Return to Transcripts main page


Prosecution Almost Finished in Casey Anthony Trial

Aired June 13, 2011 - 19:00:00   ET



JANE VELEZ-MITCHELL, HOST (voice-over): Tonight, the Casey Anthony trial comes to a screeching halt.

BELVIN PERRY, JUDGE: We`re going to recess for the balance of the day. We will see you tomorrow afternoon.

VELEZ-MITCHELL: Will the verdict in this murder case rest on a single hair?

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Have you ever seen a hair with the decomp band that didn`t come from a corpse?


VELEZ-MITCHELL: The prosecution is on the verge of wrapping up its case, and the judge says the defense could have its turn at-bat by the day after tomorrow. Where`s the fire? Why such a rush?

Plus, has the prosecution proved its case? I`ll investigate the five incriminating issues the prosecution didn`t even cover, like the defense claims that brother Lee molested Casey.

JOSE BAEZ, CASEY`S ATTORNEY: Casey has a brother, and he, too, wanted to follow in his father`s footsteps. He attempted to also touch his sister.

VELEZ-MITCHELL: And there`s the mother-daughter fights. And what about the claims that Casey wanted to give her little child away? We`re taking your calls.

ISSUES starts now.


VELEZ-MITCHELL: An explosive announcement unexpectedly puts the brakes on the Casey Anthony trial. Judge Belvin Perry calls for a 24-hour recess, and also reveals the prosecution is almost done with its case. That`s right, people. The defense could start as soon as the day after tomorrow. The whole trial could be wrapped up in just over a week. Whoa, what`s the rush?


PERRY: The state may wrap up their presentation tomorrow afternoon. Maybe by the end of next week we will conclude all of the evidence. So far we are ahead of schedule.


VELEZ-MITCHELL: Ahead of schedule? Who cares? Why is the trial of the century moving at the speed of light?

Now everybody is asking, has the state proven its case for murder one beyond a reasonable doubt?


UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Has the prosecution here met their incredible burden?

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: The prosecution`s theory doesn`t worked for me.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: They want to know where is Jesse Grund. They want to know where is the Gatorade bottle?

SUNNY HOSTIN, TRUTV: Is it a compelling circumstantial case? No question about it. But I still have some questions.

VELEZ-MITCHELL: Yes, we all do. There`s lots of questions left unanswered. I don`t want the state`s case to be fast. I want it to be thorough. I want it to be convincing. Has the prosecution shown enough to convict Casey Anthony of murder one? We`re going to show you the results of our ISSUES poll just a moment.

And then there`s Casey. Today she seemed -- look at her; look at that face -- a lot more subdued than usual. Maybe she`s sedated. Could she have been medicated? After she said she got sick last week in court, she was breaking down; she was crying a lot.

And let me ask you another question on top of that: if she is sedated and medicated, can she take the stand that way? What do you think? Call me. 1-877-JVM-SAYS, 1-877-586-7297.

Straight out to "In Session" producer Michael Christian.

You were inside the courtroom today. Was there a ripple -- I would hope so -- through the crowd when you learned this trial might be over so very soon?

MICHAEL CHRISTIAN, PRODUCER, TRUTV`S "IN SESSION": You know, we weren`t necessarily so surprised, Jane, that it was going to wrap up when it was. Because we had already heard rumors that the prosecution would end at least by the end of this week and maybe a little earlier.

But what surprised everyone was that there was no court this afternoon; there`s no court tomorrow morning, Tuesday morning. And basically, that is just because of the unavailability of witnesses. The prosecution has been playing a plot of witnesses outside, waiting to come on, and they simply ran out today. Their next witnesses are not available until Tuesday afternoon. So we`re going to resume at 1 p.m. on Tuesday. And the prosecution says they might wrap up Tuesday afternoon.

VELEZ-MITCHELL: Tuesday is tomorrow, by the way. Just FYI.

Now, another way to put that more dramatically, maybe I`m dramatically inclined, but maybe there`s a mystery witness. Because why wouldn`t you be able to have that witness on tomorrow, unless they were being brought in from out of town? Or maybe brought in from prison? Brought -- I think that there is some kind of drama surrounding this mystery witness, who is going to appear tomorrow at 1 p.m.

Leonard Padilla, you`ve been following this case so closely. Do you have any predictions of who they`re going to end up with? Who`s going to be the finale?

LEONARD PADILLA, BOUNTY HUNTER: No, at first -- you know, to be honest with you, I thought it would be somebody like Nick Savage, but...


PADILLA: Right now -- Nick Savage was the FBI agent in charge. He now heads up the missing Annapolis...

VELEZ-MITCHELL: All right, you`re talking about more experts. No. It`s got to be somebody...

PADILLA: No, he`s not an expert. He was the agent you see with the lavender gloves always around the house, always in the...

VELEZ-MITCHELL: What, cleaning?


