updated 11/2/2005 9:29:42 AM ET 2005-11-02T14:29:42

Guests: Shereen Jackson, Michael Haynesworth, Dorothy Lennig, Justine Andronici, Catherine Crier, Wendy Long, Gerold Dompig, Dave Holloway, Dick Deguerin

DAN ABRAMS, HOST:  Coming up, Supreme Court nominee Judge Samuel Alito‘s mother says of course her son is opposed to abortion. 

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

ABRAMS (voice-over):  But Judge Alito has ruled both ways on the issue.  If he becomes a Supreme Court justice, will that change?  Will he vote to overturn Roe v. Wade?

And a woman now in critical condition after a judge throws out a protective order against her husband.  Now she‘s recovering from burns on half her body.  He‘s charged with attempted murder.  We‘ve got the judge on tape in the courtroom. 

Plus, Natalee Holloway‘s mother, Beth, heads back to Aruba as a war of words seems to be developing between Beth and the deputy police chief.  He joins us to talk about that and whether an arrest could be imminent. 

The program about justice starts now. 

(END VIDEOTAPE)

ABRAMS:  Hi everyone.  First up on the docket tonight, a Maryland woman tracked down by her estranged husband at her office where he allegedly through gasoline on her and then lit her on fire.  She is still in critical condition suffering severe burns over half her body. 

But now we learn a judge might have been able to help prevent the attack.  Yvette Cade said she knew her husband would try to attack her.  That‘s why she got a yearlong restraining order against him that was supposed to expire next July.  But just three months after that order went into effect, Yvette‘s husband, 33-year-old Roger Hargrave, asked the judge to allow him to see her for marriage counseling. 

Yvette went to court to fight the request.  Well instead of ruling on that, the judge threw out the restraining order entirely, dismissing Yvette‘s cries for help and telling her to take her claims to divorce court.  Now here is some of the sound from that hearing. 

(BEGIN AUDIOTAPE)

YVETTE CADE:  Well he‘s violating the peace order.  He‘s contacting my family.  He‘s still contacting me.  (INAUDIBLE) he‘s intimidating my daughter.  And he‘s vandalizing other people‘s properties.  I want you to look at these pictures.  He has a girlfriend, friend, who is like contacting me and giving me cards, and I want (INAUDIBLE) -- I want an immediate absolute divorce.

JUDGE PALUMBO:  I‘d like to be six feet five, but that‘s not what we do here.  You have to go to divorce court for that.

YVETTE CADE:  OK, well I want you to look at these pictures because I don‘t want him to continue...

(CROSSTALK)

YVETTE CADE:  He was trying to force me to go to marriage counseling.

JUDGE PALUMBO:  That might not be a bad idea if you want to save the marriage.

YVETTE CADE:  I don‘t want to because...

JUDGE PALUMBO:  Then you are in the wrong place.  Get a lawyer and go to divorce court.  This petition is denied.  You‘re dismissed.

(END AUDIOTAPE)

ABRAMS:  The judge you heard on that tape is Richard Palumbo and according to “The Washington Post”, he has a history of questionable calls and comments in domestic violence cases, telling one woman whose voice box was damaged after her husband beat her up to speak up in court.  In another case denied extending a restraining order a woman had won against her husband.  Five months later he beat her severely.

Joining me now is Yvette Cade‘s sister, Shereen Jackson, and their cousin, Michael Haynesworth and attorney and director of House of Ruth, domestic violence legal clinic in Maryland, Dorothy Lennig.

All right, thanks to all of you.  First of all, Shereen, how is your sister doing?

SHEREEN JACKSON, YVETTE CADE‘S SISTER:  Well, she‘s still in surgery right now.  This will be surgery number nine and we‘re hoping that she pulls through this surgery like she ‘s done with others. 

ABRAMS:  How is she feeling? 

JACKSON:  Her spirits remain up all the time.  She just likes to show to the family that she‘s not broken and she‘s going to survive. 

ABRAMS:  Good for her.  Does she—Michael, does she blame the judge? 

MICHAEL HAYNESWORTH, COUSIN ALLEGEDLY BURNED BY HUSBAND:  No, she doesn‘t blame the judge per se.  She‘s very upset about what the judge has done, but she blames Hargrave for what he‘s done. 

ABRAMS:  And that being...

(CROSSTALK)

ABRAMS:  ... that being her estranged husband? 

HAYNESWORTH:  Correct.  This is two separate affiliates, one against her estranged husband.  He‘s accountable for what he‘s done.  But Judge Palumbo is a co-conspirator because he could have prevented it. 

ABRAMS:  And give me the mindset, Shereen, that Yvette had as she‘s going into court.  She‘s scared.  She‘s literally afraid for her life? 

JACKSON:  Definitely.  It‘s been numerous occasions that he‘s beat her, kicked in doors.  I was at their home once and he erupted in a violent tyrant around the home.  I was scared, my children were scared and we couldn‘t—after that, I could couldn‘t—I feared for my safety and my children‘s. 

