Return to Transcripts main page


Star Witness: Caylee`s Death a Homicide

Aired June 10, 2011 - 19:00:00   ET



JANE VELEZ-MITCHELL, HOST (voice-over): Tonight, Casey Anthony overcome by a wave of emotion, sobbing, even appearing to gag during detailed testimony about her daughter`s bones.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: The top of the bones, these have actually been chewed on by animals.

VELEZ-MITCHELL: Is it real or is Casey playing more games just one day after claiming to be sick?

And chaos erupts outside of the Casey court. What is this madness about?

Plus, famed medical examiner Dr. G. gives fiery testimony on the stand.

DR. JAN GARAVAGLIA, MEDICAL EXAMINER: The fact that there`s duct tape anywhere attached to that child`s face us, to me, indication of a homicide.

VELEZ-MITCHELL: And we`re looking at the most shocking setbacks for the defense and the prosecution. We`ll tell you why one famous staunch former prosecutor says the state`s dropping the ball.

ISSUES starts now.




UNIDENTIFIED MALE: The top of the bones, these have actually been chewed on by animals.

CINDY ANTHONY, MOTHER OF CASEY: What do you want me to tell Caylee?

CASEY ANTHONY, ON TRIAL FOR MURDER: That Mommy loves her very much.

BELVIN PERRY, JUDGE: Miss Anthony is ill. We are recessing for the day.

For those of you who may have queasiness or uneasiness and cannot control your emotions, I ask you to leave.

JOSE BAEZ, CRIMINAL DEFENSE ATTORNEY: This family must keep its secrets.

CINDY ANTHONY (via phone): Caylee has been missing for a month.

(on camera) This is my granddaughter. Yes, I`m extremely involved in this case. This is tearing me up every single day.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: She`s either in a Dumpster right now or she`s buried somewhere. She`s out there somewhere and her body is starting to decompose.

CASEY ANTHONY: I`m not in control over any of this.

GARAVAGLIA: Being put in a bag is a very big red flag for homicide and never seen in an accidental death.

No matter how stiff that body is, they always call 911 on the hopes that that child could be saved.

A hundred percent of the time, when the person finds the child, they call 911, because there is a chance that that child might live.


VELEZ-MITCHELL: Finally, an expert for the prosecution that tells it like it is.

The famous Dr. G. is the medical examiner who did the autopsy on little Caylee. She knocked it out of the park for the prosecution. Dr. G. injected some much-needed plain English and common sense into the prosecution`s sometimes meandering murder cases. See her griming there? She`s grinning because she knows she did a bang-up job for the prosecution.

She concluded little Caylee`s death was not an accident but rather homicide, because of the duct tape over the child`s mouth and the way the child`s body was dumped in the woods in garbage bags.


GARAVAGLIA: No other logical conclusion could be found by not reporting a child for 30 -- who has a legal, moral, and ethical obligation to care for a child, not reporting that child missing.

The fact that it`s tossed in a field to rot in bags is a clear indication that the body was trying to be hidden. Those are -- even being put in a bag is a very big red flag for homicide and never seen in an accidental death of a child. And the fact that there`s duct tape anywhere attached to that child`s face is, to me, indication of a homicide.


VELEZ-MITCHELL: Dr. G has her own show on Discovery, appropriately called "Dr. G, Medical Examiner." Now, she showed up today with the confidence and command of a star, and she spoke like a star witness. She annihilated the defense, scoring some of her best points on cross- examination.

This came after Casey broke down in sobs again as another witness spoke about Caylee`s bones being chewed on by animals. Look at her. She`s crying, sobbing. Real tears? We`ll see.

Yesterday court adjourned early because Casey said she was physically ill. Well, now in the wake of Dr. G`s crushing blows, Casey may have even more to cry about.

Straight out to "In Session`s" Michael Christian.

Michael, you were in the courtroom. What was the feeling in that room as Dr. G delivered zinger after zinger?

MICHAEL CHRISTIAN, CORRESPONDENT, TRUTV`S "IN SESSION": As you said, Jane, she knocked it out of the park. She said that this was a homicide. And one of the reasons that she used, which is so interesting, is that it just doesn`t happen, that when you have an accident, a parent of a child won`t report it.

She said there have been cases, for example, where there are accidental drownings. They do happen. But even if the child is obviously dead, somebody will cal 911. The parent will call just in the hope that the child can be, you know, brought back to life, be resuscitated. That didn`t happen here. That was very, very powerful testimony for the prosecution.

VELEZ-MITCHELL: Pat Brown, I`m saying hallelujah, finally somebody talking common sense. If somebody dies accidentally, you don`t bag the child, and you don`t put duct tape over the child`s mouth. I mean, it`s that simple. But yet somehow, in all of this testimony, weeks and weeks, we didn`t hear somebody speaking in plain English until Dr. G took the stand.

