Guest: Craig Silverman, Lisa Wayne, Candice Delong, Kim Gandy, Mark Hatfield, Rhonda Gaynier
DAN ABRAMS, HOST: Coming up, they have been living under a cloud of suspicion since their daughter was murdered eight years ago, now the evidence that could prove John and Patsy Ramsey’s innocence.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
ABRAMS (voice-over): JonBenet Ramsey’s murder remains unsolved. Early on police focused their investigation on her parents, but now a new report that suggests DNA found at the crime scene and an attack on another girl could exonerate them once and for all.
And in Missouri, a woman killed. Her eight-month fetus cut out of her womb. An Amber Alert issued. Late today the baby was found alive.
Plus, if you are traveling this holiday season, you might get more than just long lines at the airport. Some women now saying the pat downs are just going too far. But isn’t that just an unfortunate price for tougher security?
The program about justice starts now.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
ABRAMS: Hi everyone. First up on the docket, John and Patsy Ramsey who have from day one insisted they are innocent of any involvement in the murder or abuse of their daughter JonBenet eight years ago.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
PATSY RAMSEY, MOTHER OF JONBENET: I did not kill JonBenet. I did not have anything to do with it. I loved that child with my—whole of my heart and soul.
JOHN RAMSEY, FATHER OF JONBENET: I did not kill my daughter JonBenet. There have also been innuendos that she has been or was sexual molested. I can tell you those were the most hurtful innuendos to us as a family. They are totally false.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
ABRAMS: Now a CBS News “48 Hours” report, they say new evidence that could lead to a break in the case and even possibly lead to a new suspect in the murder. The air shows tomorrow night at 10:00 Eastern and you are about to hear from a man identified only as Amy’s father, talking about something that happened to his daughter has eerie parallels with what happened to JonBenet.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE (voice-over): This is Amy’s father.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: My feeling is he was—he got into the house while they were out and hid inside the house.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: What happened next is a parent’s worst nightmare. Around midnight, Amy woke up to find man standing over her bed, his hand over her mouth.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: My wife heard whispering. She got up, asked if everything was OK.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Startled, the intruder brushed past the mother and quickly made his escape.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: He was like a ghost that couldn’t figure out where he came from or where he went.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Private investigator Pete Peterson working on the case of the 12-year-old girl says there are simply too many parallels to ignore between her case and the murder of JonBenet Ramsey.
(on camera): Do you believe that the killer of JonBenet Ramsey might have had something to do with Amy’s assault as well?
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: We think there’s a decent likelihood.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: The first thing that occurred to us was the parallel with the Ramsey case because it was exactly the same situation.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
ABRAMS: “My Take”—I have to tell you I have always said this is a tough case and for years I didn’t know what to make of it, but everything I have seen in the last two years seemed to support the Ramseys’ position that they were not involved.
Erin Moriarty is the “48 Hours” correspondent who filed Saturday’s report and she joins us. Craig Silverman is a former Denver chief D.A. and a radio talk show host. And Lisa Wayne is a Denver criminal defense attorney who’s been following the Ramsey case since the beginning.
All right, Erin this issue has always fascinated me about this other girl who was assaulted and we didn’t even, I don’t think, lay it out well enough. This is Boulder, Colorado. This is seven months I believe...
ERIN MORIARTY, “48 HOURS”: Nine months...
ABRAMS: ... nine months—all right—nine months after JonBenet Ramsey in the same sort of thing. Meaning, hiding, waiting in the home, et cetera, right? I mean the parallels are somewhat amazing.
MORIARTY: And not only that—this little girl took dance lessons with JonBenet. The intruder did hide out in the house. If you recall with the JonBenet Ramsey case, the police say nobody would just sit in the home. This man did because her mother and she had gone to a movie. They came home. They put the burglar alarm around 11:00. It was around 3:00 in the morning that the mother woke up and heard noise in the child’s room.
She gets up—he had been in there for hours. Here’s what’s also very frightening. I mean he sexually molested her in a way that was very similar to what happened to JonBenet. He called her by name. Now, there was a plaque in the room, some little girls do, with her name on it, but the room was very dark. So they are concerned that this particular individual who is around 30 years of age, actually targeted this little girl, and he was not there to rob them.
ABRAMS: Yes.
MORIARTY: Nothing was taken from the home.
ABRAMS: And you know Erin, you may know this as well, but I remember when we first found out about this detail, the prosecutors didn’t know about this detail. Meaning, they had not been informed about this other case that was so similar seemingly to JonBenet’s.
MORIARTY: Dan, there has not been sharing of a lot of material. Even today, you know, the boot print in the basement, there’s some talk about whether this one individual who could have been murdered, whether his boot matched it. Do you realize that the Boulder police are no longer even handling this case, and none of that evidence has been passed over to the Boulder district attorney who is handling the case. You know...
ABRAMS: Yes.
MORIARTY: ... this just has not been handled well.
