updated 6/9/2005 2:40:19 PM ET 2005-06-09T18:40:19

Guest: Raymone Bain, Marcia Twitty, Ronn Owens, Thomas Rask, Cecilia

Barnes, Dominick Dunne, Gerry Spence, Tom Hayden, Dominick Dunne, Marcia

Clark

JOE SCARBOROUGH, HOST:  Tonight‘s top headline: judgment day for Michael Jackson, as his family gathers around and closing arguments are set to begin.  The question is, will Michael beat this rap? 

Welcome to SCARBOROUGH COUNTRY, no passport required and only common sense allowed. 

His family rallies around Michael Jackson as his trial enters its final phase.  Tonight, Jackson‘s spokesman takes us inside the inner circle to learn what Michael Jackson‘s state of mind is right now. 

Plus, Marcia Clark, the woman who prosecuted O.J. Simpson, is in SCARBOROUGH COUNTRY to talk final arguments. 

Plus, celebrity trial watcher Dominick Dunne will also be here to give us his Jacko predictions. 

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

MARK FELT, FORMER FBI OFFICIAL:  Feel fine.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

SCARBOROUGH:  Mark Felt feels great about bringing down an American president.  But does leaking secret government information make Deep Throat a hero or a rat?  That‘s our SCARBOROUGH COUNTRY showdown. 

Plus, lesbian pornography and racist jokes, all part of a shocking video made by the San Francisco 49ers.  Now one guy is out of a job.  And we are asking the question, what were they thinking? 

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

SCARBOROUGH:  Hey, welcome to the show. 

Now, today, 13 weeks after they heard opening statements, the jury in the Michael Jackson case got instructions from the judge.  Now, tomorrow is going to be the dramatic closing arguments, and Jackson‘s entire family will be rallying around the former pop star.  And they are expected to be at the courthouse.  Later, a Jackson confidante is going to take us inside the Jackson family‘s inner circle and tell us what Michael‘s current state of mind is. 

First, let‘s talk closing arguments.  In minute, we are going to hear from renowned defense attorney Gerry Spence.

But first, let‘s talk, though.  And I am very pleased to welcome to SCARBOROUGH COUNTRY former Los Angeles assistant district attorney Marcia Clark, of course, best known as the lead prosecutor in the O.J. Simpson trial.  She is now a legal correspondent for “Entertainment Tonight” and also writing about the Jackson case for the new magazine “Justice.”

Marcia, thanks a lot for being with us. 

MARCIA CLARK, FORMER PROSECUTOR:  Thanks for having me.  It‘s a pleasure. 

SCARBOROUGH:  You know, there aren‘t a lot of attorneys in America that understand what these two attorneys, what Sneddon and Mesereau, are going through tonight, a huge, high-profile celebrity case.

But, as you get ready for closing arguments, what is it that you are trying to focus in on?  What is it that you want a very distracted jury to remember as they go into that jury room and start deliberations? 

Each side is going to want to focus the jury on their strongest points and do their best to explain away the points that did not go so well.  For example, for the prosecution, Sneddon is going to have to deal with the very thorny problem of putting on the mother of the accuser.  That, to me, was a huge mistake.  It followed him throughout the trial, as predictably I knew it would.

Then the defense was able to basically dance the prosecution around the courtroom, flogging the mother throughout the entire trial.  And now Sneddon is going to have to play clean-up, and explain why he called the mother, what the jury should believe in what the mother said, but, most importantly, get the jury to focus back on the accuser himself, which, by the way, the videotape played at the end of the very case did beautifully.  Now, on the other hand, Mesereau...

SCARBOROUGH:  Marcia—go ahead. 

CLARK:  Yes. 

No, Mesereau is going to do the same.  He is going to—he is going to try and put the mother up front and center.  He is going to make her the key point, the main witness.  He is going to want to focus as much attention on her as he possibly can, so that he can get the jury to say, look, you can‘t trust her.  You can‘t trust her anything about the prosecution‘s case.  None of it is believable, and just taint the entire case with it. 

He is going to bring out the points that he made most clearly and effectively in the trial and hope that the jury will focus on that and steer away from the accuser, especially that last videotaped testimony, which was very powerful. 

SCARBOROUGH:  You know, the legal chattering classes have been bashing the prosecution, saying Tom Sneddon did not carry his burden, before it even goes to a jury.  How would you rate his performance over the—over the weeks of this trial? 

CLARK:  You know, I think that‘s a tough one, because there‘s ups and there‘s downs.  There were some very, very fine moments on cross-examination of the defense witnesses.  And there were some good moments in terms of strategy.  I think holding the videotape to the very end on rebuttal is an excellent move.

