Return to Transcripts main page


Casey Anthony Trial Headed for Closing Arguments

Aired July 1, 2011 - 19:00:00   ET



JANE VELEZ-MITCHELL, HOST (voice-over): Another sudden halt to the Casey Anthony trial. What are these sequestered jurors going through?

BELVIN PERRY, JUDGE: Tell the jury that we`ll be in recess indefinitely.

VELEZ-MITCHELL: Hours later, the prosecution resumes with an aggressive rebuttal.

LINDA DRANE-BURDICK, PROSECUTOR: Was user C-M-A-N-T-H-O-N entering information into Gentiva`s Unity System at a workstation?


VELEZ-MITCHELL: Did the prosecution prove Cindy lied about searching for chloroform when she was really at work?

Plus, we`ll read you George Anthony`s heart-breaking suicide letter. .

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: "As you get this letter, there should be no surprise that I`ve decided to leave the earth."

VELEZ-MITCHELL: Does this letter prove the defense theory is pure fiction? I`m live in Orlando, and I`m taking your calls.

ISSUES starts now.



LEE ANTHONY, CASEY`S BROTHER: I was just angry at everyone in general that they didn`t -- that they didn`t want to include me.

GEORGE ANTHONY, CASEY`S FATHER: Shut up! I`m talking! I am talking!

JOSE BAEZ, CASEY`S ATTORNEY: If you conducted what would be considered a paternity test to determine if Lee Anthony was the biological father of Caylee Anthony.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: That I will crucify you for this because of all the lies that you`ve been telling us.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Get out of line! Get out of line!

CHENEY MASON, CASEY`S ATTORNEY: Ms. Anthony has a history of untruthfulness among family members and friends.

BAEZ: Casey has a brother, and he, too, wanted to follow in his father`s footsteps. He attempted to also touch his sister.

CINDY ANTHONY, CASEY`S MOTHER: I overheard her tell Lee that Caylee had been gone for 31 days.

BAEZ: You will not be able to trust a thing having to do with Mr. Kronk.

CINDY ANTHONY: You slandered me on TV, and you perjured yourself with this.

BAEZ: Did you ever see a photograph of Zanny the nanny?

DRANE-BURDICK: 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.

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

L. ANTHONY: Yes and no.


UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Where do you want me to look at a camera? Oh, right here. OK.

VELEZ-MITCHELL: A family imploding.

Good evening. I`m Jane Velez Mitchell coming to you live from the courthouse right here in Orlando, Florida, where guess what, people? It`s all over. It`s all over except the closing argument, the jury deliberations, and of course, the most important, the verdict.

Tonight, as we wait for closing arguments to begin on Sunday morning, we`re going to explore a family on the verge of total collapse. Under the weight of their own lies. We`re talking about mom, dad, and son. They all contradicted each other under oath.

And today, the prosecution ended its rebuttal case with a very strong, very strong argument, testimony to show that Cindy Anthony lied on the stand.

All right, now, I want you to take a look at this. This is absolutely fascinating. The most dramatic moment today came as the judge wrapped up this case. Defendant Casey Anthony looks down in apparent anguish as lawyers from both sides chat in a very casual and giddy fashion, very cheerful. They`re cheerful because, well, closing arguments are set for 8:30 Sunday morning.

But look at Casey, look at her. She`s so -- she`s gesturing wildly. I get the feeling she`s in panic mode here, that she suddenly feels the weight of her predicament.

One of her attorneys, Cheney Mason, was unable to convince the judge to grant a motion for acquittal. Listen.


MASON: There is at least as valid a reasonable inference of a death by accident or circumstantial evidence of other cause of death as there is this mythical fantasy from the prosecution that this child died of either chloroform poisoning, depending on what week of trial we`re in, or smothering or suffocation by duct tape.

There`s no evidence that the child died from any chloroform poisoning. That`s just all just been media hype for three years.


VELEZ-MITCHELL: Is it me? Or does Cheney Mason save his best arguments for when the jury isn`t watching? The jury wasn`t watching that. Great argument.

OK. That was a "Hail Mary" pass to get the case thrown out. And guess what? It failed. There was no receiver there catching it and running for a touchdown. That`s when Casey Anthony seems to get agitated. She -- she looks down first, and looks down -- you see her looking down. And then as she`s let out of court, a little while afterwards, right there, moments later, she really is -- it`s clear something is happening to her.

And I want to bring in Susan Constantine. You`re a body language expert. As you see this and then, right after looking down, she starts that wild-eyed look right there. And then she`s gesturing and arguing with somebody. What is going on here?

