Return to Transcripts main page


More Insights into Relationship Between Casey, Mom

Aired January 22, 2009 - 19:00:00   ET


JANE VELEZ-MITCHELL, HOST (voice-over): Bombshells tonight. Shocking new evidence in the Caylee Anthony case reveals a very troubled relationship between grandmother Cindy, Casey, and little Caylee before the child disappears. And some mind-boggling contradictions.

Also, text messages from Casey`s friends express shock that Casey never told them her daughter was missing in the month before it was reported. "You wouldn`t tell me of all people?" an ex-boyfriend lashes out, adding, "Why would you lie to me?"

Plus, dare-devil deceiver Marcus Schrenker, the man who allegedly scammed millions from investors and then faked his own death by crashing his plane, dropped a bombshell in court today. His lawyer insists he`s not mentally competent to stand trial. More stunning details.

From dog fighting to a battle of words. Michael Vick isn`t out of prison yet, but is he ready to return to the NFL? I`ll tell you why PETA is now saying no to their initial decision to team up with Vick for an anti-dog-fighting PSA.

And virginity for sale. We`ll talk to Natalie Dylan, the 22-year-old who is selling her virginity to the highest bidder. If that`s not sick enough, now there are reports Hollywood is doing some bidding of their own. I`ll explain.

ISSUES starts now.


VELEZ-MITCHELL: Tonight, more outrageous revelations in the hundreds of pages of court documents released in the Caylee Anthony murder case. One of the stunning insights: was Casey pregnant and mom Cindy didn`t know?

According to the police report, one of Cindy Anthony`s co-workers remembered a time when, quote, "Casey walked past his desk wearing a long coat, and he noticed she looked pregnant. According to Cynthia" -- that`s Cindy -- "she didn`t know Casey was pregnant." That was less than two months before Caylee was born on August 9, 2005. Was Cindy living in denial about Casey`s pregnancy?

Much has been made of the troubled relationship between Casey and her mom. Remember this fiery exchange from the lost jailhouse tapes?


CASEY ANTHONY, CHARGED WITH MURDERING DAUGHTER: Let me speak for a second. Dad, I let everybody talk.


CASEY ANTHONY: They`re not releasing it -- well, I hope not. I`ll keep saying whatever I have to about the police. They don`t want to go.


CASEY ANTHONY: Can someone let me -- come on.

CINDY ANTHONY: Casey, told on, sweetheart. Settle down.

CASEY ANTHONY: Nobody`s letting me speak.


VELEZ-MITCHELL: And now these bombshell details from the police report. The pages further reveal that Cindy had complained Casey didn`t call her on her birthday, and Casey was always dumping Caylee on her and then taking off.

But in the crucial month of June 2008, with Caylee already missing, quote, "Cynthia told Debbie she hadn`t seen Caylee in about two weeks. Cynthia said Casey told her they needed `time and space`." That would certainly strike me as strange. Was Cindy at all suspicious?

Also from the very same report, more damning evidence against Casey Anthony. Text messages from her friends express shock -- shock -- that she never mentioned, not once, that her daughter was missing.

So much to talk about tonight, and I want to hear from you. Give me a call: 1-877-JVM-SAYS. That`s 1-877-586-7297 to weigh in.

Joining me now, my fantastic panel: Lewis Schneider, criminal defense attorney; Natricia Tricano, criminal defense attorney; and Terry Lyles, psychologist and crisis expert. Boy, do we need a crisis expert tonight.

Terry, you`ve studied the just-released sheriff`s department report laying out the dysfunction of the Anthony family leading up to the child`s disappearance. What strikes you most about it?

TERRY LYLES, PSYCHOLOGIST AND CRISIS EXPERT: Well, I think you mentioned in the intro the dysfunctionality between, you know, the three girls, you know. And what you see going on in the tapes that`s online now, I mean, it`s absolutely amazing the hostility that goes back and forth between them and how they`re fighting against each other, seemingly, when the whole story isn`t being shared.

VELEZ-MITCHELL: Now, Natricia, she`s stories are shocking. We just outlined them. We`re going to get into further detail in a second. But it almost reads like a gossip sheet. And this is a criminal prosecution.

How is all of this talk of dysfunction and, "Oh, Casey didn`t call me for my birthday," Cindy complains, have anything to do with whether or not Casey killed her daughter, little Caylee? And how is the prosecution going to use any of this?

NATRICIA TRICANO, CRIMINAL DEFENSE ATTORNEY: It is just fodder for the prosecution. It actually doesn`t say -- or prove that -- that there was a murder that took place at the hands of Casey.

There`s a lot of issues that come into play, whether the murder took place. There is the -- there is the forensic evidence, which in this case, it is a defense counsel`s CSI nightmare. There is so much forensic evidence. We`re talk -- let`s talk about the laundry bag. Anybody who has a laundry bag knows -- and actually uses a laundry bag knows that there`s going to be hair forensic evidence. There`s going to be skin evidence.

So all of that evidence is going to be more influential than the bickering back and forth between the girls.

VELEZ-MITCHELL: What I don`t understand, Lewis Schneider, is that, yes, they`re going to find the hair and all sorts of things in when they test that hamper. But since the body was in that hamper and -- I think the hamper actually -- as I think about it, could be one of the most damning pieces of evidence. Because we have to get back to remember what Casey`s story is.

