Return to Transcripts main page

Nancy Grace

Nancy Grace for April 21, 2005, CNNHN

Aired April 21, 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, she answered the front door for a deliveryman with a dozen roses and a bullet. Atlanta socialite Lita Sullivan murdered nearly 20 years ago. Did her husband order a hit? And will he escape prosecution by a legal technicality?
Plus, day one of a trial in Ohio, the Ohio sniper who terrorized innocent drivers.

And we go live to Santa Maria for the latest in the Michael Jackson child sex trial.

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

He was a multi-millionaire at the top of the Atlanta social ladder, beautiful wife, beautiful home. But when his wife was gunned down at the front door of an Atlanta mansion, suspicion turned toward him.

And in Ohio, the sniper who stalked unsuspected drivers, using them as target practice, may avoid the death penalty.

But first, day 37 of the Michael Jackson child sex trial. Prosecutors drop a bombshell, two more names added to the indictment list. What does it mean?

Tonight, in New York, defense attorney, Jason Oshins; in West Palm Beach, Florida, defense attorney Michelle Suskauer; in Atlanta, Cobb County Assistant D.A. Eleanor Dixon; and in New York -- boy, do we need a shrink - - clinical psychologist Dr. Patricia Saunders.

But first, let`s go straight out to Santa Maria, California. Joining us is "Celebrity Justice" correspondent Jane Velez-Mitchell.

Jane, bring me up-to-date, friend.

JANE VELEZ-MITCHELL, "CELEBRITY JUSTICE": Well, absolutely wild day in court. But outside the jury`s presence, after Michael Jackson left for the day, defense attorneys and prosecuting attorneys in a ferocious battle over key motions. The judge, I would say, issued a split decision. But I would say 60-40 in favor of the defense.

For one, the prosecution wanted to bring in battered women`s syndrome to explain the accuser`s mother`s behavior. They won`t be able to do it. The judge said no.

Number two, the defense will be able to bring in evidence, at least a witness, who will say that he saw the accuser masturbate. That`s crucial, because the accuser says Jackson that seduced him by telling him that he would show him how to masturbate and all sorts of motions along the way like that.

For example, the prosecution wanted to introduce a very graphic Vaseline story, that Michael Jackson, according to a security guard, allegedly asked for Vaseline. And when the security guard returned with the Vaseline, Michael Jackson was wearing only pajama bottoms and was fully aroused in the presence of the `93 accuser. The judge said, "No, you cannot bring that story in."

GRACE: OK, you say a 60-40 split on the rulings today. The fact that the Jackson employee, Kassim Abdool, will testify about two of the three points he wanted to testify about I think is significant.

VELEZ-MITCHELL: Yes. And he will corroborate the testimony of Ralph Chacon, the other security guard who said that he saw Michael Jackson engaged in irresponsible, inappropriate behavior with the `93 accuser. It`s just that this very salacious story, the Vaseline that everybody was talking about today, won`t get in. So it was kind of the headline, anyway.

GRACE: OK, so, Jane, let me get this straight. The Vaseline story out. What are the two points that we`re going to hear about from Kassim Abdool?

VELEZ-MITCHELL: Well, he was there the same night that Ralph Chacon was there at Neverland, walking around patrolling. And Chacon had said he had seen inappropriate behavior. And Abdool is also going to say that...

GRACE: What inappropriate behavior? What inappropriate behavior?

VELEZ-MITCHELL: With the `93 accuser. That`s when they went into the shower, they came out, and Chacon gave that very graphic story of performing -- allegedly, Michael Jackson allegedly performing oral sex on the `93 accuser.

GRACE: So is that what Kassim Abdool was saying?

VELEZ-MITCHELL: He didn`t see it. What he did see were the wet swim trunks on the floor exactly where Chacon said they would be. So he`s corroborating the story of Chacon, even though he didn`t see the alleged fondling.

GRACE: OK. Wait, wait, wait, wait. So Kassim Abdool is going to corroborate Chacon saying they saw the boy`s wet swimsuit and Jackson`s wet swimsuit beside the bed or shower?

VELEZ-MITCHELL: The shower, on the floor, wet, side-by-side...

(CROSSTALK)

GRACE: Well, I got the one point. What`s the other point Kassim Abdool will testify to?

VELEZ-MITCHELL: Well, Chacon also said that he saw the `93 accuser and Michael Jackson standing in front of a Peter Pan display at one point. And he said that Jackson embraced the boy in a very romantic way and seemed very passionate. Abdool will also say that he saw the hug, although he will say it lasted only two seconds, at least of what he saw.

Again, another corroboration of Chacon`s story.

GRACE: OK. Very quickly, before I go to the panel, Jane Velez- Mitchell, I hug my little nephews all the time. They try to get away. I keep hugging. So what was the inappropriate nature of a hug?

VELEZ-MITCHELL: Well, again, this is a corroborating witness merely establishing that Chacon was not making it up out of whole cloth. Chacon saw something far more passionate than what this corroborating witness is going to say.

GRACE: All right. Gotcha.

Take a listen to this, Jane.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

MICHAEL JACKSON, SINGER ACCUSED OF MOLESTATION: If you`re going to be a pedophile, if you`re going to be Jack the Ripper, if you`re going to be a murderer, it`s not a good idea. And that I`m not. I didn`t sleep in the bed with the child. Even if I did, it`s OK. I slept on the floor.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

GRACE: OK. This incessant, endless talking, Eleanor Dixon, about sleeping with boys. Now, that byte that you just heard, Eleanor, was from Michael Jackson`s first public response to the child molestation charges.

But remember, there was the Bashir documentary where he talks about sleeping with boys. What could be more loving than sleeping with a little boy, not your relative? Then there was the response to the Bashir documentary. Now there`s this.

Eleanor, you remember Shakespeare? "Methinks thou doth protest too much"?

ELEANOR DIXON, COBB COUNTY D.A.: I totally agree with you, Nancy, on that. I find it very interesting that he`s trying to explain away this very unusual behavior.

Come on. It is not OK to sleep with little boys consistently, different ones, all the time, in your bedroom. What is he thinking? That is not what we would call normal behavior, especially with the fact the age of the boys, and they`re not even relatives. How do you explain that away? He`s not doing a very good job explaining his behavior at all.

GRACE: Jason Oshins, response?

JASON OSHINS, DEFENSE ATTORNEY: ... if anyone ever thinks that Michael Jackson is normal. I think by anyone`s standards, he`s a strange man, by his own admission, by his appearance, by everything about him. There`s nothing normal about this man.

And obviously his riches, his Neverland -- we have to put normal and relative into a completely different category when we address someone like this pop icon, who obviously...

GRACE: So basically, Jason Oshins, your defense is, hey, I told you he was weird.

OSHINS: No, Nancy, I don`t think it`s limited to that. I think that when you establish the platform from which you`re going to measure someone from, I don`t think that the term "normal" applies to him in any way, shape...

GRACE: Oh, so in your mind, Michael Jackson is different from all the rest of us. So he should get a different treatment than everybody else because he is Michael Jackson?

OSHINS: No, I`m not saying he should be treated differently, but when you are...

GRACE: Yes, you are.

OSHINS: No, I`m not. I`m saying when you look at him, you should not judge him relative to everyone else, a, because of who he is...

GRACE: You said we`re going to treat him differently than anybody else.

OSHINS: Not the way we treat him under the law, but the way we measure and examine him, looking at him by first impression, or in the detailed way that we all know him to be.

GRACE: There`s Jason Oshins. He`s going to enter the Olympics in the backstroke. There he goes.

OSHINS: Whatever it takes, Nancy.

GRACE: Take a listen to this.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

JACKSON: I can`t go into a park. I can`t go to Disneyland as myself. I can`t go out and walk down the street. There`s crowds and bumper-to- bumper cars. And so I create my world behind my gates. Everything that I love is behind those gates.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

GRACE: Well, according to the prosecution, a lot went on behind those gates. That`s from Michael Jackson`s first public response to the child molestation charges.

Very quickly, I want to go to Dr. Patricia Saunders. She`s a clinical psychologist.

You know what? As much as I was torturing Jason Oshins with the, "Hey, he`s just different" defense, it might work with a jury. It may very well work with a jury. While I have been going, "Hey, he`s got on his pajamas. Now he`s got on his sunglasses. Why is he wearing a military medal?" The jury may say, "You know, he`s so bizarre, we`re misconstruing him."

DR. PATRICIA SAUNDERS, CLINICAL PSYCHOLOGIST: I don`t think that Mesereau has yet sold the jury, or brainwashed them enough, to think that we judge this man by any other standard compared to the baseline of normal human behavior with children. You do not sleep with children. You do not fondle children.

GRACE: Well, you know what? She`s right.

To defense attorney Michelle Suskauer. At a certain point, doesn`t it become the emperor`s new clothes? How the emperor can continue to go naked everyday but finally somebody says, "Your clothes are invisible." At a certain time, does the bizarre nature of Michael Jackson cross the line?

MICHELLE SUSKAUER, DEFENSE ATTORNEY: You know, Nancy, I also want to get back to the fact that this was a very big win day for the defense. So I disagree with the person who said that earlier. A very, very big win day.

You know, yes, he is. I think people understand. I think there`s some acceptance of the fact that he`s strange. I`m not saying that there`s going to ultimately be an excusal of behavior. But there is some acceptance to that.

But you know, today was a tremendous day, I think, for the defense, not 60-40.

