updated 7/27/2006 12:19:33 PM ET 2006-07-27T16:19:33

Guests: George Parnham, Shari Lusskin, Wendy Murphy, Geoffrey Fieger, John Bourlon, Bill Fallon, Debra Opri

RITA COSBY, GUEST HOST:  Right now in SCARBOROUGH COUNTRY, a stunning turnaround in a case that captivated America.  Andrea Yates, the mother who killed her five young children, found not guilty.  A jury says she‘s insane.  Her lawyer is here tonight.

And 50 murders, young, beautiful women with two things in common, they all had their pictures taken by a killer years ago, and they‘re all unaccounted for today.  Why are police just now making a chilling connection?

Plus, the photographer who made little kids cry.  So couldn‘t she get the picture she wanted?  Is that what this is all about?  Did she go too far for art?  Is this a case of child abuse?  I‘ll ask her that.

Good evening, everybody.  I‘m Rita Cosby, in tonight for Joe.  We‘re going to have those stories, but first, a courtroom shocker.  Tonight, five-time admitted killer Andrea Yates is not guilty.  That‘s right, Yates admitted to drowning all five of her children one by one, but after an appeal of her guilty verdict and a retrial, the jury today brought back a stunning decision.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE:  Ms. Yates, please stand.  In cause number 880205, the state of Texas versus Andrea P.A. (ph) Yates, we the jury found the defendant, Andrea P.A. Yates, not guilty by reason of insanity.  Signed Todd Christopher Frank, foreman of the jury.  In cause number 883590, the state of Texas versus Andrea P.A. Yates, we the jury found the defendant, Andrea P.A. Yates, not guilty by reason of insanity.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

COSBY:  And Andrea‘s former husband, Rusty, spoke to reporters right after the verdict.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

RUSTY YATES, ANDREA YATES‘S FORMER HUSBAND:  Do they think our children want Andrea to be in prison?  Do they think that we, her family on either side, want Andrea to be in prison?  Is it of any public benefit for Andrea to be in prison?  You know, is she a danger to anyone?  I mean, it‘s amazing to me.  And like I said, I‘m so proud of the jury for seeing past that.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

COSBY:  And now to the man that you saw standing next to Andrea Yates in court, her lead attorney, George Parnham, joins us live.  George, first of all, congratulations.  I know you worked hard for five long years.

GEORGE PARNHAM, ANDREA YATES‘S ATTORNEY:  Thanks, Rita.  I did.  And I appreciate what you‘re saying.

COSBY:  Yes, how—how did she react?  You were standing right next to her.  I saw you crying.  This was obviously very emotional for you.  How did she react?

PARNHAM:  You know, Andrea is sitting in that courtroom, filled with anti-psychotic medications, anti-depressants.  She was somewhat, I think, stunned by just hearing those words, but not unlike everybody else at defense counsel‘s table.  We heard those words, and it takes a while to sink in.  I‘ll see her tomorrow, and we‘ll see how it has sunk in.

COSBY:  Did she expect the verdict?  Did she say anything to you, George?

PARNHAM:  No.  There was no expectation.  Andrea Yates participated in this process.  She dreaded immensely what was going to be presented about her children, did not want those photographs of the crime scene and autopsy photographs of her precious kids pandered about the world, but followed my advice.  And we tried this case, and she simply said thank you.

COSBY:  How did you feel, George?  You know, when you heard those words, you know, to all the news programs, we broke in, and when they said not guilty—you heard the jurors speak.  What was going through your mind?

PARNHAM:  Rita, it—a combination of factors.  I think a great relief, a certain acknowledgment that the work in the area of mental health really has just begun.  I think this case has the possibility of being a watershed for mental illness in the criminal justice system, specifically in the area of women‘s mental health care.  Certainly, Andrea was a poster person for women‘s mental health, post-partum psychosis.

And let‘s not forget the fact that those children, through the eyes of the kids, they are the victims of mental illness.  And we need to continue that.  And of course, realizing that just makes me understand that, tomorrow morning, I get up and I start this process one more time.

COSBY:  Where does she go now, and what‘s in store for her?

PARNHAM:  She will be in the Harris County jail.  There will be a determination made when she will be transferred to a mental health facility.  Probably, the transfer will take place in the darkness of night, for security reasons.  I think she probably will be transferred before the weekend is out.

I would like to think that she goes back to Rusk (ph), where she was for four months, being under the very careful care and expert care of her doctors, Dr. Self (ph) and Dr. Farmer (ph) and everyone else, Mr. Debbs (ph), at Rusk.  But she may go to Vernon, and she‘ll go there—that‘s another mental facility in another part of the state.  She may be there for a short period of time and then ultimately be transferred to Rusk.

But she‘s not going to be getting out within the community.  She will be under the jurisdiction of this judge for the rest of her life.  And the judge will make a determination at some point in time if she is ever to be released, meeting the very strict criteria.

And one last thing.  And I know I‘m talking a lot here, but I—you know, if we can simply improve the after-care procedures that are in place to follow people that are mentally ill, we can eliminate the fear within the community that people that are mentally ill create a security problem.  And that‘s what we need to do.  We need to focus on mental illness.  We need to focus in on how the criminal justice system adapts to people that are mentally ill and treat, treat, treat this whole issue.  And we‘ll all be a better society as a result.

COSBY:  George Parnham, thank you very much.  We appreciate it very much.

PARNHAM:  Thank you, Rita.

