Return to Transcripts main page


Hannah`s Paternity Disputed?

Aired August 21, 2013 - 21:00   ET



DR. DREW PINSKY, HOST (voice-over): Tonight -- stunning, new developments in the Hannah Anderson case. Was Hannah`s kidnapper also her real father? His family wants a paternity test.

Plus, the teen missing for two years before anyone reported it. Her parents are talking and taking a lie detector test. We will share the results with my behavior bureau.

And the teen on trial for shooting a baby in the face. Is this a robbery gone wrong or is there more to this story?

Let`s get started.



PINSKY: Good evening.

My co-host is attorney and Sirius XM Radio host Jenny Hutt.

And coming up, who had shot a 13-month-old boy in the face? There`s a teen on trial for murder, or perhaps, as the defense is alleging, the baby`s own mother? Bizarre.

But first up, kidnap and murder suspect -- yes, Jenny, you want me to stop with that? I`ll explain it to you later in the show.

First, I want to get to James DiMaggio. Of course, he`s dead, still playing a role in the lives of Hannah Anderson and her family. Take a look at this.


PINSKY: He has left $112,000 to Hannah`s paternal grandmother.

ANDREW SPANSWICK, FRIEND OF JIM DIMAGGIO: We find it very strange that he`s left all this money without any explanation. He had stated specifically that he didn`t want to give it to either parent because he didn`t trust them.

CHRIS, HANNAH`S GRANDFATHER: He seemed like a normal friend of their family. My daughter was just too loving and too trusting.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Family members of a guy who kidnapped 16-year- old Hannah Anderson think that he may have been her father!

DIMAGGIO`S FRIEND: We`ve taken DNA samples. We`re going to be requesting from the Anderson family that we can get a DNA sample from Hannah and if they have anything left from Ethan.


PINSKY: Oh, my God.

Joining us, Mark Eiglarsh, attorney at, HLN host Lynn Berry, Crystal Wright from, and Brian Copeland, talk show host at KGO in San Francisco, and author of "Not a Genuine Black Man."

First of all, I want to thank -- well, I want to apologize to Brian and Lynn for not getting the e-mail to you quick enough that pink and fuchsia are the only two colors acceptable this evening. I`d be sure to get the --



PINSKY: I`ll get the e-mail off to you soon enough.

But, Mark and Crystal, thank you for responding appropriately. I appreciate it.



PINSKY: We do have some breaking news in this tragic tale. Hannah has granted her first interview to NBC News. Here now is a clip.


HANNAH ANDERSON, KIDNAPPING VICTIM: In the beginning, I was a victim, but now, knowing everyone out there is helping me, I consider myself a survivor instead. My mom raised me to be strong.


PINSKY: Crystal, what are your thoughts on this case? And now, DiMaggio`s friends and family want a request for DNA. It`s just getting there. He`s from the grave abusing this poor girl.

WRIGHT: Well, I hate to tell everyone, but I told you so. I said the last time I was on this show talking about this, I suggested that Hannah became involved with DiMaggio in a consensual relationship after he seduced her, and I was, all the outrage. Now, we know that what was found in Jim DiMaggio`s house, used condoms, letters to DiMaggio from Hannah. He had DNA swabs.

So, it`s more like Jim DiMaggio, more like daddy and lover to Hannah. It`s sick.

HUTT: Oh, God! Oh, God.

WRIGHT: It`s sick. Well, oh, God? And she`s giving these interviews on social media? Look, I`m not saying that she wasn`t seduced, but now it`s a weird, thin line with her -- you know, she`s going to a fund-raiser in short shorts and glasses, and now, she`s giving -- she`s posting on and Facebook --

BRIAN COPELAND, KGO RADIO: It`s her 15 minutes. It`s her 15 minutes.

WRIGHT: I disagree. I think there is more to this story.

PINSKY: Brian, you respond. Brian, go.

COPELAND: OK. Well, first of all, I was one that jumped on Crystal for saying that she might have been in on it, and the jury`s still out on that --

WRIGHT: Sure, you were.

COPELAND: -- because as far as everyone`s concerned, officially, she`s still a victim, but there are some things that don`t pass the smell test. But I will tell you this -- I think it is despicable for the family of DiMaggio to ask for DNA, because it doesn`t prove anything. Even if it does come back that he was her father, OK, so that means that he killed his own son and still murdered the mother of their children.

So, what does it prove? What does it do other than further traumatize these people?

PINSKY: That`s exactly right.

Lynn, you`ve been following carefully. Lynn, what`s going on here?

BERRY: Other than making assumptions of what we have not even heard are in these letters or what phone calls were made, who made what phone calls to whom, what we do know is there is a 16-year-old girl that had her entire life ripped away from her and now there is a family that is asking her to take a DNA test and then asking the family check the charred remains of your 8-year-old little boy for whatever`s left of DNA so we can have some closure.