PADILLA: ... interviewed. No, he was always picking up evidence. He`s the guy that -- that probably never got interviewed. Everybody else went on television except Nick Savage. So I thought talking to Tracy and Rob, that he`s the only individual that might come from out of town and be there to testify as to certain things that haven`t been testified to yet.

VELEZ-MITCHELL: Well, here`s my big issue. Why on earth is there such a rush? The prosecution spent three years building this case. Why are they finishing so soon? It`s not "The Amazing Race," people; it`s a murder trial.

Now, in a couple of minutes I`m going to list five incriminating issues the prosecution has not even mentioned.

Marcia Clark, you were a prosecutor on the O.J. Simpson case and the author of this fantastic book, "Guilt by Association," which everybody watching this show should read.

But your case went on for months and months and months. I covered it. And it kind of just basically took up my life for a year or so. How long did your case last? And why do you think this is going so fast?

MARCIA CLARK, FORMER PROSECUTOR/AUTHOR: Well, in the Simpson case, there was a ton of evidence. There was a ton of witnesses. And -- and a lot of it was very complicated. So it took a great deal of time to present it all.

This case is relatively simple. There aren`t that many witnesses. The evidence is somewhat more limited. They have to put it on expeditiously, because you have a jury that`s sequestered. And when you ask what`s the rush? I think that`s the rush.

You can lose jurors because they are being sequestered. They are kept away from their home, their family, their friends, their jobs. They can`t do this indefinitely. So the prosecution and the defense have to make sure not to waste their time. And this judge has done a very good job.

VELEZ-MITCHELL: We`re looking at a picture of Casey. Do you think she`s medicated? Because she looks a little drugged out to me. It`s just a guess. I have no proof. What do you think?

CLARK: She does. I think she does. When you said that, I thought yes, she does look out of it. Now, she could just be tired. You don`t know how she`s sleeping right now. Don`t forget: she`s watching us put on a lot of evidence against her, and that doesn`t make for an easy sleep. But she could be medicated, and she certainly looks a lot slower in this picture.

VELEZ-MITCHELL: Exactly, exactly. She`s not taking those notes the way she was at the start of the trial. No note-taking.

Now, some wonder why prosecutors are essentially ending with forensic evidence. Hmm. Forensic evidence is dull. It`s scientific. It`s jargon. In fact, the very famous attorney, Mark Geragos, told me they`re doing it bass ackwards. Can I say that?


MARK GERAGOS, CRIMINAL DEFENSE ATTORNEY: Well, it`s actually in reverse from the way we model prosecutorial presentation. Usually, prosecutors in this day and age go through the forensics first, and then they end with what I call the character assassination block.

This time they`re front-loading the character assassination block and then, apparently, leading to the forensics. My guess is, is that they feel like the forensics are so weak that they want to demonize, show that she`s, you know, this awful, lying person first so that then you`ll look at the forensics through the prism of kind of that antipathy towards her.

VELEZ-MITCHELL: How could prosecutors end with a bang? OK, one, they could call the tattoo artist who tattooed Casey right here with "bella vita," shortly after her precious child vanished. "Bella vita" means beautiful life in Italian, or something like that.

Or they could call this lady, Robin Adams. She was Casey`s prison pen pal, who claims Casey wrote to her about chloroform and allegedly admitted to her that she gave little Caylee drugs to make her nap so she could go out partying.

So Kim Picazio, who is this mystery prosecution witness we all have to wait till 1 p.m. tomorrow for? Could it be one of these two people?

KIM PICAZIO: It absolutely could. And we`re going to have to wait and see.

But again, I agree that the forensic testimony has been so esoteric. It is not nailed. I think the -- the absolute points that they need to make for the ultimate -- as we heard Judge Perry say today, we`re dealing with a trial about the death penalty. The jury is going to have to find that the evidence is so conclusive, at least the forensic evidence, that they are willing to send someone to the death penalty to actually be killed.

So I believe that, regarding the forensic evidence, it would have been a much better idea. I think the best-case scenario would have been to put on the reputation attacks towards the end, to let the jury hear Casey Anthony speaking with her father, the person that the defense has pointed the finger at, to hear those jail tapes.

I tell you, there`s one thing I do know. The jury cannot be confident that anything that comes out of Casey`s mouth they`re going to be able to discern fact from fiction.

VELEZ-MITCHELL: Yes. That`s for sure. Now, I want to go to a caller. Bill, Ohio, your question or thought, sir?

CALLER: Yes, I just want to make a comment, Jane. You asked the question online whether the people felt that the prosecution had proven their case. And, you know, in my heart, I believe Casey is guilty. And there`s a lot of -- lot of evidence to that effect...

VELEZ-MITCHELL: Do you think the prosecution has proven its case beyond a reasonable doubt for murder one, Bill? Yes or no.

