Return to Transcripts main page
CNN Newsroom
Jurors Reach Verdict in Casey Anthony Trial; Teachers Accused of Cheating; New Strauss-Kahn Sex Case; Atlantis Readies for Final Launch; Grounding NASA's Shuttle Program; Great Credit, Denied For Mortgage; Catching Cancer Early
Aired July 05, 2011 - 13:00 ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
DEBORAH FEYERICK, CNN ANCHOR: Hey there, Suzanne. Thanks so much.
Well, let the countdown begin. A live picture right now of the countdown clock marking the final space shuttle launch. Atlantis astronauts are getting ready for Friday's end of an era.
We're going to take you live to Kennedy Space Center for the latest on this final mission. That's just about 10 minutes away when we show you the Kennedy Space Center.
But we begin right now with a dramatic turnaround. Atlanta public schools, nationally recognized for students who had mastered state tests -- well, the year was 2009. Those schools and their leaders were held up as models for struggling school districts everywhere. The Atlanta schools chief, Beverly Hall, was named U.S. Superintendent of the Year.
But, today, an independent investigation says it was all a lie. Those amazing gains were the result of cheating teachers who themselves stood to gain from rising scores. The scandal centers on standardized tests, the so-called Criterion Referenced Competency Test.
Investigators found cheating in 44 out of 56 elementary schools at the hands of almost 180 teachers and principals; 82 of them have reportedly confessed that they took part.
"The Atlanta Journal Constitution" was the first to ask questions three years ago and its finding led to official inquiries which administrators allegedly blocked. Well, now, criminal charges are said to be possible.
And let me show you some of the questionable test scores that we're talking about for you. One school noted by "The Atlanta Journal Constitution" -- 94 percent of fourth graders actually failed a practice math test in 2009. Well, two months later on the real test, the same class scored fourth -- fourth in the state. The paper says the odds of that kind of change are less than one in 1 billion.
A different school, pretty much the same story. Listen -- a fourth grade class ranks 830th in the state on the state math test in 2008. One year later, as fifth graders, they come in first. What are the odds? Again, less than one in a billion.
Georgia Governor Nathan Deal says students pay the price when teachers fix their answers. Listen.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
GOV. NATHAN DEAL (R), GEORGIA: Nothing is more important to the future of our state than ensuring that today's students receive a first class education -- and integrity in testing is a necessary piece of that equation. When test results are falsified and students who have not mastered the necessary material are promoted, our students are harmed. Parents lose sight of their child's true progress and taxpayers are cheated.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
FEYERICK: And what about Superintendent Hall, the national superintendent of the year? Well, after years of flat-out denials that anyone cheated, she admitted last month that some wrongdoing did take place but other people were to blame. Hall left her post when her contract expired June 30th.
And it's official. Dominique Strauss-Kahn now faces sex charges in France as well. As expected, a lawyer for a French journalist Tristane Banon filed an attempted rape complaint in Paris just about an hour ago. Strauss-Kahn, once the powerful head of the International Monetary Fund, is already fighting sexual assault charges here in the United States.
CNN senior international correspondent Jim Bittermann joins us with the latest from France with those lawyers giving a press conference moments ago -- Jim.
JIM BITTERMANN, CNN SENIOR INTERNATIONAL CORRESPONDENT: Deborah, in fact, just to make this clear -- he is not facing charges here yet. What has happened is a lawyer has filed a complaint with the prosecutor's office in Paris. The prosecutor then has to study the case, decide whether there's enough evidence to actually go ahead and press charges. But that hasn't happened yet. In fact, it could take some months because the prosecutor can -- goes over the complaint, and then tries to find out whether the evidence is substantiated.
Basically, this relates to a case pretty well known here in France. This young lady, Tristane Banon, said that back in 2003 when she was a budding journalist and Strauss-Kahn was on his way up in the socialist party, she went and interviewed him and that he attacked her and tried to rape her.
After that event, her mother, who was a midlevel member of the socialist party, basically talked her out of filing a complaint at the time. Her mother says she now regrets that.
But in any case, the daughter has said to the press here that, in fact, she would be upset if Strauss-Kahn came back to France totally exonerated of the charges in the United States. That's why she is now filing this complaint and hoping the prosecutor goes along and files charges against Strauss-Kahn here -- Deborah.
FEYERICK: And, Jim, my understanding also, though, is that Dominique Strauss-Kahn's French lawyers have also filed a counterclaim, saying that these are false declarations -- I guess amounting to slander. What's the status of that?
BITTERMANN: That's exactly right. They have filed a defamation suit against both Banon and her -- and the people around her, her lawyer and others, basically saying those charges are not true.
Also, another thing that's happened is that some of Strauss-Kahn's allies have come out of the woodwork and are saying that Ms. Banon is an opportunist. And they point out that she writes for a Web site that's closely connected to Nicolas Sarkozy, which, of course, a person who would have been opponent to Strauss-Kahn if he was running for president.
FEYERICK: And, briefly, Jim -- you know, I was in New York and I was covering all this and all this craziness was happening. There were about 1,000 journalists who descended on to the courthouse there. One of the things Strauss-Kahn had said is that he was convinced that if he did run for president, that a political opponent would either make up allegations or they would try to get him on his past relationships.
Is that the mood in France, given that this woman, the mother, is actually part of the same party as he is?
BITTERMANN: Well, I think -- he certainly said that to the press. He said it to the editorial board of "Liberation," a big newspaper here, about two weeks before he was arrested in New York. And he certainly was aware of the fact that there must have been something out there that people would try to accuse him of this or try to set him up is what he had suggested in his interview with the editorial board.
