Return to Transcripts main page


Lindsay Lohan to Serve Jail Time; New Baby Lisa Theory

Aired November 2, 2011 - 19:00:00   ET



JANE VELEZ-MITCHELL, HOST (voice-over): Tonight Lindsay Lohan headed back to the slammer. The troubled starlet back in court after violating probation. She`s headed to jail, but how much time will she really serve? And will jail time finally reform Hollywood`s ultimate party girl?

And new information about the ever-changing Baby Lisa timeline. A source now says Deborah Bradley was so drunk the night her daughter went missing she couldn`t remember if she checked on little Lisa in her crib. This as cops wonder about that mysterious phone call made from the parents` cell phones that were supposedly stolen. What really happened to Baby Lisa?

Plus, more Kardashian divorce drama-rama. Kim apologizes to fans, saying she got caught up with the hoopla and insists she married for love. This as Kim`s mom claims Kim and her NBA star husband footed the reportedly $20 million bill themselves. So was the wedding truly reality TV, or was it just an elaborate publicity stunt? We`ll ask Kim`s former publicist. We`re taking your calls.

ISSUES starts now.



VELEZ-MITCHELL: Take a look at this paparazzi. Reporters, photographers from all over the world converged here to focus on this woman, who is an addict.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Lindsay Lohan has a judgment day every few months.

VELEZ-MITCHELL: The question is, is she addicted to this attention?

JUDGE STEPHANIE SAUTNER, HEARING LOHAN CASE: You will serve 30 days in the county jail now. You are to surrender within one week.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Miss Lohan is going to waive her right to a hearing and admit the violation.

SAUTNER: The court finds you to be in violation.

Putting the keys of the jail in the defendant`s hand. I`m going to convert all of your community service to the morgue. Twelve days at the morgue, 12 more days at the morgue, 17 more days at the morgue. Do you accept all these new terms and conditions and modifications?



VELEZ-MITCHELL: Lindsay heading back to court, and she gets slapped with a so-called sentence. Is it enough? Is it anything? Will she serve any time at all? Is Lindsay being let off the hook because she`s rich, and pretty and famous?

Good evening, everyone. Jane Velez-Mitchell coming to you live from Los Angeles, where they rolled out the red carpet, except this time it`s in front of L.A. Superior Court. Check this out.

I was there early this morning. Look at the mob scene. A flashbulb frenzy for a felon. Well, maybe she should be a felon. Let`s put it that way.

Inside court I sat in the front row, and I stared at Lindsay. And I witnessed every bizarre moment, including when the judge, well, she said she was laying down the law. Let`s listen to her.


SAUTNER: You`re to serve 30 days in the county jail now. You are to surrender within one week. I understand that you have some work lined up. You are to surrender by November 9.


VELEZ-MITCHELL: Oh, yes. It sounds really harsh, doesn`t it? Thirty days could end up being 30 minutes. All right. Listen to this. You won`t believe it.

The judge contradicts herself even when she`s handing down her ruling, because listen carefully. The devil is in the details here. Check this out.


SAUTNER: You are to return to this court on December 14. Between now and December 14, you are to perform 12 days of community service at the morgue.


VELEZ-MITCHELL: OK. Here`s my point. OK. She sentences her to 30 days in jail. You`re going to the report jail November 9, OK? So 30 days, November 9 to December 9.

But then she says she`s got to squeeze in 12 days of community service by December 14. Not possible. OK. So, the judge knows when she`s saying, "I`m sentencing you to 30 days," that it`s bogus. She knew it when she said it.

OK. Now, we were out there and we were talking to the L.A. Sheriff`s Office. And they told us, well, nonviolent offenders usually only do 20 percent of their sentencing time. So all right. Here`s the math. Thirty days. Twenty percent, that`s six days.

But guess what? Just a moment ago we were told, quote -- from the sheriff`s department -- "It`s possible she could be booked in and booked out the same day." What kind of justice is that? OK. All supposedly because of overcrowding.

I`m very delighted to have with me today, Danette Meyers, who is a candidate for Los Angeles district attorney.

And you also prosecuted Lindsay Lohan in her case. Now, oh, my gosh. This woman has been given so many breaks, so many breaks. This struck me - - and I was in court today -- as a charade, as a farce. What say you?

DANETTE MEYERS, CANDIDATE FOR LOS ANGELES DISTRICT ATTORNEY: Well, Jane, I was incredibly dissatisfied when I prosecuted the case, which is now the city attorney`s case. It was a felony. It should have remained a felony. Lindsay Lohan would have done time.

Once she was found in violation of probation, once the judge said, "I summarily find you in violation of probation. I`ll remand to you the custody of the sheriffs." There would have been no bail.

