Return to Transcripts main page
Joy Behar Page
Casey Anthony Trial Prosecutor Speaks
Aired July 08, 2011 - 22:00 ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
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 a minute.
But first, I want to give you the latest on Casey Anthony tonight. The first headline. She won`t be getting out of prison as early as we thought. Late last night her release date was changed. She`s now getting out of jail next Sunday, July 17. The court initially said she`d be coming out this Wednesday, but after some recalculations, that date was pushed back.
And another major development -- Casey rejects a jailhouse visit from her mom. Cindy Anthony requested a video visit with her daughter for tonight, but Casey said no. And Casey will finally be forced to answer questions after being subpoenaed by the attorney for a Zenaida Gonzalez. The day of that deposition, Tuesday, July 19th.
Stay with HLN for all the breaking details.
Joy Behar continues our coverage right now.
JOY BEHAR, HLN HOST: Casey Anthony will be free in five short days after being acquitted of the murder of her 2-year-old daughter, Caylee. So what`s next for her, and how did we arrive at this point in the first place?
Here with me to answer that and much more is Dan Abrams, ABC News legal analyst, and founder and CEO of Mediaite. Welcome Dan.
DAN ABRAMS, ABC NEWS LEGAL ANALYST: Hi Joy.
BEHAR: So are you and Nancy Grace going to just march into the sunset together now --
ABRAMS: Yes, absolutely. You know, I actually defended her this morning.
BEHAR: How did you do that? It was yesterday morning?
ABRAMS: Yes, yesterday morning. We were on "Good Morning America". She and I had been going at it regularly in the mornings. But the one thing that came up today was she`s being now blamed by Jose Baez and others. And the reality is the one thing -- the thing I respect about what Nancy does is she admits where she`s coming from, right?
BEHAR: Right.
ABRAMS: There`s no hidden bias.
BEHAR: Right.
ABRAMS: There`s no covert opinion. She says, look, this is where I stand. She doesn`t pretend to be a journalist. She`s an analyst/advocate.
BEHAR: Yes.
ABRAMS: And you know -- you know where she`s coming from.
BEHAR: Exactly. I agree with that. I think that she should be let off the hook. She does her job.
(CROSSTALK)
ABRAMS: I disagree with her a lot of the time.
BEHAR: So?
Um1; Sometimes I`m rolling my eyes at the stuff she says. Nevertheless, I give her a lot of credit for just going out there, calling it like she sees it.
BEHAR: She stands up for the victims.
ABRAMS: Look, you know, she calls them as she sees them. I don`t happen to agree with her some of the time. Some of the time I do.
BEHAR: Ok. Now, when you were on my show back when -- you were on my show back when the trial first started. You were pretty heavy on Baez at that time.
ABRAMS: Hard on him.
BEHAR: You were a little hard on him, yes. What do you think now?
ABRAMS: I think he won this case to spite himself.
BEHAR: What does that mean?
ABRAMS: That means that I don`t think that he did a very good job as an attorney. With that said, he won, and the result speaks for itself.
BEHAR: What should he have done as a better attorney?
ABRAMS: Well, look, I think that his presentation was disorganized. I think that he offered up things in the opening statement that he couldn`t prove during the case --
BEHAR: Yes. But those things raised the reasonable doubt which is why he won the case.
ABRAMS: I don`t know that that`s what raised reasonable doubt.
BEHAR: What do you think raised reasonable doubt?
ABRAMS: Look, I think it was a number of factors. When you listened to the jurors, they say, we didn`t know how she died, we didn`t know why she died. Ok. In the Scott Peterson case we didn`t know how she died.
BEHAR: That`s right.
ABRAMS: We didn`t know how Laci Peterson died --
BEHAR: And he`s on death row.
ABRAMS: -- but we knew why she died.
BEHAR: Because he had another girlfriend.
ABRAMS: The motive there was clear. Here this sort of -- this motive was more ambiguous, this idea of her wanting to go live the good life and the problem was that there were so many witnesses who came forward and said, I saw her, she was a good mom. She was --
BEHAR: There were witnesses who said she was partying also in those 30 days.
