Return to Transcripts main page


Casey`s Lawyer Tells All

Aired May 14, 2012 - 21:00   ET


DR. DREW PINSKY, HOST: Here we go.

Casey Anthony`s defense attorney is here. And for the first time, Jose Baez is answering for questions about her and the trial. What do you want to know?

We`re live tonight. So let`s get started.


PINSKY: OK. Welcome to the program. A reminder we are live tonight.

And I`m here with Casey Anthony`s defense attorney, Jose Baez. He just announced he is writing a tell-all book about the trial. It comes out in July. It is called "Presumed Guilty: Casey Anthony, the Inside Story." That`s exciting.

But what is more exciting tonight is he is taking your calls.

I`ve been watching you guys sound off online for so long, with lots of opinions. Now, the man is sitting next to me. Call us at 1-855- DRDREW5.

So, Jose, while we wait for some calls to line up here, I`ve got a bunch of questions for you. Tell me something in the book that`s going to be surprising to people.

JOSE BAEZ, CASEY ANTHONY`S DEFENSE ATTORNEY: I think what`s going to be surprising is pretty much everything cover-to-cover. And the reason for that is that my point of view has never been out there. I -- the book is written from a perspective of how I came into the case and as the case developed, things that I saw, things that I thought. And --

PINSKY: Give me one shred of what`s going to shock me when I open -- let`s say, open the book to the middle, what am I going to -- what`s going to stun me?

BAEZ: What`s going to shock you is how much you don`t know about the Casey Anthony case.

PINSKY: Don`t know in the sense of explaining it away? Or making us even more concerned about Casey?

BAEZ: No. I think -- there`s not going to be -- there`s no explaining things away. This is -- I see this piece of evidence, this is what I`m thinking. There`s certain pieces of evidence that never made it to trial, never made it into discovery, that I think were significant.

For various reasons, we didn`t present certain things. And for various reasons, a lot was not made public. And I think this is the first time -- if people are interested in this case, they`re going to be able to read this book and get a completely different -- a complete different perspective as well as information that they just didn`t know.

PINSKY: It`s hard for me to believe people are going to change their opinion about Casey. They really vilified her. People seem to get very angry with you for throwing George under the bus. Are they going to see evidence as to why you chose to take that position with George?

BAEZ: Yes, they`re going to see what we learned, when we learned it --

PINSKY: About George and sexual abuse?

BAEZ: About everything. Not just, you know -- I mean, what bothered me about this whole case is several things. But one of the things that still bothers me today is I never thought -- and, you know, I realize for the general public who`s not involved in the legal system, they look at this case as, you know, look at her behavior and --

PINSKY: Well, then, and then they stop. Then they -- guilty. Bad news.

BAEZ: Correct, correct, correct. So, you know, this case was never about Casey`s behavior. It was about how Caylee died. And it was never -- we would have never had the opportunity to put on our defense if those -- if that behavior was not made relevant.

Let me be more specific. June 16th, Caylee died. So what happened after that is really irrelevant.

PINSKY: The cover-up. The cover-up is what made -- by the way, when somebody lies and lies -- the one thing we know about Casey, liar. That`s the only thing we know for sure about her, for sure. You`re not going to tell me she`s not.

BAEZ: My point is, under the law, she -- unless there is evidence of someone fleeing or consciousness of guilt, all of that stuff is irrelevant. So, in order for us to explain her behavior, a lot of this evidence that really had nothing to do with how Caylee died had to be admitted. And that`s why I think the case ended up becoming what it was.

If this was a straight-up murder case, like every other case, that would have been evidence of murder. There was no evidence of a murder. And that`s why the case became what it became -- a speculation spectacle.

PINSKY: Based on the mom`s -- suspect is the kindest word I can use, behavior subsequent to the death.

BAEZ: She didn`t act right. She didn`t act the way you would normally --

PINSKY: Stop there. She didn`t act right. I think we would agree on that.

I said what`s exciting tonight, we`re going to let the viewers talk to you. So, let`s take some calls.

We`re going to go out to Michelle in Arizona first. Michelle?


PINSKY: Hi, Michelle.

MICHELLE: Jose, my question is, do you feel guilt at all saying George Anthony sexually abused Casey with no evidence backing that up? And do you believe that happened, yourself?

BAEZ: Well, that`s a good question. I will tell you this. We presented our case in a complete and ethical manner. I think --

PINSKY: That means you had evidence.