Instead, it`s reduced to a misdemeanor. Bail is set, and Lindsay Lohan makes bail and she`s out the next minute. And so I was incredibly dissatisfied with Judge Sautner`s ruling reducing this to a misdemeanor, because quite frankly, what she should have done was kept it as a felony. And then you earn a misdemeanor at the conclusion of your sentence, successfully completing probation, every defendant on a wobbler -- and this was a wobbler -- has the right to earn a misdemeanor. And that`s what should have happened in this case.

VELEZ-MITCHELL: When you say that she -- it should have remained a felony, you`re talking about the necklace, when she walked off with that valuable necklace.

MEYERS: Exactly. That was my case. It`s now a city attorney`s case.

VELEZ-MITCHELL: You`re saying she walks off with this necklace and instead of being a felony it`s reduced to a misdemeanor, and that`s after she had DUIs. That`s after she went on a high-speed chase down Pacific Coast Highway in another case. That`s after she chased a woman into the Santa Monica Police Station. That`s after she was found with cocaine in her pocket.

MEYERS: More importantly, Jane, that is after she is on probation and she has violated a number of times. That`s why it was a felony. That`s why our office filed it as a felony. She`s on probation. She`s violating her misdemeanor probation, and she picks up another case, and she picks up a felony case. In a situation like that, even though it`s a nonviolent felony, you keep it as a felony, and you let the person successfully complete probation. And then you reduce to it a misdemeanor.

VELEZ-MITCHELL: You are running for district attorney of Los Angeles. I want to ask you a question. Is there a two-tiered system of justice? Had Lindsay Lohan given all of the things that we`re talking about: high-speed chase, reckless driving, two DUIs, found with cocaine, walking out with a necklace, and I`ll say allegedly because there were different outcomes for different -- different ones of those cases.

With all of that, had Lindsay Lohan been not a pretty, blonde, rich starlet but maybe, oh, a member of a community in poverty, maybe a guy, maybe a minority, would she be in jail right now?

MEYERS: You know that`s a tough question, Jane. Depends on the judge.


MEYERS: There are some judges...

VELEZ-MITCHELL: Would everybody get a felony walking out with an expensive necklace reduced to a misdemeanor?

MEYERS: I was stunned when it happened in this case, because absolutely not. I`ve worked Compton. I`ve worked Van Nuys. I`ve worked in communities where there are minorities and low-income -- people in low- income areas. And I guarantee you it would have been, in my estimation, a little different in this case.

I was stunned when the judge said, "I`m going give you a break." Lindsay Lohan didn`t need a break. Lindsay Lohan needs help. She didn`t need a break.

It`s easy to give her a break. It`s difficult to give the guy who in South Central Los Angeles a break. And in this particular case, I was just outraged at the fact that here is a person who is on probation, who has continually violated probation, is given yet another break. And it`s unfortunate.

VELEZ-MITCHELL: Jen Hager, legal editor, RadarOnline, everybody`s saying, "Well, you can`t put anybody in jail in Los Angeles." Can`t put anybody in jail in Los Angeles? You know why? Lindsay Lohan is supposed to get out in a couple of hours because so many people are in jail. The jails are teaming. The prisons are teaming with people. That`s why there`s overcrowding, because there`s so many people in prison.

Many of those people are there for nonviolent offenses like crack possession, crack dealing. Those people, though, don`t have fabulous attorneys like Shawn Holly.

JEN HAGER, LEGAL EDITOR, RADARONLINE: This is absolutely -- I don`t think it`s a two tiered system. I think it`s celebrity justice. L.A. gets a bad rap or gets a rap -- you know, you can -- celebrities can come into Los Angeles, commit these crimes, and they`re in and out of jail in relatively no time. Look at Nicole Richie driving the wrong way on a freeway. In and out, given a four-day sentence, out in 87 minutes.

You know, we have Redman O`Neal, possession of heroin charges over and over again. He`s back in rehab. You know, this is a clear -- in this town it`s celebrity justice.

VELEZ-MITCHELL: Let`s recap and review Lindsay`s long history on the wrong side of the law. I mean, take a look at just a few of her infamous problems.

Multiple DUIs. A -- just taking a car that belonged to a friend and going on a high-speed chase on PCH. Cocaine possession. And then accused of shoplifting a necklace, a very expensive necklace. There`s also a possible fist fight or some kind of dust up with a woman in rehab, a staffer in rehab. And then probation violations.

I want to go out to Joey Jackson, defense attorney. Do you think that somebody else who did not have her particular profile would have received the same treatment given the entire record?

JOEY JACKSON, DEFENSE ATTORNEY: Jane, it`s a very fair point that you`re making.