GRACE: Whoa, whoa, hold on, Michelle. The prosecution had a late witness. They did not have Kassim Abdool on the witness list. Under the law, the defense in California gets 30 days before trial to get the witness list.

They should, if they had played their cards right, had Kassim Abdool kept out of evidence. It didn`t happen. The state got Kassim Abdool in evidence, under the law, getting in two of the three points he wants to testify to.

SUSKAUER: But you know, in terms of the fact that the state was trying to try to excuse the mother`s performance on the stand, that she`s this battered woman, OK, they lost, OK? So they`re not going to be able to excuse the mother`s behavior. And she has really been a major thorn in the state`s side.

GRACE: With that, I agree with you.

SUSKAUER: Absolutely. And also, the fact that they are able to keep out this terrible alleged incident about the Vaseline. That`s a major, major win for Michael Jackson.

GRACE: Yes, yes, you`re right about the Vaseline incident. You`re also right about the battered women`s syndrome expert. But you know, Michelle, I really didn`t think the expert was going to come in. You see that typically when the alleged battered woman is the defendant or a victim. Of a witness? It`s not a gimmee that the expert`s going to come in.

SUSKAUER: I know, but because the state is trying to do everything that they can to buttress up this woman`s testimony, because she has hurt them. And she has probably fatally hurt them.

(CROSSTALK)

GRACE: Well, you know, she has hurt them. She has hurt them. But she also helped them on that conspiracy charge. Reason? The state`s bringing in corroboration for that.

We`ll pick up the argument when we get back. Everybody, we are live in Santa Maria and the latest in the child sex trial of Michael Jackson.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

JACKSON: Parents have power over children. They feel they have to do what their parents say. But money is the root of all evil, as you know. The love of money is the root of all evil.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

GRACE: Well, maybe that explains that $20 million settlement he paid out to the `93 accuser that said he molested him. And then another accuser, over $2 million. That sound byte was from Michael Jackson`s first public response to child molestation charges.

Very quickly, back to Michelle Suskauer. Michelle, I did a little research on California law before I took the anchor seat tonight. And did you know there is not one single California case where a domestic violence expert has come in regarding a third-party witness?

So the defense keeping out the battered women`s syndrome expert for the mother was a gimmee, a shoo-in. The defense did not win a big win. That`s the law. Of course Melville was going to rule that way.

SUSKAUER: Well, then why did the state file that motion? Maybe that wasn`t filed in good faith if they knew that there wasn`t one single case. If you did the research, I`m sure they did the research, also.

GRACE: But my question to you is, if that`s a gimmee, why is it such a big win? The bottom line is, this guy, this witness, Kassim Abdool, is going to come in and corroborate the fact that an eyewitness saw Jackson molesting a little boy.

SUSKAUER: Well, you know, Nancy, they can bring in hundreds and hundreds of witnesses to say everything they want. But if this jury does not believe this family, and they don`t believe this mother, they`re going to think the apple does not fall far from the tree, and it`s not going to matter.

GRACE: What about it, Dr. Saunders?

SAUNDERS: I think that this is grasping at straws. What you see is what you get. Michael Jackson is weird. In psychology, that means severe character pathology and sexual deviance.

GRACE: Whoa, whoa, woah, wait. What is severe character pathology? What is that?

SAUNDERS: Well, that`s what people are calling weird, like severe narcissistic problems or borderline personality disorder.

GRACE: Back to Eleanor Dixon.

Eleanor, this alleged battered women`s syndrome expert. When it comes to the boy`s mother, what would the testimony have been? Melville ruled that out. But what would it have been?

DIXON: Well, it could have been anything. It could have been that she was abused in some part either by Jackson`s people or by somebody in the past. And this caused her to be a victim of Jackson and afraid to speak out.

I think what`s more important in this whole case is the fact that everybody`s not focusing on Michael Jackson is an adult, bottom line. No matter what else, he`s the adult. He doesn`t need to be taking advantage of these children.

GRACE: To Jane Velez-Mitchell, when will Kassim Abdool take the stand?

VELEZ-MITCHELL: We don`t know. But the prosecution says it`s going to wrap up its case by the end of next week. So they`ve got a lot of work to do if they`re going to basically finish this jigsaw puzzle for the jury.

Now, in court today, was mentioned something that "Celebrity Justice" has been reporting for almost a month now, this bombshell prosecution witness. The defense actually brought him up, Rudy Provencio, and said that the prosecution`s trying to get him on the stand.

And I really think he could be crucial for the prosecution because he is a friend of one of the alleged unindicted co-conspirators and says he was there taking journal notes, listening to this alleged conspiracy, and he is supposedly going to get on the stand and provide details and possibly provide some linkage to Michael Jackson himself, which hasn`t been made, at least beyond a reasonable doubt, to this point.

GRACE: OK. And you`re talking about linking the conspiracy to Jackson. So far, the testimony has been about Jackson`s hench-people, his posse, his aides, his camp in this conspiracy to keep the boy and the mother there.

But you`re right. It never has been directly linked to Jackson. So that`s what`s coming up?

VELEZ-MITCHELL: That has to be what`s coming up, if the prosecution wants to prove its case.

GRACE: Yes.

VELEZ-MITCHELL: And the fact that the defense mentioned Rudy Provencio, I think, is very significant. They`re ready for him.

GRACE: Take a listen to this, Jane.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

JACKSON: We have elephants, and giraffes, and crocodiles, and every kind of -- tigers and lions. And we have bus loads of kids who don`t get to see those things. They come up, sick children, and enjoy it. They enjoy it in a pure, loving, fun way.

I wanted to have a place that I could create everything that I never had as a child. So you see rides, you see animals. There`s a movie theater. I was always on tour, traveling, you know, and I never got a chance to do those things. So I compensated for the loss.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

GRACE: You know, Dr. Patricia Saunders, part of that I definitely believe. That was from Jackson`s first public response to child molestation charges. And that is -- I don`t think Jackson had a childhood, as you and I know it.

I think that he started working and basically punching a clock when he was a little boy. I remember, he was this big when he was singing "One, two, three, baby, you and me." He was a child phenomenon. What does that mean to you, that he was denied a childhood, as it relates to these sex molestation claims?

SAUNDERS: Well, I believe that his behavior suggests he`s what we call a regressed or fixated pedophile, that he enters into a childlike state, except that he`s a grown-up man and he has sexual urges. It`s pathetic without being sad.

GRACE: I don`t know.

I just look at this talent, Jane Velez-Mitchell, this talent, incredible. Look, you can`t take that away from Michael Jackson. A talent like we may never see again in this generation when it comes to the musical world.

So Jane Velez-Mitchell, I don`t know how blinded the jury is going to be by his celebrity. But when he`s in court, are they making eye contact with him?

VELEZ-MITCHELL: Well, they don`t seem to be making eye contact with a lot of the witnesses. They are taking notes primarily. In fact, we thought some of them were dozing off today. I think they were probably just looking down and furiously taking notes. And it looked as if some of them were dozing off.

I think they seem to be emotionally disconnected. That`s the summary I would give. They don`t seem to be crying when people are crying on the witness stand. They seem to be laughing more often when the judge makes a joke.

But I don`t see this case as something that`s drawing the heartstrings because it`s so bizarre and so crazy. And between the chimps and the French fries delivered at 3:00 in the morning and all the crazy goings-on, it kind of robs it of its pathos, in a sense.

GRACE: Quick break. When we come back, we`re going to hear about additional names on an indictment list.

But quickly, to "Trial Tracking": The defense rests in the Alejandro Avila murder trial. Avila is charged with the kidnap, rape and murder of 5-year-old Samantha Runnion. The last witness for Avila`s defense team, a forensic expert who disputes testimony that Avila`s DNA was found under the little girl`s fingernails. Avila, if convicted, faces the California death penalty.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

JACKSON: Greed, money, somewhere, greed got in there and somebody -- I can`t quite say -- but it has to do with money. It`s Michael Jackson. Look what we have here. We`ll get money out of this.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

GRACE: That is from Jackson`s first public response to child molestation charges.

Very quickly out to Jane Velez-Mitchell standing by at the courthouse. Jane Velez-Mitchell, is it true that Jackson left the courtroom while the judge was hearing these all-important hearings today?

VELEZ-MITCHELL: Well, he left after the testimony as the motions were getting ready to start. And that`s his pattern. In fact, we fully expected him to do that. He stays when the jury`s there. And when the jury leaves, he leaves. And so yes, he did split for Los Olivos early today.

GRACE: Jason Oshins, I don`t know about you, but if I were a defense lawyer and the judge was making a very important ruling, a ruling that could make or break the case against me, I would have my client sitting in the courtroom, eyes trained on the judge.

OSHINS: Nancy, I`d like you to be defense counsel with me anytime. I think you`d be a great defense attorney, by the way. You bring a lot of passion to it.

GRACE: Thanks, I feel good now.

OSHINS: I`ll tell you this. I think you`re playing to the jury, obviously, as a defendant. You want to make sure that you`re there when they`re there so that you`re looking attentive.

I don`t think you really -- it`s a personal call, obviously. You don`t have to be there, eyes on the judge. I don`t think it`s going to make it or break it whether he`s there or not.

GRACE: You know what? For appearance sake, maybe it may not make or break, but would you want your client there with you, fighting the case?

OSHINS: Well, I think he is fighting the case. He`s there when it`s important because the jury is there. And that`s who`s deciding his fate.

GRACE: OK. All righty.

OSHINS: OK now.

GRACE: Quick break.

