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

'Rita Cosby Live & Direct' for March 20

Read the transcript to the Monday show

Guest: Joe Holloway, David Kock, John Q. Kelly, Mickey Sherman, Adam Fisher, Joe Cardinale, Wendy Murphy, Frank Mackesy, Lauri Waring, Kimberly Bryant, Joe Tacopina

RITA COSBY, HOST:  Good evening, everybody.  Tonight, we have breaking and exclusive developments in the Natalee Holloway case.  Will justice finally be served?  The attorney for suspects Deepak and Satish Kalpoe tell us that his clients and Joran Van Der Sloot could be charged with murder by June.  And after months of waiting, prosecutors may finally bring the case to trial.

We’re going to get reaction to this bombshell from the Holloway family in just a moment, but first, the Kalpoes’ attorney, David Kock, sat down with our producer, Darren Mackoff, in this exclusive interview.


DAVID KOCK, KALPOE BROTHERS’ ATTORNEY:  We don’t think there’s much reason for them to wait that much longer.  Of course, it’s a call of the DA.  But from the information that we are getting, it seems like, you know, they know, too, they have to round this up.  I won’t be surprised if, you know, summer, June, July the case will be presented.

DARREN MACKOFF, LIVE AND DIRECT PRODUCER:  And will it be presented, do you feel, against all three boys?

KOCK:  I think the DA will do—will present the case against all three boys, yes.

MACKOFF:  And will that be with charges of—how does it work here, first-degree murder, second?  How does...

KOCK:  You have a spectrum of accusations that the DA can present, from first degree to, you know, manslaughter to accomplice.


KOCK:  It’s too early for me to give you an indication what it will be, next to the fact that it’s not my position.  And the DA can also present, let’s say, the first instance and the heavier charge and the subsidiary.  If that cannot be proven, then—and if that cannot be proven, then to lighter forms of crimes.

MACKOFF:  Can you also work out a plea, a plea bargain?

KOCK:  No.  In our system there’s no plea bargain.

MACKOFF:  Would they be arrested prior to the trial?

KOCK:  Not if there is not anything new of really significance.

MACKOFF:  So if there’s a trial for murder...

KOCK:  Yes.

MACKOFF:  ... against your clients, they wouldn’t be imprisoned again during that process?

KOCK:  Correct.  During the process, no.  I mean, out on bail, though.

MACKOFF:  (INAUDIBLE) first-degree murder cases, though—if it’s first-degree murder...

KOCK:  Yes.  Yes.  I don’t know that will even—that will not even apply theoretically.


KOCK:  You have to have an intent to do something.  And if you just look at the facts, even if you would want to construct something, I don’t think you can even construct first-degree murder.

MACKOFF:  Do you feel that they—you know what they’ve got so far, or you assume you know what they’ve got.  Is it purely circumstantial stuff that places your clients there?

KOCK:  Yes.  My client?  Yes.


COSBY:  And joining us with their reaction to this announcement is John Q. Kelly.  He’s the attorney for the Holloway family.  And live on the phone with us is Natalee’s father, Dave Holloway.

John, what do you think of the fact that these boys could be charged with even something like murder by June?

JOHN Q. KELLY, HOLLOWAY FAMILY ATTORNEY:  Well, it’d be good.  It’s my understand that what Mr. Kock was saying is the DA still has to present the case, and then there’ll be a determination whether there are actually charges brought on the murder one charge or some lesser charge.  But you know, hope springs eternal.  It’d be terrific if that’s what’s going to happen down the line.  And certainly, Mr. Kock has inside information from his clients as to their exposure and what could happen in this case.

COSBY:  Yes, it was, like, he was using the terminology, John, saying he wouldn’t be surprised, and he’s getting some indication, it sounds like, maybe from the DA’s office or somewhere, June or July.  What’s your thought on the timing, too, John?

KELLY:  Well, that would make sense.  I mean, they’ve got complete the search of the island.  They’ve got to get the search of the sand dunes completed.  Hopefully, if there’s—you know, Natalee was ever found, the hope would be there’d be forensic evidence that would link one, two or all three of these young men to the crime, also.  But they need the forensic evidence.  They need the body.  They have to complete the investigation, and that should not take too much longer.  So the timing is right.  It should be June or it should be sooner, if they’re going to charge them.

COSBY:  Dave, how do you feel about it?  I mean, this is the first time we’ve heard.  We were quite surprised to hear, as I’m sure you were, that maybe charges—and again, we’re not sure what the charges could—but coming before a trial, June or July, that’s not too far away, Dave.

DAVE HOLLOWAY, NATALEE HOLLOWAY’S FATHER:  That’s true.  It’s about three months away.  You know, back about six months ago, when I met with the prosecutor in Aruba on one of my last trips there, I had indicated to her that I’d rather wait a little while and you have a strong case than just present this without—little or insufficient evidence.  So I’m hoping that they’ll have a strong case.  Dompig has indicated that he’s going to solve this case.  So you know, we’re optimistically hopeful that they’ll do that.

COSBY:  Are you hoping that maybe a trial could solve what happened to your daughter finally, or maybe one could turn against the other, as we’ve seen a little bit recently, Dave?

HOLLOWAY:  Well, that’s what it’s leaning—looking like right now.  But who knows?  If they’re arrested and charged, you know, they may start pointing fingers again.

COSBY:  John, what about changes?  You just talked about it.  In fact, we heard David Kock, the attorney for the Kalpoe brothers, saying he doubts first-degree murder because he said there’s no sign of premeditation, no sign of planning, from everything that he has seen.  If there were to be charges—and again, he seems, you know, leaning in that direction, that it’s coming to a trial in June, July, getting the inside track there—what kind of charges do you think could be brought against these three boys?