Listen, as a defense attorney, it`s difficult for me to advocate a more stringent sentence for anyone. What I would advocate, though, is that all judges be as understanding, as accommodating, as uplifting to a defendant as this particular judge, who apparently is attempting to rehabilitate her by giving her this community service, this psychotherapy. And so is justice equal everywhere? It does not appear to be. There does certainly appear to be some celebrity justice here.

But I just say it would be my ardent hope that if a judge is as understanding and is wishing to, you know, help somebody in need, that they help everyone in need, from the person who`s a celebrity to the person who, unfortunately, may be in an impoverished community.

So Jane, it`s a point well made. And I hope with the court system, as far as you`re concerned and everyone`s concerned, it would be a point well taken.

VELEZ-MITCHELL: But let`s not confuse the issue and say, because they refused to lock Lindsay Lohan up for more than a couple of minutes, that nobody is being locked up. We are overflowing -- we have more people locked up in the United States of America than any other country has official prisoners in the entire world. And it`s growing. But this woman, we cannot keep her behind bars.

We`re taking your calls: 1-877-JVM-SAYS, 1-877-586-7297.

More on Lindsay Lohan`s day in court. Up next, an addiction specialist.


SAUTNER: This is what we really call putting the keys to the jail in the defendant`s pockets. OK? If there`s any violation, Miss Mansfield is to notify me. She is not to wait until the next court appearance. She`ll notify me. If she notifies me, I will revoke probation and put a warrant out for your arrest. I don`t want to have to do that.



SAUTNER: By December 14, 12 days at the morgue. And four psychotherapy sessions. By January 17, you`re to perform 12 more days at the morgue and four psychotherapy sessions. By February 15, you`re to perform 12 more days at the morgue and four more psychotherapy sessions. By March 29, you`re to do 17 more days at the morgue and six psychotherapy sessions.


VELEZ-MITCHELL: OK. That was the judge trying to put Lindsay Lohan on the right path. We`re going to show her walking into court this morning. I was there in court.

I want to bring in an addiction specialist now, Howard Samuels, CEO of the Hills Treatment Center in Los Angeles. OK, let`s listen for a second as we watch Lindsay as she goes into court.


UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Hey, Lindsay, how are you? Turn around.


VELEZ-MITCHELL: I asked Lindsay, I asked Lindsay, "Are you sober?" And I didn`t get an answer. That doesn`t mean she`s not answer.

But Howard Samuels, addiction specialist, the judge is ordering her to do all this psychotherapy. Does psychotherapy help an addict? This is a woman with a history of substance abuse. I don`t know if she`s using or not. I hope she`s not. She`s been in rehab several times. Shouldn`t drug monitoring be part of this?

HOWARD SAMUELS, ADDICTION SPECIALIST: Listen, Jane, this whole thing is a joke. I mean, it`s ridiculous, psychotherapy. I mean, with a case like this, with such behavioral problems, without question she needs to spend 30 days in jail. But then after she leaves jail, she needs to be in a no-frills, salt-to-the-earth women`s program for drugs and alcohol and behavioral issues for a year. I mean, at least. I mean, four therapy sessions, it`s a joke.

So, you know, once again, the legal system has totally failed this individual in order to help her in her rehabilitation.

VELEZ-MITCHELL: And what`s so aggravating about it, what I was so infuriated about is that the judge is acting like she`s being really tough. It`s like -- it`s the comedy of the absurd. It`s the theater of the absurd to be in that courtroom.

Danette, you`re a prosecutor. The judge is saying, "I`m going to sentence to you 30 days." Did you see any fear in her eyes? No. She knows she`s going to do a couple of hours and get out. Everybody knows. All the world is a stage, and all its men and women merely players, especially in that courtroom, Danette.

MEYERS: It is unfortunate. And I think Lindsay Lohan did know that, because if you will recall when she was sentenced to 90 days for violating her probation, she did, I think, about eight days, a maximum maybe 14 days. So I think Lindsay Lohan is proficient -- proficient enough now to know she`s only going to do a couple of hours or maybe a couple of days in custody.

And we all in the criminal justice system know that. There`s an overcrowding issue in the L.A. County jail. There`s an overcrowding issue in the Department of Corrections. We`ve been mandated by the United States Supreme Court to release 40,000 prisoners. AB-109 has come into play. So nonviolent offenders will do their time in county jail, with another sentence to state prison. So there is a -- there is a problem.

VELEZ-MITCHELL: Aren`t there a lot of people behind bars for drugs like crack? I have covered Mothers Against Mandatory Minimums, Families Against Mandatory Minimums, where they have shown that there are people that have children, who have families to support, who are in prison for decades, for having the equivalent of a couple of tablespoons of crack.

There`s a disparity between crack sentencing and cocaine sentencing. Lindsay Lohan was found with cocaine in her pocket, Jen Hager.