COSBY:  Again, congratulations.

PARNHAM:  Thank you for asking me.

COSBY:  You worked very hard.

(CROSSTALK)

COSBY:  A lot of questions tonight.  George is talking about some of them.  And a lot of people are wondering, Should Andrea Yates have been found not guilty?  Let‘s listen to more from Rusty Yates.  This is her former husband.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

YATES:  Yes, Andrea took the lives of our children.  That‘s the truth, you know?  But also, yes, she was insane.  You know, yes, she was psychotic on that day (INAUDIBLE)  So that‘s the whole truth.  Now, you know, the—it really disappointed me that the state, you know, spent, I‘d say, on—you know, between the two trials, probably a million-and-a-half dollars to get to, really, what to me should have been obvious from the beginning.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

COSBY:  Andrea Yates will be committed to a state mental hospital, with yearly hearings, as you heard from George Parnham, to determine if she should be released.  But should she really be in prison?  Here to talk about that is Dr. Shari Lusskin.  She‘s the director of reproductive psychiatry at NYU.  And former prosecutor Wendy Murphy.

Wendy, do you think Andrea Yates knew right from wrong?

WENDY MURPHY, FORMER PROSECUTOR:  There‘s no question she did, Rita, and that‘s why I think this verdict is incorrect as a matter of law.  It might be correct on some moral ground.  People might disagree about whether she should be in prison or in a hospital.  But I‘ll tell you something.  Did she know right from wrong?  Let me tell you what we know about the facts.

She waited until her husband left before she killed each of her kids, methodically, one after the other, drowning them.  Then she called 911.  She didn‘t call a spaceship.  She didn‘t call her doctor.  She called 911.  She said to the police, I killed my kids.  I‘m a bad mother.  Basically, Come get me.  That is the behavior of a person who knew damn well what she was doing!

(CROSSTALK)

COSBY:  Let me bring in Dr. Lusskin.  Dr. Lusskin, what do you think?

DR. SHARI LUSSKIN, REPRODUCTIVE PSYCHIATRIST:  I disagree with that. 

I happen to agree with Mr. Parnham‘s comments.  I thought they were very well stated.

COSBY:  What about Wendy‘s comments?

LUSSKIN:  Well, I disagree with them.  Andrea Yates was chronically mentally ill and was clearly psychotic at the time she committed...

COSBY:  But what about this...

LUSSKIN:  ... this horrible, horrible crime.

COSBY:  Dr. Lusskin, sorry to interrupt you, but what about the steps Wendy laid out?  You know, she did—you know, she waited until her husband left, killed them, then she called 911.  She said, I killed my kids.

LUSSKIN:  I think the jury must have seen beyond this rather narrow definition of insanity in Texas to understand that Andrea Yates was compelled by some sort of irresistible force and belief system to commit these murders.

COSBY:  Let me bring in Wendy...

LUSSKIN:  But at the same time...

(CROSSTALK)

MURPHY:  Lookit, that‘s not the standard.  The standard is, Did she know right from wrong?  And you know what bugs me?  And it bugs me that I heard Mr. Parnham say this, as well.  This somehow stands as a watershed moment for women‘s mental health issues.  This is a classic gender-biased result.  It is not a legal result, it is a gender-biased result because if a man, if a father of five children, otherwise mentally ill with the same degree of psychosis, killed all of his kids, called 911, did all the things she did, there is no chance in hell THAT he would be going to a hospital tonight!  He would be on death row!

LUSSKIN:  Well, you happen to be right about that.  I think we should take cases of both—of when children are murdered by either the mother or the father and presume mental illness until proven otherwise.

COSBY:  Let me...

LUSSKIN:  We happen to be biased...

(CROSSTALK)

COSBY:  Let me play—because the jurors, you could tell—let me play what the jurors said because the jurors in this case—you could tell that they really struggled with the wording of the verdict during deliberations.  This is what they had to say.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

TODD FRANK, JURY FOREMAN:  The words are “Not guilty by reason of insanity,” and there were certain of us that would rather it have said, Guilty but insane.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

COSBY:  You could tell the jurors struggled.  You know, let me also show—we got some pictures of Rusk.  This is the mental facility where George Parnham said he believes she‘s probably going to go.  This is where she was before.  We got some information on this.  She basically gets to do cooking, sewing, crafts.  There‘s a lake you can see there.  There‘s some cute little ducks.

LUSSKIN:  Well, that‘s—that‘s...

COSBY:  Hold on a second --  playing ping-pong, exercise equipment, board games, dancing, movies, feeding some cute little animals.  Wendy?

MURPHY:  You know, look, this is the point!  She is not being held morally culpable for taking five innocent lives!  She‘s being rewarded with comfort and treatment!  And there‘s no question that juror‘s point was the most important statement yet.  We should have guilty but insane in every state across this country because then once she gets tuned up, she doesn‘t go to a—you know, go free, she goes to prison!

LUSSKIN:  I have to tell you, if you‘ve ever been to a forensic psychiatric center, it‘s not a pleasant place to be.  She is incarcerated.  She cannot leave.  She doesn‘t have visitation rights.  She has limited family visitation rights.

COSBY:  But Doctor...

LUSSKIN:  It‘s pretty close to regular prison.

COSBY:  How do you explain these pictures?  Let me put these pictures back up again and (INAUDIBLE) again—exercise equipment, ping-pong, you know, walking, feeding the ducks...

