Return to Transcripts main page


Casey Caught in a Lie?; Patient Standing by Doctor Accused of Killing Michael Jackson

Aired April 19, 2011 - 19:00:00   ET



JANE VELEZ-MITCHELL, HOST (voice-over): Tonight, a horrific attack in the war on woman. A Florida mother of two goes to court for her final divorce hearing and, right in front of the judge, cops say her husband viciously attacks and beats her. In a shocking twist, the woman says she tried to get a restraining order before but was denied. Now everyone`s asking, if women aren`t safe inside of a court of law, are they safe anywhere?

And Hollywood is bracing for the manslaughter trial of Michael Jackson`s infamous personal doctor, Conrad Murray. But Murray has his defenders. Tonight in an ISSUES exclusive, I`ll talk live with one of the doc`s former patients, and you won`t believe what this patient has to say.

Also, an Internet dating horror story. A woman is suing a popular online dating site. She claims she was brutally sexually assaulted by a man she met on that dating site. Now cops say this man has a previous sexual assault record. We`ll talk live to the woman who says she was attacked in a primetime exclusive.

Plus, Charlie Sheen torpedoes into court today. He`s waging war on his ex-wife and mother of his twin boys, Brooke Mueller. Charlie charges Brooke went back on drugs and that he should be the full-time dad. Charlie warns, "Don`t pick a bleeping fight with a warlock." But will he win this battle for his kids? I`ll have all the details, and I`m taking your calls.

ISSUES starts now.



UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: I really am in fear for my life that if were to get out of prison, he would come out and kill me.


VELEZ-MITCHELL: Tonight, the war on women erupts in violence in the most astonishing place: inside a courthouse right in front of a judge. We warn you, the video of this beating victim you`re about to see is so disturbing, but we think it`s important that people hear and see her nightmare and exactly how our criminal justice system totally failed this woman.

Katie Scott-Gonzalez says her estranged husband gave her these horrific bruises and a split lip. The two were at their final divorce hearing on Friday when Paul Gonzalez allegedly exploded inside a Florida judge`s chambers. The suspect had just learned the terms of his child support and visitation. He allegedly stormed out of the room and then suddenly came back and grabbed Katie around the neck.

This guy`s accused of repeatedly punching her in the side of the head, steps away from the judge. Katie says the very first blow knocked her out cold. Cops say the suspect was so out of control it took a dozen bailiffs and two shots with a taser to subdue this man.


KATIE SCOTT-GONZALEZ, BEATEN BY ESTRANGED HUSBAND IN COURT: The first blow to my face knocked me out so I don`t remember anything. They had to taser him twice in order to remove him from me.


VELEZ-MITCHELL: And it gets worse. Before this, Katie had begged the courts for a restraining order against this guy. But she was denied. Apparently, they decided her claims that her husband was prone to violence just weren`t credible. Well, maybe they`ll believe it now.

Are you as outraged as I am? Give me a call: 1-877-JVM-SAYS, 1-877- 586-7297.

Straight out to former prosecutor, Wendy Murphy.

Wendy, it`s not like this woman was walking down a dark alley by herself at 4 in the morning. She was standing there in court in front of a judge.

WENDY MURPHY, FORMER PROSECUTOR: Yes. Is there a more revealing example of what`s wrong with our legal system that you`re not even safe, not only in court, in the judge`s chambers?

I`ve heard of guys blowing up in the courtroom out where a lot of the crazy people are who are also charged with the same kind of bad behavior. But in the chambers? That`s like beating the hell out of a woman in the confessional at church.

VELEZ-MITCHELL: All right. Whoever is scratching themselves, stop it.

Continue, Wendy. Because you`re crackling. You`re crackling.

MURPHY: I`m so sorry. I`m moving my hair.

VELEZ-MITCHELL: Like a fireplace. The crackle.

MURPHY: I have to tell you, though, I hope people understand, this is not unusual. OK? The unusual thing is that he did it in front of the judge.

What happens every single day in this country, every day, is right after they leave court, she goes home, doesn`t get the restraining order, and he beats the hell out of her behind closed doors. The same thing happens, only it`s behind closed doors.

The fact that it happened in a judge`s chambers is a wake-up call to all of us that stop assuming women lie when they ask for restraining orders.


MURPHY: Stop waiting until they`re dead before we give a damn.

VELEZ-MITCHELL: Yes. And now this woman is living in fear, saying, "Well, when this guy gets out, even if he`s convicted and sentenced" -- I mean, come on, how many times do we hear on ISSUES talk about a guy murders somebody and he gets five years?

So she`s now terrified that this guy, if he ever gets out, is going to come after her to finish off the job.