But, overall, I would say that a huge mistake was made with the mother and the way in which it was handled and the way in which they went after the mother‘s credibility, the way they did, instead of letting it go.  Filing the conspiracy count, a huge no-no, big mistake.  That was where they made the mother have to be credible, have to be important, by filing a charge that is based on her testimony.

So, in my opinion, I would say that Sneddon‘s overall performance, I would give it a C. 

SCARBOROUGH:  In the very end, we‘re talking about the mother‘s credibility.  We are talking about Michael Jackson‘s credibility.  Everybody has.  But, in the end, it may just be the boy‘s, the accuser‘s credibility when they look into his eyes.  Is this guy a believable witness?  Is he somebody that the jury is going to feel sorry for and look upon as a victim of Michael Jackson? 

CLARK:  You know something?  It was a really touch-and-go question earlier in the trial, when the boy took the stand, already 15, a bit of a teenager.  At that age, they tend to be a little bit surly, especially if they have had traumatic lives.  This one certainly has, no matter what you believe about what happened with Michael Jackson.

So, by 15, he is a different person.  But by the time Sneddon put on the videotape of him at age 13, and it was un-cross-examined—this was just a videotape.  It was the first interview with the police and this alleged victim.  It was so powerful and moving.  It was literally gripping testimony.  You felt that it was a little boy who had been harmed.  You could really believe him.

And I think that that may very well have swayed the jury ultimately toward a conviction. 

SCARBOROUGH:  All right, thanks a lot, Marcia.  Greatly appreciate your insight, as always. 

CLARK:  Thank you. 

SCARBOROUGH:  And now let‘s move from prosecuting celebrities to defending them. 

Let‘s bring in Gerry Spence, who obviously has defended people like Karen Silkwood and also Imelda Marcos and is also the author of “Win Your Case.”

Mr. Spence, thanks so much for being with us tonight.

GERRY SPENCE, AUTHOR, “WIN YOUR CASE”:  My pleasure. 

SCARBOROUGH:  You know, a lot of people have been looking at Tom Mesereau and saying that Mesereau handled the case brilliantly, that he has just brutalized several witnesses.  How does that play with the jury? 

SPENCE:  Well, that‘s a good question. 

You know, the question is, is how does the jury see the lawyers in the case?  You know, a man can do a really good job—a woman too, Marcia—a man can do a really good job in cross-examining a witness, can cut this little kid to pieces, can beat up the woman, can destroy the witnesses across the board.  But how does it come off with the jury?

And the question is, is what may be a good job with respect to the cross-examination of these witnesses may not be a good job from the standpoint of the jury.  And I think you really can‘t determine that until you have listened to the trial, listened to the testimony, and sort of felt, sort of felt yourself how this testimony came off. 

Was he a bully?  Does the jury like Mr. Mesereau?  Do they like the prosecutor in this case?  Ultimately, after a trial of this length, the parties involved sort of meld into the background.  And what finally happens is that the parties—the parties become less important than the lawyers themselves. 

And so, the question sometimes that ought to be asked is, how do the -

·         how do the jurors see these lawyers?  For example, to me, it‘s like walking through a forest in Wyoming where you have never been before.  The juror wants to know, how do I get there?  Who do I follow?  Do I follow this guide, which is the prosecution, or this guide, which is the—is the defense attorney? 

And the relationship between that lawyer, whichever lawyer it is, and the jury is ultimately going to decide this case. 

SCARBOROUGH:  You know, Gerry, my third year in law school, they made us sit on mock juries.  And what shocked me, as I went in after hearing just a day worth of testimony, is that really my decision, when I looked back, my decision was made up in the first 15 minutes of each of the opening arguments.  There was one attorney I did not like at all, and I held it against him.

And I looked through that perspective.  Everything that he gave me, I looked through that first perspective I had of him.  And it sounds like that‘s what you are saying here. 

SPENCE:  Yes. 

SCARBOROUGH:  That personality may trump the law.  You need a guide. 

You have all this information thrown at you. 

SPENCE:  You are absolutely...

SCARBOROUGH:  Go ahead

SPENCE:  You are absolutely right.  You are absolutely right.  There are studies that show that jurors make up their mind 85 percent of the time during the opening statement.  So, there has to—there is a relationship of belief, a relationship of credibility. 

And, I mean, who does the jury believe?  Who will they believe in this case?  That‘s ultimately going to decide the case. 

SCARBOROUGH:  Give us your prediction.  Who do you think they are going to believe? 

SPENCE:  I haven‘t tried—I haven‘t seen the case, and I haven‘t                   seen any of the testimony.  But I—if I were going to make a bet, I would bet on the defense in this case. 

SCARBOROUGH:  Would you really, even though Michael Jackson is such a strange character?  How does that break in a case like this? 

