CNN.com - Transcripts

Transcript Providers

Return to Transcripts main page

Nancy Grace

Michael Jackson`s Trial Continues; Verdict Watch in Blake Trial

Aired March 08, 2005 - 20:00 ET

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.

NANCY GRACE, HOST: Tonight, the Michael Jackson child sex trial rages on in a court of law. The boy accuser`s little brother is hanging tough under cross-exam by Jackson`s defense lawyer, Tom Mesereau. And he`s no idiot.
The 16-year-old Idaho girl on trial for the double shooting death of both her parents plows ahead with the defense.

And we are in a "Verdict Watch" in the Robert Blake murder trial. The Blake jury still deliberating, day three. Baretta facing life behind bars for the shooting death of his wife, Bonny Lee Bakley. Bakley also the mother of his little girl, Rosie.

Good evening, everybody. I`m Nancy Grace. And I want to thank you for being with us this evening.

Let`s see: Lizzie Borden took an axe, gave her parents 40 whacks. Not Sarah Johnson. She took a high-powered rifle, and according to prosecutors, anyway, they say the 16-year-old Idaho girl murdered her mom and dad when they disapproved of her illegal immigrant boyfriend with a drug arrest. Now, why were they upset about that?

Johnson`s defense team is desperately trying to create reasonable doubt in the mind of the jury.

And the Robert Blake jury still out in Blake`s murder trial. As of tonight, the jurors have made not a single request to review any testimony from the trial.

First, though, just when you think you`ve seen it all in the Michael Jackson trial, take a look at this.

Dusty, do you want to get this?

It just surfaced. This is a shot my producer, Elizabeth, insisted I show you. It`s a shot of Michael Jackson lying on top of a child actor -- Dusty, did you get that? -- Emmanuel Lewis, who I happen to be a very big fan of.

Lewis was just 13 years old when this was taken in 1984.

And take a look at this clip from VH-1`s documentary, "Michael Jackson`s Secret Childhood." That`s Jackson and Lewis dancing together. Lewis is now a potential witness in the case.

Tonight, in New York, defense attorney Jason Oshins, in Tampa, defense attorney Joe Episcopo, a courtroom veteran, in New York, psychologist, Caryn Stark.

But first, let`s head out to Santa Maria, California, and "Celebrity Justice" correspondent Jane Velez-Mitchell.

Jane, hello, friend. Bring me up to date.

JANE VELEZ-MITCHELL, "CELEBRITY JUSTICE": Nancy, a very dramatic day. We are in the heart of the case. The accuser`s brother, a 14-year-old boy, on the stand. This is the boy who yesterday said he saw Michael Jackson molest his brother, not once but twice, that he saw Michael Jackson naked and fully aroused, that Michael Jackson showed them adult magazines.

And today, on cross-examination, Tom Mesereau, the lead defense attorney very dramatically said, "But you couldn`t have seen this magazine, `Barely Legal,` the one that was on the screen, the one that prosecutors had entered into evidence, because it`s dated August 2003 and that`s several months after you and your family left Neverland." And the boy, somewhat shaken, said, "Well, I didn`t say exactly that magazine. I said those types of magazines." That was the big zinger of the day.

GRACE: Well, to me, the boy won. Who thinks they got zinged?

JASON OSHINS, DEFENSE ATTORNEY: I do.

GRACE: Go ahead, Jane. Who won?

VELEZ-MITCHELL: Well, I`d say, on that particular zinger, Tom Mesereau won that one. But I have to say overall this boy appeared very credible. This is going to be a very tough case to decide.

GRACE: Jane, Jane?

VELEZ-MITCHELL: I do not envy the jurors because the boy on direct seems incredibly credible, but then Tom Mesereau gets at him and punches holes in his story.

GRACE: That he didn`t know which "Barely Legal" skin rag he saw in Jackson`s place? How old is this boy, 14, on the stand?

VELEZ-MITCHELL: Yes. He`s 14-years-old, yes.

GRACE: You think, if somebody asked me, "When did Anna Nicole Smith pose for Playboy?" I would say yesterday. I don`t know. For all I know it was ten years ago. You expect him to know which "Barely Legal"? I mean, come on. Jane, from here down, they all look alike anyway. You think this kid`s going to know which girl he saw a year ago?

Wait a minute.

VELEZ-MITCHELL: The problem, Nancy, is that it was in a briefcase that the prosecution had entered into evidence and the whole establishment of it was that these magazines were found in that briefcase. And these were the magazines that Michael Jackson showed to these boys.

GRACE: Jane Velez-Mitchell, you really rolled off quite a bit of news right at the top. Now, hold on.

You said they brought on adult magazines. They showed the kids. The boy said he showed up, Jackson showed up in front of the accuser and the little brother butt naked and your words were "fully aroused." OK. Let me just hold that thought just a moment.

What else did we hear from the boy on the stand?

VELEZ-MITCHELL: Well, if you believe what he has to say, it was a litany of perversion of Michael Jackson. He claims simulated sex on a mannequin that was also thrown up on one of the screens. Michael Jackson had a cussing contest where he encouraged these boys to cuss.

He talked to them about masturbation and said, "It`s natural. You should do it. Everybody does it." The list goes on and on. And then, of course, there`s the allegations of drinking.

So if you believe this boy, if you think he`s telling the truth, and of course he says he saw Michael Jackson actually touch his brother twice on two occasions in Michael Jackson`s bedroom, then you`re going to convict. But the question is...

GRACE: What, what, what, what? Touch what?

VELEZ-MITCHELL: ... do you believe him beyond a reasonable doubt?

GRACE: Touch what? Touch what? What did he see Jackson touching?

VELEZ-MITCHELL: Well, that`s a good question. He said he saw Michael Jackson put his left hand in the boy`s "underwears" -- and he said it that way, "underwears" -- on two occasions, one night in Michael Jackson`s bedroom and then on another occasion two nights later.

He said he was creeping up the staircase. He turned to the right. He looked through the banisters and he froze. And then he left a couple of seconds later because he was so shocked by what he saw. Tom Mesereau said that he`s given conflicting accounts of exactly what he saw.

GRACE: Okay, Jason Oshins, defense attorney here in New York, in my mind, if Mesereau`s big score was the kid had the wrong "Barely Legal," -- it wasn`t the one he saw two years, it was the one that was taken out of Jackson`s bathroom a couple of months ago -- I don`t know. To me, that`s not a huge point.

OSHINS: That only goes to the timeline of when the actions occurred, which the prosecution is saying took place sometime in that six-week period between February and March. And this, of course, this...

GRACE: OK, wait, wait, wait. Timeline, what now?

OSHINS: The basis of the complaint is that the sexual allegations of the criminality occurred between February and March of `03. This magazine, of course, was from sometime over the summer.

But that`s really not the substantive issue for me. For me it`s going after the credibility of the entire family, each of the witnesses, the brother, the sister, the mother.

GRACE: Well, I know that`s what they have got to do. But if the most he can get on this kid on cross-examine, I mean, Jane Velez-Mitchell, Mesereau is a courtroom veteran.

I`m going to throw this to Joe Episcopo. Joe, if that`s the most damage he could do to this boy, then I say the boy won the day.

JOE EPISCOPO, DEFENSE LAWYER: Well, he did a lot more damage when he got a 14-year-old to admit that he`s already committed perjury once and probably twice when he was 9-years-old. Two admissions of perjury, I think that can be a reasonable doubt.

GRACE: Yes, that I would say is a much more significant problem for the prosecution.

What about it, Jane?

VELEZ-MITCHELL: Well, you know, that happened back in 2000. The boy`s now 14. He was 9 or 10 at the time. And that was a deposition that he gave in the J.C. Penney lawsuit involving his mother.

Now, a lot of people said, you know, when you`re 9 or 10, you don`t want to admit that your parents fight and you don`t want to admit that your father beats you up. And it was on those two issues that he admitted lying. So I think there was a lot of sense of compassion for him. He was a little kid at the time.

GRACE: You know, Jane, I also understood that today when the boy -- this is the child accuser`s little brother on the stand. They`re paving the way for the star witness. It`s my understanding when he had to say a curse word, he actually spelled it. He wouldn`t come out and say the curse word. Is that true, Jane?

VELEZ-MITCHELL: Yes, it is true. And the thing -- the sense I get from these kids -- I mean, they`ve painted this mother into being a total monster. Well, she has produced kids that are well-behaved, relatively articulate. These are not thugs. These are not kids where you look at them and say these are toughs. They seem to be well-educated and well- behaved children. And in that sense, they`re highly credible.

GRACE: Caryn Stark is with us. And, boy, do we need a shrink. What do you make of all of this?

CARYN STARK, PSYCHOLOGIST: Well, Nancy, speaking to the idea of him committing perjury when he was nine-years-old, I really have to say that that is not unusual. I agree with you whole-heartedly. This little boy is not in a position to be able to talk about his father that way, to be able to admit the abuse and children never do. They almost never do. You have to bring them to a therapist. They need a shrink in order to be able to talk about their issues.

GRACE: I don`t know.

Jane Velez, I`m going to come right back to you when we get back from break.

Today has been a war of wits between Tom Mesereau, one of the country`s leading criminal defense attorneys, and a 14-year-old boy, so afraid he won`t even say a curse word out loud. He spelled it on the stand.

Stay with us.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

GRACE: Those were the days. This is Jackson when he was truly a star. There you see an ever-changing face, an ever-changing persona, very far from what we see in court today.

Welcome back, everybody. I`m Nancy Grace. Thank you for being with us.

Let`s go straight back out to California.

Jane Velez-Mitchell, this is not just about the Michael Jackson, the celebrity, trial. This is symbolic of child molestation cases all over the country.