And even if Katie thought her husband was dangerous, who can blame her for having a false sense of security? They were inside of the courthouse in front of a judge in the judge`s chambers. Listen to this.


SCOTT-GONZALEZ: I just had a bad feeling, but I felt that with the police there, there was nothing that could happen to me. I honestly feel fearful for my life. Just the thought of him scares me to death. And I don`t know what I`m going to do if he gets out of prison or jail or wherever he`s going, because I feel like he`s going to finish what he started.


VELEZ-MITCHELL: Now, Katie and Paul Gonzalez have two kids, ages 3 and 1. They split up early last year. They were close to finalizing their divorce. Katie also has a boyfriend.

I want to go out to James Burnett, with "The Miami Herald," who`s been tracking this case. Could this attack have been sparked by the oldest motive in the world, jealousy, or could it have been about money, as well?

JAMES BURNETT, "MIAMI HERALD": Jane, I think it`s a little bit of both in this case. The husband -- you know, the interesting thing is, I spoke to some of the husband`s neighbors, all of whom gave the age-old excuse: "We didn`t know. We didn`t see this." And I shouldn`t say excuse because it`s not their fault that he is apparently a violent man. And I think it`s a little bit of both. Jealousy and money in this case.

They`re both former Marines. This is not a wealthy guy. But again, like the judge told him, when he stormed out of the chambers in the first place, we have to support our children.

VELEZ-MITCHELL: Yes. The reason why he stormed out is the judge had just told him how much he was going to have to pay, apparently, in child support and also what his visitation rules were going to be. So it`s always about power and money, and so he`s lost his power because he`s been told what the visitation is. And he may be resentful, as many soon-to-be- ex-dads are, of what they`re going to have to pay in child support.

Look at Charlie Sheen. He`s going to have to pay $55,000 a month in child support. He`s not happy about it.

Now, by the way, I have to say, we tried to call the suspect unsuccessfully. To our knowledge, he does not have an attorney, but if he does, and if his attorney is watching and wants to come on our side [SIC] and tell his side, we are happy to have you on. We know there`s always two sides to a story. And you come on. I have a whole bunch of questions to ask you.

One of my heroes, domestic abuse survivor Yvette Cade, joins me tonight. Her ex is serving life in prison for a sadistic attack on her back in 2005. This is also very graphic video. It`s the horrific encounter between Yvette and her ex-husband as he literally set her on fire. It happened at her workplace.

Surveillance cameras were rolling as he walked behind the counter where Yvette was sitting and doused her with gasoline that he had put inside a soda bottle. He then chased Yvette outside the store, threw a match on her. Burning -- look at her. She`s on fire there in the right- hand corner. Check it out. You`ll see it in a second. There he is. Dousing her. And there you can see the fire in the right-hand corner. Right there. She is on fire.

He burned 60 percent of her body. Weeks before the attack, the judge ignored Yvette`s pleas and lifted the protective order against this very dangerous man.

So Yvette, again, you are one of my heroes. What do you say to judges like the judge in your case and the judge apparently, in this case, one of the judges who refused to give this woman a protective order, a restraining order.

YVETTE CADE, DOMESTIC ABUSE SURVIVOR: I would say my ex-husband, I didn`t know exactly how bad things were before I met him, because I was from a different state. But if a woman comes to court, it takes a lot of courage for her to come up to court and be -- come up against a bully. And we are their prey.

And they already believe that we`re some type of -- they have ownership over us. And they have the attitude, if I can`t have you, nobody else will.

And I believe that this man here needs to be thrown in jail, no bail, and his assets needs to be attacked, because most of the time when you`re married, they want to keep you financially...


CADE: ... down, and he needs to go to jail for a very long time.

VELEZ-MITCHELL: Diane, Washington. Diane, Washington, your question or thought, quickly, ma`am?

CALLER: Hi. This is just appalling. And if they thought this guy was dangerous, I do not understand how anybody could be left alone in there in the judge`s chambers and no police protection or any kind of bailiff or anybody else in there to protect this woman.

I was a person that was violated. Fortunately, my brother was a police officer, and that helped on the outside. So I did not get any more -- I was...

VELEZ-MITCHELL: You raise a good point. James Burnett, they`re in the judge`s chambers. He lashes out at her; he attacks her. All these -- couldn`t somebody -- how did he get so many swings in?

BURNETT: You know, it doesn`t take long to throw a punch, Jane. And I don`t mean that to be coy or to be cute. But it doesn`t take long to throw a punch.

Bailiffs were right outside the door. And they got into the judge`s chambers very quickly to help Katie`s attorney subdue this guy, but it really only takes a few seconds to throw a punch, and he managed to get a lot in.

Let`s not forget, he`s a former Marine, so he`s been trained in hand- to-hand combat.