SUSAN CONSTANTINE, BODY LANGUAGE EXPERT: Well, what happens is if you ever see a criminal that finally confesses, they usually break down, they go into the defeat position and sometimes you`re going to see some tearing.

But quite frankly, she still thinks that she can beat it. So she`s somehow trying to revive herself, create some more, you know, excitement that maybe possibly she could still pull this off.

VELEZ-MITCHELL: I want to -- I want to play that again, play that video again. Because I disagree with you, and obviously, we`re all reading tea leaves here. We don`t really know what happened. But she -- look at that. I think she`s scared. To me, I see somebody panicking, Judge Seidlin. What do you see?

LARRY SEIDLIN, FORMER FLORIDA JUDGE: I see her thinking the hangman is coming down from the gallows. This could be the end of her life. This is a death sentence case, and she`s making doo-doo in her pants right now.

VELEZ-MITCHELL: Yes, I think -- I think that`s what happens is that the denial wears off and suddenly, you feel helpless. She`s helpless. She chose not to take the stand, OK? She said, "I`m not going to take the stand and tell my own story." So that ship has sailed. The time for any convincing and argument is over. There is nothing she can do.

And I honestly believe, Jean Casarez, you followed this and studied her from the start. What do you make of her first looking down and then gesturing wildly today at the end of the case?

JEAN CASAREZ, CORRESPONDENT, TRUTV`S "IN SESSION": I think she`s stressed. I agree with you. You know, I`ve watched her during jury selection where she had a stress attack in trial. I think at the beginning there was a stress attack. She`s had a history of stress attacks. So I think that is -- she was upset over something, but I also see that stress building up. And Jane, how far will it go as we go into closing arguments?

VELEZ-MITCHELL: Yes, well, I can tell you one reason she might be stressed is because the state`s rebuttal case was excellent today in the eyes of most people.

The prosecutor set out to prove that Cindy Anthony, basically, they were saying she lied under oath. That`s what they said. That Cindy Anthony, the defendant`s mother, lied under oath.

OK, Cindy testified that she did those sinister Internet searches, not Casey, as prosecutors contend. Here is both sides. Check it out.


CINDY ANTHONY: I did not search for "neck breaking," but I do recall that there was a pop-up that was showing a YouTube regarding a skateboarder that was skateboarding on rails, and I recall it saying a neck-breaking feat.

SGT. KEVIN STENGER, ORANGE COUNTY SHERIFF`S OFFICE: This is not a result of a pop-up, but is the result of a human being specifically entering "neck" and "breaking" into the Google search box and pressing "search."


VELEZ-MITCHELL: OK, Florida prosecutor Stacey Honowitz, that was what a home run for the prosecution. So much for Cindy`s claims that neck breaking just happened to pop up when she was looking up at a skateboarding pop-up.

This was the finale of the prosecution`s rebuttal case. Does this mean that premeditated murder is really back on the table in a big way?

STACEY HONOWITZ, FLORIDA PROSECUTOR: I never really thought it was off the table. And I kept saying wait until they bring in the rebuttal. I knew that rebuttal would really hit it home.

Premeditation is definitely back on the table, and the prosecutors had it in their court today. There was nothing they did wrong. Every kind of lean point, which I think the defense tried to bring out throughout their case, was knocked down and dragged out today by the prosecutor. You know, six witnesses in a row. Any kind of theory that Jose Baez was trying to advance or trying to get to the jury was knocked down by the prosecutors today.

They`ll go in there, those jurors, now in a closing argument where all the evidence from nine week -- eight weeks is going to be rehashed. And then, to slam them home, with rebuttal about everything that took place today. So premeditation is definitely back on the table.

VELEZ-MITCHELL: Absolutely. Louise, Maryland, your question or thought, Louise.

CALLER: Hi, Jane.


CALLER: I guess that I really have been trying to connect the dots on the chloroform. And what I was struggling -- struggling with was March to July when chloroform was used, until Cindy got on the stand and mentioned the dog that was sleepy and tired all the time. I was wondering if anyone has ever discussed the fact that Casey`s chloroform formula may have been experimented on the dog in anticipation of using it...

VELEZ-MITCHELL: Oh! You`re good. You are good. I got to tell you, that is a fascinating hypothesis, though a lot of people believe that there were no sick dogs. We`ve got the testimony on this.

The Internet searches for chloroform, as you just heard from the caller, totally crucial if the state wants to prove premeditation. Now, Cindy blew us away a few days ago when she testified she did those sinister Google searches on the Anthony home computer, ending up at "chloroform" after starting with the innocuous "chlorophyll," because her dogs were sick from eating bamboo.


