details about.


COOPER: Two major developments at this hour in Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords' recovery and the fate of her alleged gunman, Jared Lee Loughner.

There are two -- these are the two most recent photos that we have of the congresswoman, shortly before she underwent surgery to replace a portion of her skull. Now, we don't have photos of her latest milestone. She made a surprise appearance last night at a NASA event in Houston honoring her husband, astronaut -- astronaut Mark Kelly.

Now, meantime, in Southern California, a court is set for tomorrow for Jared Loughner. He's going to get a hearing. You will recall he's being treated in a federal psychiatric hospital in Missouri after a judge ruled him mentally incompetent to stand trial.

Now, lawyers want to stop doctors -- his lawyers want to stop doctors from being able to forcibly give him psychotropic drugs that could restore him to competency, that could treat his schizophrenia.

Now, this raises all kinds of medical, ethical, and legal questions. I spoke about all of these earlier with Sunny Hostin of "In Session" of truTV and 360 M.D. Sanjay Gupta.


COOPER: So, Sanjay, what do we know about Loughner's current mental state? Has anything changed since he was declared unfit to stand trial back in May?

DR. SANJAY GUPTA, CNN SENIOR MEDICAL CORRESPONDENT: It really doesn't sound like it. It sounds like, obviously, he's been in the hospital. There's been this -- most recently this question of medicating him. And that is sort of what prompted this entire discussion now about whether or not he could be medicated.

But it sounds like he still has some of the same issues that have led to this hospitalization in the first place, you know, having sort of the schizophrenic, paranoid delusional sort of behavior, not being in touch with reality, and unable to confer or actually have conversations with his lawyers that are meaningful.

COOPER: And how successful are antipsychotic medications with behavior that -- you know, he was throwing a chair, spit on his lawyers?

GUPTA: Well, it can be very effective, in fact. This whole idea of putting someone back in touch with reality, making them more cognizant, organizing their thinking in some ways, there's been plenty of evidence now to show that these medications can do this.

These sort of outbursts that he had in a courtroom at the time that we heard about and then most recently with the throwing of the chairs and the spitting on the lawyers, those sorts of violent outbursts can also be tempered to some degree by these medications.

So there is a -- there is a pretty long history. And, again, my understanding is that the medications were just tried over a few days, so there hasn't been enough evidence in his case specifically to say how they would work.

COOPER: Legally and ethically, it's kind of a dilemma, because on the one hand, his defense attorneys are saying, well look, you guys basically want to medicate him, so that he then can stand trial and possibly be killed by the state or -- I mean, with the death penalty.


COOPER: But prison officials do have the right, if they say, and if there's an administrative hearing that agrees, that the person is a danger to himself or to others.

HOSTIN: That's right.

I mean, in 2003, the Supreme Court sort of laid out the rules as to when you can forcibly medicate someone, because that's a serious thing. I think most people are very uncomfortable with forcing medication on prisoners. One way to do it is, you have this full- blown hearing. The defendant is represented by counsel and you make that determination.

COOPER: In a court.

HOSTIN: In a court.

The other way is to have an administrative hearing where the defendant isn't represented by counsel, but is represented by a staff representative. That is apparently what happened here. The Bureau of Prisons had this administrative hearing. There was a staff representative. But my understanding is that staff representative didn't say anything on Loughner's behalf, and Loughner was in fact acting -- or rather asking for his attorneys.

COOPER: The defense is saying that, look, that basically the prison is just making an end run, that they're using this administrative hearing, saying he's a danger to others, but they're saying there are plenty of people who have done worse things and have not been forcibly medicated.

HOSTIN: Right. And that's the problem with the Supreme Court decision. There's a bit of wiggle room. How do you define a danger to others, especially in a case like Loughner's, who is in isolation? He's by himself.

And after six months, all he has done is spit on his attorneys, which is not a great thing, but he did that, and he tossed around a plastic chair twice. Does that equal dangerous under the Supreme Court ruling? I think there's wiggle room there, and that's what the defense is arguing.

COOPER: Sanjay, where does the medical community come in or fall when it comes to forcing an inmate or a patient to take drugs against their will that will then lead to them to be put on trial, where they could face the death penalty?

GUPTA: The duality of it is that you obviously want to treat the person and help them get better, but it is the possibility that that -- them getting better could lead them to stand trial and possibly face death.