HAGER: Absolutely. Judge Stephanie Sautner said that she does not believe Lindsay Lohan has a substance abuse problem. She does not believe that that is her underlying issue. She thinks she`s got psychological issues.

I beg to differ, because she`s been arrested twice before. As you said, she`s been to rehab multiple times. I think at least one condition of Lindsay`s probation should be that she continue to be -- or she`s not been, but Judge Sautner should re-implement random drug and alcohol testing.

VELEZ-MITCHELL: Let`s go to the phone lines. Mary Ellen, Delaware, your question or thought, Mary Ellen?

CALLER: Jane, I am just so -- I am with you 100 percent. My heart is beating out of my chest I`m so angry about this. I would be thrown in the dungeon. I live Delaware. They wouldn`t take -- the first thing she did, I`d be in jail for ten years. It`s ridiculous.

VELEZ-MITCHELL: Yes. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. I agree. I mean, when is -- look. Howard Samuels, what`s got to change? What`s got to change? Quickly.

SAMUELS: I think that what has to change is really the legal system and, you know, how they`re not really helping the addict, alcoholic. There`s no question that this woman is an addict alcoholic, and no one is willing to help her. In fact, they`re enabling her. She goes in and out of jail, just like her father.

VELEZ-MITCHELL: More on the other side.



VELEZ-MITCHELL: Are you sober? Lindsay, are you sober?

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: How are you, sweetie? How are you?


VELEZ-MITCHELL: That`s me yelling out to Lindsay Lohan on her way into court today, "Hey, Lindsay, are you sober?" I didn`t hear back. I don`t know. I hope she is.

But the point is that drug testing is not part, apparently, of this process. Why not? This woman has a history of drug addiction, alcohol addiction. She has two DUIs. She`s been in rehab multiple times. Why isn`t that recognized as her problem? The judge is sentencing her to psychotherapy. I can tell you, as a recovering alcoholic with 16 years of sobriety, psychotherapy can help once you get sober if you work the program.

But if you`re not working the program, if you`re not working the 12 steps, it`s not helpful to go to a therapist and yak, yak, yak about all your problems, in my humble opinion.

Here`s something remarkable. I got a sense watching in court today Lindsay knew exactly what was going to happen. Watch Lindsay`s lips while the judge is handing down her sentence.


SAUTNER: You are to perform 12 more days at the morgue and for more psychotherapy sessions.


VELEZ-MITCHELL: Danette Meyers, you`re a prosecutor. You`re running for district attorney. I got the sense as I went in that everything was pre-scripted. She knew everything was going to happen. I`ll throw it to Jen first.

HAGER:, we broke the story yesterday that Lindsay Lohan knew she was going to be sentenced to 30 days in jail. There were reports out there disputing our report this morning. Clearly, that happened. We broke it yesterday.

Jane, this was all brokered beforehand. There`s no way Shawn Holly would have waived her client`s right to appeal her probation violation hearing not knowing what the sentence would be.

VELEZ-MITCHELL: You know what it reminds me of, Danette? It reminds me of a professional wrestling match where it seems really -- but it`s all, like, pre-ordained.

MEYERS: You know, it`s so unfortunate that the perception now is that the L.A. County Superior Court has that -- that people feel that way. We have some of the best judges in the world. The L.A. Superior Court is probably the best trial system in the world.

VELEZ-MITCHELL: OK, all right.

MEYERS: It`s kind of sad. Really is sad, Jane, because I have to tell you -- it`s so disappointing.

VELEZ-MITCHELL: Look -- look, imagine if you are sitting at home and you have a loved one serving time behind bars for any kind of drug offense, for any kind of theft, stealing a necklace or stealing anything or stealing a TV set, for going for reckless driving, for carjacking. Imagine how you would feel watching this? Does this inspire confidence in the criminal justice system?

MEYERS: And that`s the unfortunate part. And you know what needs to happen? What needs to happen is we need more lock-down drug rehab programs. That`s what we need. Because if you had a lock-down drug treatment program, and it`s one of my platforms as I run for L.A. County D.A., is that for nonviolent offenses and for people who are under the influence and people who have drug related problems or alcohol problems, let`s put them in a lock-down drug treatment program for a year. I guarantee you we`ll -- we will resolve that problem, Jane. Would free up the system, free up the Department of Corrections to put violent offenders where they need to be.

VELEZ-MITCHELL: Exactly. Exactly.

MEYERS: That`s the problem. And that`s the kind of leadership we need in this country.

VELEZ-MITCHELL: By the way, we`re having a whole debate about this. You can go to and get involved in the debate, be a part of it. Because we need to come up with solutions. I talk about all this in my book, "Addict Nation." We have a military -- we have a -- sorry, a prison industrial system where it`s basically -- it`s becoming a business of locking people up.

