Return to Transcripts main page

Nancy Grace

Breaking News in Duke Rape Investigation

Aired May 11, 2006 - 20:00   ET

THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.

NANCY GRACE, HOST: Tonight, breaking news, DNA bombshell in the Duke rape investigation, human tissue found under the nails of the 27-year-old student-turned-stripper reported a match to a Duke lacrosse player at the party where she was allegedly raped.
And tonight, the case of a serial child molester meticulously logged over 36,000 detailed stories of molestations in his own journal -- finally, the case collides with Lady Justice.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: These binders contain thousands -- literally thousands of names of children that we believe Mr. Schwartzmiller may have molested.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

GRACE: Good evening, everybody. I`m Nancy Grace. I want to thank you for being with us tonight. Tonight, an accomplice to one of America`s most prolific child molesters, including a possible 36,000 molestations, says it`s not his fault because he`s sick. Yes, he`s sick, all right!

But first tonight, breaking news, Duke University DNA bombshell in the lacrosse team rape investigation. Does tissue under the nails of the alleged victim match one of the three Duke lacrosse players? Tonight, we are taking your calls.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

GRACE: You said that the night the DNA results came out, she cried all night.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: She cried all night (INAUDIBLE) She couldn`t believe it.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Everybody`s holding their breath (INAUDIBLE) DNA evidence.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: When you see the report, you will see on the fingernails, there`s no DNA evidence that shows that any of these boys were touched by her fingernails.

GRACE: What does she say about the fact there was no DNA?

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Well, she felt like (INAUDIBLE)

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: I think most people are waiting for the DNA results to come back because things will probably move pretty quickly once we know what (INAUDIBLE)

(END VIDEO CLIP)

GRACE: Well, it all looked bleak for the prosecution of the Duke lacrosse team multiple rape case. At the 11th hour, suddenly, a Hail Mary pass was thrown, and it`s a touchdown for the state! Apparently, DNA matching one of these three lacrosse players has turned up under the nails of the student-turned-stripper.

Out to Kevin Miller with WPTF radio. Kevin, bring us up to date.

KEVIN MILLER, WPTF RADIO: Well, again, according to published reports, Nancy, that there is a match, but it is not 100 percent match with the DNA because of the tissue make-up. It`s not consistent, so it`s not 100 percent match. And again, defense and prosecutors -- they don`t have everything back yet, so again, we`re going to see where this goes. But again, it again seems the press is leading this case right now.

GRACE: Well, wait a minute, Kevin Miller. What do you mean, it`s not a 100 percent match? Because when I prosecuted DNA cases, you`ll have a one-in-three-million match, you`ll have a one-in-four-trillion match likelihood that this is the person. So what do you mean, it`s not a 100 percent match?

MILLER: Well, Nancy, let me again say that, again, this is based on published reports. It hasn`t been confirmed by the prosecutor`s office or the defense, as far as I know...

GRACE: Right.

MILLER: ... and I`ve talked to several people today...

GRACE: Not 100 percent match -- what do you mean?

MILLER: Well, for a DNA test -- and I`m not a DNA expert -- you have to have, let`s say, 13 of 13 characteristics. From what we know from these reports, there are not all 13 there. So you might have 10 of 13, which could lead to some doubt about the reliability of the DNA. Plus you go back to the tissue sample, it`s not a complete sample, Nancy, from what we know.

GRACE: Now, that can mean a number of things. Kevin Miller, reporting straight out of North Carolina with WPTF radio. Let`s go to the expert tonight. Joining us is Dr. Daniel Spitz. He is a forensic pathologist. Dr. Spitz, when we refer to the 13 markers in DNA, correct me if I`m wrong, but doesn`t that mean there are 13 matching comparisons between the unknown DNA, what`s under the nails, and the known DNA, which is taken from the oral swabbing of the lacrosse players?

DR. DANIEL SPITZ, FORENSIC PATHOLOGIST: Well, that`s correct. They use 13 different regions, and if you match all 13, that is what generally is characterized as a positive result. That`s where you get those huge numbers, one in several million, one in several billion.

What we`re dealing with here is less than a complete 13 out of 13 region match.

GRACE: Wa-wa-wa-wa-wa-wait! Before we keep perpetuating the phraseology of "not 100 percent match," could it be, instead of 1 in 4 trillion match, it could be 1 in 5,000 match?

SPITZ: Well, it could be. We don`t know how many of the different regions are actually -- are actually matching. If it`s 10 out of 13, that`s probably still pretty good, and that`s going to give you a high probability that...

GRACE: Such as?

SPITZ: Well, it`s hard to know. You can`t really put that because you don`t have the -- the exact matches, which is what`s used. You -- 13 out of 13 is what gives those huge results. When you have less than that, you`re going to have different people giving you different amounts. So if it`s one or two or three or four, the probability goes way down, and you`re going to have different people arguing different amounts.

