Return to Transcripts main page


Colorado Killer Charged Today; Dottie Defends Child Molester: Why?

Aired July 30, 2012 - 21:00   ET


DR. DREW PINSKY, HOST: Here we go.

The accused Colorado shooter charged not once, but twice for each death at the movie theater. And we`ll hear from someone who was in the courtroom today.

Plus, legendary prosecutor Marcia Clark gives us her take.

And is Michael Jackson`s kids versus the rest of the Jackson family? A former Jackson family friend gives us his side of the story.

And later, Dottie Sandusky is standing by her man. I`m asking, will you stand by your husband`s side no matter what, or is there a line he could cross that would push you away?

I want to hear from you all hour. Let get started.


PINSKY: Well, the accused movie shooter is now officially charged with multiple counts of murder and attempted murder, 142 counts in all. The question is: will he face the death penalty? Should he face the death penalty?

Joining me to discuss, Marcia Clark, former prosecutor and author of "Guilt by Degrees."

Marcia, my understanding is he was charged twice for each murder. What is it about Colorado that requires that?

MARCIA CLARK, FORMER PROSECUTOR: It`s not necessarily Colorado. You can have that in almost any state and could you here, too. They are charging under different theories to make sure they cover all possible means of convicting him of murder. It`s just a careful way of charging.

PINSKY: Death penalty, yes or no?

CLARK: If you are going to have a death penalty, so far from what I`ve seen, this is the case for it.

PINSKY: Right?

CLARK: Right.


CLARK: Yes. I mean, you know, this is so depraved and looks so premeditated at this point. Now, we haven`t heard the evidence and we don`t know what his mental state was. That may have an impact on whether or not.

But as far as having the death penalty available, if you`re going to have a death penalty at all, this would be the case.

PINSKY: In the control room, you could put up a picture of the guy right now, because I understand he was in court again today, and he was he`s looking a little different -- there he was, the first appearance right here. If you take a look at that screen.

All right. So, the crazy orange hair, he was sort of fighting to keep his eyelids open and then today, apparently, when he was in court, he was more present, more engaged. In fact, we are going to talk to somebody in a minute who was actually in the courtroom, but that he was blinking a lot and seemed sort of almost hostile and aggressive.

Marcia wanted to hear my theories. I`m going to give it to you guys, too. I have possible theories there. One is that he is schizophrenic and that seems to be a growing theory. He was seeing a psychiatrist. You know, there`s evidence coming that he might have had a severe mental illness. Another possibility is he was doing large amounts of methamphetamine.

Remember old aphorisms speed kills?


PINSKY: Well, I talked -- I heard some guy speak once who actually help create that aphorism, and they were saying that the reason they called it speed kills was not because people who took speed died, but they do, but people that took speed killed other people. It`s the drug of violence. If he came off speed, he could be fighting his eye lids and that stuff we saw in the courtroom.

And we are hearing that in jail, he is saying things like, why am I here? I don`t remember. People are going, oh, he`s just posturing.

My amphetamine patients frequently will say, you know, I had this kind of weird sense that I had a dream. In fact, in the O.J. trial, when that one guy got on the stand and said he had been told he had a dream, that sounded like, just FYI, that sounded like my amphetamine patient, it sounded very familiar to me.

I don`t know what happened there. I don`t know what you know. Can you talk about it?


PINSKY: Tell me.

CLARK: We took his blood. He wasn`t on methamphetamines.

PINSKY: They don`t have to be on it at that moment. They can talk about it. They can be, you know --


CLARK: But the context of it was not like that.


CLARK: It wasn`t like, oh, I don`t know what happened. No. He was talking to a friend of mine and saying, you know, I had a --

PINSKY: Had a dream.

CLARK: I have had dreams about killing her.

PINSKY: OK. Because my amphetamine patients will sometimes say, I feel I had a dream where something horrible happened.

All right. So, I do want to go to Judy Woodard. She`s a close family friend of the 6-year-old who was killed and mom likely going to be paralyzed.

Judy, you were in the courtroom today?


PINSKY: Are you there, Judy?

WOODARD: Yes, I am. Can you hear me?

PINSKY: I hear you loud and clear, my dear. Thank you for joining us.

I`m trying very hard not to mention this guy`s name out of respect to the people affected by his behavior what did you observe about him today in court?

WOODARD: Well, there was a distinct difference today from what we observed from the reports from when he first appeared in court. This was our first time to see him in person. And I would say he looked -- you know, there was a little bit of -- kind of disjointed eye movements.

