Return to Transcripts main page
Nancy Grace
Battle for Terri Schiavo; Prosecutors in Jackson Case Face Setback
Aired March 24, 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, day seven, no food, no water for Terri Schiavo. Her family bracing themselves after losing their final round of appeals today. Are there any options left for Terri Schiavo?
And more drama in the Michael Jackson sex case. A key witness for the state is sitting behind bars tonight in a Las Vegas jail on serious felony charges.
Good evening, everybody. I`m Nancy Grace. And I want to thank you for being with us tonight.
More setbacks for the prosecution in the Michael Jackson child molestation case. Chris Carter, remember that name. Chris Carter, a former Jackson bodyguard who claims he saw with his own two eyes the pop icon feed alcohol to the alleged victim, just 13-years-old at the time, under arrest -- hold on, this is no shoplifting -- under arrest for armed robbery and kidnapping. Credibility, bye-bye. Can you imagine the field day on cross-examination?
But first, the entire country holding its breath. Both the U.S. Supreme Court and now a federal judge in Florida denied Terri Schiavo`s family desperate and final appeals. Is there any hope of saving Terri Schiavo`s life?
Tonight in Louisville, Kentucky, Southern Baptist Theological Seminary President Albert Mohler; in Washington, D.C., Robert Raben from the National Advocate for Compassion and Choices; in Atlanta, defense attorney Chris Pixley; in New York, defense attorney Alex Sanchez; and also with us, psychologist Dr. Michael Nuccitelli.
Shortly we`ll be joined by Mary Snow, CNN reporter, for all of the latest.
But let me quickly go to Albert Mohler. Albert, are you surprised at all with the events of last night and today? Can you believe the U.S. Supreme Court, as well as this district judge, this federal judge, has said no to Terri`s parents?
ALBERT MOHLER, SOUTHERN BAPTIST THEOLOGICAL SEMINARY PRESIDENT: No, Nancy. I can`t believe it. Frankly, I think this is one of the greatest disappointments I`ve ever seen from the court system and from the high court, in particular.
What are these courts afraid of in terms of a hearing that this woman is due and the issue of human dignity demands? Why not look at the fact that it`s been ten years since she has had the kind of testing that would even tell us where she is, in terms of a state of consciousness? Why not allow the evidence that has come forth from a doctor at the Mayo Clinic that she may not be in a PVS after all? Why are they afraid of all of this?
I think the issue is, these courts simply have shirked their responsibility. They`re afraid of the issue. And, frankly, it`s a sign of cowardice in the courts that should humiliate and, frankly, concern every single American citizen.
GRACE: Well, what concerns me, as well, Albert, is what I`m learning from a physician, Dr. William Cheshire.
Now, Elizabeth, let`s show the viewers what Dr. Cheshire had to say about Terri Schiavo. Do you have that, Elizabeth? OK.
The doctor had just turned Terri on to her right side to examine her back with a sharp stimulus. It was a piece of wood. Terry responded with signs of discomfort well after he ceased applying the painful stimulus and returned her to a comfortable position.
He says to her parents, "So we`re going to have to roll her over." And with those words alone, Schiavo, Terry Schiavo, begins to cry, vocalizing a crying sound, pressing her eyebrows together, and sadly, grimaces. It`s important to note that, at this moment, no one is touching Terri or causing her actual pain. She appears to comprehend the meaning of the doctor`s comment and signals anticipation of the pain. Oh, OK.
To Alex Sanchez, defense attorney -- Alex?
ALEX SANCHEZ, DEFENSE ATTORNEY: Yes.
GRACE: When the doctors are split down the middle as to whether Schiavo knows what`s going on around her, how can you sit there and say she should lie there and starve to death? This isn`t a ventilator. It`s simply feeding her.
SANCHEZ: Yes, you know, that`s what the justice system is about. You have some experts that have one opinion one way. And you have other experts that have an alternate opinion and it`s heard before a judge.
You know, this case has been heard before Judge Greer since at least the year 2000. He has heard expert, after expert, after expert. He has had to make a decision. And he`s made a decision based upon the finest available evidence that he had. And the evidence that we have right now is not any different than what was before Judge Greer. And the position he came to is that she`s in a persistent vegetative state.
GRACE: Well, you know what? For a really long time, the courts thought it was OK for women not to have the vote, for blacks and whites to have to go to separate schools. And everybody thought that was OK, too. Just because a judge says it doesn`t make it so.
SANCHEZ: You`re absolutely right...
GRACE: Hold on. Very quickly to Mary Snow, CNN reporter.
Mary, welcome. Please bring us up to date, friend.
MARY SNOW, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Hi there, Nancy. You know, protesters have been outside the hospice all day and into the evening. They have been carrying signs, mostly right now asking for Governor Jeb Bush to get involved.
Now, also there was another hearing at 6:00 p.m. Eastern time. This was another last minute appeal. The parents of Terri Schiavo going to a federal judge in Tampa. We`re still waiting to hear word on the outcome of that hearing.
But this after an exhaustive day of legal rulings and that setback to Schiavo`s parents. Now, this afternoon, Schiavo`s parents did come to this hospice to be with their daughter.
And, you know, Randall Terry has been a spokesperson for the Schindlers. And he was asked about the condition of Terri Schiavo, saying, you know, she looks very gaunt, very weak and that she was showing signs of dehydration.
GRACE: You know, let me quickly go to Chris Pixley, defense attorney.
Chris, even with a dog, you put the dog to sleep. They`re letting this woman starve to death in her hospital bed. Now, do you agree or disagree with removing the feeding tube?
CHRIS PIXLEY, DEFENSE ATTORNEY: Oh, gosh. You`re asking the ultimate question, Nancy.
GRACE: Hey, you came on the show.
PIXLEY: I understand, Nancy. I don`t disagree -- I`ll tell you this -- with what the courts are doing.
GRACE: So it`s OK they took the feeding tube out and she`s laying there starving?
PIXLEY: Nancy, I`m a Christian. I don`t believe in euthanasia. And I`ll make that very clear.
GRACE: But starving is OK?
PIXLEY: I also have a problem -- listen, I also have a problem with the fact that there are Christians all over this country right now who are saying that, with respect to Terri Schiavo...
GRACE: Leave them out of this.
PIXLEY: ... we should follow -- with respect to Terri Schiavo, we should keep her alive for the rest of us so we can sign advance directives and for that reason we should be able to have the...
(CROSSTALK)
GRACE: I didn`t ask you what the rest of...
PIXLEY: Well, let`s talk about whether the federal courts should intervene here. That`s the ultimate question, Nancy.
GRACE: I`m asking you, feeding tube in or feeding tube out, and why?
PIXLEY: OK, but to get to that position, Nancy, to get to that conclusion, you have to answer whether the federal courts should intervene here. The issue is whether the state courts, in reviewing this for over five years and having a panel of five different appointed neurologists determine whether or not Terri Schiavo was actually alive or dead, or in a persistent vegetative state, whether the federal courts have better judgment than they do.
And, Nancy, in a matter of hours, the federal courts can`t second guess what the state court has done over a course of five years.
GRACE: You know, Chris, that was beautiful, laying it off on all the courts. I asked you what you thought about it. I`m going to give you a few moments to percolate.
Let me quickly go to a friend of ours, joining us again, Mary Snow, CNN reporter. Mary, he was just talking about the various judges that have ruled. Has the same judge heard and reheard all of the evidence?
SNOW: The judge that the Schindlers went to this evening did deny a request just earlier this week. So that is certainly one of the judges that they had experience with in Tampa.
GRACE: Here in the studio with me, forensic psychologist Dr. Michael Nuccitelli. Maybe we need a shrink tonight.
What`s your take?
DR. MICHAEL NUCCITELLI, FORENSIC PSYCHOLOGIST: OK. My take is the tube being pulled, I support it. I mean, to me, it`s quite easy.
GRACE: Because?
NUCCITELLI: Well, the way I look at it is I put myself in her shoes. And everybody that I`ve spoken to when I ask them, if you were in that position, what would you do? I mean, what would you do?
GRACE: Me?
NUCCITELLI: Yes.
GRACE: I would stay hooked up and hope for a miracle. I would be a burden and hope that someone would care enough about me to feed me and bathe me and visit me. And I would hope for a miracle. That`s right.
NUCCITELLI: Indefinitely?
GRACE: I would dig in. I would dig in and believe a miracle would happen, yes. That`s just me. I want to be a burden. Don`t unplug me, Nuccitelli.
NUCCITELLI: I won`t unplug you.
GRACE: Do not.
OK, quick break. Stay with us.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
RANDALL TERRY, SCHINDLER FAMILY SPOKESMAN: If she dies, there`s going to be hell to pay with the pro-life, pro-family Republican people of various legislative levels, state-wide and federal-wide, who have used pro- life, pro-family conservative rhetoric to get into power. And then when they have that power, they refuse to use it.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
REV. PATRICK MAHONEY, CHRISTIAN DEFENSE COALITION: Terri Schiavo is suffering a barbaric, brutal, suffering, horrific death here by dehydration and starvation. If Terri does go home to be with the Lord, this is not a death with dignity. If Terri were an animal, she would not have to endure this.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
GRACE: Welcome back. Terri Schiavo, day seven, no food, no water. What`s right? What`s wrong? Somehow, it`s all landed in the laps of some judges to make this crucial decision for Terri Schiavo.
Welcome back. Many people like me torn over what is right and what is wrong in the Terri Schiavo case. Let`s go to Robert Raben. He is with the National Advocate for Compassion and Choices.
Welcome, Robert.
ROBERT RABEN, NATIONAL ADVOCATE FOR COMPASSION AND CHOICES: Thank you.
GRACE: Thank you for being with us. Robert, what do you think about the Schiavo case?
RABEN: Well, I think it`s a terrible tragedy. I think it`s just sad all around. And the only silver lining is it`s a real call to action for all of us to make sure you have an advanced directive, you have a living will, you talk to your loved ones about exactly what your wishes are if, God forbid, you find yourself in this position.
