Return to Transcripts main page

Nancy Grace

Texas Supreme Court Upholds Return of FLDS Children

Aired May 29, 2008 - 20:00   ET


NANCY GRACE, HOST: Tonight, breaking news, stunning ruling by the Texas supreme court up in their ivory tower, sending scores of children back behind remote and isolated walls of a Texas polygamist compound, this after shocking photos showing FLDS prophet Warren Jeffs planting deep kisses on two child brides, one age 12, the other 13, one shot their first anniversary photo. Hello! She`s only 12, and it`s their first anniversary?
The crazy polygamy cult leader may be worshipped as a prophet, but the photos now prove he`s nothing but a pervert, confirming allegations of systematic marriage forced on little girls, not to mention alleged abuse on little boys and 41 known broken bones. But even so, tonight the courts decide to send the children back to this? Is there any way the state can strike back?


UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Breaking news out of Texas right now, major Texas supreme court decision that says the state had no right to take those approximately 400 children from their parents at a polygamist ranch out in Texas.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: A huge turnaround in this case. The high court here in Texas has ruled that, "On the record before us, the removal of children was not warranted." This means the state has failed dramatically in its attempt to argue before the court that they were justified in taking all 400 of these kids away from the YFZ ranch on suspicions of child abuse. That means that the appeal is denied and that the children would be going back to their parents.

That massive raid happened in early April. It shocked everybody, including the Texas state child protection service workers who went in there. They weren`t prepared at all, they say, for what they found. They found a lot of young mothers, a lot of women who apparently had given birth as minors.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: There is no force here. Everyone has their choice to do exactly what they would like. There is no force. And we want the children.


GRACE: Right, 12-year-olds have a choice.

And tonight, breaking news. After pandemonium at Heathrow airport, supermodel Naomi Campbell restrained and hauled off by police after claims the catwalk queen spits and assaults police -- that`s right, allegedly spitting on cops after a violent altercation in the ultimate show of disrespect on law enforcement.

But tonight, Campbell looking at jail time, nearly two years of it, this after a 2006 attack on her own maid with a cell phone. Then there was the 2005 beating of an assistant about the face and head with a Blackberry, and oh, yes, the 2005 claim by an actress that Naomi Campbell left her bloodied and bruised. Number of undisclosed money settlements in Campbell`s past? Unknown. What do we know? Naomi Campbell finally facing jail time.


UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Supermodel Naomi Campbell formally charged with assault for allegedly spitting and assaulting police officers aboard a British Airways plane. Campbell faces multiple charges of assault and other offenses and could face up to a year-and-a-half behind bars. Campbell was involved in a dispute over a missing piece of luggage when police need to be called because Campbell was allegedly verbally abusive to the airline crew.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: She was on this British Airways flight. And this is what we get from passengers. Apparently, she was abusive, aggressive to flight attendants.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Campbell was arrested and physically removed from the plane by authorities. She is set to appear in a London court for a hearing in this case on June 20.


GRACE: Good evening. I`m Nancy Grace. I want to thank you for being with us. Breaking news tonight, a stunning ruling by the Texas supreme court, up in their ivory tower, sending scores of children back behind remote and isolated walls of a Texas polygamist compound.


UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: These kids don`t have a chance.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Breaking news out of Texas, possibly devastating news for officials who have removed hundreds of children from that FLDS polygamist ranch in Texas. The Texas state supreme court has denied Texas`s appeal in the case involving the removal of those kids from the polygamist sect. This let stand an appeals court ruling that says the state had no right to remove the children and means the kids should be returned to their parents. Removal not warranted, not justified.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: These kids are free to go home.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: You remember seeing those pictures of Warren Jeffs making out with a 12-year-old girl? Yes, that`s what these kids are going back to.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: The high court in Texas said, "On the record before us, the removal of the children was not warranted." That is a complete slapdown to the lower court and to state authorities here, who had argued that they had the authority to go in there and take all 400-plus of these children into state custody because of what they viewed as practices of abuse there at the YFZ ranch, what they consider to be a prevalent practice in which young girls were raised and taught that it was OK to marry adult men.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: The state is saying that children as -- young girls as young as 13 or 14 are selected and forced into marriage. Is that true?

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: It is not true. I had a choice when I was married.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: We definitely have a choice. Nobody is forced. We`re not abused.


GRACE: How can you say a 12-year-old child is making her own decision? A stunning decision tonight, a ruling by the Texas supreme court that all these children are going straight back behind compound walls, where 12-year-old girls are known to be in "spiritual marriages." Bottom line, that`s the euphemism. It is child rape. That is what is going on tonight.

