CNN CNN


 

Return to Transcripts main page

ISSUES WITH JANE VELEZ-MITCHELL

Behind the Haleigh Cummings Case

Aired December 27, 2010 - 19:00:00   ET

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


(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

JANE VELEZ-MITCHELL, HOST (voice-over): The Haleigh Cummings case straight from the mouths of those trapped in the vortex. What really went down the night Haleigh vanished, and what are the invisible, mysterious forces motivating Misty Croslin, Ron Cummings, and the other characters in this baffling case?

(END VIDEO CLIP)

VELEZ-MITCHELL: Tonight, more than a year and a half after little Haleigh Cummings disappears, cops say they are still searching for the truth. Frustration over the conflicting stories has sparked national outrage and caused despair to Haleigh`s family. While cops say this is now a homicide case, the missing child`s mother refuses to believe it.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

CRYSTAL SHEFFIELD, MOTHER: Do I believe my daughter`s dead? No. And until they show me something, I won`t. Deep in my heart, I know she`s out there. And nobody knows the pain that I go through. Nobody. And they never will.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

VELEZ-MITCHELL: Given the latest in a slew of shifting stories that Haleigh was attacked, snatched, and tossed in the river as 17-year-old Misty Croslin cowered under the seats, the missing girl`s grandmother says Misty should pay.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

TERESA NEVES, HALEIGH`S GRANDMOTHER: If it turns out to be the truth, I think they should hang her like an old-fashioned hanging in the square kind of thing.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

VELEZ-MITCHELL: Oh, boy. What really went down the night 5-year-old Haleigh vanished? Will we ever solve this baffling tragic mystery?

Straight out to my fantastic expert panel. We begin with Kim Picazio, and Kim, of course, the former attorney for the mother of the missing child.

Who do you predict, if anyone, will be charged ultimately in Haleigh`s disappearance?

KIM PICAZIO, FORMER ATTORNEY FOR CRYSTAL SHEFFIELD: If I were a betting woman, I would have to say that Tommy would be charged for an accessory after the fact, as well as Misty, and I believe that Joe Overstreet will probably be charged for the murder.

I just look at what has happened with the different plea deals. I also see that Ron Cummings, they`ve dropped two charges against him at this point. So that only tells me he`s already probably given a proffer to the state attorney. They already know what he`s going to say. So I think that this case is about to heat up, and we`re on the final stretch here.

VELEZ-MITCHELL: All right. Well, first of all, I have to say that the cops have interviewed cousin Joe Overstreet a number of times, and he is not considered a suspect or a person of interest in this case. Cousin Joe says -- there he is -- "I didn`t do it. They`re pointing the finger at me, trying to pin it on me, but I`m not to blame."

Tommy Croslin`s attorney, James Werter, is with us tonight. Well, you just heard Kim Picazio say that your client, Tommy, Misty`s brother, will ultimately be in some way implicated in this. What`s your response to that?

JAMES WERTER, ATTORNEY FOR TOMMY CROSLIN: Well, there`s no telling with the state attorney`s office, Jane, because they`ve done so many different things that don`t make sense to me.

Tommy has been cooperative. The version that I`ve gotten from Tommy and what I hear through Robert Fields about Misty`s role is that they are not accessories after the fact. They had no participation in this, not even in words. You have to have some sort of participation after the crime.

VELEZ-MITCHELL: Can I ask you this? There`s a picture of Misty down by the river. We know your client, her brother Tommy, was also pointing cops down by the river. Now, how would they know to tell cops to look down by the river if they weren`t in some way, shape, or form involved, at least to observe what was happening down by the river?

WERTER: Well, in speaking with Mr. Fields, Misty wasn`t -- didn`t take them to the river. As you know from prior interviews, it was Tommy who brought them down to the river on April 13. Misty was brought down there by law enforcement unsolicitedly, and actually, it was against Mr. Fields` wishes from what I understand. She just happened to be there.

Of course, from the helicopter, it looks like something totally different.

VELEZ-MITCHELL: Let`s just say this. Your client Tommy took cops down to the river. So how would he know to take them down to the river if he had no knowledge or was not involved in what happened?

WERTER: Oh, no, we`ve talked about this plenty of times. He was there that evening. Misty was there that evening. They both gave their stories. Contrary to the news stories that came out that Misty is saying now, it`s not a new story. She has told what happened since January, and Tommy, while they`re both in custody and away from each other, started telling them in April, when I came into the picture.

VELEZ-MITCHELL: Why would Tommy help Joe dispose of Haleigh`s body?

WERTER: No, Tommy...

VELEZ-MITCHELL: What is his motive to help him do that?

WERTER: No, Tommy did not help him dispose. Tommy was there, rode with Joe. Joe was a very threatening individual to this family, has been his whole life.

LEVI PAGE, CRIME BLOGGER/INTERNET RADIO HOST: Why didn`t he tell that to police in February of `09? Why didn`t he tell that to police?

VELEZ-MITCHELL: Somebody wants to say something. Come on. Who`s talking? Let me see the panel.

PAGE: I`m talking. Why did Tommy Croslin not tell that to the police in February when Joe Overstreet went back to Tennessee? I`m sorry, Werter, nobody`s buying that story.

