updated 11/15/2005 9:29:24 AM ET 2005-11-15T14:29:24

Guests: John Connolly, Melanie Metz, Peggy Willenberg, Diane Dimond, Pat Brown, Mickey Sherman, Bethany Marshall, Cindy Stauffer

LISA DANIELS, GUEST HOST:  Right now on SCARBOROUGH COUNTRY: captured. 

He allegedly killed her parents, then kidnapped his 14-year-old girlfriend.  We will track the teens‘ route and get the very latest on what happens now that they are in police custody. 

Then, a woman goes on TV to say she was part of the plot to blow up Jordanian hotels, and she is not the first.  They are the fastest growing terror threat, women in al Qaeda. 

ANNOUNCER:  From the press room, to the courtroom, to the halls of Congress, Joe Scarborough has seen it all.  Welcome to SCARBOROUGH COUNTRY.

And thanks for being here.  I‘m Lisa Daniels, in tonight for Joe.  We will have those stories in just a minute. 

Plus, he was the private eye to a who‘s-who of Hollywood stars, movers and shakers.  Now his secret recordings could reveal the secrets and lies of some of the biggest celebrities in Tinseltown.

But, first, a stunning end today to the massive manhunt for Pennsylvania teen David Ludwig and his girlfriend, Kara Borden.  Police issued an arrest warrant for Ludwig after they found Borden‘s parents murdered in their home Sunday morning.  Now, that led to an Amber Alert for 14-year-old Borden, who police believed was kidnapped by her boyfriend.

After the murders, the teens took off across two states from Borden‘s home in Lititz, Pennsylvania, until they were finally captured in Belleville, Indiana, around 12:30 after this afternoon and taken into police custody.

Let‘s go right now to the hometown of both Borden and Ludwig in Warwick Township Pennsylvania.

MSNBC‘s Contessa Brewer is there. 

And, Contessa, we are talking about a gruesome double murder, a high-speed car chase and a teenager charged with murder.  You really couldn‘t script this, even if you tried. 

CONTESSA BREWER, NBC CORRESPONDENT:  And the shocking part, Lisa, for the neighbors around here is that this is normally a very quiet, sleepy town in Lancaster County, Pennsylvania. 

The reason Indiana State Police say they were able to capture Ludwig is because they say the communications worked the way they were supposed to.  They put out the Amber Alert.  They got the tips in.  They were able to spot this red Jetta. 

And I want to take you back now to the news conference where they broke down what actually happened there in Belleville, Indiana. 

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) 

FIRST SERGEANT DAVID BURSTEN, INDIANA STATE POLICE:  Lancaster officials issued a nationwide Amber Alert based upon the circumstances yesterday around 11:00 Eastern Time.

That information came across all points, and shortly after 8:00 this morning, sometime around 8:20 this morning, it was reported by a citizen that a vehicle matching that description was observed as a truck stop around the 78-mile marker on I-69, which would be in the Fort Wayne District area.  Troopers responded to that scene.

Information was put out that the vehicle had left the area sometime after initially being sighted, around 8: 30 in the morning, and based upon that information, a statewide broadcast was put out via the Indiana State Police to all law enforcement agencies. 

We also initiated contact with Lancaster, Pennsylvania, about their Amber Alert and began culling information from their investigation to do another Amber Alert here in Indiana.  Prior to that Amber Alert being put out, sometime before noon this afternoon, Troopers Cox and Furnace (ph) observed the suspect vehicle on I-70 westbound just west of Indianapolis.  And they attempted to stop the vehicle, and there was a pursuit after that time. 

DAVID COX, INDIANA STATE POLICE:  After the sighting and Trooper Furnace and I tried to initiate a traffic stop, it started approximately the 60-mile marker, which is in the area of State Road 39 on I-70.  The vehicle, the suspect vehicle exited on to State Road 39, which is the 59-mile marker and proceeded northbound on State Road 39 up unto the area of U.S. 40 about four, 4.5 miles.  The pursuit distance was probably five miles, at speeds of 90 plus, 95.  The driver was operating northbound on State Road 39 at those speeds and traveling northbound in the southbound lane.

State Road 39 is a two-lane highway and when the highway was open, he was still proceeding in the wrong lane on the wrong side of the road.  He was meeting vehicles head on and at the last second when he would run them into the ditch, he was swerving back over into his lane.  Very reckless, very dangerous at that point.

He didn‘t make contact with any vehicles, however, until the end of the—and until the end of the pursuit when he hit the tree.  That was the only contact he made with any vehicles or anything during the pursuit.

I pulled him from the car.  There was some slight resistance, but that was it.

She was just frantic, crying, screaming.  That‘s about it, ma‘am. 

(END VIDEO CLIP)

BREWER:  In the meantime, Indiana State Police say that Ludwig has to decide whether he will fight extradition back to Pennsylvania.  If he does, there will be a court hearing in Indiana. 

In the meantime, investigators also have to figure out whether to consider Kara Borden a suspect or a victim in this case.  That won‘t happen until she has an adult with her and can be questioned legally—Lisa. 

DANIELS:  MSNBC‘s Contessa Brewer reporting from Warwick Township, Pennsylvania—thanks so much, Contessa.

Let me bring in now Cindy Stauffer.  She‘s a reporter with “The Lancaster New Era.”

And, Cindy, it‘s interesting that both Borden and Ludwig kept these Web sites. 

Does Ludwig‘s Web site, in any way, indicate that he might be capable of the double murder that he‘s charged with? 

CINDY STAUFFER, “THE LANCASTER NEW ERA”:  Not at all. 