KELLY:  Well, I wouldn’t discount the murder one charge.

COSBY:  You don’t?  Now, why not, John?

KELLY:  Why not?  Because we don’t know, you know, if they had, you know, engaged in a date rape drug, if Natalee was drugged in some way and she was taken off, you know, against her will, you know, as part of a plan these boys had put together ahead of time.  (INAUDIBLE) premeditation there.  There’s no indication that this did not take place, and that’s one of the scenarios we’ve been exploring.

COSBY:  You know, Dave, let me put up some of the things, too, because they—as he pointed out, the system’s different.  It’s a European system.  We know that there’s no jury.  It really just goes before a panel of judges.  No plea bargains.  Based on that—is it stacked sort of for the defendants?  And what charges would you like to see, Dave?

HOLLOWAY:  Well, obviously, if they’re guilty of murder, I’d like to see the murder charge presented against them.

COSBY:  And do you hope it’s a murder charge?

HOLLOWAY:  Well, no, not really.  I would hope that we would find Natalee and she’s safe, but you know, all indications point the other way.

COSBY:  Well, let’s hope you guys get some answers.  And Dave, it looks like—it sounds like things are coming to a head, at least, so let’s see what happens there, guys.

Let’s bring in, if we could, our legal experts, former prosecutor Wendy Murphy and also defense attorney Mickey Sherman.

Wendy, what do you think?  Reaction that it could be—we’re hearing, again, it sounds like you’ve got some inside information, could be charges coming as early as June or July.

WENDY MURPHY, FORMER PROSECUTOR:  Yes, you know, I must be the most cynical person on the planet because I’ll believe it when I see it.  I’m just not persuaded that there isn’t another agenda here, Rita, that there isn’t a reason—they’re trying to delay the civil case or they’ve got something else going on where they just want us to be quit until June for some strategic reason that I’m unaware of.

Either that, or the Kalpoes have been squeezed successfully with a threat of prosecution for something that they can’t get out from under because there was no way this case was going to be solved without one of them turning on the other.  And as far as we know, that hasn’t happened.  It may well have happened behind the scenes, but unless one of them got squeezed or there’s some other agenda, they’re just trying to sort of blow smoke for a while until we all calm down about the civil suit.  I’ll believe it when I see it.

COSBY:  Wendy, is it possible that they’re saying, OK, let’s do this, sort of get it—get the case, look like it went through the system, and then it’s over and done with, it’s off the island, we don’t need to worry about tourism, make it look like it’s a bit of grandstanding?

MURPHY:  Yes.  I mean, I wouldn’t doubt that for a minute.  There have been too many shenanigans already.  Oh, we’re really moving forward.  Oops!  The whole thing is—is gone away.  I’ll believe it when I see it.

I can’t believe that they’ve got, all of a sudden, a rock-solid case that they didn’t have a month ago.  Where did it come from?  We would have heard something.  I can’t believe we’ve heard nothing, and all of a sudden, it’s a prosecutable case.  And we’re hearing it from one of the suspect’s lawyers.  I don’t think I trust him at all!

COSBY:  Although, I would tell you, so far, he’s been pretty straightforward, at least with what he’s given us in the past.  And he seems to say he’s getting some inside information.  As you heard from John, he’s certainly in touch with the DA.  The question is, the timing of this, Mickey.  What do you make of it?

MICKEY SHERMAN, DEFENSE ATTORNEY:  It’s bizarre.  And I—it kills me to agree with Wendy, but I have to.


SHERMAN:  If there was genuine information coming out of there, we would have heard it from other source.

COSBY:  Well, then, is it possible, Mickey, that they’re doing it just to sort of brush it off the island, and OK, we’ve gone through the system...

SHERMAN:  To make it a better, more attractive vacation spot?  I think that ship sailed, or rather, that ship hasn’t sailed to Aruba.  I think that damage is done.  It’s going to be a long time before that ever comes back.  But...

COSBY:  So Mickey, if it does go to charges, what charges do you see?  If it goes to charges and a trial, what kind of charges, realistically, could go up against these three?

SHERMAN:  Well, they either—they either—they or someone either killed her or they didn’t.  I have to agree that it’s either going to be murder or something—or nothing.  I mean, I disagree about with John’s lawsuit about the kidnapping.  I mean, either one or more of these boys or somebody else is responsible for her death.  So I think if there’s going to be a charge, it’s not going to be kidnapping or rape, I think it’s going to be murder or one of the lesser forms of murder.

The Aruba system—I’m not saying it’s worse than ours, but it’s so darn different that it’s hard to imagine that these people haven’t been charged, yet all of a sudden, within 60 days, they’re going to be on trial for murder.

COSBY:  Yes, it’s an unusual system, guys.  All right, both of you, thank you very much.

And up next, some more exclusive details, what the Kalpoe brothers claim really happened the night that Natalee disappeared, and why they are now saying Joran made a, quote, “flagrant lie.”  Is there a break in the case?  That’s coming up, and that’s not all.

Still ahead: For the first time tonight, a witness in the murder investigation of Imette St. Guillen breaks his silence.  A bartender working the night Imette vanished from the New York nightspot reveals what he saw.

And police make a stunning arrest in the brutal murder of a young nursing student in one of Florida’s vacation destinations.  Wait until you hear how they found him.

And these California housewives are anything but desperate.  They’ll tell us why they’re letting the world see them at their best and their worst.


UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE:  It is so hard to find a really good guy out there.


