updated 8/12/2005 9:24:06 AM ET 2005-08-12T13:24:06

Guest: John Bolen, Nikki Ralston, Jossy Mansur, Kimberly Guilfoyle Newsom, Geoffrey Fieger, James Lewis, Patricia Farrell, Bobby McDaniel

DAN ABRAMS, HOST:  Coming up, that escaped fugitive and his wife, who allegedly shot and killed a correction office at a courthouse, surrounded by authorities and captured. 


ABRAMS (voice-over):  Authorities tracked them down at an Ohio motel. 

We‘ll talk to the U.S. marshals who helped bring them down. 

And a potential key witness in the search for Natalee Holloway in Aruba.  This is his day in court.  He just didn‘t show up.  This as suspect Joran van der Sloot‘s attorney says the authorities are violating Joran‘s human rights. 

Plus this former homecoming queen and gym teacher will get nine months for having sex with a 13-year-old student.  She cut a deal.  She was facing up to 100 years.  Is there a double standard and if there is, is that really a problem? 

The program about justice starts now. 


ABRAMS:  Hi everyone.  First up on the docket tonight, fugitive couple captured late last night.  Authorities surrounded a motel in Columbus, Ohio after getting a tip that George and Jennifer Hyatte, an escaped con and his former prison nurse wife were inside.  They were hundreds of miles from where they were last seen at the Kingston, Tennessee courthouse where she allegedly shot a corrections officer to free her husband who was serving a 35-year sentence. 

Joining me now is the supervisory deputy U.S. marshal, John Bolen, who supervised the arrest scene and Deputy U.S. Marshal Nikki Ralston, who was the first to have contact with the fugitives.  Thank you both very much for joining us.  We appreciate it.

All right, Supervisor Bolen, let me start with you.  Tell us how you got them.  Take us back to that time when you surround the motel, what you know and what happens next. 

JOHN BOLEN, SUPERVISORY DEPUTY U.S. MARSHAL:  Yes, sir.  Once we were able to confirm the information that had been given to us through a tip that the cabdriver had provided, once we were able to confirm that information was indeed accurate, we did surround the motel room.  We had Deputy Ralston standing next to me, telephone inside the motel and Jennifer Hyatte did answer the telephone and at that point, we knew that we certainly were at the right place at the right time. 

ABRAMS:  Deputy Ralston, tell me about that.  You find out what room they‘re staying in and you just called the room? 

NIKKI RALSTON, DEPUTY U.S. MARSHAL:  Yes, I made contact with the hotel clerk that was attending the front desk there in the office.  After I dialed the room and connected to that room where Jennifer and George were, it was a big surprise that she actually answered the phone and answered to her name. 

ABRAMS:  And what did you say?  You just said hi Jennifer, and she said yes or did you say—I think you said is this Jennifer?  Is that how you started the conversation?

RALSTON:  I just said it in a question form.  I said Jennifer?  And she responded as yes, confirming that she was in fact Jennifer.  At that point, I was kind of surprised that she did answer the phone and I went ahead and announced who I was and then give her some instructions to do, let her know that there was no way out and she was surrounded, we didn‘t want anybody hurt.  She eventually did comply.

ABRAMS:  All right, so Supervisor Bolen, you now have this motel surrounded, you now have what seems to be confirmation that they‘re there.  I would assume that there were some nerves going on at that point.  I mean this is a woman who‘s already shot a corrections officers. 

BOLEN:  Certainly.  Without question.  I‘d be less than candid to say that the anxiety and the adrenaline wasn‘t flowing a little more than it usually is; however, we‘re trained to handle every situation the same whether it‘s a probation violator or whether it‘s someone accused of a crime such as this.  We handle every situation as if something could go wrong and we prepare and anticipate something going wrong.  But certainly the anxiety was at a heightened state. 

ABRAMS:  And they came out and what happened next? 

BOLEN:  Jennifer did answer the door as instructed by Deputy Ralston.  We asked her to turn around.  She had her hands held high, surrendering.  We asked her to turn around so that we could view her torso and her waistband, make sure there were no weapons on her possession.  We asked her to step backwards toward our voice.  Once she stepped backwards, she was grabbed by a CPD squad officer and I have to say that they are absolutely outstanding, a great professional group to work with. 

ABRAMS:  Is it true she was yelling to her husband, something to the effect of don‘t worry, it‘ll all be OK, or something like that that? 

BOLEN:  I wouldn‘t characterize it as yelling.  Once she was actually in my custody and had her handcuffed, she was concerned and she was concerned throughout for the safety and well being of her husband and she was telling George and I‘ll quote, she was saying, baby, it‘ll be OK.  Baby, it‘ll be OK.  She then looked at me and said, please don‘t hurt him, which I—at that time I ensured her that as long as he made no further movements that everything would be fine. 

ABRAMS:  Did she give you any sense of why she did this? 

BOLEN:  She didn‘t.  However, just interacting with her, you can tell that she had a great deal of love and infatuation, maybe even bordering on an unhealthy level...


BOLEN:  ... just my opinion.  But she certainly had very little, if any, concern for herself.  But all of her concern was for George and his well-being. 

ABRAMS:  Well that‘s my opinion, too.  I mean keep in mind this is a woman, as my viewers remember, is a woman who was his prison nurse and she got fired from her job for bringing him in food and then she gets married to the guy who is in prison for 35 years.  I think it‘s safe to say she‘s got something wrong with her. 