GRACE: Well, as far as -- you`re an advocate for compassion and choices. What do you think should be done with Terri?
RABEN: Well, I think that her wishes were clear enough that many Florida courts, over and over again, judges that heard the facts, determined that her wish was to not have hydration and to not prolong her life in this position.
Whether that`s my choice or your choice is irrelevant. The Florida courts have amply determined over and over again that that`s her wish. And I just think it`s a very, very sad day that people who disagree with that determination would rely on the most powerful resources in the world, the president of the United States, the Congress, to impose what they think should have been a different decision on her.
And, you know, Nancy, you said something very interesting earlier. Your personal wish would have been different than Ms. Schiavo`s. And you know what? I respect that. And I`m glad that we live in a country that your wish could be honored and, hopefully, Ms. Schiavo`s wish could be honored. And I think that`s the best rule of law.
GRACE: You know, Robert, in theory, I agree with you. I know you`re surprised.
But Albert Mohler, I`m torn over what her wishes really are. And as Robert has pointed out, I start getting nervous when Congress and judges start making personal family decisions, Albert.
MOHLER: Well, as a matter of fact, I think what`s behind all this is the fact that many of us, many, many of us have lost confidence in the Florida court system, a court system that did not press for the kind of test that would even show where Terri really is and what her possibilities to recovery might be.
But I think we are stuck in a set of legal precedence and in a quagmire from which we have to find some rescue. A human life is at stake here. This isn`t just some kind of discussion about a theoretical question. I think it was right for the family to go to the courts.
You know, and I wonder, the logic is missing on me here. If it`s right for the federal courts to intervene, even at the last few hours, in a death penalty case, because human life is at stake, why is it all of a sudden improper for the federal courts to step up and to protect the equal protection rights of a woman who`s being starved to death? I simply don`t see the logic there.
This is a culture that will take death over life and let a woman starve and be dehydrated to death. And then they`ll complain about the fact that her family went to the only recourse they had, the only access to help, which was the government.
I find that ludicrous, Nancy.
GRACE: Mary Snow is with us, CNN reporter.
Mary, I know the courts have heard this over and over, but I haven`t heard it. How were her wishes manifested other than through her husband? How do we know what her wishes were? Her husband already has another woman, a passel of kids. He`s moved on in his life. So how do I know what Schiavo really wanted?
SNOW: Nancy, I think you touched upon what is really at the heart of so many -- what so many people are debating. And, you know, we have heard Michael Schiavo say that his wife told him this was her wish. And that`s what he says that he has been acting on.
But you know, this issue, in reporting this week and getting various reactions from all different kinds of people, this is one of these issues that you really haven`t seen in quite sometime really hit a nerve across the country. Really, people taking very strong sides in their opinion.
But one thing that they seem to be you united on and that is, that people will really look to these living wills and prepare them. And that is one of the things that there is some agreement on in terms of this case.
GRACE: Alex Sanchez, what`s the legal remedy at this juncture? Now, the U.S. Supreme Court just simply didn`t hear it, which is making no decision is, in effect, making a decision, right?
SANCHEZ: Yes. I mean, there may be no legal remedy at this point. But you know, Nancy, ultimately this case does not -- it falls under the rubric of belief systems.
You know, there`s many people with different belief systems. Some people believe that you should never be allowed to commit suicide, for example. But this woman made her intentions known. And it was heard before a judge. That`s what you have to understand. It was heard before a judge who took testimony from Schiavo and from some other people who testified she made her intentions clear.
He believed that testimony. And he issued a ruling and said this woman does not want to live in this condition and therefore, granted her her wish.
GRACE: Well, let me go back to the original question and that is what the U.S. Supreme Court did. They basically did nothing. They turned the other way. They wouldn`t rule one way or the other. And by doing that, they, in effect, did rule, right, Alex?
SANCHEZ: In effect, they did rule, yes. A Supreme Court can rule by issuing a decision ordering, let`s say, some type of action be taken or by not ordering any type of action to be taken. In this case, they did not order that the court of appeals` decision be reversed. And by doing that, they`re setting stand a decision to pull out the tube from her and let her die.
GRACE: Alex, before we let this go for tonight, I want you to hear what one of many doctors had to say about her condition.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
WILLIAM HAMMESFAHR, NEUROLOGIST: She`s very much aware of her surroundings. She can discriminate between different people. She is partially blind. So when you look at videos, you`ll notice a lot of times that she looks sort of off into space. And when her mother comes by, she suddenly will light up. And that`s because she can only see about 18 inches in front of her. She can really do quite a bit.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
GRACE: And not only that, Elizabeth, could you roll the other bite from the doctor?
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
HAMMESFAHR: The woman is very aware of her surroundings. She is very aware, she`s alert, she`s not in coma. She is not in PVS, which is a type of coma. She understands when you talk to her. You can ask her to do things and she does it. She understands English.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
GRACE: Reverend Mohler, final thought?
MOHLER: Final thought is that we have to ask the question, what if we`re wrong? You know, if those of us who want to preserve Terri`s life are wrong then, frankly, all that we have erred on is the fact that she`s been kept alive and she`s been given food and water. But if Michael Schiavo, and Judge Greer, and those who are pressing for her death are wrong, we are murdering an innocent human being. And, Nancy, with all my heart, I believe that`s what`s happening in Pinellas Park, Florida.
GRACE: OK.
Let`s go, as we go to break, to "Trial Tracking": Taxpayers in Modesto foot the bill for Scott Peterson`s defense -- hey, guys, better get a second job. The final tab, over $200,000 for the experts alone, just for the few experts Peterson called to the stand. Peterson now on San Quentin`s death row.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
MICHAEL JACKSON, SINGER ACCUSED OF MOLESTATION: Very much still in pain.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Are you, your back?
JACKSON: Yes. I`d like to say hello to the people of Santa Maria, my friends and neighbors. Thank you.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Michael?
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Still recovering. A lot of pain, yes.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: (OFF-MIKE) what`s it like for you to have your family here?
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: It`s great love, great bonding.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
GRACE: More trouble for the prosecution in the Michael Jackson sex case. Tonight, a key witness in jail, charged with armed robbery and kidnapping.
Let`s go straight to Santa Maria, California, and "Inside Edition`s" senior correspondent, Jim Moret. Jim, what the hay?
JIM MORET, "INSIDE EDITION": It`s something you do not want to have happen if you`re the prosecution. The key witness in this case that you`re referring to was a former bodyguard of Michael Jackson`s who the prosecution was hoping to introduce to put the accuser and Michael Jackson together and intoxicated, and also that person was going to talk about the young boy being intoxicated while on the flight back from Miami. And he`s now in custody on allegations of kidnapping, armed robbery, you said. It`s not good, but I believe the prosecution had to call him anyway.
GRACE: Now, what exactly do you think his testimony will be?
MORET: His testimony is supposed to be that, while working for Michael Jackson at Neverland, he saw the accuser intoxicated, that he talked to the accuser and the boy said to him, "Oh, Michael" -- Michael Jackson -- "is fine with it. He says that this is part of becoming a man."
And that also that this bodyguard was on the flight with the family back from Miami. You remember that they took a trip to Miami and that, in the Coke can, there was alcohol. And he said that -- he will say that Michael Jackson gave him this Coke can and that he drank from it. And he said this at the grand jury testimony. So there is prior testimony that would support the allegations of the prosecution.
GRACE: OK, you mean this particular witness said this at grand jury?
MORET: Right. So, if...
GRACE: But, Jim, really, what good does that doing? So he said it at grand jury, and he says it in front of the jury. Now, he still has landed in the pokey with an armed robbery charge.
MORET: Well, it`s a gift to the defense, no question about it.
GRACE: Yes, OK. They`re in trouble.
Let me go to Chris Pixley. Chris, any way out for the prosecution? I have one idea. What do you think?
PIXLEY: Oh, you know, they filed this writ of habeas corpus to bring this guy in. Of course, they`re going to have him testify.
I don`t think that there`s any way out. You know, already his credibility would have been impeached by virtue of the fact that he had a felony conviction for drug charges. But, Nancy, as you well know, and as you`ve pointed out, it gets a thousand times worse now that he`s been -- now that he has been charged with burglary and robbery. These are crimes of moral turpitude. They go to his honesty. The discussion of...
GRACE: Hey, Chris?
PIXLEY: ... his credibility is very relevant now.
GRACE: Chris, Chris, I think it may be worse.
Hold on, Ellie, wasn`t it a convenience store?
A Jack-in-the-Box, Chris. You know, I think that`s like fast-food restaurant.
PIXLEY: Yes, and it...
GRACE: This isn`t like a dispute over some belongings that were at his girlfriend`s house, you know, like some burglary charges are. This is a robbery at a Jack-in-the-Box, Chris.
PIXLEY: I know. And they seem to be building up steam with the discussions of pornography in Michael Jackson`s home. Obviously, there certainly is a fight on either side and arguments on either side about whether or not the evidence that`s being presented right now is compelling. But I don`t know that they need Chris Carter. And it`s interesting that they are taking steps right now to make sure he is going to be there.
GRACE: Well, there`s one way out for the prosecution. And that is if there`s another witness that can corroborate what Chris Carter says, so the jury doesn`t have to rely just on him.
Quick break, everybody. We`ll be right back.
But as you know, we want desperately to help find missing people. Tonight, take a look at 11-year-old Dylan Kissinger from Siloam Springs, Arkansas. If you have any information, please call this toll-free number, 1-800-THE-LOST.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
SOPHIA CHOI, CNN ANCHOR: Hello. I`m Sophia Choi with a "Headline Prime Newsbreak."
In Florida, nine children are being treated for a rare kidney disease they may have contracted at a petting zoo. Three of them are in critical condition. Hospital officials in Orlando say the infection is linked to E. coli, which has surfaced at petting zoos in the past. Two adults are also under observation.
