updated 2/9/2006 12:41:40 PM ET 2006-02-09T17:41:40

Guests: Joe Dwinell, Emily Smith, Rachel Morgan, Gloria Alred, Mickey Sherman, Bill Stanton, Leo Terrell, Rehema Ellis, Andrew Marchand, Nick Kypreos, Tim Cowlishaw, Katie Brace

RITA COSBY, HOST:  Good evening, everybody.  We‘re going to start with that story that‘s developing in our nation‘s capital, the Russell Senate office building evacuated late tonight after sensors indicated the presence of a nerve agent.  Two hundred people evacuated, including about a dozen U.S. senators.  Capitol police have just wrapped up a news conference, and NBC News justice correspondent Pete Williams joins us right now on the phone with the very latest.  Pete, what are you hearing?

PETE WILLIAMS, NBC CORRESPONDENT:  Rita, I‘m hearing from both federal officials and Washington, D.C., officials that, as far as they‘re concerned, this is very likely a false alarm.  What happened is that at about 6:30, an alarm went off in the attic of the Russell Senate office building, which is the older of the Senate office buildings on Capitol Hill, indicating the possible presence of a nerve agent.

Initial tests, though, were contradictory, and they are waiting for a subsequent test, which has to be performed at an off site, somewhere away from the Russell Senate office building.  And until they get the results from that, the 200 or so people which you mentioned, plus 12 the senators, who are in the garage near the Russell building, to where they were evacuated, have been told to stay and wait until they get the results of the test to make certain they weren‘t exposed to anything and don‘t need any subsequent care or don‘t need to be kept away from other people.

The odds of that, I would say at this hour, seem to be quite low.  The overall concern is low.  But Capitol Hill has very strict protocols because of the fact that they were twice the victims of anthrax attacks, so they do things a little differently up there than they do around town when they get these sorts of alarms.  But at this point, the indications seem to be that this is not anything dangerous—Rita.

COSBY:  You know, Pete, you talked about the results coming back.  Do we know, are we expecting it within the next hour or two or tomorrow?  What are we talking about.

WILLIAMS:  Oh, no.  Within an hour, I would say is probably a very good guess.

COSBY:  And they said, what, there was an alarm that went  off.  How often or rare does that happen when, actually, these alarms sound?

WILLIAMS:  On Capitol Hill, they sound for all kinds of different things.  It‘s not a daily occurrence or probably even a weekly occurrence, but they do go off, as I understand it, a couple of times a month.  It‘s not unusual.

COSBY:  Pete, walk us through some of the procedures, too, because we‘re hearing from Capitol Hill police—they were saying that if it was to be anything, that it would have been, what, a powder or a chemical, but that they didn‘t get any reports of any packages.  There was no suspicious, sort of warnings coming here, right?

WILLIAMS:  That‘s right.  This is in the attic, where things—you know, they don‘t flow into the attic.  This is basically storage facilities.  Senators have designated storage facilities up there.  Some of them have, oh, printing equipment or Xerox equipment or things that they don‘t have in their regular offices.  And so you know, only, basically, senators and staff would have access up there.  So packages wouldn‘t flow in and out of there.

And as I understand it, this sensor detected something in the air of the building, of the attic, not on—you know, not—not—it wasn‘t, like, a suspicious powder was sighted.  That‘s my understanding of how this alarm went off.

COSBY:  Well, Pete, as soon as you get any word of the results of the testing, which, again, as you say, will come later on tonight, please be sure to get back with us.  And everybody at home, as soon as we get any information on this case—as you can see, we‘re showing a live picture of the Russell office building right there on Capitol Hill.  Again, the latest word, 200 people evacuated, including about a dozen senators.  So far, they believe—the good news, as we heard from Pete, hoping that it is a false alarm.  The last round of tests came back negative.  They did send it out to an independent agency, just taking an abundance of caution to be careful, and the results should be coming back, hopefully, in the next few minutes, possibly within the next hour.  And as soon as we get that information, we will break in and bring that to you.

And we‘re going to continue now with our show tonight and we‘re going to continue to talk about the mystery surrounding the murder of Rachel Entwistle and her baby daughter, Lillian.  Tonight, we‘re learning some brand-new information that may help crack the case, including a possible new witness and a new video of Neil Entwistle that may reveal how he was acting around the time of his wife and his daughter‘s murders.  Joining us with the very latest is Joe Dwinell of the Boston Herald Group.  And also, we have with us Emily Smith, the U.S. editor for the British newspaper “The Sun.”

Joe, let start with you.  Tell us about—you‘re hearing something about a postmaster.

JOE DWINELL, MANAGING EDITOR, HERALD MEDIA:  Right.  The Postal Service in Hopkinton is cooperating with the district attorney here in Massachusetts with any mail destined for Six Cubs (ph) Path in Hopkinton.  As you know, that‘s the murder scene.

COSBY:  Now, is this—are you getting the sense there‘s something coming in, something coming out?  What could this be providing in terms of clues for the case?

DWINELL:  I get a sense that it could be part of the Internet business that Neil was involved with.  Maybe they‘re searching for anyone still trying to do business with them or anyone upset with them.  They‘re not telling us specifically what they‘re doing, they‘re just saying they are cooperating.

COSBY:  The other thing, Joe, too, I understand that authorities now have those surveillance tapes of Logan airport, where we know that he drove the car, his family‘s only car, drove it to Logan airport.  What is he seen doing on the tapes, from the folks you‘ve talked to who‘ve actually looked at the tape?  What‘s his demeanor?  What clues are they getting?

DWINELL:  Well, they‘re telling us that he coolly walked away from his car into Logan International Airport, and he is seen alone on the tape.

COSBY:  Seen alone on the tape?

DWINELL:  Definitely.

COSBY:  Any other leads from Logan?  Any other leads that they‘re looking at at Logan?  Any other evidence there, Joe?

DWINELL:  Well, we believe it‘s a one-way—he had a one-way flight to England.  We‘re also checking into everything else we can about his whereabouts in Logan International Airport.

