CNN CNN


 

Return to Transcripts main page

ISSUES WITH JANE VELEZ-MITCHELL

Casey Offered $1m for Interview; Was Defense Strategy Shaped by Social Networking?

Aired July 14, 2011 - 19:00:00   ET

THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.


(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

JANE VELEZ-MITCHELL, HOST (voice-over): Tonight...

CASEY ANTHONY, ACQUITTED OF MURDER: I`m completely upset. One, the media`s going to have a freaking field day with this.

VELEZ-MITCHELL: Casey Anthony`s new life of luxury? Will she become an instant millionaire when she springs out of jail Sunday? I`ll talk exclusively to a TV producer, who is offering Casey a cool million bucks for her very first televised interview.

Plus, I`ll also talk to a key member of Jose Baez`s dream team. She studied Twitter and Facebook and told the defense team what was being said about the case. Did the defense focus in on George because the tweeters were attacking him?

Then, a shocking case that will make your stomach turn. A man accused of raping and videotaping young boys is allowed to watch those child porn tapes in jail. What?

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: We don`t like it. We don`t want to do it, but we have to follow the law.

VELEZ-MITCHELL: Will he also get to cross-examine his alleged victims in court? It`s outrageous, and we`re taking your calls.

ISSUES starts now.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Without a shadow of a doubt, she did it.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: She`ll get her judgment, some day.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Anytime she comes out is too soon for me, OK? What she did was a disgrace to all -- not just Caylee, but all innocent children in the world.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: That (EXPLETIVE DELETED) needs to die the most painful, (EXPLETIVE DELETED), horrible, slow death ever.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: It was totally ridiculous. No mother could have a child missing for 31 days and say nothing and be completely innocent. That is not possible.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

VELEZ-MITCHELL: Casey Anthony will be a free woman in only three days. But the big question: will she be a rich woman? Many hope not.

Good evening. I`m Jane Velez-Mitchell live from Orlando. Behind me is the jail where Casey Anthony has been living for the past two and a half years. She is back there as we speak, right now. But on Sunday, she is expected to walk or be whisked out of that jail a free woman.

And we know that her attorney, Jose Baez, spent 45 minutes at the jail this afternoon. We got videotape of him leaving the jail, just a little while ago. Absolutely amazing. I have to believe that -- well, my guess is that we`re talking about tomorrow`s huge court hearing that will determine if Casey is going to have to give a deposition in the defamation suit filed by Zenaida Gonzalez.

Zenaida`s attorneys, Morgan and Morgan -- and I talk to them all the time, Matt and John Morgan -- want to bring cameras into the jail behind me. That`s right. They want to come in with their cameras and grill her on tape tomorrow. The idea is to get Casey Anthony on tape before she leaves jail on Sunday for parts unknown.

Not only would Casey Anthony be out of jail on Sunday, she could also hit the jackpot. Yes. We have heard there is a new $1 million offer on the table for Casey Anthony`s first post-jail interview. And in just a second, I`m going to talk to the man who says he is making that offer.

But tonight, we have shocking new details about the defense strategy that involves first-time ever revolutionary analysis of social networking. Some 40,000 tweets, blogs, and Facebook entries from all over the United States. Total strangers, OK? And guess what? Those tweets, those blogs and those Facebook posts were given to the defense team to help them shape their strategy during the trial.

And one of the big, big things that came out of that is that the public does not trust Casey`s father, George Anthony. So we all know what the defense did. They went after George Anthony. We all remember this verbal assault in the courtroom. Check it out.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

JOSE BAEZ, CASEY`S ATTORNEY: This child, who 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. Nothing`s wrong. That will help you understand why no one knew that her child was dead.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

VELEZ-MITCHELL: Did tweets create the basis for that defense?

Now, take a look at this. George and Cindy. This is them. I guess it was, what, yesterday? George and Cindy can`t even go to Home Depot without being harassed. Watch what happens as they just walk to their car after a shopping excursion. Listen to this.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Hey, George. (UNINTELLIGIBLE)

(END VIDEO CLIP)

VELEZ-MITCHELL: Poor George. I mean, this poor man.

Some of the jurors in the trial probably know how George and Cindy feel, because tonight some of the jurors are in hiding, scared for their lives. However, some are trying to cash in on their trial experience. Well, guess what? They better run, not walk, to the bank. Because an Orlando lawmaker has now proposed officially to ban -- ban -- jurors from cashing in immediately after a verdict.