He talks about ordinary things that an 18-year-old would be interested in, rock climbing, hanging out with friends, computers, movies, volleyball, dirt-biking, pulling stupid pranks.  It sounds like something that a typical 18-year-old kid would be interested in. 

DANIELS:  What about the home schooling part?  He—he seemed to be homeschooled by his parents.  Is that correct? 

STAUFFER:  Yes.  Most homeschoolers, their parents teach them in their homes.  That doesn‘t mean they‘re isolated, in any sense.

They often have contact with other homeschooled students.  And they also live in a community.  They play sports.  Kara plays soccer and is active in her neighborhood.  Kids in the neighborhood knew her.  So, they weren‘t isolated just because they were homeschooled. 

DANIELS:  You know, it‘s interesting.  He does refer to soccer and art and Christian rock.  But, on the other hand, he does mention hunting and guns.  Tell us more about that. 

STAUFFER:  Well, there‘s a—on his Web site, there is a link to some photos of a family hunting trip he took in 2004. 

But it looks like a bunch of people at a hunting cabin doing what a lot of Pennsylvania families do the weekend after Thanksgiving, which is going out, hunting for deer.  So, there is nothing that suggests that there‘s anything unusual or different about that or evil. 

DANIELS:  What about these soft airgun wars that he references? 

STAUFFER:  I‘m—I‘m not sure what that means, if that is some sort of a—a pellet gun or some sort of a—a different sort of a gun.  But there—I—there is nothing that we could determine that looked like it was unusual. 

DANIELS:  OK.  Cindy, stand by.

I want to bring in MSNBC analyst and former FBI profiler Clint Van Zandt. 

Clint, the question for me is, what the role of Kara Borden?  Was she an accomplice or was she really a helpless victim?  Is there any indication from the news conference which way the police are thinking she is? 

CLINT VAN ZANDT, MSNBC ANALYST:  You know, you heard the police use the terms “they.”  That suggest two of them were escaping or fleeing or something like this. 

But, you know, we don‘t really know that—that to be the case. 

And, Lisa, my challenge here is that, this is—this is a 14-year-old.  You know, it‘s one thing when the criminal justice says, well, if you are 17 years, 11 months, you‘re a teenager, you‘re a child, and, a month later, you can vote, you can go to war, you can smoke, and you can be, you know, sent to the electric chair. 

It‘s a whole ‘nother thing when you have got a 14-year-old who has had to, some, way, shape or form, witness, perhaps, the double murder of her parents.  I just—I mean—you know, number one, as a parent, my heart goes out.  As a human being, my heart goes out to her, and that I don‘t know what role, if any—unless we found out she was on the phone saying, my parents are really mean to me, bring your gun, and get over right away...

DANIELS:  Yes. 

VAN ZANDT:  Unless we hear that, I—you know, I—I—I doubt the role that she had in this.

DANIELS:  You know, it‘s so funny.  We have so many details and, yet, we are not any closer to a workable theory at this point.

VAN ZANDT:  Yes. 

I want to bring in psychoanalyst Dr. Bethany Marshall. 

Bethany, help us with the psychoanalysis here.  What does all this mean to you?  Are we looking at a Romeo-Juliet-type situation?  Or, again, is this more serious?  Are we looking at a double murderer who kidnapped a potential girlfriend? 

BETHANY MARSHALL, PSYCHOANALYST:  Well, I definitely have a theory about what happened. 

I have—I think it is a three-part process.  First of all, murderers often murder because a third party is standing in the way of love.  And they often direct their homicidal impulses towards the third party.  And we know that her parents disapproved of their relationship and wanted him to end it and to separate the two. 

So, I imagine that he directed all of his rage, homicidally, of course, towards them, because they were interfering in a primary love relationship. 

DANIELS:  Let me cut you...

MARSHALL:  Also, when...

DANIELS:  ... off right there.

MARSHALL:  Yes. 

DANIELS:  Because I just want to—I want to just enunciate or articulate that theory that people are saying, hey, there was a curfew at stake.  The parents didn‘t want her going out with him, especially late at night. 

MARSHALL:  Yes. 

DANIELS:  Is that really a motive for murder, though? 

MARSHALL:  If—if an individual is very disturbed—disturbed individuals cannot tolerate loss, OK?

And we know that he was homeschool, and he may not—schooled—he may not have had those socialization experiences with peers that would have helped him to tolerate loss.  So, perhaps even hours separated from her felt catastrophic.  And, perhaps—and this is so terrible to say—but, perhaps, he blew them away because loss felt that it would blow him away. 

DANIELS:  Clint, is this psychobabble or is this the truth? 

VAN ZANDT:  Well, I mean, you know, again, you‘re—you are talking to an old FBI agent and profiler. 

One of the things I‘m looking at is, how did that gun get introduced in to the scene?  Is this an 18-year-old man who had a conversation with his girlfriend‘s parents, who said, get over here; I want to talk to you; and you‘re in big trouble; and, if you don‘t leave my daughter alone, I‘m going to do terrible things to you, and he brought the gun for his protection? 

Or is this an 18-year-old who, premeditatedly said, I‘m going to go over and resolve this conflict the only way I know how, at the end of a gun?

DANIELS:  You know, Bethany, you studied a lot of this.  And I know there are viewers at home that think loss is a very powerful emotion. 

MARSHALL:  Yes. 

DANIELS:  Do you think that really is the central emotion in this case?

MARSHALL:  Well, look, all of us experience loss, and we don‘t go murder somebody, right? 