So, yes, I think politics here can be pretty dirty when it comes to presidential campaigns, and certainly, in his case, I think since he was a leading opponent, that there was a suggestion that -- you know, that perhaps his opponents were going to do something and that this whole thing was a setup.
And there's been some rumors and accusations about that that have been in the press here over the last few days, so this whole thing was set up with the hotel maid in New York. That, of course, those charges still have not been dropped in New York, but looks like they may be. Nonetheless, it's a case that has large political overtones for France in a presidential election year. So, there's a lot at stake here -- Deborah.
FEYERICK: Absolutely. And certainly not over. Jim Bittermann, thank you so much. Our man for us in Paris -- thanks a million.
Well, the jury in the Casey Anthony murder trial is in its second day of deliberations. Jurors met for nearly six hours yesterday and then they resumed this morning at 8:30 Eastern. Anthony, of course, accused of killing her 2-year-old daughter Caylee three years ago. In addition to first degree murder, Anthony is charged with aggravated manslaughter, aggravated child abuse and giving false information to law enforcement officers.
If she's convicted on the murder charge, she could get the death penalty.
The search for a missing college student resumes in Indiana. Authorities announced just a short time ago that a body found near Indianapolis yesterday is not the body of 20-year-old Lauren Spierer. Indiana University student was last seen leaving a sports bar more than a month ago. Her father spoke recently about what the family's going through.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
ROBERT SPIERER, FATHER: I still don't understand what's happened over the past four weeks. I can tell you that it's our worst nightmare. It's an experience that you don't want anyone to ever have to go through.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
FEYERICK: And the search continues, but there's still no sign of at least six people missing from a capsized Mexican tourist boat. At least one person, an American, died when the Erik sank off the east coast of Mexico's Baja California peninsula.
There were dozens of survivors. Some managed to swim to shore while others were rescued by fishermen and the Mexican navy. All are reported in good condition.
To Washington now, where lawmakers are making their way back to work on what typically is a week-long break for Independence Day. The Senate convenes next hour. The House, tomorrow. But that's no guarantee that their most urgent priority will actually get resolved.
I speak, of course, of the raising -- raising the nation's debt limit which we hit a month and a half ago and will no longer be able to work around come early August. If the limit is not raised, the Treasury could default on its obligations which could make borrowing far more expensive, with calamitous results around.
And as you may know, Republicans are insisting on spending cuts at least as large as any debt increase and $1 trillion in cuts have already been identified in talks with the White House. But talks fell apart over GOP refusal to consider any tax hikes which Democrats say are vital to a balanced solution. Republicans also want to vote on a balanced budget amendment to the Constitution.
And NASA's shuttle program was -- as Neil Armstrong put it -- one giant leap for mankind. That's all about to end. But the next phase will more than likely have people like you and me flying through space. It could be interesting.
We'll take you live to Florida as we count down NASA's final shuttle flight, next. That's coming up.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
FEYERICK: The countdown to the end of an era begins. The crew of the space shuttle Atlantis is preparing for its last launch and NASA's final shuttle mission. With the Atlantis crew now at Kennedy Space Center, NASA held a briefing today about its final flight. Atlantis will lift off on Friday for a 12-day mission to the International Space Station, signaling an end to NASA's longest and most successful space program.
John Zarrella is going to be watching it all for us live. He's joining us from Florida.
And, John, you know, you think about it -- this is a program that started under Richard Nixon. There have been 135 shuttle missions. It has carried -- it helped build the International Space Station, launched satellites. This is really -- our way of life has changed because of the shuttle.
Tell me about that.
JOHN ZARRELLA, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Yes. There's no question about it.
You know, you wouldn't have the space station without the space shuttle. And, you know, some people will argue that the space station was built because NASA needed a destination for the shuttle. You know, NASA won't, of course, admit that. But there is some truth to that.
I think one of the milestones we never hear about, about the space shuttle program, that the NASA administrator told me was -- you know what, before the space shuttle, not a single woman or a person of color had flown on an American space vehicle. One of the most significant contributions the space shuttle has made to society is that, and the fact that people from all over the world, astronauts from across the planet, have had opportunities to fly on the space shuttle, a magnificent technological achievement and one that also had tremendous social benefit.
FEYERICK: Also, right, the Hubble telescope. That was one of their big accomplishments as well, right?
ZARRELLA: Yes. Oh, without a doubt.
FEYERICK: Now, we're hearing weather could be a problem -- yes.
ZARRELLA: Yes.
FEYERICK: We're hearing that weather could be a problem. What is the mood there? And, obviously, everybody was sort of watching and waiting and then it's all about the weather. So, what's the sense there for Friday?
ZARRELLA: Yes. Isn't that typical down here in Florida, it seems like it's always about the weather, certainly in the summertime. Only a 40 percent chance of good weather on the launch day, if they go to Saturday or Sunday, the odds improve to about 60 percent.
It's funny, too, Deb, the countdown clock that I can see out here was supposed to start ticking at 1:00, about 15 minutes ago. It hasn't started yet. NASA says the countdown has proceeded. They're not sure why the clock's not working. But, I guess, you know, if that's the worst that they have as a problem, the next few days, that's not bad.
FEYERICK: Now, let's talk about the next phase in space flight as well, because we wonder, like, OK, this part's over. There's no -- we're not going to be commuting into space. You know, 777 people I think I read commuted into space. So, what is next?
