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

'Live with Dan Abrams' for Nov. 26

Read the transcript to the Monday show

Guests: Chris Lejuez, Rosemarie Arnold, Linda Allison, Remi Spencer, Mary Francis Bragiel, Kyle Piry, Joel Brodsky, Katie Rees

DAN ABRAMS, HOST:  We have got breaking news tonight in the case of missing Alabama teen, Natalee Holloway.  Two and a half years after she went missing in Aruba, late today a judge ruled there is enough evidence to hold three suspects in an Aruban jail.  The crime?  Voluntary manslaughter.  This offers new hope to Natalee‘s family that finally they may learn exactly what happened to her.  Prosecutors submitted what they call new evidence against suspect Joran van der Sloot and brothers, Satish and Deepak Kalpoe.  Michelle Kosinski is live in Aruba, Michelle, the prosecutor submitted transcripts of wiretap cellphone conversations, intercepted text messages between the suspects.  What are their attorneys saying about this so called new evidence?

MICHELLE KOSINSKI, NBC NEWS - ARUBA:  Dan, what we‘re told by those defense attorneys for Satish and Deepak Kalpoe is that they got 12 pages of recorded conversation transcripts and also transcripts of interrogation.  But they described it as about 90 percent old material, some of it dating back to 2005.  And they said that there was also some old material in this file that was not in the original file.  They thought it was odd of prosecutors to submit that now.  And they said, prosecutors are using old material and calling it new.  They said about 10 percent of this then was new material, roughly, but they described all of it as not incriminating against any of these suspects, Dan.

ABRAMS:  All right, I want to play a little piece of sound of an interview you just got to do with the lead prosecutor on this case, Hans Mos and here‘s what he told you.



job as well as they can.  And of course we have an understanding in this

than they have.  But I see myself supported by the judge who said there is

now enough evidence that -


ABRAMS:  Michelle, am I right that what the prosecutor is saying is we have enough evidence to hold them, but it doesn‘t sound like he‘s yet saying we have enough evidence to take this case to trial?

KOSINSKI:  Absolutely.  He said exactly that to me when we interviewed him two days ago.  I mean, I asked that specific question, how significant is this?  Because they kept saying it‘s significant and incriminating against all three.  He said all it is - is the confidence they have in this evidence to be a first step in deciding whether or not to charge these suspects or dismiss them.  When I asked, are you confident that this will go to trial?  He said simply, he‘s not ready to say that at this point.  Now, we do know, interestingly, we found out later that not all of the evidence they have necessarily was given to these defense attorneys.  That‘s something that the defense attorneys are not happy about and they‘re sort of wrangling that out in court.  The defense attorneys said that prosecutors filed a sort of injunction to keep them from getting all the information at this time.  So is it possible that the attorneys now don‘t know all of what prosecutors have?  Yes, that is possible.  I mean, there were a couple of other issues that they‘re fighting over right now in court.  Who is going to represent whom?  They need to keep the attorneys separate for each suspect now.  There‘s a lot of that going on.  And also prosecutors said something that was interesting today.  Something they had that they never had before.  They say there is evidence beyond just an assumption that Natalee Holloway is no longer alive.  They had evidence to that effect but wouldn‘t say what it was, Dan.

ABRAMS:  That‘s a very big development.  Michelle, stand by.  We‘ll play more of your interview with the prosecutor.  Call me cynical, but this feels familiar.  These three have been arrested before, accused of inconsistent statements before and released before.  They were the last known people to have seen Natalee and they initially lied about the last time they saw her.  But it‘s hard to believe that now suddenly, the prosecution under the gun to file any charges by the end of the year in a case that has plagued island authorities for two years, that now they found new evidence, not a body, but new evidence that could lead to a conviction.  I don‘t know.  I‘m questioning whether they just don‘t have it yet and whether this is a last-ditch effort to get one or all of them to crack now.  Joining us now, Linda Allison, Natalee Holloway‘s aunt, Rosemarie Arnold, Joran van der Sloot‘s attorney and Chris Lejuez, an attorney in Aruba.  All right.  Chris, I want to start with you on the legal side of this.  Michelle makes a very interesting point and that  is the possibility that the prosecutors have not turned over to the defense all of the evidence they may have.  Is that proper under Aruban law?

CHRIS LEJUEZ, ARUBAN ATTORNEY:  Yes, it is.  It‘s possible that they are deporting all the evidence they have right now.  Because if they find that the—is more important than giving access to the other suspects of this material, they can withhold material, yes.  It‘s possible under Aruban law.  Before they go to trial, however, they have to disclose everything.

ABRAMS:  All right.  So, Rosemary Arnold, it is possible then that your team simply doesn‘t know all the evidence that the prosecution has.


concern us a little bit because we know that Joran didn‘t do anything to

Natalee.  We know that -

ABRAMS:  How do you know?  What do you mean you know? How do you know?

ARNOLD:  We know because we‘ve been there with him.  Joe Tacopina and I have been down there to launch our own investigation.  We spent time with him.

ABRAMS:  So, who did it?

ARNOLD:  We‘re not here to tell you who did it.

ABRAMS:  You just said you know he didn‘t do it.  You know he didn‘t do it and you must know who did.

