Return to Transcripts main page


Day One of Casey Anthony Defense

Aired June 16, 2011 - 21:00:00   ET


DREW PINSKY, HOST: Here we go. It`s day one of Casey Anthony`s defense. Jose Baez launches an assault on the forensics. I`m asking, is that working or is he just grasping at straws? And what about that surprise defense witness? I want to know, could he be just a red herring? Who is this guy? Plus, the man who helped pick the jury is here. Let`s figure this all out.

It is now day 20 of the Casey Anthony trial, day one for the defense. Take a look and we`ll talk.


UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: It is day one for the defense.

Trying to poke holes in the prosecution`s case.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Was there any blood on any of the clothing?


UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: The shovel, a piece of spare tire cover that were spot tested for the presence of blood, and they were negative.

NANCY GRACE, HOST, "NANCY GRACE": So-called phone calls of George Anthony to some convicted felon.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Vasco Da Gama Thompson.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: A new conspiracy theory.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: My client has no idea who this person is.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Drama in the courtroom.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Calm down. I don`t have a hearing problem.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Jose Baez throws out there about the potential of Lee Anthony being the father, the prosecution jumps up.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Objection, Your Honor.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Lee Anthony and George Anthony can both be excluded as potential fathers for Caylee.


PINSKY: All right. Before we get into the details about today`s events, bringing up George Anthony again just reminds me of something I was thinking about today. And so I just wanted to share it with you guys.

And that is, as we try to kind of -- you know, we sit back in our living rooms and I sit here and try to work with the experts and talk to you about figuring out what happened in this case, let`s all remember that George and Cindy, you know, I try to point out that there was a baby involved here, a young life cut short. There`s your victim. But there are a couple of other victims I think in this, too. And that`s Cindy and George.

I mean, could you imagine being 20 days in a torture chamber reliving the murder of your 2-year-old granddaughter, day in and day out, and faced with the conflicted feelings of wanting to save your own daughter while your daughter throws you under the bus?

I just -- you think about it, I mean, for some reason Cindy particularly has been sort of a sympathetic figure to me lately. Because I think the way she responds is how many of us would respond.

But think of those two, we heard about them sobbing in the elevator yesterday. They have to go home, they sit there, have dinner, look at each other shaking their head, and then have to sleep through the night, and then go back the next day.

I have great sympathy for these poor people. I hope that the things that have been said about them aren`t true. I may not have such great sympathy if indeed there is something proven.

But remember, these are people that even if they are exonerated, they have been sort of painted with the brush of Casey. They have been tainted just by being her parents. So even if this whole thing were to go away, returning to their lives is not going to be an easy thing, not to mention having been victimized and sent through this torture chamber for 20 days and the impact that`s going to have on their own personal psychology.

Just think about -- I want to remind people about the human experience involved in this drama every day.

Now let`s get to that drama. Tonight, Casey Anthony`s defense team calls their first witness. A DNA examiner testified there was no blood nor DNA found in Casey`s car or on her clothes. Plus, there was a heated exchange in court. Casey`s attorney asked if Casey`s brother Lee was tested for paternity, that`s right, to see if he was Caylee`s father.

I mean, just the fact that stuff was occurring to them shows you how peculiar the situation is. The prosecutor became furious saying there was no way the question was relevant. Look at this.


UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Were you asked to conduct a paternity test for Lee Anthony as to being a potential father of Caylee Anthony.



UNIDENTIFIED MALE: That is my objection, to ask that question suggesting that law enforcement specifically inquire is not a good faith question.


PINSKY: Joining me now to discuss today`s events are bounty hunter Leonard Padilla. He knows Casey and has spent time inside the Anthony home while Caylee was missing. I`ve got news correspondent Ashleigh Banfield here with us. And, of course, as usual, I`ve got the host of "In Session," on TruTV, Ryan Smith, he is outside the courtroom.

Ryan, what happened in court today with this Lee Anthony paternity situation?

RYAN SMITH, HOST, "IN SESSION": Oh, it was stunning, Dr. Drew, because this was right before the jury was let go. Jose Baez asked that question about whether or not Lee was Caylee`s father. But the shocking thing is, then the jury is let go for lunch as they discuss this issue.

So when that question comes out, it`s the last thing the jury hears before they get an hour and a half break. Now eventually they have this fight and Jose Baez said, hey, I asked this question in good faith because I`m trying to get down to the bottom of what she was asked to do in this case and what were the results of her test.

So when the jury came back, he asked the question again and she answered and said that Lee was not the father of Caylee. He had been excluded. But it`s the subtext that mattered in all of that. Because the defense is talking about sexual abuse as part of the reason why Casey suppressed any thoughts of that accident that happened with Caylee, as they say.

So this is kind of a way -- if you look at it in a certain way, it`s a way of getting out that evidence that something wasn`t quite right within the family without actually saying it. So it was very interesting.

PINSKY: And it`s getting unseemly and I think that`s where we are headed in this defense, to unseemly territory. And you`ve got to wonder, did they routinely cast that kind of net or, again, was there a sense that something wasn`t right, as you were suggesting, in this family.

But I want to interrupt you, Ryan. This is something that just came in this afternoon. Is that Vasco Da Gama, the guy who the defense announced, the surprise witness, this guy, waiting to see who he is, well, his record is now out.

