Return to Transcripts main page


Casey Anthony Murder Trial; Casey`s Mom Claims Responsibility for Google Searches

Aired June 23, 2011 - 19:00:00   ET



JANE VELEZ-MITCHELL, HOST (voice-over): Tonight, the defense goes from forensics to family. Cindy Anthony takes the stand and drops bombshells. Could her statements blow the prosecution`s case for premeditation out of the water?

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

VELEZ-MITCHELL: Is Cindy just trying to protect her defendant daughter Casey?

Plus a media frenzy erupts after details of George and Cindy`s deepest, darkest thoughts become public. Their attorney, Mark Lippman, finally tells CNN`s very own Gary Tuchman what we`ve all been wondering.

GARY TUCHMAN, CNN CORRESPONDENT: 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.

VELEZ-MITCHELL: So does that mean that they think Casey`s guilty? Or is there more to the story? I`m going to talk to Mark and Gary live tonight to set the record straight.

And we`re taking your calls.

ISSUES starts now.



CINDY ANTHONY, MOTHER OF CASEY: I found chloroform -- I mean chlorophyll, and then that prompted me to look up chloroform.

GEORGE ANTHONY, FATHER OF CASEY: It`s destroying your mother. She hurts so much.

CINDY ANTHONY: I overheard her tell Lee that Caylee had been gone for 31 days.

You call her a (EXPLETIVE DELETED) one more time...

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: And what are you going to do?

CINDY ANTHONY: It`s Caylee`s bed.

You slandered me on TV. And you perjured yourself with this.

(via phone) There`s something wrong. I found my daughter`s car today, and it smells like there`s been a dead body in the damn car.

(on camera) This is my granddaughter. Yes, I`m extremely involved in this case. This is tearing me up every single day.

CASEY ANTHONY, ON TRIAL FOR MURDER: My mom flat-out told me yesterday she will never be able to forgive me.

LINDA DRANE BURDICK, PROSECUTOR: Did you input the words into the Google search engine "how to make chloroform"?

CINDY ANTHONY: I don`t recall, but I did Google search "chloroform."


VELEZ-MITCHELL: Good evening. I`m Jane Velez-Mitchell. And I`m here live in Orlando, Florida. And I`ve got to say: thunder and lightning outside right now, and thunder and lightning inside that courtroom. This afternoon what happened could be the game-changing moment of this trial. Absolutely electrifying testimony from Casey Anthony`s mom Cindy.

She basically takes the biggest chunk of evidence the prosecution has to convict case Casey, and quite possibly destroys it, implodes it, potentially putting the prosecution on the ropes. I`m not kidding.

This was not the sobbing, grieving grandma from week one of the trial. Take a look at her today, Cindy calmly, confidently walks up, and then proceeds to claim responsibility -- there she is, getting up. She`s got on a pretty lavender dress, a cocktail dress for the occasion. She looked quite good. Very thin, very confident. And she proceeds to take responsibility for those sinister Internet searches on the Anthony family computer.

Did Casey repeatedly look up chloroform, chemicals and injuries? Unh-uh. Cindy says, "No, I`m the one who did all that."


BAEZ: Do you recall in March of 2008 you doing any types of searches for any items that might include chloroform?



VELEZ-MITCHELL: Cindy claims she initially searched for chlorophyll, worried her puppy was sick from eating bamboo. I`m not making this up. Cindy had very intricate explanations for just about everything. Check it out.


BAEZ: I don`t understand how you can get those two mixed up.

CINDY ANTHONY: Not getting them mixed up. If you look into chlorophyll, there`s bacteria associated with chlorophyll production. And looking up that, it comes from different species of plants that have red and brown coloring. And that prompted me to look up chlorophyll, because some species of algae and seaweeds and stuff produce, naturally, chloroform.


VELEZ-MITCHELL: And how about that incriminating stain in the trunk of Casey`s car that prosecutors say came from little Caylee`s dead body? Cindy says, guess what? "It was already there when we bought the car 11 years ago." Who remembers a stain from 7 years ago?

After Cindy left the stand, guess what? I found myself alone on the elevator with prosecutor Jeff Ashton, so of course, I asked Jeff for his reaction to Cindy`s shocking testimony. And he smiled ruefully, and he said, "They`re torn." Which I took to mean the Anthonys will do anything to save their daughter from the death penalty. The chloroform searches are the key to proving premeditation. Without premeditation, the death penalty unlikely.

Was Cindy telling the truth? Or is she willing to do anything, including committing perjury, to save her daughter`s life?

Call me: 1-877-JVM-SAYS, 1-877-586-7297.

Straight out to my fabulous colleague, Jean Casarez, correspondent from "In Session."

Jean, this was one of the most electrifying moments of this case. Describe what it`s like for you.