The tactics that are used in court, be they right or wrong -- OK. There we go. We`re going to court. Let`s see. I got my umbrella. I got my bodyguard. I got my family members. I got my watch fob. Oh, OK, ready for court. All right.

Michael Jackson making his way back into the courthouse. State still going strong.

Here`s another -- that was another shot of Jackson today coming into the courthouse.

Jane Velez-Mitchell, when this boy is on the stand, does he have any family members in the courtroom with him, such as his mother?

VELEZ-MITCHELL: No. He does not. Apparently there are some family members possibly in the wings back there. We got a shot actually, "Celebrity Justice" did, of the boy leaving covered by an umbrella, which prosecutors had put out to protect his identity. And we saw two boys.

So we believe the second boy could very well be behind the second umbrella, the actual accuser, who is expected to take the stand after this younger brother is done.

So they do have -- the siblings have each other, presumably. And that certainly would mean a lot for moral support. This has got to be a horrible, agonizing process for this youngster to go through. He kept looking at the clock. He kept looking back at the clock, like, "Is it break time yet? Is it break time yet?"

And there`s a lot of lack of affect, as a psychiatrist would say. I think he just wants to get through it. He`s very credible because, unlike his sister, who seemed to have somewhat of an agenda to protect her mom, this boy just doesn`t seem to care one way or another. He just wants to tell the story and get through with it and get done with it.

GRACE: I also know about an incident -- and I believe it was today -- where Mesereau said to the boy, "You said you saw Jackson masturbating your brother." And he said, "No, I did not say that." And he clarified what he said.

VELEZ-MITCHELL: Right.

GRACE: And then when we checked back in the transcript, the 14-year- old boy was right and Mesereau was wrong.

VELEZ-MITCHELL: He`s trying to trip the boy up. And he`s going scattershot. He`s going to jump from event to event. And he`s been doing that all day.

I mean, one minute you`re talking about the trip to Miami. The next minute you`re talking about what happened in bed. The next minute you`re talking about a golf cart. It`s enough to make your head spin when you`re listening to it, much less if you`re sitting on the witness stand as a 14- year-old boy, trying to be absolutely accurate.

So that`s the job of a defense attorney, but it`s a very fine line when you`re dealing with a youngster like this. He could go over the line and offend the jurors.

GRACE: SO what do you have to say regarding the line of cross- examine, Joe Episcopo?

EPISCOPO: Well, you know, it`s not just the line of cross- examination. He`s going to have a very good argument at the end that all of this molestation we`re hearing about, this graphic molestation, was occurring while there was an intense investigation by the Department of Children and Families, at the same time, not before that, not after that, at the same time he was under investigation. And I think that that also creates a reasonable doubt.

GRACE: Well, OK, Jane Velez, was it while, the DEFACS, Department of Family Children Services` investigation was going on?

VELEZ-MITCHELL: In the middle -- smack in the middle of the conspiracy, they`re interviewed by three women from the Department of Children and Family Services. And they don`t cry for help. I mea, that`s probably Mesereau`s biggest point that he makes over and over again. Where did this family say vis-a-vis the conspiracy charge, "Help us"? They went to a shopping mall. They went to a passport office. They spoke to the Department of Children and Family Services. They went hither and yon, but they never said, "Help us. We`re being held against our will."

GRACE: You know what, Jane? The other night I told a story about the little six-year-old girl that had been molested by her father, didn`t even have a hymen left, but a couple of weeks before the indictment came down, they had home videos of a birthday party where everybody was all happy.

I`m thinking about a little boy that I represented as a prosecutor. He was 10-years-old and had been molested for about a year repeatedly. And the friend would give him rolls of quarters to play in the video machine. He didn`t even understand that something wrong was happening.

Caryn Stark, I think Episcopo is correct. I think Jason Oshins is correct. The defense is going to have a field day on cross-examine with these kids. But is it that unusual to you that they didn`t say anything?

STARK: It is not unusual. And, actually, I wouldn`t anticipate anything else, Nancy. That`s exactly how it goes. Children cannot talk about abuse. If anything, you look toward the person that they`re clinging to and hanging on to and saying that they love. And that`s usually the abuser. That`s how you can tell.

GRACE: What do you think about this line of cross? Look, I don`t have against Mesereau. He has been paid to represent Jackson. Part of representing Michael Jackson is destroying this family`s credibility. End of story. I mean, I`m not going to pretty up the package. This is the deal. But do you think that it`s working in the eyes of the jury?

STARK: Well, if anything, I think he might be hurting himself in the eyes of the jury, because the jury will feel sympathetic with the child, that he`s a 14-year-old boy, and he looks nervous, and he`s looking at the clock, and he`s really wanting to get out of there.

GRACE: Yes.

STARK: And what`s very sympathetic about that?

GRACE: Jason?

OSHINS: I don`t think any 14-year-old, or for that matter, anyone enjoys being cross-examined by a skilled defense attorney, more particularly a 14-year-old who has to discuss his brother`s penis being touched by Michael Jackson. There`s no fun in any of that at all.

GRACE: No.

OSHINS: But the defense has no choice. The accusations are salacious. That is high-profiled individual. And the only way to go after it...

GRACE: Well, what do you think he was doing in bed with a 10-year-old boy?

OSHINS: ... whether we take it at face value that it`s true.

GRACE: I`m asking you.

OSHINS: The first thing that we know is that Michael Jackson clearly is strange by anyone`s standards.

GRACE: Okay. Hold on. Hold on. Hold on. You are going to use the strange defense.

Elizabeth, cracking the whip. I have got to go to break.

As we go to break, to "Trial Tracking." Opening statements are done in Miss Savannah 2003`s murder trial. Beauty queen Sharron Redmond facing hard jail time in the murder of her fiancee. Prosecutors say she shot Kevin Shorter in a jealous fit when she found out he was shacked up with another woman. Her defense promised today she will take the stand and prove self-defense.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

MICHAEL JACKSON, SINGER ACCUSED OF MOLESTATION: Years ago, I allowed a family and spend some time at Neverland. Neverland is my home. I allowed this family into my home because they told me their son was ill with cancer and needed my help. Over the years, I have helped thousands of children who are ill or in distress. These events have caused a nightmare for my family, my children and me. I never intend to place myself in so vulnerable a position ever again.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

GRACE: OK, I have got to ask Jane Velez, was that from the `93 accusation where he will never place himself in that position again or is that from the most recent set of accusations? Because all of these statements sound the same.

VELEZ-MITCHELL: Well, that`s Michael Jackson talking.

GRACE: Yes.

VELEZ-MITCHELL: And, you know, he could have avoided placing himself in this position a long, long time ago if he had just listened to public opinion and the outrage of people who don`t believe that you should be spending time in bed with somebody who isn`t related to you.

And I feel that he should have long ago drawn a line in the sand between the public Neverland and the private Neverland. The `tween should never meet, because you have kids coming to this place where a lot of good is reportedly done. And then you`ve got these private quarters where, admittedly, his own admission, he has girlie magazines. So it`s just inappropriate, period.

GRACE: Hey, Jane, yes or no on this one. The boy claimed that pornographic material would be found in a briefcase in a certain location in Jackson`s home. Was it found where the boy said it would be?

VELEZ-MITCHELL: Apparently, yes. And that`s the briefcase that`s at the center of all this debate today. Because that was the briefcase that was up on the screen in which the copy of "Barely Legal" was.

GRACE: Got you.

OK, Jason Oshins, as we went to break, as a defense attorney you are advancing the "He`s just strange, he`s just different" defense. And you know what? That may very well work. Now, you`re saying he`s different in that he was child-like, that he wanted to relive his childhood.

OSHINS: Well, clearly. He lives in Neverland. I mean, no adult in their 40s lives in Neverland.

GRACE: That`s all I wanted was a yes or no.

OSHINS: Yes, yes.

GRACE: Here`s my follow-up. So if he is child-like, asexual Peter Pan being, what`s he doing with adult pornography? That kind of blow`s the Peter Pan thing to heck and back.

OSHINS: No doubt. But I think he is in both worlds. He is an adult. Obviously, he`s a 46-year-old man.

GRACE: You can`t have both.

OSHINS: He has both. Because he lives in Neverland, and he`s Michael Jackson.

GRACE: Jane, excuse me, Jane.

Very quickly to Joe Episcopo. Joe, response?

EPISCOPO: Well, you know, you talked about two prior instances, two cases you knew of. We did a case together a couple of years ago down in Fort Lauderdale. Remember that teacher, Friedman?

GRACE: Yes.

EPISCOPO: Stacy Honowitz, the prosecutor, threw the book at her. But she came away with a conviction for contributing to the delinquency of a minor, a misdemeanor. And that`s what you got here.

GRACE: Oh, OK. Don`t get the connection. But you`re right. She did get a misdemeanor. A teacher with a student.

EPISCOPO: Her witnesses were liars, grifters, out to get money. The jury saw through it, and there you go.

GRACE: And they convicted on a misdemeanor.

EPISCOPO: That`s it. All the other felonies went.

GRACE: Jane Velez, what do you expect next?

VELEZ-MITCHELL: Well, more grilling by Tom Mesereau of this youngster. And I have to say that I think that, at a certain point, he starts to sort undo the points that he`s scored, as people say it`s too long. You can`t keep a child on the stand for this long.

But this is the heart of the case. And after that, the accuser himself comes on the stand. It`s a very big week, very dramatic. Everything that happens in this case is dramatic. You can`t walk out of their for five minutes without some bombshell dropping. It`s really, truly gripping testimony.

GRACE: Jane, I have only got a couple of seconds left. I say that Melville will most likely allow in the other two accusers from `93 and, I guess, `94. Are you still saying you don`t think he will?

VELEZ-MITCHELL: Well, I go back and forth day-to-day. I think that his criteria is, is this case as strong or stronger than those previous cases? He doesn`t want...

