Return to Transcripts main page

CNN Newsroom

Attack in Afghanistan; President Obama Pushes for Debt Deal; "Unsound" DNA Evidence; Loughner Fights Forced Medication; Casey Anthony Emotional at Trial

Aired June 29, 2011 - 16:00   ET

THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.

FREDRICKA WHITFIELD, CNN ANCHOR: I am Fredricka Whitfield, in for Brooke Baldwin.

The president is wagging his finger at Congress today, Republicans in particular. He is warning congressional leaders that the U.S. government could enter default on August 2 if Congress refuses to pay the bills run up over the years.

Let's listen to the president earlier today at the White House.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

BARACK OBAMA, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: This is not a situation where, you know, Congress is going to say, "OK, we won't -- we won't buy this car or we won't take this vacation."

They took the vacation. They bought the car. And now they're saying, "Maybe we don't have to pay, or we don't have to pay as fast as we said we were going to," or -- that's not how responsible families act, and we're the greatest nation on Earth.

Malia and Sasha generally finish their homework a day ahead of time.

(LAUGHTER)

OBAMA: Malia is 13. Sasha's 10.

QUESTION: Impressive.

OBAMA: It is impressive. They don't wait until the night before. They're not pulling all-nighters.

(LAUGHTER)

OBAMA: They're -- they're 13 and 10.

(CROSSTALK)

OBAMA: You know, Congress can do the same thing. If you know you've got to do something, just do it.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

WHITFIELD: Chief political analyst Gloria Borger is in Washington now.

So, the president's new strategy, shame Congress into acting on this debt limit, is it going to be effective, is it going to work?

GLORIA BORGER, CNN SENIOR POLITICAL ANALYST: It's kind of an old strategy.

You always -- when you're president of the United States, you want to be above the Congress, and you want to look like the leader. And when you want to pick on somebody, it's kind of easy. Just pick on the folks who are actually less popular than you are. And Congress is less popular.

And I think here, the president was sort of trying to say, OK, to the American public, we have a job to do, we need to do it. It's a refrain that will work with the American public because they don't like Congress. But I have to ask the question, which is, did the president advance the ball at all during this press conference?

And I'm going to answer my own question, which is, I don't think -- I don't think he really did. He gave the broad outlines that we all know, which is, you know, Democrats want to cut spending and -- I mean, Republicans want to cut spending and Democrats want to raise your taxes, or are willing to raise your taxes, and Republicans say no to tax hikes.

But did he actually get us down the road? I think no.

(CROSSTALK)

WHITFIELD: Well, was that the idea? Was that the idea, to move the ball? Or was it to offer clarity?

BORGER: Well -- well, I think he wanted to offer political clarity, from his point of view.

This August 2 deadline looms. The Joe Biden budget talks have broken up. As the president said today, you're not starting from square one here. Everybody knows the extent of the problem, the size of the problem. Everybody knows you can't resolve it just by spending cuts, that something needs to be done on the tax side.

And you're sort of at an impasse. And the question is whether the president, as the ultimate leader -- he challenged people on leadership, but the question is whether the president, as president, can actually push these talks along. And I didn't see anything today that -- that would show that that -- that was going to happen.

WHITFIELD: So, this White House is trying to show that there's bipartisan effort, the president meeting with Republican leadership...

BORGER: Yes.

WHITFIELD: ... the Democrats saying, we're willing to make some cuts, the Republicans saying, we don't want to raise taxes. But this president says, we're not trying to raise taxes on everyone, just those who can afford it, the millionaires, the billionaires, as he puts it, the oil companies.

BORGER: Right.

WHITFIELD: Has there been any response from the Republicans to try to counter what the president is saying in terms of who would be enjoying tax breaks from this point forward if there is a deal?

BORGER: Well, the House speaker basically sent out a statement and said, the president knows full well that we are not going to pass any tax increases at all through the Republican House. And that's probably a reality, actually, that they're going to have to deal with at some point.