GRACE: Now, hold on. Forget all these different hypothetical people you`re talking about. I want to know what Dr. Daniel Spitz thinks. If there are 10 out of the 13 markers that match, what`s a general ballpark of comparison, 1 out of 5,000, or are we still up around 1 in 100,000?

SPITZ: No, you`re not that high. It drops off very rapidly once you have...

GRACE: OK.

SPITZ: ... once you don`t have 13 out of 13. The test involves 13 out of 13. That`s what is a positive result. If it`s not 13 out of 13, it`s really not a positive test. You can only use the phraseology "consistent with." And we don`t know how many match, at this point.

GRACE: OK. Let me go back to my original question. With, say, 10 out of 13, how much lower does the match go?

SPITZ: Oh, it drops off very rapidly.

GRACE: Right. I heard that. Are you saying 1 in 100, 1 in 5,000, what?

SPITZ: Yes, probably 1 in several thousand. But it goes...

GRACE: OK, now, wait a minute! Wa-wa-wa-wait! Let`s just take a look at that. See, you`re coming at this from the angle, Doctor, of a doctor. From a layperson, who`s hearing this case, hypothetically, 1 out of -- 10 out of 13, 1 out of 5,000 match, and this girl identifies the person and you got a 1 in 5,000 match on DNA...

SPITZ: But we don`t know that yet. We don`t know if it`s 1 out of...

GRACE: Yes, that`s why I used the word "hypothetically."

(CROSSTALK)

GRACE: Did you hear the "hypothetically" part?

SPITZ: If it goes down to 2 or 3...

GRACE: It`s a lot lower.

SPITZ: ... you can get as low as 1 in 6, 1 in 5, 1 out of 10, and that`s why we just don`t know.

GRACE: To Eleanor Dixon, felony prosecutor, and her expertise specifically is violent sex crimes -- welcome, Eleanor. Let`s get right down to it. You and I have both prosecuted DNA cases where we`ve had comparisons -- this is the guy 1 in 4 trillion, OK? And we`ve also both had cases where it`s 1 in 300. What do you do with a case like that?

ELEANOR DIXON, PROSECUTOR: Well, I don`t think it makes it a weak case. For example, it`s just like building a brick wall. It`s another good, solid piece of evidence to put in your case because it is consistent with, it is a match. That doesn`t mean it`s bad evidence. In fact, I would say it`s good evidence. And it fits with the story that the victim has given.

GRACE: Let`s go back to Kevin Miller, reporter with WPTF radio. Kevin, we were talking last night about all the stories saying this girl had changed her story, but I have in my hand the actual transcript of the photo ID array. This girl goes through 46 different people. And the way they set it up...

You know what? Let me go to Tiffany Koenig, defense attorney. Tiffany, they followed all the rules. Hold on just one sec, Liz. Let`s go out to Tiffany. They showed her 46 different photos, all right? On 42 of those, she would say, No, that`s not him. I was reading this carefully, Tiffany. She says, Oh, yes, that`s the guy that was standing on the front porch talking to the other stripper. He didn`t touch me. That`s the guy that was sitting in the master bedroom having a drink. He didn`t touch me. That`s the guy that was sitting on the sofa having a drink. That`s the guy that was yelling in the hallway, yelling in the bedroom. He didn`t touch me. That`s the guy...

Let`s take a look at the first graph, Elizabeth. Liz, who are you showing me? Who are you showing me first, Liz? Seligmann.

They show her photo number 7, Tiff. "He looks like one of the guys who assaulted me." "How sure of that are you?" "One hundred percent sure." Sergeant, "You`re 100 percent sure? OK." "Yes."

That`s pretty good ID, Tiffany. And, "How did he assault you? Which one was he?" "He was the one standing in front of me that made me perform oral sex on him." "What else did he do?" "That was it." And we are referring to photo 7. I`m turning to it right now. Photo 7 is Reade Seligmann. That`s pretty good ID, Tiffany.

TIFFANY KOENIG, DEFENSE ATTORNEY: Well, it sounds really good, except for when you put it back in the context that they actually told her, Well, you`re going to be looking at 46 photos of people who were at the party. In essence, there is no wrong answer. She could have named anybody at that stage because they all were at the party.

GRACE: Eleanor, response?

DIXON: ... she`s actually saying. She`s very specific, as you pointed out, where everybody is, what exactly they were doing. So she`s not just picking out random people. She`s able to tell you what each person at the party was doing. And when she was sure, she says, I`m 100 percent sure. I think that`s pretty good.

GRACE: Take a listen to what the victim`s father had to say.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: She didn`t tell me a lot of the details, but she did tell me that three boys had raped her. And I asked her where was it at, where did it happen? And she said at that house. And then I felt horrible because that was the same place that she asked me how to get to.