ABRAMS:  I should point out the husband has been arrested on charges including attempted murder.  Let me play this again and then I want to go to Dorothy Lennig to talk about the legal issues surrounding it.

This is the judge—again, this is Yvette Cade going to court.  She thinks—remember, she thinks she‘s there to try to say look, I want this restraining order in place.  I don‘t want to have to go to marriage counseling with this guy.  I‘m scared of him.  All right.  That‘s what she thinking she‘s going into court to do. 

HAYNESWORTH:  Absolutely.

ABRAMS:  Now let‘s listen here as she‘s speaking to the judge. 

(BEGIN AUDIOTAPE)

YVETTE CADE:  He was trying to force me to go to marriage counseling.

JUDGE PALUMBO:  That might not be a bad idea if you want to save the marriage.

YVETTE CADE:  I don‘t want to because...

JUDGE PALUMBO:  Then you‘re in the wrong place.  Get a lawyer and go to divorce court.  This petition is denied.  You‘re dismissed.

(END AUDIOTAPE)

ABRAMS:  All right, Dorothy Lennig, as a legal matter, there‘s no question that this shouldn‘t have been dismissed, correct? 

DOROTHY LENNIG, DOMESTIC VIOLENCE ATTORNEY:  That‘s correct. 

ABRAMS:  And tell us why.

LENNIG:  Well, this was a case where Ms. Cade got a protective order against her husband.  Mr. Hargrave agreed to the entry of the protection order and that should have stood for a year.  In order for that to be changed, both parties would come into court and have a full hearing on any of the changes.  All Mr. Hargrave asked for was to modify it, to add counseling to it, and she was arguing that it shouldn‘t. 

ABRAMS:  So in essence, it wasn‘t even before the court, the issue of dismissing this protective order.  I mean that wasn‘t even what they were there for. 

LENNIG:  That‘s correct.  Mr. Hargrave didn‘t even ask for the protective order to be dismissed.  And in fact, he didn‘t even show up at the hearing and so therefore, normal court procedure would be to dismiss his request for the counseling. 

ABRAMS:  And here—let me read this statement from the Maryland Judiciary saying effective the afternoon of October 26, 2005, Judge Richard Palumbo has been assigned to administrative chambers duties until further notice.  This matter is under review by Chief Judge of the District Court.  It is a personnel matter.

Dorothy Lennig, that‘s a big deal, right?  I mean you know we can—they can suggest that it‘s not that big a deal or it‘s a personnel matter.  It‘s a big deal to take a judge and reassign him for administrative duties. 

LENNIG:  That‘s a very big deal.  Judges are almost never removed from their duties.  The court is taking this very seriously. 

ABRAMS:  All right.  So Michael Haynesworth, on the legal issues here and I think you were very wise to sort of separate for me when I asked you that question, the blame with regard to the ex-husband, where of course, he is the one who did this. 

(CROSSTALK)

ABRAMS:  As a legal matter, what do you make of what the court is doing here? 

HAYNESWORTH:  Well, at this point, we are in the process of just kind of waiting and seeing—family has come together.  We have filed a complaint and we‘re waiting to hear back from the Judicial Committee on disability—judicial disabilities to see how they respond to us because the family has formally listed a complaint. 

ABRAMS:  Yes.  All right.  Well, look, good luck to all of you.  Please send Yvette our regards and it‘s a very serious matter.  And when we heard about it, you know immediately we recognized how serious.  But both, of course, as you pointed out, Michael from this sort of, you know, the act and then there‘s also the legal issues.  So please, send our regards to Yvette.  Dorothy Lennig thank you very much as well for coming on the program. 

LENNIG:  You‘re welcome.

HAYNESWORTH:  Thank you. 

ABRAMS:  Coming up, who knows what Supreme Court nominee Samuel Alito thinks of abortion, his mother of course.  She says he‘s opposed to it just like she is.  So is Roe v. Wade doomed if he gets on the Supreme Court?  We‘ll try to figure it out next.

And Natalee Holloway‘s mother going back to Aruba with some tough words for the Aruban police, we got a response from the top cop in the investigation in another ABRAMS REPORT exclusive. 

Plus, Tom DeLay wins a battle in court, getting the judge hearing his case thrown out because he donated to Democrats.  We‘ll talk to Delay‘s attorney and former Texas judge, Catherine Crier.

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

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

ABRAMS:  His Supreme Court nomination is just over a day old and it seems already everyone has gotten an opinion about Judge Samuel Alito, Jr.  If confirmed, he‘d replace Sandra Day O‘Connor, often a swing vote on some big issues like abortion. 

So we ask, what is his record on the issue of abortion?  Well on its face, it seems mixed, but that may not tell the whole story.  All right, here‘s a little review.

1991:  Planned Parenthood v. Casey.  The issue there whether a Pennsylvania law requiring women to get their husband‘s consent before getting an abortion is constitutional.  Judge Alito‘s position in that case that certain restrictions on abortion were OK.

Quote—“The Pennsylvania legislature could have rationally believed that some married women are initially inclined to obtain an abortion without their husband‘s knowledge because of perceived problems such as economic constraints, future plans or the husband‘s previously expressed opposition.  That may be obviated by discussion prior to the abortion.”