BAEZ: Absolutely. And I think what people misunderstand when they say, you didn`t present any evidence of sexual abuse, we -- this was not a case about sexual abuse.

PINSKY: Understood.

BAEZ: And the defense -- what a lot of people misunderstand about a trial is that it`s not a two-sided affair. One side does not have to prove anything. And that is the defense.

Our role as advocates is to create reasonable doubt, to poke holes and to put the evidence to its strongest test. And as we were able to expose -- this evidence, not only wasn`t there, it never was there. It was a fantasy.

And, you know, we put on evidence that is circumstantial evidence that I felt a jury could believe or not believe of sexual abuse. Now, let me give you a couple examples of that.

PINSKY: Because I must interrupt you a little bit and say I want to get to as many calls as we can. So, go ahead.

BAEZ: Sure. The jury was free to believe George Anthony or not. I cross examined him on that question.

PINSKY: On the sexual abuse question.

BAEZ: On the sexual abuse questions. And by his reaction they could believe it or not.

Just as if, if Casey had taken the stand, they would have had the right to believe her or not. So this is evidence of either abuse or non- abuse. That was for the jury to decide, which were the sole fact-finders in the case.

Plus, there were other pieces of evidence that I can later on --

PINSKY: That will be in the book.

BAEZ: Correct.

PINSKY: About the sexual abuse.

BAEZ: Correct.

PINSKY: Want to give any a little hint?

BAEZ: You have to wait for it.

PINSKY: Read the book.

OK, Kathleen in Florida. Go right ahead. Kathleen?

KATHLEEN, CALLER FROM FLORIDA: Yes. Hi, Dr. Drew. My question is, Jose, how could you present the story about the drowning when -- and believe that when Casey had lied about everything else before that?

PINSKY: So why believe Casey if she told you that?

BAEZ: No, it`s understandable. There were evidence -- what we did was we, again, not having and not being required to present anything, there are things to remember. June 16th, the day Caylee died, the ladder was found up on the pool. That was a very rare event.

The very following day, Cindy Anthony went to work and discussed with her co-workers about the ladder being up. You can look at that as a coincidence, or you can look at that as evidence of a possibility that Caylee had been in the pool.

There was also evidence presented that Caylee loved to swim. That summer, she had gone swimming almost every day.

PINSKY: There`s some pictures of this right now we`re looking at.

BAEZ: George testified that she would -- Caylee would make him up and say Joe-Joe swim, Joe-Joe swim.

There was also the issue of, could she get out of the house? And as you saw, we presented a photo of her actually opening the sliding glass door which led to the pool.

So there was evidence presented of a possibility of drowning. And I would back this up by saying, if you recall one of the jurors after the trial came out and said, the conclusion of a drowning was a lot easier for us to reach than it was that she was chloroformed possibly or if not chloroformed, suffocated by duct tape or different things like that.

So, you know, if you can take an analytical approach to the evidence, you might reach different conclusions or you might reach the same conclusion. And I think what I try to do with the book is I try to put it out there.

PINSKY: All of it.

BAEZ: All of it. And if you reach the conclusion that, you know, that Caylee died by a drowning, you reach that conclusion. If you`re still not convinced, you`re certainly entitled to that opinion at well.

PINSKY: One more call before we go to break. Bex in New York. Go ahead, Bex.

BEX, CALLER FROM NEW YORK: Hi. I want to ask you, Mr. Baez. Do you think Casey Anthony is mentally ill? I mean, with her history of partying, the fabrication of the nanny, it seems obvious to me that she has mental issues.

PINSKY: She said two different things. Mental issues and mental illness, you can pick one or the other.

BAEZ: Well, you know, I said a million times, I`m not a mental health professional. What we did do and trying to do is put on the fact that there were some issues here, not only with Casey, but with the entire family, that really had some serious, questionable behavior.

To get up to work, to get up, get dressed, pretend to go to a job you didn`t have for two years --

PINSKY: That`s incredible.

BAEZ: It`s phenomenal.

PINSKY: And the lying to the investigators, that was phenomenal. Phenomenal.

BAEZ: Here`s my question, Drew. What really stunned me, and this I will tell you that is in the book, what really stunned me was when she went down to Universal Studios --

PINSKY: That was incredible.

BAEZ: -- made a left and went down the hallway then all of a sudden said, OK, I don`t work here. I think that`s when a critical mistake was made by law enforcement.