WERTER: It`s actually Mr. Werter or Jim. But there`s a fear factor. And if you`re in their shoes, you can`t predict. You didn`t grow up in that atmosphere. You didn`t grow up with this person.

PICAZIO: But I can tell you that`s a problem.

VELEZ-MITCHELL: One at a time. Let me see the panel. Go ahead, Kim.

PICAZIO: The Croslins did tell law enforcement that they believe that Joe was responsible...

PAGE: That and a million other stories.

PICAZIO: ... and told them details. And that was -- they told me that in March of `09.

PAGE: Misty`s blamed it on a drug dealer. She`s blamed it on the mother`s side of the family. She`s blamed it on all these people in addition to Joe.

PICAZIO: Not Tommy.

VELEZ-MITCHELL: Well, let me say this...

ART HARRIS, INVESTIGATIVE JOURNALIST: First of all, you`ve got to realize...

VELEZ-MITCHELL: Go ahead.

HARRIS: ... that all of these people are drug users, drug addicts and drug dealers. And when you`re dealing with that type of individual, I think that speculating on who is afraid of who is very, very wild, because the bottom line is they`re all criminals. They all have been charged with various crimes. And I think that it would be shocking to think that one, two or three of them are not actively involved in what took place with Haleigh Cummings.

VELEZ-MITCHELL: But let me -- to your point, cops in perhaps a brilliant move managed to ensnare just about everybody even remotely involved in the Haleigh Cummings mystery. Police set up a covert drug trafficking sting and caught all of them on videotape. Check this out.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

MISTY CROSLIN, RON CUMMINGS` EX-WIFE: Fifty, 60, 70, 80, 90, 100 in there.

RONALD CUMMINGS, HALEIGH`S FATHER: A hundred in here. They`re all in -- they`re all in ten packs.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Right.

CROSLIN: Uh-oh.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: This (EXPLETIVE DELETED). Hey, do me a favor.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Get on the ground! Get on down! Get on down!

(END VIDEO CLIP)

VELEZ-MITCHELL: So Misty Croslin now staring down the barrel of 240 years in the slammer. Ron, who just made a plea deal, facing six -- 90 years.

And Tommy has already gotten his sentence of 15 years.

So Art Harris, this has got to be the ultimate squeeze play to try to get Misty and Ron to finally spill the whole story.

HARRIS: That`s right, Jane. And Jim Werter told me something interesting the other day. And that is he believes that the state attorney, in coming down hard on Tommy, threatening him with lethal injection, which some of the cops discussed with him while he was in jail before Werter drew the line in the sand -- he thinks that he may have shut off -- shut off the oil well of information. That these people are bubbling up with tidbits here and there, and more could be revealed if they weren`t facing the barrel of a gun, as it were.

VELEZ-MITCHELL: And I understand, speaking of guns, Art Harris, you have some new information about Misty and a gun?

HARRIS: That`s right. Misty had slept with a gun under her pillow that Ron gave her to protect herself from just such intruders, but it was not under the pillow that night. She told that to Flo Hollars. She told it to her attorney, who I interviewed.

And what happened to those guns? Ron took them out of the house. The guns are at the heart of their alibi. And that is that...

VELEZ-MITCHELL: OK. First of all, OK, go ahead. Finish.

HARRIS: The machine gun that he kept in the closet that he showed to Tommy and Joe a week earlier. They were drinking beer, and he really loved his guns. Had a gun fetish. A lot of his ex-wives say he would put a gun in his mouth and play Ronald roulette.

VELEZ-MITCHELL: Oh, God.

HARRIS: But here -- here he wanted that gun. Joe wanted to steal that gun, and it wasn`t there.

VELEZ-MITCHELL: OK, all right, I got it. Flo Hollars, did you know that Misty, your granddaughter, slept with a gun under her pillow?

FLO HOLLARS, MISTY`S GRANDMOTHER: Yes, ma`am.

VELEZ-MITCHELL: Tell me about that. Why?

HOLLARS: I really can`t say why. All I know is she said she had to sleep with a gun under her head every night in case anybody came in to shoot them.

PAGE: Why would somebody come in...

HARRIS: As you said, Flo, I believe you told me that she said she would have shot Joe that night if she had the gun, but she didn`t have it.

HOLLARS: Yes, she did.

VELEZ-MITCHELL: So Misty told you that she would have shot Joe that night?

HOLLARS: Yes, ma`am.

VELEZ-MITCHELL: Wow. OK. Once again, cousin Joe Overstreet not named a suspect. Police have questioned him. They haven`t arrested him. And he says he is totally innocent of any wrongdoing.

So many explosive details to talk about in the disappearance of Haleigh Cummings. We are just getting started, and we`re breaking this case wide open for you.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

NEVES: I don believe anything that Misty says. She`s told so many stories, and to just pick and choose which one you want to believe, I don`t think that`s right. I believe that whatever it is, it needs to be proven.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

RON CUMMINGS, FATHER OF HALEIGH: Hello.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: OK, sir. Let me talk to your wife. Let me get some information from her.

CUMMINGS: (UNINTELLIGIBLE)

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: OK. Can I talk to her? OK.

