Guests: Hubert Kealy, Bud Corbett, Tresha Mabile, Catherine Crier, Tyson Slocum, Deborah Opri, Bethany Marshall, Allison Dubois
JOE SCARBOROUGH, SCARBOROUGH COUNTRY HOST: Thanks so much, Rita.
Trick or treat and Happy Halloween.
RITA COSBY, MSNBC CORRESPONDENT: Thank you. You too.
SCARBOROUGH: Can I say—is that politically correct? I think it is. Tonight‘s top headline, the storm after the storm. A Texas grandmother allegedly murdered by hurricane evacuees that she was trying to help. Now, the evacuees spread all over SCARBOROUGH COUNTRY—the questions: how many criminals are walking around, and could this happen again, and why can‘t police officers track them down?
Then, a new documentary takes us inside Katrina—stories you haven‘t heard before about what went wrong with the government, with the mainstream press, and we‘re going to see who‘s really to blame. Welcome to SCARBOROUGH COUNTRY. No passport required, only common sense allowed.
Hey, thanks so much for being with us tonight, and Happy Halloween. We‘re going to have those stories in just a minute. And later, we‘ve got the real life medium who inspired the show. She‘s going to be here talking about her gift and some of the famous cases we‘ve been following.
But first, tragedy in Pasadena, Texas. This is one of those stories that you see on TV and you just stop in your tracks, it‘s just so heartbreaking. And unfortunately, it‘s indicative of a crime wave that‘s going on across Middle America after these storms. Seventy-seven-year-old widow Betty Blair was bound and strangled in her home last Friday night, allegedly by three hurricane evacuees that she had helped out and given part time employment to in her home.
Many of you are asking how this could happen. I‘m joined now by Bud Corbett. He‘s a captain for the Pasadena, Texas Police Department. Captain, thank you so much for being with us tonight. This is such a tragedy. I want to talk about this case in a minute. But first, let‘s talk about the bigger ramifications for this: has the crime rate risen dramatically since evacuees have been flooding into your area?
CAPT. BUD CORBETT, TEXAS POLICE DEPARTMENT: Well, I can‘t say that the crime rate generally has elevated substantially, but we did have an elevation, specifically in burglary. We did a comparison of the burglary rate from the day before Hurricane Rita came in, for one week‘s time, and compared it to the same timeframe a year ago, and we found that we had about a 900 percent increase in burglaries.
SCARBOROUGH: The incident itself, what happened to the woman, and who was there? And I‘ve just got to say, I‘m having some audio problems right now and can‘t hear you. But if you can hear me, then go ahead and tell us specifically about these three evacuees and what happened.
CORBETT: Well, the victim came to know these three evacuees through St. Pius Church in Pasadena. The victim was a volunteer there in a food service capacity. And she came into contact with these three individuals, and she really took her efforts of care and compassion a step further, because she invited them to her home. And after that, she offered them an opportunity to perform some yard work and handle some odd jobs around the house.
And she came to engage them and became friendly with them, and comfortable around them. And she had seen them a number of times over a period of days, and from what I understand, unknown to her, the suspects were actually planning on killing her and taking her property.
SCARBOROUGH: You know, captain, there are a lot of problems right now, again, not just in your area, but also—I‘ve been talking to law enforcement officers across the Gulf Coast. I think the biggest crisis right now as far as law enforcement goes is the fact that it‘s hard to track sexual abusers that are inside shelters, that have been inside shelters, and other people—again, there just doesn‘t seem to be an effective tracking system for all of these people that flooded out of Louisiana, and a much lesser amount out of Mississippi.
How do you get your arms around that when it comes to law enforcement, and again, track down some of these people that obviously were very bad news when they were living in New Orleans and surrounding areas, but are now in your backyard?
CORBETT: Well, it‘s really hard to get a line on that. There are a number of sex offenders that I understand have departed the New Orleans area and other areas in Louisiana, and we really don‘t have any effective way to make sure that we can anticipate their arrival. And the incident involving these three people is probably somewhat of an indication of what can happen when these things aren‘t anticipated.
SCARBOROUGH: All right, thank you so much, greatly appreciate you being with us tonight, captain. Now, I want to bring in Reverend Hubert Kealy. Reverend, this is such a tragedy, and of course, I saw it this weekend when the news came across. And here‘s a wonderful lady. I understand that she‘d been helping out evacuees throughout this crisis, and she hired these three people.
It has to be so heartbreaking for you and your church. Talk to us if you will about this poor woman who, unfortunately, apparently was murdered by these people that she was trying so desperately to help.
REV. HUBERT KEALY, ST. PIUS V CATHOLIC CHURCH: Congressman, we‘re heartbroken. This woman and her recently deceased husband Bob, really, their life centered around our parish church and all the good that we do there. She was a teacher in our school at one time. She was in charge of those who distribute communion during mass, and most recently, since Katrina, she even volunteered some time in our food pantry.