So, it‘s not only loss, but the fact that he had the type of psyche where emotions outpaced his ability to think.  We also know, the profile of these types of teens who murder is that they lead lives of quiet conformity, conforming in a way that makes them feel angry, and anger is brewing underneath the surface. 

DANIELS:  All right, many thanks to my all-star panel, especially Clint Van Zandt and Dr. Bethany Marshall, Cindy Stauffer of “The Lancaster New Era,” and, of course, Contessa Brewer.

Thanks so much.

(CROSSTALK)

DANIELS:  They‘re the latest terror threat, women. 

We will tell you about the woman who confessed over the weekend and why more and more women are becoming suicide bombers. 

And, a little bit later, another killer twister—now we ask, what is wrong with the early-warning system? 

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

DANIELS:  The spy to the stars, Anthony Pellicano, is behind bars, but now he‘s naming names, and there could be indictments.  We will tell you what all of Hollywood is afraid of.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

DANIELS:  Are we looking at the new face of terror? 

She confessed on Jordanian TV that she was part of the suicide bomber team which killed 57 people in Amman, except she says her explosive belt did not detonate. 

Jordanian security officials arrested the 35-year-old Iraqi woman yesterday. 

NBC‘s Rehema Ellis has the story. 

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

REHEMA ELLIS, NBC CORRESPONDENT (voice-over):  This is not the face that counterterrorism experts expect a suicide bomber to have.  But Middle East expert Juliette Kayyem, an NBC News analyst, says, it should be. 

JULIETTE KAYYEM, NBC NATIONAL SECURITY ANALYST:  Al Qaeda has become an equal-opportunity terrorist organization.  They are going to use people, whatever their gender is.

ELLIS:  Worldwide, the number of female suicide bombers is growing fast.  In 2002, 18 so-called Chechen black widows were among those who took more than 700 people hostage in a Moscow theater.  The terrorists and more than 100 of the hostages were killed in a botched raid by government troops. 

That same year, 27-year-old Wafa Idris became the first Palestinian female suicide bomber.  And, since then, seven other Palestinian women have followed suit. 

And, in June of this year, a Palestinian woman failed in her attempt to detonate a bomb at a crossing from Gaza into Israel.  Now there is Sajida Mubarak Atrous, a mature 35-year-old married woman, an alleged al Qaeda would-be suicide bomber. 

RAGHIDA DERGHAM, NBC FOREIGN AFFAIRS ANALYST:  People who saw this woman, my sources in Amman, they told me that she was so defiant.  She showed no remorse whatsoever. 

ELLIS:  Raghida Dergham says, for Arab viewers, the image was meant to shock. 

DERGHAM:  This isn‘t your go old aunt. 

ELLIS (on camera):  When profiling possible suicide bombers, experts say counterterrorism officials should think outside the box, because it‘s clear that‘s exactly what al Qaeda is doing. 

(voice-over):  And Kayyem says counterterrorism experts have a lot of work ahead of them. 

KAYYEM:  I say that we are pretty far behind the terrorist organizations at this stage, I mean, in the sense that the Jordanians, one of the best intelligence agencies in the world, had no idea that this was coming. 

ELLIS:  Analysts say, with this woman in custody, the old notion of what a terrorist could look like has to change. 

Rehema Ellis, NBC News, New York.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

DANIELS:  Let me bring in NBC terrorism analyst Evan Kohlmann.  And psychoanalyst Dr. Bethany Marshall is back with us. 

Evan, do you buy what she says, that her explosives didn‘t detonate? 

Or do you think she decided, I‘m not doing this? 

EVAN KOHLMANN, MSNBC TERRORISM ANALYST:  Well, it‘s possible either way. 

There have been a number of instances in recent days where al Qaeda suicide bombers have attempted to detonate explosives and have failed.  In fact, there quite poignant video released by a U.S. military unit, an explosives ordnance unit in Baghdad, of an exactly such a situation, of someone who very much wanted to blow himself up, but whose detonator failed. 

That being said, this person was not a hard-core al Qaeda operative.  She was a sister and a brother of hard-core al Qaeda operatives.  Well, she was someone who had exposure to the network, but not the training necessary to really harden herself for an act like this.  So, it is very possible that she chickened out. 

DANIELS:  Yes.  Well, doesn‘t that make her especially dangerous to al Qaeda, Evan? 

KOHLMANN:  Very dangerous.

She has a lot of information about the inner workings of al Qaeda, the identities of senior operatives.  And, yet, she hasn‘t gone through that specific training.  She is not an al Qaeda operative.  She is the wife and sister of al Qaeda operatives.  She has the knowledge without the training.  That makes her potentially very dangerous as a source of information, if the Jordanians are able to pull out more than just her confession. 

DANIELS:  Bethany, when you are looking at this video, does this woman look brainwashed to you? 

MARSHALL:  She does look brainwashed. 

I mean, what I really struck by, she is so detached; she is so meek and mild looking.  And one of the things that went through my mind was brainwashing, because, you know, in these extremist religious groups, there is quite a bit of brainwashing. 

But how was she brainwashed?  She was brainwashed to feel that aggression is OK, that it‘s perfectly acceptable.  So, she went in.  I mean, she—she was at a wedding party.  There were grandmothers.  There were babies.

DANIELS:  Yes. 

MARSHALL:  There were aunts and uncles.  And she felt it was OK to blow them up.

What I wonder is, what‘s going to happen when she is in a new situation where she is influenced in a different way, brainwashed, perhaps, if we want to use that term...

DANIELS:  Yes. 

MARSHALL:  ... to feel that life matters?

DANIELS:  Evan, look...

MARSHALL:  Then she is going to have a crisis of conscience. 

