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

'Scarborough Country' for June 18

Read the transcript to the Monday show

Guests: Dan Stein, Joan Walsh, Juan Hernandez, John Burris

DAN ABRAMS, GUEST HOST:  Tonight: A 2-year-old may be the only witness who can say for sure what happened to his missing mother.  Tonight, the just released 911 calls.  Police are suspecting foul play.

But first: Who knew the Pentagon had a stake in the immigration debate?  Well, they‘re now saluting the provision in the proposed immigration bill that would grant immediate legal status and eventually full citizenship to certain illegal immigrants if they serve two years in the armed forces.  That has some critics comparing it to the hiring of a mercenary army and other‘s saying it‘s just too cruel.

My take.  I don‘t get it.  What‘s wrong with offering an incentive to join the military?  Isn‘t it a win-win?  Why wouldn‘t we want to help non-citizens willing to serve this country?  Are those opposed to this suggesting it‘s cruel to simply encourage someone to serve in the military?

ABRAMS:  Joining me now, Juan Hernandez, former adviser to Mexican president Vicente Fox, Joan Walsh, editor-in-chief of, and Dan Stein, president of the Federation for American Immigration Reform.

All right, so Dan, what am I getting wrong here?

DAN STEIN, PRES, FAIR:  Well, first of all, Dan, you know, you‘re an attorney.  You‘re confusing non-citizens with illegal aliens or illegal immigrants who‘ve come and broken our laws by coming here.  And you know, look, if this is a country that‘s basically willing to recruit for military service people from outside the country, people here illegally, people with whom we have no social contract, you know, we‘re starting to look an awful lot like the throes of the dying Roman empire, where we bring in mercenaries into the army in exchange for citizenship, thinking somehow we‘re going to retain or gain national loyalty this way.

And you know, this is on top of a disastrous immigration bill the president is pushing...

ABRAMS:  Right, but let‘s just stick to this—I want to stick to this particular element of it, all right?

STEIN:  All right.

ABRAMS:  Let me just—let me just do a little fact check here.  You know, you say that I‘m confusing non-citizens with illegals.  Actually, I‘m not because this would apply to 750,000 -- or could apply—undocumented residents of military age.


ABRAMS:  There are currently about 35,000 non-citizens already serving in the U.S. military.  About 8,000 join each year.  Now, here‘s what I think is really interesting, is how many more immigrants are serving in uniform who became citizens in 2005 versus to 2001?  You‘ve got a massive increase in the number of people serving in uniform who became citizens in 2005, only 750 in 2001.  Is that a bad thing?

STEIN:  Well, now, see, again, we‘re talking about two different bills.  In 2004 -- in 2002, the president signed an executive order, and in 2004, Congress passed a bill to accelerate the citizenship of legal non-citizens...

ABRAMS:  Right.

STEIN:  ... who were serving in the military.

ABRAMS:  Right.

STEIN:  But the proposal we‘re talking about right now...

ABRAMS:  That‘s correct.

STEIN:  ... is about accelerating the citizenship...

ABRAMS:  Correct.

STEIN:  ... and green cards for illegal aliens...

ABRAMS:  That‘s right.

STEIN:  ... who should not be joining the military because we don‘t even know who they are.

ABRAMS:  Well...

STEIN:  And that‘s a very different issue, and that‘s what‘s in the bill in Congress right now.

ABRAMS:  I‘d assume, Juan Hernandez, that there‘s a way to figure out who they are.  I mean, I know maybe we‘re not so good at it, but I‘m guessing we could probably figure out who they are.  There are a number of requirements here.  We‘re not simply saying anyone who applies gets to serve in the military.

JUAN HERNANDEZ, FORMER ADVISER TO VICENTE FOX:  Of course.  And I hope that they do that.  I hope that they‘re not letting anyone who‘s already a U.S. citizen who was born in this nation that shouldn‘t be in the Army.  But my goodness, I cannot believe this.  So we don‘t want them to pick our grapes.  We don‘t them to do—to press the shirts of this gentleman who‘s here on the—we don‘t want them if they‘re willing to die for this nation.  We don‘t want them to become citizens.  I don‘t understand.

Do you know, the first person who—the first woman—excuse me—who died in Iraq was a woman, an undocumented girl from Houston named Bolivia (ph).  They gave her citizenship to her parents after she died.  These are good people, and to open up the military to the greatest honor to this nation, to die for this nation, of course, we open up the military to them...

ABRAMS:  Well, I don‘t...

HERNANDEZ:  ... just like we should open up this nation and give them visas.

ABRAMS:  John Walsh, I don‘t understand why this isn‘t—apart from the last comment Juan stuck in, the final—the final stick there that wasn‘t directly related to what we‘re talking about, but—but let‘s stick, again, to this particular proposal, which says that if you want to serve a couple of years in the military and you pass other requirements, you‘re of military age, you‘ve graduated from high school, other basic requirements, that you will get a quicker path to citizenship.  What‘s the matter with that?

JOAN WALSH, SALON.COM:  Because, Dan, in the absence of comprehensive immigration reform, to tell young people who are here illegally, This is the only thing we want you for, really is creating an army of mercenaries.

HERNANDEZ:  But no one‘s telling them that!

WALSH:  I mean, we are absolutely—yes, we are, Juan, in the absence of more ways...

HERNANDEZ:  No, no, no!

WALSH:  ... for people...

ABRAMS:  Let her finish.  Let her finish.

WALSH:  Thanks, Dan.  In the absence of other ways for people to be able to stay here legally, then I think this is creating a core of mercenaries.  And this—look, this is—you cannot look at this without looking at the backdrop of the fact that, in Colin Powell‘s words, our military is broken by our adventure in Iraq.  The army cannot meet its recruiting goals.  We are lowering standards.  We are letting people in with criminal records...


