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

'Live with Dan Abrams' for Nov. 15

Read the transcript to the Thursday show

Guests: Daniel Horowitz, Monica Lindstrom, Clint Van Zandt, Bill Stanton

DAN ABRAMS, HOST:  We‘ve got more on this Breaking News.  You reported earlier Major League Baseball‘s home run king, Barry Bonds indicted late today for perjury and obstruction of justice in connection with a steroid investigation.  So, Keith, what does this mean practically for Bonds‘ career?

KEITH OLBERMANN, HOST, COUNTDOWN: A barring some sort of immediate dismissal of these charges, he‘s done.  He‘s not going to play baseball again because when it was just a question of the possibility of an indictment, there was a strong indication; there was a term in his contract with the San Francisco Giants last year that would have allowed them to fire him simply for an indictment.  There was also a talk about happening with tax evasion charges.  But Giants were ready to bail out in the middle of the contract.  Barry Bonds does not have a contract right now and is under indictment for what is considered a capital offense within baseball.  They don‘t even have to suspend him or banish him.  They simply can, and might have even without this, the others team in Major League Baseball don‘t want the trouble.  They‘ve let him go, and now his career may be over without anybody forcing that.  He simply will be unemployed to death.

ABRAMS:  Do you think some people will be suspicious, then, based on what you‘ve just said of the timing?

OLBERMANN:  I think maybe it might be suspicious on the surface, but I can‘t imagine that anybody looking at it in any serious degree would say, well, the timing is really suspicious here.  If the indictment had come out in September, the contract would have still expired in October.  He still would be a free agent right now, in an ironic sense, since the state of California is going to try to take his literal free agency away from him and put him in prison for this, but I don‘t think the timing—the timing is curious, but I don‘t think it‘s suspicious.

ABRAMS:  Finally, would you expect any large contingent of baseball fans will come to Bonds‘ defense?

OLBERMANN:  There‘s a group that does not want to believe that what he did or what he‘s been accused of doing, and what anybody who looks at this aggressively or even with an open mind says yes, I think there‘s a lot of evidence here that says he‘s done the things he‘s been accused of.  I think there‘s a group that doesn‘t want to believe that.  There‘s a group that wants to make excuses for him, but - they‘ve never been much larger than those that could be filled in the San Francisco‘s baseball stadium, which executes a classic fact of sports which is, you know, if the devil suited up in your uniform and could throw 25 touchdowns or score 50 goals or score 40 points a season or whatever it was, you would root for him, but everybody else in the league would have a different opinion.

ABRAMS:  Keith Olbermann, thank you for sticking around.  Really, appreciate it.

It‘s been a four-year investigation.  Bonds is charged for allegedly lying about steroids given to him by his friend and personal trainer, Greg Anderson.  Anderson was locked up for months after refusing to testify about Bonds‘ alleged perjury.  He was just released today.  Now, this is going to be a tough case for Bonds.  Almost every time Bonds was asked about Anderson giving him steroids, he would first try to avoid the question before being pushed.  Example, question, did he (Anderson) ever give you anything that you know to be steroid?  Did he ever give you a steroid?  Bonds, I don‘t think Greg would do anything like that to me and jeopardize our friendship. Only if they do that.  Only after being pushed, did Bonds say no.  It happened again and again.  He was asked about this in a recent interview with NBC‘s Jim Gray.


JIM GRAY, REPORTER:  Those who believe that you have unfairly obtained this record through the use of performance enhancing drugs, what would your response to them be?

BARRY BONDS:  That‘s not true, and it‘s not right and it‘s not fair to me.  It‘s not fair to me.  It‘s not true.  It‘s just not fair.


ABRAMS:  Now officially he could face up to 30 years behind bars, but as a practical matter, more like up to three.  Joining me now on the phone is Kevin Ryan, the lead prosecutor on this very case until February.  Thanks very much for taking the time.  We appreciate it.  Let me read you something the defense lawyers have said today.


ABRAMS:  I want you to respond.  They say—now that they‘re biased allegations must finally be presented openly on the court of law, they won‘t be able to hide their unethical misconduct from the public any longer.  What do you make of that?

RYAN:  Let‘s go to trial.  Let‘s get in the courtroom, let‘s stop trying this case in the media and the press.  But the indictment and the facts speak for themselves.  You know, frankly I‘m not with the department anymore.  I opened this case in 2002.  I watched it carefully for almost five years, and there has not been a single situation where—evidence has been suppressed or motions have been granted.  The original defense did not bring any motions to suppress.  All these allegations that have been made through the media and picked up by the media are just I think background noise at this point.  And if that‘s the way they feel, let‘s get it in court.  I would hope that on December 7th when Mr. Bonds and his attorney show up for their arraignment, that they don‘t waive time and they ask for a speedy trial because I can bet you the government is ready to go.

ABRAMS:  Let me ask you about that, about the timing issue.  This was a four-year investigation.  Why did it take four years?