DANIELS:  Bethany, I didn‘t want to interrupt you.  But look at this video.  We are looking at the suicide bomber‘s belt. 

Evan, why would Jordanian police release this video?  What do they want to show the world? 

KOHLMANN:  Well, first of all, they want other law enforcement and intelligence agencies to be aware that these devices exist and that they‘re being proliferated throughout the Middle East.

Number two—and this is something obvious—is that they are trying to dissuade others from carrying out this kind of an operation.  Anyone who has seen the aftermath of a suicide bomber, whether it be in Iraq or Saudi Arabia, knows that that‘s not a pleasant experience.  If you strap a bomb around your chest, you are going to end up decapitated.  And I think the Jordanians want to make sure that other potential bombers acknowledge this, realize this, before they go out and carry out a similar act.

DANIELS:  And here is the video of the aftermath of the bomb that her husband allegedly—and other people—set off. 

Bethany, I want to ask, obviously, one of the huge benefits of having a suicide bomber is, there is usually no evidence yet.  And, here, you have Jordanian police with this living, breathing, talking woman.  Do you think Jordanian police are really trying to send a message to al Qaeda:  Hey, look who we have? 

MARSHALL:  I think they are trying to give a name and face to terror for the public, because the Jordanians are obviously paranoid at this point.  They‘re traumatized.  They‘re afraid to go into public.  They are afraid to have weddings.

And if they look on TV and they see this woman‘s face, they begin to say, aha, this is what a terrorist looks like.  And, evidently, this is what a terrorist looks like, right? 

DANIELS:  Which is surprising, because I don‘t think a lot of people would have thought we would be talking about a she. 

MARSHALL:  Well...

DANIELS:  Evan, is this the new face of a terrorist...

KOHLMANN:  Well, it...

DANIELS:  ... a woman, a wife, a sister? 

KOHLMANN:  It‘s unusual for al Qaeda, but it‘s not unprecedented. 

Al Qaeda in Chechnya, al Qaeda‘s presence in the Caucasus, has, for years, employed suicide bombers that are female.  In fact, it even referred to one such individual as the sword of the hijab, that her sword was—her hijab, her veil was like a sword cutting through the infidels.  It is not unprecedented, but it‘s unusual, particularly from Zarqawi‘s movement, which is, of all the al Qaeda movements, is really one that is, it‘s so male-based.

And it‘s—it‘s never expressed an interest before in using female suicide bombers. 

DANIELS:  But now that they caught her alive, Evan, do you think that they are going to pull out the evidence, get her to talk, and learn something? 

KOHLMANN:  Well, since she doesn‘t have that security training, I think they are going to want to find out how her and her colleagues entered Jordan, what—what infrastructure their is inside of Jordan, where the suicide bombers are being trained and outfitted inside of Iraq, and, hopefully, use that information to stop future terrorist attacks, because, let‘s remember, in all the communiques with regards to this incident, Zarqawi promised more attacks, including attacks against Israel itself. 

So, you know, this is something, it‘s an ongoing program; it‘s an ongoing effort.  And any information that they can pick up off this woman is going to be valuable. 

DANIELS:  Bethany, you‘re not a profiler, but you are a psychoanalyst.

MARSHALL:  Yes. 

DANIELS:  When you look at the face of this woman, does this make it even harder for profilers to really target a specific description of a terrorist? 

MARSHALL:  This is what I would keep in mind, if I were a profiler. 

And you‘re right.  I‘m a psychoanalyst, not a profiler.

But 3 to 4 percent of all men are sociopaths, meaning that they lack the capacity to feel emotionally close, to form attachments, and to have a conscience.  And they have a great deal of aggression.  We don‘t have similar studies that show that women are sociopaths.  But women who have a great deal of aggression form relationships with men who are sociopaths.  They try to convert them into loving human beings.  But, unfortunately, the women gets converted into being quite a hostile person herself. 

DANIELS:  Evan, what about the accuracy of her information?  If there is torture—I‘m not saying there is—can we really rely upon what she is saying, or is she just trying to cater to what they want? 

KOHLMANN:  Well, I don‘t think that they are necessarily going to immediately employ torture in this case. 

I think that this woman, the fact that she is not a hard-core al Qaeda operative, means she is probably susceptible to other interrogation techniques first and foremost.  I do believe she knows important things.  She was inside of Iraq.  She was inside the house of two different al Qaeda operatives.  She was part of that household.  When you are part of a household like that, you see things, inadvertently, whether you want to or not.

You see meetings taking place between operatives.  You hear names being spoken over the telephone.  There is a wealth of potential information here that can be harvested by the Jordanians.  The question is, how much does she remember?  How—how much is she going to turn over?  And how quickly can they get at it? 

DANIELS:  A lot of great insights from both of you.

Evan Kohlmann, Dr. Bethany Marshall, thank you so much, both of you, for coming on the show.  We appreciate it so much.  

KOHLMANN:  Thank you. 

DANIELS:  DNA evidence helped get a man out of prison after 18 years behind bars, but now DNA evidence has that same man back in jail, facing murder charges—that story straight ahead.

And, a little bit later, a twister rips through Iowa, so loud, some didn‘t even hear the warning.  Can the early warning system be saved?

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

UNIDENTIFIED MALE:  Oh, my God!

(END VIDEO CLIP)

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

UNIDENTIFIED MALE:  Oh, my God!

(END VIDEO CLIP)

DANIELS:  Unbelievable home video of a twister as it roars through an Iowa town.  It was reportedly so loud, some people didn‘t hear the warning.  Is there a problem with the early warning system? 

But, first, here is the latest news from MSNBC World Headquarters. 