CUMMINGS: How the (EXPLETIVE DELETED) do you let my daughter get stolen (EXPLETIVE DELETED)?

(END VIDEO CLIP)

VELEZ-MITCHELL: Ron Cummings, livid, furious at his then-girlfriend Misty, screaming at her for losing his daughter. And that is one of the most perplexing aspects of this mystery. Why would anyone go on to marry a woman who lost his child?

That`s exactly what happened. This guy was distraught in the wake of little Haleigh`s disappearance on Misty`s watch. And he then went and married her. Married the teenage girl who was watching the child at the moment she vanished. So why? It`s a big question. Who knows?

Jackie, Indiana, your question or thought, ma`am.

CALLER: Hi, Jane. Thanks for taking my call.

VELEZ-MITCHELL: Thanks for calling.

CALLER: I don`t know if it`s relevant or not, but what is with the bandage that was on Ron`s neck in the beginning of all this?

VELEZ-MITCHELL: Interesting point. Art Harris? We have some video of him with that...

HARRIS: I can tell you that -- that the other injury -- I don`t know about his neck. But I know his knuckles were bloodied and bruised, and that was from punching the wall at his trailer; he was so angry. That has been confirmed by law enforcement. The neck, I don`t know, but you know, he`s -- he`s got a lot of scrapes and bruises.

VELEZ-MITCHELL: But what -- I don`t -- I still don`t get what exactly he can tell prosecutors that`s going to convict anybody if he theoretically didn`t know what was going on and was so shocked that his daughter was kidnapped that he was pounding the wall and screaming. I don`t get that.

Kim Picazio, you want to shed some light on that?

PICAZIO: The only thing I could figure would be if he heard information from Misty or from Tommy, someone in the family after the fact.

Also, law enforcement has forensic evidence...

JEFF BROWN, CRIMINAL DEFENSE ATTORNEY: Statement against interests.

PICAZIO: ... from the trailer or from the crime scene, witnesses in the community that, if people who were working on the case and were inside in the case working for one of the parents. We did come to know some of those things. Ron has to have known about those things, and Ron was not telling the entire truth when he said that he was at work the whole time and things of that nature.

So there`s a lot of things that Ron will say...

VELEZ-MITCHELL: Wait, wait, wait. You`re saying he did leave work that night before he came home, that there`s some mystery story we don`t know about?

PICAZIO: Well, there are some reports that have been substantiated or not by law enforcement about the time that he did get to work and prior nights where he had left work.

And we also had confirm -- confirmation from a security guard at his employer`s that on two occasions Ron had the children, Haleigh and her little brother, Junior, sleeping in the car while he was at work and came to check out on them. That might go to the phone calls that he was trying to get in touch with Misty, because that would happen when Misty would leave the trailer.

Misty had left the trailer before on many evenings. We had eyewitness accounts by the neighbors that we had personally spoken to.

So all of these things -- and you take what -- that Ron -- now, the fact is that the prosecutor has dropped two of those drug charges. They would not have done that unless he already had told them, probably a sworn proffer, with use immunity given to him prior to them dropping.

VELEZ-MITCHELL: All right. Jeff Brown, criminal defense attorney.

PICAZIO: They`re not going to believe Ron that he`s going to keep his word.

BROWN: Let me just -- let me just say a couple of things. One, Jane. Any time a defendant in a trial has said something, that statement, if it`s against their interests, can be used against them. So they may use Ron because somebody that`s going to be eventually charged has told them things.

But the fact that someone has gotten a couple charges dropped in a plea deal does not necessarily mean that. They do it all the time. He`s still looking, I think, at two -- three 25-year minimum mandatory, so it`s a big -- a big burden over on top of him.

But let me just ask this question to Jim, the lawyer, regarding his client, Tommy. I`m a little confused as to what Tommy`s position is. Is he saying that he actually went there with Joe? And if so, why is Tommy saying Joe would have snatched Haleigh? What`s the reason for doing that? And what did Tommy do to prevent that?

WERTER: No, Tommy was of a different state of mind, let`s say, that night. Joe...

VELEZ-MITCHELL: What does that mean? High?

PAGE: High on Xanax.

WERTER: Wait a minute. You asked me a question.

VELEZ-MITCHELL: Does that mean high?

WERTER: I`ll leave it at that.

VELEZ-MITCHELL: OK.

WERTER: But let me go through with this. OK. Tommy`s representation is that Joe came and picked up Tommy from his house to go over to -- you know, my understanding was to borrow this gun to go shoot deer at night, which they do out there. You know, that`s not an odd thing.

The gun wasn`t there. Tommy was sitting on the couch. Tommy, yes, was high, which could account to some of the variances in viewpoints between Misty and Tommy`s story, because of the perception of things between witnesses of different state of minds.

Joe went off the deep end, went into that back room. Tommy didn`t see exactly what happened. Joe comes out with Haleigh, goes into the car, tells Tommy to get in the car. Joe has a very violent temper from what Tommy tells me, and this is what he grew up with. To the -- and rid (ph) - - he didn`t in any shape, way or form help Joe in any aspect of this incident. That`s Tommy`s position that he gave to me.