The Reverend Al Sharpton is asking the FCC to investigate a string of violent confrontations outside radio stations, including a recent incident involving rapper 50 Cent. Sharpton says any artist connected to such acts should be banned from airplay for at least 90 days. Critics say such penalties would violates First Amendment rights.
And the general in charge of U.S. forces in Iraq may recommend within weeks that tens of thousands of troops return home beginning this summer. CNN has learned the final decision will depend on the level of violence in the country and the capability of Iraqi security forces.
That`s the news for now. I`m Sophia Choi. Now back to NANCY GRACE.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
JACKSON: The moment I started breaking the all-time records of the biggest selling albums of all time, they called me weird overnight, strange, wacko, you know. They said I`m a girl, I`m homosexual. "He wants to buy the elephant man bones. He sleeps in a hypobaric chamber." None of that stuff is true.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
GRACE: That`s from the Michael Jackson rebuttal that was shot by a Jackson staffer.
Welcome back, everybody. Let`s go straight back out to California.
Jim Moret, OK, the big news today is that a state`s witness has been thrown in jail for armed robbery. Not good. But what happened in court today?
MORET: What happened in court is more pornography and fingerprints. Remember, we talked about all of those magazines introduced that were taken from Michael Jackson`s bedroom from the briefcase.
Well, there were fingerprints, at least 16 identified fingerprints, on those magazines. We don`t yet know who those fingerprints belong to. However, we did hear from one expert witness that one fingerprint has been identified as the brother of the accuser. Another fingerprint formerly identified as belonging to Michael Jackson has now been deemed inconclusive.
And, Nancy, they really have to put the accuser or the accuser`s brother or both of their fingerprints on a magazine with Michael Jackson.
GRACE: So you`re saying that one of the prints on one of the porn mags had been declared Michael Jackson`s and now it`s inconclusive?
MORET: That`s correct.
GRACE: Well, you know...
MORET: What -- I`m sorry...
GRACE: No, go ahead, dear.
MORET: What the defense is trying to show is that this is not a science, that it`s really an art, and it`s very subjective. And that this one forensic expert who came on who said, "Oh, this is Michael Jackson`s, 100 percent positive," that several months later, another expert, their own expert said, "You know what? It`s inconclusive." And that actually helped the defense, because they`re saying to the jurors, "You can`t believe this evidence." And that`s really what...
GRACE: OK, wait. Let me get this straight, Jim. The same expert who said it was Jackson`s fingerprints then later said it`s not his fingerprint?
MORET: No. It was somebody else from their office, somebody else from the Santa Barbara sheriff`s department.
GRACE: Well, I`ve got to tell you something.
I`m going to throw this to Alex Sanchez. That doesn`t make sense, because fingerprinting is really a science. It`s not an art, in my mind. You look at the latent print, which would be the print on the magazine. You take a print of the suspect or the person, the child, and you compare. And if you get a specific number of identical matches, you have a match. It`s not that hard.
SANCHEZ: There you go. And as one expert once said to me in court, the likelihood of a mistake occurring is maybe once every 2,000 years.
GRACE: That`s right, Alex.
SANCHEZ: By the way, I do have to point out something regarding that guy Carter, remember the guy that got arrested?
GRACE: Yes.
SANCHEZ: The defense should not celebrate so early. And they reason they shouldn`t celebrate is because if Carter`s brought to court -- and I`m not interested in tipping my hand to the prosecution -- but if Carter`s brought to court, the jury may never hear about him getting arrested and robbing this convenience store, because he`ll invoke the Fifth Amendment. He`ll do that outside of the presence of the jury. And the jury will never hear about it.
GRACE: Interesting, interesting. I want to ask about the porn. Jim Moret is telling us about more porn from Jackson`s stash coming in.
Here in the studio with me, psychologist Dr. Michael Nuccitelli. You referred to some of this porn as mainstream, right?
NUCCITELLI: Yes.
GRACE: Now, how would barely legal, almost legal, maybe legal, just over legal -- I don`t know that guys looking at women that have posed themselves as little girls is really mainstream.
NUCCITELLI: Well, first and foremost, Nancy, is mainstream pornography is referred to as pornographic materials of women and men 18 years and older. So when they say mainstream, it`s obviously not obscene. Now, with that mainstream pornography...
GRACE: Well, says you.
NUCCITELLI: Well, no, this is what the government says.
GRACE: Well, but the Supreme Court -- just because they say it, Michael, to me, does not make it so. But go ahead.
NUCCITELLI: But we`re talking about titles here, in terms of how to sell magazines.
GRACE: What nine people sitting in Washington have to say, really.
NUCCITELLI: Well, the point is, when you say "Barely Legal," that is just the name of a magazine. It doesn`t mean that these are children that are being shown. They have to be 18 years and older.
But that being said, when prosecution had shown such a large library of pornography, what I think they were trying to do is try to show in some way that Michael Jackson had a very strong proclivity, if not maybe a compulsion, for sex. Now, one of the things that I think it`s a problem, which is going to help the defense, is that this was adults, this was heterosexual, and from my understanding, there was no homosexual pornography. So that`s the opposite.
GRACE: OK, I`m going to clarify it.
What about it, Jim Moret? What exactly was the porn?
MORET: Your guest is absolutely right. I think that this really helps the defense in the sense that this is heterosexual women...
GRACE: What was it?
MORET: ... over 18. Well, you are right. They are Barely Legal, Oui, Playboy, Penthouse, Almost Legal.
GRACE: Whoa, whoa, what, what, wait, wait. Isn`t Barely Legal and Almost Legal -- sorry guys on the panel, I haven`t had a chance to run over to the smut store and get Almost Legal and Barely Legal -- isn`t it women butt-naked that present themselves to be children?
MORET: No.
NUCCITELLI: No.
MORET: Well, the photos that were shown in court didn`t look like children. They look like women.
GRACE: Well, why do they say Almost Legal, Barely Legal?
Doesn`t that suggest to you, Chris Pixley, that this porn is suggestive of children?
PIXLEY: Well, it could be, but you know, the problem is that that`s not what the prosecution is even arguing right now.
GRACE: True.
PIXLEY: They`re throwing out Playboy Magazine and Hustler and a lot of other -- if we`re going to call them mainstream -- mainstream adult magazines. And if the argument is that this guy who owns scores of pornography is a homosexual pedophile, then the doctor makes a great point.
Where is the homosexual pornography? Where is the child pornography? Where is the images that a homosexual pedophile would look at for his own amusement? Forget that the argument is that he may be using this to entice these young boys. Where is his own pornography?
GRACE: But why? Well, wait.
I thought, Alex Sanchez, that is the essence of the argument, not that Jackson has porn. You could bust about 80 percent of American men for having porn. The fact is the essence of the argument is, not only did he have porn, he used it to entice a minor, to get a kid sexually aroused.
SANCHEZ: I don`t know much about porn. I don`t read it very often.
GRACE: I bet you do.
SANCHEZ: But in the words of one great Supreme Court judge...
GRACE: I think you do.
SANCHEZ: ... you know it when you see it. I don`t. Believe me.
But, you know, in this particular case, the doctor said, look, if it`s adult pornography -- and, in his words, mainstream -- and I`m not exactly sure what that means -- but if it`s adult pornography and it doesn`t involve children, how does that help the prosecution? It seems to help the defendant.
GRACE: Me thinks thou doth protest too much. You said four times in one sentence, "I don`t know anything about any porn."
SANCHEZ: I stay away from that stuff.
GRACE: My concern, back to Chris Pixley, is, as Jim Moret said, as Michael Nuccitelli says, Chris, the porn in itself is not the problem. Fine, go read porn. I`d be mad if you didn`t. But the essence of the charge is he showed it to kids to get them sexually aroused.
PIXLEY: Yes, yes. And the lack of witnesses other than the accuser himself and his brother is a problem in that regard, and that`s why the fingerprint evidence is so critical.
And one of the extraordinary things -- I mean, obviously, you know these celebrity trials seem to always throw something at us that we`re not expecting. But what we saw this week is testimony from a fingerprint expert who actually wasn`t the person that examined the magazines. He came on the stand to explain the methodology.
And that said to me that we were looking at problems with the actual expert that tested the magazines, that he may not be someone who testifies well. And here we see it today. We have got an expert who`s got different variations of testimony depending on who you talk to in his office. That`s a problem.
GRACE: OK, back to you, Dr. Michael Nuccitelli. You have got these kids telling a jury exactly where the porn is kept. The cops go to Neverland ranch. They look in that location, in a black briefcase in the bathroom. And that`s where the stash of porn is. Now, what`s the innocent explanation for these children to have seen his porn collection, other than what they said?
NUCCITELLI: Well, there is no innocent explanation. I mean, he`s a 46-year-old adult. I mean, what he should have been doing is monitoring them so, if he allowed them to find it, if he allowed them to watch it, I mean, look at it, I mean, it`s truly unfortunate. It doesn`t necessarily mean, though, that he is a pedophile. But that being said, it`s extremely inappropriate, extremely.
GRACE: Well, you know, Chris Pixley, I think it`s more than inappropriate. If you show a kid porn, that`s against the law.
PIXLEY: It is. Of course, he is not charged with that. And it`s not a felony.
And it certainly is a problem for Michael Jackson that there may be testimony that he`s got pornography in or around children when he is someone that brings hundreds or thousands of children through his home.
But, again, they`re still going to have to tie it to Michael. They`re going to have to show that these children were viewing it with Michael. And if the only testimony is the accuser`s, then it really comes down to a he said-she said credibility contest where the accuser`s testimony is paramount.
GRACE: OK, Chris. Chris, since I`m torturing you tonight, you are back in the hot seat. You say this porn is mainstream, right?