We are taking your calls live. Out to Michael Board with WOAI Newsradio. Michael, the other night, you and I got into it. You said that the lower court ruling did not mean the children were going back. Now what do you have to say?

MICHAEL BOARD, WOAI NEWSRADIO: Well, Nancy, tonight I am sad for my state of Texas. I am sad that a group of alleged child molesters can use the law to tweak it whichever way they want to and they`re able to file these briefs and be able to manipulate the law in the way that they did to get their kids back. I know, legally, the Texas supreme court did legally what`s correct tonight. Morally, they did not do what`s correct tonight.

GRACE: You know what? I have always found, Michael, that if you try to do the right thing, the law will support you. Explain to me what the ruling means. And when did it come down?

BOARD: It came down about 4:00 o`clock this afternoon here, Central Texas time. And basically, what the state supreme court said was they agree with the appeals court in the ruling. What they said is that CPS viewed this whole compound as one household, and that was a mistake. They both ruled -- both the appeals court and the supreme court think that CPS should have gone through household by household, one family by one family.

GRACE: Oh, good lord in heaven! We can`t even get DNA on all the children. We don`t know which child goes with which mom. They treat the children communally. But now they want their cake and they want to eat it, too. They want the judge to treat them separately, but they treat the children communally.

BOARD: Nancy, I`d like the state supreme court to walk in the shoes of those CPS investigators, which were lied to and deceived from the second they stepped on this compound last month. I`d like them to walk a day in their shoes and see the difficult job that they had. From the second they got onto the campus, they were lied to. I don`t know if the state supreme court realizes the difficult job that they had that day.

GRACE: Explain to me what you mean by lying and deceiving the CPS -- Child Protective Service -- authorities.

BOARD: Well, Nancy, let me tell you one story. I was talking to one of the investigators who was on the ranch that day last month. They were interviewing one of the women. They didn`t know if it was an adult or a teenager or a child. They didn`t know the age. So the woman -- sat down with this woman and asked her, they said, Honey, how old are you? The child looked at her spiritual father and said, Well, how old am I? The father turned to her and said, You`re 18. So the woman turned to the investigator and said, Well, I`m 18 years old.

That`s the type of deception and lies that were told to this investigator. They had no choice but to remove the kids that day. But apparently, the state supreme court doesn`t see it that way. Hindsight in this case in the supreme court is 20/20.

GRACE: We are taking your calls live. Out to Shirley in Pennsylvania. Hi, Shirley.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Hi, Nancy. I love you. You`re the greatest. But I am very appalled by the state of Texas letting these children go back to this polygamy. Where are the rights of children in this state? And as far as I`m concerned, the state didn`t know what to do with them, and this is what happens when they have -- they don`t have the right, Nancy. And I`m sorry, but I am extremely upset. They`ll go into single homes and take children that may not even be traumatized, but they know there`s, like -- that girl right there is pregnant. She looks pregnant to me, the 12 or 13- year-old that he`s kissing. Where are the rights of these children?

GRACE: Shirley in Pennsylvania, I cannot agree with you more. I`ve alternated all afternoon since I heard about it between tears and anger that the Texas supreme court is not protecting these children.

Look at this! This is the prophet Warren Jeffs. His photo is up in all their homes. They worship him. And here he is with a 12-year-old bride that comes up to his bellybutton and a 13-year-old bride. Look at this! This is his wife.

We all know that the practice there is to consummate the child bride marriage immediately after the ceremony. In fact, they`ve even got a bed set up in the temple to consummate the marriage before they even leave the temple! That`s what`s going on. But the Texas supreme court sending all of these little girls, and boys, straight back into this environment.

I want to go to Flora Jessop, former polygamist and child bride. She is the director of Child Protection Project. Flora, response.

FLORA JESSOP, FORMER POLYGAMIST CHILD BRIDE: Just very disappointed, very fearful for the children.

GRACE: When you see these photos of Warren Jeffs, can you actually believe the Texas supreme court is sending children back to this environment?

JESSOP: No. But you know, for those of us from the inside, this is what we`ve witnessed for years. We`ve seen this over and over and over again. And so it is very disturbing that the state -- that the court would send these kids back.

GRACE: Flora, you seem calm. How can you be calm? These children, over 400 children, had a chance at someday getting a normal life, a life free of child brides, of forced and plural marriages. Is it because you were conditioned for so long that you think these children just accept this?

JESSOP: You know, they had a hope for freedom, and I know that. And now that hope is gone, and these kids are going to be suffering even more than they were before the state went in. It would have been better for the state not to have gone in at all than for them to go in and then turn these kids back over because what these kids are going to suffer now is...