GRACE: When you spoke to her afterwards, did she talk to you about having to go through the whole examination and talking to police, and so forth?

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Yes, she mentioned something about (INAUDIBLE) she said she had -- the next day, she had to go to see or identify the people, I think it was the way she put it.

GRACE: Could she identify any of them?

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: I think she did.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

GRACE: And again, everyone, I am looking at the verbatim transcript of this young girl`s -- well, she`s 27 -- looking on a video screen of 46 different pictures. Nobody`s saying anything to her. And the detectives go to great pains to say, We`re going to give you a minute. We`re not going to speak. You look at it and then tell us what you think. And they don`t interact with her until she`s ready to speak.

Now, that was Reade Seligmann. That was image number 7 that she was shown. Now go all the way to image 40, Collin Finnerty, the young man with an incident in D.C. Here we go. "He is the guy who assaulted me." "What did he do?" "He put his penis in my anus and my vagina." Sergeant, "Was he the first or second one to do that?"

Continue, Liz.

"The second one." Sergeant, "Is he the one that strangled you or not?" Accuser, "No." "So that is the gentleman who put his penis in your anus, picture 40? Getting back one slide to the gentleman, you`re sure of that?" "100 percent, 100 percent."

You are taking a look outside the courthouse where the photo ID was made.

I want to go back to Kevin Miller, reporter with WPTF radio. Kevin, I want to talk also about a pubic hair that has now come into play. It is a white male pubic hair. Nobody`s saying where it came from. But the fact that it is being made known around the same time as the DNA is being made known suggests to me it came out of the rape kit.

MILLER: Well, Nancy, having had a chance to talk to sources on both sides of this case, it was news to them today that it came out. And if you read the report, apparently, the hair has no root, which plays into it, as well. But from what I understand, sources close to both sides have told me that this it the first they`ve heard of it.

GRACE: Question to Dr. Daniel Spitz, forensic pathologist. That is highly significant, the fact that this pubic hair, a white male pubic hair, does not have a root. That`s bad for the state. They can`t get nuclear DNA. What can they get from it?

SPITZ: Yes, you can`t get nuclear DNA, but you can do mitochondrial DNA. You don`t need a root to do mitochondrial DNA. So it doesn`t sound like that`s been done. Basically, what it sounds like`s been done is just a microscopic exam, which you can do to determine the -- whether it`s a white male or a black male and whether it`s a human hair.

GRACE: And it`s not all that mysterious to determine this. If you take a look under a microscope -- correct me if I`m wrong, Doctor -- it`s easy to tell whether you`ve got a Caucasian hair, an Asian hair, an African-American hair. It`s very easy to tell under a microscope.

Now, how do you go about getting the DNA if it doesn`t have a nucleus, Doctor?

SPITZ: Well, the mitochondria, which are -- in an oganelle within the cell, has its own DNA, and that`s mitochondrial DNA. And that`s a very labor-intensive process, but it certainly can be done. It doesn`t offer the probabilities that nuclear DNA offer, but it certainly would be helpful in this case.

GRACE: So you definitely can do mitochondrial, even without a nucleus.

SPITZ: Yes.

GRACE: I expect we`re going to have another delay in the findings of that DNA match, if there is one. However, grand jury meets on Monday. Will there be a third indictment?

We`ll all be right back. And when we get back, we are taking your calls. That number`s been flashing on the bottom of the screen, so call us.

Quickly, to tonight`s "Case Alert." A new breach of privacy, "USA Today" reports three major telecom firms -- AT&T, Verizon, Bellsouth -- secretly provided the National Security Agency with info on phone calls made by millions of ordinary Americans just like you and me, starting just after September 11.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

GRACE: It is Trial 101. When testimony is brought forward at a grand jury, it`s OK to have hearsay. In other words, if that DNA report is not ready come Monday, someone can testify as to what that report says. Agree or disagree, Eleanor?

DIXON: Agree. You can do that in the grand jury, and that`s very helpful because you can oftentimes go ahead and get your indictment without having to bring in a parade of witnesses. Usually, it`s just the officer who`s taken out the warrant.

GRACE: And of course, to Marc Mukasey, I guess you oppose that. The reality is there`s no one to object in a grand jury. Why?

MARC MUKASEY, DEFENSE ATTORNEY: Well, you know, the old saying, Nancy, a grand jury will indict...

GRACE: Indict a ham sandwich.

MUKASEY: ... a ham sandwich...

(CROSSTALK)

GRACE: When you come back, come back with a new one, OK?

