Return to Transcripts main page
Penn State Scandal: Who Knew What, When?
Aired November 16, 2011 - 21:00 ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
DR. DREW PINSKY, HOST: Here we go.
A dramatic twist in Penn State`s child sex abuse scandal. A key witness now says he did stop a shower room rape and did call police. If so, were campus cops working in a culture of secrecy?
What did Paterno know, and when? And why did he suddenly sell his house to his wife last summer for a dollar?
Plus, Michael Jackson`s deadly affair with propofol goes back much further than maybe you thought. My exclusive guest today says he saw the drug use firsthand years ago.
Let`s get started.
Thanks for joining us tonight. Shocking new details about the Penn State scandal, who knew what and when and how much did the university really know about Jerry Sandusky`s alleged actions on their campus. Watch this.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: More breaking news in a child sex abuse scandal that has rocked this university.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Mike McQueary says that he did go to police after allegedly walking in on Jerry Sandusky assaulting a young boy in the shower at Penn State.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: "I did stop" - this is to a friend. "I did stop it, not physically but made sure it was stopped when I left that locker room."
MIKE MCQUEARY, PENN STATE ASSISTANT FOOTBALL COACH: This process has to play out. I just don`t have anything else to say.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: I think McQueary saw Jerry in the shower with a kid, and I think like a lot of people you assume the worst.
PINSKY: Tonight, a secret e-mail leaks. This guy, the graduate assistant, who allegedly saw Jerry Sandusky raping a little boy in the Penn State showers, tells a friend he did go to the police. And I`ve got to say, the Mike McQueary, who you`re looking at on these pictures, to me - and the Grand Jury, by the way, found him the same as probably the most sympathetic and believable figure in this entire thing.
The question does remain, though, how did he continue to work in that organization knowing what he knew? And did he get some special consideration because he had something on somebody? That`s what bothers me.
Well, Mike McQueary is now an assistant football coach. He was placed on leave for his alleged inaction, which he says is false. Penn State and the State College Police say they have no records in support that he had told the police about the rape.
Plus, Joe Paterno sells his house, get this, for a dollar. That`s right. Less than four months before the scandal breaks, at least before the rest of us found out about it, maybe he knew something, sold his home to his wife for a dollar. We`re going to try to look into that a bit.
Straight to my guest, the reporter who broke the story, CNN Contributor Sara Ganim; Thomas Day, a Penn State alum and mentee for Jerry Sandusky`s charity The Second Mile; and HLN Host Mike Galanos, who is at Penn State.
Mike, first off, we are hearing that a new judge has been appointed for Sandusky`s preliminary hearing. I want you to give me an update on that. But also, how did that happen? Did she recuse herself, or did somebody - and who is that somebody replace her?
MIKE GALANOS, HLN HOST: Well, it`s about time. And it`s some common sense finally in that situation, Drew, because there was outrage here in State College that Judge Dutchcot set bail so low, at only $100,000, no monitoring device. Well, now we have Judge Robert Scott.
And the key here, Drew, is no connection to The Second Mile Charity. We know the previous judge was a volunteer with that organization and the new judge, Scott, no connection to Penn State, and we know that there were connections there as well.
So, again, you know, being here in State College, it was speaking to that arrogance, that Jerry Sandusky`s parading around in stores wearing Penn State gear and you`re having a judge who has connections with him and not even disclosing that. So we have a new judge, some common sense at the end of the day.
PINSKY: And Mike, my question is how did this happen? So Judge Dutchcot, who we all agreed like was suspect, we wondered why she didn`t recuse herself. A, did she finally recuse herself? Or B, how does that work? Who replaces the judge? Who mandated that?
GALANOS: Well, that one is beyond me as far as being a legal expert. All I know, at the end of the day thankfully we have the new judge, Judge Scott in there, Drew.
PINSKY: Thanks, Mike.
And it`s also been reported that Mike McQueary, again, the gentleman we`re talking about, the graduate student at the time when he saw this alleged rape, he went to his father and Paterno after seeing Sandusky with a boy in the Penn State showers and he didn`t go to the cops. That`s how the - that`s what the story has been.
But in the e-mail obtained by the "Morning Call," McQueary writes, quote, "I did have discussions with police and with the official at the university in charge of the police."
I want to stop right there. Hold that screen. No, no, no, go back to the other screen. The official in charge of the university police, the police - the police are in charge of the police. There`s an administrator in charge of the police? We need to find out more about that. Because that may have been - yes, I wonder if that`s where some of the covering up got going.
He went on to say, "I am getting hammered for handling this the right way or what I thought at the time was right. I had to make tough, impacting, quick decisions."
Sara, State College Police are saying they never heard from him. That`s sort of a question I`m tossing out to you. But the other question is are the state - are the college police accountable to the law of the land or are they accountable to the administration at the institution?