We at NANCY GRACE, as you know, want very much to help solve unsolved homicides, to help find missing people. Tonight, take a look Emily Rimel, just 5-years-old. What a little angel. She was home midnight December 7, 2004, gone in the morning. She was wearing a purple sweatshirt with a ballerina on the front.

If you have any information about this little girl, Emily Rimel, please contact the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children, 1- 800-THE-LOST. Please help us.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

(NEWS BREAK)

GRACE: These were the glory days for Michael Jackson. Nobody can dispute he`s one of the single most talented artists in the world. Now he`s starring in a different drama in a courtroom. He`s charged with child molestation.

Very quickly, before we switch gears to another story, Jane Velez- Mitchell, what happens next?

VELEZ-MITCHELL: Well, the prosecution says it`s going to wrap up its side of the case in a week. They`ve got a lot to accomplish.

They`re going to put various people on the stand to try to tell the story of the conspiracy.

GRACE: Who?

VELEZ-MITCHELL: But I think they have to ultimately bring it back to the molestation allegations. That`s the heart of this case.

That`s really what matters. And we`ve heard so much about the conspiracy. We`ve got to bring it back to the alleged molestation.

(CROSSTALK)

GRACE: Jane, OK, I get your theory. But what I`m trying to ask is, who`s the next witness? What happens next?

VELEZ-MITCHELL: Well, they`re shuffling.

But Chris Carter could be next. He`s one of Michael Jackson`s former personal security guards, who apparently saw a lot during the time of the alleged conspiracy. And he says the accuser was drunk and told him Michael Jackson said it was OK. It was part of being a man. Of course, he is charged with a string of armed robberies in Las Vegas.

And it was ruled today that he doesn`t have to take the Fifth in front of the jury, but the judge will, in some way, shape or form let the jurors know that he faces those charges.

GRACE: OK, Chris Carter. Who else?

VELEZ-MITCHELL: Well, we talked about Rudy Provencio.

GRACE: OK.

VELEZ-MITCHELL: He could be the capper witness of all.

Cynthia Montgomery was somebody the prosecution wanted to put on. She also wanted to take the Fifth, because she`s in a huge legal battle with Michael Jackson right now over the whole XtraJet fiasco when he came back from Las Vegas.

(CROSSTALK)

GRACE: What about Debbie Rowe? Debbie Rowe, is she taking the stand?

VELEZ-MITCHELL: Debbie Rowe is a name that has been floating around for quite a while. But I would be surprised to see her between now and then. Of course, she is in a custody battle with Michael Jackson that`s fast and furious going on in Los Angeles as we speak.

She has kind of turned against him. She used to be a supporter. Now she wants a lot more access to her kids. If she does testify, that would be huge for the prosecution.

GRACE: OK, Jane Velez-Mitchell from "Celebrity Justice" joining us just outside the courthouse in Santa Maria, thank you, friend.

We are switching gears to a murder mystery that has lay dormant since 1987. A multimillionaire seemed to have it all, a beautiful wife, a beautiful home, member of the best country club, you name it, until his wife -- they were in the middle of a vicious divorce case -- was gunned down at the front door by a man bearing a dozen red roses.

Coincidentally, that was the day he was to sign a property agreement with her, Lita Sullivan. Tonight, in West Palm Beach, Florida, Lita Sullivan`s family attorney, Brad Moores.

But first to WSB reporter Jon Lewis.

John, bring me up to date. This case has been floating around since I know 1987. When I first entered the district attorney`s office, I went to the then-DA and said, are we going to prosecute this case?

JON LEWIS, WSB REPORTER: And this is a case that`s captivated the city of Atlanta since it happened.

Lita Sullivan was part of a very prominent family. Her mother is a member of the Georgia House of Representatives. So, she married a man who had inherited a business that he sold for $5 million, as you said, seemed to have it all. And on the morning they were going to have the property division, a man shows up carrying a box of roses, knocks on the door. As she opens it, he hands her the roses, a gun behind that box, shoots her twice in the head, and then dumps the roses on her body, almost as a sign to say, here are the flowers, and then he takes off.

And this case lay dormant for a while. Everybody in Atlanta figured it had to be the husband. It just seemed too coincidental. But there was no proof until 1990. James Sullivan`s third wife, Suki, in a divorce proceeding said he told her that he had hired the man who killed Lita Sullivan. Suki said she came forward because, as she said in court, I didn`t want to be the next one.

So, then, that was the first time James Sullivan was linked by testimony to the killing.

GRACE: And the problem with that, Brad Moores, is that it was covered by the husband/wife marital privilege. So, it may not come into evidence in a criminal case. Now, the defense is claiming, Brad, that this is double jeopardy. But, to my knowledge, he has been tried in federal court on a wire fraud, not murder.

BRAD MOORES, ATTORNEY FOR MURDERED WOMAN`S FAMILY: Well, it`s not wire fraud, per se. But it was a fairly technical charge having to do with using the telephone across state lines to commit a crime. In this particular instance, the crime was murder. But the elements of that particular charge are not the same as the elements of the charge of murder.

GRACE: Brad Moore is Lita Sullivan`s family attorney.

The circumstances surrounding the death, Brad, are intriguing to me, in the sense that there is no robbery. There is no rape. There was no carjacking. Nobody knew of any other enemies Lita Sullivan had. This was clearly a hit. It was execution style, shot to the head, with a delivery of red roses.

Now, Brad, does the Sullivan family have any idea of who else would have killed this beautiful girl, Lita Sullivan?

MOORES: Well, Ms. Grace, I think you misspoke. It wasn`t the Sullivan family. It`s Emory and JoAnn McClinton. And they have searched their souls and they have thought about this. And, by God, they`ve had almost 20 years...

(CROSSTALK)

GRACE: Brad, isn`t that Lita`s maiden name?

MOORES: Lita`s maiden name was McClinton.

GRACE: Right. So, this is Lita Sullivan`s family, correct?

MOORES: Well, Lita Sullivan`s family, Emory and JoAnn McClinton.

GRACE: Right.

MOORES: Yes.

(CROSSTALK)

GRACE: OK.

MOORES: OK.

(CROSSTALK)

GRACE: Now we were back with all the soul searching.

MOORES: Yes.

They do not believe that there is anyone else on the face of the planet that is responsible for this terrible crime.

GRACE: Let me go back to Jon Lewis, reporter with WSB Radio.

Jon, what`s taken so long for this prosecution to go forward? Is it a death penalty case? And who specifically is going to prosecute it?

LEWIS: Well, the Fulton County district attorney is going to prosecute it. And it is a death penalty case. What`s taken so long is, James Sullivan hasn`t been in the United States or was not in the United States for 15 years.

He sold his mansion in Palm Beach for $3.2 million in 1992 and then skipped the country, went to Costa Rica. From there, he went on to Panama. From there, he went on to Venezuela. The whole time, he was being tracked, but they couldn`t catch up to him. And then he seemed to vanish. Nobody knew where he was. The last thought was, he was somewhere in Costa Rica. He had had a home down there.

The break in this case came in 2002, in May, when the case was featured on the show "America`s Most Wanted." It was the third or fourth time it had been featured. And a gentleman in the United States saw it, then flew to Thailand on business, and in the Bangkok Airport, spotted James Sullivan, called the FBI.

GRACE: Oh, ruh-roh.

(LAUGHTER)

LEWIS: And the FBI said...

GRACE: Wouldn`t you know it?

LEWIS: We`re going to keep an eye on him. They contacted Thai authorities and said, watch this man while we get all the paperwork. We don`t want any problems.

Sullivan was living in a resort town about miles south of Bangkok. They kept an eye on him. And, ironically, on July Fourth 2002, Independence Day, they move in and arrested him, and they brought him back to Bangkok. And he fought extradition for 19 months.

GRACE: Oh, yes.

LEWIS: Now, Thai officials, they wanted him out of the country so badly, instead of putting him in the Bangkok jail, which is what would be normal procedure, they put him in what the FBI liaison in Bangkok told me was the most horrid place you could imagine, a prison in Thailand that had the worst of the worst criminals in it, trying to break him. This was a place that was infested with rats.

GRACE: Did it work?

LEWIS: He fought it for 19 months and he`d still be there now if he could.

GRACE: So, this guy would rather live with a bunch of rats in a Thai prison than come back to Georgia for trial?

LEWIS: That`s exactly how it worked.

GRACE: OK. That speaks volumes.

Very quickly to Eleanor Dixon.

We`ve totally left out the uncle who`s been dug up. Get your shovel, Eleanor. This guy`s uncle has now been exhumed. Why?

DIXON: Well, They`re trying to look and see if there`s any connection between his death and perhaps James Sullivan being the person responsible for the death. They`re looking actually for poison in his system. And that`s why his body was exhumed. And that`s something that the medical examiner will have to examine. And that could take some time.

GRACE: Well, I can tell you this much, Eleanor. I know Chris Sperry. He handled a lot of my murder cases. He`s the chief medical examiner there. And if anybody can found a trace of poison, it will be Chris Sperry.

I guess the theory is that the uncle left the money to Sullivan?

DIXON: Yes.

GRACE: Got you.

DIXON: And then Sullivan inherited it. And guess what you might have? A similar transaction.

GRACE: oh, man. Oh, Manishevitz.