He kidnapped and beat a woman in 1988. She was in the intensive care unit with head injury for quite some time. He stole her car. And here`s one of the interesting pieces that we want to report to you. Guess who was the assistant state attorney prosecuting his case? Belvin Perry, Casey`s judge.

Leonard, is this -- this noose is tying -- what`s with that town? Does everybody know each other in that town?

LEONARD PADILLA, BOUNTY HUNTER: No, no. Every time you think there`s nothing else can come up as a surprise.

PINSKY: There are more surprises.

PADILLA: There`s more surprises. And this is certainly one. And when they come up with the connections that led the defense attorney, Jose Baez to subpoena this gentleman as a witness, I think he will put him on the stand. It`s eerie, because it`s just simply a guy just dialing the wrong number.

PINSKY: You think that`s it?

PADILLA: I think that`s what it is. I think George just dialed the wrong number.

PINSKY: Well, I hope that`s all there is to it.

Ashleigh, you`re out there. Thank you for joining us. I think this is the first time that we`ve had you for a conversation on this. Can you give us your thoughts.


PINSKY: . on today`s events, where you think things are headed?

BANFIELD: Well, I just want to bounce off what you just said. Because I was walking to lunch beside Judge Perry, happened to mentioned, it`s nice to meet you finally and talk to you. He said, I have been a jurist for 21 years, and before that 11 years as a prosecutor. Clearly what you are discussing was during that 11 years as a prosecutor. So it`s pretty fascinating and serendipitous in terms of information.

But I have to say I concur with you, Drew, about this feeling in court. I think we all feel a little parasitic at times about the issue that the Anthonys are going through, while at the same time as journalists we recognize there is an allegation that is being made against George Anthony we have to take seriously.

I can`t help but return to my roots where I look at the police records. There was never any kind of complaint made to the police about George Anthony or sexual abuse or Lee Anthony and sexual abuse.

And also at the point where police may have asked if they could get a paternity test on Lee Anthony as pertains to Caylee, when it came up negative, nobody went any further, no one charged anybody.

So I waffle a lot in my feelings about how victimized these parents are and how we should feel about it.

PINSKY: Yes, Ashleigh, I appreciate that comment. And the fact is, if they are being victimized by their caught daughter, wow. As I announce every night, I will stop using the word nauseated. I`ve upset some people by using that word just around dinner time. So I`ll just say my insides are churning. And this is, again, one of those times for me tonight when you think about a daughter doing that.

You know, after all the behavior we have sort of added up, you know, in Casey`s case, the egregious parenting practices, the partying after she knew her child was gone, the lying, lying, lying, lying, lying, lying, lying, which for me is the only factual element in this whole case, is the spectacular lying that Casey has manifested repeatedly.

So, Ashleigh, I appreciate that that`s the feeling in the courtroom. And we all are very ambivalent about this.

All right. We`re going to have more on day one of the Casey Anthony defense. I want to thank my guests here, Ryan and Leonard and Ashleigh. We`re going to have, I believe, Leonard and Ashleigh back again.

We`re going to also look later inside the jury. We`ll talk to a jury consultant who helped the Casey defense team handpick the jury for the case. Back with more.


UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Q-44 was a piece of the spare tire cover. It was a gray carpet cutting. Q-45 was a piece of spare tire cover as well. That item had some extremely faint brown dingy areas on it that were spot- tested for the presence of blood. They were negative.




UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Was it your understanding that these pair of pants were the pants that Casey was seen wearing on June 16th, 2008?

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: I was informed that she was wearing that pants, yes.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: OK. And you found no stains on those pants?



PINSKY: Day one for Casey`s defense, testimony today focused on the fact that Casey`s DNA and blood were not found in the car, on the shovel she borrowed from a neighbor, or on the duct tape found on Caylee`s skull.

Casey`s defense also tried to show the jurors that law enforcement was suspicious -- that evidently they were suspicious that Lee Anthony could be Caylee`s father. Casey`s lawyer asked an FBI expert if she tested him for paternity. Watch.


UNIDENTIFIED MALE: I wanted to ask you if you conducted what would be considered a paternity test to determine if Lee Anthony was the biological father of Caylee Anthony.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: based on the STR typing results, the DNA obtained from specimen Q-18-1, Caylee Anthony, could not have originated from a biological offspring of the individual represented by specimen K-9, Lee Anthony.


PINSKY: I`m joined again by bounty hunter Leonard Padilla and joining us is our friend and criminal defense attorney Mark Eiglarsh.

Leonard, you were laughing when Jose Baez asked that question. Is this sort of a routine?

PADILLA: Well, yes, these things are routinely done when you have situations like this. They will take DNA from a lot of people for future reference.

PINSKY: Because that kind of thing gets involved in these kinds of unseemly cases.

PADILLA: There is always something like that, some speculation, but my friend Mark, probably now that he`s somewhat my attorney in a case that might be developing.

PINSKY: Well, Mark, Mark, did you know that Len was nearly arrested last night? Apparently he was spotted on George Anthony`s lawn.

PADILLA: No, I wasn`t. I was across the street.

PINSKY: Well, you were spotted from his house.

