Guests: Charles Kupchan, Yale Galanter, Wendy Murphy, Dave Holloway, Clint van Zandt, Phil Cooke, Bill Donahue, Katrina Szish
JOE SCARBOROUGH, HOST: Good evening and welcome to “Scarborough Country.” No passport required, only common sense allowed. Tonight, breaking developments at Duke. Upcoming arrests and an exclusive from the second dancer who may cast doubts on the Duke rape charges.
Plus an arrest in Aruba. Will new details reveal what really happened to Natalee?
And the archbishop of Canterbury using his Easter sermon to attack a
Hollywood movie, the Da Vinci debate straight ahead. But first tonight,
from the guns of August, to the bombs of April. Islamic radicals continue
ripping homes and America‘s best laid plans to foster civil societies from
Tel Aviv to Tikrit. Today, religious zealots who have run Iran‘s terror
factories since 1979 are telling the world they have developed advanced
technology that‘s going to allow them to go nuclear sooner rather than
later while warning America that any attempt to destroy said nuclear
facilities would trigger the unleashing of 50,000 suicide terrorists across
the United States and Great Britain. Terror experts like Richard Clark are
warning that Iran‘s mullahs are not just whistling Dixie but in fact are
more capable of killing Americans and destroying more key targets than al
Qaeda ever was. W
We start tonight in Tel Aviv, Israel where a bloody Passover bombing killed nine and injured dozens more. The Iranian-backed group Islamic jihad claimed responsibility for the slaughter, while Hamas terrorists now running the Palestinian authority called the killing of civilians outside of a fast food restaurant, quote, legitimate. The White House condemned the attack as despicable while Israel promised retribution against Hamas. And friends, if the past is prologue, word of advice to Hamas‘ new leaders.
Back to Iran now where being tapped as a recruiting director for a club of 50,000 suicide bombers who are willing to blow themselves us to advance their religion of peace may first to seem to be a daunting task. But evidence tonight that those pesky liberals who claimed the Iraq war was a recruiting tool for al Qaeda, well, they may just have had a point. The “LA Times” is reporting this weekend of a playboy terrorist who spent the past four years living large in Hollywood‘s club scene. The good looking Jordanian had a taste for sex, drugs, the rock group Nirvana and Harley Davidson motorcycles. Those secular tastes may explain why his LA entourage is more than a little confused as to why their friend‘s severed hand ended up 8,000 from Whiskey-a-Go-Go attached to the steering wheel of car wheel bomb that killed 155 Iraqis. The young man‘s parents are also at a loss as to why their son switched from bar hopper to Baghdad bomber, especially after professing hatred for Osama bin Laden and al Qaeda following the September 11 attacks.
The question of the night is whether the playboy bomber is proof that Iran can find waves of angry young men who are willing to launch terror blitzkrieg against New York, Washington, Seattle, LA and possibly your home town. With me now to talk about it, NBC terror analyst Roger Cressey, also with us, MSNBC political analyst Monica Crowley. We also have Charles Kupchan. He‘s a senior fellow at the Council of Foreign Relations and Roger, let me begin with you tonight and ask, is it possible that Iran could launch waves of terrorists against U.S. and British targets?
ROGER CRESSEY, NBC TERRORISM ANALYST: I think it‘s possible they could launch waves of terrorists Joe, but they have a global capability driven in large part by two of their principal organizations, the ministry of intelligence and security, the Islamic revolutionary guard, called the al Quds force. They also have in their patrons, Hezbollah, the best terrorist organization in the world next to al Qaeda. They certainly have the ability to launch attacks inside the United States as well. So, it‘s a global capability and we should not take it lightly.
SCARBOROUGH: Your former boss, former White House counter terror chief, Richard Clark wrote an op-ed in the “New York Times” yesterday and he said this, quote, Iran could use its terrorist network to strike American targets around the world, including inside the United States. Iran has forces at its command that are far superior to anything al Qaeda was ever able to field. Does that mean, Roger, that a possible military strike against Iran to stop this nuclear device from being created is off the table?
CRESSEY: No, it doesn‘t. But Joe, if I was at the White House, I would be telling the president and his advisors right now, any military strike against Iran right now would virtually guarantee a response by the Iranians toward us in the form of terrorism. They would use an asymmetric means to respond and their greatest capability is through terrorism. So you have to factor that into the planning, absolutely.
SCARBOROUGH: Monica Crowley, the National Science Foundation drew up a scenario in which a 150 kiloton bomb constructed by terrorists was detonated in New York City in the heart of Manhattan, at the foot of the Empire State Building. Now, one second after detonation, 75,000 people would be killed instantly and nothing inside the blast radius you see there would be recognizable. After four seconds, the shock waves extend one mile from ground zero killing an additional 300,000 people. Commuters using New York subways would be trapped underground possibly for days.