Hey, Elizabeth (ph), can you throw up that statement from the defense attorney? Now, if any defense attorneys can win this case, it`s this bunch. Don Samuel, literally writes a book every year about the Georgia case law: "We are pleased the Georgia Supreme Court accepted Sullivan`s motion for interim review to consider the merits of double jeopardy and collateral estoppel. Forcing Sullivan to trial again is a clear abuse of the rights of the double jeopardy clause of the Constitution. We are hopeful the Georgia Supremes will review the background and agree that the prosecutor gets only one bite of the apple."

OK, that`s a lot of fancy talk, Don Samuel. I know you well for saying, he`s already been tried for this. No can do. I don`t think it`s going to hold up.

Very quickly to you, Jon Lewis. What`s the consensus as to when this case will go to trial?

LEWIS: We don`t know right now, because it is a death penalty case. Sullivan was returned to Georgia in October of last year. So, it`s going to take a long time. And now they have the motions. He`s not only claiming double jeopardy. He`s claiming dual citizenship. He has an Irish passport.

GRACE: Oh, good lord.

LEWIS: He claims that, under the law, that he could not be extradited under international law back to the United States to face a death sentence as a citizen of Ireland.

(CROSSTALK)

GRACE: But, wait. That`s only if he`s in Ireland, right? He was in Thailand.

LEWIS: I`m not making these arguments, I`m just repeating the arguments. This is what they are claiming.

GRACE: Hey, Jon, thank you. As a matter of fact, take a look at this, Dusty. I`ve got this huge, huge memorandum of law here where Don Samuel and his defense team is fighting this tooth and nail. If anybody can win, he will.

OK, district attorney Paul Howard, you`re on notice. You`ve got a fight on your hands.

We`ll be right back.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: My door window just exploded in on me. My heart jumped out of my mouth. And all I could think was to get control of the vehicle.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Briggs (ph) was on 270 driving his yellow fright rig back home from Virginia when the shot came in.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: I said, what the heck? And I looked up. And the weather stripping from the frame of the truck was stuck to the door. I give a little jerk and the bullet dropped out in front of me.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Police believe Briggs was one of the first victims of the Columbus sniper, though Briggs won`t call him that.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: The guy doesn`t deserve to be called a sniper. That`s an honorable profession in the military and in our police forces. This guy`s a shooter.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

GRACE: For months on end, Ohio motorists lived in terror. Whether it be on a city street or the interstate, nobody knew who would be the next target of the Ohio sniper.

Tonight, in Miami, Florida, the lawyer representing the Ohio victims in a civil suit, Jack Thompson.

But first to Columbus, Ohio, and "Columbus Dispatch" reporter Bruce Cadwallader.

Bruce, bring me up to date, friend.

BRUCE CADWALLADER, "COLUMBUS DISPATCH": I think this is shaping up to be a very fast trial. We had four witnesses testify today. And the defense has already conceded that their man is the shooter. And there was no cross examination of these witnesses, to speak of.

GRACE: How are they seeking the death penalty? There was actually one murder victim, 12 shootings.

MOORES: Prosecutors laid out their case today, Nancy, that this was a course of conduct over five months where Charles McCoy was shooting at moving vehicles. They argue that, if you shoot at a car with people inside, your intent is to kill. And two of those witnesses testified today that bullets nearly grazed their heads.

GRACE: To Jack Thompson. He is the attorney representing the victims.

Jack, he`s claiming insanity, specifically schizophrenia. Didn`t he flee to Vegas?

JACK THOMPSON, ATTORNEY FOR VICTIMS: You know, we all learned as kids, Nancy, that actions speak louder than words. The defense psychiatrist can say all he wants about how this man is paranoid schizophrenic and that he didn`t know right from wrong.

But the fact is, I saw and heard testimony today that he fled. We all know that he fled. He also broke down the gun in order to hide the gun. He was on overpasses that wouldn`t allow access to them readily. So, he knew what he was doing, when he was doing, it was wrong. And, therefore, the only thing insane about this case is the defense.

GRACE: Well, that was artfully spoken. But Jack Thompson is a trial lawyer and a veteran in the courtroom.

Very quickly to Jason Oshins.

Jason, not only is Jack Thompson correct about the guy breaking down the gun every time he went back home, so nobody could trace it back to the killings. When the state began to try to investigate this, they put up cameras along the highway. He read about it in the paper and started moving to the outer perimeters of Ohio metropolitan areas, where there were no cameras, so he couldn`t get caught. Now, this guy is crazy lick a FOX.

JASON OSHINS, DEFENSE ATTORNEY: Well, I think, obviously, the defense really has very limited options to work with, and, certainly, knowingly that an insanity defense in any jurisdiction is really a long shot. Very, very few of those are successful.

GRACE: Yes.

OSHINS: And here -- and, also, over the years, they`ve become very limiting in judges, juries, and courts allowing this to go forward as a defense. It`s almost that we`re a country or a court system bent on having our pound or our ounce of flesh for what`s gone on. So...

(CROSSTALK)

GRACE: And you know, Eleanor -- Eleanor Dixon is with us. She`s an assistant DA in Cobb County, Atlanta, Georgia.

The Son of Sam. Remember David Berkowitz claimed the same schizophrenic paranoia defense. He`s behind bars. He claimed his dog talked him into it. In this case, Eleanor, it was a prosecutor`s dream today. We heard a guy say just before he got in his car that he was going to take his two grandsons with him and, at the last minute, he had a premonition not to. He left them behind. And he was one of the shooting victims.

When I heard it, 1,000 miles away, sitting in the studio at Court TV, it gave me a chill.

DIXON: That is so scary to think of.

And this case is interesting because of the pattern of behavior of the defendant and the fact that, when you`re looking at an insanity defense, a prosecution, a good prosecution is going to look at the defendant`s actions before the incidents, what he did during the incidents, and also after. That`s why the flight is so important. Yes, he knew what was going on, because he knew to leave as soon as he was identified by a family member.

GRACE: And please, Eleanor, Vegas? Of all places. He didn`t go hide out in a barn. He didn`t go hide under his bed. He goes to Sin City, lives it up, for Pete`s sake. OK, now he`s claiming the insanity defense.

Elizabeth, how much time do I have left?

Quickly. I`ve got one minute left.

Now, I`m going to ask a shrink to be brief. What is paranoid schizophrenia?

SAUNDERS: It`s one of the least common types of schizophrenia. Unlike the other schizophrenias, there`s no disordered thinking or really weird behavior. It`s isolated to paranoid delusions and paranoid auditory hallucinations, where voices tell you to do bad things.

(CROSSTALK)

GRACE: Hearing voices and paranoid delusions, like in "Beautiful Mind"?

SAUNDERS: Yes.

GRACE: OK, got you.

We`ll be right back with more on the Ohio sniper story.

But let`s go to the all-points bulletin for tonight. U.S. Marshals are on the lookout for this fugitive, Andre Neverson, Neverson wanted for killing his sister and an ex-girlfriend in July 2002, while, I might add, he was on parole. Don`t be tricked by that smiling face. Neverson, from Trinidad, was deported from the U.S. and HE illegally snuck back in. He`s known to always carry a gun, keeps his head shaved. He`s even been known to wear wigs to disguise himself.

Neverson, 40 years old, 6`2``, 240. If you have any information on this man -- take a look -- Andre Neverson, please, call the U.S. Marshals office at 646-805-6610. It`s us on our Web site at Headline News.

Local news coming up for some of you.

But all of us will be right back.

And, remember, live coverage of the Ohio sniper and Michael Jackson tomorrow, 3:00 to 5:00 Eastern on Court TV`s "Closing Arguments".

Please stay with us.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

GRACE: We are back with the latest on the Ohio sniper trial. It kicked off today. The state is seeking the death penalty.

Final thoughts, Jack Thompson.

THOMPSON: Well, I think, with a defense team like this, Ron O`Brien doesn`t need a lot of good luck in the courtroom.

The lead attorney, Andrew Haney, is not even a criminal defense lawyer. I`m not sure what he`s doing in this courtroom. You`ve got a defense that makes no sense. They`ve got him dressed in a criminal jumpsuit that reinforces to the jury that this is a criminal, rather than an insane person.

And Ron O`Brien, frankly, before the trial, leading up to the trial, repeatedly made it clear in the media that he was willing to go a plea bargain route. And that`s what the defense team should have done. They didn`t take him up on it. And now they`re stuck with a defense that`s going to get the jury mad and probably, surely, do a first-degree murder conviction.

GRACE: That`s a pretty good analysis, especially in light of the fact he was offered a plea.

Final thoughts, Michelle?

SUSKAUER: You know, this is a tough case to prove the insanity defense. It`s very hard to get a jury to buy into the fact that we`re going to excuse someone`s behavior. But there is a lot of background that they could use, 10 years of behavior of being a schizophrenic.

GRACE: That`s true, Michelle. He was diagnosed many, many years ago. And I think you`re right. That`s the strongest thing the defense has.

Jason, I`ve got one minute left. But the reality is, with the defense world, you`re stuck with what you get. They had the gun in his possession. He confessed to a lot of it. Where else could they go?

OSHINS: Well, you are stuck with what you get. And you got to go with it.

But, at the same token, I`m a little disturbed on what Jack said regarding his defense. More than anything, that will lead to a number of appeals if he is convicted on this, if what we`re talking about is ineffective assistance of counsel.

GRACE: You know what? The defense hasn`t even started their case and you guys are already working on the appeal. I`m so happy.

I want to thank all of my guests tonight. But, as always, my biggest thank you to you for being with us tonight, inviting all of us into your home.

Coming up, headlines from around the world.

I`m Nancy Grace, signing off for tonight. Hope to see you right here tomorrow night, 8:00 sharp Eastern.

