Return to Transcripts main page
Dr. Drew
Prince had Painkiller Addiction; Lawyer Said Addiction Specialist was Called for Help; Prince`s Reps said He Had "Grave Medical Emergency"; High School Football Player Exposed Himself; Charged with 69 Counts of Indecent Exposure After Prank; Kid Exposes Himself in Football Photo Could Go to Jail; Could the Two Mission Teen Been Victims of Foul Play?; Attorney: Maybe they were abducted; Boys Vanished at Sea Last July; Missing Boy`s iPhone given to Apple to Retrieve Data; Why are the Families Feuding? Aired 7-8p ET
Aired May 04, 2016 - 19:00 ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
[19:00:00] WILLIAM MAUZY, ATTORNEY FOR Dr. HOWARD KORNFELD AND SON: He set into motion a plan to deal with what he felt was a live saving mission.
That mission was to get Prince to a doctor in Minnesota on Thursday morning. The second part of Dr. Kornfeld`s plan was to send his son, a
staff member, for Recovery Without Walls. When he arrived, Prince was not available. They went looking for Prince. Staff representatives apparently
found him in an elevator, unconscious.
DR. DREW PINSKY, HLN HOST: That was William Mauzy, the lawyer for Dr. Howard Kornfeld, a pain management specialist. He said Prince`s people
called Dr. Kornfeld the night before he was found dead, because he was dealing at that time with, "A grave medical emergency."
Join us AnneElise Goetz, attorney, Michelle Turner, Correspondent "Entertainment Tonight," Leo Terrell, attorney and Sarah Sidner, CNN
Correspondent who has been covering this story. Now it was Dr. Kornfeld`s son who has been called a spokesman for the recovery center who was sent to
Paisley Park. Listen to this.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
MAUZY: Andrew had in his possession small pills. Those pills were to be delivered to the Minnesota doctor. There were no pills, any type of
medication given to Prince by Andrew or by Howard.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
PINSKY: Now, apparently these small pills, according to the attorney, were Buprenorphine, probably in the form of Suboxone. This is Something used
for pain management and addiction. Now, I got to tell you that this is a complicated nuanced wrinkle to the story. This doctor is more of a pain
management specialist than an addiction specialist, so he does detox people from opiates. Why he sent his son with opiates in hand across a state
lines, again, a non-licensed clinician, telling somebody in another state what to do with their medical management, this is all sort of unusual at
best, and maybe even pops even nefarious at worst. My fear is he may have taken some Buprenorphine or Suboxone, which can have acute severe
reactions. I`ve seen people end up on ventilators with that.
I don`t think that`s what happened. My assessment is it`s still what I was saying all along, that he was dealing with opiates for a while, they got
out of hand. Somebody gave him Benzodiazepine in addition to the opiate and he got into real trouble. These guys were reaching out and trying to
get to him. I will tell you in a few minutes why I`m so desperately upset that Prince wasn`t sent up the road to one of the premiere chemical
dependency treatment centers on earth. Sara Sidner, tell us about the CNN report that perhaps Prince was dealing with addiction "decade ago."
SARA SIDNER, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Yes, I spoke to an attorney who used to represent to two now deceased half siblings that It makes it very
complicated because there`s a lot of half siblings and one`s full sibling out there. But two of the siblings, one who died in 2006, one who died in
2013 2000, told their attorney after some years that, look, we know that Prince was dealing with an addiction to Percocet. And they mentioned
Percocet, which the attorney had never heard of at the time because this was back in the `80s and `90s. He hadn`t really heard of this drug.
But they told him, indeed, the brother, Duane Nelson, who again, is now deceased, mentioned to his attorney, just talking to him in a social
setting, that he was actually the one procuring Percocet for Prince for quite some time. That he was using it not as a recreational drug, not as
something to use when he was off, but using it to help him calm down after his performances. Come down from all that excitement so he could sleep,
and that he was doing it in part to make sure that every single one of his performances was top notch and he could then come down off of that. That
is how it was told to this attorney who spoke to the two.
PINSKY: Sara, why are they using the word addiction to describe the intermittent use of an opiate after performances? Why the word addiction?
SIDNER: Because he was getting through --
PINSKY: That`s not an -- that doesn`t matter. That`s not Addiction.
SIDNER: I agree, but they say he was using it quite often. That`s what they told their attorney or attorney. They were worried about him, worried
that perhaps he was going to see an untimely death. That`s why, I think, it was mentioned to the attorney at some point.
PINSKY: So Leo -- thank you, Sara, I really appreciate that. I saw you nodding the head when I was bringing up is it addiction or is it not?
