Return to Transcripts main page


Casey Anthony Trial

Aired June 22, 2011 - 21:00   ET


DR. DREW PINSKY, HOST: Here we go.

Is Casey Anthony literally getting away with murder? Soil samples and the smell of death, how the so-called CSI effect could sink the state`s case.

Plus, the serial killer upstairs, when mom or dad is a murderer.

Then, Casey behind bars. Is the bad behavior derailing her defense?

Let`s figure it all out.

My friend Ryan Smith from truTV`s "In Session" said something last night that really struck a chord with me. He said if Casey testifies, it would be something for the ages.

Watch this and then we`ll talk.


UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Another potential shocker in the Casey Anthony murder trial. Day 25 today.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: I cannot conclusively determine that there had been human remains in the trunk of the car.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Testimony from forensic experts this morning.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Alprazolam, you might know, is commonly known as Xanax. The testing I did for those drugs was negative.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Within the Gatorade bottle liquid, low amounts of chloroform were possibly present, but they were very small amounts.

RYAN SMITH, HOST, "IN SESSION," TRUTV: She will be cross-examined and it will be absolutely something for the ages to see.


PINSKY: There he is. And so it made me think, if I had the chance to talk to Casey, where I would I start? Well, a nice easy place would be the tattoo.

So, Casey, your daughter is dead, whether she drowned or you killed her, whatever, and you get a tattoo with the words "Bella Vita," "The Beautiful Life." Why? What are you thinking?

What are you thinking is the general tone, I think, in my questioning.

And then the party photos. Your daughter`s body is double-wrapped in a garbage bag, and it`s in the trunk of your car, or it`s in the woods near your home, and you are out partying and you don`t seem to care, and you`re hanging out and you`re getting high, and whatever you`re doing, just acting out inappropriately?

All right. Again, what are you thinking?

And then you put your family, especially your mom, through 31 days of what must have been hell, not to mention what she is going through in the court, but those 31 days where she is begging you to see her granddaughter, and you lie and you lie, and you lie about your lies.

What are you thinking?

Well, today, we`re going to talk to somebody that may help us shed a little bit of light on that. We`re going to talk to a daughter of a serial killer who says she sees aspects of her dad in Casey, and so maybe she will be able to, if I don`t get a chance to actually interview Casey on the stand, which I don`t think is likely, and none of us get the answers to those questions, maybe she can shed some light on that later in the show today.

But first, let`s get to today`s developments.

It was all about science and the science causing what the trial analysts are called the so-called CSI effect. The defense called witness after witness to the stand, all in a desperate attempt to prove that Casey Anthony did not murder her 2-year-old daughter.

From testing Caylee`s hair samples for traces of Xanax and other drugs, to testing Casey`s shoes for mud from the wooded crime scene, today the defense seemed on point and unfocused in their mission to show the absence of evidence.

Joining me now are the host of "In Session" on our sister network, truTV, Ryan Smith, and criminal defense attorney Mark Eiglarsh.

Ryan, let`s start with you.

Lots of science today. I guess the jury is expected to be able to tolerate it because of what is being called the CSI effect, which is that people are used to seeing a lot of this stuff on TV now, and so they can present science.

How you think the defense did, Ryan?

SMITH: I think they did better than they have done in previous days, and I think that`s partly because they had stronger witnesses. They called up witnesses to really, Drew, address this world of evidence.

So, on these investigations, officers and policemen, they bring in a whole world of evidence, and the prosecution in their case focused on particular things. For example, a hair in trunk. Well, the witnesses today were there to say that there was other evidence there that didn`t connect Casey to Caylee`s death.

And, for example, Karen Lo (ph) took the stand. She was a witness for the prosecution. She took the stand to say that there were other hairs in the trunk and in other locations that didn`t show signs of human decomposition.

Witnesses got up and said shoes were taken from Casey`s closet that didn`t show any soil signs from the remains scene. So it was all based around trying to prevent evidence and testimony that showed that Casey couldn`t be connected.

And, of course, the prosecution pushed back and said, hey, does that mean that she wasn`t at the scene, does that mean the other didn`t have decomposition? And the witnesses had to admit, well, there is that other side.

So, it was a better day for the defense, not the best day, because they still have to address the 800-pound gorilla in the room, which is the suicide (sic) theory and the accident theory. I`m sorry, the sex abuse theory and the accident theory.

PINSKY: That`s OK. The sex abuse theory. Right, got it.

And again, it`s about creating doubt. But one thing I have been asking all along is -- and believe me, people on Twitter and the Internet have been just pounding me on this one, is why are we getting samples of Casey`s hair and testing it for drugs like Xanax and Chloroform? And I didn`t even waste my time answering it today because I`m sure they have done it.

Well, finally, today, we get to see what the results of that are.

Here we are. Watch this.


MADELINE MONTGOMERY, FBI FORENSIC TOXICOLOGIST: In this case, I was initially asked if we could test for Alprazolam and Clonazepam.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: And what are those?

MONTGOMERY: Alprazolam, you might know, is commonly known as Xanax. That`s one of the prescription names. And Clonazepam you might know as Klonopin.

