IE 11 is not supported. For an optimal experience visit our site on another browser.

'The Abrams Report' for Nov. 15th

Read the transcript to the Tuesday show

Guests: Matthew Mangino, Clint Van Zandt, Savannah Guthrie, Michelle Suskauer, Pam Bondi, Daniel Sammons, B.J. Bernstein, Chandler Brown, June DiMaggio, Mary Jane Popp

DAN ABRAMS, HOST:  Coming up, the teen accused of killing his girlfriend‘s parents and taking off with the girl is back home to face double murder charges. 


ABRAMS (voice-over):  Eighteen-year-old David Ludwig arrived home in shackles; his 14-year-old girlfriend also back in Pennsylvania.  Police still trying to find out if she was just victim. 

And jurors hear from the man accused of killing, raping and killing 11-year-old Carlie Brucia.  Joseph Smith on tape telling his mom the killing was an accident. 

Plus, this 37-year-old bride has her honeymoon behind bars after marrying a 15-year-old boy.  But it turns out in Georgia the marriage is legal, so prosecutors use another law to try to keep her locked up at a heartbreak hotel. 

The program about justice starts now.  


ABRAMS:  Hi, everyone.  First up on the docket tonight, 18-year-old David Ludwig in shackles today, being moved from Indiana to Pennsylvania, accused of murdering the parents of his 14-year-old girlfriend, Kara Beth Borden.  The allegation that he shot Michael and Cathryn Borden in the head after fighting with them over keeping Kara out past curfew on Saturday night. 

The Bordens‘ two youngest children, a 9-year-old and 13-year-old were allegedly witnesses.  Ludwig and Kara Borden then drove from Pennsylvania to Indiana together in Ludwig‘s mother‘s car.  They were apprehended yesterday afternoon in Belleville after Ludwig crashed the car into a tree.  Ludwig was arrested and early today agreed to be extradited to Pennsylvania.  Police in Pennsylvania said today they are still assuming that Kara was kidnapped. 


UNIDENTIFIED MALE:  The main concern right now with them is to get Kara back here to her family.  And that is my main concern also.  She is the victim in this case until I hear otherwise.  Kara‘s upset.  She‘s crying.  She‘s a 14-year-old child, and we seem to forget that.  She‘s devastated. 


ABRAMS:  All right, so a lot of news to report in this case.  Also the D.A. held a press conference only moments ago. 

MSNBC‘s Contessa Brewer joins us now with the latest from Lititz, Pennsylvania where the murders allegedly took place on Sunday.  Hey, Contessa.

CONTESSA BREWER, MSNBC CORRESPONDENT:  Hey, Dan.  You know four nights ago 18-year-old David Ludwig was just a typical teenager.  He was spending time on the Internet.  He was hanging out with friends.  Well tonight he is a murder suspect.  He sits in a county jail facing life in prison or possibly even death. 

He was brought back to Lancaster County today on a police plane, and here are the charges that he‘s facing.  Two counts of homicide, kidnapping and recklessly endangering another person.  He faced the judge for his arraignment wearing an orange and white striped jumpsuit and chains around his wrists and ankles.  As for 14-year-old Kara Borden, she is also back in her hometown tonight.  The district attorney says she has been reunited with her family, two grown brothers and a younger sister and brother.  Investigators still consider her a victim, an adolescent caught in a crisis and now parentless. 


DONALD TOTARO, LANCASTER COUNTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY:  This is very tragic.  I think that goes without saying.  I‘ve met with family members of the Bordens and it‘s very difficult to walk into a room and explain to them the legal process when I think they are in a state of shock.  But the community is as well.  But we will move forward and we make sure in this case that justice is served. 


BREWER:  And because the district attorney says he wants justice, he says he won‘t discuss any of the details of the case any longer, none of the evidence or the ongoing investigation.  But let‘s talk about what we do know.  We do know that the 13-year-old sister in this case told police that she saw David Ludwig shoot the father. 

We do know that a gun was found in the car in Indiana.  We do know that inside the Ludwig family home police seized a computer, some gun shells as well as a load of guns, a cache of guns as well.  Police also believe that there were e-mails going back and forth between Kara and David Ludwig that contained e-mails of a sexual nature and even photographs, inappropriate photographs we‘re told of the two young kids.  The district attorney says the investigation is continuing and they will continue interviewing witnesses, Dan. 

ABRAMS:  But Contessa, is the 14-year-old, Kara now back in Pennsylvania? 

BREWER:  That‘s right.  She‘s in Pennsylvania.  In fact, we‘re told THAT she‘s back in her hometown.  There‘s apparently an uncle living nearby and all five of the Borden children, including the two grown sons, we‘ve been told are all together tonight with an uncle in their hometown.

ABRAMS:  All right.  Contessa Brewer thanks very much.  Appreciate it.

Joining us now Matthew Mangino, the district attorney in Lawrence County, Pennsylvania joins us on the phone and MSNBC analyst and former FBI profiler, Clint Van Zandt.

Thanks very much to both of you.  All right, Mr. Mangino, do you know, how will they go about investigating what Kara knew and what she didn‘t because they can‘t question her at all right now, right? 