JEAN CASAREZ, CORRESPONDENT, TRUTV`S "IN SESSION": Jane, it`s unbelievable, because the star witness for the prosecution became the defense witness today. That`s what happened, saying that it wasn`t Casey, it was she. It was Cindy that did the searches for chloroform.

But there`s one big issue: in the midst of all these searches for chloroform and other things, there`s MySpace searches, Facebook searches and Photobucket searches.

VELEZ-MITCHELL: Who had the Photobucket account? Casey, her daughter.

All right. One of the most incriminating searches that the prosecution hoped to pin on Casey Anthony, the defendant, was neck breaking. That is sinister, neck breaking. This is happening in March, months before the child vanished.

Well, that was searched on the Anthony family computer. Today, Cindy took ownership of that one, too, and offered this bizarre explanation for why she is responsible for "neck breaking" popping up on the computer. Check this out.


BURDICK: Is this something that you`re recalling now that you`ve changed your medication, since July of 2009?

CINDY ANTHONY: Again, it`s not...


CINDY ANTHONY: No, I recalled that at the time, but you didn`t ask me about...


CINDY ANTHONY: I answered your question specifically.


VELEZ-MITCHELL: Florida prosecutor Stacey Honowitz, Cindy Anthony claims she said all this in a deposition of 2009. Obviously, the prosecution seemed blindsided by this.

Why the heck -- we all knew she was going to take the stand. She`s out there in her Sunday best, standing right outside the courtroom for hours on end. Everybody knew it. We were just waiting. And so why didn`t the prosecution have her deposition ready so they could whip out some pages and then show her inconsistencies if, indeed, there were? And if there weren`t inconsistencies, how the heck could they be shocked by this?

STACEY HONOWITZ, FLORIDA PROSECUTOR: Well, quite frankly, Jane, I don`t think the prosecution is so shocked by this. You remember that Cindy Anthony, right after Casey was arrested she backpedaled back then. All of a sudden, it went from a smell of death in the car to trash in the car. So this is not a big surprise.

This is a mother that would do anything to save her daughter. Forget the granddaughter who`s dead at the hands of her daughter. That`s done already. Now they`re going to save her from the death penalty.

And so the bottom line is I don`t know why, if it was in the deposition, they didn`t impeach her with it. All I know is at some point...

VELEZ-MITCHELL: OK. That`s what I`m saying. Hold on, hold on. Hold on.

Sunny Hostin, legal contributor, "In Session" why didn`t they whip out the deposition you see in every movie and say, wait, on line 28, you didn`t say this. Now you`re saying it. They didn`t -- I didn`t see an effective cross-examination of this.

SUNNY HOSTIN, LEGAL CONTRIBUTOR, TRUTV`S "IN SESSION": I didn`t, either. I will say this: it was on. That`s a crucial witness, crucial point, this chloroform. And I was wondering why they didn`t try to do it in their case entreaty.

I mean, they should have been able to determine that this was a possibility. Why not take the sting out of the direct examination by the defense and put it out there for the jury?

At this point, with Cindy Anthony on the witness stand saying, "I told you this in my deposition. I talked about this in 2009." It appears to the jury, or it could appear to the jury, Jane, that they were hiding that, that the prosecution was trying to pull a fast one. And as a former prosecutor, I know that that`s something that you don`t ever want the jury to have as an impression.

HONOWITZ: Are you kidding? Why would you say that the prosecutor`s trying to pull a fast one? The bottom line is -- the main question...

HOSTIN: I said a jury may think that.

VELEZ-MITCHELL: OK. One at a time, please.

HONOWITZ: Wait a second. Let me finish what I`m saying. The main question on cross-examination that she asked Cindy Anthony was, "Did you do a search on how to make chloroform?" She said no.

And so you can sit here until you`re blue in the face. You can lie after lie after lie. She has these bizarre answers for every question. She`s had all this time to sit there and say to herself, "I can`t see my daughter go to the death chamber. I better have an excuse for everything."

VELEZ-MITCHELL: Hold on. OK. Simmer down. We`ve got lightning and thunder outside and right here in the studio, as well. Please -- I say that with all due respect and love for you, Stacey Honowitz.

But here`s what I don`t understand. Maybe you can explain it to me, Jean Casarez. OK. The prosecution should get advance notice when experts have opinions. And that`s why the defense kept getting into trouble, because they didn`t give them advance notice.

It seemed -- this seemed like a Perry Mason moment, where suddenly she`s something that everyone is like, "Oh, my God, shock." Why wasn`t the prosecution completely 100 percent aware that this was going to happen so they could have effectively cross-examined?

CASAREZ: I don`t think they had any idea what she would testify to. And under the rules of procedure in Florida, either side doesn`t have to give notice from what Judge Perry is saying, but out of courtesy, he`s asking the sides to do it so there isn`t trial by ambush. But I don`t think they had any idea. But the depositions are very close, and I think that could have been strategy, to not present her with a deposition.