Until then, good night, friend.

END


Aired April 21, 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, she answered the front door for a deliveryman with a dozen roses and a bullet. Atlanta socialite Lita Sullivan murdered nearly 20 years ago. Did her husband order a hit? And will he escape prosecution by a legal technicality?
Plus, day one of a trial in Ohio, the Ohio sniper who terrorized innocent drivers.

And we go live to Santa Maria for the latest in the Michael Jackson child sex trial.

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

He was a multi-millionaire at the top of the Atlanta social ladder, beautiful wife, beautiful home. But when his wife was gunned down at the front door of an Atlanta mansion, suspicion turned toward him.

And in Ohio, the sniper who stalked unsuspected drivers, using them as target practice, may avoid the death penalty.

But first, day 37 of the Michael Jackson child sex trial. Prosecutors drop a bombshell, two more names added to the indictment list. What does it mean?

Tonight, in New York, defense attorney, Jason Oshins; in West Palm Beach, Florida, defense attorney Michelle Suskauer; in Atlanta, Cobb County Assistant D.A. Eleanor Dixon; and in New York -- boy, do we need a shrink - - clinical psychologist Dr. Patricia Saunders.

But first, let`s go straight out to Santa Maria, California. Joining us is "Celebrity Justice" correspondent Jane Velez-Mitchell.

Jane, bring me up-to-date, friend.

JANE VELEZ-MITCHELL, "CELEBRITY JUSTICE": Well, absolutely wild day in court. But outside the jury`s presence, after Michael Jackson left for the day, defense attorneys and prosecuting attorneys in a ferocious battle over key motions. The judge, I would say, issued a split decision. But I would say 60-40 in favor of the defense.

For one, the prosecution wanted to bring in battered women`s syndrome to explain the accuser`s mother`s behavior. They won`t be able to do it. The judge said no.

Number two, the defense will be able to bring in evidence, at least a witness, who will say that he saw the accuser masturbate. That`s crucial, because the accuser says Jackson that seduced him by telling him that he would show him how to masturbate and all sorts of motions along the way like that.

For example, the prosecution wanted to introduce a very graphic Vaseline story, that Michael Jackson, according to a security guard, allegedly asked for Vaseline. And when the security guard returned with the Vaseline, Michael Jackson was wearing only pajama bottoms and was fully aroused in the presence of the `93 accuser. The judge said, "No, you cannot bring that story in."

GRACE: OK, you say a 60-40 split on the rulings today. The fact that the Jackson employee, Kassim Abdool, will testify about two of the three points he wanted to testify about I think is significant.

VELEZ-MITCHELL: Yes. And he will corroborate the testimony of Ralph Chacon, the other security guard who said that he saw Michael Jackson engaged in irresponsible, inappropriate behavior with the `93 accuser. It`s just that this very salacious story, the Vaseline that everybody was talking about today, won`t get in. So it was kind of the headline, anyway.

GRACE: OK, so, Jane, let me get this straight. The Vaseline story out. What are the two points that we`re going to hear about from Kassim Abdool?

VELEZ-MITCHELL: Well, he was there the same night that Ralph Chacon was there at Neverland, walking around patrolling. And Chacon had said he had seen inappropriate behavior. And Abdool is also going to say that...

GRACE: What inappropriate behavior? What inappropriate behavior?

VELEZ-MITCHELL: With the `93 accuser. That`s when they went into the shower, they came out, and Chacon gave that very graphic story of performing -- allegedly, Michael Jackson allegedly performing oral sex on the `93 accuser.

GRACE: So is that what Kassim Abdool was saying?

VELEZ-MITCHELL: He didn`t see it. What he did see were the wet swim trunks on the floor exactly where Chacon said they would be. So he`s corroborating the story of Chacon, even though he didn`t see the alleged fondling.

GRACE: OK. Wait, wait, wait, wait. So Kassim Abdool is going to corroborate Chacon saying they saw the boy`s wet swimsuit and Jackson`s wet swimsuit beside the bed or shower?

VELEZ-MITCHELL: The shower, on the floor, wet, side-by-side...

(CROSSTALK)

GRACE: Well, I got the one point. What`s the other point Kassim Abdool will testify to?

VELEZ-MITCHELL: Well, Chacon also said that he saw the `93 accuser and Michael Jackson standing in front of a Peter Pan display at one point. And he said that Jackson embraced the boy in a very romantic way and seemed very passionate. Abdool will also say that he saw the hug, although he will say it lasted only two seconds, at least of what he saw.

Again, another corroboration of Chacon`s story.

GRACE: OK. Very quickly, before I go to the panel, Jane Velez- Mitchell, I hug my little nephews all the time. They try to get away. I keep hugging. So what was the inappropriate nature of a hug?

VELEZ-MITCHELL: Well, again, this is a corroborating witness merely establishing that Chacon was not making it up out of whole cloth. Chacon saw something far more passionate than what this corroborating witness is going to say.

GRACE: All right. Gotcha.

Take a listen to this, Jane.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

MICHAEL JACKSON, SINGER ACCUSED OF MOLESTATION: If you`re going to be a pedophile, if you`re going to be Jack the Ripper, if you`re going to be a murderer, it`s not a good idea. And that I`m not. I didn`t sleep in the bed with the child. Even if I did, it`s OK. I slept on the floor.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

GRACE: OK. This incessant, endless talking, Eleanor Dixon, about sleeping with boys. Now, that byte that you just heard, Eleanor, was from Michael Jackson`s first public response to the child molestation charges.

But remember, there was the Bashir documentary where he talks about sleeping with boys. What could be more loving than sleeping with a little boy, not your relative? Then there was the response to the Bashir documentary. Now there`s this.

Eleanor, you remember Shakespeare? "Methinks thou doth protest too much"?

ELEANOR DIXON, COBB COUNTY D.A.: I totally agree with you, Nancy, on that. I find it very interesting that he`s trying to explain away this very unusual behavior.

Come on. It is not OK to sleep with little boys consistently, different ones, all the time, in your bedroom. What is he thinking? That is not what we would call normal behavior, especially with the fact the age of the boys, and they`re not even relatives. How do you explain that away? He`s not doing a very good job explaining his behavior at all.

GRACE: Jason Oshins, response?

JASON OSHINS, DEFENSE ATTORNEY: ... if anyone ever thinks that Michael Jackson is normal. I think by anyone`s standards, he`s a strange man, by his own admission, by his appearance, by everything about him. There`s nothing normal about this man.

And obviously his riches, his Neverland -- we have to put normal and relative into a completely different category when we address someone like this pop icon, who obviously...

GRACE: So basically, Jason Oshins, your defense is, hey, I told you he was weird.

OSHINS: No, Nancy, I don`t think it`s limited to that. I think that when you establish the platform from which you`re going to measure someone from, I don`t think that the term "normal" applies to him in any way, shape...

GRACE: Oh, so in your mind, Michael Jackson is different from all the rest of us. So he should get a different treatment than everybody else because he is Michael Jackson?

OSHINS: No, I`m not saying he should be treated differently, but when you are...

GRACE: Yes, you are.

OSHINS: No, I`m not. I`m saying when you look at him, you should not judge him relative to everyone else, a, because of who he is...

GRACE: You said we`re going to treat him differently than anybody else.

OSHINS: Not the way we treat him under the law, but the way we measure and examine him, looking at him by first impression, or in the detailed way that we all know him to be.

GRACE: There`s Jason Oshins. He`s going to enter the Olympics in the backstroke. There he goes.

OSHINS: Whatever it takes, Nancy.

GRACE: Take a listen to this.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

JACKSON: I can`t go into a park. I can`t go to Disneyland as myself. I can`t go out and walk down the street. There`s crowds and bumper-to- bumper cars. And so I create my world behind my gates. Everything that I love is behind those gates.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

GRACE: Well, according to the prosecution, a lot went on behind those gates. That`s from Michael Jackson`s first public response to the child molestation charges.

Very quickly, I want to go to Dr. Patricia Saunders. She`s a clinical psychologist.

You know what? As much as I was torturing Jason Oshins with the, "Hey, he`s just different" defense, it might work with a jury. It may very well work with a jury. While I have been going, "Hey, he`s got on his pajamas. Now he`s got on his sunglasses. Why is he wearing a military medal?" The jury may say, "You know, he`s so bizarre, we`re misconstruing him."

DR. PATRICIA SAUNDERS, CLINICAL PSYCHOLOGIST: I don`t think that Mesereau has yet sold the jury, or brainwashed them enough, to think that we judge this man by any other standard compared to the baseline of normal human behavior with children. You do not sleep with children. You do not fondle children.

GRACE: Well, you know what? She`s right.

To defense attorney Michelle Suskauer. At a certain point, doesn`t it become the emperor`s new clothes? How the emperor can continue to go naked everyday but finally somebody says, "Your clothes are invisible." At a certain time, does the bizarre nature of Michael Jackson cross the line?

MICHELLE SUSKAUER, DEFENSE ATTORNEY: You know, Nancy, I also want to get back to the fact that this was a very big win day for the defense. So I disagree with the person who said that earlier. A very, very big win day.

You know, yes, he is. I think people understand. I think there`s some acceptance of the fact that he`s strange. I`m not saying that there`s going to ultimately be an excusal of behavior. But there is some acceptance to that.

But you know, today was a tremendous day, I think, for the defense, not 60-40.

GRACE: Whoa, whoa, hold on, Michelle. The prosecution had a late witness. They did not have Kassim Abdool on the witness list. Under the law, the defense in California gets 30 days before trial to get the witness list.