ABRAMS: But remember, those 30 days presumably both sides -- prosecution and defense, are arguing that the child was dead at that point.
BEHAR: Yes.
ABRAMS: Meaning -- so no one is claiming that she was neglecting her child in that time --
BEHAR: Yes, but the day of --
ABRAMS: She`s misbehaving. She`s behaving horribly.
BEHAR: The day that the child went missing, she went to her boyfriend`s house and she didn`t seem upset in any way.
ABRAMS: That`s right, no. The point is -- but if you accept both the prosecution and defense`s account, the child was almost certainly dead already at that point. Now, that makes her a sociopath.
BEHAR: Right.
ABRAMS: And that makes her --
BEHAR: It doesn`t prove she killed the child.
ABRAMS: That`s my only point. I was of the belief that the prosecution presented an overwhelming case. I was very critical of the defense`s strategy.
I`ll tell you the one area that I -- that I was surprised it seemed to have made a little bit of headway with the jurors was the George Anthony, the father aspect of it. Throughout this case, I`ve been saying that I thought that the defense team should have focused more on cause of death, simply say that they can`t prove it, which was -- was clearly a huge issue.
But you listen to Juror Number Three, and she says, I think George was there. Whoa. She thinks George was there?
BEHAR: There was no proof of that whatsoever.
ABRAMS: Not a single piece of evidence.
BEHAR: Not a scintilla of evidence.
ABRAMS: And you know, the thing is she says -- and she`s being blasted by a lot of people. I think she was actually pretty eloquent in her description. But she`s saying, I`m not going to speculate, but I think George was there. Wait a second --
BEHAR: Just make it -- make it up.
ABRAMS: That`s speculating. She`s speculating on what she thinks happened.
BEHAR: Do you think that the jury was lazy in the sense that they didn`t take any notes?
(CROSSTALK)
ABRAMS: Who cares if they didn`t take notes?
BEHAR: I would have taken notes.
ABRAMS: You know, everyone -- how many notes --
BEHAR: How do you remember everything?
ABRAMS: You know what? The people who take notes end up having wrong notes. This is what ends up happening. A lot of these cases they`ll see - -
BEHAR: Oh, you rely on their memory better? That`s better?
ABRAMS: Absolutely. It`s better than people -- you know why? Because the people who took the notes they say, hey, I know you think you heard this, but in my notes I wrote down this. And then theoretically we`re giving that more credence because they have it written down. But people take crappy notes.
BEHAR: Yes, but you know, maybe they -- they had to put all the pieces together themselves. They were not handed the thing. This is exactly what happened, and this is the proof that it happened.
ABRAMS: Right. I think that`s right.
BEHAR: The jury needs to use a little of their gray cells and maybe they didn`t feel like it.
ABRAMS: Look, I don`t think that it was that they were lazy, I don`t. I don`t think it was that they were lazy. It is kind of stunning that the country got to watch the same trial that the jurors watched, and the jurors so uniformly couldn`t find enough to convict.
BEHAR: That happened with O.J., too.
ABRAMS: O.J. was different. It was different --
BEHAR: We watched the same trial --
ABRAMS: I predicted an acquittal in O.J. This one I got wrong, meaning the Casey Anthony case, I predicted wrong.
BEHAR: Oh, you thought she was --
ABRAMS: I thought she was going to get convicted of something -- at least of something. I wasn`t sure it would be first-degree murder or aggravated manslaughter. Something.
BEHAR: If you were on that jury, what would you use to convict her. What was your thought?
ABRAMS: You look at the totality of the circumstances. The problem is that the defense succeeded in isolating different pieces of evidence. The jurors say, wait a second, what about cause of death? Well, cause of death -- even the coroner said this during the testimony, if it`s not one thing. It wasn`t just looking at the skull and determining because the remains were found so much later.
They had to, as they do in many cases, say, look at everything else here. Look at the duct tape. Why would there be duct tape on a child`s face? Look at the way she behaved. Look at her car. Look at the links between what was found at the crime scene back to her house.
Look at all of that together, and tell me that this wasn`t a murder. That was the -- and they didn`t accept it.