So we`ve got to lock up the criminals who are violent, and we`ve got to come up with alternatives not just for Lindsay Lohan but for everyone. Let`s be fair.



UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Something is really wrong with mom and dad in this case. And I`m afraid that it probably is going to end up to be something that led to the death of a child, I hate to say.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Putting puzzle pieces together of your suspicions or my own personal theories of what may or may not have happened that night.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: He turned to look at me and I looked at him and I could tell he had a baby with him. She had a t-shirt and either training pants or a diaper on. It was too cold for that, I thought.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Hope they find whoever did it. I hope those parents aren`t involved.

MEGAN WRIGHT, EX-GIRLFRIEND OF JERSEY: Apparently there was a 50- second phone call made from one of family`s phones to my cell phone.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: It really just takes the one right nugget of information to kick this thing off in high gear. And that`s what we`re still looking and waiting for.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Lisa was this little girl that was going to hold this family together, that linked them together.

DEBORAH BRADLEY, MOTHER OF BABY LISA IRWIN: She`s everything. She`s our little girl. She`s completed our family. She means everything to my boys. And we need her home. I can`t be without her.


JANE VELEZ-MITCHELL, HLN HOST: Tonight a new possibly illicit theory in the Baby Lisa case. The parents of the missing child say the 11-month- old baby was snatched from her crib a month ago in the dead of night. Cops say that even though Baby Lisa`s mom Deborah claimed to be drinking between 6:40 when she put Lisa to bed and 10:30 when she passed out the night Baby Lisa went missing, one of her stolen phones was used to make a call to the ex-girlfriend of a local handyman between 8:00 and 8:30 long before she said passed out and the phones were taken.

Now, shocking new information about that local handyman -- John Tanko, a.k.a. "Jersey" could shed light, perhaps, on that mysterious phone call made to his ex-girlfriend from a phone stolen purportedly from the home of the missing baby.


WRIGHT: I found out that he was getting into some drug activity.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Do you know what drug?

WRIGHT: Meth, from what I understand. He would disappear for hours on end with no explanation. He was quick to anger. I just couldn`t handle it any more. Towards the last couple of days I was actually fearful for my face being around him.


VELEZ-MITCHELL: So that woman with the pink hair says cops told her that her phone number was written on the hand in ink of the mother of the missing child. Is that true? We don`t know. But there`s definitely some kind of nexus there between that phone that was supposedly taken at the same time that the baby was taken and that woman with the pink hair because that phone called that woman and then her ex-boyfriend, a local handyman she claims is into drugs who is allegedly doing yard work around that area that very night.

So my question is was there any kind of interaction between the mother of the missing child, who admits she was drinking heavily that night, and this handyman, who is purportedly allegedly into drugs. What was going on? Was this mother drinking alcohol? She says she has five glasses of wine and she doesn`t remember everything that happened that night. Or was there something else involved? Was there some other intoxicant.

We`ve reached out to Deborah`s lawyers. We have not gotten a response.

Ok. And we`re taking your calls. 1-877-JVM-SAYS. Give me a holler. What do you think?

Straight out to Jim Spellman, CNN reporter extraordinaire, who has done really amazing work, breaking news on this case standing there in the pouring rain at the crime scene in Kansas City, Missouri. You have new information, Jim, and I believe it involves neighbors? Tell us what you know.

JIM SPELLMAN, CNN ALL-PLATFORM JOURNALIST: The woman who lives next door to Deborah Bradley, this is the woman that Deborah Bradley was drinking with on her front stoop that night. We`ve wondered all along where was her husband. This man is an Air Force Reserve, an airman in the Air Force Reserve. He`s currently called up doing that.

Well, we now know that he was not in the home that night. Earlier that afternoon they had been having some trouble in their marriage, they saw a marriage counselor. That marriage counselor suggested they try a trial separation. That very night for the first time he left at 5:00 p.m. that night. Says he didn`t know where he was going stay that night, ended up crashing on a friend`s sofa. Normally he would have been in the house. That night he was gone.

Listen, police say that he has been talked to, cooperated; and that police have moved on is the language they use. And he tells us myself that he was the subject of the investigation for a while and he answered all their questions and even took a polygraph last week. They told him they didn`t have any issues with the polygraph.

So it looks like from all vantage points that he`s not considered an active suspect or anything but it certainly adds to the scene that night to know that this husband that usually was there was gone and Jeremy Irwin who usually is there is gone; both on the same night.

VELEZ-MITCHELL: Ok. And let`s go over the timeline. There`s some new details about this very complicated timeline -- so pardon me because it is complex -- on the night Baby Lisa went missing.

