Return to Transcripts main page


George, Cindy Anthony Testify in Civil Suit; Carol Leifer Weighs in on Motherhood

Aired April 9, 2009 - 19:00:00   ET



JANE VELEZ-MITCHELL, HOST (voice-over): Tonight, crucial developments in the Casey Anthony case. Parents George and Cindy grilled under oath in the Zanny the nanny civil suit against their daughter. This facedown had to be postponed once because mom and dad were too emotionally devastated.

So today, were they ready to confront dramatic claims of infidelity, physical fights and a lying daughter? Cindy seems geared for battle, even setting up her own video camera in the depo room. Is she taking a page from the Michael Jackson playbook?

Plus, you will not believe the bizarre Cobra connection between the Casey Anthony case and the Haleigh Cummings case.

And the search for a monster continues, with hundreds of California cops furiously following leads in the brutal murder of Sandra Cantu. Meantime, Sandra`s mother so shaken up by the death that she was hospitalized. In an amazing show of strength, she opens up. But was it too much, too soon? I will show you the heart-wrenching interview.

Then, more Octomom madness. Nadya Suleman now talks to TMZ. But remember, she supposedly wants out of the public eye. You won`t believe what she said about Angels in Waiting.

NADYA SULEMAN, MOTHER OF OCTUPLETS: They wanted to abduct the kids.

VELEZ-MITCHELL: What? An abduction plot? Just wait until you see the astounding video.

Plus, the new Britney Spears emerging as an anti-drug crusader with an X-rated warning to her fans after her concert filled up with smoke.

ISSUES starts now.


VELEZ-MITCHELL: Breaking news tonight in the Casey Anthony case. Today, George and Cindy got on the hot seat, and it was hot. And they exploded in anger and frustration as they were grilled during depositions in the civil suit against their daughter Casey. Listen to this.


GEORGE CASEY, GRANDFATHER OF CAYLEE: I have not heard my granddaughter`s voice since June 16 of 2008. Do not ask me that again, sir, because I will walk out of here. Do not do that to me again.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Sir, I don`t want to make you (UNINTELLIGIBLE).

G. CASEY: Yes, you are. Yes, you are. I`ve already answered everything about this lady right here. And I`ve done it in the best possible way that I can. And I`ve told you, this is not the lady that my daughter described to me. We can end this right now.

This is all -- you`re fishing, sir. You`re fishing for information for a criminal investigation that you have nothing to do with. You guys have torn apart my family so much, every single one of you. Every single one of you. You don`t realize what you`ve done to us. And you don`t care. You don`t care. When you say you sympathize and all that kind of stuff, you don`t give anything about me.


VELEZ-MITCHELL: Unbelievably heated and emotional exchanges throughout George Anthony`s deposition today. Ditto for Cindy. We will have lots more tape for you in just a bit. George and Cindy, both so upset they fought back against having to answer certain questions and repeatedly threatened to walk out.

Attorneys for Zenaida Gonzalez, the woman suing Casey after her name was linked to little Caylee`s disappearance, pulled no punches while talking to George and Cindy. They pushed Cindy Anthony to her limits. By the end of her deposition, she declared about Zenaida, "She`s not the one. I`m done." That`s how she said it.

So how did that declaration affect the criminal case against their daughter, Casey?

So many issues. And we`re taking your calls, as well. Give me a shout out: 1-877-JVM-SAYS. That`s 1-877-586-7297. But first, my expert panel: Bradford Cohen; criminal defense attorney; Dr. Dale Archer, clinical psychologist; Dan Conaway, former prosecutor and criminal defense attorney; Jeff Brown, criminal defense attorney; and joining us by phone, reporter Rozzie Franco from WFLA 540 am.

Rozzie, what is the very latest?

ROZZIE FRANCO, REPORTER, WFLA (via telephone): As you saw, a fiery confrontation during George and Cindy`s deposition. George was more than a little emotional. It almost seems as if he was on the defense from the very beginning. George is on the verge of a tongue-lashing between he and attorney John Morgan.

These were the depositions the media, the public, and attorney for Zenaida Gonzalez has been waiting for. This is the first time the Anthonys spoke out about the case and under oath since acquiring their new legal counsel.

Video was posted up outside John Morgan`s courtroom office, to catch any outbursts or any reaction by the Anthonys that we`ve seen in the past.

Now, George was deposed first. He seemed agitated and very uncomfortable about the questions being asked. Later Cindy was in the hot seat, and her last words was telling Morgan, in a fiery way, "Look, this Zenaida is not the Zenaida that we are alluding to."

However, both flip-flopped on whether a Zenaida is still responsible for taking the child. George says no. Cindy believes Zenaida could be a code name for best friend Amy Huizinga or ex-fiance Jesse Grund.

VELEZ-MITCHELL: What? Whoa, whoa, whoa, that`s big. You`re saying that Cindy said that Zanny could be a code name for some of Casey`s friends?

FRANCO: That`s right. She didn`t say it today, but it`s in the transcripts that she said that this Zanny, the idea of Zanny could be a code name. Casey could have been using Zanny as a code name for Amy Huizinga or ex-fiance Jesse Grund.

VELEZ-MITCHELL: Well, Jeff Brown, let me ask you this. This one comment that she made, "She`s not the one. I`m done." Essentially saying this Zenaida Gonzalez is suing is not the one who took little Caylee. Is that enough? Should we end all this right now?