SARA GAMIN, CNN CONTRIBUTOR, REPORTER WHO BROKE STORY: Well, I`ll start with this. The University Police are supposed to be an independent police organization. I know that questions about that have come up in the last week, how much they are accountable. The Penn State official who is charged with perjury and with failure to report was tasked with overseeing many - many facets of this university, and university police were included in that.
What I think is important about that e-mail from Mike McQueary is that he says he told Gary Schultz, that university official, and, the key word being "and," and officers. So in his e-mail he says he had - he told both.
PINSKY: So Sara, you`re there in the community of State College. Help me understand how something like that gets reported and then gets covered up. And let me put a little corollary to that, which is, is there a - what`s the word I`m looking for - an insolence or some sort of feeling that administrators know best how to manage their community and they don`t need to be bothered with the same considerations as the rest of us?
GANIM: I think that`s jumping to conclusions at this point. I can tell you that the mom of victim six, who came forward in 1998, does feel like her son should have been believed and wasn`t. However, the person who made that decision in 1998 is a prosecutor who has been missing for seven years. So we can`t ask him why he made that decision. There could be a perfectly legitimate reason and it was his decision at the time.
Now, there are grand jurors who believe the child now. He`s now a man. But they believe him now. So it does raise that question of why is it different from 1998. But I don`t think we can give you an answer for that right now. It might be something that we learn at trial. There might be some more insight as there`s more testimony. But at this point I think it`s premature to say.
PINSKY: All right, Sara, thanks.
Now, cameras caught up with McQueary outside his home. Watch this from CBS "Evening News."
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Do you have any idea when you think you might be ready to - to talk?
MCQUEARY: This process has to play out. I just don`t have anything else to say.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: OK. And then just one last thing. Just describe your emotions right now.
MCQUEARY: All over the place. Just kind of shaken.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Crazy?
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: And you said what? Like a -
MCQUEARY: Snow globe.
PINSKY: McQueary has reportedly been telling friends, quote, "I did the right thing. I didn`t just turn and run. I made sure it stopped."
I wonder, Thomas Day, why there are such conflicting reports about this guy. Do you have any sense of that? I mean, you`re there. You`ve been working with The Second Mile Organization. Has this guy been on your radar ever before?
THOMAS DAY, "SECOND MILE" MENTEE, PENN STATE ALUM: Speaking of Mike McQueary?
DAY: Yes. Well, Mike McQueary has been active in the State College community for some time. I don`t recall ever seeing him in any function of the Second Mile I`ve been to, but I do believe that he is in some way, shape, or form been active with The Second Mile.
Listen, I mean, this is kind of the problem with, you know, judging people involved with this scandal before we know all the facts. If Coach McQueary acted in the way that he claims now that he did, then in my opinion we really owe him an apology because this man, according to, you know, what he wrote in his e-mail, acted in a way frankly that I think he would have been expected to. He can`t just make a citizen`s arrest.
DAY: And you know, for him to be getting death threats -
DAY: -- I think is regrettable.
PINSKY: Except one thing, Thomas, I would say, which I totally agree with you. I think he is a sympathetic figure in all of this. He did, though, knowing what he saw and then knowing how the community responded, continued to work within an organization that had some secrets. I think we can hold him a little bit accountable there, don`t you think, Thomas?
DAY: Well, I mean, listen, Mike McQueary was 28 years old when he saw this, and he was looking to get in the coaching business. And he was working for, you know, a man who - Joe Paterno, who is arguably the greatest college football coach of all time.
So, you know, I understand your point. But this man did have an ambition to coach. He did what he could. And, you know, I think as we continue to see this process play out we`ll learn more about his actions during the course of the last eight, nine years.
PINSKY: Mike Galanos, I want to go out to you. We`ve got less than 30 seconds. Give us your last thoughts on what`s happening there.
GALANOS: I`ll tell you, Drew. I think you make a good point. A week ago they wanted McQueary`s head on a platter. Basically, people right here on this campus, hey, if Joe Paterno`s out, why isn`t McQueary out? He saw it.
But to your point, Drew, if he saw what he saw, a sexual assault, but then weeks later nothing is happening to Jerry Sandusky unless - the only thing they`re telling him is you can`t come in the shower with kids anymore. That`s it? And that sits well with you if you`re Mike McQueary? I still have questions on that front.
PINSKY: Yes. I agree with you, Mike.
Thank you, guys. Thanks, Sara, Thomas, Mike. I appreciate it.
We want to remind you to go to HLNTV.com to check out the "Must See, Must Share" stories and see what made the top 10 tonight.
Coming up, did Penn State purposely make their records private, among other things to cover up some of Jerry Sandusky`s alleged attacks on children? Some details we found out may shock you.
Plus, a senator who is trying to make it a law for university employees, all of them, to report abuse of a child. Join us, with this. We`re up next.
