Return to Transcripts main page


Man Who Found Caylee`s Remains Testifies

Aired June 28, 2011 - 19:00:00   ET



JANE VELEZ-MITCHELL, HOST (voice-over): Tonight, fireworks in Casey Anthony court. George, Cindy, Lee and meter reader Roy Kronk all take the stand.

ROY KRONK, FOUND CAYLEE`S BODY: I still didn`t think it was real. So I very gently took it and put it into the right eye socket and then I gently pivoted it up and I looked down and realized what it was.

VELEZ-MITCHELL: It`s the moment we`ve all been waiting for. But is the defense case falling flat?

And Lee and Cindy tell two completely different stories. Who`s telling the truth and who`s lying?

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Did you ever instruct Dominic Casey and (UNINTELLIGIBLE) to go search up Suburban Drive?


UNIDENTIFIED MALE: What did she tell you?

LEE ANTHONY, BROTHER OF CASEY: That she sent Dominic into the woods.

VELEZ-MITCHELL: I`m live in Orlando, and I`m taking your calls.

ISSUES starts now.



KRONK (via phone): I`m a meter reader with Orange County, and I had the walk today that included the Anthonys` home.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: He duct taped my hands one time.

KRONK: I`m in the (UNINTELLIGIBLE) right down near the school. I`ve been here, like, an hour. I just found a human skull.

I know that I haven`t done anything wrong, so I don`t have any reason to be troubled by any of this.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Casey, where`s Caylee? At least, where`s her remains?

JOSE BAEZ, CASEY`S ATTORNEY: You will not be able to trust a thing having to do with Mr. Kronk.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Did you call the sheriff`s department? Did you also report that you had seen what might be a skull?

KRONK: Yes, sir.

BAEZ: He`s broke. It`s time to cash in his lottery ticket.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: The body of Caylee Marie Anthony had been thrown into a littered swamp, like she was just a piece of trash.

KRONK: I don`t mean to be rude, sir, but you`re being a little vague.


UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Did you ever instruct Dominic Casey and Jim Hoover to go search off of Suburban Drive?

CINDY ANTHONY: No, sir, I did not.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Did you ever ask them to go videotape that area?

CINDY ANTHONY: No, sir, I did not.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Mr. Anthony, did you ever have an argument or discussion with your mother about sending Dominic Casey to look for Caylee off Suburban Drive?

L. ANTHONY: Yes, sir, I did. I was very angry that my mom specifically, but my folks decided to do that without keeping me in the loop. And it was something that we -- for me, I couldn`t believe that they were even considering that Caylee would no longer be with us and they`d be willing to look for her in that way. And I frankly didn`t want anything to do with that.


VELEZ-MITCHELL: If that sounds like a contradiction, you are absolutely right.

Good evening. I`m Jane Velez Mitchell right outside the courthouse here in Orlando, Florida, where Casey Anthony is on trial behind me.

It`s been another explosive day filled with absolutely head-spinning testimony. You just heard Casey`s brother Lee returned to the stand. He directly contradicts what his own mother, Cindy, had just said under oath. So who is lying? One of them is.

But the biggest story of the day, meter reader Roy Kronk finally took the stand. He is, of course, the man who found little Caylee`s body in the woods. The defense would like us to believe that Roy somehow hid little Caylee`s body, although when and how still totally unclear tonight, despite hours of grilling. Kronk and defense attorney Cheney Mason battled on and on and on in court today. Listen to some of it.


KRONK: I held the bag out. After, like, the third shake, the contents of the bag shifted. And I looked down on my feet, and that`s when I discovered the skull basically down at my feet.

For my efforts to try and help and be a good citizen, I basically got chewed out.

CHENEY MASON, CASEY`S ATTORNEY: Did you tell Mr. Dean (ph) that that would be a good place to dump a body and nobody would smell it? Words to that effect?

KRONK: Words to that effect. Could you please clarify what date are we talking about? Are we talking about August or are we talking about December?

MASON: Do you remember doing that?

KRONK: I don`t mean to be rude, sir, but you`re being a little vague. You`re not being specific enough. Please specify what you`re talking about.

MASON: You and -- and Mr. Dean were arguing about whose idea it was first?

KRONK: Once again, sir, you`ve completely lost me.


VELEZ-MITCHELL: ... courtroom for this back and forth. I sat -- it looked to me like the defense did not discover any new information, zero. Were they just trying to confuse Kronk, trip him up or confuse the jury? And since the defense did accuse Roy Kronk in their opening statement of hiding the body, why the heck didn`t they ask him when, where and how he allegedly hid the body?

Closing arguments could be just a couple of days away. Shouldn`t we know where the defense is going by now? Or is the defense basically trying to confuse the jury into a not guilty verdict?

