Return to Transcripts main page


Crime Boss Nabbed; New York Nearing Same-Sex Marriage Vote?; Anthonys' Attorney Speaks Out; Cindy Anthony Claims Responsibility for Google Searches

Aired June 23, 2011 - 22:00   ET


ANDERSON COOPER, CNN ANCHOR: Breaking news tonight: a major arrest in one of America's most wanted criminals after a sting operation straight out of the movies.

Yet every single law enforcement source that we have spoken to outside the FBI -- and we have spoken to plenty today -- every one of them doubts it really went down the way the FBI is now telling it.

We're talking about the arrest the number-two man on the FBI's most wanted list, second only to Osama bin Laden. Tonight, he is in jail, James "Whitey" Bulger -- shown here with his girlfriend, Catherine Greig -- legendary Boston crime boss, inspiration for Jack Nicholson's bloodthirsty killer in the movie "The Departed" and FBI informant.

For years, he ratted out his competition, some of them. Others, he allegedly murdered, tortured, enemies, associates, anyone who crossed him, 19 in all, according to authorities. And all the while, all the while he was killing others, his handler in the FBI turned a blind eye to his bloodlust.

In fact, it was the same FBI agent who alerted Bulger that he was about to be indicted, sparking him to make a run for it. That was in 1994. Since then, there have been Bulger sightings all around the world. But it was here in a rent-controlled apartment on a modest street in Santa Monica California where agents arrested him last evening -- 81-year-old Bulger and his 61-year-old girlfriend, Ms. Greig, were arraigned today in L.A. federal court, agreeing to extradition back to Boston, the FBI crediting his capture to a public service campaign, TV spots aimed at making Greig's face as well-known as her boyfriend's.


RICHARD DESLAURIERS, SPECIAL AGENT IN CHARGE, FBI'S BOSTON FIELD DIVISION: On Tuesday 21, just after 8:00 p.m. Pacific Standard Time, a tip was received by the FBI's Los Angeles office.

The tip was generated as a direct result of the FBI's unique publicity campaign organized by FBI Boston and FBI headquarters this past Monday. As part of that campaign, the FBI paid for a public service announcement to run in 14 media markets across the country. Those media markets were chosen because the FBI knew that Bulger and Greig had ties to those areas.


COOPER: Well, "Keeping Them Honest" tonight, numerous sources in law enforcement tell us they have doubts that a public service campaign, one that didn't even run in Los Angeles, could get results so quickly.

Drew Griffin and producer David Fitzpatrick have been talking to those sources. They say it stretches belief that government TV spots could get such a quick response. And that's not all, they say. Drew joins us shortly with details that may support two alternative theories of how Bulger's 16-year run finally ended, but, first, a quick look back, a timeline.


COOPER (voice-over): The international manhunt for one of America's most wanted men ended here, in a nondescript apartment building just blocks from the ocean in Santa Monica, California.

Federal authorities say the affable couple known as Charles and Carol Gasko were in fact infamous Boston gangster James "Whitey" Bulger and his longtime companion, Catherine Greig.

DESLAURIERS: We have captured one of the FBI's 10 most wanted fugitives, a man notorious in Boston and around the world.

COOPER: Bulger, wanted in connection with 19 murders, had been on the run since a corrupt former FBI agent tipped him off in 1994 to an impending indictment.

For more than 16 years, sightings of Bulger were reported across the globe, from New York...


COOPER: Clearly having a problem with that piece. Apologize for that.

Joining me now is Drew Griffin, who's been hearing that the TV and tip explanation of how the FBI caught Bulger could be a cover story for something else. Also, CNN contributor and former FBI Assistant Director Tom Fuentes joins us, and Dick Lehr, co-author of the bestselling chronicle of Whitey Bulger's reign of terror and run from justice, "Black Mass."

Drew, let's start with you.

If you listen to the FBI, it was these TV spots. You have been talking to a lot of law enforcement sources outside the FBI. They -- they are casting doubt about that.


And it's important to say outside the FBI, these sources are saying it was just too easy. Look, 16 years on the run, thousands of tips have come in. There's been movies, TV shows, newspaper reporting. And all of a sudden, one day after they air this PSA in all these TV markets, not Los Angeles, they get a tip that leads to the arrest.

COOPER: So what do these people say may be...

GRIFFIN: That maybe this was a smokescreen to protect the real tipster and protect that person because that person's life may be in danger, or perhaps Bulger himself was turning himself in.

There's $2 million for him, $100,000 reward for her. They just don't believe it. And they're telling us that, look it, watch what happens in the days ahead. We're going to get a different story.

COOPER: Tom, do you think -- do you cast doubt on what the FBI has been saying?


I have had friends of mine that were involved in this investigation and involved in catching fugitives over the years tell me that they ran the public service announcement. And the person that called in the tip did not see the direct announcement, but saw the media coverage that the FBI had done an announcement on one of the cable network channels. And they wouldn't tell me which one.

But that's what they're saying. And as far as a smokescreen to protect a tipster or protect an informant, they could protect that informant in any event. They could prevent -- protect the tipster no matter how that information came in.

So I don't see why the FBI -- and it would take a long time to prepare that public service announcement. It cost money to air it. I just don't buy that part of it either, the suspicion that they would use that as a ruse to cover a tipster who they could cover in any event.

COOPER: Right.