I think that they should have realized at that point in time that we`re dealing with something that`s a little bit beyond our control. And maybe we should have someone come in here and speak to her.

PINSKY: Make an assessment of her mental health?

BAEZ: Absolutely.

PINSKY: What they went to, then, was sort of now you have an opportunity to be honest with us. Now you instincts are correct. Remember those taped interviews they did?

BAEZ: I remember. No, what it was, they then took her into --

PINSKY: The interrogation room.

BAEZ: Into a conference room and they went at her, good cop/bad cop, old-school style. I don`t think you can deal with people that way, especially in the criminal field, where a majority of -- cops know this -- a majority of the people they deal with either have mental health issues, or they have drug and alcohol issues.


BAEZ: There are very few people in the criminal justice system who commit crimes because they want to.

PINSKY: Psychopathy, which is the sort of, you know, born with kind of a brain problem kind of thing.

BAEZ: So why not take police work into the 21st century and why not take a more of an intellectual approach than opposed to let`s throw the handcuffs on, lock her up and force it out of her? I think that was a huge mistake.

PINSKY: We`ve got to take a break. We have a ton more calls. Again, the number is 855-373-7395.

Jose, I know they`re going to need me to be a little tougher on you, I think, or my viewers are going to get tough on me. Let`s quickly go to Mark in Florida before we go to break.

Mark, what`s your question? We go to break before we go to it.

MARK EIGLARSH, CRIMINAL DEFENSE ATTORNEY: Hi, Dr. Drew. I`m a big fan of the show. I do have a question for Jose.

PINSKY: OK. Wait, wait, wait, wait. I recognize your voice. Is that Mark Eiglarsh?

EIGLARSH: Hey, guys.

PINSKY: Mark Eiglarsh. You have a question for Jose.

Mark, sit tight, viewers, sit tight, Jose, sit tight, we`ll be right back after this.



BAEZ: She saw George Anthony holding Caylee in his arms. Shortly thereafter, George began to yell at her, look what you`ve done! She could be 13 years old, have her father`s (EXPLETIVE DELETED) in her mouth.

George protecting George, and George throwing Casey under the bus. The car does not shed any light on how Caylee died.

Fantasy searches, fantasy forensics, phantom stickers, phantom stains, depending on who`s asking the questions, whether it`s this laughing guy right here --


PINSKY: Reminder that we`re live tonight and taking your calls. Those of course are some of the highlights from our guest, Jose Baez, defending Casey Anthony. He`s here, he`s spilling some secrets from his new book "Casey Anthony: The Inside Story"? Is that what it`s called?

BAEZ: "The Inside Story."

PINSKY: "The Inside Story."

Now, before the break, we were talking to Mark in Florida. Of course, it`s Mark Eiglarsh. Go ahead, Mark. Get to it.

EIGLARSH: OK. First of all, Jose, if he starts to get nauseous, he likes Pepto.


PINSKY: Very funny.

EIGLARSH: This is a personal question. It`s been said that it takes darkness to see the light. And I know during your years of zealous representation of Casey, there were some very dark moments I`m sure.

I wanted you to share with us the darkest time that you had and what light came from it. What did you learn from it?

PINSKY: Good question.

BAEZ: Well, you know, in this book, I talk a lot about my personal experiences.

PINSKY: Personal with the defense, or your own life?

BAEZ: My life as I was going through the case.


BAEZ: The book is told from my experiences and my perspective. For example, my wife and I gave birth to a son in the middle of the case, and we had to have -- we had to be brought in through the back door of the hospital. My wife was given an alias.

PINSKY: Because this whole circus --

BAEZ: Because we legitimately feared that someone may try to do something ridiculous --

PINSKY: Which is bizarre, right?

BAEZ: Yes, and, like, for example, I heard you say something before the break about you`re going to have to get tough on me.

Well, you know, I`m going to be honest with you. I don`t see why -- the defense lawyer is part of a system. It is like a three-legged stool. If the defense lawyer doesn`t do his or her job, the system doesn`t work.

And when you`ve got 280 people who are wrongfully convicted just by the Innocence Project, alone, no one`s out there being outraged by those injustices. We say we have a system of let 10 guilty people go free, and not have one innocent person convicted. I don`t see the outrage for these 280-some-odd people, some of which have been taken off of death row.

And I don`t agree with the bashing of the defense lawyer. We, too long, have been the whipping boy of the system.