CINDY ANTHONY: I did tell law enforcement. In fact, I told you during my deposition in 2009 that I made those searches. .

DRANE-BURDICK: You told me at your deposition that you searched for "chlorophyll."


DRANE-BURDICK: And you spelled "chlorophyll" for me.


DRANE-BURDICK: Do you recall that?



VELEZ-MITCHELL: All right. Now today, the prosecutors brought on a rebuttal witness who testified that Cindy was actually at work at her job when she claims she was at home doing those incriminating Google searches. Listen to this.


DRANE-BURDICK: March 17...


DRANE-BURDICK: ... 2008, we can just say between 1 and 3 p.m. Eastern Time, was user C-M-A-N-T-H-O-N entering information into Gentiva`s Unit System at a workstation?



VELEZ-MITCHELL: All right, Jeanne Casarez give us the lowdown on the state`s rebuttal case when it comes to these incriminating Internet searches. Did they prove that Cindy is a liar?

CASAREZ: They proved that Cindy did not make the searches. You see, Cindy, an R.N., worked for a major home healthcare company in this country, Geneva [SIC]. And they keep meticulous patient records.

And the attorney and compliance officer for the company came on the stand today to testify that not only was Cindy at her computer during those hours, but she was making entries into patient records. And that has been kept, and that was established.

VELEZ-MITCHELL: So that is very good news for the prosecution and not so good news for the defense.

How are George and Cindy holding up? We`re going to talk about a family that is in the process of imploding. I`m going to talk to their attorney and get it right from the horse`s mouth, next.


G. ANTHONY: I need to get through this. I need to have something inside me to get through this.



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

G. ANTHONY: I know her by that name and also another name.

BAEZ: Did you have a romantic relationship with her?

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

BAEZ: Very funny?

G. ANTHONY: Yes, sir.

BAEZ: And were you ever intimate with her?

G. ANTHONY: No, sir. That also is also very funny.

KRYSTAL HOLLOWAY, DEFENSE WITNESS: I am so sorry that I had an affair with a married man. And it did change my life. I paid for it. My children have paid for it.

I am not trash. I know what I did is wrong, but he`s got to take some responsibility for it, too.


VELEZ-MITCHELL: That is George`s alleged mistress, Krystal Holloway, a.k.a. River Cruz. And I got to say a lot of people found her very believable. And I think, as Leonard Padilla said, quoting Shakespeare, hell hath no fury like a woman scorned.

If the jury thinks Krystal is telling the truth, then they have to think that George is a liar. And if he`s lying about the affair, could that mean he is also lying about something even more serious, the alleged molestation of Casey? It`s a serious question, and I want to be very careful and be very fair.

So we have tonight with us Mark Lippman, the attorney for the Anthony family, Cindy and George.

First of all, I want to get your reaction to Krystal Holloway`s testimony. And then she called up Vinnie Politan and said, "I want to come over here and talk to you" and came over here and told Vinnie. A lot of people said she seemed very believable. She would have to be an Oscar- winning actress to make all that stuff up.

I`d like to get your reaction so that we can be fair. What`s your reaction and what`s George`s reaction?

MARK LIPPMAN, ATTORNEY FOR GEORGE AND CINDY ANTHONY: Sure. George again denies any allegation of the affairs. He denies any time that he ever had any sort of intimate moment with Ms. Holloway or Ms. Cruz, depending on which day you talk to her.

And certainly, he -- he never mentioned anything about moving the body, or that it was a snowball accident out of control or anything along those lines. That`s just complete fabrication from a woman who appears, in my opinion, to have some serious mental issues.

Is George hurting even more? I can`t even imagine anybody withstanding everything he`s already gone through, and then this. Is he really annihilated, for lack of a better word?

VELEZ-MITCHELL: No, he`s not. He remains strong. He knows he did his duty. He testified truthfully. It`s probably one of the most difficult things anyone has to do in their entire life, to sit there and testify about what he knows, knowing what the ramifications are about that testimony.

And certainly, the defense did everything in every form to try and destroy this man, and he remains steadfast in his ability to go forward.

VELEZ-MITCHELL: You maintain that River Cruz, a.k.a. Krystal Holloway, is lying when she said that she had an affair with George Anthony. Why do you think she`s lying now? She`s already acknowledged that "National Enquirer" paid her four grand. What other reason do you think she has to continue with this story?

LIPPMAN: I think that her original testimony to law enforcement where she said there was no affair, that part was probably true and the rest of it was fabrication. And then she continued with the fabrication, just as Mr. Ashton suggested, to make it a sexy story, something that would sell better than just a relative comment about George Anthony saying something to her.