Dick, you have written a lot about this. And there's been a lot of anger towards the FBI in Boston because they more or less protected Whitey Bulger for so long. Talk a little bit about, I mean, what makes him so fascinating, the history. Our piece kind of got interrupted there.


I mean, obviously, the capture of someone from the 10 most wanted list who's connected to 19 murders and possibly more, a crime boss from Boston who's been on the run for 16 years, that is a huge story and a huge development.

But just as important -- and you mentioned it -- is that -- is the corruption in the FBI Boston office for so many years that watched his back and became part of the Bulger gang, a crew of corrupted agents. And they enabled Whitey Bulger to carry on the way he did for so many years.

And that makes people mad. If you're in the city during the 70s and 80s when the dirty deal was really in play, and you lost a family member to the Bulger gang or someone got shaken down or beat up, and you came to realize that the nation's elite law enforcement agency, the FBI, was not the place to go to, to try to get some justice, when that truth comes tumbling out, as it did in horrific detail during the 1990s, you get mad.

COOPER: What made Whitey Bulger so tough? I mean, was he just completely ruthless?

LEHR: Yes. He's a sociopath, cold-blooded killer. Come up with all the terms. He's a guy who didn't think twice about blowing your brains out.

And there's been ample evidence coming out, and the bodies they have dug up. And when they killed someone, they -- this is pre-DNA -- they would pull the teeth out, cut the fingers off, try to make it so the victims, if they were discovered from their graves, couldn't be identified.

There was just no bottom. It doesn't get much uglier than someone like Whitey Bulger.

COOPER: Tom, did -- after he escaped and all these problems with the FBI field office there were revealed, were a lot of changes made?

FUENTES: Yes, there were changes made.

But I would like to add something, that there have been thousands of agents working this program for the last three decades. You had two rogue agents in Boston that did horrific damage to the FBI, to the community, to the 19 victims and their families. There's no question about that.

And it was a horrible tragedy. But I would like to add that the FBI did conduct the investigation to go after John Connolly, and eventually convicted him. And he earned a 10-year prison sentence from that.

So, the investigation that went on to try to uncover what happened within the FBI office and what happened with those two agents was extensive. And I was involved personally in many of the meetings that discussed it. I was not involved in the investigation because I was recused from it, being involved in the organized crime program over almost all of my career of nearly 30 years.

And I ran the organized crime program for five. So, I will admit I'm not going to be the most objective person here.

COOPER: Right.

FUENTES: But what I would like to say is, thousands of agents have worked in this program and, along with prosecutors from Department of Justice strike force, have dismembered and dismantled much of La Cosa Nostra, prevented Chinese, Russian, Albanian, African and other organized crime groups from getting the kind of foothold in the United States that La Cosa Nostra and some of these other organized crime groups had. So thousands of people did tremendous work.

COOPER: Right.

FUENTES: But, unfortunately, in this situation, you had two rogue agents that did horrible damage. And there's no question about that.

And the FBI in Boston has paid for this damage within the law enforcement community for decades.

COOPER: Right.

Drew, what do we know about this girlfriend?

GRIFFIN: Yes, Catherine Greig, 21 years Whitey's junior. And I think Tom will agree with me, she may be the Achilles' heel as often is. They focused on her in the PSA, focused on that he's with this woman. And she was with him from the start of his -- of his run, wanted for harboring a fugitive, not a -- not a major penalty there. Five years would be the maximum. But they're possibly looking at more charges for her.

COOPER: Dick, as I was reading today, some Bostonians were remembering Whitey fondly, almost sort of a Robin Hood figure.

That's not really, though -- that's certainly not the reality. And most have people sort of changed that -- that -- their mind on that over the years, right?

LEHR: Yes. That's a throwback.

This story has been around for so long. I mean, the Bulger story, you have to break it down into chapters or acts. And the first act was this notion of Whitey Bulger being a Robin Hood from South Boston. This is an image that the corrupt FBI agents promoted relentlessly for years, that he was a good bad guy in the streets of Boston.

But people who say that today, if someone's quoted saying that, they have just been living with their head in the sand, because, again, the mountain of evidence has come out on the horrific harm that's flowed from this corrupt relationship between the Boston FBI and Whitey Bulger.

And I understand, Tom, and I'm not going to dispute the fact that agents have done enormous amount of good work here in Boston and elsewhere. But the problem ran beyond two rogue agents, as you put it. It wasn't just Connolly and Morris. It went deeper.

And that's -- it's the full accounting that I -- that the city of Boston and I think anyone interested in law enforcement in America would like to see someday. And I'm not sure we're going to get it.

COOPER: Tom, why do you think it was so hard to catch these two? I mean, how tough is -- how easy is it to disappear in the United States? I mean, I could imagine if he was in Brazil or some foreign country. But living in the United States, in this day and age, it's amazing that somebody can just kind of disappear.

FUENTES: Well, normally, in a major fugitive case, you track them down if they use credit cards. You can track them down electronically, where the card was used. And, at some point, if they weren't planning to be fugitives, they run out of cash and either run home to their parents or brother, sister, other family members or associates.

In this case, it was pretty clear from the beginning that he had planned for the possibility of being a fugitive. He had safe deposit boxes in other countries around the world. He had millions of dollars in cash. And he just put it in many different places, so that he could access it later and not have to go back.

And, of course, with this apartment that he had in Santa Monica, he's been paying for it in cash for nearly 10 years. So that prevents an electronic trail to track back to them, makes it much more hard for fugitive investigators to get him.