Well, it‘s my understanding that there will be a guardian appointed for her and then they can proceed to interview her with the consent and the supervision of a guardian. 

ABRAMS:  How long does that take to get a guardian appointed?

MANGINO:  That should not take very long at all.  I would assume they could go into court, Children‘s Services in Lancaster County can go into court and get an order of court appointing a Guardian ad Litem I think almost immediately. 

ABRAMS:  Clint Van Zandt, how do you go about investigating this aspect of the case? 

CLINT VAN ZANDT, FORMER FBI PROFILER:  Well, you know, part of what I‘m listening to, Dan, of course is the suspect.  I mean someone—we have an eyewitness who saw him produce this 40-caliber handgun and shoot one and we know then both parents.  We also, as you reported last night, there was other firearms.

There was another firearm and a knife found right outside the front door of the house.  So I think that supports the district attorney who‘s suggesting the premeditation aspect of it.  So you know as much as something to be locked up, I think we‘ve locked up who the shooter is and how he did it.  The question continues to be his 14-year-old girlfriend...

ABRAMS:  Right.

VAN ZANDT:  ... and part of what that (INAUDIBLE) tells me that law enforcement still thinks she was as much of an innocent victim notwithstanding raging hormones that she may have had with this guy, is that they still maintain the kidnapping charge against him when he was arraigned today.

ABRAMS:  Mr. Mangino, do you know—look, they are going to have to make a decision ultimately down the road on whether to pursue the death penalty.  There is a lot of talk in this country about the application of the death penalty and race, et cetera, and this kid looks like you know the nice white kid from next door.  But it‘s a horrible horrific crime.  Do you think that—I mean I would think that in most cases around this country, this kid would be facing the death penalty? 

MANGINO:  Well, you know that‘s a decision obviously that the district attorney in Lancaster County is going to have to make.  But certainly, you know this appears to be a planned, premeditated act.  You know he shot this young woman‘s father in the back of the head, her mother in the forehead, as I understand it.  Kidnapping is an aggravated circumstance in Pennsylvania, which could cause the application of the death penalty if the district attorney should so choose to go that route.  You know this certainly appears to be a case in which there would have to be strong consideration for the death penalty. 

ABRAMS:  Now what if she didn‘t know that he had done this to her parents and she gets in the car with him and they leave, et cetera.  Is there any way to again tack on one of these additional charges to him for, I don‘t know, bringing her across state lines under falls pretenses?  I don‘t know, something.

MANGINO:  Well no, you know all that they have to prove for kidnapping in this case is that he was using her to facilitate his flight out after...


MANGINO:  ... committing a felony.


MANGINO:  So it really doesn‘t matter what her state of mind was. 

It‘s what his state of mind is.

ABRAMS:  Right.  So it doesn‘t matter as a legal—legally whether she was resisting or fighting, et cetera.

MANGINO:  No, no.  If he took her to facilitate his flight from Pennsylvania after murdering these two people, that‘s kidnapping and that‘s an aggravating circumstance in which you can apply the death penalty. 

ABRAMS:  Here‘s Sergeant Ray Poole last night on the program talking about her reaction when she was taken into custody as well. 


SGT. RAY POOLE, INDIANA STATE POLICE (via phone):  She was like any typical 14-year-old girl you would see, crying, upset.  She walked (INAUDIBLE) ran to the back of the car and she was crying and very upset and shaking just like any other kid would be.  And, you know, the thing that struck me first was she had braces on her teeth, and I‘m thinking you know, she‘s just a regular kid that probably is in a bad, bad situation.  But at this point, you know not being able to talk to her because of her age and she does not have any legal guardian or parent to be there with her, we can‘t talk with her. 


ABRAMS:  Clint, we‘re hearing that—from Matthew that it‘s going to be pretty quick for her to get a guardian...


ABRAMS:  ... and I would assume that...


ABRAMS:  ... unless she has something legally to worry about, the guardian is going to say talk.

VAN ZANDT:  Yes, I would think so.  You know, the guardian could be one of her two older brothers or it could be somebody court appointed.  The bottom line is they need to resolve this.  The whole family needs to get closure on this and still we still have to keep going back.  She‘s a 14-year-old girl.

Now I‘ve read some of her e-mails.  I mean there‘s no doubt this six-month relationship was going hot and heavy.  She had allegedly spent the night with her boyfriend.  That‘s what finally prompted this confrontation that any father would do.  Call this guy in and say hey young man, you‘re 18. 

You spent the night with my 14-year-old daughter.  In a worst-case scenario, that‘s statutory rape, if you had some type of contact with her.  So never darken my doorstep again.  Well here‘s this guy who believes perhaps he has this fantasized relationship.  He‘s being told at very best you can‘t see her again.

At worst, you‘re going to jail and here comes the gun.  And now we‘ve got two dead people over this.

ABRAMS:  All right.  Matthew Mangino and Clint Van Zandt, thanks very much.  Appreciate it.

VAN ZANDT:  Thanks, Dan.

ABRAMS:  Coming up, jurors hear from the man accused of kidnapping 11-year-old Carlie Brucia before raping and killing her.  Now prosecutors say he confessed to a priest behind bars.  He still says it‘s not me on that tape.