PAT BROWN, CRIMINAL PROFILER: Right. And I think she did a fabulous job, because what she did was she laid it out very clearly, as you say, and she used the evidence. This is evidence. This is not only physical evidence but behavioral evidence. But you put them both together, you`ve got homicide. And that`s all there is to it.

VELEZ-MITCHELL: Here`s my big issue. Finally, reality check. Dr. G brought this murder trial back to planet earth with her common sense dialogue. Hey, who duct tapes and bags a child who dies accidentally?

Now, other prosecution experts have been timid and tepid. Dr. G. gave the kind of testimony you see in a movie: direct, colorful, feisty, to the point. Check it out.


UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Circumstantial evidence to use that it probably was a homicide.

GARAVAGLIA: Not probably. I think that is the only logical conclusion. EMS is called immediately when the child is found.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: That has nothing to do with it, does it?



PERRY: Sustained.


UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Go ahead, Doctor.

GARAVAGLIA: It absolutely has something to do with this case. We have to know and there`s -- and there`s scientific studies in peer review literature about the red flags for homicide. I explained to you the red flags that we know in forensics, based on behavioral science.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: You need to answer my question.

GARAVAGLIA: I don`t understand.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Doctor, did you finish answering the question?

GARAVAGLIA: I don`t even know what the question was.


VELEZ-MITCHELL: Fabulous. I got the feeling that Dr. G has been watching this case on TV, and Wendy Murphy, former prosecutor, I think like you, she was exacerbated by these other expert witnesses, who took the stand and seemed nervous and failed to connect the dots for the prosecution. Do you think Dr. G decided, hey, I`m going to go in there. I`m going to talk common sense to the jury, because I think if I don`t, this girl is going to walk?

WENDY MURPHY, FORMER PROSECUTOR: Well, I`ll tell you this. She had the most objective evidence to work with. I really don`t think anyone doubts that this child was killed by homicide.

You know, I said when Jose Baez did his opening that it was like a "Saturday Night Live" skit. No one believes it. But today she put the nail in that coffin by really making a joke out of his opening, suggesting that she just drowned by accident. That`s just silly.

In fact, I think his opening may have well helped to convict Casey and become an issue on appeal as to his ineffective assistance, it was so preposterous.

She did a good job, because she`s very clear. She boils complex information down to simple terminology. And I don`t think anybody was left wondering today whether Caylee died by homicide.

VELEZ-MITCHELL: Let me tell you something. I`ve got to -- I`ve got to disagree with you, because I know those of us who have studied this case for three years, almost, have maybe opinions. But I`ve talked to a lot of people who have just started watching this case since the trial began on television, and a lot of them are like, I think she died accidentally. I`m serious. A lot of people are buying the accidental drowning explanation. So...

MURPHY: Today they`re not.

VELEZ-MITCHELL: Honestly, I think that it`s not as clear-cut as you think, and I say never predict how a jury is going to go.

Michael Christian, I`ve got to talk to you about the breaking news toward the end of the day. OK. What happened was the prosecution put up a picture, a little picture of Caylee. And then this picture. And they superimposed the child`s skull and they superimposed duct tape. And Jose Baez decided that was so inflammatory he called for a mistrial again.

Tell us what happened. Because this was another dramatic development in court, Mike.

CHRISTIAN: Yes, that`s right, Jane. Basically, Jose Baez wanted a mistrial, saying that it was too prejudicial, that this entire presentation, this CD, this superimposition thing, was designed to inflame the jury.

Basically what the story is, is they know how big the skull is that they found, and they know how big the duct tape is, because there`s standards. There`s little rulers in photographs of these things. But they don`t really know how big Casey`s head was at the time, certainly not in this photograph.

So they were trying to show that the duct tape could have fit over her nose and her mouth, one strip of duct tape. But you can`t just put that right over the photograph, because you don`t know how big the photograph is. So they had to take the skull and super impose that onto the face so that once those two match, then they can put the duct tape on and show that it would have indeed covered, and they did.


CHRISTIAN: In this presentation, one strip of duct tape covers the nose and the mouth.

VELEZ-MITCHELL: And they said that was the murder weapon.

Stacey Honowitz, Jose Baez says that`s inflammatory, prejudicial. He wants a mistrial.

STACEY HONOWITZ, FLORIDA PROSECUTOR: Yes. We know it`s inflammatory and prejudicial, because it shows that his client killed Caylee Anthony. So of course, he`s going to find it prejudicial and inflammatory. He doesn`t want the jury to know that. He wants the jury to try to think to themselves, almost like when the glove didn`t fit, you must acquit. He wants to be able to say later on that that duct tape could have never gone over that skull.