After 16 seconds, the shock waves extend four miles around causing permanent blindness in thousands of victims with the final tally of 830,000 killed, another 875,000 injured. Monica, is there any possibility that the Iranian leaders that are in charge right now would ever be so irrational as to launch a nuclear attack on cities like Los Angeles, New York, Washington, D.C., if they got this nuclear device?
MONICA CROWLEY, MSNBC POLITICAL ANALYST: Unequivocally, yes, Joe. And in fact, the hypothetical scenario that you just laid out, that hypothetic ground zero is just a few blocks from where I am sitting here tonight. So, it is an incredibly frightening scenario and absolutely within the realm of possibility given the nature of the regime we‘re talking about. This Tehran regime covers the terrorist Trifecta. They do have weapons of mass destruction, possibly even nuclear at this point. They export terror and they do support al Qaeda.
SCARBOROUGH: Monica, let me ask you this. I want to show a picture of where you are. Let‘s go ahead and go to the live shot in New York right now. Monica, if Tehran were to launch an attack and we have the shot up of Times Square right now, if they were launch an attack in Times Square, they would have to know that we would go in and obliterate Tehran and their entire country. Of course, during the cold war, we called it mutually assured destruction. They have to be logical enough to understand their country would never survive a nuclear attack against us.
CROWLEY: But Joe, you are dealing with a regime that‘s not logical and it is also not rational. The president of Iran Mahmoud Ahmadinejad really believes in bringing on a Muslim led apocalypse. This is what he genuinely believes. You only have to go and look at the statements he makes pretty much on a daily basis. Look, the Tehran regime has missiles with which to deliver the weapons we‘re talking about. They are intermediate range, meaning they can reach Israel. They cannot yet reach the United States. But that doesn‘t mean that Tehran-based weapons and again, we may be talking about nuclear weapons that they may already have, they would pass them off to al Qaeda and allow al Qaeda then to bring them into the United States and detonate them. There‘s no reason to suggest that the maniacs in Tehran would not give those weapons to al Qaeda and allow al Qaeda to go and do its dirty work for them.
SCARBOROUGH: Charles, I want to show you a poll that was taken, a recent poll taken by the “LA Times” and Bloomberg. The question asked was this, would you support the United States taking military action against Iran? Forty eight percent said yes, while 40 percent said they would oppose it. I got to tell you, Charles, I‘m actually surprised by those numbers three years into a bloody war in Iraq. But what does that tell you about Americans‘ attitude toward Tehran, towards this regime that has really haunted us since the 1979 Islamic revolutionary takeover.
CHARLES KUPCHAN, COUNCIL ON FOREIGN RELATIONS: I think in the American public imagination, Tehran is at least enemy number one, two, or three, but certainly at the top of the list because of the revolution, the seizure of the embassy, the holding of the hostages and Iran is well known to have sponsored terrorism against targets throughout the middle east, particularly in Israel. So we know that there‘s a bad track record there and I think the fact that it‘s 48 to 40 percent suggests that Americans are well aware of a couple downsides at attacking Iran. Nobody wants Iran to have a nuclear weapon, but this would not be a cake walk, in part because we‘re not sure exactly where all the nuclear installations are and in part because there‘s would be some sort of likely retaliation for an American strike.
We‘ve been talking about the prospect of terrorist attacks in this country or elsewhere. But there‘s other ways that Iran can get back at the United States. Two come immediately to mind. One is in Iraq. Iran has a lot of leverage in Iraq. They could make our life even more difficult than it already is and second, oil. Iran is the fourth largest producer of oil in the world. They sit aside the strait of Hormuz where 40 percent of the tankers in the world go through to get oil to the international marketplace. If there‘s trouble, they can close off the strait or try to. They can decrease production. They could make oil prices jumps above $100 per barrel overnight. This doesn‘t mean that.
SCARBOROUGH: It looks like it‘s going that way right now. Roger, even without that additional situation coming from Iran, Roger, I want to ask you about these scenarios. Of course, we‘re talking about, with this scenario that we just showed, a nuclear blast. But talk about the possibility of a dirty bomb being detonated which of course, it‘s much easier to detonate whether it‘s at the Time Warner building or whether it‘s the Empire State building. What is the economic impact of that type of nuclear blast if we tried to do to Iran what Israel did to Iraq in 1981 and scramble jet fighters to go in and blow up nuclear installations.
CRESSEY: Well, the short is, we can‘t. We don‘t have the ability to get the same degree of success like the Israelis did in 1981 in destroying the (INAUDIBLE) nuclear plant today.
SCARBOROUGH: Without putting boots on the ground in Tehran?
CRESSEY: Well, I wouldn‘t go that far but it would require a sustained military campaign, Joe, of naval and air assets that would strike literally hundreds of targets. So, this is, there‘s no such thing as a surgical strike in the scenario. Now in terms of a dirty bomb, a radiological dispersal device, it‘s not a weapon that would lead to a lot of immediate casualties. It‘s much more a weapon of fear, of panic and economic consequence, because any target that is hit with an RDD, it will be contaminated for years and potentially decades to come, depending on.
