>> judge jeanine: the greatest flaw in the criminal justice system is its fear of the truth. now, a trial is supposed to be a search for the truth. we all want to believe that justice is served in courtrooms across america every day. the juries hear what they need to decide the truth. but do they? welcome to "justice." i'm judge jeanine. week four in the drew peterson murder trial, judge edward burmila continues to block essential evidence the jury needs to determine what happened to kathleen savio in her own home in 2004. i sat in that courtroom and i

watched as the prosecution was prevented time and time again from presenting relevant probative and reliable evidence. take a look. >> i am dumb founded at this point how the proceeding is going with the jury what they can and cannot hear. >> it is frustrating to see the state's hands tied on evidence that they can present to the jury. >> judge jeanine: as part of its case, the prosecution wants to prove motive to the jury. motive one. drew peterson's child support payments doubled in july 2002. this was the financial trigger for h his getting into her house, kathleen's house and putting a knife to her throat saying why don't you just die. the statement was admitted and testified to by mary parks but the evidence was not allowed regarding the financial trigger or the doubling of the child

support. motive two. peterson was ordered to pay $15,000 to kathleen's divorce attorney. this was another financial trigger for his breaking into her house again and threatening her with a knife saying i will kill you and make it look like an accident. the statement was testified to by kristin anderson. but the trigger for the statement was not allowed. motive three. savo's divorce attorney subpoena's drew peterson's pension records. thereafter he is heard saying my life would be easier if she were dead. the statement is testified to by lieutenant coughlin. but she will never see my pension and she will never get custody, another statement was also testified to by a witness anna dolman. but the pension records being

subpoenaed that were the financial trigger that ended up in kathleen's death within days was not allowed in. so the jury just has pieces that they don't have the reason for those statements. now, everybody knows that finances are powerful motive. in this case, they explain what to many is the inex-plicable. why would a man murder the mother of his own children? ladies and gentlemen, money is oust and motive for murder. need an example? how about the menendez brothers. you remember them. they killed their mother and their father for the money. the judge didn't prevent that crucial evidence from coming in. it was the whole reason for the murders. now, i watched in disbelief as the testimony of a lieutenant

hasner was blocked regarding peterson's 30 years of forensic and evidencery training. he was is also trained in the knowledge of submission holds and chokeholds. now, why does that matter? it would explain the lack of serious injury to kathleen before her death and before she drown. the defense has trumpeted the fact that category len savio -- kathleen savio was a fighter a hot tempered woman but evidence of drew's ability to subdue her without any apparent serious injury would be essential in explaining why a woman like kathleen wouldn't have fought harder. even peterson admitd that "i have learned so much as a police officer i can kill someone and make it look like an accident." now, witnesses candace akin and cassandra kales were not

allowed to testify to that statement. how is it that we don't tell the plain and simple truth to a jury and yet we allow experts to come into court and testify under oath to explain what may have happened in a case where they were never even there in the first place? unfortunately, the prosecution is required to share in the deception because they have to coach their witnesses not to say everything even when it is true. they are warned not to give testimony that might be detrimental to the defendant about's right to a fair trial because it would be too prejudicial. excuse me, judge. the whole point of a criminal trial is to establish through evidence, yes, prejudicial evidence, that the accused committed the crime. a criminal trial is not a testimonial to the good character of a criminal. the pro prosecution's job is no

present evidence in a murder case about what a great guy the defendant is. about howexercise is outraged he committed a murder. it is about how bad he was. don't sanitize it, just let it out. let the jury determine what weight it should be given. now, a judge's job is not to protect the criminal by stitching together a quilt of excuses of all the reasons why the jury shouldn't know the whole truth so judge, why are you looking so hard to find excuses for the admissibility of evidence that would shine some light finally on kathleen savio's death? >> so far this judge has done a nice job of making sure that relevant evidence comes in and keeping out the irrelevant evidence and that is part of the problem the state has is that the relevant evidence still now almost week four doesn't prove anything. >> judge jeanine: of course,

that being steve greenberg and the defense's version. but the real hoot of the week was when judge burmila insisted that jeff ruby a courtroom spectator be arrested by demanding a warrant be issued for ruby's allegedly mouthing an obscenity to who other than drew peterson the defendant. wait a minute. let me see if i have got this right. number one, drew peterson is the one who is staring down everyone in the courtroom including me. shouldn't he be held in contempt of your court, judge? and number two, who is i the prosecution's main witness going to be in the unprosecutable first amendment case? drew peterson? will he now be donned with a halo of credibility as the prosecution's chief witness? judge, what are you afraid of? ruby coming over the bench at you?