Attorney Mark Nejame, who was a guest on ISSUES all through the Casey Anthony trial, is going to join me in just a little while ago -- a little while from now. He worries about the enticing post-trial lure of money. Check it out.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

MARK NEJAME, ATTORNEY: I think that money is the great corrupter. Some of those in the industry will go out and pay somebody for a story, tremendous amounts of money. And that can influence and infect and affect a jury.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

VELEZ-MITCHELL: And the talk of the lure of money, how about a cool million for Casey`s first interview after getting out of jail? Freelance producer Al Taylor says $1 million. He`s got $1 million for Casey Marie Anthony. Take a look at the replica of the check that he claims, OK, he`s going to give her if she does a sit-down exclusive interview with him.

The bigger question is: I guess a lot of people are wondering if Casey Anthony should benefit. And we`ve been trying to talking to Al Taylor, the TV producer, and he got on the phone, and then he hung up the phone. So is he having second thoughts about his venture? Or maybe he just got disconnected.

What do you think? Do you think Casey Anthony should get $1 million? Give me a call: 1-877-JVM-SAYS. That`s 1-877-586-7297.

Straight out to attorney Joe Episcopo, who joins me here outside the jail.

Joe, you`ve been watching this trial. We`ve watched it together. We`ve covered it together. What do you think about Casey Anthony getting a million dollars, either from this gentleman or from anybody else, because, you know that she`s not going to sit down, probably, for free? Although, I can`t predict; it`s possible. But chances are there`s going to be some kind of financial arrangement there.

JOE EPISCOPO, ATTORNEY: I think it`s her First Amendment right. First of all, she served her time. She was acquitted of the charges. Why -- why does she lose her First Amendment right of free speech and an opportunity to make money?

I think it`s perfectly -- in fact, let`s talk about this check. I think the check`s phony. I could print one of those out myself. Put some real cash out there, Al.

VELEZ-MITCHELL: Wait a second. We`ve got Al Taylor, the TV producer, on the line.

Al, first of all, tell us, what is your proposal? What exactly are you saying? And who have you said it to?

AL TAYLOR, TV PRODUCER: OK, can you hear me, Jane?

VELEZ-MITCHELL: Yes, I can. Go ahead, Al.

TAYLOR: OK. Yes, first of all, I didn`t hang up. There was a problem. I`m not shying away. I don`t mind the P.R.

VELEZ-MITCHELL: OK, all right.

TAYLOR: Here`s what`s going on. I talked to Jose Baez a week ago on behalf of a talk show. Made him an offer, because I`m a freelance producer. The talk show backed out of it, as you know. "The Jerry Springer Show" got scared.

So at that point, I figured, the only way this is going to happen if I have to form my own production company. I formed my own production company, Private Elevator Productions. That`s a legitimate check and a legitimate offer. I`ve got investors that have to remain nameless. I`ll put my name out there, put my neck on the line. The other people don`t want to do that. I don`t blame them. But that is a legitimate offer.

And let me just say to all the haters out there, she was found not guilty, so she deserves the million dollars to tell her story. And we`re going to make her earn it, Jane. This isn`t going to be some softball interview. We`re going to grill her like a bad piece of fish.

VELEZ-MITCHELL: Well, let me say this. I have a couple of questions for you.

TAYLOR: Yes.

VELEZ-MITCHELL: First of all, what do your investors hope to get out of this? Obviously, I would assume that they would at least want to get their money back, which means you would have to...

TAYLOR: Yes, double the money.

VELEZ-MITCHELL: So once you get that interview -- OK, go ahead. Tell me how it`s going to work.

TAYLOR: Yes, we want to double -- want to double the money. So we`re going to end up syndicating it throughout the world, and that way we`ll make the money back that way. Even if we never make a penny out of the United States, I`ve already got deals cooking in Germany, Australia, England, and all these other countries.

VELEZ-MITCHELL: OK. Yes, because any major corporation that buys it here in the United States, a major media company, could get blowback, could get a backlash, could get protests. Gosh only knows what they would get if they...

TAYLOR: Yes, how about could get -- how about will get.

VELEZ-MITCHELL: ... bought it from you.

TAYLOR: They`ll get it. And therefore, it`s going to take somebody like me to put this whole thing together, and it`s going to take the overseas money to get it done. Because, obviously, we think American money is going to be scared.

VELEZ-MITCHELL: So you`re saying that people in America would not get to see this Casey Anthony interview?

TAYLOR: No, we`ll end up -- if we have to give it away, we`ll end up giving it away. Maybe we`ll give it to HLN. Who knows? If we can`t sell it, we`ll give it away here, but it will be sold around the world first.

VELEZ-MITCHELL: All right. Well, hang on for a second.

TAYLOR: Sure.

VELEZ-MITCHELL: Debra Opri, criminal defense attorney, your reaction to this proposal. I`ve heard crazier things, honestly. I mean, people can say, "Oh, you know, show us the money. How do I know if you have the money?" Well, I have no idea if he has the money or not. But given the controversy surrounding this case, it`s as good a plan as any I`ve ever heard. And I`m not endorsing it on an ethical basis. I`m just saying that it could happen.