SCARBOROUGH: So Roger, let‘s talk about some of the cities we‘ve shown. We‘ve been showing Seattle tonight. We‘ve been showing Los Angeles. We‘ve been showing New York. Talk about the impact of one of these dirty bombs whether it‘s in New York, Chicago, LA or Seattle.
CRESSEY: If it‘s detonated in a major metropolitan area, several square miles around that immediate point of detonation would be uninhabitable for decades to come, again depending on the type of radioactive material used. You‘re not going to have a lot of immediate deaths but the size of the cloud that is released from this bomb will obviously lead to radioactive poisoning for people caught in the path. And it will be long-term cancer risks and certainly death that way. Joe, when you compare it to a tradition nuclear weapon, a nuclear weapon is truly a weapon of mass destruction. An RDD is much more of an economic weapon I would argue, than a typical WMD.
SCARBOROUGH: Monica, wrap it up for us. Do you believe that we‘re going to be able to resolve this crisis with Iran diplomatically?
CROWLEY: I‘m not very positive on that, Joe. I really don‘t see it happening at the United Nations because we‘re going to have a similar situation in the Security Council over Iran that we had on Iraq. Remember, the French were deeply involved with Saddam Hussein and they blocked us at every turn. In this case, we have the Russians and the Chinese who are also deeply involved with the Iranians, very lucrative contracts, delivering a lot of the nuclear material and information and know how that we‘ve been talking about. The most important point here is, don‘t believe for one second that the Iranians say that they are going to wait for an American provocation to release this kind of activity. They don‘t need an American provocation. This is part of their state policy. They will act regardless of whether we act preemptively or not.
SCARBOROUGH: All right, thank you so much, Roger Cressey, Monica Crowley and Charles Kupchan. And when we come back, the Duke rape scandal, indictment reportedly handed down tonight, an MSNBC exclusive. The woman at the house of the alleged Duke attack is telling her story. It may not help her friend, the alleged victim.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Something had her and overtook her by the time we left, by the time we were leaving. She was definitely different than she was when she came into the party.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
SCARBOROUGH: Will that interview change the case? The latest coming up next. And Aruban police make an arrest that could break open the Natalee Holloway investigation. Who is this new suspect? And why did it take authorities down there a year to arrest him?
SCARBOROUGH: Tonight a bombshell in the Duke gang rape investigation. Defense sources tell MSNBC that a grand jury has handed up sealed indictments against two members of the Duke lacrosse team. Plus, the second dancer at the Duke lacrosse party is speaking out now. She was with the accuser before and after the alleged rape and what she says could have a great impact on the case‘s outcome. MSNBC‘s Rita Cosby is live outside the courthouse in Durham with the very latest. Rita, bring us up to date with all of the big happenings today in Durham.
RITA COSBY, MSNBC CORRESPONDENT: And Joe, it was quite a day here. In fact a lot of confusion today because when the judge handed down the decision of the grand jury, which of course the grand jury meets in secret. It came down with 81 indictments for a variety of cases and we didn‘t see any of the lacrosse players‘ names on it. Then we got word leak does (ph) that there were two indictments, two sealed indictments which weren‘t even presented in the courtroom. And then defense team sources told me that indeed two lacrosse players were listed on those indictments.
Right now in fact Joe, just a few blocks away from us is the actual jail. I‘m in front of the courthouse, the superior court where the indictments were coming down. But the jail is just a few blocks away and right now, Joe, lots of cameras are glued to the jail. Because we understand that there‘s been some negotiated agreements where the boys would come in. They would voluntarily surrender, otherwise obviously they‘d be arrested. But they would be coming in. We‘re expecting sometime could be any minute now, sometime probably in the next 12 hours or so. All eyes right now are glued on that courthouse waiting for those two boys to arrive, finally getting the face of these two boys. And of course, defense attorneys were not happy about the news. I spoke with one of them as soon as the word came down. They said that they were frustrated, not surprised but very disgusted at the system. Let‘s take a listen.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
BILL THOMAS, ATTORNEY FOR DUKE PLAYER: This case is totally without merit. These young men they have done nothing of the sort of what they are accused of and I‘m very saddened to hear that there may be indictments against any of them.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COSBY: And that was defense attorney Bill Thomas, who represents one of the players. There‘s a consortium of guys who are representing the players and again, right now, we‘re waiting. They could be coming in at any moment and if we get those pictures Joe, we‘ll bring them to you.
SCARBOROUGH: Rita, you have an exclusive interview with the dancer that was with the alleged victim on the night that the alleged rape occurred. What did she tell you about the events of that evening?
COSBY: Well, what she said was she does not know if a rape occurred. In fact she said that the girl never told her that a rape occurred. But she said when the girl arrived at the place, that she seemed very clear. She described her as very smart, coherent, she used those words. And she said when she left, there was only about an hour‘s time in there, her condition deteriorated so rapidly, questioning some things that may have happened inside. Let me first show you a clip. This is where she said when she saw the woman, she didn‘t see any visible marks on her, looked like the girl was doing fine upon arrival.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
COSBY: Did you see any visible bruises or scratches?