JEFF BROWN, CRIMINAL DEFENSE ATTORNEY: Let`s not lose sight of the fact that this really is a criminal investigation in sheep`s clothing in the disguise of a civil lawsuit.

If they really wanted to know whether this is the Zenaida Gonzala -- Gonzalez, they answer the question. As I said, it`s clearly not the same person. Then they went on with this pretext of saying, "Well, we really have to prove that it is somebody else. And we want to prove who that person is."

That right there, when they said that in the deposition, just took off all the clothing off of this, all the sheep`s clothing, and it became clearly evident that they`re trying to conduct a criminal investigation.

They feel they have to prove who it was, if not Zenaida Gonzalez. And I have to agree with them. I think that, you know -- that the Anthonys in this case, they have every right to be disturbed. This is a criminal investigation under the guise of a civil suit. And I don`t blame them.

VELEZ-MITCHELL: But why? Why -- Bradford Cohen, why does Zenaida Gonzalez want to engage in a criminal prosecution in sheep`s clothing? Why? What`s her motive? She just wants to bring this family down because she was embarrassed?

BRADFORD COHEN, CRIMINAL DEFENSE ATTORNEY: I don`t think Zenaida is the one who`s pushing this for the, quote unquote, "criminal investigation." Her attorneys are using this forum, I personally think, to get some exposure for their firm, to get some exposure for the attorneys.

I think the questions that were asked, they didn`t seem to be relevant at some time. When she said, "This is not the one," they kept pushing in different directions. They knew what buttons to push. They kept doing it. They wanted to see a reaction. They have the press that`s right outside the door. This is not your common civil, you know, civil lawsuit. And this isn`t the way that it`s normally handled.


COHEN: In civil lawsuits, normally a criminal case takes place. They`re found guilty of the criminal crime or innocent of the criminal crime, and then the civil -- civil lawsuit is presented.

VELEZ-MITCHELL: Yes. And you have to wonder, we`ve been asking, why is this done this way in this case? Why didn`t somebody get to a judge and get them to say, "Hey, we`re going to move this back until after the criminal trial"?

George Anthony butted heads with Zenaida Gonzalez`s attorney all morning. He almost left, walked out countless times. Let`s listen.


G. ANTHONY: I`m not going to answer anything about the criminal part of this thing. And I`m not going to do that.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: But you`re going to have to.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: The bottom line is --

G. ANTHONY: I have to do that, sir, when the criminal case comes up, not in the civil case. I do not.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: I`m either going forward and doing my job, and I`m going to get questions and answers. And I`m not going to get a lecture every question I ask.

I`m empathetic of his situation. But I`m not going to sit here and be berated every question I ask. Either we`re going to do this business-like and get it done, or we`re going to go to the judge and ask him what he thinks about it. What do you want to do? I`ve had it.


VELEZ-MITCHELL: Wow. Bradford Cohen, he`s threatening to go to the judge and say, "We`re going to make you answer these questions." Could he do that?

COHEN: Yes. He`s entitled. But there`s no privilege that`s asserted. He`s entitled to get an answer to the question, as long as they are relevant and there`s no -- it`s some discovery, some purpose for discovery, and there is no privilege asserted. There -- he would have to answer the question. I mean, that`s just the way that it is.

And going in front of a judge and prompting him to get him to answer the question, that`s certainly something that he can do. I don`t know if he`s going to do it. It sounds like he wants to do it on some of these questions that he averted the answer, or that he refused to answer. Unless there`s some sort of privilege.

VELEZ-MITCHELL: All right. Dan Conaway, let me ask you this question. Why is this happening now? Why didn`t somebody get some judge somewhere to say, "Let`s put this after the criminal case"?

DAN CONAWAY, CRIMINAL DEFENSE ATTORNEY: To that, Jane, I say absolutely. And what I also say to this situation is, look how pathetic and ridiculous this looks. If this helps anybody, I think it helps the Anthony defense team, and Casey Anthony herself. Because for the first time, we see her parents, and you`re going to -- the jurors ultimately are going to link those two together.

They see her -- they see her parents as genuine victims being attacked by this pit bull civil lawyer who`s trying to drag a criminal investigation into a civil suit that shouldn`t even be happening at this point. It should be happening after the trial, if at all.

This is a show piece. This is a dog-and-pony show. And I think that the Anthonys in this thing come off looking golden. And I think that this plaintiff`s lawyer comes off looking like you know what.

VELEZ-MITCHELL: OK. Dr. Dale Archer, as a psychiatrist, what are the Anthonys going through now? Remember, they were too upset to do this a while back. George, not so long ago, contemplated and actually took steps to commit suicide. Thank God that did not happen. So what is he experiencing psychologically?

DR. DALE ARCHER, CLINICAL PSYCHOLOGIST: Well, I think that I just question the motives all the way around. I mean, saying that this family is dysfunctional is like saying the Octomom is fertile or the Madoff family likes money. It just takes it to an unbelievable level.

So I don`t really agree with the other members of the panel. I say this. I say why are they getting so upset about this? They knew what was coming. They should have been prepared by their attorney to deal with this. And I look at it totally differently. I`m saying, you know, I know that Casey has got serious psychiatric problems. But these are genetic issues, and now I`m wondering about the parents, as well.

