Return to Transcripts main page


Drama and Frustrated Judge in Casey Anthony Trial

Aired June 20, 2011 - 21:00   ET


DR. DREW PINSKY, HOST: Here we go.

Casey Anthony trial, day 23. The drama, courtroom dust-ups, counselor cat fights and a frustrated judge.

The evidence: was Duct tape placed on Caylee after decomposition?

The surprise witness -- remember him? He`s here. I`m asking him how he feels about being dragged into this mess.

Let`s figure this out.

Casey Anthony`s defense calls more forensic witnesses. But what about the shocking claim that Casey was sexually abused?

Now, we`ve seen no facts to bear this out. And I`ve been thinking this last couple days that this case is awfully similar to the Menendez brothers trial -- good looking defendants, brothers accused of murdering their parents with a shotgun.

Their attorneys alleged the brothers were driven to murder by a lifetime of abuse from their parents, including sexual abuse from their father. Now, many said this was a technique to create a distraction. And some of the jurors on that case said the abuse claim never even factored into their deliberations, interestingly.

Now, is that what`s happening here in this case? Was Casey actually abused, or is this some sort of technique to try to distract us? And if not, if they`re going to actually make the claim, how are they going to prove this?

And by the way, let`s keep in mind, no one is saying that the abuse led to murder, because that is just simply impossible. What they`re kind of saying is that maybe the abuse explains why she behaved so strangely after there was this alleged accident. It is becoming kind of a distraction.

All right. Well, here`s what`s happening. It happened in court this weekend.

Listen to this and then we will talk.


UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: A forensic expert says Duct tape was not the murder weapon.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: There would have been DNA from the face on the Duct tape. A failure of the autopsy. A shoddy autopsy.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: The judge threatened defense attorney Jose Baez with contempt.

JUDGE BELVIN PERRY, ORANGE COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT: Both sides have engaged in what I call game-playing.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: I would like for this witness not to be called first.

JOSE BAEZ, DEFENSE ATTORNEY: The prosecutor has attempted to narrow the scope.

PERRY: We will be in recess until 9:00 a.m. tomorrow morning.


PINSKY: And tonight, the Casey Anthony trial is in recess. But some shocking testimony on Saturday still has us reeling.

A medical examiner for the defense says Caylee`s autopsy was completely bungled. He also testified the Duct tape on Caylee`s mouth was put there after her body had decomposed.



CHENEY MASON, DEFENSE ATTORNEY: Is it your opinion, sir, that the tape was not put on the face before decomposition, even (INAUDIBLE)?

DR. WERNER SPITZ, MEDICAL EXAMINER: No, it was not. I think that the Duct tape was a later, later event. Not an early event.

MASON: After decomposition?


PINSKY: That guy actually made the claim that the Duct tape was put there to hold the jaw on to the skull.

All right. But first, did George Anthony call an ex-con four times the day before Caylee was reported missing? The defense`s surprise witness, Vasco Thompson, joins us tonight with his attorney, Matt Morgan. Also, host of "In Session" on truTV, Ryan Smith, he`s standing by.

All right, Vasco. You really got dragged into something here.

I`ve heard you say you don`t know George Anthony. Why do you think the records reflect that you called him a few times?

VASCO THOMPSON, POTENTIAL DEFENSE WITNESS: Well, thank you for having me on your show, Dr. Drew. And I want to thank the lord, my Mod and savior, for giving me a chance to speak with you to answer all these questions.

But first, can I get my lawyer to say something first on my behalf?

PINSKY: You got it.

MATT MORGAN, VASCO THOMPSON`S ATTORNEY: Dr. Drew, thanks for having us this evening. We would like to thank the public for all of their support of Vasco. And we just wanted to let them know that, if they wanted to reach out and show their support, they can reach him on Twitter, @VascoThompson.

It really makes Vasco feel better to get that support out there and to see that people are behind him on this.

PINSKY: All right.

Well, I`m going to @VascoThompson. I`ll be joining him this evening, I promise you. Because I do want to know what he has got to say.

MORGAN: Absolutely.

PINSKY: But first I would like to chat with him a little bit right here.

Vasco, honest to goodness, you just seem like you got all of a sudden dragged into this thing. You seem kind of bewildered by it. Is that true?

THOMPSON: Yes, sir. Yes, sir. I`ve been dragged in this mess and I don`t know why.

I don`t know George Anthony. I never heard of George Anthony before today. I mean, before this trial started.

I heard it over the news, but I don`t know him. I never talked to the man before in my life. And I don`t know why they got me dragged into this.

PINSKY: Do you think maybe your phone -- you butt-dialed him or something on your phone and that`s why it`s showing up on the records? Is it really just as simple as that?

THOMPSON: I think that`s what they`re saying.

MORGAN: Dr. Drew, what they`re saying is that Vasco`s current number is the number that was allegedly -- a few calls went back and forth between that number and George Anthony in 2008. Now, here`s the real shocker, is that Vasco did not have that number in July of 2008.