VELEZ-MITCHELL: And so is she. She`s a former Marine, too; two former Marines.

BURNETT: But he snuck up behind her. Yes.

VELEZ-MITCHELL: Thank you, fantastic panel. We`re going to stay on top of that one.

A woman says a dating Web site set her up with a guy who sexually assaulted her. Now she`s suing. And we`re going to talk to her live.

But, first, is Casey Anthony`s defense team changing their strategy again? Now there`s an admission that she lied. It`s an astounding, really a bombshell in this case. And we`re taking your calls on it: 1-877-JVM- SAYS.


UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Did you cause any injury to your child, Caylee?


UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Did you hurt Caylee or leave her somewhere and you`re...


UNIDENTIFIED MALE: ... worried that if we find that out that people are going to look at you a wrong way?

ANTHONY: No, sir.




GEORGE ANTHONY, FATHER OF CASEY ANTHONY: The Zanny that my daughter described to me is 24 to 25 years old, about 5`7", 125, 135. She has straight, white teeth, long, brown hair. OK? On a scale of one to ten, she`s a ten, supposedly.


VELEZ-MITCHELL: You are not going to believe this, people. In a major about-face, a former member of Casey Anthony`s defense team says, "Oops, Casey was lying all along about the existence of Zanny the nanny." That`s right. They`re admitting there is no Zanny the nanny. What does this mean? And doesn`t this violate attorney-client privilege?

Listen to this from CBS "48-Hours Mystery."


UNIDENTIFIED MALE: So she lied when she said that the nanny kidnapped her baby?

LINDA KENNEY BADEN, FORMER DEFENSE ATTORNEY FOR CASEY ANTHONY: Sure. I think everyone knows that that was a lie. Her actions have been her own worst enemy.


VELEZ-MITCHELL: Somebody better tell George and Cindy they`ve been defending that for the longest time. You just heard it a second ago.

Casey blamed a nanny named Zanny for kidnapping her 2-year-old daughter, Caylee. While, many, including myself, have rolled their eyes over that explanation from the very start, Casey and her parents stuck with it for months and months on end.

Now all of these new developments coming out of a shocking new CBS "48-Hours Mystery" about the Casey Anthony case. I`ve got to tell you, I think we`re going to be in for a surprise when this trial starts next month.

What do you think? Call me: 1-877-JVM-SAYS.

Straight out to "In Session" correspondent Jean Casarez with our sister network, TruTV. What do you make of former Casey Anthony`s defense attorney, Linda Kenney Baden, saying Casey was lying and that there is no Zanny the nanny?

JEAN CASAREZ, CORRESPONDENT, TRUTV`S "IN SESSION": Yes. First of all, Linda Kenney Baden has been a part of so many high-profile cases. She is so respected in the legal community. I reached out to her today to see if she wanted to issue a statement. I was told that she is on vacation, so we didn`t get that.

But what I did, Jane, I got the indictment. Because you know what? There are four counts of this indictment of providing false information to a law-enforcement officer and count five says, "Casey, you lied to law enforcement, because you said that you left your daughter with Zenaida Fernandez Gonzales at the Sawgrass Apartments."

So what was done during the "48 Hours" piece, Linda Kenney Baden admitted that Casey is guilty of count five.

VELEZ-MITCHELL: First of all, I like Linda Kenney Baden, too. She`s been on our show many times. She`s a delightful person. But we`ve got to ask, where does this come from?

Leonard Padilla, they were sticking with this so long, in my humble opinion, I think it signals that they`re going to plan a surprising new defense strategy, because Casey Anthony couldn`t make that whole Zanny the nanny thing work. Nobody believed it. So they`re going to admit it`s a lie, and they`re going to somehow explain why she lied. Maybe some wild story about conspiracy, she feared for her life and she had to do this because of whatever. Why do you think that she -- why do you think Linda Kenney Baden is suddenly admitting this?

LEONARD PADILLA, BOUNTY HUNTER: Well, unlike most people that respect her, I`ve never had that much acknowledgement of her ability because of some of the cases that she`s been in. I think she`s made some errors.

VELEZ-MITCHELL: Let`s not blame the messenger. I want to know what`s the significance of this?

PADILLA: All right. OK. The significance of that is that the story that they -- she and her mother told us was that Zenaida took the child away from her. Zenaida had her sister, Samantha, with her at J. Blanchard Park and then handed her a list of 30 things with what she was supposed to provide, false evidence to the cops. The list is probably going to have on there one of the items she`s going to say was tell the cops she gave it to the baby sitter at the Sawgrass Apartments. But Zenaida Gonzalez was not involved. We spoke with her in August of `08 when she also...

