Return to Transcripts main page
ISSUES WITH JANE VELEZ-MITCHELL
Hate Motivates Long Island Killing; Interracial Couple Killed by Fellow Marines; Prop 8 Goes to Court; Convicted Murderers Still Held Despite New DNA Evidence
Aired November 11, 2008 - 19:00:00 ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
JANE VELEZ MITCHELL, HOST (voice-over): Tonight as racial barriers tumble, hate continues coast-to-coast. Seven Long Island teens looking to, quote, "beat up some Mexicans" now charged with the brutal slaying of an innocent man from Ecuador.
The torture and double murder of a racially mixed West Coast couple. Is that a hate crime? Cops say no. We`ll discuss the definition of hate.
Then, a new tangled web of deceit for the chief suspect in Natalee Holloway`s death. We`ll talk to the investigative reporter who caught Joran Van Der Sloot on tape in Bangkok in an alleged sex trafficking scheme.
And stunning new details in the case of the 8-year-old boy who admits gunning down his dad and his dad`s friend. Was he trained to kill?
Those issues and more tonight.
VELEZ MITCHELL: Natalee Holloway disappeared three years ago while on a class trip to Aruba. And there is now a new and shocking revelation regarding the chief suspect in that case. You know him well. Joran Van Der Sloot, who was caught on tape saying Natalee died in his arms, has been caught on tape yet again, this time allegedly trying to bring young Thai women into the Netherlands to work as -- what else? -- prostitutes. We`ve got the exclusive video. And an interview with the man who pulled off this amazing sting.
Also tonight it seems all of America is asking, what drove an 8-year- old Arizona boy to shoot two men, including his own dad? Was he abused? Was teaching him to hunt a big mistake? Expert analysis in a bit.
But first, one week ago today, we elected our first African-American president, and the country rejoiced at how far we`ve come from our violently racist past. Unfortunately, not all Americans are putting racial and ethnic differences behind them.
Over the weekend, not far from where I`m sitting right now, seven teenagers viciously attacked Marcello Lucero, a 37-year-old dry cleaning store worker from Ecuador, simply because he was Hispanic. He was beaten and then stabbed. Lucero, described as a hard worker who came to this country 16 years ago, just around the time the guys who allegedly attacked him were born.
All seven teens charged with gang assault in the first degree, and the alleged stabber is charged with manslaughter in the first degree, as a hate crime.
Here`s my issue tonight. This was a hate cream, pure and simple. They allegedly went out looking to, quote, "beat up some Mexicans." And yet, only one of these thugs is being charged that way. Why? They allegedly all went out with the very same purpose. They should all be charged with a hate crime and they should all face extra punishment because of it if convicted.
One Latino organization says the parents of these teens -- the parents -- should share the blame. It`s planning to sue the parents of the suspects for lack of moral responsibility.
Joining me now, Dave Marcus, author and reporter for "Newsday."
Dave, what is the very latest in this case?
DAVE MARCUS, AUTHOR/REPORTER, "NEWSDAY": The latest thing is that the seven have been charged. And this is a really fascinating thing. I`ve never heard about this. Parents -- parents -- being charged if this happens with the death of -- with the death of -- with their kids doing something like this. I don`t know how that would play out in court. But it`s going to fascinating if it does.
VELEZ MITCHELL: A reporter from "Newsday," and from what I`ve heard, Suffolk County, where this happened, is sort of a flash point for the immigration debate, because tens of thousands of Hispanic Americans have moved there, and immigrants, and taking landscaping and carpentry and restaurant jobs.
And there have been hate crimes in the past. In 2000 two Mexican men were beaten. In 2003 the home of a Mexican family set on fire. Yada, yada, yada. Is this a serious problem in that county, which is basically eastern end of Long Island?
MARCUS: Right. I mean, I would tell you that it`s strange because Long Island has two counties. And Nassau County, which is closer to New York state, just has not had this kind of incident. And Suffolk County, where the politicians have been sort of bashing immigrants a little bit, or a lot, there have been some hate crimes.
Now, I don`t really know if this is directly. I will tell you that, if you travel the country, I happen to think that, as the economy tightens, and it is tightening, there are actually going to be -- unfortunately, there`s going to be more of a tendency to scapegoat, to blame immigrants, and illegal immigrants especially, for the kind of -- when people feel they`re losing their jobs and you feel like the taxes are going up. And I do worry about this all over the country, not just in Suffolk County.
VELEZ MITCHELL: Now, Dave, let me ask you this. What are these teens saying? Apparently, they were caught very quickly after this attack. They were allegedly walking around town. What is their explanation? Have they said anything?
MARCUS: What we know from the police is they essentially said that they were out -- several of them said they were out looking to get a Hispanic person. And that`s what they were doing.