LUSSKIN:  Well, I don‘t want to get sidetracked into a debate about what people do in jail versus...

COSBY:  No, no, no.  But what I do...

(CROSSTALK)

COSBY:  But I do want to ask you, how does that help her and how does that help society that we‘re paying for feeding the ducks?

LUSSKIN:  Well, I don‘t think we would help society by putting her in a prison where she wouldn‘t receive proper treatment for her mental illness and would be subjected to the pain related to that, plus the dangers that she would face in a prison population with people who are not...

MURPHY:  She killed five kids!

LUSSKIN:  ... necessarily mentally ill.

MURPHY:  That‘s where you go!

(CROSSTALK)

MURPHY:  She‘d get treatment in prison!  Don‘t say that!  She absolutely...

LUSSKIN:  Treatment in prison is definitely...

(CROSSTALK)

LUSSKIN:  Treatment in prison is substandard.  It‘s not great and...

(CROSSTALK)

MURPHY:  Too bad!  That‘s what happens when you kill five people!  You get a little bit less than perfect care!

LUSSKIN:  I think you‘re missing the point.  The point is, first of all, that women with post-partum psychosis, A, rarely kill their children.  Secondly, if they do kill a child, it‘s one child.  Thirdly, it‘s rare to kill this many children.  But she did it...

MURPHY:  Which proves that...

LUSSKIN:  ... as a result of...

MURPHY:  ... it may not be...

(CROSSTALK)

COSBY:  Wendy, I‘m going to give you five seconds.  Wendy, go ahead.

MURPHY:  That proves that...

LUSSKIN:  ... mental illness, and it requires...

(CROSSTALK)

COSBY:  Hold on, Dr. Lusskin.  Wendy—five seconds, Wendy.

MURPHY:  The fact that it doesn‘t happen like this probably is the best evidence yet that she wasn‘t psychotic at the time.

COSBY:  OK, both of you, thank you.

LUSSKIN:  OK, thank you.

COSBY:  We‘re going to have to go to break.  Thank you both very much. 

Interesting points.

Coming up, everybody: Is Rusty Yates to blame, the ex-husband, for not stopping his wife from killing their children?  Some say yes, big-time.  We‘re going to debate that.

Plus, the chilling words of a killer.  Now the search is on for more than 50 women who may have been murdered by a twisted photographer.  We‘re going to have the very latest on this case.

And take a look at these snapshots.  Are they art or child exploitation?  The woman who took these controversial photos tells me why her critics are the ones who are a bunch of crybabies.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

COSBY:  And we‘re back now with more of the stunning Andrea Yates verdict.  Only a few hours ago, she was found not guilty by reason of insanity.  But tonight, more questions about who‘s to blame for the tragic deaths of her five beautiful children.  Some blame Andrea‘s husband, Rusty, a man who once suggested Andrea could feel better by having more kids.  Today, he dodged questions about his own responsibility for the tragedy. 

Let‘s take a listen.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

UNIDENTIFIED MALE:  Mr. Yates, You‘ve been dragged through this whole process yet again, sir.  And of course, that brings up all the old wounds that were opened five years ago and all the talk back then, speculation from the public that hasn‘t heard all the facts in the case about your own culpability, sir.  And I‘m wondering any time has given you perspective on that.  How have you dealt with that?

YATES:  You know, I look back, and you know, people made mistakes along the way.  I mean, you know, there were things we could have done.  There are things the doctors could have done.  You know, I have my own thoughts on all that.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

COSBY:  So should Rusty Yates be the one thrown in prison?  Joining me now, two of my very favorites, defense attorneys Geoffrey Fieger and also John Bourlon.  John, first to you.  Does he bear responsibility?

JOHN BOURLON, CRIMINAL DEFENSE ATTORNEY:  Absolutely, Rita.  As I listened to this discussion—and by the way, I agree with Wendy 100 percent.  This man should be held accountable, even moreso than Mrs. Yates.  He wasn‘t suffering from any alleged disability or post-partum psychosis.  This is a guy that has the same responsibility, as a matter of law, for the care and nurturing of his children as she does.

This didn‘t happen overnight.  She has five children.  If she was totally sane and had financial resources, it would be a challenging obligation.  She didn‘t have all that.  And the father is, like, Oh, gee, what an inconvenience.  He is the one that should be held accountable!  And Rita, I am at a loss to understand why the district attorney‘s office has not brought charges against this man.

COSBY:  And what do you think?  Geoffrey, what do you think, charges against Rusty?

GEOFFREY FIEGER, CRIMINAL DEFENSE ATTORNEY:  Oh, I think that‘s silly, in fact.  This idea of the blame game, with John now salivating like Wendy Murphy for more blood...

COSBY:  But you know, Geoffrey, let me...

(CROSSTALK)

FIEGER:  ... tragedy...

COSBY:  Let me put up, Geoffrey, a list, though.  This is a bit of a background.  This is a look at what Rusty did know about his wife‘s health.  It wasn‘t, like, you know, he was in there blind.  She was admitted to three psychiatric facilities in two years.  She also overdosed on a prescription sleep medication.  And doctors warned Rusty that another child could trigger more psychotic episodes, yet he was pushing for it, Geoffrey.  I mean, at the very least, it‘s horrible moral judgment.

FIEGER:  Listen, as a matter of law, no one is ever responsible for the criminal acts of another.  But that‘s a simple explanation.  The bigger explanation in our society, if you want to start throwing around blame, is that we spend a billion dollars for war and we spend less and less for social safety net.  And if you want to treat mental illness, then we better start considering what‘s more important, war in Iraq or...