MUKASEY: Well, I`ll give you this new one. In New York state, if a rape case occurs, in any kind of criminal case, no hearsay in the grand jury. You must bring witnesses. You must bring cops. You must bring scientists. You must bring witnesses. They don`t do that in every state, Nancy. In the federal courts, you can bring hearsay. It is impossible, virtually impossible, for a defense attorney to stop an indictment from coming unless you nip it before it gets into the grand jury process.

GRACE: And the reality is, in most jurisdictions, when there are person-on-person crimes, violent crimes, the individual is brought in to testify and answer questions to the grand jury. All 20 to 40 grand jury members can ask questions of the victim and of any other witness that comes before them.

Let`s go to the lines. Let`s go to Laura in Michigan. Hi, Laura.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Hi, Nancy.

GRACE: What`s your question, dear?

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: My question is this. The dancer was wearing acrylic nails. Would not her skin, her DNA, also be attached to those fingernails and might dilute the 10 of the 13 points?

GRACE: Oh, excellent question. What about it, Dr. Spitz?

SPITZ: ... dilute the points. What you would do is get a mixed sample, then, and the samples could be differentiated as some coming from her and some coming from somebody else.

GRACE: I`m not exactly sure how the acrylic nails work. I don`t know, do they attach necessarily to your skin, your cuticle? Ellie`s (ph) saying no. Do they attach to the actual nail?

Tiffany Koenig, any familiarity? Tiffany, are you there?

KOENIG: Can you hear me?

GRACE: Can you hear me? Yes. The acrylic nails, do they attach to the cuticle or the skin or to the nail itself?

KOENIG: It`s actually to the nail itself. And when they bust up, they bust up pretty hard.

GRACE: Have you ever had them?

KOENIG: I have.

GRACE: And how much do they cost?

KOENIG: Oh, depending on where you go, 30 to 60 bucks.

GRACE: So this girl allegedly, according to the defense, voluntarily tore off all of her $60 acrylic nails, threw them on the floor and in the trashcan, left behind $400 cash, cell phone, wallet, pocketbook and ran out with one shoe.

OK, we`ll all be right back. But very quickly, let`s go to tonight`s "Case Alert." A 17-year-old Illinois girl was attacked, abandoned, left to die literally with a broken neck allegedly by a 26-year-old school teacher -- survived. She`s struggling to recover. Ashley Reese`s (ph) parents released a statement denying she is on life support or even paralyzed. Teenager Ashley Reese spent 30 hours abandoned in the woods, after a miraculous recovery, being dumped in a park by her attacker.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

GRACE: When had you seen her before that time?

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: I saw her the night it happened.

GRACE: Before the incident?

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Yes.

GRACE: Did she have bruises or scratches at that time?

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Not one. Not one.

GRACE: Are you absolutely positive?

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: I`m sure. And she was happy and laughing.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

GRACE: Welcome back, everybody. We are taking your calls. Bombshell DNA in the Duke rape investigation. Apparently, DNA found under the nails torn off of the girl in the bathroom at the party matches one of the three suspects, we believe the unnamed suspect.

Let`s go out to the lines. Jody in Tennessee. Hi, Jody.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Hi, Nancy. I love the show.

GRACE: Thank you!

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: My question, what other, I guess, major evidence do they have? I mean, DNA underneath her fingernails doesn`t necessarily lead to rape, so I`m kind of curious as to what other evidence they have.

GRACE: That`s a good question. My understanding, Kevin Miller, is that there is the DNA under the nail...

MILLER: Right.

GRACE: ... that there is her positive identification of three of the suspects, 100 percent, 100 percent and 90 percent, that the timeline fits with her story, and the rape kit nurse says she saw signs of recent anal and vaginal trauma consistent with rape. Am I missing something?

MILLER: No, you`re not, Nancy, unless, again, what we -- what the big thing is, what we don`t know what Mike Nifong has that has convinced him to continue on with this case. So again, you`ve covered everything.

GRACE: Let`s talk about that a moment. To Dr. Joseph Deltito, professor of psychiatry. Welcome back, Dr. Deltito.

DR. JOSEPH DELTITO, PROFESSOR OF PSYCHIATRY: Thank you, Nancy.

GRACE: I find it very difficult to believe, even with all the camaraderie of the team, even with how close the team was, that not one person is ratting out, not one person is coming forward!

DELTITO: I agree with you. I would agree with you. I`d think there would be one -- at least one weak leak, if, indeed, they all witnessed such a horrendous act as has been described. You don`t know, but you would think that someone would have broken by now.

GRACE: I think Jody in Tennessee is right, and I think Kevin Miller`s right. There`s something else. The DA has got an ace up his sleeve.

To Pat Brown, criminal profiler -- but you`ve got to keep into account that a lot of the guys were probably downstairs or in another part of the house, partying and drinking and really didn`t know what was going on.