PADILLA: Yes, in the company of a judge.



PINSKY: Did you waive your fees to represent Len?

MARK EIGLARSH, DEFENSE ATTORNEY: No. But I did offer him 20 percent off. We have a history, 20 percent off. Yes, I`ll take care of him.


PINSKY: What happened last night? Fill us in on this.

PADILLA: I was called to go back there and explain to one of your competitors exactly where the site was.


PINSKY: Where the site was that what? Where this all went down?

PADILLA: Where the body was. OK, we have pictures, extensive knowledge, and probably as much as law enforcement about that area. And so the car picked me up at the airport. And they said, we are going right out to the location. And I said, do you have the address? And they said, yes.

And I said, no, no, no. That`s the Anthony`s residence. We don`t want to go there. There`s going to be a -- we make the corner. And there`s the camera people and everything. I said, this is not a good idea. Oh, no, no, they`re not home. There is nobody home. Don`t worry about it.

Half a dozen squad cars come pulling up in about three minutes.

PINSKY: So, Mark, as his attorney, should he stop talking now?

PADILLA: I can`t hear you, Mark.

PINSKY: I can`t hear him either.

EIGLARSH: . infusing himself into this scenario out there in Orlando. Can you hear me now?

PADILLA: No, no, no.

PINSKY: We hear you now. We do hear you now.

PADILLA: No, let`s not disclose any attorney-client privilege. We might have some privilege going here. And I don`t want you to air it.

PINSKY: All right. Let me ask, Mark, I may need you to come to his defense on a couple of questions I have for him besides what he was doing outside the Anthony home last night. As you can imagine, of course George Anthony is going to call the cops on you.

PADILLA: Well, here`s the thing, though. The judge wanted to drive a car from that house to where the body was dumped. OK. I could understand that. I didn`t think it was a good idea.

PINSKY: All right, all right. Take that to the attorney, would you? When you talk to (INAUDIBLE).

PADILLA: All right.

PINSKY: My question, though, is you told me off-air a second ago -- I don`t know if you can talk about this or not. But you said that law enforcement had some knowledge about where that body was. Explain that to me.

PADILLA: I am firmly convinced that because Kronk himself stated that his girlfriend, who works at the jail, had given him the information as to where the body was back in August.

PINSKY: A month before they found it?

PADILLA: No, six months before.

PINSKY: Six months before they found it.

PADILLA: That law enforcement had good knowledge as to where the body was. He was just being given an area that was about 72 feet from where the body was actually located. And I believe that law enforcement got that information by listening in to a confidential communication between her attorney and.

EIGLARSH: Wait a second.


PINSKY: All right. Mark, what do you make of that?

EIGLARSH: I make that Leonard, I think, is trying to make some kind of inference that law enforcement might have known where the body was and sat on it and didn`t go out there and look?

PADILLA: Not inference, statement.

EIGLARSH: Well, I know. I was being nice to you. I was being nice to you.


PADILLA: I don`t need an inference. No, no.

EIGLARSH: I can`t believe you`re coming out and saying that law enforcement actually knew, as everybody is frantically looking for this child, as they are trying to build a case against Casey Anthony, yet they knew where the body was located and sat back and didn`t do anything, is that your position, my potential new client?

PADILLA: One hundred percent because two days before the body was found, I told law enforcement, if you don`t find that body and come up with it in 48 hours, I`m going to disclose what I have as far as information that you know where the body is at, I`m going public with it. Two days later, Kronk finds the right place.


EIGLARSH: That`s beyond -- that`s incredible, that`s beyond common sense. So law enforcement officers chose not to find the body? I mean, you understand the significance of having a body with the potential scientific evidence and they just sat back and did nothing? Does that make any sense to you, Dr. Drew?

PINSKY: Let me ask this, Mark, is Kronk going to bring this stuff up on the stand? Is that something that`s going to be at issue? Is that how he`s going to protect himself?

PADILLA: I don`t know what Mark is going to say or not -- I mean, excuse me, Kronk. I get them confused. I don`t know what Kronk is going to say.

PINSKY: Mark is your attorney.

PADILLA: Yes, Mark is my attorney, Kronk is the other fellow.

But I do feel that law enforcement didn`t disclose this because then they would have had to come up with a fact as to how they came up with the information. And listening in on an attorney-client privileged conversation while in jail is a big no-no. You can ask Mark about that.

PINSKY: Let`s ask Mark about that.

EIGLARSH: About what? His theories are absolutely outrageous. I can`t get past the fact that he`s suggesting that law enforcement knew that the body was there and did nothing. I don`t think anyone`s buying that, Leonard.

PINSKY: Well, let me ask, Mark, this may be a more relevant question for him. As your attorney, why isn`t Len being called as a witness? Let me ask Len that.

Why not? Why aren`t you being called as a witness with all of this information?

PADILLA: I think I`m too critical to the defense as well as the prosecution with a lot of the stuff that we happen to know. The FBI interviewed us extensively on all areas.

PINSKY: Who is us? Who is us?

PADILLA: Myself, Rob Dick, and Tracy.

PINSKY: These are you associates?

PADILLA: Associates that were there with her. Tracy was with her 24/7 for the nine days she was out of custody.

PINSKY: The stuff that you told them being.


