Return to Transcripts main page


Husband Charged with Murder Six Years After Nicole Pietz`s Death; Pageants: How Young is Too Young?; The "Egg" of the Future is Here

Aired September 20, 2013 - 19:00   ET


JANE VELEZ-MITCHELL, HLN HOST: Tonight, a beautiful couple destroyed by secrets, lies, cheating and murder. David Pietz is on trial for his wife`s brutal killing. Will testimony from a slew of his mistresses ultimately helped to put him behind bars for his wife`s murder.


UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Nicole Pietz has disappeared in January of 2006. She was naked and had been strangled. Police always said this. It`s the husband. He had had multiple affairs.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: When I got there she was not there.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: An acquaintance testifying today that David dosed his wife with the drug ecstasy in order to have sex with her in a Seattle nightclub.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: The defendant ever help you look for her?


UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Pietz says he woke up one morning in 2006 and his wife was simply gone.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: The suspect in this incident may have started to think that he was going to get away with this one.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: The case against David Pietz is completely circumstance. But prosecutors say he left a mountain of mistakes.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: If you see this tonight, David, you`re where you`re supposed to be.


VELEZ-MITCHELL: Nicole Pietz, the victim, vanished from her home more than seven long years ago. She was found naked, dumped in the woods. She had been strangled. Cops say she disappeared the very same day, coincidence, she found out her husband was cheating on her. Her husband claimed she had left home for a meeting and never came back suggesting perhaps her prescription pill habit came back to bite her. Nobody knew at that time that this husband, David Pietz, was leading a double life. He had multiple mistresses, even admitting to one of them that he tried drugging his wife in order to get her to be kinkier in bed.

Listen to this from ABC.


UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: He told me that he would put it in her red bull. He was just trying to loosen her up to do a threesome.


VELEZ-MITCHELL: Police zeroed in on David Pietz, this handsome husband who worked in the health club industry early on in the case. So, why did it take them six years in order to charge him with second-degree murder.

Tonight, we have an incredible debate panel in the lion`s den. Let`s debate the case starting with legal analyst for, Lisa Bloom. And we are going to play some of their incredibly romantic wedding video, by the way, while we debate this because it was such a drastic contrast to what we are learning about his cheating ways.


VELEZ-MITCHELL: There it is. Look at that happy couple. Well, according to testimony, he was already cheating at the time of the marriage before while they were still engaged. But Lisa Bloom, being a cheater doesn`t make you a murder.

LISA BLOOM, LEGAL ANALYST, AVVO.COM: No, that`s right. But Jane, as you have pointed out in your wonderful book on the subject, people who lead double lives are really asking for trouble. And they very often are murderers. I mean, how many of the cases have we seen where the husband in particular is leading a double life. And not just an affair but having four affairs and, as you pointed out, he`s willing to drug her to give her ecstasy to try to get her to engage in a threesome. I mean, a husband is supposed to love and protect his wife, not drug her and cheat on her. So, certainly, that raises a lot of suspicion.

VELEZ-MITCHELL: Yes. It does. And you know, it always kills me when I shouldn`t use that phrase. It upsets me when I see these videos of these beautiful, romantic weddings only to find out that this is at least on one person`s side a charade. One of the defendants mistresses testified that they had started having an affair, this guy David, the now defendant and this woman who testified when he was still engaged before he actually tied the knot. So the mistress pretty much explained the question we were all asking.


SABRINA LUCIA STREK, WITNESS: I asked him why he was getting married and he said that at that point it was too late to back out of it.


VELEZ-MITCHELL: Too late to back out of it? It`s never too late. Consider the alternative. After his wife vanished, the defendant told police that he had a very low libido and that the sexual stereotypes were reversed in the marriage. Certainly ironic from a guy with at least four mistresses.

Psychotherapist Dr. Janet Taylor, isn`t there a term for pretending to be the exact opposite of what you really are?

DOCTOR JANET TAYLOR, PSYCHOLOGIST: Unfortunately, it happens way too much. But the reality is you never know someone`s character, what they`re capable of until you can actually look at both sides. And fortunately, the truth invariably always comes out.

VELEZ-MITCHELL: I just want to go out to debate this. Let`s go out to the lion`s den.

Adam Thompson, you heard Lisa Bloom say, hey, it looked bad for this guy, even though it took him six years to arrest him, that this is a solid case. What say you?

ADAM THOMPSON, CRIMINAL DEFENSE ATTORNEY: Hey, listen. He could be cheating with three, four, five different women but being a cheat doesn`t make you a killer. It may show bad character and prove that you make bad decisions and have bad judgment, but it doesn`t mean that he killed her. We have to wait and see what the facts are and what`s going to come out.