COSBY:  Yes, that could be very helpful.

Emily, let me bring you in.  Your newspaper quoted what a lot of people sort of looked at as a bombshell and it could be a breakthrough in this case.  “The Sun” said that Neil Entwistle was quoted as saying to a family member, one of her family members, I can‘t remember how I got to England.  Is it true that Rachel and Lillian are dead?

Do we know, Emily, how soon after he made that call and who he was talking to?

EMILY SMITH, U.S. EDITOR, “THE SUN”:  He made that call to Rachel‘s parents at their home in Carver, Massachusetts.  The bodies were found on Tuesday—on Sunday, rather, sorry.  And he made the call on the Tuesday, which significantly was when the story broke in the U.K., so he would have heard about it on the news at home.  And he called the house and spoke to Rachel‘s stepfather, Joseph, and he said he was confused, he wasn‘t sure what happened.  And he said, Are the news reports true?  Are Rachel and Lillian dead?

COSBY:  You know, when you say, Emily, he was confused, can you elaborate?  Did you get the impression from the person that you talked to, your source, that he was confused out of his own actions or confused what happened to his wife and daughter?

SMITH:  The family—I‘ve been speaking to a family member who said that Neil sounded very upset, very confused, very disoriented, and you know, wasn‘t sure what was going on.  At first, they were very concerned.  They were worried that he‘d suffered some trauma.  Maybe he‘d seen something in relation to the murders, and so then put him in contact with the police.

COSBY:  But then it‘s your impression, Emily—and again, I want to be clear—are they saying that he was confused, that this was the first he had heard that his wife and child were dead, or that he was confused by his own actions?

SMITH:  He was saying that this was the first he‘d heard about it, that he went to—he went—he left the house and they were fine, and this is the first he‘d heard of it.

COSBY:  Very interesting.  Well, Emily and Joe, thank you both very much.  Love to have you both back on.  And Joe, I know we‘re going to have you back on soon.  We appreciate it.

And let me now bring in someone who‘s been following the story very closely on the Web.  Rachel Morgan is the creator of Neilentwistle.com.  It‘s a makeshift memorial to Rachel and Lillian Entwistle, and also a great investigative tool.  She is in silhouette tonight because her group helps solve also crimes for the victims and also the families, and she‘s worked on a number of cases.

Rachel, first of all, why did you get this Web site?  Why did you think it was important?


COSBY:  Rachel, if you can hear me, why did you get this Web site?

MORGAN:  Oh, hi.  Hi.

COSBY:  Rachel, you‘re on live.  Yes, why did you get the Web site? 

Why did you think it was important?

MORGAN:  Well, I got the Web site because we felt that it was very important to keep Neil Entwistle‘s name from him having ownership of it.

COSBY:  And were you worried that he would take ownership and do it—do something nefarious with it?

MORGAN:  Well, it‘s obvious he uses his on-line Web items, like on eBay, but we felt that if he had his own domain name that he could profit from it, and that if he is guilty of this crime, we just did not want him to profit from this.

COSBY:  That‘s a great point.  You know, Rachel, I want to show some of the things, some of the messages that are up on the message board because you get a lot of hits.  And it‘s interesting, the responses.  One person—this is a woman—Connie from Arkansas—she writes in and she says, quote, “My heart goes out to the entire family that is forced to deal with this pain.  I am so sorry for all of you.  I hope that justice will be served.”

And another person writes, “Neil, face up to your responsibilities and do the right thing, man.  To Neil‘s parents—get your son to do what‘s right.  This is a sad reflection on yourselves and something that will haunt you all forever.”

What kind of responses are you seeing, Rachel, on the site?

MORGAN:  I‘m seeing a place for people to be able to go and give their condolences to the family.  But also, people are frustrated.  They are angry that this has happened, and they do need an avenue to be able to vent this.  And my Web site is there for them.

COSBY:  You know, and Rachel, you also have gotten some hits from the U.K.  Do you think it‘s possible that Neil himself has reached out on that site?

MORGAN:  It is possible because we feel by putting up our Neilentwistle.com site, it has provoked him to respond, and obviously, his home site came up late last night.

COSBY:  Very interesting.  Please keep us posted, Rachel.  And we applaud you for obviously doing it for the right reasons, too.  Thank you very much.

MORGAN:  Thank you, Rita.

COSBY:  And we‘re now joined by defense attorney Mickey Sherman, and also attorney Gloria Allred.  Gloria, by the way, has a great book.  It is called “Fight Back and Win” about her amazing career as one of the leading victims‘ rights advocates in this country.

Gloria, first of all, I want to talk about this news.  I don‘t know if you heard the earlier woman.  This is the woman from “The Sun” newspaper.  I thought it was pretty striking that he apparently called—this is, you know, his mother-in-law—and says, I‘m confused.  This is the first I‘m hearing that my wife and child are dead—takes off, but he said he‘s confused.  What do you make of that?  Is that just a smokescreen?

GLORIA ALLRED, VICTIMS‘ RIGHTS ATTORNEY:   You know, I think the facts are unclear as to why he was confused.  Was he confused?  Was he under the influence of drugs or alcohol or both?  Was he sleep-deprived?  Was he disoriented because he was somehow involved in this or not?  Was he shocked or surprised by all this?

You know, his behavior is so suspect, and I‘m sure that Mickey coming up, any defense attorney, would try to rationalize it or justify it or excuse it away.  But what kind of husband/father doesn‘t come back to the funeral of his wife and his little baby?  What kind of person stays away?  That suddenly—I mean, and certainly has to cast suspicion on him.  And this is not to say that he is involved in criminal activity, but certainly, everybody has to look askance at that very unusual behavior.

COSBY:  It is strange.  And in fact, Mickey, let me show a couple other things wacky about his behavior, in addition to what Gloria was just pointing out.  He takes the family car.  As we find out, it‘s the only car, leaving his wife and baby stranded.  We just found out tonight from Joe Dwinell, “The Boston Herald,” he appears cool and collected at the airport, from the surveillance tape, takes a one-way flight to the U.K., tells his in-laws he can‘t remember how he got to England.  What do you do with all of this, Mickey?