ARNOLD:  We have no new evidence that he didn‘t do it.  That he‘s not a killer, Joran.  He‘s a sweet boy who unfortunately has an investigation that has been narrowly focused on him from day one, which is why we don‘t know who did it.  Because the prosecutors on this case bungled this investigation from the beginning.  It‘s narrowly focusing, only looking at him.

ABRAMS:  Linda Allison, look, I don‘t know if Joran did it.  I‘ll be quite honestly and some of these cases I feel very strongly one way or the other about whether someone did it.  I am a little suspicious of the prosecution coming forward with this right before they said they‘re either going to drop this case effectively or move forward by the end of the year.  But is the family encouraged by what you‘re hearing?

LINDA ALLISON, NATALEE HOLLOWAY‘S AUNT:  Absolutely.  It has been, of course, guarded optimism about what has been happening with the re-arrest of the three suspects.  But, we have heard from different media sources that the prosecuting attorney has said that they‘ve looked at all the evidence over 3,000 pages that the Dutch authorities have gone through.  And this keeps going back and circling back to the three suspects.

ABRAMS:  Let me play, speaking of the three—this piece is Joran van der Sloot when he was interviewed that a year, a little more than that ago talking about the case.


JORAN VAN DER SLOOT, SUSPECT OF NATALEE HOLLOWAY CASE:  It was Natalee who asked me to go out with her.  It was her that asked me to come to the club.  And it was her that was yelling at me to go dance with her.  Yeah, I kissed with her.  But neither me, Deepak or Satish ever had sex with her.  And no one ever said otherwise.


ABRAMS:  Let me bring back in Michelle Kosinski, who‘s there in Aruba.  Michelle, do we know anything about the type of inconsistent statements that may exist on these cell phone or text messages?

KOSINSKI:  No.  And supposedly, I mean, at least from what defense attorneys said, their interrogation transcripts and recorded conversations.  We don‘t know exactly among whom.  But we did go back to a transcript that we obtained a while ago.  This is a recorded conversation that was done, police say, in a car.  Police got all the suspects into a car together, then walked away, leaving a recording device in there.  And we‘ll show you some of the excerpts that are at least interesting.  We‘re not saying that these are incriminating at all, but at one point, Joran says to the Kalpoe brothers in this car - “Half of what you have said is not the truth.  It will come to the fore.  Just as they check me, they check you, too.”  Will Satish Kalpoe respond, “With us, with us, they can get evidence, but not with you.  And with lies, you don‘t get evidence.”  And then a little later on, Joran says to the brothers, “I will laugh if they find the girl alive.  I know very well that you‘re afraid.  That is, if you did something bad with the girl.  And if they find the girl, then we will see.”  So there‘s just these questions raised.  I mean, why would Joran van der Sloot think that there‘s a possibility that Natalee Holloway could be found alive, if as prosecutors say, he‘s accused or suspected of inadvertently or you know, unintentionally causing her death and why would he not know then what Satish Kalpoe or Deepak Kalpoe allegedly quote, “Did with the girl,” if they‘re all suspected equally?

ABRAMS:  That‘s a totally legitimate question.  I want to go back to Chris Lejuez on this.  Chris, I mean, for the judge down there to say, I‘m going to hold them for another eight days, and the prosecutor to say, we have new evidence, et cetera, how much do you need?  I mean, how much do you need legally for a judge to have ruled tonight that we‘re going to hold them for another up to eight days?

LEJUEZ:  Not very much.  You need a little new evidence, a little more than you had before.  That would be good enough, as long as you can show the judge that you have more than you had, although it‘s not enough to go to trial.  A little evidence will do to keep them a long time behind bars for the time being.

ABRAMS:  I‘ve got to say, Rosemarie that Joran van der Sloot has suspected that any conversations he has with Satish Kalpoe or Deepak Kalpoe can be recorded, I mean, even in the years since then.

ARNOLD:  But even in the case from what you just played, that was a situation where the cops basically told them - to Joran, the Kalpoe brothers said you did it and they told the Kalpoe brothers say that Joran said you did it and they stuck them in the car and they take what they said.  Even then you don‘t have any confession.  You have them saying, we don‘t know what happened to her.  It‘s clear if your listening on that tape.  They have no idea what happened to Natalee, even in that situation.

ABRAMS:  Let me play one more piece of sound form Hans Mos, the prosecutor at the news conference today.


MOS:  The new evidence is evidence that was gained or produced by all sorts of sources which I‘m not going to elaborate on after they were released in 2005.


ABRAMS:  Linda Allison, look, I‘m very much hoping that the prosecutor here is not providing false hope for the family on this.  Has he been able to assure anyone in the family, as far as you know of, this is new, this is big, this is not just a situation again where they‘re going to coming in and be released again?

ALLISON:  Well, the prosecutor attorney has not had any contact.  We have actually, our communication comes through the FBI liaison.  So the FBI contacted my brother and read the statement the prosecutor attorney had presented that was submitted for a press release.  So, we actually have not had any communication.  It‘s strictly been with communication with the attorneys in Aruba.  And we just have to go based on what he has been telling in the media.  And you know, we can speculate all day long about different scenarios, but we really don‘t know.

ABRAMS:  Fair enough.  I think we should probably end it on that note because I think you‘re right.  Linda Allison, Rosemarie Arnold, Chris Lejuez and Michelle Kosinski, thanks a lot.  Appreciate it.

