Return to Transcripts main page

Joy Behar Page

Casey Anthony Murder Trial

Aired July 06, 2011 - 22:00   ET

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

VINNIE POLITAN, HLN HOST, "PRIME NEWS": Hello, I`m Vinnie Politan outside the Orange County courthouse in Orlando, Florida. Joy Behar will be with you in just a minute. But first I want to give you the latest on Casey Anthony tonight.

The headline right now is that Casey could be a free woman tomorrow. The judge may decide during her sentencing hearing that she`s already served enough time for lying to police. If that happens, the Orange County Corrections Departments is ready for the big release.

They gave this statement: "Due to the high-profile nature this case and intense emotional interest by the public, appropriate measures will be taken to release the acquitted into the community in such a manner so as to preserve the safety of the acquitted individual and the public."

So what will Casey do if she gets out of jail tomorrow? She could start making a profit. "Son of Sam" laws keep criminals from earning money from their cases. Since Casey Anthony was acquitted, those rules do not apply. So nothing keeps her from book or movie deals.

Casey Anthony`s sentencing is tomorrow. Live coverage right here on HLN. Joy Behar picks up our coverage right now.

JOY BEHAR, HLN HOST: Thanks very much, Vinnie.

A day after the Florida jury found Casey Anthony not guilty in the death of her 2-year-old daughter Caylee, the shocking verdict is still sparking outrage across the country. Watch.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

CROWD: Justice for Caylee. Justice for Caylee. Justice for Caylee.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: I don`t know if they were watching the same thing we were. It`s just shocking.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: They call this justice? They say the American flag flies today? It does not. It does anything but fly today. It`s been trampled on today.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

BEHAR: Here to shed some light on what the jury might have been thinking are Marcia Clark, former O.J. Simpson prosecutor and author of "Guilt by Association"; Jo-Ellan Dimitrius, a jury consultant, who also worked on the O.J. Simpson trial; and Kathy Reichs -- I guess it is -- forensic anthropologist and author of the "Temperance Brennan" novels that inspired the TV series "Bones". Did I say it right, Kathy?

KATHY REICHS, FORENSIC ANTHROPOLOGIST: Reichs.

BEHAR: Reichs, ok.

Let me start. Marcia, you were shocked by the verdict? Why were you shocked?

MARCIA CLARK, PROSECUTOR, O.J. SIMPSON CASE: Well, there was no forerunner to the fact that a jury might actually acquit her of all the homicide counts. I thought the circumstantial evidence case was extremely strong. This is not a girl who was a famous star or a famous athlete who came in with kind of a halo of innocence that is unusual, that she`s known to people.

Simpson was known to everyone in the country. There was a big hurdle to overcome for so many, many reasons that had nothing to do with the evidence at all.

She did not. And I thought the case was very strong. I understand that now people are second-guessing the case and saying, wow, it really was pretty weak and just circumstantial. I disagree. And these same people were saying before that it was a very powerful case and a strongly compelling case.

I still think it is, and they did prove her guilty. So I was shocked, yes.

BEHAR: Ok. One of the alternate jurors, Russell Huekler, was not involved in the deliberations, but he says that he agrees with the verdict. Let`s watch that.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

RUSSELL HUEKLER, ALTERNATE JUROR: I agreed with it wholeheartedly. I -- it was the right decision that was made. The prosecution didn`t meet their burden of proof. We had a lot of reasonable doubt there. They didn`t show us the -- didn`t show us the evidence that, you know, was good enough for a conviction.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

BEHAR: Kathy, personally, I thought there was quite a bit of forensic evidence. But the jury didn`t find it sufficient. Why not? I mean, they had hair in the trunk that matched Caylee. This is --

REICHS: Maybe.

BEHAR: Well, maybe?

REICHS: Maybe, it was similar to, but they couldn`t say it was Caylee`s hair definitely. And Caylee would have been in that car. It could have been there by any member of legitimate reasons.

BEHAR: From what I`ve read -- maybe I`m wrong here -- the hair was of a dead person.

REICHS: No. That`s hair-banding, and that`s a very, very controversial type of evidence of -- coming from a dead person.

BEHAR: I see.

REICHS: Experiments have been done that show you also find hair banding in hair that has not come from a dead person.

BEHAR: What about the smell of the -- the death smell in the trunk? No good?

REICHS: I think again that`s really marginal science. It`s not science, the Arpad Vass testimony -- that is science that`s not been tested enough for replicability and reliability in order to submit it in court.

BEHAR: I see. So none of this was sufficient to convict?

REICHS: I don`t think so. I think like a scientist because I am a scientist. And to me the physical evidence just wasn`t there. There was nothing there that was tying her to the death of this child. There was no cause of death. No time of death. No place of death.

BEHAR: Yes.

REICHS: I`m addressing the American Bar Association in about a month on the topic of the "CSI" effect. And we`ve all heard of that. The fact that juries today, do they demand more stringent forensic evidence? Perhaps that`s what was happening in this case.