COSBY:  It’s coming up.



KOCK:  Just because of friends, you know, I mean, sometimes friends lie for each other.  I mean, sometimes not.  I think a lot.


COSBY:  Well, you just heard the bombshell news that the attorney for the Kalpoe brothers believes that his clients, Satish and Deepak, and Joran Van Der Sloot may go to trial as early as June or July in connection with Natalee Holloway’s disappearance.  And that’s not all that David Kock is telling exclusively to LIVE AND DIRECT.  He told our producer, Darren Mackoff, that Joran hasn’t been telling the whole truth in his recent interviews about some of the crucial events from that fateful night.


KOCK:  During the interview—let me put it like this.  You know that he gives her different statements.  I mean, he didn’t go marching (ph) to those statements.  I mean, the one that he changed.  But he indicated, yes, that they lied, you know, at the first instance.  He indicated in his statement that he changed his story, for example, that yes, he said that they dropped—Deepak, Satish, Natalee and Joran were in the car, and they dropped Joran first at his house, and that’s (INAUDIBLE).  I mean, if you are compelled to tell the truth, why didn’t you from—did you change the story from (INAUDIBLE) and you admit now that you were with her on the beach, why didn’t you go directly to that?  Why all of a sudden you want to turn (INAUDIBLE) and said, I had nothing to do with it.  They took her.

MACKOFF:  He said a lot of things, and to me, it pointed at your clients.  Did they feel he has lied to national television audiences in the States?

KOCK:  Oh, yes.  To start it, they didn’t pick him up.  Yes?  So that’s a flagrant lie, if you say that.  And he’s saying that that’s the story, that they—they—that he called Deepak, and afterwards, Satish came and picked him up, yes?  That’s a lie.

Second of all, he indicated that, yes, he left his shoes on the beach, but then Satish would say, No, come, I’ll drop you all the way to your home, like, 2:30, 3:00 o’clock in the morning, then I’m going to come and look for your shoes.  I mean, how logical is that, you know?  It’s a beach.  I don’t even know where your shoes would be.  And then why would I take you home, OK, and I would come and look for your shoes?

He stated that his shoes were very old shoes (INAUDIBLE) before (INAUDIBLE) his trip in the States, you know?  So I mean, there—there are very—of certain facts, my client cannot say if he’s lying because they were not there and did not see, you know?  So he can present his stories as he would want.  But on certain things that pertain to my clients that's simply not true.

MACKOFF:  What do your clients maintain happened?  Take us from the phone call—whatever the first phone call was from Joran.

KOCK:  So after they left, that’s why, because you know, they were together that night, dropped him there, went home.

MACKOFF:  And that was it?

KOCK:  That was it.  There was a phone call from Joran to Deepak, and afterwards, there’s chat—a chat message from Joran to Deepak.

MACKOFF:  But no one ever picked him up?

KOCK:  No.  Not them.


COSBY:  Well, just what does Joran Van Der Sloot’s American attorney think about all of this?  I talked to his lawyer, Joe Tacopina.


JOE TACOPINA, JORAN VAN DER SLOOT’S U.S. ATTORNEY:  I am not concerned about any fact-finding litigation in this Holloway-Van Der Sloot matter.  I’m just not.  Joran’s always said and maintains he had nothing to do with Natalee’s disappearance and didn’t harm her in any way.  He does maintain that.  There’s no evidence to the contrary.

And if they want to bring this case to trial, Rita, for the sake of getting a monkey off their back—and I’m talking about the Aruban law enforcement and government, not the Holloways—you know, I think that would be a huge perversion of justice.  I mean, if this case is supposed to be resolved with a quick shotgun trial just to say, Hey, we made arrests, we brought it to trial, and there’s no evidence, so there was an acquittal, and Aruba thinks now the monkey’s off their back, you know, I think that’s despicable to do to the Holloway family.  And I don’t think that’s fair to do to Joran and his family or anyone else, for that matter.

COSBY:  If it does go to trial, who would Joran call as witnesses?

TACOPINA:  I can tell you there are probably about 75 to 100 I’d have on my witness list right off the bat that are very, very helpful to Joran.  And I really hope that Aruban law enforcement is investigating all leads, not looking just to make a case (INAUDIBLE) target to get this monkey off their back because, Rita, what’s out there, what’s not been on the airwaves and in the media, is so powerful as far as being, you know, really clues to what happened to Natalee, I hope—and I mean this, and I know they’re not going to appreciate it, but I hope there’s some resolve to this case for them, as well as for my client.

COSBY:  The attorney for Deepak and Satish says, in terms of picking Joran up that night, neither one of them did it.  They say it’s “a flagrant lie.”

TACOPINA:  Well, Rita, you know, again, without pointing fingers and starting casting aspersions at people, I will point that attorney back to his own clients’ very first statement to law enforcement that they maintained for some time, which was that they picked up Joran Van Der Sloot at the beach.  So their story’s changed, as well.  And we’ve dealt with the changing of stories and the, you know, stated reasons for it.

But I will say this.  Joran has told his story, and it has not changed and wavered since the initial days of this incident.  And you know, I’ve heard that he’s given 20 different versions.  The police force in Aruba, who’s no friend of Joran Van Der Sloot, has said he’s only—there have only been small variations in his story.  Over 20 statements, there have been three deviations in it.  And you know, he explained why he did—he was a 17-year-old kid under pressure.

COSBY:  There’s been a mention that Joran would talk to the Holloway family in private.  Do you think that’ll happen?