He would look up -- there would be times the judge would be talking about something and his eyes would be very wide but he was very engaging. He didn`t look confused or lost. To be honest with you, Drew, I think he looked bored.


WOODARD: He was sitting in chair, rocking in the chair back and forth. He did speak to counsel. At one point -- at one point when the attorney for the news media who was trying to release the gag order and allow press into the courtroom, when he finished his motion and was turning to leave the podium, the suspect looked up and he had a look of such abject hostility, that it was -- we got Goosebumps, it was chilling.

PINSKY: So your reaction to being there today, why did you feel it was important to be there?

WOODARD: Well, you know, I think in this case, there`s so many mass murders that we have had and have been on the press where the suspects wind up either being killed by the police or taking their own lives. And in this case you this was so heinous I think to a large extent, having at opportunity to face the person who created such havoc in our own lives was in some way cathartic, if that makes sense.

PINSKY: No, it does.

WOODARD: You know, we wanted to get a sense of him, because, you know, we are all asking the million dollar question, why? And who could do such a thing?

PINSKY: Right.

WOODARD: And how does this happen? And I can tell you that my impression of the suspect is that I was looking at someone who was evil. I mean, he exuded that and I was looking at someone the likes of which I`ve never encountered before in my life.

PINSKY: Judy, I want to thank you for that excellent report and I hope you will continue to keep us apprised of what`s going on there. Before I let you go, how is your friend doing? She was paralyze, is that correct?

WOODARD: Ashley is, you know, at this point, we hope that she is only paralyzed from the waist down. She has some use of her right arm. She is left-handed. She yesterday was saying that she felt some tingling in her left wrist. So at this point, we are very hopeful that she will get use of her arms.

We`ve heard reports that she will be paralyzed from the chest down, initially from the neck down. Now, we are just very optimistic that she will be paralyzed from the waist down. We do understand there`s permanent paralysis.

PINSKY: I will say, Judy that when there`s a bullet injury to the spine, there`s often swelling and she must have had injury up in this area here and the swelling can go down and upper extremities oftentimes can be recovered, upper extremities. So, we will say prayers for her. Please keep us appraised. She is the mom that lost the 6-year-old, too is that correct?

WOODARD: Yes. Yes. Veronica was killed during the shooting and Ashley also lost her baby this weekend.

PINSKY: Oh, my God.

WOODARD: This past weekend. She was pregnant and she lost the baby.

PINSKY: Judy, you talk about having chills. I mean, her story, it just makes me so sad. Whoever this guy is and whatever his reason cannot justify, cannot give back to what this poor woman has lost. So please, please, she will be in everybody`s prayers. Thank you for giving us that update.

WOODARD: Thank you. You`re welcome.

PINSKY: And come back and tell us more about what you learned.

Let me got to some other callers out there, some viewer calls.

Kellan in North Carolina. Kellan? Is that right?


PINSKY: We are there can you hear us?

KELLAN: Hi, nice to talk to you.

PINSKY: You, too. Thank you.

KELLAN: Well, I guess my question for the baby lost for the woman that is paralyzed --


KELLAN: -- will he face charges cause because of that child that was lost? Is that considered a life?

PINSKY: It`s a great question.

KELLAN: Of course it is considered a life for the mother, but is it a life in the court system?

PINSKY: Great question, Kellan.

What do you say to that, Marcia?

CLARK: It depends on the Colorado law. I know in California, after a certain point, a fetus is considered a human who can be the base of a charge of murder. So, whether the baby was at that point, that threshold point, is the question that has to be answered and that would be answered under Colorado law.

But if it is, yes, that is another murder charge. Absolutely.

PINSKY: I was looking at some of their abortion laws, they are a little bit strange. They allow late trimester abortions but under certain circumstances. So I don`t know how they`re going to look at this.

CLARK: Well, and the law regarding homicide is different than the abortion law.

PINSKY: Let`s be clear, there`s plenty of charges against this guy. It`s not going to make a big difference.

CLARK: Don`t worry.

PINSKY: Let`s us all consider it yet another death.

And, by the way, I want to say one other thing, too, which is there is a lot of people focusing on 12 lives, 12 lives. The people that are still sitting in ICUs right now, they have lost their lives too, either in a way worse than we can imagine or certainly lost life as they know it.

So, there`s many, many more serious lives lost than merely the murders that he is going to be charged with. I don`t want people to forget that, that when somebody has been in an ICU for weeks, that`s head injury and that`s catastrophe, even if they survive.

We`re going to be back with your calls.

And later on, the Jackson family feud, we will have the latest on the feud. I`m not going anywhere. I don`t want you to either. Be right back.