ABRAMS: And I should say that the Boulder D.A. has been releasing statements as of late, which suggest that they are looking elsewhere. They have not said. They wouldn’t give us any comment officially, but they are certainty indicating they are looking elsewhere in this case. Let me play this piece of sound for you. This is from Lin Wood, the attorney for the Ramseys, from last year—a year ago around this time. And I think that your reporting backs up some of what Lin Wood said a year ago. Let’s listen.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
LIN WOOD, RAMSEY FAMILY ATTORNEY: Two spots of blood were found on her underwear. One was tested in 1997. And DNA was found intermingled in her blood that was male DNA, not Ramsey. And then two years later the second spot was tested and again, consistent male DNA was found intermingled in her blood, not Ramsey’s DNA.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
ABRAMS: That was one year ago. That was one year ago Lin Wood—
Erin, it sounds like some of your reporting backs that up.
MORIARTY: Well and I think probably Craig would even agree with me on this that it’s really important not only was the DNA found in that blood, but it’s not found anywhere else. For a long time and I have talked to Alice Hunt (ph) -- a lot of people who’ve been involved in the investigation—they said well maybe that DNA came from someone who packaged the underwear...
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Yes.
MORIARTY: ... she was wearing. But you can’t find that DNA elsewhere. It’s just in the blood. Plus, while there’s not the same amount, there’s not complete DNA under her fingernails, some of the same markers found in that DNA under her fingernails do match the DNA that’s in the blood spot, so they believe that that’s one person and what I was saying Craig probably knows that most prosecutors will say when you find the DNA in the blood of the victim, that is most likely the perpetrator, the killer in that case.
ABRAMS: I want to ask you one more question, but let me let Craig jump in on that. Craig, you know, look, you have—you used to seemingly be somewhat pro prosecution, I should say pro police in this case. Has your view of this case shifted over the years?
CRAIG SILVERMAN, FORMER DENVER CHIEF DISTRICT ATTORNEY: I think I share the view that you have, Dan. I think the events of the last couple of years have swung toward the Ramseys’ favor. You had federal district court judge, Julie Carnes in Atlanta essentially saying that she did not believe it was an intruder. As for the DNA, I’m happy to hear that it’s something more than contamination. You know, Cyril Wecht is a guy I respect—I think you do too. He has long said it’s likely contamination. I’d like to believe there’s an alternate suspect. This is fascinating new information, but you know, with the Peterson case there was a lot of talk about alternate suspects. It didn’t pan out. I hope this pans out because...
ABRAMS: Yes, but here they have evidence.
SILVERMAN: ... like most people in the world...
ABRAMS: I mean to compare it to Peterson...
SILVERMAN: Right.
ABRAMS: ... the bottom line is in Peterson there was no, you know, DNA to suggest it was someone else. There was no hard evidence.
MORIARTY: And Craig, I want to point out that the Denver police lab -
· I mean, they have kind of gone out on a limb here...
SILVERMAN: Right...
ABRAMS: And that’s really interesting. Yes...
MORIARTY: ... saying they are—they believe there’s no contamination.
ABRAMS: Tell us about that. I want to hear about that Erin...
MORIARTY: They...
ABRAMS: The Denver police lab, that’s interesting.
MORIARTY: ... believe that they have been able to isolate that it took a while, but they believe they do have the proper full DNA profile. It was put in the CODA system (ph). I don’t think they would run the risk, go out on a limb here with the risk that it might be contaminated. I know I have heard that over the years, but I don’t think we would go on there if we had not been assured that they feel pretty confident that this is DNA and it has not been contaminated.
ABRAMS: Erin, do you have any sources within law enforcement in Colorado who have shifted their opinion based on what they have seen? I mean we’ve got these private eyes who are working on cases. Private eyes can have different opinions, but how about law enforcement?
MORIARTY: Well Dan, I will tell you that I think that now—well I know for a fact that the focus of the investigation no longer includes the Ramseys. The focus of the investigation does involve the idea that it was an intruder. There is evidence that he may have had an accomplice. And that is a big concern here because that DNA may match one person who’s not picked up. I mean they may be interviewing a person who was involved and his DNA does not match.
You know the investigators are doing what they call grab and swab. They are going down this list of suspects and asking for DNA, but what if they get the DNA, it doesn’t match, and this is the person who didn’t leave the DNA. That’s the risk if there were, in fact, two individuals here.
ABRAMS: Lisa, I mean—here’s—I’m going to take a break here. Erin Moriarty, you have to leave. Thank you so much—great reporting on this. We look forward to watching the piece. I’m going to ask Lisa Wayne and Craig Silverman to stick around.
Just for a moment—can you imagine if you are John and Patsy Ramsey and you didn’t do this, you had nothing to do with it at all and yet for eight years, everyone has wondered whether you were involved. Can you just picture that for a moment? We’re going to talk about—more about that in a minute.
Also coming up, Missouri police say they think they’ve found the baby ripped right from her mother’s womb. The mother was murdered. Police are questioning two people found near the baby.
Plus, complaints are on the rise after the government issued new regulations allowing screeners to conduct more intense searches at airports. Some women say they’re being unfairly groped. But do we want kinder, more sensitive airport screeners?
Your e-mails abramsreport@msnbc.com. Please include your name and where you’re writing from. I respond at the end of the show.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
ABRAMS: Coming up, new evidence that could suggest that John and Patsy Ramsey are entirely innocent in connection with the death of their daughter, JonBenet. Can you imagine having been those parents—I mean gone through all this if they are stone cold innocent. We’re going to have more on that in a moment.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
J. RAMSEY: I did not kill my daughter JonBenet. There have also been innuendos that she has been or was sexually molested. I can tell you those were the most hurtful innuendos to us as a family. They are totally false.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
ABRAMS: Talking about the JonBenet Ramsey case. A new report coming out on CBS News that suggests that there is DNA evidence, which could point to somebody else that would back up what the Ramseys have been saying for so long that they had nothing to do with the murder of their daughter JonBenet.