And the shocking thing to me is that they`ve said this. And it`s almost like -- I don`t see -- I haven`t seen any kind of, any of them sort of coming forward and regretting it. Now, they did go to court, and they did -- they did say they`re innocent. But we`ll see what happens when -- as the trial goes on.
VELEZ MITCHELL: Well, we`ll be following this case, Dave. Thanks.
I want to bring in my panel for tonight`s discussion. Joining me now, Martha Fields, diversity and race relations specialist and president and CEO of Fields associates; and Jo Ann Pina, a psychologist.
Jo Ann, as far as I can tell, hate often comes in group think. If a group starts talking hate, are they more likely to turn violent than, say, an individual that just has hateful thoughts up here?
JO ANN PINA, PSYCHOLOGIST: I believe they are, particularly if the leader of that group is very powerful and persuasive. There`s like that group think or the gang think that sort of perpetuates that violence.
VELEZ MITCHELL: You know, I have to ask you this, Martha Fields. When does it become a hate crime? Is it because these young men allegedly said, and again they deserve the presumption of innocence at this point. They haven`t been convicted of anything. And as you just heard from the reporter, they`ve apparently pleaded not guilty.
But if and when they say, and if it could be proven, "Let`s go out and get a Mexican?"
MARTHA FIELDS, PRESIDENT/CEO, FIELDS ASSOCIATES: I think that would very much signal they had the intentions to go out and beat someone. And someone because of a particular characteristic that they had. In this case they were looking for a Hispanic person or a Mexican person.
VELEZ MITCHELL: And of course they didn`t find one. They found one from Ecuador.
FIELD: But close enough, sadly. Tragically, that man died.
Now, Reverend Alan Ramirez, an activist for Latino immigrants, spoke out passionately about this incident. Let`s take a listen.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
REV. ALAN RAMIREZ, ACTIVIST FOR LATINO IMMIGRANTS: There is the blood of immigrants flowing through the streets of Suffolk County. We do not need our communities to be separated by hatred, intolerance and racial discord.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
VELEZ MITCHELL: OK. Here is my perspective as a Latina American. I think that we should have a discussion about the immigration issue in this country. We should have a civilized dialogue.
My problem is that the way it`s discussed in this country you would think every Latino was an illegal immigrant. There are 14.5 million Hispanics in the United States, and according to the Pew Hispanic Center, there are 11.9 million unauthorized immigrants total. Not all of them are Latino.
But one of the things that we don`t hear about are the successful Latinos. The 1.6 million Hispanic-owned businesses; 1.1 million Hispanic veterans of the U.S. armed forces; 11,000 or excuse me, 811,000 -- 811,000 Hispanics with advanced degrees; 82,000 Hispanic chief executives; 46,000 doctors and lawyer; 43,000 lawyers. We never hear these stats, Jo Ann Pina.
So why is it that that has an impact on how people are perceived, Latinos are perceived? And could that have an impact on how these teens behaved?
PINA: Absolutely. What happens is that the latent values really drive behavior. With the media talking about illegal immigration, there is the belief and -- that leads to prejudices, and that fuels anger and fear.
And they don`t talk about those of us like myself who have advanced degrees, a Ph.D. psychologist, highly skilled.
VELEZ MITCHELL: I didn`t know you were Latina...
PINA: Yes, I am.
VELEZ MITCHELL: ... until you just mentioned it. And people know I`m a Latina because of my name Velez. But Pina could be anything.
PINA: It`s actually Peen-ya.
VELEZ MITCHELL: Peen-ya, OK. We`re going to make it Spanish- sounding.
VELEZ MITCHELL: What I`m saying, yes, we`re the invisible minority, which is becoming the silent majority. And that`s what we have to change. The big changer here -- go ahead.
FIELD: Jane, actually, you know, Latinos are not visible. They make up the largest -- the U.S. Census in 2000 told us that they make up the largest group of minority people in this country.
I think what`s happening is, as their ranks swell, that more and more people are having to realize that they`ve got to get to know Hispanic people. They need to learn how to ablo Espanol in some cases, and I think that it does create problems.
I also think that the economy as such that, if we begin to have hate crimes against people because we see maybe an Hispanic that is living next to us and they have a good job and they`ve acquired a house and we`ve just lost our house, if I already came into bad times having bad feelings about that group, it may turn me to a person that would commit a hate crime. Maybe not, but I think that there`s a lot that we have seen as we see more people...
VELEZ MITCHELL: Let me jump into here, because I want to get into another case. And this is a shocker, over the other coast. A white Marine and his African-American wife were tortured and executed by four fellow Marines, the wife also sexually assaulted. The four suspects are African- American, and they`ve confessed.