EIGLARSH: Here is the direct answer.

PADILLA: Not some of it, no.

PINSKY: Go ahead, Mark.

EIGLARSH: Here is the direct answer, and I`m saying this -- again, I love Len, I don`t mean any disrespect, but, first of all, he does not have much firsthand knowledge that would be of any value to the prosecution. I`m talking about serious evidence, firsthand knowledge.

And then, secondly, then he`s subject to cross-examination by the defense, who would explore his bias, his motive, his interest in this case.

PINSKY: I`ve got 20 seconds, gentlemen.

EIGLARSH: And that`s it. And I think that that would explode and blow up in the prosecution`s face if even offered anything of value.

PINSKY: All right. Ten seconds. Yes, Esquire -- Counselor, 10 seconds.

PADILLA: I know where the Henkel tape was stored.

PINSKY: All right. With that, we`re going to have to hold that for another day.

Mark, thank you so much. Len, I`m going to have to say good bye to you. Thank you. It`s always a pleasure to hear your theories. Again, I`m trying to figure this stuff out. So any information we can get. This is not a court of law. It`s just a public trying to make sense of crazy drama. I`m taking your questions and calls on this case.

Plus, who were the people deciding Casey`s fate? I`m going to talk to a jury consultant who helped select the Casey jurors. Stay with us.


DAVID WOOD, RELEASE BALLOONS TO REMEMBER CAYLEE ANTHONY: I have been following the story ever since it started. You know, three years ago I have been following this story. This is just heartbreaking. You know?

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Why is it so heartbreaking for you?

WOOD: When you have a child, I don`t know how anybody could do that to a kid.



UNIDENTIFIED MALE: To what end is counsel going to elicit this? It`s meaningless, it`s not relevant.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: If it`s not relevant, why is the shovel in evidence?

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Judge, the shovel in evidence.


UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Mr. Ashton, Mr. Ashton, calm down. OK. Calm down. Sit down for a second.



PINSKY: That was yet another dramatic moment from the Casey Anthony trial today. It`s just day one of her defense, but from what you have heard so far I`m wondering, are you buying her case? Let`s go to the phones.

Miranda, Norfolk, go ahead.

CALLER: Hi, Dr. Drew. If we are supposed to believe the defense`s story that Casey was abused and therefore constantly lives a lie, why should anyone, including the jury, believe that she`s telling the truth now, even to her attorneys?

PINSKY: Right. Miranda, I think that`s the very -- that goes to the very heart of the matter, which is, what kind of witness would she possibly make if she were to get on the stand? She has no credibility whatsoever from what the jurors have seen. So personally if I were watching that, I would have a hard time believing anything she said.

Here is a man on the street question from a viewer.


UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Hi, Dr. Drew. Why is my sister and so many other women so into the Casey Anthony trial? Answer me that.


PINSKY: well, I will try to answer you that, my friend. I have been asking the same question since we first started covering this case. That it really seems to evoke a very special passion in women.

In fact, later in the show, one of my jurors on the street there -- rather, in the courtroom, she was a teen mom. And she has very powerful feelings about this. Something about having children, being a mother and seeing that -- what words do I have that are strong enough for it? That sacred bond potentially violated and then the disregard of Casey going out, partying, is so offensive to women, as women, that they feel the need to get some sort of, let`s call it justice, from this. And they share that bond of outrage together.

Let`s go to a Facebook question. Chris has this observation. He says: "Many people think that disassociation is about someone wanting to ignore something or deny it. I`m not so sure that`s exactly what it is."

You are absolutely right, my friend -- I should say, sir. Disassociation is actually a biological process in the brain where people disconnect from their emotions and disconnect from reality. They disassociate from the self. It`s what`s called the escape when there is no other escape.

It`s something that`s indoctrinated early in life and it becomes a defensive strategy of checking out. It`s really a death-feigning behavior. It`s very much what opossums do. Something to really look at when you see Casey looking so blank, try to decide whether or not that`s dissociation.

We have Kathy in Panama City, Florida. What`s on your mind, Kathy?

CALLER: Hi, Dr. Drew. I don`t think the state has proved their case beyond a reasonable doubt. I`m sure Casey is guilty of something. But there just is not a smoking gun in this case. If she`s found guilty, I`m sure she`ll win an appeal and get a new trial.

PINSKY: Wow. Well, I`m interested in what my viewers have to say about that. And if you are all sort of adding it up and making the same conclusion, how do you feel about that, the fact that that might happen? It might go that way, guys. That could be the way this turns out.

Remember, we don`t really have a cause of death. We don`t have a direct association with Casey and the murder other than that tape and the hearts and it`s all sort of circumstantial.

All right. We`ve got something coming up. We have got a jury consultant who is going to talk to us about who was on the Casey Anthony jury. He was a consultant for the defense team. Who her attorneys did and didn`t want on the panel. We`re going to take a look at that.

And later of course in the show, we`re going to have my jury. I have got somebody very interesting who`s in the courtroom every day. She herself was a teen mom. And she`s going to tell us her feelings about what`s going on with this case and with Casey Anthony.



PINSKY (voice-over): Day one defense fireworks, some of them from the judge as he takes the state to task.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Mr. Ashton, calm down.


UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Calm down. Sit down for a second.


PINSKY: Then, this from Casey`s attorney --

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Were you asked to conduct a paternity test for Lee Anthony being the potential father of Caylee Anthony?

PINSKY: Was it an underhanded move by the defense to get the issue on the record? The judger later allowed the question and answer which excluded Lee as Caylee`s father. The expert testified that no blood or DNA was found on clothes or Casey`s car.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: A swab was taken of those items. There was no DNA profile generated from those items.

VOICE OF CINDY ANTHONY, CASEY ANTHONY`S MOTHER: There`s something wrong. I found my daughter`s car today, and it smells like there`s been a dead body in the damn car.


PINSKY (on-camera): All right. Now, that smell has been a key feature of this case. Could the dead body smell have affected actually who is on the jury? So, back with me is ABC News correspondent, Ashleigh Banfield, and criminal defense attorney, Mark Eiglarsh.

Joining me in the studio is Richard Gabriel. He was a jury consultant for Casey Anthony`s defense team. So, Richard, I imagine, everything is important when it comes to jury selection. You`re just contemplating everything.


PINSKY: Everything? All right.

GABRIEL: Everything.

PINSKY: And you, when you consult for the defense, are trying to advise them how to pick people that would be advantageous to their point of view.


PINSKY: And already, my understanding is that this being a death penalty trial, you`ve got sort of a biased jury pool generally.


PINSKY: So, how do you select or what do you do to sort of pull things back towards the defense?

GABRIEL: Well, it`s a great effort. In a normal case, obviously, people don`t know much about the case. You`re just trying to deselect the people who have any sort of biases that may lean them toward the prosecution. In this case, it`s doubly hard. You still have people on this particular jury who actually have heard a tremendous amount about the case and even think that she`s probably guilty.

PINSKY: Didn`t the judge ask them that or the defense people ask them that? No?

GABRIEL: Well, they did ask them that. Some of them say, I have the impression that she`s guilty, but I can keep an open mind. Well, as we all know from the psychological literature, confirmation bias says we`re only looking for stuff that confirms what we really believe.

PINSKY: Are there people on this jury that already have a sense that Casey`s guilty.

GABRIEL: I`m sure there are.

PINSKY: There are. And Ashley, we`re going to talk about the jury in detail, sort of one-by-one. You`ve been in the courtroom. Is there anything -- just give us sort of -- before we start going to the individuals, sort of an overview of how this jury seems to you?

ASHLEIGH BANFIELD, ABC NEWS CORRESPONDENT: Yes, I`ve been very impressed by them. I have to say. They are very focused. They listen intently. They don`t nod off. They don`t look around during the critical times. The only time I see them really looking around wondering what else is going on in the courtroom is during sidebar, and that`s fine. They need a mental break at some point. This is really tough plugging.

But you know something, I want to add to what you were just talking about. Death qualified does not just mean that you believe in the death penalty. A lot of these jurors said they don`t, but they could follow the law and consider it. So, I`m not so sure we have an entirely biased jury from the get-go for death.

PINSKY: Well, I was just bringing up some literature I`ve read, and I think you`re confirming that death penalty juries tend to be more biased towards a conviction.

GABRIEL: They do. There`s a lot of studies that actually show that they do it and what happens is in the process, when you`re death qualifying a jury, you`re spending so much time talking about the death qualification that a lot of jurors tend to start feeling, well, we`ve already there.

PINSKY: Yes, already at the conviction. All right. Let`s take a look at some of the jurors. First, we`re starting with juror number one, and she has some similarities with jurors three and five. She is a nurse. She`s a retired nurse. Three and five also a retired nurses or nursing students. In the course of her job, naturally, she would have been around people that were deceased, married, two kids. She`s 65 years old.

Mark, there`s a lot of talk in the trial about dead bodies. Which side can potentially benefit, say, from three nurses present in the jurors` box?

MARK EIGLARSH, CRIMINAL DEFENSE ATTORNEY: Well, I need to talk about this juror in particular. This is the one juror that I take greatest exception to as to why the defense kept her on. She stated that she knows the smell of decomposition. What`s going to happen is she`s going to serve as an expert in the jury room whether you like it or not.

She`s going to say to the others, no, no, no, you need to credit the testimony of those who smelled decomposition as opposed to garbage because there`s a huge difference, and that`s going to undermine the defense`s argument that there was no decomposing body in that car. I`m surprised they left her on.

PINSKY: You know what, Mark, let me, as a physician, sort of talk about that decomposition argument, because here -- if I were sitting in the jury box here, how I respond to it, I would assume -- it`s very vague what they`re talking about, I must tell you. I think they`re talking about the smell of what`s called putrefaction which is decaying tissue, which, by the way, not just dead humans smell like that. And, by the way, not just dead humans smell like that. People with gangrene smell like that.


PINSKY: Trash could kind of smell like that. It`s not as though it`s so unique that you`ve never smelled anything like it. There are smells like that. They`re not dead bodies, though. What?

EIGLARSH: Drew, let me keep this simple. I told you this before. Drew, you are too smart. You wouldn`t be -- not to say the jurors aren`t bright, but you have too much expertise. You wouldn`t be in that jury room.