That`s what they`re asking for, closure. They`re not skirting around the issue of the life insurance policy, but the agent already said they`re not getting any of that money. That`s a legal document. They want closure and they`re asking this 16-year-old grieving girl to give it to them? I find that very disturbing.

WRIGHT: They`re not asking the 16-year-old girl. They`re asking her father --

BERRY: But she needs to give the DNA sample, though.


WRIGHT: Right, but Ethan -- we already know Ethan`s DNA was matched to his dad. So we know that. I think he can be ruled out.

PINSKY: That`s right. That`s right.

WRIGHT: So, come on.

HUTT: Dr. Drew --

COPELAND: Well, here`s the thing, and what I like to know -- maybe Mark can answer this question. And that is, under what circumstances could Hannah be compelled to give her DNA? She could say, no, I`m not going to do it, and if her father, Brett Anderson, says, no, we`re not going to sign off.

PINSKY: Mark, what about that?

EIGLARSH: She doesn`t have to give it, and you know what? This is appropriate for "The Maury Povich Show", not a legal obligation. This family is frustrated that they weren`t the beneficiary of the 100 grand.

And let me just tell you something, contrary to what Gordon Gekko has suggested, greed is not good. Let it go, folks.

BERRY: They`re not going to get it anyway.

PINSKY: What do you mean? Lynn?

BERRY: Well, yes, there was a life insurance -- the agent for the life insurance company said this is a legal document, it`s been inactive for two years and the money will go to Hannah`s grandmother. They said that to the local news.

PINSKY: Wait a minute, I believe we have Hannah`s grandfather, yes, he`s on the phone. And I want to ask him about this. Chris, are you there?

CHRIS, HANNAH`S GRANDFATHER (via telephone): Yes, I am.

PINSKY: OK, Chris, help us straighten this all out. I think I heard you say on Jane`s show earlier that the beneficiary of this life insurance policy was actually Ethan and Hannah, not the grandmother. Is that accurate?

CHRIS: Well, no, I`ve heard that it was given to the grandmother for Ethan and Hannah to handle. I`m not clear of -- you know, all the names on, you know, how it`s supposed to be distributed or what, but I`ve heard that`s what it was for.

PINSKY: So, you haven`t seen a document yet that tells us exactly what -- so, we`re still kind of trying to figure this out. But let me ask you this, Chris, when -- can you clear this up for us? When did DiMaggio meet Brett and was it something like in junior high school?

CHRIS: That`s what my understanding was. It was like seventh grade or something.

PINSKY: OK. And then how about Tina? When did Tina meet DiMaggio?

CHRIS: Well, of course, after -- it was Brett`s friend, and I assume it was after Tina and Brett got married that, you know, he introduced her to him.

PINSKY: We heard that it had something -- that somebody had reported that it was actually during Tina`s pregnancy, I believe with Hannah. Have you heard that? Does that make sense to you?

CHRIS: I`ve heard two different versions, that he knew them before she was pregnant, and I just heard again I think today that it was when she was six months pregnant or something, somewhere in there.

WRIGHT: I have a question --

PINSKY: OK, my panelists have questions. I want to first go to Brian. Yes, Brian, go.

COPELAND: Yes, when you say that Brett Anderson met DiMaggio like back in seventh grade. His spokesperson is quoted as saying it`s 15 years. And when the spokesperson was called on the fact that it`s been reported more than 20, she said, well, who would know better when they met than Brett Anderson? And he claims it`s only 15 years.

So, what`s the true timeline?

CHRIS: Well, this is what I`ve heard on -- not your programs, but all the other programs, that it`s been 20 years, it`s been 17 years, and now it`s 15. I don`t know when they met. But I know --

PINSKY: Got it.

CHRIS: -- it`s been a long time.

PINSKY: Right.

Then, Jenny, you have a question?

HUTT: Yes. Just, did you ever question who the kids` father was? I think this is so out of left field and really inappropriate, Dr. Drew.


WRIGHT: I disagree.

CHRIS: Did I ever question who the father was?

HUTT: Yes.

CHRIS: Was that my question?

PINSKY: Yes, that was her question. Did you have any doubt? Yes.

CHRIS: Absolutely not. Absolutely not.

WRIGHT: OK. But what about -- I have a --

CHRIS: This is my opinion that, you know, the father had mental problems, and obviously, Jim had mental problems. And now I guess his sister`s got mental problems to come up with this crap that, you know, at the end, because I don`t know it it`s because she`s mad because she was cut out of the insurance. I don`t know what her deal was, but --

WRIGHT: How would you describe -- news reports have said that Tina and Jim were very close. In fact, I guess described at one point as, you know, best friends kind of? How would you describe their relationship on a -- you know, on a plutonic level?

