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

'Rita Cosby Live & Direct' for March 15

Guests: Phil Rogers; Bill Stanton; Del Harvey; Ernie Allen; Joe Cardinale; Wanda Akin; Bruce Baron; Robert Bookman; Fred Golba; Steve Cohen; Gordon Byrd; Anna Benson

RITA COSBY, HOST:  Good evening, everybody.  The lawyer for the prime suspect in the Imette St. Guillen murder told LIVE AND DIRECT his client is innocent.  Tonight, we‘ll look at who else may have played a role.  And we got exclusive access to a new search in the Natalee Holloway investigation.  Find out where investigators are searching for Natalee and why they haven‘t been there before.

But first, a worldwide bust of a twisted child porn ring.  It‘s more disturbing than anything you have heard about before.  Twenty-seven people, including thirteen right here in the U.S., are accused of some of the most disgusting acts of child exploitation ever, including live sex shows with infants as young as 18 months old.


ALBERTO GONZALES, U.S. ATTORNEY GENERAL:  The behavior in these chat rooms and the images many of these defendants sent around the world through peer-to-peer file-sharing programs and private instant messaging services are the worst imaginable forms of child pornography.


COSBY:  And joining me now live is Phil Rogers with NBC station WMAQ in Chicago.  Phil, what are some of the worst crimes that these 27 people are accused of?

PHIL ROGERS, WMAQ-TV:  Well, Rita, there‘s an individual here by the name of Brian Anarino (ph).  He lives in the Chicago suburb of Bartlett (ph), which is just west of Chicago.  He‘s 29 years old.  The allegation against him is that he actually produced live streaming video of the molestation of a very small child, only described as an infant.

Now, in exchange, we are told that he received streaming video of an individual molesting four children out of Edmonton, Canada.  And there is no description exactly what the relationship is of the children to these individuals.  But you understand this entire matter is a file-sharing system.  This is like Napster, if you will.  This is computer-to-computer through a chat room, and they think a lot of people were involved.

COSBY:  You know, one of the people who was involved—and I want to put the picture up of this guy -- 45-year-old, he‘s a Reno man, Michael Burns.  He‘s charged with having more than 10,000 images of child porn and more than 1,000 on-line videos.  I mean, these numbers are staggering.  How far widespread?  We also want to show you -- 13 people here in the U.S., 14 others all over the world.  You know, how do they connect with each other, and how widespread was it, Phil?

ROGERS:  Rita, they did it in two different ways.  One was with a piece of software that actually allowed them to link up their computers directly.  The other was simply with the instant messaging services, just like AOL offers.  And in fact, that‘s the way the streaming video was done.

Now, they were here in the United States.  They were in nine different states here in the United States, 13 individuals.  The other 14 individuals were around the world, in Canada, in Great Britain, in Australia.  We understand they would sometimes chat by telephone.  And one of the most chilling aspects of this case is that, apparently, for membership in the chat room, one had to present some kind of evidence.  And the attorney general suggested today—he didn‘t come right out and say it, but he suggested that you had to actually perform a live act on the Internet in order to prove that you were not with law enforcement.

COSBY:  Yes, and that was because they were so worried about law enforcement, you know, getting in.  How did law enforcement finally bust this ring?  What tipped them off?

ROGERS:  It was old-fashioned police work and luck, which is often the case.  Police in Edmonton, Canada, a year ago actually got a call from an adult woman who said she overheard two children talking about being photographed for the purposes of this Web site.  She notified the police, and that‘s how the whole thing got started.  But literally, we‘re talking dozens of police agencies around the world finally cracking this operation.

There‘s one other thing that you have to remember here, Rita, and that is this entire system was firewalled.  There were diversions within it.  So they had to work backwards on the Internet through IP addresses.  They gave special credit today to Microsoft Canada for providing some software that allowed them to sort of backtrack on the Internet.

I visited a long time ago with an FBI operation, the Innocent Images Project in suburban Washington, D.C., in Maryland.  They have an entire team of people there that just cruise the Internet and pretend to be children.  And they can do the same thing.  They can actually hit keys on the computer, it‘ll start bouncing around on the screen, searching throughout the Internet until it finally homes in on a single computer.  IT‘s a remarkable system, and it‘s very difficult to do.

COSBY:  And this is absolutely disgusting, but good job for law enforcement, what they did in this particular case.  Phil, thank you very much.

And joining us now is former New York police officer Bill Stanton, and also Del Harvey of a group like you were just hearing about from Phil Rogers.  This is a different group.  It‘s called Perverted Justice, which helps nab child sex predators by also, you know, pretending to (INAUDIBLE) on line.

You know, Bill, let me just—some of this is stunning -- 27 people.  And these new terms that I hadn‘t even heard of, “Kiddypics” and “Kiddyvids,” that they‘re using these kids‘ video—“molestation on demand” was one of sort of the names.  And the youngest victim—this is just shocking—under 18 months old.  How disturbing is this, Bill Stanton?

BILL STANTON, FORMER NEW YORK CITY POLICE OFFICER:  Well, Rita, let me just say what‘s probably going on through a lot of people‘s minds.  If those allegations turned out to be true and they were, in fact, guilty, I would have no issue putting them up against the wall and just saying, Bye-bye, you know, Next.  I mean, this is—this is horrendous.  I mean, this is beyond the pale.

These children went through something that, you know, hopefully, no one ever has to go through.  But now they‘re selling it on the Internet—and the fullest extent of the law.  They should be locked up, thrown away the key, and worse, if I had my way.

COSBY:  Yes, and I think a lot of people feel the same way, too, Bill.  You know, Del, let me show a quote.  This is from the investigator today, one of the lead ones.