ZARRELLA: Yes. Well, that's just it. NASA is going to go ahead and take all their energies into deep space exploration. That's the plan. Go to an asteroid, go to Mars, 2025, 2030, if the money's there, if the political resolve is there.
Meanwhile, commercial companies, they are going to go ahead now and NASA's saying -- it's up to you folks to take us to low earth orbit from here on.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
ZARRELLA (voice-over): Elon Musk runs Space X. Richard Branson heads Virgin Galactic. Both are using their considerable wealth to back bold attempts to make space travel as routine as boarding an airplane.
RICHARD BRANSON, VIRGIN GALACTIC: People used to say to me, look, it will be impossible to build your own spaceship and your own spaceship company and to be able to take people into space. And, you know, that's the kind of challenge that I love to sort of prove them wrong.
ELON MUSK, SPACE X: We want to see a future where we are exploring the stars, where we're going to other planets, where we're doing the great things that we read about in science fiction and in the movies.
ZARRELLA: There are several companies, some big, some small, who see as NASA moves on to distant planets, that weightless region just above the atmosphere. Just out of reach right now, becoming quite possibly a good investment.
GEORGE MUSSER, "SCIENTIFIC AMERICAN" MAGAZINE: NASA's still in there, still going to develop a heavy lift rocket, but we've also got this hopefully flowering of private space flight and that's what's going to get us the Hiltons and the Hertz rent-a-car and whatever in orbit.
ZARRELLA: Space X and Virgin Galactic are on the verge of not just opening, but stepping through that door to the future.
MUSK: We want to make space accessible to everyone. I mean that's a revolutionary change, but it's incredibly exciting. And it brings space -- the possibility of space travel to all Americans, which is fantastic.
ZARRELLA: Next year, Musk hopes to begin carrying cargo to the International Space Station, eventually astronauts. A commercial company replacing the space shuttle.
MUSK: We believe firmly we can send astronauts to the Space Station within three years of receiving a NASA contract to do so.
ZARRELLA: But unless it's safe, NASA's administrator says no U.S. astronaut will be on board.
CHARLIE BOLDEN, NASA ADMINISTRATOR: I cannot allow them to put us in jeopardy by not focusing on crew safety and the like. That's my job.
ZARRELLA: The stakes are high. There is no turning back. The shuttle retired and astronauts left to riding Russian space ships, NASA is counting on commercial companies to get it right, make it work. And the more who make it work, the more affordable it will become.
BRANSON: That's the end of a particular era and it's up to individuals like myself, if you're in a position to be able to, you know, achieve wonderful things, you know, not to waste that position.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
FEYERICK: Well, join John Zarrella, Anderson Cooper and Brooke Baldwin for our special coverage of the final shuttle launch. That's coming up on Friday beginning at 10:00 a.m. Eastern right here on CNN.
Well, a great credit score is not enough to get you the home of your dreams. Up next, see how the perfect buyer struggles to find a lender.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
FEYERICK: Well, you work hard, pay bills on time, and you have the perfect credit score. That means you can buy the home of your dreams, right? Not so fast. You're about to meet one couple with a stellar credit score willing to put 20 percent down. They were denied a mortgage. Lenders are imposing tighter standards, making mortgages harder to come by, even if you've played by the rules. Alison Kosik reports.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
ALISON KOSIK, CNN CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): For Gary Frisch and his fiance Christina Daniels (ph), the moment they saw this house, they knew they wanted it. But for this couple, the buying process became a love/hate relationship.
GARY FRISCH, DENIED A MORTGAGE: I was stunned when I got the news.
KOSIK: A week before his closing, Frisch found out his mortgage was denied, even though he put 20 percent down and had a top notch credit score.
KOSIK (on camera): This credit report shows that you have an excellent credit score.
FRISCH: Yes, my credit was exceptional. It was over 800 according to one of the reporting bureaus and high 700s according to the others. So my credit was not an issue at all.
KOSIK (voice-over): But Frisch had started his own business in 2007 and initially his income took a hit. Finally, last year, his business started to pay off and he had a big jump in income. But that extra money coming in didn't mean approval.
FRISCH: The reason I was told by my realtor that I was declined was, too big of a disparity between my 2009 and 2010 income.
KOSIK: Five years ago that may have not been a problem. But these days, it's a red flag.
BOB MOULTON, PRES., AMERICAN MORTGAGE GROUP: The bank is looking for steady income flow and that self-employed borrower can't show it. So that person is getting declined right now and not able to buy a house.
KOSIK (on camera): Before the recession, credit was flowing free and easy. But then when the housing market went bust, lenders pulled back, overcompensating and tightened their lending standards.
KOSIK (voice-over): In fact, in today's market, almost a quarter of all mortgage applications are denied.
MOULTON: We were too lenient in the early 2000s. We're too tight right now. It's got to end up somewhere in the middle.
KOSIK: And if lenders don't find that middle, it could scare some buyers away.
KOSIK (on camera): Did you think at one point you were just going to give up and not go through with this?
FRISCH: Yes, that thought did enter my mind a couple of times.
KOSIK (voice-over): As for the lender, Prosperity Mortgage says, quote, "privacy laws dictate we protect the personal information of all individuals, so we are unable to comment on a specific case."
But the story ends well for Frisch and Daniels. He found another lender that got him into a loan and the couple into a new home. But for Frisch --
FRISCH: The lesson learned is, you just have to really have a thick skin.