BEHAR: But the prosecutor did -- they did that, and they said, no, I don`t buy it.
ABRAMS: That`s right. That`s right. No, but when you --
BEHAR: It`s all circumstantial. A lot of people are saying if`s the "CSI" factor.
ABRAMS: I think it`s legitimate.
BEHAR: That people feel they have to have every little thing, every hair has to match and everything.
(CROSSTALK)
ABRAMS: There`s an argument to be made.
BEHAR: No one will ever get convicted anymore.
ABRAMS: Well, I mean look, there`s an argument to be made. And you know there are other people who are saying, oh, it`s because they overcharged. Yes, they probably did -- they probably shouldn`t have sought the death penalty, but I don`t think that would have made the difference.
BEHAR: No, if they didn`t buy it, they didn`t buy it at all.
ABRAMS: They had all these possible lesser included offenses that they could consider that they rejected.
BEHAR: What do you think about the fact that she showed up in court after the verdict with a new hairdo?
ABRAMS: You know --
BEHAR: What do you make of that?
ABRAMS: Who cares?
BEHAR: Well, no. It`s not that you care? I`m just asking you.
ABRAMS: I think the reality is that she recognized that she doesn`t have to impress anyone right now. She can just be whoever she wants to be at this point. That -- look, when you are showing up every day for court in front of a jury, you have to make sure you look appropriate.
Remember the Menendez trial with the brothers coming in with the sweaters so they would look really young.
BEHAR: Yes.
ABRAMS: Their lawyer made a concerted effort to have them wear these schoolboy sweaters.
BEHAR: Right. Right.
ABRAMS: So that they would look the part of the schoolboys even though they were accused and convicted of killing their parents.
BEHAR: They killed their parents and then they say we`re orphans. That`s the definition of chutzpah.
ABRAMS: Right. In this case, Casey Anthony had to look --
BEHAR: The part.
ABRAMS: She had to look the part.
BEHAR: The part.
ABRAMS: And she did. And look, I think that that`s appropriate. And I think now that the case is over and that, you know, she`s being sentenced, I think she --
BEHAR: It -- it`s interesting that the day that the child was missing, she never reported, anything, she went to her -- I can`t get over that the jury did not take that into consideration. I just can`t get over it.
ABRAMS: I think in the end, I think what it was --
BEHAR: What happened to the kid? The kid`s missing, and she`s having a good time. So what happened to the child? That`s the question.
ABRAMS: Right. Look, I`m not going to sit here and defend the defense because for, you know, for months now -- here`s -- I`ll tell you something that really gets me.
BEHAR: Yes?
ABRAMS: Here`s what gets me -- the TV analysts who are now going on TV acting all-knowing, well, you know, they overcharged and they shouldn`t have done this -- where were you before? I mean, these people are now suddenly claiming to be all-knowing -- you know, the evidence was really never that strong.
I didn`t hear any of them say that beforehand. I`m admitting that I got it wrong. That I -- I came forward and I thought this was a strong case, and I expected there would be a conviction.
Now can we look back? This is -- by the way, is going to be one of those cases where we say as we`re analyzing future cases, well, in the Casey Anthony case, we got it wrong and x, y, and z. Because the truth is most of the time we get it right. Most of the time the analysts don`t blow it the way that we did in this case.
BEHAR: So the lessons to be learned before we wrap?
ABRAMS: It depends on who the lessons are for. Look, I think the jurors took reasonable doubt very seriously. I think that`s a good lesson.
BEHAR: Marcia Clark says there`s a difference between reasonable doubt and reason to doubt and that the jury didn`t know the difference.
ABRAMS: I think that you know -- that may be true.
BEHAR: There`s always a reason to doubt. But there`s --
(CROSSTALK)
ABRAMS: Yes but look -- but this was a case where there were and now I`m being one of those analysts who`s now posing the questions that he should have posed earlier.
BEHAR: Yes.
ABRAMS: But -- but there are a lot of questions about when you`re piecing together the various -- and it`s easier to acquits than to convict, remember that.
BEHAR: That`s right.