UNIDENTIFIED MALE: I think the guy`s a coward and seeing him just confirmed that 100 percent. He looked defeated. And he knows that he is not the one with power anymore, that it`s us.


PINSKY: We are back with your calls about the Colorado massacre, 855-373-7395.

I`m going to head on out to Effie in South Carolina.

Effie, go right ahead.


PINSKY: We seem to have lovely technical problems tonight.

Effie, what do you got?

EFFIE: Yes, I wanted to know when was -- when was Holmes diagnosed as schizophrenic? At what age?

PINSKY: We don`t know that he is schizophrenic. That`s a theory we are all kind of playing with.

The big question here, Effie is why. Everyone wants to know why. You heard Judy, that caller in the last segment saying how much people want to take this opportunity to figure out why someone behaved like that and schizophrenia is a potential cause here.

But, Marcia, as you and I were talking about during the break, let`s say he is schizophrenic, the four months of planning, the premeditation, suggest something in addition and that`s what`s really going to hang this guy, I suspect.

CLARK: It will, Drew. And not only that, but even if he is diagnosed as schizophrenic, that doesn`t mean he qualified for not guilty by reason of insanity verdict. That doesn`t mean he was legally insane.

It means he`s disturbed. Clearly, he`s disturbed. There`s no question.


CLARK: Is he schizophrenic? He could be. Does that mean that he has a mental defense that is viable? No. It does not mean that it gets him anywhere in a court of law.

PINSKY: OK. This is what is important for people to understand, even though somebody like me can say, oh, this poor guy, he`s sick and, oh, my God, we wish we intervened earlier -- does not create a justification in the eyes of the law.

CLARK: Exactly.

PINSKY: He had not to have been able to know right from wrong for months on end, which that`s not common.

CLARK: Well, at least or in the moment of the act -- you know, he had to not know right from wrong.

PINSKY: Don`t you think all that time, all that.

CLARK: All the planning shows that he did know, he knew what was doing, he was hiding it. The fact that he was seeing a psychiatrist and didn`t probably talk about it, we know that psychiatrists have to report that stuff.

PINSKY: Or at least didn`t follow the directions of this guy. This is what I`m going to postulate, the psychiatrist was unable too get this guy to comply. At that point, somebody may not be responsible for their illness, I say this a lot, but they are responsible for their treatment. And at that point, if somebody refuses treatment, they have some culpability in all this.

CLARK: Right. But from am legal standpoint, Drew, a psychiatrist, well, you know, if you hear reports, somebody says I`m going to go and kill people, I`m planning to kill people.

PINSKY: You have to report it.

CLARK: You have to report it to the police. The fact the psychiatrist didn`t do that tells me he didn`t know. And the fact that he didn`t know tells me this guy, I don`t want to use his name, the Aurora shooter, knew what he was doing was wrong and knew better to admit that he wanted to do it because he knew he could get caught that shows awareness of right and wrong.

PINSKY: Julie in Florida. Julie, you have a comment?

JULIE, CALLER FROM FLORIDA: Hi, Dr. Drew, I`m so excited to talk to you.

PINSKY: It is our pleasure.

JULIE: One of the reasons I love your show is because you tend to be one of the few to put weight on the fact that just because someone has a mental illness doesn`t necessarily mean that they would do something like this.

PINSKY: Julie, I want interrupt you and say that I was just going to bring that very fact up again, which is that because this man may or may not have mental illness, I suspect he does, doesn`t mean we should be adding to the stigma for people that do have. In fact, quite the opposite. I think what Marcia is pointing out, there`s other stuff going on here that really encumbers the behavior above and beyond mental illness.

Julie, did you have some other comment?

JULIE: Yes, I did. I was curious and a little confuse about maybe what you thought about if this person has any capacity to feel any sense of guilt whatsoever.

PINSKY: Interesting question. Interesting question.

I don`t think I can really comment on that yet until we know more about his mindset and how his mind works. I can say that for sure, he had something we call empathic failure, where he just didn`t appreciate other people had agency or existed in any kind of meaningful way. And I`m suspicious, I`ve heard other psychiatrists postulate, that he may have malignant narcissism as well as schizophrenia and those two together may have been what really set this thing. And then, if you throw drugs on it, that`s just an atomic bomb at that point.

CLARK: And, you know, in my experience, I prosecuted a stalker who murdered Rebecca Schaffer (ph), who was a young actress on "My Sister Sam," beautiful young girl, such a tragedy. And he stalked her and he chased -- he was clearly a disturbed individual. Nevertheless, we were able to charge and prevail and convict him of first degree murder we are special circumstances because he could premeditate, he could understand and control his actions, planning -- a lot of what you are seeing in the Aurora shooter.