KOSIK: And be prepared to work through a difficult process.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
KOSIK: Now anyone who's actually gone through buying a home knows that it's just not an easy process. But actually the loan officer that you choose has a big impact on how well that process goes. You really need somebody in your corner and they should know what they're doing, like how to structure a loan application the right way. But the biggest hurdle, Deb, is how you look on paper. You've got to have good credit and you shouldn't carry too much debt.
Deb. FEYERICK: You know, it's really so interesting because banks are now sort of making, again, these judgments on who can afford, who cannot afford. And clearly this man looks like he can afford. What are the most important things lenders are looking for when they're going over a person's mortgage application? How do you make yourself an attractive lendee?
KOSIK: Oh, sure. You know what, there are four constant stats these lenders look at. First of all, they're going to look at your income. They want to know that you've got a steady paycheck coming in every month. You know, secondly, they're going to look at your assets. They also want to see that a borrower can actually document where the down payment is coming from for that home.
They're also, of course, going to look at your credit and they want to see a high credit score. Something that's over 720. And, Deborah, the value of the property, they're going to look at that. They want to see, you know, what the property is appraised at. Though these days appraisals are coming in a bit lower than you may expect because these appraisers, they're being a lot more conservative than they used to be because property values were inflated for so long, now they're just taking a different approach.
Deb.
FEYERICK: All right, Alison Kosik for us in New York. Thanks so much. Appreciate that.
Checking our top stories now. Dominique Strauss-Kahn now faces sex charges in France. As expected, a lawyer for French journalist Tristane Banon filed an attempted rape complaint in Paris a short time ago. Strauss-Kahn, once the powerful head of the International Monetary Fund, he's already fighting sexual assault charges in the United States, but that case is in jeopardy due to questions about the credibility of his accuser.
And U.S. officials suspect Pakistan's intelligence service ordered the killing of a journalist after he reported on ties between al Qaeda and the Pakistani military. Senior Obama administration officials told "The New York Times" that intelligence surrounding the death of Pakistani journalist Saleem Shahzad suggests he was killed to silence his criticism. Pakistan denies the report. We are going to have much more on this coming up at the top of the hour.
The U.S. Secret Service is now investigating the apparent hacking of Fox News' political Twitter feed after false reports said President Obama had been killed. Fox says it's also pushing for a detailed investigation from Twitter about how it happened and how to prevent future incidents. The false tweets remained on the site for hours before they were removed.
And proof that early cancer screening saves lives. The CDC has just released a new report on one of the biggest killers in men. We've got the details. Stay with us.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK) FEYERICK: Well, early detection pays off in the fight against cancer. We know that. But there's a finding in a new report about colorectal cancer. It came out just about an hour ago. And CNN's senior medical correspondent, Elizabeth Cohen, joining me now.
And this is a little bit different. What's happening?
ELIZABETH COHEN, CNN SENIOR MEDICAL CORRESPONDENT: I love having good news. I love having good news. Which is that the number --
FEYERICK: Elizabeth, we are going to break away for just one moment because we do have confirmation of some breaking news right now. That breaking news is that there does appear to be a verdict in the Casey Anthony trial. We are getting word, we have confirmed, that there appears to be a verdict in the Casey Anthony trial. That verdict going to be announced at about 2:15. David Mattingly, he's on the ground for us.
David, what are you hearing?: What do you know? What is the mood?
DAVID MATTINGLY, CNN CORRESPONDENT: This is part of the promise that the courthouse staff has given us. Given us 30 minutes warning of a verdict being read in the courtroom. That notice came down at 1:26. So a half hour from that time, we are expecting to be back in the courtroom and listening to this jury render its decision in the Casey Anthony trial.
This was -- there was talk about today how long it would take. Conventional wisdom had it that if they were able to reach a verdict relatively quickly, it would be a good sign for the prosecution. They felt if it took a long time, it would be an indication that there were problems on the jury, some kind of disagreement.
But again, all conventional wisdom is frequently tossed on its head. I mean just look at what happened with the O.J. case. We're going to be watching very closely to see what this jury decides. If they find her guilty of something, everyone is going to be looking to see if they have found her guilty of premeditated murder, murder in the first degree, and that would make Casey Anthony eligible for the death penalty here in the state of Florida.
FEYERICK: And what's interesting is also the range of charges in this case, David, I mean because there's also manslaughter of a child. Some lawyers have said that could be a potential compromise verdict. For example, all evidence points to the fact that somehow she was involved or may have been involved. However, there could be -- what they decide on, there is a range of choice really in some respects, correct?
MATTINGLY: That's right. And there are lesser charges that they could be looking at if they decide not to go with first degree murder. There's murder in the second degree, there's manslaughter, there's aggravated child abuse, there's all sorts of combinations that the jury could be looking at here varying by degree and varying by sentence.
The only one that carries the death penalty is the premeditated murder, first degree murder. Lower versions of that, like murder in the second degree, aggravated child abuse, those carry possibly 30 years. There's one that might carry possibly life. So all of these, very long time for her.
FEYERICK: And what's interesting, David, we put up a graphic which you may or may not be able to see. And just to clarify also, what has to be decided, is this first degree murder? Is this aggravated manslaughter of a child? Aggravated child abuse? Then clearly, there are the charges of lying to police and all of those have to be voted on by the jury.
I was speaking to Richard Herman yesterday, our lawyer, and he said that basically what will happen, the jury tends to go into the room, they take a vote on some of the charges, they may ask to see new evidence. But the jury as far as you know, David, did not send out any sort of a note, correct? They didn't need clarification on any of the charges, they didn't need prosecutors to explain further any of the evidence or sort of point out any evidence.