BEHAR: Why is that? Somebody was saying to me today that it -- it`s "CSI`s" fault because you know, these shows -- maybe your series also, makes it clear to people they have to have that forensic evidence on every case or they`re never going to convict ever again. I mean --

REICHS: I think, yes, that`s true. And I think juries may have very, very elevated expectations because in shows like "CSI" or in "Bones", we solve every case. And there`s always that one eyelash in an acre of grass that brings down the bad guy.

BEHAR: Right.

REICHS: And in real life that`s not always the case. And I think in this situation they just didn`t -- didn`t have the physical evidence.

BEHAR: Ok. Now Marcia, the Florida state attorney said that there was no smoking gun in the case. Was that the prosecutor`s biggest stumbling block do you think?

CLARK: I don`t know. Really, to tell you the truth, Joy, it`s a circumstantial case. Many, many, many of our cases, in fact I`d say a majority of the cases we file are circumstantial. I think that`s a better case by far.

I wouldn`t argue the science with Kathy, she`s the scientist. But there were many other circumstances to consider here. And when you put all of them together -- you don`t take them one by one by one. The hair- banding science, maybe not so compelling. But circumstantial evidence in terms of putting it all together. You have the hair that is microscopically consistent with Caylee. You have the smell of decomposition in the car --

BEHAR: The duct tape.

CLARK: Yes, exactly. You have the duct tape, which to me isn`t -- -- you don`t put duct tape on the face of a baby who`s dead already. You know, that she died in a manner that showed that Casey wanted to keep her dead. And that shows some kind of criminal agency.

Now if the jury had hung up on what she did, premeditation versus manslaughter, different story. I can see where reasonable minds could differ about that. I wasn`t feeling ever it was a very strong case for premeditation. But that it was a homicide that she committed.

I think all of the factors put together -- don`t forget 31 days of lie, partying right after the body is gone. While she`s telling everybody that the baby is with Zanny the nanny. There`s just too many things that a mother who has just seen her daughter drown accidentally does not do.

And I understand that Jose Baez tried to address that behavioral evidence with the claims of molestation but he never proved that.

BEHAR: No.

CLARK: He never put on one shred of evidence to support it.

BEHAR: No. Ok. Jo-Ellan, going back to what Marcia just said. Casey didn`t report Caylee missing for a month. She went out partying. She got that annoying "bella vita" tattoo. She lied to the cop. Wasn`t that suspicious to a jury?

JO-ELLAN DIMITRIUS, JURY CONSULTANT: Well, I`m sure that if we were to hear from the jurors, we may hear that they are skeptical about what her involvement may have been based on those factors. But the bottom line remains that they did come back with a not guilty verdict.

I think one of the things that`s most important, Joy, about this whole process is that so many people are condemning this jury. And I think that that`s a real misfortune to our system of justice because let`s not forget that she went through an indictment that was in front of a grand jury. And grand jurors, of course, only hear prosecution evidence. They don`t hear defense evidence. Then they come, fast forward, to this trial in which both sides of the case were presented.

And I totally agree with Kathy. I think that -- and I see this all the time in courtrooms around this country. The "CSI" impact on jurors is tremendous. And what jurors now are expecting on some level is, for instance, if they found eight legs of some sort of critter in the trunk of a car and they found a bug at the scene of the crime where Caylee was found that was missing eight legs, they say, aha, we`ve got the smoking gun.

That doesn`t happen in this day and age. And what we know about the jurors and what I know certainly, too, about people is that people that have less than a college education tend to be much more skeptical of scientific evidence. And particularly the type of evidence that Kathy`s referring to which is on the fringe by anyone`s admission one way or the other.

BEHAR: That`s interesting. So the less education they have the more skeptical they are of forensic evidence?

DIMITRIUS: That`s --

(CROSSTALK)

BEHAR: Why is that?

CLARK: Can I weigh in here?

BEHAR: Yes.

CLARK: All I want to do is say I totally agree. I totally agree with Jo-Ellan.

BEHAR: Did you find that, Marcia, in the O.J. case the forensic evidence was very much in dispute?

CLARK: In all my cases. Yes. In all my cases.

BEHAR: Ok. Now, Jo-Ellan, the jury also came back with a verdict after deliberating less than 11 hours. Is that typical in a case like this? That seemed very short.

DIMITRIUS: No. I know it does, joy, but people have to understand -- and Marcia certainly understands this. That because we`ve both been through a very long trial in which the jurors were sequestered for the -- not only the verdict part but they were also sequestered for the presentation of evidence. The jurors have come together, they`ve lived together. They haven`t had any outside exposure. They haven`t had anything else to think about but this case.

And so when they`re ultimately presented with the jury form, the verdict form and the jury instructions, they get down to business right away. And they all, I suspect, knew based on our experience, what they were going to -- what they were going to do. And they just proceeded to talk through it. It may seem like a very short period of time.