Addiction is a long behavioral disturbance, a progressive problem, often struggles with behavioral problems, medical problems, in and out of
treatment. You don`t see any of that with him. You see this guy who was a trauma survivor, right? He was kicked out of his home at age 13. Trauma
survivors often feel terrible emotional pain their whole life, gravitate to opioids, but they don`t often always necessarily have the genetics for
addiction, which is a progressive behavioral disturbance. You agree with me?
LEO TERRELL, ATTORNEY: I agree with you hundred percent. You know what really saved this guy Kornfeld was that my understanding was that Prince
was dead when they arrived there. And that`s why he told the attorney to cover it.
[19:05:00] Cover it, say, he never gave him any drugs. Because this is a criminal investigation, Dr. Drew, and the fact that Prince was already dead
at the scene, is probably going to save Kornfeld from alleging or he was giving those drugs on the night in question.
AnneElise, what about the son, a non-licensed professional, he`s just a guy with a bachelor`s degree, muling opioids across state lines?
ANNEELISE GOETZ, ATTORNEY: I`m concerned about it for a couple of reasons. It sounds to me like he`s practicing medicine. I don`t know what the
Minnesota standard is, but is sounds like it in California. And like you said, he was unlicensed. And what was described that he was going there to
evaluate and create a treatment plan, which certainly doesn`t sound like something a non-medical professional should be doing. But similar to what
Leo said, to the extent he showed up and Prince had already passed away, we`re not probably looking at liability for that charge.
PINSKY: But what about this guy shepherding a bunch of drugs across state lines? Doesn`t that bother anybody?
MICHELLE TURNER, CORRESPONDENT, ENTERTAINMENT TONIGHT: This morning when I was listening to the press conference, I said, hold on a second, he has
immunity because he came there with a backpack full of drugs and now he has immunity, and that is concerning. And I think that the attorney kind of
confused me a little bit with his talk, because I thought he was talking a little bit in circles. Because on one hand he was saying, we`re going to
evaluate you, but he used the phrase life-saving mission. So to me, that`s more than we`re going to evaluate you.
PINSKY: By the way -- what were you going to say, Leo? Because I have a response to that.
TERRELL: This is a Conrad Murray situation.
TURNER: That`s what I was thinking, Michael Jackson. Absolutely.
TERRELL: It`s Conrad Murray all over again with this guy catering to a superstar. Prince was controlling his own care.
PINSKY: The person with the sick brain was dictating care. It should never, ever happen. If this was a life-threatening or life-saving mission,
why didn`t they send him eight minutes up the road? Paisley Park is eight minutes -- we looked this up -- it is eight minutes from the city center of
the Hazelden -- oh, crap -- Hazeldon Betty Ford Center. There is a map. It`s four miles. It is eight minutes from Prince`s home. If this was a
life-threatening mission, why didn`t they throw him in a car and take him to the world`s premiere institution for the treatment of addiction? There
is something terribly wrong about this. It`s, again, special people getting special care, and to put a fine point on what Leo said, have we not
learned anything from Conrad Murray? Once again, here we are. So, could charges be filed against the guy who dialed 911? That`s what we`re talking
about here.
And still to come, two teens missing at sea. It`s been almost a year. Could they have been victims of foul play or even kidnapping? Back after
this.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[19:12:24] (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Princes fiercely guarded private life and struggles slowly coming to light after his death. The Sheriff`s office has now
released incident call reports involving all calls in the last five years from Prince`s Paisley Park estate. There were 47 calls in all. Some for
suspicious activity, others for harassing phone calls. But for were for medical issues including the day Prince died.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Was Prince fighting any other addiction or any other illnesses other than painkiller addictions?
MAUZY: You know I can`t comment on this. There still remains issues of patient confidentiality.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
PINSKY: dramatic developments in the investigation into what killed Prince. Was he in fact drug dependent, meaning he was needing more of a
substance over time and had difficulty stopping, or a full-blown addict. Meaning a progressive behavioral disturbance when someone tries to stop
they always go back, which is different than dependency. You`ve got to understand that difference. I think we have a dependency here.
An attorney representing a high profile pain management physician says, Prince`s people called him the night before Prince was found dead, which
explains the awkward 911 call. Apparently this caller is that physician`s son. Take a look.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
MAUZY: Andrew was the person to make the 911 call describing a medical emergency at Paisley Park. Andrew, Mill Valley, California, -- not locally
-- he didn`t have the address.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
PINSKY: Back with AnneElise, Michelle, Leo and Sara. Sara, I saw you during that last conversation wanting to ring in here and what I was
talking about. Go ahead.
SIDNER: you know, when you talked about how close the facility is to treat Prince. You have to remember one thing, the privacy that he demanded. He
was an extremely private person, personal life very private. I totally get it.