All right. Originally we knew Deborah and her brother, they went to the store to get wine and that was about 5:00 p.m. Then at 6:40 the mother claimed she put the child, who is now missing, in the crib. 4:00 a.m. Dad comes home from work.

But we have some information about what happened between 6:40 p.m. and 4:00 a.m. when the dad comes home. So 4:51 again, Deborah buys wine with her brother. Brother apparently at 5:30 leaves. Because she doesn`t have a license, he drove her to the store and back. 6:40 she puts Lisa in the crib.

6:40, the neighbor apparently, the female neighbor, buys more liquor, the one that she was drinking with. 7:00 p.m. that neighbor returns. 8:30 the phone call is made. And finally at 10:30 the neighbor leaves and the mother claims she passes out in bed and she`s with at least one of the two young boys who have not been interviewed by cops extensively yet.

And then the dad comes home and says, "Where the heck is the Baby?" and all heck breaks loose. And we understand that before he called cops he went to the neighbor`s and said hey where, where`s the child? They are like we don`t know; should be in your crib.

All right. Pat Brown, what do you make of this phone? This is so bizarre. Ok. The mom says there were three phones that were stolen along with the baby. Ok. And she went to sleep at 10:30. But way before she passes out a phone call is made on one of those supposedly stolen phones to the woman with pink hair who has a boyfriend who does yard work in the area and who according to somebody, according to his ex-girlfriend is into drugs. What do you make of it?

PAT BROWN, CRIMINAL PROFILER: Well, this is what police has to find out. Who actually knew who and who was doing alcohol and who was doing drugs. Was there a party? Were people coming and going?

Now, a lot depends on what we`re hearing from witnesses and whether their statements are accurate. For example it`s very possible a phone call could have been made, Jersey could have shown up. They could have been hanging out.

The boys could have heard something going on that wasn`t supposed to be going on that mom doesn`t even want to talk to them about. Now we have something going bad with the baby. Now, you have to get rid of a baby and you have to get rid of possible other evidence.

Take a look at these people who supposedly saw Jersey or somebody who looks like Jersey going down the street with this supposed baby. Did they really see him with a baby or did they see him with a bundle and later on assumed it was a baby. You know, he could have been carrying sheets from the bed getting rid of evidence. We don`t know.

And so what the police have to do is try to figure out whether the witnesses` stories are actually accurate or whether they are confusing the issue. And so that`s why this is really one of the biggest puzzles I`ve ever seen. And I know the police are really picking away at it trying to make sure that they can connect those dots.

VELEZ-MITCHELL: Yes. I think it`s something like "Twin Peaks", remember that show where it was sort of a normal town but then everything was very strange and there were people running around with logs (ph). I mean it is like a crazy mystery that`s bordering slightly on a horror story.


VELEZ-MITCHELL: And I only say that not to make light of this horrific situation. We want to find this child but it`s bizarre. It`s creepy. It`s mysterious and it doesn`t add up.

Very briefly Jim Spellman, isn`t there a problem with saying that Jersey, the problematical handyman might have been the one walking around with the baby. Didn`t people who saw that say, "No it`s not him"?

SPELLMAN: One of the witnesses says she doesn`t think it was him, that`s right.

VELEZ-MITCHELL: All right. And he, by the way, is in court and behind bars on some other case like a burglary, I think it is. So that`s another thing.

We`re going to go to the phone lines now. Marie in Kentucky, your question or thought, Marie.

MARIE, KENTUCKY (via telephone): hi, Jane. How are you?

VELEZ-MITCHELL: Hi. Fine thanks.

MARIE: I was thinking that, you know, seeing how she failed the polygraph, I was wondering if she would submit to hypnosis because they use hypnosis a lot when people have amnesia and things like that. And I`m thinking that whatever happened during her blackout before she went to sleep her brain saw it, you know. And it would come out on hypnosis if she`s a good -- if she agrees to it.

What do you think about that?

VELEZ-MITCHELL: Excellent. I think that`s an interesting point. Joey Jackson, defense attorney, she`s claiming she doesn`t really remember what happened because she had at least five or probably five glasses of wine. May have also been take anti-anxiety meds and who knows what other intoxicant might be in the picture.

But then again, could that be a cover for saying, well, I can`t answer questions because I don`t remember?

JOEY JACKSON, DEFENSE ATTORNEY: You know what, Jane, it could it be. And this hypnosis thing potentially could work. The problem you`re going to have though, especially with the failed polygraph test, is that the lawyer is going to be reluctant. I think Joe Tacopina will be reluctant to enter his client with any hypnosis.