So, you know, John Boehner said, absolutely no way. And what's happening now -- and you see this on the presidential campaign trail...

WHITFIELD: No way to taxes to the oil companies, no way to taxes to millionaires, billionaires? No more taxes to anyone?

(CROSSTALK)

BORGER: And, by the way, oil companies aren't exactly popular, right? Neither are people who have corporate jets, for example, and they get some tax benefits. They're not popular.

But the Republicans say, this is not the time to raise taxes on anybody in the middle of a recession. The Democrats are saying, you can't do it all with spending cuts. And -- and, by the way, something that we ought to talk about that's going to be on the table here is perhaps a freeze on defense spending, which maybe both sides can agree to, given the changing alliances on defense.

The president said today, you know what, we're going to go along with some defense cuts. Whether it's that large, we don't know. But, right now, there is -- there is an impasse, and neither side wants to give. And it is a presidential campaign issue, as you just heard from Jim Acosta a short time ago.

WHITFIELD: Yes.

BORGER: Right?

WHITFIELD: It sure is.

BORGER: Every Republican presidential candidate -- say, you know, no way, we need to have -- we need to have a large amount of spending cuts if we're going to raise this debt ceiling.

WHITFIELD: Gloria Borger in Washington, thanks so much. Appreciate it.

BORGER: Sure.

WHITFIELD: All right, if it's interesting and it's happening right now, you're about to see it rapid fire. Here we go. Up first: Iran in trouble again. Earlier today, British Foreign Secretary William Hague accused Iran of secretly testing new missiles that have the potential of delivering a nuclear payload. Hague also claims Iran plans to enrich uranium to a higher level, greater than needed for peaceful nuclear energy. Iran still says its nuclear program is only aimed at generating electricity.

And NASA is giving us a better perspective on that close call for the International Space Station. They say some space junk that hurled passed the floating observatory yesterday is the closest anything has ever come to the space station. We're talking a distance of just 1,100 feet. NASA still hasn't been able to identify the object, but it is expected to burn up in the atmosphere.

And NASA's Solar Dynamics Observatory, launched last year, is sending back never-before-seen activity of our sun. That's it right there. Scientists are seeing the first high-resolution measurements ever taken of solar flares. And researchers have discovered that solar storms are caused by giant magnetic ropes. They believe this new information will have a major impact on science and future astrophysics.

And then take a look at this. This newly released video taken Tuesday shows Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez alive and well. It's the first we have seen him since his June 10 surgery in Cuba. He met with Fidel Castro in Havana, Cuba, Tuesday. Chavez hasn't been seen in the weeks following his surgery, which fueled speculation that he was ailing. Chavez did not talk about his health in the video.

(STOCK MARKET UPDATE)

WHITFIELD: Coming up, we're just minutes away from a hearing on some drastic measures the feds make take on Jared Loughner. Doctors say the Tucson shooting suspect needs medication because of what he's doing behind bars.

But, first, developing right now: a possible boost for Amanda Knox, the American student convicted of killing her roommate. I will tell you what's been discovered on the alleged murder weapon. That could change this entire case. We will go live to Rome next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

WHITFIELD: All right, this could be a big break in Amanda Knox's effort to overturn her conviction for the murder of her roommate in Perugia, Italy.

The Italian news agency ANSA says independent specialists have found the DNA evidence used to convict the American student is unsound and not conclusive.

"Newsweek" reporter Barbie Nadeau is in Rome. She wrote the book "Angel Face" about Amanda Knox.

Good to see you.

So, Barbie, what was the evidence, the DNA evidence, in question?

BARBIE NADEAU, "NEWSWEEK": Well, this is a very crucial element of the case, certainly.

There are two pieces of forensic evidence that linked Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito, her former boyfriend, to the murder of Meredith Kercher, according to the prosecution.

Linking Knox to the murder was a knife in which Amanda's DNA was on the handle and Meredith Kercher's DNA was on the blade. That was a very contentious piece of evidence because the material on the blade was never double-tested because there wasn't enough of it.