1995:  Challenge to a Pennsylvania law.  It required a woman seeking an abortion, after an incident of rape or incest, to report the incident to law enforcement and identify the offender if she wants Medicaid to pay for the abortion.  Judge Alito voted that was unconstitutional. 

1997:  A challenge to a New Jersey law preventing parents from suing for damages on behalf of a wrongful death of a fetus.  Again, Judge Alito sided with the side you might not expect, said it doesn‘t protect the unborn, at least that‘s not the way the constitution has been interpreted. 

2000:  Planned Parenthood of Central New Jersey v. Farmer.  The issue: 

New Jersey‘s ban on late-term abortions.  Judge Alito joined the majority and ruled the law was unconstitutional, saying the Supreme Court had ruled abortion limits must have an exception for the protection of a mother‘s health.

So does that mean he‘s really that bad for those who are pro-choice?  Joining me now is Justine Andronici, legal advisor to the Feminist Majority Foundation.  Wendy Long, legal counsel of the Judicial Confirmation Network and host of “Catherine Crier Live” on Court TV, former Texas judge and author of  “Contempt: How The Right Is Wronging American Justice”, Catherine Crier.

All right, Justine, you know when you read through those opinions from Judge Alito on the issue of abortion, he doesn‘t seem that bad for your side.

JUSTINE ANDRONICI, FEMINIST MAJORITY FOUNDATION:  Well, actually, our position you know in looking at those cases is that Judge Alito did the most he could do in the position he was in to limit a woman‘s right to choose.  And what we‘re seeing in those opinions is a judge who is very much aware of his position as an appellate justice...

ABRAMS:  Right.

ANDRONICI:  ... but who would, if given the opportunity, which he would have that opportunity if he is confirmed, would take that...

ABRAMS:  But how do you know?

ANDRONICI:  ... and limit Roe even further. 

ABRAMS:  But how do you know? 

ANDRONICI:  Well look, for example, let me give you an example.  Take a look at his dissent in Casey.  In that case, we have a range of restrictions passed...

ABRAMS:  Right.

ANDRONICI:  ... in Pennsylvania that were severely limiting on a woman‘s right to choose.  And that law was in fact meant to challenge Roe v. Wade and the way that Alito handled that decision was by voting that each and every one of those restrictions was constitutional.  But he went further than his colleagues...

ABRAMS:  Right.

ANDRONICI:  ... in finding that a husband was in fact a necessary party...

ABRAMS:  Right.  I said consent.  I should have said notified...

ANDRONICI:  Right...

ABRAMS:  The husband has to be notified.  Right.

ANDRONICI:  And in asking and in looking at that issue and saying that it‘s perfectly appropriate for a husband to—for the law to say a husband must be notified, he really went way beyond what others have done in the arena of abortion.  So we believe that is very indicative of what he will do...

(CROSSTALK)

ABRAMS:  Catherine Crier, maybe so, but the reality is that when President Bush is going to be nominating a Supreme Court justice, based on the promises he made in 2004, about what type of justice he was going to appoint, the likelihood is he wasn‘t going to appoint someone who‘s going to be great for the pro-choice team and when you read through these opinions, it seems you know he‘s not as awful as he could be. 

CATHERINE CRIER, “CATHERINE CRIER LIVE” HOST:  Well I think he comes across, at least in these opinions as relatively judicially restrained and the argument you can make in the Casey case and I‘m not necessarily supporting this, so don‘t get me wrong, is basically he‘s a state‘s rights judge who‘s saying that the legislature had the right to make this definition.

ABRAMS:  Right.

CRIER:  It had not been restricted in the past so he wasn‘t bound by case precedent and if there were some justification for their definition, then he was going to go along with it, which may or may not tell us anything about his own feelings on notification.  But the question here, which was raised by your previous guest, is when he is not so bound by precedent, when he‘s no longer an appellate judge but in fact is sitting on the Supreme Court, can we discern anything from these opinions...

ABRAMS:  Can you? 

CRIER:  ... that will tell us whether he respects precedent.  We‘ve got to hear the Senate hearings, but what he‘s telling us, like John Roberts, is that he does have respect for precedent.  It‘s going to be a bit of a coin toss. 

ABRAMS:  Here‘s Judge Alito speaking yesterday.  Oh.  All right.  I thought we had—do we not have a piece of sound from Judge Alito?  All right—which is this one.  All right, this is the one where this is Alito‘s quote. 

Most of the labels people use to talk about judges and the way judges decide cases aren‘t too descriptive.  Judges should be judges.  They shouldn‘t be legislators.  They shouldn‘t be administrators.

Wendy Long look, we‘re getting into a lot of legal analysis here and I hate to throw it at you because I know how much you love the legal analysis on this, but let me ask you a little bit a more practical question.  Does it matter that his mom says of course he‘s opposed to abortion. 

WENDY LONG, JUDICIAL CONFIRMATION NETWORK:  Of course it doesn‘t matter.  That‘s part of the whole thing President Bush and those of us who favor judicial restrain have been saying for years and years and that‘s an issue that came up in the John Roberts‘ nomination.  Your personal views, whatever they are, do not matter if you believe that judges have a very limited role under our Constitution. 