COSBY:  But Geoffrey, should—but Geoffrey...

FIEGER:  ... or protecting our own people.

COSBY:  I got to keep you focused.  Should they stay focused on this family?

FIEGER:  I am—I am being focused!

COSBY:  (INAUDIBLE) the family!  Let me show you the family.

FIEGER:  In every state across...

COSBY:  This is what the...

FIEGER:  I ran for governor in the state of Michigan...

(CROSSTALK)

COSBY:  I know you did, but hold on...

FIEGER:  Rita, Rita, I ran for governor of the state of Michigan.  In

every state in this nation, the social safety net is being destroyed by the

Republican belief that we should spend more and more on prisons than we

should mental health.  Now, if you want to see the results, the Yates case

is a perfect example of the results.  To blame the husband now?  Now we

want to start blaming everybody?  We want to put people in jail instead of

treating them?  The idea that she—getting her treatment is better than -

or is worse than putting her in a prison, where we pay more money as a society?

COSBY:  Let me get John Bourlon...

FIEGER:  And society...

(CROSSTALK)

COSBY:  John Bourlon, go ahead.

BOURLON:  Geoffrey is living in fantasyland!  He says blame...

FIEGER:  Yes, right.

BOURLON:  Geoffrey wishes to blame the system.  Let me tell you the basic facts.  These two people brought these five children into this world.  They had no choice.  They have a responsibility, whether they like it or not!  And you‘re darn right, Geoffrey, I am casting blame!  The parents have a moral, legal, and factual duty to take care of their kids.  They had no choice to be in this world!

FIEGER:  And as an American—as an American...

BOURLON:  And you want to blame—you want to blame the criminal justice system.  And let me finish!

FIEGER:  I am unwilling...

BOURLON:  You want to blame everybody but the people that are responsible!

GEOFFREY:  I‘m not blaming anybody.  As an American, I am unwilling to pay more money to place her in prison or...

BOURLON:  We‘re not talking philosophical expenditures about mental health, Geoffrey!

FIEGER:  ... than I am to get her professional help.

BOURLON:  We‘re talking about who is at fault.  This husband was on notice.  What more could be done?

FIEGER:  Listen, let‘s talk...

BOURLON:  He elected to ignore it...

FIEGER:  Let‘s talk reality.

BOURLON:  ... and we‘re not going to blame him.  We‘re not saying...

COSBY:  Geoffrey...

(CROSSTALK)

COSBY:  Let me give Geoffrey the last word.  Geoffrey, 15 seconds.

GEOFFREY:  Let me try—the reality is, it costs much less to treat her than it does to imprison her.  And I‘m not interested, as an American, in spending money for prisons.  I‘m interested in helping people, period.

COSBY:  And both of you guys, I‘m interested in making this break. 

Thank you both very much.  I love you both.

BOURLON:  Thank you, Rita.

COSBY:  Thank you.  And coming up, everybody: More than 50 women unaccounted for, the only link these photos taken by a convicted killer decades ago.  Just how many of these young women—we‘ll show you in a moment—did he kill?  And why are police just now making the connection to this man?

Plus, major controversy over a new art exhibit.  Is it child abuse to make a toddler cry like this for a picture?  The embattled photographer tells me why upsetting outraged critics is as easy taking candy away from a baby like this.  We‘ll explain.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

(NEWSBREAK)

COSBY:  Panic at the pageant.  The new Miss Universe made headlines around the world, not just for being beautiful, but when she passed out just moments after winning the big title.  She‘s here live to explain exactly what happened. 

Plus, a desperate search tonight for as many as 50 beautiful women, all aspiring models who may have been killed by a depraved photographer.  Did police sit on key evidence for more than two decades in this case?

Welcome back to SCARBOROUGH COUNTRY, everybody.  I‘m Rita in for Joe tonight, who is taking some much deserved days off.  Those stories in just a few moments.

But first, a photo exhibition in Los Angeles called “End Times” is sparking a lot of outrage tonight.  Photographer Jill Greenberg says the pictures that she took are meant to portray how children would feel if they knew the state of the world they‘re going to inherit, which she believes is being ruined, as you can tell by these pictures. 

The pictures have titles like “Shock,” “Apocalypse Now,” and “Torture.”  But to make toddlers cry, Greenberg gave them lollypops and then snatched the candy away.  When Internet bloggers discovered this, they called this whole process exploitative and evil.  One of them even wrote, “Jill Greenberg is a sick woman who should be arrested and charged with child abuse.”

When I spoke with Jill, she told me all of the reaction has been negative. 

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

JILL GREENBERG, “END TIMES” PHOTOGRAPHER:  It‘s been very mixed.  Some people have really loved it.  I‘ve gotten actually some great jobs as a result.  And there have been some people who, for some strange reason, feel that the kids might have been hurt in the process of taking the pictures, which is totally not the case.

COSBY:  Where are the parents when these kids are wailing and crying when their lollypops are being taken away? 

GREENBERG:  They‘re right next to me. 

COSBY:  And how did they react?  How did the parents react?

GREENBERG:  A child crying, you know, elicits an emotion in anyone, whether you have children or not.  It‘s upsetting.  And I think that that‘s where this is coming from, but they know that this it‘s not at all harmful.  It‘s a natural emotion. 