JULIE MYERS, DHS ASST. SECRETARY:  We‘re seeing more new material and more new victims.  In this case, we even saw child molestation on demand through the use of emerging technology.


COSBY:  You know, Del, why this sort of increase in sort of new victims versus just sort of using old images?  What is it?

STANTON:  I‘m sorry?

COSBY:  And this is for Del.

DEL HARVEY, PERVERTED JUSTICE:  Well, basically, I think what you‘re running into is more and more people have access to the sorts of programs that they could use to do that.  You suddenly don‘t need the recording studio in your home.  You‘ve got the Web cam that hooks up to your computer.  It‘s very, very easy to put anything on the Internet, whether it be video or pictures or anything else you can think of.  And given that more and more people now have access to that sort of thing, we‘re seeing an increasing number of victims.

COSBY:  You know, why is it also getting more sophisticate, more

dangerous?  You know, you‘ve actually been in one of those groups where you

got on line, you pretended you were a kid.  It‘s getting really more

treacherous for kids out there, too, right?-

HARVEY:  Absolutely.  With the emerging of a lot of these social networking sites, with the emergence of technology where more and more people are on the Internet, actively looking for kids—I think the latest estimates are that at any given moment, there can be as many as 50,000 people on line who would solicit a child.

COSBY:  You know, some of these—staggering, these statistics.  I got to put them up, Del, because—child porn -- 19 percent of the images of children under 3 years old, 39 percent of the images of children ages 3 to 5, 83 percent of the images of children under 12.

You know, you deal with this stuff.  What‘s been some of the toughest things you‘ve seen?

HARVEY:  I personally haven‘t dealt with a lot of the child pornography.  I‘ve been called in to consult on a few cases with it, but we‘ve had contributors who have dealt with things like actually seeing an image of a 2-year-old who was molested and various other really young kids that are getting molested in these pictures.  And having to look at that is just a tremendous drain.

COSBY:  And this, like, streaming video—you know, Bill Stanton, it is incredible that—you heard some of the gateways that we‘re just hearing from Phil Rogers to get into this group, that you might have even had to perform some sort of live act.  They‘re doing these sort of hooks in these things so law enforcement can‘t get in.  They‘re getting sneakier.

STANTON:  Yes, I mean, with all this modern technology that‘s making our lives more convenient, opening up access to things we‘d never dreamed possible—but for people with these perverted brains, it‘s also making it available for them to access for their demented wishes, following up on the psychopathic behavior.  I mean, it‘s just a sin.  I mean, and as you saw the attorney general—I mean, it‘s just sickening to think this is going on and people are buying into this.  You know, they have to come down with harsher sentencing and really go after it and expose these people for who and what they are.

COSBY:  You know, and Del, speaking of sentences, in this case, they‘re facing some pretty serious sentences.  Manufacturing for child porn, 15 to 30 years just for (INAUDIBLE), and receipt, 5 to 20 years—you can see it there, possession 10 years, conspiracy five years and $250,000 fine.  Are these people, though, so sick that these deterrents don‘t work?

STANTON:  They don‘t work because when they‘re sitting behind their computer, there‘s this a sense of anonymity.  They feel they‘re never going to get caught.  And if they‘re that depraved, they‘re not thinking about what if they get caught.  They just want that instant gratification.  I mean, something has to be done.  You know, when—there‘s chemical castration, and I‘m all for that in cases like this.

COSBY:  Yes, I think people are just shocked and outraged and so disgusted by this case.  Both of you, thank you very much.

Well, one way that the government is trying to fight child pornography is by cutting off funding.  You may be surprised to learn that child porn is a billion-dollar-a-year business, and much of it is done by credit card.

With me now is Ernie Allen.  He‘s the CEO of the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children.  How is it that credit cards can even be used for something like this, Ernie?

ERNIE ALLEN, NATIONAL CTR. FOR MISSING AND EXPLOITED CHILDREN:  Well, this is a booming business, Rita, and unfortunately, the credit card companies, the payment industry doesn‘t always know what the transactions are that come to them.  So what we‘re doing is mobilizing 18 major companies, credit card companies, banks, Internet industry leaders, to try to shut down these sites and cut off the flow of the dollars.

COSBY:  You know, you talk about them sort of masquerading under different company names.  How do you really track them down?  Because they do go all these second, third layers, and names that seem normal.

ALLEN:  Well, there are really two basic ways.  One is we‘re asking the public for help.  If you encounter content that you think is inappropriate, report it to our cyber tip line at  And secondly, working with these financial companies and law enforcement, we are proactively going out to try to identify these illegal sites, giving law enforcement first crack at it, and then providing the information to the payments company so that they can shut it down.  And then we‘ll go to the merchant bank and stop the payment.

We believe if we can follow the money and take the money out of these enterprises, we can have a major impact on this problem.

COSBY:  But you know, people involved in the Internet ring that we heard about today, they weren‘t making a profit, Ernie.  And I found that even particularly disturbing.  You know, if money is not sort of the object of what‘s driving them, how do you cut the—how do you have an impact on those kind of people?

ALLEN:  Well, this is really a parallel universe.  You have these traditional pedophiles who are trading these images for gratification and to access kids.  I think that‘s what we saw in the announcement that the attorney general made today.  The second side, and maybe the scarier side, is that organized criminals and entrepreneurs are beginning to understand that you can make a lot of money, that there‘s a huge consumer market, and historically, there‘s been very little risk.

So what we‘re trying to do is two things.  One, we‘re trying to dramatically increase the risk, and secondly, we‘re trying to eliminate the profitability.

COSBY:  Well, we wish you a lot of luck, Ernie.  Thank you very much.

ALLEN:  Thank you, Rita.