PINSKY: Sara, that is --
SIDNER: I get it. I`m not making an argument here. What I`m saying to you is we know that he`s had some control issues. He is very, very serious
about his privacy. Who knows, because it was his reps that ended up calling this doctor, not him himself, who knows exactly what all those
dealings were. I do want to mention this to you, Dr. Drew. You do remember that six days, just six days before he died, his plane had to make
an emergency landing. Why? Because Prince was found unresponsive on that plane, taken to the hospital, and there law enforcement sources tell us he
was treated for what was a potential overdose of pain medication.
PINSKY: No, Sara, he was given the same shot that anyone who is unconscious gets. 100% of the people that show up in an emergency room
unconscious get that shot. What was telling about his situation is that he seemed to respond to it. Meaning that opioids at least figured into what
was going on.
[19:15:00] SIDNER: That`s what the law enforcement agency was saying.
PINSKY: Right, Sara. The other telling thing is that he left after two hours, and you can learn nothing in an emergency room in two hours when you
have an unresponsive patient, so that means he left against medical advice. Leo, there is no doctor on earth that`s going to let someone walk out --
TERRELL: Absolutely and I find it concerning that Prince is in control. Prince should not be in control. It is the lawyers, it`s the doctors who
say, "Look, you got to stay here," and then take the additional step to stop him from leaving.
SIDNER: You can`t involuntarily hold somebody.
PINSKY: No, you can`t, but Leo making the point, and this is again a lot of nuance in this case, which is the doctor`s job is not to accommodate the
special demands. The doctor`s job is to see through all that BS. and mandate proper care. Find a way to leverage the care. Not gratify the
addict for their manipulative tendencies. He`s in his disease. He doesn`t know. All the people around him, they`re culpable, they`re part of the
problem. The lawyers, the doctors need to go in there saying, hey, the treatment center is four miles up the road. Let`s get in the car, we`ll do
something to keep it quiet. It`s a hospital. You`re entitled to private and confidential care. Like everybody, we`ll get you the best care
TURNER: And furthermore they did say, also in this press conference today, that there was a doctor in Minnesota that was waiting and ready to treat
him, had cleared his schedule waiting for Prince to come to him that morning, so he was going somewhere.
PINSKY: He was going somewhere, but that other doctor, Dr. Kornfeld, was going to direct the care. Was a very strange situation. Very special,
very Conrad Murray-esk
GOETZ: We`re talking about this in light of the comparison to Michael Jackson, right? But I think what we should also be considering, not the
addiction portion of this and people coming in for rehab, but where he was getting the actual pain meds from. Because in California we had this
ground-breaking case about a year ago where a physician was convicted of murder for prescribing pain meds. And I think that is going to be one of
the lynch pins of this whole analysis, is where was he getting it from? Did the doctor realize that he was addicted and was continuing to supply it
anyway?
PINSKY: There`s such nuance in this. What he will say is Prince had hip pain. He was in pain. I was just trying to help him. It was ineffective
in the low dose, I had to give him the high dose. He tried to come off. He couldn`t sleep. He needed a sleeping med. Bam.
TERRELL: And the elephant in the room is this, it`s all about the money. People wouldn`t say to Prince what was right because they were afraid of
losing their paycheck. All these yes people, led to Prince being where he is right now, not the part of this society.
PINSKY: Michelle, you have a look on your face. Is that a yes or no?
TURNER: No, I absolutely agree. A lot of times there are enablers around, we see celebrities all the time with entourages, and people around them and
hangers-on that continually just say, sure, whatever you want. Now in this situation, I know Prince had a very tight circle. We don`t know
everything, of course.
PINSKY: Let`s be clear we are speculating about so much.
TURNER: Absolutely, we are.
PINSKY: We`re trying to make sense of this.
TURNER: I know he had a tight circle and I know people that genuinely really cared about him. How much they knew? I don`t know. But I do feel
like there`s so much mess in this situation, and I don`t think anybody has really any clean hands, and that`s what makes me just bristle at the whole
thing.
SIDNER: As we`re moving through everything, I`m curious what Sara was talking about the Percocet. As we`re sorting through actually what was
happening, do you have any thoughts on fact of why he would have needed a downer like that after -- other than the adrenaline high of a great show,
do you think he was counteracting an upper?
PINSKY: I don`t think so. People have speculated that. I really don`t think so. Look, he was kicked out of his family at 13. That`s traumatic.
We don`t know what other trauma he was exposed to, but trauma is a major issue in our country. That`s another sort of layer in this story we have
to remind ourselves, and trauma survivors gravitate towards opiates. They feel relief on opiates. They sleep on opiates. Their background pain.