And a 37-year-old bride is behind bars after marrying a 15-year-old who also happens to be the father of her unborn child.  It turns out that is not against the law in Georgia.  The prosecutors had to find another way to lock her up.

Plus, new evidence that could suggest Marilyn Monroe was murdered.  We talk with one of the last people to see her alive, someone named DiMaggio. 

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


ABRAMS:  We‘re back.  Joseph Smith on trial for kidnapping, sexually assaulting and killing 11-year-old Carlie Brucia.  The abduction caught on tape.  Now prosecutors say they have Joseph Smith on an audiotape talking about the crime just days after Carlie‘s abduction.  The evidence against Smith has been piling up from confessions to DNA evidence to that video you‘re seeing here. 

He still says it‘s not him on the tape.  Today the prosecution played audiotapes for the jury of Smith talking with family members about the crime that could land him on death row.  Here he is telling his brother about his meeting with a jailhouse priest. 


UNIDENTIFIED MALE:  He came.  I talked to him (INAUDIBLE) about how I was brought up, mom and the kids and all of that and (INAUDIBLE).  And then I did an act of contrition, which means, you know, I told (INAUDIBLE).  You know (INAUDIBLE) we did the confession.  I confessed to everything, murder and all kinds of stuff, you know what I mean?  Everything that (INAUDIBLE) I confessed to everything.


ABRAMS:  OK.  But he‘s still saying it‘s not him on the tape. 

Joining me now Court TV news correspondent Savannah Guthrie, who‘s standing by at the courthouse and Florida prosecutor Pam Bondi, criminal defense attorney Michelle Suskauer. 

Is that right, Savannah?  I mean he‘s still—they‘ve got him on this tape saying he‘s confessing to murder.  They‘ve got the DNA evidence.  They‘ve got other audiotapes of him.  They‘ve got the videotape of him. 

And he‘s saying you‘ve got the wrong guy.  It‘s not me on the tape? 

SAVANNAH GUTHRIE, COURT TV NEWS CORRESPONDENT:  Well, I guess.  I mean, he‘s pleaded not guilty and here we are at trial.  But you‘re right.  I mean it starts to reach a level perhaps of some absurdity when you have him on audiotape.  The defense isn‘t contesting that this is Joseph Smith‘s voice, and he said I confess to everything, murder, everything. 

In another portion he says tell my wife I‘m sorry.  I didn‘t mean to, you know I didn‘t mean do it.  I feel terrible.  I‘m a piece of—I‘ll let you fill in the blank.  I mean this was pretty damning evidence in a case that seems to be full of damning evidence. 

ABRAMS:  Michelle, look you know this is not a criminal defense attorney‘s dream case, but at some point do you just sort of say, you know what?  The evidence is so strong that it‘s not helping in any way for us to continue arguing these various points?  I mean is there a point in the case where a defense attorney should say, no mass?  And say you know what?  We‘re just going to plead guilty and go to the penalty phase here and try and save his life? 

MICHELLE SUSKAUER, CRIMINAL DEFENSE ATTORNEY:  No, Dan.  Because the defense attorney has to do everything that he possibly can to try to save his client‘s life and just admitting at this point, the time to have admitted that in trying to just go right to the penalty phase was before the trial started...


ABRAMS:  ... cross-examining all the witnesses now and trying to undermine the credibility of the DNA and suggesting it might have been his brother at one point who was...

SUSKAUER:  You know what?  You know what?  He‘s doing his job.  He cannot...


ABRAMS:  I‘m not asking you whether he‘s doing his job.  I‘m asking you whether his job would be better done by—with the amount of evidence that there is now to try and enhance your credibility with the jury by saying there is so much evidence against my client now that you know what, you know we‘re not going to challenge anymore.  This will stipulate too much of the rest of the evidence...


ABRAMS:  ... in this case and we want to go to the penalty phase where we can talk to these jurors and have some credibility.

SUSKAUER:  You know I don‘t know any defense lawyer who would do that, who would just in the middle or toward the end when it starts looking bad just give up.  Because I think as a defense lawyer you‘re going to lose more credibility doing that.  He needs to continue what he‘s doing and he‘s not being absurd. 

What he‘s doing is he‘s making sure that law enforcement did what they were supposed to do, that law enforcement looked at every lead and that he‘s supposed to be poking holes and looking at this. 

ABRAMS:  Yes...

SUSKAUER:  That‘s what he‘s doing.  He‘s giving an adequate defense and then he‘s going to have to change hats at the penalty phase, assuming there is a penalty phase and beg for this guy‘s life. 

ABRAMS:  Yes.  I don‘t know.  I mean Pam Bondi, look, there are not that many cases that go to trial with this much evidence against a defendant, right? 

PAM BONDI, FLORIDA PROSECUTOR:  Well Dan, you know, when they are seeking the death penalty, certainly you have to have 12 jurors and of course they have to be unanimous.  And you always—you never know what 12 people are going to do.  I tend to agree with you, though, that if they had walked in and entered a plea in the beginning and then just went straight to the penalty phase, although the prosecutors would put on a mini trial, they wouldn‘t hear as much. 