What the independent experts found in their report that they submitted today was that that's not valid. It's just not good enough. That there's not -- you have to double test all forensic evidence in a case like this.

They did confirm that it is Amanda's DNA on the handle, but the knife was found in her boyfriend's apartment. They contend perhaps she cooked there as her family says. So, that's justifiable. That blade, though, that Meredith Kercher's DNA on the blade, for all practical purposes, has been thrown out, as far as the independent DNA experts have found.

And the other piece or two pieces that were re-examined, Raffaele Sollecito's DNA was found on the metal clasp of Meredith Kercher's bra that that had been cut from her body after she was murdered.

Now, the problem with that piece of evidence is that it was collected six weeks after the murder occurred. The crime scene had been closed during that whole time but it wasn't collected and the experts said, hey, that's just not good enough. You need to have a clean piece of evidence and they contend that perhaps contamination could have occurred.

So, these two very important pieces of forensic evidence that linked Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito to the murder of Meredith Kercher are now, according to these experts, are not valid. What remains to be seen, though, keeping everything in perspective is what the appellate court does with this. They got the report now, but this report will be argued by the defense, by the prosecution, by a number of experts on the 25th of July.

So, that's when we'll know exactly what this appellate court is saying.

FREDRICKA WHITFIELD, CNN ANCHOR: And the judge will accept this argument being made based on this independent review?

NADEAU: Well, they will take into consideration -- the independent experts -- they called for an independent review of the forensic evidence.

But you have to remember that in the Italian court system, everybody has a voice. You've got the family of Meredith Kercher has a lawyer present. The prosecution who prosecuted this trial is in the courtroom. You've got experts from the defense, both Rafael Sollecito and Amanda Knox.

They will all be able to provide their own rebuttal or their own information that backs up the findings of these independent experts. It is very positive for Amanda Knox right now, but we don't know what the appellate court is going to do with it.

And it's also important to keep in perspective they were convicted on a variety of issues, not just these two pieces of forensic evidence. It's very important, there's no question, but we don't know what weight this holds for the appellate court.

WHITFIELD: OK. "Newsweek" reporter Barbie Nadeau coming to us from Rome -- appreciate that.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: None of us thought we were going to make it. I wrote a little will according to Islamic law, from a little that I know. I put it in my pocket just in case.

(ENDVIDEO CLIP)

WHITFIELD: Witnesses describe the horrifying moments inside the Intercontinental Hotel in Kabul. Terrorists attacking in the middle of the night there, and we're now learning the attackers were not members of the Taliban. And I'll tell you exactly who they are suspected of being and where they came from, next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

WHITFIELD: Throwing chairs, spitting at guards -- those are reports from inside the prison where Jared Loughner is being held. The man accused of shooting Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords and several others in a Tucson shooting spree is now due in court next hour.

That argument is, at issue, whether the prison should be able to forcibly medicate Loughner. His lawyers say such a move violates his rights, but prosecutors argue that he's a danger to others and himself.

CNN's senior legal analyst Jeffrey Toobin joins me now on the phone from New York.

So, the prison officials decided to give Loughner medicine. It's still unclear whether they actually done it or not. Is that protected by the court? Can the prison make that call?

JEFFREY TOOBIN, CNN SENIOR LEGAL ANALYST (via telephone): You know, Fredricka, this gets to a very complicated and difficult problem.

I mean, the short answer is the prison is allowed to give him medication if he's a danger to himself or others. Where it gets complicated is, is the prison allowed to give him medication to make him fit for trial? Because at the moment, the judge has found he's not fit for trial. And that question, they haven't quite reached it yet, but it's a very hard and interesting question.

WHITFIELD: So, it sounds like what will also be argued is what type of medication would these prison officials want to give him.

TOOBIN: Well, usually judges stay out of the question of what kind of medication. Judges recognize that they're not doctors and they're not going to, you know, run through a list and say this drug but not this drug. What they are going to do is basically say whether someone can be medicated at all.