PINSKY: I understand that you and Richard would exclude me. Actually -- what do you want to say?

BANFIELD: Yes. I just wanted to tell you that I spoke with the canine officer whose dog jumped in the trunk, and he said, the smell hit me at the same time the dog marked it. And I said, is it unique, human decomposition? Is there nothing else out there that smells like it? And he said, pigs smell like that, but nothing else. That was his impression. And that`s what he does for a living.

PINSKY: I will remind you that rotting arms on living humans smell the same way. I mean, there are all kinds of things that you smell like that, but let`s go to another juror. Let`s go to juror number two. He is a married father. His mother was a single mom just like Casey Anthony. He is married with two kids. He`s an I.T. worker. Ashley, could he be sympathetic to Casey, do you think?

BANFIELD: You know, I stopped reading the tea leaves long ago after, I think, trial number 250. Just when you think you have somebody who`s going to sort of lean one way, they end up being less inclined to be a foreman. They end up being sort of articulate but refined to certain details that you never thought that they would attach to, and then, you find others who just glaze right over things who are very well educated and didn`t sort of get the whole idea.

It really is a group process. That`s the funny thing about jurors. Very, very much a group process, and some are easily swayable. So, while I like to think I know what the statistics and these descriptions mean, I don`t.

PINSKY: All right. Ashley, excellent point. I`m going to pose that to our jury consultant. So, what do you say to that? I`ve got less than a minute to go here.

GABRIEL: Absolutely. Ashley`s right. I mean, the fact is what you`re doing it when you`re picking a jury is you`re forecasting. You`re saying, how does this one particular juror`s background issue interact with the evidence, what`s going to resonate with them? Just because they`re with a single mom, it can go both ways, but you`re ultimately looking for a group that`s going to go together, that`s going to work together, hopefully in your favor.

And that`s really what you`re looking for. A fair-minded group, a contemplative group, a group that maybe takes some sharp, cynical look at what`s being presented and really wants to pore over the evidence themselves. That`s ultimately what you`re looking for in the jury from both sides.

PINSKY: Richard, thank you. Ashley, thank you. Mark, thank you.

I want to tell you, I sat in the juror`s box once and the judge gave me this instruction, I want to know that no one can persuade you if you had a strong opinion. I though, I can`t say that. And he goes, what do you mean? I go, you`re persuading me right now. What do you mean I can`t be persuaded? So, there is a whole group dynamic to this that`s unpredictable. Jurors and the death penalty more when we come back.

And later, a member of my jury weighs in.


UNIDENTIFIED MALE: What do you teach?

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Two programs. Dropout prevention coordinator at our high school and then I teach a senior government class.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Both have day care career and now a one-year-old grandchild. Do you think that would cause any conflict to you in deciding whether or not Ms. Anthony should live or die?


UNIDENTIFIED MALE: My sister, (expletive deleted) at one time was all messed up in her head. This guy that she was messed up with, they broke into my parents` home. They tied up my dad and took money from him.



UNIDENTIFIED MALE: I don`t believe in the death penalty.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: OK. Can you consider it, sir?

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Consider the death penalty?




PINSKY: Well, as we can see from that perspective, juror`s long pause and as you might imagine to be the case, sentencing someone to death is not an easy decision. I`m back with Richard Gabriel. He was a jury consultant for Casey Anthony`s defense team. Also with us are ABC`s Ashleigh Banfield, and criminal defense attorney, Mark Eiglarsh.

Now, I want to just bring some up real quickly, Richard. We were talking off the air. I was asking, Richard, why sort of more medicalized facts aren`t coming to this case to sort of make the case that Casey`s sick or is a drug addict or an abuse survivor, whatever, and you were saying that that just brings opens up to differing opinions and doesn`t usually go very well.

GABRIEL: Well, the prosecution doesn`t want this, because, first of all, they want it to be very cold.

PINSKY: Calculated.

GABRIEL: Calculated, premeditated murder, fits into a nice, easy box. They don`t want her to be necessarily understandable or even sympathetic in terms of even her lifestyle choices. The defense doesn`t necessarily want it because there are characteristics of somebody who might have that which also indicates, you know, homicidal tendencies and things -- it really does cut both ways --

PINSKY: Because if somebody were to say to me that, you know, somebody who had babysitters in the grandparents, killed the baby because she was so jealous of the grandmother, I would go, all right, come one, what`s really going on here? That`s nonsense.

All right. Let`s go back to the jurors. Let`s take a look at more the -- let`s take a look at juror seven. She is a 41-year-old divorced female. Her father was on attorney. Mark, I want to ask you this. She may know more about the law than the average person. Is that good or bad?

EIGLARSH: You know, you keep asking these questions. The answer is no one ever knows, you know? The only thing I know after trying over a hundred jury trials is it`s the individual. Not what they did do and who their dad is, it`s whether after driving by the crime scene numerous times and seeing someone being arrested, whether they can say to themselves, why are they stripping that innocent person of his liberty?

No one ever says that. They think, what did the guilty guy do? So, why in court can you come in and agree with the judge that you can presume or believe the defendant is innocent right now. And it`s not what they say in reaction to my question. It`s their body language. It`s how they say it. A lot of them go, you know, good question, I don`t know, and those jurors are gone. I`m looking for ones who can presume or believe that my clients are innocent, and then, those are ones that I work with.