GRACE: Well, we see what they`re going to suffer. We see Warren Jeffs with a 12-year-old that comes up to his bellybutton. Supreme court number, 512-463-1312. The Texas supreme court siding with the polygamists.

Out to the lines. Laurie in Pennsylvania. Hi, Laurie.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Hi, Nancy. Your twins are beautiful.

GRACE: Thank you. And believe you me, I will do everything in my power to protect them.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Oh, we all know that.

GRACE: But there`s nobody to protect these children, nobody, not even the Texas supreme court.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: No. I don`t think these women should be on Welfare. Now that the state know what`s going on, can they deny their Welfare benefits to them?

GRACE: Excellent question. Let`s go out to the lawyers. Joining us tonight, Joe Episcopo and Michael Mazzariello. Joe, what about it?

JOE EPISCOPO, DEFENSE ATTORNEY: Well, you know, there`s no evidence of any offense here. There was no basis to take the children. That picture you keep showing, that man`s in prison. That girl is not the subject of this case. So I don`t know why you`re stirring up all this hysteria and trying to get people to call the supreme court of Texas. There`s no crime.

GRACE: Joe! Joe! Liz, could you please show the photo again? This is their first anniversary photo. Last night, we had on a relative of the two girls that verified their ages. You don`t see this deep tongue kissing with Warren Jeffs with a 12-year-old?

EPISCOPO: He`s in prison for that.

GRACE: Yes, and he is their prophet, even from behind bars. They worship him.

EPISCOPO: I know, but that`s not...

GRACE: You don`t see a problem with that?

EPISCOPO: That`s not the subject of this case. You`re taking another case...

GRACE: That is complete BS~, Episcopo!

EPISCOPO: ... and making this a part of the case.

GRACE: That is complete BS! The subject of this case is that exactly. Child brides -- it is child rape! You know, I know you`re a defense attorney, but how can you even look at the camera with a straight face and say that?

EPISCOPO: Because they haven`t found anybody else...

GRACE: Don`t you have a daughter?


GRACE: Don`t you have a daughter?

EPISCOPO: Yes, I do.

GRACE: How would you feel if someone suggested she get married and consummate the marriage to a 55-year-old man when she`s 12 years old?

EPISCOPO: Well, there`s no evidence of that.

GRACE: You can`t see?

EPISCOPO: He went to prison for that. He`s been punished.

GRACE: Yes, that`s evidence.

EPISCOPO: So what do you want to put everybody in jail for what he did?

GRACE: I want to put people behind bars...

EPISCOPO: OK, put that picture of the guy up there that you`re talking about that isn`t in prison.

GRACE: I`d like to finish! That enable -- that enable this. And I know for a fact it is going on behind those compound walls. Flora Jessop, throw me a life raft here.

JESSOP: Warren Jeffs is not in jail for molesting those girls he`s in those photographs for. He is in jail for accessory to rape for forcing another 14-year-old girl to marry her first husband.

GRACE: Exactly. My point is that these people worship Jeffs. They actually worship him. So they condone this behavior.

JESSOP: That`s absolutely correct. And they condone it all day long. They practice it themselves. They practice it because they believe they are untouchable. And Texas just basically gave them the power over the courts in this country by giving all their children back, regardless of what happens.


EPISCOPO: Look, there`s no way the supreme court of Texas wants children to be abused. They found no evidence of it. You can`t just go on all this speculation and hysteria that you`re stirring up and start throwing people in jail...

GRACE: OK, Joe...


GRACE: What about the fact that right now, there are underaged brides pregnant? What about that?

EPISCOPO: They haven`t found any underaged brides.

GRACE: OK, so Michael Board, could you clear that up for me?

BOARD: Yes. They`ve actually proven that there`s five there. And if you go through the "Bishop`s list," which were found during the raid, they had scores and scores of polygamist families. One of them was a 46-year- old man who was married, "spiritually married," to a 16-year-old girl. In Texas, that`s statutory rape.

GRACE: Thoughts, Episcopo?

GRACE: So you`re saying that the supreme court of Texas says that`s all right?

GRACE: Yes, that`s what I`m saying. Weigh in, Michael Mazzariello.

MICHAEL MAZZARIELLO, DEFENSE ATTORNEY: ... court of Texas did the right thing here, Nancy, but they actually gave CPS an out. If you read the decision, they`re telling them to go back to the district court and, Do what you want to do and present evidence so you can actually get alleged perpetrators out of there, so you can prevent the children from being taken and moved to another jurisdiction.