VELEZ-MITCHELL: Yes. Maybe to a certain degree they are playing this like a fiddle, too.


VELEZ-MITCHELL: and setting themselves up as the victims, so that we feel sorry for them.

All right, Guys. more big developments from these crucial depositions in just moments.

What do you at home think of Cindy bringing her own video camera and doing her own taping? Call 1-877-JVM-SAYS. That`s 1-877-586-7297. Let me know.

Then, the frantic search for the monster, and I mean monster who murdered Sandra Cantu continues. Her devastated mom opens up and collapses, sobbing hysterically. I will show you this heart-wrenching interview.

But first, is Casey Anthony`s alibi falling apart? Just released, hidden camera footage shows her brother admitting he`d never even heard of Zanny the nanny.


LEE ANTHONY, CASEY`S BROTHER: My sister has used the -- yes, she`s with the nanny, or yes, she`s with the sitter. I had never heard my sister say the word Zanny or Zenaida before.




CINDY ANTHONY, GRANDMOTHER OF CAYLEE: This is tearing me up every single day, because I don`t have my granddaughter.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Let me direct you so we can go ahead and talk about...

CINDY ANTHONY: Can we actually get to the reason why we`re here today, to clear Mr. Morgan`s client`s name, that she`s not Zanny?


VELEZ-MITCHELL: Well, there you have it. That videotape into our newsroom just moments ago of a very annoyed, upset Cindy Anthony, responding to questions. Again, the theme here: they`re both on the same page, George and Cindy. They don`t think they should be asked these questions that relate to the criminal case, that it`s irrelevant.

The phone lines lighting up. Steve in Florida, your question or thought?

CALLER: thank you, Jane. And first off, thanks for everything you do for missing children to keep them out there in the public. And CNN should be happy to have you.


CALLER: My question to you is -- it`s very simple. Go back to the O.J. Trial. I mean, the civil case after the criminal case was also for murder. This is not for murder. This is for basically defamation of character.

And the question he`s asking. You heard Cindy Anthony say, it`s not the Zanny you`re talking about. Boom, that should be the end of it. The same with Casey, look at the picture, and saying, "That`s not the Zanny I`m talking about." There shouldn`t even be a civil case. She answered the question already.

VELEZ-MITCHELL: Well, Jeff Brown, is there a difference? Because the wrongful death suits come after the criminal trials. But that`s both about death. This is about defamation. Maybe that`s the difference.

BROWN: Yes, that is the difference. I think the judge took an unusual step here and allowed this civil suit to go on, because he felt it was defamation, and he wanted to help clear Gonzalez.

But let`s keep in mind here: both of the Anthonys have said, it is not their client that anybody was referring to. And yet the lawyers here have both gone on and said, "Well, that`s not good enough for us. We actually want to prove who committed the murder." Right there is the criminal case. And this is the problem they`re having. I don`t mind them being upset.

VELEZ-MITCHELL: Let me say this, though. There`s stuff that just doesn`t add up here. Dan Conaway, Cindy said in the deposition, she had contact information for Zanny. She had a whole bunch of contact information, something like four numbers, four addresses because she was always moving. But she never needed to use it. She gave it all to the sheriff`s department.

Now, that doesn`t make any sense to me. The child was missing for a month. Cindy was pulling her hair out wondering, "Where is my little granddaughter? Why won`t my daughter bring her home?" She never called Zanny the nanny to find out, "Hey, you`re the nanny. Do you have the child?"

CONAWAY: That`s the problem with the Zanny the nanny defense. Right? I mean, that`s been the problem the whole time has been this length of span of time between the time that she had this information and the time she used it.

And on top of that, when you get into situations where you`re trying to blame a third party, and here you can look at it from the other side, that comes -- that creates natural problems. Because you`re using this person, and unless you`re saying to this person being involved, well, they`re either involved or they`re not. And if they`re going to be involved, and you`ve got to get them involved with the police right away, and with the family right away.

And that`s where, in my opinion, Casey Anthony messed up, for whatever reason. Obviously, I can`t read her mind. She messed that up.

VELEZ-MITCHELL: Right. Let me -- yes. Cindy Anthony also, as you just saw a second ago, deposed today, she revealed where the name Zanny the nanny came from. Listen to this.


CINDY ANTHONY: Excuse me, Jess is the one that started calling Zanny the nanny. OK, Casey`s called her the babysitter. So the nanny came from the Grunds.


VELEZ-MITCHELL: All right. Jesse Grund, again, dragged into this case. That is Casey`s ex-fiance. Although he said he never met Zanny. And of course, he`s feeling that maybe the Anthony family is trying to set him up to take the fall to all of this. That`s what I find absolutely astounding. And you know, your head wants to explode at a certain point when you`re trying to process what`s real and what`s not real, Bradford Cohen.

I mean, a lot of people, including investigators believe that Zanny the nanny is total fiction, never existed. And yet you have these people behaving as if she did exist. There were phone numbers. There were addresses. Creating a whole false back story. How do you deal with that as a criminal prosecutor?

COHEN: Well, as a criminal prosecutor, it`s fantastic. As a criminal defense attorney, it`s not. I mean, certainly as a criminal prosecutor, you have that 30-day, that time span where no one was called, no one was looked for, the Zanny the nanny was never brought up.