And, Drew, they found a lot of cash in his apartment, right?

GRIFFIN: Yes. "The L.A. Times" is reporting $800,000 in cash...


GRIFFIN: ... and for an $1,100 apartment.


COOPER: Dick. Sorry. Go ahead, Dick.

LEHR: Yes. To -- sure. To add to what Tom was saying, another important point is that Whitey Bulger was an experienced traveler as a crime boss.

There are a lot of gangsters, urban gangsters who, if they leave the neighborhood, they're lost at sea. That wasn't the case with Whitey. As part of his plans for the possibility that he'd someday have to flee, he got comfortable being on the road, and traveling around the world, and making these cash deposits, so that they'd be there in the event that he needed the money.

COOPER: It's going to be fascinating.

FUENTES: Yes, and if I could add to that...

COOPER: Go ahead.

FUENTES: ... during my last four-and-a-half years in the bureau, I ran the international program. And there were times when we had sightings of him simultaneously on different continents in South America and Europe and other places. So, he basically became the Elvis of gangsters.

But it was a constant matter of chasing down sightings of him...


FUENTES: ... and to the point that, since he became a fugitive, the FBI tracked over 12,000 leads in connection with him, and then, when they ran this public service announcement, received several hundred tips just from that.

COOPER: Right.

FUENTES: So it's been -- it's been difficult sorting out good leads from bad leads in the case.

COOPER: Right.

Well, I can't wait to get more details as the days progress.

Drew Griffin, appreciate it. Dick Lehr and Tom Fuentes, thanks so much.

Let us know what you think. We're on Facebook. Follow me on Twitter @AndersonCooper. I will try to tweet some tonight as well.

Up next: With protesters circling New York's state capitol, lawmakers are working late into the night tonight, possibly getting ready to vote on a same-sex marriage bill. We have got a live update with time running out.

And later: a true shocker in the Casey Anthony trial -- what her mom said on the stand about Googling the word chloroform and how it could help establish reasonable doubt.


COOPER: Well, it looks like this could be it, one way or another, for a bill to legalize same-sex marriage in New York State. Sources say that if -- if Republican lawmakers, who control the New York Senate, decide to bring it to the floor, a vote on the bill would likely happen very late tonight or very early tomorrow morning -- if.

As it stands, the Senate is said to be almost evenly split, 31 in favor, 29 opposed, and two undecided, according to a tally done by CNN affiliate New York 1.

Now, President Obama, who does not support gay marriage, was at a gay and lesbian fund-raiser tonight in Manhattan touting his record.


BARACK OBAMA, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: That's why we're going to keep on fighting until the law no longer treats committed partners who have been together for decades like they're strangers. That's why I have long believed that the so-called Defense of Marriage Act ought to be repealed. It was wrong. It was unfair.


COOPER: In a 1996 questionnaire, Mr. Obama said he supported marriage rights. His position changed as he got into national politics. And now he says his position is evolving. That is certainly true for a pair of GOP lawmakers in Albany who changed their minds and are now supporting a marriage rights bill.

But everything is moving very slowly there, as Mary Snow has been finding out. She joins us now from Albany.

Mary, what is the latest that you're hearing? Will this bill come up for a vote tonight or early in the morning tomorrow?

MARY SNOW, CNN CORRESPONDENT: What we're being told, Anderson, is that a decision on whether to bring this bill up for a vote will likely now come after midnight, and if it will be brought up for a vote, that it would come probably hours after that.

There have been intense negotiations going on throughout the day. And inside the capitol, there have been demonstrators both for and against this bill growing in volume. And I was talking to a veteran political reporter who's been here more than 20 years. And he has said that he has not seen anything this intense in the time that he's been here.

But exactly what is causing this delay at this point, unclear. And these lawmakers still have other legislation that they need to vote on, rent regulation and property tax caps.

COOPER: Late tonight, though, a GOP state senator, Mary, named Greg Ball officially announced that he would vote no on the same-sex marriage bill. Is that a bad omen for the bill's passing?

SNOW: No, because it's not a big surprise that he is saying that he is going to oppose it. The Democrats were not really expecting him to change his mind.

There are a handful of Republicans who are on -- in play. One of them is Andrew Lanza. And he has been negotiating. He's one of three Republicans who have been negotiating with Governor Cuomo on the language of the bill. There's been concerns among some Republicans about protections for religious organizations. He says he considers himself a no, but, listening, we caught up with him a few hours ago. Here's what he had to say.


ANDREW LANZA (R), NEW YORK STATE SENATOR: I think, at the end of the day, it's about treating each other the way we want to be treated.

Where I am stuck is on the -- is with the notion that we can do all that without changing the definition of the word marriage.


SNOW: And, Anderson, in his words, he told us that there was great progress being made on that language.

We can tell you that people have been lining up here since this morning to get a seat in the Senate chamber. And they have been sitting now waiting for hours to see -- witness this potentially historic vote.

COOPER: Mary, appreciate the update.

With me now is Evan Wolfson, executive director of, and senior legal analyst Jeffrey Toobin.

And, Evan, to -- as a supporter of same-sex marriage, answer what that state senator was saying about why change -- he's stuck on the word. He's stuck on changing the definition of the word marriage.