The prosecutors have every right to superimpose that skull and to show them to scale, actually, what the evidence was. And quite frankly I think Dr. G gave the closing argument for the state. That`s what she did.


VELEZ-MITCHELL: I agree. I`ve got to say, Judge Larry Seidlin, finally, we were talking plain English to the courtroom. For a while, I was watching this case, going, I didn`t even get what the point that the prosecution was trying to make. And then this woman came in there and just talked as you would a script writer writing a script, as opposed to a scientist saying gobbledygook.

LARRY SEIDLIN, FORMER FLORIDA JUDGE: This expert witness, this doctor made it plain for the jury.

Jose gave a rough opening statement. He should have just said there was an accidental drowning, leave out the sexual exploitation by the father and her brother, and just work with them.

And also tell the jury, "My client is a nut job. My client is missing about seven cards from a 52-card deck. She`s an idiot. She doesn`t tell the truth." And just keep saying that, because that is the truth. And say it`s an accidental death.

VELEZ-MITCHELL: Yes. I`d say it`s about 35 yards or 40 cards.


VELEZ-MITCHELL: All right. We`ve just begun scratching the surface right here. A star doctor lays into the defense. Unbelievable today.


GARAVAGLIA: The fact that there`s duct tape anywhere attached to that child`s face is, to me, indication of a homicide.




GARAVAGLIA: When a child is not reported immediately to authorities, either with an injury, that`s something we look for for foul play.

This child, from history, was not reported for a long time. The body was hidden.

There is no child that should have duct tape on its face when it dies. There is no reason to put duct tape on the face after they die.


VELEZ-MITCHELL: Look at Casey`s face. She`s like, "I don`t want to hear that."

The jurors heard gripping testimony today from the prosecution`s star witness, Dr. G. She`s the medical examiner who has her own TV show and who did the autopsy on little Caylee`s remains.

Meantime, what about Casey? Yesterday she apparently became ill during testimony over the discovery of little Caylee`s remains. It kind of reminds me of the time she reportedly doubled over and became ill when she first learned that Caylee`s remains had been discovered. That was back on -- well, it was back in December. But it was before anybody had identified those remains as Caylee`s. She began hyperventilating.

Now, here she is yesterday getting sick. OK? Quote, unquote, sick. Some people don`t know whether it`s fake. Some people, we don`t know if it`s real. But suffice it to say, there was some really gruesome testimony involving -- and shown the photos of her daughter`s skull, and she lost it. I don`t know if it`s a medical condition, an emotional condition, or a fame (ph) condition.

But it wouldn`t be the first time a defendant accused of a horrific crime has famed or had a medical condition. You remember this. I was there that day. I was just a couple of feet away. Michael Jackson showing up to court in his child molestation charge in his pajamas. Yes, he`s wearing pajama pants, and he was something like 40 minutes late.

And it was a huge distraction during the trial, and you know that he was found not guilty, acquitted on all counts. So Casey Jordan, criminologist, sometimes these distractions do work and they do create sympathy for the defendant.

CASEY JORDAN, CRIMINOLOGIST: And I`m not sure Michael Jackson is the very best poster child for saying that it works, because it happens all the time in a court of law, and actually, it rarely works. It usually backfires, Jane, against the defendant who`s doing the ploy.

Now, let`s be very clear. When they see the face of God staring them in the evidence, if you know what I mean, the evidence comes out. The gruesome photos come out. They get hit hard. Their entire wall of denial, this isn`t really happening; it`s all surreal. They can`t keep up the wall of denial anymore.

So the anxiety is very real. The hyperventilation, you know, it can be a little histrionic, and sometimes it`s really happening. But is it in this case, because Casey is looking at disturbing photos of the bones of her daughter? Or is it because she`s worried about herself and she has a future vision of herself with a needle in the arm? That`s the real questions here.

Because we see defendants in defense work get sick all the time when the jig is up. And we often look at each other in court and go, "Do you think they`re going to try a sick day tomorrow?" It`s very bad. Defense attorneys hate it, because they know that jurors don`t fall for that victim image. It usually doesn`t work.

VELEZ-MITCHELL: All right. I get your point. Here`s a fascinating aspect to Casey`s emotional breakdown. I noticed this. I was watching this like, hmm. She`s being comforted by defense attorney Dorothy Clay Simms. And Casey, let`s take a look at this. She really seems to nuzzle up, right, to Dorothy Clay Simms, and seeks solace, as if this was some kind of mother-daughter relationship.