PIXLEY: I don`t know that I agree with the doctor. I don`t know what mainstream porn is. And I also don`t think that some of the descriptions that you have given, magazines called Barely Legal and so forth, are mainstream. I agree that showing children or child-like images, that`s a problem.
GRACE: I`ll come to him very quickly.
Dr. Nuccitelli, you said it`s mainstream.
NUCCITELLI: Yes.
GRACE: Yes, no? Yes, no? Do you think Barely Legal is mainstream?
NUCCITELLI: I know it is mainstream.
GRACE: OK, how about Almost Legal?
NUCCITELLI: It is definitely mainstream.
GRACE: How about Plumpers? Those are his porn magazines of fat people.
NUCCITELLI: That would be considered what is called either in the realm of fetish or genre of mainstream.
GRACE: OK, OK.
NUCCITELLI: There are hundreds of different...
GRACE: How about Over 50?
NUCCITELLI: Over 50?
GRACE: I mean, this guy had quite an eclectic collection of porn.
NUCCITELLI: Well, there`s literally hundreds of different genres, different categories of sexual materials. And different people get off on different things. There are a large population of people that love to watch and look at pictures of nude 60-year-olds. I know that`s hard to believe, but for some, it`s sexually arousing.
GRACE: I do not have a comment.
NUCCITELLI: OK.
GRACE: Quick break, everybody. We`re going to go straight back out to Jim Moret in California. Please stay with us.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
JACKSON: I love my community. And I have great faith in our justice system. Please keep an open mind and let me have my day in court. I deserve a fair trial like every other American citizen. I will be acquitted and vindicated when the truth is told. Thank you.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
JACKSON: I would like to thank the fans around the world for your love and your support from every corner of the Earth. I love the community of Santa Maria very much. It`s my community. My home is in this community. I will always love this community from the bottom of my heart.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
GRACE: The Michael Jackson trial, hot and heavy in the California courtroom.
Welcome back. You know, yesterday one of Jackson`s defense lawyers got taken out on a stretcher.
Elizabeth, do we have that video of yesterday?
Jim Moret is joining us from the courthouse. Jim, how is Oxman doing?
MORET: Well, he`s been released. He has walking pneumonia, so presumably he`s doing better. But he says he was kept overnight for observation. And he`s been coughing for the last week. And he has gained some weight. He didn`t look well. But we`re happy to hear that he has been released.
GRACE: Well, he is not the only one that`s been taken out on a stretcher.
Elizabeth, do we have the sick fan video?
Now, I`m glad we have Dr. Michael Nuccitelli with us. A fan who had apparently saved herself sexually for 18 years for Jackson -- I love this. It`s some screaming fit -- that`s her under the tarp.
NUCCITELLI: God.
GRACE: Doctor?
NUCCITELLI: I don`t know what to...
GRACE: You know, the significance of this is not this fan on a tarp, but what if somebody on this jury idolizes Michael Jackson? The state can never get a fair trial.
NUCCITELLI: Well, that is certainly possible, but we`re assuming that the jurors that were picked are going to be objective. But getting back to the young lady who was taken out on a stretcher screaming, I mean, I would love to sit down and talk to her for a little bit to find out what`s going on.
GRACE: You know, you could build your entire retirement pension on that.
NUCCITELLI: Exactly.
GRACE: So, Jim Moret, I don`t want to get too bogged down in just his porn collection. That`s not what he`s on trial for as Sanchez and Pixley have just pointed out. So we had more porn and fingerprint evidence on the stand today. What`s going to happen tomorrow?
MORET: Tomorrow, there`s unfortunately more fingerprint analysis. And, you know, this is the part of the trial, the forensic part, where sometimes the jurors, they get bored. And frankly, the jurors were not engaged today. They weren`t engaged yesterday afternoon when one of the expert witnesses was on.
And it`s always the danger, I think, for the prosecution to go too much into minutia, because when you see, as I did, one of the alternates sleeping and several jurors looking like this, I think that that`s really bad for prosecution. You have to go in and out and keep them engaged.
GRACE: Alex Sanchez, that`s a real danger when you put on experts. They talk in scientific terms; the jury is not familiar with it. Unless you make the expert break it down so everybody can understand it, they will go straight to sleep.
SANCHEZ: Yes, I mean, they will go to sleep and you`ll end up bringing up some points that are going to be helpful to yourself and you`ll argue that to a jury.
By the way, regarding that attorney that fainted in court, I wonder if the judge is going to order that guy back, you know, with a so-called belief system that this is somehow phony, they way he did to Jackson the other day.
GRACE: Well, actually...
SANCHEZ: You know, it seemed to be legitimate, but...
GRACE: Actually, the doctor spoke -- the judge is very aware of Oxman`s illness. I don`t think he`s faking it.
SANCHEZ: Right. He doesn`t fake it. How come the judge the other day didn`t speak to Jackson`s attorney, but he speaks to the...
GRACE: I think he did speak to Jackson`s attorney.
SANCHEZ: Not attorney, to Jackson`s doctor.
GRACE: I think he did speak to Jackson`s doctor. The doctor came into the courtroom wearing scrubs, all right?
But before we get bogged down anymore in pornography and fingerprints, here`s what the case is all about.
Elizabeth, would you roll that thought, please?
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
MARTIN BASHIR, DOCUMENTARY HOST: Is that really appropriate for a man, a grown man, to be doing that?
JACKSON: Yes.
BASHIR: How do you respond to that?
JACKSON: I feel sorry for them, because that`s judging someone who just wants to really help people. Why can`t you share your bed? The most loving thing to do is to share your bed with someone.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
GRACE: That`s from the ABC version of the Bashir documentary shown to the Jackson jury.
Chris Pixley, ouch. That`s going to hurt.
PIXLEY: Yes, except that placing children in Michael Jackson`s bed isn`t the crime. The crime is molestation. The crime is lewd conduct. The crime is...
GRACE: What do you think they were doing then?
PIXLEY: ... plying a child with alcohol.
Well, Michael Jackson`s, he`s given the explanation on air. We may not like it. None of us may agree with it. But his position is that the children were sleeping in his bed, and he is sleeping on the floor next to them. If that`s the case, if that`s the truth, there`s not a problem.
Again, the Bashir documentary, it may set the scene. And that`s the problem for the defense. But it doesn`t demonstrate molestation. It doesn`t demonstrate plying the children with alcohol. And you have to have some testimony for that. If the child here is the only one to testify to it...
GRACE: Chris...
PIXLEY: ... it comes down to his credibility.
GRACE: Chris, you and I are about the same age. I don`t have sleepovers for eight-, nine-, ten-year-old girls that share the bed with me, or boys. Have you?
PIXLEY: No.
GRACE: Me either. Why not?
PIXLEY: By the same token, I have never had co-counsel that`s had to leave trial. I`ve never had clients that have had to leave the courtroom because of illnesses on a regular, daily basis. I know it can happen. But I`m telling you something, the sympathy factor isn`t going to work here. It may work for the elderly and for children. It does not work for billionaire celebrities.
And so I agree. There are a lot of problems in Michael Jackson`s camp. Tom Mesereau isn`t just going to walk away with this case.
GRACE: Yes. I think you are right about that, Chris.
Quick break. Straight to "Trial Tracking": Today, a convicted killer who escaped from prison nearly 20 years ago made a first appearance in court. Norman Porter, twice convicted of murder, arrested in Chicago, sent back to Massachusetts. Porter had assumed a brand-new identity -- catch this -- as a poet and a peace activist after being found guilty on murder two in the shooting deaths of a store clerk in 1960. This guy also convicted in the shooting death of a jail master, a warden, David Robinson, in 1961.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
KEVIN HORTON, DETECTIVE LT. MASS. STATE POLICE: Don`t let anyone kid you. He`s a cold-blooded killer. And this day is for the victims and the victims` families.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
GRACE: Today, Porter pled not guilty to escape. He is being held without bail tonight.
Local news next for some of you. But we`ll be right back. And remember, live coverage of the Jackson trial tomorrow, 3:00 to 5:00 Eastern, Court TV, "Closing Arguments." Please stay with us.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
GRACE: If you are a crime victim with a story to tell, know of an injustice or a case that needs a spotlight, call 1-888-GRACE-01, 472-2301, or go to the Web site, CNN.com/NancyGrace.
Welcome back, everybody. Let`s go straight back out to California in our last few moments with Jim Moret.
Jim, again, I`m so glad you`re with us tonight because we hear all these conflicting reports from the courtroom. I want to hear exactly what you think will go down tomorrow. And Monday is the big ruling as to the other alleged molestation victims, right?
MORET: Well, that`s the day, I think, that`s going to make or break this case. I think that all eyes, frankly for the observers, anyway, and certainly for the prosecution and defense, will the judge allow the prior allegations in? I think if he does, this case could go to the prosecution. If he doesn`t, Jackson is in great shape.
GRACE: And very quickly, Dr. Nuccitelli, Jackson`s appearance in front of the jury, good, bad? Do they feel bad for him because he looks sick?
NUCCITELLI: Well, Chris Pixley said before that the sympathy deal is only going to work so long. I completely agree. After a while, the jury`s going to start to take this, and it`s going to start to work against him.
GRACE: Alex Sanchez, I have only got about 20 seconds left. Will his demeanor help or hurt with the jury?
SANCHEZ: Well, demeanor is very important. And as I always tell my client, you know, it`s very important how you look and how you appear. If you come in, if you`re looking sick the way he is, he may eke out some sympathy in this case. So I would say demeanor is important in this case, as it is in all cases.
GRACE: I want to thank all of my great guests tonight, Jim Moret, Chris Pixley, Alex Sanchez, Michael Nuccitelli. Earlier, Albert Mohler, Robert Raben, Mary Snow.
But as always, my biggest thank you is to you for being with us tonight and inviting all of us into your home. Coming up, headlines from around the world. I`m Nancy Grace signing off for tonight. I hope to see right here tomorrow night, 8 o`clock sharp Eastern. Until tomorrow night, good night, friend.