PINSKY: What kind of punishment does somebody like that get?

CLARK: We got him life without, life without parole. But very much like what they are doing in Colorado. I spoke to the family and said, look, you know, I can certainly go and ask for the death penalty from my office if that`s what you want, and here is your choice, if you have death penalty, it`s going to be endless appeals, it will never end. If you have life without, the appeals do end and you have closure and they I think very wisely chose life without and that`s what happened.

PINSKY: OK. That is very interesting because that is precisely what the family members are going to be confronted with in this case.


PINSKY: We`ll watch carefully to see how that unfolds.

Marcia will come back and join me I think later. I don`t think we`re going to keep this particular up right now. We`re going to talk about the feud that`s engulfed the Jackson family, next.


PINSKY: All right. Now, is there a feud between Janet Jackson and Michael`s children? This, according to some media reports, yet in the middle of their public family feud, here what`s Jermaine Jackson said at a concert this weekend. Take a look.


JERMAINE JACKSON: Family is very important. Very important. We all have families and we`re a family. And sometimes it seems to get complicated sometimes because we are all the same but we don`t think the same.

But whatever happens, and whatever has been said, we`re one. The Jackson family is one. And we`re one family. And we will heal. I promise you.


PINSKY: I really do wish that were true. They have certainly been through enough.

I know I said Marcia Clark was going to go, but I asked her to stay.

Also joining me is Stacy Brown, entertainment journalist who worked with Michael for 24 years.

And, Stacy, I read something where you actually predicted Michael Jackson`s death 10 years before almost -- you almost got it exactly right. And now you`re looking at this feud.

What do you make of all this? How do we make sense of it?

STACY BROWN, WORKED FOR MICHAEL JACKSON: Well, first of all, Dr. Drew, that prediction thing -- I don`t want to sound like some sort of predictor of the future or prophet. I mean, that was just watching and seeing what was going on in Michael Jackson`s life. It was pretty easy to see that he was on a downward spiral unfortunately.

But what you`re seeing now is years and years of family frustration playing out in the public, which is unfortunate, too, because the Jacksons usually -- you hear things about them and they leave you wondering if it`s true, if it`s not true. But this, they did on their own. They played this out publicly.

And it was terrible, because it involved Michael`s children. One happens to be 15, the other 14 and the other 10 years old. They are minors. And it moved them. And they were right in the middle of it. So, it was very unfortunate.

PINSKY: And I think I read an article that you wrote in the "New York Post," it ultimately was all about money?

BROWN: Well, like most things when it comes to the Jacksons, it is about money, no matter how you slice it. This is about to trying to control the estate, which is now said to be, you know, worth $1 billion.

When Michael died, Dr. Drew, we know that he left a mountain of debt. And the great thing is that you have John McClain and John Branca, in particular, who able to do some miracle work. They have erased the vast majority if not all of that debt. I know they have refinanced some of it. They have changed Michael`s image.

If you recall, prior to Michael`s death, he couldn`t buy good press. And after he died, you couldn`t find anyone to say anything negative about him, which is fine. I mean, you let the dead rest, as they say. But this has brought up and conjured up all of the "Wacko Jacko" persona playing out long before Michael died.

PINSKY: Stacy, I`m going to interrupt. I`ve got to take break right now. You`re going to stay with me, as is Marcia. I advise my viewers to head on over to if you want to read more about any of the stories we`re watching now.

Now, I want to get to your calls about the Jacksons, 855-373-7395, 855-DRDREW5. Continue this conversation, see what you think about this story after the break.


PINSKY: Coming up, Michael Jackson`s kids versus one of his famous sisters? Are Paris and Prince more grown up than the rest of the family? A former family friend tells us what he knows.

And later, Sandusky`s wife, Dottie, is standing by her man even after his child molestation conviction.

All that and, most importantly, your calls, 1-855-DRDREW5.

So, we`re looking behind the Jackson family drama, the angry tweets from Michael`s kids, Katherine missing for days a spat, more than a spat between Paris and Janet.

One of the things I wonder, by the way, Marcia, is why this spat caught on videotape, where there was physical contact why didn`t law enforcement get involved with that?

CLARK: It didn`t quite rise to the level of something that looked like an assault or battery. It was a little bit of a tiff between them, and I`m actually glad that they didn`t and then turn it into an even bigger brouhaha than it is. Let it go and really calm down, and that`s a good thing.