Where there so manic in their body or whether it`s a psychological -- it`s sort of swayed by the opioids. So they gravitate to them as a way of
coming down. They may or may not get addicted. There may not be an addiction process. Again, this is an unusual case, a nuance case, and I
still get the feeling that there`s some underlying medical theme still to be found.
TURNER: We`ve talked to sources at "Entertainment Tonight" that have told us that Prince did have a problem with pain killers for years, in
particular Percocet.
PINSKY: But what is that mean? A problem with it. I could see that as an inappropriate use, not an addiction. He was using them inappropriately.
TURNER: I think you`re right. I think that was actually something that kind of went off, a light bulb moment for me, when you said there is a
difference between addiction and dependency, because I don`t think we make those two --
PINSKY: You`ve got to make that distinction.
TERRELL: The reports I understand was he hadn`t slept in over 150 hours?
[19:20:00] PINSKY: That`s what you keep hearing. Now that to me -- when I hear that and somebody takes opiates, I think, oh, there trying to come off
the opiates. Because opiate addicts say two things, I feel like I have the flu -- you heard the flu story -- I feel like I have the flu and I can`t
sleep. Those are the two biggest complaints and I feel desperate.
TURNER: But then we also here in Hollywood circles about the creative juices and those guys being up for days recording.
PINSKY: The opiates weren`t part of the story. I would agree with you. Here`s what concerns me, it`s not just that, it`s that somebody then could
have given him a sleeping pill. You add the sleeping pill to even a modest amount of opioids, that`s a potentially fatal combination. Particularly
when somebody`s trying to reduce their opiates. They are not as tolerant anymore. They take a usual dose. They take the sleeping pill. They stop
breathing.
Up next, a high school football player arrested after exposing himself -- get this -- in a team yearbook photo. I bet you didn`t know about the laws
pertaining to this. We`ll get into it.
And to come, two boys missing, presumed dead at sea. Where are they? An attorney, who has an idea, is here with us. Were back after this.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Flipping through the pages can take you back if time, but there is one snapshot that will haunt Hunter Osborne for the rest of
his life.
HUNTER OSBORNE: I was actually very surprised seeing him doing that.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Hunter`s number 42 on the red lions football team.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: He is kind of a jokester.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: His friends get him into things.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: And that`s exactly what hunter says happened this day the picture was taken. He tells investigators a teammate dared him to
expose himself as a prank. Hunter is now facing 69 misdemeanor counts of indecent exposure and one felony count of providing obscene material to a
minor.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
PINSKY: There is breaking news on this story. We have just learned that the Maricopa County Attorney`s Office will not pursue the felony charge of
providing obscene material to minors, 69 misdemeanor counts of indecent exposure are still under review. I`m back with AnneElise and Leo, and
joining us by phone, Lisa Strohman, she is an attorney and a clinical psychologist. Her website is technologywellnesscenter.com. So let me
start with my attorneys in the studio first. Is this guy a prankster or a sex offender, Leo?
TERRELL: He could be a sex offender, in my opinion, because he did it in public. He knew what he was doing. This is not just a joke. He undressed
himself so that everyone in the school could see it. It would be one thing if he was at home. He did it publicly.
PINSKY: But it was a joke. And he undressed himself.
TERRELL: And intentionally. So I don`t call it a joke as a prankster. I say this guy could have some problems without knowing more. He could have
some serious problems.
GOETZ: The felony was too much. It was overreaching. I`m glad to see they dropped it. We`re in the 60s of misdemeanors. Overreaching. I can`t
imagine all of those coming through.
PINSKY: Why?
GOETZ: Because of what they`re doing, they`re charging misdemeanors for every single person in that photo. They`re not all going to bring charges.
There`s no way that`s going to happen.
PINSKY: What about every person that saw the photo? What if it`s 6,000? What about us seeing it now?
GOETZ: That`s why I think they`re totally reaching with this case. What he did was wrong, it`s illegal. I hope he`s punished in some way. But
maybe one misdemeanor, maybe some community service. I don`t want him off the hook because what he did was illegal --
PINSKY: According to this judge, this is a young kid, he`s a football player, he`s got the rest of his life ahead of him. He did a prank. He
didn`t understand what he was up against.
TERRELL: A prank is putting gum on your chair. This is not a prank. Let`s not downplay what a prank is. This is serious action in public to
the whole school. Everyone saw it. I would definitely understand, making sure this guy knows this is a criminal act, not a prank, not a joke that
requires some type of detention.
PINSKY: The police say some 69 students featured in the photo were at young as 15, so Lisa, that adds another sort of layer to this, doesn`t it?
Is this all in Arizona? What does this all mean? Help me make sense of it.