Casey`s story is that this child was abducted by this mystery person named Zanny the nanny. And it was my understanding, talking to sources, that she would essentially say whatever was found with the child was taken, as well, by the nanny or had been left with the nanny previously. So if they found a toy or -- which they did. If they found a blanky, which they did, "Oh, the nanny took all that previously."

But a hamper, it`s not so easy to argue that a nanny abducted a child and took a hamper at the same time, if that hamper could be traced back to the Anthony home.

LEWIS SCHNEIDER, CRIMINAL DEFENSE ATTORNEY: If they can trace the hamper back. And I`m not sure that they can. In fact, I spent quite a bit of time with the crime lab this afternoon, trying to figure out what can they find?

And I asked about fingerprints. And the decomposition of the body, humidity, water, time, heat, they`re all the enemies of latent fingerprints. So what they`re going to have to do is see if they can maybe get some DNA off of that duct tape. That duct tape can be frozen with liquid nitrogen, separated, and there may be DNA protected within that duct tape.

But it`s my guess that, if they can trace some of the items back to the home, it still doesn`t really prove anything.

And then to get back to your prior question about the father between the families, it`s not relevant. I would argue to keep that out. If the evidence doesn`t tend to prove or disprove a point, I argue to keep that out.

I still think that the prosecution has got a long way to go. I mean, sure, there`s a lot of circumstantial evidence. Then again, there`s a lot of people on Death Row from circumstantial evidence. But in this case...

VELEZ-MITCHELL: You know what`s fascinating, is that the worst circumstantial -- or the best circumstantial evidence for the prosecution, I think, Natricia, came in early.

When you had the cadaver dogs hitting on Casey`s car, when you had the body farm testing the air taken from Casey`s car, which showed signs of decomposition, when there was a little hair found in the back of Casey`s car that was identified as belonging to an Anthony and a deceased person. All of that was extraordinarily strong evidence. And it seems what`s coming out now is more gossipy and may not even be admissible.

TRICANO: You`re completely right. Not only do you have all that evidence that you just listed. You also have the 911 tape where Cindy says to the -- to the 911 operator that her car smells like a dead body.

You also have the evidence of the cadaver dogs who actually smelled a dead body in the vehicle. If it walks like a duck and it talks like a duck, it`s probably a duck. That was probably a dead body back in the back of the car.

Not to mention Cindy`s representations to her supervisor that her car smelled really bad. It wasn`t until there was -- her daughter was a suspect that she changed her story.

VELEZ-MITCHELL: You know, Lewis, there`s a saying in art. Art is never completed. It is always abandoned. Have you ever made a painting where it`s really good at one point, and you just keep going and adding paint, and suddenly it gets all mushy and it`s terrible and you throw it out? I have. Is it the same, possibly, with prosecutions? In other words, could there be too much evidence?

SCHNEIDER: Absolutely. There definitely could be too much evidence. And while this is all interesting, again, it`s -- when it comes down to it, a jury will be charged with "does this prove beyond a reasonable doubt?"

The Supreme Court in Nevada has ruled beyond a reasonable doubt is something like 93, 94 percent certainty in a case. They don`t have any witnesses. It`s all circumstantial evidence. And are you willing to convict someone for murder that you don`t have any rock-solid evidence? Not yet anyway. Let`s see what comes off that tape at the crime lab .

VELEZ-MITCHELL: All right. Casey has always seemed extraordinarily ego-driven. Me, me, me, me, me. No real emotion for her missing child. Can the prosecution use that? Let`s listen.


CASEY ANTHONY: I am just as removed from the situation as somebody who has no clue what`s going on. At least even random people that we`ve never met have more of an outlook on this than I do right now.


VELEZ-MITCHELL: Terry, you`re a crisis expert. What are your insights in terms of what we just saw and heard from Casey?

LYLES: Well, I picked up something that`s very interesting. I mean, she switches from first person down to third person when she`s referring to herself, talking about I`m so removed from the situation, just like someone who has no clue. That`s not normal dialogue in conversation. You don`t jump out of an associated state of conversation to a disassociated. It`s as if she`s referring to herself, almost trying to prove to her parents that she doesn`t know anything.

Like I said, the hostility drives back to something. It appears that she is totally masquerading and living this -- this shield of lies and trying to convince everyone, including herself, that she doesn`t know anything. And never mentioning her daughter in most of the -- most of the time it`s only about her.

VELEZ-MITCHELL: Well, yes. That`s the thing. It`s she -- Natricia, it seems like she`s talking a lot but saying very little.

TRICANO: You`re right.

VELEZ-MITCHELL: She`s not saying the kinds of things that somebody with a missing daughter who doesn`t know where the daughter is, who feels that someone genuinely abducted her would be saying, like "Do you have any -- has anybody pointed out anything? Have you heard anything? Has anybody called and said we`ve seen" -- she doesn`t ask any questions, when -- if you have lost -- as much -- if you`ve lost a dog, which I have, and that can be heart-breaking, you`re asking, "Well, did anybody see her? Did anybody -- who was" -- you`re asking questions. That`s what you`re doing - - Natricia.