Then all of a sudden, after that period, when there`s some interviews that take place, that`s the first time anyone hears of this name. So as a prosecutor, that`s one of the, you know, feathers in their hats. As a defense attorney, that`s something that you have to overcome, which is huge.

VELEZ-MITCHELL: OK. I think all...

FRANCO: Can I just ad something here?


FRANCO: OK. First of all, Morgan showed Casey Anthony a picture of Zenaida Gonzalez and said, "Please tell us or tell us if this is the woman that you are alleging has your child."

And she said, "I plead the fifth."


FRANCO: And that`s why all of this has blown up.

VELEZ-MITCHELL: Very good point. Jackie in Florida, quick question or thought, ma`am?

CALLER: Yes, I think that Cindy and George Anthony are being taken through the wringer on this. They`ve not really been allowed to properly grieve for everything that they`ve lost. And I think the Morgan law firm is making things worse for them.

VELEZ-MITCHELL: All right. Dan Conaway, your thoughts on that?

CONAWAY: I absolutely agree. I mean, at the very least, they need to wait and keep the suit until the end. But I also agree. I mean, you`re just -- you`re dragging these people through the mud.

VELEZ-MITCHELL: But Dale Archer, you have a quick ten-second response on that.

ARCHER: Yes. I just think that, as I say, I mean, I think that the whole -- anyone involved with this case, I think, is suspect in terms of their veracity. So I would just be very concerned if I were the boyfriend, or anyone else, that yes, you could be at risk of being blamed for anything.

VELEZ-MITCHELL: Yes. And that`s the thing about lying. You`re right about that, too.

I want to thank my expert panel. For the very latest on the Caylee Anthony murder case, "Nancy Grace" tonight. She is up immediately following this program at 8 p.m. Eastern.

Right here on ISSUES, the latest octo madness. Nadya Suleman makes a strange claim that Angels in Waiting wanted to kidnap her kids. I`ll show you the outrageous interview.

Britney Spears puts her concert on hold, lecturing the crowd about drugs. Can you believe that?


VELEZ-MITCHELL: From Octomom to Madonna`s adoption saga, motherhood always in the spotlight here on ISSUES. So tonight we`re talking to a famous comedian who has just written a new book about, among other things, about motherhood.

Renowned standup comic and Seinfeld comedy writer Carol Leifer`s new book is called, "When You Lie About Your Age, The Terrorists Win." Love that.

Carol, your book is getting raves. Congrats.


VELEZ-MITCHELL: I`m going to start by saying I`m 26 years old. Why have the terrorists just scored another victory?

LEIFER: Really? You look fantastic, Jane. Jane, we are buddies. And I know how old you are. You should be crowing about it, because you look fantastic. And you`re such a kick-ass amazing person.

VELEZ-MITCHELL: All right, I`m 53.

LEIFER: Fifty-three. Can you believe this girl, this chick over here is 53? God love her.

VELEZ-MITCHELL: I want to talk about you.


VELEZ-MITCHELL: And your book.

LEIFER: Fantastic, yes.

VELEZ-MITCHELL: In your book, you discuss motherhood, because you recently adopted a child and congratulations on that.

LEIFER: Thank you.

VELEZ-MITCHELL: Madonna`s adoption saga, as we all know, so many twists. It just turned into a "Saturday Night Live" skit. Listen to this.



KRISTIN WIIG, CAST MEMBER, NBC`S "SATURDAY NIGHT LIVE": I know you can`t tell by my face, but I`m really bummed out. I love babies. But I especially love getting babies from crazy places. And Malawi is pretty much the most exotic place in the world to get the babies.


VELEZ-MITCHELL: All right. Being a newly adoptive mom, what is your take on all of this?

LEIFER: Well, look, Madonna`s getting a lot of flack. But I think what she`s doing, adopting any child is such a mitzvah, as my people like to say. And, you know, be it from here, or another country, whatever, there are so many children in need. And I salute Madonna for what she wants to do. I think it`s fantastic.

As you know, Jane, you know, my partner and I, we have seven rescue dogs.


LEIFER: We`re very big into animal adoption. And we felt that the next step, when you see how amazing it is to adopt an animal, a child seemed to be the next logical step.

VELEZ-MITCHELL: I`m right there with you. We have so many children that need good homes. And reach out your hearts and adopt one. Now, let`s talk about the opposite extreme. Octomom.

LEIFER: Octomom.

VELEZ-MITCHELL: Octomom is making us all octo crazy. There is octo madness. What is your octo opinion?

LEIFER: Well, it`s just the height of recklessness, and irresponsibility. And, you know, I also think that the doctor who implanted her is also implicated in this, as well. It`s just -- it`s just a shonda. Again, as my people say.

It`s really, you know, it`s crazy. You know, we have one child, and I know how much work that takes. And my partner, you know, left her job to be a full-time mom. And I know the effort. And the work it takes. I cannot even imagine 14 kids. I mean, please.

VELEZ-MITCHELL: Yes, it`s pretty shocking. And we`ve all had a good time with it. But really, it is tremendously irresponsible when there are tens of millions of orphans around the world who are dying of starvation and malnutrition, as we speak. One every couple of seconds.