Craig Silverman, former Denver chief D.A. and a radio talk show host and Lisa Wayne is a Denver criminal defense attorney who’s been following the case. All right, Lisa, is this it? I mean is this the final chapter in this story or are there still some issues that need to be resolved?
LISA WAYNE, CRIMINAL DEFENSE ATTORNEY: Well, there are going to be issues that have to be resolved absolutely because this is so mind boggling that after all these years that private investigators have come up with the evidence to exonerate these people when you had the resources of an entire police department and D.A.’s office who should have done that years ago. So there are a lot of unanswered questions out there. And it’s completely mindboggling.
ABRAMS: But Craig, it is fair to say there has been the ability to do testing that they couldn’t do before, right?
SILVERMAN: Right. I mean DNA is an evolving science. I have great respect especially for the Denver Police Department where I was a prosecutor for 16 years. You know, the squabbling between law enforcement, the Boulder cops and the Boulder D.A.’s office was just shameful.
It is shocking to me that they would have a similar offense seven months apart and nobody would talk about it. Give me a similar sexual transaction, a similar event like this, and then you can start to eliminate the Ramseys as true suspects.
ABRAMS: You know, what makes this different, though, Lisa is the ransom note. I mean that has always been the most important piece of evidence according to the Boulder Police Department, and that has always been the reason they have suspected someone inside the house because...
WAYNE: Right.
ABRAMS: ... you have this ransom note written which to me seems clear it was not written by someone who was legitimately writing a ransom note—
I mean asking—saying that they are from a small foreign faction. You know, who identifies themselves as a small foreign faction when you’re a foreign faction. You don’t want to say we’re irrelevant and small and asking for $118,000. It was a practice note written. You know, what could be the explanation for that note that doesn’t point to the Ramseys, that someone who did write it inside the house, but isn’t John or Patsy Ramsey?
WAYNE: Well, the easiest explanation is simply that was the easiest way to set up the obvious suspect, the parents that were inside the house and somebody thought through that before it even happened. There were so many things that we jumped on the bandwagon in terms of damning these people before the evidence was really in.
I mean all of us looked at their demeanor. We all had gut feelings about how we would have reacted. We all had feelings about what the police were doing and why they weren’t doing certain things. And you know, it’s a classic case of focusing on suspects and not looking beyond that. And that’s what happened in this case. And that is what hurt these people and hurt them—nothing will ever take it back frankly. This will remain with them...
ABRAMS: Yes.
WAYNE: ... no matter how—what evidence...
ABRAMS: So let’s be clear. They were—you know they have been through heck and back, but...
WAYNE: Yes.
ABRAMS: ... they were never charged with anything...
WAYNE: Well and you know...
(CROSSTALK)
WAYNE: ... and sometimes that’s even worse because it’s been the accusation of the public that’s been...
ABRAMS: Yes, yes...
WAYNE: ... hanging out there.
ABRAMS: ... that’s a fair point. Craig, the ransom note. I mean is it—does it still trouble you?
SILVERMAN: Well, sure. Two and a half pages of a ransom note, personal references to John Ramsey, using his good—southern common sense. I’ll tell you what, though, Dan, especially in light of the events today, the thing that hurt the Ramseys is it seemed preposterous that some stranger would do all these things, but look at what happened in Missouri today. Look at the Elizabeth Smart case that has happened since then. The Ramseys may have well gotten a bum rap.
ABRAMS: And what about—I still—I’m going to say it one more time—we’re almost out of time—but Lisa, this other case, whether it’s entirely similar or just kind of similar, I was—I’ve said this to people over the years that I have always been struck by I remember when we found out about the prosecutor said Dan we didn’t—you know we hadn’t heard about that. They never told us about that. The police never told the prosecutors about this other case of another girl being attacked in her home with someone lying in wait in the home in Boulder, Colorado.
WAYNE: Well, it makes you concerned if you live in Boulder, like I do, and you have concerns about you know, what is being communicated between these very two departments, frankly, and what wasn’t communicated and what was sat on and not told to the prosecutors in this case.
ABRAMS: Yes.
WAYNE: I mean frankly, you have to look back on this and say, thank goodness for the grand jury...
ABRAMS: Yes.
WAYNE: ... that they didn’t get indicted and they looked—and they scrutinized this case and hopefully, you know, it will continue to be that...
ABRAMS: I should say if any of the Boulder police or any of the people who were working in law enforcement who are convinced that this is all erroneous want to come on the program, let us know, abramsreport@msnbc.com, and we’ll figure it out. We’ll try—certainly if anyone from the Boulder police wants to come on, we’ll welcome to—we’ll absolutely put you on.
Craig Silverman and Lisa Wayne, thanks a lot. Appreciate it.
WAYNE: Thank you.
SILVERMAN: Thanks Dan.
ABRAMS: Coming up, a Missouri family holds out hope that authorities have found a baby viciously ripped from her mother’s womb. The mother is dead. The police are questioning a man and woman right now in connection with the murder/kidnapping.