(NEWS BREAK)

DANIELS:  Not since Heidi Fleiss‘ little black book has Hollywood been this nervous.  We will tell you why one convicted private eye‘s secret tape recordings are so scary and who is so scared.  That‘s next.

And a twister rips through Iowa.  We will have the incredible video, plus ask the question:  Is the warning system obsolete? 

And welcome back to SCARBOROUGH COUNTRY.  I‘m Lisa Daniels, in tonight for Joe—those stories in just minutes. 

But first, DNA testing helped Steven Avery walk out of prison.  He was cleared of rape after 18 years behind bars.  That same type of testing now has this junkyard dealer back behind bars, this time as the prime suspect in a murder case. 

Mick Trevey of our NBC affiliate WTMJ joins us from Milwaukee, Wisconsin, with the details of this case.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

MICK TREVEY, WTMJ REPORTER:  Avery will be charged with killing Teresa Halbach tomorrow morning, then burning her body.  Halbach was a photographer for “Auto Trader” magazine and came to the property to take pictures of a van the Averys were selling.

Investigators found blood and charred bone fragments on the Avery property.  So, here is what the prosecutor says is the key evidence in the case against him.  Both his blood and the victim‘s blood were found inside her SUV, and they found his DNA on her car key, hidden in his bedroom.  Investigators have not said exactly what happened to Halbach, but here are some clues.

During the search, investigators turned up disturbing evidence, including handcuffs, leg irons and pornography.  And, in a garage on the property, they found blood and 11 spent .22.-caliber shell casings.  Avery was released from prison in 2003 after DNA testing proved he didn‘t rape a woman in 1985.

But, before that false conviction, he had several felonies on his record, including burglary.  And Avery is also getting some attention for a 1982 incident when he doused a cat in gas and oil, then threw the cat into a bonfire and watched it die.  Prosecutors have brought up that case as a sign of his past. 

Avery was picked up last week on an unrelated charge discovered while his trailer was being searched for Halbach.  They found he had guns.  And, as a convicted felon, that‘s illegal.  He will be in court tomorrow for that case. 

(END VIDEOTAPE)

DANIELS:  And our thanks to Mick Trevey of our NBC station WTMJ in Milwaukee for bringing us that update. 

Joining us now, criminal profiler Pat Brown and defense attorney Mickey Sherman. 

And, Pat, this is such a bizarre story.  One in a blue moon, you do hear about cases like this, but a man thrown in jail for 18 years, he‘s exonerated, then charged later with murder.  What do you make of it? 

PAT BROWN, CRIMINAL PROFILER:  Lisa, what I make of it is that DNA is not as easy as we believe it is. 

A lot of people are watching “CSI.”  And they think, it‘s so simple.  You get a DNA sample from here and you get a DNA sample from a suspect, and you put them together, and it matches.  And it‘s absolute, 100 percent proof. 

What they don‘t look at is all the other possibilities.  One is that the testing was incorrect or it was fabricated, even, or it was a mistake.  Or they don‘t look at the possibility that, perhaps, somebody else‘s DNA was left at that scene, but that person didn‘t kill the person or rape the person.  They just simply left their DNA there prior to the actual assault happening.

And the actual killer used a condom in the commission of a rape or he just didn‘t leave DNA.

DANIELS:  All right. 

BROWN:  There‘s all kinds of possibilities. 

DANIELS:  Let‘s find out from Mickey.

Tomorrow is Avery‘s arraignment.  What is his lawyer going to say when this ultimately goes to trial?  You had the wrong man 18 years ago, and you have the wrong man today? 

MICKEY SHERMAN, CRIMINAL DEFENSE ATTORNEY:  Well, you know, it would be great if they could show some great, grand conspiracy of—by the community, the law enforcement people, against him, but that‘s not likely. 

I got to tell you, my defense, as silly as it may sound, is that, you know something?  You convicted him wrongfully.  You threw in jail, what, for 18 years with a bunch of real bad people.  They made him a criminal. 

Now, you know, what else you got? 

(LAUGHTER)

SHERMAN:  I mean, her key in his bedroom is not—is not great—great news for the defense. 

The other thing you can‘t ignore is, OK, he gets convicted.  What—what do they do with the 18 years?  Do they give him a credit on this sentence?  I mean, you can‘t ignore the fact that this guy got screwed by this community out of 18 years of his life.  It‘s—you know, he‘s not going to get a free pass, but he should get some kind of a discount. 

DANIELS:  Do you think a jury will actually give that credit to this guy? 

SHERMAN:  Well, juries don‘t do the sentencing.   The judges do.  And I got to tell you, I think the judge will, absolutely will, take it into account, even though the guy seems like an extraordinarily bad person.

DANIELS:  But the jury is going to decide the fate of this man.

SHERMAN:  Yes. 

DANIELS:  And a jury, of course, is made of people.  Do you think they will be sympathetic to this guy, who was locked up for 18 years? 

SHERMAN:  I think they will for about 12 minutes.  And, after they start hearing the forensic evidence—and I disagree with Pat.

I think people are mesmerized by forensic evidence.  Every juror—every single prospective juror says, when you ask them, “What do you watch on TV?” right out of the box, it‘s “CSI: Yakima.”  They don‘t—everybody watches “CSI.”  Everybody watches “Law & Order.”  And that is the way you convict people.

DANIELS:  Well, I think that we have probably a bunch of detectives making up these juries nowadays.

SHERMAN:  Yes. 

DANIELS:  Pat, let me ask you.  He is suing the city for $36 million.  Can you see the lawyers saying:  All this DNA evidence, you know what it is; it is planted?  How hard is it, in reality, to plant evidence? 