CHRIS: That`s what it was, strictly plutonic. And she had made this clear to me even, you know, a month or so ago. That, you know, he was talking to her and, you know, wanted her to move in with him, you know, because he could help her with, you know, her bills, so she could get caught up, and she absolutely refused, and she made it clear, you know, that it`s nothing but a plutonic relationship, that she would not even do that.

WRIGHT: Well, apparently --

PINSKY: Go ahead, Mark.

EIGLARSH: Drew, OK, let me make one thing clear. Who the father is has no legal significance to the money. So, this monster, for whatever reason, wants the money to go to either the paternal grandmother or the kids. That`s his legal right. That`s number one.

Number two, the only thing that could prevent the money from being paid out would be something called an exclusionary clause for either suicide or because he was involved in unlawful activity. But there would have to be facts to support that he was wanting to be killed by law enforcement that day or there would have to be specific language in his policy that precludes the payout based upon his being involved in illegal activity, and I don`t suspect that that`s going to happen.

CHRIS: I don`t either.

PINSKY: Lynn, last question.

BERRY: Chris, I want to know from you, have you talked to Hannah? We`re hearing from her for the first time talking about her strength. Do developments like this, being asked for a DNA sample to see whether or not the only living member of her family is her real father, is this affecting her?

CHRIS: I talked to her yesterday. This all came out afterwards. I have not talked to her, you know, since I`ve heard this, because I don`t feel I have any need to because I know that, you know, Brett and my daughter made that child. So, there is no doubt in my mind.

WRIGHT: But do you think Hannah should --

PINSKY: Chris, let me just ask you, last question to you, Chris, and that is, what`s your message to people that are dragging Hannah through this?

CHRIS: Well, I think they need to get a life and they need to take into consideration what they`re doing to a 16-year-old child.

HUTT: Right.

CHRIS: I mean, obviously, they have too much time on their hands and they have to live off of another tragedy to make their life go on or something. I don`t know what their problem is, but you know, it`s not just my granddaughter and my daughter, it`s almost on every case, it`s almost the same scenario over and over. There`s always the people that are going to make something out of nothing just so they feel like they`re either involved or important. I don`t know.

PINSKY: Chris, thank you for joining us. I appreciate that.

Thank you, panel.

Next up, we have DiMaggio apparently having been caught on tape just hours before having burned his own house down. We`re going to examine that and try to figure out what that was and what it means.

And later on, this is an unbelievable case of a baby, an 11-month-old shot in the face. The alleged killer, a teen. However, defense of this teen you might not believe. You`ll hear about it after a break.



CNN REPORTER: Hannah shed new light on the night she was kidnapped, the same night her mother and younger brother were murdered, their bodies burned in DiMaggio`s house. How did he keep the fire a secret? "He had it set where it would catch on fire at a certain time."


PINSKY: Back with my co-host, Jenny Hutt, and my panel.

We`re talking about the Hannah Anderson kidnapping. And joining us, pathologist, Dr. Bill Lloyd.

We have some new details about the fire set by James DiMaggio. Apparently, border patrol cameras at the Mexican border caught Hannah and DiMaggio in his car 20 hours before the house went up in flames.

Lynn, I know you`ve been studying the facts of this case carefully. What does that tell us?

BERRY: You know, that raised eyebrows. You know, remember when we were hearing details from police about -- yes, I know you`re laughing because of course it raises eyebrows, but it does because we were hearing all of these different locations that they were spotted and now, we know they were saying they`re looking hear, they`re looking there, because the border agents spotted them 20 hours before this fire was even set off. He had this device. And that`s just more details that we`re learning about how they even knew where they were and when.

PINSKY: Dr. Lloyd, I understand you have a specific theory as to how he set the fire.

DR. BILL LLOYD, PATHOLOGIST: Well, sure. It`s called an arson wire. Anyone can make one of these. You don`t have to be Jason Bourne. Start with ordinary household wire.

You`re going to be using the electrical current in the house to generate heat to start that fire. So, you begin and strip your naked wire so the two pieces are going to connect to maybe a roll of dry paper, maybe soaked in gasoline or dry rags or blankets. The other end of the plug is simply going to be plugged into a timer. Set the time for when you want it to go.

In this case, it was set for at least 20 hours, at which point the heat was generated, the fire was started.

This tells us that this was totally premeditated. This was not some kind of random outburst leading to the violent death of these two people. He concocted the scheme from the beginning.

WRIGHT: Right. Premeditated.


PINSKY: Hang on. I want to know any sense of if they had been killed before the fire, or do you think they were just injured, unable to escape, or what`s your theory?