GRACE: Right. They`re going to -- they put a TRO on them. They put a restraining order. They`ve thrown the book at them. It`s called the Texas criminal code, and these people have totally ignored it. Can`t you see these pictures, Mazzariello? They don`t care what the court`s telling them, they`re going to be gone, long gone with all these kids.

MAZZARIELLO: Well, Nancy...

GRACE: No chance of freedom.

MAZZARIELLO: ... I found interesting the decision of the supreme court that said that they presented no evidence, no justification for it whatsoever.


UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: I`m just here to say I`m happy they`re sending all the children back to their mothers. And we`re (ph) home.




UNIDENTIFIED MALE: The high court here in Texas has ruled that, "On the record before us, the removal of the children was not warranted." This means that the state has failed dramatically in its attempt to argue before the court that they were justified in taking all 400 of these kids away from the YFZ ranch on suspicions of child abuse.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: There is no force. We want the children. And they want us.


GRACE: The Texas supreme court sending these children back behind compound walls with no one to protect them. Chief Justice Wallace B. Jefferson (ph), Nathan L. Hecht (ph), Dale Wainwright (ph), Scott Brewster (ph), David Medina (ph), Paul Green (ph) -- I would like to point out, all men. There were some dissenters. Justice Harriet O`Neil (ph), Phil Johnson (ph) and Don Willett (ph) stuck up for the children, siding with the state.

We are taking your calls. I want to go back out to Joe Episcopo. The fact that we now have, let me just say, refreshed your recollection to the fact that there are underaged pregnant girls in custody right now, you still believe that there is no child rape going on?

EPISCOPO: The court said there was no evidence of that.

GRACE: Yes. That`s not what I asked you. I asked you what you think.

EPISCOPO: No, I do not believe there is. I never believed it. I thought...

GRACE: Because?

EPISCOPO: ... this was all hysteria.

GRACE: So there was immaculate conception, like the Mother Mary? How did they get pregnant?

EPISCOPO: They didn`t get pregnant. I don`t see any evidence of that.

GRACE: OK. Michael Board, what`s the evidence?

BOARD: Yes, they do have five underaged girls in custody right now who are either pregnant or already have a child, and they have several other women who have -- who are now over the age of 18 who have kids, but they`ve done the math and they figured out, like, a 22-year-old who had the kid eight years ago. You do the math on that one, figure out how old she was when she was raped by one of these perverts.

GRACE: To Natalie Malonis, attorney ad litem for several of the children. Was there a way they could have kept the children in custody until the individual hearings were had?

NATALIE MALONIS, ATTORNEY AD LITEM FOR FLDS CHILDREN: Well, I really think that`s a possibility still. The way that the opinion is written, it does give the trial court an opportunity to make other orders. What this is doing is simply saying -- and this only applies -- remember, this only applies to 38 of the mothers and the children of those mothers.

GRACE: Almost 150 children.

MALONIS: Right, none of whom are the pregnant minors. So that issue`s off the table with respect to this opinion. I don`t think any of the children are going to be returned until the DNA tests come in. I don`t think there`s the authority to return the children because you`ve got to show a legal entitlement to possession, and at this point, I don`t think that the parents can do that. So that`s another week. And beyond that, there are a number of orders that the court can enter.



UNIDENTIFIED MALE: The complaint that the state has is they felt the children were in danger of being forced into marriage at ages 16 and younger, the girls in particular, and that`s why they moved in here.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Are you saying that...

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: No force. No force.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Do women age 16 and younger marry out here? Is that common?

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: We just want the children back. That`s all we`re talking about tonight.


GRACE: And thanks to the Texas supreme court, you`re going to get your wish. Now 12-year-old girls can continue being "spiritually married" to men up in their 50s and 60s. No problem, says the Texas supreme court. There were three dissenters, PTL (ph), those dissenters, Harriet O`Neil, Phil Johnson, Don R. Willett.

Out to Chad Payne, sheriff out of Butts County, now running for sheriff in Houston (ph) County, Georgia. There`s is now a fear in my mind that these children will just be taken up to bountiful Canada or to Mexico, to another compound.

CHAD PAYNE, DEPUTY SHERIFF, CRIMINAL INTERDICTION EXPERT, BUTTS COUNTY, GA: Absolutely, Nancy. The risk of flight is imminent. It`s -- you know, it`s something they really need to look at. And the child protection services must monitor these children.

GRACE: But they can`t even get on the compound half the time, Chad Payne. They refuse to allow them on the compound. So how can they monitor them? Are you serious?