TRICANO: Well, I mean, when you look at the tape, there`s a portion on the tape which says, "I have never been so angry." This tape was filmed after her child had been missing about two months. And in that time, she has never been so angry that her child has been missing? That she`s only angry that she`s been caught. And that`s what`s concerning to me.

I`ve had a missing dog. And you`re frightened. You`re terrified. In this case, I`m sure it is exponentially worse when you have a missing child. It`s very concerning, her attitude through this whole thing. It is me, me, me. And it should be about Caylee. And I don`t think it`s ever been about Caylee.

VELEZ-MITCHELL: And we`re going to get some of these details about the pregnancy and the birthdays. And there`s so much to cover. We have much more evidence to sift through. Stay right there.

And don`t forget: Nancy Grace, up immediately following this program at 8 p.m. Eastern. She will have more analysis of the truly startling evidence in this case.

And, of course, stay right there. More twists in the Caylee Anthony murder investigation. I will be taking your calls. And they`re lighting up right now: 1-877-JVM-SAYS. That`s 1-877-586-7297 to speak to my expert panel or give your opinion, your theory. I want to hear it.

But first, Casey`s mom told her co-workers she noticed a smell of death, a point the media has focused on more than once.


CINDY ANTHONY: And continue to look for Caylee. She is not dead. And there is no -- there is no evidence to say that.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Did you smell anything in the car, when the car was at your house for days?

CINDY ANTHONY: I already -- I already documented that. You guys look back when I told you about the car and the smell and why it stunk so bad.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: But Cindy, you`ve got to be upset.





G. ANTHONY: June 16. That`s the last time that I saw my daughter and granddaughter. The granddaughter had her backpack on. My daughter had some stuff for backpack (ph) and stuff for work. She was dressed, I believe, in work attire. And she says, you know, "Dad, I`m on my way to work. Caylee is going to Zanny`s house. I`ll be working late, so we`ll be staying over tonight. So we`ll see you guys tomorrow."


VELEZ-MITCHELL: Except police say there was no job and there was no Zanny. That was Caylee`s grandfather, George Anthony, recalling the last time he saw Caylee. New reports reveal Caylee`s remains were found with a toddler-sized shirt, a small pair of white shirts and a Winnie the Pooh blanket.

We`re taking your calls: 1-877-JVM-SAYS, 1-877-586-7297. Let`s go straight to the phones. Diane in Florida, question or comment, ma`am.

CALLER: Yes, hi. This case reminds me a lot of the -- of the Scott Peterson/Laci Peterson case. The defense attorneys keep saying that they can`t prove how she was killed and that that -- but, you know, there`s so much circumstantial evidence. They never proved how Laci Peterson was killed either, but he was convicted because there was just so much evidence against him.

VELEZ-MITCHELL: Right. I agree with you entirely.

Lewis Schneider, it`s almost like the defense shouldn`t be, "Well, where`s the videotape if they did it? Why isn`t it caught on tape?" It`s not like that. Very seldom are there witnesses to a violent crime like murder. People have a tendency to do that in secret.

SCHNEIDER: Jane, and I agree with you. The biggest problem the defense has right now is that you have a beautiful, dead baby and someone is going to need to pay for that beautiful, dead baby. So that`s the biggest problem.

But juries now are more informed than they ever have been. With shows like "CSI" and the technical evidence, they`re going to want to see that before they put somebody possibly on Death Row.

VELEZ-MITCHELL: Barbara in Connecticut, question or thought, ma`am?

CALLER: Hi, Jane. I`ve got a question. When Casey was pregnant, she didn`t want to have the baby, but Cindy more or less talked her into keeping it and raising Caylee. Do you think it`s a type of revenge against Cindy, making her mother pay for keeping the baby??

VELEZ-MITCHELL: Wow. Well, I think that theory has been raised before, Terry Lyles, that essentially there`s a lot of theories. One is that Casey didn`t get as much attention from her mom growing up as Cindy gave little Caylee. And there was jealousy there, as well.

LYLES: Oh, I`m sure. There`s probably so much underpinning this whole story that you just don`t see, but you have to really look through and pick through.

You can see the hostility, as I mentioned earlier, between you know, the mother and daughter going on, the normal dynamics. But this is way beyond that. I mean, abandoning this child as much as possible, living her life in denial up to the time that the child is born. There`s a lot of issues.

And like the caller just said, you know, the mother is saying, "No, no, no, have the child, because I want this child that maybe can replace you."

VELEZ-MITCHELL: And you know what`s so fascinating? In the court documents, one of the supervisors or the supervisor of Cindy says, "If you`re having such trouble, why don`t you legally adopt and get custody of little Caylee?" And at that point, Cindy becomes very agitated, according to this report, and says, "We don`t have the money."

Is it really that expensive, Natricia, to get legal custody of your grandchild if your own child is not being a responsible parent?

TRICANO: In this case, I don`t think it would have been very difficult at all. It`s clear that Casey didn`t want Caylee. So she would have been easily -- able to sign away her rights to Casey over to the grandmother.

I think the bottom line -- I don`t think there should be excuses made in this situation, excuses whether there was not enough love given to Casey, because if anything, it appears to me that her parents are just enablers and enabled her to do this.