I think the medical community as a whole, it's -- you know, it's a hot-button issue. I think more so, people would fall down on this idea that you can't mandate or force treatment certainly in competent people, and in people who are deemed to be not competent, that they have some sort of person who is speaking on their behalf or a family member or something, and that person would be making decisions, as opposed to a third party altogether.

COOPER: Sonny, you think the judge is going to come down tomorrow on the side of the government, saying he can be forcibly medicated?

HOSTIN: I think it's very possible, because he will be in legal limbo otherwise, right? That's sort of what Sanjay is saying. If he isn't made competent and he can't aid his defense and he doesn't understand the legal proceedings against him, then he's in a mental hospital for how long? Until he's competent? Forever.

And so I think the judge will take that very seriously. We know there's going to be a hearing tomorrow about 2:00 in San Diego, California, and the judge will listen to arguments from both sides. Even though both sides have argued this on paper, apparently the judge thinks this is serious enough to have actually a hearing on it.

COOPER: Sunny Hostin, thanks.

Sanjay Gupta as well -- Sanjay, thanks.

GUPTA: Thank you.


COOPER: We're following a lot more tonight. Tom Foreman joins us with a quick 360 bulletin -- Tom.


A mass protest in Cairo turned violent, leaving at least 31 people wounded. Police fired tear gas and rubber bullets to break up about 1,000 people who gathered in Tahrir Square early Wednesday. Many of them were relatives of those killed earlier this year in the uprising that drove Hosni Mubarak from power.

In Greece, riot police fired tear gas to disperse thousands of protesters on day one of a two-day strike that shut down government offices, schools and some transportation systems across the country in Greece. The protesters are rallying against a vote scheduled for Wednesday that would cut government spending and raise taxes.

Greece has to pass the measure in order to secure the last $17 billion of a bailout from other European nations and to avoid a default on its debt payments.

French Finance Minister Christine Lagarde has been voted in as the new head of the new International Monetary Fund. Lagarde succeeds Dominique Strauss-Kahn, who was arrested in New York last month on sexual assault charges. She's the first woman to run the IMF.

And look at this. A teenager survived a 20-foot fall -- there he is on the right -- from an escalator in a Boston subway station. The 18-year-old was caught on surveillance video climbing up this escalator handrail and then tumbling over. His family says he only fractured his elbow. A local TV station reports the teenager told police he had been drinking -- Anderson.


All right, time now for "The Shot."

Tonight: a family boating, Tom, adventure on the Spoon River in Illinois. I like the name the Spoon River.

FOREMAN: It's a lovely river.

COOPER: Fishing excursion made somewhat easier by the fact that the fish jumped right into the boat. Watch this.





COOPER: That is nuts. Look at that.

FOREMAN: Oh, yes.

COOPER: The fish are Asian carp. Each weighs about 10 pounds. You get hit by one of those, you would get whacked right out of the boat.

FOREMAN: Yes. That's the dream I have every time I have pizza. I have this dream afterward like that.


COOPER: Really?



COOPER: Tell me more about that, Tom.

FOREMAN: Well, it's very unusual.


COOPER: We will get Dr. Drew on. We will explain that.

FOREMAN: Yes, exactly.

COOPER: All right, a lot more news ahead in "Crime & Punishment."

Coming up, a really -- I mean, every day, I guess, is dramatic in this trial, but today was especially dramatic in the Casey Anthony murder trial, her family members back on the stand. Plus, jurors got their first look at the meter-reader who found Caylee's body. Remember, the defense had made a big deal about this guy. During opening statements, the defense said that this guy named Roy Kronk was morally bankrupt and that he hid Caylee's body.

But did the defense actually do anything to bolster that theory today, or did it kind of backfire? We will take a look.

Plus, Casey's father, George Anthony, on the stand again, asked whether he had an affair with a volunteer searcher, a woman who says that George told her Caylee's death was an accident. We will show you what George testified about that today and a closer look at the relationship between George and his daughter.

We will be right back.


COOPER: "Crime & Punishment" tonight.

In Orlando, the defense in the Casey Anthony trial is finishing up its case. Now, as we get closer to deliberations, the defense is hammering out a number of issues, hoping to find a crack in the prosecution's case big enough to qualify as reasonable doubt in at least one juror's mind.