TACOPINA:  I’ll tell you what, Rita.  Joran has said it.  He maintains that position.  And as crazy as it sounds, you know, John Kelly is a good lawyer, he’s a friend of mine.  Obviously, we don’t, you know, break bread over this case, but you know, if John and I were to have a conversation where he wanted to set something like that up, I’m absolutely certain we can do it without a media event, not on TV.  Once this civil lawsuit is disposed of, you know, without these—with these allegations that are ridiculous—you know, if they really want to do that, Joran will sit down with them, for sure.

COSBY:  So Joran would sit down with them face to face...

TACOPINA:  Myself, Joran, John and anyone he wants to bring from his team, including his clients, and we’ll answer all their questions in a private setting, where they—if they really want answers from Joran, they’ll get them.


COSBY:  And we’re joined again by John Q. Kelly.  He’s the attorney for the Holloway family.  John, you just heard Joe Tacopina, the attorney for Joran, offering—making an offer for you and also the Holloway family to meet with Joran.  Will you accept it?

KELLY:  Well, I’d be more than happy, at some point, to sit down with Joran and his father.  That’s gracious of Mr. Tacopina to offer that.  One thing I would want to make sure is that Joran’s under oath and that we have it all recorded because we wouldn’t want him to be saying afterwards that he was misunderstood or misstated something or we misrepresented something.  So as long as he’s comfortable with the fact that he’d be recorded, so we could memorialize what he said once and for all, the final version, and it’s under oath, then I think that’s terrific.  That’s a fine offer, and I’m more than happy to take him up on it.

COSBY:  What would you like to ask him, and what would Beth like to ask him, if, and hopefully, when you get that opportunity?

KELLY:  Well, we’d like go through all the details in terms of what happened from the moment they left Carlos and Charlie’s that night.  I mean, you have David Kock, the Kalpoe’s attorney, saying that Joran’s flat out lying on national and international TV when he says that Satish picked him up, and he was flat out lying about what happened with the shoes, too.  Those are two of the most crucial elements of the circumstantial case that are being said that are not true to a worldwide audience.  So you know, we’re a little skeptical about some of the things he said, and we’re not ready to go into a love fest with Joran for a PR reason to you know, wipe away his guilt.

COSBY:  What are do you make of the fact—you hit on the lying, and I thought it was pretty strong language, John.  You know, we’ve—I’ve talked to David Kock before, and he said, No, he’s not maybe telling the real story.  But he went on camera with our crew there, with Darren Mackoff, our producer, and said—used the words “flagrant lie.”  That’s pretty strong language to say Joran’s lying.

KELLY:  Well, yes.  And as I said, they’re the most critical aspects of the case.  You know, the shoes, what happened to the shoes, which would, you know, determine locations and things like that, and also how he got home and when he got home that night and what happened in between.  These are two very critical things that, you know, we’re being told Joran just is not being truthful about at all.  So you know, to sit there and say he’s being forthright and forthcoming and honest, and you know, baring his soul on the circumstance of the case is just not, apparently, true.

COSBY:  And I do hope you guys have that meeting and can ask whatever you’d like to ask.  John, thank you very much.  We appreciate it.

KELLY:  Sure, Rita.  Thank you.

COSBY:  And let’s bring back in our legal experts, former prosecutor Wendy Murphy and also defense attorney Mickey Sherman.

Wendy, let me start—this is sort of the list of inconsistencies, and this is according to Dave Kock.  He’s the attorney for Deepak and Satish Kalpoe—some of the inconsistencies that he says that they claim with Joran’s—you know, you’re seeing this clear split now between the Kalpoe brothers and Joran, saying that Joran lied in the interviews, that they did not pick Joran up.  And they also said that these were new shoes, so there would be no reason for Joran to have left them on the beach.  Remember, he said that he suddenly left his shoes.  And in one of the interviews, he said that, you know, I didn’t want to go back.  We were in such a rush.

What do you make of all these inconsistencies, Wendy?

MURPHY:  Look, it’s not news.  We already knew that Joran made a host of inconsistencies and changed his story I don’t know how many times.  That is not new, so...

COSBY:  What do you make of the fact that they’re now, you know, using some strong language, a “flagrant lie”?

MURPHY:  Right.

COSBY:  They’re not dancing around anything anymore.

MURPHY:  But what I’m trying to point out, Rita, is that this isn’t new, and yet this lawyer is suggesting that all kinds of new things are developed.  Look, there’s no question that the Kalpoes have lied, too, a lot.  And they lied about serious things.  They not only originally said they did drop them off at the beach, then they took her back to the hotel, and they are the ones who first implicated the black security guard as somehow being involved.  A big, fat lie!

So I don’t know—you know, were they lying then or are they lying now?  They’re not entitled to the presumption of credibility.  But I’ll tell you, it’s very good for the prosecution, it’s good for the Holloways to have them start to break down because although the cross finger-pointing problem can make a mess of things, making it impossible to have a legitimate prosecution ever, because they can all say the other one did it, but it’s very good that at least they’re not liking each other as much anymore.

COSBY:  Yes, so Mickey, who is lying?  You know, one of the things that David Kock says, the attorney, in terms of that story about the—

Steve Croes coming forward, pointing to the security guards, all that stuff he’s saying that the guy came to him.  So it’s kind of confusing, you know, that they came to Deepak, not Deepak going after him.  You’re hearing so many different versions.  Who’s telling the truth?

SHERMAN:  And nobody is under oath here, and everyone has an agenda, both the lawyers and the principals themselves.  And you know, the problem is none of these lies really, I think, incriminate them.  But the mere fact that someone’s lying during the investigation of a murder, it’s really similar to the case that you’re going to cover right after this here in New York.