She took a family of three into her home. They were there for—from Louisiana—for three or four weeks, and they left, very happily. Wonderful people—I met all three of them. And then, allegedly, from what I read in the press, she met these people at our food pantry, and then, like I heard you say a minute ago, went a step further, bought extra things for them, gave them some work to return some of her favors.
And apparently, she must have surprised them when they were in her home, when she came home, and they strangled her, yes. And the parish is...
SCARBOROUGH: Talk about your church, your community. How difficult of a time are you all going through? And what do you do when somebody comes to you, an elderly person, and comes to you and says, “We really want to help these people out. They‘re going through a terrible time. But we‘re just scared if we‘re good Samaritans, we end up, unfortunately, meeting the same fate as Betty.”
KEALY: Absolutely correct. Even with the caution of our archdiocese and of our archdiocesan press, that we‘re told, rightly so, to caution people to be very, very careful that indeed there are ways to do a lot of good things, but still, to watch yourself and to be careful, to expose yourself to danger. We simply feel that we‘re doing—we have to do, we are doing what a good disciple would do: extend our arms and our hearts, and love and compassion to those who are in need.
That does not mean that we don‘t watch ourselves and be careful, protect ourselves. I can‘t tell you the thousands of people that have gone through our food pantry over the years, the families that we helped through settling their children in our school. Hundreds of people—just marvelous people to deal with.
SCARBOROUGH: Yes. Reverend, you never know, unfortunately, reverend. Thank you so much for being with us. And know, reverend, that you and your congregation, everybody in your community certainly are in the thoughts and prayers of all of us on this show, and I know all across SCARBOROUGH COUNTRY. And unfortunately, again, when you reach out and you try to help people, sometimes this does happen.
But my gosh, friends, there are thousands and thousands of people out there who have reached out like Betty Blair to help the hundreds of thousands who have been hurt. And unfortunately, this is an isolated incident, but again, you just need to be so careful. And again, our thoughts and prayers are with Betty Blair‘s family and certainly all of her friends.
Now, speaking about problems, there‘s a new documentary called “Inside Hurricane Katrina.” It premieres tomorrow night on the National Geographic Channel. The documentary is an hour to hour timeline look at Katrina and her aftermath. Now, the film offers a critical look at the local, state, and federal response to the storm, just like us. But I‘ll tell you, they‘ve got some great behind-the-scenes things that you‘re just not going to want to miss. Take a look.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
(voiceover): Wednesday afternoon, Washington, D.C., President Bush returns to the White House and convenes a cabinet meeting. Bush and his advisors debate whether the federal government should try to takeover the relief effort and take command of the Louisiana National Guard. According to published reports, the president calls Governor Blanco on Wednesday to float this idea, but cannot persuade her.
In the weeks to come, aids to Blanco acknowledge that the governor spoke to the president on this day, but firmly denied that Mr. Bush made any such offer.
The Red Cross offers its services in New Orleans, but Louisiana officials will decline the offer. They tell the Red Cross they cannot guarantee their safety, and that Red Cross vehicles might disrupt rescue efforts.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
SCARBOROUGH: We‘re joined now by Tresha Mabile. She‘s producer of the documentary. Tresha, this is a fascinating behind-the-scenes look. As you sorted through it, obviously, you know like we knew that on all sides, at all levels of government, there were failures. But this documentary appears to be especially critical of the Louisiana governor. Is that an accurate description of what you found?
TRESHA MABILE, “INSIDE HURRICANE KATRINA”: Well, Joe, I think it‘s more about miscommunications on all levels of government. That clip about the president calling the governor, it was a big point of contention in Louisiana, because she said that she called the president that day, and that he never brought up the idea of federalization of the troops.
So I think that this is an issue—it‘s going to take congressional hearings to get to the bottom of what actually went on. But I think one thing is for sure, is that it was a failure of government at all levels, not just the state.
SCARBOROUGH: What‘s the one thing, as you got into this documentary, and you all were producing it, and you‘re going through just hundreds of hours of film clips and documentary evidence, what was the one thing you learned about this that a lot of Middle Americans could not have known and will not know until they see your documentary tomorrow?
MABILE: I think the access to the six hours of audiotapes of local, state, and FEMA officials planning before the storm, starting as early as Friday, the detailed planning that went into what should be done if and when the storm hit Louisiana. And everything was based on the Pam study, which took place the year before in Louisiana. It was a simulated study. And the federal government was supposed to jump in if city and state was overwhelmed.