COSBY:  I understand there‘s a political message, right? 

GREENBERG:  You know, as a mother, I have a 1-year-old and a 3-year-old, and I‘m actually frankly concerned about the future of our planet and the future of the United States, how it‘s going to be.  I mean, I don‘t think my daughter or son are going to be able to go fishing and eat the fish.  If they knew what we were leaving them, they would show these kinds of expressions. 

COSBY:  Do you feel it‘s fair to use kids for a political message then?  You know, they‘re 2 and 3 years old.  They don‘t know.

GREENBERG:  If you have a problem with this, then you should have a problem with seeing a kid in a commercial or a movie or a print ad.  It‘s the same exact thing.

COSBY:  Jill Greenberg, thank you very much. 

GREENBERG:  Thank you.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

COSBY:  And joining me now is attorney Deb Opri and former prosecutor Bill Fallon.

Bill, are the parents to blame here, and is the photographer to blame? 

BILL FALLON, FORMER PROSECUTOR:  The parents are to blame.  The photographer is mentally ill.  To say this is the same as a kid acting in a movie is ridiculous. 

Now, I‘m not saying that you could take these people up on charges, but I‘ll tell you this is abusive of children.  It‘s exploitative of children.  Look at the horror on those kids.  I know it‘s just a lollypop away.  Somebody would say—I think one quote I heard was, “Well, they cry when they give their shots.  That‘s for the good of the kid.” 

This is for someone‘s political, social, artistic message.  It‘s using kids as pawns.  And quite frankly, we don‘t value children.  We didn‘t value them in the Andrea Yates case we had on earlier.  This just goes to prove, because somebody has a political statement, let‘s let the kids get upset.  And this is terror for these kids...

(CROSSTALK) 

COSBY:  Let me bring in Deb Opri.  Shameful, Deb? 

DEBRA OPRI, DEFENSE ATTORNEY:  Taking a lollypop out of a child‘s mouth to get a picture and effect is not child abuse.  Taking photographs, and I commend Jill Greenberg.  I‘ve seen her work.  She is an artist, and I like her work.  And if you look at the photographs, they‘ve been touched up, darkened, and it goes back down to what acts did this woman do or what was she accused of doing by bloggers.  And the parents were present during this photo shoot. 

COSBY:  So, Deb...

(CROSSTALK)

OPRI:  And you know, sir, every time I did an interview with you, you interrupt me.  And I just want to finish my statement this one time, please. 

FALLON:  Oh, please...

(CROSSTALK)

OPRI:  I believe, if you look at the act, it‘s not child abuse.  It is artistry.  I think the villains here are these bloggers who want their 15 seconds of fame. 

(CROSSTALK)

COSBY:  Bill, what about the bloggers?  I mean, the guys calling them Hitler or child abuse.  Is that extreme for an artist?

FALLON:  No, I think it is extreme for an artist, but I will tell you this.  I guess I‘m different than Deb.  Maybe it‘s because I spent 25 years protecting children. 

Parents certainly have been abusive to the children.  Somebody wants their kid to be famous, fine.  These kids weren‘t told, “Act, play up.”  I would feel differently if they said, “Pretend the puppy.  We‘ll just try to pretend.”  These are kids that are suffering.

You may feel that this is art, but you know what?  Kids should not be sacrificed for art.  And I‘m shocked, Deb, that you think that we should be able to have kids crying and hysteric.  You know, some kids, this could have a permanent impact.  And I don‘t think the artist cares.  And to say that she‘s a good artist, quite frankly, we know horrible people.  We know murderers that are good artists.  That‘s certainly not an excuse when you have...

(CROSSTALK)

OPRI:  She‘s a great artist.  She‘s a fantastic artist.

COSBY:  Yes, where do you draw the line, Deb?  Where do you draw the line, Deb?

OPRI:  You don‘t slap a child.  You don‘t do any criminal, violent act of a child.  When you take a lollypop away from a child, they will react. 

FALLON:  And you make them cry.

(CROSSTALK)

COSBY:  Deb, are you saying that it‘s OK, an artist can do whatever for the sake of art? 

OPRI:  Well, whatever does not include slapping and abusing a child, but when you take a lollypop away, get the photo, and then give the kid a handful of lollypops, as Jill Greenberg did, and that‘s the whole story, it‘s an effect. 

(CROSSTALK)

FALLON:  So you don‘t mind, Deb—you don‘t mind using the children...

OPRI:  There we go again.  There we go again.

FALLON:  ... as a vehicle for a political statement?  Is that what you‘re saying? 

OPRI:  I made my statement, Rita.

FALLON:  Well, we‘re trying to understand it, Deb.  That‘s the point.

COSBY:  Bill, go ahead.  Go ahead, Bill.  I‘ll give you the last word.

FALLON:  I mean, I guess the point is, I object to anybody who uses their children to express their art, whether it‘s in pornography or this in an abusive situation.  Maybe not a criminal situation, but it‘s...

(CROSSTALK)

OPRI:  It‘s not defined as abusive in terms of the law.  It is not abusive in the eyes of the law, and you‘re a prosecutor.

(CROSSTALK) 

FALLON:  Wait a minute, it‘s not criminal, but I‘m not a prosecutor.  I‘m a child abuse advocate.  And this is abusive to see children used this way, to feel the pain that they‘re showing for art. 

COSBY:  And that‘s going to have to be the last word. 

OPRI:  It‘s not against the law. 