ABRAMS: Because you can just say we didn`t have proof beyond a reasonable doubt.
BEHAR: Well, it`s the United States of America, it`s the Constitution, and we appreciate that.
ABRAMS: Yes, I think the system worked even if I don`t agree with it.
BEHAR: It worked. It worked. Thank you very much Dan.
And we`ll have more in the Casey Anthony fallout in just a minute.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
BEHAR: Prosecutor Jeff Ashton spent three years of his life working to get Casey Anthony convicted of killing her daughter. But it all came to an end two days ago when a jury acquitted Anthony of murder. And as we know now she`s going to be a free woman as of next week.
Here with me now is Jeff Ashton, prosecutor in the Casey Anthony trial.
JEFF ASHTON, PROSECUTOR IN THE CASEY ANTHONY TRIAL: Thank you.
BEHAR: Welcome to the show, Jeff.
You know, I have to ask you because I saw you on "The View", I`ve seen you on several shows. I mean, you`re retiring. Why are you doing all this television? What are you doing it for?
ASHTON: Because people are interested.
BEHAR: Yes.
ASHTON: I mean, people have invited me. And you know, I`m a -- I`ve always planned to retire at the end of my career and I actually extended it a bit to -- to finish the case. And everyone is so fascinated and they want to talk to me --
(CROSSTALK)
BEHAR: Right.
ASHTON: -- so I`m like, ok, why not?
BEHAR: Ok. Yes. I mean the defense attorney, Joe Baez has only been on one show that I could see.
ASHTON: Right.
BEHAR: So maybe he doesn`t want to explain too much.
ASHTON: I don`t know.
BEHAR: how are you going to feel next week? The girl is going to walk out a free woman on Wednesday.
ASHTON: Well, you know, it`s not -- as the judge said many times. It`s not my first rodeo. It`s not the first time that a jury hasn`t -- you know, saw the case the way I did. So it`s something you just have to get use to as a -- as a prosecutor. You know you`re in -- in a case that depends on juries and you have to rely on them and accept what they do.
BEHAR: I know. It`s sort of like that`s the way of the world.
ASHTON: Sure.
BEHAR: Now, I`ve been noticing, I noticed today that she has a whole new look. She`s got a whole swirly hair -- look at the picture of her.
ASHTON: Yes, yes.
BEHAR: She`s all done up there.
ASHTON: She`s dolled up a bit.
BEHAR: Yes, I mean, when you were doing the case she was like Mother Teresa.
ASHTON: Well, she was -- she was, you know, very school-marmish looking. And I always noticed that they kept her chair really low.
(CROSSTALK)
BEHAR: Why -- why did they do that?
ASHTON: To make her look -- to make her look tiny. I think, yes.
BEHAR: Make her look smaller. Yes.
ASHTON: Yes, yes, it is -- you know those things go on in courtrooms. I just - - it`ll -- it`ll be interesting to see if she ever actually mourns her daughter because that`s one thing we`ve never seen.
BEHAR: We haven`t seen that, no.
ASHTON: No.
BEHAR: We did see her cry when she -- when the verdict was being --
(CROSSTALK)
ASHTON: Right. And she cried -- she cried some when the photos of the remains were shown. So whether -- whatever that means, she did. But I don`t know that we`ve ever seen what we would call mourning but --
(CROSSTALK)
BEHAR: But she was actually coached to look like more saintly and more petite by her defense people, I think. And then, but why didn`t she keep that going? You know? She`s getting the sentencing and she lets her hair down. Why not keep it going?
ASHTON: Well, I think she knows she`s going home. So it -- she doesn`t need to -- I mean, her -- her demeanor in the pre-trial hearings was -- was much different than in trial and sometimes that`s just the reality of a trial.
BEHAR: Yes.
ASHTON: So I don`t want to make any assumptions that she was coached but there definitely was a difference in her demeanor.
BEHAR: Definitely.
ASHTON: Yes.
BEHAR: And I think people are noticing that.