LLOYD: Yes, I expect that these people were both dead long before James left the house. And the reason for that is no one`s going to leave somebody around for 20 hours and give them the chance to escape, even if you have handcuffs, even if you duct tape. You give somebody 20 hours and they`re conscious, they`re going to figure out a way either how to get out or how to get some help. It doesn`t make sense to let it go for 20 hours.

PINSKY: Mark, you have a comment -- Mark.

EIGLARSH: Yes. First of all, nothing is new. I find myself thoroughly agreeing with Dr. Big Plug over there. This was planned. It shows premeditation.

And I read, and this makes sense, I don`t know it it`s true or not, but I read that at least Hannah`s mother was already dead, had been beaten, that the cause of death was not the fire but she had been beaten and left for dead. And of course, he needed the 20-hour head start afforded to him by the mechanism that was just described by Dr. Big Wire.

PINSKY: Crystal, you`re doing a sigh. What`s going on?

WRIGHT: Can I say something?

PINSKY: Please, Crystal.

WRIGHT: I`d love to address the premeditation, which, yes, it was. And then what Lynn said, Lynn, oh, so, it was suspicious, Lynn, that the investigators of the case said that the video footage at the border patrol showed Hannah sitting comfortably with Jim DiMaggio --

BERRY: They also noted --

WRIGHT: And, and --

BERRY: Go ahead.

WRIGHT: Excuse me, 13 phone calls. Let`s remember, 4:00 in the afternoon, 20-plus hours before the house was blown up, 13 phone calls between Hannah and Jim DiMaggio. Then, all of a sudden, phones go radio silent.

Hannah actually said, yes, he had a wire thing. She posted on Facebook.

So, and now she`s coming out very comfortable doing the "Today" show, you know, whatever, NBC interview. And I just think --

BERRY: I just want to respond specifically to what you`re saying.

WRIGHT: I`m just going to finish here real quick --

BERRY: I just want --

WRIGHT: But I think that it was premeditated, and it makes me question whether or not Hannah was part of the planning and Jim DiMaggio pushed her into the planning as part of this whole mind control of her and the seduction.

And where were the parents? The parents are lousy, frankly. Tina and the father. Nobody`s talking about that.

PINSKY: Lynn, respond.

BERRY: I just want to point out specifically, police made it clear, they did not know whether she was with him voluntarily. They didn`t say it looked like she was OK. They said --


WRIGHT: I didn`t say that. They said it looked as though -- that`s not what I said. I said that the investigator said from looking at the photo and the footage of the border patrol, she liked quite calm. That`s what I said. Let`s clarify.

PINSKY: Jenny, you want to respond to this?

HUTT: Yes, OK, Dr. Drew.

Crystal, respectfully --

WRIGHT: Jenny.

HUTT: -- you`ve got to -- you`ve got to stop with making it like the 16-year-old could possibly have been complicit --

WRIGHT: Actually, I don`t. I don`t have to stop.

HUTT: You kind of should, and here`s why.


HUTT: Even if this child after being groomed and abused for years was in what you`re terming as consensual consenting, she wasn`t able to actually consent. I don`t care if she even liked what was going on with him, she lacked the capacity to consent. She was abused.

WRIGHT: How do you know that? Jenny, how do you know that?


HUTT: -- involved in a cycle of abuse, because she`s 16 years old.

WRIGHT: Are you a psychiatrist, Jenny?

HUTT: I`m a mother, Crystal. I`m a mother with children. And if --

WRIGHT: Oh, oh, that`s right, and I`m not, so I can`t say anything. I forgot.

HUTT: No, I`m just saying that I look at this child and recognize she`s a child. She is 16, Crystal.

WRIGHT: I know that.

HUTT: But she`s been abused since 10 years old, what do we know?

EIGLARSH: You know what the problem is?


EIGLARSH: The problem is, Crystal, your theory may possibly be correct, but if it`s wrong --

WRIGHT: Oh, but it`s the problem? Why is it a problem?

EIGLARSH: Think of what you`re doing --

WRIGHT: I`m not doing anything.

EIGLARSH: But just think about it.

WRIGHT: Where is her parents? Where is her father telling her she shouldn`t go on TV?


HUTT: That was wrong, of course.

WRIGHT: There`s no parenting going on. There is no parenting happening.

PINSKY: Let me just say -- let me just say that Crystal -- I keep hearing Crystal make a theory that is distasteful, but she does keep qualifying it with as having been under the mind control influence of this monster.

The question of what her state was when she was involved in this whole series of events. Hopefully, we`ll find out, because she is going public with all this stuff and beginning to talk about it. Hopefully, she`ll be able to tell us in a way that`s truthful and makes sense to us, but we`ll find out.

It`s an interesting idea, but I think what Mark is saying is there is a 16-year-old that`s lost her mother and brother, and we don`t want to be part of the --

EIGLARSH: And potentially raised, too.