CALLER: It`s Phil, by the way. And no, I do not. I do not think they have proven it beyond a reasonable doubt, even though, you know, I believe the girl is guilty.

VELEZ-MITCHELL: Yes, and I agree with you.

Now, we did a poll, and our ISSUES poll shows that 85 percent of the people who responded -- it`s not scientific survey -- think that the case has made its case for murder one. Only 15 percent haven`t.

Leonard Padilla, you`ve been inside this whole case, and you spent time with Casey. Yes or no: do you think the state has proven its case beyond a reasonable doubt?

PADILLA: No, not right now, and I`ll tell you why. They left out a lot of things. They left out the fight with Cindy.


PADILLA: They left out the fact that -- they left out that. They also hung their hat on the tape. The tape didn`t kill that child. The chloroform did. The overuse of the chloroform did. They left out many things: the Kronk situation, the 11th, 12th and 13th, when he was out there. He was tipped off as to the body, where it was.

VELEZ-MITCHELL: That`s not a yes or no answer, just FYI. All right.

PADILLA: They have not. They have not proved their case.

VELEZ-MITCHELL: Taking your calls on this: 1-877-JVM-SAYS, 1-877- 586-7297.

Plus, the hair-raising computer image of a skull imposed on a photo of little Caylee. And also duct tape imposed. Did that lay a ground work for appeal? We`re going to show it to you next.


UNIDENTIFIED MALE: 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.




PERRY: Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, we`re going to recess for the balance of the day.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: We have no further witnesses.

PERRY: The state may wrap up their presentation tomorrow afternoon or sometime Wednesday.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: It is time to tell the story of a little girl named Caylee.

CINDY ANTHONY, MOTHER OF CASEY: Someone just said that Caylee was dead this morning, that she drowned in the pool. That`s the latest story out there.


CINDY ANTHONY: The smell in the car was like something I had never -- it was pretty strong.

GEORGE ANTHONY, FATHER OF CASEY: It`s something you never forget.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Google searches were conducted for, quote...

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Inhalation, death, self-defense, how to make chloroform.

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

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Have you ever seen a hair with the decomp band that didn`t come from a corpse?


UNIDENTIFIED MALE: What did you see?

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: An outline of a heart appear on one of the corners on the edge of that piece of duct tape.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Where is Caylee Marie Anthony?

PERRY: We will been in recess until 1 p.m. tomorrow.


VELEZ-MITCHELL: That`s right, a recess till 1 p.m. tomorrow. Explosive developments in court. And take a look at this graphic image. We`re going to warn you. This could be very disturbing. But you`ve got to see it. This was key evidence in court from last week that they revealed to us.

This is a computer mock-up of little Caylee`s head, and it`s combined with the duct tape that was found on her skull. So you can clearly see -- we`re going to do one more time --that one piece of duct tape could cover her mouth and nose, and they also showed the outline of the skull. So if you watch carefully, you can see the skull sort of superimposed, as well.

Now, some people are saying -- and here`s my big issue, frankly. Could this be reversible error? A lot of people say this is inflammatory, and it could serve as a basis for an appeal?

Marcia Clark, are they just being dramatic about that? Could this really serve as the basis for appeal?

CLARK: Actually, I practice appellate law right now and no. I do not think this will be a basis for the appeal. They can argue anything they want. They`re always entitled to do that. Will it succeed? No, it will not succeed. This is just a physical rendering of physical evidence. I don`t see this as being a problem at all.

VELEZ-MITCHELL: All right. Kim Picazio, you were saying during the break you know why the state is rushing through all this. Please, tell me. I`m curious.

PICAZIO: Well, I can`t say that I know. But I do know that a lot of times, it may be more advantageous for the state supreme witnesses to be prompt (ph). And instead of bring him on direct with the testimony, making it more limited by questioning.

I would much rather ha an eyewitness on cross-examination so that I can get out -- I can attack that witness. They know that Kronk is not going to be the best witness for their case. He definitely found the remains, but when he found them, where he found them, and it works into the defense argument.

VELEZ-MITCHELL: Yes, I would agree with you. I would agree with you, except they`re saying that they could be in deliberations in two weeks -- so...

PICAZIO: And that is amazing to me.

VELEZ-MITCHELL: The judge is not taking into account all the extensive cross-examination.

PICAZIO: And the judge is not taking into account any forensic rebuttal witnesses that forensic -- the rebuttal witnesses that the defense is going to have against the state, witnesses. And there will be some. So I don`t know if the judge is going to be accurate.

VELEZ-MITCHELL: Again, I don`t think it`s about speed. And I think that, to put too much emphasis on that is a mistake.

Now, there was stunning testimony today about the outline of a heart- shaped sticker on duct tape that was over little Caylee`s face. The problem? The FBI expert never took a photo of this crucial evidence. Listen to this.