Supervisor Bolen and Deputy Ralston, great job, and thank you so much for taking the time to come on the program.  We appreciate it. 

BOLEN:  Thank you for having us.

RALSTON:  Thank you very much.

ABRAMS:  Mike Wagers was the cabdriver who tipped off the authorities after driving the couple more than 100 miles from a motel in Erlanger, Kentucky to that motel in Columbus, Ohio.  Now Wagers says that at that time he had no idea who they were. 


MIKE WAGERS, DROVE FUGITIVE COUPLE FROM KY TO OH:  When I asked them you know why they wound up taking a cab, they said they were involved in the accident that happened there underneath the 275 overpass the day before that had traffic all screwed up for so long and they were with Amway and they were doing some things up in Columbus with a conference.  And you know I honestly can I didn‘t really believe that but I had been paid for the trip.

Any talking that went on between them pretty much involved me too.  I don‘t recall any like you know hush, hush, whisper, whispers going on.  You know I mean to them I was just a friendly cabdriver, I guess because I‘m the chit chatty type.  I asked where they were from and they said they were from Virginia and you know I don‘t know how true any of that is but I mean other than the Amway business, you know, everything else seemed legitimate to me. 

When the trip was completely done and they were getting out to go to their hotel room, she was favoring one side and I asked her you know oh what happened, she said she got banged around in a car wreck a little bit, so that --  I mean that—without hesitating.  So I mean she pretty much had thought about what she‘d say I guess.


ABRAMS:  Yes, she had been shot of course in the leg, apparently by the court officer who shot back at her.  But it‘s good to hear that they‘ve been captured. 

All right, now to Aruba.  A man who prosecutors were counting on as a possible key witness in the disappearance of Natalee Holloway did not show up in court today.  The man known only as the gardener told investigators he saw Joran van der Sloot and Deepak and Satish Kalpoe, three suspects, after they say they were home and in bed the day Natalee disappeared two and a half months ago.  This led investigators to spend days draining a pond in the area behind the Marriott hotel where the witness said he spotted the suspect.  It turned up nothing. 

Joining me now is someone who has hired his own investigative team to look into Natalee‘s disappearance, the managing editor of Aruba‘s “Diario” newspaper, Jossy Mansur.  Jossy‘s been following this case from the beginning. 

Now, Jossy, your team actually tracked this pond witness down initially. 

So what happened to him? 

JOSSY MANSUR, “DIARIO” MANAGING EDITOR:  We don‘t know.  Either he got scared, he got cold feet or somebody must have threatened him not to appear in court.  We don‘t know which one of the two it is as far—so far. 

ABRAMS:  Are you confident that he‘s credible?  I mean is it possible that he‘s just running away because he‘s just not, you know, not a credible guy concerned about his story? 

MANSUR:  Of course he‘s credible.  He‘s sufficiently credible.  That when our people took him to the police quarters, he was questioned for four and a half hours, he stuck to his story.  The police are very satisfied with this, that relation.  He gave out sworn statements to the defense.  So the police do have a sworn statement from him. 

ABRAMS:  And are they going to have to now find him? 

MANSUR:  They‘re looking for him.  I think they will have to contact Columbia‘s homeland to see if they can get any assistance in locating him and asking him voluntary to come because I don‘t think they can bring him in any other way back to Aruba, if he‘s not in Aruba. 

ABRAMS:  All right, Jossy, one of your investigators apparently came across a belt that you think may be relevant to the case.  Tell us about it.

MANSUR:  Yes.  (UNINTELLIGIBLE), the man we brought in from the U.S. is a retired Secret Service agent.  He went over and looked at a place by the lighthouse and he was searching where somebody saw a car there that early morning and he found a belt, a black belt, that is very, very similar to the belt that we see in a photo of Joran with another kid with that belt around his neck and pulling him.  The belts look sufficiently similar to warrant a deeper investigation.

ABRAMS:  Jossy, is this the first time—look, you‘re a media man.  Is this the first time that you‘ve ever gotten this involved in an investigation? 

MANSUR:  This involved, yes.  But we‘ve been involved in other investigations before.  For example, we were called on from Kalamazoo, Michigan once to aid in identifying a fugitive.  We did (UNINTELLIGIBLE).  He was identified within three hours.  The FBI fingerprinted him, took him back and he was convicted on first-degree murder.  Yes, we did before and we also helped in the investigation of a tourist that disappeared between Aruban and Curacao on a cruise ship...

ABRAMS:  All right, so...

MANSUR:  ... but no trace (UNINTELLIGIBLE).

ABRAMS:  You‘ve done this kind of thing before.  Jossy, stick around.  We‘re going to have more on the search for Natalee coming up.  An attorney for the chief suspect, Joran van der Sloot, now saying that Joran‘s human rights are being violated and he is angry about it. 

And a former college homecoming queen and gym teacher is going to jail today for nine months for having sex with a 13-year-old student.  But she was facing up to 100 years behind bars.  Is there a double standard here and if there is, should we be worried about it? 

Plus, he and another student killed five, injured 10 others at an Arkansas school.  Mitchell Johnson‘s going free today and he won‘t even have a criminal record. 

Your e-mails abramsreport@msnbc.com.  Please include your name and where you‘re writing from.  I respond at the end of the show.