PINSKY: I just don`t see people --

BAEZ: I disagree with --

PINSKY: I admire your opinion, but I don`t see -- interacting with the Internet, and the way people sort of think about this. If I don`t ask you tough questions, I`m going to get bashed, too.

BAEZ: So you`ll go against what you think just so you don`t look bad?

PINSKY: Just to satisfy a few of our viewers.

Here`s the deal. I want to go to callers real quick. I find it fascinating people are positive with you out on the street and the Internet where they can be anonymous. That`s where they do the hating, which is little cowardly, I`ve got to say, I must say. If they have something to say to you, I hope they`ll say it right now, not completely anonymously.

Cassie in Ohio. Go right ahead.

CASSIE, CALLER FROM OHIO: Knowing that your client can be charged due to double jeopardy, do you honestly think that she was innocent? And do you think the severity of the charges made a difference of the outcome of the trial?

PINSKY: Cassie, Cassie, are you one of the Jose Baez haters?

CASSIE: I`m not a hater. I just have a question.

PINSKY: You sound disgusted by the outcome. Are you?


PINSKY: You`re disgusted that she got free. Is that right?

CASSIE: Pretty much?

PINSKY: And you blame Jose for that. You don`t admire him for doing that, you blame him, right?


PINSKY: I`m not putting words in your mouth.

BAEZ: It sounds like you are.

PINSKY: I`m not an attorney, by the way.

All right. I`ve got to take a quick break.

Cassie, I`m going to get to your call in just a second. Hold, stay right there.

Coming up, you may remember this woman running to get a seat inside the courtroom. Tonight, she`ll -- there she is -- the running of the people. The jurors. Remember that?

She`s got some questions for Jose. She`s been dying to answer since she ran and almost killed herself trying to get in.


PINSKY: All right. Before the break, I was talking to Cassie who was calling in. Now, she had sort of a disdain in her voice. I was questioning her about why she was asking the question for Jose.

But the question, Cassie, if I`m right, was -- does Jose think she should have gotten off basically, is that your question? Or no?

CASSIE: My question was -- the severity of the charges made a difference in the outcome of the trial?

PINSKY: Going for the death penalty?

BAEZ: I`ve heard that question asked before, and I`ve heard a lot of people speculate about that. I`ll be honest with you, Cassie, I think the only way you could say that the charges made a difference would have been with a lesser charge.

Now, the jury had the option of manslaughter and second degree and everything. They found her not guilty of those crimes.

The only difference I think that could have been made is if the -- if the prosecutors had gone with a lesser charge and gotten a six-person jury. Thereby, six people are a lot easier to convince than 12. And that`s -- that`s where you can make the argument that they overreached.

But under the circumstances as they are, you can`t make that argument because they had those options and they found her not guilty of those as well. So they looked at each and every charge and what was required and they found that she was not guilty of those. So that`s really the only difference that would have been made.

But to answer your question directly -- no, they looked at the options and they rejected them.

PINSKY: All right, Jose, every night during the trial, we spoke to some people we called Dr. Drew`s jurors. They were actually trying to get into the courtroom and watch the trial. They were sort of invested in it deeply.

And they`re here with us. We want to give them a chance to speak to Jose. Kelly Heaney and Brett Schulman are here.

You have a question for Jose, go ahead.

BAEZ: First of all, they look familiar.

PINSKY: I`m sure. You saw them in the courtroom. These people fought their way in regularly.


PINSKY: So, go ahead, Kelly. What`s your question?

KELLY HEANEY, DR. DREW "JUROR": Yes, were you confident from the very beginning that you were going to win the case, and if so, why?

BAEZ: I was confident in our case, but I wasn`t confident that we were going to win. I don`t think you can ever be confident under a situation when the government has all of these resources. And let`s face it, they had the entire public opinion on their side. It was a very difficult case for us to try, and it was very difficult in many areas.

I talk about that in the book about all the things we had to overcome, all of the obstacles. All we wanted was a jury that would -- one, take their biases and push them aside; and, two, base their decision on the evidence and not on emotion.

So to answer your question -- no, I wasn`t cocky in the sense I thought we were going to win. No. In fact, we were very worried and concerned for Casey all along.

PINSKY: And, Brett, I`ve got about 30 seconds. Go right ahead. What`s your question?

BRETT SCHULMAN, DR. DREW "JUROR": Jose, I`d like to know the night that Casey Anthony was released from the Orange County jail, how strange did it feel knowing there was a frenzy of people out there by the hundreds watching every move you guys made get into that car? How did it feel knowing she had armor plated all over her body?