JOSE BAEZ, DEFENSE ATTORNEY: And what were the results for those two drugs?

MONTGOMERY: The testing for those two drugs was negative in the hair sample.

MONTGOMERY: The testing I did for those drugs was negative in the hair sample.


PINSKY: It sounded like good news for the defense, but during cross- examination, we also learned this -- take a look.


The negative result is forensically meaningless. It doesn`t mean the person wasn`t given the drug, it doesn`t mean they were. It just doesn`t mean anything.

MONTGOMERY: It means that I did not find any evidence of the drug having been given, correct.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: But it still could have been given and not shown up in the hair.

MONTGOMERY: That is correct. Hair is not the best sample for drug exposure.


PINSKY: All right. So there it is on the hair thing. And I kind of still wonder what the science is on hair analysis. I don`t do a lot of hair drug testing for the reason that it is kind of inaccurate.

Mark, who scored the bigger point there, the defense or the prosecution?

MARK EIGLARSH, CRIMINAL DEFENSE ATTORNEY: I think the defense did, but only by a little bit. Today was a great day for all those folks who have been e-mailing me, "Mark, this is all a waste of time. It`s going to come back on appeal because Jose Baez is ineffective."

This shows you today that he is not. And this case, so far up to date, is not coming back.

She is not entitled to a great lawyer or someone who is even doing a great job, but someone who is advancing the defense. And he`s doing his job today by putting forth witnesses who are advancing the defense theory. But what we`re seeing is, equally, probably more effective, is the state taking these defense witnesses and turning them around into being effective state witnesses.

So, you know, one step forward, two steps back.

PINSKY: Well, Mark, now, wait a minute. I want to stay with you here, because it sounds to me, much to my amazement, you`re sort of coming around on Jose Baez as though you`re kind of thinking now he`s maybe doing a better job.



EIGLARSH: I still think, factually, he was a three-year lawyer when he took this case, and he never had anything of this magnitude. And it`s nothing personal. I`m just saying that he is calling the right witnesses for the defense, and when the appellate court reviews the conviction, assuming there is one, the appellant court is going to say, he advanced the interest.

Keep in mind a death sentence was recently upheld out of Texas where the defense lawyer fell asleep drugs parts of the trial. But in upholding the conviction, the appellant court said, well, he didn`t fall asleep during critical parts of the trial.

So you can be really crappy and do a bad job and still have convictions upheld.

PINSKY: I`ve got one minute left, Mark. You e-mailed me something about a new Florida death penalty statute change. Tell me about that.

EIGLARSH: This is huge breaking news. I literally got it on the way here to the studio, and I was reading it as quickly as I could, the 96-page decision which now -- it`s called "Evans v. McNeil" (ph).

The way the death penalty sentenced is done right now in Florida has just been declared unconstitutional. Right now, jurors, after a first- degree murder conviction, like in the case of Casey, assuming that were to happen, are to go back and then they just decide, how many are in favor of death, how many are in favor of not? And then they come up with a number.

If it`s 7-5, then ultimately the judge then decides whether death is appropriate. Now, however, under the law, they are making jurors decide, what are the aggravating factors that you`re finding beyond a reasonable doubt? Not just, do you think you`re in favor of it or not, but specifically --

PINSKY: Well, get right to. How is this going to change things for Casey, either Ryan or Mark?

EIGLARSH: It`s going to make it more difficult. If she`s convicted - - and again, it`s first-degree murder -- it`s going to be more difficult, because jurors are going to have to agree on those specific aggravating factors that they are finding to support their death sentence. And that makes it more difficult on appeal, to uphold on appeal. It also makes it difficult for them to come to an agreement.

PINSKY: Got it.

Ryan, last words?

SMITH: I think that`s a very interesting point, because essentially, it`s not a really great case right now for the death penalty for Casey. It might be a good case for conviction, but not the death penalty. This will make it harder, if it actually is in effect when it comes time for the death penalty decision, if she`s convicted.

PINSKY: Ryan, thank you so much.

Mark will be with us later.

And also later, a father who was allegedly a great dad and a serial killer. So what is it like to live with a murderer? And this daughter of a murderer says she sees Casey Anthony is just like her murderous dad.

But first, will the defense call their star witnesses? Stick around.


PINSKY: I`m back with criminal defense attorney Mark Eiglarsh and Judge Penny Brown-Reynolds. She was the presiding judge on "Family Court With Judge Penny."

Now, the trial is on the cover of "People" magazine this week, and the question there is, is Casey getting away with murder?

Judge Penny, I, like you, am preoccupied with how fascinated people are with this case. Why do you think we`re so captivated?

PENNY BROWN-REYNOLDS, PRESIDING JUDGE, "FAMILY COURT WITH JUDGE PENNY": Dr. Drew, it`s a case that really is so fascinating, because it shows the incredible dysfunction of the family unit. And then you are dealing with, could a mother actually kill her child?