Coming up: More bad news for suspect Drew Peterson.  Now, a possible motive for his wife‘s disappearance.  A showdown between Peterson and a man, Stacy was exchanging racy text messages with.  Drew Peterson‘s ex-fianc’e also joins us live.  She says he abused her, too.

Plus: What could be good news for the American college student held in connection with a roommate‘s murder in Italy.  Another suspect‘s DNA linked to the victim and he is saying, Amanda Knox wasn‘t even there.  That‘s coming up next.

Later: A beauty contestant is sabotaged.  We‘ll cover that.  Coming up.


ABRAMS:  Did you know the University of Washington has more than 31,000 undergraduate students?  Coming up, what could be good news for that University of Washington student now being held in connection with her roommate‘s murder in Italy.  Another suspect‘s DNA reportedly linked to the victim.  Coming up.


ABRAMS:  We‘re back with what could be good news for American college student Amanda Knox.  She remains in an Italian jail tonight in connection with the brutal sexual assault and murder of her roommate Meredith Kercher.  There‘s a new suspect who has been linked to the crime scene by DNA evidence.  Rudy Hermann Guede, who apparently had sex with Kercher the night she was murdered.  He is not denying that, but according to his lawyer, he didn‘t kill her and claims an Italian man killed Kercher while he was in the bathroom and was even cut on the palm of the hand by the assailant before the he fled.  The most important for Amanda Knox, according to a British newspaper report, Guede says she was not in the time of the apartment at the time of the murder.  Additional DNA evidence that was also reportedly found at the scene belonging to an unknown man, unknown woman, even more good news it seems for Knox.  Now, she‘s still allegedly been making all sorts of contradictory statements about that night.  But it makes you wonder, if they still have enough evidence to hold her.  Here now is former FBI profiler and MSNBC analyst, Clint van Zandt and former prosecutor, Remi Spencer.  All right.  Clint, what do you make of these new developments?  This seems to be all good news for Amanda Knox.

CLINT VAN ZANDT, FMR FBI PROFILER:  Well, you know, I question Amanda Knox, Dan.  She‘s either a functional pothead or a sociopath in training right now.  And you know, she may be a little bit of both.  She‘s told three different versions.  She‘s implicated at least two different people.  And now the prime suspect, a guy who she knows, the guy who indicates he had sex with the victim, he‘s giving her a cover story and she may be giving him a cover story.  This is just too cute right now.  Somebody‘s dead, and I think Amanda is still the key to this.

ABRAMS:  But again, his DNA, right, is found.  And it seems it is pretty clear he had sex with her.  He‘s saying—which is weird, he‘s saying an Italian guy.  Right?  How does he know like where the guy was from?

VAN ZANDT:  How does he know and he also says he writes the initials, she whispered, realize this woman had her throat cut, Dan, then in her dying gulps, she whispers not a name but two initials.  And then this guy takes the blood and writes it on a wall and supposedly the police don‘t find anything written on a wall.  You know, that sounds like some cheap dime novel instead of reality.

REMI SPENCER, FMR. PROSECUTOR:  I agree with Clint.  If her dying declaration is supposed to point a finger at who murdered her?  Why wouldn‘t she say a full name?  Why would she give initials?  I think there‘s a lot of trouble with this story.

ABRAMS:  So, wait.  So this guy, right—this DNA evidence linking this guy, this guy, this new suspect Guede, right?  And he‘s saying she wasn‘t there.  Is there some idea that they‘re in like cahoots together?  That he wants to take the heat on this?

SPENCER;  Well, that‘s certainly a good place to start.

ABRAMS:  Really?

SPENCER:  We have to look at this in its entirety.  We can‘t take it in isolation.  Why would he put himself there?  Because there‘s DNA evidence.

ABRAMS:  Right, we know why—yes.

SPENCER:  Why would he say that somebody came in the room and left, he got cut?  It‘s like a bad B movie.

ABRAMS:  Right, there is no question.  This is like and not since Robert Blake supposedly left his gun at the restaurant have I heard something like going to the bathroom and you get killed while he‘s in the bathroom.  And then the guy‘s coming running out.  I mean, this is all incredible but again, why, Clint, do you believe that he would be making up a story that says Amanda Knox wasn‘t there?

VAN ZANDT:  Well, a couple of things.  Number one he and Amanda supposedly know each other.  So there‘s some type of ongoing relationship.  Number two, Dan, the believed murder weapon that was found in Amanda‘s boyfriend‘s apartment had Amanda‘s DNA on it and the victim‘s DNA on it.  So you know, you‘ve got the murder victim, you‘ve got Amanda.  And realize, Amanda was the person who said she was there, heard the victim screaming for her life.  And Amanda put her hands over her ears so she wouldn‘t - I mean, she was either in a purple haze or she‘s lying.

ABRAMS:  That‘s one of the statements she‘s given.  Now we‘re getting a new from another newspaper in Europe talking about Amanda‘s other accounts where she says, “I know I didn‘t Meredith.  I see Patrick,” a guy who was actually released in this, “In flashes as the murderer, but I can‘t verify the truth the way it appears in my mind because I don‘t remember with certainty if I was there.”  Then she goes on, “I was told I would be put in jail for 30 years.  When I didn‘t remember thing, I was hit in the head.”  This is what you know, when she starts making allegations that she‘s not remembering things and so they‘re abusing her and sort of forcing these confessions out of her, that‘s when I start to get a little suspicious.