VELEZ-MITCHELL: It`s a lie. It`s a lie. Why are they admitting this now?

PADILLA: It`s a lie.

VELEZ-MITCHELL: That`s what I want to know.

PADILLA: I don`t think. I don`t think -- I don`t think your glorified attorney understood what she was doing at the time that she made that admission. I don`t think she had the permission of the defense team.

VELEZ-MITCHELL: I don`t think that anybody does that by accident. I refuse to believe that. I think it`s part of a much larger strategy.

Donna, Texas, your question or thought. Donna, do you have a theory on this? Hi.

CALLER: Hey, Jane. I love your show, and thank you for trying to bring justice for our beautiful children and grandchildren.


CALLER: I think there`s been many, many misconceptions from the family. I think that there`s lies that are going to come out in the open, that parents, that dad knows more. Somebody knows more than they`re telling.

And I`m a grandmother. I have one grandchild, and I would be banging down doors trying to find my grand baby after two weeks.

VELEZ-MITCHELL: Thank you, Donna. I appreciate it.

And to that point, now Casey Anthony`s defense team has unveiled some evidence that they may present at trial that supposedly has to do with the rare duct tape that was found on the little girl`s mouth somehow being connected to not only a gas can in the Anthony garage, but supposedly a local reporter saw this duct tape on George Anthony`s table after Caylee disappeared.

Very quickly, ten seconds, Jeanne, do you think they`re going to try to blame George? Yes or no?

CASAREZ: Golly. He`s a prosecution witness. They`re going to try to impeach him and find inconsistencies. But that duct tape was for posters on the telephone poles to try to find Caylee.

VELEZ-MITCHELL: Got to leave it right there. Oh, you won`t believe this next story.



MICHAEL JACKSON, POP STAR: I love you so much.


VELEZ-MITCHELL: We are just days away from the blockbuster Michael Jackson manslaughter trial. Is the King of Pop doctor guilty of causing the superstar`s death? In an ISSUES exclusive, one of Dr. Conrad Murray`s patients tells us why he is standing by the defendant 100 percent.

Dr. Murray was carrying for Jackson in the weeks before his death in 2009. The superstar was prepping for his farewell tour, "This is It." Check this out.




VELEZ-MITCHELL: It wasn`t long after this Jackson died from a lethal dose of Propofol, a powerful knockout drug that`s solely for surgery in operating rooms.

Prosecutors say Dr. Murray was using it in Michael`s home to help him sleep.

Robert Kania, welcome to ISSUES. You are a loyal patient of Dr. Murray`s. Tell us why you are standing by him.

ROBERT KANIA, PATIENT OF CONRAD MURRAY: He saved my life as far as I`m concerned. And I was in Phoenix, Arizona, and going to a heart specialist, and they told me that they couldn`t do an operation on me because I would die on the operating table, because my muscles -- heart muscle was not strong enough.

So I came to Las Vegas to be close to my children, and my daughter-in- law suggested that I go see Dr. Murray. He says -- so I did. And when I went to Dr. Murray, I told him the story that they told me in Phoenix. And he checked me out. And I kept complaining in Phoenix about I had a bump in my stomach, and they said, "Does it hurt?" And I said no. They said, "Well, just forget about it."

Well, when Dr. Murray checked me out, I not only had a by -- a blockage but I had it for like five to six years, and that bump they were talking about was an aneurism, and he just told me, he said, "You`re a walking time bomb, and you`ve got to get into the hospital."

The next day, he made arrangements. I went in the hospital on a Tuesday. I got my triple -- my triple bypass and...

VELEZ-MITCHELL: You`re basically saying that he saved your life and he diagnosed you correctly when other doctors failed to do so. You also saw Dr. Murray for a sleeping problem, I understand, as well. Yes or no?

KANIA: Yes, I had -- I had a sleeping problem when I went to my V.A. doctor. And...

VELEZ-MITCHELL: Let me finish my sentence here. Obviously, the controversy surrounding Dr. Murray is that he inappropriately prescribed Michael Jackson on the date of his death and actually gave him a whole bunch of sedatives and Propofol, which is only supposed to be used in a surgical setting.

Now, don`t you think that that`s inappropriate when it`s only supposed to be used in a hospital, and he`s using it in a private home?

KANIA: I don`t know what Michael Jackson`s case was, but there was a lot more to that problem than just that one sedative, as far as I`m concerned. Because when I went to Dr. Murray and told -- asked him about my sleeping condition, he did not -- he suggested that I do not take any sleeping pills or anything like that. And the V.A. suggested a tap -- suggested a...

VELEZ-MITCHELL: Got to leave it right there, sir, but you`re a good friend.

Wild story next.