ABRAMS:  Right.

BONDI:  You know not days and days and days of the evidence.  But again, you never know what 12 people are going to do.  And it‘s really tough for a prosecutor when everybody‘s out there saying you‘ve got this great case.  You‘ve got this great case...


BONDI:  You know, there‘s never an easy case. 


ABRAMS:  But this is not—I mean look, there are easy cases and there are cases like this one where—I don‘t even see how you defend—I mean sure, you try and poke holes, you play the games that defense attorneys play, and you know that‘s what I guess they‘re supposed to do.  Here‘s Joseph Smith...

SUSKAUER:  ... playing games? 

ABRAMS:  Yes, it‘s a...


ABRAMS:  Let me tell you, it‘s a game when there is so much evidence against someone, and it is so clear...


ABRAMS:  ... to then point the finger at his brother in certain instances...

SUSKAUER:  You know what?  You know what...

ABRAMS:  ... and say you know what, maybe it was him in this context.  Now I‘m not saying that you don‘t defend him.  I‘m saying that when you start suggesting it‘s other people and it becomes clear that it is your client, I think that is troubling. 

SUSKAUER:  Well, you know what?  I don‘t think that this is a game.  I think this is very serious, and I think that you need to remember that the state has the burden in this case...

ABRAMS:  I know.

SUSKAUER:  ... 100 percent of the burden.  Well, but it‘s not a game.  It‘s serious.  And it‘s this guy‘s life.  He‘s doing his job.  And his job may—you know you may not think that this is admirable, but it is admirable...


SUSKAUER:  ... because we have two sides in this equation. 

ABRAMS:  I understand there are two sides.  I‘m just saying that I think that there‘s a line both—and forget about—I‘m not saying the defense attorney should be sanctioned or anything like that.  I‘m simply saying that even for purely strategic purposes when there‘s this much evidence.  Here‘s Joseph Smith telling his mom—remember we had the conversation with his brother.  Now here he‘s telling his mom that it was actually an accident.


DAVIS:  Oh Joe.  The best thing that you could do is just try and explain it was an accident.

SMITH:  Mom, it was an accident, mom.

DAVIS:  I know that Joe. 

SMITH:  You don‘t think that I would do that on purpose, mom.

DAVIS:  No.  No, I don‘t.  I don‘t think so at all Joe.


ABRAMS:  Savannah, I‘m right, am I not, that part of the defense here is to point at other people, right?  Is to say that it could have been...


ABRAMS:  ... someone else on the tape and it could have been his brother whose actually whose DNA was there at the scene, right? 

GUTHRIE:  Yes, as recently as this morning the defense was sort of making that argument when cross-examining the DNA expert talking about how the DNA of siblings is very close making the suggesting perhaps that maybe it was John Smith‘s DNA that ended up on Carlie Brucia‘s shirt.  There‘s no question that the defense has pointed to other people, the defendant‘s brother, this other guy Ron Choquette.

But it strikes me that the prosecution really saved the best for last.  This is the end of their case and while the defense have some arguments to make perhaps on the DNA, perhaps on the video, some of the alleged confession, when you hear it from the defendant‘s own mouth, I confess to everything, at the very end of the prosecution‘s case, I think that‘s powerful...

ABRAMS:  But you know—but it seems that part of his defense is oh, I didn‘t know that she was 11.  I thought she was older than that, as if that‘s somehow relevant.  Here he is talking to his brother.


JOHN:  You had to have met the young girl before.


JOHN:  Because she knew you.

JOSEPH:  No, John.

JOHN:  Not to mention that fact that she don‘t look nowhere near 11 years old.  I was thinking 16 or 17.

JOSEPH:  That‘s what I thought, too.


ABRAMS:  Yes.  All right.  I mean Pam, am I being unfair here?  I mean it‘s not often that I‘m this harsh on a defense.  It just seems to me that there is just so much evidence here from hair and fibers to DNA evidence to video evidence to an audiotaped confession, that this is not even really a two-sided argument here anymore. 

BONDI:  No, it‘s a fun case for the prosecution, that‘s for sure.  But Dan, you know, you don‘t want to be trying this case again, and I think at this point the prosecution is just like—bring it on for the defense.  Whatever they want to throw out there is fine with them.  They‘ve got a solid case.

I think everybody is confident they are going to convict him and you know it really helps the prosecution in the penalty phase when the whole time the defense attorney has been saying he didn‘t do it.  He didn‘t do it.  He didn‘t do it.   Then 12 people convict him and now you have to go to a penalty phase and they have to say well OK, you know my client did it, but don‘t kill him, save his life, and here‘s why. 


BONDI:  And of course that‘s why you have two defense attorneys involved in a penalty phase, but you know defense attorneys do lose credibility, but that‘s part of it when you‘re trying a death penalty case...

ABRAMS:  You always got to say look we accept your verdict.  You don‘t have to say we admit he did it.  You say we accept your verdict and we move on from there.  Savannah, real quick...


ABRAMS:  so the defense is coming up beginning its case.  Do we know what they are going to try and do here as part of their case? 