COSBY:  And still ahead, everybody, a man who blames the murder of a young girl on his drug habit finds out if it will save him from the death penalty.  And that‘s not all on tonight‘s show.  Take a look, everybody.

Still ahead, developments in the murder of Imette St. Guillen.  The attorney for the prime suspect makes news right here on LIVE AND DIRECT.


KEVIN O‘DONNELL, DARRYL LITTLEJOHN‘S ATTORNEY:  No, he‘s not the one that called 911.


COSBY:  Tonight, we‘re asking, who did make the call?  And how can investigators solve the mystery?  Plus, find out why bar owners are already balking at a law named after Imette that some say would make nightlife safer.

And exclusive details in the Natalee Holloway investigation.  LIVE AND DIRECT gets access to the latest search.  Find out where they‘re searching now.  You won‘t see this anywhere else.

And on the lighter side: There‘s a lot more to this cover girl than meets the eye.  Would you believe a major league manager?  Anna Benson (ph) joins me LIVE AND DIRECT.



O‘DONNELL:  He‘s not the one that called 911.  I don‘t know who called 911, and I‘m not going to be given access to the tape at any time in the near future.


COSBY:  And that was attorney Kevin O‘Donnell defending his client, Darryl Littlejohn, last night right here on our show, in the gruesome murder of 24-year-old grad student Imette St. Guillen.  The anonymous 911 call was the one that alerted police to Imette‘s battered and tortured body which was dumped off a highway in Brooklyn more than two weeks ago.  Police now say that they have a positive DNA match linking Littlejohn, the prime suspect in the case, to the murder.  Littlejohn‘s cell phone records also, remember, place him near the site where Imette‘s body was found.

Joining me now is former NYPD squad commander and private investigator Joe Cardinale, and also defense attorney Wanda Akin, and also population geneticist Larry Mueller.

Joe, I want to start with you because last night, as you saw, we had the attorney on.  We asked about these reports of a scratch on the neck of his client‘s.  This is what he had to say.


O‘DONNELL:  I didn‘t see any scratches, and I know that the police strip searched him and took pictures.  I‘d like to see those pictures.

COSBY:  But you—you understand—and you‘ve seen him?  No scratch on his neck, no visible scratch on his neck?

O‘DONNELL:  Nothing at all.

COSBY:  And you‘re sure of that?  He‘s even—you‘ve verified that yourself?

O‘DONNELL:  I‘ve seen—I saw it with my own two eyes.

COSBY:  And there is nothing visible, from what you‘ve seen?

O‘DONNELL:  Nothing.


COSBY:  Does it make a difference if there‘s a scratch or not?

JOE CARDINALE, FORMER NYPD SQUAD COMMANDER:  No, it really doesn‘t make a difference.  Everybody‘s assuming that any DNA, any skin samples that were under her nails, that, Oh, she must have fought for her life and scratched him.  That‘s not necessarily true.  It may be her own skin underneath the fingernails, and she may have broken her fingernails when she was trying to, you know, break away from him or break out of the ties.

But they‘re not saying—this is one of the theories that are out there, that if she had broken fingernails, that maybe—maybe—it was something that she did to him by scratching him.

COSBY:  But you know, Larry, we were hearing reports that there might have been a scratch.  Is it possible—remember, the attorney saw him a week later.  Is it possible that it healed?

LARRY MUELLER, POPULATION GENETICIST:  Sure.  I mean, that‘s a possibility.  I say also if, in fact, the skin under her nails were her own, they can test that easily by comparing it to her own DNA pattern.

COSBY:  Yes, that‘s an easy one to solve.  You know, Wanda, one of the other things we were hearing from some eyewitnesss, and also from folks at the bar, the bar owner, after being forced by police—and Joe and I have talked about this quite a bit—after being forced by police, they came forward and said yes—they apparently said there was an argument, that they saw some sort of argument between Imette and Littlejohn.  The attorney last night, however, had a very different story.  Let me play that.


O‘DONNELL:  He didn‘t have an altercation with anybody.  What I mean by an altercation is any kind of an argument.  He didn‘t argue with anybody that night.

COSBY:  He did not argue with Imette St. Guillen that night, either?

O‘DONNELL:  He didn‘t argue with anybody.


COSBY:  What do you make of that?  I mean, the bar owner‘s maybe making it up?  I mean, they had to be forced to say something eventually, but what does that—who—who do you look at here in this one?


WANDA AKIN, DEFENSE ATTORNEY:  ... Rita, is that we‘re still in the very, very early stages of an investigation.  And the investigation by its nature now is one-sided.  It‘s what‘s being conducted by the police.  The defense does not have the opportunity right now to have access.  You heard the lawyer.  He doesn‘t have the photos.  He doesn‘t have the statements from...

COSBY:  But he‘s saying, in this case -- ...

AKIN:  ... these people...

COSBY:  He‘s saying, in this case...

AKIN:  ... at this time.

COSBY:  ... there was no argument.  Very different story.

AKIN:  Obviously, Rita, that‘s coming from information that his client is giving him.  And he‘s being very judicious in what he is revealing as—you know, what his client said to him and what he‘s not revealing.  What I say is you can‘t put too much stock into that right now.  We can‘t all be, you know, crime scene investigators.  We can‘t all be investigating, you know, a cold case or be at the very, very root of what‘s going on now.  That‘s to come later.

The defense attorney‘s job, at this juncture in this very high-profile case, as it is already, is to make sure that the playing field remains level.

COSBY:  And one of the...

AKIN:  Littlejohn is still innocent until he‘s proven guilty.

COSBY:  And they couldn‘t get into the...