DEBRA OPRI, CRIMINAL DEFENSE ATTORNEY: I`m no stranger to media deals, as you know. And I know that where there is a market and where there is a need and a desire to hear her story, they`re going to hear it. And if she is not giving it away, and it`s got to get paid for, because she has attorneys` fees, cost of living, a future that is basically in jeopardy. She doesn`t know how she`ll earn a living. She will take the money as she finds it. And selling it overseas is probably a very good idea.

Is it morally, ethically right? Who are we to say so? A jury did acquit her. She has a story to tell. People want to ask the hard questions. O.J. Simpson basically wrote a book on this ...

VELEZ-MITCHELL: I want to hear some...

OPRI: ... what happened.

VELEZ-MITCHELL: And you know what happened with that book. That was a disastrous fiasco for everyone involved. And it ultimately ended up going into the hands of the Goldman family, who were the relatives...

OPRI: Exactly.

VELEZ-MITCHELL: ... of one of the victims of that horrible slashing.

All right. We`re taking your calls on this. What do you think at home of this $1 million offer? Give me a call: 1-877-JVM-SAYS.

Why is an alleged pedophile allowed to watch kiddy porn in jail? It`s beyond kiddy porn. It`s this guy watching video of himself allegedly raping young boys, because that`s what he`s charged with. And you know, you can guess why he`s allowed to do that. It`s a big controversy. We`re going to get it to it.

But first, Casey Anthony, just days from freedom. Will she become super rich?

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Caylee! Caylee! Caylee! Caylee! Caylee! Caylee! Caylee!

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Caylee! Caylee! Caylee! Caylee! Caylee! Caylee! Caylee!

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Caylee! Caylee! Caylee! Caylee! Caylee! Caylee! Caylee!

(END VIDEO CLIP)

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

GEORGE ANTHONY, FATHER OF CASEY: You`re trying to take this joy of my life away from me, sir, and you can`t do it anymore.

How dare you, sir, try to tell me that I did something differently than what I did?

BAEZ: And that is why you called 911 right then and there, right? Was the pressure getting to you, Mr. Anthony?

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Objection. Argumentative.

BELVIN PERRY, JUDGE: Overruled.

G. ANTHONY: I`m not trying to be belligerent or...

BAEZ: Judge, I`m going to object, object to the narrative. Move to strike.

You are arguing with me, sir.

G. ANTHONY: Sir, I would never do anything to harm my daughter in that way.

BAEZ: Only in that way?

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Objection...

G. ANTHONY: Sir.

PERRY: Sustained.

BAEZ: Do you recall being paid $20,000 for that appearance?

G. ANTHONY: You know, Mr. Baez, I have been nice to you.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

VELEZ-MITCHELL: George and Cindy tried to go shopping at Home Depot yesterday, and the paparazzi caught with them. What are they buying there? What does it look like? It`s like some kind of -- I don`t know. It`s an appliance; it`s a leaf blower. They`re just trying to live their lives, and they remain in the center of this firestorm.

I want to go to Amy Singer. She is a trial consultant who worked with the Anthony defense team. And she`s coming to us out of Miami. This is an exclusive interview that we`re bringing you here on ISSUES.

Amy Singer, you developed an absolutely revolutionary trial consulting strategy. You and several of your colleagues studied and analyzed 40,000 social media posts, from Twitter to Facebook to MySpace to blogs. And first of all, how and why did you get involved doing this? And why -- why were you so sure it would be the success that it was, obviously?

AMY SINGER, TRIAL CONSULTANT: Well, actually, it was -- it was a function of me being lazy and not wanting to be in the courtroom every minute. And of course, my daughter or someone was in the courtroom all the time. But what we found was that, when we were looking at the blogs and looking at the -- the texts that were going on, we were finding that a lot of people were giving their reactions to everything from jury selection all the way on up to the evidence. And we found that that was invaluable. That we were able to give the defense team this kind of intel.

VELEZ-MITCHELL: Now, obviously, a lot of your tweets focused in on George Anthony. What you determined was that people didn`t like George Anthony. And I`m going to read some of the tweets that we just found, casually, just checking the Internet. "George knows the truth, but will he ever come clean?" "I call for a full investigation of George." "George Anthony is not the doting father everyone thinks." "George is a complete liar." "George Anthony was not a credible witness."

So you -- my understanding is you took these tweets. You found this theme, and you told the defense about it. And did you say, "Hey, go after George. Nobody likes him"?

SINGER: Exactly. Well, we found -- not nobody liked him. Some people did like him. Some people felt sorry for him. Some people, even after the -- the affair was revealed, still liked him. "Oh, poor George." They were mainly Casey haters who were going to hate Casey no matter what and find her guilty no matter what.