ABRAMS:  The argument is that this will actually do just the opposite, which is increase, because you‘ll get the cream of the crop here of the illegal immigrants, and that actually may increase the quality in the military.

WALSH:  It may.  It may, and that‘s a sorry statement on what we‘ve done to our military.  Look, Dan...

ABRAMS:  Oh, fine.  So it may be a sorry statement, but if it‘s true, why shouldn‘t we do this?

WALSH:  Because I think that there are other—there are other pathways that we can create to legal citizenship.  And to say the only way that you can stay in this country and be on a pathway to citizenship—I‘m shocked that Juan supports this.

HERNANDEZ:  But I‘m sorry...

WALSH:  It would be one thing if we were saying...

HERNANDEZ:  I‘m sorry...


ABRAMS:  Hang on.  Juan, go ahead.

HERNANDEZ:  So many of your guests, forgive me, but they keep saying, Well, there are other ways to let them in this nation so they become legal and become citizens, get visas and the pathway towards—well, there‘s another way.  There‘s a—there is no way.  They are no lone.  We don‘t give the visas for them to be able to come here to work.  And we need them, so we attract them and we let them work here legally.  We want them—since ‘86 -- now it‘s been 20 years that some people have been here.  Are we still going to keep in the shadows?  And many of them, hundreds of thousands of youth (ph) are willing to even die for this nation.


HERNANDEZ:  You know what?  But just one last thing.

ABRAMS:  Yes.  Go ahead, Juan.

HERNANDEZ:  There was a beautiful lady—there was a beautiful lady marching in one of the last marches.  She had sign that said, America—she was dressed in white as if she were going to get married, and her sign said, America, marry me.  That is what this is all about.  Immigrants want to come to this nation to give everything to this nation, including their life.


WALSH:  But to say the only thing you can to is serve in the military to a young person who‘s been here...

HERNANDEZ:  That‘s not the only thing!

WALSH:  Yes, it is!  That‘s absolutely what we‘re saying...

ABRAMS:  And Dan, your—your...

WALSH:  ... with this proposal.

ABRAMS:  Your opposition to this is on the other side of Joan‘s, right.

STEIN:  Oh, a country should do its own work.  A country should defend its own borders.  There are millions of—hundreds of millions of people desperate to come into this country, and they‘d probably be sex slaves in exchange for accelerated citizenship.  Does that make it morally right...

HERNANDEZ:  Oh, my goodness!  The vocabulary!

STEIN:  ... or ethically right...


ABRAMS:  Dan, you‘re comparing—you‘re comparing serving...

STEIN:  What we‘re doing is we‘re seizing...


STEIN:  Juan, Juan...

ABRAMS:  You‘re comparing serving in our military...

STEIN:  ... what we‘re trying to do...

ABRAMS:  Hey, Dan?  Dan?

STEIN:  ... is seize on the exploitation...

ABRAMS:  Hey, Dan?

STEIN:  ... of desperate people.

ABRAMS:  I want to ask you a question.  You‘re comparing selling people as sex slaves to serving in the military, right?

STEIN:  I didn‘t say selling...

HERNANDEZ:  Yes, please.

STEIN:  ... as sex slaves.  I‘m saying you are selling...


STEIN:  You are trying to control people...

HERNANDEZ:  We have...


ABRAMS:  Juan?  Juan?

HERNANDEZ:  ... born in countries!

ABRAMS:  Juan, hang on.  Dan, go ahead.

STEIN:  What I‘m saying is you are cajoling desperate people into affirmative conduct of some kind, some kind of exploitation, in exchange for accelerated citizenship.  That is a radical departure...

HERNANDEZ:  Oh, my goodness!

STEIN:  ... from any principle of—look, the point is, on the basis of national security, why do you want to bring people in the military whose identity you cannot verify?

ABRAMS:  Why do you keep saying...


STEIN:  ... the whole amnesty is built on the concept...

ABRAMS:  Wait!  Are you saying...


STEIN:  ... cannot verify criminal background records...

ABRAMS:  Wait.

STEIN:  ... of people whose identity you can‘t verify.

HERNANDEZ:  You can be a governor of this country...


ABRAMS:  Hang on a sec, Juan.  Let‘s assume of the 750,000 people who are eligible for this, let‘s assume 10 percent pass certain requirements, right?  Ultimately, 10 percent, meaning they graduated from high school, they have other—some other particular achievement or accomplishment or for whatever other reason, they can qualify to serve in the military.  So you‘re telling me that even knowing whatever it is we need to know to get them to that level, which may be more than we know about some American citizens...

STEIN:  I don‘t agree with that.

ABRAMS:  ... we shouldn‘t let them serve?

STEIN:  No, why—are we so desperate as a country to meet our armed forces recruitment...

ABRAMS:  Yes!  Yes, we‘re desperate!

STEIN:  ... that we have to bring illegal aliens in to serve in the Army?

ABRAMS:  We‘re not bringing them in. they‘re already here!


STEIN:  ... happening to this country.

ABRAMS:  They‘re already here.

STEIN:  Are we—look, this is basically a glorified amnesty for people who broke the law or whose parents them here when they were kids, in some cases...

HERNANDEZ:  They did not break a law!

STEIN:  It is morally, ethically wrong...

ABRAMS:  All right, hang on...

STEIN:  ... and we need to scrap the bill...


ABRAMS:  Hang on.  Joan Walsh has been the most polite, she gets the final word.

WALSH:  I‘m being rewarded for being polite.  I like it, Dan.  Look, I support comprehensive immigration reform.


WALSH:  I support multiple pathways to legal citizenship.  And I think in something like this...