And I guess the defense hasn`t done their due diligence to investigate that. But Vasco did not get that number until February of 2009.

PINSKY: Hey, Vasco, I`ve been dying to talk to you.

THOMPSON: Yes, sir?

PINSKY: The whole situation fascinates me, that somebody just gets sucked into this thing out of the blue.

Do you have an opinion about this case and what`s going on there? And I know you`re not involved in it. You`re not an expert witness. I`m just curious, were you following it? Did you have an opinion about it and all of a sudden, boom, you`re sucked into it?

THOMPSON: Well, as you know, I live in Orlando. And quite naturally, you know, that`s the first page on every newscast all around Orlando.

So yes, I have heard about it. But I never thought I would be the one dragged into this at my wildest. People around my house, I can`t go in my house.

It`s just been rough, Dr. Drew. It`s been very rough, man, on my wife, my family.

PINSKY: It`s very interesting. I hope it ends up in a simple way for you.

It seems like some people -- Ryan, I want to turn to you next. People are getting sucked into this thing in various ways. I know we`re going to hear from Mr. Kronk later on, and there are people speculating about him.

Give me up to date. What`s going on right now?

RYAN SMITH, HOST, "IN SESSION," TRUTV: Well, I think what`s going on right now -- and you talk about Mr. Thompson`s dilemma -- I think you saw the defense in many points just trying to do an investigation. And sometimes that pulls people into the scepter of this case who don`t expect to be there. Look at all her friends and people that she knew who have testified, who never wanted to be a part of this.

And you talked earlier about Dr. Spitz talking about how the tape, the Duct tape, might have been applied after Caylee Anthony was dead. To me, that`s a direct hit at Roy Kronk, because it says that the remains were in that site and that somebody put Duct tape on possibly to hold the jaw together.

And the defense here is alleging that Roy Kronk somehow handled the remains. So it almost looks like you have got a witness trying to drag someone else into this. In this case, Roy Kronk. We don`t know what the case is in that case.

But Mr. Thompson`s situation shows that in a case like this, if somebody starts pointing the finger at you, rightfully or wrongfully so, you just get dragged right in.

PINSKY: I mean, there is a humorous element to it, but it`s not funny if it`s happening to you. This case is -- Casey`s behavior is sucking in many lives in many ways that are not OK.

Vasco, I want to thank you for joining me. I will be following you at @VascoThompson. Is that correct?

THOMPSON: Yes, sir. Yes, sir. Thank you very much.

MORGAN: Thank you, Dr. Drew. We appreciate your time.

PINSKY: You follow me back and we`ll DM a little bit.

Ryan, I want to thank you for the update as well.

And I want to point out that Dr. Spitz, who is the medical examiner testifying for the defense, is the father of the Dr. Spitz we had on this very program last week, who was also a medical examiner. Seemed like a very upstanding guy, very knowledgeable.

You decide for yourself. Is the defense making a point here, or is this just simply a flailing attempt to sort of again make a distraction?

Coming up next, Caylee`s remains were investigated by famous medical examiner Dr. G. Now, she`s well known, she is on TV. But the question is, did she drop the ball here? Dr. Spitz says so.

Plus, if Duct tape was stuck to Caylee`s skull after her body decomposed, who put it there? Don`t go away.


DR. JAN GARAVAGLIA, ORANGE COUNTY MEDICAL EXAMINER: The manner of death though is an opinion based on available information, including examination of the body, information from the scene, as well as circumstantial evidence. Based on all of this, the manner of death in this case is homicide.




SPITZ: If an autopsy was done in corresponding to what I think every forensic pathologist will tell you, where the head is not opened, that tells me about a shoddy autopsy. Excuse me the expression, but you provoked it. A shoddy autopsy, because if the head was not opened, what else wasn`t examined?


PINSKY: All right then. Did Dr. G. do what Dr. Spitz is calling a shoddy job on Caylee`s autopsy because she did not open the head? It`s what we call the calvaria, when you take that off and look at the interior contents.

We`re going to get a medical examiner`s take.

Plus, more drama over Duct tape. A witness for the defense says someone put Duct tape over Caylee`s mouth after her body was already decomposing.

Now, is Casey`s attorney setting up the theory that someone else may have handled Caylee`s body?

Criminal defense attorney Mark Eiglarsh joins me now, as well as forensic pathologist, Dr. Stanton Kessler.

So, Dr. Stanton, I`d like to ask you first, what is your take on what Dr. Spitz was saying? Is there evidence that this autopsy was inadequate?

DR. STANTON KESSLER, FORENSIC PATHOLOGIST: What we know is that based on the standards set up by the National Association of Medical Examiners, standards for a minimal autopsy, that things should have been done minimally, this skull should have been opened. If you read the autopsy report, on page 11 it says the calvarium, which is the skullcap, is totally exposed, and there is a very small amount of adherent, leaflet or in soil.

Well, in reading that, I just assumed it was opened. I didn`t know that it wasn`t opened until I heard Spitz` testimony. It should have been opened.