And I think that what`s most fascinating is whether you believe the prosecutor`s theory or the defense`s theory, during this period of time that her child either died by an accident or by premeditated murder, could a grieving mother act the way that she acted? Could a grieving mother go out to dinner and go with the boyfriend and go out shopping?

And I think all of those dynamics, not to mention all of the red herrings that have been raised by the defense, I think it`s just incredible. People want to know about it.

And to be frank with you, I don`t believe that the media is generating the attention as much as the public is generating the need to want to know that this mother may have acted outside of everything that a mother is supposed to do. The family dynamics is so critical, because you have Cindy Anthony having to testify against her own daughter who is facing the death penalty, while, at the same time -- and every mother knows this -- having to maintain the fact that she is still her child. So, that`s why I think it`s just absolutely fascinating.

PINSKY: You know, I think you are right, Judge Penny. Even as you lay it out like that, I start to understand it a little better, even though I`m still kind of surprised how we just day in and day out want more of it.

But the way you described it, I thought to myself, you know, I originally described this as sort of a Medea case. And when you really think about it, it is like a Greek tragedy or some spectacular play playing out right before our eyes, isn`t it?

BROWN-REYNOLDS: It is absolutely fascinating.

You know, more and more people are liking reality television today, but somehow we know that reality television is not quite reality television. So we love mysteries, we love murder mysteries, and to some degree, there is a little bit of everybody`s family mixed in this.

We have many young women who have children who are not married. We have parents who are having to deal with baby boomers, having the children come back to live with them. We have grandparents who are helping to raise their grandchildren.

You have a lot of different issues that are blended in here, and then smack in the middle of it, you have this woman who, without question, is a liar, and a pathological liar --

PINSKY: Without question.

BROWN-REYNOLDS: Without question. So we know that.

PINSKY: Without question.

BROWN-REYNOLDS: But then you`re having to see, does bad character, being a liar, equal to making that big leap just because she is a liar? Can she also be the murderer of her own child? So it`s just absolutely fascinating.

PINSKY: Right. I love the way you laid it out.

Now, there are no -- Mark, do you have something to respond to that? I`m going to say that there`s no famous names attached here. You normally sort of think that`s what`s necessary to keep people riveted.

Mark, do you have any response to Penny or any thoughts about that?

EIGLARSH: I would only add, I think that was a wonderfully eloquent way of articulating why people are fascinated.

I think there`s one more reason that`s based on the e-mails I get. People are fascinated with our criminal justice system. I think that even you are finally coming around and understanding what I`ve been saying about for weeks, that it`s not about the truth, it`s whether the prosecution can prove or not prove their case. It`s about, can they prove this beyond a reasonable doubt?

And that is what they are doing today, creating reasonable doubt through the alleged lack of evidence. Not whether she did it or she didn`t do it, proven or not proven. And people are fascinated by that concept.

PINSKY: I think you are absolutely right, Mark. That is a point, too. But let`s keep in mind, that`s the part that gives me nausea. That`s the part that makes me feel bad every day, every time you say that. So thank you for providing me another opportunity to feel that lovely feeling.

EIGLARSH: Fair enough. My pleasure.

PINSKY: Judge Belvin Perry has earned quite a reputation for running the courtroom with an iron fist. Let`s watch this.


JUDGE BELVIN PERRY, ORANGE COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT: I`m going to ask both sides to turn around and look at that clock back there and tell me what time it is.

Enough is enough. And both sides need to be forewarned, exclusion may be the proper remedy if it continues.


PINSKY: Judge Penny, to you, how would you rate Judge Perry`s grading of the courtroom proceedings, giving him a grade from A to F?

BROWN-REYNOLDS: Well, for me, I give my colleague an A, and I can tell you why.

The judge is the gatekeeper for justice. He has to maintain the integrity of the process.

And let me tell you, it`s not easy. Being a judge myself -- and I have had high-profile cases before -- you are thinking about the circus that`s occurring outside -- and there is literally a circus every day that`s occurring outside that courthouse. You`re thinking about the media scrutiny.

But at the same time, no judge likes having attorneys who are inexperienced before them. They were the hardest trials to have when one lawyer didn`t know what he was doing, particularly if it was the lawyer of a defendant. Because, you see, the judge`s job is never to be the advocate for the defendant.

The judge has to make sure that justice is paramount. He must, at all times -- no matter how inept the defense counsel or any counsel may be, there are rules and regulations. There are rules of evidence. There are discovery rules that he has to maintain to maintain the process, because as our other guest so eloquently said, it`s not always about the truth, it`s about who can prove beyond a reasonable doubt what occurred.

And so you don`t want anybody to become cynical about the justice system. So, the judge`s role is paramount.

The judge has to be seen as someone who is not favoring either side, but being completely impartial. And this is a seasoned judge. He knows his way around the courtroom. Like myself, he`s a former prosecutor. And so I think he has done an excellent job.


EIGLARSH: I`ve got one beef.

PINSKY: Well, I`ll let you say it. One thing, I just want you to take note though that Penny has soothed my nausea. She has.


PINSKY: Go ahead.