That is simply to apply the law that the people have enacted through their representatives in the political branches of government.  Now I know, for example, lots of federal judges.  I know them personally, who are what you would characterize as pro-choice on abortion.  Nevertheless, they favor judicial restraint.  And I would think they would rule in the same way that Judge Alito and others rule in favor of judicial restraint, in favor of allowing people to govern themselves and make laws in the topic of abortion. 

ABRAMS:  And Justine, we‘ve just heard recently Justice Stevens say in a very high pro-file case, his eminent domain case, where he basically said look, I don‘t agree with this.  If I were the legislator, I wouldn‘t want to do this, but as a legal matter, you know my hands were tied effectively. 

Does that kind of mentality bring you any reassurance that maybe that what Judge Alito will say is that you know what, we are bound by precedent.  I am going to respect Roe v. Wade and you know that as a result, the world is not going to be falling as some on the left have suggested. 

ANDRONICI:  Well I think it would if in fact we had a sense from his previous cases that in fact he had conducted himself with restraint.  On a wide range of issues affecting women and people of color, we have seen this judge really thread the needle in even going further and trying to narrow interpretations of laws that Congress has passed, for example, with the Family Medical Leave Act, where we saw Judge Alito put forward an interpretation that was really disrespectful of the Congress‘ authority to take steps to help protect women and families when they were seeking to care for their family members. 

(CROSSTALK)

ANDRONICI:  So I don‘t think this judicial restraint argument is really going to fly, given his track record. 

ABRAMS:  Yes, it just—Catherine, the bottom line is it seems to me that to get—to derail the nomination of someone like Alito with the sort of credentials he has, you need something that‘s going to stick. 

CRIER:  Well you like—you could certainly make the argument in the questioning that he hid behind states‘ rights because basically he doesn‘t believe in a constitutional right to privacy.  Because if you do, then no notification requirement could ever be attached to a woman‘s right to choose.  So there are ways to ask these questions, whether you‘re going to get a straight answer or not.

ABRAMS:  But you know what he‘s going to say, right?  I mean he‘s going to say yes, you know I generally—I think that there is a—in the Constitution there is some right to privacy and he‘s not going to...

CRIER:  Roberts has given us—yes, Roberts has given you us the script. 

ABRAMS:  Right.  We‘re going to hear the exact same thing.  And that‘s why, Wendy Long, when I hear people say we‘re going to learn a lot from the confirmation hearings, that‘s a crock.  We‘re not going to learn almost anything.

This is basically the drool test.  I mean Robert Bork provided the guidelines of what not to do.  If you are nominated as a Supreme Court justice, don‘t be antagonistic towards the senators, be respectful, act as if their questions are really smart and then you‘re going—then they have to find something beyond just how you did in the hearings to make it stick. 

LONG:  Well I think Judge Roberts is going to show that he is a very, very well qualified, very intelligent, very...

ABRAMS:  Judge Alito you mean. 

LONG:  Sorry, yes...

ABRAMS:  Yes, yes.

LONG:  You‘re right.  But he will be in the mold of Judge Roberts in that sense that he‘ll display his brilliance, his familiarity of these concepts but he‘s not going to forecast, as Justice Ginsburg said in her hearings, how he‘s going to rule in future cases.  So on these basic doctrines he can speak.  He can speak about the history of these constitutional doctrines but he certainly can‘t forecast how he‘s going to rule in future issues that are coming before the court.

ABRAMS:  Yes.  Justine, I mean you think—do you think there‘s any chance he‘s not going to make it through?  It seems to me that you know maybe he won‘t get the sort of smooth sailing that Roberts had.  But that you know unless there is something we can‘t predict, I don‘t see how you‘re going to stop him.

ANDRONICI:  I absolutely think that there‘s a very good chance that this nominee doesn‘t make it through.  And the reason is that the senators are not going to be willing to take the kind of evasive answers...

ABRAMS:  Which senator...

(CROSSTALK)

ABRAMS:  Which senators...

ANDRONICI:  I think the Democratic senators and the pro-choice senators have the burden here.  They‘re going to need to extract from this nominee an assurance that he will protect a woman...

ABRAMS:  It‘s not going to happen. 

(CROSSTALK)

ABRAMS:  I can promise you...

ANDRONICI:  And if he‘s not...

ABRAMS:  ... it‘s not going to happen. 

ANDRONICI:  Well and maybe in that circumstance, I think we really are at a crossroads here.  Because it is absolutely unacceptable to a vast majority of Americans to have a removal of all the rights that women have earned over the last...

(CROSSTALK)

CRIER:  This is really the question, I think, Dan, that the country has to decide whether they‘re ready to get up behind senators on either side and fight and that is with Sandra Day O‘Connor being moved, the 5-4 decisions we‘ve seen over the last 20-plus years will probably be 5-4 the other way in many respects...

(CROSSTALK)

CRIER:  ... particularly individual rights.  Are they willing to fight...