I`m taking your calls on this: 1-877-JVM-SAYS. That`s 1-877-586-7297.

Here with me, "In Session`s" Jean Casarez. Jean, you and I in for today. There is breaking news of a shocking nature late in the day. Tell us all about it.



CASAREZ: The jury had gone, and all of a sudden the defense says they want to do a proffer back outside the presence of the jury so the judge can hear the testimony. Well, all of a sudden Jesse Grund takes the stand. Jesse Grund, that`s the former fiance of Casey Anthony. And the defense wants to get into this trial sexual abuse by family members toward Casey. They want this stuff in. Judge made a decision. But we were there (ph). Take a listen.


BAEZ: Did Casey express an opinion or a desire not to have Caylee around Lee?


BAEZ: And did you ask her why?

GRUND: Yes, I did.

BAEZ: And what did she say?

GRUND: She told me at one point in recent years that she woke up one night with Lee standing over her in bed, staring at her sleeping. And then another instance was groping her in the middle of the night.


VELEZ-MITCHELL: All right, so there you have the ex-fiance of Casey Anthony saying that, oh, Casey told him that she would wake up and she`d see Lee Anthony, her brother, hovering over her as if to grope her, was that it, Jean? Or actually groping her?

CASAREZ: Actually groping her. And she didn`t want Caylee around Lee, she told allegedly to Jesse, because of this. Now, the defense wants this in under state of mind exception to the hearsay, because it is hearsay. But the judge is saying, "I don`t think so."

VELEZ-MITCHELL: Stacey Honowitz, to me, this says, well, maybe Casey is not going to testify. They`re so intent on getting Jesse Grund, the ex- fiance, to say this when Casey could just get on the stand and say it herself. What do you think?

STACEY HONOWITZ, FLORIDA PROSECUTOR: Well, who`s going to believe her when she takes the stand? They`re trying to back door it. That`s what it`s called.

The prosecutors are 100 percent right. This is hearsay. The -- the defense is trying to get it in through the backdoor so she doesn`t have to get on the stand and talk about it. But it`s not going to come in. It`s hearsay; it`s not state of mind.

The bottom line is, they have no defense. This was a big day of nothing. They chipped away and chipped away and chipped away and made no points whatsoever. All these witnesses were called just to confuse the jury. And I guarantee you when the prosecution brings in rebuttal witnesses and gets up on closing argument, they`ll have their day in court. This is a big...

VELEZ-MITCHELL: And the theme of the day is, again, Casey Anthony attacking her own relatives. She just attacked Lee there, accused him again of groping her.

Now one of today`s biggest revelations, her dad George, OK? George Anthony, under oath, denied that he cheated on Cindy. Jose Baez asked him about it, point blank, and here`s what George had to say. Listen to this response.


MASON: Do you know a woman by the name of Krystal Holloway?

GEORGE ANTHONY, CASEY`S FATHER: I know her by that name and also another name.

MASON: Did you have a romantic relationship with her?

G. ANTHONY: No. No, sir, no. To me, that`s -- that`s very funny.

MASON: Very funny?

G. ANTHONY: Yes, sir.

MASON: And were you ever intimate with her?

G. ANTHONY: No, sir. That`s also very funny.


VELEZ-MITCHELL: Now, HLN, law enforcement analyst Mike Brooks, they`re grilling George about this alleged affair with some volunteer, which he denies, but they don`t ask him the key question about molestation. In the opening statements, Jose Baez accuses him of molesting Casey. They don`t ask him about it at all.

MIKE BROOKS, HLN LAW ENFORCEMENT ANALYST: No. They had an opportunity. This was another opportunity they had, because they could have just dovetailed it right on the -- his alleged affair that he had with Krystal Holloway, or whatever her real name is. But they didn`t. But they didn`t.

But I tell you -- I tell you, Jane, I`m still not buying his whole story. I -- a married guy doesn`t go over to console a single woman at her apartment, even though he said Cindy knew that he was over there and was OK with it.

VELEZ-MITCHELL: Well, this is a classic, I think, distraction game. Debra Opri, the only reason why this would be relevant is if he, George, said in pillow talk with this River Cruz, "Oh, it was an accident that snowballed out of control."

But we focused so much on his alleged affair. Did the jury forget all about that and is just thinking, "Well, maybe this George is a cheater" and then "Oh, well, he could be a molester, too," even though they didn`t even ask him about the molestation?

DEBRA OPRI, FAMILY LAW ATTORNEY: We know that the purpose of this line of questioning is to get Krystal on the stand to say, "This is what he told me." So George -- here`s what the defense is doing, which troubles me. They are putting up witnesses, i.e., the family members and then they are basically attacking the credibility of their own witnesses.