Now, the authorities say robbery is a motive here, but the parents of both victims disagree. And I want to go to Jo Ann Pina, psychologist, on this.
VELEZ MITCHELL: I mean, could the authorities be wrong? Could race have been a factor? Because yes, they took some stuff, but the wife was raped. They were tortured. And there was reportedly talk on this base about this biracial couple. Isn`t there usually more than one motive for any human activity?
PINA: Absolutely. And I think you`re correct in saying that the authorities could be wrong, particularly if they`re from a Caucasian perspective where they haven`t experienced the discrimination, the hate and the kind of hate crimes that we`re seeing here.
But this particular robbery, if it was solely a robbery, was so vicious. The torture was so sadistic that it really lends itself to a hate crime.
VELEZ MITCHELL: And Martha Fields, I want to ask you about this. Again, when does a crime become a hate crime? I mean, if these guys confessed, so I`m sure if you talked to them for -- and asked them what was said during the planning and the carrying out of this horrific crime, race would have probably come up in some way, shape or form.
FIELDS: Yes. It becomes a crime, again, in this case where a gentleman was killed. And he was killed just because of the type of person that he was, as a Hispanic person.
VELEZ MITCHELL: Yes, and I`m talking about this other case. And what I think it`s really interesting and why we should talk about hate crime psychology is that my philosophy is bigotry and hate has nothing to do with the color of your skin. It`s a human condition.
FIELDS: That`s right.
VELEZ MITCHELL: It can be exhibited by anybody. And we have to be vigilant, and we have to make sure that we realize it`s basically a toxic mentality. And we have to wipe it out, wherever we find it.
FIELDS: Absolutely. A baby is not born in hate. That behavior is learned. And for many of us, we are having to unlearn some of that behavior.
VELEZ MITCHELL: I agree with you 100 percent. We want to have both you ladies back to continue this discussion so we don`t have to keep covering these horrible cases. Thank you, both.
FIELDS: Thank you, Jane.
VELEZ MITCHELL: Thank you.
Protests over California`s newly approved gay marriage ban moving off the streets and into the courtrooms. Lawsuits have been filed by both the supporters and opponents. What are the chances that this ban sticks?
And the latest from a key figure in the Natalee Holloway case. Is Joran Van Der Sloot trying to pull Thai women into becoming prostitutes in the Netherlands? Details straight ahead.
VELEZ MITCHELL: Defense attorneys have until Friday to have an 8- year-old examined, hopefully, to determine what made him shoot his father and another man in cold blood. What will they discover? We will find out and tell you.
It`s been one week since Prop 8, the ban on gay marriage, passed in California, and furious opponents are not letting up. The fight over this measure now making its way from the streets to the courtrooms. Three, count them, three lawsuits have been filed in the hopes of reversing Tuesday`s decision.
Meantime, conservative backers of the ban vow to do everything in their power to defend it. So does Prop 8 have any chance of dying out legally, or is its place in California`s constitution unavoidable?
Joining me now, Matthew Staver, founder and chairman of the Liberty Counsel, an organization actively involved in upholding, or trying to uphold, this proposition. Evan Wolfson, executive director of Freedom to Marry, obviously in opposition to the new law.
Evan, one legal challenge based on the concept that this is a bogus amendment to the state constitution, that it should not be an amendment. It should be a revision. Please, in plain English, explain the difference.
EVAN WOLFSON, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, FREEDOM TO MARRY: Sure. California has two ways to changing its constitution. One is for, let`s just say, routine ways, and that`s the easy way. The other is for changes that are much more profound, much more grave, much more threatening. And that requires a much more stringent, more careful and more deliberative process.
The anti-equality forces behind Prop 8 chose to go the wrong way. And so what Governor Schwarzenegger has said and what the attorneys representing cities of San Francisco, Los Angeles and others, are saying this would be a terrible precedent to allow a simple majority to avoid the rules and pass an amendment to the constitution that`s there to protect all of us, instead they ought to follow the rules.
VELEZ MITCHELL: So Matthew from the Liberty Counsel, essentially what opponents of Prop 8 are saying is, "Hey, we`re going to go to court. We`re going to get this overturned by saying that it should have been billed as a revision, not an amendment. And a revision requires that you go to the state legislature and get a 2/3 approval in the legislature before handing it to the people.
MATTHEW STAVER, FOUNDER/CHAIRMAN, LIBERTY COUNSEL: Well, this is like a Hail Mary pass with no wide receivers down field. But we obviously have to take it seriously. But it really has no foundation, no legal merit.
A revision is where common sense would say you revise multiple sections of the constitution. In this case, it`s a sentence -- 14-word, single sentence. And it simply restores the status quo that it`s always been in California. And that is marriage of the union of one man and one woman. This is purely an amendment.