(CROSSTALK)

VELEZ-MITCHELL: What about the bag? What about the black bag?

WERTER: That`s what he gave to FDLE in Putnam County.

VELEZ-MITCHELL: But what about the black bag? You know, there were reports that, according to this story, Joe put Haleigh in a black bag.

WERTER: That came from Misty, and we`re not sure -- we`re not sure where that came from, if there was a black bag. Maybe there was a black blanket or something. I don`t know.

VELEZ-MITCHELL: What happened to the child? Was the child dead or alive? Wasn`t the child -- what happened to the child?

HARRIS: Jane, I can tell you what Tommy told his private investigator who works with Jim. He says that he [SIC] was strangled inside the trailer by Joe and there and there -- he has reason to believe that that happened.

And there`s time that you can -- if you listened, compare Misty`s story from when she said she heard screams and then suddenly the screams stopped. She heard the car -- the house door slam and then the car door slam. She recognized that van because she had ridden in it.

BROWN: So Joe doesn`t get the gun that he wants and then he turns around -- Joe doesn`t get the gun that he wants, and he turns around...

VELEZ-MITCHELL: Please, I`ve got to see the panel. I`ve got to see somebody. I don`t know who is talking. Who wants to talk?

BROWN: I am. I am, Jeff.

VELEZ-MITCHELL: OK, Jeff, go ahead.

BROWN: My understanding, then, is Tommy says Joe is upset that he doesn`t get this gun to hunt deer, so he goes in and snatches Haleigh and kills her?

WERTER: My understanding is that there was bad blood between the two of them to start. Not, of course, against Haleigh but between Joe and Ronald Sr. OK?

Joe has a history with this family of being a very violent person. If you looked at his MySpace page, it has him there with guns holding up, aiming at the camera. I don`t know if that MySpace page is still there, but I`ve seen it myself.

The guy prides himself on being a tough guy. This was covered before. The thing is...

VELEZ-MITCHELL: He looks like a 90-pound weakling.

WERTER: ... the strangulation.

VELEZ-MITCHELL: I don`t see him as being the intimidating person that you`re saying he is. But you`re saying...

WERTER: We look at him from the outside.

VELEZ-MITCHELL: You`re claiming that he strangled the little girl, because he couldn`t get a machine gun to go deer hunting?

WERTER: He went into a rage, OK. Whatever the reason was -- the gun, the hatred, whatever. You go into a rage, you`re not really focused on what you`re doing. You just do it. You can go to your psychiatrist with that.

But the thing is the strangling part is a speculation, because Tommy didn`t actually see what transpired in that bedroom.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

HOLLARS: I believe the one that Misty told me, that they tied her up in a rope and dropped her in the river. I just don`t know whether they raped her or not, but I sort of believe that they did. I just hope and pray that the child was already dead before she hit that water.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

VELEZ-MITCHELL: We are breaking through here on ISSUES with a panel of Haleigh experts. We are coming up with perhaps the most detailed scenario to date of what might have happened to little Haleigh from the attorney for Misty`s brother Tommy, James Werter, who is here with us tonight.

And the way I left it is when the little girl was taken out of the house, according to this scenario, was she already dead?

WERTER: Well, Jane, what I can say is that Tommy said she wasn`t moving. She seemed to be lifeless. He didn`t have any firsthand knowledge as to whether she was actually dead or not. She was in the back seat. She was quiet, again unmoving. To give you a clinical answer, I can`t do that.

VELEZ-MITCHELL: Well, what happened then?

HARRIS: Jane, I can tell you what happened.

VELEZ-MITCHELL: OK, Art, go ahead.

HARRIS: Well, according to -- you know, speaking to Jim, his investigators and others who have spoken to Tommy, they rode down to the St. John`s River. Tommy says he`s high. He`s high on Xanax. He doesn`t actually get out of the van. He claims he sits there with his head in his hands while Joe takes the body down to the dock. Claims he doesn`t see the body go in, but Joe took the body and threw Haleigh in the river.

And we believe from what Grandma Flo says, tied her down with a cinderblock and yellow rope. Yellow rope that I`ve reported on ArtHarris.com, similar rope was found at his house. Investigators went over there. His soon-to-be ex-wife, Lindsay Croslin, let them in. And they found yellow rope that was similar to the rope that Flo described them using.

VELEZ-MITCHELL: All right. Now, I have to stress again that cousin Joe Overstreet says he is not involved, that he is a scapegoat, that Misty and Tommy are pointing the finger at him to cover their own butts, and he has not been named a suspect.

Levi Page, we have just heard a pretty compelling scenario from beginning to end of what Tommy and, apparently, Misty believe happened that night. Do you buy it?

PAGE: Well, I don`t think it`s compelling at all. If anything, I think it`s just more B.S. from the Croslin clan.

And, you know, what`s interesting here is that Joe Overstreet had gotten into a fight with Ronald Cummings, Haleigh`s father, over a gun, and yet he doesn`t get into a fight with Joe over his own daughter, Haleigh. That`s what`s telling to me.

VELEZ-MITCHELL: Well, you know -- and I`ve got to go back to the Ron and Misty relationship mystery. There`s been talk of a drug-fueled sex binge that Misty had with a mystery man named Greg. Greg has claimed that the Ron-Misty romance was no Romeo and Juliet story.