And judges tend to defer to prison authorities on these issues for just that reason, because they are not doctors and they don't know exactly -- they don't know how to prescribe medicine.

The problem comes when a prisoner resists, as it appears Loughner is resisting. And the question then becomes when can you prescribe medicine? At this point, it appears to be when he's a danger to himself or others. But that sometimes is very hard to determine.

WHITFIELD: Is this a decision the judge will make immediately?

TOOBIN: No, the judge is going to hear evidence. He needs to hear from doctors. He needs to hear from the lawyers on both sides.

Judges really try to thread carefully in these areas because they recognize they don't have the expertise to make these judgments. So, they basically limit themselves to finding whether medicine can be forced on someone, but they really try to stay away from whether this person can be medicated, you know, what kind of medication it is.

WHITFIELD: OK. Could this potentially mean, if a judge says OK to medication, could this potentially mean that declaration that he's incompetent to stand trial could in any way be reversed and, potentially, he could be competent to stand trial as a result of the drugs?

TOOBIN: Absolutely. And that's what makes this so controversial. When this judge said he was incompetent to stand trial, the judge very clearly said for now. He may become competent in the future and, in fact, psychotropic drugs often work and the judge frankly is counting on their working.

So, yes, down the road, he could become fit to stand trial and frankly, that's the goal of the -- that's the goal of the prosecution. The defense has a more complicated role here. The defense wants their client to get better, but not so much better that he could go to trial and potentially get the death penalty.

WHITFIELD: Jeffrey Toobin, thanks so much, from New York. Appreciate that.

All right, new information now on a story that broke on our watch just 24 hours ago. The fiery and deadly attack on the Intercontinental Hotel in Kabul in Afghanistan.. The Afghan interior ministry now says 21 people died in the siege that began with suicide bombers storming the hotel. All nine attackers were reportedly killed, along with two Afghan national police and 10 civilians.

The Taliban claimed responsibility for the attack, but the Afghan government claims terrorists loyal to a Pakistan-based warlord who is determined to destabilize the Afghan government. Afghanistan's interior minister says all nine attackers came into Afghanistan from Pakistan.

And one man is in custody after a baseball fan gets a brutal beat-down in the parking lot at a Dodgers game. Might there be more to it, though? Now, there is new video showing the victim allegedly getting into an argument before the assault inside the stadium. Could it lead to any new arrests?

We've just received the video and you'll see it, next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

WHITFIELD: All right. Take a look at this. It will be fast, just a few seconds long, but it's being examined by Los Angeles police, leaving no stone unturned in an investigation of a brutal assault on a man who wore a San Francisco Giants shirt to a game at Dodgers stadium. This video was posted on TMZ.com.

(VIDEO CLIP PLAYS)

WHITFIELD: All right. Little tricky to make out. TMZ says that's Giants fan Bryan Stow in some sort of a verbal confrontation with a Dodger fan during the March 31st game. You can see Stow holding up his hands and the Dodger fan returning to his seat.

Well, according to TMZ, police don't suspect the Dodger fan in the post game beating that put Stow in a coma, but the video is the first to surface, showing Stow inside the stadium during the game. Stow was later attacked by two men who knocked him over, then punched and kicked him in the parking lot.

Police have identified one suspect but he claims to have an alibi and has not been charged. He has, however, been sent back to prison for violating parole. Stow is still in the hospital.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

RICHARD QUEST, CNN INTERNATIONAL CORRESPONDENT: I saw one guy, he took off his shirt, he put on a black shirt, a gas mask, gloves, and he got a baton and he went into fight.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

WHITFIELD: CNN's Richard Quest in the middle of escalating violence on the streets of Greece. Tear gas, fire balls, rocks. We'll go to him live, next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

WHITFIELD: All right. Tear gas and violence rocked Greece, and a massive nuclear lab is feeling the heat right here in the U.S. We begin with Reynolds Wolf live in Los Alamos, New Mexico. Reynolds, what's happening there?

