This is a rush transcript from "On the Record," June 28, 2011. This copy may not be in its final form and may be updated.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
CASEY ANTHONY'S ATTORNEY: You're telling me now that you completely deny making a phone call to your son at all in November?
ROY KRONK, METER READER: My son was mistaken about that phone call. That phone call never happened. I called him on December 11th. And I told him on December 11th that I had found something, and that if he looked on television that night, he'd be able to see me for the first time since he was 8 years old.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
GRETA VAN SUSTEREN, FOX NEWS HOST: Joining us is criminal defense attorney Ted Williams. Ted represents Roy Kronk's son, Brandon Sparks. We're also joined by Orlando attorney Diana Tennis and criminal defense attorney Bernie Grimm.
Ted, did your son -- I mean -- your son! Did your client get that phone call from his father?
TED WILLIAMS, CRIMINAL DEFENSE ATTORNEY: Well, the problem, Greta, is because some of this is attorney-client privilege, I can't really talk about the phone call that he may or may not have gotten. As you know, he is scheduled on the defense witness list to testify tomorrow. And so I think a lot of that will come out tomorrow.
VAN SUSTEREN: I guess that's a no. That was a very long no, I think...
VAN SUSTEREN: (INAUDIBLE) 75-word no. All right, Diana, tell me this. Like, let's assume that -- that -- we know that he -- that Kronk made the phone call about August 11th or 12th, 911 call. And remains are found about December 8th. And we could go back to Ted for a 10-minute no to find out whether or not that phone call occurred in between.
VAN SUSTEREN: But let's assume it did or it didn't. But what difference does it make? Because the -- I mean, between June 16th, the child is missing, and this 911 call in August -- I mean, it's still got to go from a live child to, regrettable, a body.
DIANA TENNIS, DEFENSE ATTORNEY: Right.
VAN SUSTEREN: ... Either accident or murder. What's the evidence -- I mean, what does all this have to do with that?
TENNIS: Well, number one, I don't have any privilege, so I have no problem talking to you freely about this subject. I have been waiting for five weeks to hear from Roy Kronk. And I got to say, I was stunned by how credible I found him to be. By the end of the day, I felt sorry for the poor -- you know, he's just a poor, hard-working guy who's trying to do the right thing.
VAN SUSTEREN: Who hasn't seen his son since his son was 8?
VAN SUSTEREN: And so he says, "Watch me on TV, I found some remains ..."
VAN SUSTEREN: ... poked it with a stick? Oh, brother!
TENNIS: No, he's not...
VAN SUSTEREN: I don't know.
TENNIS: But come on! He's a "Regular Joe." He's not body snatcher regular Joe. I mean, the reality is the defense should have used him as their star witness because he could have said...
VAN SUSTEREN: To prove what?
TENNIS: ... that area -- to prove that that water was not just deep, meaning we didn't find the body, but deep as in the body was probably floating for a number of weeks.
VAN SUSTEREN: But so what? So what?
VAN SUSTEREN: I mean, I don't know what difference...
VAN SUSTEREN: Explain to me why it matters.
TENNIS: Here's why it matters. The only reason to have Roy Kronk be a body snatcher is because you don't want the tape to mean that child was suffocated with duct tape. That's the only reason...
VAN SUSTEREN: Oh, I see.
TENNIS: ... to have him take that body.
VAN SUSTEREN: OK.
TENNIS: So instead of having him snatch the body, if you use the evidence as it actually is, that area was full of water, deep water, floating body for a number of months, so deep that the police -- not only did they not want to go in there, but they were so negligent that they berated this poor guy for 30 minutes after they went in there in August...
TENNIS: ... totally used him as a star.
VAN SUSTEREN: Bernie, can you add any light to this confusion that I have?
BERNIE GRIMM, CRIMINAL DEFENSE ATTORNEY: Let's say I don't mind standing in my kitchen and Kronk comes in my backyard to read my meter every four months, or whatever the heck it is. It doesn't -- for me, it doesn't matter. What about June and July? Where's that child then? Is Kronk involved in it then? All's we get is from August 11th on up. We don't have before then, and that's -- to me, that's a huge hole.
VAN SUSTEREN: Unless Casey takes the witness stand and says she drowned, I got so scared, I buried her in the yard, but lo and behold, the meter reader came back and discovered her body and on August 11th, moved it to another spot, which is weird.
GRIMM: Right. Yes. That sounds like -- I mean, that sounds like an answer Ted would give. So you know...
GRIMM: I'm just -- I'm just not buying it. Where was the child June and July? Kronk's inconsistent on some points between August and December. But it's inconsistency and it gets you where? It doesn't get you anywhere. It's like grief counseling. It's like calling somebody about whether Casey was nice to the guards. It's not relevant. I think the state's case is stronger because the defense is so bad.
VAN SUSTEREN: Ted, I'll give you...
WILLIAMS: But Greta, can I...
VAN SUSTEREN: ... the last word.
WILLIAMS: ... say something?
VAN SUSTEREN: Yes, go ahead, Ted. Yes.
WILLIAMS: Can I...
VAN SUSTEREN: Yes.
WILLIAMS: Look, it's about connecting the dots. Look, if the child drowned, the grandfather comes out -- this grandfather is a police officer. It is highly unlikely that the grandfather is going to take his grandchild, put her in a sack and just throw her away just like she's a pack of potatoes or something. It's just, unfortunately, not going to happen. And they've not been able to connect those dots. That's where they've got to connect, and that's the difficulty in this case.
VAN SUSTEREN: And I got to go. Thank you all. And we'll find out tomorrow night after Ted's client has testified. Thank you all.