BROWN:  Well, you can do it, but it‘s pretty hard.  And there‘s really

there‘s so much other evidence, along with the DNA evidence, it‘s not going to fly. 

And I have to disagree a lot with the—this—first of all, people watch “CSI,” but they don‘t understand the difficulties of it, much as they left it.

DANIELS:  But they think they do, Pat.

BROWN:  And another big point...

DANIELS:  But they think they do. 

BROWN:  They think they do.

DANIELS:  And that‘s...

BROWN:  Right.

DANIELS:  ... the problem.

BROWN:  Right. 

But this guy has shown psychopathic tendencies for so long.  He was a burglar once.  Burglars are often also rapists, just pled down to burglary.  The guy is a sadist.  He‘s killing animals.  This guy is a vicious, psychopathic human being.  I don‘t think the jury is going to give him a break.

And I don‘t think any judge, looking at this—I don‘t care how much time he spent in prison or how he became so demented.  He is a nasty killer at this point—or alleged killer at this point.  You don‘t want this guy back on the streets.  You want him in jail for the rest of his life.  Sorry that we put you in accidentally before.  But, hey, we don‘t want you back out here...

(CROSSTALK)

SHERMAN:  He‘ll have lot of money in the commissary there.  He will be able to buy a lot of cigarettes with that $36 mil.

(LAUGHTER)

SHERMAN:  Be very popular.

BROWN:  He might.

DANIELS:  Mickey, let me ask you.  You are a defense attorney.  But, obviously, to be a good defense attorney, which you are, you have to know how the prosecution thinks. 

SHERMAN:  Yes. 

DANIELS:  If you were the prosecutor in this case, how do you prevent the jury from being what we are discussing, these scientists who think they think they understand DNA evidence, when, in reality, they probably don‘t? 

SHERMAN:  You put on the most plain-speaking experts as possible.  You don‘t bring in the usual cast of characters, the people we all know who circulate around the country expounding on DNA.

You bring in the local guy, the local medical examiner, the local forensic people, and let them explain it in the best possible manner.  And don‘t bring on people who seem to be advocates.  Let them be truth tellers and people who are explaining the science in the simplest terms. 

DANIELS:  Pat, we are—we are sort of already saying that he is a killer, which obviously he is not, but we are just sort of engaging in these arguments. 

BROWN:  Alleged...

(CROSSTALK)

DANIELS:  But, I mean, what evidence, really, is there to link him, just that he looks a little funny; he‘s got a big beard; you know, he was convicted 18 years ago, exonerated?  How do you explain the coincidence, if there is a coincidence like this? 

BROWN:  Well, that is a good question. 

We have—actually haven‘t heard exactly what the exoneration was with this DNA.  I‘m not absolutely sure what that means.  Whether—whether he was actually at the scene of the crime, but they didn‘t get his DNA, and they thought they did, I mean, we are taking—well, we are talking about the fact, way back then, they didn‘t even have the DNA.  And now they have got better techniques. 

So, they have convicted him of something else.  Maybe he was a rapist in the area, a known rapist in the area.  Maybe the police believed he committed the crime, but maybe he committed it with somebody else, and that person left their DNA.  It‘s very hard to say.  It was probably not as innocent as all that when he got convicted...

DANIELS:  Well, I‘m...

(LAUGHTER)

BROWN:  ... whether he actually committed a crime or not. 

DANIELS:  I think we can all agree, this is one bizarre case. 

And I will tell you, Joe is going to be covering it all week.  It should be really fun and—and interesting, just to see where this one twists and turns. 

Pat Brown, Mickey Sherman, thanks, again, as always, for being on the show, with all your great insights.

(CROSSTALK)

DANIELS:  Appreciate it. 

Coming up, we are going to find out why Hollywood is fearing its deepest secrets may be revealed any day, as a private investigator faces indictment. 

And, then, self-professed plastic surgery fan Joan Rivers was in Michigan Friday and was back in a hospital—that story still to come. 

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

DANIELS:  Hollywood bigwigs are shaking in their boots, as private investigator Anthony Pellicano is expected to be indicted on wiretapping charges any day now. 

Joe Scarborough sat down with “Vanity Fair” investigative reporter John Connolly, and investigative journalist Diane Dimond and asked them why Pellicano is such a big deal. 

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

DIANE DIMOND, COURT TV:  Anthony Pellicano worked for some of the most powerful attorneys, entertainment attorneys, in town, some of the most famous celebrities.  He has worked for—oh, gosh—let‘s see—

Elizabeth Taylor, Michael Jackson, Tom Cruise, Eddie Murphy, that caliber of person. 

And what is happening is, there—everybody is waiting for federal wiretap and maybe even racketeering indictments to come down, because Anthony Pellicano wiretapped everybody, according to a myriad of sources that I have had. 

JOE SCARBOROUGH, HOST:  Why—why—why would he do it?  I mean, is he—is he the fix-it guy for some of Hollywood‘s most powerful stars?  I mean, I understand Tom Cruise and, like you said, Elizabeth Taylor, Kevin Costner—I mean, gosh, I mean, the who‘s-whos out in L.A. seem to hire this guy.

DIMOND:  You know, he called himself the sin eater.  If any star had a problem, you just call him Anthony Pellicano and he will fix it for you.  If you—you have been dating a girl who might be telling some of your secrets, he would find out whether or not she was doing that.