And on these tapes, they discuss where water, and supplies, and shelters are going to be, and they‘re still trying to narrow that down on the very day before the storm. There‘s some very interesting things that go on behind the scenes. It sounds somewhat organized, but what‘s interesting is how quickly it deteriorates after the storm hits.
Communication is down, and FEMA doesn‘t show up, and the local officials are furious, because according to the study that was conducted the year before, the federal government was supposed to show up 40 to 68 hours after the storm hit and help them, because they were only prepared to hold on for a day or two, and that just didn‘t happen. So these tapes are very interesting in sort of trying to figure out what was going on behind the scenes.
Again, Joe, I think it‘s really going to take congressional hearings to find out what went wrong in Louisiana.
SCARBOROUGH: Yes, and on what levels also. Obviously, it sounds like a war zone where you do have the best laid plans. The second you put them under pressure, obviously, a lot of things go wrong. Well, thank you so much for being with us. We‘re going to be watching the documentary tomorrow night, Tresha. It looks absolutely fascinating. And you can watch the full two-hour documentary tomorrow night on the National Geographic Channel.
Now, when we come back, the president makes his new choice for the Supreme Court. Is there about to be a war in Washington? Well, if so, the opening rounds were shot today. And later, another twist in the case of the teen accused of killing a lawyer‘s wife. We‘ll have that and much more when SCARBOROUGH COUNTRY returns.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
SCARBOROUGH: President Bush made a lot of people happy by nominating federal appeals court Judge Samuel Alito. He‘s a 15-year veteran on the Third Circuit Court to the Supreme Court. And I tell you, this guy is a legal all-star. But White House Press Secretary Scott McClellan had to address the White House Press Corps for questions about Judge Alito, but they hammered him on the CIA leak investigation instead.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
DAVID GREGORY, MSNBC CORRESPONDENT: You were wrong then, weren‘t you?
SCOTT MCCLELLAN, WHITE HOUSE PRESS SECRETARY: We have been directed by the White House Counsel‘s Office not to discuss this matter or responds to questions about it.
GREGORY: Is the public representation that you made to the American people...
MCCLELLAN: We can have this conversation, but let me respond...
GREGORY: ... because it‘s such an artful dodge. Aside from the question of legality here, you were wrong, weren‘t you?
MCCLELLAN: Again, David, if I were to get into commenting from this podium while this legal proceeding continues, I might be prejudicing the opportunity for there to be a fair and impartial trial.
UNIDENTIFIED REPORTER: You say we know you, and we do, but we can‘t vouch for you. We can‘t go on TV and say, “America, believe Scott McClellan.” That‘s not my role.
MCCLELLAN: You go on TV, though, and engage in commentary about views and things that are expressed here at the White House.
UNIDENTIFIED REPORTER: Right. But what I can‘t do is carry your water for you, and I wonder...
MCCLELLAN: I‘m not asking you to.
UNIDENTIFIED REPORTER: Yes, you are.
MCCLELLAN: I‘m just asking you to speak to who I am, and you know who I am.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
SCARBOROUGH: Oh, it‘s not that easy. It‘s just not that easy. I‘ll tell you what. I was watching “The West Wing” last night, and I just cannot believe how life imitated art this morning. Now, here‘s a scene that was in “The West Wing” last night, and again, it‘s an example of how Hollywood is imitating life. And we, of course, played around with it a little bit. Take a look.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
UNIDENTIFIED: Did any senior staff know Toby was lying from that very podium?
MCCLELLAN: If I were to get into commenting from this podium while this legal proceeding continues, I might be prejudicing the opportunity for there to be a fair and impartial trial.
UNIDENTIFIED: Does any of the White House senior staff know that Toby Ziegler was leaking national security secrets?
MCCLELLAN: We need to let this legal process continue. The special counsel indicated the other day that it is ongoing.
UNIDENTIFIED: Has the president been asked to testify in the criminal investigation?
MCCLELLAN: We have been directed by the White House Counsel‘s Office not to discuss this matter or respond to questions about it.
UNIDENTIFIED: Isn‘t Mr. Babbitt (ph) also a witness?
MCCLELLAN: I think I just answered your question in the previous response I gave you.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
SCARBOROUGH: I mean, it really was, it was identical. Now, if you‘re trying to keep score at home and say, well, which one was real life and which one was the Hollywood version—the ugly people were the ones in real life. As they told me—many people liked telling me when I was in Washington—Washington‘s sort of a Hollywood for ugly people.
Anyway, the press corps aside, George Bush‘s nomination of Alito seemed to pacify his conservative base and upset many on the left. A storm is brewing, and with me tonight to talk about it we‘ve got Catherine Crier, Court TV host, and she‘s the author of “Contempt: How the Right is Wronging American Justice,” and MSNBC political analyst, Patrick Buchanan.