Now the jurors are speaking out. Jennifer Ford spoke to ABC`s "Nightline". Let`s watch that.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
JENNIFER FORD, CASEY ANTHONY JUROR: We had a lot of discussions. We started to look through stuff but none of it -- how did she die? If you`re going to charge someone with murder don`t you have to know how they killed someone or why they might have killed someone or have something -- where, when, why, how? Those are important questions and they were not answered.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
BEHAR: And another juror told the "St. Petersburg Times". She said, quote "I swear -- I just swear to God, I wish we had more evidence to put her away. I truly do, but it just wasn`t there".
Do you take responsibility for that at all, Jeff?
ASHTON: Well, I mean in a sense we do. But we can only present the evidence we have. We can`t create evidence. We can`t manufacture it. So I believe that we presented everything that the investigators gave us. And I really believe that they found every piece of evidence that existed.
So, you know, no one in this case, I don`t think from the investigators or our office, has any regrets or anything that we wished we had done differently, because we gave it all to them. If it wasn`t enough for them we respect that, but everything we had we gave them.
BEHAR: The child was -- she`s -- was missing on the day of was it June 16th.
ASHTON: June 16th was the last time they saw her.
BEHAR: June 16th and yet, we don`t know what happened that day, why not? There is no e-mail or information. The phone calls, nothing that day. What -- what happened that day?
ASHTON: Well, I mean we know some of what happened that day.
BEHAR: Well, tell me, what do we know?
ASHTON: Well, we know that she left the house approximately 1:00 in the afternoon. We know that she was back at the house by about 2:00, 2:15. Her father says that he wasn`t there and his work schedule would be consistent with that. We know that she was in the vicinity of her house until about 4:00 that afternoon, based on cell phone records which weren`t really put into evidence but weren`t definitive anyway.
And we know after that she went to her boyfriend`s house where she stayed for -- through the next day, renting a movie, et cetera. So we do know something about where she was during those -- that period of time.
BEHAR: And -- and she went to the boyfriend`s house the day that the child was missing.
ASHTON: Correct. The first day.
BEHAR: And what does the boyfriend say happened?
ASHTON: Basically she -- and he testified at this -- she basically showed up at his house, late that afternoon.
BEHAR: Was she crying, was she upset?
ASHTON: No.
BEHAR: No, so the child goes missing and we don`t hear -- there`s no response from her really?
ASHTON: No, the evidence that the jury heard was basically that she left the house with Caylee and that she showed up at the boyfriend`s house that evening in good spirits, just fine. They went out and rented a movie. And they --
(CROSSTALK)
BEHAR: See no discussion where is -- the boyfriend never said -- where is Caylee?
ASHTON: No, I think -- I think if I recall, if not that evening soon thereafter, she would basically tell him well, she`s at the nanny --
(CROSSTALK)
BEHAR: And starting -- she`s starting the nanny -- the nanny lies.
ASHTON: Right.
BEHAR: I think those are lies because I mean the child now is missing 31 days and the first day she`s already saying she`s with the nanny. Ok.
ASHTON: Yes, we -- we thought that was pretty persuasive but I guess it wasn`t.
BEHAR: It wasn`t persuasive enough. It`s unbelievable.
ASHTON: I guess.
BEHAR: More with Jeff Ashton in just a minute.
Stay there.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
BEHAR: I`m back with the Casey Anthony trial prosecutor, Jeff Ashton. You know, she never took the stand, Casey.
ASHTON: Correct.
BEHAR: And I asked you this question on "The View" and I don`t think you were able to answer it that day. So I`m asking you now.
If she took the stand, exactly what would you have asked her?
ASHTON: Well, it had been planned already that if she took the stand Linda Burdick who was actually lead counsel in the case was going to cross- examine her because she`s really good at it.
But we had a series of questions ready for her and basically, to explain the actions. What you just said. You know, on the 16th, what were you thinking? Why did you do that? The various lies she told. Basically ask her to explain all of them over that 31 days; it was going to be a long cross-examination.
BEHAR: And you never got to the chance. Could you have said to the jury, Miss Anthony is not taking the stand but this is what I want to know?
ASHTON: No, we`re prohibited under --
BEHAR: You can`t do that.