SPENCER:  I thing you‘re right.  We should be suspicious. She‘s telling us different stories.  The authorities went out and arrested Patrick because she said this bar owner has something to do with the murder.  But now, she‘s saying she doesn‘t really remember.  She was smoking marijuana that night.  There are inconsistencies.

ABRAMS:  So, bottom line, Clint, even though someone else‘s DNA is there, someone else who has sex with Meredith that night, someone else is saying Amanda Knox wasn‘t there, she‘s still going to stay behind bars?

VAN ZANDT:  I would keep her behind bars because I think she‘s the key.  I think she‘s the one who knows who was there, knows what happened and she knows what part she played in it and she hasn‘t given us the truth on that, Dan.

ABRAMS:  You agree with that?

SPENCER:  I do agree.  The more she knows, the more leverage she has in her own case.

ABRAMS:  Now, look, I think this is big development here—big, big development.  We‘ll stay on it.  Clint, Remi thanks a lot.  Appreciate it.

Coming up: Suspect Drew Peterson‘s attorney is saying that his wife, Stacy is still alive and that now he has a letter to help prove it from someone who spotted her in a supermarket.  He said she was with a guy and looked pregnant.  I don‘t buy it.  And I will tell that to Drew Peterson‘s lawyer who is with us and ask him about what could be a new motive for her murder.

Plus: A Republican presidential candidate goes on the attack against FOX News saying they‘re biased.  No, not against Republicans.  No one would be that bold or ridiculous.  Just against him.  That‘s coming up next in Beat the Press.


ABRAMS:  It‘s time for tonight‘s Beat the Press.  First up: Over at FOX News, they like to create debates where there is none.  Like take this tough question from John Gibson about a beauty queen whose clothing and makeup were covered in pepper spray.


JOHN GIBSON, HOST:  The question here is this beauty queen was sabotaged.  Isn‘t pepper spray in the makeup over the line?


ABRAMS:  Wow!  They even put up the graphic.  Can we put that back up?  Tough question.  No, I think pepper spray in her makeup is not over the line.  Does anyone in the graphics department just say, huh?  Did he really have to write that inane question?  I promise I won‘t ask the same stupid question when we talk about the issue later in the show.

Next up:  We all know that FOX isn‘t fair or balanced in their coverage.  But sometimes, it‘s tough to know which Republican candidate they‘re rooting for.  Recently there have been allegations of favoritism towards Rudy Giuliani.  Now, Republican candidate, Fred Thompson is joining in the fray saying they just aren‘t fair.



matter of FOX, to tell you the truth -

CHRIS WALLACE, HOST:  I don‘t say that FOX has been going after I

certainly don‘t (INAUDIBLE) for both hammer and said burns. -

THOMPSON:  From day one, they said I got in too late, I couldn‘t do it.  But for you to highlight nothing but the negative in terms of these polls and then put on your own guys who have been predicting for four months, really, that I couldn‘t do it.  You know, kind of skews things a little bit.


ABRAMS:  Yes.  Someone else is saying that maybe they really do just want Rudy to win over there.

Finally: We try to be sensitive when we know kids are watching so we don‘t shatter their dreams or illusions.  You would think when a child is on the set, FOX would be particularly careful.  I guess not.  Here is Martha MacCallum interviewing Windy Irwin, the daughter of Crocodile hunter, Steve Irwin along with her mom, Terry.


MARTHA MACCALLUM, HOST:  I read the other day that you turned down an opportunity and I‘m sure you get a million opportunities are coming your way but to be in a Hollywood movie.  How come that‘s not for you, at least not right now?

TERRY IRWIN:  Windy doesn‘t know about that.


ABRAMS:  Oops.  Tough way to find out your mom is holding back possible Hollywood movie offers.

We need your help Beating the Press.  If you see anything right, wrong, amusing or absurd, go to our Web site,, leave us a tip in the box.  Please include the show and the time you saw the item.

Up next: Suspect Drew Peterson‘s attorney now saying that wife Stacy is still alive and that they now have a letter to help prove she was spotted in a supermarket.  I don‘t buy it.  Now, I‘ll tell that to Drew Peterson‘s lawyer who was with us and ask him about what could be a new motive for his client to have murdered her.

And a Philadelphia store clerk survives an attack by an armed robber. 

That‘s in tonight‘s Winners and Losers.



ABRAMS:  Coming up, a Philadelphia store clerk is stabbed by an armed invader.  A college football player is attacked by a police dog during the game.  And someone doused Miss Puerto Rico‘s evening gown and makeup with pepper spray.  That‘s all coming up in tonight‘s “Winners and Losers”. 

But first, new details tonight in the case of missing mom Stacy Peterson.  The 23-year-old mother of two disappeared 29 days ago today.  The FBI joined the search, putting the heat on her husband, former cop Drew Peterson.  In a moment I‘ll talk to Peterson‘s ex-fiancee, Kyle Piry, who says that Peterson stalked her, even arrested her after Piry broke off their engagement.  Also, Peterson‘s attorney, Joel Brodsky, is here. 