MICKEY SHERMAN, DEFENSE ATTORNEY:  It‘s certainly suspicious.  And even without all of that activity, he would still be the number one suspect because statistics-wise, it‘s always going to be the spouse, the husband, the boyfriend as the most likely suspect.  And that‘s what I‘m sure Martha Coakley, the district attorney in that area, is focusing on.

But you know, you can‘t blame the guy for lawyering up or for not coming forward to give his statements.  We saw what happened to the Ramsey family.  We immediately convicted them because, logically, they must have been guilty.  And lo and behold, years later, after they didn‘t have time to grieve for their daughter, it appeared they had nothing to do with the death of JonBenet Ramsey.

So we‘re quick to convict.  We‘re quick to accuse.  I‘m not saying that his actions of not coming back for the funeral is not strange, but it is not necessarily such a slam dunk that it proves that he‘s guilty.  There‘s a lot to be done, and I‘m sure it‘s being done by the proper forensic people in Boston.

COSBY:  You know, Gloria, in your book, you talk a lot about the Scott Peterson case, which I covered and talked with you a lot during it.  You also talked about witnesses, to do the right thing, encouraging people to come forward.  Do you think there‘s probably other folks out there, maybe someone at Logan airport who saw something?  It seems like there‘s still a lot of pieces to this puzzle we don‘t know about, maybe something with this Internet scam.

ALLRED:  Well, Rita, you‘re right, and we can all certainly hope that any potential witness will come forward to the direct attorney‘s office or the police, to Martha Coakley‘s office.  And it seems as though the district attorney‘s office is pretty tight-lipped about what they have.  Right now, there don‘t appear to be reports that there are witnesses, and we don‘t know what the motive might be.  We don‘t know whether the weapon ever will be found, or maybe even has been found, but it doesn‘t appear that there are any reports that it has been.

All we know is this poor little baby was shot through the abdomen.  The mother was shot to death.  The baby probably suffered before the baby died.  And whoever did this is guilty of horrific, horrific crimes.

COSBY:  Absolutely.

ALLRED:  We hope people will come forward.

COSBY:  You bet.  And you know, Mickey, you‘ve had to deal with extradition.  You‘ve dealt with a lot of cases where folks were, you know, on the run, ultimately.  The Alex Kelly (ph) case—I think of the guy in Darien, Connecticut...


COSBY:  How tough is it to get someone?  And how—what kind of a standard to bring this guy back, Mickey?

MICKEY:  Well, it‘s tough.  You know, with Alex, he ran for a reason.  He didn‘t run because he felt he was guilty, he ran because he thought he was getting screwed.  And in fact, he was.  They were...


COSBY:  Yes, but that‘s not necessarily the right way to handle justice!  You know that!

SHERMAN:  But you know what?  It‘s a logical explanation, which,

actually, the jury bought, as to why he did not want to go to trial.  They

were putting two cases in front of one jury.  And by the time he came back

and he came back voluntarily...

COSBY:  But in this case, Mickey, how do you—what‘s the standard to bring this guy back?

SHERMAN:  Well, you know, this is the United Kingdom, and as far as I know, we have pretty decent extradition treaties with them.  Plus, Massachusetts does not have the death penalty.  You‘re not going to have the situation like the one we had in France, with the guy from Philadelphia, where they wouldn‘t send him back unless we promised not to execute him.

So with the proper procedures and the proper applications, Martha Coakley can get this guy back.  You know, I‘ll tell you, though, the thing I said about Scott Peterson is what I would say here now, which is, day one of the Scott Peterson...

COSBY:  Real quick, Mick.  Real quick.

SHERMAN:  ... tragedy, look for the girlfriend.

COSBY:  All right.  And I‘m sure that they are.  Both of you, thank you very much.

ALLRED.  Thank you.

COSBY:  And everybody read Gloria‘s book.  It‘s a good one.  Thank you, guys, very much.

ALLRED:  Thank you, Rita.

COSBY:  And tonight, coming up, a police officer is in hot water for using his dash cam to catch some dirty pictures.  That‘s coming up.  And that‘s not all tonight.

Still ahead, controversy over this close-range shooting by a cop caught on tape.  The suspect‘s wife gave LIVE AND DIRECT her first nationwide interview.  Tonight, the new outrage.  Should the officer stay on the force?

And cops say they‘ve put the freeze on a betting scandal involving a hockey All-Star and the mob.  Get this.  The state trooper and even the wife of hockey great Wayne Gretzky could be on thin ice if the allegations stick.  Does the puck stop here?

And are these sexed-up pictures proof that notorious prison inmate Pam Smart was violated in prison?  Wait until you hear what her lawsuit claims happened behind bars.  It‘s coming up LIVE AND DIRECT.



COSBY:  Well, emotions are escalating today after our interview with the wife of an airman who was shot repeatedly by a deputy in California last week.  You just saw some of the videotape.  A San Bernardino sheriff‘s deputy was caught on that tape shooting Elio Carrion.  In this video that you are seeing, the airman appears to offer to surrender, but the deputy suddenly fires three times.

Last night, we spoke to the airman‘s wife, and today, you, the viewers, let us know how outraged you are to hear about this alarming incident.  We received so many e-mails expressing concern for the airman and about this incident.

LIVE AND DIRECT tonight are private investigator and former NYPD officer Bill Stanton.  And also with us is Civil Rights attorney Leo Terrell.

Guys, before we get started, I want to play a chunk—this is Mariela Carrion.  This is the wife of the airman.  we spoke with her last night, and this is what she had to say.


MARIELA CARRION, HUSBAND SHOT BY POLICE OFFICER:  I‘m very upset.  I‘m upset at the fact that the sheriffs haven‘t arrested this man.  He committed a crime and we‘ve all been witness to, and he‘s still out there with paid leave.  So I‘m outraged at the sheriff that hasn‘t arrested this man.