Casey's father, George, was back on the stand today questioned about an alleged affair with a search volunteer. And, for the first time, jurors heard from the meter-reader who found Caylee's body, the defense trying to prove he disturbed the crime scene enough to contaminate the evidence.

Martin Savidge was in the courtroom today. He has the latest.


MARTIN SAVIDGE, CNN CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): For Orlando meter-reader Roy Kronk, it was the grisly moment of truth. Using a poll, he found what the nation had been looking for.

ROY KRONK, FOUND CAYLEE ANTHONY'S BODY: I was standing behind it, so I was looking at it from behind. And I still didn't think it was real. So, I very gently took it and put it into the right eye socket. And I gently pivoted it up. And I looked down, and I realized what it was. And I set it down as gently as I could and went up and called my area supervisor.

SAVIDGE: It was December 11, 2008, the day 2-year-old Caylee Anthony's remains were found.

For Casey Anthony's defense team, today was their moment of truth. By putting Kronk on the stand, they hoped to prove that Kronk, for months, manipulated Caylee's remains, in the hopes of gaining fame and fortune.

The defense set the stage early on for their theory. Listen to how attorney Jose Baez described Kronk during opening statements over a month ago.

JOSE BAEZ, ATTORNEY FOR CASEY ANTHONY: I want to tell you that Mr. Kronk -- and, again, we are not saying Mr. Kronk had anything to do with Caylee's death -- but Mr. Kronk is a morally bankrupt individual who actually took Caylee's body and hid her. There was a $225,000 reward in this case, but it was for a live Caylee. Mr. Kronk didn't read the fine print, and he thought he had himself a lottery ticket. - SAVIDGE: But when Kronk took the stand today, defense attorney Cheney Mason over and over tried and seemed to fail to paint Kronk as a man attempting to cash in on a child's death.

CHENEY MASON, ATTORNEY FOR CASEY ANTHONY: You remember talking also to the detectives about the issue of the reward that you were looking for?

KRONK: We were discussing the crime line tip, sir. We weren't talking about the other ones, sir.

MASON: You were joking, you say, with Alex Roberts and the others about finding this body?

KRONK: No. We were joking about the money, sir. I never joked about finding the body, sir. That's not what I said.

SAVIDGE: Kronk said he went into the woods to relieve himself on August 11, 2008, and saw something that looked like a skull. He called police.

KRONK (via phone): I'm a meter reader with Orange County. And I had the route today that included the Anthonys' home. I noticed something that looked white and there was a -- like a gray bag down in there. I don't know what it is. I'm not telling you it's Caylee or anything of that nature.

SAVIDGE: He called them again the next day. Finally, he called them a third time and says when police arrived at the scene, they barely searched.

MASON: Did you watch Deputy Cain go into the woods?

KRONK: Yes, sir. Sorry.

MASON: Did you see him get close to where you had seen the skull?

KRONK: Am I allowed to say this? Am I allowed to say what happened?

MASON: Did you see Deputy Cain get close to where you...

KRONK: Deputy Cain went down to the water line, did this, did this, walked back up the bank, slipped on the mud, and then chewed me out for a half an hour. That's exactly what happened.

SAVIDGE: At times, instead of testimony it seemed like a test of wills.

MASON: You remember January 6, 2009, sir, giving a recorded statement to Corporal Yuri Melich and your counsel, Mr. David Evans, behind us, was there and Eric Edwards. Do you remember doing that?

KRONK: I don't mean to be rude, sir, but you're being a little vague.

SAVIDGE: They weren't the only fireworks. Earlier Casey Anthony's father George took the stand again, with the defense implying he had an affair while his granddaughter was missing.

JOSE BAEZ, CASEY'S ATTORNEY: Mr. Anthony, do you know a woman by the name of Krystal Holloway?

GEORGE ANTHONY, CASEY'S FATHER: I know her by that name and also another name. BAEZ: What other name do you know her by?

G. ANTHONY: River Cruz.

BAEZ: Did you have a romantic relationship with her?

G. ANTHONY: No, sir. No. To me that's -- that's very funny.

BAEZ: Very funny.

G. ANTHONY: Yes, sir.

BAEZ: And were you ever intimate with her?