GRACE: So is that a yes or no?

VELEZ-MITCHELL: ... to be able to hang their hat on the old stuff.

GRACE: Yes or no? Do you think he`ll let it in?

VELEZ-MITCHELL: I don`t know yet.

GRACE: OK. I`m going out on a limb.

VELEZ-MITCHELL: Some of it, some of it.

GRACE: I`m saying Melville will let it in.

OK, got to go to break.

As we go to break, I want to remind you that we want desperately to help find missing people. Tonight, take a look at Jaquilla Scales from Wichita, Kansas, now eight, missing since 2001.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

SOPHIA CHOI, CNN ANCHOR: Hello. I`m Sophia Choi. And here`s your "Headline Prime Newsbreak."

Former President Bill Clinton says he feels fine, but he`ll check into a New York hospital on Thursday for surgery to remove scar tissue and fluid from his chest. Clinton`s office says the procedure is occasionally required after open-heart surgery like he underwent last year. He could be in the hospital for as long as ten days.

Russell Crowe, an al Qaeda target? A federal law enforcement official confirms to CNN that Crowe`s name came up in intelligence about the possible kidnapping of celebrities in what they called "a cultural destabilization plan." Crowe revealed in this month`s issue of "GQ" that he was surrounded by FBI agents at the Academy Awards in 2001.

French pharmaceutical company Sanofi-Aventis says it will seek FDA approval within months for a drug to help people lose weight. The company says a second study of the drug, Acomplia, shows it can help people drop pounds and keep them off up for up to two years. And here`s a bonus: It may also help people stop smoking.

That`s the news for now. I`m Sophia Choi. Now back to NANCY GRACE.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

ROCKY RAY MINK, FORENSIC SCIENTIST: ... photographs at the scene. And the observations associated with those demonstrate significant force involved that resulted in the deposits that you can see on the walls and surrounding items, around the head of the female.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

GRACE: You are taking a look at a witness that was on the stand a good part of today, a forensic expert. He`s brought on by the defense. We believe the defense has put up their last defense witness in the case against Sarah Johnson.

As you know, the 16-year-old girl out of Idaho seemed to have it all, beautiful parents, a brother, a gorgeous home, a guest house in the back, her own car when she`s 16. But prosecutors say when this couple disagreed with her dating an illegal alien high-school dropout with a drug arrest, they were shot dead in their own home.

Tonight, from Boise, Idaho, Sarah Johnson`s defense attorney, Bob Pangburn is with us.

Been watching you in the courtroom, friend. Good job today with that witness on the stand. My question to you is, you claim that there was another person that infiltrated the home, that killed the parents -- miraculously your client lived -- ran out unharmed. Who are these evil people?

BOB PANGBURN, ATTORNEY FOR SARAH JOHNSON: Well, first of all, good evening and thank you.

GRACE: Hello.

PANGBURN: Well, they`re the people who left the fingerprints on the scope that was taken off the gun. And they`re the people who left the stray DNA on the gun. They`re the person or people who touched one of the box of bullets, or a couple of boxes of bullets. I think those are the people who did this crime.

GRACE: Didn`t that gun belong to a family friend, that was a hunting gun that had seen many, many years of hunting, right?

PANGBURN: Well, that gun hadn`t been touched by anybody other than the owner. And, of course, these fingerprints are not his. They`ve been checked against him. That gun hadn`t been touched by anyone for maybe as long as ten years.

GRACE: Jason, what would you make of it?

OSHINS: Well, I would say, you know, it`s not first time that you can find similar circumstances, where Miss Johnson`s at home and you go ahead and accuse her because she`s the only one at one. I mean, how did, you know, Elizabeth Smart get kidnapped? And inclination is to think that it was the parents because who else was home at the time?

GRACE: I never thought it was the parents.

OSHINS: Or JonBenet Ramsey, where it was thought that her parents -- so these things happen where people can infiltrate and the lone remaining survivor is assumed to be...

GRACE: For what? There was no rape. There was no robbery. The girl`s pink bathroom was put on with the back and the front covered in the mom`s blood. In the pocket of the bathrobe are leather gloves with latex gloves inside of them with Sarah Johnson, 16-year-old`s DNA in them. Who are you speculating is the real perpetrator?

OSHINS: Well, that`s not the job of the defense counsel. But to present the opportunity as to who could do...

GRACE: No, it`s not. And you`re not the defense counselor. My question is to you, who else could it possibly be?

OSHINS: Some other unknown assailant or assailants who infiltrated and perpetrated a murder.

GRACE: Beautifully put. Beautifully put.

So, Bob Pangburn, you have got a chorus here. And everybody is screaming the SOD, the SOD defense, "Some other dude did it." Now, at one juncture were you pointing to Bruno Santos, the girl`s boyfriend, as the perp?

PANGBURN: Well, we have never believed that Bruno Santos was the person who pulled the trigger. We have got evidence in that Bruno Santos was part of a gang. Long ago there was evidence that came in that indicated that Bruno Santos was involved in the drug culture.

GRACE: Right.

PANGBURN: And, remember, this is a guy -- oh, today or yesterday -- yesterday we put on evidence that Bruno Santos`s DNA was on Sarah`s sheets. And I`ll use the nice word, DNA.

GRACE: Well, look, OK, you`re talking about his semen on her sheets.

PANGBURN: Right.

GRACE: The reality is, if his semen were on her sheets, I doubt he was there to commit a murder. I think he had something else on the mind, Bob, OK? Argue with me if you want.

But let me get back to pointing the finger at the boyfriend. The only connection`s that you think he was a member of a gang. I mean, do you have anybody placing him there? And if he is involved in this, or his gang member friends are, you think she didn`t know what her lover was up to?

PANGBURN: I`m certain that she didn`t know what this guy was up to. And he had access to any number of people who could have helped him commit this crime. Remember, these are people who didn`t even lock any door except for the front door of their house.

GRACE: OK, OK.

PANGBURN: This kid had been sneaking around. There`s evidence of his sneaky behavior in this house.

GRACE: I think he had an ally in that sneaky behavior in the house, the getting in and out without the parents knowing.

Hold on, Bob.

To Joe Episcopo in Florida. Joe, this kid, Bruno Santos, 19-years- old, illegal alien, high-school dropout, left the country. He came back voluntarily to a court of law to testify.

Now, Joe, I know your knee-jerk reaction is to go for the defense. But you want to tell me this guy came back to a court of law when he could have caught a murder charge? I don`t think so.

EPISCOPO: I think this girl`s doomed. I don`t want to discourage her attorney, but this is -- this is not -- I don`t think he`s got a winner here.

GRACE: But I`ll tell you what. He`s fighting tooth-and-nail in court. If he can get one juror to buy into this gang theory, although there`s no eyewitnesses, nothing to prove that.

Caryn, what do you think?

STARK: I think if we pay attention to the family, Nancy, it is very disturbing. Because here`s a family where you would think one member of the family would be sticking up for this girl. And they`re all against her. None of them are supportive. They all believe that she did it. And that really doesn`t bode well for the case.

GRACE: Hey, everybody. Take a listen to this.

Roll, Elizabeth, please.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

PANGBURN: Didn`t you tell Detective Harkins (ph) that you wanted to know who killed Alan and Diane, but you did not want Sarah to tell you because it would put you in a horrible situation?

PATRICIA ALDER, SARAH JOHNSON`S LEGAL GUARDIAN: I can`t remember saying that.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

GRACE: OK. That`s Patricia Alder speaking. And here is one more bite from Alder`s testimony. Take a listen -- Elizabeth?

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

PANGBURN: Whether or not you would be in a horrible position would depend on whether or not Sarah was guilty, right?

ALDER: Yes.

PANGBURN: If she were innocent, you would not be in that horrible position, would you?

ALDER: No.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

GRACE: So Caryn, you`re saying that the family, the familial reactions, mean a lot to you. Why?

STARK: Because you would really expect the family to be defending their own unless it was a different kind of a family, not such an upscale family. They`re all testifying against her, believing that she`s guilty, including her own brother. And I would find that very suspect.

GRACE: Bob Pangburn, you have led a valiant fight in the courtroom for Sarah Johnson. Will she take the stand? Is there any way? I know you`re ready to rest. But will she?

PANGBURN: She is not going to take the stand.

GRACE: Why?

PANGBURN: Well, simply, this is not a case like many assault cases or things along those lines where it`s one person`s word against another. We have believed from the very beginning that this case is won or lost on the science. And we have put on a number of highly qualified scientific forensic experts who have simply said, "No blood, no guilt."

GRACE: Well, what was all that all over her pink bathrobe? Are you telling me a perp came in the house, put on her bathrobe backwards, killed her parents, then, even though they were trying to frame her, I guess, by wearing her bathrobe, they threw the robe away so it wouldn`t be found?

PANGBURN: I`m not at all sure that they were trying to frame her. Remember, this is a bathrobe that`s on backwards. Why would the owner of a bathrobe put it on backwards? And more importantly, why would a 16-year- old girl have any idea that she would need to cover herself? This -- the more I`ve thought about this case, and this case has progressed...

GRACE: Wasn`t she a murder mystery sleuth? Wasn`t she a murder mystery sleuth?

PANGBURN: Well, the state said that, but they never showed you any books. You know, like the shower cap that supposedly covered up her head that should have been covered in blood. The shower cap is where a big portion of the state`s case is. It`s missing.

GRACE: Okay, Bob Pangburn, punching holes in the state`s case. We`ll see what happens. Will the state have a rebuttal, Bob?

PANGBURN: They have indicated that they are going to put on rebuttal evidence tomorrow that may go into the next day.

GRACE: OK. All righty. Bob Pangburn, thank you very much, friend. I`ll be seeing you in court tomorrow on the airwaves.