PINSKY: Yes, potentially. So, let`s sit tight and see how it plays out. Thank you, panel.

Next, Erica Parsons` dad takes a lie detector test about her disappearance. We have the results of the lie detector test and I think you`ll be shocked.

And later, an alleged baby killer on trial for murder of a toddler. So, why is the child`s mother being scrutinized and under attack? The behavior bureau looks into that after this.


PINSKY: Time for the behavior bureau.

I`m back with my co-host, Jenny Hutt.

Police are searching for 15-year-old Erica Parsons. She had been reported missing after she had been gone for almost two years.

Her parents were actually on national television today, insisting that she`s not missing at all. They claim she`s been with her grandmother. The grandma doesn`t seem to exist.

Take a look.


UNIDENTIFIED MALE: A teenage girl missing for nearly two years but only now reported as missing.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: This child is gone for two years, and it`s never even been reported?

PINSKY: Her adoptive parents insist she`s not missing.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: The parsons said Erica decided she wanted to live with her biological grandmother.

NANCY GRACE, HLN HOST: Grandma`s been dead for five years!

JANE VELEZ-MITCHELL, HLN: Follow the money.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: The family was still collecting $634 every month.

VELEZ-MITCHELL: And they kept taking the money for years, even though the child was not there.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: That`s my fear is something happened and that nobody`s telling us.

VELEZ-MITCHELL: There was violence in the home before the adoption.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: We hear accounts that this child had bumps, bruises, signs of abuse.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Her stepbrother, James Parsons, reported her missing.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: He believes that Erica`s adoptive parents may have killed her and buried her in the backyard.


PINSKY: Joining us, clinical and forensic psychologist Cheryl Arutt, psychologist Judy Ho, psychotherapist Tiffanie Davis Henry, and criminal investigator Danine Manette, author of "Ultimate Betrayal."

Oh, Danine, I have a chance to talk to you about this story yet. What do you think of what the parents are saying?

DANINE MANETTE, CRIMINAL INVESTIGATOR: I think they are just flat out lying. And just on the basis of the fact that they are collecting money every single month that is supposed to be going toward a child by the state. The state is giving them, paying them money to take care of this child that`s not going to the child.

And even if the child is on vacation or staying with a relative, the money should have been going to that person. So, the fact that they`ve been cashing these checks every single month is dishonest in and of itself. That`s inherently dishonest. They`re lying.

PINSKY: Now, any of you -- any of the four of you worked in these sorts of child protective systems or -- I don`t even know what system it would be, would it be the foster care system?

MANETTE: I have.


PINSKY: Who did? Janine, you have?

MANETTE: I have. I`ve worked in the 300 system.

PINSKY: Just Danine. Does this -- and, Judy, you do also. Are either of you shocked by this story? I had attorneys on yesterday going, oh, that`s just standard fair.


MANETTE: I`m shocked that they`re human beings --

PINSKY: Yes. Shocked at human beings.

Judy, how about you?


JUDY HO, CLINICAL PSYCHOLOGIST: Yes. Dr. Drew, I mean, on the one hand, I`m shocked, but on the other hand, I`ve seen the system fail before. I mean, they`re just an overburdened system. There`s a lot of good people working in there.

But unless they find definitive evidence that something is going on abusive, they`re not going to actually state it as a definitively abusive case. They`ll say it`s unsubstantiated or unfounded, but it just makes me so sad that there were all these signs of violence, there were signs on the child, and they didn`t do anything about it up until now.

PINSKY: And the parents, of course, not cooperated with the police, but they are cooperating with daytime television. They spoke to "Dr. Phil." The father described dropping Erica off with his supposed grandmother.

I want you to look at this. See what you think.


SANDY: I stayed in the van, and I gave Erica a hug and she got out of the van. I actually -- when she reached over her seat, I patted her on the head because I was a -- I was a patting daddy. When the kids grow up, they hug me around the waist and now I can`t hug none of my kids.



UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Are you worried about her now? Are you worried that this man, this strawberry, this Kelly, any of them know where she is and they`re not telling you?

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: I`m just worried that she won`t call. I`m worried that they scared her, that they`re going to get in trouble.


DR. DREW PINSKY, HOST: Tiffanie, I flat out don`t buy it. What do you say?

TIFFANIE DAVIS HENRY, PH.D., PSYCHOTHERAPIST: That is the hottest mess I have seen all day, Dr. Drew. That is some mess. And you know -- he`s lying. He`s flat out lying. I`m going to send my kid to live with someone else and all I`m going to do is pat them on the head to tell them goodbye? Get your butt out of the car, walk them to the door, make sure the surroundings are up to par. That`s just a big, fat lie.

PINSKY: I agree. Cheryl, they`re not behaving like parents that have lost a child. They`re not -- they should be frantic, not collecting checks.