but isn't it interesting how when a man puts a knife to his wife's throat and tells her she is going to die no one is clammerring for an arrest warrant. doesn't it make more sense to try to protect a woman alone in her own home than a cop in an open court with security all around him? and while all of this is going on there is a subtle bond created between the defendant and the jury. they sit together through tedious testimony. they share the same experiences. they laugh at the same jokes. it creates the impression the defendant is not so bad. from that point it is not much of a leap to decide that a seemingly responsible person couldn't possibly perform such a horrific crime. i have long believed that absence in it this experience is the very person who paid the dearest price, the victim. her photograph, not the undig

anified one of her lying naked in a tub but one of her clothed should be prominently displayed on the prosecution's table. maybe then the jury would be reminded of the very reason that they are sitting in that courtroom in the first place. all right. now, joining me now from prescott, arizona, is trial consultant joellen demetris. welcome. >> thank you, jeanine. >> you are a phd and have written an international best seller and represented attorneys in the mcmartin daycare case, the rodney king case, the o.j. case. you have a lot of experience as it relates to juries in criminal cases. so i'm going to ask you a question. assume that there are seven men and five women in this case. most of the jury here is

between the ages of 50 and 60. right now they are dressing in unison. one day they come in green and then grey and then brown and then red. and friday they came in in black and white. what do you say? >> well, i think, first of all, i think this jury is obviously very united. and i think that quite honestly that they are just having some fun right now. i think that after four weeks in the courtroom they know that they are being watched by all of the media and they are sending a message but i think the message in this case is well, we are a little bit bored and so we are going to have fun doing this. clearly what it indicates to me, are though, is that there is a social leader on this jury. may not be the person that ends up being the foreperson but a

person who wants to have a little fun with the jury. i think had we seen it this jury dress in one color all the time consistently versus all in different colors then maybe it would perhaps mean something different. >> you know, what i think was interesting was after one of the most damning days for the defendant, a good day for the prosecution they came in in black and white and it was checker board. one in black and the next in white. one in black and the next in white. were they saying that this case is black and white and no longer grey? what are they saying? i mean i don't care about the red and the blue and a the green and the brown but the black and white sends a message. >> certainly it could send a message that maybe there is some in between. but the solidarity is what we have to look at here. and the solidarity that this jury ha has together before thy even receive this case could be

a very good sign for the defense. it could be a good sign for the prosecution. >> judge jeanine: but either way, it doesn't suggest that there might be a hung jury, that they will go one way or the other because they are in agreement? >> i don't -- i don't -- i honestly don't think so. i think that they are just having some fun and we also know that in addition to some of the middle aged folks that are on the jury there is a couple of young ones there, too. and one gentleman who recently lost his job so, you know, goodness gracious, we can only guess that they are just having some fun now and they know that at the end of the day the journalists go home, they have is their shows, they are tweeting and blogging and whatever it may be. everyone now is trying to figure out what is the jury thinking and why are they doing this. they are having fun with us. >> judge jeanine: hopefully we will no soon. thank you for being with us this evening. author of a great book "reading

people." >> thank you. >> judge jeanine: the husband wife attorneys on drew's defense teams here. what do they think about this jury? next. and later in the show, the most hated american. guess who? casey anthony. she is now a free woman. what is next for her?

warrant do you make of the safety factor in the trial? >> who? >> the stacey factor? >> who. >> stacey who? >> she is on the witness list. >> we are hoping she shows up. >> if she shows up. >> if she got the subpoena. >> does anybody think she is really alive? >> i do. >> absolutely she he is alive. >> of course. does anybody have any evidence she is dead? >> no. >> there is no sign life. hasn't communicated with anybody. >> i haven't talked to my wife in weeks. [ laughter ] >> for years now. >> i haven't talked to my first wife in 15 years. >> judge jeanine: with me now are two drew peterson's attorneys. the husband and wife team of joe and lisa lopez. i'm hot going put you on the spot you already apologized for that, right? >> yes. >> thank you. the two of you. husband and wife team the only woman on the defense team and there are loads of lawyers. what is it like when you go home at night?