So really this is -- they've been very self-contained and have not needed any sort of guidance from the court, correct?
MATTINGLY: That's right. That has been something of a surprise here. They did not send out one notice, not one single question to the court about any of the evidence they had before them and they had 33 days of testimony. They heard from scores of witnesses. It sounds like that toward the end of this trial they were considering everything that they had in front of them and they were already making up their minds before they went into that jury room.
It'd be interesting to find out later when some of these jurors decide to go public and tell us what was going on inside that room, how they came about making this decision and how much agreement or disagreement they had in that room.
FEYERICK: And what's also interesting is that Casey Anthony during this trial, I think it surprised -- or during this period, I should say, some people were surprised that she was actually sitting in the courtroom,. But in fact, a lot of defendants, that's where they are allowed to be. They don't need to be off in a different room. They don't need to be in any sort of a holding area, that they are allowed to be sort of front and center and that's where Casey Anthony was today, waiting, just waiting like everybody else.
What was the sense of her demeanor, anybody in the court there who was kind of watching her during this time?
FEYERICK: Casey Anthony cannot blink without somebody watching her in that courtroom. She has been very closely watched this entire trial.
Today, it was a little unusual. As we looked at her before the jurors came in to hear from the judge and before they went into deliberating today, they were all -- before they came into the courtroom, Casey Anthony was sitting there. She seemed somewhat agitated. She was in a very animated conversation with one of her defense attorneys. She was gesturing like there was something she disagreed about or something that was bothering her. We just don't know what was going on there.
But again, she's been very intensely watched in this very intensely watched trial. And yesterday we noticed there were bags under her eyes, she was very serious looking. You can tell this trial has taken a toll on her. I doubt that she's been sleeping very well, particularly these past couple of days as the prosecution has really been hammering home to the jury their notion of why this happened.
And they say this murder happened because Casey Anthony yearned for a simpler, carefree life of partying and this little girl that she had that everyone testified that she was a good mother and loved her child, but the prosecution says that she wanted this child out of the way because little Caylee Anthony was getting in her way of the life that she wanted to have.
That was the first time that all of the information we had was brought together by the prosecution to give us why, the motive behind this, and that was a very powerful moment for the jury. The prosecution had the last word in this. That was the last thing that the jurors heard before they went into that room.
FEYERICK: Sure. David Mattingly, hang -- stay with us for one moment. We're going to bring in Holly Hughes, our legal expert here, to talk a little more about this case.
First of all, we have the charge sheet here. These are basically all the charges that the jury has to go through. They go through them one at a time. What goes on in that room? They didn't send out any notes so it seems that whatever the case was, was pretty clearly presented.
So what is happening now?
HOLLY HUGHES, CRIMINAL DEFENSE ATTORNEY: What they did, when they went back there, Deb, was they got all of their notes out, they sat down, they elected a foreman and they were ready to go.
They took that charging document you were just talking about, the indictment. The indictment's just the fancy term for the piece of paper that the state hands to the court and says we're charging her with these crimes. Doesn't mean guilty or innocent, but it means we think she's guilty and we want the chance to prove it.
So the jurors took that indictment, they went in the back with that piece of paper. They took that book of instructions that we've seen the judge give them called the jury charge and they said these are the elements of the first charge, first degree murder. Now, what evidence was presented that proves to us it's first degree murder. So they would have gone element by element, crime by crime. And somebody would have said, somebody testified to this, somebody testified to that. And that's how they reach a verdict.
FEYERICK: Talk to me about the length of decision, the time it took for these men and women to reach a verdict.
In your experience, is it short, is it long? How do you view that? HUGHES: I actually think this is probably right around where it should be, because we all remember the O.J. Simpson trial went on for a year and a half presenting evidence and in less than a day they had a verdict. And you're thinking to yourself, OK, but you couldn't possibly have reviewed the evidence. You didn't take it seriously. You all had your minds made up so you weren't following instructions. No matter what you thought about guilt or innocence, you thought the process was not done properly.
In this particular instance, what we did see -- and you pointed it out -- was a very clear presentation of evidence from the state and they're the ones with the burden of prove. They got up there, they said this is what we're going to show you. They showed the jury and then they said at the end, and this is what we have shown you and they sat down.
So I think this 10 hours is right -- it's the time for them to go through everything and come to a decision.
FEYERICK: OK. And we're looking at a picture of the hallway there. We're likely going to see some folks coming out.
I want to bring in Dave Mattingly who's there for us.
Dave, let me ask you. The judge said he was going to give 30 minutes warning before a verdict came out. Who are you seeing move towards that courtroom, have the parents -- have Casey Anthony's parents gone very far away, are they hovering outside?
What are you seeing out there?
MATTINGLY: We have not seen Casey Anthony's parents today. We've been watching the camera in the hallway outside the courtroom. There's one camera positioned there, there's a camera positioned inside the media room, where all the reporters are sitting waiting after this trial for the jurors to come out and speak, and then there's the camera inside the courtroom, that inside the courtroom camera is not up at this point.
But again, a big mad scramble when that word came down. So many news outlets here, so many members of the public here, very interested to see how this turns out. And now, the lucky people who stood in line yesterday to get passes into the courtroom for today will have a front row seat to be there when this verdict is read.
And this case has been making headlines since 2008, when this little girl Caylee Anthony first went missing. And it was such an emotional time. People got caught up in the search for her then and then all the strange information coming out about the mother not reporting her missing for a month, and from there on, it just kept getting bigger and bigger and bigger until we got to this trial.