PINSKY: Penn State under fire tonight. The university is excluded from the Right to Know Law, which means the school doesn`t have to reveal their private records.
CNN`s Drew Griffin reports not only did Penn State`s president himself request this in 2007, he did it right around the time strangely enough, around the time that Jerry Sandusky was facing some sexual abuse allegations with the Grand Jury investigation.
Listen to this.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
DREW GRIFFIN, CNN SPECIAL INVESTIGATIONS UNIT (on camera): It`s the type of information we would normally get in the United States from any public institution, especially a police department - the records, the incident reports. All the information you rely on to get the facts to know who knew what, when, and where.
But Penn State, you will not find that because Penn State got itself an exemption from this state`s Open Records Act. At the same time in 2000, 2008 when the legislature was discussing this new law, Penn State`s president personally went to the legislature and asked to be exempt to make sure the records were kept private.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
PINSKY: Joining me now to discuss this is former Miami-Dade County Judge Karen Mills-Francis; and Pennsylvania State Senator Kim Ward. She`s writing a bill that will require all employees of universities to report suspected child abuse to the person in charge of the institution and a child abuse reporting hotline. And Terry Mutchler, she`s an attorney and the executive director of the Pennsylvania Office of Open Records.
Terry, first to you. What can you tell us about this Right to Know law? What`s going on there?
TERRY MUTCHLER, EXEC. DIR. OF THE PA OFFICE OF OPEN RECORDS: The Pennsylvania Right to Know law was adopted really as a - as a result of several scandals in Pennsylvania. Pennsylvania had among the worst Right to Know laws in the nation.
It was one of the very few states, if not the only state, that had the legal presumption that a record was closed. If a citizen went to a school district, a township, a police department, the citizen had to prove why that record was available.
There was a culmination and a public outcry after three distinct scandals in Pennsylvania that caused the legislature in 2008 to rewrite this law. Now, Pennsylvania enjoys a very strong Right to Know law.
However, as you mentioned on the show earlier, there are some exceptions, and the one key exception we`re talking about tonight, of course, are involving four state-related institutions - Penn State, Temple, Pitt, and Lincoln. And they enjoy a - an exemption that most similarly situated universities do not enjoy across the United States.
And, also, if you`re a state-owned university in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, your records are fully discloseable.
PINSKY: They enjoy an exemption. Those - those are words that sort of disturb me, I must tell you.
Now, Senator Ward, I want to go to you now. Apparently, part of the problem with this overall circumstance of this child abuse situation on this campus is that in Pennsylvania - Judge Karen and I were talking here - in Pennsylvania, unlike most states, you`re not required to report seeing a child abuse - you`re required to report it to your administration, but not to Social Services. Is that right?
SENATOR KIM WARD, PENNSYLVANIA STATE SENATOR: Correct. The situation in Penn State was that Mr. McQueary reported to his superior, and that is the present law. The law that I just proposed this week would mandate that you go to the head of the institution and to the Department of Public Welfare`s ChildLine. And ChildLine in Pennsylvania is the entity that takes the - the hotline calls for mandated reporters, and they have a certain amount of numbers - number of hours to then respond.
PINSKY: Senator, I - I hope the citizens of Pennsylvania are listening loud and clear to your - your legislation, because this is ridiculous that it`s not like this. It`s only common sense.
Karen, Judge Karen, I mean, it`s outrageous. In this - in California -
JUDGE KAREN MILLS-FRANCIS, FMR. MIAMI-DADE COUNTY COURT JUDGE: I mean, everything about it is outrageous in this case.
PINSKY: Well, I`m with you. I`m so with you in that. But let`s just start with how different Pennsylvania is from California. In California, if I even have the whiff of a suspicion, I am required - I have a criminal liability if I don`t report it.
MILLS-FRANCIS: To report it to the police, to report it to Child Services.
MILLS-FRANCIS: The only thing you have to do in Pennsylvania is report it to your supervisor.
So there are two janitors that allegedly saw some sexual act going on. Who were they supposed to report it to? The head janitor? And now - and once the head janitor found out about it, who`s he supposed to report it to? Head of Maintenance?
MILLS-FRANCIS: I mean, so it just keeps going up that food chain, but it never gets anywhere.
PINSKY: I completely agree. It`s just absolutely nutty.
MILLS-FRANCIS: Obviously that`s part of their problem.
PINSKY: And speaking of a nutty situation, I want - I want you to clear something up for me. The judge, Judge Dutchcot, that was initially - first of all, my understanding, anyone that sits on the bench, anyone that`s in the legal profession looks at the lack of bail, there was just a bail bond for him, as bizarre. The fact that she didn`t recuse herself, bizarre.
How did she finally get off this case? She didn`t recuse herself.
MILLS-FRANCIS: Because even though judges don`t have bosses, judges have a chief judge, and a chief judge is probably looking at the facts of this case and saying, you should have recused yourself, because judges are under the - the canons of ethics to make sure you that avoid the appearance of impropriety.