RYAN:  Well, that‘s not that unusual.  First off, you have grand juries that sit one day a week, sometimes only for half a day and that‘s if you get a quorum.  Secondly, they hear cases other than just this one case.  If you look at just Balco and the related investigations, you‘ll see that the government and when I was there we were extremely busy on all different aspects of this case involving the original defendants for the distribution, then those that we‘ve charged with making the actual clear substances and steroid-like substances, and then the athletes that were involved.  Then we got busy down in Arizona, we were busy in New York, we‘re up in the ninth circuit, trying to go overturn which we did successfully three district court judges that made some evidentiary rulings that we didn‘t agree on.  So, we have a luck going on and you know, frankly the last year there‘s been some distractions at the department that may well have had an impact on you know, on the timing of the case.

ABRAMS:  All right.  Kevin, if you could stick around for a minute.  Let‘s bring in sports columnist and radio host, Stephen A. Smith, and defense attorney, Daniel Horowitz who represented Barry Bonds former girlfriend who testified that he did used steroids.  Thanks to both of you for coming on.  Appreciate it.  All right.  Stephen, you‘ve been critical of this prosecution.

STEPHEN A. SMITH, SPORTS COLUMNIST AND RADIO HOST:  Well, I don‘t think so.  I don‘t think I‘ve been critical of the prosecution in regards to Barry Bonds because I think there‘s been a preponderance of evidence that allows you to be suspicious enough to believe he‘s guilty of such things.  All I‘ve been critical of is the process in terms of the timing of it all in regards to Major League Baseball.  You remember in 1998, Mark McGuire and Sammy Sosa were chasing the single season all time home run record and you know, everybody was celebrating them.  And all of a sudden when Barry Bonds in 2003, the Balco investigation kicks into gear and what have you, all of a sudden we‘re investigating Barry Bonds.  I‘m not knocking the prosecution that the evidence is out there that implicates him in any way, shape, form or fashion, he can‘t be absolved.  What I‘m saying is there was a time when somebody else was using steroids as we have now learned, and I believe in my heart that that‘s something that could have been investigated as well, and obviously there was some lackadaisical efforts being exhibited.

ABRAMS:  Before I go to Daniel, let me ask you about that, Kevin. 

What about that?

RYAN:  You‘re comparing apples and oranges.  What happened in the Balco case was that there was actually a simultaneous investigations going on, but what really kick started the Balco investigation was an Olympic-level coach sending a syringe to USAD in Colorado saying some of these Olympic athletes are using this stuff.  They kicked it down to the UCL lab and we started an investigation.

ABRAMS:  All right.  The bottom line is you had evidence that came

forward later and as a result that was started -

SMITH:  Again that‘s not a comparison.  I‘m not comparing one to the other in regards to a Federal investigation.  I‘m simply saying if you‘re the average Joe out there watching the sport of Major League Baseball, you recognize somebody turns a blind eye and deaf ear to what was going on years prior to this Balco investigation.  That doesn‘t have anything to do with the Federal government, but may very well have everything to do with baseball.

ABRAMS:  All right.  Daniel Horowitz, let me bring you in to talk about the case here.  You know, look, it seems that they have a lot of instances where Bonds is asked, did you use steroids, in a number of cases he kinds of hems and haws, and they have to keep following up with him to get him to finally answer the question, and then he denies it.  It seems that the Federal government is saying we‘ve got hard proof that he was using steroids.

DANIEL HOROWITZ, DEFENSE ATTORNEY:  Yes, Dan, I think Barry Bonds is sunk for a few reasons.  First of all, I do represent Kim Bell, Barry‘s girlfriend, who cared very deeply for him, and was not looking to hurt him, but she told the truth in front of the grand jury, and that truth is that Barry Bonds used steroids.  If you read her interview in the recent issue of “Playboy,” she makes it crystal clear he knew what he was doing.  But, also Dan, I know Kevin Ryan for years from when he started, he would not allow this to go forward against Barry Bonds if he wasn‘t certain that Barry Bonds was guilty in his mind.  And he gave him a get out of jail free card, the immunity, and Barry Bonds threw it out the window.  Barry is responsible for what‘s happened to himself.

ABRAMS:  Stephen, let me read you a quote from the defense attorney here.  “Every American should worry about a Justice Department that doesn‘t know if waterboarding is torture and can‘t tell the difference in prosecution and persecution.”  It‘s talking about in connection with this case.

SMITH:  Well, there‘s no relevance.  There‘s no relevance to that.  The bottom line is he needs to focus on defending his client, which happens to be Barry Bonds.  And by the way, while you‘re busy defending him, don‘t go out publicly and talk about how you kicked the Federal government‘s butt time and time again and invite them to bring it on even more.  You‘re just exacerbating the situation, which is something they reportedly done in the past.

ABRAMS:  Yes.  Daniel, how long do you think this case will take through the system before it actually goes to trial?

HOROWITZ:  Well, I think that Bonds‘ people need a lot of time to prepare because the U.S. attorneys had years.  And now, I‘d say that at first does this or mike rains (ph), they‘ll need about six months to get it going.  I‘d say within a year it will be over, though.

ABRAMS:  All right.  Stephen, any words for Barry Bonds?

SMITH:  Well, he‘s in a world of trouble.  I mean, again, my biggest thing again, as I reiterated earlier, was you know, in terms of the investigation, it could have taken place years ago, but in the case of Barry Bonds, I mean, if it walks like a duck and quacks also like a duck, it‘s not a mongoose, and there‘s what you had before and there‘s been a preponderance of evidence against him for quite some time and he‘s got some stuff to deal with because he‘s looking at potential jail time which is serious business.

