DR. DREWCasey Anthony: Evidence Missed
; $5 Million Sex Suit
Aired November 26, 2012 - 21:00 ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
DR. DREW PINSKY, HOST (voice-over): Casey Anthony is making headlines again. And we will hear the very latest exclusively from her attorney, Jose Baez.
"Sesame Street" scandal continues. Kevin Clash, the voice of Elmo, has been hit with a $5 million lawsuit by a young man who claims he`d had sexual relations with Clash starting when he was just 15 years old. Now, he wants a multimillion dollar apology and new details of their alleged affair.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
PINSKY: It is Monday Madness. And truly it is so today.
First off, a new report shows someone searched the term "foolproof suffocation" on a computer mainly used by Casey Anthony.
Joining us now on the phone from Miami is author of the book "Presumed Guilty" and Casey Anthony`s former attorney, Jose Baez.
Jose, thank you so much for joining me here today.
Now, in your book, you mention this evidence. And so the question I guess everyone wants to know is how does something like this get missed in such a high-profile case? Or was it missed?
JOSE BAEZ, CASEY ANTHONY`S FORMER ATTORNEY (via telephone): Well, I can tell you this, Drew. First of all, thank you for having me.
I remember sitting right next to you while we were discussing my book before it came out, and I told you that there were things in this book that were going to shock people. It only took a few months for people to realize, but it -- you know, first of all, I don`t believe this evidence was missed at all. I think it was clearly there.
I think there are reports that in my book I lay out the reports that reference the work that was done on the computer. And why I believe it was buried as opposed to a mere oversight or overlooked as they are now claiming.
PINSKY: Jose, review that with us now. Why do you think they chose to overlook it?
BAEZ: Well, the problem with this evidence is that it completely destroys the prosecution`s timeline. If you recall, the only testimony of what occurred on June 16th, 2008, was the testimony of George Anthony that says Casey and Caylee left the house at 12:50.
He described exactly what they were wearing. That Caylee had a backpack and then he walked them out. He helped her get in the car and gave her a kiss and waved goodbye.
This computer activity shows someone on the computer practically all day. So if you take that and you say, well, it was Casey who did these -- who was on the computer. Then she didn`t leave at 12:50.
PINSKY: Who do you think was on the computer?
BAEZ: I`m sorry?
PINSKY: Who do you think this was that was on the computer that day? Was it mom? Dad? Casey? Who was it?
BAEZ: You know, you can never -- you can never put someone behind a computer. That`s the biggest problem with this evidence. You know, in my book, I outline a couple of different scenarios. Of course you could say Casey did it.
But you can`t have your cake and eat it too. If she was on the computer, then she didn`t leave the house at 12:50 and that means someone is lying about the fact that she left the house.
But, you know, if you argue that they left the house, then you have to say was George doing the searches? So, I mean, you know, it cuts both ways. But I think it`s much more damaging to the prosecution than it is to the defense because Casey`s cell phone records also don`t show her leaving the house until 4:16 that afternoon.
PINSKY: That`s interesting.
Jane -- Jane, you have a question for us or comment, Jane in Florida?
JANE, CALLER FROM FLORIDA: Yes. Thank you, Dr. Drew, for taking my call. I have both a comment and question for Jose Baez. I feel clearly and beyond a reasonable doubt that Casey Anthony is guilty of murdering Caylee with or without this new evidence of Google searches. I don`t know if the timeline is correct or not. But I believe this is only additional evidence of her guilt and the jury did not connect the dots.
But my question is -- in addition to these Google searches, how can you propose theories when there`s no evidence to back up or support that Caylee drowned, that her father helped cover up, and that she was sexually abused. How can you propose theories such as this and how could we believe this or how could even a jury believe this when she`s a pathological liar? And I believe also suffers from a sociopathic personality disorder.
PINSKY: OK. Let`s let Jose respond. There was a lot packed into that.
PINSKY: So, try to focus there.
BAEZ: I`ll try my best. And it`s Terry, right?
JANE: No, it`s Jane.
PINSKY: It`s Jane.
BAEZ: I`m sorry, Jane.