There is no excuse for it. These are minimal standards, and she is not sticking up to them. She`s not keeping them up.

The office -- usually, offices can get accredited by the National Association of Medical Examiners. The office in Orlando where I had worked years ago in the `70s with Tom Hagert (ph) was accredited in the `80s, and the accreditation went up to `91. They haven`t been re-accredited for whatever reason. I don`t know.

So that`s a concern. I also have trouble with some other issues.

PINSKY: OK. I want to hear that in just a second.

So far, Mark Eiglarsh, what would you do with what you`ve learned from Dr. Kessler?

MARK EIGLARSH, CRIMINAL DEFENSE ATTORNEY: Well, if I`m the defense, I`m very pleased with what Spitz did. A lot of people, including myself, found holes in his testimony. But what you`ve got is you`ve got a guy who has been examining death since -- I mean, 45 years now.

He`s been involved with the JFK shooting. He investigated that, Martin Luther King. And what he`s saying is, what they said over there isn`t exactly accurate.

Now, what you`ve got is you`ve got jurors who aren`t trained in that field. A lot of them are going, well, one side says black, one side says white. That`s enough for reasonable doubt. That`s all they`re looking to do on the defense side.

PINSKY: It`s interesting also that Casey showed some emotion when they were talking about the skull. Apparently, she cried.

Again, and I ask all of you, as we all try to figure this out, do you believe those tears? Or, you know, what is she up to here? Or was that tears of remorse?

Is the defense setting up their theory that Roy Kronk moved Caylee`s body?

Here is -- he`s being called the meter reader. He`s a county worker. It seems very disparaging to call him a meter reader.

Here`s this county worker who found the remains. Listen.


ROY KRONK, COUNTY WORKER: I`m in the wooded area down by the school. I need you like now. I just found a human skull.


PINSKY: All right, Mark. What is your take? Is the defense going to say Roy Kronk put that Duct tape on Caylee`s mouth after she died?

EIGLARSH: They may, and they would screw up if they said that in the same way they were very specific in their opening. They don`t have to be that specific.

What they`re going to do is they`re going to throw it out there. We already know that they`re going to say someone else must have done it, because she didn`t do it.

And the facts and circumstances under which Roy Kronk discovers the remains are so bizarre, that they can throw that out there and have some shred of truth, and possibly resonate with at least one juror. And that`s all it takes, because they need a unanimous verdict for a guilty.

PINSKY: Yes. Mark, this is another part of this story I`m going to get into over the course of this week. I actually read his deposition today and a few other depositions about that finding of the body. And it is very weird.

There`s references to psychics and all kinds of crazy stuff. It`s hard to make sense of it.

Dr. Kessler, I want to go back to you though. You said you had some other issues with the autopsy?

KESSLER: Yes. I`ve done my own 12,000 autopsies. I`ve been associated with them. I`ve pulled bodies up from water, peeled bodies up from graves. And the hair will stay on the body if it`s locked into the scalp.

But if there is no scalp, as in this case, there was no -- on page 11 of the autopsy, no soft tissue remains on the skull. No soft -- what`s the hair going to be sticking to? It would fall out.

It usually falls out from the roots that are in the skin. There is no skin. So I don`t know how the hair is staying on anything. And I don`t know how the Duct tape would be staying on skin that doesn`t exist, because once the skin`s gone, it`s got nothing to stick to.

PINSKY: Dr. Kessler, I want you to speculate for a second. Again, I love having my -- because we`re not in a courtroom. I know Mark is not concerned with the truth, but I`m trying to get to the truth.

Mark, this is my point in the show where --

EIGLARSH: Of course I am.

PINSKY: I understand, my friend.

But Dr. Kessler, I want you to speculate with me for just a second. Do you have any theory on what that Duct tape is all about?

My own feeling -- I`ll give you my own speculation -- is that somebody was handling this child after death. And contents can come out of the mouth and nose and things, and maybe somebody was trying to limit all that.

Do you think it`s anything like that possible?

KESSLER: Well, that`s what old undertakers used to do. If you`ve seen bodies, they used to put a bandage around -- like when you had a dental problem. You`d put a bandage totally around the head and you`d put cotton in the nose so the fluids wouldn`t come out. And perhaps putting the Duct tape around the mouth and the nose would keep the fluids from coming out.

I think that`s a problem.

PINSKY: Right. That is absolutely what I keep thinking. And for some reason, nobody says that.

I mean, particularly with a child, where it would be handled upside down, all kinds of thing can come out. And if you`re trying to prevent a DNA trail -- now, in my head, though, I keep wondering, well, who would know that? A police officer might.

Does that in any way sort of turn our attention back to George Anthony, do you think, Dr. Kessler?

KESSLER: I don`t think so because so much stuff is on the Internet today. I think if you looked for it, you would find it, or in textbooks or novels.

All the stuff is out there. There is no one person that knows more than anybody else in certain issues unless they sub-specialize in DNA. I think he (ph) read it in novel somewhere.

PINSKY: Mark, go ahead.