COSBY:  Is that what you think should be proper punishment, that he should be arrested?  What else do you think should happen?

CARRION:  He should be arrested and he should pay for what he did because what he did was a crime.  And all I want is justice and for him to be put in jail.

COSBY:  The father of the sheriff‘s deputy, Ivory Webb, says he did feel threatened when your husband began to rise.  If your husband had gotten down and stayed down, none of this would happen.  How angry are you when you hear this?

CARRION:  Of course, the father is going to defend his son.

COSBY:  But he‘s blaming...


COSBY:  That‘s got to be just so frustrating for you.

CARRION:  Yes, we all clearly been witness to this video, when he clearly says, Get up, get up, and as my husband is arising to get up, he‘s telling the officer, I‘m getting up, with his hands up.  And that‘s when he shoots him.

COSBY:  What do you make of the father‘s statements, the fact that he‘s saying maybe your husband should have stayed down?

CARRION:  Maybe his son shouldn‘t have shot him.


COSBY:  Bill Stanton, let me bring you in.  Who provoked whom here, and should the guy be behind bars, the deputy?

BILL STANTON, FORMER NYPD OFFICER:  Well, first, my condolences to the airman.  He definitely shouldn‘t have been shot.  Should he be in jail?  My answer is no.  Should he lose his job?  My answer is yes.  I‘m going to go to training on this.

COSBY:  But you‘re saying that that‘s—that‘s just the proper punishment, that you feel that‘s all he needs?

STANTON:  Yes.  Well, you know what?  You have to go to intent.  Do I think this deputy, when he suited up on his tour of duty, he was intent on looking to possibly kill someone?  Did he go out to intentionally shoot someone?  My answer is no.  I don‘t think he did that.  Did he show poor judgment?

But you have to understand, Rita, we weren‘t there.  He‘s going to articulate that he felt in fear for his life.  Even though you clearly hear him give directives—Get up, Stay down, Get up, Stay down—for whatever reason, he felt in fear for his life and fired.

COSBY:  Leo, let me bring you in.  What do you think should happen?

LEO TERRELL, CIVIL RIGHTS ATTORNEY:  Let me think about it.  He should be fired.  He should be in jail.  You know, Rita, have you ever in your lifetime ever seen a police department say, We shot the guy and it was wrong?  We were wrong.

This officer is a criminal because if you and I shot that man, you and I would be arrested, we would be arraigned and we should have bail!  I am so sick and tired of police officers defending every shooting!  And let me tell you something right now.  Every officer, Rita, is trained to say, Fearing for my life, I shot this guy.  He‘s going to say that, notwithstanding the fact of what the videos show.  Officers are trained to say, Fearing for my life.  That‘s to erase the intent.  That is a big, fat lie!

COSBY:  Leo, what happens if it turns out...

STANTON:  You know—you know...

COSBY:  Go ahead, Bill.  Go ahead.

STANTON:  You know, Rita, I mean, if you do that, if—if—I‘m not

this is a horrible—a horrible and tragic mistake, granted.  I would look to this officer‘s training.  I do not think he had the intent to execute someone or try to execute someone...

COSBY:  But Bill...

TERRELL:  He is trained to say that!


COSBY:  ... isn‘t that involuntary manslaughter, like what Leo‘s saying?

STANTON:  No, what...

COSBY:  I mean, come on!

STANTON:  If you‘re going to put these restrictions, if you‘re going to look to lock every cop up—and this is a mistake...

TERRELL:  No, not every cop!


STANTON:  ... for any mistake, you know what‘s going to happen, Rita?  There‘s an old saying (INAUDIBLE) A cop never got in trouble for crime going up.

TERRELL:  Hey, let me ask you a question!

STANTON:  You know what that means?

TERRELL:  Have you ever...


TERRELL:  Have you ever gone on a national television show and say, That shooting was wrong?  I have never seen an officer ever go on TV...

STANTON:  Absolutely.

TERRELL:  When?  Name the show!  I want to watch it.

STANTON:  If a cop is dirty and deserves to be arrested...

TERRELL:  This cop is dirty!

STANTON:  ... lock him up.  Lock him up.  If a cop is taking graft...

TERRELL:  This cop is dirty!

STANTON:  ... if he‘s intentionally hurting someone...

TERRELL:  No, no, no~!

STANTON:  ... a prisoner...

TERRELL:  We‘re talking about a shooting!

STANTON:  ... shooting someone...

TERRELL:  We‘re talking about a shooting!

STANTON:  ... lock him up and throw away the key.  What I see here...

TERRELL:  Don‘t—don‘t—Rita, we cannot dumb down the public!  The public heard what this officer told this man.  This man complied.  No one saw fear.  Rita, I‘m telling you this right now, this is a fact.  Officers are trained to say this, “Fearing for my life, I had to shoot”...


COSBY:  Let me play a little devil‘s advocate with you, Leo.  What if it turns out that on the tape, as the father of the deputy is alleging—and of course, we‘re all a bit circumspect on this—but if it turns out that he said, Shut up, versus, Get up, and for some reason, we just don‘t hear it on this tape, but there‘s some other tape that comes down the line, would that be a fair defense for the cop, Leo?

TERRELL:  I‘ll grant that if he didn‘t say, Get up, and he said, Shut up, and the person moved, then I would still say to you that the shooting was unjustified because, where‘s the fear for the officer?  Did the man chase the officer?

STANTON:  Rita...

TERRELL:  Let me finish!  Did the officer approach—did the suspect approach the officer?  There is no conduct, Rita, towards the officer!  And he used deadly force!

STANTON:  Rita, let me say this.  I was injured in the line of duty as a cop, and there were many instances where I could have shot the bad guy and gotten away with it and articulated why.  I went the extra mile.  And all I have to say is, we don‘t suit up like these cops across America every day, putting their lives on the line.  We don‘t walk in their shoes.