PAYNE: Well, I`m serious. They do need to find a way to monitor these children.



UNIDENTIFIED REPORTER: This isn`t a all-kids-go-home-with-no-strings- attached type by ruling. The court here still has some decisions to make. And plus, the state -- we`re still waiting to find out how the state is going to release these kids because they were arguing that all this time they have yet to fully understand exactly which kids belong to which parents.

They`re waiting on the DNA results to come back to match these children positively to all of their biological parents.


GRACE: So the polygamists have won in Texas. The Texas Supreme Court now sending scores of children back behind compound walls. And this is just after photos released of their leader, Warren Jeffs, the so-called prophet, deep kissing a 12 and 13-year-old child bride, apparently carrying one of them over the threshold.

To Dr. Bethany Marshall, psychoanalyst and author -- Dr. Bethany, what will this do to the children? They come out, they start to assimilate, now they`re going back.

BETHANY MARSHALL, PSYCHOANALYST, AUTHOR OF "DEALBREAKERS": Well, what I`m really concerned about -- we -- we`re worried about the kids being moved back and forth, but they`ve already been taken out of their primary mother`s care and they`ve been shuttled back and forth between multiple mothers. They`re already used to be shuttled around.

And I`m also concerned about the fact that when there is one pattern of offending, sexual offending, within a group, usually there are multiple patterns of offending. So there`s probably voyeurism, exhibitionism, sadism, incest. This is a sex cult started by a sex predator and within this group, the likelihood is that there`s just sex, sex, sex, sex on multiple levels.

And if it`s not just sexual offending, it`s something what we call interpersonal offending. And that`s when a sex predator abuses the relationship with the child to kind of pull out secrets, to remove them from primary care with the mother, to get the child to sort of hand over their personality to the parent.

So I mean, it`s just really a big old mess and how is CPS going to be able to monitor once these kids go inside that compound?

GRACE: I mean, the reality, Bethany, is look at this. Warren Jeffs and his followers are not the least bit concerned. They`re not the least bit ashamed that they are taking 12 and 13-year-old girls and marrying them.


GRACE: . and impregnating them. They`ve got photos. These are portraits of a crime.

MARSHALL: I know. This is a very authoritarian cult. Warren Jeffs believes that it`s OK to have sex with children, so, ergo, the cult followers are going to feel that it`s OK to have sex with children. And somebody`s mothers and fathers have said we do not believe in underage marriage.

How do we know what they mean by underage marriage because Jeffs has defined what underage means to them? They`re talking about their particular system. They`re not talking about underage when it comes to the rules of our country.

GRACE: Back to Flora Jessop, former polygamist child bride. Flora, describe the treatment that young girls specifically get behind compound walls.

FLORA JESSOP, FMR. POLYGAMIST & CHILD BRIDE, EXEC. DIRECTOR OF THE CHILD PROTECTION PROJECT: One of the things that is routinely done is that the fathers teach their daughters how to be good wives by beginning sexual abuse with them as young as 8 years old. That`s something we have witnessed for many years in this cult.

You know this is a -- the beatings, the brutality, the waterboarding of these babies, the -- I can tell you that the -- when you try and leave this group and you don`t make it, the psychological abuse that these kids are going to suffer is going to be very horrific and I don`t know that many of them will be able to withstand what`s going to be done to them.

GRACE: You know we are blurring the faces of these two little girls, age 12 and 13 that were child brides at of the so called prophet. But I have seen their faces and they look in their faces like they`re 8 or 9 years old. They look so sweet and so trusting.

And then I see this creepy Jeffs hovering over them like a vampire. God only knows which bride this is, number 35, 36, who knows? And this is isn`t even why he`s in jail right now, which, of course, has not dimmed the FLDS` devout following of him.

I want to go to Dr. Marty Makary, physician and professor of public health at Johns Hopkins.

Dr. Makary, thank you for being with us. You know I recall distinctly getting DNA results back in about three days if necessary. What`s the problem?

DR. MARTY MAKARY, PHYSICIAN, PROF. OF PUBLIC HEALTH, JOHNS HOPKINS: Well, actually, Nancy, a DNA test only takes one hour to physically put the specimen in and take it out with the sequence that you need to map somebody`s DNA. It`s the packaging and delivery of the results that is often so meticulously handled that it takes days and weeks, and especially in this context, it`s not efficient.

GRACE: Back to Chad Payne, deputy sheriff out of Butts County. Chad, the reality is, if this group won`t even follow the black and white letter of the law, the criminal code, is there really any way -- I mean you`re an expert in this field. Is there really any way that in the dark of the night the state, Child Protective Services, can keep these people from taking the children to Mexico or Canada?