G. ANTHONY: No, sir. And that's also very funny.

SAVIDGE: George Anthony maintains that Holloway was just a volunteer who helped look for his granddaughter. The defense alleges that George Anthony, in a moment of intimacy, confessed to Holloway that his granddaughter's death was an accident that snowballed out of control.

BAEZ: Did you, prior to finding your granddaughter, tell Krystal Holloway or River Cruz that Caylee's death was an accident that snowballed out of control?

G. ANTHONY: Well, sir, to clarify your question, I never found my granddaughter. To this day I never found her. And to say that I had said something to her about -- that's been stated or even by you here that something might have snowballed out of control, that conversation, I was never there.


COOPER: So it seemed like the defense had a lot riding on the meter reader, Kronk's, testimony. And it doesn't sound like they -- they did much to prove their theory, though.

SAVIDGE: No. You know, Anderson, every day is, of course, a big day for the defense team. But today was really huge. And for Roy Kronk to take the stand there. Because, as we know, Jose Baez had made this grand statement in his opening argument that he has going to show that Kronk somehow had taken control of Caylee Anthony's remains and had manipulated them for fame and fortune.

Everybody in the courtroom, when he got on that stand, they all did one of these -- leaned forward in the seats. Even the jury did that. They were laser focused on him. But in the end, most of those professional and unprofessional observers in the courtroom felt that the defense failed to make that point and, in fact, it was really not a good day for the defense team when it came to Roy Kronk.

COOPER: Martin Savidge. Martin, thanks.

Well, just ahead we're going to dig in deeper to the relationship between Casey Anthony and her dad, especially defense claims which he denies that he sexually abused her as she grew up. That's why she acted strangely and lied so much after Caylee disappeared.

The question is, is there anything in the jailhouse recordings of the father-daughter conversation that even hint at a troubled past? We'll take a look

And reputed Boston mobster Whitey Bulger in court today, telling the judge why he's worried about getting a fair trial.


COOPER: Because of what's going on in the courtroom in the Casey Anthony trial, I want to take a closer look at one of the key relationships in the murder trial: between the defendant and her dad.

As we reported earlier, as you know, George Anthony was back on the stand today, denying he had an affair with a volunteer searcher and denying that he ever told her Caylee's death was an accident that snowballed out of control.

George has also denied molesting his daughter, Casey, something the defense alleged in opening statements that they really offered no evidence of. The defense has said that Casey lied after Caylee's death because pretending everything was OK was something she learned to do from the young age because of the alleged abuse. Randi Kaye looks at the relationship.


G. ANTHONY: Good morning, beautiful. I love you.


RANDI KAYE, CNN CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): From these jailhouse videos, it appears as though the relationship between Casey Anthony and her father George is a loving one.

CASEY ANTHONY: You're the best father. And by far the best grandfather that I've ever -- I've ever met. I'm going to say that, and I mean that with all my heart.

KAYE: Recorded in 2008, you can hear the retired police officer assure Casey he is trying very hard to find his missing granddaughter, Caylee.

G. ANTHONY: I'm doing everything I can. Everything I can to help you and help her. I wish there was more I could do. I would give my life right now for you and for her.

KAYE: He repeatedly tries to ease his daughter's pain.

G. ANTHONY: If I could switch places with you this second, I'd do it. I would do it.

CASEY ANTHONY: I know that.

G. ANTHONY: Believe me, I would. KAYE: But just three years later, on trial, charged with killing her 2-year-old daughter, Casey's defense paints a totally different picture of that father-daughter relationship.

BAEZ: And it all began when Casey was eight years old and her father came into her room and began to touch her inappropriately. And it escalated. And it escalated.

JEAN CASAREZ, CORRESPONDENT, TRUTV'S "IN SESSION": We had rumblings for awhile that this was where the defense was going to go. But when it came out in opening statements and came out in that way with so much specificity, I think everyone was floored.

BAEZ: The defense claims the alleged sexual abuse taught then-8- year-old Casey how to keep secrets, and is ultimately the reason she was able to lie about Caylee's whereabouts after she died.

CASAREZ: If it was an accident and if you have been sexually abused, you don't say anything until ultimately you are facing the death penalty? Does that make common sense? Most people would say no.

KAYE: As the state's first witness in his daughter's murder trial, George Anthony told jurors how he was there in the delivery room for Caylee's birth.