They should, if they had played their cards right, had Kassim Abdool kept out of evidence. It didn`t happen. The state got Kassim Abdool in evidence, under the law, getting in two of the three points he wants to testify to.

SUSKAUER: But you know, in terms of the fact that the state was trying to try to excuse the mother`s performance on the stand, that she`s this battered woman, OK, they lost, OK? So they`re not going to be able to excuse the mother`s behavior. And she has really been a major thorn in the state`s side.

GRACE: With that, I agree with you.

SUSKAUER: Absolutely. And also, the fact that they are able to keep out this terrible alleged incident about the Vaseline. That`s a major, major win for Michael Jackson.

GRACE: Yes, yes, you`re right about the Vaseline incident. You`re also right about the battered women`s syndrome expert. But you know, Michelle, I really didn`t think the expert was going to come in. You see that typically when the alleged battered woman is the defendant or a victim. Of a witness? It`s not a gimmee that the expert`s going to come in.

SUSKAUER: I know, but because the state is trying to do everything that they can to buttress up this woman`s testimony, because she has hurt them. And she has probably fatally hurt them.

(CROSSTALK)

GRACE: Well, you know, she has hurt them. She has hurt them. But she also helped them on that conspiracy charge. Reason? The state`s bringing in corroboration for that.

We`ll pick up the argument when we get back. Everybody, we are live in Santa Maria and the latest in the child sex trial of Michael Jackson.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

JACKSON: Parents have power over children. They feel they have to do what their parents say. But money is the root of all evil, as you know. The love of money is the root of all evil.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

GRACE: Well, maybe that explains that $20 million settlement he paid out to the `93 accuser that said he molested him. And then another accuser, over $2 million. That sound byte was from Michael Jackson`s first public response to child molestation charges.

Very quickly, back to Michelle Suskauer. Michelle, I did a little research on California law before I took the anchor seat tonight. And did you know there is not one single California case where a domestic violence expert has come in regarding a third-party witness?

So the defense keeping out the battered women`s syndrome expert for the mother was a gimmee, a shoo-in. The defense did not win a big win. That`s the law. Of course Melville was going to rule that way.

SUSKAUER: Well, then why did the state file that motion? Maybe that wasn`t filed in good faith if they knew that there wasn`t one single case. If you did the research, I`m sure they did the research, also.

GRACE: But my question to you is, if that`s a gimmee, why is it such a big win? The bottom line is, this guy, this witness, Kassim Abdool, is going to come in and corroborate the fact that an eyewitness saw Jackson molesting a little boy.

SUSKAUER: Well, you know, Nancy, they can bring in hundreds and hundreds of witnesses to say everything they want. But if this jury does not believe this family, and they don`t believe this mother, they`re going to think the apple does not fall far from the tree, and it`s not going to matter.

GRACE: What about it, Dr. Saunders?

SAUNDERS: I think that this is grasping at straws. What you see is what you get. Michael Jackson is weird. In psychology, that means severe character pathology and sexual deviance.

GRACE: Whoa, whoa, woah, wait. What is severe character pathology? What is that?

SAUNDERS: Well, that`s what people are calling weird, like severe narcissistic problems or borderline personality disorder.

GRACE: Back to Eleanor Dixon.

Eleanor, this alleged battered women`s syndrome expert. When it comes to the boy`s mother, what would the testimony have been? Melville ruled that out. But what would it have been?

DIXON: Well, it could have been anything. It could have been that she was abused in some part either by Jackson`s people or by somebody in the past. And this caused her to be a victim of Jackson and afraid to speak out.

I think what`s more important in this whole case is the fact that everybody`s not focusing on Michael Jackson is an adult, bottom line. No matter what else, he`s the adult. He doesn`t need to be taking advantage of these children.

GRACE: To Jane Velez-Mitchell, when will Kassim Abdool take the stand?

VELEZ-MITCHELL: We don`t know. But the prosecution says it`s going to wrap up its case by the end of next week. So they`ve got a lot of work to do if they`re going to basically finish this jigsaw puzzle for the jury.

Now, in court today, was mentioned something that "Celebrity Justice" has been reporting for almost a month now, this bombshell prosecution witness. The defense actually brought him up, Rudy Provencio, and said that the prosecution`s trying to get him on the stand.

And I really think he could be crucial for the prosecution because he is a friend of one of the alleged unindicted co-conspirators and says he was there taking journal notes, listening to this alleged conspiracy, and he is supposedly going to get on the stand and provide details and possibly provide some linkage to Michael Jackson himself, which hasn`t been made, at least beyond a reasonable doubt, to this point.

GRACE: OK. And you`re talking about linking the conspiracy to Jackson. So far, the testimony has been about Jackson`s hench-people, his posse, his aides, his camp in this conspiracy to keep the boy and the mother there.

But you`re right. It never has been directly linked to Jackson. So that`s what`s coming up?

VELEZ-MITCHELL: That has to be what`s coming up, if the prosecution wants to prove its case.

GRACE: Yes.

VELEZ-MITCHELL: And the fact that the defense mentioned Rudy Provencio, I think, is very significant. They`re ready for him.

GRACE: Take a listen to this, Jane.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

JACKSON: We have elephants, and giraffes, and crocodiles, and every kind of -- tigers and lions. And we have bus loads of kids who don`t get to see those things. They come up, sick children, and enjoy it. They enjoy it in a pure, loving, fun way.

I wanted to have a place that I could create everything that I never had as a child. So you see rides, you see animals. There`s a movie theater. I was always on tour, traveling, you know, and I never got a chance to do those things. So I compensated for the loss.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

GRACE: You know, Dr. Patricia Saunders, part of that I definitely believe. That was from Jackson`s first public response to child molestation charges. And that is -- I don`t think Jackson had a childhood, as you and I know it.

I think that he started working and basically punching a clock when he was a little boy. I remember, he was this big when he was singing "One, two, three, baby, you and me." He was a child phenomenon. What does that mean to you, that he was denied a childhood, as it relates to these sex molestation claims?

SAUNDERS: Well, I believe that his behavior suggests he`s what we call a regressed or fixated pedophile, that he enters into a childlike state, except that he`s a grown-up man and he has sexual urges. It`s pathetic without being sad.

GRACE: I don`t know.

I just look at this talent, Jane Velez-Mitchell, this talent, incredible. Look, you can`t take that away from Michael Jackson. A talent like we may never see again in this generation when it comes to the musical world.

So Jane Velez-Mitchell, I don`t know how blinded the jury is going to be by his celebrity. But when he`s in court, are they making eye contact with him?

VELEZ-MITCHELL: Well, they don`t seem to be making eye contact with a lot of the witnesses. They are taking notes primarily. In fact, we thought some of them were dozing off today. I think they were probably just looking down and furiously taking notes. And it looked as if some of them were dozing off.

I think they seem to be emotionally disconnected. That`s the summary I would give. They don`t seem to be crying when people are crying on the witness stand. They seem to be laughing more often when the judge makes a joke.

But I don`t see this case as something that`s drawing the heartstrings because it`s so bizarre and so crazy. And between the chimps and the French fries delivered at 3:00 in the morning and all the crazy goings-on, it kind of robs it of its pathos, in a sense.

GRACE: Quick break. When we come back, we`re going to hear about additional names on an indictment list.

But quickly, to "Trial Tracking": The defense rests in the Alejandro Avila murder trial. Avila is charged with the kidnap, rape and murder of 5-year-old Samantha Runnion. The last witness for Avila`s defense team, a forensic expert who disputes testimony that Avila`s DNA was found under the little girl`s fingernails. Avila, if convicted, faces the California death penalty.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

JACKSON: Greed, money, somewhere, greed got in there and somebody -- I can`t quite say -- but it has to do with money. It`s Michael Jackson. Look what we have here. We`ll get money out of this.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

GRACE: That is from Jackson`s first public response to child molestation charges.

Very quickly out to Jane Velez-Mitchell standing by at the courthouse. Jane Velez-Mitchell, is it true that Jackson left the courtroom while the judge was hearing these all-important hearings today?

VELEZ-MITCHELL: Well, he left after the testimony as the motions were getting ready to start. And that`s his pattern. In fact, we fully expected him to do that. He stays when the jury`s there. And when the jury leaves, he leaves. And so yes, he did split for Los Olivos early today.

GRACE: Jason Oshins, I don`t know about you, but if I were a defense lawyer and the judge was making a very important ruling, a ruling that could make or break the case against me, I would have my client sitting in the courtroom, eyes trained on the judge.

OSHINS: Nancy, I`d like you to be defense counsel with me anytime. I think you`d be a great defense attorney, by the way. You bring a lot of passion to it.

GRACE: Thanks, I feel good now.

OSHINS: I`ll tell you this. I think you`re playing to the jury, obviously, as a defendant. You want to make sure that you`re there when they`re there so that you`re looking attentive.

I don`t think you really -- it`s a personal call, obviously. You don`t have to be there, eyes on the judge. I don`t think it`s going to make it or break it whether he`s there or not.

GRACE: You know what? For appearance sake, maybe it may not make or break, but would you want your client there with you, fighting the case?

OSHINS: Well, I think he is fighting the case. He`s there when it`s important because the jury is there. And that`s who`s deciding his fate.

GRACE: OK. All righty.

OSHINS: OK now.

GRACE: Quick break.