ABRAMS:  I got to say this is serious stuff.  And Martha Stewart I

don‘t think recognized how serious it can be.  Lying—I know it doesn‘t

feel that bad when it‘s happening -

SMITH:  Allegedly.

ABRAMS:  It ends up - no, but in general—generally lying ends up being serious, serious business.  And that‘s going to be the question here.  Are they going to be able to prove it?  Boy, it seems like they have a pretty good case.

SMITH:  I‘d love to say to everybody that‘s condemning him but I would love to see them give the money back that they benefited from them exploiting his efforts as baseball player.

ABRAMS:  Stephen A. Smith, Kevin Ryan, Daniel Horowitz, thanks a lot.

Coming up next: Could executives at the parent company of FOX News be prosecuted criminally now that a former employee‘s accusing them of asking her to lie to federal investigators to protect Rudy Giuliani‘s presidential campaign?

And later bill O‘Reilly‘s paranoia over MSNBC‘s success continues, that‘s in tonight‘s Beat the Press.

Plus: You‘ll see you‘ve never before scene part of NBC‘s exclusive interview with the husband of missing Illinois mother, Stacy Peterson.  He goes after his wife personally.


DREW PETERSON:  (INAUDIBLE) I pampered her.  Its a lot of that is my fault.  Stacy wanted it, she got it.  She wanted a book job; I got her a book job.  She wanted a tummy tuck?  She got that.


ABRAMS:  That‘s a grieving husband speaking about his missing spouse?  Coming up.


ABRAMS:  Did you know that Rupert Murdock started News Corp with money he inherited from his father.  Coming up now, a former News Corp employees is suing the media conglomerate.  Those allegations could now lead to a criminal investigation of execs there.  Coming up.


ABRAMS:  There‘s more fallout tonight from the exclusive lawsuit alleging the top executives at FOX News parent company News Corp encouraged one of their senior employees to lie during a Federal investigation into Bernard Kerik.  The New York City police commissioner under Rudy Giuliani, nominated to be the Homeland Security secretary.  Judith Regan, the former Power house publisher says in her lawsuit, quote:

“A senior executive in the News Corporation organization told Regan that he believed she had information about Kerik that, if disclosed, would harm Giuliani‘s presidential campaign.  This executive advised Regan to lie to, and to withhold information from, investigators, concerning Kerik.”

Now, if true that News Corp executive‘s may have committed federal crimes.  The question tonight, will the Feds launch a criminal investigation?  Is it possible that one is already under way?  Wayne Barrett is with us again, from the “Village Voice” and he‘s written two very important books about Giuliani; criminal defense attorney, Jeralyn Merritt and Republican strategist, Jack Burkman, a one-time contributor to FOX News.  All right, Jeralyn, is there a potential federal case here?

JERALYN MERRITT, CRIMINAL DEFENSE ATTORNEY:  If Judith Regan has evidence such as a tape or something substantial that she was told to lie to federal investigators during the course of a criminal investigation or any agency investigation, then yes, that would be obstruction of justice.  And they would investigate it.  That‘s a federal crime.

ABRAMS:  You think there‘s already an investigation under way?

MERRITT:  It‘s really hard to tell, but it sounds like there could be.  It sounds like she may have told investigators about this or told the government about this beforehand.

ABRAMS:  And Wayne, it‘s possible based on what you know that Judith Regan spoke to investigators prior to Bernard Kerik being indicted.  We don‘t know that for a fact.  But she had information similar to what was into that indictment.

WAYNE BARRETT, RUDY GIULIANI BIOGRAPHER:  I think there‘s no question but that in January 2002, Bernie Kerik, according to the indictment, incorporated a business.  He incorporated this business in Delaware and that‘s where Judith Regan immediately, simultaneously made $75,000 in payments.  He never paid any taxes on those corporate earnings, so she knew he had this shell corporation to which payments were being made.  That‘s clearly in the indictment.

ABRAMS:  And so she may have—we don‘t know for sure—she may have been the source for the indictment.

All right.  So, Jack Burkman, there we got you know, two pieces.  We‘ve got the Regan allegations in the lawsuit, we‘ve got potential audio tapes, again that was reported by the “Daily News” that she has audiotapes and you‘ve got the fact that it‘s possible that she was a source or possibly the source for portions of the Kerik indictment.  It sounds to me like that could lead to at the very least a Federal investigation.

JACK BURKMAN, REPUBLICAN STRATEGIST:  Dan, I don‘t even think an investigation is warranted.  If, if, a thousand things.  I mean, what you have is one very desperate and very non-credible witness.  I mean, if there‘s a tape, if there‘s that, if there‘s this.  If Rudy Giuliani weren‘t running for president of the United States, there‘s not a prosecutor in America who would be looking at a case like this.

ABRAMS:  Well, let‘s assumed, let‘s—play with me for a minute.  Assume for the moment there are audio tapes, right?  You‘re right, that‘s an if.  But I‘m asking you to assume for a moment there are audio tapes of News Corp executives encouraging her to lie.  If that‘s the case, would you expect there to be a Federal investigation?