But my goodness, you take 12 people and you put them in a situation that I think borders on cruel and unusual punishment for any juror in this day and age. And you then say to them, you know, you`ve got to sit here and come up with a verdict.

They`re going to do it in a very quick fashion unless there is some sort of dimension of hostility and disagreement amongst these jurors which, of course, we don`t know because none of the jurors have spoken.

BEHAR: Ok.

Now let me ask Kathy a question. Does the jury typically spend a lot of time examining forensics when they deliberate? This jury didn`t seem to.

KATHY REICHS, FORENSIC ANTHROPOLOGIST: Well, they may have been paying close attention as they were going along. And I think, also Jose Baez pointed out that there were some mistakes that were made for example, at the -- at the autopsy, in not opening that skull. And had they opened that skull, they would have seen that residue in there.

And to my mind looking at the position of the residue inside that skull and looking at those crime-scene photos of how the skull was positioned, it was inconsistent. The skull had, in fact been moved in my opinion.

So, you know, that was brought out. So I think they`re not only looking at the fact that the forensic science evidence is pretty sketchy, but also that there were some of these errors made in the examination of the remains.

BEHAR: So they really had no recourse, did they? They had to come back with a verdict they came back with according to what you`re telling me.

REICHS: Well, what`s interesting to me is the fact that they came back in 11 hours. And I`m not a jury expert. But there must not have been a single holdout in there. They must have been fairly -- had a consensus in their opinion for --

(CROSSTALK)

BEHAR: You know, yes.

REICHS: Early on.

DIMITRIUS: Not necessarily. Not necessarily.

BEHAR: Jo-Ellan -- Jo-Ellan, one of the things that I was reading is that one of the jurors is going on a cruise tomorrow. So she was in a hurry possibly or he. I`m not sure if it was a man or woman.

And also, juror number four, they were going to take her off -- they were reluctant to pass judgment. Marcia, you could speak to this. But the judge blocked her because she said she didn`t want to pass judgment. It -- doesn`t that happen in the voir dire -- you guys are lawyers, I don`t know -- but I mean, doesn`t that happen in a voir dire, that if a person says I don`t want to pass judgment, why would you put them on the jury?

(CROSSTALK)

DIMITRIUS: Unfortunately --

CLARK: Right. Right.

DIMITRIUS: I`ll let Marcia speak. Go ahead.

CLARK: I`m sorry. I`m sorry. Yes, you don`t want someone on there who says they`re reluctant to pass judgment because they will act according to what they`re telling you. They`re reluctant.

BEHAR: Yes.

CLARK: They`re reluctant and the judgment that they`re most comfortable with passing then is not guilty. So that`s a problem juror right there.

BEHAR: Right.

CLARK: But they may well have found consensus because they`re living together. So --

BEHAR: Ok. Thank you very much, ladies.

More on the Casey Anthony verdict when we come back.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

BEHAR: After the stunning not guilty verdict in the Casey Anthony trial, a lot of people are considering this case O.J. number two.

So how do the two verdicts compare? Was Casey`s even more shocking than O.J.`s? Let`s bring back the great Marcia Clark, prosecutor in the O.J. Simpson trial and the author of "Guilt by Association" -- she knows everything. And with us also is Linda Kenney-Baden, former member of Casey Anthony`s defense team and HLN legal contributor.

LINDA KENNEY-BADEN, FORMER CASEY ANTHONY DEFENSE TEAM MEMBER: And I know nothing, Joy.

BEHAR: And she knows everything also. These two know everything. Marcia, was the verdict more shocking than O.J.`s, do you think?

CLARK: Yes, Joy, it really was.

BEHAR: Yes.

CLARK: It really was to me, yes, much more so.

BEHAR: Why?

CLARK: The Simpson`s verdict -- the Simpson jury, that whole case was enveloped with so much that had nothing to do with the evidence. We came into that case about a year and a half after the Rodney King riots. We also had a very famous, nationally-known football player who had been in "Naked Gun," Hertz commercial, there was a lot of feeling about who this person was and whether he could have committed the crimes that were charged against him that were so incredibly heinous and so opposite of everything anybody ever thought about him.

So there was a whole lot going in that made it virtually seem to many impossible to secure a conviction. And there was a meeting that was convened with all the victims` families long before we picked a jury saying, you will not secure a conviction in this case, do not expect it. The best we can probably hope for is a hung jury. So less of a surprised because of all of that.

(CROSSTALK)

BEHAR: And you didn`t get that either. But you didn`t even get that.

CLARK: I didn`t get that either. No.

BEHAR: It was interesting, I found out recently that -- that Bronco ride that he took, that escape was never admitted. Am I right, Marcia? So the jury never even considered that.

CLARK: Well, the jury certainly knew about it, Joy.

BEHAR: They knew about it.

CLARK: Joy, everybody knew. They knew about it. There was a lot more --

BEHAR: I mean if you`re innocent, why -- if you`re innocent why do you need to jump in your Bronco and try to escape? I mean that was crazy.