Jane, here`s the thing. What a lot of people -- first of all, I don`t blame you for feeling the way you do. A lot of people who watched this trial on television and were -- you know, I don`t know if you sat and watched every minute of the trial, but a lot of people who watched it on TV and caught the headlines and caught the sound bytes, pretty much feel that way and were very shocked by the verdict.
Those people that watched the trial a bit more and watched the complete trial, the emotions are a little bit mixed. Some people think we`re not surprised that some people were.
As it relates to your issue about theories, the -- I kind of -- I have to disagree with you. We put forward evidence that talked about the drowning. For example, the pool ladder being left up the day before and then the next day, Cindy Anthony going to work and telling her coworkers about it.
PINSKY: Jose, I think she`s talking about -- I think she`s talking about theories that were a little more far reaching, like George`s sexual abuse of Casey, that kind of thing.
BAEZ: Sure. There are several ways evidence could be put forth. And one is by cross examination and one is by direct testimony. Of course, Casey could have take have a stand and could have testify to this. And, of course, also George when he took the stand and we questioned him about the abuse, he could have denied it and he could have -- or he could have admitted to it.
Now, he did deny it. However, that doesn`t mean that the jury has to believe a witness. That`s the same if Casey took the stand and said, I didn`t do this, and they looked her and said, you know what, you`re lying. I do think you did.
So that`s considered evidence in a case. And that evidence came forth.
Now, did we prove --
PINSKY: Let me -- Jose --
BAEZ: Did we prove these theories beyond a reasonable doubt? No. I agree with that. That`s not the defense`s burden. That`s the prosecution`s burden.
And I think what happened --
PINSKY: Let`s take another quick call, Jose. I got to take another call from Terry in Florida. Terry, go ahead. Terry?
TERRY, CALLER FROM FLORIDA: Hi, Dr. Drew. Hi, Mr. Baez. How are you folks today?
TERRY: I have a question, Mr. Baez, if you don`t mind. Casey`s acquitted of murder, and, you know, I blame someone else for Caylee`s murder I believe. And my question is who are you going to blame now or point to now with the newfound evidence? You know, the Google search for the foolproof suffocation. And the investigator said the person at home at the time was Casey.
PINSKY: Terry, was there a question? I didn`t hear a question --
BAEZ: I`m sorry. I didn`t understand.
PINSKY: Terry, what`s the question?
TERRY: Mr. Baez, you acquitted Casey of murder by pointing the finger at other people. My question is who`s going to be blamed this time for the newly found evidence of the foolproof suffocation? The investigators said nobody was home except for Casey at the time of that Google search.
BAEZ: That`s actually incorrect, Terry. The searches were done at 1:50 p.m. That would mean that both Casey and -- by the testimony both Casey and George were home at that time. So if you believe that it was Casey on the computer, she had to be home and the testimony that she left at 12:50 is completely contradicted.
If you believe she left, then she`s not the one working on the computer. So it --
PINSKY: You can`t have it both ways.
BAEZ: You can`t have your cake and eat it too.
PINSKY: Yes, you can`t have it both ways.
And, Jose, let me ask one more last thing before I let you go. Do you think it`s possible that Casey was searching ways to hurt herself, however Caylee died, after coming to understand the child was dead that she could have been one of the people searching for ways to hurt herself? Does that fit with your understanding of Casey?
BAEZ: That -- well, that could be an interpretation. Now --
PINSKY: I`m asking you. You`re the one that sat in the room with her all the time. Is she someone that however the child died would have gone - - I need a way out, I`m going to kill myself?
BAEZ: OK. Casey -- there`s no evidence that Casey ever contemplated or attempted suicide, which the searches show. However, there was an attempt -- that George attempted suicide in January of 2009. So, you know, the worst, most difficult thing that you can do is put somebody behind a computer.
So you have the situation where I think it`s my opinion if you look at these facts and the timeline of the case, that these searches are much more damaging to the prosecution`s case than they ever were for the defense, which is why I believe they were never brought up.
PINSKY: Got it. Jose, thank you so much for joining us and explaining some of these facts to us. Obviously this is something that can`t be retried. People will be speculating. People, a lot of high emotion around this case. But I appreciate you for coming here tonight and sort of addressing these issues that are hitting the headlines today.
Thanks, Jose. And I`m sure we`ll be back more with this in the upcoming days.