BURKMAN:  Certainly, there would be an investigation.  Now, you know this as well as I do, the elements of proving suborning perjury are very difficult.  It depends what‘s on the tapes.  There are tapes and there are tapes.  Those tapes would have to hit with a lot of specificity to have any kind of an impact, but keep in mind, so far all we hear is smoke. 

There‘s a rumor of a tryst between Bernie Kerik and Judith Regan in some

place  -

ABRAMS:  I think that‘s confirmed, that they had an affair.

BURKMAN:  Even if all this is true, how does this bear with any relevance at all on the criminal charges at hand, which are specific, that News Corp and/or Roger Ailes, and/or Rupert Murdock, and/or other employees suborned perjury.  None of these have any relevance to the charges.

ABRAMS:  I agree with you.  Look -

MERRITT:  Wait.  It‘s not suborn perjury, it‘s obstruction of justice, those are two different things.  Nobody is saying that they told someone to lie in front of the grand jury or to lie in court.  What her lawsuit alleges is that someone told her to lie to in federal investigators or state investigators, and to withhold documents from the government.  That you know, to me says something was subpoenaed from her and someone from News Corp told her not to turn it over.  We don‘t know if she‘s telling the truth or not.  If she has credible evidence, the government would investigate.

BURKMAN:  I may just jump in. I would - Jeralyn Merritt is one of

the best defense attorneys in the country, I am shocked to death she would

be on the side of launching an investigation, of going after News Corps,

when she knows as much about Judy Regan as I do.  Any one of the three of

us, Dan, maybe you especially, you, Jeralyn or I - if we were representing

that client and we had Judith Regan on the stand, it would take about all

of 45 minutes to destroy her credibility -

ABRAMS:  Unless she has tapes.


MERRITT:  And I‘m not advocating an investigation.  You know, Dan was asking, is it possible an investigation would happen and under what circumstances.

ABRAMS:  All right.  Wayne, I want to ask Wayne one more question.  I want to read one more thing from the lawsuit.  It says another News Corp executive similarly advised Regan not to produce clearly relevant documents in connection with the government investigation of Kerik.  So the allegation and lawsuit is two different people.

BARRETT:  Two different people.  And you know, it‘s clear that she‘s referring to Roger Ailes in the first case.  We don‘t know who the second executive is, but I think the second charge, whoever the second executive is tells her specifically, assuming she has some evidence to support it, I think you‘re absolutely right, there has to be some evidence to support it, but assuming she has some evidence to support—and she says, by the way, in the complaint, that she made complaints at the time, and that she wanted those complaints to be on record, so maybe—I mean, if this is true, News Corp has records on file that she complaint about these efforts.

ABRAMS:  At the very least, I would think that the Feds are going to be looking at this, they‘ll be looking to see if that tape, if even Jack Burkman concedes if it exists there probably would be at the least an investigation.  We shall see what happens. Wayne Barrett, Jeralyn Merritt and Jack Burkman, thanks a lot.  Appreciate it.

Coming up next: CNN‘s Rick Sanchez kind of sounds like a third grader as he talks about the “B” word again and again and again, that is in BTP - Beat the Press.

And later: We got some of that tape never aired before from NBC‘s exclusive interview with Drew Peterson, who police suspect in the disappearance of his wife, and it is not pretty.


DREW PETERSON:  She wanted braces, laser surgery, hair removal, anything.  Stacy loved male attention and she loved being anywhere and having people pay attention to her, and we did all these repairs.  I know what she wanted, she had it.  High-end jewelry, name it, she got it.


ABRAMS:  That‘s nice, that‘s the way to talk about your missing wife.  How does that help him?  Coming up.


ABRAMS:  It‘s time for tonight‘s Beat the Press.  Our daily look back at the absurd and sometimes amusing perils of live TV.  First up: 

FOX‘s Bill O‘Reilly‘s paranoia about MSNBC‘s continues success.


BILL O‘REILLY:  As you may know NBC is the most antimilitary TV news operation in the country.


ABRAMS:  Yes, OK.  I thought I saw this on NBC NIGHTLY NEWS last week.


UNIDENTIFIED MALE HOST:  We are proud tonight to unveil a week-long series of reports leading up to Veterans Day on recipients of the Medal of Honor.  Tonight, an American hero who served in World War II, Korea and Vietnam.  Tonight, we tell the story of Tibor, Ted Reuben, a veteran of the Korean War.  Tonight, a World War II veteran that had to fight on more than one front.  Tonight,  a combat veteran of Vietnam, a warrior and a patriot.


ABRAMS:  Right.  That‘s what I thought.

Next up, in a rare moment for Larry King, he seemed to have ambushed Marie Osmond during an interview.


LARRY KING, HOST:  I know you have many children.


KING:  I know that Michael is in rehab, right?

OSMOND:  Yes.  how did you know that?

KING:  I was told.



ABRAMS:  OK.  Now look at the bottom of the screen when she answers.  Marie reveals her 16-year-old son is in rehab.  No, she didn‘t.  CNN did.  Nice exposing that kind of personal family information.

Finally, my pal, Rick Sanchez has been talking a lot about this incident with Senator McCain at a campaign event.


UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE:  How do we beat the bitch?


ABRAMS:  And this is how Rick describes it again and again and again.


RICK SANCHEZ, CNN ANCHOR:  One of the supporters calling Hillary Clinton the B word.