PINSKY: Richard, you`re shaking your head.

GABRIEL: I think that`s one of the things that we`re looking for is someone whose father is an attorney absolutely does know the law. the Problem with this case is that she`s been presumed guilty.


GABRIEL: And so, we want somebody on the jury who actually knows what the law and says, no, wait, everybody, even though, there`s been lot that`s been out there, we got to take it from square one at the beginning of the case.

PINSKY: Can you tell me whether you fought for that particular jury?

GABRIEL: Absolutely. I mean, we want anybody on there. The problem for us in jury selection is we were just trying to eliminate anybody with predisposed terrible feelings about her and the case as well as predispose feelings about the death penalty, automaticity, give it to them right away. So, we were left with a pool of jurors and Mark says, well, why did you leave that juror on? You run out of strikes at some point.

PINSKY: Wow, interesting. Let`s look at juror 10. He`s a white male. His sister committed a violent crime against her dad, and she went to prison. I think that`s really interesting. Ashley, do you think that that particular case and her family history will have an impact on the decision-making?

BANFIELD: It`s entirely possible. And then, again, like I said before, you can never really know, but one thing I definitely notice often is that when Jose Baez, who has such an affable character in the courtroom, when he is friendly or joking or says good morning and smiles to the jurors, they don`t smile back.

Oftentimes, we see them smile back when someone is friendly to them and addresses them. Personally, I never, ever see them react in a friendly way. I`m not going to read into that, but I do find it unusual.

PINSKY: Let me ask you a couple of more questions. Again, you`re the one on the ground in the courtroom for us.

BANFIELD: I`m watching them like a hawk.

PINSKY: Yes, I love that. And I want to ask you, too, about the Anthonys and Casey, because you know, I`m trying to sort of collect data about this, to make sense of this whole thing, but let`s stay with the jurors. My understanding was they were not taking notes at the beginning. Somebody had mentioned that to me. Is that true? And now, are they seem to be get more involved in the facts?

BANFIELD: Yes. The note-taking is actually a sort of a parlor game almost. The first juror, the grandmother, the 65-year-old nurse almost never takes notes. And in fact, for the first two or three weeks, I never really saw her taking notes. Slowly but surely, everybody got on board that train, especially, when things got tricky, and the evidence got boggy, I like to call it, when they get bogged down in the science. Notebooks start to coming out a lot more.

Now, I often look down and I see about five or six jurors taking notes at a time, and they always have those notes, but they can`t take them back out of the courtroom. When they leave the courtroom, those notebooks have to go on their chairs. They are not allowed to walk away with them.


PINSKY: Go ahead, Mark.

EIGLARSH: There is one juror we must talk about in the time period.

PINSKY: Please.

EIGLARSH: Juror number four, number four, who claims that I don`t like to sit in judgment of people. I think that that was a huge mistake on behalf of Judge Perry to not allow the prosecution to strike her. Your whole job when you are on a jury is to essentially sit in judgment of what somebody did. She has reservations about that.

My concern is, even if she believes the prosecution proved this case beyond (INAUDIBLE) a reasonable doubt, she`ll go back there and think to herself, well, who am I to judge? And that would be fundamentally unfair.

BANFIELD: And you know something, I`m going to add to that. I watched her voir dire during the jury selection process, I felt that that juror didn`t particularly understand what was going on either. She was very uncomfortable. She did not want to be there. Not because she wanted out of jury service, because she felt awkward in this predicament. So, it`s interesting that Mark would bring it up, because I did not think that she would be chosen.

PINSKY: Richard.

GABRIEL: Well, it is very difficult. Most times, the prosecution don`t want these jurors deeply religious people who don`t feel like they can judge because that is ultimately their job. However, obviously, a lot of jurors do walk into the courtroom and they don`t understand the process, especially in a death penalty case where they`re sitting there going, wait a minute, I have to decide if somebody lives or dies.

PINSKY: Awful.

GABRIEL: So, they`re just struggling with that whole issue.

PINSKY: Let me just tell you about jury number, what I know about her. She`s an African-American female in her 40s. She has kids, doesn`t say here how many. She lives alone. Unknown occupation, whatever that means. And she is deeply religious, and it says the defense fought hard to keep her on the jury.

GABRIEL: Right. Yes. We want people with those religious convictions. We want people who will struggle. The bottom line here is you want jurors in the death penalty cases, especially, who will then really struggle, who don`t have easy answers, who are going to sit there and really pore over the evidence and then want to really weigh so heavily what they think about, you know, whether making a decision whether a person lives or dies. It`s crucial.

EIGLARSH: There`s no question they wanted this.

BANFIELD: The juror was asked if they believe in an eye for an eye, too, which I found really interesting during voir dire. The most religious of them, every single one of them that was chosen said, no, I do not believe in an eye for an eye.

EIGLARSH: No question the defense wanted this jury.

PINSKY: So, Hammurabi`s law will not apply in this courtroom, Mark.

EIGLARSH: What`s that?

PINSKY: I said Hammurabi`s law will not be applied in this courtroom.