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: I didn‘t notice any bruises or scratches at all. If I had known that there was going to happen, I would have paid attention to every little detail around me. But I feel like, if she was all bruised up, that‘s something that I would have noticed because we were in close proximity to each other and I did not notice anything of the sort.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COSBY: And then, she said that the condition deteriorated rapidly through the night and also went so far as to say, I believe something was slipped in her drink. Take a listen to what she said.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: She was definitely a totally different woman than she was when I first met her. She definitely was, you know, under some sort of substance, some sort of something had her and overtook her by the time we left, by the time we were leaving.. She was definitely different than she was when she came into the party.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COSBY: And Joe, she also said that when the girl left the house, that she was so out of it and that‘s why she believes there was something much stronger than alcohol. The girl was so out of it, she had to be carried out by the guys, placed in the car. So when I said, was it strange that she said that she was raped and didn‘t tell you any of these ordeals, that she just kind of got in the car carried by these guys? She said, no, no, because she couldn‘t even say her own name at that point. How was she going to tell m, let alone if she had been raped. On the other hand, the woman says, I don‘t know what happened in this case, but she‘s strongly suspicious that something horrible happened in that house, Joe.
SCARBOROUGH: All right. Rita Cosby, great work as always. Especially that exclusive interview that it really has to have the prosecution and the defense attorneys worried tonight. Thank you so much. I greatly appreciate that report right now.
COSBY: Thanks, Joe.
SCARBOROUGH: Right now, let‘s bring in former sex crimes prosecutor, Wendy Murphy and criminal defense attorney, Yale Galanter. Yale, how does that story break for you? It seems to me that there‘s a reason for the prosecution to be concerned as well as the defense attorneys. What about the fact that this woman that was with her that evening, saw no bruises on her body?
YALE GALANTER, CRIMINAL DEFENSE ATTORNEY: Joe, if I‘m the defense lawyer, I‘m going to sleep tonight with such a smile on my face. She would be my star defense witness. She‘s in a house in very close proximity to this girl. It‘s a very small house. She doesn‘t see a rape. She doesn‘t hears any evidence of a rape and she‘s not told about a rape. And she‘s the person who this complaining witness leaves the house with. This is a another home run for the defense. It is definitely not a prosecution witness.
SCARBOROUGH: But Yale, what if somebody slipped something in her drink which obviously sounds like this woman believes happened and she was too drugged to complain about a rape?
GALANTER: Well, what we don‘t know about Rita‘s interview is we don‘t know whether she was slipped something or whether or not the complaining witness self ingested something. There‘s certainly no evidence of her being slipped anything. Nobody saw her slip anything. And the interview that Rita had, the person certainly doesn‘t say that she saw anything being slipped into a cocktail or anything else. What we do know is this woman went into the bathroom for a long time herself. We think she was in there doing her nails. She could have ingested some kind of drug or something else on her own. But there‘s certainly no evidence that she was slipped anything.
SCARBOROUGH: Wendy Murphy, I want to show a picture, if we can while you are talking. I want to show you and our audience a picture of this house again where the alleged rape occurred. It‘s not a large house. If you are inside that home and a lot of people there and a rape is occurring, a violent rape, as was described by the prosecutor, don‘t you think this second woman would have heard that occurring in a bathroom?
WENDY MURPHY, FORMER SEX CRIMES PROSECUTOR: I didn‘t hear Rita directly ask the woman where she was at the time, whether she was near the door. I mean, there were 46 other guys reportedly there. I‘m sure it was quite a raucous scene. So, I didn‘t hear Rita ask her any question remotely consistent with what Yale said, which is that this woman said I was right there near the bathroom, boy and I heard nothing. You got to put aside all this stuff aside about who saw bruises, who didn‘t, was she drink, wasn‘t she? The bottom line is the defense is going to bed tonight cowering, cowering.
Let‘s be clear about this. Two guys are been named in an indictment. There‘s no question this woman named two guys when she went to the hospital. We didn‘t know if they were real names or fake, Brett and Matt. And guess what? Brett and Matt happen to be the real names of two of the captains who lived in that home. And guess what else? DNA was found in that bathroom on a towel and on the floor right next to her ripped off fingernails and her purse and her shoe, right where she said she was raped. And guess what? The defense said two of the men who lived there were the source of that DNA material left at the crime scene. So, you can spin all you want, Yale. But the defense thinks it‘s just dandy that this woman who didn‘t even know the victim by the way, let alone stare at her face long enough to see bruises. You can say that all night long. You think that‘s a good witness for you. Your guys are in trouble. That‘s what the defense is thinking. We are in trouble because she identified them. She identified them (INAUDIBLE)
SCARBOROUGH: Wait a minute. Let‘s do some housecleaning here. Wendy, you just named two people - hold on a second Yale. Wendy, you just named two peoples‘ names. You don‘t have any evidence that those two players have been indicted, do you?