He uses the B word, pardon me, he allows someone in his presence to use the B word.

Senator John McCain and the B word.

Why didn‘t he defend her when someone called her the B word?

This is interesting, this B word thing.

What do you think about McCain and the B word itself?

Why are some people comfortable with the use of the B word?

What do you think about Senator John McCain and the B word yourself?

It‘s OK to use “bitchy” as an adverb or an adjective-


ABRAMS:  Oh, he said it, he said it, he said it, he said.  Oh, no.

Up next: Never before seen tape from Drew Peterson‘s exclusive interview with NBC.  He has named as a suspect of his wife‘s disappearance.  Yesterday, he pleaded for a lawyer.  Well, today the interview is filled with personal attacks on his wife, and former attorney general Alberto Gonzales is worried about getting prosecuted.  He‘s now pleading with friends to help with his defense fund.  He‘s one of tonight‘s Big Losers.



DAN ABRAMS, HOST:  Coming up, a basketball coach makes an unfortunate comparison between his team‘s performance and the movie “Brokeback Mountain.”  A California kid who mimics animal calls with the best of them.  And a restaurant which just began celebrating the most expensive dessert is shut down after the Health Department finds cockroaches, mice and flies.  That‘s all coming in tonight‘s “Winners and Losers.”

But first, Stacy Peterson, the young Illinois mother was spoiled.  That‘s what her police officer husband, suspect Drew said in a never before seen part of that exclusive NBC interview.  I have to say I was stunned to hear these new comments.  It‘s never been heard before now.


DREW PETERSON, STACY PETERSON‘S HUSBAND:  Stacy was spoiled.  I pampered her.  A lot of that is my fault.  Stacy wanted it, she got it.  She wanted a boob job, I got her a boob job.  She wanted a tummy tuck, she got that.  She wanted braces, LASIK surgery, hair removal - anything.  Stacy loved male attention.  And she loved being anywhere and having people pay attention to her.  We did all these repairs on her.  If she wanted it, she got it.  High-end jewelry, name it, she got it. 

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE REPORTER:  I can‘t help but notice when you talk about her, you talk about her in the past tense, she loved this, she was like that.  I‘m just hearing it. 

D. PETERSON:  That‘s just because she‘s not with me anymore - in the past tense, what she did. 


ABRAMS:  Oh, boy.  You know, isn‘t the same problem that these other guys face.  They talk in the past tense.  What a jerk, though, for the comments he‘s making. 

Here now defense attorney Daniel Horowitz; former prosecutor Monica Lindstrom; Clint Van Zandt, MSNBC analyst and former FBI profiler; and former NYC police officer, Private Investigator Bill Stanton.  You know, Bill, if you‘re going to give this guy advice , right - If you were giving him advice, you would have said to him, “ (A) Don‘t go on TV, but (B) Don‘t diss your missing wife.” 

BILL STANTON, PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR:  I mean it‘s like deja vu all over again.  We see Scott Peterson going on TV, and he‘s missing his wife.  He doesn‘t know where she is, et cetera, et cetera.  We‘re seeing the same thing, except with the (UNINTELLIGIBLE) this guy is really bitter.  He can‘t help but hide his animosity. 

ABRAMS:  All right.  Let me play one more piece of sound here.  This is, again, what I view as a guy who whose wife is missing, dissing his missing spouse.  Let‘s listen. 


MATT LAUER, CO-ANCHOR, THE “TODAY” SHOW:  Just real quickly, touch on the fact that as I said it‘s reported that Stacy asked you for a divorce just two days before she disappeared.  And you combine that with the fact that Kathy(ph) died while your divorce settlement was still being negotiated.  Do you understand why people see a rather alarming coincidence here? 

D. PETERSON:  Sure.  However, Stacy - I‘m not trying to funny here but Stacy would ask me for a divorce after her sister died, on a regular basis.  I‘m not trying to be funny and that was based on her menstrual cycle. 

LAUER:  So when Stacy asked you for a divorce on October 26th, it didn‘t anger you?  You weren‘t upset by it?

D. PETERSON:  It was like any other moment that she had that she was unhappy with something.  She would want a divorce. 


ABRAMS:  I mean, Monica, this guy, not only is he talking about her wanting a boob job and braces.  Now, he‘s talking about her menstrual cycle.  I mean, it‘s almost as if - you know those examples of death by cops, where someone tries to get shot by the police and they show up and they pretend to have a gun and they point the gun the cops?  It‘s almost like that‘s what this guy is doing here. 

MONICA LINDSTROM, FORMER PROSECUTOR:  Well, Dan, he is a moron for even bringing up the menstrual cycle thing because he has just destroyed any chance he has for a fifth wife.  No one is ever going to go out with him after this. 

ABRAMS:  But apart from that, this guy‘s a suspect.  I mean, this is

serious stuff.  He‘s a suspect in his third and fourth wives‘ murders -  


ABRAMS:  Possibly. 

LINDSTROM:  And you know, Dan, I want to say that sometimes the truth is obvious, and it‘s staring right in our face.  In this case, we have prosecutors that are going to look for three things. 