Joel, I‘ll have tough questions for you about these developments, including that Peterson is now saying he received an anonymous letter from someone claiming to have seen Stacy alive, miles from home two weeks ago.  I‘m totally unconvinced that it is legit. 

But more important to me, another man who now says he exchanged, quote, “perverted and flirty” text messages and e-mails with Stacy, is now saying a jealous Drew Peterson confronted him and Stacy days before she disappeared.  Plus, more bad news for Peterson and it comes in the shape of a mysterious large blue barrel reportedly missing from Peterson‘s garage. 

Mary Francis Bragiel, a reporter with WBBM radio, joins us again. 

Mary, thanks for joining us.  What do we know about this barrel? 

MARY FRANCIS BRAGIEL, REPORTER, WBBM:  Well, this barrel story has been out there since this investigation began about three weeks ago, and the “Chicago Sun-Times” just went with it recently.  But my sources tell me that they‘ve always believed since this all began, since the search warrants were executed at his home that she‘s in some sort of a blue barrel and that he is a certified diver and these weights that were supposedly in his home were not in his home when they searched it. 

Now, the “Sun-Times” went with the story that a neighbor allegedly saw Drew Peterson the day that Stacy disappeared, walking out of the house with some sort of blue barrel.  But I‘ve been told, over and over again, that that‘s why they continue to concentrate their efforts on the water using sonar equipment, because they really do, in fact, believe that she is in this barrel.  But of course, Illinois state police investigators will not confirm if in fact the neighbor did see him walking out with this barrel.  

ABRAMS:  I want to ask you about this other man, Scott Rossetto, a friend of Stacy Peterson, says he was not having any sort of sexual relationship with her, but said about some of the messages they would send to each other.  Some of the messages were quite perverted and flirty in nature, but they were all meant in fun.  He‘s now also describing a confrontation or exchange that they had with Drew Peterson in a Denny‘s restaurant. 

BRAGIEL:  That‘s right.  He talked about that.  Apparently, Stacy got hold of him through e-mail about two months before she disappeared, and they exchanged like he said, but he claims he never had any type of romance with her.  In fact, he says it was his brother who dated her a couple years ago. 

But they met up anyway, at that local restaurant.  And she had told Drew before she left that she would meet him at this restaurant.  And he came by in his uniform and spent some time there, about 15 to 20 minutes, basically just staring at him the whole time that they had a conversation.  She disappears. 

He appeared before a grand jury last week.  And he told us that basically, they asked him what her demeanor was like beforehand.  They asked him about the racy e-mails.  They asked him if there was an affair going on.  He said, not at all, that they were simply just friends.  

ABRAMS:  All right.  Mary, thanks a lot.  I appreciate it.  Joining me now is Joel Brodsky, Drew Peterson‘s attorney.  Thanks a lot for coming back on the show, Joel.  I really appreciate it.  We‘ve got a lot of issues to talk about here, a lot of news in this case over the weekend. 

First, let‘s talk about this barrel that we just heard about.  Do you know anything about this?  Neighbors saying there was a barrel, one neighbor saying that they saw Peterson and some other guy moving a blue barrel around the time that Stacy might have gone missing? 

JOEL BRODSKY, DREW PETERSON‘S ATTORNEY:  You know, I put absolutely no credence, no credibility in that statement.  To say that there was a neighbor that saw something, when the media has been camped out in front of Drew‘s house now for four weeks, that that neighbor - and they‘ve been interviewing his neighbors.  Probably, every neighbor has been interviewed.

ABRAMS:  But wait a second.  But, Joel, this was hours after - this is an allegation that this witness saw this hours after she went missing.  The media wasn‘t there hours after she went missing.  

BRODSKY:  No, but the witness should have come forward by now.  Four weeks and we still don‘t have a name or identity to this witness.  And the whole blue barrel thing is crazy because what they‘re saying is it was chlorine for his pool.  He has a very small, I think, three-foot deep above-the-ground pool in the backyard.  You don‘t need, you know, a huge barrel of chlorine for such a small pool.  A few quarts will do for the whole season.

To think that - what, is he storing 20 years worth of chlorine in the garage?  That just begs credulity.  It‘s ridiculous.  I really give that no credence whatsoever. 

ABRAMS:  Look, I don‘t know what to make of the barrel.  I do know that I have a strong opinion about this letter that you believe somehow suggests at least that she may be alive.  And you say that - tell me about this letter.  It‘s unsigned.  It‘s anonymous.  And you‘re not willing to show it publicly, right? 

BRODSKY:  Well, if the Illinois State Police tell me it‘s OK to show it publicly, I will.  I believe, because of some attachments that came with the letter, that the letter is traceable.  I believe that the state police should be able to locate the author. 

But what struck me about the letter when I first saw it on Thanksgiving Day, was its detail.  It gave - not only said the time of day, but it also said the location in a store, actually the department of the store she was standing in, and the location in the aisle. 

It described her clothes, pants, shirt, jacket, described them physically saying she had a small belly.  It talked about the man that was with her.  It gave a physical description of this man.  