PAT BROWN, CRIMINAL PROFILER: Oh, that`s probably true, Nancy, but that -- that DA better have a lot up his sleeve because what I`m seeing here is absolutely nothing that proves rape. First of all, we got a little bit of something under a fingernail, which wasn`t -- we don`t know if it had to do with a rape or just an altercation. We have nothing on her body...

(CROSSTALK)

GRACE: An altercation in the bathroom?

BROWN: Anyplace. There`s three guys -- anal sex, oral sex, vaginal sex, no DNA in on or around her? That`s pretty hard to do, I`d say.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

OFFICER: She`s breathing, appears to be fine. She`s not in distress. She`s just passed-out drunk.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Duke University has released this campus police report dated the night of the alleged rape on March 14th. It says Durham police made initial contact with the alleged victim and that she changed her story several times. Durham police state the charges would not exceed misdemeanor simple assault.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: We had launched a full-scale sexual assault investigation by 4:00 or 5:00 that morning. It just doesn`t make sense that a week or 10 days later anybody thinks that the Durham Police Department wasn`t taking the case seriously.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

GRACE: And now, of course, we know the allegations that this young lady changed her story were completely false.

To Stephen Miller, Duke student and executive of the Duke Conservative Union, all right, so the allegation she changed her story, false. We now have 100 percent identifications of two people, and now there`s DNA. So have you filed your transfer papers yet?

STEPHEN MILLER, DUKE CONSERVATIVE UNION: Well, first of all, even if this crime did occur, it doesn`t speak at all to Duke University as a whole. And most of us students from the beginning have been very concerned about how this whole allegation has been used to vilify the campus. The New Black Panther Party, for instance, came to school and demanded immediately that all of the players on the team be expelled.

GRACE: OK, that`s ridiculous. And listen, another thing on that, for once you and I finally agree. Even the anarchists, the original Black Panthers, have disassociated themselves from the New Black Panthers.

S. MILLER: Absolutely.

GRACE: On that one, I agree with you. And again, Stephen, I`ve got to say, I truly believe that most of the players were in another part where the party was going on of the house. And why would they care what was going on in the bathroom? They would have no need to know what was going on in there.

S. MILLER: Right. The second stripper herself, who has no motivation to lie about a rape not occurring, herself said she didn`t hear or see a single thing. So even if one assumes just for a moment that this crime did occur, there`s no reason to also assume that the other players would have heard about it.

I think it`s unfair how people have been saying -- and they have from the beginning -- we condemn the players for not coming forward. One has to allow for the possibility that, even if the crime in question did occur, one has to allow that maybe these players really do know nothing about it.

So we can`t condemn the team as a whole, and we certainly can`t condemn the university as a whole for having a culture that would allow this.

GRACE: Well, wait, wait, wait. You jumped on the wrong bandwagon. At the beginning, you stated that this -- your understanding was this lady had changed her story, and there was no DNA, and therefore there was no rape.

S. MILLER: Well, there`s no conclusive DNA still. There`s a partial match on a fingernail, which doesn`t match the two players that have been indicted. Now, I`m not saying I know what happened, and nobody really knows right now that wasn`t involved what actually happened. But the point is...

GRACE: What you are majoring in? Is it pre-law, by chance?

S. MILLER: Actually, you know, it`s funny. I actually want to become an attorney, and I also even would like to go into prosecution. Although my ultimate career aspirations are political, I`ve always been interested in being a prosecutor, but...

GRACE: For political reasons?

S. MILLER: No, because I want to get criminals and I want to put them away so they never see the light of day again, if they`ve done something heinous. I`m a big...

(CROSSTALK)

GRACE: Good thinking, Stephen Miller.

Let`s go out to...

S. MILLER: I`m big on law and order.

GRACE: Let`s go out to Linda in Maryland. Hi, Linda.

CALLER: Hi, Nancy.

GRACE: Hello, dear. What`s your question?

CALLER: I don`t understand how, if she said that she was raped 10 years ago, and she goes and wants to become a dancer, and goes to this house where there`s all these white guys, and then all of a sudden she claims that she`s raped again by three guys, I really think that, maybe, it was a husband or her boyfriend that knew that she was doing that, and maybe that was it. But...

(CROSSTALK)

GRACE: Why would you think that? Wait, why would you think that?

CALLER: Because he found out that she was doing that and he didn`t know about it.

GRACE: No, he knew. He knew, and there`s not a husband. There is a boyfriend.

CALLER: Right, but...

GRACE: They knew for a long time that she was stripping. The father didn`t know.

CALLER: OK, but why would a girl that was raped go to a party with 40 men...

GRACE: That`s a good question.

CALLER: And I just don`t understand. I don`t believe her. I`m sorry.