LISA STROHMAN, ATTORNEY, CLINICAL PSYCHOLOGIST (via telephone): It`s basically every state for themselves in all this technology this year. I
think both Leo and AnneElise they definitely have points. Under 15 years of age, you`re talking -- and that to a felony and it goes to approximately
17 years in jail that he could be serving. And they have a year in the statute of limitations for any of these internet crimes. They have a year
here in Arizona that they could still prosecute if they want to go and do that.
PINSKY: Now Lisa, for you, this bleeds into these other areas that kids are so cavalier with their images and their sexting. They are not aware of
how serious from a legal perspective, this all is. Right?
STROHMAN: Absolutely. The judicial system is allowing the prosecutors to have discretion on these cases, and when you think of who is in charge over
there, you`ve got 20, 25-year-olds who don`t have children, that are making this decision. If you want to win and make a name for yourself, then
you`re going to try to stack as many charges as you possibly can in order to get something to stick.
PINSKY: AnneElise.
GOETZ: I don`t think that`s fair. I don`t think that attacking the prosecutor when there actually is a violation -- he broke the law, OK. And
the prosecutor is bringing an action, that`s their job. They`re not trying to make a name for themselves, it`s not because they don`t have kids. It`s
because they`re trying to protect the public, which is the prosecutor`s job. Again, they`re overreaching, but they`ve now scaled it back.
TERRELL: I like what you said, you say he broke the law, and that`s not a prank. When you say he broke the law. He committed a criminal act. Then
you`re in agreement with me. This is not a prank.
GOETZ: Oh, Yes, I said that. I think he should be charged,
PINSKY: Lisa, you were a prosecutor once, right?
STROHMAN: Absolutely.
PINSKY: So as a prosecutor, you would ignore the kid and his life ahead, you just want to win the case?
STROHMAN: I`m just saying when you are a fresh attorney, I`m not attacking the prosecutors. If you`re a fresh attorney, you are taught to follow the
law. Leo is right. He is breaking the law. And if you are going to make an example out of this case, and we`re talking about in the media and
you`re going to let him go, you`re going to have thousands of kids behind him that will learn it`s OK.
[19:30:00] PINSKY: It`s OK, but they`ll learn it`s not OK, because guys like you two are out there prosecuting.
GOETZ: If I was any kid watching this, I would be scared to do it. If this kid is talking about a sex offender on the registry. I would be
scared if I was a kid. I think they accomplished their goal of scaring the crap out of those kids at that school.
TERRELL: Not necessarily, because we don`t know the effect this may have had had on that 15-year-old, that 16-year-old. There`s victims out there.
PINSKY: Lisa, these are images. What about all the sexing texts that goes around? Is that different than the visual images?
STROHMAN: No, that`s the thing and when I hear you guys talk about whether or not they`re learning their lesson, my in the trenches response to that
is they are not. This is one example of it will go away. It`ll blow over. They`ll continue to do it. This isn`t going away any time soon whether the
prosecutor gets over it or not. There has to be a public prosecution over this. And I will tell you these kids -- it`s not just the legal system.
This kid, good luck in college. I guarantee that`s going to impact him. I guarantee it.
PINSKY: You know what she said though, she said that I look at that -- if I were a 15-year-old screwball, prank, not a prank, broke the law, the
sexting that is routine is in this same category. These kids are all breaking the law, right?
TERRELL: Exactly, and I heard the point she mentioned. This has a ripple effect. When he tries to get a job in the future, he is a dead man. He is
ruined from the standpoint of this criminal act. This is not a prank, it`s a criminal act and it`s going to follow him for a very long time.
PINSKY: The community is sort of rallying behind this kid. They have movements called free Hunter -- I think that`s the kid`s name -- free
Hunter Osborne or something. Because they all just look at him as a prankster. The community is sort of pushing back. Do you think the law
will ever be modified or will some states back off some of this?
GOETZ: It shouldn`t be. Because I`m not saying that the law is wrong. It shouldn`t be modified, because as an 18-year-old, you shouldn`t be exposing
yourself. I mean, the problem is that I don`t think they realize the law applies to them. I know it`s a silly concept --
PINSKY: They don`t. But the parents don`t either. The parents are rallying behind this kid going, hey, come on my kids saw it no big deal.
So the community standard is not up to where the law is.
TERRELL: Let`s not downplay it. This kid is not a 12-year-old, he`s a 17- year-old. He could be tried as an adult. So I`m just simply saying this is not a kid. He should know better at his age.
PINSKY: All right, thank you. Mental note. Don`t expose yourself. Is that what you said, AnneElise? You should know not to expose yourself.
Next up, that yearbook picture came out months ago. Why was he just arrested?