ASHTON: No. The Constitution gives every defendant the right not to testify and under Florida law and, in fact, most jurisdictions it would be a reversible error to comment on the failure of someone to testify because that goes against that principle of the right to remain silent.
BEHAR: It seems that the system is not rigged but it`s in the defendant`s favor.
ASHTON: Well, it`s --
BEHAR: In this country.
ASHTON: -- appropriately so. It should be. Our system is very well- balanced between the rights of the defendant and the rights of the prosecutor and the rights of the state.
And as Alan Dershowitz was saying on one show I saw, "We would rather see 10 guilty people go free than convict one innocent person."
ASHTON: Well, that`s -- yes. That`s a saying and as a prosecutor, I agree with the principle of that though each individual case is a little tougher.
BEHAR: Not every country has this.
ASHTON: Exactly.
BEHAR: I don`t think Britain has it. Isn`t it true in Britain that you`re guilty until proven innocent? I believe that`s true.
ASHTON: No, I think in France it is --
BEHAR: France.
ASHTON: -- because they have an inquisitorial system. But I think in England it`s similar to ours, presumption of innocence, burden on the state, that kind of thing.
BEHAR: Now, you know, there`s an Internet petition going around for something called Caylee`s Law which would require parents to immediately alert authorities about a missing child. I`m surprised that there`s no law already. I can`t believe it.
Now we have a lot of different laws about children. Can you believe there is no law like that already on the books? I mean if a child is missing, that day, June 16th was it?
ASHTON: Yes.
BEHAR: She should have called the police and called 911. That child is missing. 911 and she would have been -- maybe she would have gotten convicted if there was such a law.
ASHTON: Well, she might have been convicted of that law but I think it`s so inconceivable to anyone that a parent wouldn`t do that.
BEHAR: Exactly.
ASHTON: So, I don`t know any legislature would have ever thought of it because who would think they wouldn`t?
BEHAR: But the jury -- you said -- You probably didn`t watch every single minute of the case, if you said to them why didn`t she call 911 that day? Did you say that?
ASHTON: We said that over and over and over again.
BEHAR: And it wasn`t enough for them. I find that incredible.
ASHTON: YES.
BEHAR: I just find it incredible and a lot of these jurors are now, as you say, doing the Monday-morning quarterbacking and saying we wanted to convict this girl but we just couldn`t do it.
ASHTON: And if that`s how they genuinely felt under the rule of law, I respect that, I do.
BEHAR: And there was no cause of death ascertained. Meanwhile, in Laci Peterson`s case there was no cause of death ascertained and that man is on death row.
ASHTON: Yes. You know it`s a question of what jurors want to hear. We felt that the evidence we had combined with the photograph of how Caylee was found was pretty strong evidence of how she died. They didn`t see it that way and you have to respect their decision.
BEHAR: You know what, Jeff, you did the best you could do. And I wish you luck in your retirement.
ASHTON: Thank you very much. Thank you very much.
BEHAR: Thanks for doing this. Ok.
We`ll be right back.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
BEHAR: Jurors in the Casey Anthony trial say they delivered a not guilty verdict because the prosecution failed to present good enough evidence for a murder conviction. But does that give enough credit to what the defense did right? Lead defense attorney Jose Baez spoke to Barbara Walters last night about the win in his first network interview. Watch.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
BARBARA WALTERS: Not guilty. Not guilty, not guilty. What did you think? How did you feel?
JOSE BAEZ, DEFENSE ATTORNEY: Really, the happiest moment came after the first not guilty, because I knew I had saved her life, and that was really my biggest fear. And I -- once I got through that, I grabbed Casey`s hand and I held it.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
BEHAR: Here to talk about this and more is Andrea Lyon, former co- lead defense for Casey Anthony and law professor at DePaul (ph) University.
Were you expecting a not guilty verdict at all there or were you expecting guilty?
ANDREA LYON, FORMER CO-LEAD DEFENSE FOR CASEY ANTHONY: Well, you worry. You know, you`re always frightened when you have a death-qualified jury. They tend to be pro-prosecution. There was so much hatred and character assassination here. You worried, but you hoped that the jury would pay attention to what the evidence was, what the evidence was not, and to the very, very good work that Jose Baez did, and that they would see through the emotions to the facts. There was no murder case there. There was no murder case.