COSBY:  I know that his investigators were trying to get in to look into the house.  What does that say to you, that that house is still being watched so carefully.

AKIN:  The case is not together.  We‘re in the infancy of this investigation.  It‘s going to take a while.  And you know, America needs to calm down on this.  Indeed, the globe, you know, the people who are watching and weighing in on the case at this juncture—we‘ve got to wait.  It‘s not like we‘re going learn anything that‘s going to protect young women who are, you know, out for the night at bars.  It‘s not like we‘re going to learn anything very informational that‘s going to help us at that level to prevent any more tragedy.

COSBY:  Although, though, we‘re going to talk more about that in our next segment because there is some steps.

You know, Joe, I think it‘s significant, the fact that we‘re hearing different objects on whether there was an argument or not.  I mean, that‘s very significant.  Question is, who‘s lying?

CARDINALE:  Well, once again, when did they come out with this information?  Think about it.  When he was in custody and they knew he was being questioned, so they said to themselves, Listen, we have to come out with something now.  They go through their attorney.  They don‘t come out voluntarily with this.  They go through their attorney once again and they make a statement.  And what is the statement?  That now, all of a sudden, they heard something.  This is—if this is the fact, it should have relayed to the police that first night.

COSBY:  Well, do you question their story or Littlejohn‘s story or both?

CARDINALE:  I question them both.

COSBY:  Let me play...

CARDINALE:  And so are the police department.

COSBY:  Yes, I bet.


COSBY:  Hang on one second.  Let me play...


CARDINALE:  Apparently, they do have a story because...

COSBY:  Let me...

CARDINALE:  ... his attorney is making a defense for him right now.

COSBY:  Absolutely.  And investigators are going back and looking at that bar, so we beg to differ with you on that one, Wanda.

Let me play also—this is the—this is the blue van.  Because I found this pretty incredible last night.  He comes on our air, this is the attorney, and he said that that blue van that apparently some eyewitnesses spotted Littlejohn in, said, We saw him driving a blue van, pulling Imette into the blue van.  There was a railing on the back.  We saw that blue van (INAUDIBLE) driving.  I think this is actually very helpful to his client.  The attorney came out and said, Not possible.  Let‘s play it.


O‘DONNELL:  We know that Mr. Littlejohn‘s van stayed in that driveway for the last three months.  It is completely inoperable, and I would like the police to address that.

COSBY:  This blue van, you‘re saying, was parked for how long inoperable?

O‘DONNELL:  Since approximately January.  And that‘s the exact van that Mr. Cruz described.  He described a blue van with a ladder in the back and a big wheel in the back.

COSBY:  So what you‘re saying is that it is impossible because this van had not moved out of Littlejohn‘s driveway, is what you‘re saying.

O‘DONNELL:  That‘s what I‘m saying.


COSBY:  Joe?

CARDINALE:  Is it possible that that van was there at the scene?  Sure, it‘s possible, all right?  But as much as it‘s the police job to prove something, it‘s also their job to disprove it.

COSBY:  But if it wasn‘t moving out of the driveway, they couldn‘t have seen him in that blue van.

CARDINALE:  Well, exactly.  Well, they will go—naturally, this is a new aspect of the case, and they‘re going to either prove it or disprove it, and they‘ll give some rhyme or reason to it.  Doesn‘t have to be this van, it could be something of the same, you know, body style, you know, same color.  Could be another van.  I mean, he had access to other vehicles along the past few months, as well.

COSBY:  Right.  This still has to be looked at.  Good point.  Larry, I want to play a quote.  This is from Commissioner Ray Kelly, talking about that DNA match, which a lot of people think is the strongest piece of evidence so far, the DNA, his blood on those ties that were binding Imette St. Guillen.  Let‘s listen to the commissioner.



here, we‘re talking about the certainty of one in a trillion.  So it is a -

you know, a very important piece of evidence for us.


COSBY:  Larry, is the connection that remote that this, clearly, it has to be Littlejohn‘s, one in a trillion?

MUELLER:  Well, I think before everyone gets statistical narcosis from these incredible numbers, we have to remember that there are actually two different ways a DNA match might be wrong.  One is that the DNA might have been left by some other person, and it probably is very unlikely that it is another person who coincidentally matches.


COSBY:  Real quickly, how reliable is DNA?  Larry, real quick, how reliable?

MUELLER:  I think it‘s reliable, but it can—the labs can make errors.  And those errors probably happen on the order of one in thousands, not on in trillions.

COSBY:  All right.  Thank you all very much.  Interesting discussion. 

Appreciate you being here.

And now, in an effort to keep bar customers safer—we were talking about that with Wanda a little bit—there‘s some new legislation on the table, “Imette‘s Law.”  If approved, it would require bars in New York City to install security cameras outside their establishments.  But it‘s sending many bar owners in New York and elsewhere into a frenzy.

Joining me now is civil attorney Bruce Baron, plus Robert Bookman with the New York Nightlife Association.  His group is a voice for New York City bars, clubs and also lounges.

Bruce, you know, why do you think this can help make bars safer?

BRUCE BARON, CIVIL ATTORNEY:  Well, it‘s clear, as in many jurisdiction in the country, that video surveillance helps stop crime, it helps solve crime.  It also ensures public, you know, security in people‘s minds.  It‘s safer.  It‘s insignificant.  It‘s not intrusive.  There‘s no, you know, realization of privacy in a public sector, especially outside of a bar.  It‘s the right thing to do.

COSBY:  You know, Robert, let me play a quote.  This is when I did a little interview with Felix Ortiz.  He‘s the assemblyman who‘s pitching this new bill.