TERRELL:  Oh, please!  We‘re not talking about the good cops!

STANTON:  They deserve the benefit of the doubt.

TERRELL:  See, that‘s—that‘s the game, Rita!

STANTON:  That‘s all I‘ll say.

TERRELL:  That‘s the game!

STANTON:  And at the end of the day, I will say...

TERRELL:  They try to use good cops...


TERRELL:  You have never been on TV to say there has been a bad shooting.  And don‘t talk about the good cop!  We‘re talking about this bad cop!

STANTON:  I‘m glad you watch me all the time.

TERRELL:  This is a bad cop!  I have never seen you or any law enforcement officer say, This shooting is wrong.  I have never seen that, and they will never say it!  This is classic code of silence!


COSBY:  ... Bill.  I‘ll give you 10 seconds.  Last word, Bill.

STANTON:  Yes.  If a cop is dirty, lock him up.  If he‘s not, give him the benefit of the doubt because they go the extra mile for us.  That‘s all I‘m saying.

COSBY:  And indeed, there are a lot of good cops out there.  Of course, we are looking at this investigation, guys.  Right now, he‘s on paid leave, and we‘re going to follow this closely.  Both of you guys, thank you very much.

And still ahead, border violence out of control.  Drug gangs have grown so powerful in one border town that local newspapers are now refusing to even report the problem.  How did it get this bad and this bloody?

And next, find out how a gambling scandal tying the mob to the NHL could drag down celebrities and even the wife of hockey great Wayne Gretzky.  That‘s coming up next.


COSBY:  Tonight, shockwaves across the world of professional hockey.  A gambling scandal could bring together celebrities, a police officer, and even a former NHL all-star.  Among the alleged betters is wife of Wayne Gretzky, Janet Jones, who you see here.  NBC‘s Rehema Ellis has the details. 


REHEMA ELLIS, NBC NEWS:  Rita, there‘s no talk of any betting on hockey games.  But the NHL commissioner‘s office, located here in New York, is keeping a close watch on this, and here‘s why. 

Forty-one-year-old Phoenix assistant coach Rick Tocchet has been named in connection with the operation of a multi-million-dollar sports gambling ring.  Authorities say the ring has ties to organized crime and had clients that included at least a half-dozen current or ex-players. 

In addition, it‘s reported that hockey great Wayne Gretzky‘s wife, actress Janet Jones, has been implicated in the betting operation.  When asked about that, here‘s what Wayne Gretzky had to say. 

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE:  We‘ve heard that your wife may also be involved with that?

WAYNE GRETZKY, HOCKEY HALL OF FAMER:  Oh, really?  I don‘t know.  I mean, you would have to ask her that. 

ELLIS:  New Jersey State Police say Tocchet had organized the betting ring with the help of a New Jersey state trooper. 

LT. COL. FRANK RODGERS, NEW JERSEY STATE POLICE:  We‘re cleaning our own house.  This gentleman does not represent the integrity of our organization, and it speaks to our ability to police ourselves (INAUDIBLE)

ELLIS:  Authorities say the ring took in $1.7 million, betting on mostly basketball and football.  Authorities say Tocchet is charged with promoting gambling, money laundering, and conspiracy.  He‘s expected to turn himself in to authorities at some point.  And if he‘s convicted on these charges, he could face up to 10 years in prison—Rita?


COSBY:  Rehema, thank you very much.

And joining us now is “New York Post” sportswriter Andrew Marchand.  Also, Tim Cowlishaw.  He is from ESPN‘s “Around the World” and also the “Dallas Morning News.”  And we also have with us former NHL star and current Sportsnet hockey analyst, Nick Kypreos.

Great to have all of you here.  Andrew, let me start with you.  You‘ve interviewed Gretzky.  How bad does it look?  I mean, it‘s his wife, it‘s the assistant coach. 

ANDREW MARCHAND, “NY POST” SPORTSWRITER:  Yes, I mean, it‘s—Wayne Gretzky is in a tough, you know, situation.  I mean, it is his wife.  I mean, he hasn‘t been implicated at all. 

The question was asked, you know, did Wayne—was Janet placing bets for Wayne?  And all indications that‘s not the case, at least that‘s what he‘s saying as of now.  So to really Wayne Gretzky doesn‘t seem to be in any hot water right now.

But of course, any time there‘s organized crime involved or you‘re talking about gambling, the problem is if, you know, if someone gets in debt that they could fix a game.  So since it is Gretzky‘s wife and he‘s coaching the Coyotes now, that‘s where his name gets dragged through the mud a little bit. 

COSBY:  You know, Tim, does it still—you know, as Andrew was just sort of pointing out—still tarnish the image?  It doesn‘t—you know, it‘s not betting on hockey.  But when you hear organized crime, you hear current and former players, a state trooper, it‘s pretty ugly. 

TIM COWLISHAW, “DALLAS MORNING NEWS”:  Yes, I mean, you‘ve got to start with—any time you have a gambling scandal and you can tie it in any way to Wayne Gretzky, this guy has been the face of the sport for 25 years.

And even though his name is not directly involved, if his wife is, you know, that‘s a bizarre thing, first of all.  I don‘t think he would have her making bets for him, but why is she involved?  And if they‘re throwing her name out there, you know they‘ve got some serious evidence there.

But his assistant coach is involved.  Rick Tocchet, one of the big targets in the investigation.  So, you know, the NHL can‘t ask for more than Wayne Gretzky has given them for the last 25 years.  If his integrity is in any way damaged in this thing, then it‘s just a terrible time for the National Hockey League. 

COSBY:  You know, Nick, how tough is it, you know, for him, you know, for Wayne Gretzky to do his job?  I mean, you know, it‘s tough enough watching over a team and then to have to deal with something with your wife, with your assistant coach?

NICK KYPREOS, FORMER NHL PLAYER:  Yes, it‘s been a tough year for Wayne, the death of his mother earlier in the year, and as well as his grandmother.  So there‘s no doubt it‘s been a bit of a battle so far. 