EIGLARSH: Again, I agree with Penny. She`s wonderful. I can`t disagree with her.

There`s only one thing. He will only get at best with me a B plus. I took off a half a letter when the prosecution said, Judge, juror number 4 has expressed a reservation about sitting in judgment with someone. I cannot give him an A, ever, because he allowed -- didn`t allow that juror to be stricken.

And again, that is a reason to have the juror removed, when they express reservations about sitting in judgment. That`s it. I`d love to hear what the judge has to say about that.

BROWN-REYNOLDS: Well, let me say this to you --

PINSKY: OK. Hang on.

Penny, I`ve got to go to break.


PINSKY: I`m sorry. We`ll have more from both of you a little bit later.

But next, it is you, the viewers, turn. We`re taking your questions and calls.

And later, you`re going to meet one of my jurors who`s heard the evidence in person and, lo and behold, he sides with Casey. I`ve got some questions for this boy.



CHENEY MASON, DEFENSE ATTORNEY: The test that you did, what were the results? What did you find?

MICHAEL SIGMAN, NATIONAL CENTER FOR FORENSIC SCIENCE: For the test of 250 microliter sample, we saw organic components very weakly in the sample. They were components that were comparable to the sorts of materials that you would find, for example, in gasoline or some other petroleum products.


PINSKY: That expert testified today that the air samples in Casey Anthony`s trunk had gasoline properties present. Probably no big surprise there.

What do you think about what`s happening in this case? Let`s get right to the phones.

Babette in Maine, what`s on your mind?


PINSKY: Hi, Babette.

BABETTE: I`m just wondering why it`s so hard for people to believe that Casey killed Caylee? This seems to be a classic case like that, a Susan Smith. And they are a new breed of killer, and I believe more research needs to be done to save children`s lives.

PINSKY: A couple of questions in there.

One is, is this a new breed? This has been going on throughout humanity. This has happened for a long time. And it`s a hard thing to believe, but it`s a hard thing to get your head around.

You can`t believe it, that somebody who seems to be normal in their interaction -- and by any means, Casey has been shown to be not so normal in many respects -- but who appears on the surface at least like the rest of us could do that. It`s just hard to get your head around, but people do it, as you well know.

Let`s go to the streets. Loren in Hollywood has this question --



Tell me, what`s your diagnosis for people that come up with imaginary friends?


PINSKY: Well, I mean, you need to ask more questions about what that means. In Casey`s case, they are just flat-out fabrications. They`re just part of her lies which are -- her litany of lies which are just spectacular.

It`s not as though she is really relating to something that she believe is really out there. That would be a hallucination. It triggers a whole different set of diagnostic possibilities.

Renee writes, "I`m 14 and my mom tells me not to tell anyone about the abuse my dad has inflicted upon me. I am so sad and I don`t know what to do."

Oh, my goodness. Renee, I`m so sorry that you are having to go through this.

The one thing I need to tell you is this is not your fault. Your dad is not well. He`s engaging in criminal behavior. It has nothing to do with you, but it`s common for victims of this sort of abuse to be told that they must keep a secret.

And we have a saying in my world, which is that you are as sick as your secrets. And people are beginning to learn that in Casey Anthony`s family, there may be a bunch of secrets. We`re wondering just how many, in fact, that would help us understand this maybe better.

But in your case, please, Renee, tell somebody you trust. Tell another adult what is happening here. This needs to stop. It`s not your fault.

All right. Back to the phones.

Kathleen from California.

Go ahead, Kathleen.


PINSKY: Hi, Kathleen.

KATHLEEN: Do you think it would be helpful if a physician were to examine Casey Anthony for postpartum depression?

PINSKY: Well, it might be something that somebody could use as a defense, but it has a whole different quality to it. It certainly wouldn`t explain the lying.

There have been other cases that have been very high profile that have been marked by this disorder, and it`s very common within the first year of a delivery of a baby. There can be very severe mood disturbances, during which time women can actually become psychotic and do awful things.

Yes, it`s worth thinking about, it`s something I thought about when I first learned about this case. It does not seem to have anything like that going on here.

Next, while she lived under his roof, others died by his hand. I`m talking to the daughter of the "Smiley Face Killer" straight ahead. She`s going to tell us why she thinks Casey Anthony reminds her precisely of her dad.

You don`t want to miss this.



PINSKY (voice-over): With their daughter on trial for murder, George and Cindy Anthony have to ask, were we living with a killer? Most of us will never know that agony, but this woman lived it. I`m talking to the daughter of the happy-faced serial killer.

And later, is the strongest witness against Casey Anthony, Casey, herself? From tantrums on tape, to incriminating letters, and potentially, damning evidence from fellow inmates. Is Casey Anthony her own worst enemy?

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: For this reason and for my own personal reasons and to accept responsibility for the death of Julianne Whittingham, I am pleading guilty.


PINSKY (on-camera): You`re hearing there from one of the nation`s most infamous serial killers, but to my next guest, he was simply dad. Melissa Moore says she has studied the similarities between Casey Anthony and her father who was known as the happy-faced killer. He had brutally murdered at least eight women.