But those people who were on the fence, they began to turn their attention toward George, and they just didn`t believe some of the things that he said. There were certain inconsistencies.

One of the shockers was when he went to the impound, you know, there was testimony that he said, when he smelt the trunk, besides him saying, "I hope it`s not Casey or Caylee," he said, "I`m going to get divorced over this." That`s a strange thing to say. Why would somebody say something like this?

VELEZ-MITCHELL: OK. Let me ask you this, Amy. Do you have any qualms? Do you have any kind of feeling that, "Hey, I might have contributed to destroying George Anthony`s life? Maybe he isn`t a molester. Maybe he`s just a guy, a simple man caught in a very bad situation? And now that the defense targeted him, based on all these tweets, we`ve destroyed his life." Any thoughts on that?

SINGER: No. All I did was pass on the intel. All I did was decide to use the Internet and use the social media and cherry-pick comments and pass that on to the defense. And it`s just nothing more than a trial consulting strategy. It`s the 21st century focus group, if you will.

VELEZ-MITCHELL: Quickly, Joe.

EPISCOPO: Yes.

VELEZ-MITCHELL: Joe, do you have a thought on that?

EPISCOPO: Yes, thank you, Pilate, for washing your hands, do you feel better now?

VELEZ-MITCHELL: What do you think, Amy? I mean...

SINGER: I think she`s innocent, so...

VELEZ-MITCHELL: Isn`t justice supposed to be blind? Isn`t justice supposed to be blind? Is justice supposed to be based on what people are tweeting, or is it supposed to be based on the evidence of the courtroom?

SINGER: I`m a trial consultant, and what my job is, is to find out what people think and feel about the evidence in the case. And also, by the way, it drove our jury de-selection strategy. Many people were tweeting during the jury de-selection process, "Boy, I wouldn`t be a good juror because of X, Y, and Z."

VELEZ-MITCHELL: More on the other side. Stay right there, Amy.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

JERRY LYONS, LEAD DETECTIVE FOR CASEY ANTHONY`S DEFENSE: You know, when George was there, by the defense team, "Have you ever sexually abused your daughter," he never answered. He just stared. He just stared. For more than 20 seconds, he just stared.

And then he was asked if he was having an affair with Krystal Holloway or River Cruz, and he denied that.

But he never denied having, you know, sexually abusing his daughter, Casey. Never denied it to us. And so, you know, you have to wonder.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

VELEZ-MITCHELL: That`s the lead investigator for the Anthony family, saying that they found George suspicious, and a number of people on the -- or who were on the Anthony crew have told me that.

But the attorney for Cindy and George say that never happened. That interaction that he`s describing, they claim it never happened. So obviously, a lot of controversy surrounding George Anthony.

And here is a photograph and video of George Anthony trying to just do some simple shopping at the Home Depot yesterday. And look what happens to these people. They can`t live their lives.

So I`m going book to Amy Singer, trial consultant. You worked with the Casey Anthony defense team. You and several others meticulously searched social media. You came up with trends from blogs, from tweets, from Facebook, and the trends showed that people didn`t like George. And so the defense went after George.

And again, I`m giving you an opportunity. When I heard that, I thought, is that the way criminal justice is supposed to be conducted? But I want to hear your side of it.

SINGER: Well, we`ve been doing shadow juries -- and when I say "we," I mean trial consultants -- have been doing shadow juries for over 30 years. And what we do is we hire people to sit in the courtroom and listen to the facts and the evidence and the testimony and listen to the evidence in the case and then give feedback at the end of the day, and we give that feedback to our clients. So that`s nothing new.

What`s new is using social media to do this. And some people think it`s malpractice not to have a trial consultant give the attorney intel during the trial so that they can make sure that jurors understand what`s going on, not to insult anybody, and to kind of guide their trial strategy.

VELEZ-MITCHELL: All right. Debra Opri, criminal defense attorney, do you have an ethical problem with it?

OPRI: I actually don`t, and I`ll tell you why. If you look at the way jury consultants have operated, hundreds of years, they basically take the pulse of society and feed into the jury pool through the trial exactly what they want in the leaning towards the way the case is presented for the verdict and the result achieved.

Does he look good in blue? Does she have brown eyes or blue eyes that`s going to really win over the women on the jury...

VELEZ-MITCHELL: OK. Let me ask you this, Amy Singer. Amy, did this influence the defense accusing George of molestation?

SINGER: I`m not sure. I mean, all I did was basically give them the intel, and then whatever they did with it, they did with it. My job was simply to put my hand on the pulse of those bloggers. And at times, by the way, there was up to a million bloggers. It took an army of trial consultants to accomplish this.

EPISCOPO: Unbelievable.

OPRI: Can I jump back in.