VELEZ-MITCHELL: Here`s what I think. Maybe she said in the deposition, "Yes, I did search chlorophyll." And suddenly chlorophyll becomes chloroform. It`s only a couple of letters different, but it could mean the difference between life and death.

Very briefly, Susan Constantine. Now, you`re the one who reads this. You`re a jury consultant, body language expert. Was she lying or telling the truth?

SUSAN CONSTANTINE, JURY CONSULTANT: She was lying. She was covering up for her daughter so she doesn`t go to the death chamber. That`s what she was doing.

VELEZ-MITCHELL: How do you say that so confidently? How are you so confident that she`s lying?

CONSTANTINE: I`m going to tell you exactly why. Because if you know what you`re looking for, there are specific muscles in the face that should fire at different times during different emotions. And when she was asked in 2009, "Don`t you remember saying this," and I saw self-doubt in her mouth. Her lips pulled in, they pulled together, and she had a smirk on her mouth called duping delight. And that is when somebody feels like they may be duping you and pulling one over on you. And...

VELEZ-MITCHELL: So you`re basically telling me that the apple doesn`t fall far from the tree and that Casey Anthony learned to lie from mama? You know what? I`m not willing to judge this woman. She`s gone through too much hell. But they were kind of far-fetched explanations, some of them.

OK. We`re taking your calls right on the other side: 1-877-JVM-SAYS, 1-877-586-7297.

Plus, George and Cindy`s attorney here, up next. And I`m going to ask them, do the Anthonys believe their daughter is innocent or not? So much controversy over that. There`s controversy all over the place today. Much more on Cindy`s explosive, explosive testimony.


CINDY ANTHONY: The only thing that triggers that day for me is those computer entries. It was not a traumatic day for me like the last three years.




BURDICK: Is this something that you`re recalling now that you`ve changed your medication, since July of 2009?

CINDY ANTHONY: Again, it`s not...


CINDY ANTHONY: No, I recalled that at the time, but you didn`t ask me to -- about -- I answered your questions specifically.


VELEZ-MITCHELL: Did you see that? All right. When the prosecutor included a dig about Cindy Anthony`s medication during her cross- examination, the defendant, Cindy`s daughter, Casey, shook her head and mouthed the word, "Wow." OK. Wow is right.

Now, we are delighted to be here with Mark Lippman, who is the attorney for Cindy and George. Was that a low blow to bring up the medication? Do you think that the prosecutor is trying to make a point? Or was she just -- she seemed quite angry, the prosecutor, Linda Drane Burdick. Was she just making a jab?

MARK LIPPMAN, ATTORNEY FOR GEORGE AND CINDY ANTHONY: I imagine she was trying to identify that my client is under medication due to the stress of the situation.

VELEZ-MITCHELL: Well, that was about memory. About, "Oh, your memory now, is that because your medication changed?"

LIPPMAN: Absolutely. And in fact, that is the reason her memory has gotten better, because she has changed her medication through this. There is -- the medication she was on was making her groggy, was making her forgetful. And she`s changed it since 2009. I believe she actually changed it in 2010 also, and since then her memory has gotten better.

VELEZ-MITCHELL: So listen, all the power to her if her memory got better. I don`t even remember what kind of car I was driving in the year 2000, much less a stain in the car of said car. And she actually said, "OH, that stain that the prosecution says shows that little Caylee`s body was in that trunk," she`s saying, "No, that stain was actually there when we bought the car back in 2000," which is 11 years ago. I think a lot of people said you lost me with that.

LIPPMAN: Respectfully, I have to disagree with you. There`s -- actually, there was two cards. There`s an A and a B card in the trunk. And she identified the B card as being where the stain was. Certainly, she didn`t identify the A card.

VELEZ-MITCHELL: No, no, no. The Pontiac Sunfire.

LIPPMAN: Right, right, right. And in those -- in that car...


LIPPMAN: ... there were two placards.


LIPPMAN: One said "A"; one said "B."

VELEZ-MITCHELL: In the trunk?

LIPPMAN: In the trunk.


LIPPMAN: And she identified the "B" one as the stain that was in the trunk when they bought the car in 2000.

VELEZ-MITCHELL: So you`re saying she did not identify the stain that was the outline that prosecutors say showed that little Caylee`s dead body was there?

LIPPMAN: I`m only saying that she identified the "B" card. She did not identify the "A" card.

VELEZ-MITCHELL: What`s the significance of that?

LIPPMAN: Well, everybody is going to have to go back. I can`t -- I`m sorry. I won`t go ahead and speculate on what`s been done. But it`s been very specific in the evidence that`s been shown, that every time they directed the stain testimony, it`s always been, I believe toward the "A" placard.