PANGBURN: All right. Thank you.

GRACE: Everybody, we are taking a quick break. We`ll be right back. Please stay with us.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

PANGBURN: Did you see any bruises?

DAVID DOUG NELSON, SARAH JOHNSON`S FORMER ATTY.: No, I didn`t. And I was specifically looking for those. As I remember on her right shoulder, because, of course, I`m concerned about that, if they are there and they weren`t. The left shoulder, I don`t remember seeing any bruises. So I`m going to say I didn`t see them there either. But I wasn`t as focused on the left as I was on the right.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

ROBERT BLAKE, ACTOR ON TRIAL FOR MURDER: There was stuff on the table

BARBARA WALTERS, ABC REPORTER: (UNINTELLIGIBLE)

BLAKE: Where`s the downside? You tell me where the downside is.

WALTERS: You could have gotten divorced.

BLAKE: Why?

WALTERS: Yes, but I mean, if things didn`t work out, you could have go divorced.

BLAKE: Why? It`s about Rosie. From the second I touched Rosie, it`s all about her. The greatest gift in the world, and I`m going to try to mess it up by being selfish?

(END VIDEO CLIP)

GRACE: You were just hearing the sound from the "20/20" special with Barbara Walters. It aired about two years ago on ABC. Part of the special was shown to this jury.

Today, it is day three of jury deliberations in the Robert Blake murder trial. Joining us now from L.A., Bakley family attorney, Eric Dubin.

Welcome, sir. Thank you for being with us.

ERIC DUBIN, BAKLEY FAMILY ATTORNEY: Hey, Nancy.

GRACE: You know, let me ask you a question, Eric. All B.S. aside, come on. The court has shown Blake asked four people to kill his wife. OK. Let`s just say, get rid of two of them. All right? If you think they have got credibility problems. What is the jury thinking?

DUBIN: I hope guilty, Nancy. You`re right. What if Scott Peterson went to one person and confessed a desire to murder his wife? Blake went to six people. But let them talk about it, Nancy.

GRACE: Wait, did you say six? Because I had four.

DUBIN: No, there`s more than four. It gets pretty deep.

GRACE: Who are the six people he just happened to casually mention murdering his wife to?

DUBIN: He either asked six people to murder or that he wanted her dead. And that`s not even counting Caldwell and a bunch of other people that we know happened, as well.

But you know what, Nancy? The main question I get in this case is, I know he did it, but do you think they met their burden of proof? And that seems to be the theme for a celebrity case where normally a jury goes with their gut instinct. And if their gut tells them guilty, they convict. With the celebrity, it`s more about the game of reasonable doubt. Did they prove it?

We know he did it. I mean, it`s obvious. He know he asked these people. And as far as these hit men being impeached or cross-examined, you find me a potential hit man that is not cross-examinable then, you know, you have got an amazing person, I guess. I don`t know.

GRACE: Joe Episcopo, you always have something to say for the defense.

EPISCOPO: Yes, Nancy.

GRACE: What do you think about Blake asking or discussing casually with six people murdering his wife?

EPISCOPO: Well, let`s talk about the star witness. Have you ever seen a unicorn? Well, apparently Duffy Hamilton did, and he even tried to dig it up in his front yard.

GRACE: OK, I agree with you. He is out. What about the other five?

EPISCOPO: Well, you know, look. Talking to someone about killing someone is not solicitation. I believe the jury is hung up...

(LAUGHTER)

EPISCOPO: Wait a minute. Wait a minute.

GRACE: OK.

EPISCOPO: I believe the jury is hung up on the solicitation counts. I think they`re going to convict him of murder because he`s got the strongest motive and he looks evil.

GRACE: What about it, Jason Oshins? Three days, three days of deliberations and Episcopo is right. He has a -- Elizabeth, can you show me a shot of Blake? He always sits there as if he wants to murder the jury. He just looks furious.

I mean, please. Soften this guy up a little bit. Put on a pink shirt. I don`t know, anything.

OSHINS: They should bring back the cockatiel and let him sit on top of Blake`s shoulder. That might assist.

GRACE: Well, I`m serious. You know, you don`t sit there and look like a thug when you`re on trial for murder. It`s not a good look.

OSHINS: Also part of the problem, though, is the victim herself, again, not the most likable, not the most -- she`s in the sex business, soliciting a lot of men.

GRACE: Well, excuse me, what`s the problem? When was this a popularity contest? Wait, wait, wait, wait a minute.

OSHINS: Yes.

GRACE: There is no evidence she was soliciting sex. She had a Lonely Heart`s Club fan mail thing where she would get money for topless...

(CROSSTALK)

OSHINS: Manipulating men and...

GRACE: You said solicitation for sex. You said that. And you cannot say that about this victim.

OSHINS: I will take that back.

GRACE: You bet you will.

OSHINS: Thank you.

GRACE: All right. You know what? Let me go back to Eric Dubin.

See, as much as I`m fussing at Oshins, he is right. The jury has been tainted on the victim as if she`s the one on trial. Her reputation has been ruined to suggest that there are any number of men that will want to kill her. I think it`s preposterous, Eric.

DUBIN: It is. And my job will be in my case to rehabilitate and this woman and this family. You got to understand. The information that most of these people get is what Blake told the hit men about Bonny to entice them to commit a murder or what he told the public to beat a murder charge.

Bonny was a mother of four. She had a business. She supported the family. If you have got a problem with nudity, you`d better go after Hugh Hefner, as well.

As far as Schwartzbach goes, the biggest problem and biggest mistake he made in his closing was he started off telling the jury, "This is a ridiculous charge." And his final thing he said to the jury was, "Even if you think it`s probable he did it, that`s not enough." To me, that was a big jump.

And like he talked about, Blake is sitting there as a thug. So for Schwartzbach to cry to the jury with Blake right behind him with an angry look on his face, I don`t think played very well.

GRACE: Well, to me, the strongest evidence -- and I agree with a little bit of what Oshins and Episcopo are saying. The biggest problem for Blake is the timeline. He leaves her in a darkened alley. He goes into a restaurant to allegedly get a gun he forgot. And then comes right back out. And in those five minutes, this unknown, unspottable super sneaky assailant kills his wife and makes off. Now, apparently not leaving the scene, because he dumped the gun right there at a Dixie dumpster.

OSHINS: Six feet away.

DUBIN: He`s got no alibi. Twenty people saw him eat dinner. Twenty people saw him back and get a doctor, but nobody saw him come back and get this mystery gun.

GRACE: You know, Caryn Stark, what I -- I hate a lot of things about this trial. But the way Bonny Lee Bakley -- look, not one of us at this table hasn`t been a bad person at some point. And it`s just a crying shame when a case is a popularity contest about the victim.

You know, today may be the jury doesn`t like her. The defense doesn`t like her. You know, Caryn, it might be you or me that they don`t like.

STARK: You know what it makes me think of, Nancy? It makes me think of when they used to be able to put a person who was raped, her history on the stand and talk about her character, which they can`t do anymore. They`re turning this victim into the person who deserved to be killed in a way. It`s like let`s not really do anything or prosecute him because look how horrible she was. Anyone would want to kill her. It`s sort of how it comes across to me. And that doesn`t make any sense.

OSHINS: Well, a good defense is, in this case, a good offense, where you can go after the victim herself and demonize her in some way, as Nancy said. That`s part of what you have to do in order to go after success in a court case.

GRACE: You know what, Jason? I disagree with you. You`re dragging a dead mother through the mud. There`s got to be a more honorable way to win a murder case. That`s just me though. That`s just me.

Got to go to break, everybody.

But as we go, to "Trial Tracking." Opening statements today in the trial of a truck driver in a fatal smuggling scheme. Tyrone Williams charged with transporting dozens of innocent immigrants across the border. Seventeen perished during the trip, including a 5-year-old boy, suffocating to death in the stifling heat of a container truck. He actually abandoned the trailer after seeing the bodies. He faces the death penalty.

Local news for some of you coming up. But we`ll be right back.

And remember, you get live coverage of the Jackson trial, the Robert Blake "Verdict Watch," and the Johnson case tomorrow, 3:00 to 5:00 Eastern on Court TV`s "Closing Arguments."

Please stay with us.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

GRACE: We want desperately to help find missing people. Tonight, take a look at Jaquilla Scales from Wichita, now eight-years-old. She`s been missing since 2001. Look at that precious face. Any info on Jaquilla Scales, please call the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children, 1-800-THE-LOST. Please help us.

And if you are a crime victim, you`ve got a story to tell, know of an injustice, or a case that needs a spotlight, please call 1-888-GRACE-01, 888-472-2301 or go to our Web site, CNN.com/Nancygrace.

Man, what a day in America`s courtrooms all across the country. We gave you a little taste of three trials going down.

Before we say good night, very quickly, Eric Dubin, was there ever any evidence pointing to anyone other than Blake as being the killer?

DUBIN: Nobody. They didn`t even really go there. You know, Bonny had been living with Blake five days before she was murdered. She was murdered on a Friday. The baby was due back on a Monday. Nobody knew Bonny was there. There`s a one-minute window of opportunity, with a window down, no alibi. Robert Blake is the right guy.

GRACE: Eric Dubin with us. Thank you very much, sir.

I want to thank all of my guests. Tonight, defense attorneys Jason Oshins, Joe Episcopo, psychologist Caryn Stark, Eric Dubin, earlier "Celebrity Justice`s" Jane Velez-Mitchell and defense lawyer Bob Pangburn from Boise.

But of course my biggest thank you is to you for being with us tonight and inviting us into your homes. I`m Nancy Grace signing off. I hope you join us back tomorrow night, right here, 8 o`clock sharp. Until then, good night, friend.