FEYERICK: You know, David, it's interesting what you say, because just talking to people about this case, if you haven't followed it, you may wonder why all the drama but the truth is, as you begin to follow it step by step by step, there are so many twists and so many turns, and even the story of Casey Anthony herself, never knowing what direction it's going to go in.
Let me ask Holly. When we think about all of this, the drama behind this, that a mother might be able to, as prosecutors allege.
What do you think the hold is on people about this case?
HUGHES: This case is fascinating for two reasons. It's not just the legalities and the brand-new, cutting edge science. It is the humanity in this case. It is the psychological twists and turns. We see a young mother behaving in a way that is so strange to us.
Now we've seen, unfortunately Deb, in covering these cases, that mothers kill their children a lot. It happens a lot in this country. People kill people they love all the time. But what we have here is a young woman who not only, according to the state, killed her child, but then went on to live this raucous lifestyle of partying and drinking and entering hot body contests for 31 days.
And we're all thinking to ourselves how did you ever believe you were going to get away with your child is gone and no one's going to question that? This is not a young woman who was on her own struggling in a city where she knew nobody. She lived at home, for goodness' sakes, with her parents who loved that baby and doted on that baby.
And so therefore, we're fascinated that she thinks she can get away with this. And then as it unfolds, as it goes further and we meet the mother, and we meet the father, and we meet the brother, they're all characters.
FEYERICK: And even watching the interaction between them during those jailhouse meetings, you know, just to see the body dynamic, I guess what you can call the suspicion on the part of the parents looking at this.
HUGHES: Right.
FEYERICK: And David, I want to ask you out there, what do we know? Obviously the names of the jurors have been kept out of the media. But what do we know about the individuals in terms of their makeup, their jobs, for example, their age range?
What do you know?
MATTINGLY: They range in age from 32, which is the youngest, to retirement age, about 65. We are looking at seven women, five men, some of them professionals. An IT worker, a retired nurse's aide, a retired nurse, a nursing student, a man who works for a cell phone company. They just have average jobs, average walks of life, people who would not be rising to ranks of celebrity as some of them are about to do should they choose to go public.
At this point, they have been protected from the public view. You have not seen them on camera. The only way to see these jurors is to actually sit in the courtroom. But publicly, we don't know their names. Outside of the courtroom, we don't know what they look like. They can try to go back to their private lives after this but it's anticipated that some of them will come forward to step in front of the cameras to say who they are and how they came about doing their decision.
And the court has actually had a stage and microphone set up with seats in the room with the juror number marked on each one of the seats for them to sit down after this trial is over, to have a group press conference if they want. But, of course, they can opt out of that and try to go back to their lives, their jobs and the world they left behind when this trial started.
FEYERICK: It's going to be tough. It's going to be tough. Absolutely.
Even the judge yesterday said, and we can see a bunch of folks here filing into the courtroom. But even the judge said yesterday that a lot of show bookers, what we call bookers, had already descended down on the courthouse and they're the ones, really, who are aggressive at trying to get folks on to all those different morning shows.
So you're absolutely right. We're going to be hearing from some of those jurors, potentially. Whether they can sort of fade back into potential anonymity that's certainly to be determined.
Holly, let me -- this is -- one of the things that I was talking about this morning is -- we're be joined also by Diane Dimond in a quick moment.
But this is really the first time they had to talk about this. The judge said you can't talk about -- you cannot talk about it until I tell you, you can. So this is -- then had all this evidence bottled up inside of them and now they're like OK, what do you think, what do you think, you know?
HUGHES: Exactly. And the other thing we need to point out for our viewers is what's unusual with this group is they've been together for six weeks, not being able to talk about the evidence that they see presented to them all day and not be able to have any social activity. So no radio, no internet, no phone, no TV.
What have they done, Deb? They have bonded. They have talked about their family life. They have talked about children. They have talked about their dreams and their aspirations. They are a cohesive group, which in most juries you don't get. These folks come in, here's some evidence, go home to their lives, come back the next day.
There's not that opportunity to get to know each other and now that they've done it, that's out of the way. They can get in that room, get down to the business of it and they're going to treat each other with a little more respect because now they like each other. They have had that opportunity.
FEYERICK: And that's -- and you wonder whether, in fact, that's contributed to this speed and efficiency at which they reached this verdict.
HUGHES: Absolutely.
FEYERICK: I want to bring in Diane Dimond.
Diane, you have followed some major cases in your day. Watching this, looking at the potential or the verdict return and what its potential outcome could be, what is your sense about what will happen?
DIANE DIMOND, SPECIAL CORRESPONDENT, NEWSWEEK/THE DAILY BEAST (via telephone): Well, Deb, I'll tell you, I learned long ago never to make a prediction about what a jury might do.
But I do find it absolutely compelling that it's been, what, 11 hours over just two days. This, of course, after an almost seven-week long trial. And this jury, Deb, did not send out any notes. It did not say to Judge Perry could we please come back in the courtroom and hear that videotape again or that audio tape?
This is a jury that seems pretty darned cohesive from the get-go to reach a major decision like this in only 11 hours. I'm frankly stunned. This, of course, after a seven -- almost seven-week long trial.
And this jury did not send out any notes. It did not say to Judge Perry, "Could we please come back in the courtroom and hear that videotape again or that audio tape?" This is a jury that seems pretty darned cohesive from the get-go to reach a major decision like this in only 11 hours. I'm frankly stunned.