I mean they`ve already brought them here from other states.

CHAD PAYNE, DEPUTY SHERIFF, CRIMINAL INTERDICTION EXPERT, BUTTS COUNTY SHERIFF`S OFFICE: Nancy, sadly there is no way, you know, for them to keep an eye on these children all the time. There`s really not. And it`s very saddening.

GRACE: And to hear you say that carries a lot of weight because I think you and I both want there to be a way. We want to struggle, do a backbend, do a back flip, and find a way to protect these children.

To Natalie Malonis -- she`s the attorney ad litem for several of the FLDS children, and let me remind everybody, as much as we all sometimes hate lawyers, many of these Texas lawyers -- Natalie joining us out of Dallas -- working for free to help these children.

Natalie, when you heard the ruling sending -- about sending about 150 of the children back, what was your immediate reaction?

NATALIE MALONIS, ATTORNEY AD LITEM REPRESENTING SECT MOTHER PAMELA JESSOP: I was very surprised. I was very surprised to initially hear the ruling. Once I read the opinion, this is really a very middle-of-the-road opinion. And I`ll say this. I don`t think any of the children are going back to the compound right now, and maybe ever.

GRACE: So you say right now. You say right now. This is a blow to the state. They are saying.


GRACE: . they can get these children back, that there could be additional hearings, there could be additional orders. But the reality is, they are saying Child Protective Services exceeded their authority, they acted too broadly, and they are sending the children back.

MALONIS: Well, actually that`s not what it says. This is.

GRACE: Explain to me.

MALONIS: OK. This order has to do with what the trial court did.

GRACE: Right.

MALONIS: And it`s not saying that it -- it is not saying that CPS was not justified in their initial actions. It`s saying there was not enough evidence at the 14-day hearings to keep every one of these -- children in custody.

What I expect to happen now is, I think, CPS and the state is going to get -- there`s a lot of evidence that was not presented in April because it was not available. It was under seal, being reviewed by special masters.

There`s a lot of evidence that`s available now that wasn`t back in April. And I expect them to -- for CPS to be going through this evidence and to call out evidence relating to particular children and I think there are going to be additional hearings. I think a lot of these kids are going to remain in custody, you know, if there`s evidence.

GRACE: You know, Natalie Malonis, I pray that you are right. You`re very level headed, you`ve got a great track record, and I pray that you are right.

Out to the lines, to Beth in Georgia. Hi, Beth.


GRACE: What`s your question, dear?

BETH: I was wondering, will the DNA show if any of these children have been born of incestuous relationships?

GRACE: What about it, Dr. Makary?

MAKARY: Not really. It can give you an idea but DNA only tells you exactly who your mother and father are.

GRACE: Well -- and then if you figure out they`re a cousin or a brother and sister or a father and daughter, wouldn`t that lead to an incestuous relationship deduction?

MAKARY: Well, you can only get part of the DNA from any relative beyond that. So it`s not straight forward.

GRACE: You know what, Dr. Makary, I think that it will show who the father and mother are, yes, no?


GRACE: Well, if the father and mother are related, wouldn`t that show incest?

MAKARY: Well, you won`t know they`re related from the DNA.

GRACE: Right. OK, I understand what you`re saying.

Everybody, we`ve got to go to break.

But "Case Alert." High school senior Cleashindra Hall went missing May 1994 after heading to work in Pine Bluff, Arkansas. Please take a look. Her mother called police when she never made it home from work. Last seen wearing a navy blue and white two piece shorts set, white socks, tennis shoes, a white bow in her hair.

If you have information on this girl, please, I know it`s an old case, contact Pine Bluff, Arkansas police department as 870-543-5110.

When we come back, pandemonium at Heathrow Airport. Supermodel Naomi Campbell restrained, hauled off by cop after claims she spit and assaulted the police. But tonight, Naomi Campbell looking at jail time finally.

And tonight, we salute the troops.


SANDY MYER, TAMPA, FLORIDA RESIDENT: This is Sandy Myer(ph) from Tampa, Florida and I want to salute my husband, Staff Sergeant Jay Myer, serving in Bagram, Afghanistan with the army reserve.

June 6 is our anniversary. I want to wish him a happy anniversary and tell him I love him, and I miss him and so does our son Tristan. Come home soon.