VELEZ MITCHELL: Matthew, are you married?
STAVER: I am married.
VELEZ MITCHELL: Do you like the idea of being married? Do you enjoy it?
STAVER: Sure, I do. But that`s not the point.
VELEZ MITCHELL: Why do you want to stop other people from getting married? What is your -- why do you care what other people do?
STAVER: Well, I think the people care, obviously.
VELEZ MITCHELL: No, why do you care? I`m asking you why you care?
STAVER: Why I care is because marriage is a fundamental foundation of the family. It`s obviously historically been through time and geography and political boundaries the union of one man and one woman.
Four judges a few months ago had a rule that was different. But it really was contrary to the history of California, the constitution. And the people set that right by amending their own constitution by a majority of people of California. And that needs to be respected.
VELEZ MITCHELL: There are other states that have allowed gay marriage, and the economy hasn`t collapsed -- actually, it`s collapsed. But because we`re in an economic mess. You can`t blame it on the gays, Evan.
WOLFSON: That`s right. And I think you really just put your finger on it. The fact of the matter is it`s because marriage is important. It`s a personal choice that matters to people who`ve made a commitment to one another in life that they should have an equal commitment under the law.
And what Prop 8 does is say that something that`s a fundamental right, a fundamental freedom, can be taken away by a simple majority from a small group of people who the court has said should not be denied. So it`s protection in that respect.
And if the freedom to marry is important to Mr. Staver, why should it be denied to other Americans who made a similar commitment in life and want to have that protection, that support and that love?
VELEZ MITCHELL: Let me ask you this, Matthew. Let me ask you this question. I mean, if they can pass this law saying that two people of the same sex can`t be married, what`s to stop, let`s see, an initiative that says blondes can`t marry redheads or people with bad teeth can`t marry people with perfect teeth? Where does it end?
STAVER: Well, that really is a different. That`s comparing apples to oranges.
VELEZ MITCHELL: Not really.
STAVER: What we have is the historic, fundamental common sense definition of marriage as the union of a man and a women. And it`s always been that. It`s only been a couple of months in California that it`s not been that way. And this is just restoring it to its status quo. We never have allowed anywhere in history all kinds of union of anyone`s choice under the rubric of marriage.
VELEZ MITCHELL: But history is about -- isn`t history about moving forward? I mean, we used to have slavery. Does that mean we should have slavery? We got rid of something that is awful.
WOLFSON: Not only that. It`s also -- Mr. Staver is wrong when he says marriage has always been one thing. The history of marriage is a history of change. In this country marriage used to be a union in which you were locked in for life, even if the relationship were failed or abusive. And we changed that. Marriage used to be a union that had to be of people of the right race. And somebody couldn`t marry...
STAVER: It`s always...
WOLFSON: Let me just finish.
VELEZ MITCHELL: All right, all right. Guess what, guys. Unfortunately we`re out of time. But we want to bring both of you back to continue this discussion because it`s not going anywhere. Not going anywhere.
Next up, could a key figure in the disappearance of Natalee Holloway have lured women into becoming prostitutes? We`ll tell you. We have shocking video.
VELEZ MITCHELL: In 1997, Michelle Moore Roscoe (ph) was brutally raped and murdered in Norfolk, Virginia. A group of Navy men now known as the Norfolk Four actually confessed to the crime.
But this week, in an astoundingly rare move, 30 retired FBI agents are demanding the convictions of these four Navy men be thrown out because the agents insist those guys are innocent. They say DNA has identified the real killer.
We`re so happy to have Tom Wells with us tonight. He is the co-author of the new book "The Wrong Guys: Murder, False Confessions and the Norfolk Four."
Tom, you know, I actually read about this in the paper, and it really made me sad, as it always does when I think of innocent people behind bars. How does -- how this happen? Apparently, they confessed, but then they decided no, you know, "My confession was coerced"?
TOM WELLS, CO-AUTHOR, "THE WRONG GUYS": Well, they were put in a small police interrogation room. And the police basically wouldn`t take no for an answer. They -- every time the guys would try to tell them that they were innocent, the police would say, "No, we know you did it. We have evidence you did it."
Some of them they told them they had DNA evidence proving their guilt. Some of told them, they told they had eye witnesses who saw them leaving the crime scene. Some of them, they told they had co-defendants, you know, later on who were going to testify against them in court. They had them all take lie-detector tests. They told them they failed the test. They told them that was evidence of their guilt. So they simply wouldn`t take no for an answer.
And at a certain point the guys in the interrogation room basically came to the conclusion that it was futile to keep maintaining their innocence if the cops weren`t going to let them go until they cooperated and confessed to them. And in some cases the police detective would suggest that they would be treated more leniently if they confessed and cooperated.