COSBY:  Are you surprised?  As we‘re looking at it, no surveillance cameras.  I don‘t know about the other places along here.  I‘d like to take a look and see if other places have it.  But the first bar that she went to, the Pioneer bar, there was a surveillance camera.  And let‘s think about how helpful that was because we saw her waving goodbye to her friend.  Are you surprised that a lot of bars, a busy bar like this, doesn‘t have it?

FELIX ORTIZ (D), 51ST DISTRICT NEW YORK ASSEMBLYMAN:  Well, I‘m very surprised.  That is the reason why I‘m mandating that New York state should have, and we‘ll be the first state to have a video camera, a surveillance camera, in place in the state of New York for these purposes.


COSBY:  You know, Robert, the assemblyman believes that maybe the case could have been solved, could have been solved quicker, at least more clues, whatever it be.  Why are you opposing this?

ROBERT BOOKMAN, NEW YORK NIGHTLIFE ASSOCIATION:  Well, first of all, New York‘s bars are safe.  It‘s a safe city, and nightlife is safe.  There are 65 million admissions to New York City‘s nightlife every year.  This was—this is a very unusual circumstance.  If it was common situation, we wouldn‘t be discussing it.

The reason why we‘re here, the reason why it has the type of publicity that it does is because it is highly unusual.  What happened here has nothing to do with bars and nightlife.  What it has to do with is one sick animal killed a beautiful young woman.


COSBY:  Yes, but also, doesn‘t it have to do with maybe some questionable bar owners who maybe should have been checking to see who they were hiring?

BOOKMAN:  Absolutely, which—and of course, this bill has nothing to do with that.  There is already a bill on the books which needs to be better enforced.

COSBY:  But Robert, let me focus on...

BOOKMAN:  Video surveillance cameras...

COSBY:  Wait, wait.  Hang on one—let‘s talk about surveillance cameras because, I mean, why wouldn‘t they help?  You could have seen who she was walking out with, all these discrepancies on whether she was in the car with him, whether she walked out with him—those would have been solved.

BOOKMAN:  Because it suggests that there is a nexus between this crime and having to go out at night...

BARON:  So what do you have to hide?

BOOKMAN:  Excuse me!

BARON:  I don‘t understand.

BOOKMAN:  Excuse me...

BARON:  What‘s there to hide?

COSBY:  Bruce, go ahead.


BARON:  Let me tell you something...


COSBY:  ... let me bring Bruce in...

BOOKMAN:  There is no nexus between...

BARON:  You and your association should be embracing this assemblyman, standing right next to him and with the family, and saying, This we could do in respect to the girl and for safety throughout the entire city, so it doesn‘t happen again.  There is nothing wrong with doing this, and I want to know what you‘re afraid of to put these outside your bars!

BOOKMAN:  I can understand why...

COSBY:  Robert, is it about money?

BOOKMAN:  No.  No because I‘ll suggest in a moment a real law, if we want to honor the memory of this poor victim...

BARON:  Let‘s talk about the law we‘re here for!  Let‘s talk about Carlie Brucia, that if it wasn‘t for video surveillance...

BOOKMAN:  I understand...


BOOKMAN:  I understand why plaintiff‘s lawyers like yourself would like the entire world video-camera‘d...


BOOKMAN:  ... because it makes it easier...

BARON:  See, that‘s where it really...

BOOKMAN:  It makes it easier for you...

BARON:  ... comes out, my friend!  So what are you worried about?

BOOKMAN:  ... to make a case.

BARON:  Are you worried about...


BOOKMAN:  We‘re not worried about anything.  What we‘re worried about...

BARON:  Are you worried about...

BOOKMAN:  ... is—well, first of all, what I‘m worried about is your rudeness in constantly interrupting.

BARON:  Well, don‘t worry.  You‘re not my mother, you‘re my opposition.

BOOKMAN:  I‘m not your opposition!  I‘m a fellow attorney, who you‘re not treating with any degree of respect.

COSBY:  Robert—Robert, this is not a lesson in who‘s...



COSBY:  But the question...

BOOKMAN:  There is a bill—there is a bill...

COSBY:  You got 10 seconds.

BOOKMAN:  OK.  There is a bill pending...

COSBY:  Because the question—but let me just ask you, what are you afraid of in terms of surveillance cameras?  Because...

BOOKMAN:  We‘re not afraid of anything!


COSBY:  ... save one life, wouldn‘t it have been helpful?

BOOKMAN:  It will not save a life.  What will save a life is getting police officers out on the sidewalks at night, you know, walking the beat.  That will deter crime, not 10,000 locations...

BARON:  I don‘t hear...

BOOKMAN:  ... out of a city of millions of...

BARON:  I don‘t hear this assemblyman...

BOOKMAN:  ... businesses.

BARON:  ... saying that the police are going to now go to Dunkin Donuts because there‘s going to be video surveillance outside of bars!  You‘re still not making your case.

BOOKMAN:  There is a law pending...

BARON:  Forget that law!


BARON:  What is the reason you are against...


COSBY:  You guys...


COSBY:  Both of you—both of you, we‘re going to have to cut...


COSBY:  We‘re going to have to cut to a break.  We got to go to a commercial break.

BARON:  And if that law was passed, she would be alive...

COSBY:  I will have...

BARON:  ... today.

COSBY:  I will have both of you back on again.  Interesting discussion.  We do appreciate you both being here.

And everybody, we are going to continue to stay on the story as we wait for news about an indictment, which is expected any day now.  And of course, most importantly, if you have any information about this case, please call Crimestoppers.  It‘s the number you see there on your screen, 1-800-577-TIPS.

And still ahead, everybody, LIVE AND DIRECT has exclusive new details about the Natalee Holloway investigation.  Find out where they are searching now and why they have not been there before.  It‘s a new place.