>> right now it it is all about drew right now. there is really not so much of joe and lisa but at the end of the day we try to take a little bit of time out for ourselves. again, it is all about drew. staying up until midnight and 12:30 and getting up at 6:00, 6:30. no glamour. all about fighting for drew right now. >> judge jeanine: as i look at you, the two of you are dressed you match and you do it in the courtroom as well. you have magenta and you have magenta tie and joe i'm a afraid to look but your socks are usually the same color as your tie. >> they are. >> judge jeanine: oh, my goodness. ladies and gentlemen, they are. his socks are pink and purple. why do you do that? >> we like the same colors and same type of clothes so we figured we would match. >> judge jeanine: so now you have the jury, lisa, you were proved in the jury selection, prominently involved in that. now, they are wearing the same colors. what is going on?

>> they are happy jury and getting along well. a lot of laughter that comes out of them when there is good things that happen in the courtroom. i think it is a very good thing. it shows that they are getting along. >> i don't really know what to make of it. a jury does whatever they are going to do. i don't know if it is good or bad or indifferent. i don't know if they are mocking us. >> judge jeanine: 30 years i have done this. this is a new one to me. let's get serious now. you are probably going to start the defense case on monday. who are you going to put on? >> right now start with the impeachment witnesses. the police officers and fbi agents that are going to say the witnesses said something different than what we said at trial. >> judge jeanine: when a prosecution witness said it happened on tuesday you will bring in is someone that said it happened on thursday. isn't that collateral? >> it is impeachment and goes to the credibility. the jurors can take into consideration the first statement or are second statement. if they don't want to give it any weight they don't have to

give it any weight. >> judge jeanine: you are known as the shark. >> yes. >> judge jeanine: you proudly represent the outfit in chicago as you call it? >> that is what it is called. i have done a lot of those cases. there is no question about it. >> judge jeanine: so you are good at cross-examination. i have seen you cross examine witnesses. you are veryood at that. are you going to put drew peterson on the stand? >> well, you know, the thing about putting a client on the stand, that is his decision. a decision only he can make. >> judge jeanine: well, you know him. would you recommend that he do that? >> the only thing i can say is this is a train the police officer. he he testified hundreds of times in courtrooms. a lot of times in most criminal cases it is my feeling unless it is a self-defense or entrapment case there is no reason to call the defendant because the jury will be instructd that they can't consider the fact that the defendant didn't test bay this was as you powerful week for the prosecution between the medical examiner who said no way this was an accident it was

definitely a homicide and neal shorey says that the fourth wife came and to him and told him that the one night drew came home with a woman's clothes and h his sleeves were wet up to his elbows. that was devastating, wasn't it? >> well, i mean, any witness is devastating. they didn't hear about the wet sleeves because the judge kept that out. >> judge jeanine: he did keep that out. let me put that back? my opening. he kept out more stuff. wouldn't that be reflective of his forcing her down. she did get water in her. wet sleeves are not relevant. joe, if you were a prosecutor you would want that in, wouldn't you? >> if i was a prosecutor i would want a lot of the stuff in. but i'm not a prosecutor. >> judge jeanine: we are looking forward to seeing what the defense has to say. think you will be wrapped up soon in your case? >> i think we will be wrapped up next week. i think you will see our case go smoother than the state's

case went in. >> judge jeanine: i'm not surprised given the judge. thanks so much. and coming up the drew peterson tv movie untouchable was based on the book written by our

get out of here. get out of my house! >> this is my house. don't ever forget that. >> don't touch me he. never ever touch me again! >> don't be so dramatic. >> judge jeanine: with me is the local editor of the patch an aol news service whose book fatal vows the tragic wives of drew peterson was the basis for the movie untouchable that we saw a clip of. thanks for being here.