ABRAMS:  Mr. Brodsky, you know - you‘re a good lawyer.  You know that in these cases, whack jobs come out of the woodwork all the time.  I can tell you, having covered so many of these cases, the number of people who came out and claimed that they had seen, be it O.J. Simpson, be it Jonbenet Ramsey, be it Elvis at various times and places and they swear to it.  The fact that you have one anonymous letter from someone who is claiming, oh, it was definitely Stacy and he or she won‘t even sign it.  You won‘t show it publicly, this to me sounds like a bunch of nonsense.  

BRODSKY:  Well, like I said, I have the letter.  I‘d be more than happy to expose it once the State Police have told me that they‘re no longer worried about tracing the person.  

ABRAMS:  But the State Police think that your client is the suspect here, right? 

BRODSKY:  Well, they declare him to be a suspect.  But also, when you have a letter that is this detailed and you know it‘s in a grocery store, and everybody in the world knows that grocery stores have security cameras, it seems to me that this is something that‘s so detailed that they should be checking it out to see if we can get a video capture of Stacy. 

It would really be - everybody would be -

ABRAMS:  If I were the police, I‘d say, you‘ve got to give me more than just some anonymous letter before I‘m going to start researching every grocery store to figure out if they‘ve got some sort of surveillance photos.  

BRODSKY:  It was the detail that impressed me.  That‘s all.

ABRAMS:  The details of whoever it might be.  Let me ask you about this other guy, though.  This Scott Rossetto, who is saying that Drew Peterson confronted he and Stacy some days before she went missing, and that he admits that they were exchanging some flirty e-mails, et cetera.  Boy, that could be a motive for murder, couldn‘t it? 

BRODSKY:  Well, what strikes me about Scott Rossetto is that he‘s been caught in a lie.  I mean, initially, he said that there was nothing between him and Stacy, everything was just friends.  And then when the police subpoenaed his text messages, all of the sudden he changes his story and says, well, we‘re - perverted text messages.  So I think that catching Scott in a lie like that should shed some suspicion his way.  Why was he lying about the nature of his relationship?

ABRAMS:  Suspicion his way, meaning that he may be a suspect here? 

BRODSKY:  Well, they know maybe they‘re not going to say he‘s a suspect because they don‘t want to - police don‘t want to admit to too many suspects.  But you‘ve caught him in a lie, and you‘ve caught him in a lie about the nature of his relationship with Stacy.  

ABRAMS:  But compared to the amount of stuff that they‘ve captured your client in, with all the ridiculous comments he‘s made about his past wives, and the fact that now his third wife, it turns out, was likely to be a murder case.  And you got his fiancee who‘s going to be on the show in a moment who is telling us how he stalked her and how he arrested her.  I mean, I can go on and on and on about your client.  

BRODSKY:  Right, but have they caught him in a lie? 

ABRAMS:  What do you mean have they caught him in a lie?  

BRODSKY:  I mean, have they said something - well, you said this,

but it is not true?  I mean, maybe his (inaudible) comments -


ABRAMS:  To me, his comments are even worse than lies, the comments that he‘s been making about his ex-wives, et cetera.  But look, let me ask you to stand by, Joel.  Just stay with us for a minute.

BRODSKY:  Certainly.  

ABRAMS:  Up next, three of Drew Peterson‘s wives say he threatened them.  Now, his ex-fiancee says the same thing, that he stalked her, even arrested her after she broke off their engagement.  She joins us next, live. 

And later, a beauty queen‘s evening down and makeup is doused with pepper spray.  She suffers through hives and rashes and still wins.  She‘s heading to the Miss Universe Pageant.  But first, we hear from her in tonight‘s “Winners and Losers.”


ABRAMS:  Did you know the odds of having one wife drown and another go missing are something like 1 in 1.8 billion?  Coming up, Drew Peterson seems to be that guy.  And coming up next, another woman who was engaged to Peterson who said he stalked and harassed her.  She‘s here live to tell her story.


ABRAMS:  More now on former cop Drew Peterson.  His wife Stacy still missing a month after she disappeared.  And now we know that four of five women Peterson was engaged or married to are all either dead, missing or now describing how he stalked or abused them.  Drew Peterson‘s former fiancee, Kyle Piry, joins us now.  Kyle, thank you very much for joining us.  We appreciate it.


ABRAMS:  You were engaged to be married to Drew back in the early ‘80s.  Why did you call off the wedding? 

PIRY:  Well, we were only engaged for about four months and the relationship was only about an eight-month relationship.  But there were too many little instances and signs that just didn‘t sit right with me.  

ABRAMS:  Like what? 

PIRY:  He was very controlling, didn‘t want me to go out with my friends.  You know, if he had his kids for the weekend, he expected that I stay, you know, with him for the weekend to take care of the kids, and that sort of thing.  

ABRAMS:  You started to get signs that said, this is probably not the guy for me? 

PIRY:  Right.  And there were little things where I would be with my mom doing something and he would say he knew I was doing that when there was no reason he would know, unless he was following me or watching me.  

ABRAMS:  So then you call off the engagement, and things get a little worse? 

PIRY:  Yes.  After I had called off the engagement, about a week later, I had gone to his house to get some things that I had left.  That resulted in an argument on his part, calling me names, saying things. 

He pushed me over a cocktail table and pinned me to the ground, sort of like a police hold, as I would call it, which I had never been treated like that.  So at 20 years old, it was very upsetting.  I did call the police department. 