ABRAMS:  Joran van der Sloot, the only suspect in Natalee Holloway‘s disappearance, still in custody, spent another day getting grilled by a team of Dutch behavioral specialists.  Joran reportedly hasn‘t said a word to these guys, choosing instead to sit in silence and trying to avoid their questions.  Yesterday, Joran‘s attorney filed a motion asking a judge to stop the interrogations, calling them a violation of his client‘s rights. 


ANTONIO CARLO, JORAN VAN DER SLOOT‘S ATTORNEY:  Under the Aruban constitution and also under the criminal procedure code of Aruba, every defendant has a right to remain silent and we believe that is what we argue that the interrogations right now are being conducted for the sole purpose to break—to try to break the silence of our client. 


ABRAMS:  All right.  Human rights violated.  Joining me now defense attorney Geoffrey Fieger and Court TV news anchor and former prosecutor Kimberly Guilfoyle Newsom and back with us is the managing editor of Aruba‘s “Diario” newspaper, Jossy Mansur.

Kimberly, what do you think?  I mean if this were happening here and someone had invoked his right to remain silent and the authorities kept going back day after day to ask him questions, how would that be to you?

KIMBERLY GUILFOYLE NEWSOM, COURT TV NEWS ANCHOR:  Yes, it‘s unbelievable Dan.  It‘s very hard for us to reconcile.  This is very different from the American system of justice.  This simply would not happen.  It would not be tolerated not for a minute. 

My concern is because there‘s so much time has passed now, people are getting desperate and measures are being taken that perhaps might not have been in other situation.  You don‘t want to compromise any potential future prosecution by being sloppy at this point.  And what also strikes me about this case is you have people that aren‘t even involved with law enforcement, basically journalists, and or volunteers that seem to be doing the majority of the investigation in this case and that‘s a little bit bothersome. 

ABRAMS:  Yes.  Geoffrey, what do you make of it?  Violation of human rights?

GEOFFREY FIEGER, CRIMINAL DEFENSE ATTORNEY:  Yes, I agree with Kimberly entirely and remember, she‘s a former prosecutor.  They‘re screaming for blood here, especially in American television, not so much in Europe.  And Aruba‘s responding politically.  They‘re holding him on a thin thread of evidence. 

No evidence really, just the fact that he‘s changed his stories and they‘re attempting to coerce a confession out of him.  I suspect he‘s going to be let go fairly soon, as soon as the 30 days has passed.  He most assuredly is not going to be held without some additional evidence, Dan. 

ABRAMS:  Jossy, what do you make of that? 

MANSUR:  Well, you know, people have different opinions on that.  My personal opinion is they will extend his detention for another 30 days.  They have sufficient evidence to hold him for that time.  Afterward, they have to present charges against him. 

ABRAMS:  What—Jossy what are the rules there about—can they go back there day after day and say, we know yesterday you said you didn‘t want to talk, but this is a new day and we‘d like to ask you the same set of questions that we asked you for hours yesterday that you refused to answer.  Can they do that? 

MANSUR:  Sure they can.  They have the right to question them every day if they want to from morning to night.  But if he‘s not responding, if he‘s not cooperating, that‘s another problem for the police to figure out. 

ABRAMS:  But as a legal matter, you‘ve seen that done in other cases? 

MANSUR:  Sure.  It is legal to question him and interrogate him every single day that he is in detention.  It‘s up to the police to decide that and the prosecution. 

ABRAMS:  And Kimberly, I don‘t know, this business about these behavioral specialists.  I mean of all the people they‘re going to spend in there, I mean it sounds like they‘re sort of sending in these guys to sort of read his body language and try and kind of break him in essence, right?

GUILFOYLE NEWSOM:  Yes, voodoo tactics are next, Dan.  I don‘t know.  The problem with this case is they need a big break, OK.  Everybody really wants to find Natalee Holloway.  Where is she?  And I‘ll tell you what, unless they find her or some evidence—physical evidence to directly connect these individuals to the crime, they are in big trouble. 

They can go ahead and do another 30-day extension but then what?  They have to come up with the evidence and then the statute of limitations is going to run.  That‘s going to be a big problem.  And these guys, as it gets further away from the date when she was missing, they seem to be clamming up even more.  They‘re not getting anything out of them, so unless they get one of these guys to flip on the other I don‘t see how they‘re going to catch a break.  I mean they have scoured Aruba...


GUILFOYLE NEWSOM:  ... and nothing has turned up. 


FIEGER:  You know Dan, there is one place they‘re using these tactics, that‘s at Guantanamo...

GUILFOYLE NEWSOM:  Guantanamo Bay, yes.

FIEGER:  Yes, they‘re using those tactics.  You can‘t use them in America.  The minute a criminal defendant asserts his right to silence and asks for an attorney, that‘s it.  You can never talk to them again, let alone attempt to wear them down day after day, so it is kind of incredible.  They‘re very civilized people, the Dutch, but this part of their system is very epithetical to our system. 

ABRAMS:  Jossy, let me ask you about that belt again.  We got in the pictures of the belt and this is a picture where you know Joran was—that‘s the picture of the belt.  That‘s the picture that—of the belt that you all found there on the beach.  It appears to be what, in two pieces or...

MANSUR:  Yes, it is in two pieces.  That was from today, this morning by searches done on the spot that the police have been very frequented to search.  Other people have searched over there, but apparently it was up to our (UNINTELLIGIBLE) to find this belt and to compare it to that photo and there is sufficient similarity for the police to start doing some investigating on it.  Perhaps...


MANSUR:  ... I don‘t know, some bloodstains or whatever. 