>> thanks for having me. >> judge jeanine: you wrote this book fatal vows the tragic wives of sergeant peterson. why did you write the book? >> i covered stacy's dis appearance and i covered kathleens it death in 2004. >> you are from the chicago area. >> i was the only person who wrote about kathleen's death. and then the state police determined it was an accident pretty much immediately and my losses didn't want me to write about it any more so i didn't. >> judge jeanine: why were you so interested in it? what you are tell meeing me isu saw something in this before everyone else did? >> he is a policeman and going through the lengthy divorce and animosity and there is court records detailing the animosity. her death was so suspicious. i don't know of healthy people who drown in bath tubs unless they are on drugs or alcohol. she had neither in her system.

that was clear from the toxicology reports. i don't know how but the illinois state police immediately determined this was an accident it. >> judge jeanine: you don't know how immediately like within 30 minutes says it is an accident. >> exactly. >> judge jeanine: when you wrote this book there was then untouchable the unyou drew peterson. was it it based on the book that movie? >> they bought the rights to my book. it is really a journalistic account of drew and stacy and kathleen's past and people associated with them. the movie is, of course, a narrative account. >> judge jeanine: but you looked at court records and statements and did your own investigation? >> absolutely. >> judge jeanine: and you have been sitting in the courtroom every day that i have been there anyway. >> every day. >> judge jeanine: you are there every day, why? >> i find the case, i put so much time until now i find it fascinating. i don't want to miss anything. >> judge jeanine: having done the investigation or reporting i should say and then subsequent investigation for kathleen and stacyy loan and

how does the trial h hit you? what are you seeing. >> i think as you put it it earlier at the top of the show there is so much more information that the jury is not getting to hear about. so many more facts and so much more truth and so many more things people want to say that the jury is not hearing. >> judge jeanine: what is interesting as i look at your book even the letter that kathleen wrote to the state's attorney saying she was afraid she was going to be killed. there is one paragraph when it goes on for two pages and the judge wouldn't allow it all in. why let some of it in and not all of it? >> this is even before the trial. the pre-trial there was so many, you know, you you are in the news, you are on tv, drew has so many video interviews that he gave voluntarily that he wanted to do and the judge isn't letting the jury see any of that. as he put it it makes drew look too cold hearted. >> judge jeanine: as i said the whole point of the trial is to bring the facts oute out,

irrespective of how they look. >> right. >> judge jeanine: what do you think of the jury? >> we have talked about a lot they have been going with the same clothes. i have seen them in the hallways. >> judge jeanine: i have never seen them in the hallway. >> they talk and laugh and seem to get along very well. they are spending a lot of time together in the back room while the lawyers fight. like friday for example half an hour i think of testimony and six hours of being stuck together in the backroom doing whatever they do back there. >> judge jeanine: having done the investigation very quickly and writing the book and watching drew as long as we both have been watching h him. do you think he will teak the stand? >> i wouldn't bet against it. i think as joe said earlier. he is a trained policeman and trained to testify. he he would be at a greater advantage than a person such as myself. i don't know if it would be a bad idea for him to testify.

>> judge jeanine: i'll see you there. up next, our expert panel is here to break down what happened in that court this week. and later my summation of the now, back to "justice" withew

judge jeanine. >> judge jeanine: this is a fox news weather alert. florida governor rick scott declares a state of emergency as sigh zac isaac bears down oe state. for the latest on isaac here is rick reichmuth in the fox news weather center. >> things i think are going to be getting interesting the next couple of hours. the latest look. that is where the storm is and kind of all day long. you see the dark clouds piling up here at center. that means i think we will possibly see this begin to intensify quickly here. winds at 60 miles an hour. i think we will see that go up and by tomorrow morning looking

at a stronger storm. already already rain coming into key west toward miami. that continues throughout the night and by the morning the first tropical storm force winds. winds over 39 miles an hour. big tornado threat the through the day tomorrow across the southern half of the peninsula of florida. isolated tornadoes will be small but could cause damage certainly. i think we will spend a lot more time over water than we hoped. means a better chance for strengthening by tomorrow afternoon going across the keys as a hurricane. the official track up to about a category 2 storm around the central eastern part of the gulf. there is big indications here that i think we could be dealing wit major hurricane, category three or above. three or four. mid to eastern gulf anywhere from new orleans we have to watch and maybe over to around panama city and the eastern side of that obviously tampa where we have the convention. there will be winds and rains especially on monday but you shouldn't be taking a direct impact from this storm.