Now, George gets up and he says, "Ha, ha, ha, it`s a joke. Blah, blah, blah, it never happened." He was asked already earlier in the case by the prosecution, I believe, whether he had ever done anything inappropriate with his daughter, and I think he had testified no. So that`s not an issue.

But the whole summation of this line of questioning is that they`re trying to get the big bombshell witnesses up.

VELEZ-MITCHELL: You know what it reminds me? It`s like gossiping about someone and saying something nasty -- "Oh, that person is a molester." And then when you`re face to face to them, not even mentioning it.

OPRI: You`re right.

VELEZ-MITCHELL: It`s cowardly. And it`s attacking the family and not even giving them the opportunity to clear their name on the witness stand.

OPRI: Jane, George...

VELEZ-MITCHELL: Shame (ph) on this line of questioning.

OPRI: Jane, your -- the conduct of George and the mother and Lee are questionable. But the evidence that the -- the defense has to get out is, did George say it was an accident that snowballed out of control?

VELEZ-MITCHELL: They are not on trial for murder. Casey is.

OPRI: But the defense is...

VELEZ-MITCHELL: Stand by, experts. We`re just getting started. And we are taking your calls: 1-877-JVM-SAYS, 1-877-586-7297. What do you think about this line of questioning?

Lee and Cindy`s conflicting testimony up next. What does that mean? And of course, meter reader Roy Kronk taking the stand. Was the defense able to tie him to their case?


MASON: When you first found the body, the whole area was dry just to walk around in, was it? The area where you were?

KRONK: I never discovered a body in August. And no, I stated before and I state again that in August it was in water.




KRONK: I just simply tried to do the right thing, and for my efforts to try and help and be a good citizen, I basically got chewed out for half an hour and was just called horrendous things and, yes, I was still pretty pissed off by that.


VELEZ-MITCHELL: Today it seemed like Roy Kronk was on trial. And in court, this meter reader described what he did when he found the body in December of 2008. So could his actual physical prodding of the remains had shifted the duct tape? This is crucial. Listen carefully.


MASON: When you went back in there on December the 11th, sir, and you saw the skull, did you do anything?

KRONK: Yes, sir. I was standing behind it, so I was looking at it from behind, and I still didn`t think it was real. So I very gently took it and put it into the right eye socket, and I gently pivoted it up and looked down, and I realized what it was. And I set it down as gently as I could and went up and called my area supervisor.


VELEZ-MITCHELL: All right, now, prosecutors say Casey murdered her daughter, using duct tape over the mouth as the murder weapon.

I want to go out to Linda Kenney Baden who used to be on the defense team. Could Roy Kronk`s admission that he actually physically prodded the skull, in your opinion, create reasonable doubt on the possibility that he moved that duct tape and, therefore, the prosecution can`t argue anymore that the duct tape was put over the mouth as the murder weapon?


Actually, it`s even more than that. He testified in his deposition, and we heard it today for the first time, that at one point, he picked up the bag, and the contents shifted of the bag. Another time, he said a skull rolled out. He tried to backtrack from that today.

And now today he says he took the meter reader stick and he pivots the head around.

And remember how that skull was found. One, you couldn`t even tell it was a skull. Two it was in sort of like a weepy muck, and it was on its anatomically correct position.

This testimony today casts great doubt about the position of the duct tape, the position of the hair and more importantly, you know what? You never heard the medical examiner being told about it, informed about it or given to him, because Roy Kronk never told anybody until his deposition was taken.

VELEZ-MITCHELL: All right. All right. That`s one side. But Mike Brooks, I have a feeling as HLN`s law enforcement analyst, you might think, well, prodding the skull gently with the meter reader stick is not going to alter the course of this case, and they`re really taking that ball and running with it. What do you say?

BROOKS: You know, it`s really hard to say, because he said initially, just like Linda pointed out, in his first deposition, that it fell out of the bag. Well, the pictures from the crime scene, if you look, the bag was in a crumpled mess up underneath some leaves by that log. And then you had the skull that was -- as she said, anatomically correct.

Now, if he took that -- that meter reader stick and just brought it back a little bit. He said he didn`t -- he didn`t lift it off the ground, could it have affected the duct tape? Well, if that`s the case, if the duct tape wasn`t on the skull, then the mandible would have fallen off. It would have been two separate pieces but it wasn`t.

VELEZ-MITCHELL: All right. We`re going to go to Ann in Ohio for a question. Your question or thought, Ann?

CALLER: I just have a question. Sorry, it`s not about Roy Kronk. Impeachment with the Anthony family, particularly at this time, Cindy and Lee. What is, for lack of a better word, the criteria for impeachment? And when does impeachment occur? During the course of the trial or after everything has gone on?

VELEZ-MITCHELL: Well, that`s a very good question, Ann. Excellent, because as part of this very explosive day, we had Lee taking the stand and contradicting what his mother, Cindy, had just said under oath. So somebody is lying.