So certainly, she can say whatever she wants. But the truth of the matter is, she represented to my clients, both of them, she had a brain tumor. She represented that she was going to be deported. She represented a variety of different things that were lies, that they`ve since come to find out that, for lack of a better term, she`s just a shiftless character that preys on people that she can attach herself to.

VELEZ-MITCHELL: And Cindy, there was testimony by the state today that says she lied when she said she did those sinister and incriminating Internet searches.

LIPPMAN: Certainly, my client maintains -- Cindy Anthony maintains she did those searches. The dates were put there by the state. It was Ms. Burdick who suggested they were done on 3/17 `08 and 3/21 `08. My client didn`t say those dates. She affirmed that. She doesn`t necessarily recall if they were specifically on that date or around that date. And I believe her comment was "If that`s what you say it is, that`s what it is."

SEIDLIN: Why was your client...

VELEZ-MITCHELL: Hold on. We`ve got Judge Seidlin here wants to ask a question. We`re going to give you some more time. Hang in there. We`re just getting started. We`ve got some questions about Cindy`s story. Did she do those searches? Or did Casey?



CINDY ANTHONY: And I started looking up "chloroform" -- I mean "chlorophyll," and then that prompted me to look up "chloroform."

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

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


VELEZ-MITCHELL: All right, this was bombshell testimony, Cindy saying on the stand, she, not her defendant daughter Casey, conducted those incriminating Internet searches for chloroform. Very sinister searches on the Anthony family computer on March 17, 2008, from 1:43 to 1:55.

But today, we heard expert testimony that there was activity under Cindy`s computer log-in at work, at her job during those same times from 1:41 to 2:22 that day. And we also heard that she was on her work computer, March 21, 2008, from 2:27 to 4:06 when more sinister Internet searches were done on the home computer from 2:16 to 2:28.

OK, those are a lot of numbers, but the bottom line, Mark Lippman: you can`t be at two places at once. You`re the attorney for Cindy Anthony. How do you explain it?

LIPPMAN: Again simply, my client maintains she did those searches. She doesn`t maintain she did them on those particular days.

VELEZ-MITCHELL: Well sir, with all due respect, I`m -- I understand what she maintains. How do you explain that she`s on her work computer and at the very same time that she says she`s on her home computer? You can only...

LIPPMAN: Did you hear -- if you listen -- I understand what you`re saying, but if you listen to her testimony, she never said she did those searches on 3/17. She said, "If the searches were made, I did them." Meaning that she searched for chlorophyll and chloroform. She never said it was done on 3/17. In 2009 she didn`t say it, and she didn`t say it in court.

She maintains she did those searches. She didn`t search for "how to make chloroform." She didn`t search for "self-defense." She didn`t search for "how to make household weapons," but she did search for "chlorophyll" and "chloroform."

VELEZ-MITCHELL: Let me ask you this other one, and I appreciate you taking the time to talk to me. The one that got me is, she said that -- she took ownership of the neck breaking one, saying, "Oh, I was searching the computer and a pop-up for neck breaking came up because there was a skateboarder was going at neck- breaking speed." When it turns out the state expert says somebody actually typed in the words "neck" and "breaking." Giving you an opportunity.

LIPPMAN: Absolutely. She did say she saw the video "neck breaking," and she also maintains she did not search "neck breaking." Two different things.

Now, there could have been a YouTube video about a gentleman sliding down a railway off a staircase on a skateboard and then ultimately breaking his neck. And somebody else could have done a search for "neck breaking." So again, she...

VELEZ-MITCHELL: Yes, Casey Anthony could have done a search for "neck breaking."

LIPPMAN: She may have. My client did not.

VELEZ-MITCHELL: Isn`t that the point the prosecution -- I guess the general consensus was that a lot of people came away thinking Cindy is trying to cover for her daughter, because she doesn`t want her to be put to death, which we can all understand.

LIPPMAN: Of course.

VELEZ-MITCHELL: Ten seconds.

LIPPMAN: There`s a mother-daughter relationship there. And everybody assumes that, because it`s there, my client`s not going to tell the truth, but she absolutely maintained the truth. If she was going to lie, she would have lied about everything. But she did not lie. She told the truth.

VELEZ-MITCHELL: Well, you are making a good point. It`s a very complicated matter, and a very shattered family that we`re going to analyze it all next.



UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Cynthia Marie, as you get this letter, this should be no surprise that I`ve decided to leave the earth because I need to be with Caylee Marie. Because I need to be with Caylee Marie.