Now, what might George and Cindy Anthony be going through right now? Could it be something like that? What is it like to find out that someone you love has done horrible things? Back with us is criminal defense attorney, Mark Eiglarsh, and Judge Penny Brown Reynolds.

Now, you guys, I`m going to ask you to sit for a second and just listen to the interview I`m going to do here with Melissa, and if you have any comments, please raise your hand and ring in, but I`ve got a million questions for Melissa, and I hope you at home understand -- OK, guys. This is an attempt to kind of -- I deal with sick people, and sick people are not necessarily criminals. And Melissa has lived with a criminal. So, Melissa, I`m going to ask you. Similarities you see between Casey and your dad?

MELISSA MOORE, FATHER WAS A SERIAL KILLER: The narcissism, the lies, tons of lies. My father said that he killed 163 women. In reality, it was eight, but just the lies continually. It`s a circus. I mean, I think she`s trying to divert the attention by lying.

PINSKY: Did he lie -- I mean, you, hen you were growing up a very young girl said that you felt something was wrong, something was not right, but you couldn`t quite figure it out, is that correct?

MOORE: Correct. It was my intuition, but I didn`t know that. You don`t know what intuition is when you`re a child.

PINSKY: Well, as a child, children normally have a grandiose position which is I`m responsible for everything. So, it must be me. I`m bad that something`s wrong with him, but then, you saw him do something awful, I understand?

MOORE: Right. I saw him kill and torture my animals, and that made me feel like something was very wrong. Now, he didn`t have a huge frame of reference. I mean, we lived out -- yes, it was my dad. And I expected him to show me what was typical of a father, and my neighbors, I mean, they`re far and few. We lived in the countryside.

PINSKY: He tortured your kittens, I understand.


PINSKY: And you describe what I read you describe was a strange look on his face while that was happening?

MOORE: He enjoyed it. He was looking like he was really engaged in this, and it brought him pleasure.

PINSKY: So, let me go out to Mark and Judge Penny. Do we have any evidence of that kind of behavior with Casey? Have you guys heard anything like that?

JUDGE PENNY BROWN-REYNOLDS, FMR. GA STATE COURT JUDGE: No. I certainly haven`t, but if I can chime in for a minute about intuition, I strongly believe that with George Anthony being a police officer and even Cindy by her actions, you could tell that she knew. She couldn`t put her hands on it, but she knew something wasn`t right.

And although, in Melissa`s case, she was a child and didn`t quite understand, I suspect that George and Cindy Anthony will look back on this and think about that it was more than just lies, that deep down in their deepest part of themselves, they knew that something just wasn`t right with their daughter as it related to their granddaughter.

MARK EIGLARSH, CRIMINAL DEFENSE ATTORNEY: The judge is right, and there are reports that literally while in the home, George grabbed Cindy by the throat, threw against the wall, and said, where is the damn kid? So, - -


EIGLARSH: But he know.

PINSKY: That`s right, Mark. I`ve actually talk to a woman who spent time -- and hopefully, we got some of these people on the show if they decide they`d like to speak publicly about it, but I`ve talked to people who spent time in the home, and that`s the kind of thing you hear about George is that he seems like something -- he was like almost driven crazy by this intuition that something was wrong, and he -- eventually got tired of the lying.

But I want to go back to Melissa, so give us your intuition now. What is he and Casey - what does that tell you? How`s that inform you and can you inform us about what we`re looking at here. It seems like the whole world has decided that Casey is a killer. It kind of feels like, doesn`t it? And you think they`re right.

MOORE: I think they`re right.

PINSKY: Tell us why.

MOORE: When I see the trial taking place, I looked at Casey, and she`s got this little tissue, and she`s dabbing her little tears, and those tears just seem to be that she is remorseful only for herself.


MOORE: That she is just upset that she`s in a predicament, and maybe, she might not get out of it, but now I look at Cindy, and she`s over, you know, just sobbing.

PINSKY: Plenty of us deal like that, but I want to dig deep here.

MOORE: Right.

PINSKY: You have an intuition about Casey. You look at her. You look -- there she is. Look on the camera here, you see the blank stare. You see the sort of empty emotion. What do you feel? What is that sense? And how does that relate to what you lived with? What is your gut tell you?

MOORE: My gut tells me that she`s guilty. She has something to do with her daughter`s disappearance or that.

PINSKY: Why? What is your experience your dad inform you how? Because we don`t have that --

MOORE: I think what we`re seeing right now is just a near -- what she wants to project to us.

PINSKY: Would your dad do things like that?

MOORE: Correct.

PINSKY: He would put out what he thought he needed to manipulate the world.

MOORE: Right. He would near what other people would do. He would kind of investigate what is the normal response for this kind of situation, and then, give that response. So, right on cue.

BROWN-REYNOLDS: I have a question. Melissa, what is your relationship with your father now? And how did you -- did you feel disconnected? Because people are wondering how in the world the parents can stand by the defendant knowing that she might very well be a killer, yet still love her?