We at NANCY GRACE, as you know, want very much to help solve unsolved homicides, to help find missing people. Tonight, take a look Emily Rimel, just 5-years-old. What a little angel. She was home midnight December 7, 2004, gone in the morning. She was wearing a purple sweatshirt with a ballerina on the front.

If you have any information about this little girl, Emily Rimel, please contact the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children, 1- 800-THE-LOST. Please help us.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

(NEWS BREAK)

GRACE: These were the glory days for Michael Jackson. Nobody can dispute he`s one of the single most talented artists in the world. Now he`s starring in a different drama in a courtroom. He`s charged with child molestation.

Very quickly, before we switch gears to another story, Jane Velez- Mitchell, what happens next?

VELEZ-MITCHELL: Well, the prosecution says it`s going to wrap up its side of the case in a week. They`ve got a lot to accomplish.

They`re going to put various people on the stand to try to tell the story of the conspiracy.

GRACE: Who?

VELEZ-MITCHELL: But I think they have to ultimately bring it back to the molestation allegations. That`s the heart of this case.

That`s really what matters. And we`ve heard so much about the conspiracy. We`ve got to bring it back to the alleged molestation.

(CROSSTALK)

GRACE: Jane, OK, I get your theory. But what I`m trying to ask is, who`s the next witness? What happens next?

VELEZ-MITCHELL: Well, they`re shuffling.

But Chris Carter could be next. He`s one of Michael Jackson`s former personal security guards, who apparently saw a lot during the time of the alleged conspiracy. And he says the accuser was drunk and told him Michael Jackson said it was OK. It was part of being a man. Of course, he is charged with a string of armed robberies in Las Vegas.

And it was ruled today that he doesn`t have to take the Fifth in front of the jury, but the judge will, in some way, shape or form let the jurors know that he faces those charges.

GRACE: OK, Chris Carter. Who else?

VELEZ-MITCHELL: Well, we talked about Rudy Provencio.

GRACE: OK.

VELEZ-MITCHELL: He could be the capper witness of all.

Cynthia Montgomery was somebody the prosecution wanted to put on. She also wanted to take the Fifth, because she`s in a huge legal battle with Michael Jackson right now over the whole XtraJet fiasco when he came back from Las Vegas.

(CROSSTALK)

GRACE: What about Debbie Rowe? Debbie Rowe, is she taking the stand?

VELEZ-MITCHELL: Debbie Rowe is a name that has been floating around for quite a while. But I would be surprised to see her between now and then. Of course, she is in a custody battle with Michael Jackson that`s fast and furious going on in Los Angeles as we speak.

She has kind of turned against him. She used to be a supporter. Now she wants a lot more access to her kids. If she does testify, that would be huge for the prosecution.

GRACE: OK, Jane Velez-Mitchell from "Celebrity Justice" joining us just outside the courthouse in Santa Maria, thank you, friend.

We are switching gears to a murder mystery that has lay dormant since 1987. A multimillionaire seemed to have it all, a beautiful wife, a beautiful home, member of the best country club, you name it, until his wife -- they were in the middle of a vicious divorce case -- was gunned down at the front door by a man bearing a dozen red roses.

Coincidentally, that was the day he was to sign a property agreement with her, Lita Sullivan. Tonight, in West Palm Beach, Florida, Lita Sullivan`s family attorney, Brad Moores.

But first to WSB reporter Jon Lewis.

John, bring me up to date. This case has been floating around since I know 1987. When I first entered the district attorney`s office, I went to the then-DA and said, are we going to prosecute this case?

JON LEWIS, WSB REPORTER: And this is a case that`s captivated the city of Atlanta since it happened.

Lita Sullivan was part of a very prominent family. Her mother is a member of the Georgia House of Representatives. So, she married a man who had inherited a business that he sold for $5 million, as you said, seemed to have it all. And on the morning they were going to have the property division, a man shows up carrying a box of roses, knocks on the door. As she opens it, he hands her the roses, a gun behind that box, shoots her twice in the head, and then dumps the roses on her body, almost as a sign to say, here are the flowers, and then he takes off.

And this case lay dormant for a while. Everybody in Atlanta figured it had to be the husband. It just seemed too coincidental. But there was no proof until 1990. James Sullivan`s third wife, Suki, in a divorce proceeding said he told her that he had hired the man who killed Lita Sullivan. Suki said she came forward because, as she said in court, I didn`t want to be the next one.

So, then, that was the first time James Sullivan was linked by testimony to the killing.

GRACE: And the problem with that, Brad Moores, is that it was covered by the husband/wife marital privilege. So, it may not come into evidence in a criminal case. Now, the defense is claiming, Brad, that this is double jeopardy. But, to my knowledge, he has been tried in federal court on a wire fraud, not murder.

BRAD MOORES, ATTORNEY FOR MURDERED WOMAN`S FAMILY: Well, it`s not wire fraud, per se. But it was a fairly technical charge having to do with using the telephone across state lines to commit a crime. In this particular instance, the crime was murder. But the elements of that particular charge are not the same as the elements of the charge of murder.

GRACE: Brad Moore is Lita Sullivan`s family attorney.

The circumstances surrounding the death, Brad, are intriguing to me, in the sense that there is no robbery. There is no rape. There was no carjacking. Nobody knew of any other enemies Lita Sullivan had. This was clearly a hit. It was execution style, shot to the head, with a delivery of red roses.

Now, Brad, does the Sullivan family have any idea of who else would have killed this beautiful girl, Lita Sullivan?

MOORES: Well, Ms. Grace, I think you misspoke. It wasn`t the Sullivan family. It`s Emory and JoAnn McClinton. And they have searched their souls and they have thought about this. And, by God, they`ve had almost 20 years...

(CROSSTALK)

GRACE: Brad, isn`t that Lita`s maiden name?

MOORES: Lita`s maiden name was McClinton.

GRACE: Right. So, this is Lita Sullivan`s family, correct?

MOORES: Well, Lita Sullivan`s family, Emory and JoAnn McClinton.

GRACE: Right.

MOORES: Yes.

(CROSSTALK)

GRACE: OK.

MOORES: OK.

(CROSSTALK)

GRACE: Now we were back with all the soul searching.

MOORES: Yes.

They do not believe that there is anyone else on the face of the planet that is responsible for this terrible crime.

GRACE: Let me go back to Jon Lewis, reporter with WSB Radio.

Jon, what`s taken so long for this prosecution to go forward? Is it a death penalty case? And who specifically is going to prosecute it?

LEWIS: Well, the Fulton County district attorney is going to prosecute it. And it is a death penalty case. What`s taken so long is, James Sullivan hasn`t been in the United States or was not in the United States for 15 years.

He sold his mansion in Palm Beach for $3.2 million in 1992 and then skipped the country, went to Costa Rica. From there, he went on to Panama. From there, he went on to Venezuela. The whole time, he was being tracked, but they couldn`t catch up to him. And then he seemed to vanish. Nobody knew where he was. The last thought was, he was somewhere in Costa Rica. He had had a home down there.

The break in this case came in 2002, in May, when the case was featured on the show "America`s Most Wanted." It was the third or fourth time it had been featured. And a gentleman in the United States saw it, then flew to Thailand on business, and in the Bangkok Airport, spotted James Sullivan, called the FBI.

GRACE: Oh, ruh-roh.

(LAUGHTER)

LEWIS: And the FBI said...

GRACE: Wouldn`t you know it?

LEWIS: We`re going to keep an eye on him. They contacted Thai authorities and said, watch this man while we get all the paperwork. We don`t want any problems.

Sullivan was living in a resort town about miles south of Bangkok. They kept an eye on him. And, ironically, on July Fourth 2002, Independence Day, they move in and arrested him, and they brought him back to Bangkok. And he fought extradition for 19 months.

GRACE: Oh, yes.

LEWIS: Now, Thai officials, they wanted him out of the country so badly, instead of putting him in the Bangkok jail, which is what would be normal procedure, they put him in what the FBI liaison in Bangkok told me was the most horrid place you could imagine, a prison in Thailand that had the worst of the worst criminals in it, trying to break him. This was a place that was infested with rats.

GRACE: Did it work?

LEWIS: He fought it for 19 months and he`d still be there now if he could.

GRACE: So, this guy would rather live with a bunch of rats in a Thai prison than come back to Georgia for trial?

LEWIS: That`s exactly how it worked.

GRACE: OK. That speaks volumes.

Very quickly to Eleanor Dixon.

We`ve totally left out the uncle who`s been dug up. Get your shovel, Eleanor. This guy`s uncle has now been exhumed. Why?

DIXON: Well, They`re trying to look and see if there`s any connection between his death and perhaps James Sullivan being the person responsible for the death. They`re looking actually for poison in his system. And that`s why his body was exhumed. And that`s something that the medical examiner will have to examine. And that could take some time.

GRACE: Well, I can tell you this much, Eleanor. I know Chris Sperry. He handled a lot of my murder cases. He`s the chief medical examiner there. And if anybody can found a trace of poison, it will be Chris Sperry.

I guess the theory is that the uncle left the money to Sullivan?

DIXON: Yes.

GRACE: Got you.

DIXON: And then Sullivan inherited it. And guess what you might have? A similar transaction.

GRACE: oh, man. Oh, Manishevitz.

Hey, Elizabeth (ph), can you throw up that statement from the defense attorney? Now, if any defense attorneys can win this case, it`s this bunch. Don Samuel, literally writes a book every year about the Georgia case law: "We are pleased the Georgia Supreme Court accepted Sullivan`s motion for interim review to consider the merits of double jeopardy and collateral estoppel. Forcing Sullivan to trial again is a clear abuse of the rights of the double jeopardy clause of the Constitution. We are hopeful the Georgia Supremes will review the background and agree that the prosecutor gets only one bite of the apple."