Well, the first thing I would say is that marriage is not defined by who's denied it. When gay people are able to share in the freedom to marry because they are in love, because they have made a commitment in life and they want a commitment in law, that doesn't change marriage.

It doesn't take anything away from anyone else. It doesn't use up marriage. Marriage is there for all of us to share, those of us who have made a commitment. And what gay people want is to be able to participate in that legal commitment.

And the other thing I would say is that some states have tried to come up with alternative, parallel, other mechanisms, civil union partnership. And right across the river in New Jersey, where they have civil union, the official state commission that was appointed by the legislature and the governor to study how is civil union working reported that it isn't working. It doesn't fully protect family. It does make a difference when you're able to say, I'm married, and have everyone understand who you are in relationship to the primary person you're building a life with.

COOPER: Jeff, Albany politics are a -- kind of a mystery to me. I have read a lot about it. I still don't understand how it all works. Explain, what is the holdup on actually just voting one way or another?

JEFFREY TOOBIN, CNN SENIOR LEGAL ANALYST: Well, democracy is not something that is a big part of how Albany works.

You would think a bill before the state Senate gets voted on. Well, that's not necessarily the case. The way the New York State Senate work is that majority leader, Dean Skelos -- Skelos -- he gets to decide whether this vote comes to the floor. He doesn't have to bring it to the floor even if he thinks it's going to pass, because it is entirely up to him.

That is -- that's why we don't know whether there will be a vote tonight or ever. Another thing people may wonder is, what's this business about why is it going to be voted on at midnight or 2:00 in the morning? Well, there's a long history in Albany of doing things in the middle of the night because people aren't there, and newspaper deadlines will be missed, so that news will really sort of dribble out, even in the Internet era. That's how these politicians think. It has very little to do with democracy or the public trust.

COOPER: Jeff, have you been kidnapped, and are you being held in a cave somewhere?

TOOBIN: Yes. Yes.


COOPER: If you are, just blink, and we will try to send someone.

TOOBIN: I'm actually in West Virginia. This is Skype. And, you know, it's -- it's a work in progress.

COOPER: OK. It looks a little ominous.

TOOBIN: Believe me, there's no hostage situation.


COOPER: All right. All right.

What are you hearing, Evan, in terms of an actual vote?

WOLFSON: Well, again, we're very, very hopeful that they are going to bring it to a vote. Certainly, New Yorkers are clamoring for a vote. Thousands of thousands of people have talked to their legislators, called their legislators.

Senator Skelos, the majority leader, has repeatedly said he believes there should be a vote.

COOPER: If they decided not to vote on it at all, can they do that, just decide not to vote and go home?

WOLFSON: Well, they can do that.

The governor also has the power to call them back. And Governor Cuomo has said he's cautiously optimistic that there is going to be a vote. And he is very hopeful, like me, that the Senate is going to do the right thing, what New Yorkers want.

COOPER: So this could be at 4:00 a.m.? It could be...

WOLFSON: It could be a long night.

COOPER: There's no limit on when it could be?

WOLFSON: There is no limit on when it could be. And the sooner the better.

TOOBIN: And, Anderson... COOPER: Go ahead.


TOOBIN: ... let's be clear here. Governor Cuomo can call the Senate back into session, but he cannot make them vote on this bill. He cannot make them call up the bill.

This is entirely up to one person, the majority leader. I mean, it is astonishing. And it's not my place to say that they should vote for it or vote against it, but the idea that they wouldn't vote at all is really a scandal in the making.

COOPER: I just want to play briefly some of what President Obama said tonight at a fund-raiser for gay and lesbian Americans. Let's watch.


OBAMA: I believe that discrimination because of somebody's sexual orientation or gender identity ran counter to who we are as a people, and it's a violation of the basic tenets on which this nation was founded. I believe that gay couples deserve the same legal rights as every other couple in this country.



COOPER: It's interesting. If you listen to That's right. , you would think he is in support of gay marriage, but, publicly, he is not.

WOLFSON: Well, that's right. What the president said was great. Gay people should have the same rights. Gay couples should have the same protections, the same freedoms as any other couples.

What he didn't say is what left kind of a gap in the room, because he didn't come outright and say one of those same rights that people enjoy when they have made a commitment to one another is the freedom to marry. And to be denied that freedom to marry is to be denied something very, very important.

But I think it's also important to understand that President Obama, while he has not yet forthrightly come out and said he supports the freedom to marry, has talked about being on a journey in support, about listening to people, thinking it through. And he has also opposed attacks on the freedom to marry.

He lauded tonight the fact that New York is debating ending the exclusion for marriage. So the real gap there is, everything the president says and does points the direction where the majority of Americans have already gone, in support of the freedom to marry.

TOOBIN: But -- but could we also talk about -- President Obama is someone who prides himself on his candor, his honesty, his intellectual nature. Is there one person in the world who thinks that he's really opposed to same-sex marriage? No. He's trying to figure out a politically acceptable way to get to where obviously he already is. I mean, I think this sort of...


COOPER: And where he was back in 1996, when he filled out that form.


TOOBIN: ... is really not very attractive.

WOLFSON: And this is one of the arguments I would make to the president. Freedom to Marry doesn't endorse candidates. But if they were taking my advice, what I would say is, this president has really nothing to lose and a lot to gain from being forthright in support of the freedom to marry, which the majority of Americans support.