that is certainly good news. but areas here across the central gulf, jeanine, we are going to watch closely. tuesday to tuesday afternoon and night could be dealing with a direct landfall of a major hurricane some where in the central gulf. jeanine? >> judge jeanine: thanks, rick. and, of course, turning back to the drew peterson trial, with me is my expert panel former lapd homicide detective and fox news contributor are mark fuhrman. former prosecutor and defense attorney jeff gold and former prosecutor jeff tici. thanks for being here. how is the going so far are? >> it i think it is going great this week. i think the neil shorey testimony nailed the lid on the coffin. >> judge jeanine: you predictd that would happen. i got to tell you, mark, that is without a doubt the strongest -- >> you know, neal, the way he looked, his life, the way he has led it, the humbleness of the way he presents himself. he is a witness from heaven.

>> judge jeanine: you were in the courtroom, jeff. how did he present himself? >> i think the cross-examination by joe lopez fell flat. he attacked the minister instead of attacking the rehe liability of what stacy said to him. >> that was the pastor to whom stacy came and talked to him and said drew rehearsed for hours telling me what to say about the night that i caught him coming home in the middle of the night when had gone to bed with me and then disappeared and h his sleeves were wet up to the elbows which i hear the judge didn't let in and he was washing another woman's clothes that weren't mine in the washing machine. >> which they did let that in. >> judge jeanine: let that in but not the sleeves. why is that important? >> the prosecution's case has holes in it but the argument and theory of the case is that the reason we have holes is because drew peterson put them there and set this up to look like an accident. the more mr. lopez yells and

screams about where is that and where is this the more the prosecution can say is, of course, it is not here because peterson did what he said he was going to do which is kill her and make it look like an accident. >> talk about peterson and the fact that he was trained in a chokehold. what is the hold called a submission hold? >> there is three or four different police holds. in 4 to 7 seconds you can put somebody out. >> judge jeanine: without any observable injuries? >> usually no injuries because they are struggling for air and the first thing that they do is try to go to your arm and by the time they do that they are already losing and they just drop. i mean i have -- you know. >> there are some bruising here. and bruising right where you would suspect. the deep bruising under the rib cage. >> judge jeanine: deep bruising on the left hip, three. >> i would expect bruising on the left hip. >> judge jeanine: why? >> and bruising on the wrists because he drug her down the hall and there is abrasions there. >> judge jeanine: what if the

d.a. says no, he put her head in the toilet which explains the deep bruises on the clavicle? >> you have a struggle and have to transport the body from where you first contacted the body to the place where she drown. whether the toilet or the bath tub, it is irdevelo irdevelop . you have to bring her from the bedroom to the hall. >> judge jeanine: and we were looking at a graphic of the injuries pull that back up on her body. is it the front report back? that is the front. give me the back, guys. >> notice. >> all on the left side. >> i notice this. what does it tell you? you were in the courtroom. what was the testimony like as it related to the injuries and the explanation by dr. case? >> i wasn't that impressed by dr. case, i must say. that was suppose to be a huge day. she said things in cross-examination which worried me, my experience with experts.

she said nothing was authoritative unless she wrote it. that will come back to haunt her. afterwards the jury wore green. the hitman testified they wore grey. it changed. >> juries pick out what they want to survivors pot their theory the way they think the case should go. i'm not worried about that. and also not worried that they couldn't testify about his training. the jurors know that a 20 year police veteran dealt with day in and day out subduing people and dealing with people when has to arrest them. that is not going to hurt them. >> judge jeanine: here is the problem, the defense in their opening statement talks about the fact that he arrested her and through her down in the front yard within a second and yet the prosecution can't explain that? >> you know what, judge, it is beyond me. i heard what you are saying earlier about pledg prejudicia. it wouldn't be relevant if it wasn't pledg prejudicial. it has to get people so