WALSH:  ... where only—where the only way you‘re telling these young people they can stay in the country legally is to join the military, and that‘s what one aspect of this proposal is, that—that‘s creating a mercenary force, and I think it‘s totally wrong.


ABRAMS:  I still think it‘s a win-win.  You know...

WALSH:  All right, Dan.

ABRAMS:  ... I mean, we‘ll see if it happens.  Juan Hernandez, Joan Walsh and Dan Stein, thanks a lot.  Appreciate it.

Coming up: Today Duke University settled with three lacrosse players falsely accused of rape.  The DA involved was disbarred this weekend.  He could face jail time.  But there are still some TV commentators who have that problem Fonzie always had.  He could never say, I was wrong.  I call for them to apologize.



PATTY PORTER, MOTHER OF MISSING WOMAN:  My daughter‘s gone!  She‘s due in two weeks, and my grandson‘s all alone, and this whole house has been ransacked!


ABRAMS:  The latest on the search for a missing mom who‘s also nine months pregnant.  Her 2-year-old son may be the only witness.  He tried to describe what he saw.  It‘s heartbreaking.

And in “Beat the Press,” Bill O‘Reilly at a loss for words when a teenage guest sticks to the facts.


ABRAMS:  We‘re back.  As you may know, I covered the Duke rape case extensively, and before anyone was indicted, I expressed serious reservations about the case, was regularly verbally assaulted and insulted by people accusing me of some sort of bias throughout the case.  Now the district attorney, Mike Nifong, has apologized, sort of.  This weekend, he lost his law license over his handling of the case.  The attorney general of the state has said there was no credible evidence, that the men were innocent.  And yet there are still some who owe a big apology.


UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE:  They‘re thinking, I was entitled to do this.  I‘m a member of a wealthy white boys‘ school in a community that allows me to do what I want and when I want.  They‘ve gotten away with a lot for a very long time.  Why not go home and celebrate?  You don‘t think you‘re going to get in trouble!

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE:  You have a group of young men who are supposed to be the greatest thing since sliced bread.  They create a recipe for disaster.  And then when it happens, you say foul.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE:  I think I speak for many students when I say that we‘re very, very concerned that two innocent people may have possibly...


UNIDENTIFIED MALE:  ... just had their lives ruined.

GRACE:  ... good Lord!


ABRAMS:  As far as I know, none of them has apologized to the young men and the public for their statements, and believe it or not, even the disgraced DA is still adding fuel to the fire, saying, quote, “Something happened to make everybody leave that scene very quickly.”

My take.  Anyone who even suggested these men were guilty of rape—the professors, activists, TV commentators—owe these men and the public an enormous apology.  And yet it seems most refuse to do so.  That‘s shameful.  The DA has more pain coming with lawsuits and a possible contempt charge that could land him in jail.  I hope the universities and students hold the professors to account.

But I want to take care of the TV commentators.  Joining me now, two commentators who had some harsh words early on, former prosecutor and MSNBC legal analyst Susan Filan and former prosecutor and defense attorney John Burris.

All right, first of all, thank you both for coming on, to have the guts to come on and address some of the things that you‘ve said in the past about this.  First, before we go to your—what you all had said in the past about this, John Burris, do you think that the commentators who were out there making the sort of comments we just heard owe both these young men and the public an apology?

JOHN BURRIS, DEFENSE ATTORNEY:  Absolutely.  I think that if you made statements at the very outset that were definitive about these people being guilty without having any evidence in front of you, certainly, I think it‘s important that you apologize.  I wasn‘t one of them, but you know, if I had been, I would apologize.  But I think that it‘s appropriate in a situation like this, when you really go so far out there and make damning statements like this without evidence, then you should—you could apologize when the evidence comes out and clearly shows that it doesn‘t support the bold statements that you made.

ABRAMS:  All right.  John, I‘m going to come back to you.  We found a statement that you made.  You know, look, you weren‘t necessarily defending the case.  Here‘s what you said about the DA, Nifong, back in April of last year.


BURRIS:  I think the DA was wise not to rush on this, to make sure there was at least corroborative evidence that might be in terms of the circumstance of how it took place and certainly not rush in and charge these people without at least being comfortable that the story has some credibility that he can support.


ABRAMS:  Corroborative evidence, John?

BURRIS:  Well, sure.  That was my point at the time.  Did he have corroboration?  You would have thought...

ABRAMS:  You said he waited until he had corroborative evidence.  He didn‘t have any corroborative evidence.

BURRIS:  Well, that that—but this is at the time I gave that statement.  He had not prosecuted the people.  Later on, he did prosecute them and he didn‘t have corroborative evidence.  But my response was at the time, Look, you shouldn‘t prosecute unless you have corroborative evidence.  Turns out he didn‘t have it.  But my view was the correct one at that time, and it‘s the correct one now.

ABRAMS:  All right.  Well—Susan, you were a little bit harder.  You were on the show many times, at least early on, arguing the merits of the case.  Here‘s what you said early on.


SUSAN FILAN, FORMER PROSECUTOR, MSNBC LEGAL ANALYST:  There‘s got to be some physical corroborative evidence.  She submitted to a rape exam.  There has to be, in my opinion, some physical evidence that‘s going to corroborate her claim of sex.  So for these guys to say no sex and for then there to actually be some kind of evidence that there was sexual activity I think is going to be ultimately very damning for them.


ABRAMS:  Susan, do you want to offer your public apology, the way I think that everyone ought to apologize?

FILAN:  I was wrong.  Look, it never occurred to me—this is, to me, the legal equivalent of a unicorn sighting.  It never occurred to me that there would be a rogue district attorney who would lie to the court, withhold evidence.  I‘ve never seen it, Dan.  This is the first time.  I was wrong.  I am sorry.  I hate that I had a voice in this case that upheld the prosecution that turned out to be so foul and so rotten, that today this disgraced district attorney has lost his license, and rightly so, to practice law.  At the time, going on what I had, I think that I thought I was doing the right thing.  In hindsight, I was wrong.

