THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
ANNOUNCER: THE POINT: WITH GRETA VAN SUSTEREN.
Refocusing the story on Chandra Levy.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
SUSAN LEVY, CHANDRA LEVY'S MOTHER: We haven't given up our hopes and our prayers of finding my daughter.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
ANNOUNCER: Tonight's point: What more can be done? And why the mystery of Chandra Levy's disappearance is becoming more and more intriguing. We're joined by mystery writer Ann Rule.
She's accused of killing her children, and the National Organization for Woman is raising money for her defense. Has N.O.W. gone too far?
And was this team's pitcher out of his league? Now from Washington, Greta Van Susteren.
GRETA VAN SUSTEREN, HOST: She hasn't been seen for 17 weeks. At what point does this become more than a missing persons case? Tonight's "Flashpoint": The search for Chandra Levy. As her parents remind us, it is what the story is really all about.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
S. LEVY: We just want you to know that we haven't give even up our hopes and prayers to find my daughter. That is the utmost important thing.
ROBERT LEVY, CHANDRA LEVY'S FATHER: We are not giving up looking for Chandra and we appreciate everybody's prayers and support.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
VAN SUSTEREN: After 17 weeks, a lot of people are assuming the worst. What can be done if Chandra is not found, dead or alive? With me here in Washington in Montgomery County, Maryland Deputy State's Attorney John McCarthy. Back in the 1980s he handled the state's first-ever murder conviction where the victim's body was never found. John, at what point does a missing person case become a murder case and how do you tell?
JOHN MCCARTHY, DEPUTY STATE'S ATTORNEY: Well, I think that depends upon the facts as they develop. I think that obviously the finding of potential incriminating evidence such as blood or fibers at places you would not expect it, at someone's apartment, or...
VAN SUSTEREN: What if someone vanishes into thin air, no blood, no fiber evidence, just vanishes and it's suspicious?
MCCARTHY: Unlike most criminal cases where there is usually one issue: was a crime committed or did this person commit the crime. A no-body murder case, you really have two issues: is the person dead and who is the person responsible for the murder. In a no-body murder case, I think the first issue would be to establish that the person is in fact dead.
VAN SUSTEREN: How do you do that though? If you don't have a body, that is typically the way you do it, you have a medical examiner come in and say I saw the body, the body is dead.
MCCARTHY: In the last several years, last ten or 15 years we have had DNA evidence that has helped us. We have had substances or tests like Luminol crystals that can be sprayed on or used at particular crime scenes to see whether or not there may have been the presence of blood at the particular locations.
VAN SUSTEREN: But a little blood, John. You are going to find DNA evidence of me in my own home. How does to tell you anything?
MCCARTHY: Well, I think what you do is you begin to look at the character of the individual. And I think that the no-body murder cases that preceded the advent of DNA essentially looked at the character of the victim that you had involved. And they looked at, what kind of person was this? Was this a person who had psychological problems or was this a person who was very close to their family?
Was this a person who maintained close family ties? What were the habits and customs of that particular kind of a person? We might look at banking records. If Chandra Levy had banking or credit card records, I'm sure the police have done this, they will have pulled all those records to see if there is any of the kind of normal activity we would associate with the ongoings of a normal person as they moved through life.
VAN SUSTEREN: All right, we have been dancing around calling this a missing person's investigation. Because she has been missing for over 100 days, but I assume that the police must at some point think this might be a murder case.
What would pique your interest about this case as to whether to call it a murder investigation and whether to even begin to focus on a particular person?
MCCARTHY: I think you would want to look at things like motive. I think when you are trying to identify any perpetrator, in any crime, you look to find out whether or not there is a particular motive on behalf of the individual. So obviously in the absence of physical evidence like blood of fiber, you begin to look at individual persons who might have potentially had a motive.
If you take that giant step to assume that the person is in fact no longer among the living, who would possibly have a motive to do something of criminal nature.
VAN SUSTEREN: As an experienced prosecutor, are you suspicious in this case that it's a murder case, the Chandra Levy case, or aren't you there yet?
MCCARTHY: Well, I think that common sense tells you the longer the period of time goes on, this young woman is not heard from, the more likely it is that she is, in fact, dead, and because of the character of the person that we have learned about, I, like many other people, find in the press and in the news, she seemed like she maintained a wonderful relationship with her family. She seemed like a very ambitious young woman and not likely to go off on a flight of fancy like this.
VAN SUSTEREN: But without any DNA, no evidence of violence, no nothing, if you were the prosecutor in this case, there is no place to go at this point, right?
MCCARTHY: I agree with that. I think that there -- again, what is publicly known, they are very far from being able to turn this into a criminal case.
VAN SUSTEREN: And of course we hope this is simply a missing person case, but probably, at least we don't know at this point. John McCarthy, thank you for joining us tonight.