Here`s a shot of Jessie Lunsford, the nine-year-old Florida girl missing since Feb. 23. Any info, please call Citrus County sheriff, 352- 726-1121.

END

Aired March 8, 2005 - 20:00:00 ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
NANCY GRACE, HOST: Tonight, the Michael Jackson child sex trial rages on in a court of law. The boy accuser`s little brother is hanging tough under cross-exam by Jackson`s defense lawyer, Tom Mesereau. And he`s no idiot.
The 16-year-old Idaho girl on trial for the double shooting death of both her parents plows ahead with the defense.

And we are in a "Verdict Watch" in the Robert Blake murder trial. The Blake jury still deliberating, day three. Baretta facing life behind bars for the shooting death of his wife, Bonny Lee Bakley. Bakley also the mother of his little girl, Rosie.

Good evening, everybody. I`m Nancy Grace. And I want to thank you for being with us this evening.

Let`s see: Lizzie Borden took an axe, gave her parents 40 whacks. Not Sarah Johnson. She took a high-powered rifle, and according to prosecutors, anyway, they say the 16-year-old Idaho girl murdered her mom and dad when they disapproved of her illegal immigrant boyfriend with a drug arrest. Now, why were they upset about that?

Johnson`s defense team is desperately trying to create reasonable doubt in the mind of the jury.

And the Robert Blake jury still out in Blake`s murder trial. As of tonight, the jurors have made not a single request to review any testimony from the trial.

First, though, just when you think you`ve seen it all in the Michael Jackson trial, take a look at this.

Dusty, do you want to get this?

It just surfaced. This is a shot my producer, Elizabeth, insisted I show you. It`s a shot of Michael Jackson lying on top of a child actor -- Dusty, did you get that? -- Emmanuel Lewis, who I happen to be a very big fan of.

Lewis was just 13 years old when this was taken in 1984.

And take a look at this clip from VH-1`s documentary, "Michael Jackson`s Secret Childhood." That`s Jackson and Lewis dancing together. Lewis is now a potential witness in the case.

Tonight, in New York, defense attorney Jason Oshins, in Tampa, defense attorney Joe Episcopo, a courtroom veteran, in New York, psychologist, Caryn Stark.

But first, let`s head out to Santa Maria, California, and "Celebrity Justice" correspondent Jane Velez-Mitchell.

Jane, hello, friend. Bring me up to date.

JANE VELEZ-MITCHELL, "CELEBRITY JUSTICE": Nancy, a very dramatic day. We are in the heart of the case. The accuser`s brother, a 14-year-old boy, on the stand. This is the boy who yesterday said he saw Michael Jackson molest his brother, not once but twice, that he saw Michael Jackson naked and fully aroused, that Michael Jackson showed them adult magazines.

And today, on cross-examination, Tom Mesereau, the lead defense attorney very dramatically said, "But you couldn`t have seen this magazine, `Barely Legal,` the one that was on the screen, the one that prosecutors had entered into evidence, because it`s dated August 2003 and that`s several months after you and your family left Neverland." And the boy, somewhat shaken, said, "Well, I didn`t say exactly that magazine. I said those types of magazines." That was the big zinger of the day.

GRACE: Well, to me, the boy won. Who thinks they got zinged?

JASON OSHINS, DEFENSE ATTORNEY: I do.

GRACE: Go ahead, Jane. Who won?

VELEZ-MITCHELL: Well, I`d say, on that particular zinger, Tom Mesereau won that one. But I have to say overall this boy appeared very credible. This is going to be a very tough case to decide.

GRACE: Jane, Jane?

VELEZ-MITCHELL: I do not envy the jurors because the boy on direct seems incredibly credible, but then Tom Mesereau gets at him and punches holes in his story.

GRACE: That he didn`t know which "Barely Legal" skin rag he saw in Jackson`s place? How old is this boy, 14, on the stand?

VELEZ-MITCHELL: Yes. He`s 14-years-old, yes.

GRACE: You think, if somebody asked me, "When did Anna Nicole Smith pose for Playboy?" I would say yesterday. I don`t know. For all I know it was ten years ago. You expect him to know which "Barely Legal"? I mean, come on. Jane, from here down, they all look alike anyway. You think this kid`s going to know which girl he saw a year ago?

Wait a minute.

VELEZ-MITCHELL: The problem, Nancy, is that it was in a briefcase that the prosecution had entered into evidence and the whole establishment of it was that these magazines were found in that briefcase. And these were the magazines that Michael Jackson showed to these boys.

GRACE: Jane Velez-Mitchell, you really rolled off quite a bit of news right at the top. Now, hold on.

You said they brought on adult magazines. They showed the kids. The boy said he showed up, Jackson showed up in front of the accuser and the little brother butt naked and your words were "fully aroused." OK. Let me just hold that thought just a moment.

What else did we hear from the boy on the stand?

VELEZ-MITCHELL: Well, if you believe what he has to say, it was a litany of perversion of Michael Jackson. He claims simulated sex on a mannequin that was also thrown up on one of the screens. Michael Jackson had a cussing contest where he encouraged these boys to cuss.

He talked to them about masturbation and said, "It`s natural. You should do it. Everybody does it." The list goes on and on. And then, of course, there`s the allegations of drinking.

So if you believe this boy, if you think he`s telling the truth, and of course he says he saw Michael Jackson actually touch his brother twice on two occasions in Michael Jackson`s bedroom, then you`re going to convict. But the question is...

GRACE: What, what, what, what? Touch what?

VELEZ-MITCHELL: ... do you believe him beyond a reasonable doubt?

GRACE: Touch what? Touch what? What did he see Jackson touching?

VELEZ-MITCHELL: Well, that`s a good question. He said he saw Michael Jackson put his left hand in the boy`s "underwears" -- and he said it that way, "underwears" -- on two occasions, one night in Michael Jackson`s bedroom and then on another occasion two nights later.

He said he was creeping up the staircase. He turned to the right. He looked through the banisters and he froze. And then he left a couple of seconds later because he was so shocked by what he saw. Tom Mesereau said that he`s given conflicting accounts of exactly what he saw.

GRACE: Okay, Jason Oshins, defense attorney here in New York, in my mind, if Mesereau`s big score was the kid had the wrong "Barely Legal," -- it wasn`t the one he saw two years, it was the one that was taken out of Jackson`s bathroom a couple of months ago -- I don`t know. To me, that`s not a huge point.

OSHINS: That only goes to the timeline of when the actions occurred, which the prosecution is saying took place sometime in that six-week period between February and March. And this, of course, this...

GRACE: OK, wait, wait, wait. Timeline, what now?

OSHINS: The basis of the complaint is that the sexual allegations of the criminality occurred between February and March of `03. This magazine, of course, was from sometime over the summer.

But that`s really not the substantive issue for me. For me it`s going after the credibility of the entire family, each of the witnesses, the brother, the sister, the mother.

GRACE: Well, I know that`s what they have got to do. But if the most he can get on this kid on cross-examine, I mean, Jane Velez-Mitchell, Mesereau is a courtroom veteran.

I`m going to throw this to Joe Episcopo. Joe, if that`s the most damage he could do to this boy, then I say the boy won the day.

JOE EPISCOPO, DEFENSE LAWYER: Well, he did a lot more damage when he got a 14-year-old to admit that he`s already committed perjury once and probably twice when he was 9-years-old. Two admissions of perjury, I think that can be a reasonable doubt.

GRACE: Yes, that I would say is a much more significant problem for the prosecution.

What about it, Jane?

VELEZ-MITCHELL: Well, you know, that happened back in 2000. The boy`s now 14. He was 9 or 10 at the time. And that was a deposition that he gave in the J.C. Penney lawsuit involving his mother.

Now, a lot of people said, you know, when you`re 9 or 10, you don`t want to admit that your parents fight and you don`t want to admit that your father beats you up. And it was on those two issues that he admitted lying. So I think there was a lot of sense of compassion for him. He was a little kid at the time.

GRACE: You know, Jane, I also understood that today when the boy -- this is the child accuser`s little brother on the stand. They`re paving the way for the star witness. It`s my understanding when he had to say a curse word, he actually spelled it. He wouldn`t come out and say the curse word. Is that true, Jane?

VELEZ-MITCHELL: Yes, it is true. And the thing -- the sense I get from these kids -- I mean, they`ve painted this mother into being a total monster. Well, she has produced kids that are well-behaved, relatively articulate. These are not thugs. These are not kids where you look at them and say these are toughs. They seem to be well-educated and well- behaved children. And in that sense, they`re highly credible.

GRACE: Caryn Stark is with us. And, boy, do we need a shrink. What do you make of all of this?

CARYN STARK, PSYCHOLOGIST: Well, Nancy, speaking to the idea of him committing perjury when he was nine-years-old, I really have to say that that is not unusual. I agree with you whole-heartedly. This little boy is not in a position to be able to talk about his father that way, to be able to admit the abuse and children never do. They almost never do. You have to bring them to a therapist. They need a shrink in order to be able to talk about their issues.

GRACE: I don`t know.

Jane Velez, I`m going to come right back to you when we get back from break.

Today has been a war of wits between Tom Mesereau, one of the country`s leading criminal defense attorneys, and a 14-year-old boy, so afraid he won`t even say a curse word out loud. He spelled it on the stand.

Stay with us.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

GRACE: Those were the days. This is Jackson when he was truly a star. There you see an ever-changing face, an ever-changing persona, very far from what we see in court today.

Welcome back, everybody. I`m Nancy Grace. Thank you for being with us.

Let`s go straight back out to California.

Jane Velez-Mitchell, this is not just about the Michael Jackson, the celebrity, trial. This is symbolic of child molestation cases all over the country.

The tactics that are used in court, be they right or wrong -- OK. There we go. We`re going to court. Let`s see. I got my umbrella. I got my bodyguard. I got my family members. I got my watch fob. Oh, OK, ready for court. All right.