ABRAMS:  It‘s a pretty generic-looking belt though, right? 

MANSUR:  It is.  But it matches the length of the other belt.  It matches somewhat those holes that they have to hold it with.  We don‘t know.  We‘re not experts in that field, so it has to be submitted to test in some lab, either here or in the U.S. or in Holland. 

ABRAMS:  All right.  Geoffrey and Kimberly are going to stay with us. 

Jossy, thanks a lot.  Appreciate it. 

You‘ll never guess who else is commenting on the Natalee Holloway investigation.  You‘re probably not even going to believe it until you see it on tape on our show tomorrow.  O.J. is weighing in on the case.  We‘ll show you what he has to say on this story.  He‘s got thoughts about the Michael Jackson case, the Scott Peterson case, even the investigation into whether Karl Rove leaked Valerie Plame‘s name.  Boy, that‘s what I really want to see what O.J. has to say. 

Eighteen-year-old radio host Grambes Besinger (ph) scored the exclusive interview with O.J.  He joins me tomorrow for a cable news exclusive. 

Moving on.  She is a former home coming queen, bikini-clad wrestling promoter and Harley Davidson model who is probably the dream date for guys across the country.  Well tonight she‘s behind bars for going out with the wrong man.  Well I guess I shouldn‘t say man.  He was a boy, a 13-year-old boy. 

Twenty-eight-year-old Pamela Turner was hauled off to jail in cuffs today after pleading no contest to having a three-month sexual relationship with a 13-year-old student at the Tennessee elementary school where she taught gym.  Beginning in November, Turner had sex with the student at the school and at his home while his parents were sleeping. 

She was charged in February with 28 felony counts for statutory rape and sexual battery, charges which could have landed her in prison for up to 100 years.  The victim‘s family didn‘t want a trial.  Turner worked out a deal with Tennessee prosecutors.  She‘ll serve nine months behind bars, eight years of probation after pleading guilty to four counts of sexual battery. 

She lost her teaching certificate for life.  She‘ll now have to register as a sex offender and she agreed to not make any money off her story while she‘s in jail and out on probation.

Joining us now is Jim Lewis with NBC affiliate WSMV in Nashville, Tennessee.  He was in the courtroom...


ABRAMS:  He was in the courtroom today.  James, it‘s good to see you.  So what is the sense there about this sentence? 

LEWIS:  Well we talked to a lot of people in the small town.  We‘re talking about a tiny community, about 1,500 people.  You know surprisingly, Dan, people are not outraged.  And I can assure you if the genders were reversed, there would be tremendous outrage.  The people we talked to said well, you know, and they kind of pass it off. 

ABRAMS:  And that‘s the discussion we‘re going to have in the next block. 

But I mean this is a stunningly beautiful woman...

LEWIS:  I agree.  Absolutely.

ABRAMS:  Is there any sense there as to what happened here?  Was she claiming that she had some psychological infirmity or was she just claiming she loved the boy?  What was she saying? 

LEWIS:  Well nobody talked about psychological infirmity, but I did hear some talk that they thought they were in love.  He‘s 13, she‘s 27.  You know hormones being hormones, Dan, I can‘t say.  I wasn‘t there and they didn‘t give any of those details in court.  That was part of the plea agreement.  She would just plea to a couple of—to four charges and no details would come forth.  Nobody would have to testify and so they did not...


LEWIS:  ... we can only...

ABRAMS:  James, they did layout, did they not, the exact—when she was pleading guilty to the charges, they laid out exactly what it was that she supposedly did.  What did they say—what did she actually have to agree that she did? 

LEWIS:  Well, what the D.A. presented was on this date she allegedly had sex with a young man in a car on the way to a basketball game.  On another day in the parking lot of pizza lot.  On another day in the home she was renting nearby.  On another day in the locker room of the elementary school.  That was about as much as they said.  As for details, how come they got acquainted, none of that came up in court. 

ABRAMS:  She pled no contest, correct? 

LEWIS:  That‘s right and the judge said that‘s essentially a guilty plea, but it‘s one of those where—well it‘s going to work against her, Dan, if she ever wants to teach in Tennessee anyway. 

ABRAMS:  Yes.  All right, James Lewis, thanks a lot for taking the time. 

We appreciate it.

LEWIS:  Right.

ABRAMS:  Coming up, so she‘s going away for nine months but she could have gotten a lot more time—a lot.  She would have gotten a much tougher—so the question is of course, would she have gotten a much tougher sentence if she was a he?  And if so, should it matter?  We debate up next. 

Plus, Mitchell Johnson and another boy murdered four fellow students and a teacher in one of the nation‘s worst school shootings.  Now he‘s going free and he won‘t even have a criminal record. 


ABRAMS:  Coming up, more on that school teacher accused of having sex with a 13-year-old student sentenced to nine months.  Is it a double standard?  Should we care?  First the headlines. 



DALE POTTER, WARREN CTY, TN PROSECUTOR:  In December of 2004, the defendant had intercourse with the victim at the victim‘s home in Centertown while the victim‘s parents were asleep downstairs. 


ABRAMS:  That‘s the Warren County Tennessee prosecutor in court today for the sentencing of 28-year-old teacher Pamela Turner.  After being charged with 28 sexual felony counts, she struck a deal.  She‘ll serve nine months.  She pled no contest to charges she had a three-month sexual relationship with a 13-year-old student who attended the elementary school where she was a gym teacher. 