GEORGE ANTHONY, FATHER OF CASEY ANTHONY: It`s hard to accept that I don`t have a granddaughter anymore.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: What is her date of birth?

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: I have never been the man any of you could count on. I have always let each of you down in more ways than I can remember.

JOSE BAEZ, DEFENSE ATTORNEY FOR CASEY ANTHONY: And you would do anything to protect her?


BAEZ: She is your baby?

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: I cannot be strong anymore. Caylee Marie, our granddaughter, I miss her. I miss her so much. I blame myself for her being gone.

G. ANTHONY: I need at that time to go and be with Caylee because I believe I failed her.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: For years I brought stuff up only to be told not to be negative. I sit here falling apart because I should have done more.

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

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: She was so close to home. Why was she there? Who placed her there? Why is she gone? Why?

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

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: I want to go after these people Casey hung with prior to Caylee being gone. That is why I got that gun. I wanted to scare these people. They know more than they have stated. Was Casey threatened? You know, Casey does not deserve to be where she is.

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

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: The loss of Caylee Marie, the loss of Casey, the loss of us, Cynthia Marie. The meds, I am ready.

G. ANTHONY: No, sir, I need to get through this. I need to have something inside of me to get through this.


JANE VELEZ-MITCHELL, HLN HOST: We were just going inside the mind of George Anthony because that was his suicide note read by a member of our staff; a suicide note that was revealed to the jury just as the jurors gear up for closing argument.

Unbelievable stuff. Are those the words of a man who knew absolutely nothing about Caylee`s death when he wrote the note in January of 2009? We`re going to analyze it with our panel of experts. Ok.

But first, the prosecution`s rebuttal case ends today in dramatic fashion; witness after witness after witness refuting Cindy Anthony`s testimony about those infamous computer searches on the Anthony home computer. Listen to this.


CINDY ANTHONY, MOTHER OF CASEY ANTHONY: I did not search for neck breaking, but I do recall that there was a pop-up that was showing a YouTube regarding a skateboarder that was skateboarding on rails and I recall it saying "a neck breaking feat".

KEVIN STENGER, COMPUTER EXPERT, ORANGE COUNTY SHERIFF`S OFFICE: This is not the result of a pop-up, but is the result of a human being specifically entering "neck" and "breaking" into the Google search box and pressing search.


VELEZ-MITCHELL: That was an expert for the prosecution, basically calling Cindy Anthony a liar. And remember, there is an IT techie on the jury.

So, Michelle Suskauer, you watched -- criminal defense attorney -- you watched the state`s rebuttal case today.



SUSKAUER: Powerful, perfect, streamlined. Laser point. It was just exactly what they need to do to get the job done. And they really just destroyed, they dispelled what the defense really wanted to promote. They had the exact -- and they didn`t do it in an overkill fashion. Overkill would have been putting Cindy back on the stage.

VELEZ-MITCHELL: Oh, no, please. Not again.


VELEZ-MITCHELL: Not again. I think everybody is going to go crazy if any of these family members -- I mean more -- these family members appeared more on the stand than -- I think it`s a record breaker. I think it goes into the Guinness Book of World Records for anybody being called back to testify. I mean about half a dozen times for each of them.

And I know the jury was pulling its hair out at the end of it. I know when the defense came out yesterday, for example, after lunch and they simply said the defense rests. The jury was waiting an hour and a half to come back and hear them say the defense rests.

One woman did this, come on camera. Here`s what one juror did. She went like this. I`m not kidding -- Mark Nejame.

MARK NEJAME, FORMER ATTORNEY FOR CINDY AND GEORGE ANTHONY: Not only did that happen, but they ended it with a discussion about how Casey Anthony learned how to wrap and bag and dispose of the animals, the family pets. So the last thing they were really listening to was a tutorial, a lesson book of how Casey Anthony learned to dispose of animals, which seemingly she transferred to her child. That`s the last thing that they heard.

VELEZ-MITCHELL: And that was the defense case. That was the end of the defense case. And then we had the rebuttal case today. And the state basically showing with their testimony, very simply, that Cindy Anthony, they say was at work, not at home doing the sinister Internet searches that the prosecution says this woman did, Casey Anthony did, which means that the state still has a chance to prove premeditation because those searches for very sinister things like "neck breaking" and "chloroform", "shovel", "death" could prove that she plotted the murder of her child.

Now, let`s get inside the Anthony family dynamic. That`s what we`re going to do tonight on ISSUES. This family, the Anthonys, started out this crisis relatively united. I mean Cindy was furious with Casey for not telling them that their little granddaughter was missing for 31 days. But Cindy and George visited Casey in jail and they seemed to support her.