PINSKY: There`s the footage we`re looking at right now. I want to go right on out to calls. Debra in Arkansas. Debra, you got something for us?

DEBRA, ARKANSAS: Yes, hello.

PINSKY: Hi, Debra.

DEBRA: My name is Debra Newburg, and I`m the author of the book, "Reflections and corrections on Michael Jackson." You can view that at


DEBRA: But what I wanted to say this evening is I know they`re viewing right now the spat between Paris and her. This -- I`ve had the pleasure of being with this family. They are a very adorable family. They`re very quiet. They all get along so very well.

They run to each other`s openings and different concerts and different things that each one of them is doing separately, which I don`t know how they do it all, but I think what we`re seeing right here, we`re seeing new technology that`s out there that the Jacksons have never had to deal with before.

Paris is an adorable young woman, but they haven`t had the problems with tweeting and putting, you know, things on the air maybe that they`re usually accustomed to being very quiet and a very close-knit family, and they don`t do this. They don`t put that out there like that.

PINSKY: They`re taking pictures?

DEBRA: -- about Katherine is that she`s like all mothers and grandmothers. When the family gets busy, then she decides to take a getaway, as I do myself sometimes. And what happened when everybody has some down time, they start to think where is grandmother?

PINSKY: Well, Debra, let me talk to Stacy who has also spent some time with the family. I appreciate that perspective, and I think everyone feels, what should it be, sympathetic towards Katherine. I mean, no one is questioning her, her ability, her commitment as a grandmother.

But Stacy, you brought up the issue of the money and that in your article, perhaps, it`s Janet being concern about having to be financially responsible for all her siblings that is really behind all this.

STACY BROWN, WORKED FOR MICHAEL JACKSON: You never see Janet. That`s the surprising thing to most of the public. You never see Janet get involved in the surroundings of her family. She`s always kept herself, her career separate from that.

But this -- everything that we were told, from family members, from people close to them, everyone confirmed that Janet has been in the position where she does not want to -- she`s in a position, I should say, where she does not want to do what Michael once did, and that was be the guy -- the bread winner, be the only bread winner.

You know, in fairness to the brothers, for the brothers, anyway, they are out on tour now, something that a lot of us argued with them for years that they should have done long before Michael`s death, to go out and make a living the way they know how to do it. Now, it took three years after Michael`s death for them to realize, look, we`ve got to do something.

So, you`ve kind of put Janet who is, by billboard and other estimates, worth about $100 to $150 million. But she has nothing coming in. And there`s the thing. Michael had reached a point where he had nothing coming in anymore and everything going out. And so, he died in such hefty debt. And from everything that we`ve been told, Janet just didn`t want to go down that road.

And being able to assist her siblings in getting control of this estate would have gone a long way toward her having to have those concerns alleviated.

PINSKY: Let`s take another call from the viewers. Tenicia, I guess, to (ph) be, in Florida -- Tenicia.

TENICIA, FLORIDA: Hi. How are you, Dr. Drew.

PINSKY: Good, Tenicia. What do you got?

TENICIA: My question is exactly what role did Janet and her brothers play in the disappearance of Katherine? I mean, we saw the video of the fight between Janet and Paris. You know, Janet trying to take Paris` phone, and we saw the photo that Prince uploaded of his text messages, which Janet saying don`t let them, please.

You know, referring to them speaking of -- speaking to Katherine. I`m just so baffled by this. I mean, why weren`t Janet and her brothers preventing them from talking to their grandmother?

PINSKY: Well, let me ask Stacy. And by the way, this video we`re watching right now, I`ve never seen the follow on of that video where Janet and another have a gentleman are taking pictures of Paris, a very strange motivation. I don`t quite understand that, but let me ask Stacy. Tell us what happened there.

BROWN: It`s interesting -- it was interesting, like you said, Dr. Drew, with Janet, her brother Randy also taking -- that`s Randy in the picture taking video as well. I`m not sure what Randy and Janet were doing or planned to do with that video. There has been reports from places like Radar Online that they were selling the video or at least Randy was.

I`m not sure if that`s true or not. But going back -- that viewer had a great question, what role did Janet play? And as we were just talking about it, her role was what she would hope to accomplish which to help them get the estate in their hands and out of (INAUDIBLE) hand, but she did tweet to her sister and some of her relatives, don`t let them speak to Katherine, their mother -- or in this case, Michael`s kids` grandmother.

Well, Janet was, again, part of Randy`s plan, Randy Jackson`s plan was we need to do something here, drastic measures, desperate measures. And obviously, it played out desperately. And in Janet`s case, she got involved to help her siblings. And if you want to go back to Jermaine`s statement from the stage, we are family, we are close. Well, I think Janet for this, certainly, she bought into it.