emotionally charged that they rule against him based on emotion. i t -- it just shows that the guy is a stone cold kill. if she was drown isn't it relevant that he was up to his arms in water? >> eliminated the time of death when kathleen savio died and now drew peterson his own conduct and his own actions, is trying to cover up that time span. the suspect always knows where he was when the victim was killed and he he is trying to cover up that time frame. that is huge and the defense is not going to be able to cross examine or do anything with that unless drew gets on the stand. if he gets on the stand all of the tapes of him and many of these things that have been suppressed are coming in. >> judge jeanine: right. >> if not under direct, under impeachment. >> i say he should get on the stand. the testimony this week was is such that if he doesn't explain the hit man, if he doesn't explain the statement by stacy. >> it is over. >> he will get a hung jury or

get convicted. >> judge jeanine: he will not get a hung jury because they dress alike. >> he gets on the witness stand he goes down like a sack of -- >> i don't know. he has gotten away with stuff for years and years. do you think this is the only bad thing he has done in his life? >> two women, one missing presumed dead and the other woman dead. drew peterson, you know, when i was there i found out a lot of things he was involved with. >> judge jeanine: what do you want to tell us? >> i mean not other murders but i mean he has shady dealings in a lot of areas. >> judge jeanine: let's talk about the hit man. >> nobody is that good. >> judge jeanine: the hit man the guy comes in and says drew in the cop car in the uniform has got his gun and wants me to take care of his third life. >> and believable, too. because he worked with drew every day. he didn't have to go on a ride along. the ride along because drew wants control and put him in the back of the car and say remember i'm a sergeant and you are in the back of a police car

and you might be in the back of a police car. >> who else did he do this with. in thomas murphy. >> that is his m.o. >> we are getting too in the weeds here. what we are saying, though, is his intent to have her killed is relevant. it is there through this witness. >> and he has to explain it. that is why i say if he has any kahunas he has to testify. he goes on rivery media outlet but he won't testify. >> he may because he strikes me as being so arrogant that he thinks he will get on the witness stand and work them like mark told me he tried to work him. >> judge jeanine: he tried to work all of us. come on. >> he is look at the peanut gallery all day long. >> winking at you. >> judge jeanine: what is the wrap with the judge having ruby arrested? is that ridiculous? >> it is ridiculous. >> it wasn't so much the judge. the sheriff was protecting that courtroom. >> judge jeanine: no, no, i have information that the judge said i want this guy arrested. come on, jeff. don't take me in on that one.

i have got that one down. it's ridiculous and you know it. how come we are not so fast to arrest women who say my husband is threatening to kill me? >> in most courtrooms drew would not be allowed to keep turning around and eyeing at the gallery. there should be a little even steven here. if he can do this then the people can mouth words to him. >> the jurors watch this stuff and they are very, very good at assessing people's credibility. not only when they testify but they watch them in the jerry sandusky case the jurors watched him every second in the trial and convicted him. >> judge jeanine: mark, jeff and fred our great panel. thanks for being with us this evening. up next, casey anthony is a free woman. what is next for the woman who is called the most hated american. not just the most hated woman, the most hated american. and later the best of our viewer's drew peterson trial information. i may even send it off to the courts.

as to the charge of first-degree murder, verdict as to count one, we the jury find the defendant not guilty. >> judge jeanine: that, of course, casey anthony acquitted of tilling her two-year-old daughter caylee anthony. she told police her daughter was taken by a baby sitter

leading to a massive search for the toddle. the case was televised and casey was considered the most hated american as polls showed most believed she was guilty. we haven't heard much from casey since her acquittal except for one interview and a video diary. >> this is my first video diary. it is october 13 which is a thursday. i'm extremely excited that i will be able to skype and obviously keep a video log, take some pictures and then i have something that i can finally call life. >> judge jeanine: after a year of probation on check fraud charges she was released from her conditions yesterday. she is now free to go whereever she wants. joining me now from orlando is casey anthony's civil attorney

charles green. thank you for being with us tonight. >> you're welcome judge. thank you. >> judge jeanine: where is she? >> she is where she wants to be. she doesn't have to be where anybody is telling her to be right now. >> judge jeanine: the judge did tell her she had to stay in florida but she was at an undisclosed location. can you tell us where she was staying? >> i can't. there is still security concerns with all respect we need to consider at this time. >> judge jeanine: let's go back to the pr proprobation. she was on a year's probation. according to the reports number one she wasn't working she was unemployed. number two, she didn't take any classes to prepare herself for future employment. you know, was she on public assistance during this time? >> i can't really talk about the circumstances that she existed under the last year other than to say that she complied with all of the terms and conditions of probation and it is over and has been acknowledged by the department