VELEZ MITCHELL: Wow. Jeez.
WELLS: In some cases the police detective suggested that they would face a more severe punishment if they didn`t confess.
VELEZ MITCHELL: You know, this is so -- this is such a sad, sad case in the sense that this happens quite often. I mean, it has happened throughout time where there is a coercion involved that extracts a false confession.
You know, this case is actually so controversial there`s even a documentary. It`s called "The Norfolk Four: Miscarriage of Justice." It`s been done about this case.
And despite all this evidence pointing to somebody else whose DNA actually matched evidence found at the scene and who also confessed, why is it, do you think, that the powers-to-be don`t want to let these guys out, if there`s a guy who said, "I did it," and his DNA matches up? And that guy happens to be in jail right now.
WELLS: Well, I think there`s two reasons. One is it`s quite possible that the -- some of the police officers involved, particularly the lead detective, and some of the main prosecutors involved really do believe that they`re all guilty. And that, for various reasons only one person`s DNA was left at the scene.
But there`s another factor here in that -- that is that they -- at one point they had eight innocent men or seven innocent men behind bars for this crime. They also had the actual killer behind bars. They`ve got three of these guys who falsely confessed to the crime who have double life sentences without the possibility of parole.
VELEZ MITCHELL: How long have they been in jail? Just a quick answer on that one.
WELLS: One of them has been in jail since July of `97. The second one since January of 1998.
VELEZ MITCHELL: We have to leave it there. And sorry to cut you off there. But thank you so much for writing that book. We`re going to stay on top of this case.
Joran Van Der Sloot, the prime suspect when Natalee Holloway disappeared. You won`t believe what he`s been caught on tape doing now, trying to lure women into prostitution? We`ve got the story next.
VELEZ-MITCHELL: The latest details in the case of an eight-year-old charged with the double murder shooting of his father and another adult. Investigators want to know if abuse may have been involved.
We will have that story for you in just a minute. But first, the name Joran Van Der Sloot is synonymous with the disappearance of Natalee Holloway. He was the prime suspect and last person to be seen with Holloway before her disappearance in Aruba in 2005.
Now he is in trouble again; this time for allegedly trying to lure Thai women to the Netherlands to become prostitutes. Listen to Van Der Sloot as he tries to trick these young women into the sex trade.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: One hour, two hour or --
JORAN VAN DER SLOOT, MURDER SUSPECT ON NATALEE HOLLOWAY CASE: No like ten hour a day? I don`t know, I don`t know. Let me show you something. From 5:00 in the afternoon to 5:00 in the morning.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: No.
VAN DER SLOOT: Isn`t that against the law? That`s not the whole time. You get a break. You talk to the guys. You know, make them feel good. Get them drinks.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
VELEZ-MITCHELL: What a slime. Peter de Vries is the Dutch crime reporter who set up the sting. And I`m so delighted that he joins me now by phone.
Peter, first of all, amazing work on your part; I honestly don`t know how you do it, but we want to find out. Is this enough first of all to get Thai police to go after this guy?
PETER DE VRIES, DUTCH INVESTIGATIVE CRIME REPORTER: What did you say, what was your question? I didn`t hear it well.
VELEZ-MITCHELL: Is this enough, what you did, what you accomplished to get Thai police to go after this guy and prosecute him?
DE VRIES: Yes. I am pretty confident that this is enough because we have a lot of proof. We recorded everything the last two months, what he was saying, what he was writing and there is no doubt that he was trying to sell young Thai women to the Netherlands to work as a prostitute under very poor circumstances.
They had to work 12 hours a day, six days a week and only get paid for $300 in a month.
VELEZ-MITCHELL: I understand though that he would get, according to the scheme, $10,000 for each woman he brought over?
DE VRIES: Yes. That`s what he asked, at least. And so if he managed to do this once or twice a week, he would be having a millionaire`s life there in Bangkok. And the point is this is, under the Thai law, human trafficking.
And to be more specific, this is a kind of sex slave trade and the Thai Embassy told me this weekend that they are going after him. That they are completely fed up with guys like him who are doing this to the Thai women. And that`s probably the reason that Joran disappeared because he`s afraid that they will take him into custody there.
VELEZ-MITCHELL: Well, apparently he went to this island, I don`t even know how to pronounce it, Ka Samui? Where is that?
DE VRIES: Yes, that`s a small island in Thailand. But it`s not sure that he is there. That was only a tip of a Dutch tourist who thought that he was on same plane.