G. ANTHONY: It's just amazing.

KAYE: And denied the claims he sexually abused his daughter.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Have you ever sexually molested your daughter, Casey Anthony?

G. ANTHONY: No, sir.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Have you ever committed any sexually inappropriate act with or in the presence of your daughter, Casey Anthony?

G. ANTHONY: No, sir.

KAYE: Despite the allegations, every day George Anthony is in court, supporting his daughter.

CASAREZ: George sits there in court, and many days he has a Bible on his lap. And many days he has that Bible open, and he is reading it. What he is reading, we don't know. But more likely than not, it's to give him the strength to keep going.

KAYE: According to their lawyer, George and his wife, Cindy, do not want to see the death penalty for Casey, but they are seeking the truth.

MARK LIPPMAN, ATTORNEY FOR GEORGE AND CINDY ANTHONY: This is such a unique situation. They've lost their granddaughter, and their daughter is facing the death penalty. And they don't know what happened to their granddaughter. So they're trying to find out what the truth is. And they hope to get closure through this.

CASAREZ: If this case goes into the death penalty phase, I think George and Cindy Anthony will take that stand as witnesses, and they will beg that jury to save their daughter's life.

KAYE: Casey Anthony may still be acquitted. But if she's found guilty, even a father's undying support might not be enough to save his daughter.

G. ANTHONY: Know that I love you, and I want you home. I want you...

CASEY ANTHONY: I love you, too.

KAYE: Randi Kaye, CNN, Atlanta.


COOPER: It's interesting. Because it may look chaotic to the defense attacks on multiple fronts doing anything they can, looking for any way to raise a reasonable doubt.

But as their case winds down, they also face what may be their toughest decision: whether or not to put Casey on the stand. I spoke about it earlier with former prosecutor Paul Henderson of San Francisco and Andrea Lyon, a law professor who was Casey Anthony's previous lead defense attorney.


COOPER: So Paul, George Anthony on the stand again today, denying an affair with a volunteer, also denying telling her that Caylee's death was an accident that snowballed out of control. It's coming down to a "he said, she said" situation here. How do you think it played today?

PAUL HENDERSON, FORMER PROSECUTOR: Well, you know, I think what -- this is more of a distraction. And the defense is trying to get in all of the side issues to distract the jury from focusing on the real central issue, which is how did this child die and who was responsible for it?

And so to me, the facts that are the allusions to the father maybe having an affair or wondering around or who he was involved with in terms of how the search took place to me is a real distraction from the ultimate issue in the case. I'm just not as concerned with it.

COOPER: Andrea, clearly the defense is trying to bring up everything they can possibly think of, which I guess is their job. But does it make them look kind of scattered?

ANDREA LYON, CRIMINAL DEFENSE ATTORNEY: Well, you have to remember that George Anthony said to this woman that it was an accident. And that is the...

COOPER: Well, he denies it, though. LYON: Well, of course, he denied it. But she confirmed it. I mean, you know, he's going to deny it now. But that's, in fact, what at least the investigation at the time I was on the case showed.

COOPER: Andrea, we also heard from Roy Kronk...

LYON: You did.

COOPER: ... the meter reader who discovered Caylee's remains. The defense is saying that he tampered with the remains, planted them in the woods to collect the reward money. He denied that today on the stand. You still think he could be damaging, though, to go the state's case?

LYON: Well, he's damaging to the state's case for a number of reasons. First, he -- his own testimony today was that he put his stick into the skull and moved it, that he moved the bag. So that means that, if that -- those were the remains that were there and they were not moved, he at least disturbed the scene. At the very minimum, that was what was shown.

Secondly, his behavior is pretty difficult to square with someone who is being a good citizen. And, you know, he called his son, told his son that he was going to be famous and going to be on TV long before he discovered the body.

COOPER: He denies that, though. I mean, he testified he did not tell his son...

LYON: You haven't heard all the evidence yet. And again, I expect that -- that based on, at least, the investigation when I was still on the case we'd done, that -- that this, in fact, can be proven, both by testimony and records.

COOPER: Go ahead, Paul.

HENDERSON: It's all just going to come down who you're going to believe when you're listening to the testimony.