And of course, there`s a lot of distrust as we know Jane, between her and the police because it`s turned accusatory. The police are very suspicious of her; very suspicious of what went on. There`re conflicting things that she`s told them so I don`t think she`s going to be all that anxious to submit to hypnosis or anything additional that might show another contradiction or something else that might show that she`s incriminating herself here. We`ll see.

VELEZ-MITCHELL: I have to say that I find it disturbing that she has yet or the family has yet to my latest report is allowed these two boys ages 5 or 6 and 8, who were in the house that night, to be interviewed extensively by police or a representative. And yet she reportedly allowed a major network follow the kids around trick or treating. That disturbs me.

Again, she`s not considered a suspect. Cops say they have no suspects, no persons of interest; it`s a total mystery.

Up next: Kim Kardashian.



UNIDENTIFIED MALE: She wanted to have sort of a fairytale wedding with all of her family and friends.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Kim Kardashian is calling it quits on her husband number two.

KRIS JENNER, MOTHER OF KIM KARDASHIAN: Certainly wasn`t a sham, certainly wasn`t something for TV. We have enough going on, you know, on our show that we don`t have to make things up. I mean she really felt like she was in love with him.

KIM KARDASHIAN, REALITY STAR: I married for love. Anyone that would get married for a TV show is just ridiculous and it`s just sad that I even have to defend that.


VELEZ-MITCHELL: A mockery of marriage that`s what people are calling the Kim Kardashian-Kris Humphries wedding and then the sudden filing for divorce.

In case you blinked here`s what happened in May. Kim and Kris got engaged. Luckily for us every detail was captured on camera. In August, they had a huge wedding reportedly costing something $10 million. It was broadcast as a two-day special on E! to millions and millions of people and allegedly earned the couple $17 million, something they dispute.

Millions of viewers tuned in to what was called the American royal wedding. And then five weeks later the happy couple renewed their vows on Ellen. Don`t you wait a while before you renew your vows? Well, it`s all part of the big picture here.

Less than a month later Kim turns around and files for divorce and then she hops on a plane and takes off to Australia leaving a shocked Kris and a shocked public feeling like they were just, well, they were just victims of a massive con job.

Let`s face it. When millions of people watch hours and hours of Kardashian they feel invested in their lives. Kim and the Kardashian clan swear the wedding was legit but much of the public aren`t buying it and a lot of people are angry.

Now the family is in damage control mode.

I`m taking your calls 1-877-JVM-SAYS.

Tonight an exclusive interview here on ISSUES with someone who knows Kim Kardashian very well, her former publicist Jonathan Jackson. You know Kim. What is your analysis? What the heck is she doing and why?

JONATHAN JACKSON, FORMER PUBLICIST OF KIM KARDASHIAN: Well, you know like just working with her in the very beginning, I knew what her life was going to become eventually. We all had it planned out for her. And she kind of had it planned out for herself.

The divorce, I will say Jane, has taken me by surprise and, you know, because Kim has always been one of these women to really work at her relationships. With Reggie Bush, she was with him for three years. They had a lot of problems but she continued working on it despite all the problems and the media speculation that surrounded them.

So it`s just, it`s very shocking to me that this has come to it.

VELEZ-MITCHELL: Do you think that she was in love with Kris?

JACKSON: I think she did fall in love with him at the very beginning. I think they quickly dissolved and I think what happened --

VELEZ-MITCHELL: That`s called lust, by the way. What you just described, that`s lust; that`s not love.

JACKSON: Yes. Well, you know, it can be taken either way. But for her it was love.

VELEZ-MITCHELL: Yes. It`s easy to fall in lust. Love lasts a little longer than five weeks or whatever, 72 days.

JACKSON: Well, she definitely didn`t give it a fighting chance. What she did do was she made a lot of money off the wedding and has made a mockery of weddings especially for the GLBT community who would love to get married and have to fight for that every single day of their lives. And yet she made this big to-do of getting married when she could just have gone to a courthouse and did it.

Instead she felt she was obligated to follow through with it from her statement. And to me that wasn`t the best of statements because --


VELEZ-MITCHELL: I think you made a very good point because I agree. I think that -- where are the people who are fighting to protect the institution of marriage. I can`t hear them. Hello, hello.

JACKSON: Exactly.

VELEZ-MITCHELL: Where are they? I mean come on.

Kim and Kris seemed to bicker and fight often on their TV show that airs on E! Here`s a clip from before their wedding and then we`re going to talk to a very special guest -- another one.


KARDASHIAN: I`m doing everything by myself and I can`t even ask you to help me out.

KRIS HUMPHRIES, NBA PLAYER: Why don`t you just (EXPLETIVE DELETED) pull the plug?

KARDASHIAN: I have been planning this wedding since I was 10 years old.

HUMPHRIES: Yes. And you`re going to slot any guy into it.