They sent over a police officer, which happened to be one of his friends, and, you know, told me not to press charges.  He was probably upset, that sort of thing. 

ABRAMS:  And he later even arrested you, right?  Police Officer Peterson comes and arrests his ex-fiancee? 

PIRY:  Right.  That was about a year and a half, probably after we had broken up.  

ABRAMS:  And what sort of charges? 

PIRY:  He had said there was parking tickets that I didn‘t pay.  And there was parking tickets, but I had never received them, so they were either bogus tickets that he wrote or bogus tickets that he had other officers write.  

ABRAMS:  And in that period, you also believe he was stalking you, right? 

PIRY:  Oh yes, definitely.  The first three months after we broke up, he was stalking me, because he would pull me over on my way home at night.  After being out, he would pull me over.  One time he gave me a ticket for having bald tires, just ridiculous things.  

ABRAMS:  And you - did you say - you would say to him what, “Come on. 

This is personal.”

PIRY:  Well, I mean - Yes, as soon as he‘d come up to the car, he‘d be smiling.  He thought it was a game.  I mean, he had pleasure in it and it was some sort of game to him.  

ABRAMS:  And so you only had one physical altercation with him? 

PIRY:  Yes.  

ABRAMS:  Do you think he‘s capable of this - of the murder of his wife? 

PIRY:  You know, if you had asked me that 26 years ago, I would have had to say no.  Under the circumstances with all the things that have been in the news, I can‘t help but feel that - you know, just too many different things going on.  

ABRAMS:  And his lawyer or some people might say, well, why come forward now?  Why come forward? 

PIRY:  The only reason I even came forward with this story is I want - I think it‘s really important that I didn‘t get trapped in this.  And I think it‘s really important that when you feel there‘s little things wrong, it doesn‘t always have to be big flashing red lights.  Little things add up.  And that women need to listen to that when their gut tells them.  

ABRAMS:  Kyle Piry, thank you very much for taking the time.  We appreciate it.  

PIRY:  Sure.  

ABRAMS:  Let‘s check back in with Drew Peterson‘s attorney, Joel

Brodsky.  So Joel, look, it‘s not Kyle in a vacuum here.  I mean, it‘s Kyle

It‘s the third wife‘s family saying that he was threatening them.  It‘s the fourth wife Stacy‘s friends saying he was threatening her.  It‘s the second wife now coming forward.  It‘s kind of a bad pattern here for your client, isn‘t there? 

BRODSKY:  I mean, she comes forward - Kyle‘s coming forward now so

that young women will listen to their guts and won‘t date somebody.  So

that 25 years later if that person turns out to be a -


ABRAMS:  Before, she would have been a private citizen, she would say what?  Now there is a platform in the sense that this guy is going public. 

This guy is involved in a high profile investigation, and so she‘s now

coming forward and saying, look, I can now make a difference.  That‘s

something to be -


BRODSKY:  I don‘t think she really makes - I really don‘t think she makes a difference.  I mean, this statement as far as Kathy and Stacy is - we call it irrelevant, immaterial and incompetent.  It is of no evidentiary value or whatsoever.

ABRAMS:  The fact that he‘s stalking her and then arresting her and then throwing her over a cocktail table?  I‘m not saying that it means murder, but it‘s not good.  

BRODSKY:  No, but this happened 25 years ago.  There is - forget about the vagaries of memory over a quarter century ago.  And I don‘t think that I can remember many things that happened a quarter of a century ago.

ABRAMS:  You got thrown over a cocktail table, you wouldn‘t remember it? 

BRODSKY:  Probably not.  

ABRAMS:  Come on.  Come on.

BRODSKY:  No, seriously.  Let me make this point.  There‘s not one

document to back her up.  She didn‘t get an order of protection.  There was

never a police report made.  There was never a charge brought.  Nothing -

ABRAMS:  Blame the victim.  Right.

BRODSKY:  There‘s not one document to back any of these things up. 

ABRAMS:  All right.  We‘ll wrap up -

BRODSKY:  We‘re asked to take her at her word from 25 years ago.

ABRAMS:  Well, it just seems very consistent with everything else we‘re hearing about him. 

BRODSKY:  Can I just say one thing? 

ABRAMS:  Quickly.  

BRODSKY:  Yes, I understand.  All we‘re hearing, really, are the bad things about Drew Peterson.  After 29 years on the police force, there are a lot of good things that really haven‘t come out because other than to try to stop him from talking, the only people that are talking are those that really have bad things to say about him.  That may change soon.

ABRAMS:  Good people do bad things.  But I will let you - of course, invite you back on the program.  And next time, I‘ll give you more time to talk about what you say are the good things.  

BRODSKY:  All right.  Thank you very much.  I appreciate it.

ABRAMS:  Joel, thanks a lot.  I appreciate it.

Up next, in “Winners and Losers,” a store clerk stabbed as he tries to fight off an armed robber.  The voice of the London subway fired for mocking her own announcements.  And the Miss Universe beauty contest sabotaged with pepper spray in her makeup. 

A heroic clerk who‘s hit and fights back; a subway voice that is a hit gets sacked; and a beauty queen hit with mace still beats the pack.  Which will be tonight‘s big winner or loser?