SPENCE:  Well, you know, one of the things I was thinking about when I was thinking about talking to you this evening was, you know, he is not being tried for being strange.  That isn‘t the crime that he is charged with.

And maybe what really ought to be—ought to be considered is to tell the story about who this man really is.  I think maybe you would want to come to the jury and talk to the jury about Peter Pan.  This man was Peter Pan, wanted to be Peter Pan, which was a story about a man that never—or a boy that never wanted to grow old, that always wanted to have the joy and the loveliness of being a child. 

And then, of course, he had to fight Captain Hook, you know?  And that is symbolic of some of the fights that Michael Jackson has had to have in this case.  And then it‘s all full of, you know, fairy dust, that sort of thing.  There‘s—all of that is involved in this case, and this is a case of Peter Pan and Michael Jackson, who became modern-day Peter Pan. 

SCARBOROUGH:  Yes.  We will see if Peter Pan guests busted or if he walks. 

Jerry Spence, thanks a lot for being with us.  We greatly appreciate it. 

SPENCE:  You‘re welcome. 

SCARBOROUGH:  So, how is Michael Jackson holding up as this case gets ready to head to the jury? 

Let‘s bring in Raymone Bain, the Jackson family spokeswoman, who has been speaking directly to Michael Jackson. 

Raymone, thanks so much for being with us.  I know this is a very trying time for you and friends of Michael Jackson.  How is he holding up?  We hear his state of mind is fragile right now. 

RAYMONE BAIN, JACKSON FAMILY SPOKESPERSON:  Well, no, his state of mind isn‘t fragile. 

You know, Joe, he has a very strong faith in God and a very strong faith in the justice system.  We are at the end of the trial.  We are here right now on the heels of closing arguments.  He has felt that his defense team has done an excellent job.  And all he can do now is wait to find the outcome out.  But he feels very strong that his defense team has done the best job that they can possibly do, and he is just now hoping that the 12 jurors will see it that way. 

SCARBOROUGH:  You know, Raymone, anybody that would be in this position that Michael Jackson is in tonight would obviously be very concerned.  You wouldn‘t be a human being if you weren‘t concerned about it, but has he talked about going to jail?  Has he talked about what it might like—might be like for him? 

BAIN:  I haven‘t had those conversations with him.  And I would doubt if he has had them, because I think that Michael right now is just looking forward to this trial ending and him being vindicated. 

He has said publicly, via the judge‘s approval, in several statements that he feels that he will be acquitted by a jury of his peers.  And I don‘t think that he has had any lengthy discussions or any thoughts about prison life.  I think that he is looking positively at this.  And, as I have said, he has a very strong faith in God and the justice system.  He is surrounded by his family. 

And I think that he is looking at this very positively. 

SCARBOROUGH:  So, he has got a positive outlook. 

Very quickly, I understand that the Jackson family is going to all be together tomorrow.  It‘s going to almost be like a family reunion there in the courthouse. 

BAIN:  Well, that is my understanding, that he is going to have a number of his family here, but they have been supporting Michael from day one, as you know.  They have been coming in and out of court.  Many of them have had, you know, busy schedules, but they have always found time to come in and to support him.

And that‘s what they will be doing until the end of this trial.  And he appreciates that.  And let me say this.  You know, people talk to me about how Michael is feeling and how this has been very difficult on him.  But he also would like to thank the many people that are here in Santa Maria for what they have gone through here at the court.  They have done an excellent job.  The media, he realizes that it has been pretty rough on them as well. 

And so, he thanks everyone for the time that they have given to this.

SCARBOROUGH:  All right. 

BAIN:  And we‘re looking at a positive outcome. 

SCARBOROUGH:  All right.  Raymone Bain, we will have to leave it there.  Thanks for being with us. 

Coming up next, we have got Dominick Dunne and his prediction in the Michael Jackson trial.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

SCARBOROUGH:  Is Deep Throat a hero or a traitor?  Up next, we‘re going to bring in two people with very different opinions on this one.  It‘s going to be a very explosive and important historical debate.

Stay with us.  That‘s next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

(NEWS BREAK)

SCARBOROUGH:  Hey, welcome back. 

The dust is beginning to settle, and the debate has begun after yesterday‘s revelation that former FBI man Mark Felt is, in fact, Deep Throat.  And now the questions begin.  Were Deep Throat‘s actions legal, ethical, moral?  Should he have taken his concerns to the authorities, rather than to a metro editor at “The Washington Post” back in 1972? 

With me now to talk about the question, is Felt a hero or a rat, are Tom Hayden, former anti-war activist and California state senator, and Nixon-speechwriter-turned-MSNBC-political-analyst Pat Buchanan. 

Tom Hayden, let me begin with you.