VELEZ-MITCHELL: And you`re saying she pointed out the "B" placard?

LIPPMAN: "B" placard.

VELEZ-MITCHELL: So she didn`t really help the prosecution -- she didn`t` really help the defense at all?

LIPPMAN: She told the truth. That`s all she`s ever done. It`s not about helping the state. It`s not about helping the defense. It`s about telling the truth.

VELEZ-MITCHELL: OK. What about this one? She says that she didn`t do a search for "neck breaking," which is one of the most incriminating Internet searches the prosecution has to try to prove premeditation in their case against Casey. She said, however, there was a pop-up of a skateboarder that said "neck-breaking feat." Now, this is something she`s saying she did an Internet search of in March of 2008, three years ago.


VELEZ-MITCHELL: How can you remember a pop-up?

LIPPMAN: Well, let`s go back and look at everything. I mean, it`s interesting. You said you wouldn`t remember what kind of car you had in 2000.


LIPPMAN: I couldn`t tell you what stains I had in my car in 2000, but I`ve not gotten through the trauma this family has gone through. I haven`t been asked to pointedly remember certain things that happened in my life or asked to recall certain things. So if she can recall that day and she`s already given testimony about that particular day in the deposition.

VELEZ-MITCHELL: Let me ask this question.


VELEZ-MITCHELL: I was wondering, when is the prosecution going to pull on the deposition and then say, "Hey, there`s inconsistent statements here." You`re saying this now, but back in 2009, why didn`t they do that?

LIPPMAN: They actually had the deposition in front of them, and Ms. Burdick was going through the deposition. And specifically, she said, "You spelled chlorophyll wrong," and then the change was "chlorophyll" to the correct spelling. So that means that they knew about the chlorophyll back in the 2009 deposition.

VELEZ-MITCHELL: But they didn`t know about the chloroform.

LIPPMAN: No, she did. She said chlorophyll and chloroform. She absolutely said today she never, ever researched how to make chloroform, but she`s always maintained and said that when she...

VELEZ-MITCHELL: Got it. More on the other side. Hang in there.



BURDICK: backslash chloroform?

CINDY ANTHONY: I don`t know if it came up that way.

BURDICK: Were you on that Web site 84 times?

CINDY ANTHONY: I was on it several times.

BURDICK: Were you on that Web site 84 times?

CINDY ANTHONY: I don`t know. I don`t know. They need to look up how many times I was on the chlorophyll Web site and compare it to the chloroform Web site.

BURDICK: Did you do 84 searches for the effects of chlorophyll on your animals?

CINDY ANTHONY: I didn`t do 84 searches of anything, but I don`t know what my computer does while it`s running.


VELEZ-MITCHELL: All right. That was prosecutor Linda Drane Burdick, looking and sounding quite furious as she faced off against Cindy Anthony in this explosive day, where basically, Cindy Anthony, as the mother of the defendant, took the stand and hit some home runs for the defense, saying basically all those sinister Internet searches, "I did that, not my daughter," potentially destroying the case that the prosecution had built about premeditation, that Casey was premeditating the murder of her daughter.

Now, this number, 84, OK, that was crucial, because the prosecution had said that there were 84 searches for chloroform on the Anthony family computer.

Now, she`s taking ownership of this word chloroform, saying she searched chloroform. But she`s not taking -- she`s not taking ownership of 84 searches.



LIPPMAN: Exactly what she testified to today. She researched "chlorophyll." From there it linked to "chloroform." She never researched how to make chloroform. She never researched the other items that they were looking for, as like, how to make household weapons. She did research acetone. She did research household chemicals, but that was for other purposes.

VELEZ-MITCHELL: Yes, but I want to get back to this 84.


VELEZ-MITCHELL: Even if she did start with chlorophyll because her puppies were ill, and then it somehow jumped over, as Internet searches do, to chloroform. It doesn`t ad up to 84 incriminating searches for chloroform, because prosecutors believe that the poison used to kill little Caylee was chloroform.

LIPPMAN: But if you heard the rest of the testimony after Ms. Anthony testified today, there`s an issue between the search engines used to -- by the forensic computer analysts and trying to decide whether or not it was 84 searches on that one particular Web site. And I can`t recall the name of it, or if it was 84 searches on MySpace.

Now, if you`ll recall, one of Casey`s boyfriends had a MySpace page that said -- on how to pick up a girl was with chloroform.


LIPPMAN: So that could be where the chloroform came from.

VELEZ-MITCHELL: That was just a picture that was put up on one of his social networking sites that said "win her over through chloroform."

LIPPMAN: Right. Right, exactly. But you`re looking at the 84 MySpace hits on the one forensic analyst`s search or the other one?

VELEZ-MITCHELL: Let me ask you this, quickly. You`re quoted as saying you do not believe -- the Anthonys do not believe she`s innocent.