GRACE: OK, hold on. Let`s go to Dr. Joseph Deltito, professor of psychiatry. Doctor, in my wanderings, trying to find witnesses on various cases, drug cases, murder cases, you name it, I ended up meeting a lot of strippers, because when drug deals and robberies go down, who do you think the witnesses are? They`re not nuns, and priests, and virgins. I think we can -- well, except for Father Gerald Robinson, other than that case.

So, very often, they`re on the scene when a crime goes down. Why is it that someone that had been raped at an early age -- this girl, I believe, was about 14 years old when she claimed that. She told no one. She told her husband three years later, very young marriage, and he had her go forward to police three years after the fact, is my understanding.

Now, why would someone that had been or thought she had been raped turn out to be a stripper?

DELTITO: Actually, Nancy, if you look at the data on children that are raped, young girls, the prepubescent girls that are raped, one the things we see rather consistently out of that research is that many of them become very, very promiscuous, in terms of consensual sex, and have many sex partners, and get involved in all sorts of sexual exploits.

And the world of strippers -- many, not all the strippers -- are also doing other sexual things to make money. And in this world, they put themselves in situations with seedy people, intoxicated people, et cetera. That`s the world.

There are places where there`s an increased probability of getting raped, rather than if they work for IBM in some office some place. So the whole world is one in which there`s a lot of sexual exploitation going on and sexual aggression going on.

GRACE: You know, Doctor, I remember prosecuting a guy up in his 60s for years of child molestation and all the girls -- I don`t even know how many. I uncovered eight young girls, all related to him in some way. One had become a hooker. One was an alcoholic. One was at the other end of the spectrum and had actually written a book about incest and speaks all over the country.

I haven`t met one child molestation or rape victim that goes on with life as normal. There are great changes that occur, mentally and emotionally, after a sex attack.

DELTITO: There definitely is, and I think this is one of the areas in psychiatry that we have very good data, most of it done by Professor David Ferguson in New Zealand, who has followed these children over long periods of time. And the most common sequelae of getting raped at a young age is that you get involved in this sort of seedy sexual and promiscuous life later on, not everyone, but certainly at a very, very high level and that you have increased number of abortions, unwanted pregnancies, sexually transmitted disease.

GRACE: Because of the promiscuity.

DELTITO: Rapes, because they`re putting themselves in certain situations. So there`s no doubt that it can have profound psychological implications.

GRACE: Let me go to Eleanor Dixon, sex crimes prosecutor. Eleanor, I understand where our caller`s coming from, but how do you weed that out as a prosecutor when you`re striking your jury?

DIXON: That`s really hard, because you`ve got to get to the jury`s biases, see if they would be inclined to believe or disbelieve a victim with that. And so I always ask a lot questions. Has anybody here, yourself, family member, friend, ever been the victim of a sexual type of offense, from sexual harassment to forcible rape?

GRACE: Right. And another issue, to Tiffany Koenig, just like this jury will not know about Collin Finnerty`s guilty plea, I guess it was, where he got diversion center for a prior battery in D.C., they`re not going to hear about that. Will they hear about this girl`s prior rape claim?

KOENIG: Well, there will need to be a hearing done before the trial. The judge will have to make a decision as to whether this information is going to be allowed.

GRACE: Right.

KOENIG: But most likely, that`s not going to happen, because there are -- the rape shield law out there, and that`s to protect victims from basically being dumped through the mud.

GRACE: And the defendant, as well, both get protections.

Let`s go to Jeff in North Carolina. Hi, Jeff.

CALLER: Yes, hello, Nancy. Thanks for taking my call.

GRACE: Sure.

CALLER: I just have two questions. One, the accuser had a physical examination done at a hospital. The findings were that she had been raped. I`m wondering, one, how these findings prove it was a rape as opposed to sex and, two, how it proves that it was a rape that particular evening...

GRACE: Good question.

CALLER: ... as opposed to 24 hours or 48 hours before?

GRACE: OK, here is my understanding, from dealing with rape kit nurses in the past many times. The trauma to the vagina and the anus is fresh in that they`re still bleeding, there are still fresh lacerations. They are trying to determine the type of laceration, the type of bruising that they see.

Yes, no, Eleanor Dixon?

DIXON: Yes, you`re right, because you can look at an injury and say, yes, it`s consistent with being raped. A defense attorney is going to say, well, maybe it was just rough sex, but you`re going to argue, hey, no, it`s not. Look at where the tearing is. Look at where the bruising is. This is consistent with forcible sex.

GRACE: And also, to our caller, it`s just as if, when you see a cut on your hand, if you can begin to see it heal, you know it`s older. These trained rape nurses can do the same thing with vaginal and anal injuries.