But, you know, hockey players find different ways to get through things.  And, you know, as talented as Wayne Gretzky was, he was also very tough.  And you don‘t do—you don‘t set records like Wayne Gretzky did if you don‘t find ways to get through a little bit of adversity.

And I think up here in Canada, there‘s a sigh of relief knowing that he‘s not—you know, he‘s 100 percent clear of this, in terms of being directly involved.  And, you know, up here in Canada, he‘s the closest thing we have to royalty.  And, you know, it‘s nice to know that again directly he‘s not involved. 

COSBY:  You know, Nick, as a player who‘s been in the business there a long time yourself, what do you think though, in terms of how this will affect him?  And you talked about just even the game itself.  Are you surprised?  What was your reaction when you heard that this happened in hockey?  Is this a rarity? 

KYPREOS:  Well, first of all, you know, in terms of Rick Tocchet, we‘re not talking about some low-life ex-hockey player here.  We‘re talking about a guy who‘s well-regarded in the hockey world, an 18-year veteran.  He represented his country, an all-star. 

He‘s been very well-respected in the hockey dressing room.  So to say that we‘re shocked would be an understatement for the allegations now being thrown Rick Tocchet‘s way. 

COSBY:  You know, and, Tim, as we talk about Rick Tocchet, you know, to come out publicly and say Rick Tocchet and also the wife the Wayne Gretzky, they got to have some pretty serious goods, especially if you‘re going after a state trooper.  You don‘t just make those allegations lightly, Tim. 

COWLISHAW:  Right, you don‘t just throw those out.  And I don‘t know exactly how Nick can sit there and say one day into this, “Well, we know Wayne Gretzky isn‘t involved.”  If his wife is involved, that means, I assume, her phone number is involved.  I assume Wayne has access to her phone. 

I‘m not saying he‘s done anything wrong; I‘m just saying this thing is close enough to Wayne Gretzky that it‘s very scary for him, for the league, for hockey across the globe.  This guy has stood for the sport, and you don‘t just want to have him turn into anything that can...


KYPREOS:  Well, as of now, he‘s not being investigated, and although... 

COWLISHAW:  I understand that. 

KYPREOS:  ... you know, Janet‘s very close to him obviously, husband and wife.  We can‘t all control what, you know, even our spouses are doing out there.  And I‘m not suggesting that I know any information on what‘s happening here, but it‘s clear right now that Wayne Gretzky is not being investigated. 

COSBY:  You know, and, Andrew, on the other hand, when it is the wife, you are going to look at records.  You are going to look at things.  Wayne Gretzky was asked about it, and at first he said, “Did you have anything to do with this?”  He said, “Absolutely not.”  And then he said, “Ask her.”  He‘s trying to distance himself clearly, Andrew, right? 

MARCHAND:  Yes.  I mean, I think he‘s also made some statements where he‘s totally supported his wife and called her his best friend.  And, you know, I think at this time, you know, as Tim pointed out, you have—a day after, it‘s hard.  We don‘t know all the facts.

What we do know though is that, for the NHL, this is really—it‘s a black mark.  Now, regardless of what happens from here on out, this is a negative for them, because you can‘t press control z on your computer and undo the public relations damage that‘s already been done. 

You‘re talking about it on your show.  Normally you don‘t talk about hockey, and you‘re talking about hockey in a very negative way.  So for hockey, this is awful.  For the people involved, it could get worse. 

COSBY:  And, Nick—I am a hockey fan, by the way—but, Nick, in terms of this, are you worried it‘s going to hurt the sport? 

KYPREOS:  Well, there‘s no doubt it‘s been a regroup mode coming off a lockout, a year shutdown, and trying to get the fan interest back, particularly in the United States.  This isn‘t going to help. 

Now the players are in a partnership with the owners and it‘s about revenue dollars.  Now, guess what?  The revenues can hurt.  And that means that it‘s going to directly hurt 750 guys. 

But I will say this, that there‘s been many incidences over the last 50, 75 years in hockey, weather we‘re talking about Marty McSorley or Brad May, suspended 20 games, or a lockout, and a strike.  And it finds a way to get back on its feet, and this will be the case very similar.  The game will survive. 

COSBY:  Tim, what do you see ahead, real quick? 

COWLISHAW:  Well, I see the Olympics right ahead, and that‘s what people should be talking about.  And unfortunately, Wayne Gretzky is the head of Team Canada.  He‘s going to be fielding a lot of questions over there in Italy about things other than the Olympics. 

COSBY:  Good point.  Guys, all of you, thank you very much.  Great to have you with us. 

And still ahead, everybody, an officer of the law is now in big trouble.  Wait until you see the hot pictures that he‘s accused of taking with his dash cam. 

And they‘re behind bars.  Infamous inmate Pam Smart says these pictures are proof that she was violated.  You‘ll be stunned to hear who she says did it.  That‘s coming up.


COSBY:  And right now, you are listening to Capitol Hill police, Kimberly Schneider talking about the incident at the Russell Senate Office Building.  Here she is. 

SGT. KIMBERLY SCHNEIDER, CAPITOL HILL POLICE SPOKESWOMAN:  Are there any questions?  We have a good outcome tonight, so we‘re all very happy about this. 

UNIDENTIFIED MALE:  How many tests did you wind up running? 

SCHNEIDER:  It was several tests we did run tonight, at least two. 

UNIDENTIFIED MALE:  On two samples?  Do you know, ma‘am? 

SCHNEIDER:  I do not know.  We ran at least two tests this evening to make sure that we got the correct test results. 

UNIDENTIFIED MALE:  We hear from the past, from suspicious substances happening, that the tents, the de-con tents are quite abnormal.  What accounts for setting them up this time?

SCHNEIDER:  We will set the de-con tents up once we know that we are testing for something that is out of the ordinary.  For example, if we have an alert for a nerve agent, which is what we had this evening, we want to make sure that everyone who has entered the building and who comes out of the building is protected and decontaminated in the proper fashion. 