Michael Jackson making his way back into the courthouse. State still going strong.

Here`s another -- that was another shot of Jackson today coming into the courthouse.

Jane Velez-Mitchell, when this boy is on the stand, does he have any family members in the courtroom with him, such as his mother?

VELEZ-MITCHELL: No. He does not. Apparently there are some family members possibly in the wings back there. We got a shot actually, "Celebrity Justice" did, of the boy leaving covered by an umbrella, which prosecutors had put out to protect his identity. And we saw two boys.

So we believe the second boy could very well be behind the second umbrella, the actual accuser, who is expected to take the stand after this younger brother is done.

So they do have -- the siblings have each other, presumably. And that certainly would mean a lot for moral support. This has got to be a horrible, agonizing process for this youngster to go through. He kept looking at the clock. He kept looking back at the clock, like, "Is it break time yet? Is it break time yet?"

And there`s a lot of lack of affect, as a psychiatrist would say. I think he just wants to get through it. He`s very credible because, unlike his sister, who seemed to have somewhat of an agenda to protect her mom, this boy just doesn`t seem to care one way or another. He just wants to tell the story and get through with it and get done with it.

GRACE: I also know about an incident -- and I believe it was today -- where Mesereau said to the boy, "You said you saw Jackson masturbating your brother." And he said, "No, I did not say that." And he clarified what he said.

VELEZ-MITCHELL: Right.

GRACE: And then when we checked back in the transcript, the 14-year- old boy was right and Mesereau was wrong.

VELEZ-MITCHELL: He`s trying to trip the boy up. And he`s going scattershot. He`s going to jump from event to event. And he`s been doing that all day.

I mean, one minute you`re talking about the trip to Miami. The next minute you`re talking about what happened in bed. The next minute you`re talking about a golf cart. It`s enough to make your head spin when you`re listening to it, much less if you`re sitting on the witness stand as a 14- year-old boy, trying to be absolutely accurate.

So that`s the job of a defense attorney, but it`s a very fine line when you`re dealing with a youngster like this. He could go over the line and offend the jurors.

GRACE: SO what do you have to say regarding the line of cross- examine, Joe Episcopo?

EPISCOPO: Well, you know, it`s not just the line of cross- examination. He`s going to have a very good argument at the end that all of this molestation we`re hearing about, this graphic molestation, was occurring while there was an intense investigation by the Department of Children and Families, at the same time, not before that, not after that, at the same time he was under investigation. And I think that that also creates a reasonable doubt.

GRACE: Well, OK, Jane Velez, was it while, the DEFACS, Department of Family Children Services` investigation was going on?

VELEZ-MITCHELL: In the middle -- smack in the middle of the conspiracy, they`re interviewed by three women from the Department of Children and Family Services. And they don`t cry for help. I mea, that`s probably Mesereau`s biggest point that he makes over and over again. Where did this family say vis-a-vis the conspiracy charge, "Help us"? They went to a shopping mall. They went to a passport office. They spoke to the Department of Children and Family Services. They went hither and yon, but they never said, "Help us. We`re being held against our will."

GRACE: You know what, Jane? The other night I told a story about the little six-year-old girl that had been molested by her father, didn`t even have a hymen left, but a couple of weeks before the indictment came down, they had home videos of a birthday party where everybody was all happy.

I`m thinking about a little boy that I represented as a prosecutor. He was 10-years-old and had been molested for about a year repeatedly. And the friend would give him rolls of quarters to play in the video machine. He didn`t even understand that something wrong was happening.

Caryn Stark, I think Episcopo is correct. I think Jason Oshins is correct. The defense is going to have a field day on cross-examine with these kids. But is it that unusual to you that they didn`t say anything?

STARK: It is not unusual. And, actually, I wouldn`t anticipate anything else, Nancy. That`s exactly how it goes. Children cannot talk about abuse. If anything, you look toward the person that they`re clinging to and hanging on to and saying that they love. And that`s usually the abuser. That`s how you can tell.

GRACE: What do you think about this line of cross? Look, I don`t have against Mesereau. He has been paid to represent Jackson. Part of representing Michael Jackson is destroying this family`s credibility. End of story. I mean, I`m not going to pretty up the package. This is the deal. But do you think that it`s working in the eyes of the jury?

STARK: Well, if anything, I think he might be hurting himself in the eyes of the jury, because the jury will feel sympathetic with the child, that he`s a 14-year-old boy, and he looks nervous, and he`s looking at the clock, and he`s really wanting to get out of there.

GRACE: Yes.

STARK: And what`s very sympathetic about that?

GRACE: Jason?

OSHINS: I don`t think any 14-year-old, or for that matter, anyone enjoys being cross-examined by a skilled defense attorney, more particularly a 14-year-old who has to discuss his brother`s penis being touched by Michael Jackson. There`s no fun in any of that at all.

GRACE: No.

OSHINS: But the defense has no choice. The accusations are salacious. That is high-profiled individual. And the only way to go after it...

GRACE: Well, what do you think he was doing in bed with a 10-year-old boy?

OSHINS: ... whether we take it at face value that it`s true.

GRACE: I`m asking you.

OSHINS: The first thing that we know is that Michael Jackson clearly is strange by anyone`s standards.

GRACE: Okay. Hold on. Hold on. Hold on. You are going to use the strange defense.

Elizabeth, cracking the whip. I have got to go to break.

As we go to break, to "Trial Tracking." Opening statements are done in Miss Savannah 2003`s murder trial. Beauty queen Sharron Redmond facing hard jail time in the murder of her fiancee. Prosecutors say she shot Kevin Shorter in a jealous fit when she found out he was shacked up with another woman. Her defense promised today she will take the stand and prove self-defense.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

MICHAEL JACKSON, SINGER ACCUSED OF MOLESTATION: Years ago, I allowed a family and spend some time at Neverland. Neverland is my home. I allowed this family into my home because they told me their son was ill with cancer and needed my help. Over the years, I have helped thousands of children who are ill or in distress. These events have caused a nightmare for my family, my children and me. I never intend to place myself in so vulnerable a position ever again.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

GRACE: OK, I have got to ask Jane Velez, was that from the `93 accusation where he will never place himself in that position again or is that from the most recent set of accusations? Because all of these statements sound the same.

VELEZ-MITCHELL: Well, that`s Michael Jackson talking.

GRACE: Yes.

VELEZ-MITCHELL: And, you know, he could have avoided placing himself in this position a long, long time ago if he had just listened to public opinion and the outrage of people who don`t believe that you should be spending time in bed with somebody who isn`t related to you.

And I feel that he should have long ago drawn a line in the sand between the public Neverland and the private Neverland. The `tween should never meet, because you have kids coming to this place where a lot of good is reportedly done. And then you`ve got these private quarters where, admittedly, his own admission, he has girlie magazines. So it`s just inappropriate, period.

GRACE: Hey, Jane, yes or no on this one. The boy claimed that pornographic material would be found in a briefcase in a certain location in Jackson`s home. Was it found where the boy said it would be?

VELEZ-MITCHELL: Apparently, yes. And that`s the briefcase that`s at the center of all this debate today. Because that was the briefcase that was up on the screen in which the copy of "Barely Legal" was.

GRACE: Got you.

OK, Jason Oshins, as we went to break, as a defense attorney you are advancing the "He`s just strange, he`s just different" defense. And you know what? That may very well work. Now, you`re saying he`s different in that he was child-like, that he wanted to relive his childhood.

OSHINS: Well, clearly. He lives in Neverland. I mean, no adult in their 40s lives in Neverland.

GRACE: That`s all I wanted was a yes or no.

OSHINS: Yes, yes.

GRACE: Here`s my follow-up. So if he is child-like, asexual Peter Pan being, what`s he doing with adult pornography? That kind of blow`s the Peter Pan thing to heck and back.

OSHINS: No doubt. But I think he is in both worlds. He is an adult. Obviously, he`s a 46-year-old man.

GRACE: You can`t have both.

OSHINS: He has both. Because he lives in Neverland, and he`s Michael Jackson.

GRACE: Jane, excuse me, Jane.

Very quickly to Joe Episcopo. Joe, response?

EPISCOPO: Well, you know, you talked about two prior instances, two cases you knew of. We did a case together a couple of years ago down in Fort Lauderdale. Remember that teacher, Friedman?

GRACE: Yes.

EPISCOPO: Stacy Honowitz, the prosecutor, threw the book at her. But she came away with a conviction for contributing to the delinquency of a minor, a misdemeanor. And that`s what you got here.

GRACE: Oh, OK. Don`t get the connection. But you`re right. She did get a misdemeanor. A teacher with a student.

EPISCOPO: Her witnesses were liars, grifters, out to get money. The jury saw through it, and there you go.

GRACE: And they convicted on a misdemeanor.

EPISCOPO: That`s it. All the other felonies went.

GRACE: Jane Velez, what do you expect next?

VELEZ-MITCHELL: Well, more grilling by Tom Mesereau of this youngster. And I have to say that I think that, at a certain point, he starts to sort undo the points that he`s scored, as people say it`s too long. You can`t keep a child on the stand for this long.

But this is the heart of the case. And after that, the accuser himself comes on the stand. It`s a very big week, very dramatic. Everything that happens in this case is dramatic. You can`t walk out of their for five minutes without some bombshell dropping. It`s really, truly gripping testimony.

GRACE: Jane, I have only got a couple of seconds left. I say that Melville will most likely allow in the other two accusers from `93 and, I guess, `94. Are you still saying you don`t think he will?

VELEZ-MITCHELL: Well, I go back and forth day-to-day. I think that his criteria is, is this case as strong or stronger than those previous cases? He doesn`t want...

GRACE: So is that a yes or no?