COSBY:  Both of you, thank you.

OPRI:  It‘s not against the law.

(CROSSTALK)

COSBY:  Deb, we heard you loud and clear.  Both of you, thank you very much. 

Well, how do you this segue, everybody, from crying toddlers to tears of joy from Miss Universe?  It was a big night on Sunday for Miss Puerto Rico.  She beat out 85 other beauty queens to win the very coveted crown.  Then she scared everyone at press conference after the pageant when she suddenly fainted.

And joining me now live in the studio for her very first primetime interview, the very friendly, very sweet Miss Universe, Zuleyka Riviera.  And also with us, her translator, Luis Cardozo (ph).

First of all, it‘s great to have you both here.  I‘ve got to show the moment when you won, because I was watching, and it was a great moment.  Let‘s play it here. 

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

ANNOUNCER:  The first runner-up is Japan.  And Miss Universe 206 is Miss Puerto Rico!

(END VIDEO CLIP)

COSBY:  Yes, what was that like?  What was going on through your mind?  You know what was great?  Just watching your face there.  You watched it, and it was like it was the first time you saw.  You were just so excited.  Does it still bring that moment back? 

ZULEYKA RIVERA, MISS UNIVERSE:  It was a moment that I was very excited, and it was very short time.  And I didn‘t have much things in my mind in that moment.  Just thank God for having me there, yes.

COSBY:  To be for that moment. 

RIVIERA:  Yes.

COSBY:  We all know also afterwards the other moment at the press conference.  You‘re out there.  You‘re wearing this dress.  In fact, you have the dress here. 

(CROSSTALK)

COSBY:  It‘s beautiful.  How much does this weigh? 

RIVIERA:  I think 10 pounds. 

COSBY:  Ten pounds?

RIVIERA:  Yes, it‘s really heavy. 

COSBY:  So you fainted out there.  What caused the faint?  Let‘s show the clip again.  You‘re fainting out there.  You‘re in the press conference.  There you are.  You had to be carried off. 

RIVIERA:  Yes.

COSBY:  What do you remember? 

RIVIERA:  I didn‘t remember—I don‘t remember anything about that, the fainting, but...

COSBY:  Why do you think you fainted?  What was it? 

RIVIERA:  I think because the dress was very tight, very heavy also, and it was so hot there.  I was sweating a lot, you don‘t have any idea.

COSBY:  A lot of pressure?

RIVIERA:  Yes, and the mix of feelings that I had in that moment, that I was very excited, very proud of myself.  I was thinking about my family, where they were, right?  Where they were. 

COSBY:  I‘m sure a lot of people are talking to you about the fainting.  How do you feel when you hear people saying, “You know, Miss Universe, you‘re beautiful,” but people are also going to remember you for the fainting.

RIVIERA:  Oh, my gosh.

COSBY:  And how do you feel about that? 

RIVIERA:  Well, it‘s normal, I think, as normal in that moment (speaking Spanish)

COSBY:  Let me just go...

UNIDENTIFIED MALE:  Well, there was a lot of emotion involved.  There were many people around, and there was a lot of pressure.  And it was really, really hot at that moment.

COSBY:  Yes, I want to ask, too, because talk about pressure.  So many beautiful women.  I was rooting for you, because I thought you were terrific.  But what was it like back stage?  The girls, were they talking to each other?  What was it like leading up to that?

RIVIERA:  Well, in the final, I was very anxious, because in the final

in the pick 20, I was the first one.  When we went out back stage, and I had to put my swimsuit—the first one—oh, my God.  I‘m sorry.  (speaking Spanish)

UNIDENTIFIED MALE:  I was the first one that was supposed to wear the bathing suit before the audience. 

RIVIERA:  (speaking Spanish)

UNIDENTIFIED MALE:  I couldn‘t find my bathing suit, and I was very anxious because I was the first one to go out on stage. 

RIVIERA:  (speaking Spanish)

COSBY:  And a lot of experience and a lot of emotion that‘s afterwards.  Yo puedo no Espanol.  You know, I want to, real finally, before we leave you, how excited, what a great moment for you.  Is this is the best moment for you? 

RIVIERA:  It‘s amazing.  It‘s one experience that I had never (speaking Spanish)

UNIDENTIFIED MALE:  This is a totally new experience for me.  It has never happened, anything to me like that before. 

COSBY:  Well, we wish you so much luck.  You‘re a sweetheart and a beautiful woman, Zuleyka. 

RIVIERA:  Thank you.

COSBY:  Thank you so much, both of you, for translating.  Buena suerte, candora (ph).  Thank you very much.  Thank you.

And up next, everybody, we‘re going to switch gears.  A cold case that is suddenly red hot.  More than 50 women unaccounted for after having their pictures taken by a killer photographer.  Police now need your help in finding them. 

Plus, the death row inmate who brutally killed little Polly Klaas is saved from a drug overdose by prison guards.  Why didn‘t they just let this monster die?  We‘re going to ask a prison official, next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

COSBY:  Well, in a stunning move, after almost 20 years, the Los Angeles Sheriff‘s Department is releasing photographs of over 50 women who were all connected to a man currently sitting on death row for murdering two aspiring models.

When Bill Bradford was on trial back in 1987, he made a very ominous statement to jurors regarding the murders.  He said, quote, “Think of how many you don‘t even know about.” 

The newly released photographs were found after detectives took another look at his file and found snapshots of women that Bradford photographed between 1975 and 1984.  So why weren‘t investigators on this trail earlier? 