Very quickly to tonight`s "Trial Tracker." Today, an Ohio jury convicts 68-year-old Catholic priest Father Gerald Robinson in the brutal murder of a 71-year-old nun, Sister Margaret Ann Pahl, 26 years ago. Witnesses linked a sword-shaped letter opener found in Robinson`s room to the sister`s wounds and the blood stains on the altar cloth that covered her body.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: We, the jury -- would the defendant rise -- find the defendant guilty of murder.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

(NEWSBREAK)

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: He`s charged with seven counts. One count is -- the first count is aggravated sexual abuse of a child under 14. The other six counts are lewd and lascivious acts on a child under 14. There`s a what`s called a multiple-victim allegation alleged, and what that means is each count is 15 years to life, if convicted, for a total of 105 years to life.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

GRACE: We are taking you across the country in the latest on a case, a shocking case, roommates, adult male roommates, that were also both child molesters. One actually kept these meticulous logs of his molestations, over 36,000 incidents of child molestation. There he is, Schwartzmiller.

Let`s go out to Leslie Snadowsky, investigative reporter. What happened in court today, Leslie?

LESLIE SNADOWSKY, INVESTIGATIVE REPORTER, "NEW YORK POST": Well, today, Schwartzmiller`s roommate, Fred Everts, was found sane by a judge in the Santa Clara County Superior Court, which means -- and get this, Nancy - - he could face a whopping 1,175 years in prison to life.

GRACE: And not that he doesn`t deserve it. So the roommates were living together and both were child molesters?

SNADOWSKY: They were both convicted child molesters. They actually met in prison in 1993 in Oregon where they were both serving time. They were both roommates, and they both kind of teamed up and preyed on different boys and girls in the neighborhood.

GRACE: What do you mean "teamed up and preyed"?

SNADOWSKY: Well, what they used to do -- they used to court families and tried to make families feel secure with them, secure enough to leave their young sons behind. They used to leave them over in sleepovers and hang out at the house, and they used to kind of bribe these kids with all sorts of video games and goodies and things.

GRACE: Oh, yes, Leslie, I called it the buddy system, the buddy syndrome when I was a prosecutor, where the molester befriends their child and their family.

Dan Reed, what happened in court today? Dan is a reporter with the "San Jose Mercury News" -- Dan?

DAN REED, "SAN JOSE MERCURY NEWS": Well, Steve Fein, the prosecutor, said that, in California, you have to know the difference between right and wrong to be sane. Well, Everts has oft told about his remorse after he molests the kids.

What he argued is, since he`s been diagnosed with manic depressive, is that, when he`s in his manic stages, he doesn`t think it`s wrong. He thinks the boys think it`s OK. The defense attorney, Alfonso Lopez, was swimming pretty hard upstream on this one.

GRACE: Man, you`re not kidding. Bipolar does not rise to the level of insanity.

Elizabeth, let`s see a map, the different locations Schwartzmiller allegedly molested, Alaska, California, Oregon, Idaho, Washington. And all of these are not allegations; he has been found guilty in multiple jurisdictions, and somehow always slips through the cracks.

Here on the set with me is a face you know well. I first met her when she was a star of "Little House on the Prairie." This was mean, vicious, horrible, little Nellie that terrified so many child watchers. But what they didn`t know is that Nellie was acting out the real-life turmoil going on inside molestation victim Alison Arngrim. She is with the National Association to Protect Children.

What do you think about Schwartzmiller? What should happen with his case? And, also, what about this theory that he`s just sick?

ALISON ARNGRIM, MOLESTATION VICTIM: Yes, I noticed that the just sick is sort a recent thing. If you read about child abuse cases over the years, you don`t really see a lot of mention of people being crazy or having a disorder. It seems around 1980, everybody suddenly got crazy. That seems to be the new deal.

I`m very pleased. The judge apparently didn`t go for that. Now, they say he`s up for 1,175, like 1,100...

GRACE: Years.

ARNGRIM: In California he`s up for 1,000 years.

GRACE: But let`s just see if it happens though. Let`s just see if it happens.

Now, you are in New York for a reason. What?

ARNGRIM: I am. Because do you know that, right now, while he`s up for 1,000, there`s a guy in New York who is accused of molesting exactly the same number of children and they`re offering him a max of four years?

GRACE: You`re kidding.

ARNGRIM: Because he`s their dad.

GRACE: And...

ARNGRIM: He`s a minister, too, but he`s their dad.

GRACE: Where is this happening?

ARNGRIM: Queens. Right now, the D.A....

GRACE: Four years.

ARNGRIM: ... just issued a press release that they`re really excited that they`re going to give him the max of four years for repeatedly molesting his three daughters.

GRACE: You`re also here working on a bill. What is it?

ARNGRIM: Indeed. Because of this wacky exception that you have in your state -- and you know I talked about it California and we overturned it. Here, in your state, you have a big, old incest exception loophole.

GRACE: Wrong, wrong, wrong.