EIGLARSH: I wanted to ask Dr. Kessler one question I`ve been dying to know.

I understand that it`s basic in doing an autopsy, as you said, to open up the skull. OK. So assuming they didn`t do it in this case, what would opening up the skull in this instance do?

PINSKY: And gentlemen, I have less than a minute. I have about 30 seconds.

KESSLER: Well, let me give you an example.

PINSKY: Go ahead.

KESSLER: OK. I found bullet and subdural in a gentleman who was buried 22 years in Tenean Beach, Boston. It was a homicide, and he was in the water. And we found the rotted bullet. It was all copper and --

EIGLARSH: But what about in this case? In this case what would you find? What would you expect to find --

PINSKY: You know what?

KESSLER: I didn`t open it up.

PINSKY: I have to interrupt you both, and I`m going to answer it.

Mark, just say, we don`t know what we`re going to find, but we might find something. And I think that`s what`s of interest here, is that we have no idea -- again, it`s just a big empty set right now.

Mark, thank you.

Dr. Kessler, thank you.

How likely is it that the Casey Anthony -- that Casey Anthony will go free? We will answer that question perhaps a little later.

But first, I have your comments and your calls. You guys have a lot of opinions about this case.

I`ll be addressing all that after the break. Be right back.



MASON: Were you able to determine, sir, if there is any evidence as to the cause of death in this case?

SPITZ: The manner of death, I could -- no, I would not be able to tell you. Based on the examination as it stands today, I could not tell what you the manner of death is.




JEFF ASHTON, PROSECUTOR: Is it your testimony that the medical examiners who took this photograph at the scene took the hair and draped it over the skull for purposes of this picture?

SPITZ: It is my opinion that somebody did. I don`t know if it`s medical examiner or not medical examiner. I cannot tell you that because I don`t see fingerprints on this.

But if you compare this picture with the other picture that you just showed me, they look different. And why do they look different? Because somebody rearranged it.


PINSKY: Another interesting moment from the Casey Anthony trial this weekend.

Now, clearly, you followed the trial on Saturday, so let`s get your calls.

Suzanne from Ohio, what`s on your mind?

SUZANNE, OHIO: Hi, Dr. Drew.

PINSKY: Hi, Suzanne.

SUZANNE: I just have a comment to make. If I were a juror on this case, I would find Casey Anthony not guilty of first-degree murder. We have all the postmortem details, but nothing to actually prove she killed Caylee, put her body in the car, and dropped her body off in the wooded area.

PINSKY: I think that is what people are going to have to decide on that jury, is whether or not there is enough linking her to make that leap to causation, to say that she actually did it. And I`ll tell you what -- think about all the other behaviors that the jury knows about, the lying and the horrible behavior after the child was gone. It makes you kind of lean in that direction.

Deb in Minneapolis, what`s your question?


PINSKY: Hi, Deb.

DEB: This case is taking over Casey`s parents` lives for over three years now, plus all of the problems Casey has caused before that.


DEB: With all they`ve been through, how do you they can possibly cope with the defense of incest and the covering up of Caylee`s death on top of everything else?

PINSKY: Right. It`s a great question.

I mean, we in my world, we call it a vortex, how one person`s behavior can drag everyone into a vortex. You just heard from Vasco Thompson. I know he`s got a Twitter feed and all, but the fact is his life has been pulled into a vortex, as has many lives.

And think about the fights outside the courtroom. That`s all because of Casey Anthony. And even if she didn`t murder the child, it`s still her outlandish behavior that created the circumstance of this trial.

And yes, the Anthonys, the senior Anthonys, the parents, the grandparents, you just thin, how are they ever going to get back to their life? How are they going to reestablish? How are they going to sleep at night?

I don`t know how people do that. Some of it`s going to depend on how this all plays out while we watch. It`s going to be interesting. I mean, if their daughter is facing a death sentence, that`s just -- all of it is just unthinkable.

All right. Amy asked from Facebook, "What kind of damage can Xanax or a related medication do to a child`s brain or development?"

Well, Xanax is in a class called benzodiazepines. In short exposure, limited exposure, they`re not particularly dangerous. They`re not necessarily indicated for children, but they`re used in surgeries and things like that for short exposures.

But chloroform has been brought up. And that could be really something actually damaging to a kid`s brain and development. It changes how their lungs function, how they oxygenate.

It`s an inhalant, and inhalants are very problematic many times for the frontal lobe of the brain. It`s a real concern that she may have been exposed to chloroform, not the Xanax.

Back to the phones.

Elizabeth in California, what`s on your mind?

ELIZABETH, CALIFORNIA: Hi, dr. Drew. Do you think Casey Anthony has any realization as to the depth of the situation that she has created for herself?

PINSKY: It truly doesn`t seem like it, does it? She seems to be someone who thinks she`s going to find her way out. We`ll see.

Next, Casey`s abuse defense. Her attorneys spelled it out in graphic detail in the opening argument. Are we ever going to hear more about that? We need facts.

And later, you`re going to meet a new member of my jury from the courtroom, an interesting one.