MURPHY: No, no, no. I‘m saying what we know is she identified, by name, two men named Brett and Matt. We know that. That‘s in public documents. We also know that she - and this has come out too, today—she 10 percent certain identified by face, by photographic identification process two guys who raped her. We also know that the captains were the ones who were apparently the source of two types of biological material found in that bathroom right on the floor where she said she was raped. Let‘s just use a dose of common sense. For fun, what‘s worse for the defense? Having DNA match the two guys that she IDed as having deposited biological material at the crime scene or having some woman that this victim didn‘t even know saying, oh, I didn‘t really notice any bruises. Bruises can take hours to com out, by the way. That‘s no medical mystery. The bottom line is, this is not about that witness, that woman. It‘s about the DNA. It‘s about her identification process and that‘s the strongest case we‘ve heard thus far.
SCARBOROUGH: Yale, respond to this. If have you a woman that is 100 percent sure that she can ID the two men, plus you possibly have DNA evidence that is found in the room where the alleged rape occurred, if it matches those two people she ID.‘d and we don‘t know who those two people are, I want to say that again. The indictments are sealed. Yale, if that were to happen, that certainly would be difficult for the defense, would it not?
GALANTER: If investigators came into Wendy‘s bathroom tonight, my bathroom or your bathroom, they would find our DNA in our bathrooms. That‘s what happens when people live in bathrooms and live in homes. So, the fact that the police found the individuals who live in the home, their DNA, that means absolutely nothing. What we‘re left with, by police observation is a woman who was fine an hour after the alleged rape, who was passed out drunk, somebody who couldn‘t remember anything and whose attention to detail and credibility is in question. Now, the fact that the prosecutor was able to get a grand jury indictment without having defense lawyers challenge the evidence, cross-examine the witnesses means absolutely nothing. The fact that he did (INAUDIBLE) and did go for a preliminary hearing shows that he has a weak case.
SCARBOROUGH: All right, thank you so much Yale Galanter and Wendy Murphy. One more piece of housekeeping here, we do not know if she was passed out drunk or not or whether she ingested drugs or whether she had somebody planting drugs on her. Now, coming up, what we‘re learning about the teenager arrested in Aruba. What does he know about the Natalee Holloway case? Why are police just now arresting him a year later? We‘re going to be going to Aruba for those details. And later, should the public be warned before seeing the “Da Vinci Code” movie. Why is Hollywood resisting a Da Vinci disclaimer and why is the archbishop of Canterbury using his Easter service attacking the movie. We‘ll have that and much more when “Scarborough Country” returns.
SCARBOROUGH: A new arrest in the Aruba case that some are calling a watershed moment for the Natalee Holloway investigation. Is there a crack in the case? Or is it another dead end? We‘ll find out straight ahead.
But first, here‘s the latest news you and your family need to know.
SCARBOROUGH: “The Da Vinci Code” is one of the most anticipated movies in a long time. The church leaders say the film dangerous and it blurs the line between fact and fiction, and the public needs to be warned.
Plus, Brad Pitt and Angelina Jolie getting ready to give birth. Get this. In Africa. So why is one of Jolie‘s former lovers trying to break up the globetrotting couple?
Welcome back to “Scarborough Country.” Those stories in just minutes.
But first, new details about the teenager under arrest tonight in connection with the Natalee Holloway case. What does he know? Will this finally lead to a break in the case or another dead end?
NBC‘s Michelle Kosinski is on the island of Aruba tonight. And she has the very latest via videophone.
(BEGIN AUDIO FEED)
SCARBOROUGH: Michelle, what do you have?
MICHELLE KOSINSKI, CORRESPONDENT, NBC NEWS: Hi there, Joe. This 19-year-old was arrested in some connection to Natalee Holloway‘s disappearance. Prosecutors aren‘t saying why, but they are saying now they have enough evidence of some sort against him that they want to keep him behind bars for at least another week.
So who is this Geoffrey von Cromvoirt? Well, that depends on who you ask. The attorney‘s to parties in this case do have some access to prosecutor‘s evidence. And friends of Natalee Holloway‘s family say that this boy is friends with all three of the suspects in her disappearance, who have been released.
While, the Joran van der Sloot‘s lawyer says his client doesn‘t know the boy. He says his client doesn‘t know this boy. And he says van Cromvoirt worked for a security company on the island and did some beach patrol, including in the areas near where Natalee was staying and where van der Sloot claims he left her alone the night she disappeared.
What‘s more, van der Sloot‘s attorney says that von Cromvoirt, a couple of months ago, he had a shirt of his found by Aruban police that he says contains some kind of forensic evidence that could be significant. And prosecutors aren‘t confirming any of this. But they do want to keep this boy behind the bars.
And last week, Aruban TV aired a sort of “America‘s Most Warranted,” Dutch version, and investigators say that program along generated dozens of tips. Joe.
SCARBOROUGH: Thank you so much, NBC‘s Michelle Kosinski. We appreciate it.
(END AUDIO FEED.)