Let‘s bring in Captain Ray Peavey.  He‘s with the Los Angeles Sheriff‘s Department.  And also Clint Van Zandt, an MSNBC analyst, and also former FBI profiler. 

Captain, first to you, why are you going back to this case now? 

CAPT. RAY PEAVEY, L.A. COUNTY SHERIFF‘S DEPARTMENT:  Well, quite frankly, we were only made aware of the existence of the photographs about a month ago.  And...

COSBY:  And why is that, Captain?  I got to interrupt you.  Why is that?  This guy came out in ‘87.

PEAVEY:  Well, in ‘87, obviously, the photographs existed.  These pictures were taken from his home, I believe as early as ‘84, when he was first arrested.  They were taken during the service of a search warrant.  They were placed in a file.  And I honestly can‘t tell you why nothing more was done with those photos at that time. 

COSBY:  And what drew your attention to it for you to realize a month ago there are photos there? 

PEAVEY:  I‘ve got a crew of retired homicide detectives that I‘ve hired back.  These are all very experienced detectives, and they look at my cold cases.  That‘s their job.  They go through old cases. 

One of the detectives was looking at a case, and he thought he remembered something about the Bradford case.  And he thought that the circumstances in the case he was looking at, this cold case, were similar to some of the murders that Bradford was convicted of or accused of.  So he pulled the Bradford file and started going through that and discovered these photos. 

COSBY:  Oh, my god.  You know, Clint, I don‘t want to bash the L.A.  Sheriff‘s Department, because there‘s a lot of great people there, but come on!  Fifty photos were sitting in there all of the years and no one noticed it? 

CLINT VAN ZANDT, FORMER FBI PROFILER:  You know, mistakes are made.  You know, 25 years as an FBI agent, I made mistakes and I‘ve seen a lot made.  I think what‘s right is that, instead of somebody taking the pictures and the film and just throwing the file away or shredding them with something, they stood up and they said, “You know, somebody missed this 20 years ago”, but the right thing to do is look at these pictures. 

Rita, I live in the state of Virginia.  We just convicted—the state of Virginia just convicted, based upon a cold case DNA hit, a man for homicide that took place 20 years ago.  So the sheriff‘s office, you know, what‘s done is done.  The right thing is:  Let‘s find out if these women are dead or alive, and let‘s get some closure for their family and find out what other crimes this guy is guilty of.  That‘s what we need to be doing, and that‘s what the sheriff‘s office appears to be doing right now. 

COSBY:  You bet.  And, Captain, in fact, as we‘re looking at these pictures, I understand you‘ve been flooded with photographs.  Someone was telling me that the “L.A. Times” is reporting—I think it‘s coming out in tomorrow‘s paper that 14 of the 50 women may be alive, that you may have been able to link.  What are you getting, in terms of response with these pictures now out there? 

PEAVEY:  We‘re getting incredible response, and that‘s what we were hoping for.  The public has contacted us, at least 1,000 phone calls that we‘ve received here at our homicide bureau.  Out of those phone calls, we‘ve been able to tentatively identify 24 people now.  Fourteen was an earlier number.  We‘re up to 24 folks that we think we‘ve identified from those photos.  And those 24 people, we believe, are still alive. 

Now, these are tentative IDs.  We still have to follow through with a lot of work to make sure that these people are being honest with us and accurate with the information they‘re providing us with, but we feel very good about what we‘ve accomplished in basically 24 hours. 

COSBY:  You bet.  And let me put up—I want to put up, because if anybody has any information, if you recognize any of these women that we‘ve been showing.  Please, of course, call up the L.A. Sheriff‘s Department, authorities who are looking at this.  You can look at the tip number that you see there on your screen.  Be sure to call that.

Clint, real quick to you.  Bill Bradford, this sicko, this guy who‘s been convicted of killing these two women, do you believe that authorities should go to him and say, “Did you kill these others.  Let me lay out these pictures”? 

VAN ZANDT:  Yes, they probably have, and of course they should.  You know, for all of these years, he hinted that he did these other crimes.  This gives him a chance to clear it up.  You know, you get guys like this sometimes who wants to talk police, who want someone to stay out there and keep killing, and might take credit for a crime he didn‘t even commit. 

So that‘s the challenge for police.  Just because someone may confess or may not, you still have got to link him with physical evidence.  That‘s why we need a national DNA repository for anybody arrested.

COSBY:  No, good point, Clint.  And also—and, everybody—sorry to interrupt you—but, everybody, this also, he is on death row.  So you‘re right.  What does he have to lose? 

Both of you, I wish you lots of luck, especially Captain—good luck. 

Let us know whatever we can do to help you, please. 

VAN ZANDT:  Good luck.

COSBY:  And up next, “Joe‘s Justice.”  Convicted child killer and death row inmate, another one, Richard Allen Davis is saved from a drug overdose.  The father of the girl he brutally killed says they should have let him die.  Marc Klaas is here next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

COSBY:  And it‘s time tonight for “Joe‘s Justice.”  We‘re demanding answers about our criminal justice system, focusing on where we can make a difference. 

Tonight, San Quentin prison officials are investigating how death row inmate Richard Allen Davis were able to get a hold of drugs, opiates, and overdose in his jail cell on Sunday.  Prison staff revived him after they found him lying unconscious in his cell.  Davis was convicted of kidnapping and murdering 12-year-old Polly Klaas back in 1993, and he‘s been sitting on death row now for 10 years.