BEHAR: Where was the character assassination you are referring to going on?
LYON: Well, the character assassination was how the prosecution tried the case. She, you know, salacious photographs of her with another woman. They didn`t have to put those photographs in, you know, Ms. Behar. They could have just said she was out partying and had a witness testify to that. You know, many talks about her lying about things that were not relevant to the case. All of it was, she`s a bad person. She`s a bad mother. She`s a bad -- she lies all the time. And, therefore, she`s a murderer. And that was a leap that they wanted the jury to take, which the jury did not take, which they should not have, although an awful lot of people in the public have taken that leap and are furious about this verdict.
BEHAR: So I`m assuming that it`s your opinion that Jose Baez won this case not because of luck, but because of skill?
LYON: You know, luck is -- I`d always rather be lucky than good. But one of the things that -- when you have a quick verdict like this, every time I`ve gotten an acquittal, and particularly in a death penalty case, it`s happened quickly. If the jury isn`t convinced by the state`s evidence, they decide that pretty fast, No. 1.
But No. 2, he worked so hard. You know, he was a young lawyer getting a very complicated case, and I worked with him for 14 months and I consulted with him at various times after I was unable or not allowed to continue on the case anymore. And what he didn`t know, he learned. He, I have a great deal of respect for Jose Baez. I really do.
BEHAR: OK. Well, he went on to tell Barbara Walters the following. Let`s watch this.
LYON: Sure.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
BAEZ: I think Caylee would never have wanted her mother to suffer this way. And Caylee certainly would never have wanted her mother to die. And I don`t think we could have dishonored Caylee`s memory with a false conviction, and that`s what would have happened if she were found guilty of her murder.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
BEHAR: Is it appropriate, really, for him to assume what outcome poor little Caylee would have wanted? I thought that was a little odd. How does he know?
LYON: Well, he doesn`t know, but it`s how he feels. This work, trying death penalty cases -- you know, I run a death penalty clinic here and I teach students and I tell them, you know, it`s kind of like trying to describe childbirth. No one thinks you`re lying, but unless you`ve done it, it`s very hard to explain what the pressure is like and how emotionally draining it is to be the person that`s standing between a defendant and death. And so, some of the things that happen are that you begin to find emotional places to stand and to gain strength from. And that might be members of your client`s family. It might be members of your own family. It might be faith, it might be a number of different things. But the best (inaudible) is hard work.
BEHAR: A lot of the jurors, a few of the jurors, I must say, I should correct that. A few of the jurors are now saying that they felt that Casey was guilty, but that they couldn`t convict her because of the facts, you know, what we`re saying, that there wasn`t enough forensic evidence to convict her. What do you make of that? That they`re now saying all of that?
LYON: Well, there`s a lot of different ways to look at that. A lot of times a jury -- juries don`t like to hurt anybody`s feelings. So they don`t want to tell the defense if I lose a case, say, they don`t want to tell me I screwed it up, even though maybe I did. If the prosecution loses the case, they don`t want to tell them that they had a terrible case, but they have to vote one way or the other. So sometimes it`s sort of, for lack of a better word, almost a form of buyer`s remorse, to say we thought she might have done it, but they just didn`t prove it.
Maybe they thought that and maybe they didn`t. The point is that the prosecution overreached in this case. They charged a first-degree murder with no cause of death, with a medical examiner who had to admit that this death could have been accidental, with no direct evidence that there was any homicidal action by anyone.
BEHAR: But there was no direct evidence that it was an accident either, zero. And yet the defense came up with that theory, so everybody was throwing in their theories here, right?
LYON: But there`s a difference between the prosecution`s burden and what they have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt, and the defense, whose only duty is to the court, of course, to be an officer of the court, and to their client. And that`s to present the best possible case that they can for their client. And if it is equally likely that she died accidentally, even if it is 15 percent, 25 percent, whatever percentage you want to put on it, that she died as a result of an accident, that`s not proof beyond a reasonable doubt. And that is what the jury did.