END
Aired March 24, 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, day seven, no food, no water for Terri Schiavo. Her family bracing themselves after losing their final round of appeals today. Are there any options left for Terri Schiavo?
And more drama in the Michael Jackson sex case. A key witness for the state is sitting behind bars tonight in a Las Vegas jail on serious felony charges.
Good evening, everybody. I`m Nancy Grace. And I want to thank you for being with us tonight.
More setbacks for the prosecution in the Michael Jackson child molestation case. Chris Carter, remember that name. Chris Carter, a former Jackson bodyguard who claims he saw with his own two eyes the pop icon feed alcohol to the alleged victim, just 13-years-old at the time, under arrest -- hold on, this is no shoplifting -- under arrest for armed robbery and kidnapping. Credibility, bye-bye. Can you imagine the field day on cross-examination?
But first, the entire country holding its breath. Both the U.S. Supreme Court and now a federal judge in Florida denied Terri Schiavo`s family desperate and final appeals. Is there any hope of saving Terri Schiavo`s life?
Tonight in Louisville, Kentucky, Southern Baptist Theological Seminary President Albert Mohler; in Washington, D.C., Robert Raben from the National Advocate for Compassion and Choices; in Atlanta, defense attorney Chris Pixley; in New York, defense attorney Alex Sanchez; and also with us, psychologist Dr. Michael Nuccitelli.
Shortly we`ll be joined by Mary Snow, CNN reporter, for all of the latest.
But let me quickly go to Albert Mohler. Albert, are you surprised at all with the events of last night and today? Can you believe the U.S. Supreme Court, as well as this district judge, this federal judge, has said no to Terri`s parents?
ALBERT MOHLER, SOUTHERN BAPTIST THEOLOGICAL SEMINARY PRESIDENT: No, Nancy. I can`t believe it. Frankly, I think this is one of the greatest disappointments I`ve ever seen from the court system and from the high court, in particular.
What are these courts afraid of in terms of a hearing that this woman is due and the issue of human dignity demands? Why not look at the fact that it`s been ten years since she has had the kind of testing that would even tell us where she is, in terms of a state of consciousness? Why not allow the evidence that has come forth from a doctor at the Mayo Clinic that she may not be in a PVS after all? Why are they afraid of all of this?
I think the issue is, these courts simply have shirked their responsibility. They`re afraid of the issue. And, frankly, it`s a sign of cowardice in the courts that should humiliate and, frankly, concern every single American citizen.
GRACE: Well, what concerns me, as well, Albert, is what I`m learning from a physician, Dr. William Cheshire.
Now, Elizabeth, let`s show the viewers what Dr. Cheshire had to say about Terri Schiavo. Do you have that, Elizabeth? OK.
The doctor had just turned Terri on to her right side to examine her back with a sharp stimulus. It was a piece of wood. Terry responded with signs of discomfort well after he ceased applying the painful stimulus and returned her to a comfortable position.
He says to her parents, "So we`re going to have to roll her over." And with those words alone, Schiavo, Terry Schiavo, begins to cry, vocalizing a crying sound, pressing her eyebrows together, and sadly, grimaces. It`s important to note that, at this moment, no one is touching Terri or causing her actual pain. She appears to comprehend the meaning of the doctor`s comment and signals anticipation of the pain. Oh, OK.
To Alex Sanchez, defense attorney -- Alex?
ALEX SANCHEZ, DEFENSE ATTORNEY: Yes.
GRACE: When the doctors are split down the middle as to whether Schiavo knows what`s going on around her, how can you sit there and say she should lie there and starve to death? This isn`t a ventilator. It`s simply feeding her.
SANCHEZ: Yes, you know, that`s what the justice system is about. You have some experts that have one opinion one way. And you have other experts that have an alternate opinion and it`s heard before a judge.
You know, this case has been heard before Judge Greer since at least the year 2000. He has heard expert, after expert, after expert. He has had to make a decision. And he`s made a decision based upon the finest available evidence that he had. And the evidence that we have right now is not any different than what was before Judge Greer. And the position he came to is that she`s in a persistent vegetative state.
GRACE: Well, you know what? For a really long time, the courts thought it was OK for women not to have the vote, for blacks and whites to have to go to separate schools. And everybody thought that was OK, too. Just because a judge says it doesn`t make it so.
SANCHEZ: You`re absolutely right...
GRACE: Hold on. Very quickly to Mary Snow, CNN reporter.
Mary, welcome. Please bring us up to date, friend.
MARY SNOW, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Hi there, Nancy. You know, protesters have been outside the hospice all day and into the evening. They have been carrying signs, mostly right now asking for Governor Jeb Bush to get involved.
Now, also there was another hearing at 6:00 p.m. Eastern time. This was another last minute appeal. The parents of Terri Schiavo going to a federal judge in Tampa. We`re still waiting to hear word on the outcome of that hearing.
But this after an exhaustive day of legal rulings and that setback to Schiavo`s parents. Now, this afternoon, Schiavo`s parents did come to this hospice to be with their daughter.
And, you know, Randall Terry has been a spokesperson for the Schindlers. And he was asked about the condition of Terri Schiavo, saying, you know, she looks very gaunt, very weak and that she was showing signs of dehydration.
GRACE: You know, let me quickly go to Chris Pixley, defense attorney.
Chris, even with a dog, you put the dog to sleep. They`re letting this woman starve to death in her hospital bed. Now, do you agree or disagree with removing the feeding tube?
CHRIS PIXLEY, DEFENSE ATTORNEY: Oh, gosh. You`re asking the ultimate question, Nancy.
GRACE: Hey, you came on the show.
PIXLEY: I understand, Nancy. I don`t disagree -- I`ll tell you this -- with what the courts are doing.
GRACE: So it`s OK they took the feeding tube out and she`s laying there starving?
PIXLEY: Nancy, I`m a Christian. I don`t believe in euthanasia. And I`ll make that very clear.
GRACE: But starving is OK?
PIXLEY: I also have a problem -- listen, I also have a problem with the fact that there are Christians all over this country right now who are saying that, with respect to Terri Schiavo...
GRACE: Leave them out of this.
PIXLEY: ... we should follow -- with respect to Terri Schiavo, we should keep her alive for the rest of us so we can sign advance directives and for that reason we should be able to have the...
(CROSSTALK)
GRACE: I didn`t ask you what the rest of...
PIXLEY: Well, let`s talk about whether the federal courts should intervene here. That`s the ultimate question, Nancy.
GRACE: I`m asking you, feeding tube in or feeding tube out, and why?
PIXLEY: OK, but to get to that position, Nancy, to get to that conclusion, you have to answer whether the federal courts should intervene here. The issue is whether the state courts, in reviewing this for over five years and having a panel of five different appointed neurologists determine whether or not Terri Schiavo was actually alive or dead, or in a persistent vegetative state, whether the federal courts have better judgment than they do.
And, Nancy, in a matter of hours, the federal courts can`t second guess what the state court has done over a course of five years.
GRACE: You know, Chris, that was beautiful, laying it off on all the courts. I asked you what you thought about it. I`m going to give you a few moments to percolate.
Let me quickly go to a friend of ours, joining us again, Mary Snow, CNN reporter. Mary, he was just talking about the various judges that have ruled. Has the same judge heard and reheard all of the evidence?
SNOW: The judge that the Schindlers went to this evening did deny a request just earlier this week. So that is certainly one of the judges that they had experience with in Tampa.
GRACE: Here in the studio with me, forensic psychologist Dr. Michael Nuccitelli. Maybe we need a shrink tonight.
What`s your take?
DR. MICHAEL NUCCITELLI, FORENSIC PSYCHOLOGIST: OK. My take is the tube being pulled, I support it. I mean, to me, it`s quite easy.
GRACE: Because?
NUCCITELLI: Well, the way I look at it is I put myself in her shoes. And everybody that I`ve spoken to when I ask them, if you were in that position, what would you do? I mean, what would you do?
GRACE: Me?
NUCCITELLI: Yes.
GRACE: I would stay hooked up and hope for a miracle. I would be a burden and hope that someone would care enough about me to feed me and bathe me and visit me. And I would hope for a miracle. That`s right.
NUCCITELLI: Indefinitely?
GRACE: I would dig in. I would dig in and believe a miracle would happen, yes. That`s just me. I want to be a burden. Don`t unplug me, Nuccitelli.
NUCCITELLI: I won`t unplug you.
GRACE: Do not.
OK, quick break. Stay with us.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
RANDALL TERRY, SCHINDLER FAMILY SPOKESMAN: If she dies, there`s going to be hell to pay with the pro-life, pro-family Republican people of various legislative levels, state-wide and federal-wide, who have used pro- life, pro-family conservative rhetoric to get into power. And then when they have that power, they refuse to use it.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
REV. PATRICK MAHONEY, CHRISTIAN DEFENSE COALITION: Terri Schiavo is suffering a barbaric, brutal, suffering, horrific death here by dehydration and starvation. If Terri does go home to be with the Lord, this is not a death with dignity. If Terri were an animal, she would not have to endure this.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
GRACE: Welcome back. Terri Schiavo, day seven, no food, no water. What`s right? What`s wrong? Somehow, it`s all landed in the laps of some judges to make this crucial decision for Terri Schiavo.
Welcome back. Many people like me torn over what is right and what is wrong in the Terri Schiavo case. Let`s go to Robert Raben. He is with the National Advocate for Compassion and Choices.
Welcome, Robert.
ROBERT RABEN, NATIONAL ADVOCATE FOR COMPASSION AND CHOICES: Thank you.
GRACE: Thank you for being with us. Robert, what do you think about the Schiavo case?
RABEN: Well, I think it`s a terrible tragedy. I think it`s just sad all around. And the only silver lining is it`s a real call to action for all of us to make sure you have an advanced directive, you have a living will, you talk to your loved ones about exactly what your wishes are if, God forbid, you find yourself in this position.