SCARBOROUGH: Now, let‘s bring in Natalee‘s father, Dave Holloway.
Dave, have you ever heard of the teenager before this week?
DAVE HOLLOWAY, FATHER OF NATALEE HOLLOWAY: I have not, Joe. The first time I heard of him was when he was arrested on Saturday.
SCARBOROUGH: Joe Tacopina, who is a Joran‘s attorney, is saying this may possibly be a watershed moment for the investigation. Do you agree with him?
HOLLOWAY: Well, I don‘t know. We‘ve had a number of people, what, six, seven, eight people arrested and released. Tomorrow will be the big day. That‘s when the evidence will be presented to the judge and the judge will make the decision of whether or not he will be detained for an additional eight days. I won‘t get my hopes up high until this individual is detained for the at least 16 days or more.
SCARBOROUGH: Despite this individual going in, is your focus still on Joran van der Sloot and the two Kalpoe brothers?
HOLLOWAY: Well, I think they are still the primary suspects until we develop any further information. You know, I just think this guy may be a stepping stone to, maybe, others that may be involved in the case. We‘ll just have to wait and see what they develop.
SCARBOROUGH: What can you tell us about this shirt, the forensic evidence? Has the family been told anything?
HOLLOWAY: No, we haven‘t. I recall an interview that Karl Penhaul made, on one of the other stations, that a shirt was found along with a pair of sunglasses. I think they indicated that there were some blood on it or some other forensic evidence. And whether or not that was ever tested or whatever, in this case, we don‘t know.
SCARBOROUGH: All right. Hey, finally, do you think that your family‘s pressure keeping this investigation going may have led to this arrest?
HOLLOWAY: Well, it was just very coincidental that, you know, I had a book coming out and it came out, April 11th and that‘s when this Dutch program debut. And I heard word back in November that they were concerned about the title in my book. So, I don‘t know.
A lot of things happened coincidentally. It seems like the more you push them, the more they tend to investigate. So, you know, let‘s keep the pressure on and maybe we‘ll get some answers.
SCARBOROUGH: All right. Thanks so much, Dave Holloway. We greatly appreciate you being with us tonight.
HOLLOWAY: Thank you, Joe.
SCARBOROUGH: And let‘s hope we get some answers.
Now, let‘s go to out panel of experts. With us, former FBI profiler and MSNBC analyst, Clint van Zandt and also prosecutor Stacey Honowitz.
Clint, there seems to be some conflict between whether Joran knows this kid or not? What can you tell us?
CLINT VAN ZANDT, MSNBC ANALYST & FORMER FBI PROFILER: Well, it seems to go both ways. You know, we had Joran‘s attorney, Joe, tell us about a week ago that every teenager knows every other teenager on the island.
ZANDT: So, we should just accept that, right? And now, this week, he tells us, but, of all the teenagers on the island, these two guys, Joran van der Sloot and our new suspect—for lack of a better term—now, have no knowledge of each other.
So, you know, Joe, as an FBI agent, I can‘t get caught up in what the defense says or even what the prosecution says. You got to follow the evidence. You‘ve got to, you know, look back. You‘ve got to look at the Steve Croes, who months ago, said that Natalee was dropped off and two security guards grabbed her. That turned out to be a lie.
Why did he tell that? Why did Joran van der Sloot tell three or four major versions and upwards of 15 to 20 minor versions? Why did van der Sloot and one of the call Kalpoe brothers, in a tape-recorded conversation that the policed had, a month after Natalee disappeared, talk about her in the past tense? These are the investigative questions that I want to see resolved.
SCARBOROUGH: Stacey, a week ago, the lead investigator was attacking Natalee, claiming that she had gotten too drunk, possibly took drugs, and implied that it was her own fault. Now, we come up with this new arrest, possibly a watershed moment in the case. What‘s going on in this investigation?
STACEY HONOWITZ, PROSECUTOR: Well, I stated before on this show, and many people said, that it wouldn‘t be unusual for them to attack the victim in this case. That‘s a tactic that‘s been used for years.
We really don‘t know what brought on this brand new lead. I mean, the bottom line was—Dave talks about his book coming out. We don‘t know if, in fact, tourism has been down and they decided, with this change of guard, with this new prosecutor coming in, the new head of the police coming in, that they have decide that had we need to move forward on this case.
I also believe that the show that they had that was, you know, like “America‘s Most Wanted” here, generated some tips for them to move forward. And I wouldn‘t be surprised if this guy that‘s in there now has material information. Might not have been involved in the crime directly but has material information. And they are keeping him in, in the hopes that they can get some info out of him.
SCARBOROUGH: Like this T-shirt? How does this T-shirt play into it?
HONOWITZ: Well, the T-shirt‘s going to be important...
SCARBOROUGH: How does the T-shirt...
HONOWITZ: ... because if this person said he had never had any contact with Natalee Holloway, and there‘s some biological evidence linking her to him, her blood or DNA or something‘s on the shirts, well certainly we‘re going to know that he did have contact. So, the forensic, the biological evidence, the DNA that could possibly be there could be crucial.