What - everything about this woman`s actions were inappropriate. $100,000 bond? What`s that about?
PINSKY: And not even a bond. It was a - it was a bond that he didn`t have to pay.
MILLS-FRANCIS: Right. It was like a promise to appear.
MILLS-FRANCIS: If you don`t appear, you`re going to owe this money.
MILLS-FRANCIS: And what - it doesn`t make any sense. There are people with - with less serious charges that have more bonds, higher bonds than this.
PINSKY: And by the way, Lindsay Lohan is more dangerous to us than - that this guy? This guy walks free, without any monitoring anything?
MILLS-FRANCIS: It`s all been a slap on the wrist, the whole time. Look at this, 10, 15 years of abuse, and it`s just been slapped on the wrist.
When I read that this guy walks into a shower and sees a 10-year-old boy naked with a 50-year-old man, having sex with him from behind, and you don`t have a problem with that? You did what you were supposed to do. How do you even look at him after that? How do you even deal with him after that? How do you respect him after that?
PINSKY: And how do you stay in that organization?
PINSKY: Judge, that is what I`m talking about.
Now, up next - thank you so much. I want to have you back later on in the program.
Up next, who are you blaming in the Penn State scandal? We`re taking your calls and questions in just a moment. Stay with us.
PINSKY: Now, many of you have written in to HLNtv/drew, wondering if there`s really something bigger being uncovered on how college university administrations function. Well, I`ve been wondering the same thing. So let`s hear more of what you have to say.
First, I`ve got Karen in Minnesota. Go ahead, Karen.
KAREN, DULUTH, MN: Hi, Dr. Drew.
PINSKY: Hi, Karen.
KAREN: I just want to say that one of the real horrors of the Penn State matter is those who did speak up and report things are the ones under fire. Those who saw things and kept their mouth shut are coming out smelling like a rose.
Is the lesson here keep your mouth shut and save your job? Is there a solution for all of this?
PINSKY: Well, Karen, I hope you`re very wrong, and I think there is a solution. I hope people who keep their mouths shut do not keep their jobs so much as have to bear scrutiny.
There is a solution. It`s pretty simple. It`s transparency, and seeing to it that everyone is under the subject - everyone is subject to the law of the land, like the rest of us.
And here`s my concern, though, is it possible that people that work in college administrations feel so insulated from the world, they`re in such an ivory tower, such an intellectual bubble, that they feel they know better how to manage those campuses than the general law of the land?
I`m sending my kids to colleges. I know you are too. There`s binge drinking on campuses. There`s unwanted sexual contacts. Are they looking the other way on all these sorts of behaviors, too? And do they think they know best?
They don`t know. They`re living in an ivory tower. They`re intellectuals. The best is what serves the law of the land and what the standard of care is in the community. They need to be subject to the same thing as the rest of us. I`m concerned there`s something more going on here.
Laura in Pennsylvania. Go ahead, Laura.
LAURA, STATE COLLEGE, PA: Hi, Dr. Drew.
PINSKY: Hi, Laura.
LAURA: I`m a senior at Penn State, and I just want to say that unfortunately emotions ran so high last week that students got very upset and there was a lot of rioting and a lot of embarrassment. As a student body, we are trying to come together and let the victims know we are so sorry for what happened.
I would like to get your thoughts on how we, as students, can process all of this on an emotional level, because it`s something that we`re all struggling with right now.
PINSKY: Yes. I mean, that`s a big question, Laura. I wish there were some easy answer to that or something I could address in a mere moment here on television. Unfortunately, there is not.
But I do want to say this, which is that our hats off to you students at Penn State. You guys are exemplary. The way you have turned it around from your initial shock and outrage - understood - to something more positive, where you`re trying to address this in a very systematic, appropriate, and mature way, we are supporting you all the way.
So please stay with me. I will be providing anything I can to help support you guys process this. I think the bottom line is you`re doing it, keep doing it.
Cindy on Facebook writes, "When you said you don`t know where this scandal is going with Sandusky but it doesn`t seem like it`s going to go to a very good place, were you saying it can affect him to the point of suicide?" Yes, that is exactly what I meant when I said that. It`s - particularly after that Bob Costas interview, my concern was he was going to hurt himself.
There was a - that interview crossed a line, and it`s one that, you know, as a physician I could never cross. I cannot hurt somebody. And it was clear to me he got to a place where he - he could be in real danger.
George writes, "When you heard the Sandusky/Costas interview, is it fair to say that Sandusky is either in denial or just plain delusional?" Or innocent, I guess, we have to - we have to say that as well. I would just say that perpetrators often wall off and disavow parts of themselves that do these things, and they behave and act and talk very much like Sandusky did.