ABRAMS:  Except Roe v. Wade is 6-3 at this point...

CRIER:  At this point...

ABRAMS:  Yes.  Yes.  All right.  Interesting stuff.  Justine, Wendy Long, thanks Appreciate it. 

ANDRONICI:  Thank you so much for having me. 

ABRAMS:  Catherine Crier is going to stay with me. 

Coming up, Beth Holloway back in Aruba putting the pressure on local authorities, demanding answers about her daughter‘s disappearance and offering up some tough words to the deputy police chief, who joins us for another ABRAMS REPORT exclusive. 

And later, a big win for Tom DeLay‘s lawyers.  They get a Democratic judge thrown off the case.  DeLay‘s lawyer joins us. 

And our continuing series, “Manhunt: Sex Offenders on the Loose”, our effort to help find sex offenders before they strike again.  Our search today is in Delaware. 

Authorities need your help find finding Johnathan Black, 44, 5‘7”, 140, convicted of unlawful sexual contact with a child between the ages of 12 and 15.  He‘s wanted for charges that may not be related to this case. 

If you‘ve got any information about his whereabouts, please contact the Wilmington Police Department, 302-654-5151. 

Be right back.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

ABRAMS:  Coming up, Beth Holloway back in Aruba, turning up the heat on the local authorities.  The Aruban deputy police chief is back with us tonight for an exclusive interview to respond to some of the allegations, first the headlines.

(NEWS BREAK)

ABRAMS:  Beth Holloway Twitty is back in Aruba.  It‘s now five months since her daughter Natalee disappeared and the tension seems to be growing between Beth and local authorities.  She‘s become increasingly critical of what she says has been the authorities lack of focus on the investigation. 

Joining me now on the phone is Aruba‘s deputy police chief, Gerold Dompig.  Deputy Chief, thank you very much for taking the time.  Appreciate it.

GEROLD DOMPIG, ARUBAN DEPUTY POLICE CHIEF (via phone):  Thank you for having me.

ABRAMS:  All right.  Let me—I want to read you some of Beth‘s statements and I want to have you respond.  First of all, this one was specifically directed at you. 

I hate that Deputy Dompig is losing focus of the investigation on the perpetrators that perpetrated a gang rape against my daughter.  It‘s just unbelievable that they would protect these three perpetrators.  I just can‘t imagine them thinking that it‘s going to go away.  It just seems like to me it‘s getting worse with each twist that they take.

Your response. 

DOMPIG:  Well, I regret those statements because I think anybody should understand and can understand that we have made a lot of efforts to conduct a professional investigation and in many cases, we have given the family every chance to sit with us and to take their statements. 

And I think Mrs. Twitty was the one who canceled an appointment that we made for her a couple of weeks ago.  And I only heard about the cancellation after calling her attorney and so I regret that.  And I think that it‘s not true at all. 

We have to investigate and as we investigate, we seriously have to look at all angles and we need answers and I don‘t know maybe some people are getting nervous because we want more detailed statements from the Alabama kids and no one is saying that the focus is off these three boys.  No.  We just need more answers and maybe these answers can also help us to make the case stronger against these three boys...

ABRAMS:  All right.  Now...

(CROSSTALK)

ABRAMS:  You refer to the...

(CROSSTALK)

ABRAMS:  You refer to the Alabama kids.  Let me read you what Beth Holloway had to say about that because you‘ve been asking for more statements from her friends who were there with her in Aruba. 

DOMPIG:  Exactly.

ABRAMS:  Beth Holloway say the following. 

They have all the statements that they need from the FBI regarding the students being on the island that evening.  They just need to look at them.  They don‘t need to be advertising for these students to contact them.  They have the statements.  There‘s nothing else that they need.

DOMPIG:  Well, again, I think that she must understand—with all due respect to Mrs. Twitty, she doesn‘t run the investigation.  We do.  And we ask the questions.  If it was the other way around, we could all back up and let the family do the investigation.  We are trained to do that. 

We had a meeting three days ago with the FBI and we have good progress and we have spoken to the FBI and (INAUDIBLE) that we will ask them officially to assist us with all the investigators and questions we still have (INAUDIBLE) Alabama (INAUDIBLE) and that‘s going to happen and we‘re just going to have a kind of like a no-nonsense approach, not the emotional stuff and I (INAUDIBLE) the family or Mrs. Twitty tries to throw us off track but I am steadfast. 

ABRAMS:  When you say she‘s trying to get you off track, I mean is there some dispute as to who the chief suspects are here?  I mean you had three people in custody.  She believes that those three people are the ones responsible here.  Is there any doubt—you arrested them and charged them with the crime, your office did.  Do you now have questions about whether they were responsible? 

DOMPIG:  No, but I need to make the case.  And to make the case—in order to make the case, there are more witnesses who left Aruba the same day.  So anybody should understand that when you have 120 kids, and even roommates, leaving the crime scene or the country where something happened, anybody should understand and appreciate that we have to get more detailed statements. 