So here`s what I`m wondering, Grandma Flo. If you want to talk about people having something to be angry about, wouldn`t Ron be angry if, in fact, Misty had gone on a three-day drug binge and was having sex with somebody else? Flo.

HOLLARS: Yes. From what Misty told me, they had argued all night long that night because of it.

HARRIS: That`s right. And I had dinner, actually, with Ron, Jane, at a little restaurant called Mee-maw`s (ph) down there and asked him the same thing. Why would you -- how could you be with a woman in that circumstance?

VELEZ-MITCHELL: Quick answer. Five seconds.

HARRIS: He said, "You keep your friends close and your enemies closer."

VELEZ-MITCHELL: Wow! Well, that -- that does it. You`re watching ISSUES on HLN.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

VELEZ-MITCHELL: Hollywood`s still in shock tonight. Montana Fishburne, daughter of Oscar-nominated actor Laurence Fishburne is proudly going into porn and wants everyone to see her movie. We`ve got some clips from her movie.

Montana says this is her way for her to explore her sexuality and she wants her parents` support. Dad is reportedly devastated and has not yet spoken to his daughter. But we are talking to her tonight right here on ISSUES.

My very special guest tonight -- Montana Fishburne. Montana, thanks for joining us.

MONTANA FISHBURNE, ASPIRING ACTRESS: Thank you. I`m so happy to be here.

VELEZ-MITCHELL: I have to start out by asking you what do you mean when you say you want to explore your sexuality through porn?

FISHBURNE: Well, I mean I have a lot of different fantasies and things that I want to experience. And porn, I`m interested in sex and the porn world and all the different things that it has to offer. I mean, I can explore bondage, girl on girl, different guys, everything. And get paid for it and have fun. I mean, that`s what I mean.

VELEZ-MITCHELL: Well, let me ask you this. If you wanted to explore your sexuality, why not just meet somebody you care about and explore your sexuality with that person without a camera on?

FISHBURNE: I mean I do, do that. I have a boyfriend, we have lots of fun and explore, but I like to do it on camera. And for me, I mean I want to be in entertainment. So this -- this is the first step of my entertainment career.

VELEZ-MITCHELL: Well, I`ve got to ask you -- I think this is what -- I was thinking about this. Because I`m not a prude, I don`t mind nudity, I`m not afraid of sex if it`s part of art. But I think what maybe upsets people is the word "porn".

"Porn" has been described -- I looked it up in the dictionary -- graphic sex whose primary purpose is to cause sexual arousal much as obscenity is described as utterly without redeeming social importance.

If you want to be an actress, why not be an actress and say well, I`ll do sex scenes when it really fits into the story line and -- and it`s art?

FISHBURNE: I mean I look at pornography as art. I see beautiful people, you know, touching each other in sensual ways, you know, doing erotic things to each other. And that -- for me, that is art; I think porn, film, and you know, music, it`s all art. It`s just porn is more graphic.

VELEZ-MITCHELL: Well, ok. One person who has turned sex into moneymaker is reality star Kim Kardashian. And Montana, you`ve mentioned Kim as sort of a role model to you. You said quote, "I`ve watched how successful Kim Kardashian became and I think a lot of it was due to the release of her sex tape." Kim had a sex tape with an old boyfriend. Now she`s got a big reality show, perfume deals and other endorsements.

I mean is this how you see your career going? You`re going to do a porn and then you`re going to get in to something that`s much more lucrative?

FISHBURNE: I mean -- that is always -- I mean, that`s hopefully -- but I want to do porn, but it`s just one step in a long career, hopefully. I mean, look -- Kim, she`s beautiful -- she has the world at her feet and I hope to too.

VELEZ-MITCHELL: Well --

FISHBURNE: So I hope it`s just one step.

VELEZ-MITCHELL: I think people are saying, hey, you know, what about your dad? Your dad is reportedly devastated by this decision to go into porn although he hasn`t released any kind of official statement.

Some critics are saying, hey, no dad deserves the Montana Fishburne treatment. You`re dad has worked his whole life to be a serious respected actor, he was nominated for an Oscar, he`s been in the "Matrix." We`ve got a clip from the "Matrix".

Do you realize by doing a porn and using your last name on the cover - - in other words the title of your porn is "Montana Fishburne", that it really does reflect on your dad?

FISHBURNE: I mean I understand that it reflects on my dad, but at the same time, it`s my name also. And we are two separate people. And I think because he`s had such a long, successful career and he is so respected, my actions should have nothing to do with him.

This has nothing to do with him. This is my own, you know, goal and aspiration. So --

VELEZ-MITCHELL: Have you heard from your dad about this?

FISHBURNE: No.

VELEZ-MITCHELL: What would you say to your dad right now if you could say one thing to your dad about this decision to go into porn?

FISHBURNE: That I love him and I didn`t do it to hurt him.

VELEZ-MITCHELL: You know it`s going to hurt him, though? You know that?

FISHBURNE: I mean I understand that, yes.

VELEZ-MITCHELL: Well, well, how do you feel about the fact you`re going to hurt your dad?