And on a completely different note, a woman who has both the body and the brains to take over the world is using her rare talents to manage one of baseball‘s biggest names.  Get this.  It happens to be her husband.  That‘s coming up.




COSBY:  And we have some exclusive details to tell you about in the Natalee Holloway case tonight.  LIVE & DIRECT has learned that a new search is now under way on the island of Aruba for the missing Alabama teen.  Just today, a team headed into an Aruban cave looking for clues.  And tomorrow they‘re headed back to the sand dunes.

On the phone with us right now tonight from Aruba is Fred Golba.  He‘s with the search group, called Child Watch Canine.

You know, Fred, why the caves?  Everyone‘s going—it sounds like this is the first time we‘ve heard of caves being searched.  Why there? 

FRED GOLBA, CHILD WATCH CANINE:  Well, these caves are out in the Baby Beach area on the other side of San Nicolas.  And what I do each morning is I go to the police department, and I check in with them, and they give me defined areas to go and search. 

And this was an area that they suggested that I go into and search to rule it out.  And what we did was we went out there.  And it looks like, you know, a desert field on the top, with cactus and some grass out there, which is very easily accessed from the main road.  You could drive a regular motor vehicle out to the area.

And as you walk out there, there‘s these air shafts that go down into these gold mines and phosphorus mines.  And some of these holes go down 50 feet, 100 feet, and you cannot see the bottom down in there, in some of them.

So what I did was I took your producer with me, and we did a repel down into the caves.  And we walked around, you know, down below ground in these caves, checking below these air shafts, to see if somebody had discarded the person that we‘re looking for down there. 

COSBY:  Was there anything—as we‘re looking at some pictures, by the way, Fred, of you and your dog right now—anything that you saw of interest?  And were Aruban investigators with you during this search? 

GOLBA:  No, they knew that I knew the area.  So, you know, they let me go out there.  When they have an area that I‘m not aware of, they will escort me out there and, you know, show me defined areas, such as my last trip in December, I was out in the Indian burial grounds, which isn‘t far from Deepak and Satish‘s house.

And we went out there, and there was a real big well that was, you know, a very old well that was out there.  And we weren‘t able to search it, you know, in any way, shape, or form, and not with a dog, because the sides of the wells were—you know, it‘s not accessible by a dog. 

So what we did was we went there today with the infrared camera, and we put a camera head down to the bottom of the well and searched the bottom of the well and came up negative.  So we have ruled out the Indian burial grounds, and we ruled out the air shafts and the caves out by Baby Beach, which is almost right across the street from the prison. 

COSBY:  Now, I know you‘re also going to be looking at the sand dunes.  And we have some old pictures, sort of, of the sand dunes.  But why do you think that you would have success?  It seems like a lot of people have combed that area before.  What makes you different?  And what do you expect out of it?

GOLBA:  Well, what‘s different now is we went out there and we searched these areas last time in a grid-elimination process, you know, just picking an area that looked good and accessible.  And we went out, and we aerated some large areas, which was very tedious work. 

It‘s very hard to aerate, but aeration is a very good technique.  You know, if you‘re in the right area, you‘re going to find the person.  It‘s just very hard, laborious work to do.

COSBY:  How long—real quick.  Real quick, Fred, because we just have a second.  How long do you think it‘s going to take? 

GOLBA:  I don‘t know.  There‘s an area about the size of two football feels, and it‘s on the opposite side of the dune that we did last time when we were here in August.  And we‘re going to do these defined areas. 

We have ground-penetrating radar coming in, which is part of Child Watch as a resource.  And we‘re going to do the aerating, dog, metal, because Natalee was believed to have some jewelry on her, so we‘re going to use three or four different techniques in each grid that we do.  And if she‘s out there, we‘ll find her. 

COSBY:  All right, Fred, well, we wish you a lot of luck.  And thank you so much for being with us. 

So how and why did the Aruban government decide to hire their own team to complete a new search of the island?  How did this time get involved?  LIVE & DIRECT tonight is Steven Cohen, special adviser to the Aruban government.

You know, Steve, we‘ve had Tim Miller from EquuSearch, all these different guys on there.  They were all sort of turned down by Dompig and it seemed like the Aruban government, of course, the chief of police there.  Why this team? 

STEVE COHEN, SPECIAL ADVISER TO ARUBAN GOVERNMENT:  Well, it‘s a process, of course, that goes back to the Forensic Institute of Holland.  Chief Dompig has been back there twice now. 

And I think what was happening was a determination of just exactly what techniques, in terms of specificity, could one investigator bring to bear versus another?  And, of course, Dompig and Fred have established a strong rapport and a great deal of trust between them, and that‘s why he is there. 

But of course he‘s not the only person that‘s going to be searching.  Dompig is coming back with a very meticulous search grid, and understanding, as well, in terms of the specialized dogs.  They‘re going to do some cadaver searching. 

And, you know, we‘re hopeful, but we‘re not going to get our hopes up that we will find some remnant of either physical evidence or actual DNA evidence that would lead further in the case.

COSBY:  You know, Steve, you know, we were hearing all these things about—as we‘re looking at a picture of the island, we‘re looking at the beach there—we were hearing these tips that this person who knew Joran coming forward with a tip, that Dompig seemed to be putting a bit of stock in.

How credible do you think these tips are?  And why wait so long for someone to search?

COHEN:  Well, I think the waiting is somewhat obvious now.  You know, we thought that we might be able to get in there at the end of February, but I think the chief investigators really felt they wanted to do everything they could to plot it out and be very meticulous.  And also, they wanted to await this subsurface radar.  It‘s called an SIR-3000.  It‘s a special device to help us. 