GUTHRIE:  They don‘t.  I‘ve been hounding them for days.  They won‘t tell me who the witnesses are, but I have been told it‘s going to be a very short case...

ABRAMS:  Shocker.

GUTHRIE:  ... half a day, could be even less. 

ABRAMS:  All right.  Go ahead, Michelle, final word.

SUSKAUER:  Just that in Florida, if the defense puts on a case, brings in any evidence other than the defendant, they are going to lose what we call the sandwich.  See, the defense normally would be able to address the jury first in closing argument, then last, so if he‘s going to put somebody on or going to put on some evidence, you hope that it‘s going to be at least to try to be powerful for them. 

ABRAMS:  Good point.  All right.  Savannah Guthrie, Pam Bondi, Michelle Suskauer, thanks a lot.  Appreciate it. 

GUTHRIE:  Thank you. 

ABRAMS:  Coming up, this 37-year-old newlywed is spending her honeymoon in a heartbreak hotel.  Her alleged crime—not the fact that her groom is a child.  No, it has to do with what they did before they got hitched. 

And one of the last people to see Marilyn Monroe alive says she is convinced that Marilyn was murdered.  A woman named DiMaggio joins us live. 

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

Authorities need your help finding Timothy Chappell.  He‘s 43, 5‘11,” weighs 250.  Chappell was convicted of molesting a child and has failed to register with the appropriate authorities. 

If you‘ve got any information on his whereabouts, please contact the Georgia Bureau of Investigation, 1-800-597-TIPS.

Be right back.


ABRAMS:  Coming up, a honeymoon in jail.  A 37-year-old bride behind bars after marrying a 15-year-old, but get this—under Georgia law, the marriage isn‘t what‘s illegal, first the headlines. 


ABRAMS:  It is not quite the honeymoon she had been hoping for.  Thirty-seven-year-old Lisa Lynnette Clark is spending her first week of wedded bliss behind bars on charges of child molestation.  Her hubby is 15 years old and she‘s allegedly pregnant with their baby.  The boy‘s grandmother is furious. 


JUDY HAYLES, 15-YEAR-OLD GROOM‘S GRANDMOTHER:  I have never heard such sickness in my life.  And had that been a man and a young girl, they would have had him hung already.  It‘s what they ought to do to that skanky thing. 


ABRAMS:  All right.  Well Georgia law requires that both people getting married be 16 years old there is a loophole.  The age restriction doesn‘t apply if the female is pregnant, no matter what the age is.  That makes their marriage legal.  But here‘s the other side of the coin and it‘s really basic biology.

In order for them to get married, she had to first be pregnant.  And in order for her to get pregnant, they had to have sex.  That‘s where the molestation charge comes in.  As for Lisa Lynnette Clark‘s other half, he‘s best friends with her son.  Where is he?  In a juvenile detention center for violating his probation, burglarizing a neighbor‘s home over the summer with his best friend who is now his stepson. 

Joining me now is Daniel Sammons, the attorney for Lisa Lynnette Clark, B.J. Bernstein, former Gwinnett County, Georgia assistant D.A. and Chandler Brown, a reporter with “The Atlanta Journal-Constitution”.  Thanks to all of you for coming on the program.  Appreciate it.

All right, Mr. Sammons, let me start with you.  Does Lisa Lynnette Clark deny that she had sex with the boy?  

DANIEL SAMMONS, LISA LYNNETTE CLARK‘S ATTORNEY:  Lisa Lynnette Clark is presumed innocent.  It is up to the state to prove their case. 

ABRAMS:  Right.  But now I‘m asking you whether she is conceding that the child inside her is that of a 15-year-old boy?  

SAMMONS:  Ms. Clark is not conceding anything. 

ABRAMS:  She‘s not what?  

SAMMONS:  She‘s not conceding anything. 

ABRAMS:  OK.  All right.  B.J., I don‘t really understand this law.  I mean the bottom line is you can get married if you are pregnant no matter what age you are, but if you have sex, and you are with someone and you‘re below 16, that‘s a crime. 

B.J. BERNSTEIN, FORMER GEORGIA PROSECUTOR:  You‘re right.  It‘s—they are inconsistent with one another and it‘s a product of a lot of these laws were passed a long time ago and no one contemplated the type of scenario that we apparently or allegedly have here, which is a 37-year-old woman being involved with a 15-year-old boy, and then after the fact, getting married.  And quite curiously, you know you wonder whether this marriage is truly the marriage or was this a marriage done to help build the ultimate legal defense because it sounds like Daniel, good to talk to you, one of my colleagues here in Georgia, is making the state prove its case, and so he‘s readying his defense. 

ABRAMS:  Well it seems that grandma doesn‘t have any question about who is the father of the baby. 


HAYLES:  His life is ruined, 15 years old with a baby coming.  He‘s very concerned about the baby, extremely upset about this baby coming. 


ABRAMS:  Before I go to Chandler Brown, Mr. Sammons, she is pregnant, is she not?  

SAMMONS:  She is. 

ABRAMS:  OK.  So, she is conceding that she is pregnant by somebody. 

SAMMONS:  I don‘t think we dispute that issue.

ABRAMS:  All right.  Chandler Brown, give me the back-story here as to how these two met.  What, they meet because the mom‘s son is the best friend of the boy?  