LIPPMAN: The totality of everything, do they believe the defense theory? Certainly not. George Anthony never molested his daughter. He never helped Casey hide the body or do that on her behalf or do anything that the defense has alleged. Do they support those theories? Absolutely not.

Do they know or are they talking about anything regarding the idea that she committed premeditated murder? They don`t know. That`s why they sit in court day after day, trying to get to the truth. Certainly, they`re not going to say that she`s guilty of everything. They don`t know.

VELEZ-MITCHELL: George and Cindy`s attorney, thank you for coming on.

All right. We have so much more. We are just getting started.



JOSE BAEZ, DEFENSE ATTORNEY FOR CASEY ANTHONY: Do you recall in March of 2008 you doing any types of searches for any items that might include chloroform?

CINDY ANTHONY, CASEY ANTHONY`S MOTHER: Yes, I started looking up chloroform -- I mean "chlorophyll", and then that prompted me to look up "chloroform".

BAEZ: Did you run any types of searching during that time frame -- and I`m specifically referring to March of 2008 -- that might have to do with any types of injuries?

ANTHONY: Yes. A good friend of mine was in a car accident and had multiple chest and head injuries.


JANE VELEZ-MITCHELL, HLN HOST: All right, you could have heard a pin drop as Cindy Anthony appears to fall on the sword for her daughter in court today. Explosive, explosive testimony, Casey Anthony`s mom told the court she`s the one who did all those incriminating Internet searches, specifically for "chloroform" on the home computer. Of course, that knocks the whole prosecution case on its side.

That certainly did not sit well with the prosecution. Watch as Linda Drane-Burdick goes after Cindy in an attempt to discredit her testimony.


LINDA DRANE-BURDICK, PROSECUTOR: Is it your testimony in front of this jury that you were home between 2:16 and 2:28 p.m.?

CINDY ANTHONY: It`s possible. I mean --

DRANE-BURDICK: Were you or weren`t you? Were you home on March 17th of 2008 between 1:43 and 1:55 p.m.?

CINDY ANTHONY: If those computer entries were made, then I made them, I was home.

DRANE-BURDICK: Were you on that Web site 84 times?

CINDY ANTHONY: I was on it several times.

DRANE-BURDICK: Were you on that Web site 84 times? Is this something that you`re recalling now that you`ve changed your medication since July of 2009?

CINDY ANTHONY: The only thing that triggers that day for me is those computer entries. It was not a traumatic day for me like the last three years.


VELEZ-MITCHELL: Wow, talk about angry, even bringing up medication that Cindy takes. Was it too much for the prosecution? I mean, really, it seemed to me like a "Perry Mason" moment, like they were blindsided by this.

I really don`t understand it, because, Jean Casarez, let`s face it Cindy is what they call a shape-shifter in Hollywood. She starts out as one character, she turns into another. She helped the prosecution not so long ago. So now she`s coming back to the stand and helping the defense.

JEAN CASAREZ, CORRESPONDENT, "IN SESSION": And you know, she`s a star witness for the prosecution. I mean she`s the one that said the car smells like there`s been a body in it. She`s critical for the prosecution.

And now Linda was angry, but you know as we`ve seen her progressively on the stand, she has shifted step by step. Remember the testimony that Caylee didn`t wear shorts like that, those would have been too small for her, meaning somebody out of the house that didn`t know Caylee at all would have found those shorts and put them on her?

VELEZ-MITCHELL: Yes, I think what you`re telling me, what I`m hearing is that they could have attacked Cindy more. But she`s kind of the star witness for the prosecution. So if they attack her too much they could end up undermining their own case.

CASAREZ: That`s right.

VELEZ-MITCHELL: So I always say murder cases make for strange bedfellows, and there`s no better example of it than this situation.

Now, Cindy Anthony may have blown up the prosecution`s case for premeditation specifically, but throughout her testimony, Cindy`s answers were vague and elusive. Check this out.


DRANE-BURDICK: Did we cover whether or not you did a search for the word "shovel"?

CINDY ANTHONY: No, I wouldn`t need to look up the word shovel.

DRANE-BURDICK: Right. On March 17th, did you look up the word "inhalation"?



VELEZ-MITCHELL: Honestly, I feel like I`m in the middle of some kind of murder mystery episode, "Murder She Wrote" perhaps. There`s thunder and lightning behind me, rain is pouring down, this dramatic turn of events.

I want to go out to Casey Jordan, criminologist, "in session"; your reaction to this testimony. I think the bottom-line question, do you think she was telling the truth or not?

CASEY JORDAN, CRIMINOLOGIST: You want the bottom line I`m going to tell you.


JORDAN: I do not believe she was telling the truth. There you go.