Up next, Sandusky says he`s innocent. A lawyer claims a victim is denying sexual abuse. And a judge has financial connections to the Second Mile charity. We break down what we know so far about the Penn State scandal. Stay with us.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
PINSKY (voice-over): Key witness in the Penn State mess speaks out for the first time since the scandal broke. Who knew what and when? Tonight, we`ll separate fact from fiction.
And later, Michael Jackson`s most vulnerable moments through the eyes of his former assistant. You won`t see it anywhere else.
Plus, Justin Bieber. You are not the father or so it appears. Why did his accuser suddenly drop her paternity suit?
(END VIDEO CLIP)
PINSKY (on-camera): There are so many accusations and denials surrounding the Penn State scandal. Who and what are we to believe? This week, Sandusky told Bob Costas he`s innocent on NBC`s "Rock Center" with Brian Williams. Watch this.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
VOICE OF JERRY SANDUSKY, ACCUSED OF SEXUALLY ABUSING CHILDREN: I have horsed around with kids. I have showered after workouts. I have hugged them and I have touched their leg without intent of sexual contact, but -- so if you look at it that way, there are things that wouldn`t -- you know, would be accurate.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Are you denying that you had any inappropriate sexual contact with any of these underage boys?
SANDUSKY: Yes, I am.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
PINSKY: That reminds me back in the days of it depends what is is. It depends what sexual contact is. Well, let`s look at the allegations. You just heard Sandusky saying he`s innocent. His attorney, Joe Amendola, says he may have found two of the alleged victims in the grand jury report, he claims they`re telling him a very different story, that in fact there was no sexual abuse.
And new documents show Sandusky`s charity, Second Mile, donated money to district judge, Leslie Dutchcot, who set his bail -- by the way, she was replaced as the judge in the case today, thank goodness.
Now, we`re going to break this down tonight with our guest, "Patriot News" reporter and HLN contributor, Sara Ganim, who broke this story back in March, Judge Karen Mills-Francis, host of "Judge Karen," and attorney, Lisa Bloom.
Sara, are you hearing that more -- I have two questions for Sara. A, are we hearing more victims are coming forward? And B, I imagine you ran into a bunch of road blocks when you first started reporting this story, and I`m asking is that true? And secondly, are those road blocks coming down?
SARA GANIM, PATRIOT-NEWS REPORTER: Well, let`s start with the first one. We are hearing that there`s a tip line set up for police, specifically for this case, and we are hearing that they`re getting a lot of tips. However, there have been reports of specific numbers, and police are saying that those numbers are not true.
They`re not putting a number on those -- how many victims, potential victims have come forward, but they are saying that the numbers that we`re hearing that would put this case somewhere around two dozen are not accurate. The second part, you know, this is one of those cases where I think local journalism really shines through because we`re on the ground here every day and we were talking to people and that`s how we came upon this story.
You know, of course, this is a Penn State town. And I think that we have seen from the grand jury presentment that you know, there were several missed opportunities over the years. Why they were missed opportunities? It`s not for me to say. But there were certainly appears, and the grand jurors have certainly alleged that there were times where it appears that the good of the community might have gotten in the way.
PINSKY: Sara, are you a Penn State graduate yourself?
GANIM: I am, yes.
PINSKY: OK. As a Penn State graduate, take your journalist hat off for a second and tell me why do you think they missed those opportunities?
GANIM: Well, you know, as a journalist you have to separate those things. You have to separate --
PINSKY: That`s why I`m asking you to do that. I`m asking you to talk to me as a Penn State graduate. I`m asking you to talk to me as a Penn State alumni.
GANIM: You know, it`s not for me to speculate on why things may or may not have been covered up. You know, this is so early in the investigation. I don`t think that we can make that judgment at this point. Ask me again after the trial.
PINSKY: All right. Fair enough. All right. Fair enough. Sandusky`s lawyer says he found victim number 2, who apparently -- allegedly now is denying the alleged sexual abuse. Joe Amendola believes it`s a possibility that Sandusky is innocent because of a 2009 visit from a victim actually listed in the grand jury report.
Again, that`s another sort of -- well, listen to Amendola`s own words here on the NBC "Today" show.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
JOE AMENDOLA, SANDUSKY`S DEFENSE ATTORNEY: I can tell you this. One -- one of the victims as set forth in number four, the alleged victim, was as recently as two years ago at Jerry`s house with his girlfriend and baby saying that he wanted Jerry and his wife to be part of their family.
Now, obviously, the other side of that is, that`s what victims do who are abused, they`re confused about how they relate to the people who are the abusers. And that`s all well and good. But it still opens up the possibility that Jerry`s innocent.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
PINSKY: Lisa, kind of interesting, the way he admits that the fact that that guy showed up at Sandusky`s house cuts both ways. Do you think these claims help or hurt him?
LISA BLOOM, ATTORNEY: Yes. It shows that we`ve made some progress, right, Dr. Drew, in educating people about how victims behave.
PINSKY: Yes. Yes.