Then as the trial approached, they got wind of two very controversial new defense theories. Here are two key moments. Did they shatter this family? Watch.


UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: After the 15th of July, you looked for this Zanny person?

CINDY ANTHONY: Yes, ma`am.


CINDY ANTHONY: Until about six weeks ago.

BAEZ: This child at 8 years old learned to lie immediately. She could be 13 years old, have her father`s (EXPLETIVE DELETED) in her mouth, and then go to school and play with the other kids as if nothing ever happened.


VELEZ-MITCHELL: So Mark Nejame, that is a one-two punch, as far as I can see. This family is supporting her and suddenly, oh, they find out six weeks before the trial that there is no baby-sitter, that everything Casey has been telling them for years, that she has a job, that she has a baby- sitter is a lie. And not only that, they turned around in opening statements and accused her father of molesting her in the most graphic of terms.

How is a family expected to survive that and not implode and not turn against each other?

NEJAME: Well, take a look at what the accusations have been by Casey Anthony through her attorney. Obviously she didn`t take the stand. But the corner stone of their case was drowning and sexual abuse.

But what ended up happening? You never heard it from her. How else could Jose Baez have learned about it but from her mouth? So this has come out. And how do you go beyond. But also, remember, this is a woman who likely killed her child. If she`s capable of killing her child, she`s capable of saying or doing anything.

VELEZ-MITCHELL: All right. Now, a lot of people have wondered why George, who had been supportive of Casey, turned against her and, in fact, did he turn against her?

So we`re going to play a couple of clips of George saying things that really kind of put the nail in the hammer -- the nail in the coffin perhaps for his daughter. And people wonder how could he have possibly done that? Let`s listen and we`re going to analyze.


G. ANTHONY: Sir, definitely something happened to Caylee. She`s no longer with us. And Casey was the last one that I saw with Caylee. One and one adds up to two, sir.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Did you dispose of the body of your granddaughter?

G. ANTHONY: No, I did not.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Did you obtain duct tape from your shed or garage and place it over the nose and mouth of Caylee Anthony?

G. ANTHONY: No, I did not. I did not want to believe back then that my daughter could be capable of taking the life of her daughter.


VELEZ-MITCHELL: Aphrodite Jones, host of "True Crime" on Investigation Discover, a lot of people were shocked that George said things that incriminated his daughter. Why?

APHRODITE JONES, HOST, "TRUE CRIME": You know, George Anthony is in a very difficult position. So is Cindy. It`s almost like "Sophie`s Choice". What are you going to do? Who do you choose? Do they want justice for Caylee or do they want to save who is now left, their daughter Casey?

And when he testified, he didn`t want to believe that his daughter was capable of murdering her own child. I think it was a Freudian slip. I think he -- and he also said "I don`t want to believe" and then "I didn`t want to believe".

In other words, he indicated to the jury, hey, I started to believe it. I do believe, perhaps that she killed her child. I didn`t want to believe it, but maybe I do now.

It is a crumbling family, Jane. It`s a horrible, horrible thing to watch these people cry and crumble on the stand and all the while, Casey Anthony, untouched. Untouched by what she has created in her own family and for the world; people who put their lives and emotions on the line to find that baby for so long. She didn`t care.

VELEZ-MITCHELL: You are -- you`re looking at three individuals who are experiencing torture -- torture. We`re blaming them -- at least two of them for lying. But can you really blame them? How would we know how we would behave if they were in their shoes? How would we know? How would we know?

We cannot judge them.

Did today`s testimony hurt or help the defense? Nancy Grace is all over it. She`s following all the drama and she`s going to have the very latest, in just under 20 minutes. Nancy, at the top of the hour here on HLN and we are continuing to follow all the developments in this extraordinary case.


UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Did Miss Anthony during March of 2008 have the capability to work from home?







UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Could you say between 1:00 and 3:00 p.m. Eastern time, was user c-m-a-n-t-h-o-n entering information into Gentiva` unity system at a workstation?



VELEZ-MITCHELL: Testimony in the state`s rebuttal case that basically, according to (INAUDIBLE) shows that Cindy Anthony when she said she was at home doing sinister Google searches was actually at work, although we just had her attorney on seconds ago here on ISSUES and he says she sticks by her story. She is insisting that she was at home, which I wonder, is that part of perhaps the denial?

And I`m going to throw that out to bounty hunter, Leonard Padilla. You have spent time with Cindy.

LEONARD PADILLA, BOUNTY HUNTER: Cindy has a universe that she controls and runs and you better believe everything she says. I used to call them cindyisms (ph).