REYNOLDS WOLF, AMS METEOROLOGIST: Well, I'll tell you the truth. Right now, things here in Los Alamos itself, the city is kind of quiet. In fact, walking through what normally would be a busy street on a Wednesday afternoon. But again, they have the mandatory evacuations. Not too many people here. Not too many cars, save for a few emergency vehicles, some command vehicles, of course, law enforcement and your firefighters.

Not only are things kind of weird now, but also take a look at the sky behind me. You see plenty of blue skies out there, a few beautiful white, puffy clouds. But then as you pan over a little bit more off to the other direction, out towards the west, you see something different all together. Lot of clouds, lot of smoke and underneath that, plenty of fire.

If you look down in the foreground also, you're going to see something else. Back on the hillsides, you can see the telltale signs of a blaze that came through about a decade ago. Right below that, you've got some areas where of course, the fire is not only burning as we speak, but it's getting very close to some virgin territories in terms of forests. Places that have just been untouched, unscathed, during the last big fire. And that is the big fear that those fires, those flames, those embers are going to make its way to that possible fuel and we're going to see things accelerate.

Another big issue we have, Fredricka, is just simply the topography of this area alone. In Los Alamos, you've got again, a community that is built up on four separate mesas. And between each of those, you've got ravines that are filled with, again, that untouched vegetation. Now, if you were to get some of those fires, some of those embers right there, you're going to see everything go up like a tinderbox. What's even more frightening is the prospect that, as you know, heat rises. Well, the fire would come up over the side of the ravines and affect this town.

So, again, as I mentioned, a widespread evacuation, mandatory evacuation. Everyone took off on Monday and did so, I'm sure, with heavy hearts, terrified of what they might find when they return. Fred?

WHITFIELD: And so, Reynolds, the distance between the nuclear weapons plant and this fire is about what about now?

WOLF: I would say that it's definitely getting closer. But one thing you have to keep in mind is that the size of this facility is very big, nearly 40 square miles. And fire actually burned the southern part of the perimeter. It is now threatening over the in western half.

In fact, John Touregoey (ph) our photojournalist, the shots that he's getting over those buildings, some of that heavier smoke, that is what's approaching the western side of the facility. Hoping the firefighters can hold it back. But the problem is, Fredricka, again, it's not only the foliage, but its' also the weather that's not cooperating. The wind is picking up right now and it remains very dry. It's certainly a mess, but the 361 men and women that are battling the blaze are up to the task.

WHITFIELD: All right. Reynolds Wolf thanks so much in Los Alamos. Appreciate that.

Next up, Richard Quest is in Athens. Richard, riot police faced off with demonstrators as Greek lawmakers voted to raise taxes and cut benefits. Nighttime right now; have things calmed down at all?

QUEST: Yes. Things are considerably calmer than they were earlier on in the day. The parliament over there to my right, they voted by a larger majority for the austerity measures. And the riot police have done battle with the protesters all day and all evening.

Now, there are a lot fewer protesters there now. But sure enough, every 10 or 15 minutes, the stun grenades go off, the tear gas gets fired and it all wafts over all over again.

The protestors are falling into two group, and you and I talked about this. There are those who are against it on policy. They believe it's the wrong way for Greece, and they are principled in their objection (INAUDIBLE) austerity. And then there were the thugs and the hooligans would frankly would open up for any argument in a fight, and they've taken the opportunity to really go hell for leather (ph) against the police.

It's been nasty. It's been long standing, long running. But ultimately it's not as bad as it was this morning and this afternoon.

WHITFIELD: All right. Richard Quest, thanks so much. Appreciate that.

All right. And that's going to do it for today's "Reporter Roulette."

Meantime, remember this?

(VIDEO CLIP)

WHITFIELD: Oh, yeah. That was back in 2008. Sarah Palin played this infamous Heart song at her campaign rallies. The band didn't like it, and they made her stop.