And I am -- to be honest, I had to work through all of my emotions about this, because as of this morning I absolutely was Cindy`s biggest fan. I was totally impressed by the statement that came out yesterday through Lippman that they do not believe their daughter is innocent. A little cagily phrased, but I was really impressed. I thought the wall of denial, she`s gone full circle. She`s been through a roller coaster for three years and she finally is listening to the state`s case and understands that some of this evidence means that she probably did something. We`re not sure what it is.

And now we have her on the stand completely doing a 180 and working against Linda Drane-Burdick. And that hostility you saw, I think, was well deserved because she bamboozled us. She bamboozled and duped people -- I love that phrase -- the duper`s delight or something that our body language actually --

VELEZ-MITCHELL: Well, let me go to Sunny Hostin because I heard you say on another show, this is a game changer. And I thought, yes, that summarizes it entirely. How is it a game changer?

SUNNY HOSTIN, LEGAL ANALYST, "IN SESSION": I think it`s a game changer because for some time, we`ve been hearing all this forensic evidence and it`s been sort of boring and Jeff Ashton is such a skilled cross-examiner, I thought the defense wasn`t making any headway.

Now you have four jurors taking notes. You have jurors riveted at this testimony. I do believe she used to be sort of the star witness. Remember those phone calls? Remember when she called 911, and was so hysterical and upset? Now all of a sudden we hear her take ownership of the chloroform searches.

I think that that takes premeditation almost off the table for the prosecution. If you got one juror that believes her -- you only need one. You don`t need 12.

VELEZ-MITCHELL: All you need is one.


VELEZ-MITCHELL: This is not a good day for the prosecution, I really don`t think so.

JORDAN: Yes, it`s a fine day for the prosecution.

VELEZ-MITCHELL: And they`ve had a lot of good days. And when they have a good day, I say that they had a good day. Michelle, New Hampshire, your thought or question, Michelle?

MICHELLE, NEW HAMPSHIRE (via telephone): It`s a little bit of both. I think Cindy got on the stand today to help her daughter get away with the death penalty stage. She`s a nurse. She knows what alcohol does. What (INAUDIBLE) does. What acetone can do to a child. My question is though, how can the prosecutor prove that she was at work?

VELEZ-MITCHELL: Oh, ok. Stacey Honowitz, a lot of people are saying, and as a matter of fact when I got on the elevator with the prosecutor Jeff Ashton. I said to him, can`t you go back to work and see if she was there? And he said who`s going to remember what they were doing on a particular day more than three years ago? That`s the problem.

What can they do now in their rebuttal case to undo this damage? How can the prosecution respond to this?

STACEY HONOWITZ, FLORIDA PROSECUTOR: Well, first of all, they can try to bring in work records or co-workers or something like that to see. But there`s just one thing I want to say Jane. I know that everyone thinks it was a big bombshell day because the mother of the defendant in this case changed her testimony. I want you to know that in cases all over the world every single day family members of defendants take the stand and they want to testify on their behalf, and that`s what you saw in court today.

You saw a woman who realized that the case was going for the prosecution, and her daughter is looking at death. And so as a mother, instead of taking the side of the child, who -- the grandchild who`s dead - - she`s stepping up to try to save her daughter`s life. And this is why you see this thing that the prosecution didn`t have a great day, didn`t whip out depositions.

Sometimes less is more because on closing arguments, they will get up and argue, did you hear Cindy Anthony ever say anything about an accidental drowning, ever say anything about there not being the smell of death in the car, anything about putting chloroform in the car?

Cindy Anthony only testified differently to the things that could get her daughter off of premeditation. And so you might thing that the prosecution --

VELEZ-MITCHELL: I agree with your point.

HONOWITZ: -- didn`t have a banner day. The prosecution is used to family members coming up, changing testimony and testifying on behalf of their family.

VELEZ-MITCHELL: I hear you. I hear the passion of a Florida prosecutor, because that`s who you just heard from. Stacey Honowitz, Florida prosecutor.

I want to psycho babble for a second because what occurred to me is, if she is lying and some of the things seemed unbelievable like she remembers a stain from 11 years ago when she bought a car. How she remembers a pop-up from more than three years ago on a computer.

If she is lying -- and you have, I have to say I have utmost respect for Cindy in the sense that I think she`s handled herself with tremendous grace and dignity given that she`s been through hell. And I don`t know if I would have done it as well. But given what she`s been through, I have to say I don`t want to judge her.

Nevertheless, if she is lying, the first thing that occurred to me is, Susan Constantine, this is where Casey Anthony learned to lie.

SUSAN CONSTANTINE, JURY CONSULTANT: This is like, you know, mother like daughter. They kind of just follow the same suit.

But you know, we saw her walk in the door, Cindy, in the power look. Remember she was in the whimsical look with the flowers? She was ready. That also -- is also key. I saw her walking into the courtroom. She even smiled at me.

VELEZ-MITCHELL: She smiled at me too.