VELEZ-MITCHELL: And they remain in denial. One of the fascinating things is that the supervisor wonders why there aren`t more questions that Cindy is demanding and asking of her daughter, saying that some of the stories that Cindy was telling her at the work about what Casey was doing were beyond belief. And that`s a quote.

She talked about -- Casey talked about going to Tampa, where Zanny the nanny got into an accident. And the supervisor is like, "Why is Cindy believing any of this?"

And you have to ask yourself, Lewis Schneider, why was this mother believing these incomprehensible stories? And does that track with her now saying, "Hey, my daughter had nothing to do with Caylee`s death"?

SCHNEIDER: Well, probably a better question for the psychologist, but I think maybe not so much believing but disbelieving that her daughter would have anything to do with the missing grandchild. I think it was just hard to get her mind around that. And she was trying to do anything but believe it. So I think she was disbelieving that she would have anything to do with the death of this child or the missing child.

VELEZ-MITCHELL: Terry Lyles, there is a pattern here. There`s a pattern of denial.

LYLES: Sure.

VELEZ-MITCHELL: One of the other fascinating things -- and we`re just going through this -- is that Cindy talked about Zanny the nanny with her co-workers, reportedly, for a couple of years. I mean, this little baby was about 2 years old -- she was 2 years old when she went missing and became 3 during the time she was missing.

But never did Cindy ever meet Zanny the nanny. And the co-workers were amazed that she would be talking about this theoretical person that she`d never met and buying it the whole time.

LYLES: Well, denial is a very interesting force field, if you will, or a shield, a buffer, if you will, to hide behind. Someone who`s injured or in pain, there`s only one thing that separates a wound and a scar, and it`s pain. There`s a lot of pain here.

But more importantly, as the legal team had just said, you know, Caylee`s the one that paid the ultimate price because of their dysfunctionality. The problem is that everybody lives in denial, but sooner or later the truth will prevail. And hopefully, through this process, we will see that happen.

VELEZ-MITCHELL: What about the time and space comment, Natricia? Can prosecutors use that? In June, Cindy told her supervisor she hadn`t seen her little granddaughter in a couple of weeks and explained that Casey told her that they needed time and space.

TRICANO: Well, that`s not -- that doesn`t really tell you very much, whether they were separated or anything like that. Most grandparents want to hear from their grandchildren on -- not on a monthly basis, but on a daily basis.

And let`s get back to the duct tape situation. There was a big piece of duct tape on a 2-year-old`s mouth. And on that duct tape, they strategically placed a heart-shaped sticker. Something -- something went horribly wrong in this situation.

VELEZ-MITCHELL: Well, yes. That is the truth. Horribly wrong.

Stick around, everyone. Lots of ground to cover on the Caylee Anthony murder investigation. We`re going to play more of those lost tapes in a moment. And get on the phone, people: 1-877-JVM-SAYS. That`s 1-877-586- 7297. Talk to my expert panel. What do you think of Cindy`s role in all of this?



JOSE BAEZ, CASEY ANTHONY`S ATTORNEY: The last issue I know that you guys have been very concerned about, and that is the change of venue. That will be heard very -- very shortly. Where we are asking to go is, in my opinion -- I do not believe it should be disclosed, quite frankly, because I don`t want that specific area tainted. If it`s disclosed, it won`t be disclosed by the defense. I`ll say that much.


VELEZ-MITCHELL: Casey`s defense attorney, Jose Baez, saying you won`t hear any secrets from him. But earlier today, an Orlando affiliate saying Miami and Jacksonville, two possibilities for a change-of-venue motion.

I`m back with my fantastic panel, analyzing that and taking calls.

Patty in Georgia, question or thought, ma`am?

CALLER: Yes. Last night on "NANCY GRACE" -- I watch both y`all -- Leonard Padilla was trying to tell Nancy something about the meter reader, Kronk, saying the first couple of times he called in, he was saying that Kronk had said a white bag, and he was saying he was...

VELEZ-MITCHELL: Patty, go ahead.

CALLER: He wasn`t saying that it was Caylee Anthony, but that he saw a white bag. And then the last time when they investigated when he called, he was saying that it was a black bag.

VELEZ-MITCHELL: Yes. There are some inconsistencies, Lewis Schneider, in terms of what was said. The reports that are coming out of these documents are that Roy Kronk, when he called back in August, said that he saw something white but also a gray vinyl bag. And ultimately, the bag in which Caylee`s remains were found is a black garbage bag.

So right there, I`m thinking, how is the prosecution going to handle that?

SCHNEIDER: Well, it`s -- it`s those gray areas that defense attorneys live and die. You know, eyewitness testimony is notoriously unreliable, and we`ll see what happens here. I mean, as a defense attorney, we don`t - - we can`t change the facts of the case.

But if our clients are guilty, the prosecution is going to have to prove it and prove it by following the rules. And it`s that element of doubt that gives us a fair shot. The prosecution, as you pointed out here on the show, they`ve got unlimited resources. So we`ll see how that comes together. We`ll have to bring in that eye testimony -- eyewitness testimony and see -- and try and see if we can explain it or not.

TRICANO: That actually goes back to the situation where they filed a motion. They recently filed the motion so that he`d have access to the property. He wants access to that property so he can walk the area to see whether he was able to see the bag when the officers came on, not just one occasion but two occasions. So that`s also important. That also goes to whether the -- the defense is going to be able to poke holes in the prosecution`s case.