I want to read a quote.  This is—this is a quote from Ben Bradlee, obviously, the editor in chief of “The Washington Post” during Watergate. 

He said: “I‘ve never met him, but he plainly felt that the stakes were high, incredibly high, and that was it up to him to act.  I think he‘s a great hero of this story”—obviously, Ben Bradlee talking about Deep Throat. 

Do you agree with Ben Bradlee? 

TOM HAYDEN, FORMER CALIFORNIA STATE SENATOR:  In general, yes. 

Obviously, he was a whistle-blower.  And I think we can speculate all we want about his motives, but he was defending the FBI against apparently intrusion by the CIA at the orders of President Nixon.  So, there was some turf rivalry there.  But, if you look at the results, the revelations that came out of it I think were very important for the American people and for freedom of the press. 

SCARBOROUGH:  Well, Tom, I am sure you have heard over the past 24 hours a lot of Nixon defenders, like Pat Buchanan, have said, if the guy—you know, he was given this remarkable trust of the FBI.  He should have just gone down legal channels, instead of whispering into telephones late at night. 

Is that easy to say in 2005?  Was it a much more dangerous time in ‘72, ‘73? 

HAYDEN:  No.  Compared to the war on terrorism, issues of today, I don‘t think so. 

Look, he was number two man in the FBI.  If he Felt that he had reason to be mistrustful of other agencies or the White House, I have to respect his judgment. 

SCARBOROUGH:  Pat Buchanan, what is your take?  Ben Bradlee says Deep Throat is a hero.  What do you say? 

PAT BUCHANAN, NBC POLITICAL ANALYST:  Well, Ben Bradlee is a Kennedy-phile a Nixon hater from way back.  And if you believe the end justifies means, that destroying Richard Nixon and bringing him down any way you can, if that makes someone a hero, then Felt, who deceived his colleagues, who dishonored his oath, who lied his head off for 30 years, is a hero. 

But I will say this.  Felt certainly deserves part of that Pulitzer Prize.  It now turns out that our great investigative reporters, Woodward and Bernstein, were gophers between the FBI and “The Washington Post,” stenographers, at best, people who simply wrote down what Felt‘s investigators found. 

I mean, this to me is one of the—one of the startling discoveries here, was that this wasn‘t any great piece of investigative journalism.  You had some guy shoveling stuff to him in a garage. 

SCARBOROUGH:  Pat Buchanan, you said he dishonored himself.  How did he do that? 

BUCHANAN:  Well, here‘s a man who has been entrusted with secrets, Joe, who is in a position of honor, who is holding—doing an investigation that he is required by law to protect and to protect the names of people under investigation. 

And he is sneaking out at night.  He is dishonoring the code of the FBI.  He very well may have been breaking laws.  He lies his head off for 30 years.  He said, I am not the guy.  The guy would be dishonorable.  I am not him.  I am not him. 

If you are not ashamed of something and you don‘t think you have done something disgraceful, why would you lie in public for 30 years about it?  That man has got a bad conscience. 

SCARBOROUGH:  Tom Hayden? 

HAYDEN:  Well, the man is 91 years old.  I think it‘s not unusual for an FBI director to keep secrets or a CIA person to keep these secrets. 

And who knows why he wanted to release the information.  But it‘s helpful.  You know, Pat Buchanan was accused of being Deep Throat, so we got that cleared up. 

It wasn‘t you, Pat. 

(LAUGHTER)

BUCHANAN:  I wasn‘t a Nixon loyalist.

(CROSSTALK)

SCARBOROUGH:  You know, Pat, I got to say, for some time, I thought...

HAYDEN:  Otherwise, otherwise, it would—otherwise, it would be a shadow over your life, Pat. 

(LAUGHTER)

HAYDEN:  Look at it that way. 

(CROSSTALK)

BUCHANAN:  Well, I‘m glad I don‘t got that shadow.

SCARBOROUGH:  Pat—I got to tell you, Pat, Pat—Pat Buchanan...

BUCHANAN:  Yes. 

SCARBOROUGH:  I got to tell you, I thought that there may have been something in that Catholic upbringing that would have angered you so much, sort of a moral righteousness, that maybe, just maybe, you could have been offended by what was going on and you could have been Deep Throat.

But listening to you talk tonight, it sounds like you think that would have been out of character, it would have been dishonorable, it just would have been something that you would have never contemplated doing. 

BUCHANAN:  Oh, it really—it would have been far more squalid for me than Mark Felt, because I owed Richard Nixon everything.  He was a good man to me, and he was in trouble.  And to rat him out after all he did for me would have made me a really—I think really a dreadful—a dreadful character. 