CLARK: Now, you jump in your Mercedes and try to escape --

BEHAR: That case was nutty. Yes, go ahead, Marcia.

CLARK: Yes. The Mercedes, the Bronco, it doesn`t matter the car. I don`t think that`s the point. But a Pinto would make more sense.

But no, the problem with that was that during that ride which was a slow speed, 25-mile-an-hour or whatever, he`s on the phone calling all of his friends, crying about missing Nicole, how could this happen to her, people are thinking things about him that are so untrue. He wants to visit her grave. All of that would have come into evidence had we put in the fact that he was in that Bronco ride.

Bear in mind too, Joy, everyone knew about it. That that was a case where there was so much pre-trial publicity and so much coverage, constantly that led right into the trial, that there was no chance to sequester a jury that did not already know about every single thing that had happened in the case.

BEHAR: Yes.

CLARK: This case, Casey Anthony, completely different situation. You have a girl who was completely unknown to the country. There is no imprimatur, no halo of celebrity. There is no racial issues. There`s nothing else going on except a woman charged with killing her baby in which she lied about where the baby was for 31 days.

BEHAR: Right. Ok.

CLARK: So I think there were other reasons. But that`s a more shocking situation.

BEHAR: Ok. Linda.

KENNEY-BADEN: Yes.

BEHAR: Do you think the jurors made the right decision? Just off the top of your head?

KENNEY-BADEN: No, absolutely. They --

BEHAR: They did -- but you`re part of the defense team.

KENNEY-BADEN: No but they went for a death penalty case.

BEHAR: Yes.

KENNEY-BADEN: They didn`t know the cause of death. They didn`t know when the child died. They didn`t know how the child had been transported. Then they come and they don`t use regular laboratories, they don`t use DNA. They use this -- this fantasy forensics.

You know, I call it the Elvis apparition of the heart-shaped sticker. And they had to try to fill in the blanks. They never had motive, and you need motive. If you`re going to lethally inject somebody, the jurors needs know hey, what goes on here? You better prove it to me and they didn`t.

BEHAR: Yes.

So you can`t just send somebody up the river because they`re partying for 31 days while their child is missing.

KENNEY-BADEN: No, absolutely not. Not when you`re seeking lethal injection.

BEHAR: But we would like to, we would like to.

KENNEY-BADEN: Well, you know, that`s a whole -- that`s a whole different story. But you know, that wasn`t the case. This case is --

(CROSSTALK)

BEHAR: I know, yes and get -- and gets a tattoo that says "bella vita" while her child is missing.

KENNEY-BADEN: Well in honor of her child -- look the father had a tattoo of Casey Anthony -- Caylee Anthony on his heart, the grandfather of Caylee Anthony. But you know this case didn`t have the racial polarization that Marcia Clark`s case had also.

BEHAR: No, that`s true. That`s true.

Do we have time to show Jeff Ashton? No.

We`re going to continue after a short break. And then we`ll show you something else.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

BEHAR: I`m back with the O.J. Simpson prosecutor, Marcia Clark, and former Casey Anthony defense team member Linda Kenney-Baden. Ok, now, the prosecutor, Jeff Ashton, was on my other show, "The View", this morning. So watch what he said.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

JEFF ASHTON, PROSECUTOR: I think ultimately it came down to -- at least from what the one alternate said, the cause of death.

WHOOPI GOLDBERG, CO-HOST, "THE VIEW": Right.

ASHTON: You know, we felt that -- my feeling all along was that that photograph -- and I know that you all have not seen it without being blurred but --

BARBARA WALTERS, CO-HOST, "THE VIEW": Photograph of Caylee?

ASHTON: Of her, you know, her remains with the duct tape. My -- what I`d said all along is if a jury looks at that photograph and doesn`t see it the way I do and doesn`t know how she died, well, then so be it.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

BEHAR: By the way, he`s going to be here tomorrow night on the show. I have more questions for him.

Ok. Now Marcia, did the prosecution do the best they could with the evidence they had?

CLARK: Yes, yes. I thought they did a great job. I thought that they presented the evidence well. I thought it was a compelling case. I do think it`s -- of course, it`s circumstantial, most of our cases are. I think that`s a good thing. I prefer a circumstantial case to a direct evidence case any time.

Direct evidence is like an eyewitness. I saw this guy go rob that guy. But you know what happens on cross-examination? How far away was he? What was the lighting like? Do you wear glasses? Have you ever seen him before? By the time I`m done with cross-examination of that witness, you could be on Mars. You know, you`ve proven nothing.

When you have circumstantial evidence, there`s a lot of different things that the jury has to rely upon.

BEHAR: Yes.

CLARK: And when they interweave as well as these did, I think they presented a compelling case. It didn`t -- it wasn`t enough obviously.

BEHAR: It didn`t work.

CLARK: But I have to say I -- I thought it did. I mean, I would have voted guilty. And I would still be in that jury and they would have hung. I`m saying.