So the question, is there a double standard here?  And if there is should it matter?  “My Take”—there‘s no question that men and women in positions of authority need to be punished for having sex with underage children.  They should be condemned both morally and criminally, but as I‘ve said before, I‘ve got to be honest, it does feel different when a man is accused of having sex with an underage girl compared to a woman with an underage boy.

More importantly, men molesting girls is a far more widespread and dangerous problem than the few older women who are accused of raping boys and so I have no problem with a lighter sentence in this type of case.

Joining me now is clinical psychologist Patricia Farrell and back with us again is James, Kimberly and Geoffrey.  All right, Dr. Farrell, let‘s talk about this psychologically before I get into that legal part of this.  Do you think it‘s different for a 13-year-old boy versus a 13-year-old girl? 

PATRICIA FARRELL, CLINICAL PSYCHOLOGIST:  You know I think in some ways it probably is, but I think in the long run it really does damage.  It‘s not a growth experience no matter what anybody wants to make of it and he is going to have to take this with him and try to work this through.  He‘s obviously been rejected now and he‘s been involved in a major crime.  He‘s going to feel guilty that she‘s gone to jail, you know, so he‘s going to bear a lot of the brunt of this. 

ABRAMS:  But Geoffrey, if this had been a man, a male teacher, with a 13-year-old girl, I don‘t think we‘d be seeing a nine-month sentence, do you? 

FIEGER:  No, because the physiology is different.  I mean that very seriously.  I mean looking at that woman, Dan, I doubt very highly that she took advantage of a position of authority.  I‘m pretty sure if he was a 13-year-old healthy young man, he thought he died and went to heaven.  And you know, frankly, it is a double standard. 

We think—most of the world wouldn‘t consider this a crime.  We do it now because we apply the same standard to men and women and it is different.  Thirteen—some 13 years old, I‘m not saying all 13-year-olds, but obviously, this young man liked having sex with her.  He did it everywhere he could in every place that he could. 

Now, how is that a crime?  I‘m serious...

ABRAMS:  All right.

FIEGER:  Except...

GUILFOYLE NEWSOM:  Oh my goodness, Geoffrey...

FIEGER:  Except to make it a crime.  Believe me, from a 13-year-old‘s perspective, at least a young boy, I guarantee it, he doesn‘t think it was a crime. 

ABRAMS:  Kimberly, what do you make of that?

GUILFOYLE NEWSOM:  Yes, give me a break.  It‘s a total double standard.  You‘re sending the wrong message for everybody to go turn into Mary Kay Letourneau and find their own little Vili because...

FIEGER:  Yes, right.

GUILFOYLE NEWSOM:  ... it‘s all fun and games because she‘s hot.  I mean it‘s not fair.  The bottom line is she was looking at about 100 years in prison, 15 counts of sexual battery, 13 counts of statutory rape...

FIEGER:  You don‘t know.

GUILFOYLE NEWSOM:  He‘s a child...

FIEGER:  You have no idea. 

GUILFOYLE NEWSOM:  ... 13 years old.  He doesn‘t have the mental...

FIEGER:  You have no idea. 

GUILFOYLE NEWSOM:  ... capacity or psychological...

FIEGER:  You just don‘t have any idea...


FIEGER:  I was a 13-year...

GUILFOYLE NEWSOM:  I‘ve handled these cases...

FIEGER:  No you don‘t.  I don‘t care what you‘ve done...


FIEGER:  ... Kimberly.  I was a 13-year-old boy. 


GUILFOYLE NEWSOM:  ... year-old boy has capacity to give consent...

FIEGER:  I was...

GUILFOYLE NEWSOM:  Just because she‘s blond and hot...


GUILFOYLE NEWSOM:  ... it doesn‘t matter. 

FIEGER:  I was a 13-year-old boy.  You‘re wrong...

GUILFOYLE NEWSOM:  You probably want to go back and be one now...

FIEGER:  You‘re wrong...

GUILFOYLE NEWSOM:  ... because you‘d like that kind of thing...

FIEGER:  You‘re just wrong...

GUILFOYLE NEWSOM:  ... but it‘s not the right message to send.

FIEGER:  You‘re just --  I don‘t care what you say.  You don‘t—you were never a 13-year-old boy. 


FIEGER:  Some 13-year-old boys I agree it could have been a bad experience.  Some not.  Every situation is different.  But you weren‘t a 13-year-old boy and don‘t tell me...

GUILFOYLE NEWSOM:  So you think it‘s fine...


GUILFOYLE NEWSOM:  You think it‘s fine...


ABRAMS:  But hang on.  Let me let...


GUILFOYLE NEWSOM:  ... to sanction and treat a man who would do this, yes, he would be a dirty rapist...


GUILFOYLE NEWSOM:  ... but if a woman does it it‘s fine. 

FIEGER:  Because the physiology is different.  The physiology is different.

ABRAMS:  Let me bring in the doctor...

FARRELL:  Yes, I was just saying that you know you have to look at some of the components of this.  It wasn‘t just sex that they were having at home in a bedroom or whatever.  There was a component of incredible intense excitement.  Look at the places that were chosen.  These were places where they could easily be caught and that was part of the thrill, and I would suspect it was part of the thrill for her, more than the sexual act was part of the thrill for her with him.  He‘s only a 13-year-old boy.  He doesn‘t have too much experience. 