He's already done so much that -- to attack discrimination, to challenge discrimination, to speak for equality, that he's already lost those who are opposed. There's no one in America who he's going to lose if he says the words, yes, I support the freedom to marry, just like my other fellow Americans, the majority.

COOPER: Are you going to be up all night waiting for this thing?

WOLFSON: I'm going to do my best.


COOPER: Evan Wolfson, appreciate it, Jeff Toobin as well.

Still ahead: the lawyer for Casey Anthony's parents speaking out. He told Gary Tuchman they don't believe their daughter is innocent in the death of daughter Caylee. I ask him why he's now taking issue with that report. My interview with him is next, also all the latest that happened on the stand today, quite a day.

Also, late-breaking details of the historic and dangerous flooding in Minot, North Carolina.

We will be right back.


COOPER: Just ahead, today's dramatic developments in the Casey Anthony trial. Cindy Anthony, Casey's mom, taking the witness stand again today. This time she was called by the defense. And what she said clearly did not please the prosecution and could be a game changer. We'll take you inside the courtroom.

But first a 360 follow-up. Questions were raised today over a report we brought you last night, a report that we stand by. Yesterday Mark Lippman, the lawyer for the Casey Anthony's parents and brother, talked on the record to Gary Tuchman and told him that Cindy and George Anthony do not think their daughter is innocent but at the same time do not want her to receive the death penalty. That's what we reported last night.

A lot of other news outlets picked up our reporting. And today Mr. Lippman put out a statement that Gary had taken his statements out of context. We wanted to give Mr. Lippman a chance to explain his objection, so I talked to him earlier.


COOPER: Mr. Lippman, I know an interview you did with Gary Tuchman yesterday has caused a lot of -- a lot of drama I want to just clear up, because you put out several statements about it. I just want to clear up what we aired and what issue you may have with it. I want to play what Gary said on our program last night.


GARY TUCHMAN, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Mark Lippman has told me this. I asked him a very specific question. I said, "Do your clients, George and Cindy Anthony, think that she is not guilty?"

And his answer was, "They do not think that." He said "They want to see justice done. They want to see the truth come out." And then he added to me, he said, they do not believe she is innocent.

That being said, OK, and this is very important and he wanted me to stress this and it's important that I do stress this. They love her, they support her, and they do not want her to get the death penalty. They will do all they can to avoid her getting the death penalty in this case.


COOPER: So in all the statements that I've seen put out today, it doesn't seem like you are denying anything specifically that Gary actually said in that.

MARK LIPPMAN, ATTORNEY FOR THE ANTHONYS: No. I'm going to clarify what I was talking to Gary about.

First and foremost, the banner ads and the teasers on the show yesterday indicated that my clients believe that their daughter is guilty. And by inference that would mean that she would be guilty of first degree murder, which is premeditated.

COOPER: We never said -- I've looked at the transcript. We never said...


COOPER: ... that they think she's guilty or they think -- that we just said "not innocent."

LIPPMAN: Right. Not innocent. Well, and again, I don't -- I'm a black-and-white person. I don't need to have anybody speculating. And therefore, I'm trying to clarify. The evidence that's been presented, especially in the opening statement, suggests that George Anthony had something to do with either molesting his daughter and/or something to do with the removal of Caylee Marie Anthony's body after she was found dead. And none of those things are true. And...

COOPER: So the bottom line, though, just so we are all clear, you did say to Gary Tuchman yesterday in a conversation that was on the record -- in fact, you had two conversations yesterday. In the first conversation you said that they do not believe she is innocent.

LIPPMAN: Based on the evidence that's been presented by the defense so far in their opening and this evidence that's been presented by the state, you can see in court their statements. I'm certainly not going to discuss their personal feelings or anything that we have discussed.

COOPER: So again, I mean, I don't want to harp on this, and this will be the last time. But just for the record, you are not denying you told Gary Tuchman yesterday they do not believe that Casey is innocent?

LIPPMAN: Again, in the totality of the conversation it's based on evidence. And I'm clarifying and making sure it's specific that my clients never, ever suggested that their daughter is guilty of murder. They do not know what happened, and that is the only reason they want to sit in court: to get the truth of what happened.

COOPER: And just for the record, we last night never said that you had told us that they believe their daughter is guilty. We just simply said "not innocent," which is the words you used to us yesterday. And if that was misconstrued by others, which it seems to have been, to indicate they believe she's guilty of something specific, that would be incorrect. But that's not our mistake; that's other people's interpretations of it.

LIPPMAN: It started from here, so I wanted to end it here. And just make sure that the clarification is there. That one, this is not anything that they certainly have said directly to anyone; nor can they give a press conference. They're under the rule of sequestration. But as their attorney, I can say that the evidence that's been presented specifically against George is just a total lie.

COOPER: Mark Lippman, appreciate your time tonight. Thank you.

LIPPMAN: Thanks very much.


COOPER: Well, as I said, we stand by Gary's reporting. You just saw for yourself Mr. Lippman didn't deny saying what Gary reported on our air last night. I talked to Gary a short time ago.


COOPER: Gary, what did you make of what Mark Lippman said to me? Because beyond all the press releases and the press conference that he had today and the kind of the backtracking he's done publicly, bottom line, he didn't disagree that he said what you said he said, that Casey -- that George and Cindy Anthony do not believe their daughter is innocent.

TUCHMAN: It was kind of interesting today. I was at a press conference to refute what I said. But you're right: he did not disagree with it. He was very ambiguous. And I think he purposely wanted to be ambiguous about this.