We`ll be right back.



DR. DREW PINSKY, HOST (voice-over): There was no testimony in the Casey Anthony trial today but a lot happened in court. Judge Belvin blew his stack.

JUDGE BELVIN PERRY, JUDGE IN CASEY ANTHONY TRIAL: Yes, there has been gamesmanship in this particular case.

PINSKY: He refused to allow today`s defense witness take the stand until the state had a chance to review his deposition.

JEFF ASHTON, CASEY ANTHONY CASE PROSECUTOR: I would like for this witness not to be called first, because obviously, I need to have time to prepare for cross-examination.

PINSKY: Judge Perry has scolded the defense about this before, but Casey`s attorney fought back with a charge of his own.

JOSE BAEZ, CASEY ANTHONY`S DEFENSE ATTORNEY: The prosecutor has attempted to narrow the scope of the testimonies by intentionally refusing to take their deposition.

PINSKY: The judge warned against surprises and ambushes, and he`s making up for lost time by making everyone work longer hours.

BAEZ: You see, this family must keep its secrets quiet. And it all began when Casey was eight years old and her father came into her room and began to touch her inappropriately (INAUDIBLE)


PINSKY (on-camera): The Casey Anthony defense alleges Casey was sexually abused by her father George, but when George Anthony took the witness stand earlier in the trial, this is what he had to say to that.


ASHTON: Have you ever sexually molested your daughter, Casey Anthony?



PINSKY: So, is Casey the victim of sexual abuse or a liar? Well, we know for sure she`s a liar, but is she lying about this? And if she is a victim, will she eventually have to say so on the stand to prove it? I`m back with criminal defense attorney, Mark Eiglarsh and Linda Kenny Baden. She`s a former member of Casey Anthony`s defense team and an HLN contributor.

Also with us is Hemu Nigam. He is a former Los Angeles Deputy district attorney who had prosecuted adult and child sex crime. Hey, Hemu, I want to go to you first. You`ve obviously worked with sexual abuse victims. Do you see evidence that Casey is an abuse survivor?

HEMU NIGAM, FORMER SEX CRIMES PROSECUTOR: The reality is you can`t ever tell just by looking at somebody and say that person is a survivor of child abuse. Whether or not it happened is between the father and the daughter, and then, we have to take her word for it if she chooses to disclose how it happened, when it happened, where it happened, and all those types of thing.

And whether she told a friend even when it was happening, but at the end of the day, does it have anything to do with the trial? I don`t know, and I don`t think so.

PINSKY: OK. So, these two questions here, do you think that she`s going to have to take the stand to substantiate this? And then, I guess, as the ancillary question is, if it doesn`t have anything to do with the trial, would they risk thing by putting her on the stand?

NIGAM: I think what I`ve been starting to see in the defense`s, the prosecution tells the story, and when there`s a defense story to tell, they will tell it. And instead, what I`m starting to see, a whole bunch of red herrings being thrown out about the stinky fish that people are looking at this way and that and hoping that they don`t focus on the true evidence that`s already come in. If she doesn`t take the stand and there`s no other way to bring that into the courtroom, then that opening statement become just what it is. An opening statement, not evidence.

The judge is going to say ignore it completely, and then the jury is going to, if they do wonder what happened, they`re going to be somewhat confused by, did they change their mind? Did it not really happen? What`s going on here? Maybe, the prosecution is completely --

PINSKY: Very, very, very interesting. Interesting. These are all distractions at this point. Now, Casey claims that she was sexually abused by dad, yet, listen to this jailhouse conversation.


GEORGE ANTHONY: I want you to know, I want to take your pain away from you. So, you can tell me anything.


GEORGE ANTHONY: I miss you, sweetie.

CASEY ANTHONY: I know that. I miss you, too.

GEORGE ANTHONY: I wish I could have been a better dad and a better grandpa, you know?

CASEY ANTHONY: You`ve been a great dad and you`ve been the best grandfather. Don`t for a second think, otherwise.


PINSKY: Linda, to you, does that sort of tender interaction undermine some of what the defense is saying?

LINDA KENNEY BADEN, FMR. CASEY ANTHONY DEFENSE TEAM MEMBER: Well, a couple of things, Dr. Drew. First of all, you know, you can have a double entendre for anything that you see here. You know, I love you. They`re both professing their love for each other. Is that a father/daughter love in the normal terms or is there something more -- is there some kind of code there? So, I don`t think we can look at those tapes and let that answer the question.

And with regard, Dr. Drew, to the idea that he put out there, that the defense is throwing up red herrings. Let`s face it. The prosecution had to prove how this child died, and it`s very important for the defense to show through responsible science and responsible scientists that you can`t make that determination. That this is a prosecution construct.

So, I think we have to get over the fact that this is all about the theater of whether or not she was abused, but it`s about the fact of whether or not the prosecution can prove their case.

PINSKY: Well, Mark, I think you would agree with Linda, would you not?