But, I mean, I do think—I mean, this idea that Felt is a hero—and, look, the man really—what the man should have got, frankly, is, he was the one that—that—that should have gotten the credit that was stolen by Woodward, all this breaking, all this investigative work, all these things we did, all this.

Here‘s the guy who gave everything to them.  I mean, where was the investigative work, Joe, I mean, when you got the whole investigation given to you?

SCARBOROUGH:  Tom, Tom Hayden, Tom Hayden, the Nixon people are still going after Woodward after all these years.  Let‘s forget about Woodward for a second. 

(CROSSTALK)

SCARBOROUGH:  How do you think history is going to treat Mr. Felt? 

HAYDEN:  Oh, I think that he will be just a character in history, and the divisions will continue. 

But most people would feel that it was an honorable thing to do to cooperate with the media, if Mr. Felt thought that the CIA was intruding into the FBI‘s business or that the cover-up was in the White House.  I mean, we are reading these tapes today—I don‘t know how Pat feels about them—where Nixon is asking, is Felt a Catholic?  Is he a Jew?  You know, it might be a Jewish thing. 

You are dealing with a very paranoid White House.  And somebody had to be the whistle-blower.  It‘s odd to me, as a person who has been pursued by the FBI for various decades of my life, to be crediting this FBI leader, but I think he—he just did the right thing.  And I wish more such officials would do the right thing. 

SCARBOROUGH:  All right, thanks a lot, Tom Hayden.  We will have to leave it there.  We appreciate you being with us tonight. 

Pat Buchanan, as always, thanks for being with us.  And, hey, go a little easy on Woodward, OK? 

The guy is still after him after all these years. 

(LAUGHTER)

BUCHANAN:  Coming up next, a man who has been on the inside of some incredible celebrity cases comes to SCARBOROUGH COUNTRY.  Dominick Dunne talks about everything from Michael Jackson to Claus von Bulow.  That‘s next.

And a scandalous videotape from the San Francisco 49ers.  The tape that no one was supposed to see has the team on the defensive tonight.  You‘re going to see why.

Plus, we‘re going to have a remarkable story about a young woman who went on a high school trip to Aruba and never came home. 

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

SCARBOROUGH:  A teenage girl goes on her senior trip to Aruba and disappears.  Her name is Natalie (ph).  She‘s from Birmingham.  And coming up, we are going to be talking to one of her family members, as a frantic search continues in Aruba.

But, first, here‘s the latest news you and your family need to know. 

(NEWS BREAK)

SCARBOROUGH:  Nobody covers a celebrity trial like our next guest.  He‘s “Vanity Fair” columnist and author of the upcoming novel, “A Solo Act,” Dominick Dunne.

Now, I spoke with Dominick earlier and I asked, in the age of O.J.

Simpson, what can we expect in the final days of the Michael Jackson trial? 

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

DOMINICK DUNNE, “VANITY FAIR”:  Well, you never can anticipate. 

At the O.J. Simpson trial, I was certain he was going to be found guilty.  And I tell you, that was the shock of the world to me when he was acquitted that day.  So, you never really know, of course, and there‘s no way of knowing here.  But my feeling is, it‘s possible that Michael could be acquitted. 

SCARBOROUGH:  You know, I have been critical, in the age of O.J., when talking about juries and celebrity trials, they seem to be held under some magical spell by some of these celebrities.  They are more willing to acquit a celebrity, as they see, as Blake said cynically, that he was going to parade celebrities through the courtroom and then have them hold press conferences outside. 

But it‘s not just jury members.  All of America seems to be fascinated by these celebrity trials.  In fact, during the O.J. trial, you kept Nancy Reagan updated daily, didn‘t you? 

DUNNE:  I did.  I did. 

(LAUGHTER)

DUNNE:  Yes.  I used to...

(CROSSTALK)

SCARBOROUGH:  Tell us about that. 

DUNNE:  I used to meet her once a week and fill her in on every single thing that was going on there, yes. 

SCARBOROUGH:  What is it about celebrity trials that so interests all Americans? 

DUNNE:  Well, you know, yes, I was just out at a prison in Las Vegas to visit Peter Bacanovic, who was the stockbroker for Martha Stewart, who was doing his time at the federal prison.

And what I found out is that all the prisoners in the prison watch my television show, “Power, Privilege & Justice.”  And they were yelling out at me, we love it when you get those rich people. 

(LAUGHTER)

DUNNE:  And there‘s something about rich and privileged people and famous people that just attracts an audience.  And, of course, I am one of them.  I have made a whole living covering these trials. 

SCARBOROUGH:  You know, sometimes, the rich, the famous, the powerful can‘t outrun their past.  Tell us about Michael Skakel, that trial, and your interest in it through the years, and a forward that you helped write for a book that may have got that retrial started up that ended up getting him convicted. 