FISHBURNE: I feel bad about it, but like I said, I`m not going to let hurting his feelings stop me from living my dream.

VELEZ-MITCHELL: Now, I`ve got to say this, I`m a recovering alcoholic, ok so I`m not pointing the finger. It`s a difficult question. But I want to give you the opportunity because people have been talking about this. It`s my big issue.

Montana, is there any way that you might be a sex addict, perhaps? Because I know you certainly obviously don`t need money. You`re the daughter of a very, very well-off man. But reports are you were arrested last year for alleged prostitution. What`s going on there?

FISHBURNE: That was a mix-up. I wasn`t arrested for prostitution. And I mean -- I don`t think I`m a sex addict at all. I have a healthy sex life, but I`m not like out trying to screw everything I see or you know -- anything like -- I`m pretty conservative when it comes down to my personal life.

VELEZ-MITCHELL: I don`t understand this. You`re a beautiful young woman. You have a famous father. Now we all know that Hollywood`s one of the nepotistic places on earth. You could easily get in to see anybody -- casting agents, get the best agents. Why not go that route?

FISHBURNE: I`ve thought about it. But my passion is with this porn. I mean, this is really the first step I wanted to do. I`m interested in the sex world. If it wasn`t porn, it would have been "Playboy". I mean --

VELEZ-MITCHELL: Why do you think you`re so interested in porn? I mean, porn is when you are going to actually have sex with somebody on camera as opposed to pretending to have sex. You actually did have sex with an individual on camera. Who was that individual? And did you care for that person?

I mean -- shouldn`t sex be connected to caring for somebody? That`s the way I`ve always felt about it.

FISHBURNE: I mean -- I think it should be sometimes. I mean -- when I have sex in my personal life it`s with someone that I care about. But for porn, I think, it doesn`t need to be. It`s about having fun and exploring and it`s a job.

So, I mean, I don`t think sex has to be with somebody you love. There are people who have one night stands every night. But I`m not saying that`s me.

VELEZ-MITCHELL: Do you get to decide what kind of sex that you want on this porn? Because look, we all know that porn can be very degrading to women and there are probably a lot of feminists who are saying, what is she thinking? I mean, as a woman you`re put in situations where you`re sexually degraded by a man.

FISHBURNE: In this film I don`t feel degraded at all. I felt I had a say throughout the whole thing so it felt good. It felt empowering. It felt liberating. It was fun. It was nothing to make me feel dirty, ashamed or negative or degraded in any way.

VELEZ-MITCHELL: Would there be something you`d say, no, I won`t do that if they asked you to do something that was degrading and I`m sure everybody`s imaginations can run wild. We don`t have to say. Would you say, "No, I won`t do that?"

FISHBURNE: Yes, of course. If there is something that I don`t feel comfortable with I won`t do it and that`s it.

VELEZ-MITCHELL: All right.

Well, fascinating -- fascinating discussion; Montana, thank you for having the courage to come in and talk about this. Again, very controversial but if you wanted attention, you`ve got it.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

VELEZ-MITCHELL: An astounding story: saved by her toes; a woman tied up, robbed and beaten during a violent home invasion. But she manages to turn the tables by typing with her feet.

Amy has come out of the shadows tonight to share her story here on ISSUES. I`m so thrilled to welcome her and her fast-thinking boyfriend, John.

Amy, first of all, I think everybody here at the studio -- bravo. I mean this is fighting back on the war on women.

How did you keep your wits about you during this nightmare? Tell us that whole scene when after he leaves, you begin to try to use your toes?

AMY WINDOM, ATTACKED IN HOME INVASION: Ok. Well, there`s certainly a lot of prayer involved. And in terms of what I went through before I started to use my toes, he left around 1:00 in the morning, about quarter to 1:00.

And it didn`t actually occur to me initially that -- to use the laptop. I knew he had left it. And we had talked about -- I had recommended against him taking it. Told him there was a tracker device on the laptop; that he probably shouldn`t take it or he would probably be caught. So that`s why he left the laptop.

It didn`t occur to me to use the laptop initially. But I sat there for about, I guess, three and a half hours just yelling; hoping someone on the street walking by would hear me and also trying to struggle free, obviously, of the restraints around my wrists. And just found that they were digging more and more into my skin. And I wasn`t able to struggle free of those.

So the reason I initially thought of my feet was that I was waiting for -- I was trying to listen for people walking by outside the house so I would know the right time to scream because I was starting to get hoarse from yelling. I knew my alarm clock was going to come on eventually, so I wanted to use my feet to turn off my alarm clock so that it wouldn`t be blaring and prevent me from hearing people outside my house who might be able to come and help.

So I initially flipped my feet over and turned my alarm clock off. And thought well, that -- you know, that wasn`t that hard. Maybe -- and then it sort of connected the dots and I thought, wait, there`s my laptop. Let me see if I can do something with that.

And so I dragged the laptop over and propped it up on my comforter to get it at the right angle and was able to open the laptop pretty easily. The control --

VELEZ-MITCHELL: With your toes?

WINDOM: Yes. Well, it`s just a simple, you know, bending it up with the toes. The hard part honestly was control-alt-delete.