VELEZ-MITCHELL: An Internet dating horror story: A woman is suing a popular online dating site. She claims she was brutally sexually assaulted by a man she met on that dating site. Now, cops say this man has a previous sexual assault record. We`ll talk live to the woman who says she was attacked, in a primetime exclusive.

Plus, Charlie Sheen torpedoes into court today. He`s waging war on his ex-wife and mother of his twin boys, Brooke Mueller. Charlie charges Brooke went back on drugs and that he should be the full-time dad. Charlie warns: don`t pick a bleeping fight with a warlock. But will he win this battle for his kids? I`ll have all of the details and I`m taking your calls.


CAROLE MARKIN, FILED LAWSUIT AGAINST MATCH.COM: Well, I thought didn`t have these kinds of people on their site in the first place. I thought I had been on the site for a while and I met normally regularly nice people.


VELEZ-MITCHELL: Millions have turned to the Internet to find love but one woman says her membership with one online dating site connected her with a convicted sex offender. Now, this is one of the most popular dating sites, but now is under fire and making major changes since this woman came forward with serious accusations and is now suing the company.

Previously known only as Jane Foe, 53-year-old Carole Markin is finally revealing her identity and speaking out about her terrifying ordeal. Carole says she went on, met a man, and they set up a date. Their first encounter went well, so they decided to set up a second date -- according to Carole. But that`s when she says things turned violent.

Joining me now is a primetime exclusive is the woman at the center of this case, Carole Markin, along with her attorney, Mark Webb.

Carole, thank you for joining us. First of all I want to say that -- what have you got going over there, guy? What`s happening Mark with your - -


VELEZ-MITCHELL: Ok. Good. I want to say that I want to applaud you for having the courage to speak out. This is an inspiration to so many women who are afraid to come forward when they had experiences of the sort that you described.

First of all, tell me what happened, in your words.

MARKIN: Well, the night of the second date, I`m getting other feedback.

VELEZ-MITCHELL: Oh, ok. You`re having trouble with the feedback. Ok. Well, we`ll fix that.

I`m going to go to Mark Webb, the attorney. Tell me what is going on with the lawsuit? Are you still suing because apparently they are making major changes as a result of your complaint? And they say they are now going to check existing and new subscribers against the National Sex Offender Registry.

And they say that for years they`ve considered doing that. They felt that the time wasn`t right, that those registries were unreliable, which I think is a good point. I`ve had that experience; checking sex offenders who haven`t popped up on those registries.

But now they say hey, they are going to do it because of you. So where is the lawsuit then?

WEBB: First of all, I want to say it`s a beautiful thing. I want to thank you for having us on here. I feel very proud that we`ve been able to accomplish this. And on the one hand I want to commend Match for doing that which I think is a responsible thing for a corporation of that size and magnitude and power.

And to answer your question, as far as I`m concerned, we want to see it happen. We want to see it happen sooner rather than later. Because we feel that as long as this kind of screening isn`t being done, there continue to be women and people at risk.

The lawsuit still stands. I hope to be able to talk to their attorneys in the near future and work it so that we can get this thing put away.

VELEZ-MITCHELL: All right. Now, I`ve got to say this. Carole, we`re going to talk to you in a second. They are fixing your audio.

But I want to bring in Wendy Murphy. So I hope you don`t mind if we go out of sequence here because of this technical difficulty.

Wendy, says, yes, now because of the heroic actions of Carole Markin, they are going to actually screen new and existing subscribers against the sex offender registry. But they warn, they say hey, this remains highly flawed and it doesn`t -- they don`t want it to provide a false sense of security because it doesn`t always work and people have to exercise commonsense.

I`ll tell you why I know that that is true. I have gone as a reporter on the National Sex Offender Registry looking for people who I know are sex offenders and have been unable to find them because they use a different name. One woman was using a maiden name. You couldn`t find her or they don`t register for it.

So they have a point there. It`s not for sure.

WENDY MURPHY, FORMER PROSECUTOR: Yes. Not only that. There are lots of really dangerous people who don`t have records. You know, most sex offenders have dozens and dozens of incidents under their belts, so to speak, before they get caught the first time.

So you`re a fool if you think the registry is a source of real safety and a lot of states have, you know, grades of whether you get on the registry depending on what you`ve done. It`s not a bad idea to check the registry but it`s a really good idea to check out a whole lot of other things, like call his friends. You know, call the police station in his community.

Raptor Technologies is very good at being proactive about giving people the technology to be able to do this. So I love the fact that is going to change their policies. All -- E-Harmony, all these other companies -- they are fools if they don`t do the same thing because they are going to face a lawsuit just like this one.

So credit to this woman and this terrific lawyer for pushing them this far.