And still to come, two teen fishermen disappeared a year ago. But tonight, new and disturbing suspicions about what could have happened to them. Back
after this.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[19:37:06] UNIDENTIFIED MALE: read Mountain high school senior, Hunter Osborne, going from classroom to courtroom. After the varsity football
player was busted for exposing himself in a team photo earlier this year. A photo that then made its way into the 2016 Red Mountain yearbook.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: 69 counts of indecent exposure.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Osborne was 18 at the time the photo was taken and is being treated as an adult, facing charges that could land him in prison and
forever tag him as a sex offender.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
PINSKY: There were over 3,000 students who had received a yearbook with that image before it was brought to the attention of school officials. The
yearbook was distributed months ago. Hunter Osborne was arrested this past weekend. I`m back with AnneElise, Leo and Lisa. Why are you smiling at
me?
GOETZ: I mean, it`s like this 18-year-old football player, and I guess I`m thinking about being in high school myself --
PINSKY: The screwballs and stuff, yeah.
GOETZ: -- and I think of -- it seems like back then, what would have happened is the school would have handled it. It would have been, oh,
well, he`s going to get suspended, he`s going to be disciplined, and it seems as though there has been a shift in society where we`re now handing
everything over to law enforcement. We talked about it when we see fights in the schools. Everybody is handed over to law enforcement and the
schools don`t address it anymore.
TERRELL: The public is aware of it, and I`m glad because some schools might cover it up. So we`ve got a public discussion. Were talking about
it on Dr. Drew`s show, and we`re making sure no one can hide this.
PINSKY: You`re uncomfortable.
GOETZ: I`m not uncomfortable, I think when we talk about the sexting and there are things that I think are more important than the football picture.
That`s all I`m saying. There are real issues out there, and if this kid is in jail and my taxpayer dollars are spent on him being in jail, something
is askew.
PINSKY: All right, let me bring in Derek Logue. He is a convicted sex offender working to educate and reform the sex offender laws. Derek, what
is your take on this teen?
DEREK LOGUE, CONVICTED SEX OFFENDER: First of all, I think I agree with the woman who said this is pretty much a waste of time and resources. I
mean, obviously there is a lot of crimes that we should be monitoring a lot more than this. This is a silly story. I mean --
PINSKY: But it`s not silly if you`re him. I`ve heard you say, and my producers have told me you call this predator panic. Tell me about that.
LOGUE: Yes, predator panic is a condition in our society where we have sort of overblown every sort of sexual thing in our society to the point
where we are prosecuting individuals like this person, we prosecute people for sexting.
[19:10:00] We prosecuted individuals who didn`t even commit sex crimes and yet they`ve all landed on the sex offender registry. Somebody on the sex
offender registry, obviously, when you look at them, you`re going to assume this person is a predator or a pedophile. And when somebody looks at this
person`s charge, 10, possibly 20, possibly 50 years down the line, it`s going to say the same thing, indecent exposure, which will make people
think this individual went to a kindergarten and exposed himself to a bunch of first graders.
PINSKY: Is there a difference between a real pedophile and this?
TERRELL: Shame on you. I don`t know what your sex crime is, but to make a blanket statement that all of these sex crimes are being overplayed is
insulting to everyone watching the show right now. I don`t know what your sex crime is. How do you know what effect it has on victims? How do you
know that? How can you speak for people who are the recipient of that? Shame on you.
LOGUE: No, shame on you.
TERRELL: Shame on you.
LOGUE: Shame on you. You can stick it for all I care.
TERRELL: You were convicted.
LOGUE: You are part of the problem.
TERRELL: I`m glad I`m part of the problem.
PINSKY: Derek, this is a judge you`re talking to. Cool out a little bit.
LOGUE: Who cares if he`s a judge. Judges like him --
TERRELL: What is your sex crime? Oh, so we don`t know what you are.
LOGUE: I`m not here to discuss me. I`m here to talk about this case. Do you want to talk about this case or not?
PINSKY: Derek, one second, I want to get Lisa in here. Lisa, give me a course to this argument please. Is it the case, is it reasonable that
there is a middle ground here that in raising awareness by bringing these things to the courts that stories like this do, is going to push back the
tidal wave that you are seeing of all this technology mess that are affecting kids? You told me you`ve seen three now -- I don`t know if --
you told me -- can I say it? She`s dealing with three individuals under 10 that are addicted to porn. We have a tsunami of technology trouble out
there. Is it important to bring stuff like this before the courts? So this thing gets pushed back, so parent awareness, at least, comes up about
this?