Well now, one presidential candidate is under fire for the same kind of issue. And one singer is taking legal action now. That's next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

WHITFIELD: With the campaign season heating up this summer, one common site will be political rallies. And with rallies, of course, comes music. You know, victory anthems, the songs that candidates walk out to and help drive home that last line of the speech?

Well, what happens when the artist of your rally jam says hold on, you've struck a chord. Stop using my song. It's the topic of today's "Political Pop." Let's bring in our entertainment correspondent, Kareen Wynter, who is filling in for Joe Johns.

Okay, so Kareen, Tom Petty tells Michele Bachmann to hit the stop button. Why?

KAREEN WYNTER, CNN ENTERTAINMENT CORRESPONDENT: Loudly, Fred. This is really an issue we've seen come up time and time again on the campaign train - or campaign trail during elections. Musicians calling out political candidates for using their songs on the campaign trail.

Well, the latest backlash, as you mentioned, between a Republican presidential candidate Michele Bachmann and singer Tom Petty. OK, so here's what happened. At the end of her big campaign announcer in Iowa, this happened on Monday, the Bachmann campaign played Petty's "American Girl. Listen to this.

(VIDEO CLIP)

WYNTER: Petty is reportedly peeved with Bachmann's campaign usage of his hit song and has reportedly, yes, gone as far, Fred, as issuing a cease-and-desist letter. He's demanding that they stop playing it.

But it looks like Bachmann won't back down. She did it again, yes, last night at a rally at Myrtle Beach. Bachmann's campaign cranked out Petty's song again after she wrapped up her speech. Let's listen again.

(VIDEO CLIP)

WYNTER: OK, so this time, Fred, the song ended abruptly after about 30 seconds, but not before the audience was able to hear Petty sing, "Well, she was an Aermcian girl." Neither Petty nor Bachmann's campaign is commenting.

But this wouldn't be the first time, Fred, that the rock 'n roll hall- of-famer has told a politician, hey, don't do me like that -- obviously, the title of one of his famous songs.

(LAUGHTER)

WYNTER: During the 2000 presidential campaign, Petty, he zeroed in at that time on candidate George W. Bush, demanding that he stop using his song "I Won't Back Down" in his bid for the White House. So, this is nothing new. Let's see what happens this time around, though.

WHITFIELD: No! There's quite a cycle. I mean, there is history behind this. An artist not liking the idea of a certain politician has used his or her anthem. So, we'll see what happens next on this.

Kareen Wynter, thanks so much! Appreciate that.

All right, it's the magazine cover that has everyone talking these days. And some people are very angry, in fact. An aged Princess Diane alongside Princess Catherine. The reaction and a closer look at what "Newsweek" manufactured, coming up.

Also, Wolf Blitzer in Chicago. He just scored a big interview. He'll give us a preview, next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

WHITFIELD: I want to take you straight to Orlando right now. We're going to see pictures of the courtroom in action, the Casey Anthony trial.

To the right, you see a tearful defendant, Casey Anthony there as testimony continues from a grief expert who's talking about how people process tragedies very differently.

Quite the contrast in Casey Anthony when earlier today her father, George Anthony was on the stand and had a very difficult time keeping himself composed while a very stone-faced Casey Anthony sat and watched his testimony.

So now let's listen in to what this grief expert is saying.

PROFESSOR SALLY KARIOTH, GRIEF EXPERT: This hysteria is such, if you will, is such that it's their response to grief when they've come from an environment where they never had healthy coping mechanisms and at the same time may have been told to never talk about things that happened in the family.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Have you treated individuals who have lost a loved one who have appeared exactly the same according to, for example, to friends and family members as part of your practice, the day before and the day after the loss? And continue to appear that way for years afterwards?

KARIOTH: Yes. I have seen people lose a child and make arrangements and then go to work the next day and the next day and the next day.

I have seen children come back to Florida state who have lost a grandparent over the weekend and delve into sorority life and become a hot shot student or a very bad student as though nothing has ever happened.