ELIZABETH FONTANE, FORENSIC EXAMINER: During my examination of Q-63 an outline of a heart appeared in one of the corners on the edge of that piece of duct tape. The outline of the heart resembled that glue or debris that, if you had been wearing a band-aid for an extended period of time.

MIKE BROOKS, HLN LAW ENFORCEMENT ANALYST: I don`t understand why she didn`t she stop it right there, send it back to the special photo unit or take a picture of it herself. Because we heard her say that later on, she took a picture of it, but it had already gone through the whole process and is gone.


VELEZ-MITCHELL: Yes, so a mistake by the prosecution.

Now, take a look at these heart-shaped stickers. They were found in defendant Casey`s room in the Anthony home. The jury did get to see them, and they did hear that they came from the Anthony home. But unfortunately, they did not hear that these stickers were found in Casey`s room.

Casey`s childhood friend, Tina Maria Cruz (ph), told "National Enquirer" she and Casey used to bury their dead pets in the very same spot where little Caylee was found, and they used -- you guessed it -- heart- shaped stickers.

Now, could Tina Marie Cruz (ph) be the last person, this mystery witness? She sold her story to the "National Enquirer" for 20 grand. Hmm. Maybe not. More up next.



HOSTIN: I`ve said it over and over again. I`ve said it since opening statements. Jose Baez, I thought, did a wonderful job in opening statements, but the theory relies on someone getting on the witness stand and saying that Caylee Anthony wasn`t murdered, that she died by drowning in the family pool.

The only person, I think, that can get on the witness stand and tell that story is Casey Anthony. I think we`re going to see her either the end of this week or perhaps next week.


VELEZ-MITCHELL: Will Casey Anthony take the stand? That`s the key question being asked as the defense revs up to start its case in just a couple of days.

A lot of people say Casey has a lot of explaining to do, as they used to say, I think, on "I Love Lucy." But others say that lately, she is looking very, very tired, perhaps even sedated. Is this lady drugged right now? I don`t know. But it`s possible she`s been medicated. Remember, she was sobbing last week in court and said she had to be excused at one point, because she was sick. Gruesome testimony, and she`s medicated.

With me tonight is a woman who gained fame prosecuting Lindsay Lohan, Danette Meyers. We are so, so excited to have you here. Let me ask you another question. If Casey takes the stand, what would you, as a prosecutor, ask for on cross examination?

DANETTE MEYERS, PROSECUTOR: The first thing I would ask Casey, "Why did you lie to police? What were you doing during those 31 days when your daughter was missing? Why did you fabricate a story about a -- a maid or a child, the person who was taking care of your child? When did you put the duct tape over your child`s face?

I would go through all of the evidence. Your child was buried. You daughter was buried in the area that you used to play in. You know, I would -- I would pound Casey Anderson -- Casey Anthony.

VELEZ-MITCHELL: Yes, I think -- I think you`re asking very good questions. Do you think she`s going to take the stand? Because obviously, she`d be grilled.

MEYERS: She would have to take the stand in order for the defense to prove each and every one of the statements that they said to the jury in their opening statement. They have to -- unless they have an independent witness who saw Caylee die in the pool, drown in the pool. If they didn`t, they`ve got to put Casey Anthony up there.

Otherwise, they can`t prove their case, and they can`t argue to the jury, because there`s no facts to establish that she was drowned. So they have to put her on. Otherwise, they have an independent surprise witness. And if they don`t have that independent surprise witness, it`s got to be the defendant.

VELEZ-MITCHELL: Well, sometimes, though, people say things in opening statements and they never prove them. And they just leave people with the impression, and could it be enough to cause reasonable doubt?

You`ve obviously dealt with defendants who have drug issues. You were involved in the Lindsay Lohan case. And I admire you. You did a good job there.

MEYERS: Thank you.

VELEZ-MITCHELL: Now, if -- I don`t know if Casey Anthony is medicated, but a lot of people have suggested maybe she is. She was crying hysterically last week and now she`s, like, zoned out. There she is. If she`s medicated, can she take the stand medicated? Wouldn`t that have to be revealed?

MEYERS: She could take the stand medicated. And her lawyer doesn`t necessarily have to reveal the fact that she`s medicated. He might reveal that fact. But she could definitely take the stand medicated.

She has to be competent to take the stand. So she can`t be under the influence and take the stand. She can be medicated, though, and take the stand.

VELEZ-MITCHELL: And I think one of the things that could trip her up is that she has to remember exactly what Jose Baez said in opening statements about what happened during the accidental drowning. Because if she deviates from that, that could be a problem, right?

MEYERS: That could be a problem, but I`m sure if the defense attorney is going to put her on the stand, he has already gone through each and every one of the questions that he`s going to ask her. He`s also gone through the questions that probably the prosecution would ask her. No doubt.

More on the other side. Five things...