SINGER: And I don`t mean to interrupt you, but somebody just mentioned something about, you know, how they dressed, and that`s very true. One of the things that we found out through the bloggers was that they liked Casey in pastels. They didn`t like her in dark colors. If you look at the trial...

VELEZ-MITCHELL: Amy, got end to it here. Thank you so much for coming on. Talk to you soon.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: I don`t know if they were watching the same thing we were. It`s just shocking. I can`t believe it. I don`t even know why I`m this emotional. I have no attachment to them at all. I just can`t believe it.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: I`m in total shock. I mean everything that`s happened, it`s basically like, you almost have to film and watch somebody commit a crime and have it on video for something to happen today. It`s just disturbing.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Justice for Caylee. She was left in a swamp; nobody there to defend her. And we`re out here to say, Caylee, we remember you. We will stand up for you.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Not guilty?

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: No.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Oh, my God.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Oh.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Oh, my god.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Boo.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Are you kidding me?

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: What a disgrace.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: That poor little girl.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

VELEZ-MITCHELL: Just imagine the outrage when Casey is actually released from jail.

I`m Jane Velez-Mitchell here in Orlando with a very good view of the Orange County Jail where Casey is being held. It`s right behind me. She has three more days to go in her sentence for lying to cops.

Now, her defense attorney, Jose Baez, was here at the courthouse just a little while ago. We`ve got video of him leaving. Check this out.

All right, by the way -- by the way, I can tell you we just got information moments ago that he attended a release security meeting at the jail. So, basically, him and the officials figuring out how they`re going to get her out of there, as well as meeting with Casey Anthony.

Now, Casey might be scheduled for release, in fact, she is scheduled for release; her legal troubles are far from over. In fact, they`re mounting one after the other after the other.

There`s a court hearing tomorrow morning to determine whether she has to give a deposition on tape, on videotape, in the civil defamation suit filed against her by Zenaida Gonzalez for using the name Zanny as the fake nanny who had Caylee.

And we`re also getting some other breaking news, just in. On a slew of fronts, and we`re going to bring it to you right now.

I`m going to start with bounty hunter, Leonard Padilla, you are announcing yet another lawsuit against Casey. Tell us where you are in that process and what are you going to do?

LEONARD PADILLA, BOUNTY HUNTER: Well, we`ve had several meetings and one of them that was very important is, we got together with the investigators that went with us, the security guards that went with us back in August, and I wanted to make sure in my mind we`d reviewed a lot of the notes that we had, myself, Rob, and Tracy, and my nephew, Tony Padilla, that actually posted the bond.

We wanted to make sure that I`d heard Baez correctly. And yes, I did. He never once said, "The child is dead." He never once said that. He never once told me before I left Sacramento in August to go back there, "Don`t bother coming back here, we don`t need your help."

It was always with a very positive, very affirmative, "Yes, we think Jesse Grund might have kidnapped the child." Yes, we need all the help we can get. Yes, we accept the fact that we need security. Yes we need security. She doesn`t have any money. The family has no money. Thank you very much for showing up." They have no money for the payment of the bond. So we just stepped in --

VELEZ-MITCHELL: Leonard?

PADILLA: Yes?

VELEZ-MITCHELL: Leonard?

PADILLA: Yes?

VELEZ-MITCHELL: Are you suing, and if so, who, for how much?

PADILLA: Over $200,000, Casey and Jose, both.

VELEZ-MITCHELL: Wow. All right. Joe Episcopo, what are your thoughts on that lawsuit?

JOE EPISCOPO, CRIMINAL DEFENSE ATTORNEY: You know, hey Leonard, three years ago we sat next to each other right outside the Anthony home.

PADILLA: Correct. Absolutely.

EPISCOPO: And I questioned your sincerity, you said you wanted to find the child, and I said, what if you don`t, and you said you would have tried. What is this? What are you suing for? I mean come on. That doesn`t sound like the man I know.

PADILLA: Joe.

VELEZ-MITCHELL: Wait, hold on. Hold on. You asked the question, give him a chance to respond.

EPISCOPO: That doesn`t sound like you.

VELEZ-MITCHELL: Leonard -- one at a time, gentlemen.

EPISCOPO: What`s up? What`s up? Why are you doing that?

PADILLA: Joe, Jose knew the child was dead three visits after -- when he visited a third time in jail, she ran the story to him that her dad had been baby-sitting the child, the babysitter -- baby-sitting, she drowned. He made her take him and her around the corner and dump the body of the baby. She told Jose that while she was in jail long before I ever contacted him and said, "We`re going to find the live child."

It was a live child I was looking for. I was very sincere in that. I never, ever made any motions about --

EPISCOPO: But how do you know that she told him that at that time? How do you -- say you know that.

VELEZ-MITCHELL: Look, let me jump in here --

EPISCOPO: That`s attorney/client. How`d you get into the attorney/client privilege?