And are airport security screeners getting too up close and personal with female travelers? Some women say so and want it to stop. Question—can we afford to relax security during the busy holiday travel season? I say no. The National Organization for Women disagrees.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
ABRAMS: We’re back. A gruesome murder—police in rural Missouri believe several people killed a woman, slashed her belly open to get to her fetus, possibly to sell the infant on the black market. Details are still coming in, but just a short a while ago a little bit of good news in this horrible story. NBC’s Jay Gray has the details.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: They have located a baby girl. We’re waiting testing, medical testing to see if it’s going to be our child that’s missing.
JAY GRAY, NBC NEWS CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): Investigators found the infant alive and apparently healthy just a few miles from where her mother was killed.
SHERIFF BILL ESPEY, NODAWAY COUNTY MISSOURI: The child appears to be healthy and in good shape and the child is at a hospital right now being checked out by a pediatrician.
GRAY: Twenty-three-year-old Bobbi Joe Stinnett, eight months pregnant, was murdered inside her home, her death apparently part of a horrific plot to steal her unborn child. Police say the suspects in this case, possibly two men and a woman, cut the baby from her mother’s womb. An Amber Alert was issued and apparently helped police to find the missing child.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: We won’t cancel that Amber Alert until we confirm...
(CROSSTALK)
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: ... her child.
CHRIS LAW, VICTIM’S FRIEND & NEIGHBOR: You only hear about this stuff in the big cities. You don’t ever hear about this stuff in a little town.
GRAY: The brutal crime has rocked this tiny northwest Missouri town, especially neighbors who say they noticed a red car in front of the family’s home, but nothing else out of the ordinary on Thursday.
LAW: Makes you feel really bad because I was going to go down there and talk to her and I should have went down and talked to her. I can’t even sleep because that’s all I can think of, you know, is damn, I could have prevented it.
GRAY: But investigators are quick to point out no one could have imagined such a twisted plan.
Jay Gray, NBC News.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
ABRAMS: According to our NBC affiliate in Kansas City, KSHB, the baby was found in Topeka, Kansas, and is now being transferred to Kansas City. So what is this about? Talking about ripping a baby from a mother’s womb.
Joining us now is former FBI profiler, Candice Delong. Candice, you ever heard of anything like this?
CANDICE DELONG, FORMER FBI PROFILER: Yes, I have Dan, but not for the motives that have been discussed, you know, selling the baby on the black market for profit. I am aware of three or four cases since 1996, in which a very pregnant woman was murdered and her baby cut from her womb and in all of the cases the killer was a woman between 20 and 30, mentally ill, who really didn’t want to kill the mother, but wanted the baby. And being seriously mentally ill didn’t have the wherewithal to kidnap a live baby. It was just easier to kill the mother of one about to be born and take it.
They usually solves quickly.
ABRAMS: Is there a black market for babies?
DELONG: This is the strange part of this story. How in the world did they think they were going to get away with this? The crime scene, I’m sure, was so horrific and sloppy. There was evidence left everywhere that led to the baby being recovered, which is fantastic and probably there will be an arrest, I’m imagining, within 24 hours also.
ABRAMS: And let’s be clear. People may say what is the law with regard to a fetus, et cetera. It doesn’t matter. This is murder.
DELONG: Oh absolutely.
ABRAMS: Yes, this mother was killed—you know you can talk about what other crimes they might be guilty of, the bottom line is we’re talking about murder here...
DELONG: Yes.
ABRAMS: ... and a gruesome one at that. All right, let’s go to number one here from our elements. Other cases you mentioned them. December 2003: A 21-year-old Oklahoma woman who is 25 weeks pregnant, shot in the head, her abdomen sliced open, her fetus taken. Thirty-seven-year-old woman who befriended the woman was charged with double homicide.
Another case—let’s go to number two—in 2000, an Ohio woman lured a 23-year-old expecting mother into her home and shot her to death. She later performed a caesarean section to deliver the baby (UNINTELLIGIBLE).
And then number three here, the—‘97 an Alabama man was actually acquitted of murder but convicted of kidnapping and the slaying of a 17-year-old. The fetus cut out of the teen’s belly and claimed by the man and his girlfriend as his own.
So, Candice, you know, these are examples that like the ones you cite of cases where people lured, they wanted to take the baby and keep it for themselves. But this idea of taking the baby and selling it is something even you haven’t even heard of.
DELONG: No, it isn’t anything I’ve heard of. And I think when the dust settles in this case, there will be some explanations that are easy to follow. Dan, it would have been much easier and wouldn’t involved a murder for them to simply kidnap a—an infant. It happens about 100 times a year in this country. Twenty-five percent right out of the nursery in the hospital and about 75 percent from parking lots where mom will turn her back.
As you recall, there was a case last summer of a woman loading her kids in the car. She turned around—somebody had taken her infant. There would have been no murder, but this was gruesome and dreadful and horrible. And I can’t even think of any more adjectives to describe it. I think there’s more than meets the eye here than simply taking an unborn baby and selling it to someone.
ABRAMS: Yes. All right. Candice Delong, as always, thanks for coming on the program. Appreciate it.
DELONG: You’re welcome.