All we know at this point is there`s a lot of circumstantial evidence that may prove that he was involved in some way, shape or form. But there`s absolutely no direct evidence. When there`s no direct evidence, the prosecution has a very, very hard road to go to get a conviction.

VELEZ-MITCHELL: Do you want to respond, Lisa?

BLOOM: Yes. I don`t agree with that. I think that, you know, circumstantial cases are the majority of murder cases. I think the prosecution can put it together. Certainly, being a cheater doesn`t mean you`re a murder remember but it raises eyebrows and it also means you`re a liar. And this guy has been a liar about a number of things, not just about the cheating. That`s a big problem.

Also, this was on the day that she found out the cheating. Obviously, there`s a lot of friction and tension on that day. So, I think the prosecution is going to be able to put it all together for the jury.


MO IVORY, ON-AIR PERSONALITY: Yes. I mean, listen. I don`t think there`s a doubt in our minds from what we know right now that he did this. She still had her retainer on that she sleeps with at night. She was missing and going to her AA meeting. It doesn`t make any sense at all. But can they prove it in court is what we`re really talking about?

So, the difference is between not whether he did it or not. I think we know he did it. Can they prove that he did it is the only difference. We know that George Zimmerman killed Trayvon Martin and he`s a killer, but they couldn`t prove it. So, it happens all the time.

VELEZ-MITCHELL: I think you raised a very important point.

All right. Look, the defendant claimed his wife disappeared after leaving for an AA meeting to celebrate eight years of sobriety. Now, he tells his sister-in-law, his wife had to have fallen off the wagon and suggested she probably downed a bottle of the painkiller Percocet that a doctor prescribed to her.

Listen to this.


TONIA ZURCHER, VICTIM`S SISTER: He pointed out the empty bottle and said she must have taken them. I said she probably dumped them out because that`s what she was going do with them.


VELEZ-MITCHELL: All right, here`s the key. When Nicole was found dead, naked and dumped in the woods as you just heard one of our guests mention, but I think this is a smoking gun. Police say she was still wearing a mouth guard. You know, you put the mouth guards in your teeth to prevent grinding while sleeping. Who puts a mouth guard on when they are out the door to go to an AA meeting to celebrate their eighth year of sobriety.

Straight out to the lion`s den.

C.W. Jansen, retired police captain. Do you think that in mouth guard could be the smoking gun?

C.W. JANSEN, RETIRED POLICE CAPTAIN: Well, yes. I mean, if you look at what the circumstances were, I mean, every night she would take off her jewelry. She would put in this mouth guard all these kind of things, no forced entry. What do we know, Jane? I worked homicide six years. Who was most likely to kill a woman? It`s an intimate partner.

So, if I was a defense attorney, would I rather have this case than one where there was a confession or witness absolutely. But, I think they`ll be able to convict this cat.

VELEZ-MITCHELL: Adam Thompson, you represent the defense. That`s pretty damning. Her naked body in the woods wearing the mouth guard. It shows that her husband`s story is a lie. Who goes out anywhere, especially to celebrate your eighth year of sobriety at a big meeting wearing a mouth guard that you only use when you`re sleeping?

THOMPSON: Ultimately, it`s still only circumstantial evidence. Listen, the prosecution was saying that night he came home from work at around midnight and they probably had a huge fight. How would they know that? No one was there to know that they had a fight. When police went to the location, the home looked in perfect order like nothing was out of place. There had been no struggle, nothing. Again, that doesn`t show anything indicative that there was a struggle or some fight and he killed her and removed her from the home. When they searched the car --


BLOOM: Jane, listen to his story, though. He is all about blaming her. He is all about blaming her. She must have been drunk. She must have done something. You know, a normal loving husband whose wife is missing would be concerned about some wrongdoing, that somebody harmed her, that there`s somebody out there. He just wants to blame her.

IVORY: Right. And just because there wasn`t signs of a struggle in the home doesn`t mean they weren`t fighting or arguing. You don`t have to throw things for there to be evidence that there`s an argument. And then she went to sleep and he strangled her in her sleep, took her body and dumped it.

THOMPSON: You`ve got no proof of that. Where is your proof that he strangled her?


VELEZ-MITCHELL: On the other side of the break, we are going to talk about why it took so long for cops to make this case. They knew about the mouth guard as soon as they found her body. They knew about his cheating very quickly. So why did it take six years? And is too little too late? Stay right there.


UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Six years have gone by the suspect in this incident may have started to think he was going to get away with this one.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: But today, detectives say the investigation is over and Nicole`s husband David has been arrested the charge, murder two.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: This is sort of like an episode of CSI that took six years to develop.