MCCARTHY: Sure.
VAN SUSTEREN: The longer this mystery does goes on, the more disturbing it gets. Joining me now from Seattle is author Ann Rule. She writes both fiction and non-fiction. And "Never Let Her Go" is about a woman's disappearance. One of the cases in her book "Empty Promises" involves proving a murder without finding a body.
Ann, without being particularly crass, but let me ask you this question, do you have a theory as to what could have happened to Chandra Levy?
ANN RULE, AUTHOR: Well, it's eerie to me. I'm afraid what happened to Chandra is the same thing that happened to Ann Marie Fahey, a young woman entrapped with an older man trying to get away perhaps or trying to force an issue, and I'm afraid that Chandra, like Ann Marie, is dead. And her body is secreted at a point where it may never be found. But that doesn't mean that there won't be an indictment and a conviction.
VAN SUSTEREN: And of course the fact that it is almost a convenient theory, there has been an awful lot of focus on the congressman, but that could be grossly unfair, but just because people have wild imaginations. Do you not agree?
RULE: I agree. I have heard all manner of theories. But I keep thinking -- I asked a friend yesterday, what if she is just hiding out and really getting back at him and then we both said no, she would never do that to her family.
VAN SUSTEREN: But of course that would be the cruelest of all if she were to do that both to the congressman and of course to her family.
RULE: Of course.
VAN SUSTEREN: If you were going -- you have read a lot of nonfiction books about crime. If were you going to write the book about this case, where would you begin?
RULE: I would probably begin where I usually do, with the discovery of disappearance. At that point I go back it time, I go back several generations if I can, and explore both the victim's personality and her families and the suspect's personality and look for motive, look for circumstantial evidence, because you and I both know the corpus delicti does not mean the body of the person, it's the body of the crime.
And if you can get enough pieces of circumstantial evidence to convince a reasonable jury that someone is dead, and someone has been murdered, you can get a conviction. I have seen it twice in my last two books.
VAN SUSTEREN: What is most curious piece of evidence to you? What captures your attention?
RULE: The fact that her purse was there, Chandra's purse was there, that she had made all sorts of preparations to go home, and that she seemingly walked through a curtain in time and it closed behind her. We know that doesn't happen. I think the fact that she left with someone she trusted, and the question is who was that person.
VAN SUSTEREN: You are saying that someone she trusted, and I have looked at it from all sorts of different angles. One of the theories and we are all basically at the point where it is almost fantasizing, trying to come up with theories based on what little evidence there is, but suppose that she just went out to dump some garbage late at night and got nabbed randomly. Is that a possibility?
RULE: Of course anything is a possibility at this point. But I think there would have been more. I think there would have been some sign of that.
VAN SUSTEREN: In terms of what? I mean it is relatively easy to get rid of a body. Someone could nab her, pull her into a car, drive her 50 miles out in the state of Virginia just across the river and do the unthinkable. That's possible. RULE: That is possible. I have rarely run into anything like that and I have written 1400 true murder stories cases, either stories, articles or in books. And I have not come across something like that.
VAN SUSTEREN: Where do you think this investigation is going? Do you think we will ever see a conclusion? We would all like a nice conclusion for her to show up some night, but where do you think this is going?
RULE: I would love to have her show up too. I think that we are going to see an indictment, I predict 18 months down the road and a conviction 18 months after that.
VAN SUSTEREN: All right, well, in 18 months maybe we will have you back to see if you are right or wrong. Ann Rule, thanks very much for joining us tonight.
RULE: Thanks, Greta.
VAN SUSTEREN: Our next stop is Texas, where five children are dead. Their mother is going on trial for her life and the National Organization for Women is raising money for her defense. NOW and Andrea Yates, when THE POINT returns.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
VAN SUSTEREN: Andrea Yates is accused of a horrifying crime. Police say she admitted drowning her five children in a bathtub back in June. Houston, Texas, prosecutors will be seeking the death penalty when she goes on trial for murder. But this week, the National Organization for Women announced it was raising money for Andrea Yates' defense.
Before we get into NOW's controversial decision, let's get the latest on the Texas drowning case from Lee Hancock of the "Dallas Morning News." She joins us from Tyler, Texas. Nice to see you. Lee.
Nice to see you, Lee.
LEE HANCOCK, "DALLAS MORNING NEWS": Good to see you.
VAN SUSTEREN: Lee, the status of case, where does it stand?
HANCOCK: Well, there is a competency hearing that is going to come i up on September the 12th after the district attorney's office in Houston declared its intent to seek the death penalty against Mrs. Yates, she earned a plea of not guilty by reason of insanity. A court appointed expert has ruled her competent to stand trial. The defense has said, though, their experts believe that she is not competent.