LEIFER: Right. And you know, also, Jane, you know, I`m an older mom. I adopted our son at 50.


LEIFER: Yes. So it`s kind of strange to get, you know, "Parents" magazine and AARP in the mail at the same time.

VELEZ-MITCHELL: All right. I love your book. I hope everybody gets it.

LEIFER: Great to see you, Jane.


More octo madness on the way. You won`t believe what Nadya Suleman tells TMZ. Hint. It involves kidnapping?


VELEZ-MITCHELL: The search for a monster continues, with hundreds of California cops furiously following leads in the brutal murder of Sandra Cantu. Meantime, Sandra`s mother, in an amazing show of strength, opens up.

But was it too much too soon? I`ll show you the heart-wrenching interview.

Plus, more octo-mom madness. Now, Nadya Suleman talks to TMZ, and you will not believe what she said about "Angels in Waiting." Here`s a hint. It involves kidnapping.

Tonight: stunning new developments in the search for the monster who took the precious life of eighth-year-old California girl Sandra Cantu. Cantu`s remains found Monday stuffed in a suitcase and tossed into an irrigation pond like it was a piece of trash.

This case is absolutely grotesque. Sandra`s devastated mother spoke out this morning on NBC`s "Today Show" for the very first time since she was told that her precious daughter had been murdered and stuffed in a suitcase.


MATT LAUER, NBC`S "TODAY SHOW" HOST: Maria, I know it was important although excruciatingly hard for you to appear this morning. You wanted to be able to speak about your daughter. Can you tell me about Sandra?

MARIA CHAVEZ, SANDRA`S MOTHER: I loved her so much. She was a happy...


VELEZ-MITCHELL: Her mother, as you can see right there, hardly able to speak during the absolutely heart-breaking interview, as the family grieves. A public memorial for the precious little girl is now set for 1:00 p.m. next Thursday at a local high school.

Meantime, cops, frantically searching for her killer, serving at least 15 search warrants, talking to hundreds of people. And there`s another possibly, I say possibly, sickening twist. Police today examined a very strange note found at Sandra`s makeshift memorial.

The envelope said, "From Sandra, to my killer." "From Sandra to my killer." Who wrote it? What does it mean? Why was it written? That is weird.

Tonight, cops saying less and less, leading some to speculate they are closing in on somebody. But is that just wishful thinking?

I am joined now by my fantastic panel: Pam Bondi, Florida state prosecutor; Terry Lyles, psychologist; Don Clark, former special agent-in- charge, Houston FBI; Pat Brown, criminal profiler and CEO of the Pat Brown Criminal Profiling Agency; Plus, Bob Moffitt, reporter with KFBK NewsTalk 1530.

Bob, what is the very latest on the investigation?

BOB MOFFITT, KFBK NEWSTALK 1530, SACRAMENTO, CA: The very latest is that envelope you spoke of turned out to be, well, the work of maybe an empathetic member of the Tracy community. People have been coming down to the Orchard Estates Trailer Park for days now, bringing bunnies and balloons, and cards and posters.

And one of those cards apparently was addressed, as you said, on the envelope, "From Sandra to my killer." Police thought it might be of some significance. Took it to have it analyzed, opened it, it turned out that is was somebody maybe in the community voicing Sandra`s words, using her words since she can`t speak now obviously.

And writing a letter to the killer saying, "I forgive you. You have taken my life, but I forgive you. And I will be in a better place."

VELEZ-MITCHELL: Well Bob, how do they know that? I mean, wouldn`t they have to take that and do tests and see what the fingerprints are?

MOFFITT: Well, they read it. I think they just took the content of the letter and recognized that it was an empathetic person in the community who was writing on behalf of Sandra. That it was not a sicko out there that was trying to, you know, play with the family`s emotions, or with the community`s emotions.

I think they took it for what it was, which was someone`s heart-felt attempt to try to put -- to give Sandra a voice when she no longer has one.

VELEZ-MITCHELL: All right, well, that makes sense. Thank you for that explanation.

Sandra`s mother joined by Sandra`s aunt, Angie Chavez, on NBC`s "Today Show" this morning and they were asked whether they had any idea who might be the monster responsible for her death.


ANGIE CHAVEZ, SANDRA`S AUNT: No. No, we don`t have any idea who could have done something this horrible to her. We just are praying that whoever did this gets caught and is brought to the full extent of the law.


VELEZ-MITCHELL: Pat Brown, you`re the criminal profiler. Based on the proximity of where her body was dumped, about two miles from her home, in a remote irrigation pond that even some of the locals didn`t even know about, base on the fact that she was found fully clothed, how would you profile this killer?

PAT BROWN, CRIMINAL PROFILER: Well, I think after the killer got a- hold of Sandra, it didn`t last very long. And usually kids are killed within the hour. Whether he purposely killed her or killed her by accident before he got to do anything, I don`t know.

But chances are he got very panicked at that point and had to get her out of his house, put her in the suitcase and took her off to the closest place he could think of that nobody would look.

And so I do think it`s a person that`s right there, right among the community.

VELEZ-MITCHELL: All right, new criticism surfacing about the way police handled Sandra`s disappearance from the get-go. Authorities said it was a missing person`s case and not an abduction. Listen to the police spokesman explain.