MARK EIGLARSH, CRIMINAL DEFENSE ATTORNEY: Well, I don`t always agree with Linda. I agree with her on the second part, not the first part. I think that she`s not being, I don`t know, candid with everybody when she suggests that that jailhouse interview is something that she wished that the defense didn`t have to deal with. Whether abuse occurred or not --

BADEN: Oh, Mark, I didn`t say they don`t have to deal with it.


BADEN: I didn`t say they don`t to have deal with it.

EIGLARSH: All right. It`s not something that helps the defense. It shows that she`s not all freaked out about what allegedly took place, which has not been proven and can only be proven if she were to take the stand, number one. And number two, it then doesn`t get to the vertical leap of excusing her bizarre behavior. It just doesn`t get there.

NIGAM: Let me add to this. Let me add this to the conversation.

PINSKY: Please.

NIGAM: I`ve handled many, many child molestation cases. Go ahead.

PINSKY: It`s you.

NIGAM: And I have found that victims often still feel love and affection towards their abuser. So, I don`t look at that one way or the other.

BADEN: That`s correct.

PINSKY: I absolutely agree with you.

BADEN: We all agree on that fact.

PINSKY: I agree with you 100 percent. Yes. In fact, I get to see the other side of that. We`re actually treating people and asking them to reconcile their hatred and their love and find forgiveness. So, yes, I know well that does exist. Switch gears quickly. In 1993, Brothers Lyle and Kyle Menendez stood trial for the murders of their parents. The Menendez defense claim the brothers were sexually abused by their father. Listen to this.


VOICE OF LESLIE ABRAMSON, MENENDEZ BROTHERS DEFENSE ATTORNEY: August 20, 1989, did you and your brother kill your mother and father?


ABRAMSON: Did you kill them for money?


ABRAMSON: Why did you kill your parents?

MENENDEZ: Because we were afraid.


PINSKY: All right. Mark, do you see similarities in the Anthony defense?

EIGLARSH: Yes, however, I see a lot more differences. First of all, when they opened up their mouth, they didn`t start off with eight strikes against them like they would on the credibility scale like Casey. So, that`s first of all. And second of all, they alleged that the ultimate crime that they committed, they tried to get the jurors to almost excuse that because of their abuse.

She`s not doing that. So, in a way, she`s got it easier. She`s just trying to get the jurors to excuse her erratic, abhorrent behavior, but not necessarily the alleged killing of her daughter.

PINSKY: Right. I think that`s right. We always forget the fact --

BADEN: Dr. Drew --

PINSKY: Linda, go.

BADEN: The death of her daughter, and also, they started out with remember, a bloody crime scene. These were two parents that you didn`t need a medical examiner to say were shot gunned to death. So, they started out, I mean, you want to talk about a bad way to start. That`s also a bad way to start out. Let`s not assume that Casey Anthony killed her daughter. I think that the evidence, so far, points to, it`s probably going to be at least a manslaughter verdict, but I wouldn`t assume a homicidal killing here.

PINSKY: We`re going to actually talk about whatever she`s up against. Go ahead.

NIGAM: I was actually in the D.A.`s office in L.A. during the Menendez trial, and I think it`s kind of bizarre to say because I was abused by my father, if that is true, I therefore killed my daughters. So, I`m not quite sure if there`s any connection here.

EIGLARSH: That`s not what they`re alleging at. They`re not alleging that here.

PINSKY: Guys, I`m going to stop you right there. Yes, Mark, I agree, but we got to remind everybody that is not what they`re alleging. They`re trying to explain the abhorrent behavior after the child was gone. With her knowledge that the child was dead, she behaved in ways that are just despicable, frankly, and that`s what has us all worked up about Casey.

And they have -- not only they not made the connection to her killing the child, we don`t have a cause of death. Like you said, Linda, when you got a shotgun, you got a cause of death.

BADEN: That`s right.

PINSKY: And now, we have a skull that maybe wasn`t properly handled. This calvaria was not taken off the skull. So, there`s some real serious questions here. One quick thing about the skull, I want to ask you, Linda. We showed earlier. The prosecution presented this animation to the jury. Take a look at this.

Caylee`s photo with a skull and duct tape superimposed over her face. It`s a disturbing video. There we go. Just a nasty video. Linda, I heard that you were outraged over this. Do you think that them having done this could help Casey an appeal?

BADEN: Oh, sure. Absolutely. I mean, you know, between that and the heart that appeared and disappeared and all the junk science, I wouldn`t even say junk science, the stupid science that has now been let in, and now we find that the medical examiners, for your interview with Dr. Kessler, lost their certification, and you`re supposed to open the skull. I mean, these are all things we didn`t talk about before, did we?

PINSKY: Right. And I don`t understand -- I`m going to say one thing -- OK. Mark, Linda, Nigam, thank you so much for joining me.

BADEN: Thank you, Dr. Drew.

PINSKY: Excuse me, Hemu Nigam. Thank you, all of you, but I want to repeat that the medical examiner also pointed out that my theory about the duct tape being applied after death as a way of preventing a trail of DNA, remember, undertakers did this for centuries. They put cotton in the mouth. They put duct tape around the head to prevent the contents from coming out, and nobody is bringing that up in the trial. That`s bizarre to me.