VELEZ-MITCHELL: I want to jump in because we only have a little of time first of all, we`ve tried to contact Joran Van Der Sloot`s attorney Joe Tacopina, we would like to get both sides of the story. An open invitation to have him come on and tell the other side of the story if there is one, we`ve like to hear it.
I want to ask you Peter how you stumbled upon this story, in other words, Joran left the Netherlands and went to Bangkok and was doing this you heard about it, you brought a camera crew and then proceeded to have people befriend him and then catch him on tape. Is that how it works? Or did you come up with the idea of seeing if he would go for something like this?
DE VRIES: No. I didn`t come up with the idea, not at all. The point was that Joran contacted an old poker friend and asked him to find in Holland pimps or sex club owners whom he could sell Thai women. That`s the point. And the poker friend was in reality a certified security officer and he thought, well, he was shocked by the proposal of Joran and said, well, this is not my cup of tea.
And then he came up to me and said, well, these are the plans of Joran. Is there is anything you can do because this is illegal? And then we started the whole undercover operation. So it was not my idea, it was complete Joran`s own initiative.
VELEZ-MITCHELL: Wow. This is absolutely fascinating.
Tell me about these young girls. I mean, I heard them refer to the fact, "Well, I`ve got to go to school." Are they innocent young girls or are they already somehow involved in the sex trade and he`s just trying to shift their location?
DE VRIES: No. Some of them were innocent, some of them were not. Joran was pretending that he was the owner of a model agency. He produced false business cards and then he promised these girls a better life in Holland. Some of them didn`t know they had to work as a prostitute.
So he was lying all the time. And he says, well, I will arrange all the paper work, write false letters to the embassy and things like that. It was all premeditated.
VELEZ-MITCHELL: Peter, this is his M.O. He lies, he lies so much, that`s one of the reasons that he wasn`t prosecuted. Because when he finally confessed, thanks to your other story when you caught him on tape - -
DE VRIES: Yes.
VELEZ-MITCHELL: Saying I held Natalee in my arms as she died. That the courts in Aruba said he is such a liar, we don`t know to believe him when he confesses.
Now, stay right there. I want to bring in a Harold Copus, former FBI Special agent and Steve Cron my good buddy and Criminal defense attorney. Steve, is there enough evidence here to charge Van Der Sloot with a crime? And if so, let`s say he leaves Thailand, could they extradited him back to face charges?
STEVE CRON, CRIMINAL DEFENSE ATTORNEY: Yes. I think Jane, based upon the excellent reporting that`s been done in the investigation I think there is enough to prosecute him in Thailand. And I think what would happen is assuming that Thai police agencies want to go after him they could have a warrant issued and that would probably be something they could extradite him worldwide wherever they find him.
Harold Copus, former FBI Special Agent, could this be sort of the O.J. syndrome where he gets away with one crime, but then feels that he is invincible because people have said that Joran feels that he is invincible and nobody can get to him? And then he gets caught on another crime and ends up doing time in Thailand, of all places, which is no fun.
HAROLD COPUS, FORMER FBI SPECIAL AGENT: Well, you know, that is no fun. And it very well could be this may be the best thing that could happen is put him in that Thai prison and see how long he thinks that`s fun. And then maybe he`ll confess to what happened to Natalee.
VELEZ-MITCHELL: I have another clip of the sex sting caught on tape. This is a doozy. Take a listen to this one.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
VANDERSLOOT: Show them how beautiful you are. We have a club in Holland.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: They cannot leave.
VANDERSLOOT: I`m from Holland. They are from Holland also and I go to the Holland embassy already.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Yes.
VANDERSLOOT: And I look for them to give the paper they give to you right away. That`s not a problem.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
VELEZ-MITCHELL: Peter, once again, I just have to say amazing work; getting this caught on tape is absolutely astounding. Bravo. But let me ask you about his psychology. You really studied Joran Van Der Sloot for quite some time. He always seems to have this hostile and exploitive attitude toward women.
Is that the commonality in this case and the Natalee Holloway case? Even when he was describing what was happening to Natalee when she was dying he used the b-word. And now he is trying to lure these poor girls to become prostitutes of the Netherlands.
DE VRIES: Yes. I think you are right. There is a connection between the two cases. And this tape confirms the way -- this tape confirms the criminal mindset of Joran and the disrespect of woman. And what I`m always saying is Joran only knows one song and it`s called "I, Me and Myself."
He`s only thinking about himself. He wants to make easy money and he is not thinking about other people. And what amazes me is that when Natalee died in his arms, the only thing he could say is why did this happen to me?
VELEZ-MITCHELL: Oh, yes, absolutely narcissism. Harold Copus, could this impact the Holloway case? They declined -- the courts in Aruba to prosecute him even though Peter caught him on tape, essentially confessing or at least saying Natalee died in my arms and then talking about how he and a friend got rid of the body.