VELEZ-MITCHELL: Terry Lyles, I know you`re not the attorney, but I want to ask about the change of venue from a psychological standpoint. You just heard Jose Baez saying, "We cannot discuss the location, because that`s going to start immediately poisoning the jury pool in those locations."

Do you buy it? Given that we live in a global village, everybody in the country is focusing in on this case.

LYLES: I think here, you know, your attorneys here, the experts would say, you know, it probably -- you know, may have an effect, I would think. But you know what? Like you said, we live in a global village, and, you know, everybody knows about this case. I`d be hard-pressed to find anyplace in the United States that doesn`t know about this case.

Changing the venue might help some. I don`t think it`s going to cure this problem. I`ve seen destroyed lives because of loss of death. And you know what? These people just don`t look that way. So I don`t think it`s really going to matter. I think they`re still going to get the same result.

VELEZ-MITCHELL: Stay right there. More shockers in the Caylee Anthony case in just a moment.

Plus, a 22-year-old woman selling her virginity. I`m going to talk to her, ask her some tough questions. You can, too: 1-877-JVM-SAYS.


VELEZ-MITCHELL: New shockers tonight in the Caylee Anthony case. A stunning legal document reveals trouble in the Anthony household long before little Caylee ever goes missing.

We`re back, talking about more of the horrible revelations contained in the hundreds of pages of documents released by the Orange County sheriff`s office.

Details like Cindy complaining about Casey always leaving Caylee with her and then taking off -- irresponsibility. Yet in that crucial month of June 2008, Cindy told a co-worker, she hadn`t seen Caylee in about two weeks. Also, text messages from Casey`s friends reveal their shock that she never mentioned, not once, that her daughter was missing.

Back with me for a recap: Lewis Schneider, criminal defense attorney. I think that is evidence that could be used in court where one friend after the other takes the stand and says the entire month that little Caylee was missing, Casey, who claims she was doing her own investigation, never told us that her child was missing.

And they are upset in these text messages.


That is evidence that will be admitted into the case. That if -- if Casey had lied, saying that, you know, he hadn`t seen the child and then -- and told these friends and the friends` testimony will be that she said, yes, she told me she was with her or did something with her last night. But had been missing during that time, that of course, is going to come in.

The opinions of her friends -- it`s easy to draw those conclusions, you know, outside the court of law. But when you`re inside the court, those lies are going to come in.

VELEZ-MITCHELL: One thing I`ve never seen with Casey, with all of these tapes, these lost tapes, is real compassion for anybody else. Take a listen to this.


CASEY ANTHONY, MOTHER OF CAYLEE ANTHONY: I`ve been praying every single day for insight and everybody`s thoughts and everybody`s feelings so I know where you stand and where you`re coming from. And I know where you`re sitting right now and mom and Lee and Joe Schmo walking down the block had seen this every day on the media for the last month.

I can understand everybody else`s side in this, but the worst part is that nobody can see my side. And I have to keep my mouth shut -- I have to keep my mouth shut about how I feel. And with everything else -- because all I need to do is give the media more stuff for the detectives and whoever else to throw back in my face when this goes to trial.


VELEZ-MITCHELL: Now, contrast that with some stunning revelations in these documents that Cindy told co-workers that Casey had a boyfriend named Jeff and she was going to meet him, but four times in a row, something came up and could never meet this young man.

This is fascinating. Got to answer this.

Casey told police she worked with Jeff at Universal Studios and that to he was the one that introduced her to Zanny the nanny because he had a son named Zack. And detectives have never been able to track him down. Now, there`s a Jeffrey Sr., who said, yes my son once worked at Universal Studios in high school and knew of the Anthony family, but never dated, never met Caylee.

What I find fascinating about this, is not just the fact that Cindy was in denial about this mystery boyfriend who probably didn`t exist at all, obviously, is that he named the son or she -- Casey -- it`s hard to keep up with these lies. Casey said her mystery boyfriend had a son named Zack.

I see something with a "Z" Zanny the nanny, who doesn`t exist, Zack the son of the boyfriend who doesn`t exist. Am I going out on a limb here?

SCHNEIDER: Well, I mean, yes. I don`t think you`re going to get that in. But the hardest thing I have to undo at trial or during the presence of a case is the statements that my clients make trying to talk their way out of it. That she`s going -- we`re going to have to explain some of these stories. And without -- without good explanations, it doesn`t look good. It`s all circumstantial, but eventually it will add up and as I said that jury is going to want someone to pay for a dead baby girl.

VELEZ-MITCHELL: Well, we`ve got to go.

Lies, lies, lies, and more lies. That`s my conclusion.

And don`t forget Nancy Grace will have more on the stunning new evidence in the Caylee Anthony case. She`s up immediately following this program at 8:00 p.m. Eastern.

Now, he faked his own death. He is also accused of bilking investors out of hundreds of thousands or maybe millions of dollars. Now, according to his lawyer, he is mentally incompetent to stand trial? Do you buy it?