ABRAMS:  Yes, and you know, here‘s my problem, John.  You‘re on TV a lot.  I‘m going to play anther—a sound bite from “Nancy Grace” in a minute.  But you know, you‘re on TV a lot.  Why do you think that these TV commentators are so reluctant just to use the words that Susan just used, “I was wrong”?

BURRIS:  You know, I‘m actually surprised at that kind of reluctancy.  I think when you‘re as bold (ph) around (ph) these statements, you can be sorry and you should say that.  But I—you know, it‘s like a lot of people in a lot of different professions, they‘re unwilling to say they‘re story, even in the fact of.  They will find some argument to support their view.  It‘s disappointing.  It—but to some extent, it‘s against human nature.  Maybe it‘s against the very nature of lawyers.  But I would think, given what lawyers have to do from time to time—they do take advocacy positions that are ultimately determined not to be right because someone else rules that it‘s wrong...

FILAN:  But John, we were analysts.

BURRIS:  ... and they have to live with that.

FILAN:  We weren‘t advocates, we were analysts.  And I, for one, call it wrong.

ABRAMS:  All right, but here—here‘s—but let me—but more important—look, you guys have not been two of the most egregious, I have to tell you.  You know, Susan, you were pretty honest early—as the case developed and the evidence came in and you followed the facts, and you said, You know what?  The facts just don‘t support what I was saying anymore.

And here‘s Nancy Grace, my friend, Nancy, shooting down the idea that this might have been a false rape report.


GRACE:  False rape reporting, false sex assault reporting is somewhere between the low numbers of 2 and 8 percent, OK?  So you can roll all that money (ph) together, and it means not a hill of beans in my assessment of this case.


ABRAMS:  Her assessment of this case.  I have to tell you, I am stunned that Nancy will not...

BURRIS:  Well, you know, you could...

ABRAMS:  Go ahead, John.

BURRIS:  But you could have had that view early on in the case.  But as the case unfolded, it really became clear that there wasn‘t evidence to support the allegations.  And I‘ll tell you, once that became clear, you found a lot of people not supporting that.  I saw a lot of folks who took different positions along...


BURRIS:  I don‘t know that the have to be faulted by—for that.

ABRAMS:  You know, look, but you do when you make comments that are that strident.  And look, if you were listening to me—and John, let me tell you...

BURRIS:  I was listening to you.

ABRAMS:  Listen to me!

BURRIS:  I listen to you all the time.

ABRAMS:  Please!  Listen to me!  I...

BURRIS:  I listen to you.

ABRAMS:  And you follow the facts in this case, and from—from—from about a week-and-a-half after the allegation was made, it was—it became clear there were serious questions about this case.  By the time of the indictment, the holes were like Swiss cheese already!

FILAN:  But Dan, you were lucky.  You actually got to go down and look at the evidence firsthand.  I always wished I had gotten the opportunity.

ABRAMS:  Oh, my goodness.  Imagine that, that actually, someone went and looked at the evidence, as opposed to...

BURRIS:  Yes, but we‘re scattered all around the country.

ABRAMS:  ... commenting on it!

BURRIS:  We don‘t have access to that.


FILAN:  But I had a problem taking somebody else‘s word for it.  I had a problem, not having seen it myself, formulating an opinion that was out of synch with what I thought had to be an honorable prosecutor.

ABRAMS:  All right.  I think—I hope—I think there are a number of people out there who owe a huge apology, TV commentators.  You know who you are.  I think you should take the opportunity.  You‘ve got a venue.  Apologize for the—for the injustice...

FILAN:  But Dan, will it do any good?  What—what (INAUDIBLE) is it going to right now?

ABRAMS:  You know what?  It will at least, at one more—it will at least be one more voice that will go out from the same mouth that made comments about how awful these guys were and how the evidence was this and this and that.  It‘ll be one more time, one more ringing for the public to hear of those people saying, I was wrong.  They can‘t seem to say it.

Susan Filan, John Burris...

BURRIS:  But you know, there‘s a—there‘s a...

ABRAMS:  I got to wrap.  Thanks a lot.  Appreciate it.

BURRIS:  All right.

FILAN:  Thanks, Dan.

ABRAMS:  Still ahead...


UNIDENTIFIED MALE:  After our mother‘s death, there was so much of us being in the public, and then seeing stuff on TV and reading stuff, saying, Oh, they show no emotion, that sort of stuff.


ABRAMS:  Matt Lauer‘s exclusive interview with Princes William and Harry.  They talked about their relationship with both their mother and the media.

But first: Within 30 second, two network newscasts last week, two very different outlooks on inflation, next in “Beat the Press.”


ABRAMS:  Time for tonight‘s “Beat the Press.”  First up:  Fox‘s Bill O‘Reilly has been hot on the case of a high school in Colorado, where he says school officials are telling kids it‘s OK to experiment with sex and drugs.  But it seems he was not ready for this from a 16-year-old student and guest on his show.


BILL O‘REILLY, “THE O‘REILLY FACTOR”:  Now, Mansur (ph), you got some problems with me.  I mean, what exactly are those?‘  Tell the audience.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE:  I‘m just going to read another quote, quote directly, you know, so I‘m not misrepresenting anyone here.  Quote, “As for me, I‘m not going to tell to you avoid sex because, in the end, you will do what you want to anyway,” end quote.  And I‘m just curious if you recognize that or not.

O‘REILLY:  Maybe something I said somewhere down the line.  You want to put it into context?