GRACE: Well, as far as -- you`re an advocate for compassion and choices. What do you think should be done with Terri?
RABEN: Well, I think that her wishes were clear enough that many Florida courts, over and over again, judges that heard the facts, determined that her wish was to not have hydration and to not prolong her life in this position.
Whether that`s my choice or your choice is irrelevant. The Florida courts have amply determined over and over again that that`s her wish. And I just think it`s a very, very sad day that people who disagree with that determination would rely on the most powerful resources in the world, the president of the United States, the Congress, to impose what they think should have been a different decision on her.
And, you know, Nancy, you said something very interesting earlier. Your personal wish would have been different than Ms. Schiavo`s. And you know what? I respect that. And I`m glad that we live in a country that your wish could be honored and, hopefully, Ms. Schiavo`s wish could be honored. And I think that`s the best rule of law.
GRACE: You know, Robert, in theory, I agree with you. I know you`re surprised.
But Albert Mohler, I`m torn over what her wishes really are. And as Robert has pointed out, I start getting nervous when Congress and judges start making personal family decisions, Albert.
MOHLER: Well, as a matter of fact, I think what`s behind all this is the fact that many of us, many, many of us have lost confidence in the Florida court system, a court system that did not press for the kind of test that would even show where Terri really is and what her possibilities to recovery might be.
But I think we are stuck in a set of legal precedence and in a quagmire from which we have to find some rescue. A human life is at stake here. This isn`t just some kind of discussion about a theoretical question. I think it was right for the family to go to the courts.
You know, and I wonder, the logic is missing on me here. If it`s right for the federal courts to intervene, even at the last few hours, in a death penalty case, because human life is at stake, why is it all of a sudden improper for the federal courts to step up and to protect the equal protection rights of a woman who`s being starved to death? I simply don`t see the logic there.
This is a culture that will take death over life and let a woman starve and be dehydrated to death. And then they`ll complain about the fact that her family went to the only recourse they had, the only access to help, which was the government.
I find that ludicrous, Nancy.
GRACE: Mary Snow is with us, CNN reporter.
Mary, I know the courts have heard this over and over, but I haven`t heard it. How were her wishes manifested other than through her husband? How do we know what her wishes were? Her husband already has another woman, a passel of kids. He`s moved on in his life. So how do I know what Schiavo really wanted?
SNOW: Nancy, I think you touched upon what is really at the heart of so many -- what so many people are debating. And, you know, we have heard Michael Schiavo say that his wife told him this was her wish. And that`s what he says that he has been acting on.
But you know, this issue, in reporting this week and getting various reactions from all different kinds of people, this is one of these issues that you really haven`t seen in quite sometime really hit a nerve across the country. Really, people taking very strong sides in their opinion.
But one thing that they seem to be you united on and that is, that people will really look to these living wills and prepare them. And that is one of the things that there is some agreement on in terms of this case.
GRACE: Alex Sanchez, what`s the legal remedy at this juncture? Now, the U.S. Supreme Court just simply didn`t hear it, which is making no decision is, in effect, making a decision, right?
SANCHEZ: Yes. I mean, there may be no legal remedy at this point. But you know, Nancy, ultimately this case does not -- it falls under the rubric of belief systems.
You know, there`s many people with different belief systems. Some people believe that you should never be allowed to commit suicide, for example. But this woman made her intentions known. And it was heard before a judge. That`s what you have to understand. It was heard before a judge who took testimony from Schiavo and from some other people who testified she made her intentions clear.
He believed that testimony. And he issued a ruling and said this woman does not want to live in this condition and therefore, granted her her wish.
GRACE: Well, let me go back to the original question and that is what the U.S. Supreme Court did. They basically did nothing. They turned the other way. They wouldn`t rule one way or the other. And by doing that, they, in effect, did rule, right, Alex?
SANCHEZ: In effect, they did rule, yes. A Supreme Court can rule by issuing a decision ordering, let`s say, some type of action be taken or by not ordering any type of action to be taken. In this case, they did not order that the court of appeals` decision be reversed. And by doing that, they`re setting stand a decision to pull out the tube from her and let her die.
GRACE: Alex, before we let this go for tonight, I want you to hear what one of many doctors had to say about her condition.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
WILLIAM HAMMESFAHR, NEUROLOGIST: She`s very much aware of her surroundings. She can discriminate between different people. She is partially blind. So when you look at videos, you`ll notice a lot of times that she looks sort of off into space. And when her mother comes by, she suddenly will light up. And that`s because she can only see about 18 inches in front of her. She can really do quite a bit.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
GRACE: And not only that, Elizabeth, could you roll the other bite from the doctor?
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
HAMMESFAHR: The woman is very aware of her surroundings. She is very aware, she`s alert, she`s not in coma. She is not in PVS, which is a type of coma. She understands when you talk to her. You can ask her to do things and she does it. She understands English.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
GRACE: Reverend Mohler, final thought?
MOHLER: Final thought is that we have to ask the question, what if we`re wrong? You know, if those of us who want to preserve Terri`s life are wrong then, frankly, all that we have erred on is the fact that she`s been kept alive and she`s been given food and water. But if Michael Schiavo, and Judge Greer, and those who are pressing for her death are wrong, we are murdering an innocent human being. And, Nancy, with all my heart, I believe that`s what`s happening in Pinellas Park, Florida.
GRACE: OK.
Let`s go, as we go to break, to "Trial Tracking": Taxpayers in Modesto foot the bill for Scott Peterson`s defense -- hey, guys, better get a second job. The final tab, over $200,000 for the experts alone, just for the few experts Peterson called to the stand. Peterson now on San Quentin`s death row.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
MICHAEL JACKSON, SINGER ACCUSED OF MOLESTATION: Very much still in pain.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Are you, your back?
JACKSON: Yes. I`d like to say hello to the people of Santa Maria, my friends and neighbors. Thank you.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Michael?
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Still recovering. A lot of pain, yes.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: (OFF-MIKE) what`s it like for you to have your family here?
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: It`s great love, great bonding.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
GRACE: More trouble for the prosecution in the Michael Jackson sex case. Tonight, a key witness in jail, charged with armed robbery and kidnapping.
Let`s go straight to Santa Maria, California, and "Inside Edition`s" senior correspondent, Jim Moret. Jim, what the hay?
JIM MORET, "INSIDE EDITION": It`s something you do not want to have happen if you`re the prosecution. The key witness in this case that you`re referring to was a former bodyguard of Michael Jackson`s who the prosecution was hoping to introduce to put the accuser and Michael Jackson together and intoxicated, and also that person was going to talk about the young boy being intoxicated while on the flight back from Miami. And he`s now in custody on allegations of kidnapping, armed robbery, you said. It`s not good, but I believe the prosecution had to call him anyway.
GRACE: Now, what exactly do you think his testimony will be?
MORET: His testimony is supposed to be that, while working for Michael Jackson at Neverland, he saw the accuser intoxicated, that he talked to the accuser and the boy said to him, "Oh, Michael" -- Michael Jackson -- "is fine with it. He says that this is part of becoming a man."
And that also that this bodyguard was on the flight with the family back from Miami. You remember that they took a trip to Miami and that, in the Coke can, there was alcohol. And he said that -- he will say that Michael Jackson gave him this Coke can and that he drank from it. And he said this at the grand jury testimony. So there is prior testimony that would support the allegations of the prosecution.
GRACE: OK, you mean this particular witness said this at grand jury?
MORET: Right. So, if...
GRACE: But, Jim, really, what good does that doing? So he said it at grand jury, and he says it in front of the jury. Now, he still has landed in the pokey with an armed robbery charge.
MORET: Well, it`s a gift to the defense, no question about it.
GRACE: Yes, OK. They`re in trouble.
Let me go to Chris Pixley. Chris, any way out for the prosecution? I have one idea. What do you think?
PIXLEY: Oh, you know, they filed this writ of habeas corpus to bring this guy in. Of course, they`re going to have him testify.
I don`t think that there`s any way out. You know, already his credibility would have been impeached by virtue of the fact that he had a felony conviction for drug charges. But, Nancy, as you well know, and as you`ve pointed out, it gets a thousand times worse now that he`s been -- now that he has been charged with burglary and robbery. These are crimes of moral turpitude. They go to his honesty. The discussion of...
GRACE: Hey, Chris?
PIXLEY: ... his credibility is very relevant now.
GRACE: Chris, Chris, I think it may be worse.
Hold on, Ellie, wasn`t it a convenience store?
A Jack-in-the-Box, Chris. You know, I think that`s like fast-food restaurant.
PIXLEY: Yes, and it...
GRACE: This isn`t like a dispute over some belongings that were at his girlfriend`s house, you know, like some burglary charges are. This is a robbery at a Jack-in-the-Box, Chris.
PIXLEY: I know. And they seem to be building up steam with the discussions of pornography in Michael Jackson`s home. Obviously, there certainly is a fight on either side and arguments on either side about whether or not the evidence that`s being presented right now is compelling. But I don`t know that they need Chris Carter. And it`s interesting that they are taking steps right now to make sure he is going to be there.
GRACE: Well, there`s one way out for the prosecution. And that is if there`s another witness that can corroborate what Chris Carter says, so the jury doesn`t have to rely just on him.
Quick break, everybody. We`ll be right back.
But as you know, we want desperately to help find missing people. Tonight, take a look at 11-year-old Dylan Kissinger from Siloam Springs, Arkansas. If you have any information, please call this toll-free number, 1-800-THE-LOST.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
SOPHIA CHOI, CNN ANCHOR: Hello. I`m Sophia Choi with a "Headline Prime Newsbreak."
In Florida, nine children are being treated for a rare kidney disease they may have contracted at a petting zoo. Three of them are in critical condition. Hospital officials in Orlando say the infection is linked to E. coli, which has surfaced at petting zoos in the past. Two adults are also under observation.