FIEGER:  You see, but the hypocrisy of all this is that in our next segment we‘re going to talk about a 13-year-old who murdered everybody and they‘re going to say oh well this guy should be treated as an adult.  He should be kept in prison forever.  Yet, when a 13-year-old has sex with a beautiful woman, oh no, he‘s a child.  Let‘s treat him differently...


FIEGER:  ... that‘s hypocrisy. 

FARRELL:  Geoffrey, it‘s not...

FIEGER:  That‘s the true hypocrisy.

FARRELL:  No, it‘s not that he had sex with a beautiful woman.  It‘s that this woman was a teacher in his school.  She was in a position of authority. 

FIEGER:  I understand—no, and I‘m not arguing with that...

FARRELL:  You know, OK...

FIEGER:  She was in a position of authority...

FARRELL:  Right.

FIEGER:  ... and under certain circumstances, I could see that.  And I don‘t know the facts in this case, but it doesn‘t sound like she used her position of authority to have sex with this child.  It sounds like he wanted to do it. 

ABRAMS:  But Kimberly...

FIEGER:  I don‘t know the facts...

ABRAMS:  ... it seems to me—look, even though I take the position that I do, I still think that the problem as a legal matter is I don‘t know how you create a system where you look at each 13-year-old and you say, be it male or female, well, could this person have consented or not?  You‘ve got to draw some lines. 

GUILFOYLE NEWSOM:  Well Dan, because the crime that she‘s charged with, it‘s not a forcible rape.  It‘s a statutory rape because society has a great interest in protecting children from people, whether it‘s a man or woman trying—that‘s an adult having sex with minors...

FIEGER:  But what if the age of consent was 17, Kimberly, and he couldn‘t give consent then?  Wouldn‘t that be absurd? 

GUILFOYLE NEWSOM:  Well there‘s a big difference...

FIEGER:  That would still be statutory rape...

GUILFOYLE NEWSOM:  Geoffrey, there‘s a big difference developmentally and psychological from a 13-year-old and a 17-year-old. 

FIEGER:  Yes, but you talked about statutory rape and it‘s possible the age of consent...


FIEGER:  ... is 18 in Tennessee.  What if the age of consent is 14 in Tennessee?  Would that be any differently...

GUILFOYLE NEWSOM:  She‘d still be charged with sexual battery. 

ABRAMS:  Long-term psychological impact, you‘ve said to me before that you think that there actually is a difference because of the social, the way we view this socially...

FARRELL:  Yes...

ABRAMS:  ... you think there is a difference in the way it‘s viewed between man and woman? 

FARRELL:  Absolutely because society when they look at this I would think as a whole says isn‘t this incredible.  Look at this young man being led into the world of sensuality by this experienced woman and isn‘t that great?  I mean...

ABRAMS:  And you think that actually will reduce the impact it would have on him...

FARRELL:  I think...

ABRAMS:  ... psychologically? 

FARRELL:  Well no, I think it has more of an impact on society accepting this kind of thing.  But for the boy psychologically, I think he‘s going to feel he was dumped, he‘s been used, maybe...

FIEGER:  The most traumatic...


FIEGER:  ... thing to happen to that child is—the most traumatic thing is the legal process.  Putting him through that was far more traumatic than having sex with her...

FARRELL:  But I believe...

FIEGER:  ... guaranteed. 

FARRELL:  ... he‘s going to feel guilty because she suffered.

FIEGER:  Only now.  Only now because of this legal process. 


FIEGER:  She‘s going to jail. 


ABRAMS:  All right...

FIEGER:  If people had just ignored it...

GUILFOYLE NEWSOM:  Look, he may also grow up and think it‘s fine...

FIEGER:  ... who would be hurt? 

GUILFOYLE NEWSOM:  ... to sleep with 13 year olds.  Maybe he‘ll find himself a little 13-year-old honey when he‘s an adult and think that‘s OK too. 

FIEGER:  No, it doesn‘t work that way, Kimberly. 


FIEGER:  You weren‘t a 13-year-old boy. 

GUILFOYLE NEWSOM:  OK, I‘m sorry.  I‘ll try and go back in the next life and I‘ll talk with you about it then and tell you...


GUILFOYLE NEWSOM:  ... all about how it was. 

ABRAMS:  Dr. Farrell and James Lewis, sorry, I just had you—you know I had to let them—thanks for coming on the program.

FARRELL:  Thank you.

ABRAMS:  Kimberly and Geoffrey are sticking around. 

(UNINTELLIGIBLE) up next, Geoffrey‘s right.  Convicted high school shooter could walk out of jail as early as today with a clean record, killed four students and a teacher.  That‘s it.  All forgotten? 

Your e-mails abramsreport@msnbc.com.  Please include your name and where you‘re writing from.  I respond at the end of the show.


ABRAMS:  Coming up, a convicted high school shooter killed four students and a teacher, walks out of prison, record erased.  First the headlines.


UNIDENTIFIED MALE:  I heard a bunch of shots and people were falling.  I ran into the gym. 

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE:  There was a bullet that came about that close from hitting me. 


ABRAMS:  You can see terror in their faces, their voices.  You can hear it.  Now imagine how they must feel today, seven years later, knowing that Mitchell Johnson, one of two boys who opened fired on them outside their school, is free with a clean criminal record.  Johnson was just 13 years old in March of 1998 when he and 11-year-old Andrew Golden rang the fire alarm bell at the Westside Middle School in Jonesboro, Arkansas and ran to get their guns. 