VELEZ-MITCHELL: All right. I think Carole Markin, it`s better now. I`m going to ask you a very simple question. What do you say happened?

MARKIN: Well, I would say that we went out on a date and the guy picked me up. And I let him pick me up because I had a sprained ankle and a broken toe. And we went for sushi and after dinner he gave me his name - - his last name -- which I hadn`t gotten before.

And then we came back to my place. He parked illegally. He got out of the car. I got out of my side. We walked into the building, up the elevator to my apartment and then as soon as we got in the door, he ran to the bathroom.

I sat down on the couch and then when he came out of the bathroom, I was about to say you can`t really stay very long because your car is going to be towed and then he jumped me and forced me into sexual acts. And then he left.

VELEZ-MITCHELL: So he overpowered you?

MARKIN: He definitely overpowered me. He`s a very big man. He`s about a foot taller than me and about 100 pounds heavier.

VELEZ-MITCHELL: Ok. Now, you know, legally we are obligated to get both sides of the story, which we did. We reached out to the man accused of sexually assaulting you, Alan Wurtzel`s attorney, for a response and she released a statement saying sex was a topic of conversation and that you and her client "engaged in consensual romantic contact together just as you had on May 16th, 2010. Eight days later you inexplicably called the police," end quote.

Your allegations concern the second date. What is your reaction to the statement of the attorney of the man that you`re accusing?

MARKIN: It`s just not true. It wasn`t consensual. And that`s just the bottom line. And he has a record and I don`t of doing this kind of thing to other women.

VELEZ-MITCHELL: Cops have reportedly said that Alan Wurtzel is a convicted sex offender for previous assaults on women that he met on the Internet and that he`s been convicted several times for sexual battery.

Carole, you say you uncovered this yourself. How did you do so?

MARKIN: I went to Google and put in his name. I saw the LAPD detailing what he had done before.

VELEZ-MITCHELL: Do you know that what you have done is so empowering to so many women who were afraid to come forward when they say they have been sexually assaulted? Do you know that you are being called the "Erin Brockovich" of online dating? How do you feel about that?

MARKIN: I feel great. That`s why I wanted to go public with my name.

VELEZ-MITCHELL: Is this empowering to you? Are you taking the power back -- obviously rape or I should say sexual assault in your case is not so much about sex, say experts, they say it`s about power. Do you feel you`re reclaiming the power with the actions that you`ve taken to get to make these major changes?

MARKIN: Yes, I definitely do. I mean they wouldn`t be thinking about checking the policies if we hadn`t filed suit against them. They would just be going on as is.

VELEZ-MITCHELL: Would you ever use online dating again?

MARKIN: I haven`t for now. I mean maybe one day when it`s safe then I will go back.

VELEZ-MITCHELL: Well, I just want you to know, I think you`re very courageous for speaking out. So many women are afraid to report these kinds of things. And I applaud you. And I hope you come back. Keep us posted.

MARKIN: Thank you.

VELEZ-MITCHELL: On the other side of the break Charlie Sheen.



UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Charlie, you`re a champ, man. We love you, man.



SHEEN: Thank you.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Good luck getting the kids, ok?


SHEEN: Thank you.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Thank you, Charlie.


VELEZ-MITCHELL: That is Charlie Sheen today in rare form. Fist bumping reporters, thinking he was going to kick some warlock ass and get full custody of his twin sons. Could Charlie possibly convince the judge that he`s a more fit parent to his toddler twin sons than his ex-wife?

That ex-wife Brooke Mueller hasn`t exactly been walking the straight and narrow lately. TMZ caught her pacing inside an L.A. pawnshop trying to hawk expensive jewelry. And there are also claims that she was cruising an unsavory section of Los Angeles late at night and refused to take a court- mandated drug test.

Could Brooke Mueller possibly be making Charlie Sheen look good? Look like a decent guy? There she is. Oh, my gosh, going into court. Did she make him look like a model dad?


SHEEN: This is Charlie Sheen`s "Winning Recipes".

Face it. I am living the life of a rock star, Vatican assassin. It`s a cooking wand for a warlock. Some troll is going to say, that`s not a salad. Oh, really? It looks like a tomato winning salad to me -- duh, winning. This take is done.


VELEZ-MITCHELL: I didn`t think so. I have no official confirmation but RadarOnline is reporting that Brooke Mueller came out the big winner today and that the custody arrangement for their adorable twin sons stays the same; with mommy, specifically mommy`s mommy. That`s got to hurt the other winner -- winner, Charlie, who apparently lost today. Despite the fist bumps.

So what do you think? Did the judge make the right call? Give me a holler, 1-877-JVM-SAYS.