BEHAR: Now, is Casey going to walk free tomorrow, Linda?

KENNEY-BADEN: It sounds like it. The Corrections Department issued a statement that they`re going to have special procedures if she were released from custody tomorrow. So it sounds like that she is. I expected her to stay in. I expected this judge to give her four years. One year for each of the counts.

But I think she`s going home, wherever that may be.

BEHAR: Ok. Here`s one more interesting thing. One of the jurors, Jennifer Ford, told ABC News, quote, "I did not say she was innocent." She also said the jury was sick to their stomachs and crying over the verdict.

So what does that tell you, Marcia, about this jury? Do you think that they actually thought that she was guilty, but because there was not enough forensic evidence they could not convict her? Is that what that says?

CLARK: Well, that`s what that says. And I have to tell you, Joy, I`ve been saying this all along -- I never believed that the jury thought she was innocent. I believe that the jury walked out feeling that they were not -- the case was not proven beyond a reasonable doubt. But I will also tell you that this is what juries typically say when they acquit someone and they have a belief that they`re guilty.

BEHAR: I see. Oh. Ok, thank you, ladies.

This story is -- infinitely more interesting than anything else we`re talking about right now. It never ends.

CLARK: Never ends.

BEHAR: We`ll have more on the Casey fallout in just a minute. It never ends.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

BEHAR: By this time tomorrow, Casey Anthony could be out of jail after being acquitted in the murder of the death of her daughter Caylee. So what happens next? How does the Anthony family move on from this? Here now to discuss this is Mark Lippman, the attorney for the Anthony family. Welcome to the show, Mark.

MARK LIPPMAN, ATTORNEY FOR ANTHONY FAMILY: Thanks very much for having me.

BEHAR: OK. So how are George and Cindy doing today? I hear they have received death threats.

LIPPMAN: Yes. Both my office and them personally have received threats for the last couple of days. And we`re dealing with them accordingly and ranking them by how worried we are.

BEHAR: Now why do you suppose people are -- are issuing death threats against them? What`s their issue with them?

LIPPMAN: Some people may believe what Mr. Baez said in his opening statements. Some people are just angry and are lashing out at anyone who has anything to do with the case.

BEHAR: Yes.

LIPPMAN: We`re getting calls for Mr. Baez in my office, threatening him as well. But unfortunately I can`t reach him today to let him know about those things. But, you know, we deal with them as we can.

BEHAR: I see. Like you just said, there are many people who believed Jose Baez`s accusation about George molesting Casey. So are you concerned that there will be an investigation into those claims at all?

LIPPMAN: No, no. I mean -- and I said in our press release yesterday, those claims are baseless. I mean, they`re unfounded. There`s never been any evidence of them. And certainly if -- my clients are open and welcome any investigation into that, but the state`s already taken a look at that already.

BEHAR: Now Cindy said on the stand that she did the searches on the computer, which -- for chloroform. We now know that that isn`t true, since her employer testified she was at work during those searches. Right?

LIPPMAN: Well, there`s a little bit of conflict there, Ms. Behar. My client said she searched for chlorophyll and then a byproduct of that, searched for chloroform. It was the state who said it was done on 3-17 and 3-21. My client never said those specific dates. And she -- and my client is adamant that she did do those searches. It may not have been on those specific days.

BEHAR: I see.

LIPPMAN: But she knows she did them in 2008.

BEHAR: OK. So that means that somebody else did those searches on that day. On those days, right?

LIPPMAN: Well, on the days in question, the state provided evidence on how to make chloroform was on the computer and neck breaking and a couple of other things. My client never said she did those searches.

BEHAR: That`s interesting. And yet she sort of -- she left the impression that she was the one who was doing the searches and Casey was not the one doing the searches. Now you`re telling me the dates are different. So are we to assume that Casey was doing those searches now?

LIPPMAN: Well, the jury found different. I wouldn`t assume anything about Casey other than she was found not guilty.

BEHAR: Now she could go free tomorrow. Will she be going back home to George and Cindy`s house? Or where is she going? If she is, you know--

LIPPMAN: For a variety of different reasons I can`t discuss that. The first and foremost is security. But it`s attorney-client privilege, so I`m not at liberty to say.

BEHAR: Well, Casey`s former bodyguard, she had a bodyguard, she said on the "Today Show" that she thinks George will move out of the family home and that Cindy will ask Casey to move back. What are your thoughts on that? Do you know anything there?

LIPPMAN: My clients like that house, and there`s no plan on moving as far as I know.

BEHAR: Is that so? OK. Now Casey accused her dad of molestation. She rejected her mother and threw her family under the bus, basically. How are they going to move on as a family, I`d like to know? What`s going to happen to this family?

LIPPMAN: Well, I mean, there`s lots of questions out there. It`s something that the family needs to decide privately. Certainly those questions will be answered at some point in their lives. If it is tomorrow or down the road, I`m not one to conjecture. But anything else, I`m not at liberty to say.