UNIDENTIFIED MALE: There was a fight between the two of them. It got to a very heated argument which turned physical and Cindy started choking Casey.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: That evening everything (INAUDIBLE)

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

SUNNY HOSTIN, CNN LEGAL ANALYST: I still have some questions. Why did she do this?

MIKE BROOKS, CNN LAW ENFORCEMENT ANALYST: Motive. The defense really kind of muddied the waters in the opening statement.

JOSE BAEZ, DEFENSE ATTORNEY OF CASEY ANTHONY: Caylee Anthony died on June 16, when she drowned in her family`s swimming pool.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: She wanted to put her up for adoption and her mother insisted, no, that she keep her. She didn`t want this child.

LEONARD PADILLA, BOUNTY HUNTER: Marie is going to be a very important witness because she was a friend of Casey`s. They know each other from way back and she knows about the burying of pets.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: They want to know where is Jesse Grund? They want to know where is the Gatorade bottle? They want ping maps. They want to know about that diary.

HOSTIN: They have to prove premeditation.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Have you ever sexually molested your daughter Casey Anthony?



JANE VELEZ-MITCHELL, HLN HOST: Mind blowing new developments in the Casey Anthony trial; the prosecution wrapping up its case, probably tomorrow. And there are still so many issues that haven`t been addressed. We`re going to list five things they haven`t talked about. Watch this from today`s "In Session".


HOSTIN: Motive, I`m bothered by motive.


BROOKS: Except motive.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: We know all the stuff that`s out there that the state decided not apparently to bring in.

HOSTIN: First degree murders that they have to prove premeditation. And that is the piece also that I think is missing.


VELEZ-MITCHELL: All right, Beth Karas, correspondent, "In Session" on TruTV; please, let`s just say the state does not have to prove motive because I know that`s what everybody says. I know they technically don`t, but I think that it would help, given that it`s a circumstantial case and there are at least five things that they haven`t talked about.

Is there a buzz out there that they`re too focused on speed? What`s the buzz in court? You`re in court right now.

BETH KARAS, CORRESPONDENT, "IN SESSION": Well, I`ll tell you that I don`t think the jury heard the whole truth about what happened on the night on Father`s Day. There is evidence in the police reports that Casey and Cindy had a big fight that night.

You know, there had to have been a triggering event that caused Casey to move out of the house and, if you believe the state, kill her daughter. And if Cindy had talked about the fight that night that is in the police reports but she is not talking about it, they can`t get it in otherwise, then the jury might have heard about how she allegedly was choking Casey and complaining once again about Casey being an unfit mother.

And Lee, her brother, says that Cindy told him he told Jesse Grund -- Jesse Grund, the former boyfriend told the police. That`s two levels of hearsay.

VELEZ-MITCHELL: Yes. Well, you have hit the nail on the head. And it`s our issue number one that the prosecution hasn`t done. Why hasn`t the prosecution talked about this alleged huge fight between Cindy and Casey the very night before little Caylee disappeared?

Here`s ex-fiance Jesse Grund weighing in on that.


JESSE GRUND, FORMER BOYFRIEND OF CASEY ANTHONY: Lee, shortly after my second interview with Orange County, confided in me that the reason that he thought -- Cindy confided in him -- the reason he thought she felt that Casey ran off was there was a big fight between the two of them. The fight concerned Casey not being home a lot and not bringing Caylee by. And it got into a very heated argument, which turned physical and Cindy started choking Casey.


VELEZ-MITCHELL: Well, ok, now in opening statements, the prosecutor Linda Drane-Burdick said that evening, quote, "everything appeared to be fine".

Marcia Clark, I have to ask you, what happens when you don`t tell the whole truth in your opening statement.

MARCIA CLARK, PROSECUTOR IN O.J. SIMPSON CASE: Well, we don`t know that she didn`t. I have to say that is hearsay, at least two levels of hearsay. Unless you have one of the parties to that actual fight come in and testify to it, you don`t have admissible testimony.

We don`t know how reliable Jesse Grund is. We don`t know if what he`s saying is true, whether the prosecution actually investigated it, and found it not to be true. So, it may very well be that when they got into it and investigated that story, it turned out to be bogus.

VELEZ-MITCHELL: Leonard Padilla, they didn`t ask Cindy about it. Did it happen in your opinion?


PADILLA: No, they didn`t.

They didn`t and I don`t know that the law enforcement checked with the neighbors either who said that there was a loud commotion that night. But law enforcement and the prosecution can`t have that story there, because if she ran out of the house that night and was gone, then George lied when he said he saw her walking out at approximately 12:50 the next day.

And if you go to the phone logs of her cell phone and the pings in the towers, you`ll see that she was up till about 4:30 in the morning. Now, whether she was at home or the towers close by some other places there --


VELEZ-MITCHELL: Hold on. You just also -- I don`t remember a good, with a chart analysis of the pings. Michael Christian, correct me if I`m wrong but I`ve been to so many trials with these charts. And you show, well, here`s the time line, here`s what she was doing. Here are the pings. Where are the pings from June 16? Have they laid it out clearly?