Straight out to Dylan Howard, senior executive editor of "Star" Magazine; Dylan, the judge threw the media out of the courtroom because of the sensitive nature of this hearing. Tell us about what you know about what happened today.

DYLAN HOWARD, SENIOR EXECUTIVE EDITOR, "STAR" MAGAZINE: Well, Jane, this was a complete shocker. Ss it turned out, Brooke Mueller, despite being caught on camera pawning a watch and admitting to her friends that she had indeed relapsed and refusing to take a drug test, the judge said in this case, status quo remains. And despite Charlie Sheen`s efforts to reclaim custody of the two twin year-old sons, Bob and Max, that was denied.

Now, Charlie underwent -- as I understand it -- a drug test last week and he returned a negative result. So the interesting thing in this is the judge has said that the agreement that the pair struck some two months ago must stand. This is a significant loss for Charlie Sheen. But many are suggesting that indeed if he wasn`t on tour as he is at the moment playing in Washington, D.C., tonight, he would have had a better chance; but as it stands at the moment, Brooke Mueller in rehab and still with custody of these kids.

VELEZ-MITCHELL: Yes, I think it`s because -- well, they both have a very extensive history of drug use. Charlie has a history of violence and I think violence is more threatening to children ultimately than anything else. Brooke Mueller has reportedly been in rehab all week after some claim was a week-long binge with friends. Now, what they were bingeing on, we don`t know for sure but TMZ got this footage of Brooke inside a pawnshop trying to hawk some expensive jewelry but they apparently wouldn`t buy it because she didn`t have a driver`s license. And then Dylan, she was apparently seen roaming around an area that might be known for drugs. What do you know about her alleged trip to Englewood?

HOWARD: Well, as we understand it, she was in Englewood, which is the location where that pawnshop was. In fact, we spoke to a man on the streets, who identified himself as the man in question who actually sold Brooke Mueller what he described as an eight ball of crack cocaine for $150.

Of course, Brooke is not commenting on these allegations and there is no independent confirmation of that but it should be said this man is making those claims. He says that he got into the front seat of her Mercedes-Benz vehicle, a luxury sports vehicle and did the transaction late last week.

So Brooke Mueller, it ought to be noted, has been battling her own personal demons for some time. During her marriage to Charlie Sheen, she was using drugs as she has admitted in the past and most certainly, just before Charlie Sheen was fired from "Two and a Half Men", she relapsed again.

VELEZ-MITCHELL: I have to say -- yes, she looks pretty darn good though; this footage, apparently from today, and for somebody who first of all -- Brooke or your representative or lawyer, you`re invited on anytime to tell your side of the story. I have no idea what exactly you were doing, I wasn`t there but these are the claims. But she looks pretty darn good.

Kristina Wandzilak, you`re an addiction specialist; for somebody who has been out cruising the streets of Englewood, allegedly trying to not only hawk items but you heard what Dylan Howard said about what she was allegedly doing.

KRISTINA WANDZILAK, ADDICTION SPECIALIST: Sure. And, you know, certainly none of this behavior speaks to a parent that is fit, you know, to have children. But the truth is, you know, her behavior doesn`t make his behavior look any better. You can`t get lost in the details of this.

You have to look at the overall picture. And the overall picture is that both of these parents have tremendous trouble. But to the end of what happened today, she`s making healthy decisions for herself. She`s going to treatment. She`s doing what is right for her children as opposed to traveling across the country in some bizarre tour. She`s making the right decision, which is to step out and get some help.

VELEZ-MITCHELL: But wait a second. Hasn`t she been in treatment before, Dylan?


VELEZ-MITCHELL: I mean these are both chronic relapsers.

HOWARD: Yes, she has, multiple times.


VELEZ-MITCHELL: Both of them are chronic relapsers. I think they should take the kids away from both of them. I don`t know if Martin Sheen is the one who should have these children. But I guess the reason, Dylan, that she got them is also because her mom, who is some kind of socialite, is the one taking care of the -- the grandma is taking care of the kids, right, Dylan?

HOWARD: The absolute shocker is that when she got custody of the kids, when they were seen socially (ph) taken away from Charlie Sheen at the height of that "Two and a Half Men" scandal, she had relapsed. In fact, she was spending her days in a sober living facility and spending her nights with the children.

The sad thing in all of this is, there are two young children at the focus of this and they are leading a very, very sad life at the moment.

VELEZ-MITCHELL: Makes my blood boil. Don`t have kids if you`re going to be doing what these two have -- according to all published reports -- been doing for years. But I hope they both get and stay sober. I really do.

Everybody, stay right where you are. We`re going to have more on Charlie Sheen`s custody dramarama. And the lawsuit for $100 million right after the break



UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Hey, Charlie, you`re a champ, man. We love you, man.