ABRAMS: Coming up, women getting patted down during airport screenings. They say they are being humiliated. The TSA says it’s for security sake for everyone, in particular after two women blew up two Russian airliners with a thin sheet of plastic explosives around their waist. We debate.
And remember all that talk from Scott Peterson’s team before the trial about a satanic cult possibly having killed Laci? Well if that’s what they really wanted to pursue and it’s still apparently on defense attorney Mark Geragos’ Web site, that theory, at least in an article, why didn’t they pursue it in the trial? It’s my “Closing Argument”.
Your e-mails abramsreport@msnbc.com. Please include your name and where you’re writing from. I’ll respond at the end of the show.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
ABRAMS: Coming up, it is supposed to be a security pat down, but some women say the TSA is doing more than patting them down at the airport, but do they have a choice? First, the headlines.
(NEWS BREAK)
ABRAMS: We are back. As part of our special NBC News series, airport insecurity, we’re taking a closer look at airport security and in this program pat downs. As we have talked about before, the new comprehensive searches have been triggering complaints from women in particular who say the searches are just too intrusive and invasive. We’ll talk to the TSA and the president of the National Organization for Women in a moment, but first, here’s NBC’s Kerry Sanders.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
(CROSSTALK)
KERRY SANDERS, NBC NEWS CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): Getting through airport security.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: I suggest you take your shoes off.
SANDERS: A ballet that some complain has become a dirty dance. Forty-six-year-old Kathleen Hoffmann traveling from Orlando to New Jersey this week says the pat down was humiliating.
KATHLEEN HOFFMANN, PASSENGER: When she went underneath, she actually sort of took her hands this way because she was using the back of her hands and almost—and lifted my breasts up, which I just thought I was going to burst into tears.
SANDERS: To avoid sexual impropriety...
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: I’m going to go down and around, OK.
SANDERS: ... the TSA requires women inspectors check female passengers. Men deal with men.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Do you have something in your pocket right here?
ADMIRAL DAVID STONE, TSA: That procedure of the personal pat down was put in place after two individuals strapped thin sheet explosives around their waists and boarded a Russian aircraft and brought them down.
SANDERS: In the last two months of the 60 million passengers screened at U.S. airports, 250, mostly women, have filed complaints. But passengers like 77-year-old Kay Hassan (ph) say that it’s a trade-off for safety.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Oh, I can’t even imagine anybody criticizing it.
That’s very interesting. Yes. So it’s their problems, not mine.
SANDERS (on camera): One inventive solution that screeners say they have seen to speed through the lines? Creative college students who are showing up in their pajamas and slippers. They send their street clothes through, pick it up, and then head on down, change in the bathroom, before taking off.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
ABRAMS: That was Kerry Sanders reporting. “My Take” - I’ve said it before. I’ll say it again. I have been through airport pat downs many times, in particular a lot lately. Sure, it does make me uncomfortable at times. I don’t enjoy undoing my belt and the top of my pants in front of people or having a guy in a uniform kneed my upper thigh to prove I’m not hiding anything dangerous, but I view it as part of the price we pay for enhanced security.
I don’t understand why this is considered a gender issue. The 9/11 report specifically said, and I quote, “Two reforms are needed soon. Screening people for explosives, not just their carry-on bags, and improving screener performance.” So, how do you screen women without, well, screening women? Now, if there’s improper touching, let me be clear, improper touching, fondling, the screeners should be disciplined, possibly charged criminally, but on the whole while it’s a little humiliating, I’d rather sacrifice a little dignity before boarding a plane than add to the chances of losing my life in the air.
Joining me now to debate is director of communications for the Transportation Security Administration, Mark Hatfield, president of the National Organization for Women, Kim Gandy, and Rhonda Gaynier claims she was touched inappropriately by screeners. We had her on the program—she’s also an attorney—to discuss this issue before. She is also an attorney. Thank you all for coming on the program, appreciate it.
All right, Ms. Gandy, let me start with you. Why is this just a gender issue, meaning is the problem that you feel that women are being touched more?
KIM GANDY, NATIONAL ORGANIZATION FOR WOMEN: Women do seem to be singled out inappropriately from the reports that we have seen and heard. Certainly men should not be touched inappropriately either. No one should be groped and have it be called a security screening. And that is the kind of thing that we’re hearing about. But we also are hearing and seeing that particularly women with large breasts, for example, are being singled out, and to these women and the descriptions that they give of what’s happening to them, it’s more than checking for explosives.
ABRAMS: But Ms. Gandy...
GANDY: There’s something else going on particularly with...
ABRAMS: ... it’s going to be women checking the women, though. I mean so you’re suggesting that women screeners are deciding that they want to screen women with bigger breasts?
GANDY: I don’t think I’ve heard a single report of this where I have not heard the women say that the male screeners or other men were standing there watching and basically gawking at what was going on. And a lot of women have had to be screened by male screeners because there wasn’t a female screener available. They were given the option to wait, but they would have to miss their flight.
ABRAMS: You know, Mr. Hatfield, this is the sort of complaint we have been hearing. And I would assume in particular because of the uproar that you’re going to be pretty harsh and I hope so. I hope you are going to come down pretty hard on any people who are either gawking or touching inappropriately. You’ve got rules about how this is supposed to happen, right?