And from my perspective, listening to the defense versions of things, even if that was how the body was found, that doesn't take away from the fact that the body was wrapped in that bag. It doesn't take away from the fact that the duct tape was on the baby. It doesn't take away from the fact that the baby was hidden and not discovered until months later from when the baby disappeared. I mean, you know...

LYON: Yes, it does take away from it. It means that...

HENDERSON: It doesn't diminish the fact that child was murdered.

LYON: It means that the scene was disturbed. It means that the scene was disturbed, and there isn't proof that, in fact, it was a murder.

COOPER: Andrea and Paul, let me ask you both at this point. The defense had said they were probably going to be able to rest by -- by later this week, Thursday maybe. Does it seem to you at this point that they are not going to put Casey Anthony on the stand, Paul?

HENDERSON: I don't think that they are going to put Casey Anthony on the stand. I think it's going to be really hard for them to put her on the stand and subject her to a severe cross-examination, based on her scattered testimony in the past about what -- what has happened in this case and what she actually has done in this case.

They're going to want to know why she told the stories that she told them. They're going to question her and challenge her severely about her behavior, what she did, why she did it, when she did it. I just don't think...

COOPER: Andrea -- Andrea, I'm curious to hear, do you think she -- they're going to put her on the stand? And if they don't, Andrea, do you think it's a problem that they raised all these things in the opening statements that they haven't really addressed, like alleged sexual abuse?

LYON: Well, here's -- here's the thing. You know, as I've said before, it's a very difficult decision as to whether to put the defendant on the stand. Once you do, all bets are off. And it's "does the jury believe her or not?" And if you don't put her on the stand, they hold it against her. It's a lose/lose proposition most of the time for the defense.

COOPER: Paul Henderson, Andrea Lyon, appreciate it. Thanks.

LYON: Thank you.

HENDERSON: Thanks for having us.


COOPER: Well, in just a moment, reputed mobster James "Whitey" Bulger shows up in court. We'll tell you why he's questioning whether he can get a fair trial next.

And tonight on "The RidicuList," we're seeing double. We'll tell you why the Winklevoss twins have ended up on the list.


COOPER: We'll have "The RidicuList" in a moment. But let's check in with Tom Foreman, back with another "360 News & Business Bulletin" -- Tom.


Reputed Boston mobster Whitey Bulger was in court today for a short hearing. His interim attorney says law enforcement leaks have to stop for Bulger to get a fair trial. Bulger was arrested last week in California and faces 19 counts of murder.

Firefighters are working to contain a huge wildfire that has burned at least 44,000 acres in and around Los Alamos, New Mexico. Nearly 10,000 people have had to leave their homes.

A rally on Wall Street today. The Dow surged 145 points amid a report showing home prices rose in April for the first time in nine months. The NASDAQ was up 41 points. The S&P rose 17.

And a 360 follow. If you were feeling sorry for Hugh Hefner because his engagement is off, you can stop now. Meet Hef's new girlfriend, Shera. She's the one on the right. The one on the left is his old girlfriend.

On Twitter Hef says, "A new girlfriend is the only logical response to his heartbreak." And yes, we did notice that Shera looks an awful lot like Crystal, who broke off their engagement two weeks ago. So Anderson, I don't know; it looks like maybe Hef has a type.

COOPER: Well, doesn't she also look a lot like Holly Madison and...

FOREMAN: Yes, yes.

COOPER: ... ones before that?

FOREMAN: Yes. Who can account for the taste of these men?

COOPER: That's true. Ever since Barbie Benton broke his heart, you know?

FOREMAN: Yes, Barbie Benton.

COOPER: I don't know.

FOREMAN: There used to be a poster of her at a radio station I worked in.

COOPER: Really?

FOREMAN: Oh, yes.

COOPER: We've learned a lot about you tonight, Tom.

FOREMAN: Oh, yes.

COOPER: Tom, thank you.

Tonight for the RidicuList, tonight we're adding the Winklevoss twins. You know them. They're those giant Harvard-educated Olympic rowing twins who say Facebook was their idea, and they've been stomping their feet about it for seven years. The ones who agreed to a $65 million settlement from Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg but say they were shortchanged on the stock. Those Winklevi (ph).

Well, for a brief and shining moment, we thought we had heard the last from Tyler and Cameron Winklevoss. Last week they dropped their plans for a Supreme Court appeal. But that was gone in the mere wink of an eye, because the very next day the Winklevoss twins filed a motion in their other case against Facebook that's been pending since 2007.