What`s striking is that this female attorney looks quite a bit like Casey`s actually mother, Cindy, right down to the bowl haircut. I`ve got to wonder -- who wants to psychobabble on this -- with all the twisted mother-daughter disputes between Cindy and Casey, and Cindy not even looking at her daughter while she testifies as a prosecution witness, is Casey seeking a new mother figure, Stacey Honowitz?

HONOWITZ: The bottom line is, Jane, this defense team has become her family. Everybody else has shunned her. These are the people that she spends all day with. And her life is in the hands of these individuals. So I think she has superimposed them to become her kind of pseudo-family, and that`s why you see this relationship developing between her and the defense lawyer. Not unusual.

VELEZ-MITCHELL: Yes. It`s fascinating, though. Unbelievable. Listen, stay right there.

Up next, we`re going to show you this wild scene outside court where there was this whole mob scene. Pushing and shoving. We`re going to show it to you beginning to end, coming up in a second. And I`d like to know, what the heck. What is the madness outside this courthouse?





VELEZ-MITCHELL: What the heck? Absolute mayhem outside court again today as hopeful trial watchers scuffle. A woman apparently tried to cut in the line, and all heck breaks loose. They are chanting something like, get the heck out of line. Now, they want to get in there. The few that did, they saw some of the most dramatic testimony that we`ve seen in this case.

And, of course, Dr. G, who has her own TV show, testified.

But I`ve got to ask, Judge Larry Seidlin, let`s show this video again. What is it with this madness, madness outside of court, sort of the mark of a mega trial? Certainly, we saw with O.J., we saw with the Michael Jackson child molestation case. We saw it with the case you were involved with, Anna Nicole Smith, Judge Seidlin.

SEIDLIN: Yes. Yes. What happens is these types of cases bring people out. They gravitate to this, but it also pollutes the jury. That`s the unfortunate part. When these jurors were originally questioned, some of them want to remain as jurors. And when the judge says, can you disregard what you read in the paper, can you disregard what you viewed on TV? Some of them say yes, and they really can`t. And they come in with...

VELEZ-MITCHELL: Yes, I know. That`s why I think people who, like Wendy who think, well, oh, she`s obviously guilty. She knows a lot more than the jurors know. The jurors have a very limited scope of information, and that`s why I can never predict what a jury is going to do, because I`ve got all of this information.

The stacks of wire copy, I`m going to bring it on Monday and show you the stacks of wire copy I`ve accumulated. I could do a house. I could build a house with it. They don`t have all that information. They don`t have all the gossip and the rumors and all these people who aren`t admitted as witnesses because they sold their story.

Now, let me -- let me get to this. The prosecution claims Casey murdered her daughter about June 16, 2008, shortly after she disappeared, and then dumped her body in the woods where it sat for months. Today, a forensic expert who analyzed Caylee`s skeletonized remains backed up that theory. Let`s listen in.


JEFF ASHTON, PROSECUTOR: Do you have an opinion as to how long you believe these remains was -- these remains were in that area?

JOHN SCHULTZ, FORENSIC ANTHROPOLOGIST: These bones were completely dry. They were not -- no decomposition odor. There was some slight erosion on many of the bones, which would take time. One bone was practically buried. In combination with that, with some of the root evidence, a period of around six months could be possible.


VELEZ-MITCHELL: Wendy Murphy, the body was there for six months. The significance, briefly?

MURPHY: Well, look, you know, the theory is that there was a certain day on which she died and the plants evidence and all this stuff basically helps the prosecution prove, roughly speaking, when it happened. Because we didn`t really know with any clarity how they came up with that theory. Right?

We knew she disappeared around June 16. No one saw her. But this is sort of biological proof that the prosecution`s theory is correct.

But let me say something, Jane. You just said something I disagree with. Wendy Murphy believes the evidence will prove her guilt? That`s not true. I think she will be acquitted.

VELEZ-MITCHELL: All right. You heard it here first. No, actually, we said the other day. I`m going to play what you said. And we`re going to analyze and put you on the witness stand and make you defend that position, next.



UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: No matter how stiff that body is, they always call 911 in the hopes that that child could be saved. I`m looking at observational data on that kind of death. The fact that it`s tossed in a field to rot in a bag is a clear indication that the body is trying to be hidden. Those are -- even that being put in a bag is a very big red flag for homicide.


JANE VELEZ-MITCHELL, HLN HOST: Talking plain English on the witness stand. Finally, some of the most damming testimony yet stated for everyone to hear.

The medical examiner saying, hey, this was no accident. Caylee Anthony, she says, was killed at the hands of someone else. That`s the definition of homicide. Grotesque descriptions of the little girl`s decomposed body in chilling detail causes accused murderess Casey Anthony to sob in open court.

Take a look at what happened today.


JOHN SCHULTZ, FORENSIC ANTHROPOLOGIST: What we`re looking at here, the top of the bones, these have actually been chewed on by animals. This bone here actually is a fragment that you can actually put right back into place there.