SCARBOROUGH: And Clint, I‘ll ask you the same question about this T-shirt. How could it play in this case in the investigation?
ZANDT: Well, we know that the T-shirt has got the name of the suspect‘s father‘s security company—the suspect works for that security company, supposedly handling the video cameras at the Holiday Inn where Natalee stayed, and providing security on the beach where she stayed.
And of course, we‘ve got Joran van der Sloot‘s, I guess, the final version of his story, where he suggests that he left Natalee on that beach alone.
So, then you start to connect one and two and three different dots. And you say, well, could this new suspect have had some contact with Natalee after van der Sloot left her there.
Well, she could have been grabbed up by Martians too. But these are the things that authorities have to look at. But simply the finding of a T-shirt with the name of a security company in his initials, unless they can link that positively to Natalee Holloway, it‘s just one more piece of trash that they found during this search.
SCARBOROUGH: And they are talking about forensic evidence on that shirt. We will see.
Cliff van Zandt, Stacey Honowitz, thank you so much.
Now, I‘m joined by Tucker Carlson. He‘s the host of “The Situation with Tucker Carlson.”
Hey, Tucker, what‘s the situation tonight?
TUCKER CARLSON, HOST, “THE SITUATION”: It‘s good to have you back, Joe.
SCARBOROUGH: Good to be back.
CARLSON: A university librarian in Ohio brought up on sexual harassment charges for recommending conservative books. How does that work? We‘ll explain.
And then, the Rainbow Coalition has pledged, as you know, full tuition to the accuser in this Duke lacrosse rape case. We‘ll have the Reverend Jesse Jackson, himself, in just a minute to explain why. Incidentally, he says, even if it‘s shown that she‘s not telling the truth, accusing these guys unfairly, they‘ll still pay for her college tuition. Interesting.
SCARBOROUGH: Wow. Hey, my son is starting college next we‘re year.
Ask the reverend if he‘ll pay for his too?
CARLSON: Maybe I will.
SCARBOROUGH: Tucker, thanks a lot.
CARLSON: Thanks, Joe.
SCARBOROUGH: Make sure you tune into “The Situation” coming up next at 11:00.
And when we come back, much more. Are the filmmakers behind the “Da Vinci Code” disrespecting religion by not telling viewers what‘s real and what‘s not. Or are Christians just being whiners? That‘s straight ahead in “Scarborough Country.”
SCARBOROUGH: “The Da Vinci Code”” hits theaters next month. But the controversy surrounding the film is at an all time high already.
The Archbishop of Canterbury used his Easter Sunday sermon to blast the book, saying it undermines the truth of the Bible. Is this a huge blow to the film? The Archbishop‘s head of the Anglican Church, which has close to 50 million members worldwide.
With me now to talk about it, we‘ve got the president of the Catholic League, Bill Donahue. Katrina Szish from US Weekly; Christian producer Phil Cooke.
Phil, let me begin with you. Do you think the Archbishop of Canterbury has a reason to worry about “The Da Vinci Code”? Should he have used, what many Christians would consider, his most important sermon of the year to talk a Hollywood movie?
PHIL COOKE, CHRISTIAN PRODUCER: There‘s no question, Joe. The film tries to undermine the Christian faith. And it‘s got a lot problems with it, historically and with the research.
But the fact is, I think, it‘s time that Christians stop protesting, boycotting, writing disclaimers, and start engaging the culture. I think, until we can engage the culture and start a conversation about films like this, we‘re never really going to make much of an impact?
SCARBOROUGH: Do you think they are whiners?
COOKE: Well, I don‘t know if I‘d go that far. But I tend to think we make a little bit bigger deal out of these things than we really should.
It‘s interesting that on “The Passion of the Christ”, research indicates that only one-half of one percent of the people that watched that film actually made a decision for Christianity, which is not a very big number. I don‘t think we saw a huge spike in the gay population after “Brokeback Mountain.” So I don‘t think this film is going to turn us into a nation of Gnostics.
SCARBOROUGH: Bill Donahue, did the Archbishop of Canterbury overreact to a Hollywood movie, a work of fiction?
BILL DONAHUE, PRESIDENT, CATHOLIC LEAGUE: Oh, I wish more Catholic bishops and cardinals were speaking out like him.
It‘s it interesting? We usually are rapping priests and ministers and rabbis for not being relevant. And now when he tries to be relevant about something, which has become a cottage industry rapping Christianity, now he‘s criticized.
You know, it‘s not just “The Da Vinci Code.” You‘ve got five books in the fiction list, over the last couple weeks, which tell lies about Christianity. You have three books right now on the non-fiction bestseller list, which are basically hypercritical. One of them is an incredible screed itself.