VELEZ-MITCHELL: By the way, we`re debating and discussing all this on So get involved in the conversation, you blog and I`ve been blogging. You can blog and we can have an open discussion about this.

I`m very delighted to have with me Jen Garcia, assistant editor "People" magazine. This was a huge, huge story for "People" and you actually attended the wedding.


VELEZ-MITCHELL: First of all did you buy a gift and if so will you get it back?

GARCIA: I gave an engagement gift. I was one of those who`s under the school of thought that you had a year after the wedding to give the wedding gifts. So I got lucky I did.

VELEZ-MITCHELL: Start move. Do you think Kim was in love with Kris?

GARCIA: I do. I honestly do. I saw them in so many intimate situations. I mean I interviewed them when they got engaged.

VELEZ-MITCHELL: I`m going to get the answer to that question on the other side.



KARDASHIAN: I mean, you know, in a tough situation I think I`m trying to do the best that I can and, you know, it`s actually kind of an escape to be able to come here and, you know, I have this work commitment for our Kardashian collection, handbags that we`re doing out here. So I really wanted to honor that commitment and stay here or come out here just to hope -- you know, to get my mind off of everything. But any time -- there is no easy way to go through something like this.

There she is talking about having a commitment to handbags but what about a commitment to marriage? That was Kim Kardashian, in an interview out of Australia on (ph).

With me a very special guest, Jen Garcia assistant editor of "People" magazine; you were at the wedding. You were telling me do you think Kim was really in love?

GARCIA: I do think she was really in love. I mean when Kim falls in love she falls hard. And she`s the first one to admit that. She`s in love with the idea of being in love. She`s the princess. She wants her prince charming. She wants the fairy tale. And she really grabbed on to that when she thought she found it. Now she was wrong and she made a big mistake.

VELEZ-MITCHELL: You have this incredibly successful cover on "People" magazine. What about the money issue? There are claims that she sold the rights for $17 million. That she made a fortune. That she commoditized her wedding.

GARCIA: For someone who is familiar with, you know, what she did make, I think they are grossly exaggerated these figures. I can`t speak to what she certainly made from E! But didn`t make these reported $17, $18 million. And from what I hear, sources are telling me that the money that she did make went into this extravagant affair of a wedding. So sure she got something for free and something bartered but there were still a couple of million dollars to be paid for that fairytale wedding.

VELEZ-MITCHELL: If she was in love why give up after 72 days?

GARCIA: You know, I think for Kim it was that she knew in her heart 100 percent this was it. It wasn`t going to last. So for someone who prize herself on telling the truth and showing the public her life, should she just have strung everyone along and kept this marriage going just because she wanted to show people that she could put some work into it? She followed her heart. She knew this was not going to work and this is the end and she got out of it early.

VELEZ-MITCHELL: Maybe it`s a commentary on our society. Maybe we live in a disposable society where we don`t fix anything; we just throw it away including our relationships.

GARCIA: Yes, I mean there`s definitely a different school of thought for that. Kim certainly has been married before and I think she does want to get married again. She thought this was it. But once she quickly realized it wasn`t, she wasn`t going to stay in the marriage.

VELEZ-MITCHELL: What do you think it was? All of a sudden she`s in love before the wedding. She has this huge wedding. You see them bickering before the wedding. And she even implied that maybe she -- it was a freight train she couldn`t put the brakes on because she was so invested with the TV show and the big wedding and all the money.

GARCIA: That`s absolutely what happened. I mean it was a roller coaster that was just going too fast that she couldn`t jump off of. With the pressures of the TV show and the pressures of everyone, her family, her mom wanting her to fall in love and have babies; she really got caught up in that.

And that`s sad. But she`s the first one to admit it. She`s embarrassed. She definitely wants to take the blame for this mistake. She`s calling herself out on it.

VELEZ-MITCHELL: And people are saying this is the first time they`ve miscalculated as a brand but then I ask should a family be a brand? Maybe they should just be a family.

Back in a minute.


VELEZ-MITCHELL: Are you nervous? I am because tomorrow it`s time for closing arguments in the Michael Jackson death trial. Stay with HLN; we`re all over it. Closing arguments are going to be delivered tomorrow; first the prosecution goes, then the defense goes. We`re going to be live inside the courtroom beginning at noon eastern.

Will Dr. Conrad Murray go down? Will he be convicted of involuntary manslaughter in the death of one of the most famous people who has ever lived?

This is absolutely crucial. The closing arguments where they`ve got to take what, six weeks of testimony and boil it down to a couple of hours on each side and then the jury instructions and then the jury gets the case.

So we`re all over it. Keep it right here on HLN. You`ve got to watch the closing arguments tomorrow. We`ll be there.