But that's a very important point. I was glad to see he did not deny the quotes. He did not say he was misquoted and he did not say he was off the record. It was on the record. So basically he doesn't disagree with what we said he said on TV.

COOPER: Right. It seems like basic this this got a lot of pick up. Some people were saying George and Cindy Anthony believe their daughter is guilty. We never said that on this program. You never reported that. Other people may have interpreted it that way. And it seems like the attorney today, Mr. Lippman, was basically a kind of cover himself for criticism. And that's basically what happened.

TUCHMAN: and there's no question about it. Some people might watch our newscast and say, "OK, they think she's guilty of murder." We didn't say that. What we said was he believes that George and Cindy are saying their daughter is not innocent. Innocent is not a legal term. Guilty and not guilty are legal terms.

What is she not innocent of? He wouldn't tell me that. He said what the news is, that they feel she's not innocent. But we also said something very important to him which he did not complain about, and that is that his clients' No. 1 priority is that she not get the death penalty. They want to do all they can to avoid the death penalty. We complained about that when we reported that, too.

COOPER: Any idea what George and Cindy said to him about his comments to you?

TUCHMAN: I'm wondering a lot. But I guarantee you, 100 percent sure. That's why I didn't ask him this. But I think if I asked him he would have told me, "I'm not telling you. That's attorney-client privilege."

COOPER: I think that's probably a good bet.

Gary Tuchman, appreciate it. Thanks.

Gary is back in the courtroom today. His report is just ahead. What a day in the courtroom today. We may have seen what Casey Anthony's mom wild do to save her daughter from a possible death sentence. Or perhaps she was just telling the truth. She took the witness stand and dropped a bombshell. All that is next.

Also ahead, remember those love-sick newlyweds we told you about a couple of days ago? He's 51; she's 16? Well, we were kind of were mocking them, right? But anyway, somebody didn't quite get the joke, and they land on our "RidicuList" tonight. (COMMERCIAL BREAK)

COOPER: In "Crime & Punishment," jaw-dropping testimony today in the Casey Anthony trial, especially for the prosecution. Called to the witness stand by the defense, Cindy Anthony, Casey's mom, was asked about computer searches that investigators retrieved from the hard drive of the Anthonys' family computer, a computer that everyone in the household could access.

The prosecution's case, as you know, rests heavily on some of these search terms that were recovered, including the world "chloroform." Well, keep in mind, just yesterday Mark Lippman, Cindy and George Anthony's lawyer, told Gary Tuchman the couple do not believe their daughter is innocent in the death of 2-year-old Caylee.

But he also said they would do everything they can to save Casey from a death sentence if convicted. Today we may have seen Cindy Anthony making good on that promise. Here's Gary's report.


TUCHMAN (voice-over): Casey Anthony's mother was a dramatic witness for the prosecution in the beginning of the trial. And today she remains a dramatic witness, in a different way. This time for the defense.

The prosecution says alleged murderer Casey Anthony searched for the word "chloroform" on the home computer and that she ultimately poisoned her daughter Caylee with it and then suffocated her. But listen to her mom.

JOSE BAEZ, CASEY'S ATTORNEY: In March of 2008, you doing any types of searches for any items that might include chloroform?


TUCHMAN: It's a huge twist in the case. Cindy Anthony says she was the chloroform computer searcher. She claimed one of her dogs was getting tired. And even though records say she was at work, she thinks she was home on the computer, looking up chemicals that might be causing the problem.

CINDY ANTHONY: So I started looking up sources from the backyard that could potentially cause her to be more sleepy than it would affect the larger dog. And I started looking up chloroform -- I mean chlorophyll. And then that prompted me to look up chloroform.

TUCHMAN: The prosecutor clearly angry at what she believes is untrue testimony from Cindy Anthony, reminds her of what she said in a deposition in 2008.

LINDA DRANE BURDICK, PROSECUTOR: Do you recall denying that you made any searches for how to make chloroform? I didn't look up how to make chloroform. I looked up chloroform.

TUCHMAN: The prosecution has presented evidence indicating Casey Anthony typed these exact words, "How to make chloroform" into a Google search bar.

BURDICK: Did you type in to the search bar on Google "how to make chloroform"? Did you type those words into the search bar on Google?

CINDY ANTHONY: I don't recall typing in how to make chloroform.

TUCHMAN: And the prosecution claims chloroform was looked up 84 times on one Web site.

CINDY ANTHONY: I didn't do 84 searches of anything. But I don't know what my computer does while it's running.

TUCHMAN: The allegation is that Casey also looked up violent terms on the computer as she plotted hurting her daughter at the same time she was looking up chloroform.

BURDICK: Do you recover whether or not you did a search for the word "shovel"?

CINDY ANTHONY: No. I wouldn't need to look up the word "shovel."

BURDICK: Do you recall denying that you searched for "self-defense"?

CINDY ANTHONY: Yes. I did not search for "self-defense."

BURDICK: "Household weapons"?

CINDY ANTHONY: I did not search for "household weapons."

BURDICK: "Neck breaking"?

CINDY ANTHONY: I did not search for "neck breaking."

BURDICK: "Alcohol"?


BURDICK: "Peroxide"?


TUCHMAN (on camera): What was on that computer could be evidence of premeditation. But if the jury believes Cindy was on it, that evidence is neutralized.