VELEZ-MITCHELL: And outside court, the rising temperatures in Orlando clearly taking their toll. Mob mentality goes into overdrive as a huge crowd starts pushing and shoving and screaming and chanting at each other in a fit of heat-induced rage.


CROWD: Get in line. Get in line. Get in line.


VELEZ-MITCHELL: Oh, geez, get out of line. That`s the chant. What the heck is going on in Florida? Is this trial turning into a circus? The answer I would say is yes.

I`ve covered these mega trials, O.J. Simpson trial, Michael Jackson child molestation trial. And I would say what happens is a vortex occurs where it`s kind of like a magnet for everything to get sucked towards it and then the stress increases and behavior starts getting a little kerflooey.

Michael Christian, senior field producer, "In Session"; you were in court today as there was a dramatic turn of events. Jose Baez asking for a mistrial -- tell us about it.

MICHAEL CHRISTIAN, SENIOR FIELD PRODUCER, "IN SESSION": Yes, he did, Jane. He asked for a mistrial based on this CD, "Super-Imposition Photo" that shows Caylee`s face in a photograph basically super-imposed with a skull and then with a piece of duct tape.

Now the whole point is to show that one piece of duct tape could have fit over Caylee`s mouth and her nose at the same time and that`s what this thing shows. But it is somewhat gruesome. It`s very interesting but it is a little bit gruesome and Jose Baez says it was designed to inflame the jury. The judge did not agree with that -- denied the mistrial.

VELEZ-MITCHELL: Well, Judge Larry Seidlin could this something that is a basis for an appeal. You have a photograph of this little girl, and then they super-impose a skull on top of it. That`s the photo they showed in court. They super-imposed the photo of her skull that they found in the woods on top of it and then they super-imposed the duct tape on top of that to show that one piece of duct tape would go over this little girl`s nose and mouth. And that`s therefore the murder weapon according to prosecutors.

Is that kind of display possibly grounds for an appeal?

JUDGE LARRY SEIDLIN, PRESIDED OVER ANNA NICOLE SMITH CASE: The judge has to weigh the probative value of the evidence and whether or not it`s to prejudicial to the jury. Does it inflame the jury? Does it rip their guts out and take away the defendant from getting a fair trial?

This guy Baez has to keep -- the jury wants to find the guilty of manslaughter, not murder one. So give them a reason. Give the jury a reason.

The girl is a fruit pup. She doesn`t handle herself mentally well. She`s dysfunctional. She`s a lost soul. Keep showing that to the jury. That`s what the prosecutor is showing. You have to agree.

And if it`s an accidental drowning, you keep plugging away with that. And forget the sexual stuff with the father and brother -- can that.

VELEZ-MITCHELL: Yes but wait a second Judge Larry Seidlin. If they had forgotten all of the sexual allegations that her father allegedly molested her and her brother allegedly tried to molest her, then they wouldn`t have an explanation for her going out dancing and doing the hot body contest and the partying and getting a tattoo that says "bella vita" - - something like that -- "beautiful life" in Italian. How would they explain all of that?

SEIDLIN: You come into my juvenile court where I spend 28 years. Not everybody is Ozzy and Harriet. There are a lot of people that are dysfunctional and don`t behave the way you and I do. There are a lot of whacked out people in this country and all over the world. And that`s the explanation. This girl does not function well and you see it on the video.

She knows that her daughter --

VELEZ-MITCHELL: All right. Anybody wants to weigh in on that strategy.


VELEZ-MITCHELL: Let`s go -- Pat first. Pat first.

PAT BROWN, CRIMINAL PROFILER: Yes. I think the best defense would have been the drowning and she`s bipolar and after this happened she went manic and she tried to cover up the drowning because she was afraid. And then she went shopping and sexting and doing sex -- whatever. She`s manic. That would have been the best defense.

But I also want to say something about this inflaming the jury crap. Because here we have Jose Baez gets up -- I guess everything he says about George having sex with his daughter and Casey having to put up with that isn`t inflammatory. But you put up very basic evidence. Proof -- simple proof.

That`s inflammatory. And if that`s true, we have a problem with the jury system because jury should be able to sit there and look at this stuff without being inflamed.


WENDY MURPHY, FORMER PROSECUTOR: I agree with you but --

VELEZ-MITCHELL: -- we have to point out that George is not on trial. Even though I think he is sort of on trial. They`re trying to put him on trial. He`s not technically on trial.



VELEZ-MITCHELL: And Stacey Honowitz -- I have to say -- yes, of course, it`s called put somebody else on trial because you don`t want to put your own defendant on the trial.