BEHAR: OK. Is there anything you want to add before I go?

LIPPMAN: Just that there`s been lots and lots of donations in the area where they found Caylee`s body. And my clients respectfully request everybody to take those donations and give them to children that can use them. Hospitals, religious centers, whatever it may be. Because the rain season is coming, and those things are just going to get destroyed.

BEHAR: OK. OK, thanks, Mark, very much for weighing in tonight.

LIPPMAN: Thanks very much for having me.

BEHAR: OK.

Now I want to bring in Bethany Marshall, psychoanalyst and family therapist. Bethany, do you think it`s even possible for Casey to go back to George and Cindy`s home? He wouldn`t say whether that was going to happen. So how is that going to work?

BETHANY MARSHALL, PSYCHOANALYST: Well, where do criminals always go when they get out of jail?

BEHAR: To mommy.

MARSHALL: Back to mama. Back to the land of milk and honey and of endless provision. But that doesn`t mean they`re going to let her back in. What George and Cindy need to do -- and Mark Lippman brought up the story, the story the defense told about this family being dysfunctional. They`re going to have to debunk that myth for themselves. This is a 1950s concept that if you have a pathological child, it means they come from a dysfunctional parent. That`s what we used to think about schizophrenia, that if you have a schizophrenic patient, their family drove them crazy.

Now we know about the criminal mind. The criminal brain is different from other brains. So Cindy and George are going to have to stand firm and be very firm in the belief that their daughter has a severe, severe mental defect and limitation. And because of that, here`s what I would advise them -- do not give her a key. Do not let her sign important documents. Do not let her drain your retirement. Do not let her make you feel guilty. Because she fits the profile of a sociopath, do not give in to her parasitic lifestyle. Keep in mind the fact that with sociopaths, there`s parasitic lifestyle, promiscuity, poor behavioral controls, impulsivity, and reckless lack of regard for the rights and safety of others. So you as a family are going to have to circle the wagons and have really firm boundaries with her.

BEHAR: Wow, that could be hard for Cindy, I think, to do. After all, the woman did get on the stand and basically shed some light on the fact that maybe the girl didn`t do the searches, that she did the searches, which led me to think that Cindy was trying to protect her daughter. So now to cut her off completely, I don`t know if that`s going to happen.

MARSHALL: You know what, Joy, all mothers -- you`re a mother, right?

BEHAR: A mother and a grandmother.

MARSHALL: A mother and a grandmother. Mothers have omnipotent guilt. Meaning if their child falls down and skins its knee, the mother thinks, oh, my God, I caused them to fall down. The mothers take all of the pain of the child into themselves and try to fix it. So Cindy is going to need a lot of support.

But George wrote something very important in his suicide note. And what he wrote to Cindy is, you`re a great grammy. Mallory is going to make a great daughter-in-law. Lee is going to have children at some point, and you are going to be a wonderful grandmother.

And what we know in my field is you can`t always fix trauma by talking about it primarily. Like maybe they`re not going to have to have any more discussions about Casey. But you can build bridges around trauma by having better experiences. So being grandparents, having family outings, having a better family experience is going to be therapeutic for them.

BEHAR: OK. Let me go back for a minute. I`m curious what you think about the fact that for 31 days, Casey told her parents lie after lie about where Caylee was. I mean, we all know this is true, that those were lies. Why didn`t they just show up unannounced and demand answers? That has been driving me crazy, that particular point. Do you have an idea?

MARSHALL: Why didn`t -- well, Cindy did show up and demand answers, remember?

BEHAR: Eventually.

MARSHALL: She went to -- oh, eventually. I think they bought into her lies at first. And then they had --

BEHAR: Would you have bought into those lies? Are you a parent?

MARSHALL: No. I would not have bought into those lies because she has a long history of lying. Here`s how Casey lies -- she uses words to rearrange reality like you and I rearrange furniture in a room to make it look different. The lies are not just to con and manipulate. Her lies are to create a complete altered realty. So in order for her mother to disbelieve the lies, she has to reshift her whole reality about her daughter.

But remember, Cindy did go to see a therapist, and the therapist told her to adopt the granddaughter. And that is when everything went off the cliff, because she -- you know --

BEHAR: Yes.

MARSHALL: Because that`s when she asked her daughter to take responsibility. That is perhaps when the intention to commit homicide was formed.

BEHAR: You know, she wrote these letters, jailhouse letters to an inmate, Casey did. One of the things -- I think you know this -- she wrote was that when she got out, she may want to adopt a child. Scary.

MARSHALL: Well, this is her offending pattern. We know that criminals recidivate. Meaning because they lack cause-and-effect and big- picture thinking, they recreate the same offending pattern. So what`s teflon tot mom`s re-offending pattern? It`s to find a new love obsession. Have a baby to hold on to the love obsession. When the baby gets in the way of love, to toss the baby out like trash. That is the offending pattern, and that`s what everybody is going to have to keep an eye on.