STROHMAN: Absolutely. You`re making a terrific point. I have to disagree. It`s not the school`s job, it`s not legal and law enforcement`s
job, it`s the family`s job to come in, and parent their children. Teach them what the rules are. If you`re handing them, what I now call, is a
weapon. And sending them out there with their cell phones and they`re doing things. And they`re sending those things over lines and they`re
going to be charged for them and they`ll be on the registry, which is actually quite different, Derek, from what you did, which is actually
interacting with an underage girl.
PINSKY: So there`s a difference.
STROHMAN: Yes, there`s a difference. So technology I`m behind, yes.
PINSKY: Now let me get Derek. I get you, Derek. So it could have an important effect, Derek, for the time being, at least, bringing these
things to the courts.
LOGUE: You want to talk about effects of these laws? When we`re talking about prosecuting people for a silly prank, you`re going to put this person
on a list where he`s going to be denied employment or he`s going to be denied housing or you`re setting this person up to possibly face vigilante
violence. Because people who look on the registry are not going to be able to differentiate between what this guy did and a person who went and
flashed himself to children actually did, and that`s the problem with this registry altogether. This is the case that should put the whole entire
registry on trial, as far as I`m concerned.
PINSKY: Judge?
TERRELL: Oh, my God, I can`t believe what he`s saying. He is focusing on the perpetrator and not the victim, people in society who have a right to
know, a right to protect their children. And again, I don`t know the extent of this guy`s crime. He wants to be off the sex registry. I want
to know what his crime is. What is your crime?
PINSKY: No. We`re going to leave it there.
Next up, was it bad weather or something more deliberate that caused two teen fishermen to suddenly vanish? We`re back after this.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[19:03:55]
[19:48:09] (BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: I just confirmed nobody is on board. I can`t find any other gear.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Last July, Stephonos and Cohen, both 14 left the Jupiter Inlet in this boat and never returned.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: A pilot, searching for the boys, swears he spotted one of them two days after they vanished.
BOBBY SMITH, PILOT: I could clearly make out a small person with black colored hair laying on the debris, laying on his back.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: You can see the teens` capsized boat being pulled out of the water off Bermuda just last month. The rescue team also found an
iPhone in a tackle box. The iPhone, which belongs to Austin Stephenos, has sparked a public feud between the families.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Many members of both families went to a number of different law enforcement agencies to look at this as not a boating
accident but perhaps an abduction.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Why does this picture of the battery switch on Austin`s Stephanos` boat show battery as being off?
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: If there were aware of some problem on the boat either before or after, or during the process of hearing, then maybe they would
turn it off then. But in a normal operating situation on almost any boat, you would almost never turn it to off.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
PINSKY: New clues tonight as to what may have happened to those two boys. I`m back with AnneElise. I`m joined by Bobby Chacon, retired Special
Agent, FBI, and Mark McBride, criminal defense attorney, who himself, he has a theory about this mystery. Mark, you say foul play could have played
a part. Why?
MARK MCBRIDE, CRIMINAL DEFENSE ATTORNEY: For a couple of reasons. You know, the snapchat messages. The kids were apparently good seafarers. It
was more aft. It wasn`t inclimate weather. Hey mom, the seas are horrible, we`re in big trouble with the weather. It was we`re aft. The
fact that the boat`s battery was turned off, which is hard to do. It`s very hard to do.
PINSKY: Mark, why would that be? Why would they be turning the ignition and the battery off? Is there any theory about that?
[19:50:00] MCBRIDE: I don`t think the kids were turning off the ignition and the battery. I think somebody took over the boat or tried to --
PINSKY: Bobby, you agree?
BOBBY CHACON, RETIRED FBI SPECIAL AGENT, FBI FORENSIC DIVE TEAM: I agree it could be. There are also some reasons they might have done it.
PINSKY: Like what?
CHACON: Well, if they wanted to reserve their power. If they realized the boat wasn`t getting anywhere in the weather, they were wasting their
battery and wasting their fuel. They might have done that to conserve fuel. It`s probably not advisable to do that.
PINSKY: Was the weather so bad that could explain what happened to these kids?
CHACON: I don`t know the particulars of the weather that night, but I heard there was a storm that came in.
PINSKY: Mark, why would someone want these two boys. Why would they want them dead or abducted? Was there a theory here? Something more sinister?
MCBRIDE: Well, one of the family`s attorneys said there was a lot of fishing tackle on the boat. I mean it could be just as simple as that. I
mean kids dive for Air Jordan`s these days. People die for 40 bucks at the ATM machine.
PINSKY: So somebody came and just rob them.
MCBRIDE: Wannabe pirates maybe.
CHACON: You know, from an investigator`s standpoint there`s three things that could`ve happened. It could`ve been a natural incident like a storm.
The other two fall under the foul play category. Under the foul play category, the first fork you might have is one of the boys doing damage to
another one of the boys or the third one, an outside actor, an outside bad guy coming to the boat and performing bad acts.