FEYERICK: And it is interesting. And I think, you know, having covered a number of trials myself, you're always waiting for that note, because you're trying to get a glimpse into what the jurors might be thinking.
DIMOND: Right.
FEYERICK: Are they conflicted about a piece of information, is something not clear. But again, when you think about this, the closings, is that the starting point for most of these jurors? When they go back in the room, is it like -- well, here's what he said and here's what -- more so than let's start from the very beginning? Is it that they start at the end and kind of work their way back?
DIMOND: You know, every single jury goes about it in a different way, because they don't get in the room and there's a list of things like, OK, first pick a foreman. OK, now make, you know, a vote. And people I think have the wrong impression about how juries work. Each one is so unique.
So I imagine from what I have talked with other jurors who have gone through this, they get in a room and they all look around and go, "OK, here we are, what's everybody think?" And they go around the table and they get a feeling.
And now, if that feeling is "I think she did it," or, "You know, I have some doubts," then that's where they start. But remember, this particular jury, Deb, has seven -- had seven different counts to go through.
So that they polled each other, they took votes, they lingered over seven individual counts -- it tells me that they were all pretty much in agreement. There has not been a lot of time for dispute here.
FEYERICK: Right. When you think about it, when you think about it --
DIMOND: If I was Casey Anthony, I would be worried right now.
FEYERICK: And when you think about it, you know, if you break it down, it took -- if you want to do an equation, it took maybe about an hour and a half for the jury to figure out each count against Casey Anthony.
David Mattingly is out there for us.
David, 30 minutes, little less than 30 minutes away from finding out what the verdict against Casey Anthony is going to be. What are you -- what are you seeing out there in terms of some of the people? Obviously, there's always that expectation that lingers in the air about what's going to happen. What are you -- what are you seeing?
MATTINGLY: Well, the people who can get inside the courtroom, the lucky people who have passes to get in there today, they are going in there. The people outside, this has been something of a tourist attraction over this holiday weekend, people coming by just to see the place where this trial was taking place. Crowds not nearly as large today. There was not a large group of people lingering outside in the courtyard outside of the courthouse today.
We have known that, however, there are people, sightseers, if you want to call them that, going through the neighborhood where Casey Anthony's parents live, going to see the place where little Caylee's body was discovered in the woods, in that swampy area near the Anthony home.
Authorities there have had people on site to keep traffic directed and they said that when a jury -- when the jury was going to come back with a verdict, that they were going to shut off traffic to that neighborhood because the residents were concerned they were just going to be inundated with onlookers. They wanted to make sure that only people getting into that neighborhood for some time will be the people who live there.
But in just the past couple days, we have been watching a makeshift memorial grow in the woods where her body was discovered, stuffed animals, cards, people letting the family and everyone know that their hearts are with this little girl during this decision-making time.
FEYERICK: And that's -- it's interesting because prosecutors absolutely made that point throughout the entire trial, certainly through closing arguments, and that is they made sure that nobody forgot who this little girl was. They made sure that her picture was there, that the humanity, the human element, was always there.
And, speaking of that, I mean, Holly, one thing, this has got to be -- Casey Anthony sitting there, waiting for this verdict, whatever happens. But Cindy and George Anthony must be frantic at this point. They have lost their granddaughter. If the jury returns a verdict of not innocent, you know, which is going to happen in -- or the verdict coming down in 25 minutes, they could lose their daughter, too.
HUGHES: You know, Deb, I have prosecuted death penalty cases. I have prosecuted serial rapists. And what I tell everybody is there are no winners, even if it's a guilty verdict, because let's look at what really happened.
A 2 1/2 precious little baby lost her life. And when we think about what's about to happen, her mother baby lost her life. Her mother may face the death penalty, or her mother may go free and there may not be justice for those who feel she's guilty.
And this is a day we will look back on and we will remember two things. We will remember that we were horrified and we were heartbroken. No matter what happens, we're horrified at the death of this baby, and we're heartbroken for the players, because there could be no doubt in anyone's mind that George and Cindy Anthony were crazy in love with that little girl, and they loved their daughter.
Even with this horrible accusation that George abused her, and Lee abused her -- you know, someone was asking earlier, do you think they would go and visit her in jail? I do. That is their daughter -- that is their child, they gave birth to her and raised her. And no matter how horrified or heartbroken, they will be able to continue to love her.
FEYERICK: Sure.
HUGHES: And they will somewhere in time be able to forgive her. So, no matter what the verdict, nobody wins and somebody is going to be absolutely torn apart.
FEYERICK: And Diane Dimond is joining us by phone also. I think one of the big questions everybody has, depending on what the verdict is, is the question of why, the question of why. There are so many options, so many alternatives. But the question is why -- why does somebody feel the only way to live their life or to move forward is doing something this dramatic?
So, what has your experience shown?
DIMOND: Well, you know, you're assuming facts here, Deb, that she did, in fact, kill -- murder her daughter the way the state says, with chlorophyll and then -- I'm sorry, chloroform and then with tape over her mouth. You know, that's such a deep question, Deb.
I don't even know how to answer it because I've been in so many courtrooms watching so many defendants who have done such despicable things to other human beings, and that's always the big umbrella question, why? Why did you feel that you had to kill your wife? Why didn't you just walk away?
In this instance, I'm going to -- and I'm writing about this now for "The Daily Beast." I tell you, I think the defense made a huge mistake in grabbing such a complicated scenario for this jury. There was a drowning, the grandfather got involved, the grandfather put the duct tape on, and the grandfather threw the body away. And, oh, by the way, he molested her, and so did her brother. It was too complicated.