UNIDENTIFIED MALE:  Well, that would be a quote directly from your book, “The O‘Reilly Factor for Kids.”


ABRAMS:  Oh, Mansur sticks it to him!  You know, “The Factor for Kids,” some great light summer reading for the kiddies.

Next up: Who would have thought that concerns about inflation could be erased so quickly.  At 6:48 PM, “The CBS Evening News” was sounding the alarm that inflation could be on the rise.


UNIDENTIFIED MALE:  Now to the economy.  Inflation alarms went off today when the government reported that consumer prices in May took their biggest jump in nearly two years.


ABRAMS:  Inflation alarms?  But 13 seconds later “ABC World News” reassured us that, apparently, any inflation crisis had been averted.


CHARLES GIBSON, ANCHOR, “WORLD NEWS TONIGHT”:  Wall Street ended the day and the week with another rally, as worries about interest rates and inflation eased.


ABRAMS:  OK.  Finally, it seems my friend, Greta Van Susteren over at Fox, has a lot of friends who read the news at night, good friends, that is.  A little sampling from last week.


GRETA VAN SUSTEREN, “ON THE RECORD“:  There‘s much more “On the Record” ahead, but first let‘s go to our New York newsroom, where my good friend, Harris Faulkner, is standing by with the other headlines—Harris.

There‘s much more “On the Record” ahead, but first let‘s go to our New York newsroom, where my good friend, Uma Pemmaraju, is standing by with the other headlines—Uma.

There‘s much more “On the Record” ahead, but first let‘s go to our New York newsroom, where my good friend, Bridget Quinn (ph), is standing by with the other headlines—Bridget.

ABRAMS:  Oh!  Greta likes everybody.  Everybody‘s a good friend.

All right.  Still ahead...


PATTY PORTER, MOTHER OF MISSING WOMAN:  Something‘s wrong!  She‘s due in two weeks, and she‘s missing!  Her car is here, her purse.  Her house is trashed, and she‘s not here!


ABRAMS:  Police release the 911 tapes in the search for a missing pregnant woman.  So far, the only known witness, her 2-year-old son, who said, quote, “Mommy was crying,” “Mommy broke the table,” “Mommy‘s in the rug.”  Heartbreaking.  Tonight, they are searching the father‘s home.

And later: Matt Lauer‘s exclusive interview with Princes William and Harry.  They still wonder what happened the night their mother died.  Coming up.


ABRAMS:  Coming up, how reliable can a two-year-old witness be?  The young son of a missing pregnant woman may be the key to finding her.  First, the latest news.


ABRAMS:  Coming up, Princes William and Harry share lingering questions about mom Diana‘s death and the one media story that sent their mother over the edge.  Matt Lauer‘s exclusive interview coming up.

But first, in Canton, Ohio, a 26-year-old pregnant woman on the verge of having her baby has gone missing from her home.  Her two year old son may have been an eyewitness.  Jessie Marie Davis spoke to her mother on Wednesday.

Two days later, a worried mom went to Jessie‘s house, only to find her daughter gone, her two-year-old grandson sitting in a room all alone.  She frantically called 911.


PATRICIA PORTER, MOTHER OF MISSING PREGNANT WOMAN:  My daughter‘s gone.  She‘s due in two weeks and my grandson is all alone and this whole house has been ransacked.

911 DISPATCHER:  How old is he?

PORTER:  My grandson is two.

911 DISPATCHER:  And he is gone?

PORTER:  He is alone.

911 DISPATCHER:  All right.  You need to calm down so I can understand you.

PORTER:  I‘m trying.


PORTER:  He‘s here alone and she‘s gone.  Her car is here.

911 DISPATCHER:  Who is gone?

PORTER:  My daughter.


ABRAMS:  Now we‘re getting word that police are searching the home of the man that her mom described as Jessie‘s boyfriend, Bobby Kutz Jr. (ph).  He‘s Canton police patrolman, he‘s believed to be the father of the two year old boy and of the unborn child.

Back with us to talk about this case, former prosecutor and MSNBC legal analyst Susan Filan and joining us is former FBI profiler, MSNBC analyst Clint van Zandt.  All right, Clint, so now we know that they are searching the home of the father of the two-year-old boy.  Initially they were saying he‘s been cooperating in this investigation, not a suspect.

CLINT VAN ZANDT, FORMER FBI PROFILER:  I don‘t care what you call the guy, Dan.  When you look at his background, everything—you and I, we look at means, motive and opportunity.  Susan also.  And this guy is a police officer, he more than has the means.  He‘s a former professional football player.  He could do whatever he wanted to with his hands to me or anybody else.

Motive, you look at two kids, you look at money that has to be paid out to support—an opportunity since 9:20 on Wednesday night, we don‘t know who she had contact with, but we know the boyfriend-slash-biological father was supposed to have picked up this two year-old child that‘s his.

So does that make him a suspect , a person of interest?  I don‘t know what you call him, but rule him in or rule him out by investigation.

ABRAMS:  All right.  Let‘s again, let‘s do a little fact check here, some of the clues the Sheriff‘s Department has gathered so far.  They say no forced entry and no sign a struggle.  No sign of a struggle I‘m not so sure I understand considering it was a mattress on the floor, etc, and the mother just said the home appeared be ransacked.

The vehicle and purse still at the residence, cell phone and comforter missing, bleach on the floor, the young boy said mommy‘s in the rug.  Susan, what to make of the clues?

SUSAN FILAN, FORMER PROSECUTOR:  Well, that‘s certainly not a stranger invader.  That sound like somebody who knew her was able to enter that home.  Mommy in the rug certainly sounds like mommy in the comforter.