COSBY:  But Mickey, who picked up who up is important because if Joran didn’t get home by them, he’s claiming that he did, that’s significant.

SHERMAN:  Yes, but the bottom line is who killed her, who caused her to be missing, not who saw her last.  I mean, everyone seems to think that whoever saw her last must be guilty.  I don’t think that necessarily follows.  And I think what Joe Tacopina and what Mr. Holloway said before - - and they’re on the same track—is very important, and that is that authorities would make an enormous mistake by trying to appease the people of Aruba and everyone else by having a trial just to get this out of the way.  I think they’re better served by waiting until there’s a competent investigation with some real results and not just a lot of BS, and then, if they have people with credible evidence, then go to trial and not before.

COSBY:  All right, guys.  We’re going to be following this.  Thank you both very much.

And still ahead, everybody: Did police accidentally stumble upon a brutal killer?  Wait until you hear how they found the young suspect tied to a horrific stabbing.

And next, for the first time, a potential witness in the murder of a New York City grad student is breaking his silence.  Imette St. Guillen the night she died—he’s giving some details about what happened.  The new details are coming up.


COSBY:  Well, for the first time since the gruesome murder of 24-year-old grad student Imette St. Guillen, one of the bartenders from the bar where she was last seen is breaking his silence.  Imette was brutally tortured, sexually assaulted, and savagely killed after she left the Falls Bar in downtown Manhattan more than three weeks ago. 

One of the bouncers at the bar, Darryl Littlejohn, is now the prime suspect in the case and an indictment is expected against him any day now.  In an exclusive interview with “New York” magazine, bartender Chris Faherty describes what he saw the night that Imette was last seen alive.

And joining me now is “New York” magazine news editor Adam Fisher. 

Adam, why did he decide to come clean and talk now? 

ADAM FISHER, NEWS EDITOR, “NEW YORK” MAGAZINE:  Well, Chris is a writer, and I think he felt a duty to write down what he saw.  And then he showed it to us, and we were happy to publish it.  It’s a nice piece.

COSBY:  Is it going to hurt him?  Because he did get paid for the story, and some people say it’s going to hurt his credibility. 

FISHER:  He gets paid like any other writer gets paid for us.  He wasn’t an interview subject; he’s the writer.  And it was a first-person piece, “What I Saw.” 

COSBY:  Let me put some quotes, because he reveals—it’s a great interview that he’s done and a great piece that he’s written about.  He writes from the article, “I remember thinking how strange it was to see a dainty girl sitting alone at the bar talking to no one.”

Why did he think it was strange?  Here he is at a bar.  I thought that was kind of interesting.  I said to my producers, “You’re at a bar; you probably see girls sort of sitting there by themselves a lot.”  What sort of drew him to Imette? 

FISHER:  Well, we talked about this during the editing process.  And he said, you know, it was really late.  She was one of the last people there, and it is kind of actually unusual to see a pretty girl just alone by herself at the end of the night. 

COSBY:  Was she drinking a lot?  Did he describe anything in that degree? 

FISHER:  You know, that bar is really busy, and he was busy all night.  And he didn’t actually notice her until the very end when he went down to put, you know, the money that they’d earned to the office below and do the receipts.  So he wasn’t aware of her drinking or not. 

COSBY:  And he went downstairs.  This is in the basement area, too, as well. 

FISHER:  Yes, at the end of the night, part of his duties are to do the receipts, et cetera.  And so he was down in the basement at 4:00 a.m. when the bar was closing. 

COSBY:  And who did he say walked her out or escorted her out?

FISHER:  Well, he was not an eyewitness to this, but he said that the standard operating procedure in the bar is, like, she would have been asked to leave and escorted out by the bouncer, just like everybody else, but he did not see it.

COSBY:  And the standard procedure would have been the bouncer that night, who was Darryl Littlejohn, at that point...


COSBY:  ... which is, again, what we also heard from the bar folks, too, as well.

FISHER:  Yes. 

COSBY:  Let me show a quote, because in it he describes in the article that you guys have—he describes Littlejohn as B, standing for brother, right, which is nickname for one of the other guys.  And he also talks about this guy Kwan, who is good friends with him, who is, what, not working that night, though, correct? 

FISHER:  Kwan was not working that night, but Kwan and B were a team. 

COSBY:  And let’s show a little quote about what this team was doing.  It’s fascinating, sort of this con-game that apparently he’s saying.  “They claimed to be partners, federal marshals, who hunted fugitives by day and moonlighted together by night.  He and Kwan would wax poetic about their exploits.  Prisoner transports were probably my favorites, but I also enjoyed the occasional house raid story.”

I mean, it sounds like these guys, this guy, Kwan, and Littlejohn pulled the wool over everybody’s eyes, while posing as experts?

FISHER:  Well, we don’t know who Kwan is, but I’m pretty confident he wasn’t a federal marshal, if he was hanging out with B, who, of course, is Littlejohn.

COSBY:  And this bartender, Chris, believed that they were actually legitimate marshal, sort of working? 

FISHER:  That is the main point of the story, that everybody there, from top to bottom, thought these guys were cops, were marshals, and they were going to protect them and, you know, the patrons. 

COSBY:  And there were jokes, too, about when the media started coming by.  Talk to me about what the bartender said, actually, to Darryl Littlejohn about the kind of conversations they had when all the press was hounding outside the bar. 

FISHER:  Well, a lot of the pieces—just, you know, how it unfolded.  And, you know, they were—when it turned out that the credit card that Imette used was traced to the bar, there was just a media circus outside, and they were kind of, you know, inside.  And they had this real gallows humor.