MARK HATFIELD, TRANSPORTATION SECURITY ADMINISTRATION: Absolutely. You have to divide this into two sides of the ledger. If, in fact, there have been any of these incidents, these complaints that we have recorded and that we have investigated that were caused by improper procedures or even worse than that, intentional abuse, those are going to be dealt on a zero tolerance policy. We will look through those files and make sure that the screeners are reprimanded up to being dismissed.
But on the other side of this there’s another debate going on. I think that what we hear from a lot of these complaints are people that are just voting their political idea, which is they don’t want to be touched. They don’t want to have pat downs. And you know, it’s a tough thing for us to do. It’s a necessary security measure, but it gets to sort of a cultural bridge that we haven’t crossed before and we are hoping that it’s only going to be an interim process until we have the technology that’ll get at the threat.
ABRAMS: Yes and Ms. Gaynier, I think—my concern with your position is I think that you may fall into the latter category, which is that any sort of secondary screening would upset you despite the fact that the 9/11 commission has said we need to have more screening.
RHONDA GAYNIER, ACCUSES TSA SCREENER OF GROPING HER: That’s not the case...
(CROSSTALK)
GANDY: If I could respond...
(CROSSTALK)
ABRAMS: Let me let Ms. Gaynier...
(CROSSTALK)
GANDY: If I could...
ABRAMS: Let me let Ms. Gaynier...
GAYNIER: If I could respond...
ABRAMS: Yes.
GAYNIER: ... I think what you said the 9/11 commission report said is that we need to screen for explosives. And the TSA has made this leap in logic that the only way to do this is to pat people down...
HATFIELD: It’s not a leap in logic. It’s the only available means right now...
GAYNIER: But that’s not true.
HATFIELD: ... we are working...
ABRAMS: All right, what would you recommend...
HATFIELD: It’s absolutely true...
ABRAMS: Hang on a second. What would you recommend Ms. Gaynier...
GAYNIER: I’ve talked to people who are in law enforcement. They say there are dogs that are available that can sniff for explosives. A couple of people have suggested to me that...
ABRAMS: You’d rather have a dog sniffing in that area?
GAYNIER: I don’t think that’s what I said...
ABRAMS: Well, you said you’d rather have dogs.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: One leads to the other.
GAYNIER: There are other measures that can be used. There are these x-ray machines that they are trying out in London right now.
ABRAMS: We don’t have them now. That’s the problem is what Mr. Hatfield is saying, look, I get it. But what we’re doing is waiting until we can find something better. And until then, we’re not going to take chances.
GAYNIER: What we’re doing is giving up our constitutional rights for expediency and there are other ways to screen people and instead of using those ways, we’re giving up—we’re intruding on people’s constitutional rights and that’s my...
ABRAMS: Ms. Gandy, I apologize. You wanted to get in.
GANDY: Oh, I was just saying that I have had many a secondary screening. I travel quite a lot and I haven’t had many of the—I have had some borderline bad experiences, but not as bad as some of the ones I have heard. But I also understand that in the cases where there have been really inappropriate touching, inappropriate inspections that there has been not one single disciplinary action taken against one single screener...
ABRAMS: Mr. Hatfield...
GANDY: It can not be...
ABRAMS: Let me ask...
GANDY: ... that none of these were inappropriate.
ABRAMS: Let me ask him. Mr. Hatfield, has there been any disciplinary action taken against screeners for acting inappropriately?
HATFIELD: No, we have not. In fact, at this time and through all of these complaints, there have been about 250 or 300 of them. We have gone in, looked at them, in many cases been able to review closed circuit TV tapes and to this point in time, we have not found any screeners that were acting in an inappropriate or truly improper fashion.
What we find in most of these complaints is they are brought about in
the majority of the cases by poor communication on the screener’s parts, so
we’re getting at that with good training and with remedial training where
necessary. And also where just the basic process wasn’t fully understood
by the screener.
ABRAMS: Let me take a quick break here. When we come back, we’ll keep talking about this. I’m going to ask Mr. Hatfield when we come back whether he’s going to come down really hard on some of these people if they do find out they are acting inappropriately because they have to if they do find out that the sort of actions that Ms. Gaynier is talking about and Ms. Gandy are talking about are happening. We’ll talk about this more in a minute.
And Scott Peterson’s attorney Mark Geragos didn’t try to prove a satanic cult abducted Laci Peterson, so why does his law firm have an article prominently featured about just that on its Web site? It’s my “Closing Argument”.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
ABRAMS: We’re back. We’re talking about women being screened at the airports and some women’s groups complaining that that screening is going too far. I want to ask Kim Gandy, the president of the National Organization for Women, a question. It relates again to the 9/11 commission recommendations and exactly what should be done. Let me read you this again from the 9/11 commission recommendation.
The TSA and the Congress must give priority attention to improving the ability of screening checkpoints to detect explosives on passengers. As a start, each individual selected for special screening should be screened for explosives.
I think we all agree, Ms. Gandy, that there are technical limitations on what the TSA can do now. I think they’d like to do a better job. They’d like to have more advanced screening measures in place, which they hope to have in the future. In the interim while they don’t have that, what do you suggest that they do?