When the kids and teachers came out of the back of the school, the boys opened fire with high-powered rifles and pistols.  At least 24 shots.  English teacher Shannon Wright and four students were killed, 10 more wounded.  Police say Johnson‘s bullets killed Wright and a 12-year-old girl.  When Johnson was tried for the killings, Arkansas law would only allow him to be treated as a juvenile.  He would have served just five years if federal prosecutors hadn‘t stepped in with gun charges that kept him locked up another three until now that he‘s 21 years old. 

Bobby McDaniel is an attorney who represents the families of Johnson and Golden‘s victims in a lawsuit and I‘m joined again by Geoffrey Figer and Court TV‘s Kimberly Guilfoyle.  All right, what do you make of this, Mr.  McDaniel?  I mean do you think that—I understand you‘re not going to challenge the fact that this is the law, but do you think the law should be changed? 

BOBBY MCDANIEL, ATTORNEY SUING AR SCHOOL SHOOTERS:  Well, the law in fact has been changed in Arkansas as a result of this in 1999 to make for a blended or adjudicated opportunity to where a juvenile can be held as an adult if they‘re over 13 years of age and at 13 it‘s a consideration for the court and that should be the law all over the country. 

ABRAMS:  Geoffrey, this is something that you‘ve talked about for a long time and you disagree. 

FIEGER:  Yes, I represented the youngest child ever charged with as an adult with murder, Nathaniel Abraham, but it goes right in tandem with what we were just discussing.  He‘s—a 13-year-old is a child in terms of having sex and yet, society is really vindictive when they commit crimes.  All of a sudden, the 11 and the 13 years old become adults and they should be treated like adults and sent to adult prisons and sent there for the rest of their life. 

That‘s the hypocrisy.  That‘s the double standard.  Thirteen-year-olds and 11-year-olds are different.  They don‘t think people die forever.  They don‘t even think like adults, they don‘t, and that‘s a big problem and the vindictiveness in society towards children is very...

ABRAMS:  But aren‘t you doing just what you‘re accusing everyone else of doing?  I mean on the—you‘re now saying, well you know, they‘re just children and a minute ago you were saying well, he‘s 13 years old.  He‘s having the time of his life. 

FIEGER:  That‘s right.  I am.  Because we‘re talking one, about having sex with a beautiful woman and the other hand, we‘re talking about committing heinous crimes.  Now we‘re talking in one hand, the crimes about culpability.  We‘re talking the other—on the other hand about whether somebody‘s a victim or is capable of having sex and they‘re very, very different. 

But society is totally hypocritical.  If we‘re going to consider sex—a 13-year-old incapable of having sex and we are, then we better not start talking about 13 and 11 years old being sent to prison for the rest of their lives as adults.  I can‘t think of anything more hypocritical. 

ABRAMS:  Kimberly.

GUILFOYLE NEWSOM:  Well I mean give me a break.  You‘re comparing a sexual act between a teacher, an adult...

FIEGER:  I am not.

GUILFOYLE NEWSOM:  ... who is 28 years old...

FIEGER:  Kimberly, I‘m telling you...

GUILFOYLE NEWSOM:  ... with a 13-year-old child. 

FIEGER:  ... hypocrisy by society. 

ABRAMS:  I‘m not.

GUILFOYLE NEWSOM:  There‘s no comparison.  In one case, the 13-year-old has committed multiple murders and in another case, yes, he‘s got a hot, blond teacher that has behaved inappropriately towards him.  There‘s just no comparison between the two. 

FIEGER:  I‘m pointing out the hypocrisy...

GUILFOYLE NEWSOM:  Geoffrey, do you think...

MCDANIEL:  It is no comparison.

GUILFOYLE NEWSOM:  Let me ask you something.  Do you think that seven years is enough for the crimes that this kid committed? 

FIEGER:  I believe that children should be treated differently because I believe they can be rehabilitated.  I do not believe that children should be treated as adults in terms of punishing them for crimes committed when they‘re 11 and 13 years of age.  And if society continues to treat them as children with sex, then they better continue to treat them as children when committing crimes...

ABRAMS:  Bobby McDaniel, the thing that bothers me is the fact that his record gets wiped clean. 

FIEGER:  It should.  He has no chance otherwise. 

MCDANIEL:  There‘s more than that.  And frankly the fact that you could argue that if a child is 15 years of age and slaughter five people, when he‘s 18 years of age, he walks scot-free, no felony record, could buy a gun tomorrow with no deprivation.  I mean five people were killed by these boys and the fact that they could walk out when they‘re 18, if not, from the federal government is ridiculous. 

And to compare that to a sexual crime and I‘m not minimizing a sexual crime at all.  But to say that society must be victimized by predators, whether they be 15, 14, 13, or 17 is ridiculous and absurd.  And these children across the country, what kind of message would we send to say that if you‘re 15 years and 11 months, you can slaughter five people and walk out...

FIEGER:  Wait a...


FIEGER:  ... it‘s not...

MCDANIEL:  What kind of message are you sending?

FIEGER:  It‘s not a message until very recently and I‘m talking within the last 10 years, we never in this country, repeat, never treated children as adults ever, ever in any state.  It‘s only lately and it‘s because there‘s a certain amount of vindictiveness and children are victims and they are different. 

GUILFOYLE NEWSOM:  Well what about the fact that they‘re committing crimes like this?  This isn‘t the first case where something like this has happened.  Look at Kip Kinkle.  Look at that case.  Look at Columbine.  Somebody has got to send a message and do something...