BAEZ: It was pretty terrifying. And I`ll tell you, a lot went in to losing the media that night. We had to go through a tremendous -- jump through a tremendous amount of hoops and it`s a crazy story that I talk about in the book.

PINSKY: Before you go to it, I have to go to break. Thank you to my jury, my jurors. We`re going to take a quick break. Back with Jose. More calls.


DR. DREW PINSKY, HOST: Welcome back. I continue here live with Casey Anthony defense attorney, Jose Baez. And Jose, we want to finish that question we got from the guy. I believe the guy I used to call Barney Fife because he was actually sort of as sheriff at the people --


PINSKY: And it was a little ecosystem developed, because at first, there was chaos and pandemonium and some of them little authority figures stepped in, and they created order out of the chaos, but you had a crazy story to tell.

JOSE BAEZ, CASEY ANTHONY`S DEFENSE ATTORNEY: Well, the night that we got Casey out of jail, we had six helicopters following us, and to lose them was -- it was like an episode of "Mission Impossible." And I go into that in great detail and show how we lost the six helicopters and the media trucks that were following us and just the hundreds of people that were after us.

PINSKY: Was Casey scared?

BAEZ: I can`t say -- I can`t see how anyone wouldn`t be scared under those circumstances.

PINSKY: Well, I spoke to someone back again when the trial was under way who was -- I forget our friend`s name -- who was the guy with the cowboy hat? Guys help me in the control room. Yes, Padilla, Leonard Padilla, and he had someone inside the house.

I can`t think of her name right now. And she was saying that Casey was looking forward to the attention and helicopters and all this kind of stuff.

BAEZ: You know, I disagree with that. I think people`s impression of Casey is completely different than the real Casey. You have to understand, Leonard Padilla got involved in this for the publicity, and the more that they could feed the fire and throw some gasoline onto the fire, they did so.

And that -- and Tracy -- that`s exactly what they did. And a lot of the things that they said just weren`t true. You know, this is a person who is on trial for their life, and to make statements like that are beyond ridiculous. And I`m hoping that I`ll have the opportunity to clear up a lot of the misunderstandings.

PINSKY: They did, you know, Tracy did mention to me that she had some very strange feelings about the family. That was a big note from her. Was it -- you mentioned it, too, there was something going on in that family.

BAEZ: I`ll quote -- I write in the book that I quote FBI agent, Nick Savidge (ph), who testified in his deposition that there was a lot going on inside that house that I wish we had known about. And I`ll leave it at that.

PINSKY: That`s a cliffhanger. There`s something you`re going -- is there something in the book that`s going to fill that in?

BAEZ: Yes. That`s -- that`s a direct quote from his deposition.

PINSKY: I understand that`s his quote, but my question to you is, am I going to read that book and find these things out?

BAEZ: You`re going to read that book and find out things that --

PINSKY: Give us a taste, Jose.


BAEZ: I`m not allowed. I`m not allowed. You know, the publishers put me under certain restrictions.

PINSKY: Remember what the producer said before you came in -- you can`t answer that, he`s going to come here screaming me?

BAEZ: I`m not tell you I can`t answer that. I`m telling you, if you read the book, you`ll be able to get that answer.

PINSKY: All right. We`ll get the answer. Let`s go to some calls. Start with Catherine in Kentucky. Go ahead, Catherine. That was me being tough, by the way. Is that OK?


PINSKY: Hey, Catherine.

BAEZ: Hi, Catherine.

CATHERINE: Hi. I`m fine. How are you doing?

PINSKY: We`re all right. You got something for Jose?

CATHERINE: Yes. I was wondering if there`s a statute of limitations when it comes to client/attorney privilege? Does it end at any time --

PINSKY: Are you asking how is it he`s able to really talk so openly about this case? Is that what you want to know, Catherine?

CATHERINE: That and is there a time limit to it, like, 20, 30 years from now, is he able to talk about everything that went on without getting in trouble?


BAEZ: No. There`s no time limit on the statute or on the attorney/client privilege. It is eternal, and it`s something I must take with me.

PINSKY: But she waived a lot of this.

BAEZ: However you can, for every privilege has a waiver. And when I approach Casey that I wanted to write this book, she gave me her blessing and consent. And I`m grateful for that.

PINSKY: Why do you think -- is it something about the story that`s going to be told that she feels is going to somehow shed light on her position?