So here we have Christianity under attack. Intellectuals like to rap it. And then we‘re called whiners. Now, you just try to do this with blacks. Can you imagine, if you had eight books that are best sellers right now, saying that blacks are natural-born killers, or that gays are naturally born to be moral slugs, or that Jews are taking over the world. Could you imagine if somebody then said about blacks and Jews and gays were whiners because they were complaining about this intellectual assault? No.
What the Archbishop of Canterbury was doing was telling the truth. And that is to say, if you are a Christian and you take your religion seriously, you better be aware of what‘s going on. It‘s a matter of self-defense.
SCARBOROUGH: Katrina Szish, what‘s the impact when one of the most powerful clerics in the world comes out and attacks a Hollywood movie?
KATRINA SZISH, US WEEKLY: Well, I have to say, it‘s probably not that much of a surprise. We all knew that “The Da Vinci Code” film was going to get a lot of flack from groups, who really felt that it was an unfair and a completely fictional portrayal of something that people should be taking more seriously.
But when it gets that far, when you‘re talking about the Archbishop of Canterbury on a very important Christian holiday, that definitely does raise some extra eyebrows, so to speak.
SCARBOROUGH: While I‘m talking to you, Katrina, let‘s move to a lighter subject for a second. Because while the religious controversy‘s been getting most of the attention, this week‘s Newsweek talking about a new angle.
These says this, quote, “Nothing is going to stop the movie “The Da Vinci Code” from being an unqualified success, except maybe Tom Hanks‘ terrible hairdo.”
SZISH: Yes, it‘s not a bad hair day for Tom Hanks apparently. It‘s a bad hair movie. But it‘s a little bit longer than we‘ve seen it. People have described it as greasy. And I actually think it‘s pretty funny and also pretty ridiculous that, when there‘s all this other controversy going on, people are really getting all riled up about Mr. Hanks‘ hair.
SCARBOROUGH: Bill Cooke, what is it about religion and Hollywood? What makes it such a combustible mix, whether you‘re talking about “The Da Vinci Code” or whether you‘re talking about “The Passion of the Christ”?
COOKE: It‘s always been a real controversial thing, even all the way back to Martin Scorsese‘s movie “The Last Temptation of Christ,” when people protested there. And that movie would have gone into oblivion. All the critics agreed that movie was one of his worst. And, yet, it was the protests that made the thing successful.
So, I think, in cases like this, my advice to Christians is stop complaining, stop protesting, stop boycotting and start a conversation about how the Christian faith engages the culture.
I think millions of people are out there asking deep questions about where did Christianity come from, what does it mean, what is it all about. And it‘s time to start engaging that. And I want to start conversations with people about the truth, of what is really true about the faith, and not the stuff that “The Da Vinci Code” talks about.
SCARBOROUGH:” Bill Donahue, in 15 seconds, are you going to get your disclaimer?
DONAHUE: Yes, I think I might. But let me say something to Doctor Dialog there. They played the “Last Temptation of Christ” in New York City, on the upper West Side in New York the other day. You know, that‘s home for the left. You know, they really like Christians, big time. Are you telling me that it‘s all driven by some other phenomena? It‘s called hatred, Doctor Dialog.
SCARBOROUGH: All right. We‘re going to have to leave it there.
Thank you all so much.
When we come back, the latest on Angelina and Brad‘s baby. That‘s big.
SCARBOROUGH: Now, friends, it‘s time for another fly over of “Scarborough Country.”
Our first stop tonight, Dallas, Texas. While gas prices continue to shoot through the roof, the former chairman of Exxon is filling his tank with big bucks. Exxon‘s giving its outgoing CEO, Lee Raymond, one of the largest retirement packages in U.S. history, valued at close to $40 million. This, while Americans face a possibility of $3 a gallon at the gas pump this summer. And companies defending the deal saying it reflects Raymond‘s long and distinguished career.
Next up, Inglewood, California. Parents in that town are outraged about a lockdown at a local elementary school. It happened during widespread walkouts by students protesting immigration legislation. But this lockdown was so severe, that students weren‘t allowed to use the bathroom. Instead, they were forced to use buckets in classroom corners.
Now, if this seems a little severe to you, well, you‘re dead on. The principal who ordered the lockdown apparently misread the procedures and accidentally ordered the lockdown that was reserved for nuclear attacks.
We‘ll be right back with Brangelina baby news. And don‘t forget, “The Situation with Tucker Carlson,” well, it‘s just minutes away.
And look, no bowtie, Ma.
SCARBOROUGH: Well, according to news of the world, Angelina Jolie and Brad Pitt are planning to have their baby in the African country of Namibia. And at the same time, the report said Brad may have competition for Angelina‘s heart. According to Jenny Shimizu, Angelina‘s former female lover, Brad will never be enough for her because she loves women too much. Shimizu, a former Calvin Klein model, dated Angelina in the late ‘90s.
That‘s all the time for tonight. From now on, “The Situation with Tucker Carlson.”
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
Copy: Content and programming copyright 2006 MSNBC. 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 MSNBC and Voxant, Inc.‘s copyright or other proprietary rights or interests in the material. This is not a legal transcript for purposes of litigation.