BEHAR: Keep an eye on -- you`re not kidding. OK, thank you very much, Bethany. Always a pleasure to have you on the show.

MARSHALL: Thank you.

BEHAR: When we come back, I want to look at Casey`s chances of profiting from this tragedy.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

BEHAR: And we are continuing the never-ending conversation on Casey Anthony. And what`s next for her -- could it be a book deal? A TV movie? A big interview, or "Dancing with the Stars?" Just how and when will Casey Anthony cash in? Here to discuss this further are Rita Cosby, Emmy-winning TV host and author of "Quiet Hero." Marti MacKenzie, former spokesperson for the Casey Anthony defense team and author of "Courting the Media." And the lovely A.J. Hammer, host of "Showbiz Tonight" right here on HLN.

OK, you know, this part of the conversation about Casey is interesting because people are wondering now what`s going to happen. I mean -- let me ask you something, Rita. What do you know about any offers that she might get?

RITA COSBY, JOURNALIST: My impression is that there have already been some reaching out to her.

BEHAR: Yes.

COSBY: I`m not surprised. You know, as someone who`s covered a lot of cases through the years, I think she`s going to get a lot of offers. My advice to her, if she does do a book, she tells the whole story and she donates all the money to a good charity.

(CROSSTALK)

COSBY: That`s why I`m saying I think that`s the only condition she should do a book.

BEHAR: I agree with that. If she writes a book, Marty, or she does some kind of movie, whatever, she`s going to have to tell us what happened and she`s not going to do that, right?

MARTI MACKENZIE, AUTHOR: I don`t know. But if she wants to write a book, she`s entitled. She spent two and a half years in jail. And she`s been found not guilty of almost every charge that put her in jail. So if she wants to write a book she`s certainly entitled, but she is going to have to find a publisher that knows there`s a big enough market out there to buy enough copies to justify whatever advance she`s looking for.

BEHAR: But if she doesn`t say I did it, is the book going to sell? Who`s going to buy it?

MACKENZIE: Why should she say she did it when she`s been found not guilty?

BEHAR: Well, I`m saying in terms of a movie or a book, that`s what people want, I think.

A.J. HAMMER, SHOWBIZ TONIGHT, HOST: I don`t think so, Joy.

BEHAR: I know what you`re saying, but --

HAMMER: I don`t think she has to necessarily say what people -- look, O.J. wrote that whole book that never actually made it out.

BEHAR: Got Judith Regan into trouble for that. Because she lost her imprint (ph) because of that.

COSBY: They were vilified for it.

BEHAR: That`s right.

COSBY: Remember, there was this horrible backlash.

HAMMER: But in her case, I think, look, the fact is her experience certainly would be fascinating to enough people. People were riveted to know what was going on behind the scenes. They were riveted to watch her in the courtroom every day. I certainly think there`s probably a market for her. I still think that somebody will probably make her an offer, even if they don`t know if they necessarily can sell the copies, and she could potentially make money that way. But you should ask Rita what offers we know to have come in for her so far.

BEHAR: Do you know one?

HAMMER: We only know of one, and that was to do a porn.

BEHAR: To do a porn -- I think it`s the same company that offered the Octomom the same thing.

COSBY: Larry Flint and--

(CROSSTALK)

HAMMER: Vivid Entertainment.

(CROSSTALK)

MACKENZIE: How about John Bobbitt who lost something? And they did a show about it?

BEHAR: That`s different. That was kind of--

COSBY: Reality TV. Is that it?

BEHAR: I do that in my standup act because it`s really -- it`s not really funny when you lose your own penis, but if it`s someone else`s, I guess it`s funny.

MACKENZIE: But the bottom line is -- you know, the bottom line is anybody can do a movie or a book about Casey Anthony without her participation. Just based on everything that happened in court. It happened to Lisa Nowak, the astronaut, right after she was charged. A book came out writing all kinds of garbage.

BEHAR: Can she sue--

MACKENZIE: No, you can`t. She`s a public figure. They could do a movie about Casey Anthony. They did one about Gregory Kingsley (ph), boy who divorced mom, back in the early `90s. They did a TV movie without involving him at all and then they did a movie where they paid to get access --

(CROSSTALK)

COSBY: There`s nothing prohibiting somebody from doing that. Do I personally think -- I don`t think so. The realty is even though obviously she did get off the serious counts, she was still charged with four counts of lying to police. She still has not explained what she was doing for 31 days. This is not same (ph) Casey Anthony out there. So I hope if she does do something that`s of her own volition, she explains her bad behavior at the very least.

BEHAR: OK. How much money could she make do you think on a book? What kind of an advance would she get?

MACKENZIE: They are going to have to determine how much money they think they can make. Anybody who offers money for a movie or a book is going to make a judgment call. When I had my book published, they had to research, I had to tell them I think you`ll sell this many copies, because there are this many lawyers who will buy my book. And I had to show a pattern of why it was marketable.