They`re saying the tape caused death. It contributed to death. As a physician, I don`t see that. I see that somebody knew how to handle a dead body, particularly, a child which can be turned upside down and stuff will come out. It will, and they were trying to prevent a trail, it seems to me. I don`t understand why none of that showing up. Thank you to my panel.

Many of you have already convicted Casey of first-degree murder out there. I know that. But what if the jury has a different verdict? We`re going to spell out the options that the jury has after we come back.


VOICE OF CHENEY MASON, DEFENSE ATTORNEY: Would you have expected there to be DNA on the duct tape if, in fact, it had been placed over the face?


MASON: And would that be true --

SPITZ: For the duct tape was attached to the face, there would have been DNA from the face on the duct tape.




SPITZ: The skull, the head is part of the body. And when you do an autopsy, you examine the whole body.


PINSKY: That was medical examiner, Werner Spitz, testifying this weekend. He performed a second autopsy on Caylee Anthony after calling the first autopsy shoddy. I`m back with criminal defense attorney, Mark Eiglarsh and Hemu Nigam. He is a former Los Angeles Deputy district attorney. Mark, first to you. Werner Spitz took the stand yet never mentioned anything about drowning. Could that prove to be problematic for the defense?

EIGLARSH: Well, it depends on how they`re going to prove this. If they`ve got a line of witnesses and a bus load of nuns to support that theory, I guess, they`re still OK. So far, we`ve heard nothing, and again, I am wondering, scratching my head. Other than George and Casey, who else can testify as to this being an accidental drowning? So, it leaves me wondering, they don`t to have prove anything, but he came forward with that story. So, how are they going to do it?

PINSKY: All right. Let`s look at this. Casey Anthony faces seven counts including first-degree murder. Let`s take a look at all the thing she`s facing here. And Mark, I`m going to ask you again to talk us through the first-degree murder count. What exactly does that mean?

EIGLARSH: Well, they`ve specifically alleged it was by a premeditated design. There are two ways, by the way, that you can prove first-degree murder. They didn`t allege what a lot of talking heads are saying that they did. They didn`t say that she committed child abuse and in the act of committing child abuse, the child died. No. That would be felony murder. They didn`t allege that.

They alleged that it was premeditated. So, they`re going to use the chloroform searches. They`re going to use the fact that she carefully put, allegedly, pieces of tape around her daughter`s mouth one by one, and that she had the specific intent, the premeditated mindset to off her daughter.

PINSKY: Hemu, I`m going to ask you next. Talk to us about Casey`s so-called aggravated manslaughter of a child. That is the count three. Is the penalty more severe because it is a child?

NIGAM: Right, Drew. That`s often a situation that exists in the law where you have a victim who is weak in some fashion. For example, an elderly person or a child is a perfect example, or a cripple or a special needs individual. When you say that it`s aggravated because of that situation, it adds either a mandatory minimum sentence or it increases the amount that you can start with instead of say, five to ten years, it could become 10 to 15. And that`s what`s happening in this case.

PINSKY: And then if you saw that last -- my viewers at home saw that last screen, we had up there about counts four through seven, I think it is. It`s about, basically, lying to law enforcement. Let me just sort of make a comment on that one. Guilty! I don`t know how she`s going to get out of those four through seven. I mean, that`s -- right? I mean, that`s the stuff that sort of goes without saying. That`s the one thing we do know about Casey Anthony. No, Mark?

EIGLARSH: Yes. That`s like Ted Bundy`s attorneys worrying about his petty theft. They`re not worried about that, you know?


EIGLARSH: It`s a pimple on the butt of a problem. They`ll give that one all day long.

PINSKY: All right. Hemu, let me ask you. You`re new to my panels here. Do you think that she has a chance of walking from this?

NIGAM: No, I don`t. And I think what I`m seeing from the defense side is they`re starting to recognize that, and because of that reason, they`re attacking anything and everything they possibly can. If we can`t get her off on first degree, maybe it will be second. If it is not second, maybe we`ll get aggravated. If we can`t get aggravated, we`ll confuse the jury so much that at least we`ll get a hung jury and get to do it all over again. So, I think you`re seeing that.

And I think that the focus from the prosecution needs to be, to stay focused on what their case was from the beginning. Don`t stray from that, because the moment you start cross examining like crazy, a defense witness, that`s completely irrelevant. And the jury is going to say, I wonder why they`re taking it so seriously. Maybe, I should, too. And that`s when dangers occur. So, right now, my advice if any to the prosecution is, stay focus and don`t sway from that path.

PINSKY: But what Hemu was saying, Mark, shouldn`t that have been the job of the defense from the first place? Didn`t they get off there -- off course?

EIGLARSH: Well, no. Unfortunately, the course that they took was off to begin with. They came out right away, promised way too much, and everybody is eagerly waiting to hear how they`re going to prove it.