At the same time, I think that they had to accumulate different testimony from witnesses.  And I don‘t mean testimony, in terms of the court, but just in terms of people coming forward and speaking to investigators.  That took many months.  As you know, from basically December until the end of February, they were still talking to people on the island. 

And we were able to finally get sort of a fix on this dune area, which still is the primary search area, Rita.  Although they have been looking in caves, as you heard this morning, really the dune area is still the most likely area where there would be some remnants, if Natalee, in fact, met her demise in that area. 

COSBY:  Well, we certainly hope this case is solved.  Steve, thank you very much.

COHEN:  Thank you, Rita.

COSBY:  And coming up, everybody, there is finally some good news for Rusty Yates, whose wife, Andrea, killed his five children. 

And also justice for Carlie Brucia, whose abduction was caught on a carwash security camera.  A judge decides whether her abductor should live or die for sexually abusing and murdering little Carlie.  Some new details ahead.


COSBY:  And big news tonight for Andrea Yates—she‘s the woman who killed all five of her children—and also her ex-husband, Rusty.  They‘re both preparing now for new beginnings this weekend.  Rusty Yates has announced that he will be heading back to the altar. 

He divorced Andrea Yates after her initial conviction for killing the five kids.  Rusty apparently met his new wife in church.  An appeals court tossed that decision out based on false testimony.  Now, Andrea‘s retrial will begin on Monday. 

And tonight, it‘s death for the man convicted of murdering 11-year-old Carlie Brucia.  The 11-year-old Sarasota, Florida, girl was abducted and murdered two years ago.  Late today, a judge ruled that he should die for his crime that was caught on videotape. 


JUDGE ANDREW OWENS, JUSTICE FOR CARLIE:  Joseph Smith, based upon your actions, you have forfeited your right to live freely among us in society and, pursuant to the laws of Florida, have forfeited your right to live.  Accordingly, it is hereby ordered and adjudged that, for the murder of Carlie Jane Brucia, you are hereby sentenced to death. 


COSBY:  And joining us now live with the very latest is WFLA-AM radio reporter Gordon Byrd. 

Gordon, what was it like when the verdict came down? 

GORDON BYRD, WFLA-FM RADIO REPORTER:  Joseph Smith showed no emotion; he kept the same, flat expression that he‘s had, for the most part, since the beginning of this trial.  His mother, as she heard this coming down, occasionally dabbed at her eyes, as if to wipe away tears, especially as it became apparent that the judge was leaning in favor of a death sentence. 

COSBY:  You know, what about Carlie Brucia‘s family?  I know some of them were there, some were not?

BYRD:  Carlie Brucia‘s mother, of course, was not there, was not present.  She is in jail for Pinellas County nearby to Sarasota on drug and prostitution charges, a personal spiral downward that she attributes in at least some measure to Carlie‘s murder.  Carlie‘s father did not attend.  One of his sisters, one of Carlie‘s aunts, was there, as well as Carlie‘s stepfather, Steven Kansler. 

COSBY:  You know, what was the reaction from the community?  How did it—go ahead, Gordon.

BYRD:  The Sarasota community has, of course, been dealing with this case for more than two years.  And I guess you could describe the reaction as subdued relief, that this part, at least, is over, and Joseph Smith will never be seen in a Sarasota courtroom again. 

COSBY:  Although he does get an appeals, right, an automatic appeals down there?  What‘s next, legally? 

BYRD:  What‘s next legally is, of course, he moves to death row from his current location in the county jail, and the appeals process begins.  The public defender has said there will be an appeal, an appeal is automatic.  And prosecutors have said that cases in the past like this have taken 12 to 15 years to go through the system.  They hope this case will go through sooner, because of reforms that have taken place in recent years, and because of the nature of the crime. 

COSBY:  Gordon Byrd, thank you very much, from WFLA-AM radio.  We appreciate it.  Thank you.

And there‘s a lot more coming up right here tonight on MSNBC.  Let‘s check in, if we could, with Joe Scarborough and “SCARBOROUGH COUNTRY” for a preview. 

Joe, what do you have? 

JOE SCARBOROUGH, MSNBC HOST:  Hey, Rita, we‘re talking about the president‘s falling poll numbers, now down to 36 percent.  In some polls, 37 percent, in the latest NBC poll.  The president‘s not only losing Democrats and independents; he‘s losing middle America.  We‘re going to have a reporter from Indiana telling us that the president‘s ratings there are at a historic low. 

And there are a lot of people up on Capitol Hill, a lot of my former Republican colleague, that believe their time in the sun is over, that Democrats are going to be taking control this fall because of the problems the president‘s having right now. 

We‘re going to be talking about that and a lot more, straight ahead in


Rita, back to you. 

COSBY:  And we‘ll be watching, Joe.  Thank you very much.

And still ahead, everybody, would you believe this woman we‘re going to show to you is a Major League Baseball manager?  That‘s not the only thing surprising about this major league bombshell.  Anna Benson is going to join me live.  She‘s coming up.


COSBY:  Well, from steroid use to illegal gambling rings, the sports industry has recently seen its share of scandal, big time.  One woman who is no stranger to controversy herself has a front-row seat to it all.

Anna Benson, who graces the April cover of “FHM” magazine, has infiltrated the male-oriented world of baseball, acting somewhat as a manager to her husband, Orioles pitcher Kris Benson. 

She is also as outspoken as the men around her, all while juggling motherhood and her new ventures in poker and reality TV.  And Anna Benson joins me now LIVE & DIRECT from Atlanta.

Great to have you with us, Anna.

ANNA BENSON, “FHM” COVER GIRL:  Thanks for having me.