OK, that`s a lot of fancy talk, Don Samuel. I know you well for saying, he`s already been tried for this. No can do. I don`t think it`s going to hold up.

Very quickly to you, Jon Lewis. What`s the consensus as to when this case will go to trial?

LEWIS: We don`t know right now, because it is a death penalty case. Sullivan was returned to Georgia in October of last year. So, it`s going to take a long time. And now they have the motions. He`s not only claiming double jeopardy. He`s claiming dual citizenship. He has an Irish passport.

GRACE: Oh, good lord.

LEWIS: He claims that, under the law, that he could not be extradited under international law back to the United States to face a death sentence as a citizen of Ireland.

(CROSSTALK)

GRACE: But, wait. That`s only if he`s in Ireland, right? He was in Thailand.

LEWIS: I`m not making these arguments, I`m just repeating the arguments. This is what they are claiming.

GRACE: Hey, Jon, thank you. As a matter of fact, take a look at this, Dusty. I`ve got this huge, huge memorandum of law here where Don Samuel and his defense team is fighting this tooth and nail. If anybody can win, he will.

OK, district attorney Paul Howard, you`re on notice. You`ve got a fight on your hands.

We`ll be right back.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: My door window just exploded in on me. My heart jumped out of my mouth. And all I could think was to get control of the vehicle.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Briggs (ph) was on 270 driving his yellow fright rig back home from Virginia when the shot came in.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: I said, what the heck? And I looked up. And the weather stripping from the frame of the truck was stuck to the door. I give a little jerk and the bullet dropped out in front of me.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Police believe Briggs was one of the first victims of the Columbus sniper, though Briggs won`t call him that.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: The guy doesn`t deserve to be called a sniper. That`s an honorable profession in the military and in our police forces. This guy`s a shooter.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

GRACE: For months on end, Ohio motorists lived in terror. Whether it be on a city street or the interstate, nobody knew who would be the next target of the Ohio sniper.

Tonight, in Miami, Florida, the lawyer representing the Ohio victims in a civil suit, Jack Thompson.

But first to Columbus, Ohio, and "Columbus Dispatch" reporter Bruce Cadwallader.

Bruce, bring me up to date, friend.

BRUCE CADWALLADER, "COLUMBUS DISPATCH": I think this is shaping up to be a very fast trial. We had four witnesses testify today. And the defense has already conceded that their man is the shooter. And there was no cross examination of these witnesses, to speak of.

GRACE: How are they seeking the death penalty? There was actually one murder victim, 12 shootings.

MOORES: Prosecutors laid out their case today, Nancy, that this was a course of conduct over five months where Charles McCoy was shooting at moving vehicles. They argue that, if you shoot at a car with people inside, your intent is to kill. And two of those witnesses testified today that bullets nearly grazed their heads.

GRACE: To Jack Thompson. He is the attorney representing the victims.

Jack, he`s claiming insanity, specifically schizophrenia. Didn`t he flee to Vegas?

JACK THOMPSON, ATTORNEY FOR VICTIMS: You know, we all learned as kids, Nancy, that actions speak louder than words. The defense psychiatrist can say all he wants about how this man is paranoid schizophrenic and that he didn`t know right from wrong.

But the fact is, I saw and heard testimony today that he fled. We all know that he fled. He also broke down the gun in order to hide the gun. He was on overpasses that wouldn`t allow access to them readily. So, he knew what he was doing, when he was doing, it was wrong. And, therefore, the only thing insane about this case is the defense.

GRACE: Well, that was artfully spoken. But Jack Thompson is a trial lawyer and a veteran in the courtroom.

Very quickly to Jason Oshins.

Jason, not only is Jack Thompson correct about the guy breaking down the gun every time he went back home, so nobody could trace it back to the killings. When the state began to try to investigate this, they put up cameras along the highway. He read about it in the paper and started moving to the outer perimeters of Ohio metropolitan areas, where there were no cameras, so he couldn`t get caught. Now, this guy is crazy lick a FOX.

JASON OSHINS, DEFENSE ATTORNEY: Well, I think, obviously, the defense really has very limited options to work with, and, certainly, knowingly that an insanity defense in any jurisdiction is really a long shot. Very, very few of those are successful.

GRACE: Yes.

OSHINS: And here -- and, also, over the years, they`ve become very limiting in judges, juries, and courts allowing this to go forward as a defense. It`s almost that we`re a country or a court system bent on having our pound or our ounce of flesh for what`s gone on. So...

(CROSSTALK)

GRACE: And you know, Eleanor -- Eleanor Dixon is with us. She`s an assistant DA in Cobb County, Atlanta, Georgia.

The Son of Sam. Remember David Berkowitz claimed the same schizophrenic paranoia defense. He`s behind bars. He claimed his dog talked him into it. In this case, Eleanor, it was a prosecutor`s dream today. We heard a guy say just before he got in his car that he was going to take his two grandsons with him and, at the last minute, he had a premonition not to. He left them behind. And he was one of the shooting victims.

When I heard it, 1,000 miles away, sitting in the studio at Court TV, it gave me a chill.

DIXON: That is so scary to think of.

And this case is interesting because of the pattern of behavior of the defendant and the fact that, when you`re looking at an insanity defense, a prosecution, a good prosecution is going to look at the defendant`s actions before the incidents, what he did during the incidents, and also after. That`s why the flight is so important. Yes, he knew what was going on, because he knew to leave as soon as he was identified by a family member.

GRACE: And please, Eleanor, Vegas? Of all places. He didn`t go hide out in a barn. He didn`t go hide under his bed. He goes to Sin City, lives it up, for Pete`s sake. OK, now he`s claiming the insanity defense.

Elizabeth, how much time do I have left?

Quickly. I`ve got one minute left.

Now, I`m going to ask a shrink to be brief. What is paranoid schizophrenia?

SAUNDERS: It`s one of the least common types of schizophrenia. Unlike the other schizophrenias, there`s no disordered thinking or really weird behavior. It`s isolated to paranoid delusions and paranoid auditory hallucinations, where voices tell you to do bad things.

(CROSSTALK)

GRACE: Hearing voices and paranoid delusions, like in "Beautiful Mind"?

SAUNDERS: Yes.

GRACE: OK, got you.

We`ll be right back with more on the Ohio sniper story.

But let`s go to the all-points bulletin for tonight. U.S. Marshals are on the lookout for this fugitive, Andre Neverson, Neverson wanted for killing his sister and an ex-girlfriend in July 2002, while, I might add, he was on parole. Don`t be tricked by that smiling face. Neverson, from Trinidad, was deported from the U.S. and HE illegally snuck back in. He`s known to always carry a gun, keeps his head shaved. He`s even been known to wear wigs to disguise himself.

Neverson, 40 years old, 6`2``, 240. If you have any information on this man -- take a look -- Andre Neverson, please, call the U.S. Marshals office at 646-805-6610. It`s us on our Web site at Headline News.

Local news coming up for some of you.

But all of us will be right back.

And, remember, live coverage of the Ohio sniper and Michael Jackson tomorrow, 3:00 to 5:00 Eastern on Court TV`s "Closing Arguments".

Please stay with us.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

GRACE: We are back with the latest on the Ohio sniper trial. It kicked off today. The state is seeking the death penalty.

Final thoughts, Jack Thompson.

THOMPSON: Well, I think, with a defense team like this, Ron O`Brien doesn`t need a lot of good luck in the courtroom.

The lead attorney, Andrew Haney, is not even a criminal defense lawyer. I`m not sure what he`s doing in this courtroom. You`ve got a defense that makes no sense. They`ve got him dressed in a criminal jumpsuit that reinforces to the jury that this is a criminal, rather than an insane person.

And Ron O`Brien, frankly, before the trial, leading up to the trial, repeatedly made it clear in the media that he was willing to go a plea bargain route. And that`s what the defense team should have done. They didn`t take him up on it. And now they`re stuck with a defense that`s going to get the jury mad and probably, surely, do a first-degree murder conviction.

GRACE: That`s a pretty good analysis, especially in light of the fact he was offered a plea.

Final thoughts, Michelle?

SUSKAUER: You know, this is a tough case to prove the insanity defense. It`s very hard to get a jury to buy into the fact that we`re going to excuse someone`s behavior. But there is a lot of background that they could use, 10 years of behavior of being a schizophrenic.

GRACE: That`s true, Michelle. He was diagnosed many, many years ago. And I think you`re right. That`s the strongest thing the defense has.

Jason, I`ve got one minute left. But the reality is, with the defense world, you`re stuck with what you get. They had the gun in his possession. He confessed to a lot of it. Where else could they go?

OSHINS: Well, you are stuck with what you get. And you got to go with it.

But, at the same token, I`m a little disturbed on what Jack said regarding his defense. More than anything, that will lead to a number of appeals if he is convicted on this, if what we`re talking about is ineffective assistance of counsel.

GRACE: You know what? The defense hasn`t even started their case and you guys are already working on the appeal. I`m so happy.

I want to thank all of my guests tonight. But, as always, my biggest thank you to you for being with us tonight, inviting all of us into your home.

Coming up, headlines from around the world.

I`m Nancy Grace, signing off for tonight. Hope to see you right here tomorrow night, 8:00 sharp Eastern.

Until then, good night, friend.

END