They decided they couldn`t charge him. Could they now change their minds given this?
COPUS: Well you know they could. And the other thing, quite frankly, Jane, is that once he gets onto that Thai prison, he may find that the better part of valor is to go on and confess what happened to Natalee and see if he can get extradited to the Netherlands. And certainly the Netherlands is a better prison system than anything you`ll find in Thailand.
VELEZ-MITCHELL: That is absolutely fascinating Steve Cron, that we would solve one of the most fascinating cases due to his own behavior, that he might actually decide, "I better come clean so at least I can get back to Holland."
CRON: Yes, Jane, but I have to disagree with my friend Harold. To confess to murder in order to get out of an unpleasant jail in Thailand, I`m not sure that I would expect clients that I`ve had to go that far.
Murder is, even without a death penalty, you are looking at a life sentence. I don`t know what the jails are like in Aruba, but doing life anywhere isn`t going to be pleasant. I`m not sure we can count on a confession quite yet.
VELEZ-MITCHELL: All right. Well, listen, gentlemen, I want to thank all of you. My special thanks to Peter, I know you won an award for the previous one. I hope you win an award again. This is truly astounding journalism.
Thank you and please come back because we are going to stay on top of this story.
And also don`t forget, Nancy Grace will have up-to-the-minute details on this case you don`t want to miss. She is coming up at 8:00.
Up next for us, an update in the case of the eight-year-old boy charged with the murder of his dad. How his behavior in court proves the state of Arizona could treat a juvenile like a juvenile.
VELEZ-MITCHELL: The eight-year-old Arizona boy accused of killing his father and another man appeared in juvenile court on Monday, just hours after 800 people attended a funeral mass for the boy`s father. The child wore handcuffs and ankle shackles; an eight-year-old boy. He sat by his birth mother and seemed oblivious to the courtroom discussion going on around him.
The judge and lawyers on both sides developed plans for at least three, count them, three psychological evaluations of this boy. He is being charged with two counts of premeditated murder. Let me reiterate. He is eight years old. He was never addressed during the proceedings and the judge never spoke to him.
Anahad O`Connor, the reporter for the "New York Times" following this case. We are very happy to have you here today. When do you expect these psychological evaluations to begin and what are their importance in this whole process?
ANAHAD O`CONNOR, "NEW YORK TIMES": Well, the evaluation could actually begin as soon as Friday. The judge has ordered that they begin as soon as Friday. That`s what we are looking at. That is the time frame we are looking at right now.
VELEZ-MITCHELL: This is an eight-year-old boy. He apparently essentially confessed to doing this. So are we looking at an actual trial or will a judge simply make a determination, either he is going to send this boy to a juvenile facility until he is 18 years old or he is going to have him in adult court, which means the child could go away for much longer.
Is that even possible? It seems incomprehensible to me when we are talking about an eight-year-old child.
O`CONNOR: Yes, absolutely. First of all, it looks like the child is going to be charged as a juvenile. If he is convicted and sentenced to the harshest punishment, he will probably be in juvenile detention until he is about 18 and released. And because of his age, he is going to need all sorts of counseling and services during that time.
VELEZ-MITCHELL: I want to try to understand the dynamics of this family. The father, who was shot by this eight-year-old boy had total custody of the child, but there is a birth mother, that birth mother was in court. Why was she not more a part of this child`s life? I believe she lived out of state, so what was going on there?
O`CONNOR: Will she actually lived in Mississippi. We are still trying to sort out the still-sketchy information on the family dynamics. What we know so far is that the parents got divorced about four years ago. The child really didn`t see the mother that much.
The father recently got remarried in September. So the child was living with the father and the stepmother in Arizona and there was also this other man in the house who was a co-worker of the father`s. I mean we are still sorting this all out.
I think it`s also really, you really have to step back and look at how extremely rare of a situation this is. I mean, every year in the United States, about 200 people are charged with murdering one or both parents. Those are almost always adults. This is about 2 percent of all homicides.
VELEZ-MITCHELL: I understand. It`s an absolutely rare, rare, rare occurrence. It hardly ever happens.
O`CONNOR: It`s almost unheard of.
VELEZ-MITCHELL: It is almost unheard of.
Thank you so much, Anahad, for giving us the insight into this case. Of course, we can say eight-year-olds are not cold-blooded killers normally. It seems that this child must have had some serious problems and there is no reason that he should have had access to or know how to use a .22 caliber rifle.
Jo Ann Pina is a psychologist specializing in child counseling and Virginia Klein is a psychotherapist.
Virginia, you believe apparently that there has to be child abuse somewhere along the line here. Why?