PINSKY: I think I have time for one more call. Lori in Illinois -- Lori.

LORI, ILLINOIS: Hi, Dr. Drew. Hi, Stacy and Marcia. Don`t the children have any say so who they want to be with or where they want to go?

CLARK: Legally speaking, they do. At this point in time, by the time the kid is about 10 or 11, they do have a say, that doesn`t mean that they get to make the final call, but they have a say. And the judge will actually listen if it comes to the point where they have to litigate this. I don`t think they will.

And it looks to me right now like they`re trying to fashion a co- guardianship between T.J., which is Tito`s son and Katherine Jackson, and that might be the very best solution to this entire problem. He seems to be able to manage things pretty well.

PINSKY: And just sort of looking at the kids, I mean, they are young and you know, late childhood or early adolescence, they`re going to act out. They`re going to act out. They just lost their father. They`re in a situation where the family squabbles. I mean, you take a teenager and create what`s called splitting, they will take advantage of that.

So, they need a high degree of structure and consistency or we`re going to start see behavioral problem with these poor kids. They can`t be parentalized in this situation either. They`ve got to be allowed to be kids and get the structure they need. Seems like T.J. has that in mind. He`s raised other kids successfully.

Katherine, of course, has raised kids. She seems to have that in mind, but is the family going to have great opportunity for splitting? We`ll have to see. Stacy, thank you. Marcia, you stay with me.

We`re going to talk next about Dottie Sandusky and the fact that she stands by her convicted child molester husband. She says she loves him. Would you stand by a guy like that or at what point would you tell a guy to scram? Call us now, 855-DrDrew5.



VOICE OF JERRY SANDUSKY, FORMER ASSISTANT COACH: And I didn`t go around, seeking out every young person for sexual needs that I`ve helped. There are many that I didn`t have -- I hardly had any contact with who I have helped in many, many ways.


PINSKY: And that was the voice of Jerry Sandusky in an interview with Bob Costas for NBC`s "Rock Center." Now, those words are very spooky to hear that interview. Sandusky`s wife, Dottie, says, oh, I still love my husband. I`ve been married to him 46 years and he is, quote, "not who they say he is," unquote.

So, the question tonight is, would you stand by your man through something like this or something other? I`m back with former prosecutor, Marcia Clark, also joining us, clinical psychologist, Michelle Golland. And before the break, I said something about at what point would you tell a guy to scram?

I don`t know where that word came from, but the point is what is it that motivates women to stay by these guys?

MICHELLE GOLLAND, PH.D., CLINICAL PSYCHOLOGIST: Well, I think when I`ve looked at Dottie Sandusky, she fits the profile of a lot of these women who stay with pedophiles, which is they are often very submissive, very usually religious, and they create sort of this story that they need to uphold in the public and in their family and in the private life.

PINSKY: Weren`t they often -- my experience, often sexually abused themselves. I`m not saying Dottie is or was not, but just -- that`s just sort of the pattern I see.

GOLLAND: Yes, and they often have other sort of psychiatric disorders. They can have depression, low self-esteem, even an alcohol issue, and other things that are being kept secret, right, that there`s a culture of secrecy within the home. I keep your secret, you keep my secret.

PINSKY: -- you are as sick as your secrets. Marcia, however, what we`re calling sick, I wonder if it`s pragmatic from a legal standpoint. In other words, can she not say too much, both from the standpoint of Sandusky getting appeals and the (INAUDIBLE)

CLARK: There`s nothing in it for her to admit that she knew anything.

PINSKY: From a legal standpoint.

CLARK: From a legal standpoint, absolutely right. But emotional, too. She`s not in a position even emotionally to want to admit that she knew what was going on all along. Legally speaking, it`s dangerous for her to do that.

PINSKY: All right. it`s dangerous. That`s what I want to get at.


PINSKY: So, she could take a liability if she says I had a sneaking suspicion.

CLARK: Sneaking suspicion, no. But if she admits at this point, yes, I knew what was going on all along, I just, you know, I just stayed because I needed to keep the family intact, whatever she says, she is subject to some kind of criminal liability. There is a possibility for that there. So, there`s nothing in it for her legally.

There`s no benefit to her legally to admit anything, and then of course, from an emotional -- and civil liability, of course, as well, but emotionally speaking, probably even more so. She doesn`t want to be that person who allowed all these little boys to be molested and abused in her house.