VELEZ-MITCHELL: ... to be able to hang their hat on the old stuff.

GRACE: Yes or no? Do you think he`ll let it in?

VELEZ-MITCHELL: I don`t know yet.

GRACE: OK. I`m going out on a limb.

VELEZ-MITCHELL: Some of it, some of it.

GRACE: I`m saying Melville will let it in.

OK, got to go to break.

As we go to break, I want to remind you that we want desperately to help find missing people. Tonight, take a look at Jaquilla Scales from Wichita, Kansas, now eight, missing since 2001.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

SOPHIA CHOI, CNN ANCHOR: Hello. I`m Sophia Choi. And here`s your "Headline Prime Newsbreak."

Former President Bill Clinton says he feels fine, but he`ll check into a New York hospital on Thursday for surgery to remove scar tissue and fluid from his chest. Clinton`s office says the procedure is occasionally required after open-heart surgery like he underwent last year. He could be in the hospital for as long as ten days.

Russell Crowe, an al Qaeda target? A federal law enforcement official confirms to CNN that Crowe`s name came up in intelligence about the possible kidnapping of celebrities in what they called "a cultural destabilization plan." Crowe revealed in this month`s issue of "GQ" that he was surrounded by FBI agents at the Academy Awards in 2001.

French pharmaceutical company Sanofi-Aventis says it will seek FDA approval within months for a drug to help people lose weight. The company says a second study of the drug, Acomplia, shows it can help people drop pounds and keep them off up for up to two years. And here`s a bonus: It may also help people stop smoking.

That`s the news for now. I`m Sophia Choi. Now back to NANCY GRACE.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

ROCKY RAY MINK, FORENSIC SCIENTIST: ... photographs at the scene. And the observations associated with those demonstrate significant force involved that resulted in the deposits that you can see on the walls and surrounding items, around the head of the female.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

GRACE: You are taking a look at a witness that was on the stand a good part of today, a forensic expert. He`s brought on by the defense. We believe the defense has put up their last defense witness in the case against Sarah Johnson.

As you know, the 16-year-old girl out of Idaho seemed to have it all, beautiful parents, a brother, a gorgeous home, a guest house in the back, her own car when she`s 16. But prosecutors say when this couple disagreed with her dating an illegal alien high-school dropout with a drug arrest, they were shot dead in their own home.

Tonight, from Boise, Idaho, Sarah Johnson`s defense attorney, Bob Pangburn is with us.

Been watching you in the courtroom, friend. Good job today with that witness on the stand. My question to you is, you claim that there was another person that infiltrated the home, that killed the parents -- miraculously your client lived -- ran out unharmed. Who are these evil people?

BOB PANGBURN, ATTORNEY FOR SARAH JOHNSON: Well, first of all, good evening and thank you.

GRACE: Hello.

PANGBURN: Well, they`re the people who left the fingerprints on the scope that was taken off the gun. And they`re the people who left the stray DNA on the gun. They`re the person or people who touched one of the box of bullets, or a couple of boxes of bullets. I think those are the people who did this crime.

GRACE: Didn`t that gun belong to a family friend, that was a hunting gun that had seen many, many years of hunting, right?

PANGBURN: Well, that gun hadn`t been touched by anybody other than the owner. And, of course, these fingerprints are not his. They`ve been checked against him. That gun hadn`t been touched by anyone for maybe as long as ten years.

GRACE: Jason, what would you make of it?

OSHINS: Well, I would say, you know, it`s not first time that you can find similar circumstances, where Miss Johnson`s at home and you go ahead and accuse her because she`s the only one at one. I mean, how did, you know, Elizabeth Smart get kidnapped? And inclination is to think that it was the parents because who else was home at the time?

GRACE: I never thought it was the parents.

OSHINS: Or JonBenet Ramsey, where it was thought that her parents -- so these things happen where people can infiltrate and the lone remaining survivor is assumed to be...

GRACE: For what? There was no rape. There was no robbery. The girl`s pink bathroom was put on with the back and the front covered in the mom`s blood. In the pocket of the bathrobe are leather gloves with latex gloves inside of them with Sarah Johnson, 16-year-old`s DNA in them. Who are you speculating is the real perpetrator?

OSHINS: Well, that`s not the job of the defense counsel. But to present the opportunity as to who could do...

GRACE: No, it`s not. And you`re not the defense counselor. My question is to you, who else could it possibly be?

OSHINS: Some other unknown assailant or assailants who infiltrated and perpetrated a murder.

GRACE: Beautifully put. Beautifully put.

So, Bob Pangburn, you have got a chorus here. And everybody is screaming the SOD, the SOD defense, "Some other dude did it." Now, at one juncture were you pointing to Bruno Santos, the girl`s boyfriend, as the perp?

PANGBURN: Well, we have never believed that Bruno Santos was the person who pulled the trigger. We have got evidence in that Bruno Santos was part of a gang. Long ago there was evidence that came in that indicated that Bruno Santos was involved in the drug culture.

GRACE: Right.

PANGBURN: And, remember, this is a guy -- oh, today or yesterday -- yesterday we put on evidence that Bruno Santos`s DNA was on Sarah`s sheets. And I`ll use the nice word, DNA.

GRACE: Well, look, OK, you`re talking about his semen on her sheets.

PANGBURN: Right.

GRACE: The reality is, if his semen were on her sheets, I doubt he was there to commit a murder. I think he had something else on the mind, Bob, OK? Argue with me if you want.

But let me get back to pointing the finger at the boyfriend. The only connection`s that you think he was a member of a gang. I mean, do you have anybody placing him there? And if he is involved in this, or his gang member friends are, you think she didn`t know what her lover was up to?

PANGBURN: I`m certain that she didn`t know what this guy was up to. And he had access to any number of people who could have helped him commit this crime. Remember, these are people who didn`t even lock any door except for the front door of their house.

GRACE: OK, OK.

PANGBURN: This kid had been sneaking around. There`s evidence of his sneaky behavior in this house.

GRACE: I think he had an ally in that sneaky behavior in the house, the getting in and out without the parents knowing.

Hold on, Bob.

To Joe Episcopo in Florida. Joe, this kid, Bruno Santos, 19-years- old, illegal alien, high-school dropout, left the country. He came back voluntarily to a court of law to testify.

Now, Joe, I know your knee-jerk reaction is to go for the defense. But you want to tell me this guy came back to a court of law when he could have caught a murder charge? I don`t think so.

EPISCOPO: I think this girl`s doomed. I don`t want to discourage her attorney, but this is -- this is not -- I don`t think he`s got a winner here.

GRACE: But I`ll tell you what. He`s fighting tooth-and-nail in court. If he can get one juror to buy into this gang theory, although there`s no eyewitnesses, nothing to prove that.

Caryn, what do you think?

STARK: I think if we pay attention to the family, Nancy, it is very disturbing. Because here`s a family where you would think one member of the family would be sticking up for this girl. And they`re all against her. None of them are supportive. They all believe that she did it. And that really doesn`t bode well for the case.

GRACE: Hey, everybody. Take a listen to this.

Roll, Elizabeth, please.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

PANGBURN: Didn`t you tell Detective Harkins (ph) that you wanted to know who killed Alan and Diane, but you did not want Sarah to tell you because it would put you in a horrible situation?

PATRICIA ALDER, SARAH JOHNSON`S LEGAL GUARDIAN: I can`t remember saying that.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

GRACE: OK. That`s Patricia Alder speaking. And here is one more bite from Alder`s testimony. Take a listen -- Elizabeth?

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

PANGBURN: Whether or not you would be in a horrible position would depend on whether or not Sarah was guilty, right?

ALDER: Yes.

PANGBURN: If she were innocent, you would not be in that horrible position, would you?

ALDER: No.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

GRACE: So Caryn, you`re saying that the family, the familial reactions, mean a lot to you. Why?

STARK: Because you would really expect the family to be defending their own unless it was a different kind of a family, not such an upscale family. They`re all testifying against her, believing that she`s guilty, including her own brother. And I would find that very suspect.

GRACE: Bob Pangburn, you have led a valiant fight in the courtroom for Sarah Johnson. Will she take the stand? Is there any way? I know you`re ready to rest. But will she?

PANGBURN: She is not going to take the stand.

GRACE: Why?

PANGBURN: Well, simply, this is not a case like many assault cases or things along those lines where it`s one person`s word against another. We have believed from the very beginning that this case is won or lost on the science. And we have put on a number of highly qualified scientific forensic experts who have simply said, "No blood, no guilt."

GRACE: Well, what was all that all over her pink bathrobe? Are you telling me a perp came in the house, put on her bathrobe backwards, killed her parents, then, even though they were trying to frame her, I guess, by wearing her bathrobe, they threw the robe away so it wouldn`t be found?

PANGBURN: I`m not at all sure that they were trying to frame her. Remember, this is a bathrobe that`s on backwards. Why would the owner of a bathrobe put it on backwards? And more importantly, why would a 16-year- old girl have any idea that she would need to cover herself? This -- the more I`ve thought about this case, and this case has progressed...

GRACE: Wasn`t she a murder mystery sleuth? Wasn`t she a murder mystery sleuth?

PANGBURN: Well, the state said that, but they never showed you any books. You know, like the shower cap that supposedly covered up her head that should have been covered in blood. The shower cap is where a big portion of the state`s case is. It`s missing.

GRACE: Okay, Bob Pangburn, punching holes in the state`s case. We`ll see what happens. Will the state have a rebuttal, Bob?

PANGBURN: They have indicated that they are going to put on rebuttal evidence tomorrow that may go into the next day.

GRACE: OK. All righty. Bob Pangburn, thank you very much, friend. I`ll be seeing you in court tomorrow on the airwaves.

PANGBURN: All right. Thank you.