PADILLA: Law enforcement overheard him in the jail when she was telling him.

VELEZ-MITCHELL: Tim Miller says that he went in there and they were talking with all of them, all of them, George, Cindy, Casey about how there was a living child and that Casey never, ever insinuated in any way, shape, or form that this child was dead. And that`s why Tim Miller is suing.

We`ve got a lot of lawsuits brewing here. Now, I want to bring you some other breaking news --

PADILLA: Cindy --

VELEZ-MITCHELL: Mark Nejame, who is an attorney we`ve grown to know and love here in Orlando, is proposing a law. He held a news conference today to essentially stop jurors from selling their story once they get out of a high-profile trial. Mark, give us the bottom line on this. What`s the basics that you want to see enacted into law?

MARK NEJAME, FORMER LAWYER FOR GEORGE AND CINDY ANTHONY: Hi, Jane. Real simple; this is not a knee-jerk reaction. This is not an emotional response. The jury came back, it was done. It`s over with.

But what bothered me, what got my interest in this is that when one of the jurors came out, really a rather short time, had a representative, and started bidding out his story for the highest bidder. And I was offended by that. If somebody takes that into a deliberation, is a person getting the fairest of trials? Forget the Casey Anthony case. In the future, we`ve got -- laws have to adjust around changes in society. And so I didn`t want it so that somebody`s, you know, jury summons could end up being tantamount to a lottery ticket.

So senator -- excuse me, Representative Scott Randolph, I approached him with it, he thought it was a great idea --

(CROSSTALK)

VELEZ-MITCHELL: What are you proposing? What do you want to see enacted into law?

NEJAME: You cannot make money if you`re a juror for nine months, but you are freely allowed to talk to everybody, as long as you`re not being paid for it.

VELEZ-MITCHELL: All right. Debra Opri, your reaction, quickly.

DEBRA OPRI, FAMILY ATTORNEY: My reaction is, go to Caylee`s Law. All the states that are interested in protecting a child, that`s the good that can come out of this case. The jury system, leave it alone. If they want to sell their story, that`s First Amendment rights. Go to Caylee`s Law, do it in a report within 24 hours of a missing child or it`s a felony if she`s dead.

VELEZ-MITCHELL: That`s a totally different subject. Ok Joe Episcopo?

OPRI: If you`re listening I gave my opinion on the jury.

(CROSSTALK)

EPISCOPO: Mark, you`ve surprised me. Why do you want to take away somebody`s First Amendment right of free speech? You can`t do that. The Supreme Court has ruled you can`t do it. What are you doing?

NEJAME: Joe, Joe, Joe, Joe. Slow down. Hold on, everybody. Here`s what it is. It isn`t that complicated. California has a similar law. It`s not unconstitutional. Two, First Amendment is extremely important. Jurors are not restricted to talk to anybody. Three, Sixth Amendment right is equally important for a fair trial, a fair jury as the First Amendment. This ensures that a juror will not be infected by the temptation of money and allows them to talk freely. They can`t bring the seduction of money into their deliberations, which could, Joe, you represent people who are accused, the last thing you want is somebody thinking about your client -- excuse me, they want them thinking about your client, you don`t want them thinking about how much money they`re going to make when that trial is over. You want a clean jury.

VELEZ-MITCHELL: However they rule --

(CROSSTALK)

NEJAME: This helps those who are wanting a fair trial.

EPISCOPO: You can always make money indirectly. You can still have the jury make money. They just do it through another source.

NEJAME: No, Joe, we`ve got to draft it in such a way.

(CROSSTALK)

Opri: -- it doesn`t matter how you rule.

VELEZ-MITCHELL: All right, hold it, Debra Opri, you`re getting the final word on this subject, because I want to go to a caller. Go.

OPRI: Bottom line is it doesn`t matter how a juror rules, they`re going to sell a story. So they`re not being sold as to a specific verdict. That`s not the story here. You have First Amendment rights. As long as it doesn`t influence their determination, they have a fair right to say how they came to that decision.

NEJAME: Money always influences everybody. Money is the great corruptor.

All right, everybody --

OPRI: Yes, I know. Ok.

VELEZ-MITCHELL: A very interesting debate. I just want to say that I think it`s

OPRI: Caylee`s law.

VELEZ-MITCHELL: -- it`s got merit. But by the same token, I think any time we open a Pandora`s Box where we try to limit freedom of expression, it`s not so much the law that you create, it`s the precedent it sets to create other laws and to continue to reduce our ability to express ourselves freely. And that`s what concerns me.

It is opening a Pandora`s Box and where does it end?

I want to go to Claudia, very quickly. Claudia Louise, your comment? Claudia?

CLAUDIA, LOUSIANA (via telephone): Hi, Jane, how are you. I have a question.