CASAREZ: Yes, somebody is lying. We were in the courtroom and we see them sitting together in the court. And one goes up and says one thing, and then Lee goes up and says absolutely the opposite.

Yes, Lee impeached Cindy with her testimony. The question is, who`s telling the truth? I think the defense put this on to show a dysfunctional family; once again that nobody tells Lee anything. They might searching for a deceased Caylee, but he`s left out of the loop.


Now I want to get to what Jose Baez, attorney, said. And we`re talking about Roy Kronk. Bouncing around a little bit, because there were so many people in court. This is what Jose Baez said in the opening statement. Listen to this.


BAEZ: Mr. Kronk is a morally bankrupt individual who actually took Caylee`s body and hid her. And any -- anything that you derive from the scene off of Suburban Drive is completely unreliable because of the actions of Mr. Kronk.


VELEZ-MITCHELL: Linda Kenney Baden -- Linda Kenney Baden, Jose Baez accused Roy Kronk of hiding the body. They never asked him today, "Where did you hide the body? When did you hide the body? How did you hide the body?" Why not?

BADEN: Well, here`s the reason. And it`s something that Mike Brooks would never have done. They never -- the police never got his records, never got his cell phone records from these times. They never got his cell tower hits. They didn`t get his computer. They didn`t get his GPS.

And what do we know? We do know there was a hair from a Caucasian on the head of that child. Did they take his DNA? Did they get it? The only thing I can say from the day is it wasn`t Mike Brooks here. I`m sorry to say, Mike.

VELEZ-MITCHELL: I`m sorry, Linda, great, great try. But I don`t buy it.




MASON: You and -- and Mr. Dean and others were arguing about whose idea it was first?

KRONK: Once again, sir, you`ve completely lost me. Once again, you`ve completely lost me. You`re not being specific enough. Please specify what you`re talking about.


VELEZ-MITCHELL: Linda Kenney Baden, I know you`re close to the defense, used to be on the defense team. It seemed to me that Cheney Mason, as Roy Kronk pointed out there, as you saw in his testimony, seemed a little bit almost out of it at times. He got confused about the key dates. And Roy Kronk kind of got him a couple of times, saying. "Please be specific. I don`t even know what day you`re talking about."

BADEN: Well, that`s normal cross-examination. I think, you know, you have to look at this, Jane -- look, none of these stories smell right, right? I mean, you may not think the defense proved that he took the body, but his story doesn`t smell right.

And if you have an incomplete investigation on the highest profile case that was going on, and had been going on for years, that they didn`t check him, they didn`t see if the hair was his, they didn`t even check the fiber on the duct tape to see if it matched any of his clothes, my God, that could be reasonable doubt.

So you have to have the same, like, smell test for Roy Kronk`s story as you did for any other witness in this case. .

VELEZ-MITCHELL: Listen, I don`t know that Roy Kronk`s story doesn`t smell right. I would say that the reaction of law enforcement doesn`t smell right.

Roy Kronk testified he had to practically beg cops to come out and check out his claim back in August of, "Hey, I`m a meter reader. I went to relieve myself, and I saw a suspicious package." This he reported back in August. The deputy who met him back at the swamp on August 13 was, well, let`s politely say less than pleased about having been called there. Listen to this.


KRONK: The deputy came down to the water line, did this, did this, walked back up the bank, slipped on the mud, and then chewed me out for half an hour. That`s exactly what happened.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Did he get within six to eight feet, sir, toward the area where you said you saw the skull?

KRONK: No, sir.


VELEZ-MITCHELL: Jean Casarez, this was so infuriating. This cop was fired for this behavior. Had this guy, instead of yelling at what prosecutors say is a good Samaritan, not some kind of greedy, fame-obsessed monster that the defense has painted out. But if Roy Kronk was, in fact, a good Samaritan, and just called this cop, had this cop done this job, we would have saved hundreds of thousands of dollars.

CASAREZ: I know it. And there may have been tissue left, possibly something to denote cause of death.

I`m just trying to figure out, what did Roy Kronk do wrong? I mean, he called the authorities. He didn`t blab to everybody about it. And he kept it private, but he kept calling, day after day: the 11th, 12th, and 13th of August. That`s a good citizen, right? Isn`t that what you`re supposed to do?

VELEZ-MITCHELL: Yes, Linda Kennedy Baden, you say his story doesn`t smell right. I mean, he`s a meter reader. He saw something suspicious. He tried to get cops to investigate it. They wouldn`t. He kind of forgot about it. He went back in December and looked and, voila, the water had receded, and there it was. Why does that not smell right, Linda?

BADEN: I guess if you`re going to call your son before, a month before you found the body, and say, you know, you`re going to be famous, you`re going to be on TV.