GRACE: Everybody, we are taking a quick break. We`ll be right back. Please stay with us.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

PANGBURN: Did you see any bruises?

DAVID DOUG NELSON, SARAH JOHNSON`S FORMER ATTY.: No, I didn`t. And I was specifically looking for those. As I remember on her right shoulder, because, of course, I`m concerned about that, if they are there and they weren`t. The left shoulder, I don`t remember seeing any bruises. So I`m going to say I didn`t see them there either. But I wasn`t as focused on the left as I was on the right.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

ROBERT BLAKE, ACTOR ON TRIAL FOR MURDER: There was stuff on the table

BARBARA WALTERS, ABC REPORTER: (UNINTELLIGIBLE)

BLAKE: Where`s the downside? You tell me where the downside is.

WALTERS: You could have gotten divorced.

BLAKE: Why?

WALTERS: Yes, but I mean, if things didn`t work out, you could have go divorced.

BLAKE: Why? It`s about Rosie. From the second I touched Rosie, it`s all about her. The greatest gift in the world, and I`m going to try to mess it up by being selfish?

(END VIDEO CLIP)

GRACE: You were just hearing the sound from the "20/20" special with Barbara Walters. It aired about two years ago on ABC. Part of the special was shown to this jury.

Today, it is day three of jury deliberations in the Robert Blake murder trial. Joining us now from L.A., Bakley family attorney, Eric Dubin.

Welcome, sir. Thank you for being with us.

ERIC DUBIN, BAKLEY FAMILY ATTORNEY: Hey, Nancy.

GRACE: You know, let me ask you a question, Eric. All B.S. aside, come on. The court has shown Blake asked four people to kill his wife. OK. Let`s just say, get rid of two of them. All right? If you think they have got credibility problems. What is the jury thinking?

DUBIN: I hope guilty, Nancy. You`re right. What if Scott Peterson went to one person and confessed a desire to murder his wife? Blake went to six people. But let them talk about it, Nancy.

GRACE: Wait, did you say six? Because I had four.

DUBIN: No, there`s more than four. It gets pretty deep.

GRACE: Who are the six people he just happened to casually mention murdering his wife to?

DUBIN: He either asked six people to murder or that he wanted her dead. And that`s not even counting Caldwell and a bunch of other people that we know happened, as well.

But you know what, Nancy? The main question I get in this case is, I know he did it, but do you think they met their burden of proof? And that seems to be the theme for a celebrity case where normally a jury goes with their gut instinct. And if their gut tells them guilty, they convict. With the celebrity, it`s more about the game of reasonable doubt. Did they prove it?

We know he did it. I mean, it`s obvious. He know he asked these people. And as far as these hit men being impeached or cross-examined, you find me a potential hit man that is not cross-examinable then, you know, you have got an amazing person, I guess. I don`t know.

GRACE: Joe Episcopo, you always have something to say for the defense.

EPISCOPO: Yes, Nancy.

GRACE: What do you think about Blake asking or discussing casually with six people murdering his wife?

EPISCOPO: Well, let`s talk about the star witness. Have you ever seen a unicorn? Well, apparently Duffy Hamilton did, and he even tried to dig it up in his front yard.

GRACE: OK, I agree with you. He is out. What about the other five?

EPISCOPO: Well, you know, look. Talking to someone about killing someone is not solicitation. I believe the jury is hung up...

(LAUGHTER)

EPISCOPO: Wait a minute. Wait a minute.

GRACE: OK.

EPISCOPO: I believe the jury is hung up on the solicitation counts. I think they`re going to convict him of murder because he`s got the strongest motive and he looks evil.

GRACE: What about it, Jason Oshins? Three days, three days of deliberations and Episcopo is right. He has a -- Elizabeth, can you show me a shot of Blake? He always sits there as if he wants to murder the jury. He just looks furious.

I mean, please. Soften this guy up a little bit. Put on a pink shirt. I don`t know, anything.

OSHINS: They should bring back the cockatiel and let him sit on top of Blake`s shoulder. That might assist.

GRACE: Well, I`m serious. You know, you don`t sit there and look like a thug when you`re on trial for murder. It`s not a good look.

OSHINS: Also part of the problem, though, is the victim herself, again, not the most likable, not the most -- she`s in the sex business, soliciting a lot of men.

GRACE: Well, excuse me, what`s the problem? When was this a popularity contest? Wait, wait, wait, wait a minute.

OSHINS: Yes.

GRACE: There is no evidence she was soliciting sex. She had a Lonely Heart`s Club fan mail thing where she would get money for topless...

(CROSSTALK)

OSHINS: Manipulating men and...

GRACE: You said solicitation for sex. You said that. And you cannot say that about this victim.

OSHINS: I will take that back.

GRACE: You bet you will.

OSHINS: Thank you.

GRACE: All right. You know what? Let me go back to Eric Dubin.

See, as much as I`m fussing at Oshins, he is right. The jury has been tainted on the victim as if she`s the one on trial. Her reputation has been ruined to suggest that there are any number of men that will want to kill her. I think it`s preposterous, Eric.

DUBIN: It is. And my job will be in my case to rehabilitate and this woman and this family. You got to understand. The information that most of these people get is what Blake told the hit men about Bonny to entice them to commit a murder or what he told the public to beat a murder charge.

Bonny was a mother of four. She had a business. She supported the family. If you have got a problem with nudity, you`d better go after Hugh Hefner, as well.

As far as Schwartzbach goes, the biggest problem and biggest mistake he made in his closing was he started off telling the jury, "This is a ridiculous charge." And his final thing he said to the jury was, "Even if you think it`s probable he did it, that`s not enough." To me, that was a big jump.

And like he talked about, Blake is sitting there as a thug. So for Schwartzbach to cry to the jury with Blake right behind him with an angry look on his face, I don`t think played very well.

GRACE: Well, to me, the strongest evidence -- and I agree with a little bit of what Oshins and Episcopo are saying. The biggest problem for Blake is the timeline. He leaves her in a darkened alley. He goes into a restaurant to allegedly get a gun he forgot. And then comes right back out. And in those five minutes, this unknown, unspottable super sneaky assailant kills his wife and makes off. Now, apparently not leaving the scene, because he dumped the gun right there at a Dixie dumpster.

OSHINS: Six feet away.

DUBIN: He`s got no alibi. Twenty people saw him eat dinner. Twenty people saw him back and get a doctor, but nobody saw him come back and get this mystery gun.

GRACE: You know, Caryn Stark, what I -- I hate a lot of things about this trial. But the way Bonny Lee Bakley -- look, not one of us at this table hasn`t been a bad person at some point. And it`s just a crying shame when a case is a popularity contest about the victim.

You know, today may be the jury doesn`t like her. The defense doesn`t like her. You know, Caryn, it might be you or me that they don`t like.

STARK: You know what it makes me think of, Nancy? It makes me think of when they used to be able to put a person who was raped, her history on the stand and talk about her character, which they can`t do anymore. They`re turning this victim into the person who deserved to be killed in a way. It`s like let`s not really do anything or prosecute him because look how horrible she was. Anyone would want to kill her. It`s sort of how it comes across to me. And that doesn`t make any sense.

OSHINS: Well, a good defense is, in this case, a good offense, where you can go after the victim herself and demonize her in some way, as Nancy said. That`s part of what you have to do in order to go after success in a court case.

GRACE: You know what, Jason? I disagree with you. You`re dragging a dead mother through the mud. There`s got to be a more honorable way to win a murder case. That`s just me though. That`s just me.

Got to go to break, everybody.

But as we go, to "Trial Tracking." Opening statements today in the trial of a truck driver in a fatal smuggling scheme. Tyrone Williams charged with transporting dozens of innocent immigrants across the border. Seventeen perished during the trip, including a 5-year-old boy, suffocating to death in the stifling heat of a container truck. He actually abandoned the trailer after seeing the bodies. He faces the death penalty.

Local news for some of you coming up. But we`ll be right back.

And remember, you get live coverage of the Jackson trial, the Robert Blake "Verdict Watch," and the Johnson case tomorrow, 3:00 to 5:00 Eastern on Court TV`s "Closing Arguments."

Please stay with us.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

GRACE: We want desperately to help find missing people. Tonight, take a look at Jaquilla Scales from Wichita, now eight-years-old. She`s been missing since 2001. Look at that precious face. Any info on Jaquilla Scales, please call the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children, 1-800-THE-LOST. Please help us.

And if you are a crime victim, you`ve got a story to tell, know of an injustice, or a case that needs a spotlight, please call 1-888-GRACE-01, 888-472-2301 or go to our Web site, CNN.com/Nancygrace.

Man, what a day in America`s courtrooms all across the country. We gave you a little taste of three trials going down.

Before we say good night, very quickly, Eric Dubin, was there ever any evidence pointing to anyone other than Blake as being the killer?

DUBIN: Nobody. They didn`t even really go there. You know, Bonny had been living with Blake five days before she was murdered. She was murdered on a Friday. The baby was due back on a Monday. Nobody knew Bonny was there. There`s a one-minute window of opportunity, with a window down, no alibi. Robert Blake is the right guy.

GRACE: Eric Dubin with us. Thank you very much, sir.

I want to thank all of my guests. Tonight, defense attorneys Jason Oshins, Joe Episcopo, psychologist Caryn Stark, Eric Dubin, earlier "Celebrity Justice`s" Jane Velez-Mitchell and defense lawyer Bob Pangburn from Boise.

But of course my biggest thank you is to you for being with us tonight and inviting us into your homes. I`m Nancy Grace signing off. I hope you join us back tomorrow night, right here, 8 o`clock sharp. Until then, good night, friend.

Here`s a shot of Jessie Lunsford, the nine-year-old Florida girl missing since Feb. 23. Any info, please call Citrus County sheriff, 352- 726-1121.

END