A judge today ordered tests to see if 38-year-old Marcus Schrenker is, in fact, mentally incompetent. He pleaded not guilty to intentionally crashing his plane and then faking a distress call. Remember, it was less than two weeks ago that Schrenker parachuted out of his plane and then went on the lam, taking off in a stashed motorcycle.

He hatched this plan after his personal and professional life took a nose dive. But he was found by authorities two days later.

I will show you new video just released which shows Schrenker joined by his apparent mistress prepping for a flight. You cannot make this stuff up. Teams of Hollywood script writers cannot make this stuff up.

Joining me now to sort through this very, very bizarre case -- after a one more very in there -- Lewis Schneider, criminal defense attorney, as well as Bill Gamblin, editor of the "Santa Rosa Press Gazette" Pensacola, Florida. That`s where the hearing was held today.

Now, Bill you`re very close to this case, you talked to people who got close to Schrenker today. Did he look or appear mentally incompetent? I mean, he did slash his wrists when police were closing in on him.

BILL GAMBLIN, EDITOR, SANTA ROSA PRESS GAZETTE: Well, that would go back to the email that he sent to his friend before he got on the motorcycle. Visibly, you could tell that he -- he was -- he was subdued. He appeared to stumble when he approached to appear before the judge. He waived the line-by-line reading, you know, when he entered the plea of not guilty.

It seems like he -- it seems like the stress of everything -- looking at what all he`s gone through and researching the case, it looks like the stress has gotten to him. I mean, with the -- the email that he sent and everything else.

VELEZ-MITCHELL: I don`t know if I buy it. Lewis Schneider, this is the boy who cried wolf, perhaps, coming back to bite him because, this guy is considered a pathological liar by everyone. He cheated on his wife allegedly. She says that in a letter. And she`s now divorcing him.

He invested -- he defrauded, allegedly, close friends that were investing with him. So now when he says, hey, I`m mentally incompetent, is anybody going to believe him? Do you think he could fake a test like that? Because this a guy who`s capable of faking a lot. Faking his own death, jumping out of a plane, letting it crash 50 yards from homes.

SCHNEIDER: Can he fake the test? Probably not, it`s a very narrow standard. Can he comprehend the charges against him and can he assist in his defense? It`s not whether or not he`s depressed. Or he could even be talking to the walls, but if he can comprehend the charges, and assist in his defense, they`re going to put on this trial.

VELEZ-MITCHELL: You know what`s fascinating to me, Bill Gamblin, about all of this?

GAMBLIN: What`s that?

VELEZ-MITCHELL: This man has three young children. So when you think about him faking his own death, essentially he was saying to his own children, I`m dead, forget about me and allowing his children to grow up with the belief that he was dead when he`s not.

I mean, when a person is capable of that, aren`t they capable of faking incompetence?

GAMBLIN: It would be hard to say, I mean, there`s different things. When they take him to South Florida for the facility of Miami to do the evaluation, psychological and physical evaluation at the federal institution in Miami, they have up to 45 days to do that.

The big key that a lot of people haven`t really talked about is the proximity of where that plane went down, the three bodies of water. You`re talking about the Gulf of Mexico being approximately --


GAMBLIN: -- 20 miles south from where the crash occurred. You have - -

VELEZ-MITCHELL: Let me jump in for a one second, because I know your point is that --


VELEZ-MITCHELL: -- he was trying to crash it in the water but it came down near --


VELEZ-MITCHELL: -- 50 -- right near homes. Last question, Lewis Schneider, he allegedly had a mistress. And apparently we have video of him with his apparent mistress getting ready for a flight.

So, again, can this be used by prosecutors at all when they are building a case against him to show that he has a pattern of lying or is this just a picadillo (ph) that is just sort of sad to his family?

SCHNEIDER: Sure, it all goes towards motive, the motive that he was having an affair, that he was living multiple lives. And absolutely, it`s all going to be admissible. Those tapes, I saw those tapes. He was pre- flighting the plane and heading out there and apparently trying to crash it into the ocean.

I have some issues with some of the reports I read about it was on autopilot. Once the plane gets out of a certain altitude, the autopilot automatically comes off. Something else crashed that plane. If it were on autopilot, and had enough gas it would have kept flying until it got out of the altitude, so something else happened.

VELEZ-MITCHELL: Wow, that`s a new conspiracy theory. We don`t have time to deal with that, but I`m not a pilot, so I`m not going to go there.

But Lewis, Bill, thank you so much. We`re going to stay on top of that story.

And I`m going to talk live to a 22-year-old woman who is auctioning off her virginity to the highest bidder. You will not believe how much money it`s going for, millions. I`ll tell you how many millions. I want to hear what you have to say.

Is she a genius business woman or -- I`ll let you finish that sentence. Call 1-877-JVM-SAYS, 1-877-586-7297. Let me know what you think about this lady.


VELEZ-MITCHELL: A 22-year-old woman selling her virginity. I will ask her what she thinks its worth.

But first, "Top of the Block" tonight.

Disgraced NFL star Michael Vick, behind bars for his role in a dog fighting ring. He was scheduled to make an anti-dog fighting public service announcement with PETA, People for Ethical Treatment of Animals, but PETA has withdrawn that PSA offer. That after details emerged from a USDA report saying Vick killed losing dogs, threw pets into the pit with fighting dogs where they were torn to bits and enjoyed watching dogs die slow, painful deaths.