PADILLA: No. Absolutely not.


MICHAEL CHRISTIAN, SENIOR FIELD PRODUCER, "IN SESSION": That is something that has not come in and this jury has heard nothing about it -- nothing about it.


PADILLA: Because she chloroformed the child between 2:00 and 4:00 in the morning. That`s when the child died.

VELEZ-MITCHELL: But wouldn`t that be a good prosecution thing to say? I don`t get it. I`m missing something here.

PADILLA: They`ve hung their hat on the fact that the tape is what killed her and the tape was there to disguise the fact that chloroform killed her and she was going to make it look like a kidnapping. Some people have already alluded to that.

They`re starting to say, "Wait a minute; that makes sense." She taped her in order to make it look like a kidnapping when the body would be found. On the 18th when she backed the car in the garage she was trying to go bury her in the yard but the dirt was too hard. She wasn`t going to work that hard. She picked up the body and put it back in the trunk of the car after she triple-bagged it. That`s why the dog hit by the doll house.


PADILLA: She didn`t kill her with tape.

VELEZ-MITCHELL: But there`s been a lot of evidence of chloroform. Now Danette Meyers, why -- it`s not an either/or; you could drug a child with chloroform and put duct tape over her mouth, too. Why -- I don`t understand. There`s something missing here. And I think this is the kind of conversation that`s going to go on in the jury room.

DANETTE MEYERS, PROSECUTOR IN LINDSAY LOHAN DUI CASE: I agree with you. I believe that conversation is going to go on in the jury room.

VELEZ-MITCHELL: Well, why the heck are they wrapping up tomorrow? Why don`t they bring a chart with all the pings? Why don`t they bring in Tina Marie Cruz (ph) who says that they used to bury their pets in the same spot with heart-shaped stickers?

I know she sold her story to the "National Enquirer". Oh, my gosh, I have to go back to Marcia Clark on this one because you know how troublesome it can be when somebody sold their story, but can`t they still testify?

CLARK: They can still testify, sure. But the problem you have is that you have a real deficit with credibility. This is somebody who sold a story and they sold it to the "National Enquirer" and the jurors are going to look at someone like that and ok, she`s making up something that made her a lot of money. She`s a very vulnerable witness.

So unless the prosecution could find another way to corroborate the story, that means independent evidence that would convince the jury, well, if true, so even if she did sell her story, she still has the goods. Somebody else is corroborating her. If they don`t have corroboration, I don`t think it`s advisable to call a witness like that.

VELEZ-MITCHELL: Right. Here`s another thing. One of the most jaw- dropping points Jose made in opening statements was that Casey`s brother, Lee attempted or did molest her. We couldn`t figure out which but listen to this.


BAEZ: You`ll hear evidence that Casey has a brother and he, too, wanted to follow in his father`s footsteps and on certain occasion as a teenager he also attempted to touch his sister although it didn`t go as far. It got so bad that the FBI did a paternity test to see if he was Caylee`s father.

When he was confronted with this information he didn`t deny it.


VELEZ-MITCHELL: OK. So, Michael Christian, Casey claimed when she was a teen, Lee used to come into her room and lift her bra over her head. I don`t know why anybody would wear a bra to sleep and feel her breasts. She also said that she told her mom about it -- this is in a letter -- and Cindy said oh, is that why you`re a (EXPLETIVE DELETED)? So none of this came in -- why didn`t they just ask him hey, have you ever touched your sister inappropriately?

CHRISTIAN: No. It`s very interesting because they did not ask Lee that, Jane. They did obviously ask George Anthony about the accusation that he had molested Casey and, of course, he denied it. But Lee was never asked about that molestation. The only thing that we know about it that`s coming into this trial is apparently told one of her former boyfriends that that had happened once, that he had tried to feel her bests. But that`s all we`ve heard. Never asked Lee that question.

VELEZ-MITCHELL: All right. Here`s another they hadn`t mentioned. We haven`t heard a thing about Casey allegedly wanting to give up her baby for adoption. Casey`s friend again, Tina Marie Cruz, reportedly said she offered to adopt Casey`s baby. Quote, "If you`re going to give it up for adoption then I`m strongly considering adopting the baby from you. She said that`s a good idea."

And then adds my mom says no. I have to keep the child.

Beth Karas, why didn`t they bring that up?

KARAS: That was three years earlier and really doesn`t have anything to do with what happened on June 16, 2008. I also want to mention that I think the prosecution didn`t want to run the risk of asking Cindy or Lee about sexual abuse at home on the off chance that one of them said yes, it happened. Then Casey`s defense gets before the jury without Casey testifying.

That`s self-serving. These are statements coming from her. She needs to be the first one to talk about the sex abuse, then maybe the others can be called to admit it or deny it.