So on what planet is a $65 million settlement not good enough? On Planet Winklevoss. That's where. Here's what Cameron, or Tyler, told Piers Morgan when he interviewed them back in February.


TYLER WINKLEVOSS, SUING OVER FACEBOOK: We can't get lost in the context or the astronomical dollar numbers.


COOPER: No, no, no, no. We should not get lost in the context, because this is about principle. Believe me, Cameron or Tyler, whichever one is talking, has strong views about principle.


TYLER WINKLEVOSS: Principle is principle, whether it's over -- we're talking about $2 or $200 billion.


COOPER: So let me get this straight, Cameron or Tyler. You would be fighting just as hard for principle even if we were only talking about $2? Who knew you guys were so much like the paper boy from the movie "Better Off Dead"?


SEBASTIAN DUNGAN, ACTOR: That's $2 plus tip.

JOHN CUSACK, ACTOR: Gee, Johnny, I don't have a dime. Sorry.

DUNGAN: Didn't ask for a dime. Two dollars.


COOPER: So the Winklevoss twins already settled with Zuckerberg for $65 million. That happened in 2008. You may ask why do they keep suing? Haven't they ever seen "Let's Make a Deal"? Clearly, Cameron or Tyler is familiar with the concept of that show.


CAMERON WINKLEVOSS, SUING OVER FACEBOOK: We are in a position where we could walk away and be perfectly fine. But in choosing to pursue this and going forward, we're actually opening ourselves up to a lot of risk. There's no guarantee that we will do as well or better than we've currently done.


COOPER: That's right. You could open door No. 2, and there's a rented donkey standing there and everyone in the audience will laugh at you. But this is a serious matter. It's about right and wrong. It's about kids who have yet to be born. I'll let Cameron or Tyler tell you himself.


T. WINKLEVOSS: I hope to have a family one day. And if something like this happens to my son, and I don't stand up for what's right for now, I'm going to blame myself. I'm going to say, "Son, I'm sorry. I failed you, because when I had the opportunity to stand up for what was right, I didn't."


COOPER: You know, listening to that, it's almost easy to forget that what we're talking about is an idea for a Web site that is mostly used for playing Farmville.


C. WINKLEVOSS: We never in our wildest dreams thought we'd be involved in a lawsuit. It's certainly not our choice.


COOPER: It's not their choice. Apparently, someone tied them down with their own cardigans and made them file lawsuits. I'm not sure exactly I buy it, and I'm pretty sure Piers Morgan doesn't, either. Here's where he cuts to the chase.


PIERS MORGAN, HOST, "PIERS MORGAN TONIGHT": You went to Harvard, one of the smartest business places you could ever be trained. In the end you just got screwed by a smarter guy.


COOPER: Piers Morgan, dangerous.

OK. Let's break this down. The Winklevi (ph) say it's about the principle, not the numbers. Well, their arch nemesis has a theory about numbers, as well. Here's what Mark Zuckerberg said last year when Facebook had reached 500 million members.


MARK ZUCKERBERG, HEAD OF FACEBOOK: Half a billion is a nice number. But the number isn't what really matters here.


COOPER: So neither Mark Zuckerberg nor the Winklevi (ph) care about numbers. As a general rule, I always think when people say it's not about money, it's not about numbers," that's exactly what it's about. But since all three say it's not about numbers, problem solved. I think the three of them should settle this the Facebook way. A no-holds-barred poke tournament. Buy the way, here is an AC 360 Facebook page where people post comments like these. "Anderson, in today's tight job market, why is CNN outsourcing and hiring other-than-Americans? Piers Morgan, for instance, already has a job with 'America's Got Talent.' This greatly concerns me." Believe me, you're not the only one. "Also those airlines sure ain't what they used to be. Might as well be right up there with all the cooked, cheating government officials. And big banks, too. Bailouts, poo!"

Poo, indeed. Also, "There's a three-hour difference in L.A. I need to go to Scotl." I have no idea what that means.

I don't care whose idea Facebook was. I just want to say thank you. And if it was, in fact, your idea, Cameron and Tyler, or both of you, congratulations on being the biggest geniuses on "The RidicuList."

We'll be right back.