I remember one time when I was asking Casey about that little July 3rd thing she put in the paper and all that. I asked her, I say "why did she put it in there". She said, "She didn`t put that in there. She doesn`t even know how to use a computer." And I didn`t react to it at the time.

The other day I was talking to Tracy and Rob and I said do you remember the comment Casey made about her mom not being able to use a computer? She said well, people say things like that sometimes but they don`t really believe them.

VELEZ-MITCHELL: Ok. So the truth is not -- it`s a dead issue. The truth is a dead issue in the Anthony household.


VELEZ-MITCHELL: Is that what you`re saying?

PADILLA: Yes. It doesn`t matter. It doesn`t matter.

VELEZ-MITCHELL: It doesn`t matter.

PADILLA: It`s what they say.

VELEZ-MITCHELL: That happens to a lot of people. We`ve been talking about that all this week. This is a cautionary tale about the importance of being truthful about everything, even little things.

When I hear somebody -- and I`m sitting next to them and they`re lying -- somebody on the phone oh, I`m running late, I`m already in the car and they`re not in the car. I`m like that person`s going to lie about everything.

And if a kid grows up seeing their parents lie -- and we`ve got evidence here that maybe Cindy is lying and George is lying. He`s lying about the affair; she`s lying about the Google searches -- that`s where she learned to lie. That doesn`t necessarily mean that George molested her or that she`s not guilty, but we`re getting an idea now, this is a fascinating psychological study of how family dynamics and how family dysfunction. It`s inherited.

Pam, New York, your question or though; thank you for your patience Pam.

PAM, NEW YORK (via telephone): Hi, Jane.


PAM: Hi, I love your show.


PAM: My question is, how long do you think the jury will be out before they come back with their verdict?

VELEZ-MITCHELL: All right. Let`s do a round table on that and I`m going to start with Mark Nejame. You are a local attorney and you know how it`s done. How long?

NEJAME: Yes. I don`t know how this one is done. I`ve never seen anything like it. You know, a couple of days. There are seven counts. Three of them are --


NEJAME: Well, they`ve got to go in there. They`ve got a lot of facts to go through. They`ve got these various counts that are rather complicated.

You know, count number two is aggravated child abuse causing death. You have to go ahead and still link up a cause of death. Is the chloroform an instrument of death? Is the tape an instrument of death? Where is the aggravated child abuse? I think the state did a good job of tying everything together in rebuttal leaving Casey Anthony the last one standing, but they`ve still got work to do.

VELEZ-MITCHELL: Michelle Suskauer, how long are they going to deliberate. Do a prediction, tell us why.

SUSKAUER: I think my prediction is probably Thursday. Even though when you give a jury a case right before a holiday or right before dinner, they want to come back right away with a verdict. There`s just too much to go through. So I think they`re going to have to go through it for a couple of days. They`re going to have some holdouts. We may see a compromise verdict at the end.

VELEZ-MITCHELL: All right. And remember, nothing tomorrow Saturday. Although we are going to be here, HLN around the clock, bringing you all the trial highlights and analyzing this case in depth. In depth.

But the deliberations begin 8:30 Sunday. And then after that, the jury gets the case.

How long do you think it`s going to take?

PADILLA: Four ten-hour shifts.

VELEZ-MITCHELL: So give me a date then.

PADILLA: Well, I don`t know when they start --

VELEZ-MITCHELL: So you`re saying it`s going to be a week. It`s going to be, like Thursday.

PADILLA: Four ten-hour shifts. Here`s the thing, if they hadn`t gone after the death penalty, I would say two days.

VELEZ-MITCHELL: Now, I have to say, just consider all the conversations that we`re having and our heads are spinning with all the minutiae about a whole host of subjects between the chloroform, and the duct tape, and Roy Kronk, and George Anthony and Cindy Anthony and Lee Anthony and let`s not forget, Casey, and what they were all doing. And what they may have been doing and may not have been doing and the circumstantial case.

Oh, my gosh. I think it could be a lengthy deliberation. But you`re looking at me like --

NEJAME: I`m not going to disagree with you. It wouldn`t surprise me if it was two months.

VELEZ-MITCHELL: Wait. Don`t say that.

NEJAME: It could be two months, it`s two hours. This is the craziest case I`ve seen in a career. This is not normal. There`s no standard with which to compare this to.

You know you heard in opening statement that made all these representations. They`re going to go back to the jury room and they`re going to say what about the drowning? What happened to all this? Where is the --


VELEZ-MITCHELL: And let`s not forget, all the Internet stuff. Amazing case.