PINSKY: Yes, Judge Penny, thank you. That is the next area to explore with Melissa. Please go right ahead.

MOORE: Well, I feel -- see my dad, you know, being in my life and being my father. I love him. I`m a child of his. And being a mother of myself now, I love my children. If they did something wrong, I would stand by them and want to understand why they did something wrong, but I feel a connection with my parent, and I can`t get rid of that feeling.

PINSKY: But yet, you`ve not had any communication with him. You disconnected --

MOORE: I disconnected because of his ridiculous letters to me. They`re absurd and they cross the boundaries.

PINSKY: What are they? What happened?

MOORE: For instance, one time, when I turned 26, I received a letter of him drawing on a piece of artwork of a woman half nude coming out of the a shell, and in the inside, he wrote, I see you as my little girl, but your husband sees you like this, and to me, that just crossed the line.

PINSKY: It was bizarre.

MOORE: It was bizarre. Right.

PINSKY: So, he has no concept of boundaries and normal human kinds of interactions.

MOORE: Right.

PINSKY: How does your mom explain all of this?

MOORE: She can`t explain in it to me. I think she`s still -- I think it`s still over her head as this is much as it does to us.

PINSKY: Did she have a dad that was a problem, too, in some way?

MOORE: Coincidentally, when I was 10, my parents divorced, and when she was 10, her parents divorced.

PINSKY: Do we know why?

MOORE: For alcohol.

PINSKY: Oh, interesting. But this was not addiction, your daddy`s case.

MOORE: Right.

PINSKY: So, this is something else.

MOORE: Something completely different.

PINSKY: We`ve got a minute left. Mark or Penny, do you have any questions for Melissa?

EIGLARSH: Yes, I`m wondering if how old was she when the evidence was coming out in her father`s case?

MOORE: I was 15, and I was a freshman in high school, and when this came out --

EIGLARSH: So, here`s the question.


EIGLARSH: No, go ahead. Go ahead. I don`t mean to interrupt. Go ahead. Go.

MOORE: Well, sure. Right after it came out, I went to school the next day, and I heard the whisperings, oh, my gosh, did you see Melissa`s dad on TV, and my last name was forever in public disgrace.

EIGLARSH: So, my question is, you know, as you start to learn about the details, did you, like I`m supposing Cindy went through and maybe still is going through, have this kind of denial phase where you just say --

PINSKY: Or in a ha! phase.

EIGLARSH: Right. Right.

MOORE: Denial at first, and then a ha! because all of the pieces were starting to fit. I saw my dad torture my animals, and now, I knew he was capable of torturing women as well.

PINSKY: This is very, very interesting.

BROWN-REYNOLDS: Dr. Drew, let me just ask this.

PINSKY: Go ahead, Penny.

BROWN-REYNOLDS: Do you continue to love him? Although, he is your father and yet a murder, how do you reconcile those feelings?

MOORE: I`ve continued to love him, because I couldn`t stop that. I wish I could. If there was a button that I could push and say, I don`t want to love him anymore, I would push it. And wrapping my head around a loving father, who I thought was a loving father and a serial killer, you just can`t mesh the two together.

PINSKY: It`s, as you know, Penny, it`s a very common conflict that a lot of people in our country have to deal with. They have parents that have done horrible things to them or other people, and yet, it`s still dad or it`s still mom, and it creates a deep rupture inside the individuals, and it`s something you have to heal.

MOORE: Right.

PINSKY: You have to heal. I want to thank my panel. Thank you, Mark. Thank you, Judge Penny. And Melissa, thank you very much for sharing. It`s very interesting. I want to give you one last word. She did it.

MOORE: She did it.

PINSKY: What did she do?

MOORE: She killed her daughter.


MOORE: I think she didn`t want to have the burden of being a mother anymore.

PINSKY: How do you think she did it? Just what your gut tell you?

MOORE: Chloroform.

PINSKY: Melissa, thank you very much.

Next, Casey`s behaviors behind bars. She said and done some interesting things. Could that derail her defense?

And later, we`re going to talk to one of my jurors. He says he would let Casey walk. He disagrees with Melissa, and he will tell us why.


KAREN KORSBERG LOWE, FORENSIC EVIDENCE EXAMINER, FBI: I was asked to do a fabric comparison between the fabric portion of the duct tape recovered -- identified as being recovered with the remains and the fabric portion of the piece of duct tape that was identified as coming from the residence. I concluded that there were actually dissimilar and not consistent with coming from the same source.




LINDA DRANE-BURDICK, CASEY ANTHONY DEFENSE TEAM: The name of the witness is April Waylen. Apparently, her child died in a swimming pool and was found by the child`s grandfather. Ms. Waylen was in an adjacent cell to Ms. Anthony.


PINSKY: The prosecution says Casey may have come up with her defense that Caylee drowned in a pool from a buddy behind bars. They say Casey whispered to other inmates through the vents, had pen pals in prison -- did she have a sleep away at camp or jail or prison? I`m not sure. Personally, I don`t make too much of what happened there, but it does make you wonder. Will Casey`s bizarre jailhouse behavior taken in total come back to bite her? Take a look at this.