VELEZ-MITCHELL: Then he called him in December 11. That`s what he testified to.

BADEN: I expect you`re going to see himself contradicted, we`ve all read the deposition. So you`re going to be pitting a father against a son.

But remember, he also said in August that the bag was vinyl. Well, you wouldn`t know that unless you picked it up, Jane, because it was the inside of the bag was vinyl. And he has changed the scene around and, quite frankly, the prosecution should never had gone to first-degree murder.

VELEZ-MITCHELL: Well, it would seem to be the defense also fudges on the dates. We`ll be back with the very latest.




CINDY ANTHONY, MOTHER OF CASEY ANTHONY: What do you want me to tell Caylee?


UNIDENTIFIED MALE: In October of 2008 you were completely sold on the lies that your sister had told you?

L. ANTHONY: Yes and no.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Get out of line. Get out of line.

JOSE BAEZ, DEFENSE ATTORNEY FOR CASEY ANTHONY: Did you have a romantic relationship with her?

GEORGE ANTHONY, FATHER OF CASEY ANTHONY: No, sir, no. To me, that`s very funny.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Let him go. Let him go. Let him go. Let him go.

BAEZ: Did you ever instruct Dominic Casey and Jim Hoover to go search off at Suburban Drive?

CINDY ANTHONY: No, sir, I did not. .

BAEZ: Did your mother tell you anything about sending Dominic with a video camera to Suburban Drive?

L. ANTHONY: That she sent Dominic into the woods off of suburban because she got a psychic tip.

BAEZ: If you conducted a paternity test to determine if Lee Anthony was the biological father of Caylee Anthony?

G. ANTHONY: Shut up. I`m talking. I am talking.

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

L. ANTHONY: I was very angry that my mom specifically, but my folks decided to do that without keeping many in the loop.


VELEZ-MITCHELL: A parade of star witnesses on the stand in the Casey Anthony trial. We here live in Orlando right outside the courthouse.

Casey`s dad George took the stand again and faced some embarrassing questions again; this time about an alleged affair with a search volunteer. Listen to this.


BAEZ: Is it your testimony that she was just another volunteer?

G. ANTHONY: Absolutely, just another volunteer.

BAEZ: No different than any other volunteer?

G. ANTHONY: No, because everyone who ever volunteered in our command centers, stuff like that. Some became more than volunteers, they became friends.

BAEZ: Did you have a romantic relationship with her.

G. ANTHONY: No, sir, no. To me, that`s very funny.

BAEZ: Very funny?

G. ANTHONY: Yes, sir.

BAEZ: And were you ever intimate with her?

G. ANTHONY: No, sir. That`s also very funny.


VELEZ-MITCHELL: All right. And then it was time for meter reader Roy Kronk. I`m very delighted to have attorney, Mark Nejame here. Mark is a very prominent attorney here in the Florida area. You actually awarded Roy Kronk $5,000 as part of an award for finding Caylee`s remains. You obviously think he`s a Good Samaritan, not the fame obsessed monster that the defense is painting him out to be. How do you think he did on the stand?

MARK ANTHONY, former ATTORNEY: I think he did well. I was expecting him to do well. He has been painted that way, exactly as you say. And I have very much been looking forward to this.

The reality of it is I wasn`t going to give him any money until I realized that he was telling the truth. But I met with him and his lawyer one Saturday and the story that you heard in court was told to me. And it`s an honest story.

The reality of it is: is that Roy Kronk is a Good Samaritan. He had a gut feeling and he followed his instincts. Despite being rejected over and over by law enforcement, he showed up, he did the right thing. And thank God he did, because but for him, we still may be looking for Caylee Anthony today.

VELEZ-MITCHELL: Debra Opri, what burned me up about this extensive examination, and I was sitting there in court, again, I needed to -- the toothpicks to keep my eyes open. It went on and on and on. They never asked Roy Kronk about what they accused him in opening statements; namely that he hid the body. That he somehow took the body, hid it, and then I guess put it back in the same place and then pretended to discover it? We never got into that.

To me, that`s like the big elephant in the room.

DEBRA OPRI, ATTORNEY: Baez basically destroyed his case with this witness. You don`t accuse someone who finds remains of being morally bankrupt and hiding the remains for the reward and then get him on the stand and don`t explore that line of questioning. Baez basically destroyed his own credibility with this witness.

This witness, as far as I`m concerned was pristine. He was honorable and he basically answered the questions. And I admire him. And just because law enforcement may not have taken him seriously at any point in time doesn`t mean that what he saw and what he observed and what reports he made were not accurate. He was a very credible witness in my mind.

VELEZ-MITCHELL: Yes. By the way, just FYI, it started to rain here on cue, right at the start of our show in Orlando; the very kinds of torrential rains that allowed little Caylee`s body to remain under water undetected.