And, according to my sources, a lot of the ways he found out was through wiretapping people.  They went in and arrested him not long ago, Joe, on a completely different charge, an explosives charge.  And they found billions—I‘m not kidding—billions of pages of transcript of wiretapped conversations.  And I got a call from a longstanding law enforcement source of mine that said, some of the transcripts were of me. 

SCARBOROUGH:  John, Diane was talking about how he was the sin eater. 

Talk about some of the sins that you understand...

(LAUGHTER)

SCARBOROUGH:  ... he would go out and try to devour for these rich and powerful Hollywood stars. 

JOHN CONNOLLY, INVESTIGATIVE REPORTER, “VANITY FAIR”:  Well, if there were allegations made about somebody‘s sexuality, if there were allegations made about paternity, if there were allegations made about inappropriate behavior, he would make that person‘s life so miserable, that that person would want to withdraw the charges or withdraw the complaint or just disappear.  And that is what he would do.

SCARBOROUGH:  Diane, you have so many connections with law enforcement officers, not only, you know, on the West Coast, but across America.  Did they understand what this guy was doing in and around Los Angeles?  Did they understand that he was, basically, a thug for Hollywood stars and powerful movers and shakers in L.A.? 

DIMOND:  Yes, they did, you know, but water seeks its own level.  And, so, he never really bothered anybody in any huge way.  So, they kind of turned the other way. 

And, in fact, one of the people who has—has been tied up in this is a Los Angeles area policeman.  Someone with the phone company is also tied in with it.  So, Anthony Pellicano had his tentacles all over Hollywood. 

But here is what everyone is waiting for, Joe.  The—the attorneys that hired Anthony Pellicano and the stars that had him on retainer, because everybody has a P.I. on retainer out there, they are worried that they might be indicted, because they might have known what was going on.

And, you know, without saying, hey, don‘t do that, that is sort of condoning it, under the eyes of the law.  So, there are some entertainment attorneys who are sweating bullets right now. 

SCARBOROUGH:  You talk about L.A. confidential. 

(CROSSTALK)

SCARBOROUGH:  I mean, here are some of the names, that—that—that come up.  You talk about Michael Jackson, Stallone, Costner, Elizabeth Taylor, Michael Ovitz, so many other people out there, Tom Cruise. 

But, yet, in the middle of all of these giant Hollywood stars, there comes the name Diane Dimond back in 1993, I think it was.  He came after you.  Why would he go after you?  Why would he wiretap conversations that you had with friends and neighbors? 

DIMOND:  Well, you know, I‘m like this little tiny player in this big, huge mega-star story.

But, in ‘93, I was working for the television show “Hard Copy.”  And I broke the original story about the child molestation case against Jackson.  And he worked for Michael Jackson.  And, suddenly, my phone at “Hard Copy” got a lot of pops and clicks.  And, you know, I had a little cubicle.  It was wide open to anybody.

I went home and told my husband about this. He is also in the—in the news business.  And he said, let‘s—let‘s get a little sting going here.  So, the next day, he called me on that telephone, and he said:  Hi, honey.  How is that special documentary you are doing on Anthony Pellicano?  And I said, oh, it‘s great.  It‘s going to be really devastating.  It‘s terrific.  Talk to you later.  Bye-bye.

(LAUGHTER)

DIMOND:  Twenty minutes later -- 22 minutes later, to be exact—I got a call from the attorneys for “Hard Copy,” who said, in sort of a panicked voice, are you doing a documentary on Anthony Pellicano, because, gee, you know, we have got to look at that script before it goes to air? 

I said, well, no, I‘m not really doing that.  Where did you hear I was? 

Oh, we heard from Anthony Pellicano‘s attorney. 

Now, how did Anthony Pellicano learn about that, Joe? 

SCARBOROUGH:  Yes. 

DIMOND:  Yes. 

SCARBOROUGH:  Unbelievable.

And, John, I guess it‘s not just Diane.  This is the same thing that has been going on, allegedly, time and time again in Hollywood, right? 

CONNOLLY:  Yes, but he got much better at it after Diane. 

(LAUGHTER)

CONNOLLY:  He had...

(CROSSTALK)

CONNOLLY:  ... and he had systems going.  And he didn‘t have to leave his office.  He had somebody in the phone company who could do it right there.  And he had computers going constantly, feeding information in.

SCARBOROUGH:  Diane, do—do you have any names of people that testified in front of the grand jury or any—any—any clues on where the DA is going? 

DIMOND:  Well, I think one name that keeps cropping up in reports over and over again—and I hear it from my law enforcement sources—is Bert Fields.  Bert Fields is a very—or was, anyway—a very high-powered entertainment attorney in Los Angeles. 

He has been quoted as saying, “I know I‘m a target.”  Let‘s see.  Marty Singer is another high-profile attorney out there in California.  His name has cropped up.

SCARBOROUGH:  And—and who does those two gentlemen represent? 

CONNOLLY:  Everybody. 

DIMOND:  Everybody.

(LAUGHTER)

SCARBOROUGH:  Give me some names. 

(CROSSTALK)

CONNOLLY:  Tom Cruise, Stallone.  You can go right down the list with Bert Fields. 

DIMOND:  Eddie Murphy.

CONNOLLY:  He represents everybody. 

DIMOND:  Mmm-hmm.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

DANIELS:  Another killer tornado rips through the heartland, and many did not hear the warning.  Can the system be saved? 

And, then, he went in a landscaper and came out a millionaire—the man with an arm of gold later. 

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

UNIDENTIFIED MALE:  Oh, my God!  Oh, my God.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

DANIELS:  Residents scramble and scream this weekend, as a destructive tornado bears down on Woodward, Iowa.  One woman was killed, and many homes and farms destroyed. 