The statements we have received are not detailed and (INAUDIBLE) details and we need more statements.  And that information that we only discuss with professional agents.  Hence, the FBI, not with the family.

ABRAMS:  Let me ask you this.  This is—Beth said—quote—“I called Deputy Dompig several times and left my name and number and I cannot even get him to return my phone calls.  So hopefully when I land on the island, I will at least find him or run into him.”

Have you seen her down there?  And what do you make of that statement?

DOMPIG:  Well, again, Mrs. Twitty is in Aruba with a film crew and a large film crew and I don‘t know what the agenda is there.  But we need her to make a statement (INAUDIBLE) claiming that we altered her statement in the past.  So I offered her a chance to come in for a new statement and we‘re still waiting.

ABRAMS:  And will you meet with her though?  I mean it seems that there is some dispute as to whether you will meet with her.  I mean she‘s saying you should return her phone calls...

(CROSSTALK)

ABRAMS:  I would think...

DOMPIG:  No.  There‘s no dispute. 

ABRAMS:  ... you should return...

(CROSSTALK)

DOMPIG:  We—no.  No, there‘s no dispute.  We set the rules.  We invite first people to come in to—for statements and it‘s not the other way around.

ABRAMS:  Yes, but she‘s also the victim‘s mother.  I mean you have to have a responsibility to keep her updated, no? 

DOMPIG:  Of course, but I insist that we—I need to—her to make her statement first and on the base of that, discuss with the prosecutor, what a meeting would be like with her afterwards.  But we need her to come in for a statement first. 

ABRAMS:  What do you mean come in for a statement?  I mean she‘s given a number of statements, has she not?  I mean I know you‘re right that she‘s made an allegation that one of her previous statements were altered.  When you say that she needs to come in and give a statement...

(CROSSTALK)

ABRAMS:  ... what exactly are you talking about? 

DOMPIG:  Well, I can only say this.  I‘m not willing to go into details but we need her.  We still have a couple of questions open and we need her to help us with those blanks and if she really wants to help with the investigation, I think that she should—we have an appointment with her as a matter of fact for Thursday and so we‘re looking forward to her coming in to correct that was supposedly, according to her, statement wrong.  And she will get that chance, opportunity and also the fact that we still have other questions, so that we can wrap that up. 

ABRAMS:  When you say—I mean just the way you‘re talking Chief it doesn‘t sound like the way I‘m used to hearing the police chief and—talking about the victim‘s mother.  I mean it sounds like you‘re saying you have questions that suggest she might have information with regard to the investigation that she‘s not sharing with you? 

DOMPIG:  No.  No.  No.  I think you‘re misreading me.  You should understand that I, as I said in the beginning, I sympathize 100 percent with the mother and with the family.  And—but I need to go forward with this investigation and the meeting we had with the FBI was a great meeting. 

And the path that we set out to follow is also—we follow that.  So

we‘re just moving ahead and I regret once more, I think you can understand

that I really regret, and that‘s maybe the tone of my voice, that I‘m very

you could say, I regret again the fact that the mother comes in—the grieving mother comes in with a film crew and so that I think it would be (INAUDIBLE) to stick with the investigating team so that we can fill up all the blanks instead of coming over with a film crew.  I don‘t know what that agenda is about. 

ABRAMS:  All right.  Finally, I‘ve got to just clear up something else about whether you made some allegations against her about money.  Again, this is Beth Holloway saying, when I‘m hearing quotes from Deputy Dompig about me scamming millions of dollars, I feel like I must respond to those.  Hopefully, I can find Deputy Dompig and see just where this information is coming from and where he‘s going with it.

Are you accusing her of somehow being involved in a scam? 

DOMPIG:  Absolutely not.  If there‘s any money somewhere for a relief fund or Holloway fund, that‘s none of my business.  And—but the only problem that I have and that‘s where I had a question.  That it became my business once Mr. Miller and Mr. Dave Holloway had problems (INAUDIBLE) not really problems, but tried to get some things for certain search activities and comp hotel rooms and so on.

So—and other people like Fred Goldberg (ph), the one who came in

with the dogs, also called and tried to find out how he could get his cost

back or who could pay for the searches.  And so I don‘t know.  I have

questions about who do they turn to and who do they call.  And that was the

only thing I had.  And other than that, I think that people just turned it

blew it out of proportion.  Because that is absolutely not part of the investigation. 

ABRAMS:  Finally, last time you were on we were talking about the possibility you might be re-arresting Deepak Kalpoe as a result of that interview...

DOMPIG:  Yes.

ABRAMS:  ... that he seemed to have done where he said that all three of them had sex with Natalee.  Any updates on that? 

DOMPIG:  Well, we‘re still waiting for Holland to give us the outcome of that test.  We are also contemplating an official request to the FBI to also look at the original material.  I have—I understood from Mr.  Skeeters that that would be the hard disk off his computer.  So as we speak we are working on a official request, which is going to be sent to Washington to the prosecutor (INAUDIBLE) where we will request—one is the special equipment that Mr. Dave Holloway wanted to use that probably the FBI has—uses and the other part is also the official assistance in getting more detailed statements from the Alabama teens.  So we are moving ahead and as we speak trying to get that into one document because as (INAUDIBLE) pointed out to us, these things have to be done officially. 