And Chris, the writer of this article, turned to B, who turns out to be Littlejohn, and said, “Oh, the cops, you know, they were by.  They asked me for your number.”  And then another guy there said, “Oh, no.  You know, they wanted your number, Chris.”  And everybody kind of laughed. 

And B, who didn’t say much, just shook his head.  And it just seemed like the way you would kind of deal with a situation like this, but in retrospect it just seems so creepy. 

COSBY:  Very surreal.  Real quickly, this guy, Chris, who wrote this article, has he testified before the grand jury?  Will he? 

FISHER:  He gave a statement to the cops and...

COSBY:  What about the grand jury? 

FISHER:  I don’t know.  The ABA (ph) was there.  A couple of detectives were there, and he gave a statement, and then was sent home.  That’s as far as I know.  That’s when the—the story closed on Thursday, so things may have, you know...

COSBY:  May have changed since then.

FISHER:  ... may have changed. 

COSBY:  Adam Fisher, thank you very much. 

FISHER:  Thank you.  Thank you.

COSBY:  Really interesting, with “New York” magazine, thank you for being with us. 

I want to bring in, if I could, to the conversation former New York Police squad commander Joe Cardinale and also former prosecutor Wendy Murphy. 

Joe, what do you make of the statements from the bartender? 

JOE CARDINALE, FORMER NYPD SQUAD COMMANDER:  This just keeps getting better and better, as the story goes along.  Now he comes out, and he goes to a magazine, and he tells his story. 

And it just amazes me that they have another player in this that claimed to be a marshal.  I mean, it’s just amazing.  I mean, I’d love to go for a job interview at a place like this and just say, “By the way, I was Secret Service, and I protected this one and that one,” and everybody takes it for face value.  I mean, it just goes to show you the type of people at this bar is dealing with, as far as hiring people. 

COSBY:  Yes, Wendy, it is—but let me bring Wendy in—Wendy, it is wacky that, you know, these two guys posing as, quote, “federal marshals,” and we know from that conversation, even with Imette St. Guillen, he was saying sort of he was a federal official that night they were playing around.  Is it weird that that bar never looked into this and said, “Wait a minute; what is going on with these two guys”? 

MURPHY:  It’s unconscionable.  It’s not just weird.  It’s going to expose them to huge liability, no question.

But also it just tells you gobs of what you don’t want to know about Dorians.  They’ve got an ugly history.  The preppy murder started there.  Now they hire thugs.  They could care less if they’re criminals, let alone if they’re telling the truth about being federal marshals. 

I think the message is pretty clear:  If the Dorian family owns a place in New York, don’t go there.

COSBY:  Yes, and the other thing is, too, is this other guy, Kwan, you know, acting with him, being with him, the other thing, too.  And I still have Adam here. 

Adam, he hasn’t come back to work yet, right? 

FISHER:  Kwan has not come back to work. 

COSBY:  He’s on vacation, supposedly, right?  Or we don’t know?

FISHER:  We don’t know where he is.  As of the close of this article Thursday, he was not back. 

COSBY:  And I think that’s a little strange.  Wendy, this guy has not shown up back to work.  He’s his good buddy.


COSBY:  And he’s posing as marshals, too, remember all those three rape cases.  Again, we don’t want to incriminate the guy.  We have no idea.  He may have nothing to do with this, but it is a wacky, sort of, coincidence.  Those there women also suggested people posing as federal marshals, or...


MURPHY:  Yes, it’s not just wacky, Rita; there may be a good, damn reason why he’s gone, because he knows that police want to talk to him, and he may well have something to say about the pattern evidence in this case. 

I don’t know what he’s done in the past, but if there is a pattern of similar behavior, trying to gain women’s trust by pretending you’re a marshal, where women might feel safe and go with you, for example, in your van.  If that guy knows something, he better get back here.  He is a wanted witness, at a minimum. 

COSBY:  And, again, Joe, we have no idea if he’s talked to authorities.  Maybe he’s done something on the side that we don’t know about.  But, Joe, don’t you bet police better question this other guy? 

CARDINALE:  Oh, most certainly.  And here’s another source of DNA, you know, that has to be compared to other stuff. 

And like I said earlier, they have to not only prove their case, they have to disprove some of the theories that come in.  And this bartender story, I’m sure they—when they have it all written down, he actually memorialized it in the magazine, but they’re going to pick his story, and they’re going to say,” Well, this fits; this doesn’t fit.” 

Maybe he did it just for, you know, for the story.  Maybe, you know, as it was stated, he’s a writer.  We don’t know.  But they will look at everything.  And as far as the grand jury, maybe they’re not going to bring him in right now. 

They can always bring him in later down the road, but, you know, right it may not be necessary.  They have their key components in place right now, and the indictment’s going to come down.

COSBY:  Joe, real quick, what do you make of the fact—and we didn’t get into this with Adam, unfortunately, because we had a little bit of time but it took eight days, according to the bartender, to be questioned by police.  Are you surprised that it took that long for the police—you would have thought—you and I talked, remember, early on.  They would have just canvassed that bar.

CARDINALE:  You know, that’s his story on it.  Maybe his information wasn’t provided until maybe five days into the investigation.  And there was also—you know, they had to go through their things-to-do list.  And maybe on their things-to-do list he didn’t fit in the top 10. 

COSBY:  And real quick, Wendy, are you surprised the indictment has not come yet?  What’s the hold-up, real quick? 

MURPHY:  You know, there have been reports of the DAs on vacation; I don’t know.  I bet they’ve got more than enough evidence, and it’s just a matter of process now. 