HONOWITZ: Well, I mean listen --


HONOWITZ: -- the judge, you know, you can argue until you`re blue in the face; it`s accidental, it`s accidental. There`s no evidence of it.

You can`t argue it. You can argue and throw it out there all you want. But there`s no evidence. How are you countering what this medical examiner had to say? This was the icing on the cake. This was the closing argument for the prosecution.

BROWN: Absolutely.

VELEZ-MITCHELL: Well, Wendy, you were shaking your head. Yes or no - - I heard you were shaking your head. I don`t know --

MURPHY: I agree with Stacey that today the drowning theory is dead, ok. And that`s just the end of it, period. End of discussion. There is no evidence this child drowned.

There is a ton of evidence she was killed by homicide. There`s just no evidence that the killer was Casey and that`s the problem with this case. We can psycho babble and do analysis all day long about how she`s crazy and so forth. There`s no evidence that she killed her child, period. And there`s pretty good evidence she wasn`t even with her child on the night she died.

Remember, no one saw her the night of the 16th. She didn`t sleep with her mother the night of the 16th. Casey was driving a different car on the night of the 17th. So where was the car? Where was Caylee? That`s the mystery of this case. Not whether she was killed by homicide.

SEIDLIN: You know you`re leaving out the fundamental part of our system. The defense hasn`t even represented one witness yet. You`re supposed to --

MURPHY: That doesn`t have to do with anything.

SEIDLIN: you`re instructing the jury to not conclude anything until you hear the whole trial --

VELEZ-MITCHELL: Yes, that`s it.

SEIDLIN: -- until you hear the end of the case, and you want the jury now to say she`s guilty? You`re violating the fundamental rights of the defendant.

MURPHY: Oh, mother of God. You just said she was a psycho.

VELEZ-MITCHELL: Hold on. Ok. I don`t have my big gavel today. But, please.

I want to play something. Because Wendy Murphy, you`ve gone on record as saying that the prosecution is not doing its job.

MURPHY: That`s not what I said.


VELEZ-MITCHELL: Wait a second.

MURPHY: I said they don`t have the evidence.

VELEZ-MITCHELL: Hold on. Sweetheart, I`m going to play your clip from "The Today Show" and we`ll figure out what exactly you said right now. I promise. Listen.


MURPHY: In terms of proving how the child died, they have a piece of duct tape that they claim indicates it was placed on her mouth prior to death. They don`t have any indication who did it. As much as it pains me to do this, if the prosecution`s opening is all that they have, I would vote to acquit her because I think there`s doubt all over the place.


VELEZ-MITCHELL: All right. Wendy, you said it. Are you saying that you thought the prosecution did a bad opening statement?

MURPHY: No. I`m saying they don`t have the evidence. They don`t have the evidence because you put your evidence out there in your opening. And it`s usually your best case. You say here is the pile of evidence we`re going to give to you and the best thing they had was a piece of duct tape that was probably placed over the child`s mouth -- pot necessarily to kill her, although maybe. But to probably prevent the gases from leaking out which would, you know, increase the amount of smell and the notice of the child`s body in the trunk sooner.

I don`t care. Look, if their opening is the best case, they cannot win. They cannot win. There is no evidence she killed that --


VELEZ-MITCHELL: Excuse me, you just -- I think, contradicting yourself. You`re saying essentially that you think she`s obviously murdered the child and that`s absolutely clear to you but you`re also saying that you don`t think that --

MURPHY: No. It is not. I do not think she murdered the child. I think she knows who murdered the child.



MURPHY: Look, I think she knows who killed the child. She wasn`t with her --


MURPHY: -- when the child died. How did she kill her?

VELEZ-MITCHELL: Hold it. One at a time.

SEIDLIN: And this is the way the jury is going to react. They are going to say it`s an accidental death.

VELEZ-MITCHELL: You know what? Yes, this is like the jury room during deliberations and in confusion there is reasonable doubt and I`m really confused right now.

But we`re going to clarify exactly what Wendy Murphy thinks about this case. I promise you.

Hang tight, fantastic panel.

By the way, Nancy Grace live from Orlando with the very latest developments in just a couple of minutes. Top of the hour, HLN -- this is a wild case, highs and lows of the defense and the prosecution up next.


UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Based upon that video and your own research would the single piece of tape if applied in the position shown in the video sufficient to have covered the nose and mouth and make breathing impossible?




911 OPERATOR: 911, what`s your emergency?

CINDY ANTHONY, MOTHER OF CASEY ANTHONY: I found out my granddaughter has been taken. She has been missing for a month.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Casey, where is Caylee? At least where is her remains?

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Where the body and massive bags -- the body being in the bag was placed into the woods.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: She couldn`t find the key to the shed and wanted to know if I had a shovel that she could borrow. I said yes, I have a shovel that you can use.