CASEY ANTHONY, ACCUSED OF KILLING HER DAUGHTER: Don`t let it go. Can someone let me -- Come on! Nobody`s letting me speak. My entire life has been taken from me.


PINSKY: How will the jury react to seeing a selfish Casey worrying about herself when she knew full well her daughter was dead? Let`s talk to our expert lawyers. Let`s have them battle it out. Attorney Mark Eiglarsh is back with us and criminal defense attorney, Steve Greenberg. He is also part of the defense team representing Drew Peterson, the Chicago cop accused of killing two of his wives.

Steve, I`m going to have you take the defense, and Mark, for a change, you`re going to be the prosecutor. Will Casey`s jailhouse evidence help convict her? Mark, go.

EIGLARSH: Well, I`m going to say that it is going to help convict her. I guess, that`s the role I`m playing, even though, I would absolutely keep it out of the courts. Well, listen, if she takes the stand, which, again, if the she does, it would be horrible, but if she does, then, you would obviously come back with this evidence to say, listen, this manufactured story came from somebody who was sharing a cell near you or in the same cell, I don`t know the detail.

And clearly, that`s where you got the idea, the same way you got the Zanny concept for being at the apartments and you looked down and you saw a name there and you took something from there and then created a lie. That`s what you do. That`s your modus operandi.

PINSKY: All right. Let`s talk about Casey`s alleged discussion with a fellow inmate about chloroform. Listen to this.


MAYA DERKOVIC, CASEY`S JAILHOUSE FRIEND: She would pour it on like a rag, like a wash rag, and put it over the baby`s face. So, she`ll inhale it, and that is what will knock her out.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Did she say what she used to knock her out?

DERKOVIC: I can`t pronounce it. Chloro-fo-chrome.


PINSKY: Now, both Derkovic and April Waylen are inmates, are criminals. Now, does that mean we should or should not trust them? Steve, the fact that they have a criminal record make a difference?

STEVE GREENBERG, ATTORNEY, DREW PETERSON DEFENSE: Well, the fact they have a criminal record makes a difference except if she gets in there and tells this story, she is going to get slaughtered. She can`t tell this story. Look, Dr. Drew, the defense has screwed this case up from the opening statement. They went out there and they promised to do things.

What they should have done is they should have said something happened, something went wrong, and Casey Anthony panicked, and that`s why she gave all these stories, because no matter what they do or no matter how much they chip away at the evidence, they`ve got the 310-pound gorilla in the room, the 31 days when she didn`t say anything. They should have just said she freaked out, and that said, we`re going to prove things that we can`t prove.

Now, she goes and she tells a story. They`re going to get somebody to say that they shared that story of Waylen with Casey Anthony in that prison lockup, in that cell pad, because everybody knows what`s going on in everybody`s life in the cell pod. That`s going to come back, and that`s going to just --

PINSKY: Mark, go ahead.

EIGLARSH: Isn`t my friend, Steve, supposed to be taking the other side? What is he doing coming over?



GREENBERG: Well, Mark, the fact is that when you`re trying to defend this case, you have to be realistic. And there are realistic things you can do. They are doing things with the science, but they have to embrace some of the evidence. They can`t just make things up, and that`s what they`re doing.

EIGLARSH: Steve, I don`t disagree with you. I`d like to disagree with you, but back to these women, especially the one with the tattoo, which I think says void of credibility right there on her neck, you know, that`s not somebody that you want to call if you`re the state. I`ve said it all along, don`t screw up like they did in the O.J. case. Keep this to be a lean filet mignon.

You start calling snitches, people who have records dating back to before Madonna had a solo career, and then, all of a sudden, you get fat on the end of the steak, and it really undermine your scientific evidence and all these other bad character evidence that they`ve got against her.


PINSKY: I want to hear you, Steve, about this, though, which is that given that they have set themselves up to prove something, are we going to hear some sort of star witness step up and tell us something stunning? Is that what they`re preparing us for?

GREENBERG: I don`t know how they`re going to do it.

EIGLARSH: I say no.

PINSKY: Steve.

GREENBERG: Yes. I don`t know how they`re going to do it. I think what they were frying to do is set up some kind of a sympathy argument by saying that her dad did these things to her. They`re never going to be able to prove it. If she says it, nobody is going to believe her. If they have doctors come in and say it, they`re going to be relying on what she said. I don`t know how they`re going to do it.

You know, they said there is a series of star witnesses, and I know I`m supposed to be the defense here, but star witness number one didn`t have the cell phone number. Star witness number two is who? This mistress? I mean, why are they doing all this? Why are they so caught up in all this sensationalism? All they have to do is to --

EIGLARSH: Hold on. I got to debate him. I`m going to swing it the other way.


EIGLARSH: For the sake of argument, Dr. Spitz. I mean, he came out and said, this is a shoddy autopsy. This guy is credentialed. He`s got the JFK investigation that he was involved with. In fact, some people say, I`m not, don`t kill the messenger, that this guy potentially worked on Adam and Eve`s autopsy. This guy goes way back.