PINSKY: Mark, as far as the boys doing something to one another, there`s all this bad blood between the families. Does someone have a suspicious
about that?
MCBRIDE: I`m not hearing that. From what I understand the two boys had a very warm relationship.
PINSKY: AnneElise, you look troubled.
GOETZ: I guess I`m surprised we are talking about it being criminal activity at this point. I don`t see the pieces coming together. Yes,
there was a snap chat. We don`t know the context of that. It might be, it`s bad weather. I think if you are going to die, you are unlikely to
send via snapchat. Instead you`re going to try and do something else to contact authorities. I also think it`s unlikely that the boat was taken
over and we are relying on there being tackle and a snapchat photo. Seems to me like it`s a horrible, horrible tragedy. I don`t see criminal
activity.
PINSKY: An accident.
GOETZ: Yes, an accident.
PINSKY: We don`t even know the timing of the snapchat that was sent. It could be before they left the dock my understanding is. But let`s look at
some of the timeline here, at 9:49 in the morning, Perry exchanged text messages with his mother. At 10:00 the boys by $120 worth of fuel for the
boat. At 10:25 the boys. We see them there at the Jupiter Inlet. At 11:24, Austin texts his father, what`s up? I`m checking in. I`m out here
fishing. Then 1:16 Austin`s phone disconnects from the internet and at 1:30 the storm hits Jupiter area. Is that a sufficient sort of time line,
Bobby, to really give the story of just an accident?
CHACON: Yeah, I think it is. And I, personally, think that probably what happened. I have been involved in a number of cases where children end up
deceased and the mothers have a very emotional reaction to it, and the need to find blame in some of these things is a strong one. It tears families
apart and tears friends apart.
PINSKY: Mark, you set back and decide.
MCBRIDE: I have been involved in enough homicides to see things start out as benign as possible, and then we are in the middle of a murder trial.
PINSKY: Next up, why are the families of the boys feuding? That`s what we are getting into now. What happened to them that turned them against one
another? We are back after this.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[19:57:34] PINSKY: I`m back with AnneElise, Bobby and Mark. Now, Bobby, these two are fighting over this recovered iPhone, the two families. Why
do you think that is?
CHACON: They are reaching for any possible thing that these kids could have communicated with each other or with somebody else. And I think the
moms are just reaching out for any last communication that they might`ve had with their son.
PINSKY: But, Mark, why blaming each other. Why fighting over the phone? They are going to give it to Apple now to open it up, I guess. Does that
mean anything?
MCBRIDE: Giving it to Apple is probably the best thing to do. As I understand it --
PINSKY: They`re fighting. Why are they fighting over the phone? Is this thing gold?
MCBRIDE: They may want to manipulate the investigation. When you have the judge gives it to Apple. Apple is more independent. The iPhone 6, is I
understand it, is the closest Apple to getting a very waterproof phone. So maybe there`s intimate moments on the phone between mom and son. You know,
they don`t want those to get out in public first.
PINSKY: I`m going to show both the moms speaking to the media a few days after the boys disappeared. Take a look.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
CARLY BLACK, AUSTIN STEPHANOS` MOTHER: I think when one of us loses a little bit, we gain from the other one, you know? We are here for each
other. We are united. And I think the same with the boys. I think Perry and Austin out there, I think they`re doing the same thing. When one of
them feels a little weak, the other is holding them up. That`s what we are doing here.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
PINSKY: They were united, Bobby, to begin with, and now they are at odds.
CHACON: I`m not actually sure how much at odds they were. When the phone was turned over to the Florida Fish and Game people, they were going to
turn it over to the owner. The other family found out and they ran to court to get this injunction to stop that from happening. And for my
understanding is they kind of came to a settlement before the court hearing and both families got together. I think what happened is cooler heads
prevailed. They said you know what, let`s just give the phone to Apple.
PINSKY: They are okay now?
CHACON: I believe so.
PINSKY: They want to look at it as an abduction for what? To help with the investigation?
GOETZ: As far as the families go, as long as they keep this going as a criminal investigation, people are looking in there. They are investing,
getting answers. And you`ve talked to us a few times on the commercial break -- the family wants answers.
PINSKY: All right. As do we all. Before we go, I want to welcome Samuel Radovic. He was born to our much loved senior producer, Emily Raber and
her husband Ned Radovic. It is their first child. Emily, we are so happy for you and Ned. Samuel is a lucky boy. We cannot wait to meet him.
Babysitters and co-workers are all lining up. Congratulations you guys. Reminder, DVR us and you can watch this show anytime. We thank you all
panel. Thank you for watching. We`ll see you next time Nancy grace is up next.
END