CHANDLER BROWN, “THE ATLANTA JOURNAL-CONSTITUTION”:  That‘s our understanding.  That‘s—we‘re still trying to piece that all together.  But we do understand that they were friends first, and then some how this alleged affair, which turned into, which now apparently has now turned into a marriage...

ABRAMS:  How did it go publicly?  How did people find out about it, Chandler?  

BROWN:  Well, apparently the grandmother that we just heard from, she‘s telling us that she went through her grandson‘s things at some point a couple of months ago and found some nude and semi-nude photos of Ms.  Clark and also some love letters to him while he was in a youth detention facility that pretty much laid it all out on the table, and that‘s when she called police. 

ABRAMS:  You know it seems to me, Mr. Sammons, based on the evidence that the best argument that you‘re going to have is a sort of a legal one, which is that in Georgia if you‘re allowed to get married when you are of any age, as long as the woman is pregnant, that the other law, about molestation simply shouldn‘t apply.  I mean it seems to me that‘s going to be really the only argument. 

SAMMONS:  Well, it seems hypocritical for the state of Georgia to issue these folks a marriage license and then turn around and try to prosecute Ms. Clark. 

ABRAMS:  What about that, B.J.?   I mean look these are old laws. B.J.  We know that and they‘ve been on the books a long time.  But the goal was in enacting these laws to say we want to encourage people to get married particularly if a woman or a girl, in this case, it‘s a woman with a boy, is pregnant.  We would rather them get married than not it seems to me was the purpose of the law. 

BERNSTEIN:  The purpose of that particular law certainly and although, it‘s probably the debate in the legislature back when that passed was the concern about a young female not having been married as opposed to the scenario we have here.  The conflict that you have is at the same time the legislature is deadly serious, and everybody is these days about adults who molest young children. 

And under this law, he is a child.  He is too young to consent.  He cannot under the law consent and...

ABRAMS:  But what about Mr. Sammons...

BERNSTEIN:  ... when you have that much of an age disparancy (ph), it‘s a problem.

ABRAMS:  What about Mr. Sammons‘ argument that you know how do you give them a marriage license then?   I mean you‘re encouraging them to come in and you‘re going to say yes, here you go guys.  You know they go to a magistrate‘s house.  They guy marries them, gives them a license and then they‘re saying oh no, wait a sec.  We got one more thing to tell you and that is that the woman‘s going to jail. 

BERNSTEIN:  Well, that possibly could protect the—any sexual act that occurred after the marriage, but realize that she was pregnant before she got married, so that doesn‘t necessarily undo the fact that a crime occurred prior to the marriage...


BERNSTEIN:  ... and simply the status of marriage doesn‘t undo the crime. 

ABRAMS:  I predict that Mr. Sammons will be plea-bargaining this case and Mr. Sammons, I assume you don‘t want to comment on that?

SAMMONS:  The state must prove its case and I look forward to watching them try to do it. 

ABRAMS:  That‘s what I figured.  I predict there will be a plea in this case.  We shall see.  Daniel Sammons, B.J. Bernstein, Chandler Brown, thanks a lot. 

Coming up...

UNIDENTIFIED MALE:  You‘re welcome. 

ABRAMS:  ... our next guest says Marilyn Monroe didn‘t die of a drug overdose.  That she was much more likely a victim of murder.  Her name is DiMaggio.  She was with Marilyn the day she died.  It is new information, and it is coming up. 

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


ABRAMS:  Coming up, a coroner ruled Marilyn Monroe‘s official cause of death as probable suicide.  Our next guest, someone named DiMaggio, says she doesn‘t see it that way.  She was with Marilyn the day she died.  The details are next.


ABRAMS:  There is new evidence that could suggest Marilyn Monroe may have been the victim of foul play, and it‘s coming from someone named DiMaggio.  The star was found dead in her bedroom in August ‘62.  Coroner Thomas Noguchi and a team of psychiatrists determined it was a probable suicide from an overdose of the sleeping drug Nembutal, perhaps as many as 30 to 40 pills. 

While it‘s been reported for Monroe was depressed and addicted to drugs and alcohol, some who were close to her insist that‘s not the Marilyn they knew, that the suicide verdict was wrong including a woman you‘re about to meet, June DiMaggio, the niece of Marilyn‘s second husband, baseball great Joe DiMaggio. 

June saw Marilyn the day she allegedly killed herself and says she got

the news of Marilyn‘s death from police but—and this is crucial she says

hours before the official police reports say the first officers arrived at Monroe‘s home.  How could that have happened?  

With me now is June DiMaggio and Mary Jane Popp, the co-author of their book “Marilyn, Joe, and Me”, which should be out next year.  Thank you both for coming on the program.  Appreciate it.

All right, June, let me take a step back with you first.  When is the last time that you saw Marilyn Monroe?  

JUNE DIMAGGIO, FRIEND OF MARILYN MONROE:  I saw Marilyn that day.  She called me on the telephone, and she wanted a pizza.  I was on my way to play tennis with my boyfriend.  I said OK, I‘ll make you a pizza.  So at 11:30, I brought her an anchovy pizza.  She hugged me and she said Junie, I‘m going to call Lee. 