Now, Roy Kronk`s estranged son has reportedly claimed that his father called him on the phone in November 2008 and said hey, son, I found Caylee`s remains. Watch me. I`m going to be on TV. That was a month before Caylee`s remains were actually found.

Today on the stand, Roy Kronk said I called him December 11th, the day I actually found the remains. Listen to this.


ROY KRONK, METER READER WHO FOUND CAYLEE`S REMAINS: And I told him on December 11th that I had found something and that if he looked on television that night, he would be able to see me for the first time since he was 8 years old. I never denied making that phone call, sir.


VELEZ-MITCHELL: All right. Stacey Honowitz, it seems a theme of this defense is to take a story and change the date and once you change that date by a month then it becomes very sinister. And it turns out that Roy Kronk said "No, I called him the day I actually did find the body."

STACEY HONOWITZ, FLORIDA PROSECUTOR: Look, this has become the theatre of the absurd. Quite frankly, that`s what it is. What they`re trying to do now is trying to say Casey Anthony is not responsible for the murder of her child. George Anthony is, Roy Kronk is involved. Everybody else is involved but her.

All of these issues are collateral; they mean absolutely nothing. I guarantee that those prosecutors are sitting there thinking to themselves, good for him, I`m glad he put them all up. We`re not scared. This doesn`t do anything for us. All it goes to show is there is no defense.

You ask Debra, why didn`t he ask the question, where did he get the body? Because there is no answer. He didn`t do anything with the body.

And I`ll tell you another thing, the bottom line is he did not pre-try his defense witnesses because he had defense witnesses contradicting what another defense witness had to say. So this day, like I said, was all about nothing.

VELEZ-MITCHELL: All right. Now you said, it was a theater of the absurd. Again, the defense apparently trying to paint Roy Kronk in some sort of vague way as this greedy, fame-obsessed person. But the prosecutor actually brought this back to earth in a very specific cross-examination, addressing boom, boom, boom all the issues that the defense danced around for hours. Listen to this.


LINDA DRANE-BURDICK, PROSECUTOR: You`ve never had any access to Casey Anthony`s Pontiac Sunfire, I take it?

KRONK: No, ma`am. No, ma`am.

DRANE-BURDICK: Have you ever had access to the home of the Anthony family?

KRONK: Other than the meter in their front yard, no, ma`am.

DRANE-BURDICK: You`ve never had access to the inside of their home, I take it?

KRONK: No, ma`am.

DRANE-BURDICK: You`ve never had access to their backyard?

KRONK: No, ma`am.

DRANE-BURDICK: You`ve never had any access to the computer in the Anthony family residence I take it?

KRONK: No, ma`am.

DRANE-BURDICK: You`ve never had access to any of Caylee Anthony`s clothing, I take it?

KRONK: No, ma`am.

DRANE-BURDICK: And never had access to any of the duct tape in the Anthony family home, right?

KRONK: Yes, ma`am.


VELEZ-MITCHELL: As far as I can see, that`s when the prosecutor brought it back to Planet Earth by saying hold on, this is a little child`s body here and did you have any access to her home, her parents` home, her mother`s car -- all the key elements of the forensics in this case.

NEJAME: It was excellent cross-examination. It was short. It was sweet. It was concise. And it was to the point where a juror could understand that in common sense terms. There was no connection with Roy Kronk and anybody or anything in the Anthony family. And it illustrates how preposterous the whole defense theory is.

Think about it. Roy Kronk according to the defense would have had to excavate this child, this child`s remains. The roots, the bugs, the plants, all the debris, move it into a location, sit on it for a few months, a man making $10.50 an hour, living in another county. And then when the time was right come back and replant it in order for this defense theory to sustain itself.

The prosecutor has to keep talking in simple terms to the jury so that they understand the preposterousness of -- with their claims.

VELEZ-MITCHELL: And frankly, I was bugged by this -- pun intended -- that this guy who prosecutors say is a Good Samaritan is at the receiving end of this barking, grilling by Cheney Mason. And yet when he says something that might lead into ok, we`re accusing you of moving the body like, oh, he stuck his little meter stick into the skull, they don`t ask well, then did you pick up the body and take it anywhere.

They`re afraid -- it seems like they`re afraid to ask that, Mike Brooks, because that would actually open beyond the insinuation that he did something into the reality. And the reality doesn`t make common sense, Mike.

MIKE BROOKS, HLN LAW ENFORCEMENT ANALYST: No, the reality doesn`t make common sense. In that opening statement, they left that big gap and it did nothing, nothing with the examination of Roy Kronk to narrow that gap or to even move the gap at all.

How did he still move the remains of little Caylee? Where did he put them? It`s preposterous.