COSBY:  It‘s great to—you know, how does it work?  Are you an agent to your husband?  Do you manage his career?  What aspects do you take control of? 

BENSON:  No, I won‘t take that thing on.  He‘s got an agent, and he does that.  I help with negotiations with his last contract, but I have too much of my own stuff going on at this point to deal with that anymore.  I‘ve kind of moved on to my own show. 

COSBY:  You know, one last question on his show, how much arguing is there at home when you give him advice?  Is it usually 100 percent agreement?  Or is it—who wins? 


BENSON:  Well, the only advice he doesn‘t like me to give him is baseball advice, if we‘re talking about if he‘s going to play a team that I know he‘s had trouble with and I try to advise him.  He doesn‘t want to hear it.  But, you know, nowadays, you know, we both just advise each other every day. 

COSBY:  Now, you have talked about that you‘ve been involved in a lot things.  One is this poker, and I love the name  How did you come up with that name? 

BENSON:  It‘s  And, you know, it was just kind of like a term that I felt that, you know, people might want to label me as.  So I just decided to have fun with it, you know?

So I played in the world series of poker last year, and I branded myself the Gold Digger, and then I started a Web site of my own, which is  And it just has mushroomed. 

COSBY:  How do you handle the criticism?  You said that, you know, some people have referred to you as Gold Digger and all these things.  How do you handle the criticism?  It comes with the territory unfortunately, right? 

BENSON:  It does.  And you know what?  I just let it roll off my back, because I know the truth.  And I‘m a good wife, and I‘m a good mom, and I‘m a businesswoman.  And, you know, if somebody doesn‘t want to get to know me and they want to label me as that, then that‘s their problem. 

COSBY:  You know, you‘re currently on the cover of “FHM” magazine, very colorful and great photo spread.  You look beautiful on the cover there.  You and your husband also inside get kind of racy in the issue, talking about sex.  How did you feel about it?  And how weird is that, to be that open on that issue so publicly? 

BENSON:  You know, it‘s just more about fun, you know?  We just wanted to have a chance to talk about, you know, being a married couple, and our fidelity, and how, you know, we have a lot of fun being married.  So it was just a fun article.  And “FHM” is a great magazine.  And he came to the shoot, and we had a really good time.  And I get to interview him, so it is really cool. 

COSBY:  Yes, what was it like to interview your husband?  I heard a couple times he‘ll say, “Ouch, I can‘t believe you asked me that question,” sort of type thing. 

BENSON:  It was fun.  I love to put him on the spot, you know?  It seems that reporters don‘t ever get to put him on the spot.  And I got that chance.  I know which buttons to push. 

COSBY:  You have been labeled the hottest wife in baseball.  How does it feel to have that title? 

BENSON:  I think that‘s a great title.  I don‘t feel like I‘m the hottest wife in baseball, but I‘m very proud that “FHM” thinks that I am. 

COSBY:  And you‘ve also some kind of controversial things.  And lately, another wife—I got to ask you about this—Janet Jones, Wayne Gretzky‘s wife, of course, has been on the hot seat a bit with gambling.  You know, we talked about poker and gambling.  She was just ordered to testify before a judge. 

Do you think that there‘s, you know, so much scrutiny about being tied to a celebrity, especially in your case?  You‘re a celebrity in your own right.

BENSON:  Yes, I do.  And I don‘t think that any of her gambling is really anyone‘s business.  I mean, if the gambling was done illegally, then it‘s definitely, you know, the business of the feds, but if it wasn‘t done illegally, I don‘t think that she was doing anything wrong just because she likes to gamble. 

I love to gamble.  I gamble all the time, and, you know, what I do does not have anything to do with my husband.  Now, I don‘t gamble on sports, but, you know, I just don‘t think you can mesh the two. 

COSBY:  Very quickly, I‘ve got to ask you about Barry Bonds, because he‘s been accused of steroid use.  How pervasive are steroids and, you know, you‘ve been around baseball a long time through your husband? 

BENSON:  You know, we don‘t ever really see it or hear about it.  You know, when baseball came down and they made steroids illegal to use, it just kind of faded away.  And, you know, Barry is a good player, and he‘s a great man, and I actually stand behind Barry, and I hope he really shows everybody this year what he‘s made of.  I hope he hits 60. 

COSBY:  Well, we‘re going to be watching closely.  And I hope everybody gets to see you on “FHM.”  It‘s an interesting magazine. 

BENSON:  Thank you.

COSBY:  Great to have you on.  Thank you so much, Anna.

BENSON:  Thanks for having me. 

COSBY:  Thank you.

And still ahead, everybody, some clever crooks thought they had struck gold with a half-baked idea.  It didn‘t take the cops long to catch on.  And tonight, they‘re “Caught by Cosby.”  That‘s coming up next.


COSBY:  Tonight, a crook who thought he had found an easy way to strike it rich is finding out the hard way that crime doesn‘t pay.  Federal officials were investigating a man for smuggling $37,000 into the U.S. when they found these forged 1934 treasury notes. 

What makes this case so unique is that, not only did he go to great lengths to make them appear old, but that he also made the notes out for $1 billion each, that‘s $1 billion.  The largest bill ever printed is only $100,000.  Big mistake there.

And coming up tomorrow night, he has taken the wrestling ring by storm, and now he‘s taking reality TV to a whole new level.  We‘re going to have Hulk Hogan on the show tomorrow night.  Be sure to tune in.

And that does it for me.  Joe Scarborough starts right now—Joe?



Copy: Content and programming copyright 2006 NBC.  ALL RIGHTS  RESERVED. Transcription Copyright 2006 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 NBC and Voxant, Inc.‘s copyright or other proprietary rights or interests in the material. This is not a legal transcript for purposes of litigation.