UNIDENTIFIED REPORTER: British authorities have charged notorious supermodel Naomi Campbell with at least three counts of assault stemming from an incident at London`s Heathrow Airport. The 38-year-old Campbell is accused of being both physically and verbally abusive to both the airline staff and police officers.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: She was in first class and British Airways told her, oh, my gosh, we are so sorry, we can`t locate your luggage. We have no idea where it is. She was so unhappy that she started verbally abusing the flight staff.

UNIDENTIFIED REPORTER: When police got on board to break up the spat, Naomi reportedly spat on an officer.

This alleged air rage incident comes just over a year after Naomi, dressed to the nines, finished a community service sentence in New York for her last outburst throwing a cell phone at a maid over a missing pair of jeans.


GRACE: Just envisioning Naomi Campbell hurling a big glob of spit on a cop.

To Marc Malkin, E! Online columnist -- Mark, what happened? What charges is she facing?

MARC MALKIN, E! ONLINE COLUMNIST: She is charging -- she has been charged with two assault charges against the cops threatening abusive language against the crew and staff of the airplane. She is in -- she`s in trouble, they are not happy with her.

GRACE: So I`m guessing, Kelli Zink, with, that the Brits are not as impressed with Miss Thing as we are over here.

KELLI ZINK, HOST, CELEBTV.COM: I don`t think, Nancy, that she`s going to be able to use fashion to get out of it this time. She could face up to six months in prison and have to pay a $10,000 fine. Even British Airways, who she`s a frequent flyer with, is not happy and they`ve reportedly banned her from flying their airline.

GRACE: Now that`s six months on each charge, Kelli, correct?

ZINK: Right. And there are three charges of assault.

GRACE: So she`s looking at nearly two years, Marc.

MALKIN: Two years in prison. You know, she`s been really good at avoiding that prison thing. You know the last.

GRACE: Yes, you`re not kidding.

MALKIN: The last thing she had to do was community service. I don`t know if you remember.

GRACE: Oh, yes.

MALKIN: But she did a fashion trick for "W" magazine. She was dressed in couture to clean the streets of New York City.

GRACE: There have been three prior incidents that we know of. What are they quickly, Marc?

MALKIN: She had once thrown a phone at a maid because she accused the maid of stealing her jeans.

GRACE: Like anybody could wear a size zero jeans. But go ahead.

MALKIN: Exactly. Then there was an assistant before that. She was accused of hitting her with a telephone. She`s very big on using the telephone in these assaults.

GRACE: Yes, hit her right in the head. What about the third one?

MALKIN: Then the third one -- then there was another assistant. There -- I went through her rap sheet again, there are so many allegations against her including head butting, biting lips, biting cheeks, of course, verbal abuse.

This woman is not like -- I don`t know why anyone goes and works for her after all of this.

GRACE: You know I want to go back to Chad Payne, deputy sheriff, interdiction expert, Butts County, Georgia.

Chad, just be blunt, have you ever been spat on?

PAYNE: I have, Nancy, and I`d rather be slapped in the face than been spit on.

GRACE: Who spit on you?

PAYNE: It was a perpetrator from a traffic stop. We got into an altercation and he spit on me.

GRACE: You know, Chad, when I would be in court handling cases, if I would see -- I saw it a lot.

Let me go to the lawyers on this, Mazzariello and Episcopo -- Joe Episcopo joining -- me out of Tampa, Florida, Michael Mazzariello, a veteran trial lawyer as well, out of the New York jurisdiction.

Michael, when I would see a defendant spit on a cop, there would be no mercy. Forget about a plea deal. Oh, no, no, no. You don`t spit on a cop.

MICHAEL MAZZARIELLO, DEFENSE ATTORNEY, HOST OF "CLOSING ARGUMENTS": Absolutely, it`s a matter of respect. And you know, Nancy, this is in an airport. There -- we`re at a time of war. There are terrorists using the airports to (INAUDIBLE) people with planes and we have law enforcement not only having been spit at, but having to spend their time dealing with this woman who thinks she`s better than everyone else, and taking their time off of security purposes.

It`s an outrage. And imagine the people on the plane that were delayed over an hour, hour and a half.

GRACE: You know she can walk that cat walk all she wants in those red wings and that tiny itty bitty whatever that is, Episcopo, but I don`t think that`s going to carry the day anymore over -- across the ocean with the Brits. I don`t they revere here as much as the fashion industry does here in the U.S.

JOE EPISCOPO, DEFENSE LAWYER: Oh I think there`s a very easy way to get out of this. All you go to do is write $30,000 checks to these officers, they`ll go away.


EPISCOPO: They probably don`t even make that much in a year. This is not a big deal. This is somebody who has.


EPISCOPO: . a little temper problem, but you know what? It`s not a big deal. She`s not a hijacker. She didn`t hurt anybody.