Now Lee was my mother, Lee DiMaggio.  And I‘m going to ask her if she will go to Mexico with me to buy some wrought iron furniture so when Joe and are married we‘re going to have a house and then my patio will be full of the wrought iron furniture.  She hugged me and said goodbye.


ABRAMS:  But I should tell people that one of the new things we‘ve heard as of late has been that you are convinced that Marilyn Monroe and Joe DiMaggio were going to remarry, and that that‘s one of the reasons that you just don‘t buy it that she killed herself, right?

DIMAGGIO:  She was so happy.  She was so excited.  Yes, I know for the truth she was to be remarried to Joe.


UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE:  The plans were in the making at the time. 



ABRAMS:  Sorry, go ahead. 

DIMAGGIO:  Well that‘s the truth.  She was getting ready, as I said, to call my mother and ask her to go to Mexico with her to get that wrought iron furniture for their new patio...

ABRAMS:  Now you went back into the house, did you not?  I mean you went back in after you had heard about what had happened to get your pizza tray, I believe it was, and you saw some things in the house which you think are very relevant.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE:  That was the next morning. 

DIMAGGIO:  That was the next morning.

ABRAMS:  Right.  After you had heard about...


ABRAMS:  Go ahead.  Tell me.

DIMAGGIO:  Well, I was—I came home from tennis, and being with my boyfriend, had dinner.  I took a shower, came out of the shower, put my robe on and the doorbell rang.  I went to the doorbell and there stood a policeman and a sheriff.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE:  This is between 11:00 and 12:00.

DIMAGGIO:  This is between 11:00 and 12 p.m. and they said are you

June DiMaggio?   And I said yes.  How do we get in touch with Joe DiMaggio?  

I said why?   They said because Marilyn Monroe committed suicide.  I was in

shock.  I said no way!

Then I called my mother in San Francisco because I knew my Uncle Joe would be there, and my mother was crying on the telephone.  She already knew.  And Joe then came down, and the rest was history.  But my mother was the one on the telephone talking to Marilyn when she dropped the phone and screamed the name of the person...


DIMAGGIO:  ... or persons—I don‘t know how many—who murdered her. 

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE:  Actually, Dan, I got to tell you...

ABRAMS:  Let me just follow up on that one question...


ABRAMS:  And so then she yelled out a name, your mom told you. 


ABRAMS:  Did she tell you what the name was?  



DIMAGGIO:  She would not tell Joe.  She would not tell my father, Tom.  She would not tell me.  All she said is I want you to live.  She was so frightened. 

ABRAMS:  So Mary Jane, what is the theory?   I mean when this book comes out what is going to be the theory about—your theory and June‘s theory about what exactly happened to Marilyn?  

MARY JANE POPP, CO-AUTHOR, “MARILYN, JOE & ME”:  Just to add to this, Dan, I did some investigative reporting on my own, since I also have my own talk show, and I met a man who claims that he talked to the man, one of the two men who killed Marilyn Monroe.  They stalked her for several days.  They got in.  She was killed in a very grisly way.  We have the details.  I don‘t even want to go into the details right now.  You‘ll hear it and read about it in the book...

ABRAMS:  Is this about the enema?   Because we heard about...

POPP:  Yes...

ABRAMS:  This is about...

POPP:  Yes.

ABRAMS:  ... that someone forced an enema on her, right?

POPP:  It was a suppository.  It was a suppository that was forced into her.  It was toxic and it was over very, very quickly, and what they were there for was the diary, and they got it. 

ABRAMS:  So why do you think that the authorities have gotten it wrong again and again?  

POPP:  You know authorities, it‘s all hearsay.  That‘s why we have June.  That‘s the reason I even started this journey.  This is not just an experience.  It‘s an odyssey that I went down this road with June.  She told me because she was there.  She was the person who was with Marilyn.  She knew she was happy that last day.  Why would someone wanted to get commit suicide when they‘re getting married three days later...


DIMAGGIO:  Thirty-six years old, she was so happy...

POPP:  Yes.

DIMAGGIO:  ... and thrilled. 

ABRAMS:  June...

DIMAGGIO:  She was murdered.

ABRAMS:  June, why is it taking you so long to come forward?  

DIMAGGIO:  Well because I don‘t know.  I just—it hurt me so.  It was such a shock that I didn‘t feel until I wrote my book, my roommate was Barbara Klein (ph), who was the world‘s authority at that time on voice teachers.  She taught the celebrities, and she asked me when she died seven years ago to write a book.  And I sought out my friend Mary Jane Popp...


DIMAGGIO:  ... and between us, five years and a half have gone by...

ABRAMS:  But you know, June, that the people who don‘t buy it, they‘re going to say well she‘s coming forward with the story a little bit late.  If it was—if she believes that Marilyn Monroe was murdered, why didn‘t she come forward with this story before?  

DIMAGGIO:  Because my mother had such fear.  She said I will not ever tell you.  When she died she—I asked her again who—mommy, who murdered Marilyn?   She says I‘ll never tell.  I want you to live. 