And I think that Jose thought that somehow the fact the FBI asked Lee, the brother, for a paternity test, somehow then is going to cause the jurors to think that the inference that he must have then been with her and thus that proves the sexual allegation, somehow, he thinks that`s going to work. It`s not working. So, I don`t know where he`s coming up at the sexual abuse proof.

PINSKY: Go ahead, Hemu.

NIGAM: I think what we`re starting to see and what actually we`re probably clearly seeing is that the defense hasn`t figured out what their theory is going to be, and they`re trying everything as they`re going along. And I think that`s probably partly what`s frustrating the judge in this situation who is saying enough already. What is going on? What`s with all the surprise that`s are constantly happening?

EIGLARSH: I think they know what they`re doing or what they`re going to argue. They`re going to continue to argue whatever theory they`ve advance in opening, but they`re going to hammer home the point that they still have not proven what they`ve alleged, first-degree murder by premeditated design. That the prosecution came up with a theory that the evidence fits with, but it also fits with a lot of other theories. And who gets to benefit? The liar.

PINSKY: Mark, thank you very much. Hemu, thank you for joining me. I`m wondering if some of that initial stuff that they were alleging was an attempt to soften up the jury a little bit, to be able to accept her as a reasonable witness. I wonder if that`s what something that was, but as they`ve gone off course, I don`t see where they`re going to put her up there. I just don`t. Thank you, gentlemen.

Are you desperate to get into the Casey Anthony courtroom as a spectator? You might want to think again after meeting another one of my jurors. He`s going to tell us really what it`s really like in there, and it`s not so fun. God knows you`ve seen the fights outside the courtroom. This nonsense is not stopping in that town. We`re going to have more after this.


GEORGE ANTHONY: I`ve said this many, many times, just not agree (ph) with you to a point, but you know, ma`am, I would have sold my soul to the devil to get my granddaughter back.



JOY BEHAR, HOST OF "JOY BEHAR SHOW": Hey, Drew. It looks like tempers are starting to flare in the Casey Anthony trial as Judge Perry accuses both the defense and prosecution of playing games and wasting time. I`ll ask celebrity attorney, Mark Geragos, if this behavior could eventually result in a mistrial.



PINSKY: Just in case we haven`t shown that footage to you enough, that, of course, is the brawl that broke out on Friday as people fought for a seat at Casey Anthony trial. I`m embarrassed to say I was at a dinner last night. Our show re-aired and that particular piece of footage aired four times, we counted, and we all sat riveted, commenting each time, picking up new things, nuances every time we saw it. I`m disgusted with myself. I am.

A member of my jury, Curtis White, was in line and saw the whole thing. He also got into the courtroom. Welcome, Curtis. Now, there were some new rules put in place as a result of this fight on Friday. There you are in the courtroom right there. Do you think there needs to be even more control over spectators? I understand that you have reported that in the court, things are very tightly nailed down.

CURTIS WHITE, DR. DREW "JUROR": Yes. It is real strict in there. As you go into the courtroom, you pass at least about four or five bailiffs. And everyone, when I first went in the first time, which was after the -- at the 1:30 lunch period. Each one asked, do you remember what the rules are? Do you remember what the rules are? And you`re basically -- I know, you`re afraid to cough, to sneeze, to gasp. And if you close your eyes for more than three or four seconds, they`re going to take you out of there.

PINSKY: Curtis, I got a million questions for you. I`ve only got two minutes. Let me start with this one thing. You`re different. You seem like a different kind of -- you`re like a man`s man kind of guy, and I haven`t seen a lot of -- I`ve seen a lot of women being drawn into this case in the courtroom. What drew you in?

WHITE: Well, being that I`m from here and a lot of the locations of where they were from the Amscot to when they say Casey went to IKEA, to the restaurant in the target, those are all of my areas and places I`ve been. And since the trial coverage started about three years ago, it`s been on the news constantly, and I felt this was my opportunity to come down and actually see it for myself and see how the judge reacts, how the jury reacts, and to see all the players in it.

PINSKY: So, given that it`s your home town, you want to see really what this is. You can go out and touch it and feel it. So, now, you give us your point of view. You`re my man on the street there. What do you see? I understand you feel very sobering looking at Cindy and George. And I would love your take on Casey as well. I`ve got about 30 seconds, my friend. Give us what you can.

WHITE: OK. All right. Well, going in -- when you go in the courtroom, when I was in the courtroom, it was still about ten minutes before court started, I looked to my left, I saw George and Cindy, and after about five minutes, Casey comes in. Now, watching all the sensationalism on television, you realize once you get in there that this girl is on trial for her life. And it`s real serious and there`s not any joking going on in there.

And all you can do is just sit there and pay attention to the judge, the jury, the lawyers, and watch the demeanor of everyone. And it was quite fascinating and sobering is the word to use. When you go in there, it`s very, very calm and very quiet, and it`s very serious.

PINSKY: Curtis, thank you, sir. I want to talk to you more. Testimony resumes tomorrow, and we will cover it. Thank you for watching. We will see you next time.