BAEZ: You know, I think, unlike what people think about Casey, I think she`s very grateful to the people who helped her and helped save her life. And I -- you know, I worked hard. I worked for three and a half years, almost seven days a week on this case, and she`s very grateful to everyone who helped her.

She`s not the selfish type of narcissistic person that a lot of people think she is. Now, I`m not -- one thing that I want to make clear is I don`t spend my time on the book focusing or trying to change people`s opinion about Casey. What I want to do is just tell the facts as they are, as they came out, and as I experienced them.

So, that was really my goal. It wasn`t a situation where I wanted to change people`s opinions about Casey. Now, if your opinions do change about her after reading the book, that`s a different thing. But my goal is really to try and tell the story as it happened and as I experienced it.

PINSKY: OK. Amber in Oklahoma, what do got for Jose?

AMBER, OKLAHOMA: Hi, Dr. Drew. I was wondering, Casey Anthony was pretty much stone-faced during the entire trial and emotionless. And I was wondering how was your personal relationship with Casey like behind closed doors?

And what was her demeanor as you were going through evidence for the trial? Did she ever, like, breakdown and cry, or show any emotions for her deceased daughter at all?

PINSKY: And let me pile on a little bit and say what I heard during the trial. People were saying, well, Jose was urging her to be stone- faced. That`s what defense attorneys do. And in real life, they were sort of flirty together. That`s what we were hearing.

BAEZ: Well, you know, I don`t know who would say such a thing. That obviously is probably somebody who`s not in the know.

PINSKY: So, you were not telling her to stay stone-faced?

BAEZ: Part -- you said several things.

PINSKY: I said two statements.

BAEZ: OK. You know, in the book, I talk about how I thought it was important -- when you`re on trial for your life, you are in a fishbowl. The entire world is watching you. And of course, you have to remind your client of that. You have to remind them that they`re being judged and analyzed and watched.

And while it`s not fair, it`s the reality of the situation. I`ll give you a perfect example. There was a time where a young lawyer, a law student who was working for my office that had worked on the case for three for two years, he got sworn into the bar. We took him sidebar and Judge Perry swore him in, and Casey was smiling and happy for him, because she was glad that someone who had worked for her, worked so hard for her, was having their moment, their moment in the sun.

She was very happy for that person. But the headlines that read Casey is smiling and giggling while standing on trial for the murder of her daughter. And that`s just not the case. So, you know, perceptions and people, the way they say things are completely ridiculous. We always had a very professional relationship.

My job -- I had a job to do, and that job I took very seriously. And because of that, you can`t waste time with nonsense which is what a lot of people, unfortunately, thought we were doing.

PINSKY: Xiaomin, California, what do you got?

XIAOMIN, CALIFORNIA: Hi. When exactly did you find out that this so- called truth that Caylee drowned? Was it on your first meeting with your client? Like, tell me what happened so I can defend you or it took you three long years to concoct this so-called accident?

PINSKY: There`s a viewer.


PINSKY: That`s what I`m expecting from my viewers.

BAEZ: Understood. Understood. In the book, I talk to you about what happened our first meeting, what happens later on, and at what point, I specifically knew what occurred on June 16th. And then, how we went about, once we got that information, what we were going to do with it. And, what I have to say that`s important is that we`re not ignorant to the fact that she had lied to law enforcement.

So, we were in a tough position where it`s kind of like the boy who cried wolf. When you finally do come forward, people aren`t going to believe you. They`re going to have the same reaction.

PINSKY: Right.

BAEZ: So, what we had to do is find places that whatever she said was supported by something, something factual. Something tangible that you can touch or feel, and that`s what I go into the description of and into significant detail throughout the entire book is, OK, she says this, but how do we prove or disprove that?

And I will tell you that there was no one who was a harsher critic of Casey and the things she was saying than myself because I believed if I couldn`t -- if I couldn`t believe it, I couldn`t sell it. And that`s why you saw me arguing with such passion in her case is because I started to find things that were being stacked in her favor.

PINSKY: You believed.

BAEZ: Yes. And not only believe. It really doesn`t matter what the defense lawyer believes. It matters what they can prove.


BAEZ: And it matters what they can show to the jury.

PINSKY: That`s something I learned throughout the course of this. It`s about not guilty, it`s not proven.

BAEZ: It`s about being able to put up or shut up.