Patrick, let‘s start with you, because you‘re so far right that you‘re
almost veering left here. I‘ve got to tell you, Patrick, this morning
after the president selected Judge Alito, I‘ve got to say, more
conservatives, more Republicans were happier than they‘ve been any time
since Bush beat Kerry a year ago. Talk about why the base has just been
re-ignited by this selection.
PAT BUCHANAN, MSNBC POLITICAL ANALYST: Because the president didn‘t pacify the conservatives. He made an outstanding choice for this country. Here is a man of incredible qualifications. He looks like John Roberts‘ big brother. He‘s got 15 years on the federal appellate court, Roberts has two. He‘s got four years of real life experience prosecuting criminals in New Jersey. I mean, he‘s Yale Law School, the top of his class. He‘s Princeton Phi Beta Kappa. He‘s Solicitor General‘s Office—arguing before the Supreme Court. He‘s got a wonderful demeanor. He‘s...
SCARBOROUGH: Hold on a second. I heard the Democratic senators already come out and basically condemn this guy: he‘s a rightwing hack.
(LAUGHTER)
SCARBOROUGH: I said that with a straight face, by the way, baby.
BUCHANAN: Look, I heard Reid come out and say, “Why did he pick this radical?” The guy was unanimously approved for the federal appellate bench by a Democratic Senate, for heaven‘s sakes. The ABA gave him its highest rating when he went up there. He‘s respected and liked. I mean, Lautenberg praised him, Specter has praised him. This guy‘s going through, Joe.
The gang of 14 is going to meet, and then they‘re going to break up and say, “We‘ll come back and meet later.”
SCARBOROUGH: I‘ll tell you this. I don‘t know about the gang of 14, but I know the seven Republican senators that I‘ve heard from today are all ready for a fight. They believe that if they have a fight over this guy, they win.
Catherine Crier, you wrote a book about how the extreme rightwing is destroying the judiciary system. Talk about this selection. I hear Buchanan giggling in the background like a little schoolgirl. Has Patrick Buchanan done it again? Has he sabotaged America?
CATHERINE CRIER, COURT TV: Oh, my lord. Gambling, gambling, I‘m shocked. In fact, the description he just gave for this particular judge would match Scalia who, of course, 98-zip with a Democratic Congress. The man is extraordinarily intelligent, et cetera, et cetera—we know all of this.
And if it weren‘t a replacement for what many—the Democratic Party and a lot of people in this country believe is a mainstream conservative—they believe this individual is much, much more conservative than...
SCARBOROUGH: Do you think he‘s too conservative? You think he‘s a lot more conservative than Middle America?
CRIER: Well, I do, I do. But I think that was to be expected. However, the reason I think the Democrats are so upset is because they are now assured, if this man is confirmed, that the court will take a heavy swing to the right. You‘re going to see 5-4 decisions, possibly, but the other way around. Certainly, the conservatives, the ultra conservatives, are very happy with this.
But the American people need to understand clearly what that means for the country‘s agenda.
SCARBOROUGH: Catherine, I don‘t consider myself to be an ultra conservative. I‘m certainly a conservative, though. I‘m happy about this guy. I don‘t know how he‘s going to rule on all the court decisions, but he seems to be extraordinarily qualified. He seems to be a man of moderate temperament.
But I want to ask you a question. Don‘t you think most Americans believe that elections do have consequences, and if Bill Clinton is elected, then somebody like Ruth Bader Ginsburg, who really did have decisions that were far out of the mainstream of American political thought, would get passed 96 to 3, as she did back in the early 1990s? And if a Republican like George W. Bush wins, then you get people like John Roberts and Alito. I mean, don‘t you think most Americans understand that‘s the way it works?
CRIER: Ruth Bader Ginsburg, if we look at her record on the bench, however, despite all of the rhetoric as an ACLU lawyer...
SCARBOROUGH: Oh, but you have to look, though, at what she did before when those senators, when 96 senators voted yes, and all but three Republicans voted yes, despite the fact that she had some really radical decisions out there.
CRIER: All right, well, let me finish. She has proved to be very judicially restrained.
SCARBOROUGH: Sure.
CRIER: She has not proved to be any sort of a radical.
SCARBOROUGH: The Court moderates them.
CRIER: When you look at the ideology and you determine whether or not, especially given the 15-year record that Alito has, you know, whether or not this man is going to move to the ultra conservative arena, that does not necessarily—in fact, I do not think represents the majority of people in this country—then people need to under stand...
BUCHANAN: Oh...
CRIER: ... hold on, Pat—understand what they‘re getting. Now, I agree with you, this man is extraordinarily intelligent and qualified in the sense that he meets the academic and judicial qualifications. The country now has to decide, and all people have to decide, whether the agenda should be reflected by the Supreme Court.