UNIDENTIFIED MALE:  ... behind sequestering the staffers and senators in the garage? 

SCHNEIDER:  In the event that it was a nerve agent, we want to make sure that anyone who was present in the building can be accounted for.  It‘s a routine security measure when you have something of this magnitude. 

UNIDENTIFIED MALE:  Can you tell us what nerve agent you were testing for, Sergeant? 

SCHNEIDER:  The test that we run will tell us what type of nerve agent it is.  We‘re not testing for a specific nerve agent. 

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE:  What was the indication that it was a nerve agent?  (OFF-MIKE)

SCHNEIDER:  We had an initial alarm in the Russell attic building that indicated that we may have a possible nerve agent.  After that, we did several tests to determine what the nerve agent was, and the tests came up with negative results.  The end result, as I said, is that we don‘t have a nerve agent.  And right now, people are preparing for reentry into the Russell Building. 

UNIDENTIFIED MALE:  Do you have any idea what it is? 

SCHNEIDER:  We don‘t have that information at this time. 

UNIDENTIFIED MALE:  Are there any safety measures that anyone needs to take (OFF-MIKE) 

SCHNEIDER:  Right now, we have also worked with the office of the attending physician.  No reported symptoms.  And if there are any reported symptoms, people would be treated as if they have been exposed to a nerve agent.  We don‘t have any indication of that at this time.  We have very good news all around. 

UNIDENTIFIED MALE:  You said the alarms were going off in the whole attic area or... 

SCHNEIDER:  Well, the alarm indicated that we had a suspicious substance in the attic area of the Russell Building. 

UNIDENTIFIED MALE:  Does that tell you at all if there‘s a higher concentration in one area as opposed to another? 

SCHNEIDER:  It simply indicated for the attic, so we are directed to a certain area of the building.  So this is where we know we can find, if there is a concentration, this is where the concentration would be, in the Russell attic.  That‘s where it initially indicated. 

UNIDENTIFIED MALE:  Talking about a single monitor in this case? 


UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE:  So, at this point, you believe there was no nerve agent at all? 

SCHNEIDER:  That‘s correct. 

UNIDENTIFIED MALE:  This single alarm, does it indicate that it would be a nerve agent and give you some information that specifically?  Or do you have to go and test—still physically to the attic (INAUDIBLE) and think it might be a nerve agent? 

SCHNEIDER:  We have our experts who physically have gone into the attic, which is why you will see the de-con tents, which is why you‘ll see Level-B protection suits.  We have our experts who have actually gone to the area where the initial alarm indicated to determine what the alarm was indicating on. 

UNIDENTIFIED MALE:  Now, what sort of...


UNIDENTIFIED MALE:  ... people were evacuated to the garage? 

SCHNEIDER:  It was roughly 200 people who were evacuated from the Russell Building and sent to the garage. 

UNIDENTIFIED MALE:  Do you know how many senators are included in that? 

SCHNEIDER:  Roughly a dozen members of Congress, roughly a dozen senators. 

UNIDENTIFIED MALE:  Can you tell us how many people suited up? 

SCHNEIDER:  I don‘t have that number at this time. 

UNIDENTIFIED MALE:  If you‘re saying that the results were negative, what sort of harmless substances would set these...

COSBY:  And you‘ve been listening to a live press conference from Kimberly Schneider with the Capitol Hill Police Department with some great news, saying it‘s all clear, no threats detected.  There were some reports earlier of a possible, you know, a possible powder or something else maybe found in the air there in the Russell Senate Office Building, something suspicious. 

Of course, just being very cautious, they evacuated the building, 200 people, including about a dozen senators.  And the good news coming after two tests, all results coming back negative.  No threats detected. 

If there‘s any more information, of course, we will bring that to you, but some good news tonight coming out of Washington. 

And we‘re going to move on now to the rest of the show.  Pam Smart is going to spend the rest of her life in prison for conspiring to kill her husband, that after an illicit affair with a 16-year-old student in a small New England town. 

She‘s already served 16 years in prison, including doing time at the maximum security Bedford Hills facility in upstate New York, where she currently is behind bars. 

But now a bombshell:  She‘s suing the prison and a male guard who she claims sexually assaulted her.  Controversial pictures of her scantily clad published in a 2003 “National Enquirer” issue are what initiated this federal lawsuit. 

Meantime, the New York attorney general‘s office is trying to dismiss the case. 

We now have what really happens behind bars at that same prison, where we ourselves visited when we interviewed her.  And for the first time, we‘ll find out why she was forced to spend 70 days in solitary confinement. 

Joining me now live is Dr. Eleanor Pam.  She‘s an expert on women and violence, as well as an adviser and family spokesperson for Pam Smart‘s family. 

Eleanor, tell us, what does she say happened to her behind bars? 

DR. ELEANOR PAM, SPOKESPERSON FOR PAM SMART:  She says that she was raped by a guard and that he told her that, if she told anybody about it, he would kill her family, because he had access to the information about where they lived.  All visitors sign in and register, so guards have that information. 

COSBY:  Was this repeatedly or is this one time or—and how long was this?

PAM:  He came in one time, and then, two days later, came back.  And he was—he said that he didn‘t want to lose his job in case she told, so he needed some extra insurance.  And he took some pictures of her. 

He demanded first that she strip naked, and she refused to do that.  She thought actually he was coming back to rape her again.  And she finally talked him out of that part of it, but agreed to pose in some lingerie. 

And if you look at the pictures, and you look at her eyes, and you look at her face, you can see that this is not a woman having fun (INAUDIBLE) for the camera, you know, showing off her femininity and her womanliness.  This is a captive who is upset, afraid, unhappy.  It‘s very clear, and you can see it, that this is coercive. 

COSBY:  Yes, she definitely is not smiling.  I was looking at the pictures earlier.  And you can tell she‘s not—it doesn‘t look like she‘s engaged in the pictures. 

You know, she came forward then, Eleanor, after these pictures were

released.  And again, she didn‘t release these pictures.  They came about -

what, a friend of the guard released them, apparently, to the “Enquirer”? 