ABRAMS:  It‘s time for tonight‘s “Winners and Losers” for this 26th day of November 2007.  Our first winner, a Philadelphia store clerk who survived an attack by an armed invader.  The camouflaged crook lunged at Steven Kratzsch during a robbery. 

The courageous clerk tried overpowering the knife-brandishing burglar with a metal pipe.  He was brought to the hospital after being stabbed in the chest.  He remains hospitalized tonight, but it is expected he will recover.  The crook escaped through a parking lot.

Our first loser?  Mississippi Senator Trent Lott, whose constituents may feel like they were stabbed in the back.  Just a year after sending him back to Washington for a fourth term, the senator announced today he‘s stepping down by the end of the year. 


SEN. TRENT LOTT ®, MISSISSIPPI:  There are no problems.  I feel fine.  I may look my 66 years, but I honestly feel good.


ABRAMS:  Lott is skipping town just in time to beat a new law requiring ex-senators to wait two years before landing a lucrative lobbying job.

Our second loser, Auburn University Jerraud Powers.  In the fourth quarter of the Tigers game against Alabama this weekend, Powers helped break up a potential touchdown in the back of the end zone.  Then - out of nowhere, he was attacked by a police dog.  


UNIDENTIFIED MALE SPORTSCASTER:  Maybe this is an Alabama dog.  Maybe it‘s a crimson tide dog.  Who knows? 


ABRAMS:  Powers said he felt something tugging on his hand, but stayed in the game despite the piercing pain. 

Our second winner?  A South Carolina farmer who braved an almost unbearable amount of pain when some farm equipment nearly tugged off his hand.  Samson Parker‘s arm got caught inside his corn shucker.  Then, the machine caught fire, engulfing him in flames leaving him with only one choice, he decided he had to cut off his own arm with a pocket knife.  


SAMSON PARKER, SOUTH CAROLINA FARMER:  This is a John Deere pocket knife that I had.  I was actually cutting away my fingers that was up in there.  I‘m thankful to be alive and to be here, and doing interviews and stuff. 


ABRAMS:  But the big loser of the day?  London subway announcer Emma

Clark.  The famed voice behind the so-called tube‘s always helpful

announcements -


EMMA CLARK, LONDON SUBWAY ANNOUNCER:  Please mind the gap between the train and the platform.  

ABRAMS (voice over):  She‘s been sacked by subway officials for making a mockery of her own messages.  

CLARK:  Would the passenger in the red shirt pretending to read a paper but is actually staring at that woman‘s chest please stop.  You‘re not fooling anyone, you filthy pervert. 

ABRAMS:  And her long-held territory as queen of the underground, losing her crown as the woman who announces all the stops. 

The big winner of the day?  Puerto Rican beauty queen Ingrid Marie Rivera.  Someone pulled out all the stops to try to get her out.  The territory queen swelled up and broke out in hives, Friday, after her evening gown and makeup were doused with pepper spray during the Miss Puerto Rico pageant. 

But she didn‘t crumble.  She went back on stage, won the crown, and then rushed backstage to apply ice bags to her face and body before coming out to collect the crown. 

INGRID MARIE RIVERA (translation from Spanish):  I wasn‘t sorry, it was a sacrifice ... and those moments of tears were genuine.  It was exactly what I felt that moment.

ABRAMS:  Beauty pageant officials now say that they‘re going to investigate and figure out who was behind the sabotage. 

Joining us now is former Miss Nevada 2007, Katie Rees.  She had a brush with her own pageant‘s scandal when she was dethroned last year following the release of some salacious pictures.  Katie, thanks very much for coming on.  All right.  So things get bad behind the scenes, I would assume.  Did you ever hear of anything like this? 

KATIE REES, FORMER MISS NEVADA 2007:  No, this is absolutely absurd.  I‘ve never had any kind of brush with anything like this.  This is putting someone‘s life at stake.  That‘s awful.  Nothing‘s worth that.  

ABRAMS:  How bad does it get behind the scenes at these pageants? 

Tell us some of the stuff you‘ve seen happen or happened to you? 

REES:  Mostly just petty jealousy or, you know, girls being mean, but most of the time, you make friends more than you make enemies.  Everybody tries to help each other out because it is not just about the contest or winning a beauty pageant, it is about putting on a show for everybody and a production number.  You want to come together.  

ABRAMS:  But what about anything like - and I would assume this sort of minor stuff, I‘ve heard about dress slashing, for example?  

REES:  Yes.  I think there was a story on that a couple years ago where girls, you know, maybe taking things that aren‘t theirs or hiding something.  But that‘s just silly.  You know, I don‘t think it will stop anybody from a title if they want it bad enough.

ABRAMS:  Katie, do you think it was a fellow contestant who did it? 

It must have been, right? 

REES:  I would think so.  But, you know, unless you‘re investigating

the situation, you could never tell, because there‘s so many people

backstage all at once.  So -

ABRAMS:  I guess the conspiracy theorists are also saying it could be some sort of effort to get attention by someone for the beauty pageant.  Anyway, who knows?  Katie Rees, thanks a lot for coming on the program.  I appreciate it.  

REES:  Thank you.  

ABRAMS:  That‘s all the time we have for tonight.  Stay tuned for another episode of “LOCK UP EXTENDED STAY.”  I‘ll see you tomorrow.



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.