I think if it took the grand jury more than 10 seconds to respond to the evidence that we’ve heard—and we may not know everything—then there’s something crazy going on.  But I bet they got more than enough evidence.  I bet they have already returned an indictment.  It’s just a matter of getting the ducks lined up so that the DA can do all of the things that he needs to do before he can announce it. 

COSBY:  Well, we’re going to be watching closely, guys.  And, of course, everyone, we’re going to continue to stay on this story, as we wait for news about an indictment, which is expected any day now.  Of course, anyone, if you have any information at all about this case, be sure to call the number you see on your screen, Crime Stoppers.  It’s 1-800-577-TIPS. 

Again, 1-800-577-TIPS>

And still ahead, everybody, a suspect is behind bars for a brutal killing that stunned a neighborhood in one of America’s vacation cities.  Wait until you hear how they found him and who he was posing as. 

And it was supposed to be the first day of a retrial for Andrea Yates. 

We’re going to tell you why it did not happen.  That’s coming up.


COSBY:  A big win in a Texas courtroom for a mother who killed all five of her children.  A judge sided with Andrea Yates’ defense team today, delaying the start of her new trial. 

Yates’ first trial was thrown out because a key witness gave false testimony.  Now her defense team is trying to have her found not guilty by reason of insanity.  Today was supposed to be the first day of her retrial. 

Also this weekend, the father of the children that Andrea Yates killed has gotten remarried.  There’s the picture of it.  Yates’ ex-husband, Rusty, had a small wedding service.  Rusty married Laura Arnold during a private ceremony on Saturday.  They met at church. 

And also tonight, new details in a disturbing murder case in Florida.  Police have arrested and charged a teenager in the brutal death of Sarah Whitlock.  She’s a 23-year-old Florida nursing student. 

The suspect allegedly told authorities that he wore a stolen cop uniform and was in the victim’s home the night she died, but he says he’s not responsible for the murder.  Whitlock was mysteriously found stabbed to death in her Jacksonville apartment almost two weeks ago. 

And joining us now live with the details is Frank Mackesy.  He’s the undersheriff in Jacksonville, Florida. 

You know, I got to ask you, Frank.  It’s strange.  He says he’s wearing a stolen uniform.  He says he’s in her apartment, but he didn’t kill her? 

FRANK MACKESY, UNDERSHERIFF IN JACKSONVILLE, FLORIDA:  Well, actually, it wasn’t a uniform.  We do know that the suspect shoplifted a police narcotics officer hat, and a police shirt, and a shoulder holster from an Army-Navy store here in Jacksonville.  And it wasn’t a random act of violence, in that the suspect was an acquaintance of the victim, Sarah Whitlock.

COSBY:  So but, now, how does he put himself—he says he didn’t kill her, right?  He says he’s in the place? 

MACKESY:  Yes, he puts himself in the apartment.  He puts himself there before the murder occurred and also after the murder occurred, but... 

COSBY:  Does he know who killed her, if it wasn’t him?

MACKESY:  Well, actually we know who killed her.  We believe that Timothy Simmons is the suspect in this murder.  He just isn’t putting himself there at the time of the murder. 

COSBY:  And where did he say he was during the time of the murder, but was there before and after? 

MACKESY:  Well, I really can’t go into a lot of that detail, because it is a very active investigation, and we do have a prosecution ahead of us.  But we do have sufficient enough information from him to lead us to believe that he is the suspect in this case and is responsible for the murder of Sarah Whitlock.

COSBY:  And how did you guys link him, and how did you actually catch him?

MACKESY:  Well, as in all of our homicide cases, our homicide detectives were working this case.  You know, early on in a homicide case, leads are important, and you got to get on them while they’re fresh.

And we had some information that we were holding very close to our chest and not releasing to the public, in that we had some stuff that we knew only the suspect would know.  And we were following those leads down through going to an Army-Navy store. 

We found a tag to a shirt nearby the scene, and that tag led us to a store.  And once we were in that store, it led us to the shirt that was shoplifted. 

As a result of questioning the people in the store, we asked if they had any surveillance tape.  They told us that they did.  We got copies of the surveillance tape. 

Later on in the week, we went public with the fact that we thought our suspect might have been wearing a police shirt and a narcotics officer hat.  And one of the individuals in the store directed us to a particular point in the tape, and it was at that point in time that we identified a possible suspect as being a young, black male.  Well, once...


COSBY:  Frank Mackesy, unfortunately, we got to go, but I thank you so much for being here.  And I’d love to have you back on.  And good job of police work.  It sounds like you did a lot of digging to get to that point.  Thank you so much, sir. 

MACKESY:  Yes.  Thank you.  We’re very proud of our detectives and our crime scene people. 

COSBY:  And you should be.  Thank you very much.

And still ahead, they don’t may live on Wisteria Lane, and they may not call themselves desperate, but these housewives have a wild story to tell.  The real housewives of Orange County are coming up.


UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE:  I want to go hang out with my friends.  I want to go do Pilates.  I’m going to go back and sit (INAUDIBLE) and make up a little dance for him when he comes home at lunch.




UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE:  I know it’s really late and it’s, like, 2:00 in the morning, but I love you.  Oh, it’s 3:00 in the morning? 

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE:  We have fun.  We have fun when we go out.  We don’t have a problem attracting men. 

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE:  Kim knows how to get what she wants out of life. 

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE:  Well, I think this wine is already affecting me. 

UNIDENTIFIED MALE:  You guys are on your third bottle. 

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE:  No, that’s just the end of our second. 