Or someone comes up and says something, I don't want to talk about that. Denial is a great tool for as long as you can make yourself believe what you're saying.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Objection.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Sustained. Next question.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: That's all I have, your honor.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Is being very, very happy consistent with grief?

KARIOTH: Can be.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Is being very, very sad consistent with grief? KARIOTH: Yes, there are three emotions, sad, happy and mad. Those are the three we see most often.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Are there any variations on the continuum between happy and sad that are not consistent with grief?

KARIOTH: Ask me that again.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: What I'm trying to figure out is every state of demeanor between very happy and very sad consistent with grief.

KARIOTH: On the entire continuum? I think I would be remiss if I didn't say I have seen patients in any one of those levels.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: So there is nothing about the demeanor in that way that is either excludes or includes grief. It can be anything?

KARIOTH: It could be.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: OK, how about interest in sex?

KARIOTH: Can.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Is there any --

KARIOTH: There's research that shows when you don't have words to make things better, sometimes it's a method of feeling better.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: So basically anything on the continuum from complete lack of interest in sex to promiscuity, all of that is consistent with grief?

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Scope of the direct.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Overruled.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Is that your testimony?

KARIOTH: Well, I think promiscuity is maybe taking it too far. I think that in the death of some folks who were very, very close find that they will do things that they haven't done in the first 40 years just for the comfort of it.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: So any reaction in terms of your sexual desire from promiscuity to virginity is consistent with grief? Anything is that right?

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: There are not facts to support this and I think it also exceeds the scope of the direct?

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Overruled.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Is that correct?

KARIOTH: I certainly have patients that found that in the beginning sex seemed to help them with their grief and as they began to become a little more aware of their environment and the things that they're doing, realized that that probably wasn't the thing that was going to make them feel better.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: What I'm looking for is can you give me anything that is inconsistent with grief?

KARIOTH: I can give you things that are inconsistent with healthy grief.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: No? The question is, the import of your testimony is to interpret certain facts as consistent with grief. That's your understanding of why you were called, correct?

KARIOTH: Yes.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: So tell me anything that is inconsistent with grief, any type of activity, any type of attitude, any type of demeanor that you would agree is inconsistent with grief.

KARIOTH: Well again, if you're not going to allow me to say that there are healthy grief responses and I think there are aberrant grief response that need intervention. I must put both piles together then I would have to say anything could happen when someone has a great grief.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: So no matter what hypothetical I would give you, you would say that could be consistent with grief.

KARIOTH: I would probably say if it was something aberrant. That's consistent with inappropriate grief response.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: OK. But what I'm getting at is no matter what hypothetical counsel gave you, you would say it was inconsistent with grief because everything is consistent with grief in your opinion.

KARIOTH: Everything is -- falls into a category somewhere along the line from pathological grief responses to healthy grief responses.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Now, can you from a set of activities draw the conclusion to a reasonable degree of expert certainty that a certain person is at that time grieving?

Do you see what I'm saying? Not assuming there's a loss an interpreting it as grief, but can you do the opposite? Can you look at a set of actions, not knowing what came before them and say yes, this is grief or no, this is not.

KARIOTH: Well, I have a tool that's used in medical schools called (inaudible) loss inventory. If someone came to my clinic and someone ran that loss inventory and I looked at the symptoms that came up.

And the added bizarre set of symptoms, I'm losing my hair, my fingernails are falling out, I can't sleep at night, I've got the hiccups, every Wednesday I just don't seem to get out of bed --

WHITFIELD: Fascinating exchange here involving a grief expert that is on the stand right now. How might this impact the Casey Anthony case. We're going to check in with legal expert, Sunny Hostin right after this.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

WHITFIELD: All right, "THE SITUATION ROOM" is coming up with Wolf Blitzer. You've scored a big interview. Tell me more.

WOLF BLITZER, THE SITUATION ROOM: We have a good interview with the new mayor of Chicago, Rahm Emanuel. We're over city hall talking to him earlier today. That interview will air in the next hour of "THE SITUATION ROOM," the 6:00 p.m. Eastern hour.