VELEZ-MITCHELL: How did you do that with your toes?

WINDOM: I studied the keyboard and tried to figure it out that control and alt keys are next to each other. So I knew with one toe I could get those. The problem was the other toe is too big to hit a single key. I tried it a couple of times and just couldn`t get it to work.

And then I noticed that the power cord was also there. So I used my other foot to pick up the power cord and got the skinny end of the power cord between my toes. So I clamped down on that and used my foot to raise and lower the power cord.

VELEZ-MITCHELL: In tonight`s "Spotlight", our nation`s out-of-control obesity crisis. Have you seen the junk they`re serving up in school cafeterias across the country? No coincidence that more than 15 percent of American kids are now obese. In some states the childhood obesity rate is above 30 percent. That is madness.

Now, the amazing Dominique Dawes is tackling this issue head-on. The gold medal gymnast is helping kids slim down and get fit. She told me today one of the biggest obstacles is access to fruits and vegetables.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

DOMINIQUE DAWES, THREE-TIME OLYMPIC GOLD MEDALIST: A lot of people live in deserts, food deserts where they really don`t have access to fresh fruits, they don`t have access to food markets, they don`t have access to these healthy food options. And we need to make sure we bring those food options to them.

I know that there`s -- there`s so many different farmers` markets going on. And we need that brought to the inner cities. We need more farmers` markets to those people that do live in food deserts. And we need to make healthy food more affordable.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

VELEZ-MITCHELL: We sure do. Ironically the U.S. government is the problem in many ways, through its massive payments to giant agribusiness. The U.S. government basically subsidizes the very junk food and fast food that is making kids fat.

I`m thrilled we`re all finally waking up to the obesity crisis, but it`s also time for the government to stop talking out of both sides of its mouth.

All right, switching gears, ex-"Survivor" producer and accused murderer Bruce Beresford-Redman fights his murder charge in Mexico and bitterly battles over his dead wife`s will while he`s sauntering around Los Angeles. Bruce is the prime suspect in the violent strangulation death of his wife Monica. But Bruce still wants her estate.

(AUDIO GAP) a Los Angeles judge to appoint an expert to prove the signature on Monica`s will is real. Her family says her signature is forged. The will names Bruce as the executor, and gives his parents a cut of a property that Monica owned.

Monica and Bruce were on a lavish vacation in Mexico trying to save their troubled marriage. Monica allegedly accused Bruce of cheating on her. She never made it home. Her nude, battered body found stuffed in a sewer outside the couple`s swanky Moon Palace Resort.

Now, the Hollywood power couple -- the former nanny and cook could be dragged into this mess. They might need to testify over when and where Monica drafted her will. Plus, Bruce is raking in cash, selling the couple`s vacation home. Is he liquidating their joint assets to pay for his own defense?

Bruce is innocent until proven guilty, but he is wanted for murder. Why hasn`t he been arrested? This is madness. Monica was killed about five long months ago.

Straight out to my fantastic expert panel and we`ve got some breaking news coming from RadarOnline tonight. Bruce apparently has hired an attorney to fight the murder accusations. He`s in Los Angeles. The attorney`s in Mexico doing the fighting.

Dylan Howard, senior executive editor of RadarOnline, what is the very latest?

DYLAN HOWARD, SENIOR EXECUTIVE EDITOR, RADARONLINE.COM: Well Jane, for the very first time we`re hearing from Bruce`s criminal defense attorney in Mexico and he`s giving us an insight into how Bruce is going to defend these charges.

What they`re doing is they are bringing three experts into the fray and those experts have looked at all the evidence presented to the court so far, and they`ve determined that there was no probable cause, of course, in their minds to charge Bruce with a crime.

Now, this is interesting, because under the Mexican judicial system, someone is considered guilty until proven innocent. They`re going to leverage what they believe is to be the new evidence and they will put that to the judge in the hope of defending Bruce successfully in this case.

VELEZ-MITCHELL: Ok, Bruce, through his attorney, is claiming there`s no probable cause to arrest him? Bruce, told police his wife went shopping in the morning and never returned. However, multiple witnesses saw the couple -- which we`re going to show you here in a clip from happier times, and this is from RadarOnline -- many people saw them fighting later that night.

And how about this? Bruce`s key card was swiped almost a dozen times late that night, the night she vanished. And he allegedly had scratches and defensive wounds on his body.

So Debra Opri, this Mexican attorney is now arguing there is no probable cause, while he remains in Los Angeles sauntering around town, trying to get a hold of his wife`s estate? This is crazy.

DEBRA OPRI, CRIMINAL DEFENSE ATTORNEY: My answer -- my answer -- probable cause. You know, you can indict a ham sandwich. Do you remember that line, Jane?

VELEZ-MITCHELL: Well, I prefer to say a -- a veggie night sandwich.

OPRI: Well, I agree. There is -- and there is probable cause when you have a body, you have him and her at the same resort, you have the key cards, you have the marks on the face, you have independent witnesses that say there was an argument. There was enough probable cause.

However, he`s got attorneys right now who may in fact fight extradition successfully. And the longer they delay, the better it`s going to be for him unfortunately.