CONSTANTINE: She smiled at me. So she was ready.



VELEZ-MITCHELL: Let me tell you something, I got a sense looking at her that she was almost euphoric, this is a moment she wanted to get behind her. She wants to be able to say to herself, I have done every single thing I possibly can to help my daughter. And now she can sort of say I have done everything I can to help my daughter, I can`t do anything else.

So I think that -- this is a fascinating psychological study. What do you think? Do you think that this is how Casey Anthony learned to lie from her mom, Cindy? Is Cindy the one who taught her that brilliant technique?

All right. Nancy Grace is coming up in just about 20 minutes, and she is following all the dramarama of the courtroom. She`s live from Orlando, she`s got the very latest developments. You can`t miss that. She`s just minutes away.

But we`re just getting started here, folks. All right. CNN`s Gary Tuchman broke a jaw-dropping story talking to the Anthony`s attorney and they told him they do not believe Casey`s innocent. And now he`s going to tell me exactly what happened.

This is explosive stuff as well.


GARY TUCHMAN, CNN NATIONAL CORRESPONDENT: 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."



TUCHMAN: Do your clients, George and Cindy Anthony, think that she is not guilty? 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." They love her, they support her, and do not want her to get the death penalty.


VELEZ-MITCHELL: All right. Wow. We`re live in Orlando, there`s a storm behind us. CNN`s Gary Tuchman is also at the center of a storm brewing outside the Casey Anthony courtroom. I think you can hear the thunder if you listen closely.

Now last night, Gary Tuchman interviewed the Anthony family`s attorney who revealed to Gary that Casey`s parents -- well, they have certain feelings about Casey`s guilt or innocence. He`s going to tell you all about what he said today.

The attorney, Mark Lippman has made a slew of media appearances trying to clarify what he was trying to say, perhaps. Let`s listen to what Mark Lippman said.


MARK LIPPMAN, ANTHONY FAMILY ATTORNEY: I said that they don`t necessarily believe she is not innocent. But we didn`t complete the conversation in that the full text of this that they do not know whether or not she is guilty of the crimes that have been alleged.


VELEZ-MITCHELL: All right. I`m delighted to have CNN`s Gary Tuchman here with me live in Orlando, Florida. What exactly did George and Cindy`s attorney Mark Lippman say to you? Let`s start with that.

TUCHMAN: Well, I think he just clarified it. He did say -- that was our main quote that we got from him. That George and Cindy do not believe their daughter is innocent. Now, innocent -- the term is not a legal term. Guilty or not guilty are the legal terms. You could be not innocent but found not guilty in a court of law.

So his -- I think what bothered him, he`s not saying the words were inaccurate, he`s not saying it`s off the record, but he got lots of phone calls after we heard this last night.

Why didn`t you talk to us about that? I was very curious about that. How these parents felt -- they`ve been here for 26 days. I wanted to talk about it. He told me that, we reported it. We stand by it. If he didn`t want to say it, he probably should have said today, you know what, I wish I didn`t say it like that. I have no comment.

VELEZ-MITCHELL: Yes. And what I see here as a theme through all of Cindy`s appearances in court, this whole brouhaha over what her attorney said to you, is they`re trying to have it both ways. They essentially don`t want anybody to think that Cindy`s the one who left the swimming pool ladder in the wrong position so that her granddaughter theoretically or allegedly dies. They don`t want anybody to think George is a child molester or that he covered up an accidental drowning. They don`t want anybody to think that Lee the son is a molester.

But they also don`t want their daughter to go to death and be found guilty and be eligible for the death penalty.

TUCHMAN: Mark Lippman has a tough job. He`s a good attorney. And this is a tough job because of all the things you just talked about.


TUCHMAN: And that was his main message to me last night that the most important goal is that she not get the death penalty, that she not die by lethal injection. And he didn`t complain when I talked about on TV last night or today.

VELEZ-MITCHELL: You know, I have to bring Susan Constantine into this conversation because you look at the psychological stuff, you analyze body language. I`m in 12 step, we talk about enabling and co-dependency. And if I had to summarize this family and the dysfunction of this family, I would say enabling parents and co-dependence.

Nobody can figure out where one person`s problem ends and the other person`s problem begins. And this has now escalated to a crescendo where some might say Cindy, the mother, is actually trying to take ownership of Casey`s problems and Casey`s misdeeds, perhaps.

CONSTANTINE: Exactly. And here what we`re dealing with is a very high stakes situation. Ok, what else does she have to lose at this point? You know. She`s going to lose her daughter if she doesn`t do something. She finally has come to grips with what`s going on and she changed her story.

This is not the first time that she`s done that; her ambiguity and how she`s used her words so cleverly and intertwined them. There`s always been a little bit of truth in every one of those lies that have been woven in. Chloroform, chlorophyll, Zenaida Gonzales; all of these little stories are all webbed in to actual real people in her life.