CHERYL ARUTT, PSY.D., CLINICAL & FORENSIC PSYCHOLOGIST: You are so right about this, Dr. Drew. As a parent, it is so unnerving to me to see the disconnect here. And these two seem so enamored of television, and they had all these books were found about the Jonbenet Ramsey case, but I`ve got to ask you something -- does anybody -- wait a second.

Does anybody think that this case reminds them of another phantom man person who supposedly had a child? Casey Anthony. Remember, Zani the nanny who supposedly had Caylee the whole time? This man person is very wild.

PINSKY: Yes. And jenny, if you were here last night, the same sort of thing came up and I said Casey Anthony, who is this woman you speak of?

JENNY HUTT, ATTORNEY: Yes, you did say that. But here`s what I want to know. I want to know, like, where are the police? Are they watching "Dr. Phil"? And I wish crystal were on this panel just because I know that she would agree with me with this statement. I`m concerned for humanity when this sort of thing goes on, when there are parents and communities that have --

PINSKY: You`re right.

HUTT: -- no idea that --


PINSKY: Danine, I`ve never seen such a stricken look on your face. What are you feeling?

DANINE MANETTE, CRIMINAL INVESTIGATOR: You know, what gets on my nerves the most about this case the most is that so many people stood by and have done nothing, and that happens with so many of the cases we deal with on this show is that people see bruises and they see things that are alarming and they do nothing about it.

They don`t say anything. Hey, its birthdays are passing. Christmas is passing. Where is she at? Nobody cares! That`s what annoys me and it gets on my nerves.


PINSKY: You`re right, Danine, that the community failed, the family failed, the system failed.


PINSKY: Everything failed up and down. Now, here`s what I want to do. I promise you that we talk about this lie detector, this polygraph that the dad took. Well, both parents were supposed to take it, but the dad took it. Now, here are the questions that he was asked. The dad was asked, did you deliberately -- let me get this -- did you deliberately cause Erica`s disappearance?

And did you have a plan to cause Erica`s disappearance? He answered no to both of these. Danine, you, I think, have experiences with a polygraph. Is that correct? Yes or no.

MANETTE: To some degree. I mean, they`re not admissible in court, so.

PINSKY: All right. I still want to ask any of you that have experience with a polygraph, I`m going to give you -- I`m going to tell you what happened with the results of this polygraph tests were after the break, and then you guys are going to help me interpret how reliable it is. She`s been missing for almost two years.

I`m also going to show you what she might look like today. There she is when she got lost. We have a reconstructed image of how she would look today.

And later, this child, a child, indeed, accused of shooting a baby in the face. Was money the motive or was mom involved? We`re going to get into that after this.



UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: We had done nothing to these kids or Erica. Nothing. And even social worker even wrote in the paper, we had nothing.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: What did the police say when they showed up?

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: That Erica, it was reported -- we had killed Erica, buried her in our backyard.


PINSKY: Back with the "Behavior Bureau" and my co-host, Jenny Hutt. Erica Parsons` parents are making the television rounds, claiming their daughter didn`t disappear despite the fact that no one has seen her for two years. They aren`t using the exposure to appeal for help in finding her, interestingly.

They did take a lie detector test today, and I told you before the break they responded to two questions, which were basically did you plan this and did you intend it. Let me give you the two questions again. Did you deliberately cause Erica`s disappearance and did you have a plan to cause Erica`s disappearance.

The dad took this test. He answered no to both and his answers were deemed strongly deceptive, Danine, by the polygraph expert. What is the probability, would you say, that he`s lying based on this strongly deceptive interpretation?

MANETTE: Extremely high. I know people that can pass polygraph tests that are lying, but I don`t know of people that don`t pass that are telling the truth.

PINSKY: Right.

MANETTE: Because there are a lot of things online and things that you can research on how to pass a polygraph test, but I`ve never heard of anybody actually failing a polygraph test that was telling the truth.

PINSKY: There you go. Tiffanie, I find it even more revealing that after the husband failed the polygraph, the wife refused to take any further tests at all.

HENRY: She wanted no part to that test, OK? She knows that -- this test just confirmed what we already knew is that they were being deceptive. I think they know exactly where this young lady is, whether she`s dead or alive. And they are the ones that are responsible for it.

HUTT: That`s the part, Dr. Drew --


HUTT: This is the part I don`t understand. How are they not already --

HENRY: Thank you.

HUTT: -- in trouble with the law with two years of their child! They`re the guardians. They`re the parents and their kid is gone for two years!

HENRY: Exactly.

HUTT: I don`t know why nobody`s taken them and dragged them into court today, yesterday. I don`t get it, Dr. Drew!

HENRY: And if for nothing else, for taking the money and the kid not being there. They`ve already admitted to that, so why not go ahead arrest them for that?