However, could the grieving grandma be lying for Casey? That is likely to be one of the subjects in the prosecution closing argument.

Gary Tuchman, CNN, Orlando, Florida.


COOPER: I talked earlier to Sunny Hostin and Jean Casarez, who are covering the trial for "In Session" on TruTV.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE) COOPER: Well, Sunny, the prosecution had built a large part of its case on the belief that it was Casey, not her parents who searched the Internet for chloroform. Is Cindy Anthony's testimony a game changer?

SUNNY HOSTIN, CONTRIBUTOR, TRUTV'S "IN SESSION": In my view it is. It's very clear that the prosecution's premeditation theory is based on the fact that Casey Anthony conducted these chloroform searches in March. They believe that she conducted the searches and then used chloroform to drug her daughter, and then placed duct tape over her nose and mouth, suffocating her. That is the theory.

Now you have Cindy Anthony getting on the witness stand and really poking a hole in that theory and saying, "I'm the person who did the chloroform searches."

What's really fascinating to me, Anderson, is that what most people don't understand is it only takes one juror to believe Cindy Anthony. Prosecutors need all 12 jurors to believe that theory. The game has completely changed with Cindy Anthony's testimony today.

COOPER: Jean, do you agree with that? And did it seem to you that the prosecution was blind-sided by Cindy's testimony?

JEAN CASAREZ, CORRESPONDENT, TRUTV'S "IN SESSION": No. I think they knew it was probably going to come. But you know, I think the headline is big. Cindy Anthony says she did the chloroform searches. But I think when you look at the evidence, I don't think it's big at all. And I'll tell you why.

These searches were just about 12 minutes each on March 17 and March 21. And you need to not only look at the searches for chloroform and how to make chloroform but the searches that were minutes away, seconds away from those searches. And they were Facebook, MySpace, and Photobucket.

And Cindy has testified that she didn't know how to do MySpace until after Caylee went missing in July, and somebody taught her how to get on MySpace to try to find Caylee. That shows that the person was not Cindy that did those searches.

COOPER: Well, it's interesting because also on the stand, Cindy was asked about what browser she was using. And she had no idea what the person was talking about.

CASAREZ: That's right. She didn't know the browser. And you know what else?

COOPER: She didn't even know what a browser was.

CASAREZ: She didn't. She didn't. And you know what she was not asked? Anderson, do you realize that those searches were actually affirmatively deleted on the computer? Other things were not, but those searches were. Did Cindy delete those? Why would she do that and everything else is kept up? She wasn't asked that question. But I think it's a good one. COOPER: Well, Jean, can't they just go and see if she was working at the time that those searches were done? Because wasn't she supposedly at work then?

CASAREZ: And that's one way to do that. She said that her work records said she was there. But she said that she had taken days, and she didn't write them down. I think they definitely could go and try to find things that she e-mailed out, maybe things that are in files that are still there, times associated with the e-mails, because they can be on e-mails, to show that she was at the office and not on the computer.

COOPER: Sunny, another interesting moment today came when Casey seemed to mouth the word "wow "while listening to her mom talk about her memory and using different medications.

HOSTIN: Yes. It was really interesting. I kept on thinking, well, was the "wow" because she couldn't believe that her mother was lying for her? Was the "wow" because she couldn't believe that her mother was telling the truth? What did she mean by "wow"?

And I will tell you, statistically, jurors watch everything that's happening in a courtroom. If one of those jurors saw that, what is the takeaway for the jury? I'm not so sure.

COOPER: So Jean, does the prosecution now -- I mean, they'll obviously have a rebuttal chance again with Cindy Anthony. But do they -- I mean, do they start to go after her? Do they treat her as a hostile witness? How do they start to poke holes in her story?

CASAREZ: That's a really good question. I think their investigator is definitely looking at some things, just like you were saying. But you got to remember: she's a star witness for the prosecution. She's the witness that testified day by day by day. Everything Casey told her that were all lies, the people were fantasies. She's very important to the prosecution. So if they absolutely go at her, they're destroying maybe the testimony she already gave.

COOPER: What's coming up tomorrow, Jean?

CASAREZ: Well, the defense isn't saying what's coming up. But I think we're getting into the personal witnesses. The meter reader who, in opening statements by the defense, said actually took the body and moved it. He will be coming up. And George Anthony is going to be a witness.

And of course, what everybody is waiting for, will Casey take the stand? We're getting closer and closer to that question and that answer.

COOPER: Jean Casarez, Sunny Hostin, thanks.


COOPER: Coming up next on 360, a joy ride in Michigan turns into a high-speed car cheese with local law enforcement. Turns out a 7-year- old boy was behind the wheel. Details in this ahead.

And we're breaking out the dictionary for tonight's "RidicuList" to look up the definition of satire. Find out why a news Web site may need a refresher in what it means.


COOPER: See who lands on our "RidicuList" in a minute. But first, the "360 News & Business Bulletin" with Joe Johns.

Joe, what have you got?

JOE JOHNS, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Anderson, negotiations over raising the U.S. debt ceiling are on the verge of collapse. House Majority Leader Eric Cantor withdrew from talks today, saying Republicans had reached an impasse with Democrats. He's calling on President Obama to get involved to broker a deal.

As waters rise about 12,000 people have fled Minot, North Dakota. That's a third of the city's population. The Souris River is expected to crest on Monday at a new high, five feet higher than ever recorded.