What the jury did, God bless them, is they paid attention to the law and they didn`t let the heat, the light and the mob mentality that`s been on this case overwhelm them.
BEHAR: OK, thanks very much, Andrea.
LYON: Very nice to meet you.
BEHAR: You, too. OK.
Now, Casey Anthony may have cleared her biggest legal hurdle, but she still faces plenty of litigation. Zenaida Gonzalez filed a defamation lawsuit against Casey after she says she was falsely accused of kidnapping Caylee as Zanny the Nanny, remember that? Joining me now to talk about it are Zenaida Gonzalez and her attorney, John Morgan. Welcome to the show.
Now, Zenaida, we learned that Zanny the Nanny doesn`t even exist. Have you ever even met Casey Anthony?
ZENAIDA GONZALEZ: No, I have not.
BEHAR: You never even met her. So where did Casey get your name?
GONZALEZ: My personal opinion, I think it`s from the Sawgrass apartments.
BEHAR: Where?
GONZALEZ: Had to -- from the Sawgrass apartments. I had to go and apply for an apartment over there I was looking at.
BEHAR: Oh, for an apartment?
GONZALEZ: Yes. It`s the same apartment complex that she says she had dropped the baby off at.
BEHAR: So she happened to see your name and she just used that, is what you`re saying. I mean, it`s odd that she picked that particular name. It`s not exactly what I would call a common name.
GONZALEZ: No, it`s not. Not very common at all.
BEHAR: It`s not common. What country are you from? May I ask?
GONZALEZ: No, I`m from Puerto Rico.
BEHAR: From Puerto Rico. It`s maybe it`s a common name in Puerto Rico?
GONZALEZ: It is a common name in Puerto Rico.
BEHAR: I see.
GONZALEZ: But not so much over here.
BEHAR: So tell me, how has being associated with this whole trial affected your life? You were doing nothing.
GONZALEZ: Oh, wow. Well, it affected me a lot. And it changed our lives completely. It changed mine and my daughter`s life. We had to change our whole way of living. We went through a lot. When this whole case started, I lost of lot of things. And I lost my job. And I had no place to live. They kicked me out of everywhere I went to. A lot of things -- it hurt us in a lot of ways. It did a lot of damage to my family.
BEHAR: So, John, let me ask you this, if this civil suit goes to trial, could Casey be called to testify?
JOHN MORGAN, ATTORNEY: We served Casey in the Orange County jail. The deposition is scheduled for July 19th. She gets out July 13th. And we plan on taking her deposition on July 19th of this month.
BEHAR: Let me ask you, John, how do you respond to people who say that Zenaida is trying to just cash in on a high-profile murder case here, because she might make some money on this?
MORGAN: I tell them, you know, it`s baloney. Remember this, when we filed this lawsuit, we weren`t ever thinking there was going to be any money. We filed this lawsuit because the police came to her house. They said you`re a suspect in a murder disappearance of a child. They knew her name. They knew her children`s names. They knew the name and make of her car and the color of her car. She was ripped out and made a suspect. And when she came to me, she was a basket case. And I told her, I said, Zenaida, there will probably never be any money here, but the only way that you`re ever going to get your good name back is to push back and to push back hard, and you file this defamation. The best offense is a good defense. And that`s what we did. Money was never even a thought.
BEHAR: You know, now--
MORGAN: Not one time.
BEHAR: OK. Now, you know that yours is not the only lawsuit Casey is facing. Do you think she`ll eventually have to -- you know, Casey -- what do you think, will she have to come up with the money for other lawsuits?
MORGAN: I think she`s going to have to pay for a defense, no matter what. The other lawsuits I think that she`s facing aren`t that worrisome for her. I think there`s an outrage, I mean, but like, the people want her to pay for her defense. That`s not going to have to be done. This Equusearch, I don`t think that`s going to have to be done. I think this is really the only lawsuit that she`s going to be facing.
(CROSSTALK)
BEHAR: OK. Thank you very much, you guys. We`ll be right back.
(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? Thanks, guys. I`ve got to go. Thank you all for watching. Good night, everybody.
END