BUCHANAN: All right, all right, but look—let me get this. Look, Ruth Bader Ginsburg is a radical liberal. She‘s an ACLU counsel...
CRIER: She hasn‘t acted that way as a Supreme Court...
BUCHANAN: Hold it, it‘s my turn, kid, my turn, kid.
CRIER: Oh, I love it, kid.
BUCHANAN: Look, if you put her position to the ACLU...
SCARBOROUGH: Wait, did Buchanan just call her dear?
CRIER: He didn‘t call me lady, he called me kid.
BUCHANAN: Look, if you put the ACLU positions up to the American people, they‘d slap them down 90 to 10. She is much further to the left than Scalia is to the right. We all agree Alito is fully qualified. The question then comes down to judicial philosophy.
CRIER: Yes.
BUCHANAN: And all right, Catherine, we had that contest in 2004, and Bush said, “I‘m going to appoint Rehnquist, Scalia, Thomas justices.” He won the election, so he‘s appointed a highly qualified man for America and someone of basically his judicial philosophy. Now, deal with it. The American people have spoken to this, and this guy is going through.
And you watch how the Democrats fold, especially the ones that are up for reelection in 2006, and in the on-deck circle, I see someone named Michael Luttig.
CRIER: Well, I don‘t particularly...
SCARBOROUGH: Catherine, Buchanan said deal with it.
(LAUGHTER)
CRIER: Well, you know, I haven‘t heard this guy yet, and I‘ve read some of his opinions that I found were extraordinarily enlightened, there are some of his opinions that I disagree with...
BUCHANAN: You mean you agreed with him.
CRIER: ... there are some of them I do agree with, but that does not necessarily mean that we can say waltz right on in until I get the hearings. I‘ve got to hear what this man has to say. I will be surprised if he‘s defeated, if his nomination is defeated.
BUCHANAN: I think...
SCARBOROUGH: There‘s the case, obviously, 1992, Casey v. Planned Parenthood, it was a Pennsylvania case, third circuit, kicked to the U.S. Supreme Court. But while on the third circuit, Alito wrote on it, and he even talked about it spousal consent. Of course, if you did into it, people that know a lot more about this than I do say, really, the statute was a nothing anyway, a legal nothing. But still, in the end, this fight is going to all boil down to abortion and Roe, isn‘t it?
CRIER: And it shouldn‘t. I find that very disconcerting, because there‘s so many issues to worry about. But it was a notification case, by the way, and in fact, the statute didn‘t say that the husband could thwart the abortion. However, if you believe an individual has privacy rights rather than a couple, then that‘s certainly the objection to his decision.
BUCHANAN: All right, here‘s what he decided—let me get in on this.
You‘re right, it was a notification case. The Pennsylvania legislature...
SCARBOROUGH: Hey, Pat, we‘ve got a hard break.
BUCHANAN: OK. Are we going to come back?
SCARBOROUGH: No, I‘m going to give you 10 seconds. Go.
BUCHANAN: OK. They said the husband had to be notified if the wife was going to kill his child. Pennsylvania decided that way, and Alito said...
CRIER: No other judges agreed.
BUCHANAN: ... Alito said, “I‘m not going to overturn the people‘s decision.”
SCARBOROUGH: OK, thank you so much. All right, we‘ll see you another night. We‘ll be right back.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
(NEWSBREAK)
SCARBOROUGH: You know, last week, we told you about the huge profits oil companies are making. As gas prices have surged, Exxon Mobil announced it earned $9.9 billion last quarter, the most in corporate history.
Now this comes just as we learn that the industry‘s take since 2003 has been an incredible increase, from $43 billion to $96 billion. That in just two years. Here‘s part of an energetic interview from SCARBOROUGH COUNTRY with Jim Cramer.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
SCARBOROUGH: You know, the $64,000 question this week after you see these unbelievable profits coming from these oil companies while the rest of us are paying higher and higher gas prices, are these guys corporate bandits or are they just taking.
(CROSSTALK)
JIM CRAMER, CNBC HOST, “JIM CRAMER‘S MAD MONEY”: No, come on.
SCARBOROUGH: . of a competitive.
CRAMER: No, this has been a crummy business for 18 years. Finally these guys are making a little bit of change, and we want to take it away from them? Let‘s hope that they are able to reinvest it, and the environmentalists don‘t keep them from building the refineries and drilling where we need it.
SCARBOROUGH: Tyson Slocum, what do you think?
TYSON SLOCUM, PUBLIC CITIZEN: First of all, refining profit margins are through the roof not because the oil industry is coming up with great innovations, but because they have been buying out all their competitors. We‘ve seen merger.
SCARBOROUGH: All right, Tyson, but let me ask you something, though.
Hold on a second.
SLOCUM: Yes.