BAEZ: This child at 8 years old learned to lie immediately. She could be 13 years old, have her father`s (EXPLETIVE DELETED) in her mouth and then go to school and play with other kids as if nothing ever happened.


VELEZ-MITCHELL: You know, it says a lot when you have to bleep an opening statement. That was a shocking statement. And let`s face it, there was corroborating evidence in this case that George Anthony molested Casey and she`s a pathological liar.

I have to ask you, Mark Nejame, do attorneys have a moral obligation to consider the implications of saying something? Making an accusation like that with no proof whatsoever that it could shatter a person`s life?

NEJAME: Well, the answer is no, but they have an ethical obligation. And they can`t be putting facts out there or things out there that they know to be untrue.

And what`s interesting is that this judge, I don`t know how many people know this yet, Judge Perry issued a 15-point or 16-point edict directing the lawyers about how they`re to conduct closing arguments. I`ve never seen anything like that in my life; telling them what they can say, what they can`t bring in and all that. So he`s watching it to make sure that inappropriate things don`t get brought in.

VELEZ-MITCHELL: Are we going to see objections during the closing arguments?

NEJAME: Well, they are not supposed to happen. They rarely happen. But I`ll tell you Judge Perry is making a point saying you are supposed to know the law; you`re supposed to know the rules. I`m going to remind you. There are 16 points. You darn well better follow them because I`m going to be watching.

VELEZ-MITCHELL: All right. Paula, California, your question or thought, Paula.

PAULA, CALIFORNIA (via telephone): Hi, Jane.


PAULA: Now that Casey realizes her life could possibly be over either with the death penalty or behind bars, is it too late for her to take a plea bargain?

VELEZ-MITCHELL: Well, this is video from today when the case actually, officially closed and the only thing that was left is the closing argument that are going to happen Sunday. Take a look at her. She put her head down.

Leonard Padilla, you know her. Then she started animatedly arguing or gesturing. Look at her. She looks -- I think she`s panicked. You know her, Leonard. What is going on here? This was from today.

PADILLA: At that stage of the game, the only thing I can think of is that she is saying you should have let me speak. You should have let me get up there and explain. I don`t like how it ended. She`s saying that right now. Because she was going to explain away the pets as Mark says. That was a very bad way to end that portion of the trial.

VELEZ-MITCHELL: I thought when she put her head down, it hit her. It hit her. Oh, my God, this is really happening. It`s not a dream anymore. There`s nothing I can do about it because I passed up the opportunity to tell my story.

PADILLA: That`s right.

VELEZ-MITCHELL: Michelle Suskauer, what can you expect in closing statements?

SUSKAUER: You know, we have -- I was hoping that Cheney would give a closing statement here. And I think that he would relate so much better to this jury in a down home style.

But we`re going to see Jose Baez trying to and hopefully he`s going to come across and he`s going to relate to this jury. I don`t see how he does. I think they are going to resent him. I think they`re going to expect to have him draw some of these pieces, some of these disjointed things he said together.

But I think it`s going to be a whole lot of smoke in mirrors and it`s going to be very, very disappointing for the defense.

VELEZ-MITCHELL: All right. Well, you`re going to say more of the same but I don`t know. Never under estimate this defense. They could pull something else out of the hat. We`ll have to see Sunday morning, closing arguments.

All right. Keep it right there, final thoughts in just a moment.


VELEZ-MITCHELL: This is my homemade verdict sheet. It`s very complicated but we are going to get the bottom line predictions from our men here.

Ok. Mark Nejame.

NEJAME: For first degree murder count one, premeditation; you have to focus on those 31 days. Those 31 days of her out there --

VELEZ-MITCHELL: Do you think she`s going to be found guilty of murder one? Yes or no?

NEJAME: If they could convince them of that, yes. But count two is the easiest one. Aggravated child abuse leading to death -- the chloroform is going to do it.

VELEZ-MITCHELL: But that brings you back to murder one.

NEJAME: It`s Murder one but without premeditation but still murder one.


VELEZ-MITCHELL: Still murder one. What do you think?

PADILLA: Manslaughter. I`ll go with manslaughter.

VELEZ-MITCHELL: Manslaughter. All right.

I don`t know. I don`t know if you can say beyond a reasonable doubt - - given it`s a death penalty case.

PADILLA: It`s not going to happen.


VELEZ-MITCHELL: And you know, if they don`t get anything less than murder one, they`re going to consider it a victory for the defense.

NEJAME: Exactly.

VELEZ-MITCHELL: Nancy Grace is up next.