ABRAMS:  Right.  All right. 

DOMPIG:  ... not just picking up a phone. 

ABRAMS:  Chief look, I mean I don‘t think you‘d disagree with this.  It‘s not going to help the investigation if you and Beth Holloway are at odds in any way.  I hope that you reach out to her, that she reaches out to you while she‘s down there and that you‘re able to work out any differences that you had.  Because I know that you both are trying to achieve the same goal and that is finding out exactly what happened to Natalee.  So Chief, thanks for coming on the program. 

DOMPIG:  You‘re welcome.

ABRAMS:  All right.  Up next, he just returned from Aruba.  Natalee‘s father, Dave Holloway, is with us to respond to what we just heard. 

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

ABRAMS:  Coming up, Dave Holloway just back from Aruba responds to what we just heard.  Stay with us. 

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

ABRAMS:  Sure sounds like it‘s getting ugly in Aruba.  Beth Holloway Twitty is back there and seems to be going after the authorities a bit for losing focus in the search for her daughter.  And you just heard Deputy Police Chief Gerold Dompig defending his efforts and talking a bit about Dave Holloway as well.

Joining me now on the phone is Dave Holloway, Natalee‘s father, just back from Aruba.  Dave thanks again for taking the time.  All right.  What do you make of Gerold Dompig‘s comments?

DAVE HOLLOWAY, NATALEE HOLLOWAY‘S FATHER:  Well I arrived on the island on October the 18th and the following day I met with Dompig and he requested the assistance of the FBI, indicated that he would like for them to come back and utilize them as much as he could.  So we said well, we‘ll try to see if we can make that happen. 

In the meantime, he indicated that we needed to focus our search efforts into the ocean so you know, we‘re not going to waste any time.  So we took off along with Tim Miller with EquuSearch and had boats in the water I believe by the weekend and we soon realized that we would need the assistance of the FBI and some of their search equipment, so we forwarded an e-mail to Mr. Dompig on Wednesday, sometime Wednesday requesting that he make a phone call to the FBI so that we can get this underwater equipment. 

And I ended up having to leave the island on Thursday and then—and my reports back from those individuals who were left, they felt like the light had been turned out.  And so I followed up again Saturday with the same e-mail the you know we‘re all sitting on the bank and we cannot get in the water until we get the assistance of the FBI and that team finally had to leave this past Monday or Tuesday. 

ABRAMS:  It sound—look, according to Dompig, he says that he now has spoken with the FBI and they had a very productive conversation, et cetera.  I mean is the real divide here occurring over who he wants to interview?  I mean he really seems to want to talk to Natalee‘s friends again.  What‘s the problem with that? 

HOLLOWAY:  I don‘t think there is any problem with it, to tell you the truth about it.  The FBI arrived on the island Thursday, the same day that I left, and I don‘t know what happened or whatever, but you know the right protocol is to go through the FBI if you want any information in the United States.  It‘s that simple and so I don‘t know what the issue is there, to tell you the truth about it.

ABRAMS:  All right.  Because as you heard, I mean Beth seems to be suggesting they have the interviews.  That there‘s really no need to speak to the friends anymore and there seems to be some issue about whether Beth is going to come in versus whether you know who‘s at fault for the lack of communication between Beth and the authorities there as well. 

HOLLOWAY:  Yes.  Of course they run the investigations and they determine who they want to see and who they want to talk to.  So you know without any further information, I don‘t know why they would want to pursue that lead any further.  But if there‘s anything needed from the states, I think the FBI is capable of handling it. 

ABRAMS:  All right.  Dave Holloway thanks a lot.  Appreciate it.

HOLLOWAY:  Thank you.

ABRAMS:  Coming up, a big win for Tom DeLay‘s lawyer.  They get a Democratic judge thrown off of his case.  DeLay‘s lawyer joins us.

And our continuing series, “Manhunt: Sex Offenders on the Loose”, our effort to help find missing sex offenders before they strike again. This week we‘re focusing on Delaware.

Police need your help finding Jose Cora, 51, 5‘11”, 167, was convicted multiple times of indecent exposure to victims under the age of 16.  He‘s wanted by the state on other charges.

If you‘ve got any information on his whereabouts, please contact the Dover Police Department, 302-736-7111.

Be right back.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

ABRAMS:  We have got news to report to you in the case of Congressman Tom DeLay.  He‘s been indicted for conspiracy and money laundering.  Well today Judge Bob Perkins, who was to preside over DeLay‘s trial, has been removed from the case after another judge agreed that Perkins‘ contributions to Democrats and the liberal group MoveOn.org called his ability to hand out justice impartially into question. 

Dick Deguerin is Tom DeLay‘s attorney and he joins us by phone.  We‘re also joined by Catherine Crier, the Court TV host and she‘s also a former Texas judge and assistant D.A. 