SCARBOROUGH: Are they gouging us at the pumps?
SLOCUM: They‘re gouging us at the pump. They‘re gouging us at every stage of production. Remember, Exxon Mobil is a vertically integrated monopoly. They produce oil in the United States and all over the world. They own oil refineries, where they‘re turning that crude oil into gasoline. And they‘re sending that gasoline out to their affiliated stations.
CRAMER: They are making so little money. This guy is—where did you get this guy? They don‘t make no...
(CROSSTALK)
CRAMER: Look, cumulatively, they had a big quarter, but, for years, refining has been such a bad business. When it‘s bad, they get to suffer, but, when it‘s good, you get to take the money?
SLOCUM: Cramer, in the last couple of years, the industry has gone under a radical restructuring. We have seen Exxon Mobil merge, ChevronTexaco, ConocoPhillips. Valero brought out three other refining companies.
It‘s not the same industry in the ‘90s. They are not making money because of innovation. They‘re making money because they have squelched competition. That‘s not the American way. They‘re price-gouging Americans.
CRAMER: Where did you get Lenin? I haven‘t seen Lenin. You don‘t look like him, but you sure do talk like him. Come on, this isn‘t a means of production issue. This company, Exxon, made a lot of money. It had been making just a little bit of money since 1982. Suddenly, they are making some money, and Lenin surfaces.
SLOCUM: Well, why are you talking about past history? I am talking about present history. I‘m not talking about price-gouging in 1982. I‘m talking about price-gouging in 2005.
CRAMER: They are not gouging.
SLOCUM: It‘s going on. And, right now, consumers are suffering. The economy is suffering, and this winter is going to be a crisis for millions of Americans.
CRAMER: So, in other words, forget capitalism. When things are good for Exxon, we ought to just take all that money away. When things are bad, sorry that you are in a crummy business? Is that the way it plays out?
SLOCUM: I guess what Enron did in California was capitalism, huh?
Just blame it on the environmentalists.
CRAMER: No. No. Hey, come on, I testified...
(CROSSTALK)
CRAMER: I testified to the grand jury on that. Don‘t come to me with that. I was the guy who went right to the California authorities, because I knew about that rigging.
SCARBOROUGH: Jim, I want to ask you, what do you say, though, to people in Middle America who see oil prices going up, gas prices going up? This winter, there are going to be a lot of people suffering in the Northeast. Again, the people that can afford it the least are the ones that are going to be paying the most, proportionately.
What do you say to them when they say, it just doesn‘t make any sense to us that we are paying more and the oil companies are getting rich.
CRAMER: OK. All right. First of all, these oil companies are not—they don‘t—most of them don‘t own a lot—that much oil. They are refining. You can take a look at their breakout refining margins. Yes, refining margins have popped right here, but they have been under pressure.
Look, I am in a complete beat them—can‘t beat them-join them mode. I would tell these people that, look, these companies are going to be making some money for a while. Go own the stocks. Now, if they don‘t have the money to own the stocks, I understand. But it is a—just a brief blip up that they are benefiting from after 18 years of not doing well.
And I can‘t sit here and have those profits taxed away, because we need those companies to reinvest or else gasoline will go through the roof.
SCARBOROUGH: Tyson?
SLOCUM: Gasoline is going through the roof because of uncompetitive actions by a handful of big oil companies that control the market. Proof...
SCARBOROUGH: So, you are saying...
(CROSSTALK)
CRAMER: You think it was a big oligopoly? You think they sit in a room? You‘re think they‘re in a room? Like, they‘re at the Hilton?
(CROSSTALK)
SLOCUM: The United States Federal Trade Commission did a major investigation of this stuff. In 2001, before most of the mergers, they concluded that oil companies were unilaterally withholding and manipulating the market. In March 2004, the United States Government Accountability Office, the research arm of Congress, concluded that all the recent mergers directly led to higher gasoline prices.
SCARBOROUGH: Jim...
(CROSSTALK)
SLOCUM: The proof is in the numbers.
SCARBOROUGH: Would you be able—how can you tell us how these oil prices are set? I mean, do you really think that it‘s Adam Smith‘s invisible hand?
CRAMER: Well, I‘ll tell you, they are set because we don‘t have enough refining—we don‘t have enough refining capacity in this country. These guys would love to ...
(CROSSTALK)
SLOCUM: I thought the market was supposed to take care of that.
CRAMER: Talk to Bill Greehey at Valero. He would love to build a refinery in my backyard, but all the neighbors around me say no. He wants to put up a lot of refineries, but we don‘t let him do it. He has got excess capital. He wants to build.
SLOCUM: I‘ve got three words for you, Arizona Clean Fuels. It‘s a small independent company outside of Phoenix, Arizona. They have applied and received state air quality permits, federal air quality permits. You are telling me that Exxon Mobil, that‘s got like $40 billion in cash lying around, can‘t do the same thing that a small business in Arizona can? That‘s ridiculous.