Gas prices should fall even more in the coming days. The U.S. Energy Department announced today it will release 30 million barrels of oil from the Strategic Petroleum Reserve over the next 30 days. The move is being made to help alleviate supply disruptions in Libya, which has been locked in civil war for months.

And a 7-year-old Michigan boy led police on a high-speed chase after he stole his step-dad's car. The boy had trouble pulling over, but he finally did after traveling about 20 miles. Police were alerted to the situation after 911 dispatchers got several calls about what appeared to be a young child driving a car. The boy told police he just wanted to go see his real dad. You know his heart was in the right placer, Anderson.

COOPER: Oh, wow. All right, Joe, thanks.

Time now for the "RidicuList." And though I work really hard to avoid any kind of media feud, tonight I got to add a news Web site called "The Daily Caller" to the RidicuList.

For the record I read "The Daily Caller." It's like a conservative "Huffington Post," which I also read. But I was surprised this morning to wake up and discover the Daily Caller was attacking for me for something I said in "The RidicuList" on Tuesday about the marriage of a 51-year-old character actor to a 16-year-old girl named Courtney who like most wholesome 16-year-olds, has a music video in which she appears, well, certainly not innocent.


COURTNEY STODDARD, MARRIED TO 51-YEAR-OLD: Don't put it on me girl, no. Don't put it on me girl. D-d-d-d-don't.

COOPER: Well, a lot of people are suggesting that someone should have told Courtney d-d-d-d-don't marry that guy. He's too old for you. You have your driver's test coming up. Someone, you know, like her parents maybe.

But guess what, romance haters. Her parents gave their permission. They're not those uptight parents that don't let their teenage daughter stay out past 11 or make music videos on boats or marry someone three times her age. They're cool parents.


COOPER: So on "The Daily Caller" this morning, a headline stated "Anderson Cooper: Not a big deal for 16-year-old Courtney Stoddard to Marry 51-year-old Doug Hutchison."

And here's the first paragraph of the article, quote, "Unlike much of the population, CNN anchor Anderson Cooper isn't repulsed by the Las Vegas nuptials or 16-year-old singer Courtney Strodden [SIC] and 51- year-old actor Doug Hutchison." By the way, her name is Stoddard, not Strodden, but why quibble over the facts, "Daily Caller."

Maybe I was being too subtle on Tuesday's "RidicuList." Let's check the tape again.


COOPER: I don't see what the big deal is. The wedding was on May 20, according to my calendar. That was a Friday. So she probably only had to miss one day of high school. And what was she going to miss in 11th grade anyway? Algebra? Whoever uses that?


COOPER: Let's try some algebra, just for kicks, shall we? If "X" equals "tongue" and "y" equals "cheek," then "x" plus "y" equals -- well, at "The Daily Caller" it equals this: quote, "Cooper justified the marriage, because it apparently took place at the end of the week." Yes. That's how I justified the marriage.

I bet at "The Daily Caller," if someone tells a knock-knock joke, everyone runs to the door and waits to see who comes in.

A number of viewers e-mailed "The Daily Caller," explaining my defense of the marriage was satirical, whatever that word means. And then the woman who wrote the article, Laura Donovan, wrote this on Twitter. Quote, "I knew it was sarcastic. I said in my story that he took sarcastic jabs. Guess I could have been clearer."

Could have been clearer? Clearer than a completely misleading headline followed by a completely misleading story? Come on, Laura. Don't be so hard on yourself.

By the way they've now changed the headline. "Anderson Cooper Jokes: Not a Big Deal," et cetera, et cetera, blah blah blah. There's a footnote saying that it was updated to clearly explain that the segment was sarcastic. So who is the writer, this Laura Donovan? Well, I did a little digging, and by digging I mean some very low-impact Googling. And actually, somebody else did that. And here's the bio on her Web site, quote, "A new resident to the Washington, D.C., area, Donovan writes for Tucker Carlson's 24-hour news site, 'The Daily Caller.' Her ultimate goal is to publish non-fiction books and become the next David Sedaris." The next David Sedaris.

Laura, Laura, come here. Come here, Laura. A little closer. Come on. Come on. Laura -- and I think I -- since you've incorrectly attack me online and tried to cover your tracks, I think I can call you Laura. Laura, it would be very, very easy for me right now to make some sort of snarky comment. But I'm not going to do that.

You know what? You're only 22 years old. You wrote for your college newspaper, and you have a blog about guys who hit on you or something. I don't know. I couldn't really get into it.

My point is, I know when you're starting out, especially in today's snide Internet culture, you want to make a name for yourself. I get that. And I know that attacking others is an easy way for you to do that. Maybe you want to prove you're ideologically on the right side. Whatever.

In the future, though, don't be so quick to attack. Make sure to fully research what you write. That way you don't end up having your editors step in and rewrite your inaccurate stories.

I'm sure you're going to have a long and a bright career, and I honestly wish you nothing but the best.

As for "The Daily Caller," which I like and will continue to read, take a cue from the 16-year-old bride herself and just try to keep it real.


STODDARD: My breasts are real. Everything about me is real. My hair is real, my teeth are real, my eyelashes are real, my breasts are totally real.


COOPER: I love that she said her breast are totally real twice. The bride is so going to end up on "The Real Housewives." "Daily Caller," you can quote me on that. We'll be right back.