All right, Dick, here‘s the thing.  On its face it seems obvious, right?  I mean this guy has donated to Democratic causes, et cetera.  And this is a politically charged case.  On the other hand, people are elected in the state of Texas.  I mean Texas has chosen to have a system where judges are elected and they run as Democrats or Republican.  I mean is the notion that only a Republican could fairly preside over this case? 

DICK DEGUERIN, TOM DELAY‘S ATTORNEY (via phone):  No, that‘s not it at all, Dan.  That‘s what the prosecution tried to cast it as, but here Judge Perkins, as he has every right to do, contributed very heavily to causes and candidates that were diametrically opposed to Tom DeLay.  So it‘s very specific as to this case. 

Here—this is a very political case.  The charges have to do with the politics in the 2002 election cycle.  It has to do with the Republican National Committee being an un-indicted co-conspirator.  And Judge Perkins has contributed directly in opposition to the Republican National Committee. 

ABRAMS:  But I would assume, Dick, that you could find a connection with almost every Democratic judge in Texas to something against Tom DeLay. 

DEGUERIN:  Not really.  What you find when you look closely at other judges, as well as Judge Perkins, is that nobody has been as active or with the kind of contributions and when they fell as Judge Perkins. 

For instance, he made four—five contributions, excuse me, to either candidates or causes opposed to Tom DeLay after the indictments landed in his court.  Now, you would think that he would pull back once he became the judge in the case. 

Now this was not in Tom‘s case before Tom was indicted.  But it was during the investigation into Tom DeLay.  And it was clear that the cases involved that cycle and he is contributing to all the opponents.  It is a hot button issue in Austin.

ABRAMS:  Yes, and Catherine, again, I get it.  You‘re a former judge there.  I mean I get it.  It sure seems odd, but I think it also seems odd that judges are running as Democrats and Republicans to some.

CRIER:  Yes, which I always oppose despite the fact that I had to do exactly that.  I love Dick Deguerin.  He is so bright, but I want to give you my bottom line on this.  The judge that came in to decide this case decided that the perception of justice was very critical, not that Perkins had done anything wrong. 

There‘s no law prohibiting it in Texas.  None of his contributions went to—against Tom DeLay... 

ABRAMS:  Right.

CRIER:  ... that sort of thing.  But here‘s my bottom line on this, is that the two co-defendants in this case, Judge Perkins had already denied their motions to dismiss.  And even the co-counsel with Dick representing those guys, though, said basically we want a fresh judge and a fresh bite at this issue.  Let‘s get this guy off the bench. 

ABRAMS:  So you agree with the judge‘s ruling? 

CRIER:  Well I think that the perception is important.  If anybody would question this political trial down the road, maybe it is better another judge have it.  But it‘s not because Perkins did anything wrong.  And I think the reason...

ABRAMS:  Right.

CRIER:  ... they were moving for this was because the judge had already denied the motions to dismiss against the other two defendants. 

(CROSSTALK)

DEGUERIN:  No, no, that‘s not—that really is not it...

CRIER:  (INAUDIBLE) Dick, I don‘t buy it. 

DEGUERIN:  Catherine, I appreciate what you say, but here it‘s the perception of unfairness.  And I think that this is a case that‘s going to be looked at with a microscope all over the country.  And for the judge to leave himself open to that kind of criticism, I don‘t understand why he would want to do it.

ABRAMS:  All right.  So Dick, we‘re not going to have you back on this program next week when they appoint a new judge, complaining about the new judge, right?  I mean it was this guy in particular who was so bad. 

DEGUERIN:  No, I hope not.  I hope that what they‘ll do is they‘ll get a judge who is not open to criticism, as was...

ABRAMS:  How do you find that when judges are elected? 

DEGUERIN:  Well, it‘s easy.  Most judges pull back on their political activities after becoming a judge.  Now, they have to run.  They have to be elected and so forth.  But this was beyond the pale.  And really, in a case like this, where there‘s so much attention on it...

ABRAMS:  Yes.

DEGUERIN:  ... the judge has to be like Caesar‘s wife, above suspicion.

ABRAMS:  Yes...

(CROSSTALK)

ABRAMS:  I just...

(CROSSTALK)

ABRAMS:  I don‘t know how you find that...

CRIER:  I agree with Dick...

ABRAMS:  I got to wrap it up. 

CRIER:  All right.

ABRAMS:  Dick Deguerin, Catherine Crier, thanks a lot.  Appreciate it.

Be right back.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

ABRAMS:  Wow, we got a jam-packed show and as a result, I didn‘t get to do my “Closing Argument” or to get to your e-mails.  I‘ll do both of those tomorrow. 

Remember, of course, your e-mails abramsreport@msnbc.com.  I read all of the e-mails that are sent in.  And we‘ll talk about tonight‘s show and some of the ones on Anne Coulter from last night.  Boy, you guys really filled our e-mail box up on that one. 

All right.  That does it for us tonight.  Coming up next, “HARDBALL” with Chris Matthews.  And keep in mind, later tonight “SCARBOROUGH COUNTRY”; Beth Holloway Twitty will be on responding to some of the allegations you just heard exclusively on this program.

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

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.

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

Discuss:

Discussion comments

,