CINDY ANTHONY: I yelled at Casey and I said, "What -- what do you mean she`s been gone?"

LEE ANTHONY, BROTHER OF CASEY ANTHONY: Zanny held Casey down and told her that she was taking Caylee from her.

CASEY ANTHONY, ACCUSED OF MURDERING HER DAUGHTER: In my gut, I know she`s still ok. I can feel it.

CINDY ANTHONY: I overheard her tell Lee that Caylee`s been gone for 31 days.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: I`m in the (INAUDIBLE) down by the school. I just found a human skull.

JOSE BAEZ, DEFENSE ATTORNEY FOR CASEY ANTHONY: She never was missing. Caylee Anthony died on June 16th, 2008 when she drowned in her family`s swimming pool.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: The top of the bones, these have actually been chewed on by animals.


VELEZ-MITCHELL: Horrifying details in a trial that just gets more and more gruesome and it hasn`t been easy for the prosecution or the defense. Here are my takes of some of the worst blunders of the case from either side.

Here`s one moment I`m sure Jose Baez wishes he could forget. Check it out.


CINDY ANTHONY: I`m not doing well, Casey -- none of us. Lee`s been sick. Dad`s blowing up at the media.

CASEY ANTHONY: Yes, I heard.

CINDY ANTHONY: Someone just said that Caylee was dead this morning; that she drowned in the pool. That`s the newest story out there.

CASEY ANTHONY: Surprise, surprise.


VELEZ-MITCHELL: Surprise, surprise. That tape played in court. Unfortunately, for Casey, who said that back in the summer of `08, this is now her defense; that the child drowned in the swimming pool accidentally. But when that possibility was presented to her several years ago, she said, "surprise, surprise", sarcastically as if, "yes, right".

Robin, Florida, your question or thought, ma`am.

ROBIN, FLORIDA (via telephone): I was watching the trial yesterday morning from my computer at work. I noticed that Casey was crying for well over an hour, using the same tissue. I didn`t see any tears. I didn`t see the tissue getting soggy. Her eyes were red, her nose was red from wiping; but there were no tears. Am I the only one who didn`t -- see that?

VELEZ-MITCHELL: Well, Let`s go to a man who has been in court; Michael Christian, I`ve heard this a lot. That people in court say she`s crying but we don`t see the actual liquid coming out.

CHRISTIAN: There is liquid sometimes. I can tell you that. Whether it`s there all the time -- I`m up in the balcony so I`m not real, real close to her, but there are times it is definitely liquid there. It`s genuine tears. I think a lot of it may just be sniffles, trying to hold thing back. It`s frankly hard to tell. But I can say at least some of the time it is genuine tears.

VELEZ-MITCHELL: Ok. Tears for little Caylee or tears for herself? That`s the other big question.

SEIDLIN: A good one.

VELEZ-MITCHELL: There have been some major setbacks for both sides in this case. Now, here are some of the biggest blunders in the trial so far: starting with a truly bone-headed mistake by the prosecutor, Jeff Ashton, who admits that he messed up the evidence. Check this out.


JEFF ASHTON, PROSECUTOR: Good morning, Doctor.


ASHTON: I apologize for bringing you back here again. I need to correct a mistake of mine from yesterday. I want to show you exhibit IR for identification and ask if you recognize that as the can you were sent.

VASS: Yes. I -- yes.

BAEZ: Yesterday you mistakenly admitted the wrong piece of evidence in this case?

VASS: Apparently, yes.

BAEZ: And this was after reading the label on the can that you were handed by Mr. Ashton?

VASS: Yes.


VELEZ-MITCHELL: Casey Jordan, how bad is that for the prosecution, that they made that mistake?

CASEY JORDAN, CRIMINOLOGIST: Compared -- in the overall schemes of things, Jane, it was barely a blip on the screen. I mean it was a mistake. They fixed it. They corrected it. They owned it and then they moved on.

It was a real human mistake. He misread the label. He identified it as the can he -- that made him come (INAUDIBLE) when in fact it was another can.

That is a whole different story than lying, than not calling 911 after your daughter drowns. That pales in comparison to the entire sequence of events that the prosecution has been able to lay out over the past two weeks that shows that Casey is an absolute liar, a confabulator, a fabricator. Making a mistake versus a being compulsive liar -- no comparison.


Stacey Honowitz, you`re a Florida prosecutor, aren`t they using the garbage in, garbage out technique from the O.J. Simpson case?

HONOWITZ: Who is using the garbage in, garbage out? The defense?


HONOWITZ: Listen, the bottom line is, we all knew that from this minute that Jose Baez gave his opening statement. It`s called let`s throw everything out there and let`s see what sticks. The bottom line is the prosecutors are building and building and building --


VELEZ-MITCHELL: More debate and discussion on the other side.