And Cheney Mason, he kept asking the same questions over and over and paraphrasing. And one time he had to take a recess because he couldn`t think of anything else to ask him. Cheney Mason, not a good job today.

VELEZ-MITCHELL: I mean listen. I don`t care what you say in opening statements, but at least ask the person you`re accusing of questions about what you`re accusing them of.

Hang tight everybody, we`re going to get to Debra Opri on the other side. And our caller Taylor from Toronto.

Who is Roy Kronk? Details on the meter reader thrust into this high- profile case. I want to hear from you, 1-877-JVM-SAYS.


KRONK: Held the bag out. After like a third shake the contents of the bag shifted and I looked down at my feet and that`s when I discovered the skull basically at my feet.




BAEZ: Did you ever instruct Dominic Casey and Jim Hoover to go search off of Suburban Drive?

CINDY ANTHONY: No, sir, I did not.

BAEZ: Did you ever ask them to go videotape that area?

CINDY ANTHONY: No, sir, I did not.

BAEZ: Mr. Anthony, did you ever have an argument or discussion with your mother about sending Dominic Casey to look for Caylee off Suburban Drive with a video?

L. ANTHONY: Yes, sir, I did. I was very angry that my mom specifically but my folks decided to do that without keeping me in the loop. And it was something that we -- for me I couldn`t believe that they were even considering that Caylee would no longer be with us and they would be willing to look for her that way. And I frankly didn`t want anything to do with that.


VELEZ-MITCHELL: All right. Cindy and Lee completely contradict each other on the stand. You just heard it right there.

Now, somebody`s lying, I don`t know who. But I have to say, if it`s Cindy, that calls in to her question, her testimony last week in which she takes credit for those incriminating Internet searches for chloroform. Check this out.


CINDY ANTHONY: Well, I started looking at chlorophyll. And I was concerned about my smallest -- we have two Yorkie puppies. And the smallest one was having some issues where she was extremely tired all the time. And both of the dogs would eat the bamboo leaves out in the back. So I started to look up sources from the backyard that would potentially cause her to be more sleepy than it would affect the larger dog.


VELEZ-MITCHELL: So Debra Opri, Cindy Anthony took ownership and said I`m the one who all those sinister Internet searches that the prosecutors are saying points to premeditation that Casey planned the murder of her daughter. The mother is saying no, I did all that.

But today her son basically accused her of being a liar about another issue. So do you think -- and this was brought out by the defense. Do you think that`s going to hurt the defense?

OPRI: Yes.

VELEZ-MITCHELL: And if so, why the heck did they do that?

OPRI: Yes. Because the defense is not thinking. They have the strongest arguments with the family members and then they have them destroying each other`s testimony. I don`t understand what Mr. Baez is doing.

The mother`s strongest testimony which helped the defense, the strongest part was that the search on the computer for the chloroform- chlorophyll was her. And then they put her and Lee on the stand, who`s a runaway train, to basically destroy her credibility.

And that`s what Mr. Baez is doing. One by one, he`s taking his key witnesses and destroying their credibility. And I don`t know why, other than he has no experience and he has no thought process and control of the theme of his case. Every case needs a theme.


VELEZ-MITCHELL: All right. Quick response Mark.

NEJAME: Yes. She`s right. It`s a schizophrenic defense. The defense basically is a multiple personality. They throw it out then they go pick one. They`re expecting a jury to go ahead and decide what they`re talking about. They`re confused, they`re disjointed and that makes no sense. It`s not logical.

VELEZ-MITCHELL: I know, but I`m just wondering if confusion could create reasonable doubt. Somebody today could -- they`re accusing the meter reader Roy Kronk of killing little Caylee. I`m like, no, they`re not accusing him of that.

They`re actually just accusing him of hiding the body after she accidentally drowned. But they haven`t explained how did he get the body? When he found it in the woods, then he took it away for four months and hid it in his refrigerator and then returned it to the woods and dropped it there?

I mean it`s the stuff of science fiction. They didn`t even ask him about it. But it`s confusing. And sometimes confusion can create reasonable doubt.

Taylor, Toronto, you`ve been so patient. Taylor, your question or thought.

TAYLOR, TORONTO (via telephone): basically, my comment is, I really think Roy Kronk is a smart guy and he basically knew exactly what he found the first time around. And he was just trying to buy himself some time to do the math and still collect the money if she was deceased or not, you know.

And also the defense is doing a horrible job. They should have just stuck to the kidnapping.

VELEZ-MITCHELL: You`re so right about that.

Mike Brooks, everybody is saying, if the defense had simply kept George out of it and said the child drowned accidentally.

BROOKS: Right.

VELEZ-MITCHELL: And for whatever reason, this girl who`s a liar, who`s afraid to say it, kept the molestation, kept the cover. They could have put the child in the car, had her driving around in the car, right?