Cell phone missing, purse there is certainly suspicious.  They‘ve got

The police have to now follow those forensic clues.  They have to find out what was that bleach trying to hide in that rug.  And obviously this will be trace evidence underneath the bleach.  They have to find the pings from the cell phone.  Where is that cell phone?  That may very well be where mom is.

They‘ve got to now attack it hike a jigsaw puzzle and work the pieces back.

ABRAMS:  All right, Clint, I want to ask you because this is a real sensitive issue, and that is how to question a two-year-old child, all right?

VAN ZANDT:  Absolutely.  Definitely.

ABRAMS:  So Blake, the two-year-old, told police about the incident at his house and he said this, quote, “Mommy was crying,” “Mommy broke the table,” and “Mommy‘s in rug.”

I mean, it‘s heartbreaking to hear how a two-year-old is trying to describe what he may have seen.  But how—Can you elicit any useful information out of a two-year-old.

VAN ZANDT:  I think you can, Dan.  Number one, at two, two and a half, which is what this child is, number one, I don‘t know that there‘s a predisposition to lie.  You have to figure this little boy may have been by himself for a day and a half, so the last memories that he may have to hold onto is what happened to his mother.

So as long as you don‘t ask leading question, did a man come in and do terrible things to your mother?  Or something like that, as long as you ask a very open ended question, and this what you get back.  Dan, this is the best set of eyes on we have at this crime scene.  We have got to go with what we have.

ABRAMS:  And I am told the authorities have just left the father‘s home with a medium-sized paper bag.  Clint, I don‘t know what really to make of that.

VAN ZANDT:  I don‘t either.

ABRAMS:  All right.  MSNBC spoke to Jessie‘s mother earlier today and asked how long she things the little Blake was in the house alone?


PORTER:  I think he was there all day Thursday.

QUESTION:  And tell me what makes you think that.

PORTER:  Just the condition of him.  You know, the smell in the house from his diaper.  The fact he had taken food up in his bed.  My daughter would not have been home for him to have done that.

QUESTION:  They wouldn‘t have allowed him?

PORTER:  No.  She wouldn‘t have allowed him to have food in his bed.


ABRAMS:  I mean, even the authorities at this point, Susan, are saying they suspect foul play.

FILAN:  Yeah, I mean, it‘s obviously.  I mean this is something terribly going awry.  This is a responsible mom who according to her mom wouldn‘t have just left a child alone in a soiled diaper without anything to eat.

And why would she take her cell phone and not her purse and why is her car still there?  Where did she go?  How did she get there?  Where is the comforter, why is the bed astray?  Why is the lamp broken, why does the child say “Mommy broke the table.”

Obviously something terrible has happened here.

ABRAMS:  Yeah.

FILAN:  And I think the computer - if there are computers there, e-mails, that‘s going to be the first place that I would want to look.

ABRAMS:  Here‘s a little bit more of the 911 call from Jessie‘s mother who arrived at the scene, found the little boy there.  Here‘s what she said.


PORTER:  She didn‘t leave him alone.  My God, something‘s wrong.  She is due in two weeks and she is just missing.  Her car‘s here, her purse, her house is trashed and she‘s not here.


ABRAMS:  All right, let‘s put up the tip line again, please.  So

anyone with information, 330-430-3818 if you know anything.  Thanks a lot,

Susan and Clint.  We‘ll stay on top of this

FILAN:  Good night, Dan.


ABRAMS:  Coming up.


PRINCE HARRY, UNITED KINGDOM:  For me personally, whatever happened that night, whatever happened in that tunnel, no one will ever know.  I‘m sure people will always think about that the whole time.

MATT LAUER, “TODAY SHOW”:  Have you stopped wondering?/

HARRY:  I will never stop wondering about that.


ABRAMS:  Princes William and Harry open up about Diana‘s Their surprisingly candid interview with Matt Lauer is next.  And later in “Hollyweird,” like, oh my God, Paris could be out of jail in like seven days.  That‘s hot.


ABRAMS:  Princes William and Harry almost never sit down and talk to the press, especially about the loss of their mother, Princess Diana.  But in their first ever American TV interview the princes spoke exclusively to NBC‘s Matt Lauer about their mother and what it‘s like trying to lead a normal life.


LAUER:  As I was leaving the States telling people I was going to come As you‘re about to mark the 10th anniversary of her death, people have said, worry, has it been 10 years?  How was the time gone through for you two?

HARRY:  Personally really, really slowly, actually.  Which is weird, because I think when she passed away there is never that time, there was never that sort of lull.  There was never that sort of peace and quiet for any of us.

The fact that her face was always splattered on the paper the whole time.  Over the past 10 years, I personally feel as if she has been, she‘s always there, she‘s always being a constant reminder to both of us and everybody else.

And therefore, I think when you‘re being reminded it, it does take a lot longer and it‘s a lot slower.

LAUER:  Does it feel the same way for you?

PRINCE WILLIAM, UNITED KINGDOM:  Yeah.  Just from my personal opinion, when you lose something or someone that important to you, you‘re always thinking about them.  I mean, straight after it happened we were always thinking about her and there‘s not a day goes by that I don‘t think about her once a day.

LAUER (voice-over):  Of course the world remembers that night in August 1997, the terrible news from a dark tunnel in Paris that the glamorous and beloved Princess Diana was dead.  Killed when her hired car, driven by a chauffeur who was drunk and being chased by paparazzi, crashed into a concrete pillar.

HARRY:  When people think about her, they think about her death, they think about how wrong it was.  They think about whatever happened - I don‘t know, for me, whatever that night, whatever happened in that tunnel, no one will ever know.  I‘m sure people will always think about it the whole time.

LAUER (on camera):  Have you stopped wondering?

HARRY:  I will never stop wondering about that.

LAUER:  So in some ways you probably understand the public fascination with this inquiry.