This is -- I don't want you think I'm assuming she's going to be found guilty, but I covered this case from the beginning and it doesn't look good for this young woman. I think when her own attorney admits she is a liar, a habitual pathological liar who has imaginary friends, I think the better defense would have been -- her child drown in the pool, she panicked because she's mentally ill. That would have been something for this jury to more easily hold in its hand, I think.
FEYERICK: Do you know, I saw Holly who's sitting her head in agreement with you, Diane. And the interesting thing about this is, look, with a defense attorney, OK, a defense attorney is supposed to listen to the story that their client tells them. If that's the story that Casey Anthony told, then isn't that the story that no matter how convoluted he had to move forward with?
I mean, Diane makes a very good point. It was -- he did this and he did that and all the allegations out there that nobody has to prove during the course of the trial. But doesn't he have to go with what she is allegedly telling him happened?
HUGHES: Well, yes and no. Diane, she just put it out there exactly right, because let's remind the viewers, in a criminal trial, the defense has absolutely no burden of proof. So, they did not have to stand up and do anything, and there's something that they could do if their client absolutely insists you must tell my story, this is my story.
And this is strategically what they could have done -- waited for the state to get done completely giving their evidence, and then stood up and given their opening, it's called reserving. You say, Judge, I'd like to reserve my opening until the end of the state's case.
When you see what the state put up, then you can say, hey, you know what, I've got enough to just argue reasonable doubt. I can poke holes in the forensics. I don't even have to do anything.
And then you decide, now, do I want to go forward and put up this evidence. The other thing is, you know, you've got to fully investigate it. And I don't see all that happening here because, you know, clearly, the defendant does not have to testify. She has an absolute constitutional right to sit there silent.
So, you need to ask yourself as a defense attorney, and I do that now, you need to strategically say, if we do not put her on the stand, who else can get the evidence admitted? And if it can't be admitted, then you really cannot stand up and say, you know, this is what we're going to show you, and his mistake was saying to them --
FEYERICK: OK. I want to take a quick look. So, you can see right there, that's the inside of the courtroom. That is a live picture. And in the back, as they have been sitting throughout the whole trial, George and Casey Anthony, and you can see George seeming to, you know, look away a little bit. You wonder whether -- I'm sorry, George and Cindy. I apologize. You see George sitting there, and you wonder if they are trying to make eye contact with Casey.
And to be in that position as parents, to be in that position as parents has been so difficult, because the impression that I got from listening to the case, there were times that they were defending Casey, that they wanted to be good parents.
HUGHES: Right.
FEYERICK: They were saying, you know, you've got to be responsible. Again, as we await this verdict, which is less than 20 minutes away, sitting there -- they understand that there is a good likelihood that depending on what the jury comes back with -- clearly, their lives will never be the same, regardless of what the verdict is. It cannot be. They can never go back to the time before.
HUGHES: No. And their lives have not been the same since June 16th of 2008. And they never will. There is no going back from this and there is no true recovering from this.
They will move on. They will learn to adapt and to deal with whatever situation, whether they are visiting their daughter on death row, or whether she is acquitted and they are trying to rebuild some kind of relationship in light of what she said about them.
But you can better believe this, Deb, they are terrified right now.
FEYERICK: They've got to be.
HUGHES: Those parents are sitting there and they are absolutely terrified. And every single one of us can understand that. We know where they are coming from, whether you like them or dislike them or whether you think they lied about something, whether you think they could have done a better job raising their daughter -- as a human being with a heart, you know?
And even as a prosecutor, I felt sorry for the defendant's family. I knew I was about to ask the jury to send their child away for life without parole.
FEYERICK: Sure. Sure. And it's never easy. It's never easy. Because family is family and you do the best you can with your children and you hope that your efforts and a little faith and a little bit of luck is going to work out in your favor.
David Mattingly is outside the courthouse for us.
And, David, I want to go back to you, and ask -- you heard the closings. There's been some -- you've have heard the various elements. To you out there, right in the thick of it, what impressed you the most, vis-a-vis the closings? Where did you see Jose Baez, Casey Anthony's lawyer, coming out strong? Where did you see prosecutors coming out strong?
MATTINGLY: Well, when you look at, we had 33 days of testimony. A lot of those were very dry. Experts from both sides, each of them supporting different scenarios, and one saying the other didn't know what they were talking about. The other saying they didn't know when they were talking about.
If you wanted to believe every single point of view that you were confronted with, you wouldn't know what to think. It really wasn't until the closing arguments when these attorneys got up there and got passionate and summed up everything they were telling the jury into very digestible scenarios that really got the point of what they were doing.
Jose Baez, very, very passionate, fighting for the life of Casey Anthony -- going expert by expert, discrediting the best he could just about every expert the prosecution brought up to the stand. And remember that huge moment when Jose Baez was talking about the possibility that it was Casey Anthony's father that put the duct tape over Caylee's mouth after she drown in the swimming pool drowning, he was trying to say, he was the one who did, it was his duct tape. And it was that moment when he looked over and saw the prosecutor, Jeff Ashton smiling. And he pointed at him, and he said it doesn't matter what I think or smile --- or laughing guy here. And at that moment, the judge stopped everything. That moment let you know how hard these two sides were fighting.
The judge, of course, saying enough is enough. That happens again, either one of you does anything like that, you're out of this courtroom for the rest of this trial.
FEYERICK: And he should. The judge has to maintain control of the courtroom at all times.