of corrections. >> judge jeanine: that is not privileged and i understand your relactones say certain things about what she has told you and number two that doesn't involve her security. was she on public assistance? why wasn't she working or learning a skill? you know what i have here the florida statute. the general terms of probation are clear under 94803 dub i 94b division c that someone on probation should work faithfully at suitable employment. why didn't she? >> you are assuming that she didn't, number one. number two, you are reading from the standard probation. >> judge jeanine: reports that were filed made it clear that she was not working. >> well, the reports that were filed also indicated that it was with the permission of the department of corrections. >> that she wasn't working. >> and i will tell you that in many cases the department of corrections will make accommodations for people because of the varying needs. in this case it is hard to

imagine that casey anthony could have got and job at mcdonalds or at a waitress at some restaurant. there were security and safety concerns that the department of corrections acknowledged. >> judge jeanine: i get that, this they do acknowledge that. i don't mean to interrupt but i don't have a lot of time. she is facing three more lawsuits and you will be representing her in the civil lawsuits. is that, correct? >> i am. >> and she will have to appear in court irrespective of the concerns for her safety. she does have to respond to that accusation of defamation of the baby sitter gonzalez. >> she will about he able to tell her side of the story if she wants to do so. >> judge jeanine: will she ever tell her side of the story, charles? >> i think she will but it will be on her team and her conditions. i know that the people that

have made up their mind about her guilt will probably cough in their coffee. i believe she needs time to go through a healing process to come to terms with what happened. to decide what she does in the future. the last year because of the security concerns have not given her the privacy and time to really mourn and come to terms what the past. >> judge jeanine: all right. and does she ever talk about caylee? >> she thinks about caylee a lot. that is all i can say. >> judge jeanine: well, we all do. and finally, is she paying you, charles? >> that would be private if not privileged so i'm not going to discuss that. >> judge jeanine: charles green. >> she is paying me with -- i'm is sorry i couldn't give you more, judge. >> judge jeanine: up next, my summation on the likes of casey

>> judge jeanine: and now for my summation. not all killings are the same. some people die very quickly. not even knowing what hit them. a gunshot. knife wound. a heart attack. others suffer and live in fear. their spirit crushed. knowing that the end is near. knowing what will ultimately happen. fearing the inevitable. and some children die quietly in the trunk of a car. chore row form forcing their eyes to close and them to sleep and forcing them to death's door. do those children death comes slowly while mom parties on. the trial has become a fiasco

for some. george anthony caylee's grandfare will forever be labeled the father who sexually abused casey even though there wasn't a sin tell l scintilla e to support that claim. kathleen savio was called every name in the book and we remember h her it will not be as a loving mother trying to survive on her own going to nursing school terrorized before her death. it was be as the woman who was what list tick, crazy, mad, possessed. both of these people are permanently scared and justice can't change that. you you toss a stone in a pond and it creates an ever widening ripple. acts of violence like stones cast in the pond create permanent ripples spreading far beyond the immediate victim and long after the works of the courts are finished and long after the public's attention

has moved on to another story and long after victims like caylee anthony and kathleen savio are relegated to newspaper archives the ripples caused by their murders create resounding effects. the survivors kathleen's two chin and caylee anthony's grandparents will forever carry the memory of the untimely and unnecessary death of a love one. many of the things they experience will be viewed through the prism of the singularly traumatic event. they have been through you enough. they deserve better. now, for viewer e-mail. we asked you to send in su summations on drew peterson's case. clear the vies are at passionate about rights as i am. i just happened to turn the tv on. you have a new fan. welcome to "justice," si cynth. glad you are watching.

>> karl writes i have never hit a woman and i have utter contempt for those who do. we need more men like you, karl. the winning summation. a tie. barbara writes i guess i got interested because it could have been my daughter. she was mistreated in life by drew and is still mistreated in silence in death. the silence being imposed by the judge's deafening and it will surely let a killer walk free. let's hope that the jury sees through the moment. delores and barbara a copy of my novel on the way to you tore your winning summations.