PAM:  Yes.  We found that out privately.  The “National Enquirer” got these pictures from the girlfriend of the guard who was the rapist. 

COSBY:  Which is just...


COSBY:  ... that a girlfriend would release this, Eleanor.  You know, and now she comes forward and says, “Look, this is what happened to me by a guard.”  What did the prison do?  Did they investigate the guard?  And, by the way, we did call the prison today.  They had no comment at all about this case. 

PAM:  Of course. 

COSBY:  But what did they do, do you know?  Did they investigate this to see if this was true or not? 

PAM:  What they did was arrest her.  They came and they put her in handcuffs and they threw her into solitary.  And the basis of the arrest was the “National Enquirer” article, which is amazing. 

COSBY:  Yes, because, in fact, let me show you a—this is a letter from the “National Enquirer.”  They write, “Pamela Smart was not the source of the picture or is not connected in any way to the source of the exclusive photographs obtained by the ‘Enquirer‘ and published in an article about Smart in the June 3, 2003, issue.  They say it right there. 

But then they went back.  Who did they say released it?  Who did the prison allege took the pictures and distributed them? 

PAM:  Well, the prison in the administrative superintendent‘s hearing suggested very explicitly that Pam herself took pictures of herself, that somehow she smuggled in this camera, put a timer on it, took the pictures, got them developed somehow, and that, you know, God knows what other fantasy. 

It‘s very clear that this is a criminal act by a rapist who not only abused and assaulted her illegally, because even if it were consensual in prison—there is no such thing as consensual sex; it‘s statutory rape no matter what it is—but in this case, he blackmails her, extorts her, harasses her, threatens her, talks about killing the parents, comes back two days later, takes these pictures illegally, and then has the nerve to have his girlfriend sell them and write a bogus story and profit from that.

And by the way, the girlfriend had tried to sell them a year earlier and couldn‘t.  And then Pam, who is all by herself in this situation, sitting in solitary in the summer, in 100 degrees or more heat.  And I remember it very well, because I went up to see her a number of times. 

COSBY:  You know, Eleanor, we just have a few seconds left.  I want to make sure:  Where does the case stand now? 

PAM:  We‘re waiting to litigate it.  It hasn‘t started.  The trial hasn‘t started yet. 

COSBY:  Well, please keep us posted.  And again, no comment from the prison.  We do try to get a response from them.  No comment at this point.  Eleanor, thank you very much. 

PAM:  OK.  Thanks. 

COSBY:  And still ahead, this is not official business.  Wait until you see what a police officer was really catching with his dashboard cam.  That‘s coming up.


COSBY:  Police dashboard cameras are typically used to record traffic stops and other law enforcement activity, but you won‘t believe what a south Florida deputy used his camera for.  It was not official business.

Kate Brace from NBC affiliate WPTV in West Palm Beach, Florida, has this amazing story of one dirty cop.


KATIE BRACE, WPTV CORRESPONDENT (voice-over):  At the beach, at the gas station, on the back of a motorcycle, all places where former Deputy Jack Munsey focused his traffic camera.

JENELL ATLAS, MARTIN COUNTY FLORIDA SHERIFF‘S OFFICE:  We don‘t believe any of them are underage.  We certainly hope not, but from what you can see on the video, they do all seem to be adult women, young adult, but adult women. 

BRACE:  There‘s an hour and a half of videotape.  Some of it shows Munsey just driving around; a lot of it shows him focused on women below the neck. 

ATLAS:  Deputy Munsey showed another deputy that worked with him the videotape, and that deputy wanted nothing to do with it and, in fact, told a supervisor. 

BRACE (on-screen):  Jack Munsey worked road patrol, so he had a small, compact camera mounted on the dash.  It was supposed to be for DWI stops. 

(voice-over):  During an internal investigation, Munsey stated he videotaped the women because they were pretty.  He also stated he did not use the videotapes for sexual gratification and that he watched them in his squad car.  Munsey also told investigators he didn‘t make any copies. 

The sheriff‘s office fired Munsey, who was a 10-year veteran with the department. 

ATLAS:  Deputy Munsey has three charges against him on his alleged incident, the most serious of these—all of them are serious, but the most serious being the code of ethics.  And that‘s the public trust.  That‘s where people trust that we‘re going to have ethics and do the right thing by them.


COSBY:  And, again, that was Katie Brace from WPTV in West Palm Beach. 

And, everybody, we‘re going to be right back.


COSBY:  And you‘re looking at a live picture there of the Russell Senate Office Building on Capitol Hill in Washington.  Good news coming in.  All clear.  There were some concern after some sensors went off indicating the presence of a nerve agent in the attic area of the Russell Senate Office Building earlier tonight. 

Two hundred people were evacuating, including about a dozen senators. 

They were sent to a garage area. 

But the good news, again, after all the tests, nothing detected.  All clear tonight on Capitol Hill.  So some good news there. 

And coming up tomorrow, we‘re going to have the man whose wife cut off his private part more than 10 years ago.  He is now back in the headlines again.  John Wayne Bobbitt has been cleared of domestic battery charges, and he will speak to me in his first national TV interview since being acquitted.  That is going to be tomorrow night, right here on LIVE & DIRECT.

And that does it for me tonight.  I‘m Rita Cosby.  “SCARBOROUGH COUNTRY” with Joe starts right now—Joe?




Transcription Copyright 2006 Voxant, Inc.  ALL RIGHTS  RESERVED. No license

is granted to the user of this material other than for research. User may

not reproduce or redistribute the material except for user‘s personal or

internal use and, in such case, only one copy may be printed, nor shall

user use any material for commercial purposes or in any fashion that may

infringe upon NBC and Voxant, Inc.‘s copyright or other proprietary rights

or interests in the material. This is not a legal transcript for purposes

of litigation.>


Watch Rita Cosby Live & Direct each weeknight at 9 p.m. ET


Discussion comments