POPP:  And there was a fear that was struck into June‘s heart and mind until we started the conversation some seven years ago, and the stories that she has about Marilyn, Dan, you‘re not going to believe...

ABRAMS:  All right.  We will look forward...

POPP:  This is a different Marilyn.

ABRAMS:  We look forward to that.  The book is “Marilyn, Joe & Me”. 

June DiMaggio...


DIMAGGIO:  I tell it like it was.  Yes.

POPP:  Yes.  It‘s about truth and it‘s about time. 

ABRAMS:  All right.  I got to wrap it up.  Mary Jane Popp and June DiMaggio, thanks a lot for taking the time. Appreciate it.

DIMAGGIO:  And thank you, Dan.

ABRAMS:  Coming up, Samuel Alito may be nominated for a seat on the Supreme Court, but when it comes to his views on abortion, I say he‘s the legal Lothario, sweet talking his way into the hearts of senators on both sides.  It‘s my “Closing Argument”.

And our continuing series, “Manhunt: Sex Offenders on the Loose”, our effort to find missing sex offenders before they strike.  Georgia, they‘re looking for Zarak Ramsey, 34, brown eyes, black hair, 5‘5”, 150, convicted of molesting a child, has not registered with the state.  If you‘ve got any information on his whereabouts, 1-800-597-TIPS.

Be right back.


ABRAMS:  My “Closing Argument”—the Supreme Court nominee, Samuel Alito does the rounds with senators of both parties.  What are they and we really learning about his views on controversial issues like abortion?   Well if you believe Alito has said, the one thing I know for certain is that he knows what to say and when. 

The latest just released document show that in 1985 when applying for a job with President Reagan‘s attorney general, Edwin Meese, Alito wrote that—quote—“the Constitution does not protect a right to an abortion.”  And the endorsed government help in—quote—“ protecting traditional values.”  He emphasized that his government work thus far had included helping to—quote—“advance legal positions in which I personally believe very strongly.”

(INAUDIBLE) How to explain those pesky strong personal beliefs to Senate Democrats with his confirmation hearing a mere eight weeks away.  Well today he told Democrat Senator Dianne Feinstein that it was just the usual job applicant bravado.  She recounted the conversation—quote—

“it was different then, he said.  I was an advocate seeking a job.  It was a political job and that was 1985.  I don‘t give heed to my personal views.  What I do is interpret the law.”

Feinstein said she believes him and he has seemingly assured other Senate Democrats by talking about his respect for precedent—wink, wink, nod, nod.  This morning he told Democratic Senator Jeff Bingaman that job application was from 20 years ago, and to those on the other side of the aisle who want to see Roe vs. Wade overturned, those personal beliefs are deeply held and he‘s willing to review personal rulings—wink, wink, nod, nod again.

Alito assured conservative Senator Sam Brownback that he was open to a review of cases.  Brownback emerged from the meeting describing Alito as exactly the kind of nominee he‘s been looking for.  Republican Senator Saxby Chambliss walked out of his meeting with Alito and declared this man is a conservative.  He‘s been a conservative all his life and in 1985 when he was applying for a job he reiterated that fact in his application.

But a legal Lothario, swaying senators on both sides with a silver tongue, assuring each side that he is their perfect judicial mate.  Look, Alito wouldn‘t be the first Supreme Court nominee to tell the cast of senators what he thought they wanted to hear.  But is it possible that Alito even spun his conservative anti-abortion 90-year-old mom, Rose Alito?  Of course he‘s against abortion, she told reporters after Alito was nominated. 

Now regardless of whether his personal beliefs would impact his rulings, we can all probably forgive Alito for spinning senators, he wouldn‘t be the first, but mom?   No.  Maybe mother knows best, maybe, just maybe, mom is the only one giving it and getting it straight. 

Comings up, a lot of e-mails on whether you think Nike should be using Kobe Bryant as a pitchman. 


ABRAMS:  We‘re back.  I‘ve had my say, it‘s time for “Your Rebuttal”.  Last night we debated Nike‘s decision to put Kobe Bryant back in its ads, even after he apologized for a sexual encounter with a young woman in a Colorado hotel room.  We asked, is it smart marketing?

Craig Fields from Raleigh, “Michael Jordan had issues with gambling and Nike has always promoted him and I don‘t think anyone stopped buying Air Jordan‘s.  Infidelity has never been a moral benchmark for advertisers.”

In Baltimore, Bonnie Wagstaff, “If Nike thinks that the wives and mothers have forgotten, they‘ve very wrong.  I won‘t buy anything with the Nike brand on it as long as they think an adulteress cheating husband is just ducky.”

Steve Figari from Boston College, “They‘re investing in a proven superstar on the court and Kobe will sell more sneakers for them.  Kids have short memories.  They forget everything including to do their homework.”

My “Closing Argument” I said facetiously women may be one step closer to achieving equality in radical Islamic society, suicide bombers.  Some of you have the same question as Rosemary Bear in Covena, California.

“Men and women suicide bombers may be offered the same opportunity, but what about the benefit?  If men would get 72 virgins in paradise, what would women get?”

I had a really good response to that one, and my producers wouldn‘t let me say it.  We‘re out of time.