So, the judge in the case, State District Judge Belinda Hill has said that she is going to give this to a jury to decide. In Texas competency is decided by a jury. So we will have a several-day hearing, a jury selection and that's the next issue at hand.
VAN SUSTEREN: Give me a sense of what the pulse of the community is. You have lived down there for a long time, covered these stories. What is sort of the general feeling about the death penalty and whether or not if she is convicted, found sane, and having killed these children, she should get it?
HANCOCK: It's interesting. There is often discussion of fact that Harris County certainly is nationally known for sending people to the death chamber in Texas. But I have heard a surprising number of people, you know, mothers, women, people across board who have said that they question in this case, whether it is justified.
VAN SUSTEREN: What do you mean by, in this case? What are the facts that would exempt this one, because Texas certainly does send a lot of people to death row?
HANCOCK: Well, a lot of people will talk to me about you know, her history of mental illness, her postpartum depression, how severally ill that she apparently was, and just the pressures of five so very young children and just how overwhelming that became to her, it struck a chord in a number of people.
And so I have heard while there are some people who certainly feel strongly that she should stand trial and a death sentence should be among the range of punishment for a jury, there are a lot of people who are saying in this case they just don't know that that's justified.
VAN SUSTEREN: What are people saying about her husband Russell Yates, Rusty?
HANCOCK: Well, there has been some criticism. There have been some columns in newspapers in Texas that have said, well, did he do enough? Should he be held responsible? The "Houston Chronicle" reported last week that e-mail spent the to the district attorney's office included a number that said they believe he should be held responsible.
But he can't speak right now. There is a very broad gag order. But Miss Yates' family members, other people who know him, his relatives say that he did what he could and he is standing behind -- he is standing by his wife. And some people who know him well say they believe that some of the talk and the criticism is pretty unjustified.
VAN SUSTEREN: Is this a woman versus men thing? When you listen to people talk are women more sympathetic towards her and the men less, or can't you say that? Is that a terrible gross generalization?
HANCOCK: I really don't think so. I think you have a number of women around her age, people with young families, you know, people who understand the stresses, although certainly this is unthinkable and unheard of. It strikes a chord with women. I have not heard any kind of ground swell of men saying exactly the opposite.
There has been sympathy from a number of quarters that has just been real surprising.
VAN SUSTEREN: All right, my thanks to Lee Hancock. It is nice to see you.
HANCOCK: Good to see you.
VAN SUSTEREN: The National Organization for Women's decision to raise money for Andrea Yates' defense, and the reasons behind it have sparked a nationwide argument. The organization's executive vice president, Karen Johnson, joins me here in Washington.
In Houston is Dianne Clements, she is president of Justice for All, a victims' advocacy group. Karen first to you. Why is N.O.W. supporting Andrea Yates and raising money for her?
KAREN JOHNSON, EXECUTIVE VICE PRESIDENT, N.O.W.: In July we had a national conference at which point we passed a resolution, as result of Andrea Yates' behavior where we wanted to urge consideration of postpartum depression as well as postpartum psychosis in the judgment around Andrea Yates because we feel that was a critical factor in the murder of those children.
VAN SUSTEREN: Let me stop you right there, Karen, because the first thing I think of is that it is prejudging, premature. We simply don't know the facts. We have no idea, this is just a defense lawyer spinning it and that maybe this isn't true. Now there is a gag order, but isn't this really a matter for the jury and have you not jumped the gun?
JOHNSON: I don't think so. My background is I am a mental health clinical nurse specialist. And I have dealt with thousands of people who are depressed and psychotic.
VAN SUSTEREN: But have you have dealt with her?
JOHNSON: I haven't dealt with her.
VAN SUSTEREN: Have you looked at her medical records?
JOHNSON: I have read reports from the "Dallas Daily News" that she has been receiving Haldol, that she has been hospitalized four times, has two suicide attempts, was identified as being psychotically depressed. And had lost a lot of weight in the last six months of her life prior to killing the children.
VAN SUSTEREN: All right, Dianne, your reaction to this. Should the state of Texas be seeking the death penalty against this woman?
DIANNE CLEMENTS, PRESIDENT, JUSTICE FOR ALL: Greta, I believe that the state of Texas should allow the jury to make that decision. There are people who are prejudging this case. They do not know the facts. We should not constrict the jury not to be able to give the death penalty if facts are different.
The facts may be very revealing. In fact they will be and the jury will be able to make that decision not on media information and not on reports in newspapers but based on fact.
VAN SUSTEREN: Let me give you a hypothetical, Dianne. I am going to put you on the jury, and the jury concludes that she is guilty that she was not insane at time of this death. Would you vote for the death penalty for this mother of five children?
CLEMENTS: Certainly, if the jury finds her guilty, as you know here, the sentencing phase is a whole different issue.
VAN SUSTEREN: But would you?