The Reverend Al Sharpton is asking the FCC to investigate a string of violent confrontations outside radio stations, including a recent incident involving rapper 50 Cent. Sharpton says any artist connected to such acts should be banned from airplay for at least 90 days. Critics say such penalties would violates First Amendment rights.
And the general in charge of U.S. forces in Iraq may recommend within weeks that tens of thousands of troops return home beginning this summer. CNN has learned the final decision will depend on the level of violence in the country and the capability of Iraqi security forces.
That`s the news for now. I`m Sophia Choi. Now back to NANCY GRACE.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
JACKSON: The moment I started breaking the all-time records of the biggest selling albums of all time, they called me weird overnight, strange, wacko, you know. They said I`m a girl, I`m homosexual. "He wants to buy the elephant man bones. He sleeps in a hypobaric chamber." None of that stuff is true.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
GRACE: That`s from the Michael Jackson rebuttal that was shot by a Jackson staffer.
Welcome back, everybody. Let`s go straight back out to California.
Jim Moret, OK, the big news today is that a state`s witness has been thrown in jail for armed robbery. Not good. But what happened in court today?
MORET: What happened in court is more pornography and fingerprints. Remember, we talked about all of those magazines introduced that were taken from Michael Jackson`s bedroom from the briefcase.
Well, there were fingerprints, at least 16 identified fingerprints, on those magazines. We don`t yet know who those fingerprints belong to. However, we did hear from one expert witness that one fingerprint has been identified as the brother of the accuser. Another fingerprint formerly identified as belonging to Michael Jackson has now been deemed inconclusive.
And, Nancy, they really have to put the accuser or the accuser`s brother or both of their fingerprints on a magazine with Michael Jackson.
GRACE: So you`re saying that one of the prints on one of the porn mags had been declared Michael Jackson`s and now it`s inconclusive?
MORET: That`s correct.
GRACE: Well, you know...
MORET: What -- I`m sorry...
GRACE: No, go ahead, dear.
MORET: What the defense is trying to show is that this is not a science, that it`s really an art, and it`s very subjective. And that this one forensic expert who came on who said, "Oh, this is Michael Jackson`s, 100 percent positive," that several months later, another expert, their own expert said, "You know what? It`s inconclusive." And that actually helped the defense, because they`re saying to the jurors, "You can`t believe this evidence." And that`s really what...
GRACE: OK, wait. Let me get this straight, Jim. The same expert who said it was Jackson`s fingerprints then later said it`s not his fingerprint?
MORET: No. It was somebody else from their office, somebody else from the Santa Barbara sheriff`s department.
GRACE: Well, I`ve got to tell you something.
I`m going to throw this to Alex Sanchez. That doesn`t make sense, because fingerprinting is really a science. It`s not an art, in my mind. You look at the latent print, which would be the print on the magazine. You take a print of the suspect or the person, the child, and you compare. And if you get a specific number of identical matches, you have a match. It`s not that hard.
SANCHEZ: There you go. And as one expert once said to me in court, the likelihood of a mistake occurring is maybe once every 2,000 years.
GRACE: That`s right, Alex.
SANCHEZ: By the way, I do have to point out something regarding that guy Carter, remember the guy that got arrested?
GRACE: Yes.
SANCHEZ: The defense should not celebrate so early. And they reason they shouldn`t celebrate is because if Carter`s brought to court -- and I`m not interested in tipping my hand to the prosecution -- but if Carter`s brought to court, the jury may never hear about him getting arrested and robbing this convenience store, because he`ll invoke the Fifth Amendment. He`ll do that outside of the presence of the jury. And the jury will never hear about it.
GRACE: Interesting, interesting. I want to ask about the porn. Jim Moret is telling us about more porn from Jackson`s stash coming in.
Here in the studio with me, psychologist Dr. Michael Nuccitelli. You referred to some of this porn as mainstream, right?
NUCCITELLI: Yes.
GRACE: Now, how would barely legal, almost legal, maybe legal, just over legal -- I don`t know that guys looking at women that have posed themselves as little girls is really mainstream.
NUCCITELLI: Well, first and foremost, Nancy, is mainstream pornography is referred to as pornographic materials of women and men 18 years and older. So when they say mainstream, it`s obviously not obscene. Now, with that mainstream pornography...
GRACE: Well, says you.
NUCCITELLI: Well, no, this is what the government says.
GRACE: Well, but the Supreme Court -- just because they say it, Michael, to me, does not make it so. But go ahead.
NUCCITELLI: But we`re talking about titles here, in terms of how to sell magazines.
GRACE: What nine people sitting in Washington have to say, really.
NUCCITELLI: Well, the point is, when you say "Barely Legal," that is just the name of a magazine. It doesn`t mean that these are children that are being shown. They have to be 18 years and older.
But that being said, when prosecution had shown such a large library of pornography, what I think they were trying to do is try to show in some way that Michael Jackson had a very strong proclivity, if not maybe a compulsion, for sex. Now, one of the things that I think it`s a problem, which is going to help the defense, is that this was adults, this was heterosexual, and from my understanding, there was no homosexual pornography. So that`s the opposite.
GRACE: OK, I`m going to clarify it.
What about it, Jim Moret? What exactly was the porn?
MORET: Your guest is absolutely right. I think that this really helps the defense in the sense that this is heterosexual women...
GRACE: What was it?
MORET: ... over 18. Well, you are right. They are Barely Legal, Oui, Playboy, Penthouse, Almost Legal.
GRACE: Whoa, whoa, what, what, wait, wait. Isn`t Barely Legal and Almost Legal -- sorry guys on the panel, I haven`t had a chance to run over to the smut store and get Almost Legal and Barely Legal -- isn`t it women butt-naked that present themselves to be children?
MORET: No.
NUCCITELLI: No.
MORET: Well, the photos that were shown in court didn`t look like children. They look like women.
GRACE: Well, why do they say Almost Legal, Barely Legal?
Doesn`t that suggest to you, Chris Pixley, that this porn is suggestive of children?
PIXLEY: Well, it could be, but you know, the problem is that that`s not what the prosecution is even arguing right now.
GRACE: True.
PIXLEY: They`re throwing out Playboy Magazine and Hustler and a lot of other -- if we`re going to call them mainstream -- mainstream adult magazines. And if the argument is that this guy who owns scores of pornography is a homosexual pedophile, then the doctor makes a great point.
Where is the homosexual pornography? Where is the child pornography? Where is the images that a homosexual pedophile would look at for his own amusement? Forget that the argument is that he may be using this to entice these young boys. Where is his own pornography?
GRACE: But why? Well, wait.
I thought, Alex Sanchez, that is the essence of the argument, not that Jackson has porn. You could bust about 80 percent of American men for having porn. The fact is the essence of the argument is, not only did he have porn, he used it to entice a minor, to get a kid sexually aroused.
SANCHEZ: I don`t know much about porn. I don`t read it very often.
GRACE: I bet you do.
SANCHEZ: But in the words of one great Supreme Court judge...
GRACE: I think you do.
SANCHEZ: ... you know it when you see it. I don`t. Believe me.
But, you know, in this particular case, the doctor said, look, if it`s adult pornography -- and, in his words, mainstream -- and I`m not exactly sure what that means -- but if it`s adult pornography and it doesn`t involve children, how does that help the prosecution? It seems to help the defendant.
GRACE: Me thinks thou doth protest too much. You said four times in one sentence, "I don`t know anything about any porn."
SANCHEZ: I stay away from that stuff.
GRACE: My concern, back to Chris Pixley, is, as Jim Moret said, as Michael Nuccitelli says, Chris, the porn in itself is not the problem. Fine, go read porn. I`d be mad if you didn`t. But the essence of the charge is he showed it to kids to get them sexually aroused.
PIXLEY: Yes, yes. And the lack of witnesses other than the accuser himself and his brother is a problem in that regard, and that`s why the fingerprint evidence is so critical.
And one of the extraordinary things -- I mean, obviously, you know these celebrity trials seem to always throw something at us that we`re not expecting. But what we saw this week is testimony from a fingerprint expert who actually wasn`t the person that examined the magazines. He came on the stand to explain the methodology.
And that said to me that we were looking at problems with the actual expert that tested the magazines, that he may not be someone who testifies well. And here we see it today. We have got an expert who`s got different variations of testimony depending on who you talk to in his office. That`s a problem.
GRACE: OK, back to you, Dr. Michael Nuccitelli. You have got these kids telling a jury exactly where the porn is kept. The cops go to Neverland ranch. They look in that location, in a black briefcase in the bathroom. And that`s where the stash of porn is. Now, what`s the innocent explanation for these children to have seen his porn collection, other than what they said?
NUCCITELLI: Well, there is no innocent explanation. I mean, he`s a 46-year-old adult. I mean, what he should have been doing is monitoring them so, if he allowed them to find it, if he allowed them to watch it, I mean, look at it, I mean, it`s truly unfortunate. It doesn`t necessarily mean, though, that he is a pedophile. But that being said, it`s extremely inappropriate, extremely.
GRACE: Well, you know, Chris Pixley, I think it`s more than inappropriate. If you show a kid porn, that`s against the law.
PIXLEY: It is. Of course, he is not charged with that. And it`s not a felony.
And it certainly is a problem for Michael Jackson that there may be testimony that he`s got pornography in or around children when he is someone that brings hundreds or thousands of children through his home.
But, again, they`re still going to have to tie it to Michael. They`re going to have to show that these children were viewing it with Michael. And if the only testimony is the accuser`s, then it really comes down to a he said-she said credibility contest where the accuser`s testimony is paramount.
GRACE: OK, Chris. Chris, since I`m torturing you tonight, you are back in the hot seat. You say this porn is mainstream, right?
PIXLEY: I don`t know that I agree with the doctor. I don`t know what mainstream porn is. And I also don`t think that some of the descriptions that you have given, magazines called Barely Legal and so forth, are mainstream. I agree that showing children or child-like images, that`s a problem.