Now, PETA wants Vick to undergo psychiatric evaluation to determine if he feels remorse for his crime. Here is PETA`s president earlier today.


INGRID NEWKIRK, PETA PRESIDENT: We don`t believe that children particularly or adults are well-served when a man who has deliberately and criminally hurt and killed dogs -- dogs who ask for nothing more than love, in a position to serve as a role model.


VELEZ-MITCHELL: Couldn`t have said it better myself. We contacted Vick`s representatives for a response. But they haven`t gotten back to us.

By now you`ve probably heard about a bombshell of a different kind. We`re talking about 22-year-old Natalie Dylan. If her name doesn`t ring a bell, her story definitely will. She is selling her virginity to the highest bidder online.

The gorgeous college grad who holds a degree in women`s studies already has an offer of -- are you sitting down -- $3.8 million. The auction is being held by the Moonlight Bunny Ranch in Nevada.

And by the way, in that part of Nevada, prostitution in legal. And that`s the very spot she plans to consummate the deal with the lucky winner. Natalie is here with us by phone.

And I want to take your calls, too. We`ve already got some lined up; you can ask Natalie a question. The number is 1-877-JVM-SAYS.

Natalie, thanks so much for joining us tonight.


VELEZ-MITCHELL: All right, I appreciate you for coming on.

You`ve got about 10,000 bids from men who want to deflower you, as they used to say in the old days. The highest bid is almost $4 million. Since you`re the one who insists you want to do this, a lot of people are wondering what are you waiting for? Almost $4 million; take it.

DYLAN: Right. I`m just trying to play it smart from a business standpoint. And you know, I got email -- the bidders are -- I also get many different media inquiries as well as many different -- very lucrative business opportunities. So I`m trying to be business savvy about this. And for that reason I`m leaving it open and I don`t anticipate the other number to get higher.

VELEZ-MITCHELL: Natalie, I`ve heard you say, reportedly, that you won`t go through with it if you get a book or a movie deal that approximates $1 million. But don`t you realize that nobody wants to make a book or movie deal if you don`t go through with it?

DYLAN: Actually, I never said that.

VELEZ-MITCHELL: Ok, all right.

DYLAN: I said there are many other lucrative deals that come my way. Yes, prostitution is something that I`m comfortable doing. Is it the only way to make $1 million? If other good offers come my way to make a lot of money, then of course, I`ll rethink my decision.

VELEZ-MITCHELL: Why are you ok with prostitution? I understand from an intellectual standpoint. I believe actually in the legalization of prostitution, but for reasons that have to do with criminality and jail space and a lot of other reasons. I don`t necessarily want to participate in it. Why do you want to participate in it?

DYLAN: You know, to be perfectly honest, of course at a much younger age I didn`t foresee myself going into prostitution, but I never remember thinking of it in a negative light. You know, it really --

VELEZ-MITCHELL: Why not? You have to have sex with somebody you don`t like.

DYLAN: You know, it`s just -- its objective. You know, it comes down to a moral debate or perhaps even a religious debate. And, you know, hitmen, they make a lot of money doing what they do, but obviously I have a huge moral dilemma with that.

Prostitution is just something I`ve always been very comfortable with.

VELEZ-MITCHELL: Ok. Alexandria in Louisiana, question for Natalie.

ALEXANDRIA IN LOUISIANA: Yes. My question is how does Natalie know that she won`t get emotionally attached to the person that buys her virginity?

VELEZ-MITCHELL: Well, good question. Natalie?

DYLAN: Well, you know, of course I don`t have the answer for that. It`s always a possibility. But I don`t foresee it. Many of these men live overseas. I`m not corresponding with them so often to the point where I might form an emotional attachment.

And I`m 22. I`m going back to school and my mind trend is not seeking out in a relationship or even a potential marriage out of this. I just see it as a business transaction. And I`m not trying to play with their emotions as well; I`ve told them exactly what it is.

VELEZ-MITCHELL: Ann, Virginia, question for Natalie.

ANN, VIRGINIA: Yes. I wanted to know if prostitution is legal in your state.


DYLAN: In the state I live, no. I live in California.

VELEZ-MITCHELL: No, I think she`s talking more about --

Yes, you`re in Nevada and you`re at this ranch, and in that particular county, I understand that prostitution is legal.

DYLAN: Right. At the actual -- the brothel that I`m going to in conducting this auction that is legal where I live, I personally live in California.

VELEZ-MITCHELL: Let me ask you this question, Natalie.

DYLAN: Right.

VELEZ-MITCHELL: Because, I was trying to put myself in your shoes. And I was thinking, well, look, if I had a guy who looked like Daniel Craig from "James Bond" offering me 100 grand but then I had somebody who looked like Attila the Hun offering me $3.8 million, I`d go with Daniel Craig, even though it`s a hundred thousand dollars. What about you?

DYLAN: You know, I`m doing this for monetary gain. This auction is not set up like the EBay where I have to go to the highest bidder. So if for some reason he wants to engage in something that I`m not comfortable with --

VELEZ-MITCHELL: No, no I mean, look let`s say -- are you taking a look at the photos of these guys that -- let`s say the highest bidder, do you know what this man looks like? What if you look at his photo and go, oh, I can`t -- I mean, this guy is just -- I`m at a loss for words.