SHEEN: Thank you.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Good luck with your kids.

SHEEN: Thank you.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Good luck getting your kids, ok.

SHEEN: Thank you.




VELEZ-MITCHELL: That was Charlie Sheen, headed to court today to fight over custody of his twin sons and at the other end of the ring his ex, Brooke Mueller who won. Our producer, Selin (ph), was in the courtroom. Selin, tell us how Brooke Mueller was behaving because for a person who has been accused of being out partying and cruising Englewood for drugs she looked pretty darn good today.

SELIN DARKALSTANIAN, HLN PRODUCER: Yes, Jane, she did look good, you know. She was really well put together. At the beginning of the court hearing she seemed very nervous, she was glaring at the door, waiting for Charlie to walk in. She was very nervous. You could tell. And she wouldn`t take her eyes off the door.

But by the end of the hearing after they were done, it looked like things went her way. She came out of the courtroom. She was smiling. Her mom was giving a thumbs up sign to me in the hallway outside of court. So it seemed like whatever she did want it went her way.

VELEZ-MITCHELL: Now, her mom is a celebrity socialite from, I think, Palm Beach, right. And she`s going to -- it`s actually her mom who`s going to have these twins and take care of them in Florida?

DARKALSTANIAN: Well, her mom is, you know, very close to Brooke and has been taking care of these boys on and off with the nanny. And the mom has said before that she would gladly take care of the kids if it came down to it. So I think she played a very big role in the kids` lives already. If worse came to worse she said she would take care of those kids.

VELEZ-MITCHELL: But Brooke is in rehab, right? She got out of rehab to go to this hearing and she`s going back to rehab. Presumably she`s back there. She can`t take care of the kids in rehab, right, Selin?

DARKALSTANIAN: We don`t know what she`s in right now. We know that she was in outpatient treatment and the nannies and her mom were here taking care of the kids while she was in outpatient treatment. Now since she fell off the wagon we don`t know what the current status is with her rehab but she has a lot of help around her. I don`t think she`s taking care of these kids a lot.


VELEZ-MITCHELL: It`s very hard to figure out what any of these celebrities are doing. Remember Charlie Sheen when his show was put on ice and he said he cured himself in his own home rehab by blinking his eyes and deeming himself cured. Remember that? It`s really hard to get a straight answer about where they are in terms of their recovery process.

And here`s my big issuing tonight: is Charlie Sheen a ticking time bomb? He apparently tested sober. What happens when his "Violent Torpedo of Truth" tour ends? Will Charlie just go back to his old ways? Watch this from NBC`s "Today".


UNIDENTIFIED MALE: A lot of your fans have been worried about you, worried about your health.

SHEEN: They can worry all they want.


SHEEN: That`s for amateurs. Come on. I`m fine. I always had a plan. I`ve always executed them perfectly. Sometimes I overshoot the mark, whatever.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: How do you avoid slipping back into that again?

SHEEN: I don`t know. I just won`t do it, I guess. I do not believe that if I do something then I have to follow a certain path because it was written for normal people, people that aren`t special. People that don`t have tiger blood and, you know, Adonis DNA.


VELEZ-MITCHELL: Christina Wandzilak, even if Charlie is sober now when he has to basically face himself for five minutes, isn`t that when the risk for cravings will return?

WANDZILAK: Absolutely. When the tour is over and if the best predictor of future behavior is past, you know, left untreated without any significant treatment or help or change, he will return to exactly where he came from. That`s what history shows us, particularly in his story as well.

VELEZ-MITCHELL: This is such a sad case. You look at these two adorable twins and you realize that both of their parents are so seriously troubled, I pray that there`s a grandparent there.


VELEZ-MITCHELL: Charlie has also got a lawsuit going for $100 million against the producers of "Two and a Half Men". Quickly, Dylan Howard, of RadarOnline, what do you predict is going to happen there?

HOWARD: He`s just really trying to get back on "Two and a Half Men". I spoke with him last week. He told me that was the goal. The big obstacle there: Chuck Lorre and Warner Brothers. But let me tell you, Jane, CBS wants him back on that program.


HOWARD: Yes, make no mistake about it?


VELEZ-MITCHELL: Well, why can`t they just make a deal?

HOWARD: Because the big impediment there is Warner Brothers Television, which produces the program and Chuck Lorre which is the head writer. Now, if they can orchestrate a peace deal Sheen could return but at this stage I think that looks unlikely.

VELEZ-MITCHELL: All right. Thank you so much. Got to leave it there.

It`s not just Charlie Sheen. If you`re grappling with an addiction or know somebody who is, find out exactly what you can do about it. Check out my new book, "Addict Nation" at I read it and get liberated.

Nancy Grace is up next.