FIEGER:  Well what kind of message are you sending?  Because...

GUILFOYLE NEWSOM:  Perhaps they cannot...

FIEGER:  ... in every single place where it happened...

GUILFOYLE NEWSOM:  ... be rehabilitated...

FIEGER:  ... I represent the family of Kayla Rolland, the 5-year-old who

was killed in Flint.  I represented Nathaniel Abraham.  In every case where

·        I represented the families in Columbine.  In every case where children were slaughtered with guns, guess what happened?  The NRA came into those cities...

ABRAMS:  All right.

FIEGER:  ... and had a big convention about how we shouldn‘t in any way limit access...


GUILFOYLE NEWSOM:  That has nothing to do with this...

FIEGER:  What?



FIEGER:  What?

GUILFOYLE NEWSOM:  ... that has nothing to do with this.


ABRAMS:  Bobby McDaniel...

GUILFOYLE NEWSOM:  Seven years isn‘t enough. 

ABRAMS:  ... I want to read you, Bobby, part—a part of Johnson‘s courtroom apology and ask if this is going to come up in your civil lawsuit.

He said I really thought that no one would actually be hurt.  I thought we would just shoot over everyone‘s head.  I hope that anyone who will listen to these words will know how sorry that I am for what I have done.

That really bothers me.  I mean because you know it is...


ABRAMS:  ... it seems so clear it‘s not true.

MCDANIEL:  ... it‘s blatantly ridiculous.  Both of these boys were familiar with guns, especially Andrew Golden.  There was a variable arsenal at his grandfather‘s house.  You don‘t have to be 11, 13 year-olds to know when you shoot somebody they can die and to suggest otherwise is ridiculous.  I understand Mitchell Johnson wanting to minimize his own culpability, but to suggest he did not know by aiming high-powered rifles and shooting people would hurt or kill them, especially after the first ones fell bleeding and dying and screaming and kept shooting...


MCDANIEL:  ... it‘s blatantly ridiculous.

ABRAMS:  Bobby McDaniel, Geoffrey Fieger, Kimberly Guilfoyle Newsom, thanks a lot. 

Coming up, your e-mails on the Natalee Holloway disappearance.  Many of you writing in, still saying you think Natalee‘s mom is going too far by confronting one of the suspects in her daughter‘s disappearance. 


ABRAMS:  We‘re back.  It‘s time for “Your Rebuttal”.  Still getting e-mails on Natalee Holloway‘s mother confronting one of the suspects in her daughter‘s disappearance, Deepak Kalpoe, on Monday. 

From Louisville, Kentucky, Sherry Klein, “I admire Beth Holloway.  She‘s kept her composure in this difficult time.  If this were happening to me, I probably would have already torn that island apart and been arrested for it.”

Jessie Sweeny in Portland, Maine, “If Natalee Holloway‘s mother really thought that Deepak Kalpoe raped and murdered her daughter, how could she confront him alone where he works?  Isn‘t she afraid that she could meet her daughter‘s fate?”

Oh come on, Jessie.  She‘s confronting him at an Internet caf’, not a back alley.  And even if he is somehow responsible, that doesn‘t necessarily mean he‘s going to do something while he‘s being watched by the world. 

Finally Darla Smith in California, “I‘m usually in agreement with you 100 percent, however regarding Beth Holloway Twitty, you are encouraging her to act in an aggressive, intrusive manner.”

Darla, I wasn‘t encouraging Beth to do it.  I never said go get him, good job, you go, girl.  I feel sorry for her.  I think she‘s been given good advice.  That it‘s time to stay away, but I‘m not going to scold the victim‘s mother for confronting a suspect one time and asking for answers. 

Your e-mails abramsreport—one word -- @msnbc.com.  We go through them at the end of the show.

“OH PLEAs!”—when a driver in Des Moines, Iowa ran a stop sign, a yellow flashing light signaled him to pull over.  Seemed like a close call, no ticket, just a friendly reminder from an undercover police officer to drive carefully.  Well, the quote—“police officer” doing traffic duty wasn‘t just enforcing the law.  He was breaking it.  The flashing yellow light just a prop, turns out the 32-year-old was a phony cop. 

Jessie Hill wasn‘t just giving unwarranted advice.  He was also allegedly driving a stolen pickup truck.  A real life police officer pulled up behind Hill to see what was going on.  Hill informed the officer that he was just cautioning the motorist about his driving.  Let‘s just stay the cop wasn‘t impressed.  Hill was arrested for driving with a suspended license and for second-degree theft for allegedly stealing that pickup truck. 

Coming up, the nation says goodbye to five heroes.


ABRAMS:  As we leave you tonight you might remember a “Closing Argument” I did a few months ago about three servicemen killed in Iraq over Memorial Day weekend.  The three men, Captain Jeremy Fresques, Captain Derek Argel, and Staff Sergeant Casey Crate were all members of the Air Force‘s 23rd Special Tactics Squadron out of Hurlburt, Florida.  They were buried with another Air Force pilot, Major William Downs, a member of the 6th Special Tactics Squadron. 

But the four men made history today as they were buried with a member of the Iraqi Air Force, Captain Ali Hussam Abass.  Captain Abass was assisting the U.S. Air Force pilots in a training mission in Iraq when their plane crashed, killing all five.  Today Captain Abass became the first Iraqi national to be buried in Arlington Cemetery.




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.

The Abrams Report each weeknight at 6 p.m. ET


Discussion comments