DUNNE:  Well, yes.  As a matter of fact, that was a case—the Michael Skakel-Martha Moxley case was a case that had gone cold for 23 years or 22 years at the time that I took an interest in it.

And I went to see the mother of Martha Moxley, Dorthy Moxley, extraordinary woman.  And I said, you know, why did you leave Greenwich?  There‘s nobody fighting for you.  Your case is just forgotten.  And I said to her, I could write a novel and I could put this case on the front pages again.  And I did that.  And that novel and the miniseries that followed reawakened interest in that case.

And Michael Skakel was eventually arrested, tried, and found guilty and is serving 20 years. 

SCARBOROUGH:  The Martha Moxley case obviously had to be very personal to you. 

DUNNE:  It was. 

I will tell you exactly why.  I, too, in my own personal life had a daughter who was murdered by an ex-boyfriend, strangled.  And I felt a great empathy for Dorthy Moxley.  And her daughter was—had been born the same year that my daughter was.  They were different ages, of course, when they died.  And Martha Moxley was only 15.  And it just devastated Mrs.  Moxley‘s life.

And I became very, very close to her.  I think she is an absolutely wonderful woman. 

SCARBOROUGH:  Dominick, you never get over something like that, do you? 

DUNNE:  You do not. 

SCARBOROUGH:  After all these years. 

DUNNE:  You do not. 

And it—you know, and it changed my life.  It put me in a new direction.  You know, when the guy who killed my daughter got two and a half years, that‘s all he got, in prison, I went like a nut.  I was like a crazy person.  And I thought about, I am going to hire somebody to kill—you know, all that nonsense talk and the thought that you go through.

SCARBOROUGH:  Yes. 

DUNNE:  And then I realized, you know, I have got the talent to write about this.  I have got the ability to go on TV and talk about this.

And that is what I have done.  It changed my whole life and my thinking.  And that‘s why I have covered so many trials in the last 20 years. 

SCARBOROUGH:  I got to ask you one more question.  Can you look into the crystal ball and tell us whether Michael Jackson is convicted or he walks? 

DUNNE:  Well, we haven‘t mentioned hung jury.  And I think that‘s a possibility.  But I do not think he will be convicted. 

SCARBOROUGH:  All right. 

Dominick Dunne, we will leave it there.  Thank you so much for being with us and being so generous with your time.  We greatly appreciate it. 

DUNNE:  Thanks, Joe. 

(END VIDEOTAPE)

SCARBOROUGH:  Our next story is one that a lot of people are talking about.  What would you do if an ex-boyfriend or girlfriend put illicit photos of you up on the Internet without your knowledge and you couldn‘t get the Web site to take them down? 

Well, that‘s what happened to our next guest.  I am joined now by Cecilia Barnes and her lawyer, Thomas Rask.

Cecilia, why don‘t you tell us what happened here, where your ex-boyfriend puts up illicit photos?  You call Yahoo!, tell them to take them down, and they simply refuse. 

Cecilia, can you hear me? 

CECILIA BARNES, SUING OVER UNAUTHORIZED NUDE PHOTOS:  Yes, I can hear you.  Sorry about that. 

SCARBOROUGH:  Yes, tell us what happened.  We‘re here. 

BARNES:  Well, just exactly what you just said. 

I have an ex-boyfriend that put up illicit photos of me on Yahoo!, made a profile of me, sent me an e-mail telling me about this profile.  I went and looked at it and saw all these unauthorized pictures of me up there, contacted Yahoo! by sending them a letter, per their instructions on their Web site, and nothing happened. 

And he continued to make other profiles.  At one time, there were six profiles up there of me with these photos and stuff on them.  Excuse me.  And so I wrote Yahoo! several times and asked them to please, you know, remove these from their Web site, and never got anywhere with that.  So...

SCARBOROUGH:  Thomas Rask, Thomas—let me bring in your attorney.

Thomas Rask, this went on for quite some time, started contacting him in January, from what I understand.  There was a local article that ran in March.  Yahoo! still refused to take these down.  Do you think Yahoo!  purposely kept them up or do you think it‘s just a huge corporation and somebody just dropped the ball? 

THOMAS RASK III, ATTORNEY FOR BARNES:  I think they did not purposely keep them up.  I don‘t think Yahoo! would want to invite that type of liability or exposure to their corporation.  I think it‘s just a large corporation that did not follow through.

When they were pressed by a local reporter to take some action on behalf of my client, they affirmatively—the spokesman for Yahoo!  affirmatively contacted Ms. Barnes and said, we will take these down.  We will stop this.  And they directed all of her letters to be sent to a personal fax line of the spokesman for Yahoo!. 