BAEZ: These levels of, I guess, residue levels of chloroform that were found and tested are equal to what you might find in a common cleaning product, is it not, sir?

MICHAEL RICKENBACH, SCIENTIST: Yes, from my experience those levels have been detected in substances that have been used for cleaning products.

BAEZ: And it wasn`t the most chloroform you`ve ever seen in 20 years, was it?

RICKENBACH: It was not the most chloroform I`ve seen in 20 years, no.

BAEZ: And it`s not what you would call "shockingly high levels of chloroform", would it?

RICKENBACK: No, it`s not.


VELEZ-MITCHELL: All right. That was the other enormous (INAUDIBLE) for the prosecution. They had just earlier heard testimony from that expert from the Tennessee body farm who said there was a shocking amount of chloroform in the air samples that he took from Casey`s car trunk. And then you see an FBI chemist takes the stand and gets cross-examined by Jose Baez and says, well, there`s a whole bunch of stuff that could cause that chloroform. Cleaning products and it`s not shockingly high at all.

Wendy Murphy, that had to be, I would say, one of the low points for the prosecution.

MURPHY: Well, you know, if you`re trying to make the argument that chloroform was part of why she died and it`s not shockingly high that`s a good argument for the defense, that it clearly wasn`t involved in this child`s death.

Can I just clarify something? I want to be very clear here.


Murphy: People are giving me a hard time on the Internet and they`re sending me letters. I don`t like Casey Anthony. I think she`s horrible mother. If she was sitting next to me I would hit her in the head with a bat. And I wish she would go to prison for the rest of her life because I think she treated her child very badly.

But to be fair we have to be objective about the evidence. And if there`s nothing that connects her to the death of this child, can we put our emotions aside and, you know, in a sense acquit somebody that we revile. I hope -- I hope she`s guilty but I don`t see the evidence and I think we have to be objective. Not emotional. That`s my point.


HONOWITZ: Can I ask Wendy one question, Jane?

VELEZ-MITCHELL: You said your piece. Now let`s please talk one at a time because I get in trouble. They get mad at me if you all talk at the same time. Just letting you know -- inside baseball.

Stacey Honowitz, your response to that.

HONOWITZ: Yes, I just have one question to ask Wendy. I understand exactly what you say. I`ve been prosecuting for many years. The bottom line is now it`s being turned into a whodunit.

First it was "how did the child die", now it`s "who`s done it". The bottom line Wendy that we all know is that lots of time there`s not direct evidence of the individual, there`s circumstantial evidence.

And in this case that`s what you have. She`s the last person with that child. She lied about who took that child. Who else was with her at the time but her?

MURPHY: That`s the question Stacey.

HONOWITZ: And I think that`s substantially the staple. She`s the last person with that child.


SEIDLIN: But you have to look at --

MURPHY: A fair question. But Stacey, you forget the prosecution claims she died on the 17th. We know that Casey left her family, went to Tony`s apartment on the 16th and was alone. Caylee was not with her on the evening of the 16th. On the 17th she had no car and no Caylee. And we need to answer the question where was Caylee, where was the car because the child`s body ended up dead in the trunk and that`s the problem with this case. There`s no answer to that question.

HONOWITZ: That`s what the defense is saying --

VELEZ-MITCHELL: I`m going to give Casey Jordan the last word.


VELEZ-MITCHELL: Casey. Casey -- last word.

JORDAN: You know what? All right. The jury is not us. They are supposed to use logic and not emotion. Don`t kid yourself. There is such a high level, off the charts, level of emotion tied to this case and we have no engineers, we no scientists, we have no little micro-analyzing people on this jury. They will never be able to separate their emotion from their logic in coming to a conclusion on this case.

VELEZ-MITCHELL: Final, final, final word from Judge Seidlin next.


VELEZ-MITCHELL: Judge Seidlin, the prosecution almost wrapping up its case. Do you think she`s going to get Murder One or could she get the lessers of aggravated child abuse and aggravated manslaughter?

SEIDLIN: I bet a good dinner between you and I, Jane, there`s no Murder One in this case. They are not going to give her the death penalty. Right now she`s looking at a lesser included offense and don`t bet against the plea bargain. They can still plead this case. Until the jury comes back with a verdict they can still cut a deal.

VELEZ-MITCHELL: Well, you and I are going have a vegan dinner because I agree with you, actually. At this point I would say aggravated child abuse and aggravated manslaughter. I don`t think they proved the Murder One yet. But we still have a few days. I think they have to step up their game, because it`s got to have a story line, even though you don`t have a requirement of motive, it always helps.

Nancy Grace is up next.