VELEZ-MITCHELL: Ok. But I don`t care when she offered to give the child for adoption, I think it`s totally relevant because it means she didn`t want the child. That`s the only (INAUDIBLE); again, motive.

Ok. Hang tight, we`ve got several more.

Nancy Grace all over today`s crucial scientific testimony; she`ll have the latest developments at the top of the hour in just well, less than 20 minutes. And we are all over this case.

The prosecution almost wrapped up. Have they proved Murder One?


UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: When Cindy Anthony and her first contact with the car, her words to George Anthony were, "Jesus, what died?




VINNIE POLITAN, HLN HOST: Has the prosecution here met their incredible burden that they have?

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: The prosecution`s theory doesn`t work for me.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: They want to know, where is Jesse Grund? They want to know, where is the Gatorade bottle?

HOSTIN: Is it a compelling circumstantial case? No question about it. But I still have some questions.


VELEZ-MITCHELL: I think I have a lot of questions too. Think about it. The media and the public, we know this case like the back of our hands. If we have all these questions, how about the jury?

I mean during jury selection, these folks claimed to have very little exposure to the nitty-gritty of this case. That`s why they were chosen.

Abby, Virginia, you`ve been so patient. Your question or thought, Abby?

ABBY, VIRGINIA (via telephone): Hi, Jane. This case is based on a lot of circumstantial evidence and the jury will, I guess, have to decide - - make their decision based on this. Can you explain to me reasonable doubt and how you can actually do this based on all circumstantial evidence?

VELEZ-MITCHELL: Reasonable doubt, Danette Meyers, they`re going to get these long extended jury instruction when they go in there, but it boils down to reasonable doubt. Explain, Danette.

MEYERS: Well, first of all, reasonable doubt in this situation is -- it`s clear from the evidence that the jury should have no doubt what occurred in the case. That Casey Anderson (SIC) killed her child.

First of all, she didn`t report her child missing for 31 days. She wasn`t emotional about the fact that the child was missing for 31 days. She lied to the police. She lied to the police about every single thing. She lied to her parents.

It`s quite clear that there`s no doubt that all the circumstances in this case point to one person. It`s circumstantial evidence, but the circumstantial evidence points to one person. It points to the defendant. It doesn`t point to the defendant`s father. It doesn`t point to the defendant`s brother. It all points to the defendant.


VELEZ-MITCHELL: But remember Danette, Casey Anthony -- Casey Anthony and her defense team pulled a rug out from under a lot of that by saying yes, the child did die. There was no kidnapping. She drowned in the pool and she`s basically cuckoo for cocoa puffs because she was allegedly molested by her father and brother -- which I personally don`t believe because I just don`t see any evidence. And I think it`s very suspicious that she suddenly had the courage to talk about it after she was arrested and on the eve of the trial of the century. And I think the timing of that is suspicious.

Go ahead Danette.

MEYERS: But Jane, in opening statement -- we must remember opening statement is not evidence. The defense has to prove that. How are they going to prove that Caylee Anderson (SIC) died --


MEYERS: Caylee Anthony died as a result of drowning. They have to put the defendant on the witness stand. They`re not going to put her on the witness stand. They`ve got to put her on. If he doesn`t put her on the witness stand, you can`t argue that to the jury.


VELEZ-MITCHELL: First of all, my understanding is that the defense doesn`t have to prove anything. All they have to do is like drop all these sort of little -- I would call them judicial IEDs into the juries` mind.

MEYERS: They do but you have to argue something. They have to argue something. At the conclusion of the case, you have to argue something. What are you going to argue?

VELEZ-MITCHELL: Hold on. Leonard Padilla -- jump in.

PADILLA: George. They`re going to pull George back on the stand. They`re going to make him look like a liar. George is going to go along with it. They don`t have to put her on the stand.

VELEZ-MITCHELL: Why? You don`t -- does anybody here think she`s going to take the stand? Because I heard somebody today said she`s going to be on the stand the day after tomorrow. I was like whoa. Go ahead, Beth.


KARAS: Danette is right. Casey has to testify if the defense is going to meet the burden they took on voluntarily by giving a detailed opening statement. That scenario at the pool of George holding a dripping wet, dead Caylee and Casey crying and her father saying look what you`ve done, what will your mother say now?

Who else can testify to that since George has denied it? She has to testify or it`s going to come back to haunt the defense in closing arguments.

VELEZ-MITCHELL: Ok, Leonard Padilla?

PADILLA: George will take the stand. He`s going to have to decide whether he`s going to take the blame for this, fall on the sword. I said it two months ago. By the time they get through with Kronk --

VELEZ-MITCHELL: He`s already said Leonard that he didn`t pick up a drowning child. They already asked him that once. He had an opportunity to fall on the sword. And frankly when he took the stand, I thought he was going to. I thought he`s such a co-dependent enabler, and a man I feel tremendous sympathy for, but emotionally, he`s totally enabled and -- they`ve kind of behaved like doormats for their child and she`s become a monster.