At that point, we think the burden shifted to Yahoo! to take some action, as they promised. 

SCARBOROUGH:  And they just didn‘t do it. 

Now, this is what Yahoo! -- they gave us a statement tonight.  And they simply said, “As a matter of policy, Yahoo! doesn‘t comment on pending litigation.”

Cecilia, though, the thing is, again, you all contacted Yahoo!.  You did several times, repeatedly.  And I understand that your boyfriend would also go into these chat rooms and invite men, pretending that he was you, invite men to come up to your office for sex.  Is that correct? 

RASK:  Yes, that is correct.  I have probably had...

(CROSSTALK)

SCARBOROUGH:  How many? 

RASK:  Probably had a dozen men show up for afternoon sexual confrontations that he had arranged for me.  And they would show up in my office, and I would have absolutely no idea.  You know, they would stand there and say, well, hi, I‘m such and such. 

And it was like, we talked in the chat room last night.  And I was flabbergasted.  Just—it was amazing, that somebody could actually come up with something like that. 

SCARBOROUGH:  It really is. 

Cecilia Barnes, Thomas Rask, thanks for being with us. 

Now, I will tell you what, friends.  Here‘s the biggest problem.  There are stalking laws out there, but stalking laws don‘t apply to the Internet.  In a case like Cecilia‘s, she had an injunction placed against her ex-boyfriend, from what we understand.  But because it doesn‘t apply to Internet, well, he is able to go on and harass her this way, without the law being able to go after him and put him in jail.  These stalking laws need to be changed. 

You know what else needs to be changed?  Whoever is writing video scripts for San Francisco 49ers.  When we come back, we have got a story on the 49ers.  They made a video as a joke with sex and racist comments.  But nobody is laughing now.  And we are going to get to the bottom of that in a minute. 

Then, she went on a dream vacation with her friends.  But she hasn‘t come back home.  We join in the search for a missing teen. 

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

UNIDENTIFIED MALE:  First of all, don‘t get in a pissing match with the media.  You can‘t win that.  If you see anything that is factually inaccurate, let us know about it.  We will take care of it.  If you find yourself in a crisis, we are here to help you. 

(END VIDEO CLIP)

SCARBOROUGH:  That video was meant to stay in the locker room, but now pro football‘s San Francisco 49ers have a lot of explaining to do. 

Another part of the tape, there‘s an Asian man speaking in broken English talking about the 49ers, very offensive, very racist, in some people‘s mind. 

Let‘s take a look at what San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom had to say about the tape, which was recorded in part...

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

GAVIN NEWSOM (D), MAYOR OF SAN FRANCISCO:  It was offensive.  But it was not just offensive to me, which is simple.  That‘s par for the course.  That‘s what being mayor is all about.  But it was offensive to the Chinese community, Asian community broadly.  It was very offensive to the gay and lesbian community, and, frankly, offended women, too.  And that‘s when I said, hey, enough.  I got it.  This is an embarrassment and a disgrace and it‘s pretty reprehensible. 

(END VIDEO CLIP)

SCARBOROUGH:  With me now to talk about the tape is San Francisco radio talk show host Ronn Owens. 

Ronn, I am telling you, it‘s causing a firestorm in the city by the bay.  What is going on out there? 

RONN OWENS, RADIO TALK SHOW HOST:  Oh, I have got to tell you, I have known Gavin since he was 8 years old.  He is a great mayor.

And, Gavin, lighten up a little bit.  I am pleased to say that, in the home of political correctness, most people get it.  I mean, it was not designed to be public.  We are not talking Nobel physicists here.  You‘re talking a football team.  The points he was making were accurate.  In addition to that, from what everybody says, this guy is one of the best P.R. people going, one of the most caring people going.

You go back a couple of years ago, when they had a guy retire, he was the trainer for Niners for some 20 years.  He is on now TV talking about what a good guy he was.  When he came out of the closet, there was this man, Kirk Reynolds, defending him.  Of course, it‘s sophomoric.  It‘s stupid.  But it wasn‘t designed to be in public.  And John York is just grandstanding.

John York is the owner of the Niners.  He is just grandstanding. 

That‘s all.  He said it‘s inexcusable.  He knew about it in January, Joe. 

SCARBOROUGH:  Yes.  You know, Ronn, here‘s another clip from this tape, this one spoofing gay marriage in San Francisco. 

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

UNIDENTIFIED MALE:  I know the courts have said, we can‘t do this. 

Like my predecessor, we make our own rules here in San Francisco. 

Do you two love each other? 

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE:  We do.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE:  Do you intend to love and cherish each other for the rest of your lives? 

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE:  We do. 

UNIDENTIFIED MALE:  Then show me. 

(END VIDEO CLIP)

SCARBOROUGH:  And, of course, what we can‘t show, Ronn, is what...