VELEZ-MITCHELL: Yes.

CLAUDIA: If Casey has been put through too much emotional strain and pressure to be able to give a deposition tomorrow, how long do you think it will be before she gives the first TV interview? Or interview.

VELEZ-MITCHELL: Well, I personally feel that she doesn`t want to do the deposition, precisely because she wants to save her voice, so to speak. Save her image. Save the uniqueness of the situation for that first big exclusive interview, which -- for which she will undoubtedly be paid in some way, shape, or form, either by licensing fees or what have you, or an outright check. We heard someone earlier say they were going to give her an outright check.

So I think if she does a deposition she reduces her value, and that`s one of the reasons why she`s avoiding it.

All right. Thank you, fantastic panel.

A man accused of raping and then videotaping young boys is allowed to watch those videotapes in jail. Why? There is such outrage over this. This is the guy in question.

We`re taking your calls on this. And we`ve got an interview with the prosecutor. 1-877-JVM-SAYS, 1-877-586-7297. Stay there.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: We don`t like it, we don`t want to do it, but we have to follow the law.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

PAUL PASTOR, PIERCE COUNTY SHERIFF: We want to facilitate this, even though we don`t like and don`t think it`s a good idea.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: So he can just sit there and watch pornography all day?

PASTOR: Yes, sir.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

VELEZ-MITCHELL: Tonight, an incarcerated sex offender gets to watch kiddie porn in jail, no kidding; kiddie porn that he himself filmed, and it is completely approved by the U.S. government. What`s more outrageous, this sicko may actually then get to confront his own victims in court. It`s all 100 percent legal.

How -- how on earth is this allowed to happen? Well, it all boils down to a legal loophole. This guy, this -- this one, right here, Weldon Marc Gilbert, arrested in Washington State for allegedly sexually assaulting and torturing young boys, more than 20 of them. He lured these boys into his home with toys and alcohol and money. And then he did what he did to them.

It`s actually too horrific for us to even describe it on national television. But that`s not the end of it.

Gilbert is also accused of videotaping the abuse he inflicted on these young boys. The tapes were found in his home, they were confiscated by cops to be used against him in a trial. But then Gilbert asked for the tapes back, and the court agreed.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

WELDON MARC GILBERT, ACCUSED OF MOLESTING BOYS: I`m asking for the -- both the copies of the hard drives as well as the copies of the videotapes to be released.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

VELEZ-MITCHELL: Now, he is allowed to view these videotapes in jail. Nobody can stop him. Why? Because Gilbert has chosen to represent himself; he`s his own lawyer. Ok. And since he`s representing himself, he gets complete and unrestricted access to the videotapes, because they`re evidence. Well, needless to say, police are disgusted, but there`s absolutely nothing they can do. Listen to this.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

PASTOR: Make no mistake, I don`t like it. But it is not my choice whether to do it or not to do it. There`s no question that I don`t like it. There`s no question that this makes me grind my teeth.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

VELEZ-MITCHELL: Now, perhaps the most disturbing, disgusting aspect of this entire ordeal is that because this alleged pedophile is acting as his own attorney, he may, in fact, get to question these victims himself in court. Can you imagine that? Can you imagine how he might inflict more emotional pain, more humiliation upon these same boys who he is accused of raping? And many of them are adults now.

Is this a total failure of the legal system or is this just the price we pay for living in a free society? Call me, 1-877-JVM-SAYS.

I want to go straight out to Mark Lindquist. He is the prosecutor. And sir, thank you so much for joining us. I have to ask you, how do you deal with this predicament? How do you get your head around it? And how do you proceed with your job as a professional, knowing that this man, to me, it seems, is making a travesty out of the whole process, sir?

MARK LINDQUIST, PROSECUTOR (via telephone): It is a travesty. It`s an absurd situation. It`s maddening. But it`s a natural consequence of an unfortunate ruling by our Washington State Supreme Court in 2007. And so the answer to this is that we need to change the law in Washington State. This wouldn`t happen under federal law. This is a circumstance that exists here in Washington State, and we`ve already taken steps towards drafting a law that would fix this problem.

Well, the boys who were raped are -- some of them are now young men, I understand. How are they reacting? How are they dealing with the prospect of being interrogated by the man who was accused of raping them? I can`t even imagine.

LINDQUIST: You know, in a typical case, the defense gets a chance to interview the victims before the trial. In this case, we made a motion to prevent the defendant from directly interviewing these young victims, because we viewed that as an opportunity for him to re-victimize the victims. And the court granted our motion to prevent the defendant from directly interviewing these victims. Instead, the questions will be asked through a third party.

So I anticipate we will make similar motions at trial to do what we can to protect these victims you know, while at the same time, of course, making sure that the trial is fair and that it plays by the rules and passes constitutional muster.