COSBY:  Well, they’re already being compared to the “Desperate Housewives,” but the five women featured in Bravo’s new reality series, “The Real Housewives of Orange County,” are anything but desperate.

The women who star in the show juggle careers, families and friendship, all while finding time for Botox sessions and a very busy social life.  And the series, which premieres tomorrow night, gives us an all-access pass into the life behind one of the most expensive gated communities in America. 

Joining me LIVE & DIRECT from California are two of the housewives, Kimberly Bryant and Lauri Waring. 

Lauri, you guys live extravagant lives.  We just saw a little clip. 

Give us a sense of a typical day for you.

LAURI WARING, “REAL HOUSEWIVES OF ORANGE COUNTY”:  You know, I’m actually the divorcee in the group.  And I no longer live in the gated community.  But when I was there, and not working, a day would pretty much taking care of the kids, getting them off to school, then getting pampered, spa, nails, hair, massage, tennis, riding; there are all different recreational amenities.  So just it was a very nice lifestyle. 

COSBY:  It sounds like it.  You know, Kimberly, you’ve even described yourself as a trophy wife.  And, in fact, there was something your husband wanted you to do when you first moved into the gated community.  I want to show a little clip.


KIMBERLY BRYANT, “REAL HOUSEWIVES OF ORANGE COUNTY”:  We had lived here about six months when Scott said, “Hey, you know, have you thought about, you know, maybe getting breast implants?”  And I said, “You got to be kidding.”



COSBY:  Did you get them?

BRYANT: Yes, obviously, I did. 


COSBY:  I was going to say, by that shot.  Is there a lot of pressure, that you had to do it, if you were going to be part of that community? 

BRYANT:  You know, I think pressure is the wrong word.  I think, you know, when in Rome, be in Rome, and have a great time.  And, frankly, I have a great husband.  And if a couple of chemical balls in my chest makes him happy, I’m game. 


BRYANT:  I’m having a great time with it.

COSBY:  You know, and, Lauri, you’ve even said—I want to show a little clip—you talked about it’s hard for you.  You mentioned you’re a divorcee.  You’re now looking for a guy, and you said it’s hard to find that right man.  Let’s take a look at the clip. 


WARING:  Even though I was going through this nasty divorce, I still like being in a relationship with somebody.  And I don’t know why, but it is so hard to find a really good guy out there. 


COSBY:  Is it hard for you?  You know, between you got kids, you’ve got this, but you’re gorgeous, and you’re still part of all this whole lifestyle?

WARING:  Thank you.  You know, I think I have the “Seinfeld” syndrome or Claudia syndrome, where I think I’m being too picky.  But I have really high standards, and I can’t afford another mistake.  And you’re right.  I mean, trying to get back there in the workforce and with kids, and I make a feeble attempt at my social life. 

COSBY:  Well, it sounds like you do a pretty good job. 

And let’s talk about, Kimberly, “Desperate Housewives,” because everybody is comparing you guys, of course, to “Desperate Housewives.” 

BRYANT:  Right.

COSBY:  Are there any desperate housewives in the batch there who are hanging out with the pool boy or the gardener?  Give us the real deal here.

BRYANT:  Aren’t we all a little desperate? 

WARING:  Just a little bit.

BRYANT:  I mean, that’s part of the human condition. 

COSBY:  Is there a pool boy or gardener in any of your pasts? 

BRYANT:  There’s no—no, there’s no pool boys or gardeners. 


WARING:  I’m looking for that plumber.  I’m looking for that plumber.

BRYANT:  If you watch all seven episodes, you’ll see what comes up.

COSBY:  What are the other women like on this show, Kimberly? 

BRYANT:  Oh, you know what?  We’ve all become very close.  We’re great friends.  We’re completely different. 

Vicki has worked very hard to achieve just a fabulous lifestyle, but she works almost too hard to enjoy it.  She has several vacation homes.  You get to see some of them.  She sells insurance out of the office.  She manages her family like you can’t believe. 

And then we have Jeana, who is the easygoing Italian mom who, you know, tries to always be available for her kids, and does a pretty good job of it. 

COSBY:  Well, you guys are both doing a good job.  And it looks like you’re having a lot of fun.  And I hope everybody tunes in.  Again, “The Real Housewives of Orange County,” two of them here.  Thank you, both, very much.

And still ahead, everybody, Donald Trump is known for putting his name on everything.  Find out about his latest creation.  What did he name his newborn son?


COSBY:  And a big congratulations to the Donald.  Donald Trump welcomed his new apprentice today, a bouncing baby boy.  Trump’s wife, Melania, gave birth to Barron William Trump this morning.

Just 20 minutes after his wife’s delivery, Trump told MSNBC’s Don Imus, quote, “Everyone is perfect.”  Melania spent eight hours in labor.  Little Barron Trump weighs 8 ½ pounds and is 21 inches long.  The newborn is Trump’s fifth child and Melania’s first. 

And I was with the proud father this weekend for a charity event at his Florida mansion, Marilago, where we raised a lot of money and also, hopefully, raised a lot of spirits for cancer patients for St. Jude Children’s Research Hospital.  It was a great event and a great cause.

And I saw the Donald soon before Melania gave birth, and he told me that he expected the baby at any minute.  Boy, was he right with that.  Congratulations to the entire family. 

And coming up tomorrow night, they say that good fences make good neighbors, but we’ll tell you about one case that has an entire Midwestern neighborhood in shock.  A case of neighbor rage that takes it to a whole new level.  A Cosby investigation, tomorrow night on LIVE & DIRECT.

And that does it for me tonight on LIVE & DIRECT.  I’m Rita Cosby. 

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.