(CROSSTALK)

HAMMER: I don`t think a lot of people will raise their hands and say I`m going to preorder the Casey Anthony book, but for the same reason that an interview with her is going to be in such huge demand and is in such huge demand, people want to know what makes this woman tick, which is why they were so riveted by this case.

BEHAR: That`s right.

HAMMER: And I think a lot of people may not show that they`re buying this book, but they`re going to go out and buy it.

COSBY: I agree. I think there`s a big market. And I think also there will be people fascinated with even the back story. Who is she, what was she doing around that time? What`s the crazy family dynamic --

(CROSSTALK)

BEHAR: I was talking to Linda Baden about it off the air, about the fact that the child was missing on July 19. And there was no discussion about what happened that day. I want to hear more about that. What emails went out, what telephone calls were made. Neither side came up with any information on that day, I realize now.

COSBY: Huge holes.

BEHAR: Isn`t that kind of odd?

MACKENZIE: There is certainly a story in this. Or there wouldn`t be millions of people outraged because, as armchair quarterbacks, they`re sitting back and saying, oh, they did not do a good thing. They did not -- the jury was wrong. And they don`t know.

BEHAR: What about other people who were involved? Will they profit from it, Joe Baez, for example?

MACKENZIE: Anybody can profit from licensing fees. The jurors could probably get a licensing fee for their jury summons. I mean, there`s always a way for someone to get paid to tell their story if they were part of the parade of one of the biggest news stories of the last three years.

BEHAR: Well, the jury is not really talking yet. One of the jurors reportedly saying she will only talk for the right price. And another --

COSBY: Really? I hadn`t heard that.

BEHAR: And another juror who said that she was physically sick to her stomach after they put -- brought the verdict, which made me think that maybe she felt that she was guilty, but they couldn`t prove it.

HAMMER: I think you`re going to see Baez get, you know --

BEHAR: That`s two -- two reports from two jurors that we have at this point.

(CROSSTALK)

MACKENZIE: This is America. It`s not England where you`re guilty until proven innocent. It`s America.

BEHAR: That`s right.

MACKENZIE: If they cannot prove you`re guilty, you`re not guilty. And she is not guilty of all of the things that -- the really serious charges (ph).

BEHAR: She may not be guilty but a lot of people believe that does not mean she`s innocent. We`ll continue this in just a minute.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

BEHAR: I`m back with my guests. We`re talking about what Casey Anthony will do next. Let`s talk about some of the other people in the situation, how they can profit from this, if they will. Like the prosecutor, who is going to be on this show tomorrow night. I`m going to ask him, are you going to write a book. Would you be interested in his book?

MACKENZIE: How much are you paying him?

BEHAR: I`m not paying him to be on the show. We don`t pay anybody as you know.

MACKENZIE: He is doing it because he feels passionate about his work. And he wants to explain what he can explain.

BEHAR: Would you buy that book?

COSBY: I`d be curious to see, I mean, look, we were all captivated by the trial. To someone who`s covered a lot of trials, it was a fascinating case. I mean, to see the father going up and down and the mother going up and down. I think, you know, do I think that she should write a book? Do I think there are certain people in this case who should write a book? Absolutely not. But do I think they will and do I think they will profit, will people read it--

(CROSSTALK)

BEHAR: Nancy Grace kept calling her tot mom. Do you think that`s a good title for the book?

COSBY: Could be.

(CROSSTALK)

MACKENZIE: Who is authoring the book?

BEHAR: I don`t know, maybe Casey can call herself tot mom.

HAMMER: I think the cashing in, Joy, it goes beyond the TV shows and the books and the movies. You look at -- the O.J. Simpson case is a perfect example of what the extra people, the other players got to do. Robert Shapiro really created a name for himself beyond what he had and certainly cashed in on that. Kato Kaelin got a radio show.

BEHAR: He had his 15 minutes, yes.

(CROSSTALK)

BEHAR: Marcia Clark is on my show all the time. She was on tonight.

(CROSSTALK)

BEHAR: Do you have any advice for Ms. Casey?

MACKENZIE: Well, you know, my advice when I was working with Jose was all for Jose. I technically only represented Jose Baez.

BEHAR: But what would you say to Casey? What should she do first?

MACKENZIE: Honestly, my clients in the past and the ones I`ve written about who are accused of a crime that they`re found not guilty of committing or even maintaining their innocence at any point, I always believe it is important before you reenter to make a statement.

BEHAR: That you are not guilty.

MACKENZIE: You make a statement. And I believe she could do a very controlled interview and people would go to it. I had a client in prison, the first prison interview with Edward Humphries, who was accused of murdering five students in Gainesville, completely innocent, but he looked the part and he was vilified. So before he went back into society, his lawyer and I worked in the prison interview. So people knew who he was.

BEHAR: A controlled interview?

MACKENZIE: Absolutely.

BEHAR: That doesn`t work for Sarah Palin. Why should it work for Casey Anthony? I`ve got to go. Thank you all for watching. Good night, everybody.

END