PINSKY: All right, Mark.

EIGLARSH: He knows what he`s doing.

GREENBERG: And you know what, when you`re attacking the science, that`s good. Attack the science. But then, do it that way --


PINSKY: I get you all talking over each other here. I apologize to my viewers. The delay here makes it difficult to hear one another, but I forget now who I assigned the defense and who the prosecution here, but one other thing undermining the drowning explanation is Casey early dismissal of that theory. Watch Casey rolling her eyes in this jailhouse conversation with her mom. I just want you to see this.


CINDY ANTHONY, CASEY ANTHONY`S MOTHER: Well, someone just said that Caylee was dead this morning, that she drowned in the pool. That`s the newest story out there.

CASEY ANTHONY: Surprise, surprise.


PINSKY: Actually, when I last watched that, I thought she rolled her eyes a little more in disbelief. This time, it looked a little shiftier. Did you guys think that recording was particularly damaging either of you?

EIGLARSH: I don`t think so. I think she could still advance her theory all she wants. The problem is, as Steve has said and as we`re all saying, where is the proof? It`s just lacking, so far.

PINSKY: All right. Gentlemen, Steve, thank you for joining me, and I want to get you back here and ask you what you think has happened with the reality of this case. Even though, Mark, of course, as usual, doesn`t care about the truth, but anyway, Mark, thank you, of course, for joining me today.


EIGLARSH: Stop it.

PINSKY: my jury is next. We`ll talk to someone who`s been in the courtroom, and he believes the prosecution has yet to come out with something convincing. He thinks Casey should walk. We got some questions for him.


DRANE-BURDICK: So, if I`m understanding you correctly, the user at the time had their Google search engine up, typed in how to make chloroform.




JOY BEHAR, HOST OF "JOY BEHAR SHOW": Hi, Drew. On my show tonight, we`ll continue looking at the Casey Anthony situation from a different perspective. I will ask a former prison inmate what kind of a treatment Casey might expect in prison. Promises to be very interesting.

PINSKY: Let`s now meet a new member of my jury, a man who would vote to set Casey free if he were on the actual jury. Kent Huggins has been in the courtroom twice. He caught the action today and two weeks ago when the prosecution presented its forensic evidence. Watch this about a cadaver dog, and then, we will talk with Kent about why he thinks that`s significant.


UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Have you had occasion during your tenure with bones -- for bones to falsely alert on any particular occasion?



PINSKY: Kent, I understand that you had a problem with that testimony.

KENT HUGGINS, DR. DREW "JUROR": Well, that testimony leads to the idea that the dog is infallible. And that, you know, perhaps, we should have just stopped there. But, nothing is perfect. And I think that the dog, the dog`s ability is somewhat less than perfect. So, I`m surprised that that was --

PINSKY: So, Kent, let me ask you -- is that what led you to kind of doubt the prosecution`s case or did you see some bigger blunders?

HUGGINS: Well, that was the eye opener. There was some other testimony in my original day in the courtroom that swayed my point of view.

PINSKY: Let me ask you something, and I`m being a little bit tongue and cheek about this, but on the other hand, I`m not. Have you -- I mean, I`ve talked to many people that fight to get into that courtroom now. Have you shared your opinions with anybody else that`s hanging out there in the galleries?

HUGGINS: Well, I speak to the people that -- I speak to the people in the line around me. And -- so, I have shared my point of view. My point of view is not very popular. I find that generally women and the mothers are very polarized on the topic, and they deem that Casey should be at a minimum sent away for life.

PINSKY: I have certainly found the same thing. I wonder if just you sharing your opinion contributed to the fisticuffs we saw there on Friday. I think people will get very intense about your feelings. Have you found that?

HUGGINS: Well, no one has ever -- there`s never been any type of physical altercation, and you know, I`m a red-blooded American male, and I`m allowed to have my opinion. I believe --

PINSKY: Of course, you can.

HUGGINS: I believe she has (ph) a fair trial.

PINSKY: Of course, you are. Let me ask you this, what is your fascination with the case? This is something I ask almost everyone to my juror members, because several of them are traveling thousands off miles to get in there and staying up all night, and you know, dedicating their lives in watching this case. What is your fascination with it?

HUGGINS: My fascination with it has to do with the way that our legal justice system operates and how American citizens view justice, and how it`s meted out. That`s what my primary interest is. I`m fascinated with the courtroom, and it`s very intense. The drama is very high, also. I can`t deny that I appreciate that also.

PINSKY: And your sense is that Casey did not do something. I understand you also had a theory about the chloroform searches on Google? I`ve only got a few seconds here.

HUGGINS: Yes, well, you know, if you back up and move forward among pages on the internet, you can have a search reload. The idea that anybody would research any topic even if they were obsessed 84 times in that limited time span is just not very realistic. And I have a little bit of training in this area in computers, and I think --

PINSKY: Kent, I`ve got to go. Thank you for that. We will talk to you more as long with the rest of the jury, and thank you all for watching.