BLOOM: And that`s good.
BLOOM: But look, he`s also right. There is the possibility of innocence here. We have to keep an open mind and remember that the man is presumed innocent. But when you have this many victims coming forward, when you have an eyewitness who says that he saw sexual abuse happening in a shower, he saw it with his own two eyes, I mean, as an attorney who`s represented so many victims, I can tell you, you almost never get an eyewitness in a case like this.
It certainly looks like a very damning case against him. I think this is really going to get even worse as more victims come out of the woodwork. And if one of them comes out publicly, using their face and name, and why shouldn`t they? Because they`ve done nothing wrong. They have nothing to be ashamed of. I think we`re going to see more and more and more coming out.
PINSKY: I absolutely agree with you. So, Judge Karen, there are some civil liabilities here, too, are there not? It`s not just all these criminal accusations. There`s going to be many more lawsuits directed at the institution and the individuals involved.
JUDGE KAREN MILLS-FRANCIS, FMR. MIAMI-DADE COUNTY COURT JUDGE: You know another thing, I just want to say --
PINSKY: Please. We`ve got about a minute.
MILLS-FRANCIS: But when we think about these kids, these kids were at-risk kids.
MILLS-FRANCIS: This is a Second Mile organization. These are children coming from broken homes, coming from a situation where you don`t have any guidance --
PINSKY: Judge, can I throw something awful out there? Do we know anything about the race of these kids? Is that part of the reason this was swept under the rug? Do you think there`s any possibility --
MILLS-FRANCIS: Well, you know --
PINSKY: When I think about that, my blood starts to boil.
MILLS-FRANCIS: I thought about it too.
PINSKY: And I think we need to look into it that a little bit.
MILLS-FRANCIS: I thought about it, too, but he admitted that he takes showers with these boys. I mean, who does that? But as far as the civil liability, this is going to be like the Catholic Church. You can forget about it. OK? Negligent retention. Civil conspiracy. Negligent hiring.
These people are covering up because they know -- the Catholic Church today is still selling off property around the world, trying to meet these million-dollar judgments that they got. And the Pennsylvania Supreme Court has already said that Penn State is not an agency of the state. Therefore, they can`t even hide behind the cloak of sovereign immunity. Oh, no, you can`t sue us. We`re the state.
PINSKY: Finish up. Ten seconds.
MILLS-FRANCIS: I think that there`s a whole lot more coming up today. We`re going to hear about some other stuff. We`re going to hear about some other people at the university.
PINSKY: Lisa`s going to be here. Judge Karen`s going to be here. Sara, I hope you`ll be with me as we follow this story.
And for more on the story, log on to hlntv.com and check out the HLN top 10.
Up next, an HLN primetime exclusive. An interview with one of Michael Jackson`s former personal managers and close friends. Stay with us.
PINSKY: Tonight, an HLN primetime exclusive with Michael Jackson`s former manager and close friend who witnessed the highs and lows of a musical genius spiraling out of control. Frank Cascio is here with us tonight. He joins us to talk about his journey with the King of pop, from touring overseas with Michael to witnessing his drug use.
It`s all here in his new book "My Friend Michael: An Ordinary Friendship with an Extraordinary Man." Now, Frank, you got to know Michael when you were very young. I guess, your father introduced you. He worked at the hotel where Michael and his family would stay. How old were you then?
FRANK CASCIO, AUTHOR, "MY FRIEND MICHAEL": I was 4 years old. When I was 4, I was -- my father says, I`m going to bring you to work with me, and I`m going to introduce you to a friend of mine. And his name is Michael Jackson. So, he takes us to -- he takes me to the hotel.
And we`re greeted by a gentleman by the name of Bill Bray. And he brings us into the room and says, I`d like to introduce you to Michael Jackson. And Michael puts out his hand and goes, "Hi, I`m Michael." I say, hi, I`m Frank.
PINSKY: And Michael was how old at the time?
CASCIO: Gee, I don`t even know. I think 27.
PINSKY: So, he was an adult male, and you were four or five years old. How was it that a four or five-year-old started hanging around with a guy in his 30s?
CASCIO: Well, Dr. Drew, it was not just me. It was my entire family. He first and foremost befriended my father, my mother. It wasn`t just myself. It was my entire family that befriended Michael. And --
PINSKY: And then, you ended up, as I understand, you ended up spending a good deal of time with him and being sort of welcome to travel with him. How do you think that happened? Again, you were a five-year-old kid. Why does a man in his late 20s, early 30s, encouraging a young child to spend time with him on the road?
CASCIO: Dr. Drew, you have to understand, this situation is completely different. We`ve known Michael for years, since I was 4. And it`s -- again, this is my entire family. We created such a strong foundation. And a family bond that, you know, it was --
PINSKY: But Frank, that`s what I want to get into. That`s what I`m confused about. We`ve been talking about Michael now for months, and we`ve heard all these stories about the propofol. And I`m well aware that the anesthesiologist had been giving propofol to Michael for 15 years probably before we ever found out about it, but I`m curious --
CASCIO: I don`t know if that`s an accurate statement.