But if I were to summarize this, here with this family is that you have a mother that loves her daughter no matter what, unconditionally, and she`ll take a bullet for her if she has to.

VELEZ-MITCHELL: Yes, and maybe that love is at the center of Casey`s sense of entitlement and dysfunction. Maybe you can love somebody to the point where they feel like they can do anything and get away with it. And it doesn`t really matter what they do because there will always be mommy and daddy there to take care of them.

And she may be right. They may have taken care of her today.

We`ve got more calls on the other side. Stay right there. We`re going to hear what you have to say next.



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

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

DRANE-BURDICK: Household weapons?

CINDY ANTHONY: I did not search for household weapons.

DRANE-BURDICK: Neck breaking?

CINDY ANTHONY: I did not search for neck breaking.


VELEZ-MITCHELL: All right. Now Cindy claims she did some of these sinister searches -- apparently sinister searches -- like for alcohol and hydrogen peroxide because she was worried about the alcohol content in hand sanitizer. And from there she says she went on to do searches for other household products. Really, you have hydrogen peroxide, acetone.

Listen to Cindy explain this or try to.


CINDY ANTHONY: One of my nurses had sent me an e-mail knowing that Caylee was of the age that she could be affected if we used hand sanitizer and she got her hands on it. That scare came out in March.


VELEZ-MITCHELL: Casey Jordan, criminologist, do you think the jury is going to buy this? Because some of these were really far-fetched for me.

JORDAN: No, and I think we have at least one nurse, a nursing student. Somebody who`s in counselling, we have a teacher who teaches health science. I don`t think for one minute they`re going to believe that a nurse has to Google alcohol, rubbing alcohol, hydrogen peroxide, inhalation maybe she did, maybe she didn`t. Or that if your dog might be sick on a bamboo root? Where did we learn about the bamboo root? From her daughter.

That she`s going to Google chloroform based on the search for chlorophyll. My dead ringer is the IT guy. He`s my new favorite juror. I don`t think he buys any of this nonsense about yes I did, maybe I did. Maybe I didn`t. Pop-ups happened. I did it several times; I must have done it 84 times. I like that his there. I really do.

VELEZ-MITCHELL: Yes, I think it`s going to be very interesting. Gary Tuchman, of course, we have the rebuttal case. So what do you think the prosecution is going to try to do to erase this damage?

TUCHMAN: I think after today, one of the things the prosecution may do in its rebuttal case is find records from her place of employment to verify that she was at work, supposedly the day she says she was on the computer. That`s what the prosecution believed, that she was at work the day that the daughter used the computer. It`s apparent to me from some questioning today it`s very likely they`ll present that proof in their rebuttal case.

VELEZ-MITCHELL: But I`m wondering if they have that proof. I mean it`s pretty late as Cindy said, those e-mails don`t last forever. But I would think it would be fascinating if they went, if they could go back to the work e-mails and find out, no, Cindy was at work, doing an e-mail at the very time that Cindy says she`s at home doing these Internet searches that the prosecution was convinced Casey was doing. What do you think about that Susan?

CONSTANTINE: Again, you know, she caught herself in her own lie. One of the things is that what liars do is they give you too much detail. Either that or they don`t give you enough. This ambiguity that she puts in all of her conversations is something to really watch for.

But you know, if you notice, she gives you the extra two or three or four words that you don`t need to know. Just answer the question, yes or no. And anything outside of that, it needs to be questioned.

VELEZ-MITCHELL: Well, I think it`s going to be fascinating to see how the prosecution deals with this in the rebuttal case. I will say the prosecutor Linda Drane-Burdick, looked very happy, was chatting with Jose Baez before court. And then at one point she looked just like this, I thought, what? I think she knew this was coming, I just think she realized, uh-oh.

I just wonder what they`re going to do to try to rehabilitate this premeditation.

All right. Final thoughts when we come right back.


VELEZ-MITCHELL: When I saw Cindy Anthony in court today dressed in that really beautiful lavender outfit, she looked upbeat, she looked happy. She smiled at me. She also smiled at Susan Constantine, the body language expert. Your analysis, Susan.

CONSTANTINE: Well, you know what, in the past we`ve seen her as the flower child. Now, today she walked in with power, her shoulders are up. She was striding fast. She took that stand. She was ready for the fight before she walked in the door. Here`s a woman that would do anything that she can to save her daughter even if it means stretching the truth somewhat.

VELEZ-MITCHELL: Yes. And again, we don`t know for sure, all we can say is that our common sense tells us that remembering a pop-up from three years ago or a stain in a car from 11 years ago seems unlikely.

But again, we`re going to have to see what the prosecution does. This is not over, it was a great day for the defense, but every day is an adventure here in Orlando.

"Nancy Grace" is up next.