(CROSSTALK)
CRAMER: But that is enough for—like, for your Hummer. I mean, look, you have got to understand, this is a business that we have historically said, you cannot build refineries in this country. It‘s not worth it for Exxon to sink that money in. If you free that up, that money will go into refining capacity, because now there‘s a good return. But if we are just going to tax away the money they‘re going to make, you are never going to see it.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
SCARBOROUGH: You know I love Cramer, but I still haven‘t really gotten the answer to my question. I hear people talking about refineries, but again, the bottom line is that if oil prices go up, then I understand gas prices go up. And we all have to pay more money because the cost of oil companies getting oil from the Middle East, well, it‘s more expensive. That‘s supply and demand.
However, what I don‘t understand is when oil prices go up, and gas prices go up, why don‘t oil profits explode unless they are gouging us at the pumps? We are going to keep on this question. We are going to talk to some friends I have in the oil industry, try to get them to come on the show and try to explain it to me better. They can‘t just say refineries, refineries, refineries. It‘s a lot deeper than that.
Coming up next, did his dog make him do it? A bizarre new theory about a possible motive in the murder of Pamela Vitale from the Goth murderer. Plus, pictures of the suspected teen killer that you haven‘t seen.
And the woman who inspired the hit NBC show “Medium” is here to tell us on this Halloween how her supernatural gifts are used by police in cases all over the country.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
SCARBOROUGH: You are looking at disturbing new pictures of Scott Dyleski, of course, he is the 16-year-old kid accused of brutally killing Pamela Vitale. And the case takes a bizarre new twist. A new theory tonight that Scott was devastated when one of his neighbors may have accidentally run over his dog and killed it back in September. The neighbor lived near Pam Vitale and her husband, Daniel Horowitz. And was this a triggering event, the last straw that pushed Scott to commit such a heinous crime? With us now to talk about it is Dr. Bethany Marshall, she‘s a psychoanalyst. And also, criminal defense attorney, Deborah Opri.
Deborah, you have handled a lot of these cases before, but have you ever heard anything so bizarre as this case, about, of course, you have got a mother that is let out of jail, to testify against her son, in a murder trial, and now you have the death of a dog possibly being a triggering event for almost a satanic murder?
DEBORAH OPRI, CRIMINAL DEFENSE ATTORNEY: Well, Joe, first of all, this could be media uproar in terms of what is playing out. Where did the dog story come from? Probably someone in the investigator‘s office, detective whatever. I don‘t think an attorney would ever leak to the press that the dog is the reason why he had the motive to kill.
I think in conversations with this boy, he might have made a comment, well, yes, my dog was killed by a car a short while ago. But if I was his criminal defense attorney, I would come within three inches of that young man‘s face and I would say, who are you kidding? Never are you going to put on that kind of a defense, because it‘s not going to play out.
It‘s absolutely ridiculous. I would never use it, and in terms of the investigation itself, I would be looking at who is releasing that piece of information to the press. It kind of disgusts me, because I just don‘t see it as something that should be out there right now.
SCARBOROUGH: Bethany, you know, the excuses just keep getting worse.
DR. BETHANY MARSHALL, PSYCHOANALYST: Right.
SCARBOROUGH: We heard before that he took this terrible turn in his personal life because his sister died a few years ago. Now we are hearing over the weekend press reports that somebody in the neighborhood may have killed the dog, put him over the edge. We keep talking about all these triggering events, like you just turn on a light switch, and the guy goes crazy. It‘s never that simple, is it?
MARSHALL: It‘s never that simple, and I do agree with my friend, Deb Opri, that the dog didn‘t make him do it. However, the dog being hit by the car could have been a precipitating factor.
What I think happened is very disturbed individuals confuse loss with abandonment, so when they experience the loss of a family member, the death of a pet, they feel they have been left behind in a cruel, malicious, purposeful kind of way, feelings of abandonment lead to rage, and in homicidal individuals, rage leads to the wish to murder.
Now, murder is a part of a three-step process. First there‘s a build-up phase. Second there‘s the act itself. And third, there‘s relief. So in the build-up phase, usually there‘s a series of precipitating factors. And what we see with Scott Dyleski is that his sister was killed in a car crash three years ago, so then you have abandonment, loss.
He ordered the hydroponic growing equipment on the same day that his father filed for divorce from the stepmother, so here you have another loss/abandonment. And then the dog gets hit by the car, so you have the build-up, literally an incubation phase prior to the murder.
Then you have the act itself. And with adolescents, often the act of
murder is accompanied by a violent upsurge of rage. I mean, he killed her
he hit her 39 times with a piece of crown molding. And then what you have afterwards is relief.