OWENS:  I am upset I never got an invitation. 

SCARBOROUGH:  Yes.  And we can‘t show what happened after that.  Of course, we can‘t show the most lurid spots in this. 

But here‘s the problem that a lot of people have with this tape.  It was actually a tape that was produced to be shown during a diversity workshop.  And yet, there are racial jokes.  There are lesbian jokes.  Some would say there‘s gay bashing.  And also, of course, it was filmed in the mayor‘s office.  There we see the shot there.

Don‘t you have any concerns at all that the San Francisco 49ers show this tape in the middle of a diversity workshop, ridiculing the very workshop that they were taking?

(CROSSTALK)

OWENS:  At the risk of correcting the host of SCARBOROUGH COUNTRY, it wasn‘t in the middle of it.  It was after. 

They had had their diversity training, which, by the way, I happen to think it‘s an absolute waste.  It‘s the only time in my life when people in our radio station started disliking each other.  We get along so well.  This guy comes in, rings a bong, makes us stare into people‘s eyes.  It was a reaction to the diversity training.  It was a way to get the attention of the players, according to public relations guy, Kirk Reynolds.

And the bottom line is, no.  Was it tasteless?  Absolutely.  Was it inexcusable, as John York says?  Look, John York wants new stadium for the 49ers.  To get that, he wants $100 million from the people of San Francisco.  So, what he has got to do is talk about how terrible it is, because you know the composition of our city.  He wants to get people to vote for it. 

John York, I mean, to me, it‘s inexcusable to grandstand on that. 

John York has one great talent.  He married well. 

SCARBOROUGH:  Yes.  All right, Ronn, thanks a lot for being with us. 

You know, I got to say, it might just be easier, if they want to get enough money to build a new stadium, to start winning a few football games. 

OWENS:  Even that either that or sell videos. 

(CROSSTALK)

SCARBOROUGH:  Yes.  Exactly.  They can sell these videos. 

Ronn Owens, thanks for being with us.  We greatly appreciate it. 

Coming up next, from the sublime to the serious, a developing story.  A teenage girl goes on her senior trip in the Caribbean, and she disappears.  Coming up next, we are going to be talking live with a family member on their desperate search for Natalie, who disappeared without a trace. 

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

SCARBOROUGH:  A high school senior from Birmingham, Alabama, goes on her senior trip to Aruba and vanishes.  We‘ll have the latest on this developing story when SCARBOROUGH COUNTRY returns. 

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

SCARBOROUGH:  An 18-year-old Alabama girl is missing tonight. 

Natalie Holloway (ph), a high school graduate from Birmingham, Alabama, is still missing on the island of Aruba two days after 125 of her classmates returned home from an annual post-graduation trip taken by seniors from Mountain Brook High School in Birmingham.  Natalie‘s parents rushed to Aruba to help the FBI in the search.  She was last seen getting into a car outside a nightclub early Sunday morning. 

With me now on the phone is Marcia Twitty.  She‘s Natalie‘s aunt and the only family member still in Birmingham. 

Let me ask you, Marcia, what is the very latest on this story? 

MARCIA TWITTY, MISSING GIRL‘S AUNT:  You know, so far, as of an hour ago, we still don‘t—we still don‘t have Natalie.  From what I am hearing down there, if they get a lead, they will follow it, they will chase it.  But we‘re still (INAUDIBLE) no Natalie. 

SCARBOROUGH:  What is the family doing in the search?  How many FBI agents are down there? 

TWITTY:  I‘m sorry.  Can you repeat the question?  SCARBOROUGH:  Yes.  I am saying that I understand the FBI is involved?

TWITTY:  Yes.  Yes.  Yes.  The FBI is now involved.  I do understand that that is true. 

SCARBOROUGH:  All right.  Thank you for being with us. 

Unfortunately, we have a bad phone connection.  We will ask you if you can come on our show tomorrow night and we will get the complete story here. 

I will tell you what.  It‘s a tragedy.  Obviously, all parents, like myself, who send their children on trips, whether it‘s a senior trip or a trip in the summer or with the rest of the students, you always worry about something like this happening.  Again, this story just broke across the wires today.  We are going to be following up on it tomorrow, and we will have the young lady‘s aunt on our show and also try to make contact with the parents. 

That‘s all the time we have for tonight‘s edition of SCARBOROUGH COUNTRY.  Make sure to watch “IMUS” tomorrow morning, his guests going to include Bob Woodward. 

And e-mail me at Joe@MSNBC.com.  We‘ll see you tomorrow night.

Copy: Content and programming copyright 2005 MSNBC.  ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.  Transcription Copyright 2005 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.

Discuss:

Discussion comments

,