First of all, they‘re going to look for the motive.  Then they‘re going to look for the opportunity, and then they‘re going to look for the means.  In this case, in regards to the fourth wife, we have the start of all of those.  When it comes to the third wife, it‘s all right there. 

ABRAMS:  Here he is, talking about whether he got an insurance policy after the death of his third wife. 


LAUER:  True or false, you ended up with a million dollar payout from her life insurance policy you had on her. 

D. PETERSON:  My children did, and that money is in a protected account for them when they turn older. 

LAUER:  And what was your relationship with Kathy like?  Tell me about her. 

What kind of a woman was she? 

D. PETERSON:  She came from a - an abusive home life, growing up.  She had abusive stepparents.  At first it was very romantic.  And again after she had children, the hormones kicked in, and again I‘m on an emotional roller coaster with her. 

But our relationship was always a one up-manship relationship.  We were always trying to basically outdo each other with different things.  Who was smarter, who was stronger, that type of thing. 

LAUER:  So you describe both of these women, Kathy and Stacy, as having emotional problems. 

D. PETERSON:  Yes, both of them. 

LAUER:  Both troubled? 

D. PETERSON:  Both came from troubled homes. 

LAUER:  Both dealing with depression at some point or another? 


LAUER:  So what drew you to these women? 

D. PETERSON:  Both women were very beautiful, very exciting when I first met them.  Kathy was a lot of fun when I first met her.  She was good to my kids, kids from a prior marriage.  We went to fun places.  We went out to dinner.


ABRAMS:  When I first met them, they were great.  Then my third wife, you know, she died.  And then my fourth wife, you know, she went missing.  I mean, Clint, there‘s nothing else this guy could say to make him seem less appealing that I can think of. 

CLINT VAN ZANDT, FORMER FBI PROFILER:  Dan, he was obviously trying to rehabilitate himself by coming on, and he did just the opposite.  I mean he talks about his fourth wife, the things he did for her, like he was repairing a car, like fixing up a BMW that he could either drive or sell.  But by doing that, he dehumanizes both.  I‘m starting to lose count, but both his fourth and third wife.  And, Monica, remember that Scott Peterson still gets love letters from women in jail.   So just because you‘re a killer doesn‘t mean you still don‘t attract (UNINTELLIGIBLE) hormonal women. 

ABRAMS:  But keep in mind, Bill Stanton gets love letters, so that doesn‘t mean anything.  Let me play one more piece of sound from Peterson talking about - it sounds like why he may have gone on television to do this. 


LAUER:  What are you most frightened about? 

D. PETERSON:  Basically, my legal defense, talking to lawyers Monday night.  It could cost as much as a quarter million dollars to defend one of these cases.  So basically I‘m reaching out to attorneys of America for help, if anybody would like to take my case and help me out here, please call.  Let me know what you can do for me. 


ABRAMS:  Daniel Horowitz, he‘s not been indicted yet.  This sounds like a man who knows he‘s going to be indicted, who knows he‘s in an enormous trouble, and wants a guy like Daniel Horowitz to come and represent him to free. 

DANIEL HOROWITZ, DEFENSE ATTORNEY:  Yes, this guy is not getting Daniel Horowitz even if he paid me.  But he is fishing for somebody who thinks that taking one high profile case, even if your client is on the wrong, is going to get you fame and fortune.  And it will not.  You know, Dan, correct me if I‘m wrong, but did this guy name his young daughter Laci? 

Because if he did I think -

ABRAMS:  Yes, her name was Laci.  I don‘t know who‘s responsible for naming her.

HOROWITZ:  Well, I think this guy is a sociopath, Dan.  I think he‘s almost a serial killer in a very neat package.  And I think his crimes of violence and hatred towards women probably dates way back.  He‘s scary. 

ABRAMS:  Daniel you just ensured that you now can‘t represent him.  Because that - much like Mark Geragos in the Peterson case, that comment will be played against and again on television, if you do.  The panel is going to stay with us, because what we - we know he hasn‘t been charged with anything yet, all right?  Things don‘t look good for Peterson.  But the question that everyone is asking, why is he joining this long list of crime suspects who talk publicly?  Remember the other Peterson? 

And later, America‘s former top prosecutor goes looking for cash. 

Yes, Alberto Gonzales is getting ready to pay for a legal defense.

Plus, an Iraq vet gives his 8-year-old the biggest surprise of her life.  Which one will be tonight‘s big winner and loser?  Coming up.


ABRAMS:  We have been showing you more of the exclusive interview with Drew Peterson who is a suspect in the disappearance of his wife Stacy.  Peterson went on the “Today” show to proclaim his innocence in both this case and in connection with the death of his third wife.  But why do he and so many others go on national TV to proclaim their innocence?  We went back to the archives to find other examples of people who did just that. 


SCOTT PETERSON, CONVICTED OF MURDER:  At this point, unfortunately, it has reached a point where suspicion of me is keeping people from searching for Laci.  They‘re focusing on me.  We need to ask people, when is the last time they thought about Laci missing as opposed to when they thought about the suspicions that swirl around me currently. 

It‘s important that we get people out there looking for Laci again.  There‘s very simple things.  Obviously, yes, I had a romantic relationship that was inappropriate and unfair to a lot of people.  And I apologize to everyone involved in that, to all of the families.  It had nothing to do with Laci‘s disappearance. 