Just last week, 23 people died in Indiana after residents did not wake up when the tornado warning system sounded.  Did it work in Iowa?  And what needs to be done to be sure that it works every single time? 

Joining me to talk about these storms are Peggy Willenberg and Melanie Metz, “The Twister Sisters,” who chase tornadoes. 

Melanie, let me begin with you. 

What type of warning system is this, that people don‘t even hear the warning system?  Can you really define that as a workable system? 

MELANIE METZ, TORNADO CHASER:  Well, there‘s definitely a disconnect that is there currently. 

The National Weather Service is issuing these warnings ahead of time.  And, oftentimes, tornado sirens will go off, and that‘s what you are listening for.  But, in the middle of the night, or in smaller towns, there might not be that siren that is—that is alarmed after the National Weather Service issues the warning.

So, there really needs to be something else that can be done for people to be made more aware that the warning has been issued and know that a tornado is coming their way. 

DANIELS:  OK, so, Peggy, what needs to be done, so that people asleep can hear these warning systems? 

PEGGY TORNADO CHASER:  I think we need to look more at an individual system that can be in people‘s homes, rather than a remotely located tornado siren. 

Sirens really aren‘t effective indoors at all.  So, the National Weather Service does have, a warning radio.  And I think that radio should be available on a mass basis.  They are very inexpensive.  They can be placed in your home.  But there‘s really never been a campaign made to get those radios out in force.  And I really think that would go a long way to solving this problem. 

DANIELS:  Peggy, last week, Joe spoke to a guest.  And I remember, because it stuck with me, that he was saying that there‘s a—a cheap version of these warning systems that you can buy at a Wal-Mart.  Have you heard of those? 

WILLENBERG:  Absolutely, Wal-Mart, Radio Shack, any of the discount stores.  For something around $20, you can put one of these radios in your home.  And it would really not only solve the problem with weather, but these are what we call all-hazard radios. 

If there were any other problem, a terrorist problem, anything like that, those hazards would broadcast on the radio as well—a well-spent $20. 

DANIELS:  That is just a tragedy, Melanie, to think that $20 could have supplied a better warning system to these poor people, both here and last week. 

Why do you think it really hasn‘t become that way?  Why don‘t you think the National Weather Service says, everybody should get one of these systems? 

METZ:  Well, oftentimes, it is enforced, but I think a lot of people just aren‘t paying attention to the weather all the time and don‘t really think about it, especially in November.  They are not thinking there‘s going to be severe weather. 

You don‘t think the tornado is going to hit your house.  But, it—it does happen.  And we actually know people who have—have taken the time to purchase a weather radio, and it has saved their lives.  And it‘s just unfortunate that not as many people are made aware of that.  It‘s just something people need to really be made more aware of...

DANIELS:  But it really is a tragedy. 

METZ:  ... is how valuable.

DANIELS:  I mean, I think we—everyone agrees on that.  Do you think the National Weather Service let these people down? 

METZ:  I don‘t think it‘s really a—at fault of the National Weather Service, because they are doing as much as they can to issue these warnings and get them out to the public.

And, during the day, a lot of people get these warnings from their TVs and radios.  But they have, also, oftentimes encouraged purchasing a weather radio, but it just doesn‘t always get into the home, and to the people that actually need it. 

DANIELS:  Peggy, I...

(CROSSTALK)

DANIELS:  Oh, I‘m sorry.  Go ahead, Melanie. 

METZ:  Oh, no, go ahead. 

DANIELS:  I was going to ask your sister—I—I am looking at the video, and it‘s just so scary to look at the video, let alone live it. 

If they heard these warning systems and they were asleep, where could they go for safety? 

WILLENBERG:  The only real safe place to be during a tornado is in a basement, now—in a basement, under a staircase. 

If you live in a home without a basement, you should go to a small interior room, like a bathroom, that doesn‘t have a window, anything that is reinforced, an interior closet.  And, even then, of course, you are not guaranteed that debris won‘t fall on you.  So, it‘s a good idea to pull a quilt or a mattress or something of that nature over your head, because what injuries people is the flying debris. 

DANIELS:  Well, I am glad we talked about it, because the word really has to go out, if these cheap versions of the warning system do exist and you can buy them at, you know, your average store. 

“The Twister Sisters,” as they are called, Peggy Willenberg and Melanie Metz, thanks so much for coming on the show.  We appreciate what you had to say. 

The first cut is the deepest, so they say.  And, of course, Joan Rivers should know well.  We will tell you what this plastic surgery junkie is up to now. 

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

DANIELS:  Acid-tongued comedienne Joan Rivers, known as much for her plastic surgery as her red-carpet coverage, was in Michigan last Friday.

On her way to a performance, Rivers stopped by the gala opening of the Mount Clemens General Hospital‘s new elective surgery center.  While there, Rivers said—quote—“I go to hospitals all the time, and I am excited to be at this one.”

And Chris Bostic, a $10-an-hour landscaper, became a millionaire on Saturday.  Attending the Florida State-Clemson game, at the end of the first quarter, Bostic threw a football 25 yards through a hole in a promotional pigskin challenge, winning a million bucks in the process.  Bostic said he plans to use the money, at least in part, for a shopping spree for his 8-year-old daughter.  That‘s nice. 

That‘s all the time we have tonight.  “THE SITUATION WITH TUCKER CARLSON” starts right now.

TUCKER CARLSON, HOST, “THE SITUATION WITH TUCKER CARLSON”:  Thanks, Lisa.

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

Watch Scarborough Country each weeknight at 10 p.m. ET

Discuss:

Discussion comments

,