VIRGINIA KLEIN, PSYCHOTHERAPIST: Because children, they save up their anger and they can`t afford it to someone who abandons them or there`s a divorce when he is four years old. They save their anger and they wish with their imagination that they could fix the problem and they can`t.
VELEZ-MITCHELL: Sometimes they want to be with mommy and mommy wasn`t there.
KLEIN: And they don`t have the power; they`re powerless, but there`s one thing that`s very powerful - their imagination. So they imagine someone up in their mind and they think they can fix the situation; they can bring mommy back or they can stop the abuse.
VELEZ-MITCHELL: Well, he did bring mommy back. Ironically, Dr. Klein, mommy was sitting next to him in court. And it turned out that he may have very well wanted to be with his mother and this was his child-like way of saying, "Hey, I don`t want to be with daddy." And I`m not saying that`s for sure. But he could have been thinking, "I don`t want to be with daddy. I want to be with mommy. Let me get rid of daddy and mommy comes back." And that`s exactly what happened.
Jo Ann Pina, give us your analysis of this case.
JO ANN PINA, CHILD PSYCHOLOGIST: Two things can happen. One is that when a child is small and they use that imagination, it can be fueled by the television violence, by violent video games and also his behavior might be a cry to create -- precipitate a crisis that does bring the mom back into the picture.
But we really don`t know the dynamics; we don`t know the values in the family, although we do know that they valued hunting for survival and for food.
VELEZ-MITCHELL: Yes and not only that. They didn`t just value hunting; this child was actually trained to kill. This child was trained by his dad to shoot prairie dogs.
I know we have some video of a prairie dog we would like to show you because when you train a child to kill an animal and these animals do not die instantly, they writhe, they often go off injured and they die. You are essentially training that child to kill.
Remember the case of Cody Posey. He was beaten very badly and he turned to murder.
Take a listen to this testimony.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
CODY POSEY: I had remembered getting hit more than two or three times a week, sometimes two or three times a day. I`ve been hit so often that I believed it was a common thing. It was natural to be hit in the face.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
VELEZ-MITCHELL: Cody Posey -- wait a second. I`ll be right back. Cody Posey killed his father, his stepmother and stepsister; your analysis of that case and this case when we come right back.
VELEZ-MITCHELL: Back now with Virginia Klein and Jo Ann Pina. Dr. Jo, in the Cody Posey case and he gunned down three family members there was clear-cut abuse. We don`t know that that`s the case in this most recent incident with this eight-year-old boy gunning down his dad and his dad`s friend. What other possibilities are there?
PINA: There are several possibilities. One could be that it was surreal for him, much like it is in video games and on television that he was trying out the rifle. That he didn`t realize it would be forever after; that the death penalty is there.
The other thing and I think this will depend on skill of the psychologist is to determine the young boy`s developmental age. He is eight years old chronologically, but how old is he developmentally? Are there learning disabilities, are there other cognitive disabilities that may prevent him from fully realizing what he did.
VELEZ-MITCHELL: How can an eight-year-old, Dr. Klein, ever fully realize? I mean, they are children. They are given toy guns sometimes. In this case he was given a real gun and taught to kill prairie dogs. What is the psychological impact of that? Training the child to kill?
KLEIN: Well, I think it`s terrible, except you give them a weapon, but the problem is that he`s been raging for years because he lost his mother and for other things we don`t know about. And he hates himself for being little. He`s four years old and can`t get his mother back. He imagines he can. He hates himself. He`s angry at his dad.
VELEZ-MITCHELL: Well he`s eight years old.
KLEIN: Yes, but when they were divorced he was four years old.
VELEZ-MITCHELL: Ok, all right. So that`s what you`re talking about.
KLEIN: And four-year-olds imagine solutions. Hate themselves for not doing it and then get angry at dads they can`t afford to get angry at or mothers who leave them and they can`t afford to do that.
So where does the anger rage go? It goes pressed down like a volcano. It`s pushed down. Then it explodes. You give them a gun and he shoots his father and this other man.
VELEZ-MITCHELL: So essentially this was a recipe for disaster. We only have a few seconds.
PINA: Absolutely. I think, Jane, there also was indications of domestic violence. So there`s a model there that shows this child violence.
VELEZ-MITCHELL: I don`t know that there was, quite honestly. I don`t want to jump to conclusions. I hear you and more will be revealed. I thank you, both. Great analysis.
PINA: You`re welcome.
KLEIN: You`re very welcome.
VELEZ-MITCHELL: There are a lot of people talking on TV, but too few are saying anything that helps you make sense of the world. I`m trying to change that by keeping it simple and keeping it real.
I`m Jane Velez-Mitchell. I`ll see you tomorrow at 7:00 with more real "ISSUES."
Have a great night.