And this isn‘t the first time a San Quentin prisoner has overdosed.  Death row inmate Nicholas Rodriguez was found dead from a heroin overdose last July.

And earlier tonight, I spoke with Marc Klaas.  He‘s the father of Polly Klaas.  And I asked if he thinks prison officials should have just let this killer die? 

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

MARC KLAAS, FOUNDER OF BEYOND MISSING:  I wish they had allowed him to die, absolutely.  It‘s interesting, Rita.  We‘re in a state where millions of people don‘t have health insurance, and apparently some prison guard walks by the cell where this sexually sadistic psychopath is foaming at the mouth after taking too many opiates and as he‘s on death row, and they somehow feel they have to revive him.  It‘s insanity. 

COSBY:  One of the things that I am stunned about.  Here he is, death row, you know, maximum, maximum security prison.  What is he doing getting drugs smuggled in? 

KLAAS:  That‘s a good question.  And there have been a couple of theories put forth.  One is that he got them from the prison guards.  I don‘t believe that for a second.  I don‘t believe that a prison guard would have anything to do with this individual.  And if they did, it would make no sense then for them to try to resuscitate him and ensure that he got to the hospital and was recovered.  The other possibility would be some kind of a...

COSBY:  Yes, how do you think he got them? 

KLAAS:  ... personal visit.  And I‘m just absolutely stunned that California would allow contact visits between condemned individuals and anybody, even including their lawyers, quite frankly.  

COSBY:  What do you hope happens to Richard Allen Davis now? 

KLAAS:  Well, I‘ll tell you what.  What I believe is that, if a coward like this is going to go to an extreme step like try to commit suicide, obviously he‘s living a miserable existence, which is certainly the purpose of the punishment, one of the purposes of the punishment.  So I hope he continues to live in misery, and that he‘s miserable, and lives a hideous existence until he finally does die what I would hope would be an executed death. 

COSBY:  If he is executed, if he makes his execution, will you be there, Marc?  Do you want to watch that?

KLAAS:  Oh, absolutely.  I‘ve already spoken to the authorities about that.  They know my wishes.  I will certainly go to the execution and gladly watch this guy die.  I have no problem with that at all. 

(END VIDEOTAPE)

COSBY:  And joining us now live is Vernell Crittendon.  He is the spokesman for San Quentin prison. 

Vernell, I want to take a look as how much money taxpayers are spending to house inmates like Richard Allen David.  Each inmate, we looked at this, at San Quentin prison costs an average of $34,000 per year.  That‘s more than $90 per day to keep each of these inmates locked up. 

You know, Vernell, you‘re just the spokesperson, but isn‘t that enough money to make sure these guys don‘t get drugs? 

VERNELL CRITTENDON, SAN QUENTIN PRISON:  Well, it‘s a complicated issue.  Drugs have a lot of different ways of getting in.  And there is some prescribed medications he could have gotten access from another inmates or any one of the 638 males that are on death row could have received that drug, through the mail, through packages, unfortunately have a number of contact with the outside world. 

COSBY:  You know, I want to show this picture.  This is Richard Allen Davis, Vernell, pretty famous.  This is right after the guilty verdict was read.  And this monster—you know, this is a shot of him giving a one-finger gesture—we don‘t know what that is—to the family of Polly Klaas and the rest of the courtroom. 

You know, why save this guy, Vernell?  What‘s the process here? 

CRITTENDON:  The process is that all Americans, we value the sanctity of human life.  And until the courts have ordered it...

COSBY:  Even if he‘s a scum bag?  Even if he‘s a scum bag who‘s killed someone?

CRITTENDON:  We value the sanctity of human life, and that‘s what makes the difference, a distinction between you and I and a Richard Allen Davis. 

COSBY:  You know, Vernell, what is the chance that this guy is going to be executed?  Or do you think—you know, when I was there at San Quentin—and you and I spent a lot of time there when I was doing interviews—he was marked.  The day before, someone attacked him, remember?  Is he a marked man basically in prison? 

CRITTENDON:  I think there is a very strong likelihood that he will one day walk into that green room, and lay down on that modified dental chair, and be executed by lethal injection. 

COSBY:  You know, Vernell, does this guy have any soul?  I want to put up a picture of Polly Klaas, because this is what this is all about.  This beautiful 12-year-old girl brutally, you know, kidnapped, killed by this guy.  What is this guy like, real quick? 

CRITTENDON:  He‘s a very arrogant individual and is very smug in the way in which he interacts with the staff. 

COSBY:  Vernell, thank you very much.  We appreciate you being here, my friend.  Thank you very much.

CRITTENDON:  Good talking with you.

COSBY:  And that‘s all we have the time for tonight, unfortunately.  Be sure, everybody, to tune in tomorrow night, when the stars of the hit show “American Chopper” roll with me into SCARBOROUGH COUNTRY.  You do not want to miss that one.  It‘s tomorrow night, right here at 9:00, Easy Rider Cosby going to be there tomorrow.  Stay tuned right now.

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

END   

Copy: Content and programming copyright 2006 MSNBC.  ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.  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 MSNBC and Voxant, Inc.‘s copyright or other proprietary rights or interests in the material. This is not a legal transcript for purposes of litigation.

transcript

Watch Scarborough Country each weeknight at 9 p.m. ET

Discuss:

Discussion comments

,