PINSKY: When did you first see it? The propofol.
CASCIO: Well, I actually have never seen Michael taking propofol. The first I`ve ever heard of propofol was during this Dr. Conrad Murray trial. I -- you know, I think it was in 1999, there was a doctor who explained to me a procedure and what he was doing, but I`ve never seen Michael taking propofol. I`ve never --
PINSKY: OK. Well, the procedure that an anesthesiologist would do, let`s be clear, an anesthesiologist uses propofol to put people to sleep. And that`s the only drug you can use that puts people reliably out and then wakes them up again in a couple of hours. Everything else would have him out the rest of the day.
So, what you described in your book is somebody receiving propofol. That`s just the way it is. So, that was December of 1999, I guess. So, you did witness propofol being administered --
CASCIO: No, I never --
CASCIO: I`ve never seen Michael --
PINSKY: All right. You saw an anesthesiologist explain to you that he was giving him propofol on a regular basis. But let`s go back to -- you also had an experience with Michael where he was completely intoxicated when he was due on stage. Tell us about that experience.
CASCIO: It was the 30th anniversary special. And I was actually at the Twin Towers right before that picking up something from Bank of America. I get a call from security saying, you know, we can`t get in touch with Michael, we can`t -- so I rushed back. And I opened the door. And he`s sleeping. And I can tell he was a little groggy.
And I knew he was -- he took some medicine. And -- right before the show. And I was really disappointed with him that he did so. But you know what? Michael is a fighter, and he was fine. We got him ready, and he performed an incredible show.
PINSKY: And so, why didn`t somebody intervene right then? Why didn`t somebody do something about his substance use? It was to the point now where it was affecting his ability to function at work. He was, you know, clearly well beyond what a physician would want him to be taking. How come people didn`t jump in right then?
CASCIO: Dr. Drew, I mean, there was a time where there was definitely some concern. And his family addressed the situation with Michael. They were there. They were trying to have conversations with him. And Michael didn`t want to hear it from anyone. But you know what? At the end of the day, we had a conversation and you know, he moved on.
He went past that stage. And then, he was completely fine. You know, he was under a lot of stress, and he happened to be in a lot of pain during that time. And you know, these situations with the drugs, I think, actually getting taken out of proportion because, you know, when Michael -- for instance, I`ll give you an example. In Munich, Germany, he fell 50 feet, 50 feet on a malfunctioned, on a bridge. He was in severe pain. That hurt.
PINSKY: I`m not saying he didn`t get exposed to the medicines for legitimate reasons. He had a bad burn. He, of course, was going to take them. But the fact is -- but Frank, why was he -- he was admitted in London to a chemical dependency treatment program, if you recall. And there`s a video of him talking about his addiction.
And here`s the thing about addiction is once you meet criteria to be admitted to a program, by definition, either the program needs to be delicensed because they didn`t properly diagnose somebody or they allowed somebody who didn`t have the disease of addiction, which almost never happens or he has a lifelong condition, because he met criteria and was admitted to a program.
CASCIO: No. He --
PINSKY: So, we know he has addiction. It`s not something debatable. That`s just simply a fact in the history of his life. And my question simply is, why didn`t people -- you know, once he got treatment, why didn`t people continue to support that process of recovery?
CASCIO: Dr. Drew, there was -- Michael was in a situation where, you know, he also knew there was a point in his life where he came to a point where you know what, he wanted to get better, and he did. And that happened.
But you know, we`re talking about -- you know, I really -- and I`ve seen -- there were so many doctors who manipulated Michael. And Michael was also a victim of these doctors. These doctors --
CASCIO: -- manipulated him.
PINSKY: And I totally agree with you, Frank. Now, I want to hear more about that. I want to hear more about that. I completely agree with you.
CASCIO: They saw Michael as a money pit.
CASCIO: They pushed thing -- and that`s where I got so upset and pissed off.
CASCIO: Because that should have never happened.
PINSKY: You`re right.
CASCIO: And that`s where I put my foot down. And I had very clear conversations. In fact, you know, there was a doctor in Florida, Dr. Alex Farshan, and I had security -- if any doctors went to the hotel room to call me. I went up to that room, and I got so mad, I -- this poor doctor. and I tell you, this poor doctor. I reamed this poor guy out. And I have to tell you --
PINSKY: Frank, what are you talking about? You`re my hero. You didn`t ream the poor guy out. You saved Michael from, perhaps, an earlier demise.
CASCIO: But you`re not -- he happens to be one of the only doctors that really, you know, helped him and wouldn`t do any of those things to him. And I`m giving you an example that, you know -- I was wrong in that situation with Dr. Farshan, but you know, there were people out there. And guess what? He got better. He was good.