CLEMENTS: Would I vote? I don't know. I cannot tell you I would or I can not tell you I would not. I would have to experience that. I would have to hear the experts testify. I would have to know exactly what happened in the days and months leading up to that.
I would keep in my mind very fresh and aware of the fact that she drowned her five children and drug them into the bathtub begging for their lives, to do this. I would also be very aware of the fact that she did it in a very opportune time. She chose her time frame and she then phoned the police and her husband.
So these are all issues that that jury will have to consider and consider heavily.
VAN SUSTEREN: Is remorse an issue for you, Dianne. I mean, if this woman says that she was terrible troubled and she admits her responsibility and admits she should be taken out of circulation for life, would that make a difference to you whether you would vote for the death penalty for her?
CLEMENTS: No, that would not make a difference to me because I believe our criminal justice system makes decisions based on the case presented, not based on the defendant's attitude towards that case.
VAN SUSTEREN: Karen, how much has N.O.W. so far raised to assist Andrea Yates?
JOHNSON: Let me clarify this. N.O.W. is not raising money for the defense of Andrea Yates. The Houston chapter and the Texas N.O.W. chapter have joined in coalition with a group that is referring people to the defense fund for Andrea Yates. We are not personally raising money for Andrea Yates. We want to elevate the awareness of the issue of postpartum depression because it affects one in ten women who give birth to children.
VAN SUSTEREN: What if this isn't a postpartum issue? What happens then? Do you think that that in some way dilutes what you are attempting to do, which is to recognize the seriousness of a medical condition?
JOHNSON: I would stake my professional career on this being postpartum psychosis. Everything, every evidence that I've read about leads to that. Infanticide is the result of untreated or badly treated postpartum psychosis. VAN SUSTEREN: And I guess that's where I depart with you, not that indeed, that that isn't what happened here. But having been a lawyer, I've heard lawyers talk and say all sorts of things, that I sort of wait until we can hear both sides in the courtroom, Karen. And I wonder if it isn't premature.
I think it is premature, Greta. I agree with you. It's very premature for them to come out and support her. And in the newspaper, not only does their support...
VAN SUSTEREN: Let me quickly ask you something: why is the state of Texas only seeking the death penalty on two charges and leaving three? Is that so they can turn around, if they lose this one, Dianne, and then seek the death penalty a second round?
CLEMENTS: Well, I think that would be unlikely. I believe that the prosecutors, clearly, if they have asked for the death penalty, if they seek the death penalty, they believe that there's enough evidence there that is...
VAN SUSTEREN: And I know that that's true. I have to tell you, though, it's a little bit of a rub to me that they don't seek the death penalty on all five. And for some reason, I think that this is just a prosecutorial tool to try to get two bites of the apple.
But I get the last word on that. My thanks to Karen Johnson and Dianne Clements for joining me.
CLEMENTS: Thank you.
JOHNSON: Thank you.
VAN SUSTEREN: There was cheering in the Bronx today, but there is also a big question. I will take a swing at it after a quick break and our MONEYLINE update.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
VAN SUSTEREN: Have you seen Danny Almonte pitch? He can really pitch for a 12-year old, or a 14-year-old, or whatever he is. It doesn't matter. Or does it?
Tonight's final point: is he or isn't he? Danny is a whiz on the pitcher's mound. During this year's Little League World Series, he pitched one perfect game, recorded 46 total strikeouts and allowed only three hits. There was a big parade for Danny and his team today in the Bronx.
So what's the problem? Danny is supposed to be 12, but a reporter dug up a birth certificate in the Dominican Republic showing he may be 14. And if he is 14, he is not eligible to play Little League. Is it a case of mistaken identity? Or did Danny's father doctor his vital documents and lie about his son's age?
While the matter is under investigation, some people are saying, the kid's good, forget about it! Others say, rules are rules, throw him out! "
My point: it must be tough to be the subject of a national scandal if you're 12, or 14, or even 53. Just ask Congressman Gary Condit. I wonder if he ever wishes he had lied about his age?
Let me know what you think. Send an e-mail to askgreta@cnn.com. That's one word, askgreta.
I'm Greta Van Susteren in Washington. Larry King is on deck. His lineup includes the Gary Condit controversy and pro-wrestler, Chyna. Batter up!
TO ORDER A VIDEO OF THIS TRANSCRIPT, PLEASE CALL 800-CNN-NEWS OR USE OUR SECURE ONLINE ORDER FORM LOCATED AT www.fdch.com
|
![[CNN.com]](http://i.cnn.net/cnn/images/newsnet/cnnlogo.gray.gif){kind=small}
TOP STORIES![[SI.com]](http://i.cnn.net/cnn/images/main/si.logo.gif){kind=logo}
SPORTS
All Scoreboards
![[CNN Money]](http://i.cnn.net/cnn/images/main/fn.logo.newsnet.gif){kind=logo}
(