BROOKS: You know, you think they would have. You think they could have. But no, they had to throw George under the steam roller and make up this whole story with Roy Kronk.

And I think the jury at the end of the day, they`re going to have to put her on the stand because who else is going to say I was molested by my dad. Who else is going to say that? And what happened?

Ok, it was a terrible accident, but why did you do what you did in the 31 days and the odor in the trunk? I`ll tell you what, the defense, they still has an uphill battle and they only have about six witnesses left.


VELEZ-MITCHELL: Yes. And we`re going talk what those next witnesses could be, a look at our obsession with this case up next.



COLETTE IACOBELLIS, WAITING IN LINE TO ENTER THE COURTHOUSE: The evidence that I`ve heard of -- of course, she`s innocent until proven guilty, but my personal opinion is that she is guilty and I don`t think it was an accident.


VELEZ-MITCHELL: Oh, boy. This trial is having such a profound effect on people all around the country. Indeed the world.

There is also another group of people watching very, very closely. I`m talking about mothers, moms. They look at these adorable photos of Caylee and they wonder, "Oh, my God, why, how could it happen? How could anybody do that to their own child," -- which is the accusation.

So I`m so -- really excited to be here with Orlando Sentinel`s local newspaper Bonita Burton. She has written an article called "Why Mothers Like Me are Obsessed with the Casey Anthony Trial". So thank you for joining us.

Why are mothers like you obsessed with the Casey Anthony trial?

BONITA BURTON, "ORLANDO SENTINEL": Well, I don`t think you can be a mother of a child of any age and not feel a very strong, profound and legitimate connection to this case. It is gut-wrenching to look, as you said, at these pictures of this 2-year-old child and think about what a 2- year-old is going through at that age, all of the cute adorable things that they`re doing and wonder what went wrong in this case.

I think that women in particular, working women and single working women, have a really hard time giving Casey a pass in this case because she had a lot of support that many of us do not have. She had a roof over her head, a car she could drive, she didn`t have to have a job, she didn`t have to give up her social life. And still she was unable to provide that very basic thing that all mothers need to provide, which is protect their children.

It is very difficult for us to wrap our minds around how this child could go missing, not be reported for so long, and be disposed of in such a way.

VELEZ-MITCHELL: What I find a hard time looking at this video, she looks like a loving mother there. And that`s what I always -- every time I look at this shot, I think how could a woman go from being a loving mother to not reporting her child for 31 days and letting the world look for that child, essentially one way or another, whoever you believe, she knew what happened to the child. She was never kidnapped.

BURTON: I think that`s a key question and definitely part of what holds their fascination. It is not just the fact that the child disappeared or the child wound up dead, but that we do have this incongruity between a seemingly loving mother, again, in this situation where the child is home with the grandparents, and then she vanishes and nobody knows.

And I think that what it kind of goes to is the sort of deeper subconscious fears that all mothers have about, you know, at what point do you sort of enter that realm of becoming an unfit mother and how easy is that to see in others and how hard is that to see.

VELEZ-MITCHELL: What this case and others have taught me is when I see people being super harsh with their kids like in the supermarket, I don`t always have the guts, but I want to go up and say stop that, stop that right now. Your thoughts on that.

BURTON: I think those are sort of the easier answers when we see children who are abused by their parents or in those kinds of situations, we kind of answer the question of what went wrong. I think what`s -- the conversation that a lot of us are having as mothers is what kind of happens in those quiet moments at home when you`ve had one of those incredibly demanding days and you have to lock yourself into the bathroom for five or ten minutes to catch a breath and be away from the kids.

And there are a lot of these sort of, you know, internal monitoring of where the breaking point is and what that might be that we do every day and we don`t get to talk about it in public.

VELEZ-MITCHELL: Yes -- questioning our mothering. We`ll be back in a moment with Bonita`s final thoughts. Stay right there.



UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: That was the fevered pitch for sure.


VELEZ-MITCHELL: Bonita Burton, who not only works with the "Orlando Sentinel", but is the mother of a young child -- final thoughts because some moms have been ridiculed, you`re saying, for getting so involved in this case?

BURTON: Yes, you know, we get a lot of kind of get-a-life type of comments, you know. I think people aren`t really taking the motherhood dynamic seriously. And I`m telling you, I have a 5-year-old daughter, Caylee`s age, it is very personal to me. But I heard from mothers, grandmothers, a lot of fathers too, and they have a very special insight and I think a very special outrage when it comes to this case.

They deserve respect. They deserve to be supported and the demands that they`re facing, unlike what we saw in this case, and they deserve to be heard.

VELEZ-MITCHELL: Absolutely. There is no reason to ridicule anybody who cares about little Caylee. Little Caylee was an innocent. We all should care about her.

"Nancy Grace" is up next.