ARNGRIM: And your Senate is putting a stop to it. Your Senate has already unanimously passed a bill to tear this right out, and your assembly is jumping at the bit to try to change it right now, except they have been barred from voting on it. They`ve had it for a 100 days, and they haven`t voted yet to take down this law.

GRACE: So to Leslie Snadowsky, our investigative reporter joining us tonight, Leslie, so there was the appearance today of the roommate child molester, and he said it wasn`t his fault because he was sick. The judge kicked that out. So what`s next in this case?

SNADOWSKY: Well, the sentencing phase begins June 30th, and then they`re going to figure out if he really is going to be sentenced to that whopping sum, over 1,000 years.

GRACE: So has there already been the trial?

SNADOWSKY: Yes, he was found guilty. So I think today was the big day, whether he was sane or insane. Because if he was found insane, then, of course, you know, his sentence would be a lot less. But, either way, it looks like, you know, he`s being put away for life.

GRACE: Let me ask you something, Leslie: This was a bench trial, correct? There was no jury.

SNADOWSKY: That`s correct.

GRACE: Was the issue the actual molestations or was the issue his illness?

SNADOWSKY: Well, he admitted to molesting these kids. And one of the children were actually three years old. I mean, really scary stuff.

He admitted to all of this. But then after, he was saying, well, you know, he was manic, and sometimes -- you know, he didn`t know what happened. He was driven to molest these kids. And at the time, he didn`t think it was wrong.

Also in court yesterday, he mentioned something really obscure about Mel Gibson -- believe it or not -- talking about Mel Gibson movies, and how Mel Gibson put all of these kids in his movies and actually, like, accused Mel Gibson of molesting kids himself. It was very strange, I think trying to maybe add to this insanity defense, which, of course, you know, didn`t pan out.

GRACE: And, of course, everyone, Alison Arngrim being modest. She`s also here because she has a one-woman play Friday and Saturday at the Cutting Room Floor. We`ll all be right back. Stay with us.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

GRACE: Please stay with us as we remember Army Specialist Antoine J. McKinzie, 25, Indianapolis, Indiana, killed on patrol, Iraq. McKinzie took a second tour of duty, known to all as a great inspiration. McKinzie, an American hero.

Welcome back.

Elizabeth, who`s on the line? Linda in North Carolina.

Hi, Linda.

CALLER: Hi, Nancy.

GRACE: Hey, dear. What`s your question?

CALLER: I have a question about the child molesters. They met in jail, did they not?

GRACE: Correct.

CALLER: OK. And once they got out of jail, they were allowed to room together. Where was the government in all of this?

GRACE: That is an excellent question. To Dan Reed, were they monitored in any way?

I think I`ve got Dan here with me. Hi, Dan. Were they monitored in any way?

REED: Yes, they registered, but then they fled.

GRACE: Aha, there you go, Linda. And, you know, we saw that happen in the Groene case, Alison, where the judge was told point-blank: This guy is a sex offender. The judge gave him a bond. He skipped town. Next thing you know, he`s in Kootenai County looking at Dylan and Shasta Groene through night-vision goggles, kills the family, takes the kids.

ARNGRIM: Because the states don`t talk to each other. And why wasn`t he in jail? He had previous convictions. Why wasn`t he in jail?

GRACE: You`re absolutely correct.

ARNGRIM: He`d been convicted for raping people.

GRACE: So, Dan Reed, very quickly, what about Schwartzmiller?

REED: Well, first of all, let me clarify. Schwartzmiller did not molest 40,000 kids. That`s...

(CROSSTALK)

GRACE: No, he had entries of 36,000 different incidents.

REED: He had entries, right, but not different kids. Many are repeats. Schwartzmiller goes on trial...

ARNGRIM: Did he say "repeats"?

REED: ... in July.

ARNGRIM: Did he just say that?

GRACE: Yes, Dan, you did. You just said they`re repeats.

(LAUGHTER)

GRACE: And I get what you`re saying, but, still, 36,000 incidents of molestation, even if they are...

REED: Yes, the kids names are repeated under different headings.

GRACE: Yes, yes. So he goes to court in July? He goes to court in July?

REED: I`m sorry, yes, yes, the trial begins in July. He`s pleaded not guilty.

GRACE: You know, incredible, this guy will actually take the case to trial.

Thank you, Dan Reed, Leslie Snadowsky, and, of course, Alison Arngrim, known by many of you as Nellie.

But I want to thank all of my guests tonight. Our biggest thank here on this show is to you for being with us and inviting our legal stories into your homes. A special goodnight from the New York control room. There she is, Elizabeth, Chris, Rosie. Good night from everybody.

I`m Nancy Grace signing off for tonight. See you here tomorrow night, 8:00 sharp Eastern. And until then, good night, friend.

END