PINSKY: Go ahead, Cheryl.

ARUTT: Well, here`s my question. In looking into the mother, she evidently was a surrogate to have a baby for somebody else, lied and said that she had a miscarriage, was actually still pregnant and tried to sell the baby and was talking to these other families and they had to --

PINSKY: I heard that.

ARUTT: -- litigate to get her back. Now, how does such a person get to be an adoptive parent after something like that anyway? That boggles my mind!

PINSKY: Oh, boy, you`re asking a question too big for a "Behavior Bureau," I think. Maybe Mark Eiglarsh can explain it when he comes back, but that`s a big, big question. And I`ll tell you, the other thing I saw on the mom when you saw that interview at the opening of the segment, she just looked afraid to me. That`s all I saw was fear, like uh-oh, you got me.


HENRY: Dr. Drew, jail has a way of doing that to you.


PINSKY: That`s what I`m saying.


PINSKY: I think that`s exactly right. It`s not fear for the child. It`s fear like you`re on to me.


PINSKY: And here is the parents explaining on "Dr. Phil" why they weren`t concerned about Erica despite not talking to her for two years. Take a look at this.

ARUTT: Two years.


UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: I never discussed about her calling. I figured she was in very good hands, and Erica, with the last words of Erica said and the names in the way, I knew Erica didn`t want to be contacted by us.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: They made it look good there, so she didn`t want to come back. There was a Walt Disney grandparent.


PINSKY: Oh, please.


PINSKY: I like when they show the audience members who have (ph) none of it as well. It`s really interesting. Judy, what do you say?

JUDY HO, PH.D., CLINICAL PSYCHOLOGIST: You know, just that one audience member`s reaction catch on that clip just says it all. It`s like unbelievable.


HO: You know, but, I think that they`ve had so many suspicious behaviors that have been kind of going on for the last few years, and this is culminating in them talking about this story on public television instead of going to the cops. They weren`t even the ones who reported they`re daughter missing. It was their adoptive son.


HO: And now, they`re talking about it on the public circuit like they`re having like a little family national tour? Like, what`s going on here? Why are they not actually going to the authorities?

PINSKY: They apparently said on that show that the adopted son and all the family members hate them for some reason.

HUTT: Well, yes. It`s all about them.

PINSKY: I`m just saying --


PINSKY: I`ve got to show you something. The National Center for Missing & Exploited Children has released an age-progression photo of Erica Parsons today. There it is. It`s on the right side of your -- on your own right as you`re looking at the screen. It`s really quite compelling, as you see her as she would have vanished, and then, now, as she would appear today.

And it really is quite a striking rendition. So, if anyone has seen a child or a young woman that looks like this, please notify. We have the number right there at the bottom of the screen, 1-800-THE-LOST. She does not look like the little girl that was lost. Again, she has developed over these years.

And we have to keep that in mind. And if she is listening, as her friend said last night, please call in and let people know that you`re OK. Thank you, panel.

Next up, was the murder of a toddler simply a senseless tragedy or is there more to this or is this defense attorneys gone wild? Be right back.



UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: He was a beautiful baby.

PINSKY (voice-over): A Georgia mom pushing her 13-month-old son in a stroller says she was approached by these two teens. She says they asked her for money, then one of them allegedly shot her toddler in the face, killing him. But the attorney for this 17-year-old murder suspect says the mom, Sherry West, killed her own child, claiming that she wanted money from an insurance policy.


PINSKY: Back with my co-host, Jenny Hutt. And we are joined by Mark Eiglarsh, Crystal Wright, Tiffanie Davis Henry and Lynn Berry. This case seems open and shut on its surface, but Lynn, you`ve been covering this case. Help me understand these complexities.

LYNN BERRY, HLN HOST: Well, first, let me just say that it is unthinkable that this crime could even occur, even more unthinkable that the mother could be involved, but the defense went hard on this. I was there for opening statements yesterday, and let me just say, it is not lost on the jury just how upsetting this is.

They were crying at certain points because gruesome crime scene photos of Little Antonio Santiago with the gunshot wound right in between the eyes was posted up there for everyone to see. There was a physical reaction. They couldn`t look at it.

That`s not lost on them, but also, the fact that she took out a life insurance policy on an infant and her own daughter with whom she`s estranged from actually is not helping her claims, because she`s saying that her mother called her the day after the shooting and said how soon do you think that the insurance company will let me get the money?

Those things raise red flags along with the defense presenting accusations of mental illness, paranoia, and it goes on.

PINSKY: Well, OK. The mental illness part I want to get at and I want to ask my friend, Mark Eiglarsh. I think I have a new video series, it`s going to be called "defense Attorneys Gone Wild." Do I have just defense attorneys gone insane here? Are they the insane ones?