EIGLARSH: Exactly. This jury, no question, the defense fought for. This could be the potential lone hangout juror. Everyone has to understand that there needs to be a unanimous verdict when it comes to the guilt phase.

If 11 people yelling she`s guilty, they proved it, but this woman is saying, I don`t know, who are we to judge, and maybe because her deep religious feelings she may, again, I`m speculating here, but she may say, you know what, I`m going to embrace those defense arguments a little bit more so I don`t have to find her guilty. That could realistically happen.


PINSKY: One second. Ashley, now, you`re new to my program here, and I`m asking all of my participants this one question. Guilty or not?

BANFIELD: You know, that`s a huge question, because, you know, guilty -- not guilty does not mean innocent. Let me leave it at that.

EIGLARSH: I told you that.

PINSKY: Well, that`s mark`s position. If it`s always proven or not proven, and he gives me great, great uncomfortable feelings in my gut every time he says that.

BANFIELD: Listen, Drew, there is a massive, massive leap that a juror is going to have to make, getting over premeditated murder. There was a great argument made yesterday for a directed verdict of acquittal, and there is a very difficult jump and a reasonable doubt that`s going to have to be wrestled with with these jurors to get to premeditation.

They`re going to find Casey unpalatable without question, but whether she was the person who did all this is still a very big leap. And I think they`re --

PINSKY: Now, Ashleigh, you, did she do it or not?

BANFIELD: Like I said, ABC News correspondent, I just report the facts, my friend. Thank you for trying.


PINSKY: I do appreciate this panel. Richard, Ashley, Mark, thank you so much.

BANFIELD: And I`d love to come back any time.

PINSKY: I will have you back. I guarantee you.

Coming up, a look inside the courtroom from someone who was also there, and we`re going to talk about Anthony Weiner. He`s out of office now after the three-week scandal. I`m going to take a good look at that. That`s what`s ahead.



REP. ANTHONY WEINER, (D) NEW YORK: I had hoped to be able to continue the work that the citizens of my district elected me to do. The distraction that I have created has made that impossible. So, today, I am announcing my resignation from Congress.


PINSKY: I just want to take a beat and discuss this story. Big story today, before we go on to talk to my jury. Obviously, Anthony Weiner resigned today. We all know the details, and the denials and the lies that brought him down. But, I just want to point out that, to me, this was a great relief that he had done this, not just because of all the distractions from more important political issues, but, again, there`s a human here.

And he trying to maintain his career and salvage his marriage and treat what needs to be treated given the behavior we`ve seen here, not going to go well. In fact, I had concerns it could end up in a severe depression, even a suicide. So, the fact that he`s focused on important things, his marriage, his mental health, that`s a really good sign for him. He may be back in politics later. People like this can end up well treated. We talked to them before in this program in a much, much better place, and the marriages can work out very well.

All right. Back to Casey Anthony. We talked a lot about the chaos in Casey`s life, not the least of which is that she was a young, single mother. Of course, that doesn`t, in anyway, excuse or explain what we`ve seen of her and what she`s accused of doing. Much to that point, my next guest was, herself, a teen mother and balanced her motherhood with the rest of her life.

And obviously, I`ve talked to a lot of teen moms. Tonight`s Dr. Drew "Juror" is Joe C. Castillo. I get that right. Josie, all right, I never get over the incredible patience and the amount of effort it takes to get into that courtroom. Tell us what time you lined up to get in on Saturday.

JOE C. CASTILLO, DR. DREW "JUROR": Hi, Dr. Drew. I was there at -- can you hear me? I was there 11:45 p.m. on Friday.

PINSKY: I do. And you spent the night, what, lying on the pavement? I mean, what do people do? They bring sleeping bags out? I`m confused.

CASTILLO: We got acquainted with each other, met some nice people from Colorado, from California. The sharpie mom, I met her. I was number 13 online.


PINSKY: There`s the sharpie lady. She has T-shirts now. All right. Let me ask you this. You were a teen mom. Does that experience give you any sort of special insight into this case or for that matter any special outrage?

CASTILLO: Could you repeat the question? I really didn`t understand what you said.

PINSKY: Well, the fact that you, yourself, were a teen mom, I wonder if that makes you even angrier at Casey or does it give you any special insight into what we`re seeing unfold here?

CASTILLO: Oh, yes, yes, yes. I got it. Yes, I have three children. I`ve got three kids and they`re all in the military. And I`ve got four grandkids, believe it or not.

PINSKY: Joe C., I have only 30 seconds with you.

CASTILLO: Yes. No problem. I had my time to do what I had to do. My thing is that I just want justice for the baby. You know, I just want justice for the baby. And that`s my thing.

PINSKY: And you think justice would be convicting Casey?

CASTILLO: Oh, forget about it. Yes, you know?

PINSKY: OK. I`ll forget about it. Thank you, Joe C. I appreciate it very much.

More defense testimony tomorrow. What are we going to see? We`re going to bring you the latest. There`s a lot going on in this case, obviously. We had some very interesting conversation today. We`re going to keep building our jurors on the street there and in the courtroom. I appreciate Joe C. for joining us today.

And you know, mothers have a very special -- I want to say affect, experience, feeling about this case. And so, you saw some just there. It`s like forget about it. She`s guilty. Thanks so much for watching. We`ll see you next time.