GOLLAND: And often what they do is they do know, they have an inkling, but they also do behaviors so that they never actually see it like they announce that they`re coming in the room. Like, oh, how`s everyone doing in there? So, that everything can stop.

PINSKY: It`s too painful to see. They don`t want to see it.

GOLLAND: They don`t want to see it, because they are in denial and they rationalize everything.


GOLLAND: And the other question I had is, anyone curious why none of the people at Penn State went to her when there were questions about --

PINSKY: You mean, back in 1998, way back?

GOLLAND: In 1998, in 2001, in any of these? I mean, when we look at our society nowadays, the problem that we`re not facing is we need to call people out. And the more we do that in different venues, that would have changed, I think, some of how this course went or how quickly it became.

PINSKY: I agree with you. Let`s go out to callers. Kathy in Wisconsin -- Kathy.


PINSKY: Hi, Kathy. What do you got?

KATHY: Absolutely I would not stand by my husband if he was a child molester. In fact, I would try to inflict great bodily harm --

PINSKY: Good, Kathy. Well done. Well, what about if he were a cheater?

KATHY: Been there done that, too. So, no. Bye-bye.

PINSKY: Oh, you just took off when the guy showed himself to be not, what we should say, faithful?

KATHY: Yes. Yes. Yes. None of that. He hits you, if he cheats on you -- I was molested as a child, and I`m telling you, hard line on that.

PINSKY: Well, Kathy, let me ask you a harder question, did you have a tendency to bring guys into your life that were sort of untrustworthy and perpetrators?

KATHY: No, I have three daughters. And I was very careful with my children. So --

PINSKY: OK. Even so -- though, Michelle and I, you know, heard many cases like that.

GOLLAND: Yes. That we sort of attract what we want to fix. And we don`t even realize that we`re doing it. And I really go back to the point that we need to be curious. If we are curious about something going on within our home or within someone else`s home, you know, you and I, we have the duty to protect. As soon as someone says something that triggers that in me, I have to make calls.


GOLLAND: So, we, as a society, I think, need to start doing that.

PINSKY: Well, Michelle, it`s funny you would said it. That`s the thing -- you`ve heard me say before, Marcia, that`s what really bugs me about the Penn State thing is that the administration didn`t know they had an abject, complete obligation. They didn`t seem to be aware of it.

CLARK: I don`t buy it.

PINSKY: I don`t think they were.

CLARK: Oh, I do.

PINSKY: Not really.

CLARK: The e-mails. No, they`re e-mailing back and forth --


PINSKY: If they understood, they sort of boom (ph), would have taken it off their table.

GOLLAND: Not at all. Not at all.

CLARK: Absolutely not.

PINSKY: Listen, I worry that other administrators out there maybe don`t understand fully their obligation, because they`re not licensed in the way and trained the same way some of us are clinically. I just worry about that. So, let`s learn from that at least.

GOLLAND: OK. What about just the human thing? Forget about law --


PINSKY: I`m with you on the human part. That part we`ve been crushing on, but I just worry that there were people don`t understand if they`re around kids and they even have a suspicion that something is going wrong, they report it to the people that can look into it and take action.

Next, all right, I`m going to talk more about women who stand by their men. I`m going to take your calls. Marcia and Michelle will stay with me. We`re not going away.


PINSKY: Back to the phones. We`re talking about Dottie Sandusky. Adelaide in Texas -- Adelaide.

ADELAIDE, TEXAS: Yes. Thinking about the sexual activity with teachers, with children that`s been in the news and court and looking at the fact that within this household, is it possible that not only was Mr. Sandusky involved with the children, that perhaps, his wife was also involved in that particular activity and children and women are not really being asked the question, are they being sodomized --

PINSKY: Oh, boy.

ADELAIDE: -- their husbands are guilty of this behavior.

PINSKY: All right. Well, hold on now. Janet, were you abused yourself -- is that your name, Janet?

ADELAIDE: I`m Adelaide.

PINSKY: Adelaide, did you have sexual abuse yourself?

ADELAIDE: No, I did not.


ADELAIDE: I`m (INAUDIBLE), and I`m looking at a culture that does not discuss sex very well, and I watch you for many years.

PINSKY: Got it.

ADELAIDE: -- women has not really come up in sexual activity where you do everything --

PINSKY: OK. Slow down. Who wants to tackle that? Michelle is shaking her head vigorously.

GOLLAND: I`ll tackle that.


GOLLAND: So, I would not predict that Dottie Sandusky was involved in this.


GOLLAND: But I think she was in great denial.

PINSKY: Yes. I mean, you and I deal with these kinds of cases a lot.