There was times where he was absolutely fine and clear and so healthy and great. You know, you have to understand, depending on what this man was going through in his life, unfortunately, these things happened. He can`t -- he was in a lot of pain for multiple reasons that, you know, people don`t understand and couldn`t understand. And everybody is different, Dr. Drew. Everybody is different.
PINSKY: But Frank -- first of all, I want to say thank you for trying to intervene on his behalf. I could not agree more strongly than what you just said about how physicians saw him in whatever way, either they were lit up by taking care of him or they saw him as an opportunity to make money. Whatever it was, he was ill served by my profession.
And I hope you keep championing that message because that is really a learning opportunity for all of us. But the bigger issue here is that my patients today all die because they have pain and a doctor prescribes too much medication to them. When an addict has pain, it has to be managed differently than you would the average person with pain.
I`m not saying they should suffer. I`m not saying they shouldn`t get pain medicine. I`m saying it needs to be managed completely differently. Frank, thank you so much. We will look for your book.
And up next, Bieber fever reliever. She just said Justin Bieber was her baby daddy, apparently. So, why did she suddenly drop the entire paternity suit all of a sudden? Stay with us.
PINSKY: Justin Bieber, you are not the father. All right. There`s my Maury Povich impression. But on a little more serious note, Justin may be actually breathing a little easier now that his paternity lawsuit has been, I guess, essentially dropped.
Twenty-year-old Mariah Yeater claimed the child star fathered a child of his own with her after a concert. She described the alleged bathroom encounter to "The Insider."
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
MARIAH YEATER, BIEBER`S ACCUSER: And then, he eventually asked me, he said, would you mind if we can go somewhere and be alone? And then, when we got to the -- what turned out to be a bathroom, his whole demeanor changed. It went from cute and gushy, you know, to just more aggressive.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
PINSKY: The Bieber camp immediately and staunchly denied these claims. That set off a firestorm of back and forth between the various legal teams. Now, it looks like the Bieber teams, they may have the upper hand for the moment.
What does this all mean? I`m going to go to somebody who knows for the answers, senior editor from radaronline. Dylan Howard, what is the latest? What`s going on with this?
VIA SKYPE: DYLAN HOWARD, SR. EDITOR, RADARONLINE.COM: Well, not so fast yet, Dr. Drew, is the word from her attorney, the Chicago-based lawyer, Jeffery Leving. Now, he says they`ve removed two lawyers from her legal team and whilst they haven`t completely dropped their suit, yes, they have dropped the court action.
He says, though, they`re negotiating with Bieber`s camp to try and get an amicable resolution to this outside of court. He says, Jeffery Leving says, that the DNA test is still going to happen. They`re just negotiating outside the walls of justice.
PINSKY: That`s a very poetic way of putting it, but translate what you mean for us. What does that mean? Negotiating outside the wall -- are they paying her off? Is that what`s happening or they`re negotiating to pay her off? What does that mean?
HOWARD: When the suit was dropped, inevitably people thought either, A, she`s a scam artist, or B, she settled. Jeffery Leving says that`s not the case. He says that the DNA testing is still going to take place and Mariah Yeater is not backing down from her claims. And he says he, too, has this unforeseen credible evidence that everyone refers to to substantiate her story.
Now, I can`t see what that credible evidence is. It was never tendered to court and may never be tendered to court. But by dealing outside of the legal system, this could quite well go away for Justin Bieber, with some payola.
PINSKY: Wow. Interesting. Dylan, thanks for the update. It`s a story we`re going to keep our eye on.
And I`ve got a couple words to go back to the Penn State scandal about some concerns I have about the culture of secrecy, and I have a saying, you`re as sick as your secret. In family systems, in organizations. And I`ve got a feeling that college administrators in some institutions, particularly after today shows, I`m beginning to believe that this is the case.
That they believe they have special consideration, that they enjoy special exemptions, which in fact they do. Now, I don`t want my kids getting the message that just because somebody`s an intellectual and works in an ivory tower, they`re somehow subject to different laws than the rest of us. Now, I don`t understand why they don`t feel they have the need to contact the authorities, the social agencies. The rest of us must do.
I get the feeling there`s kind of a bubble. It`s important because we`re sending our kids to these institutions. We`re spending tens and hundreds of thousands of dollars to develop their mind and their moral compass. I want them to believe that the people -- I want to at least believe that the people that are teaching them are subject to the law of the land.
I don`t want them to be under the sway of influence of a culture or a group of adults who consider themselves to be above the law. They sort of know better. We can handle our own stuff here. No, no, please don`t bother us with that -- with what you know to be the case for the rest of the community because we know best for our community.
No, you don`t. I want them to be subject to the same laws as the rest of us, and those are the people I want to be teaching my kids.
Thanks for watching. I`ll see you next time.