Homicidal individuals, after they kill somebody, they walk around as if nothing happened. So he drank the glass of water. He took a shower. He went to his girlfriend‘s house that night. He had sex with her. And in a sense, it was like the calm after the storm because he had discharged all those emotions that have been building up over time.
SCARBOROUGH: And all the hate. OK. Thank you so much, Dr. Bethany Marshall and Deborah Opri, greatly appreciate you both being with us.
And when we come back, she helps to solve crime, she says, by using her supernatural gifts. It‘s Halloween in SCARBOROUGH COUNTRY. Her life is an inspiration for the show “Medium” on NBC. Tonight, Halloween, the real life medium is in SCARBOROUGH COUNTRY to give us her take on some of the big cases in the news. We‘ll have that when we return.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
UNIDENTIFIED ACTOR: Do you think daddy sometimes wishes I was a boy?
UNIDENTIFIED ACTOR: No. Daddy loves you very much just the way you are.
UNIDENTIFIED ACTOR: OK. Just checking. Mommy, you won‘t let the bad man hurt us, will you?
UNIDENTIFIED ACTOR: What bad man?
UNIDENTIFIED ACTOR: I think she is talking about me.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
SCARBOROUGH: That‘s a clip from the hit NBC series “Medium.” Every week, psychic Allison Dubois helps solve murder and missing person cases while raising three little girls and a husband. But this is what I didn‘t know until today. Allison is actually a real person, and because it‘s Halloween, she is here tonight. Allison Dubois, author of “Don‘t Kiss Them Goodnight (sic).”
Thanks so much for being with us. And I know so many people out there just want the $64,000 question answered. How does this work?
ALLISON DUBOIS, MEDIUM: That‘s a good question. Maybe a scientist will come up with that answer. I know Dr. Linda Rusick (ph) is studying mitochondrial DNA of mediums to try and determine a genetic marker, but as far as I know, I know how to do it, so I see it, I hear information, I write information down on murders just with a pen and paper, get the first name of a victim, and just write whatever comes to me, so that‘s how it works.
SCARBOROUGH: When did you first discover that you had this special skill?
DUBOIS: When I was six, I went to my first funeral, my great-grandfather had passed away, and my mom tucked me into bed and went to bed herself, and I looked up and saw him standing at the foot of my bed. But he looked really healthy and strong and he said, tell your mom I am not in pain anymore, and that I am still with her, I am OK.
So I went and I knocked on her door, and I told my mom what he said, and I thought she would be excited that he was back, I thought it meant that he was alive again or that he was back, I thought it meant he was alive again or that he was back. And she went back to bed herself, and closed the door, and I went back in my room, and he was gone, so it was very confusing for a 6-year-old.
SCARBOROUGH: Well, talk about some of the cases that you have actually contributed time to, because you don‘t charge for a certain type of cases, the work you do.
DUBOIS: Yes. I don‘t charge for murder or missing cases. The only cases that you will ever hear me really mention in the books are either the ones where the victim survived or I don‘t give a lot of information on the victims, because I don‘t want to re-victimize their family just for my own image to look better.
So I have 300 on my desk right now. I am working three a week right now, which is more than I can probably handle, but I am trying to keep up with it. And Elizabeth Smart was one of the cases that I had contributed information on.
I said his name was Brian, that he was a handyman for the Smarts and that he was a transient, and that I got a connection to California, so he may have fled there. If the information doesn‘t get to the right person, sometimes it‘s just not meant to be me that makes that difference or somebody else. We are just kind of a tool for law enforcement should they choose to use us.
SCARBOROUGH: Why are Americans so fascinated by this TV show, “Medium” and other shows like it? There‘s so many other shows out there that are coming up, supernatural stories, supernatural angles. What is going on right now in American culture that draws people to your type of story?
DUBOIS: Well, I do think that people are starting to, you know, explore more what they have experienced themselves, and it gives them somebody to identify with, that has had a dream or they saw somebody who died, and they had that happen themselves.
I mean, it‘s very common that that happens. It‘s not that unusual. But I also think what people don‘t understand becomes very, you know, curious to them, and they want to know more about it. I know that it‘s very interesting to see the genetic connection with me and my daughters, and that they carry the same abilities that I do, and, you know, my husband is a rocket scientist.
I mean, he is pretty pragmatic, but—so together we make a very interesting unit, and I think that‘s what draws people to this show, is the relationships. I think the topic is just icing on the cake.
SCARBOROUGH: All right. Thanks so much, Allison. Greatly appreciate you being here.
And we‘ll be right back.
SCARBOROUGH: Well, that‘s all the time we have for tonight. Tucker Carlson is up next with “THE SITUATION.”
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
END