DYLAN: No, honestly, no. You know, I`m in this for monetary gain.

VELEZ-MITCHELL: So you don`t care what the guy looks like? If he is disgusting to you, you will go ahead and have sex with him as long as he pays you?

DYLAN: If for some reason I`m absolutely repulsed by him, then perhaps I won`t go with the highest bidder.

VELEZ-MITCHELL: All right. I got that out of you anyway.


VELEZ-MITCHELL: All right. Listen, Natalie, I`ll give you an "A" for effort. That`s for sure. Natalie Dylan, thank you for joining us. And good luck.

Ok. This we have to discuss.

Joining me now, the person we need more, Dr. Judy Kuriansky, a.k.a. Dr. Judy, renowned sex therapist, and Jim Beck, National Film Director of the Christian Coalition of America. I see you holding your head in your hands, Dr. Judy. Just go for it.

DR. JUDY KURIANSKY, SEX THERAPIST: I`m horrified. This is the worst message to teenage girls. I`ve worked with them for years. She`s 22. But to tell teenage girls they could sell their body? Even in this difficult times?

This is a scam, that she is -- look at the pictures of her spread eagled with her legs in the V position and her breasts hanging out. She`s talking all about money. This is all about selling her body for money.

I think it`s a terrible example in the midst of the prostitution scandal over ex-New York Governor --

VELEZ-MITCHELL: Oh yes, absolutely.

KURIANSKY: And Jamie Lynn Spears as a teenager getting pregnant, with the governor of Alaska`s daughter.

VELEZ-MITCHELL: Oh, you know what? Dr. Judy I`ve got to play devil`s advocate.

Jim Beck you`re with the Christian Coalition of America. I mean, it`s her body, let her do what she wants with it.

JIM BECK, NATIONAL CHRISTIAN COALITION OF AMERICA: I think she`s selling too cheap. I mean, she says she`s a savvy business woman. I really do question the wisdom for that, I mean $3.8 million. How do you put a price on that? I mean, at the end of day, this is a new angle on an old story.

Prostitution has been around forever. But I`ll tell you what I hear in her voice, I hear a hurt person, a walking wounded. And I think this is one of the things that National Organization for Women and the Christian Coalition may agree with.

KURIANSKY: I agree with you.

BECK: We have a member of the walking wounded on the phone earlier.

VELEZ-MITCHELL: You`re right. We`ll be right back with more in just a moment. Outrageous.


VELEZ-MITCHELL: We`re back talking about 22-year-old Natalie Dylan who is auctioning of her virginity to the highest bidder. You can`t make this stuff up.

Jim Beck with the Christian Coalition of America, I agree it`s pathetic, but she has the right to do, right? I mean it`s her body. If we start telling people they can`t to do that, then what`s next, no tattoos, no piercings?

BECK: Let me assure you this is a cry for help; this is not a cry for cash. Natalie admitted in one of the CNN articles that I read that really she doesn`t have much of a moral compass. And what I suggest to Natalie is that the people around her circle around her and tell her we love you and you are valuable and everything about you is valuable. And that`s the message we need to be sending Natalie.

She`s wounded and it`s time that we supported all of the young ladies that are constantly bombarded with the message that they`re only worth their sex. At the end of the day women are worth so much more than that, a man is worth so much more than that. Why must it always be about sex?

VELEZ-MITCHELL: Judy Kuriansky, here`s something that`s going to make you tear your hair out. One of the things she wants to do with this money is get a higher degree and become a marriage and family therapist.

KURIANSKY: Oh exactly, and I`m -- right American family just as you know, I`m often on the other side of the situation with you, but -- bless you from the Christian Coalition --

BECK: Thanks.

KURIANSKY: For saying how empathic you are towards her. This young woman got a degree in women`s studies? This does not fit to then be going to sell her body, number one. And number two, she`s using a word that this makes her feel empowered?

This is disempowering. It`s the opposite of a message that we want to give to young girls about being empowered about their body as my colleague here is saying and on top of that, you`re right, Jane, a marriage and family therapist, oh, my God! --


KURIANSKY: I`d like to see her application. Or I mean --

VELEZ-MITCHELL: Let me get back to Jim for a second because Dr. Judy raised a very fascinating point that this case is making for very strange bedfellows, --

BECK: Yes.

VELEZ-MITCHELL: I may mention I said bedfellows -- ha, ha, yes -- but it is joining the liberal groups, the feminist groups like NOW and the Christian Coalition. We`re all agreeing, bad idea.

BECK: You know how we have an African-American President, we have the Christian Coalition and NOW coming together on something. So I mean, maybe it is a time for history because I can tell you this, as the media sends the message to young girls that you`re only worth what you look like and that`s just wrong. If God doesn`t see it that way and we shouldn`t see it that way.

KURIANSKY: Well, you know, I do disagree with you on one thing. I think it is a scream for money because she wants a movie deal. Did you hear her just say?

BECK: Yes, yes absolutely.

VELEZ-MITCHELL: She wants that money and help. All right, we`re going to leave it right there. Thank you so much. Yes, we are. We`re being played.

I`m Jane Velez-Mitchell and you are watching "ISSUES" on HLN.