SGT. TONY SHENEMAN, TRACY POLICE DEPARTMENT. SPOKESMAN: We had no indication of an abduction, but we wanted to be as careful as possible.


VELEZ-MITCHELL: Pam Bondi, you`re the Florida State Prosecutor. No indication of an abduction. I don`t understand that at all. This is an 8- year-old girl, never been in trouble. She never left the mobile home park on her own. Shouldn`t cops have treated this as an abduction from the moment they heard about it?

PAM BONDI, FLORIDA STATE PROSECUTOR: Well, in order legally to get an amber alert, Jane, it has to meet very stringent requirements. And they`re not telling us what requirements weren`t met, but they`re just telling us they weren`t met. They aren`t saying exactly what they were.

You have to have suspicion that she was kidnapped. They could have said she was playing at a neighbor`s. So we don`t know the details yet. But we`ve just got to rely on what they`ve said so far, because they have really gone above and beyond with everything else they`ve done.

And you know, as prosecutors, as law enforcement agents, you become very emotionally invested in this case. I don`t care how many of these cases you see throughout your career, every one affects you. And it seems like they`re doing everything they can at this point to solve this.

VELEZ-MITCHELL: Yes and we certainly don`t want to criticize them...


VELEZ-MITCHELL: ... but these criticisms have been raised publicly in news reports so we do have to address them.

Pat Brown...


VELEZ-MITCHELL: ... part of the problem is that every year in America many, many, many tens and tens and tens even hundreds of thousands of kids go missing but oh, they`re at the neighbors house, they forgot their appointment...


VELEZ-MITCHELL: ... they forgot they were supposed to go to the dentist. And 99.9 percent turn out to be relatively innocuous there.

BROWN: Yes and they`re coming home.

And this is what the public doesn`t realize what the police go through consistently. That there`s lots of parents calling up saying their child has been kidnapped or had gone missing. And that they may be exaggerating the situation or they maybe worried, but the child comes home.

So we have a problem that if you went out and put out an alert every time a parent called up, within 30 minutes, an hour, you`ve got an alert going out there, this is like crying wolf. Can you imagine what would happen when the real alert goes out? Nobody would pay attention anymore.

VELEZ-MITCHELL: Yes, what about...

BROWN: So they have to wait.

VELEZ-MITCHELL: What about the specifics to this case, though, Bob Moffitt in terms of the little girl, there she is skipping right there. Apparently she went over to a friend`s house to play. Now, I`ve heard conflicting reports. I`ve heard she played at a friend`s house. I`ve also heard she went to a friend`s house and the friend wasn`t there. And that`s where they lose the trail.

MOFFITT: From what we`ve been told by police, she went to a friend`s house and was playing there and then was returning home and that was when the video caught the pictures of her skipping along.

Just to address a couple of earlier points, almost every amber alert that I can remember here in California has involved a known suspect, a family member or someone who was seen taking the child. They have a description of the vehicle. They have a description of the suspect, the little girl. Those three parts are almost always involved.

In this case, we have a little girl that just simply disappeared off the face of the earth which after, you know, within the first 24 hours, maybe you could say, well she got lost or she went over to a friend`s.

But after the second day a lot of people were saying, why wasn`t she listed as being abducted? Why is she still being classified as missing? And she was classified only as missing and not abducted up until the afternoon when they found her body.

VELEZ-MITCHELL: Yes, because Pam, every second counts.


VELEZ-MITCHELL: And it`s the first few moments...


VELEZ-MITCHELL: ... that are the most important.


VELEZ-MITCHELL: Some have said well, if they brought the dogs in immediately and picked up the scent, that maybe, let`s say there`s some horrible pervert who`s got this girl in a nearby trailer, they could find her.

BONDI: You know, you always second-guess these cases, especially when a body is found. You always think, what can you do more. And I`m sure law enforcement is thinking, what they could have done more.

But now I think they`re really doing tremendous police work to try to solve this horrible crime. And hopefully that suitcase where her little body was found will contain a lot of evidence.

VELEZ-MITCHELL: Terry Lyles, let me ask you about the psychological toll on this family and the community, which obviously believes there`s a killer lurking in their midst.

TERRY LYLES, PSYCHOLOGIST: Well, it`s horrific all you have to do is be a parent, a grandparent, a niece, a nephew, an uncle, and think about a child being found like that. I mean, the poor mother on that interview, I mean, just depicts the stress level that it would take on any of us having to deal with that kind of news, that would hope that the amber alert goes out, it doesn`t go out. Maybe our child will be found.

In the news that has been -- your child has been found in a suitcase. In an irrigation place I mean, is horrific and not only with the family...


LYLES: ... but the community at large.

VELEZ-MITCHELL: Don Clark, where do the investigators go next?

DON CLARK, FMR. SPECIAL AGENT, HOUSTON FBI: Well, they`ve got to look at all the evidence that they`ve collected. Obviously, they have collected some evidence from search warrants and they`ve done a great investigation to be able to put this case together up to this point. And we don`t know exactly what they really have out there.

But I want to say one other thing, too, is that looking back here, at when this kid went missing, I mean, she was missing for quite some period of time there.

Whether it was an amber alert or something, there should have been something out there to get -- let the public know that this kid is missing. Because she was gone for a long time and she`s only an 8-year-old girl, not a 16-year-old, sometimes who go missing and come back home again.