PINSKY: And the pattern is not what Adelaide suspects. That`s just not the way it plays out.

GOLLAND: No. I mean, what I would suspect is, they were not having much sex at all.

PINSKY: Right.

GOLLAND: Early and for a very long time.

PINSKY: That`s right.

GOLLAND: And I really think, too, our generation needs to be far more diligent. And so, you know, we`ll search people`s -- our spouse`s computers if we`re worried there`s infidelity, if we`re worried about that sort of thing. I think if we`re suspicious about other things, I think we need to be curious even with those who are in our life.

And what is known is that police don`t often have the spouse bring the computer in and say I found this.

PINSKY: Well, these days, there`s a lot more of that. A lot more.


PINSKY: Janet in Kentucky. Janet, real quick, I`m running out of time. What do you got?

JANET, KENTUCKY: I`m just going to say that I might stay with my husband for a lot of things, but, being a child molester wouldn`t be one of them, because if you think about it, even the murderers and rapists in prison are willing to kill them.

CLARK: That`s true. That`s true. I mean, there`s absolute truth to the fact that when they go to prison, child molesters are in grave, grave danger. That`s not a myth. There`s a lot of myths about what happens in prison. That is not a myth. That`s one is true.

PINSKY: Is Sandusky in danger?

CLARK: Yes. Yes. Of course, I`m sure he needed (ph) protective custody. I`m sure he is. But, then, they`ve got to watch out very carefully, because it would be a trophy for some of those lifers, they have nothing to lose, to kill Sandusky.

PINSKY: That is something. That`s sort of chilling to think about that. All right, ladies, thank you very much for having joined. And Marcia, spending the evening with me.

CLARK: As always.

PINSKY: Michelle, thank you as always. I appreciate it. We`ll hear more from you as we go along through the week. And, we`ll hear more from you guys after the break. 373-7395.


PINSKY: Welcome back. Taking your calls. Go to Cherie in North Carolina -- Cherie.

CHERIE, NORTH CAROLINA: Hey, Dr. Drew. Thank you for talking my call.

PINSKY: Sure thing.

CHERIE: I was calling because I`ve had this issue with pulling out my eyelashes and eyebrows for years as long as I can remember.


CHERIE: And, now, I`ve noticed that my two-and-a-half -year-old is starting to do it.

PINSKY: Interesting.

CHERIE: Like at bedtime, and sometimes, she`ll come up to me and say big browse and like pulling my eyebrows and just -- it`s really starting to stress me out because I feel like my stress is now being put on to her.

PINSKY: Well, let`s talk about this a little bit. It`s called trichotillomania, and I guess, "New York Daily News" report that my friend, Olivia Munn, has the same thing. And I`ve known Olivia for a long time. She`s never actually mentioned that to me. She may be with us tomorrow on this show.

We`re trying to get her set up for tomorrow, which case I will, of course, bring that up with her. She`s got a couple other things we`re going to talk about as well. But trichotillomania, as you see, has a biological component to it, has a genetic issue. Your daughter is getting it as well. And it involves hair pulling, and usually, hair pulling, it`s sort of an obsessive compulsive thing.

It gets worse when people are stressed. It can get better with medication. It can better with behavioral therapies and cognitive behavioral therapies, but it`s a very difficult thing to treat. And very often, more often than not, in fact, people end up just sort of learning to live with it. It`s just your sort of manifestation of stress where in now it`s your daughter`s too. It`s OK.

It`s worrisome as it pertains to the eyelashes, though, because they don`t tend to come back. So, maybe if you can educate your daughter about that, and you know, help her understand, find other ways to soothe and calm. And by the way, there`s a lot of stuff online about this. There are sort of support groups, people feel very distressed when they have this, they don`t feel understood.

So, getting with other people that have this problem can be very helpful. You can share ways of managing it. Zach in Pennsylvania, very quickly -- Zach.



ZACH: My question is, what advice would you give to mothers who are unduly concerned about how attached or instinct they are with their children, because you emphasize it so much on your show.

PINSKY: Unduly concerned? Well, attachment is a funny thing. It`s something you can focus on, but it`s our own attachment mechanisms, our fittedness with our own family and our constitutional biological phenomenon that determine it. They can be -- made more secure in therapy, but it`s not something you can really make more secure just by focusing necessarily.

So, if somebody is anxious, they`re not likely to be more securely attached. If they want an evaluation, they should get it from a professional.

Thank you all for watching. Thank you guys for calling. Of course, I will see you next time. And guess what? Nancy Grace starts right now.