GANDY: Well, I have two suggestions. The first is that up until recently, people were selected at random for screening. And I think, you know, people could understand that every 10th person, every 19th person, I’m sure it changed from time to time. Sometimes you got picked, sometimes you didn’t. The rules have now changed just in the last couple of months. And that’s when the complaints have started to give the inspectors the right to pull anyone out of line that they felt like...
HATFIELD: You know what...
(CROSSTALK)
HATFIELD: ... this is a myth buster moment. I need to jump in here because this has got to be shot down. That is not correct on any level. The majority...
GANDY: That’s on every report.
HATFIELD: Well, it’s not true because I can tell you the vast majority of secondary screening subjects are selected by computer under the caps I system (ph). There’s also another percentage that are selected because they set off the magnetometer after their second pass. Less than 10 percent are selected with the new rules by screener discretion...
GANDY: News...
HATFIELD: ... far less...
GANDY: ... say 15 percent and it is done...
HATFIELD: No...
GANDY: ... at the visual discretion...
(CROSSTALK)
GANDY: ... of the screeners...
HATFIELD: I think this deserves some clarity...
GANDY: Are you saying that that’s not true...
HATFIELD: Yes, I’m saying...
GANDY: ... that the screener can’t pull somebody out of a line and say, you, over there...
HATFIELD: They...
GANDY: You know that’s true.
HATFIELD: They have the discretion to do that, but let’s get our numbers straight.
GANDY: Absolutely and they’re doing it.
HATFIELD: Let’s get our numbers straight. Fifteen percent of all passengers are selected for secondary screening, OK. That’s your number of secondary selectees. Out of that entire universe of secondary screenings, the vast majority, more than nine out of 10 are computer selected or they go there because they set off the magnetometer. So less than 10 percent are being selected by discretion. That’s an important point to make...
ABRAMS: All right, that’s number one...
(CROSSTALK)
ABRAMS: There was a second point you wanted to make...
GANDY: But there’s a reason that the complaints are increasing...
HATFIELD: Well that’s because...
ABRAMS: Hang on...
(CROSSTALK)
ABRAMS: Hang on...
(CROSSTALK)
ABRAMS: Mark, hang on a second. Let me just let her finish, yes.
GANDY: ... that the same women are being selected over and over.
Whatever you have set in place...
ABRAMS: But what evidence is there of that...
GANDY: ... the visual selection, the same women are being picked over and over and over...
ABRAMS: Wait. But isn’t it possible...
(CROSSTALK)
ABRAMS: ... if they are—wait a second. If they are, it’s possible that they are on some sort of list or something, not just because of the size of their breasts.
GANDY: Well it doesn’t seem likely. Look at these women. These women are business owners. They’re grandmothers. It does not make any sense that they are on...
(CROSSTALK)
GANDY: Hell, Ted Kennedy was on the list for heaven’s sake...
ABRAMS: Well no and...
GANDY: ... you know, that’s ridiculous.
ABRAMS: ... there is no question, but see—but again Mr.
Hatfield...
(CROSSTALK)
ABRAMS: ... isn’t challenging that there are problems inherent in the system. The question is are the screenings...
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: And how do you get off the list once you’re on the list?
ABRAMS: But that’s a different issue.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: How do you get off?
ABRAMS: Getting off the list is a different issue. I want to focus specifically on the gender issue here and that is the issue that somehow they are mistreating women. Now, again, I’m going to ask you one more time, Ms. Gandy, how would you recommend they do things differently? You think that they should have no discretion at all and they should continue to be random so that law enforcement isn’t able to target people they believe are more likely to be trouble than people who are grandmas from Nebraska.
GANDY: If the result of that is that women are disproportionately targeted. Women are disproportionately inspected and treated roughly, then that’s correct. But I think what they need to do is address some of the other parts of the 9/11 report...
ABRAMS: Yes.
GANDY: ... which didn’t suggest a change in procedure, just suggested checking for explosives, not this bring in...
(CROSSTALK)
GANDY: ... pulling people out of line, anybody...
ABRAMS: But that’s what they are doing.
GANDY: ... to get your interest. But how come they are only inspecting three percent of all of the shipments that are coming in at our ports?
(CROSSTALK)
GANDY: My hometown, the port of New Orleans...
ABRAMS: But again...
GANDY: ... they’re bringing in all kinds of shipments...
ABRAMS: Look and I’m not...
GANDY: ... yet they’re inspecting all of these women...
ABRAMS: ... going to argue with you about that.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Yes, that’s another show.
ABRAMS: yes.
GANDY: ... there is no evidence that there’s anything happening...
ABRAMS: All right, Mark Hatfield gets the final word.
HATFIELD: I think a couple of things are important here. This is not a gender issue. It’s a security issue. We have a low tech, manual method that we have available today, available at every airport that we can use to mitigate a known risk. It’s not hypothetical. It’s not a war game risk. It’s a risk that we saw bring down two aircraft in Russia this summer. We know that suicide bombers will board buses...
(CROSSTALK)
HATFIELD: ... and walk into crowded marketplaces, and so we’re getting at a specific threat...
ABRAMS: Yes.
HATFIELD: We’ve got a risk mitigating measure here and guess what? We are in the laboratory and in the field with three exciting new pieces of equipment that starting next year we’ll see some widespread deployment and they will slowly reduce the need to do the pat downs...
ABRAMS: Mark...
HATFIELD: ... to the point where we don’t need to do them...