WILLIAM:  Yeah, but at the same time there‘s a lot of people feeding into it unnecessarily, I might add.

LAUER:  Do you see a time in your own imagination when this kind of fascination, this cycle of fascination ends?

HARRY:  I can‘t really see it ever ending.  People will always have a fascination about her.

WILLIAM:  Unfortunately there‘s always people out there who want to make money and that‘s there some choice and method doing the story.

LAUER:  So it‘s become a cottage industry.


LAUER:  For a certain segment of the population.

So as we come to the 10th anniversary, obviously people will still write things but people will also stop at 10 years and reexamine her life and probably her death.

So in some ways, is this attempt this summer to take charge of that, to kind of get it under your own control?

WILLIAM:  We always wanted to do something for her and we wanted to mark it in a specific and special way.

LAUER (voice-over):  They have made plans that they think they are mother would appreciate.

WILLIAM:  We‘ve organized a concert.  And the way we‘re doing - and the memorial service in August.  Together.  Because if it were one or the other we wouldn‘t have been happy of it because the balance isn‘t there.

LAUER:  The memorial service will be held on August 31, the day Diana was killed.  But well before, on July 1 there will be a concert to celebrate what would have been Diana‘s 46th birthday.  Performers will include popular musicians like Duran Duran, her favorite band, Elton John and Kanye West.  As well as high art from the likes of the English National Ballet.

(on camera):  What did you want to accomplish with this concert?

WILLIAM:  I wouldn‘t want to have just a memorial service, I wanted to have a concert full of life and energy and all of the things that we thought she brought.

And so this is the best way of doing it.  And we really wanted to make the concert a bit more sort of edgy with a dance side of things of well, for instance, the English National Ballet doing something as well, and Andrew Lloyd Webber‘s musicals.

So that sort of ties in - it‘s not just a concert, it incorporates her love of dance and her passion and her energy.

LAUER (voice-over):  The concert for Diana will benefit three charities, one named for her, two others that William and Harry sponsor.  They say they learned to be concerned from others not just from her mother‘s public charity work but from what she did out of the public eye.

WILLIAM:  She didn‘t want praise for it.  She did it because she cared.  I mean, it was generally a massive quality of hers which is why she became so big, I think, because she wanted to give so much love and give so much care to people who really needed it.

LAUER:  As important as her charity work was and is, what they remember best, of course, is a loving mom who gave them nicknames that still stick today.

(on camera):  She used to call you “Wombat,” which is cute when you‘re seven.  I guess you don‘t want your mates in the pub going, hey, Wombat, how are you?



LAUER:  Where did that come from?

WILLIAM:  It was basically when I was two, I had been roughly told because I can‘t remember back that far but we were in Australia and wombats, and obviously that‘s the local animal, so I just got called that.  Not because I look like a wombat.  Maybe I do.

LAUER:  Does it make you cringe now?

HARRY:  You know what it was?  It was you still calling at six.


LAUER:  So get him back.  What‘s as nickname?

WILLIAM:  Ginger.  You can call him all you want.  But most of ours I can‘t call in front of you, it‘s a bit rude.

LAUER:  Ginger?

HARRY:  I know.  Exactly.  You‘re as surprised as I am.  I don‘t think I‘m Ginger.

WILLIAM:  Should we .

HARRY:  Let‘s not.  See.

LAUER (on camera):  They the recall darker family memories, like the way the press hounded their mother and the effect it had on her.

HARRY:  There was a lot of times that she was very sad because she had been chased down the street by guys on motorbikes and things like that.

LAUER:  Did she ever sit you down and talk about that?  The fame and the weight that it presented?

HARRY:  It was obvious.


HARRY:  For both of us it was just so obvious that when she comes back from doing whatever, tennis, she had been chased down the road or to a public engagement, it was clear to see the pressure she was under.  sometimes  And depending on where she had opinion and what she‘d been doing.

LAUER (voice-over):  Some of the covers plain cruel.

WILLIAM:  I really remember one story in particular that was quite hard for us to deal with us was when she was criticized personally about her body and someone would say something about, she had cellulite or something like that.  For a woman in the public eye, she tried so hard, very glamorous and made an effort.

HARRY:  Always in the gym.

WILLIAM: And always in the gym.

But for any woman I imagine it is just outrageous that these people sit behind their desks and comment on it and there were many times that we just sort of had to cheer up and tell her she was the best thing ever.

LAUER:  If anything, Diana‘s death brought even more scrutiny.

(on camera):  In the days after your mom died and so many tragic images and it certainly was a sad time, but I do remember consciously thinking that it was good that you had each other, that you weren‘t only children, that you could lean on each other.  Have you talked about that?

HARRY:  Of course we have.  We are both - I think we are both very grateful that each of us were there as a shoulder to cry on if we needed to but we did, we sat down, I seem to remember, and we talked about stuff and it was very much—after our mother‘s death, there was so much of using in the public and being seeing stuff on TV and reading stuff and saying, oh, they are going to show no emotion and that sort of stuff.

That‘s our public side.  We don‘t feel comfortable about pouring our eyes out in front of thousands of people then that‘s our problem.  We‘ve got each other to talk to.

LAUER:  It‘s also your right.

HARRY:  Exactly.  People can portray that as much as they want but we‘ve got each other to talk to.

LAUER:  Remember in the months following there was this kind of cry to the media, leave the boys alone and give them time.  Did you feel that that worked?  Did you feel that you were given a break a while?

WILLIAM:  It didn‘t really matter whether they had in a way, because it was the enormity of the occasion and the pressure and all eyes on as it were.  You just felt wherever you were at people were watching you just because they were interested in seeing how you react or what you‘re thinking.  And that was quite hard.  I think in the end of the day, the media, you just shut that out.