VELEZ-MITCHELL: This is crazy. It`s my big issue tonight: is Bruce Beresford-Redman getting away with murder? Take a look at this.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: How is it going there, Bruce?

REDMAN: No comment.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Have you spoken to the Mexican authorities?

REDMAN: I`m not going to make a comment for you at all today.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Are you expecting the extradition to go through soon?

Monica`s sisters were kind of yelling at you in there. And how did that make you feel?

REDMAN: I`m sorry. I have no comment about that.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: What would you say to them challenging the will?

(END VIDEO CLIP)

VELEZ-MITCHELL: This man is walking around the streets of L.A., he`s playing with his kids, he`s getting his hair cut --

MIKE BROOKS, HLN LAW ENFORCEMENT ANALYST: You know Jane --

VELEZ-MITCHELL: -- and he`s accused of murder and I`ve got to say this, Mike Brooks, the victim`s family says they repeatedly called the U.S. State Department as well as the Justice Department and the U.S. officials say they`ve got no extradition paper work from the Mexican government.

BROOKS: Well, well, you need the paperwork before you can even start the proceedings with the Department of State and law enforcement here in the United States, Jane. So, if they don`t have any extradition paper, are the Mexicans really telling exactly what they have? Who knows?

VELEZ-MITCHELL: well, Dylan Howard, what`s the hold-up? Why is this guy not back in Mexico facing a murder charge after several months?

HOWARD: Well, Jane, there are more questions than they are answers so far in this case. And the big question is why it took so long for them even to indicate that they were going to get an extradition?

At this stage, the onus is on the Mexican authorities, and they`ve been accused of lapsing in judgment and lapsing in their efforts to try and get him to justice. The long arm of the law doesn`t look like it`s going to catch up with him anytime soon.

VELEZ-MITCHELL: All right. On the other side of the break, some stunning comparisons; what`s going on here?

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

VELEZ-MITCHELL: We`ve been getting some fabulous responses about how you`re working to save the environment.

Today we got a great e-mail from Melina. She says, "My family is going green because of our 6-year-old daughter. She learned all about the environment and keeping it healthy in kindergarten. We recycle everything we possibly can. And we planted an organic garden in the backyard."

Melina -- way to go for getting rid of these plastic bottles. Thank you for doing your part. Your ISSUES, eco-canister is now in the mail.

Do you have a green improvement? Send them to me at cnn.com/jane. Let`s all be part of the solution. Let`s all go green.

All right. We`re talking Bruce Beresford-Redman, the ex-"Survivor" producer accused of murdering his wife in cold blood during a Mexican vacation. He`s still a free man.

Take a look at him here. Pushing his kid on a swing; he gets to live a normal life and see his kids, even though he`s wanted for murder in Mexico.

And tonight, he`s also at the center of a bitter battle over his wife`s will. Ok, there`s two wills and one favors him, and he says that`s the real one. But the victim`s family says there`s another will.

Dylan, tell us a little bit about that.

HOWARD: Well, Jane, at the center of this dispute is a disputed will from 2008 in which it was notarized and witnessed by the couple`s former nanny. Now, this nanny is the same woman who Bruce Beresford-Redman sacked because she didn`t support his innocence when he fled back to the United States. Now that nanny says that the disputed signature she never made on the specific will. She made that signature on another document.

Now of course the surviving sisters of Monica Beresford-Redman say that a 2004 will should stand; now this is before a Los Angeles judge at the moment. And of course forensic experts are being brought in to challenge and determine the authenticity of the will.

VELEZ-MITCHELL: Stacy, Maryland, your question or thought, ma`am?

STACY, MARYLAND (via telephone): Thanks for having me on. I love your show. But my comment is kind of two parts. First, you know, it`s absolutely ridiculous that this guy is able to walk around and even have his kids with him when he`s a suspect in the murder case for his wife. And anybody else, you or I, would be locked up and the key would be thrown away.

You know, the other thing is, as far as --

VELEZ-MITCHELL: Can I just address that because that`s a really good point, Stacy.

Debra Opri, you`re the family law attorney. How the heck is he able to stay with the kids when he`s a suspect in the murder of the mother of the kids?

OPRI: There are no pending proceedings in a court in California or in the United States. He is a free man who has not been charged in the United States. He may have been charged in Mexico. They have not filed for any extradition. He is a free man until he`s taken into custody under Mexican law.

And unfortunately, my friend, that is the reality. Unless the sisters go in with Child Family Services and ask for a special proceeding for custody, that`s the way it`s going to be.

BROOKS: And Jane, when it comes down to the wills that we`re talking about, it`s going to be a battle of the documents -- forensic document experts. You know, you`re going to get signature, you`re going to get handwriting experts in there. They`re going to say, oh, yes, this person says one thing. The other expert says something else.

It`s not an exact science. That`s the one problem with it.

VELEZ-MITCHELL: Well, what kills me is that he is essentially in the sanctuary of Los Angeles fighting a very crafty legal battle with a Mexican lawyer, and he`s in a safe zone, L.A.

OPRI: Yes.

VELEZ-MITCHELL: Once again, I have to end every show. Forget about it, Jake. It`s Hollywood.

Thank you, fantastic panel.

END