ABRAMS: ... I’ve got to wrap it up, but promise me you’re going to come down on hard on some of these people...
HATFIELD: Guaranteed...
ABRAMS: ... if you find out that they’re doing...
HATFIELD: ... zero tolerance.
ABRAMS: It’s got to be because...
HATFIELD: Let me just say we have a bond of trust with the American public...
ABRAMS: It’s got to be...
HATFIELD: ... and we can’t afford for a single screener to...
ABRAMS: ... I’m telling you because if we find out, if we get a video or something finding some guy groping some woman and nothing was done, you know, we’re going to end up coming down on you hard as well...
HATFIELD: You’ll have to deal with them after we do.
ABRAMS: All right.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Hire more women.
ABRAMS: All right, I’m sure he’d agree with that.
GAYNIER: Why aren’t they groping men?
(CROSSTALK)
ABRAMS: All right...
(CROSSTALK)
HATFIELD: We have airports that have all women screeners...
ABRAMS: I get groped...
(CROSSTALK)
ABRAMS: I just—I get groped at the airport.
GAYNIER: I doubt...
ABRAMS: Mark Hatfield...
GAYNIER: ... that they’re groping men the way they are groping women...
ABRAMS: All right...
GAYNIER: ... which is not making us safer.
ABRAMS: ... Kim Gandy and Rhonda Gaynier, thank you very much for taking the time to come on the program.
HATFIELD: Thanks Dan.
ABRAMS: Appreciate it.
Is Scott Peterson really innocent? And did a satanic cult really abduct Laci Peterson? Well that’s what it says according to this article on a Web site run by Mark Geragos’ law firm. The question, of course, is why didn’t they present evidence of that at the trial? It’s my “Closing Argument”...
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
ABRAMS: Defense attorney Mark Geragos’ Web site suggests satanic cults might be behind Laci Peterson’s disappearance, but we ask why is that article on the Web site and yet didn’t come up during the trial? It’s my “Closing Argument”.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
ABRAMS: My “Closing Argument”—the Peterson case and satanic cults. If you go to Peterson’s attorney, Mark Geragos’ Web site, in addition to a request for donations to help find the real killers, is a prominently displayed attachment to a—quote—“recent article about how Laci was likely abducted by a satanic cult.”
The evidence? Witness sightings of satanic symbols in the neighborhood on a van, a tattoo, et cetera. Now we reported on all of these theories as the investigation continued. I evaluated them as seriously as any other possible evidence in the case. The problem? The defense didn’t call a single witness to support the theory. No mention of it in the opening or closing. Nothing.
The article purely based on unsupported theories, maybes and might
haves. If the people who still believe Scott Peterson is actually innocent
· I’m not talking about those who believe there wasn’t enough evidence.
But the “Scott is innocent” crowd want to change any minds, they’re going to have to do better than just recycling long shot arguments so tenuous that the defense couldn’t provide any evidence to back them up in court.
For example, when I challenged the verdict in the O.J. Simpson case, I cited evidence, reams of it, to try to support my case. Now that the jury has convicted Peterson, supporters of his are going to have to do the same.
Coming up in 60 seconds, these Santas may get their kicks from running, but one Detroit Santa gets his kicks from a very special type of mistletoe, if you know what I mean.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
ABRAMS: I’ve had my say, now it’s time for “Your Rebuttal”. Last night we debated heavy handed tactics by prosecutors threatening reporters with jail time, not as part of something like a murder investigation but media leaks. I said it’s a very effective way for the government to stop investigations of government corruption.
Georges Tichy in Riverside, California. “Focusing on the leak itself perfectly serves the government’s ultimate purpose of distracting people’s attention, switching it away from the real issue, the corruption that was exposed by the leak to a secondary irrelevant subject i.e. the person who dared to expose it.”
From Cleveland Heights, Ohio, Artie Blohm writes in about one reporter facing time and never even published an article about the issue. “I don’t understand how Judy Miller from “The New York Times” is under investigation, having nothing to do with the case against Valerie Plame, while the man who leaked the news, Robert Novak, gets to go free. It makes no sense.”
J.R. Powers in Texas. “I have to disagree with your view on journalists protecting sources. If the source breaks the law in obtaining the information they give when they’re wrong. If the journalist withholds the name of the source, then they’re aiding and abetting a crime.”
Well not according to the law, J.R., but I understand your point.
All right. Now to our “Legal Lite”. Today it’s about one Santa’s trip this holiday season that blew up in smoke. The Detroit man was visiting a middle school yesterday dressed as Santa when he left his jacket in the school bathroom. An official at the school found the coat, checked inside to try to find the owner’s I.D. Let’s just say he didn’t find mistletoe in his pocket.
Santa had a special bag with him on his trip, marijuana. That may explain why Santa wolfs down those milk and cookies at every house.
That’s it for our “Legal Lite” tonight. Coming up next, “HARDBALL” with Chris Matthews.
See you. Have a great weekend...
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
END
Copy: Content and programming copyright 2004 MSNBC. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. Transcription Copyright 2004 FDCH e-Media, Inc. (f/k/a Federal Document Clearing House Inc., eMediaMillWorks, 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 FDCH e-Media, Inc.‘s copyright or other proprietary rights or interests in the material. This is not a legal transcript for purposes of litigation.