ABRAMS:  You can catch the full interview tonight at 10:00 p.m.

Eastern on DATELINE NBC.

Coming up, Paris Hilton, one week away from freedom.  Tonight, we begin our countdown to freedom with an update from her parents on how she is doing and why everyone from Ellen Degeneres to Al Gore is weighing if on the Paris effect.


ABRAMS:  It‘s time for “Hollyweird,” your one-stop shop for the famously bad.  Paris Hilton, set to be released from jail a week from today.  Assuming she gets the good behavior credit.  Yesterday she got a Father‘s Day - there it is - yesterday she got a Father‘s Day visit from mom and dad.

And they described it, the holiday, Father‘s Day, as not one of their best.


QUESTION:  Were you happy to see her on Father‘s Day, Mr. Hilton?

RICK HILTON, PARIS HILTON‘S FATHER:  She wrote a nice Father‘s Day card.

QUESTION:  Do you think she‘s getting through this ordeal OK?

HILTON:  Yeah.  She‘s doing much better.


ABRAMS:  I said it before, I‘ll say it again.  Paris is getting a raw deal, a far harsher punishment than the vast majority of people in for the same crime.  An “L.A. Times” study backed me up on that.

Every day from now on is a day more than most would have served.  Here now, E! Online columnist Ted Casablanca and “OK Magazine‘s” senior reporter Courtney Hazlett.

All right.  Courtney, what do we know with the visit from Mama and Papa Hilton?

COURTNEY HAZLETT, “OK MAGAZINE”:  Mama and Papa Hilton went to prison to visit Paris on Father‘s Day.  She made her dad a card she had crafted in prison.  What I find interesting her is on the way out they asked the Kathy Hilton how her daughter was doing and she said, well, when she‘s not staring at her four walls she is reading fan mail.

So it sounds to me that she‘s busier and more fortunate than the majority of people in prison.

ABRAMS:  But here‘s the thing, Ted.

And, again, look I‘ve already said I think she‘s serving more time than she ought to and she‘s serving more time than an ordinary person.  But when it comes to fan mail, all right, how many actual fans does she have, meaning people who are going to take the time to write a letter because they love what she does?

TED CASABLANCA, E! ONLINE:  Dan, she has zillions of fans and she is going to have even more after this jail stint and she knows it.  Trust me, she‘s counting those dollars.  But I have got to say this whole argument of is Paris getting a double treatment, a double standard, it‘s disingenuous at best because the common person who comes in and is sentenced by the judge doesn‘t have this entourage of people who they‘re blaming the whole episode on, which is what Paris did.  And people are forgetting about this when they‘re crying for her now.

ABRAMS:  But everyone comes up with stupid—look, this is one of the dumber defenses but it didn‘t work.  In the end, this defense had as much impact as every other defense about someone saying my dog ate the paper or I didn‘t understand or I lost it in the mail or this or that.  You‘re right, it‘s a little bit more .

HAZLETT:  Dan, I .

CASABLANCA:  Unfortunately for Paris, also you have Halle Berry and you have O.J. and you have this whole history of L.A. getting a double treatment and a double standard that she‘s having to pay the price for.  That is - of course.

ABRAMS:  But if Paris gets out a week from today, that means she‘ll have served 23 days, “L.A. Times” .

CASABLANCA:  It‘s going to be a great big party.

ABRAMS:  Oh, I‘m sure there‘s going to be a party and I‘m guessing Ted is going to be there.


ABRAMS:  But the question was how does that compare to the other inmates who are convicted for similar offenses and the “L.A. Times” analyzed 2 million cases to Paris‘.  They said, “Had Hilton left the jail after four days her stint behind bars would have been similar to those served by 60 percent of those inmates.”

CASABLANCA:  She is serving more, without question.

ABRAMS:  Yeah.

HAZLETT:  But, Dan .

ABRAMS:  Go ahead, Courtney.

HAZLETT:  If I could jump in here for just a second, it‘s not clear to me from that “L.A. Times” article that they factored in the fact that Paris had violated her parole not once but twice but driving on a suspended license, they didn‘t just discover that she was driving.  She was driving erratically, both times was pulled over.  She neglected to enroll in the alcohol courses that is she was required to under the terms of her probation.

I understand the point that the “L.A. Times” article is making but it‘s not clear it‘s an apples to apples case.

ABRAMS:  They compared not just drunk driving but also then violating your probation.  I mean, it was pretty darn close to being apples to apples in terms of what they looked at generally and comparing the time.

HAZLETT:  It‘s what they looked at generally but isn‘t it up to the judge‘s discretion?  If he can say listen, this is a person who does not know how to take the word no.

ABRAMS:  That‘s fine, except, and I‘m going to say it again, generally the sheriff gets to decide where do you serve the time, do you serve it at home, do you serve it in jail?  Et cetera, et cetera.  But you know what


ABRAMS:  Real quick, Ted.

CASABLANCA:  And most of those people didn‘t really piss off the judge and laugh at the courts which is what happened.

HAZLETT:  There is that too.

ABRAMS:  I know.  Look, she made some comments that I think are ridiculous.  Anyway, Courtney Hazlett, Ted Casablanca, thanks a lot.

HAZLETT:  Thanks, Dan.

ABRAMS:  You‘re missing Mr. Scarborough, have no fear.  Catch him tomorrow at 6:00 a.m. right here on MSNBC for MORNING JOE.

That‘s all the time we have for tonight.  We‘ll see you back here tomorrow night in SCARBOROUGH COUNTRY.  Coming up TO CATCH A PREDATOR.  Tonight the number of men who show up during DATELINE‘s undercover operation, alarming.



Copy: Content and programming copyright 2007 MSNBC.  ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.  Transcription Copyright 2007 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.