I`m hearing this mom suffers from PTSD, I heard bipolar, I heard schizophrenia, I heard she`s on opiates, I heard she has a history of crack addiction. I mean, let`s just open the -- look at all the potential diagnostic categories and start pouring them on to the mom.

MARK EIGLARSH, SPEAKTOMARK.COM: Well, let`s just start off with the defense attorney`s job is not to seek the truth, it is, as we`ve learned, Dr. Drew, to acquit their client. And the best defense, as we`ve learned from O.J. and Casey is my client didn`t do it. Well, if the client didn`t do it, someone else did, and she`s the easiest target.

But what doesn`t help the defense is the fact that they recovered the gun, the specific gun that matches up to what shot the baby, and how did they get that information? From the defendant`s family members who are now also facing charges for crimes that are related to the cover-up.


PINSKY: OK. Crystal, go, because Crystal, this whole thing is so outrageous to me.

WRIGHT: Well, it`s not really outrageous. De`Marquise, what`s the older kid`s name?

BERRY: De`marquise Elkins.

WRIGHT: Yes. Elkins. OK. So, his sister is now -- charges are brought against her because she got rid of the gun in the pond. OK? Then, the kid that was with him said he saw De`marquise Elkins shoot the baby in the face. And I have a real problem, as you guys know, because I have family members affected by mental illness, that you know, just because people are bipolar or schizophrenic, they`re not going around shooting their babies in the face.


WRIGHT: I mean, you know, so I think I want to disabuse (ph) people, people with mental illness have enough stigma in this country as it is. We talk about this all the time. We see celebrities and regular people who will not seek treatment because of it. So, let`s -- I mean, I think there`s enough evidence here that incriminates both these boys. I think it was a savage murder.

It`s disgusting and I think -- let`s, one real quick point. Her older daughter, she abandoned her older daughter when she was eight years old. So, I think the older daughter has a bit of an axe to grind with mommy.

BERRY: I agree, by the way.

PINSKY: All right. We`ve got more on this case, more on the case after the break.


PINSKY: Back with my co-host, Jenny Hutt, and we`re talking about the shooting death of 13-month-old baby boy. A Georgia teen is on trial, but the defense attorney alleges the child`s mother was involved in the killing. Tiffanie, let`s put a little code on what Crystal was saying here. Was it all -- first of all, the litany of diagnoses that have been leveled at this woman almost become nonsensical, number one.

And number two, none of them are associated, particularly, when somebody`s on medication and treatment, which she apparently was, none of them are associated with the kind of behavior that these defense attorneys are alleging.

HENRY: Well, Dr. Drew, I don`t know if she was all the way on her meds and if she wasn`t using at the time of the incident or even after that. What we do know is that with mental illness and/or substance abuse, it does create an interesting cocktail of things that can happen. It does cloud your judgment.

It clouds your sense of reasoning, and it certainly clouds your sense of common decency, and that in and of itself could cause her to make some unsavory choices in terms of who she might hang around with, what she might ask someone to do, and certainly, enlisting the help of someone to harm her baby, kill her baby and get the insurance money.

I don`t think it`s a far stretch to think that she might have done this. I certainly don`t know that she did, but it is kind of sketchy that the first thing you think about is the insurance money. There are a lot of bigger things at stake like the death of your child.

HUTT: But Dr. Drew --

PINSKY: Mark, I think the defense attorneys have done a disservice for the very reason that Crystal has suggested, that we`re going to stigmatize people with mental illness because these guys have concocted a way to get their client off.

EIGLARSH: I don`t disagree with you, but I do have to defend them, because I`m sure that their concern to some extent about the impact, let`s say, of what they`re doing to people who have mental illnesses, but that`s number two on their obligation list. Number one is their client. That`s the bottom line. It`s morally reprehensible, you might find that.

PINSKY: I`ve got less than a minute left, Crystal.

WRIGHT: Yes. I agree with Mark on this completely. Look, we talked about this before. everybody has a right to a defense and lawyers and you`re innocent until proven guilty, but I think what`s going to -- the defense now is claiming they have a witness who`s going to say she was a crack whore or something? I mean, come on. This is really getting beyond the place of reasonable defense.

BERRY: It`s true.

PINSKY: Lynn, just put a little button on this for me. Do you think these guys have any chance of getting off?

BERRY: I`m sorry. I didn`t hear the last part of it, Dr. Drew?

PINSKY: Do you think these guys have any chance of getting off?

BERRY: You know, the only thing that the defense has is really discrediting the one witness that was there, and that`s Sherry West. That`s what they`re trying to do. She`s the only person that saw it and that`s what they`re trying to do.

PINSKY: There we go. Thanks, panel. "Last Call" is next.


PINSKY: We`ll see you next time. "HLN After Dark" starts right now.