PINSKY: And one of the things I find interesting is now that she`s been out, she`s on a probation for other things, right? She`s not sort of appeared in the press. She`s not been doing some of the things that people expected her to do. There`s been no further trouble from her as far as I know.

BAEZ: Totally contrary to what people who claimed to know about her.

PINSKY: What I expected. I thought if this is somebody who can`t tell right from wrong, there`ll be continued trouble. Was there any -- did you have any issue with that video she put out? Was that actually just a personal diary that she was keeping? Do you know anything about that?

BAEZ: Well, here`s the thing. I knew Casey would be able to do this probation setting on her head. I don`t think contrary to what -- people try to compare her to O.J. Simpson. I don`t see -- these are two different people. Casey`s going to follow the law. She`s going to abide by whatever restrictions are placed on her probation.

And if you -- and if you look at every single probation report that`s come out public, she`s the ideal probationer. She follows every instruction and everything that`s told of her. And she was that way as an inmate in the jail.

PINSKY: Looking at the video right now -- one thing that flashed up on the screen a minute ago was her with a find (ph) Casey T-shirt on knowing Casey was dead. I mean, Caylee, rather. That was the hard part to swallow. So, we`re going to take some more calls in a second. Jose Baez is with me. Again that phone number, we are live, 855-DrDrew5. Stay with us.


PINSKY: And I am back with Casey Anthony`s defense attorney, Jose Baez. I want to get to your calls. Regina in Tennessee, go right ahead.

REGINA, TENNESSEE: Yes, Mr. Baez, you mentioned that you became a father through all this mess. So, your child is probably close to the same age. So, if your child had been gone, and you didn`t justify that child being gone for 30 days, you didn`t tell anybody that child was gone, doesn`t that just verify that you are guilty of the crime?

And how much are you making off of this book? And when is all this going to stop and they let Casey rest in peace?

PINSKY: Caylee rest in peace. I think this is what got people was the lying, and then, they judge her based on that, right? So --

BAEZ: Right. Well, there were really two statements there. You know, I don`t have the same experiences and wasn`t brought up in the same household as Casey was, so, you know, my job was that of an advocate, a defender. It wasn`t to sit there and judge someone. And that is a person`s constitutional right, whenever you`re accused of a crime.

It doesn`t sit well with a lot of people. And I realized how this case resonates with a lot of people, but if you can take a step back away from the anger and say to yourself, thank God that --

PINSKY: We live in this country.

BAEZ: That we live in this country and we`re not living in a situation where we live in China or Iraq where the system is so stacked against you it becomes an -- you`re living in a police state. We don`t live in a police state. We say in this country, if you`re going to accuse -- if the government is going to accuse someone of a crime, prove it. And we -- not only that, we will give you a defender that will stand in front of the bullets and make you -- make the government prove their case.

And I think, unfortunately, our system is still flawed that it doesn`t -- it still doesn`t protect because we have so many wrongful convictions out there. Fortunately, we have -- we have a system that most of the people that are arrested are, in fact, actually guilty. But it doesn`t catch everyone. And, you know, you don`t -- I can`t compare my situation and what I would do because I`m not that person.

I don`t come from the same background as her. And you have to -- you can`t hold everyone to the same standard. I think that`s unfair as a human being, and I think it`s unfair as a lawyer.

PINSKY: So, the one thing you keep talking about is what I want to hear more about is what was going on in that home. And I imagine that`s what we`re going to find out in the book.

BAEZ: Absolutely. You`re going to find out the things that we ended up discovering.


BAEZ: Conversations we had. You have to remember something. No one was in the position that I was in. This is really the only inside story because I was -- I got hired before this case ever became what it became in the media.


BAEZ: And I was in the Anthony home until 12:00, one o`clock in the morning for weeks on end in the beginning of this case. I got to know them very well. I also had access to things that other people did not. And I stayed on this case from day one until the end. And you learn a lot during that time.

PINSKY: I got say, my first impression is sometimes the most accurate. I remember when I first heard about this case, I went, oh, Casey had to be (ph) abused horribly in childhood and blah, blah, blah. And you`re kind of alluding to that. So, I want to read the book and see if my first impressions were correct. You know -- what`s that look mean? Yes or no?

BAEZ: I`m saying that, you know, when you read this book, you`ll see things from a completely different perspective. You can agree with them or you can disagree with them. But I think it`s going to certainly be different than what`s been out there. What bothers me about this whole case is every time I`ve had an opportunity to speak, I have to speak in sound bites.