She does know how much she‘s loved and how much she‘s missed.  Be strong and we‘re working to get you home.  Those are the things. 


S. PETERSON:  No, god, definitely not.  That‘s the one thing we have. 

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE REPORTER:  How difficult does that get as your baby‘s due date - Is this your first born?

S. PETERSON:  Every day, it‘s more and more difficult.  But imagine how difficult it must be for her.  So, please, volunteers, anything possible to help us.  Thanks.  Thank you.  I have to (UNINTELLIGIBLE).  Thank you.

SUSAN SMITH, CONVICTED OF MURDER:  I want to say to my babies, your mama loves you so much.  And your daddy, and the whole family loves you so much.  You guys have got to be strong. 

I mean, they‘ve got people everywhere looking for them.  You can hear the helicopters up there, but they haven‘t seen anything.  It‘s just - it‘s crazy.  It‘s been since 9:00 last night.  You know, I really thought that when it got daylight they would find them just in a heartbeat.  All I‘m doing is just praying and keeping my faith they‘re going to be OK. 

MARK HACKING, PLEAD GUILTY TO MURDER:  I woke up at about 8:00, recognized that she hadn‘t awakened me when she came home from running, but didn‘t think much of it.  She often does that if I‘m tired or something, she‘ll just, out of respect, I guess, just let me sleep.  And I often drive her to work.  Today, she wanted to drive herself.  Then I called her at about 10:00 to just say hi, see how she was doing.  They told me she - sorry - she never got to work.  She never made it in this morning. 


ABRAMS:  We‘ve now seen all people who actually turned out to be guilty.  I mean, Bill Stanton, why would they do it? 

STANTON:  Why do they kill? 

ABRAMS:  No, why do they go public? 

STANTON:  It‘s amazing what - spin.  Like politicians, they want to spin things in their favor.  They know that the world is looking at them closely.  So they feel - they think they‘re smarter than everybody else.  And they think if they can go on, shed a tear, shake their head a couple times, that they‘re going to convince mom and pop America, who‘s very forgiving, that they didn‘t do it. 

ABRAMS:  Well, Clint, you‘re a former profiler.  I‘ve got to believe that these people have experienced things in their past where they‘ve been able to get away with it.  They‘ve been able to lie and talk their way out of things.  And they‘re thinking they may be able to just do it again. 

VAN ZANDT:  Yes, you‘re right, Dan.  I mean, you know, the shrinks will say, you know, these people we just looked at are narcissistic sociopaths.  You and I will say these are people who have lied in their lives.  They‘ve lied about little things and other things and they‘ve gotten away with it.  And Dan, that‘s the pattern of behavior.  When they need a reason, when they need an excuse, they lie.  In the past, people bought it.  All of a sudden now, people don‘t buy it.  And they don‘t understand because they‘ve gotten away with it for years. 

ABRAMS:  And Monica, what‘s interesting, if you compare Drew Peterson to some of the people we just saw, he‘s not shedding tears.  He almost is saying, “Look.  Hey, I need a lawyer.  Somebody out there get me a lawyer.”  And then he goes around, insulting his missing wife. 

LINDSTROM:  You know, Dan, it‘s about arrogance or innocence.  They‘ll either go and do this interview to profess their innocence, or they do it because they‘re arrogant, narcissistic, and they want the attention.  And here, look at him, he‘s saying, “Come here.  I‘ve got a really big case.  I need help.  Come pay attention to me and give me legal services for free.”  Are you kidding me? 

ABRAMS:  Monica, do you think he‘s just sort of going out with a final swan song?  I mean, even when he‘s proclaiming his innocence, he‘s not doing it with any great fervor.  I mean, it‘s almost like - he‘s like, “Look, I don‘t know what happened.  But, you know what?  My wife, when she was menstrual, would be a big problem.”  You know what I mean?  Right?  That‘s kind of what Drew Peterson was saying. 

LINDSTROM:  Well, what he‘s doing is basically, he‘s putting down his wife.  He‘s saying how horrible they were, how materialistic they were, and he‘s the good guy here.  It‘s not working. 

ABRAMS:  Well, Daniel, I guess his position at this point - Daniel, very quickly - is that she ran away and didn‘t tell anyone.  So I guess he would claim, “Oh, I‘m angry at her.”  Right? 

HOROWITZ:  Yes, he‘s damned if he does or doesn‘t.  You know, when I‘m in a trial court, if I don‘t put my client on the stand, the jury is told do not pay attention to the fact he‘s asserted his fifth amendment rights.  But they all do.  They want to hear from him.  If he‘s innocent, testify.  The same thing here, if you‘re innocent, then say find my wife.  So they can‘t win, these guys.  . 

ABRAMS:  So there you are with Monica Lindstrom, Clint Van Zandt, Bill Stanton, the love letters go care of NBC.

Up next, in “Winners and Losers,” a famous basketball coach compares his team to the movie “Brokeback Mountain.”  A California kid‘s calls of the wild make him a champ.  And former Attorney General Alberto Gonzales asks for money to pay legal bills.

A coach who blew his top and made a bad call; a kid who can‘t top making catcalls; or the top former attorney making calls for cash.  Which will be tonight‘s big winner or loser?