In the 5:00 p.m. Eastern hour, we got a very different perspective on what's going on from Rand Paul, Senator Rand Paul of Kentucky who's going to respond to what we heard from the president at his news conference earlier in the day.

One additional note, Fred, I should point out, I'm here in Chicago because of former President Bill Clinton's conference, the Clinton Global Initiative, dealing with the economy, creation of jobs.

I'll have a special interview with Bill Clinton tomorrow here in Chicago in "THE SITUATION ROOM." All of that coming up, back to you.

WHITFIELD: All right, Wolf, thanks so much. We'll look forward to that. Appreciate that.

All right, and before the break, we took you to the Casey Anthony murder trial and there you heard a bit of testimony coming from a grief expert who was talking about the range of emotions one might feel after something traumatizing like the loss of a child.

And you also saw Casey Anthony, the defendant who was tearfully listening in. Now rather stoic expression coming from her in these live pictures. Let's bring in our legal expert, Sunny Hostin. She's on the case.

Sunny, this is very fascinating, is it not? Because we talk about -- we heard this grief expert talk about the range of emotions, everything from being -- showing apathy to just kind of resuming routine.

So she's trying to paint a picture that the behavior that one might have seen from Casey Anthony is rather consistent because there are a range of emotions. Is that what we should understand from this testimony?

SUNNY HOSTIN, LEGAL CONTRIBUTOR, "IN SESSION" ON TRUTV: Well, certainly that's what the defense wants this jury to understand, Fredricka. This is crucial testimony for this defense because everyone that's been watching this trial has been telling me on Facebook, on Twitter, in the street.

How does the defense explain the 31 days when Casey Anthony went to parties, acted as if, danced at clubs, drank when she knew that her daughter was dead. How does the defense explain that?

Well now, this doctor, she's an expert in grief and trauma. Her name is Dr. Sally Karioth. She's been practicing for over 40 years and teaching in this area. She says given the hypothetical facts, 22- year-old loses a 3-year-old who she had a wonderful relationship with, it would be very consistent with grief when there is a family that has a code of silence.

We know that there is evidence of this because this family hid Casey Anthony's pregnancy until she was about eight months pregnant. So this testimony is extremely important for this defense in proving that her behavior wasn't the behavior of a cold blooded murderer, but rather the behavior of an affected sexually abused young woman who was grieving for the loss of her daughter.

WHITFIELD: At the same time, you're hearing the prosecution who wants to poke holes in the testimony from this grief expert saying OK, if there are a range of emotions that one can feel, then try to define what would be inconsistent with grief and that expert did not answer that question.

HOSTIN: That's right. But I will say this, I mean, that's the only place a prosecution could go. If I was a prosecutor, that's where I would go. I don't know that he made that many points.

I think the point has been made to this jury that her behavior is not so out of the norm, it's not so abnormal. And I think this witness probably, Fredricka, has been one of the strongest witnesses for this defense team.

WHITFIELD: But then compare a tearful Casey Anthony with earlier, kind of stone faced expression when her father, George Anthony was on the stand and he was nearly inconsolable. I imagine that the jurors are now going to also weigh the testimony of this grief expert, not only trying to analyze Casey Anthony's behavior after her child was missing, but also analyze her behavior in the courtroom. This could backfire for the defense.

HOSTIN: It certainly could, but the defense theory here is that George Anthony sexually abused Casey Anthony. So if there's a juror or perhaps many jurors that believe that theory, then her reaction to George Anthony's testimony is quite normal, right?

Because there's no love lost between an abuser and the person that's been abused and so I think certainly as you mentioned the jury is going to be watching everything in that courtroom.

WHITFIELD: All right, Sunny Hostin, thanks so much. Always good to see you. Appreciate that. I'm Fredricka Whitfield, Brooke Baldwin will be back tomorrow. Time now for Wolf Blitzer.