VELEZ-MITCHELL: Well, I certainly hope you`re successful, because I just want to play a clip of a Texas case, a rape case, and the rape suspect was representing himself, and he actually got to cross-examine his rape victims on the stand. Give me -- here`s a taste of how bizarre this was.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Did this person at any time ever show you a badge?

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: No, you did not show me a badge.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

VELEZ-MITCHELL: Actually, he then proceed to say, um, well, did this person ever, uh, touch you in this, that, or the other way, and the woman`s like, "It`s not this person, it`s you." And what happened, eventually, is that he was convicted. So I do think that this could backfire, ultimately, on this accused pedophile. I certainly hope it does. It just is so disturbing --

(CROSSTALK)

LINDQUIST: You`re absolutely right. We have a similar situation here in Washington State, and we`ve tried to take steps, again, to limit the opportunities of defendants to question victims themselves like that, because it can make a travesty of the system.

VELEZ-MITCHELL: Well, sir, I hope you`re successful. This case, it`s so disturbing. My heart goes out to the young men who were victimized and I hope they`re not victimized twice. But it`s a price I guess we pay for a free society.

More in a second.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: We don`t like it, we don`t want to do, but we have to follow the law. So the fix here is to change the law.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

VELEZ-MITCHELL: A former pilot is accused of luring in young boys with alcohol, and then raping them -- raping these boys and videotaping the rapes. And now, what`s so outrageous is, he gets to watch the videotapes of himself raping -- I`d have to say allegedly, he hasn`t been convicted yet -- raping these boys on a computer in jail because he`s representing himself.

I want to go straight out to Jen Heger, legal editor of RadarOnline. You broke this story. Tell us about his ability to view the pornography and the video of him allegedly raping these boys in his jail.

JEN HEGER, LEGAL EDITOR, RADARONLINE: First of all, I`d like to thank you very much for having me on the show tonight. And letting your viewers know about this very, very disturbing story that needs attention. Clearly laws need to change in this state.

I spoke extensively with law enforcement in Washington. Their hands are absolutely tied as to what they can do with this defendant watching this pornography. There`s over six CDs of the defendant Marc Gilbert, some of the footage includes him with the victims in the case. He is allowed to watch as much as he wants these videos, some of which is also child porn as long as his private investigator is in an attorney interviewing room with him. If he wanted to, he could watch these videos all day long.

VELEZ-MITCHELL: It`s outrageous. And I know that we have an attorney here who doesn`t think it`s outrageous. But first, I want to go to the caller. Mary, Washington, your question or thought Mary.

MARY, WASHINGTON (via telephone): Well, my question is this. I do not understand. We all sit around, we complain about this, about that -- him watching porn and all that good stuff. And you know, if we would get off of our bottoms and go and e-mail, write, call, senators, congressmen, even the President. Let them know that we do not support this type of a law, and we would greatly appreciate it if they could do something to change it. This to me is outrageous.

VELEZ-MITCHELL: I thought it very outrageous myself. But I`m here with attorney Joe Episcopo who doesn`t find it outrageous at all and says that this is part of our criminal justice system. Take it away.

EPISCOPO: Yes, Jane. It`s a pesky little thing called the United State Constitution and the Sixth Amendment. The Sixth Amendment, you have an absolute right to confront your accusers and you have a right to represent yourself. And no politician, no talk show host, no caller and no prosecutor can take that away, because it`s written down in that document and it`s not going to go away. And yes, kids lie, and you have a right to confront your accuser. It`s absolute, it shouldn`t be taken away.

VELEZ-MITCHELL: Well, I think it`s easy for us to saying we haven`t been, thank God, in the position that these young boys were in when they were lured in and violated in the most heinous manner possible by this man. I think we also have to consider the rights of the victims.

Maybe when we come back, we`re going to have final thoughts on this, and see if there`s a way to protect the Constitution and protect young boys at the same time.

My final thoughts in a moment.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

VELEZ-MITCHELL: I think there should be a way to protect the Constitution and also protect young people who have been absolutely violated in a horrific way, to stop them from having to be cross-examined in person by the person they accuse of raping them.

EPISCOPO: That`s the whole point of being in a courtroom in front of a jury and confronting your accusers and allowing everyone to observe the demeanor of the witness, and in this case the demeanor of the defendant. The jury will make the decision, why should we do all this videotape. Let`s get over all of that and let`s keep their rights protected.

VELEZ-MITCHELL: Easy for you to say, you haven`t been violated in this way.

I would say videotape -- let`s use the technology. Maybe it could be done on videotape through Skype, in some way where you protect the Constitution but you also protect these young men from being violated again psychologically.

The one good thing about all this, people who represent themselves are almost always convicted.

"NANCY GRACE" is up next.

END