GRACE: I bet if she -- I bet if she punched you in the head with her cell phone, you might have a different story, much less spit at you right in the face.

EPISCOPO: I might get more than $30,000.

GRACE: Chad Payne, what about it? You think the cops will just take a payoff like Joe Episcopo says and just be quiet?

PAYNE: Absolutely not, Nancy. That`s ridiculous to me. We have integrity and honor and we stand up for what we think is right, and for somebody to -- just merely make the allegation they`re going to try to pay us off, it just insults me.

GRACE: To Bethany Marshall, where do you get the idea that you can mistreat, not just your assistant who you`re paying and you think is beholden to you, or a maid that apparently she considers beneath her, but to do it to a cop? That`s -- pretty bold, Bethany.

MARSHALL: Well, because when you have a personality disorder and you ore a rageaholic -- I mean, I don`t if she does but people with rage problems often have personality disorders. They experience everything as a slight and an insult.

Even if it`s -- will you please move to another chair, will you wait to get your bag, that is an insult to them and when they feel insulted, they feel deflated and when they feel deflated, they go on the attack. And often their ability to reason, it really outpaces their capacity to think and they`re very impulsive and then they do primitive child like things like she did like spitting on a cop.

GRACE: Out to the lines, Florence in California. Hi, Florence.

FLORENCE, CALIFORNIA RESIDENT: Hi, Nancy. You know Naomi Campbell -- you know, she`s so skinny, perhaps do you think she`s angry about that that she has to stay so skinny? Maybe we should.

GRACE: Maybe she`s mad because all she has to eat is lettuce?

What about it, Bethany? Maybe a rage problem because of what you have to go through to be a supermodel? Not that that justifies anything.

MARSHALL: That can help. I think more likely, who knows how many relationships have been broken off, how many contracts she`s lost, how many men have left her behind because once they have gotten to know her better, they realize that she`s pretty ugly on the inside. So the further she goes along the life span, the more frustrated she may become.


GRACE: Naomi Campbell finally facing jail time but not here in the U.S. after all of her incidents here. Finally the Brits are bringing down the hammer.

Out to Donna in Canada. Hi, Donna.


GRACE: I`m good, dear. What`s your question?

DONNA: Hi. Actually I -- I`m sorry, I hope I can ask two questions.

GRACE: Sure.

DONNA: OK. The first one -- I`m sorry, this one is about Naomi Campbell but the other one`s about your previous story.


DONNA: I told whoever the operator has.

GRACE: OK. Just tell me and hurry before we go to commercial.

DONNA: OK. Yes. Naomi Campbell, first of all, why is it that she is the one that has people are hiring to represent the designers, the clothing, why would they pick someone like that?

GRACE: OK, got it.

DONNA: Horrible behavior.

GRACE: Second question?

DONNA: The other one I will say this as someone who was a foster parent for over 10 years, who adopted three children, why in the heck did Texas decide to send those children back?

GRACE: You know what?

DONNA: (INAUDIBLE) I protected a lot of.

GRACE: Donna, you are right on. I hear it in your voice that you feel the same way many of us do here tonight. I just hope that the Texas lawyer that was with us tonight is correct and that there is a way that the lower court can do a backbend and stop this thing from happening.

To Bethany Marshall, why do they keep hiring -- big companies, hiring Naomi Campbell to represent them and be their face, so to speak?

MARSHALL: Honestly I think the camera likes crazy. I mean I sometimes think when people have personality disorders they photograph really well. Present company excluded on this show. But they see.

GRACE: You look great to me.

Marc Malkin, what do you think about that?

MALKIN: The whole thing is, we`re doing exactly what she wants us to be doing right now. We are talking about her on national television. She`s just.

GRACE: Kelli Zink, agree or disagree?


ZINK: Completely agree, Nancy. Just like Marc said, she got the spread after her last community service incident. Who knows? Maybe she`ll get her own reality show after this one.

GRACE: Kelli Zink, Mark Malkin with E! Online and, thank you.

Everybody, let`s stop and remember Army Major Alan Rogers, 40 years old, Hampton, Florida, killed, Iraq on a second tour, awarded the Purple Heart and two Bronze Stars, upbeat, super smart, humble, an ordained minister who trained Iraqi soldiers. Leaves behind cousin Kathy and Mini- Me(ph), close friends.

Alan Rogers, American hero.

Thanks to our guests, but our biggest thank you to you for inviting all of us into your home. I`ll see you tomorrow night 8:00 sharp Eastern, and until then, good night, friend.