I got to the point where I was at home speaking in sound bites. I love the chicken, because it really tastes good, you know?

PINSKY: Because they take you out of context.

BAEZ: Exactly. And you`re forced to confine your answers into a ten- second sound bite. And you really can`t explain something so complex as this case in that short amount of time. And one of the great things that I felt about this book, it was somewhat therapeutic where I got to express myself and throw it all out there and not be --

PINSKY: Attacked.

BAEZ: -- restricted. Or restricted to small answers.

PINSKY: Really quick, hey, let`s hear what the question is, and we`ll get your answer after the break. What is it there?

KATE: Hello?

PINSKY: Kate, real quick. I got about 15 seconds. What did you want to ask?

KATE: Hi, Dr. Drew.

PINSKY: Hey, Kate.

KATE: Could you please ask Jose to define ethical?

PINSKY: OK. You don`t think Mr. Baez has been behaving ethically as a defense attorney?

KATE: His opening statements stunned the world. It clearly was his intent, but how was it ethical?

PINSKY: OK. We will answer that question and more when we come back with Jose Baez, defense attorney for Casey Anthony, right after the break.


PINSKY: All right. We`re back live with Jose Baez, and we`re answering your questions, and we had Kate in Illinois asking about ethics in Jose`s opening argument. Do you want to ask that again or you got that still?

BAEZ: No, I`ve got it.

PINSKY: OK. Go right ahead.

BAEZ: Well, I can tell you this, absolutely 100 percent of my opening statement was purely ethical. I don`t think any lawyer has had to go through the scrutiny that I went through with the bar throughout this case. I had --

PINSKY: The bar was on top of you?

BAEZ: I had -- throughout the entire pendency of the case, I had 26 bar complaints. And each and --

PINSKY: Who was filing the complaints?

BAEZ: Different individuals for different topics. And, each and every one was investigated thoroughly, especially since it was a high- profile case. And, each and every one of them fell by the wayside, because, from the very beginning of this case, I hired an ethics attorney to guide me through the entire case when the issues came up.

This case had so many things that were different and outside of the norm that a lawyer -- you`re not taught in law school how to address these issues, but specificallys talking about my opening statement --

PINSKY: Is that in the book, by the way?

BAEZ: Yes.

PINSKY: They`ll -- OK.

BAEZ: Specifically talking about my opening statement, I will tell you, when I made the statements, and for a long time they were controversial, but after the depositions were released of the psychiatrists, everything that I had talked about was within those depositions so people got to see, OK, so that`s where he got that from.

You know, this is not -- these are not things that were pulled out of thin air. Now, what you have to understand is is that person has the right to testify or to not testify. And it has really a lot of the calls have nothing to do with whether a person`s telling the truth or not. It`s will this harm our case strategically?

Will it help our case strategically? We were at a position where we felt that the case were the prosecution was not going well. And that how much would we necessarily gain by putting Casey on the stand? And we didn`t think we had to. Ninety percent of the time, putting the defendant on the stand is like throwing a Hail Mary. We didn`t think that we were in that position.

PINSKY: You didn`t.

BAEZ: Exactly. The proof of the pudding is in the eating. And you can see that the case was tried a certain way. I realized that a lot -- again, people get confused with thinking that a trial is a two-sided affair. If you look at the closing arguments, one of the exhibits that I put up there, blew up completely, was the defendant does not have to prove anything or present any evidence.

And that`s the way our constitution is written. That`s the way our system is. If you don`t like it, you can certainly try to change it, but I certainly wouldn`t recommend it.

PINSKY: Let me ask this. Do you know whether Cindy and George and Casey have a relationship now?

BAEZ: You know, I don`t -- I`ve done my job. I`ve moved on. I immediately tried to take on other cases like Gary Giordano, and I`ve also opened up another office in Miami. So, I`ve gone on with my life. What my clients do after my job is over. That`s their life, and you know, it`s not my place to comment on what they`re up to.

PINSKY: OK. We`re going to continue you and I and do a little online Q&A with viewers and people online as well. I know Sarah was waiting patiently on the phone. I`ll try to get you when we go off the air into the internet. Jose, thank you for being here. -- thanks for coming here first. I appreciate it. Good luck with the book.

BAEZ: Thank you.

PINSKY: I cannot wait to read it. I`m fascinated by this. And I will have some opinions about Casey when I`ve read that book. Thank you all for watching. See you next time.