And I thought, yes, they`re going to do it again. But they didn`t. They didn`t take the sword for her. He said I never molested my daughter, and I wasn`t there. There was no pool drowning. He can`t take that back now, Leonard.

PADILLA: Yes, he can. He just gets on the stand and says he was lying.



MEYERS: Then he becomes a witness who`s not credible at all. He`s a witness who`s not credible at all. He can`t do that.

VELEZ-MITCHELL: More things they haven`t discussed that are incriminating after the break.



HOSTIN: The problem that I have for first degree murder is that they have to prove premeditation. That is the piece also, that I think is missing. Why did she just decide in her mind to kill her daughter?


VELEZ-MITCHELL: Speaking of premeditation, why hasn`t the jury heard about Casey`s infamous diary of days? Allegedly written just a couple of weeks after little Caylee vanished. Here is the entry read dramatically by one of our ISSUES producers. Listen.


UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Trust no one, only yourself. With great power comes great consequence. What is given can be taken away. Everyone lies. Everyone dies.


VELEZ-MITCHELL: If that isn`t incriminating to show Casey`s state of mind and that she wanted to be free of -- I mean, Michael Christian, why isn`t this in there?

CHRISTIAN: There is a lot of question about when that was actually written, Jane. It may have been written at the time that Caylee was missing. It may have been written some years back. The defense is certainly going to take that second tack and attack it if the prosecution tries to bring it in. We`re not going to hear it. There is just too much question about it.

VELEZ-MITCHELL: Honestly, Marcia Clark, I feel that it is not fair, because there are so many things. Even though the judge has ruled against the defense, almost every time, with one exception today, but even though the judge ruled against the defense so many times there is still so many things that are incriminating that they can`t put in, like diary -- really incriminating diary entries. Why not?

CLARK: I think they could. The question is do they want to? Remember that every piece of evidence you put on has an upside and a downside. And every prosecutor has to think, does the upside outweigh the downside. Is it worth it? You don`t want the jury to think you look desperate.

You don`t want to start putting on things that are very dicey that may open the door to damaging evidence. This particular diary entry because they don`t know exactly when it was made and you can`t really necessarily say it ties into consciousness of guilt. Why make that dicey move?

You have very strong evidence. I know it is a circumstantial case. But when you add up all the pieces together, you do wind up with, I think, proof positive that there is a homicide and Casey Anthony committed it. Now they may be a little bit light on the evidence of premeditation, that may be a problem for them, but I think they have proven very well that she committed the killing of her daughter.

VELEZ-MITCHELL: I don`t know. I honestly say, if I had to vote today, I would bet that the jury would go for aggravated manslaughter as opposed to premeditated first degree murder.

Leonard, weigh in quickly because I have a caller.

PADILLA: Exactly. That`s it right there. Premeditated -- no; no premeditation. She don`t live her life at 20 minutes at a time. She was looking for chloroform, gave her chloroform to put her to sleep so she could go to her boyfriend`s house that night. She overdosed it, end of story. No premeditation.


VELEZ-MITCHELL: Shannon, Florida, your question or thought, quickly.

SHANNON, FLORIDA (via telephone): Hi. I was just curious, do they not -- does the jury not need a motive to convict her?


VELEZ-MITCHELL: Well, we`ll give Beth Karas that answer.

KARAS: No. They don`t technically need a motive. It is not an element of the crime, but if you can give the jury a reason when you`re a prosecutor, it sure does help.

VELEZ-MITCHELL: Well, I have to say, I don`t care if Tina Maria Cruz sold her story to the "National Enquirer", I think she should get up there and say, "Hey, as kids, we used to go to this place and bury our pets there and put heart-shaped stickers there. We always did that."

I think that would be something that would invaluable, although it still doesn`t go to her plotting the murder, plotting and planning to kill her child and why, why, why, why, why, why. That`s what I think the prosecution needs to get in.

Next, in a moment --


VELEZ-MITCHELL: Famed prosecutor, Marcia Clark, author of the fabulous book "Guilt by Association", what does this prosecution need to do on closing arguments to connect the dots?

CLARK: Well, I think that it would be good for them to try to wrap this up right now with something emotional. Hopefully this jury, it is not already too late. I`m afraid the horse may have left the barn that way. But if they have any more emotional type witnesses to show Casey`s demeanor after the disappearance of the baby, that would be good. Or if there is one rock`em sock`em piece of solid physical of evidence to end it up with, that would be terrific. That would be my first choice.

VELEZ-MITCHELL: And then, of course, at the very end of the case, they have got to sort of connect everything in their closing argument and that has got to be -- I would be so nervous delivering that closing argument, I got to tell you. But it is something where they have to connect all these dots and make sure that they paint a picture.

Thank you.

"Nancy Grace" up next.