ABRAMS:  It‘s time for tonight‘s “Winners and Losers” for this 15th day of November, 2007.  Our first loser, Los Angeles Lakers basketball coach Phil Jackson.  Perturbed by his team‘s performance Tuesday night in Texas, he let loose about their inadequate defensive efforts. 


PHIL JACKSON, LOS ANGELES LAKERS BASKETBALL COACH:  Yes, we call this a “Brokeback Mountain” game, because there‘s so much penetration and kick out.  So, you know, it was one of those games. 


ABRAMS:  Jackson was reprimanded by the league and called on to apologize for the wild remark.


JAKE GYLLENHAAL, ACTOR:  I wish I knew how to quit you.


ABRAMS:  Our first winner, a remarkable California kid who can‘t quit mimicking calls of the wild.  Twelve-year-old Greg Hubble, Jr. was just named World Champion Animal Caller for his uncanny ability to copy exotic creatures‘ cat calls.  The precocious kid, now the greatest wildlife caller in California history. 

Our second winner, an unidentified blue blob baffling a Ohio gas station.  The (UNINTELLIGIBLE) phantom popped up on the security camera, landing on one car‘s windshield, then defiantly darting away. 


HALEY JOEL OSMENT, ACTOR:  I see dead people. 


ABRAMS:  The mysterious marvel stayed at the station for almost an hour. 


UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE:  I‘ve never seen it before today, right out there - right by the propane thing.

ABRAMS:  Leaving them defenseless against the friendly but haunting specter. 

Our second loser?  Former Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, haunted by the specter of getting prosecuted.  He‘s now enlisting the help of friends for his defense.  Ganzo‘s gang gathering to create a defense fund, hitting up high-priced hawks for donations of $500 to $5,000.

But the big loser of the day?  New York City restaurant, Serendipity 3.  The high-priced home of the world‘s most expensive dessert, a $25,000 sundae, now forced to close its decadent doors after a visit from the Department Of Health.  Once disgusted department inspectors passed the pricey mocha and edible gold, they came across a crew of cheap cockroaches and inedible mice and flies. 


UNIDENTIFIED ACTOR:  You‘re going to get a roach in every friggin‘ meal you‘ll ever had for the rest of your miserable friggin‘ life.  You got that?


ABRAMS:  It‘s not quite the surprise jewelry that had been included in the decadent dessert at Serendipity.

The big winner of the day?  An army lieutenant whose surprise trip home was serendipity‘s first kiss. 




ABRAMS (voice over):  Lieutenant Thomas Born returned home for two weeks of Thanksgiving leave, surprising his 8-year-old son by showing up at his Virginia classroom. 

P. BORN:  Everybody, this is my daddy.  He really surprised me today.  I never thought he would come.  I just missed him very much.  I can‘t believe he‘s here. 

UNIDENTIFIED MALE REPORTER:  Preston, what was it like to be sitting in class and seeing your dad walk in like that? 

P. BORN:  I was very, very shocked.  It was actually a surprise.  I didn‘t know what to do.  I was shocked. 

UNIDENTIFIED MALE REPORTER:  You hadn‘t seen your dad in a long time.  Does he look the same to you? 

P. BORN:  No. 

UNIDENTIFIED MALE REPORTER:  Does he look the same? 

P. BORN:  Not with those glasses on. 

UNIDENTIFIED MALE REPORTER:  Not with those glasses on?  You know what he said?  He said you‘ve changed because since he left, you can read and write now, can‘t you?  That‘s a huge accomplishment.  And, Amy, I loved it when he said, “Why is mommy crying?” when he saw you in the hallway reacting to what you were watching.  How did you keep the secret? 

AMY(ph) BORN, WIFE OF THOMAS BORN:  It was very hard keeping it quiet, especially from the boys, and his family and mine as well.  I kept it quiet primarily because with R & R, you never know if the dates are going to change. 

UNIDENTIFIED MALE REPORTER:  And you‘d hate to disappoint him. 

A. BORN:  Yes, I didn‘t want to let everyone down by giving him one date and then have it changed.  So, it was hard keeping it quiet. 

UNIDENTIFIED MALE REPORTER:  It was a question I listened to you get asked in the piece when you said, “Are you going back tomorrow?”  That was a hard question.  You actually do have to go back in a couple of weeks, right? 

T. BORN:  Yes, sir.  Two weeks. 

UNIDENTIFIED MALE REPORTER:  How long will you be gone that time? 

T. BORN:  Seven months. 

UNIDENTIFIED MALE REPORTER:  You‘ve got a lot to be thankful for this Thanksgiving, don‘t you?

T. BORN:  Very much so.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE REPORTER:  It‘s great to see your family all together, and I said, welcome home to you.

T. BORN:  Thank you very much.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE REPORTER:  Good luck and be safe, OK?  Guys, nice meeting you, OK.”  Happy Thanksgiving. 

P. BORN:  Thank you. 


SON OF THOMAS BORN:  What about Christmas? 

UNIDENTIFIED MALE REPORTER:  Christmas too.  Merry Christmas and happy New Year and all of that. 


ABRAMS:  Almost brings tears to your eyes.  That‘s all the time we have for tonight.  Up next, stay tuned for “LOCKUP, EXTENDED STAY.”  See you later.                                                                                      



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.