VELEZ-MITCHELL: I think that`s an excellent point, Don Clark.

This is not a runaway, because she`s too young.

Oh, my gosh. Well, again, I think that law enforcement doing the very best they can. Who knows what it`s like to be in their shoes as well? Thank you for the insight.

In other news, an anti-drug message from Britney Spears? And you won`t believe the rather strange way she delivered it.

Then octo-mom, Nadya Suleman, ups the ante in her feud with Angels in Waiting. She claims the organization wanted to kidnap her children. Has she finally lost it? 1-877-JVM-SAYS, that`s 1-877-586-7297; sound off on octo-madness next.


VELEZ-MITCHELL: Octo-mom Nadya Suleman claims her kids were the victims of an abduction plot by Angels in Waiting. I will show you that truly, truly, truly strange interview.

But first, "Top of the Block."

Oh yes indeed. Britney Spears back in the tabloids only this time it`s because she spoke against smoking and doing drugs in the middle of a concert in Vancouver. Britney complained about the cigarette and pot smoked-filled arena. She then put her performance on hold for 30 whole minutes while the smoke literally cleared and then it was on with the show.

Finally, in a strange farewell Britney told the crowd drive safe and don`t smoke weeds. Don`t smoke weed that`s a far cry from her allege drug- addled past when a judge ordered her to undergo twice weekly drug testing. It sounds like this new sober Britney doesn`t want to be getting a contact tie (ph). For her sake and her kids` sake I hope that`s the case and I very much applaud her concert moves. Way to go Britney.

That`s tonight`s "Top of the Block."

More really insane developments in the never-ending octo-mom saga tonight, mother of 14, Nadya Suleman ignites another powder keg of controversy claiming child care organization Angels in Waiting wanted to abduct her babies.

Octo-mom`s very public feud with Angels went in to overdrive when Suleman dropped this shocker to X17online.


NADYA SULEMAN, MOTHER OF OCTUPLETS: They wanted to abduct the kids. They wanted me to stay there and they told me to go back to school and leave. And they`ll stay with my kids at my old house.


SULEMAN: As long as they could just take care of the babies by themselves.


VELEZ-MITCHELL: Abduct the kids? Is she actually calling Angels in Waiting, baby snatchers? Am I hearing this? We will have their response. Angels, of course, the non-profit group that was supplying free 24/7 nursing service to octo-moms` newborns until the head nurse and Nadya locked horns.


SULEMAN: I just had the strong feeling that they would fail. She abandoned her babies and that`s a good enough reason for them to take (INAUDIBLE).

This is all a scam. And I know that now. So who`s responsible for these children now?


VELEZ-MITCHELL: Suleman supposedly wants out of the public eye. Oh really? In the meantime, there`s a conflicting reports about when the eighth octuplet will be released. Some say soon, others say it could be weeks. And here`s a really heart-wrenching aspect to the story, people.

That baby boy will need a future operation to repair a cleft lip. Certainly just one of the many challenges that child will face.

Joining me; Lisa Bloom, anchor at the legal network "In Session" and Mike Walters, managing editor at TMZ.

Mike, were you shocked at how willing Nadya was to speak, I mean given that she keeps insisting she wants to be a private person?

MIKE WALTERS, MANAGING EDITOR, TMZ: Well, yes but here is the answer which is going to be really shocking to everyone listening, because we`ve been talking about this for a long time the other way around.

But what I`m told, we were talking about her TV show, whether or not she`s going to do this reality TV show. And I`m told from really close sources to her that she actually did learn her lesson by letting these cameras into her neighbor`s nursery, near the babies and speaking so closely with them. And actually doesn`t want to give access anymore.

So it`s not really that shocking to us that she is talking outside in her car to X17 or whoever shot the video. But apparently Kaiser went crazy on her when all this stuff that you showed on your show came up with her talking, and the babies and all those cameras in the nursery.

Apparently she doesn`t want that anymore, at least not that much. And that was a big shocker to me.

VELEZ-MITCHELL: Well, I just have to clarify something. I mean, I`ve been hearing obviously conflicting reports. She says she doesn`t want a reality show. But we`ve been hearing reports that she`s negotiating with producers.


VELEZ-MITCHELL: So if she doesn`t want to do it anymore, why is she talking to producers?

WALTERS: Well, yes that`s not true. The report says that one report says she does and one says she doesn`t.

I can tell you for sure there is no deal on the table. But they have taken meetings yesterday, today and early next week with producers to see if there might be a compromise. Apparently a lot of producers are going, "We want access to the cute eight babies, we don`t care about your life."

So and she doesn`t want to give them the access. So that`s part of the problem.

VELEZ-MITCHELL: Oh, my gosh.

Lisa Bloom, you`re mom, the famous attorney, Gloria Allred, represents Angels in Waiting. Now you`re hearing this cookie charge that Angels in Waiting wanted to abduct the kids. What`s the response? What do you say to that?

LISA BLOOM, ANCHOR OF "IN SESSION": Well, it`s outrageous and in my opinion, defamatory. I`ve met Linda Conforti-West who`s the head of Angels in Waiting. She`s won an award for the quality of her care.

And as you say Jane, they went in at no cost to Nadya Suleman, solely for the purpose of helping these children; providing nursing care to medically-fragile children.