GRACE: I`ll come to him very quickly.
Dr. Nuccitelli, you said it`s mainstream.
NUCCITELLI: Yes.
GRACE: Yes, no? Yes, no? Do you think Barely Legal is mainstream?
NUCCITELLI: I know it is mainstream.
GRACE: OK, how about Almost Legal?
NUCCITELLI: It is definitely mainstream.
GRACE: How about Plumpers? Those are his porn magazines of fat people.
NUCCITELLI: That would be considered what is called either in the realm of fetish or genre of mainstream.
GRACE: OK, OK.
NUCCITELLI: There are hundreds of different...
GRACE: How about Over 50?
NUCCITELLI: Over 50?
GRACE: I mean, this guy had quite an eclectic collection of porn.
NUCCITELLI: Well, there`s literally hundreds of different genres, different categories of sexual materials. And different people get off on different things. There are a large population of people that love to watch and look at pictures of nude 60-year-olds. I know that`s hard to believe, but for some, it`s sexually arousing.
GRACE: I do not have a comment.
NUCCITELLI: OK.
GRACE: Quick break, everybody. We`re going to go straight back out to Jim Moret in California. Please stay with us.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
JACKSON: I love my community. And I have great faith in our justice system. Please keep an open mind and let me have my day in court. I deserve a fair trial like every other American citizen. I will be acquitted and vindicated when the truth is told. Thank you.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
JACKSON: I would like to thank the fans around the world for your love and your support from every corner of the Earth. I love the community of Santa Maria very much. It`s my community. My home is in this community. I will always love this community from the bottom of my heart.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
GRACE: The Michael Jackson trial, hot and heavy in the California courtroom.
Welcome back. You know, yesterday one of Jackson`s defense lawyers got taken out on a stretcher.
Elizabeth, do we have that video of yesterday?
Jim Moret is joining us from the courthouse. Jim, how is Oxman doing?
MORET: Well, he`s been released. He has walking pneumonia, so presumably he`s doing better. But he says he was kept overnight for observation. And he`s been coughing for the last week. And he has gained some weight. He didn`t look well. But we`re happy to hear that he has been released.
GRACE: Well, he is not the only one that`s been taken out on a stretcher.
Elizabeth, do we have the sick fan video?
Now, I`m glad we have Dr. Michael Nuccitelli with us. A fan who had apparently saved herself sexually for 18 years for Jackson -- I love this. It`s some screaming fit -- that`s her under the tarp.
NUCCITELLI: God.
GRACE: Doctor?
NUCCITELLI: I don`t know what to...
GRACE: You know, the significance of this is not this fan on a tarp, but what if somebody on this jury idolizes Michael Jackson? The state can never get a fair trial.
NUCCITELLI: Well, that is certainly possible, but we`re assuming that the jurors that were picked are going to be objective. But getting back to the young lady who was taken out on a stretcher screaming, I mean, I would love to sit down and talk to her for a little bit to find out what`s going on.
GRACE: You know, you could build your entire retirement pension on that.
NUCCITELLI: Exactly.
GRACE: So, Jim Moret, I don`t want to get too bogged down in just his porn collection. That`s not what he`s on trial for as Sanchez and Pixley have just pointed out. So we had more porn and fingerprint evidence on the stand today. What`s going to happen tomorrow?
MORET: Tomorrow, there`s unfortunately more fingerprint analysis. And, you know, this is the part of the trial, the forensic part, where sometimes the jurors, they get bored. And frankly, the jurors were not engaged today. They weren`t engaged yesterday afternoon when one of the expert witnesses was on.
And it`s always the danger, I think, for the prosecution to go too much into minutia, because when you see, as I did, one of the alternates sleeping and several jurors looking like this, I think that that`s really bad for prosecution. You have to go in and out and keep them engaged.
GRACE: Alex Sanchez, that`s a real danger when you put on experts. They talk in scientific terms; the jury is not familiar with it. Unless you make the expert break it down so everybody can understand it, they will go straight to sleep.
SANCHEZ: Yes, I mean, they will go to sleep and you`ll end up bringing up some points that are going to be helpful to yourself and you`ll argue that to a jury.
By the way, regarding that attorney that fainted in court, I wonder if the judge is going to order that guy back, you know, with a so-called belief system that this is somehow phony, they way he did to Jackson the other day.
GRACE: Well, actually...
SANCHEZ: You know, it seemed to be legitimate, but...
GRACE: Actually, the doctor spoke -- the judge is very aware of Oxman`s illness. I don`t think he`s faking it.
SANCHEZ: Right. He doesn`t fake it. How come the judge the other day didn`t speak to Jackson`s attorney, but he speaks to the...
GRACE: I think he did speak to Jackson`s attorney.
SANCHEZ: Not attorney, to Jackson`s doctor.
GRACE: I think he did speak to Jackson`s doctor. The doctor came into the courtroom wearing scrubs, all right?
But before we get bogged down anymore in pornography and fingerprints, here`s what the case is all about.
Elizabeth, would you roll that thought, please?
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
MARTIN BASHIR, DOCUMENTARY HOST: Is that really appropriate for a man, a grown man, to be doing that?
JACKSON: Yes.
BASHIR: How do you respond to that?
JACKSON: I feel sorry for them, because that`s judging someone who just wants to really help people. Why can`t you share your bed? The most loving thing to do is to share your bed with someone.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
GRACE: That`s from the ABC version of the Bashir documentary shown to the Jackson jury.
Chris Pixley, ouch. That`s going to hurt.
PIXLEY: Yes, except that placing children in Michael Jackson`s bed isn`t the crime. The crime is molestation. The crime is lewd conduct. The crime is...
GRACE: What do you think they were doing then?
PIXLEY: ... plying a child with alcohol.
Well, Michael Jackson`s, he`s given the explanation on air. We may not like it. None of us may agree with it. But his position is that the children were sleeping in his bed, and he is sleeping on the floor next to them. If that`s the case, if that`s the truth, there`s not a problem.
Again, the Bashir documentary, it may set the scene. And that`s the problem for the defense. But it doesn`t demonstrate molestation. It doesn`t demonstrate plying the children with alcohol. And you have to have some testimony for that. If the child here is the only one to testify to it...
GRACE: Chris...
PIXLEY: ... it comes down to his credibility.
GRACE: Chris, you and I are about the same age. I don`t have sleepovers for eight-, nine-, ten-year-old girls that share the bed with me, or boys. Have you?
PIXLEY: No.
GRACE: Me either. Why not?
PIXLEY: By the same token, I have never had co-counsel that`s had to leave trial. I`ve never had clients that have had to leave the courtroom because of illnesses on a regular, daily basis. I know it can happen. But I`m telling you something, the sympathy factor isn`t going to work here. It may work for the elderly and for children. It does not work for billionaire celebrities.
And so I agree. There are a lot of problems in Michael Jackson`s camp. Tom Mesereau isn`t just going to walk away with this case.
GRACE: Yes. I think you are right about that, Chris.
Quick break. Straight to "Trial Tracking": Today, a convicted killer who escaped from prison nearly 20 years ago made a first appearance in court. Norman Porter, twice convicted of murder, arrested in Chicago, sent back to Massachusetts. Porter had assumed a brand-new identity -- catch this -- as a poet and a peace activist after being found guilty on murder two in the shooting deaths of a store clerk in 1960. This guy also convicted in the shooting death of a jail master, a warden, David Robinson, in 1961.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
KEVIN HORTON, DETECTIVE LT. MASS. STATE POLICE: Don`t let anyone kid you. He`s a cold-blooded killer. And this day is for the victims and the victims` families.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
GRACE: Today, Porter pled not guilty to escape. He is being held without bail tonight.
Local news next for some of you. But we`ll be right back. And remember, live coverage of the Jackson trial tomorrow, 3:00 to 5:00 Eastern, Court TV, "Closing Arguments." Please stay with us.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
GRACE: If you are a crime victim with a story to tell, know of an injustice or a case that needs a spotlight, call 1-888-GRACE-01, 472-2301, or go to the Web site, CNN.com/NancyGrace.
Welcome back, everybody. Let`s go straight back out to California in our last few moments with Jim Moret.
Jim, again, I`m so glad you`re with us tonight because we hear all these conflicting reports from the courtroom. I want to hear exactly what you think will go down tomorrow. And Monday is the big ruling as to the other alleged molestation victims, right?
MORET: Well, that`s the day, I think, that`s going to make or break this case. I think that all eyes, frankly for the observers, anyway, and certainly for the prosecution and defense, will the judge allow the prior allegations in? I think if he does, this case could go to the prosecution. If he doesn`t, Jackson is in great shape.
GRACE: And very quickly, Dr. Nuccitelli, Jackson`s appearance in front of the jury, good, bad? Do they feel bad for him because he looks sick?
NUCCITELLI: Well, Chris Pixley said before that the sympathy deal is only going to work so long. I completely agree. After a while, the jury`s going to start to take this, and it`s going to start to work against him.
GRACE: Alex Sanchez, I have only got about 20 seconds left. Will his demeanor help or hurt with the jury?
SANCHEZ: Well, demeanor is very important. And as I always tell my client, you know, it`s very important how you look and how you appear. If you come in, if you`re looking sick the way he is, he may eke out some sympathy in this case. So I would say demeanor is important in this case, as it is in all cases.
GRACE: I want to thank all of my great guests tonight, Jim Moret, Chris Pixley, Alex Sanchez, Michael Nuccitelli. Earlier, Albert Mohler, Robert Raben, Mary Snow.
But as always, my biggest thank you is to you for being with us tonight and inviting all of us into your home. Coming up, headlines from around the world. I`m Nancy Grace signing off for tonight. I hope to see right here tomorrow night, 8 o`clock sharp Eastern. Until tomorrow night, good night, friend.
END