The allegation that they wanted to abduct the children is ridiculous. The reason why there was a split between Angels and Nadya is because Angels complained that Nadya wasn`t there enough, bonding with the children, holding them, feeding them, bathing them. She`s only there when the cameras were on. When the cameras were turned off, she went shopping.

VELEZ-MITCHELL: Now, let`s listen to more of octo-mom slamming Angels in Waiting, suggesting they were out to get her kids. Listen to this one.


SULEMAN: They wanted to abduct the kids. They wanted me to stay there, and they told me to go back to school or leave and they`ll stay with my kids at my old house.


SULEMAN: As long as you could just take care of the babies.


VELEZ-MITCHELL: Now, what she`s basically saying is that Angels in Waiting wanted her to go back to her house with her older kids and they would take care of the babies in the new home.

Now, that new home, according to Suleman`s ex-publicist, was close to where the Angels are based, which is over 80 miles from where Suleman was living in a place called Lake Arrowhead. I`ve driven there it`s about an hour and 45-minute drive from L.A. to Lake Arrowhead.

Today, Angels gave this statement in response to octo-mom`s accusations, quote, "Nadya continues to attempt self-servicing justifications to explain why she was not with her babies. Her remarks would be laughable if the consequences were not so serious for the taxpayers and for her babies."

You know, Mike Walters, you talked about her getting in trouble with Kaiser. This can`t be good. The people over at Kaiser who have helped her so much, they can`t be liking all this.

WALTERS: Well, yes, you know what, I love Lisa, and I love Gloria Allred, but you know the one thing that sort of ...

BLOOM: Here comes the but.

WALTERS: I love you. One thing that does ring true to me, though, is Angels in Waiting had access. They were inside helping with the kids. I`m not too sure they weren`t building -- not on purpose or to take the kids away -- but maybe they were building some sort of case that if she didn`t treat the babies right and if she wasn`t there that maybe they might be taken away.


BLOOM: They wanted her to succeed. Why would they want to build a case against her?

VELEZ-MITCHELL: Lisa, when we come back from the break we`re going to let you respond to that 100 percent.

Stay right there. We`ve got more of this cookie feud in a second.



NADYA SULEMAN, MOTHER OF OCTUPLETS: I just have the strong feeling that they would say, "She abandoned the babies, look at this." And that`s a good reason for them to come and take the babies. And I know that.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: And who`s responsible for these children now?

SULEMAN: (INAUDIBLE) It`s almost impossible to be there 100 percent.


VELEZ-MITCHELL: Octo-mom mouthing off; phone lines lighting up and let`s give Lisa Bloom a chance to answer to Mike Walters` challenge there.

BLOOM: Let me just tell you that Angels in Waiting, my mom Gloria Allred and Dr. Phil who brokered the agreement all wanted nothing but success for Nadya and those babies. There would be no point to going in there to help her otherwise.

But no good deed goes unpunished. Now their motives somehow get attacked as if Dr. Phil and Gloria Allred really want to build a case against Nadya Suleman. I don`t know what kind of case it would be, she doesn`t have any money if you would sue her.

It just makes no sense whatsoever. They went in there to try to help and unfortunately, it didn`t work out.

VELEZ-MITCHELL: I don`t know Angels in Waiting, but I have always been a huge fan of your mom Gloria Allred and I love what she does for women, for gays, for children, for all of the helpless.

BLOOM: Heck, yes.


Cassandra, Florida, your question or thought?

CASSANDRA, FLORIDA (via telephone): Hi, Jane. I know I have to be quick but congratulations on your show.


CASSANDRA: First Nancy and now you.

My question is with the publicity and the media and threats does anyone or has anyone offered security? Or does she have her own?


WALTERS: No, she has no security. I think she finally figured out how to call La Habra PD so that she could get the police department if a thousand reporters were going to come.

But I think, remember that we`re talking about the world through Nadya Suleman`s eyes. Remember, like when Angels in Waiting was there, I think that overall I think she is feeling like whatever it is she feels that maybe these people are there to watch her and she doesn`t want them there.

I think they had a good -- they should have been there but...

BLOOM: But one of the complaints that Angels in Waiting was that three separate intruders came into the house and they begged her to get security and she refused to do it. That was one of their criticisms, I`ve heard.

WALTERS: Totally. And I`m with you, I think that they were...

VELEZ-MITCHELL: If three intruders tried to get in my house I`d get security. I don`t understand what she`s thinking.

Nelda, Canada, quick question or thought.

NELDA, CANADA (via telephone): Hi. I love your show.


NELDA: It was mentioned on Dr. Phil that she had six more embryos left. Did anybody ever find out if they got rid of those or is she going to use those five or ten years down the road and have six more?

VELEZ-MITCHELL: Lisa, do you want to take a crack at that?

BLOOM: I don`t know anything about that. I`d be shocked if any doctor would take that on. I hope they don`t. I hope the Ethical Board would go after them if they do.

It wouldn`t surprise me if Nadya wants to have six more babies...

VELEZ-MITCHELL: And listen, because this child needs to have a cleft lip operation, check out Smile Frame Foundation and help other kids who need that around the world; such a great group. Thank you both.

I`m Jane Velez-Mitchell and you`re watching ISSUES.