Nicki Pietz vanished in January of 2006 in (INAUDIBLE). After a massive search, her body was found in a wooded area. More than six years later, an arrest.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: A web of lies that he told. That people knew. It just took the time and the DNA evidence hopefully that came through.


VELEZ-MITCHELL: Even though this beautiful woman`s body was found days after her disappearance, naked dumped in the woods, her family still had to wait six long years for cops to arrest her husband who the family suspected all along.


CHIEF DEP. STEVE STRACHAN, KING COUNTY, SHERIFF`S OFFICE: This is sort of like an episode of CSI that took six years to develop. The technology finally caught up in terms of location of cell phone records and cell phone technology and the technology related to DNA so that we had the evidence to make this case.


VELEZ-MITCHELL: Straight out to the lion`s den.

Mo Ivory, authorities are claiming they really needed the cell phone pings to sort of tie together all the loose ends and that they had ultimately determined very recently her cell phone pinged after she was dead near her husband`s workplace.

But they knew so much right from the get-go. The mouth guard in her mouth still, the fact that she left her wedding ring in cleaning solution in the bathroom at night and it was there. It wasn`t on her finger. So, that`s what she did at night. They also knew that she had undigested food, which indicated she died that night, not at some later time. So that doesn`t dovetail with the husband`s claim that maybe she just walked off and went out and ultimately died of drugs. They had a lot of information. Do you think it was a mistake to wait so long, Mo?

IVORY: Yes. I absolutely think it was a mistake to wait so long. And I can only think to myself, they were trying to make the case for the second- degree murder charge that they ended up ultimately putting there. But I got to say that I think the main catalyst for the arrest was the finding of the bracelet, the diamond bracelet that he said she had that mysteriously showed up when he was trying to find out the value of it.

So, I think they finally found something that they believe could tie everything together, could put all the lies in their place and they could deliver a charge that could deliver a guilty verdict. So I can only hope that`s what they were doing.

VELEZ-MITCHELL: To Lisa Bloom, he was asking for the life insurance payout right after, very soon after his wife died, turned up dead. All the relatives of the victim were saying, he didn`t do anything, didn`t put up one missing poster. Didn`t look for her, didn`t make one phone call when she was still missing indicating that they believed he knew exactly what had happened and therefore, he wasn`t looking.

BLOOM: Yes. And he`s smearing her good name even when she`s recently dead saying it`s her alcohol, it is her drug use that probably led to her death and then her body is found by the side of the road. I guess she threw herself out of a car on to the side of the road.


BLOOM: Ridiculous and offensive. Right, naked. I mean, the whole thing is ridiculous and offensive. I will say this for law enforcement. You know, you get one shot at a murder trial because of the double jeopardy clause. If he`s tried and found innocent, not guilty, that`s it. They don`t get a second chance. So, they want to wait and gather all their evidence. And all the stuff we`re talking about makes him sound very suspicious but not enough to put him away. Six years is a very long time because witnesses` memories fade.

VELEZ-MITCHELL: Yes, that`s the problem.

BLOOM: To bring it now and try to get that conviction.

VELEZ-MITCHELL: Four of the suspects` mistresses have taken the stand for the prosecution. And one of them testified about the defendant slipping his wife ecstasy in her drink and how that made his wife act. Listen to this.


RENEE STEWART, WITNESS: Overtly sexual. That she was willing to do things that seemed to be out of her character.


VELEZ-MITCHELL: Again, here`s Nicole and David Pietz on their wedding day looking blissfully happy. Prosecutors say they were very unhappy, at least he was in their marriage. He was cheating with four women. He tried to get other women to join him in bed with his wife. He had done Internet searches on his computer looking for swingers` clubs. And just weeks after his wife`s death, he started looking for phone numbers of women to date.

So back out to the lion`s den.

Dr. Janet Taylor, psychotherapist, if indeed she was given ecstasy by him and here she is celebrating her sobriety and trying to stay sober and he`s secretly slipping ecstasy to into her energy drinks, that`s evil.

TAYLOR: It adds one more layer to an already deviant, horrible personality that he has, indicating you cannot trust him, he would do anything and he was solely out for his own enjoyment.

VELEZ-MITCHELL: You know, we did reach out to his attorneys and we want to get all sides. We invited them on and they said no, not mid-trial.

So I do have to go, though to C.W. Jansen quickly, retired police captain. The idea that these women are testifying that before she vanishes he`s doing something as insidious as slipping ecstasy which can be very dangerous into the drink of a woman who is trying to maintain her sobriety, what does that tell you about him?

JANSEN: Right. And Jane, I think the viewers need to know, as you know, that an anniversary of your sobriety is called your birthday. I mean, it`s one of the most important days of the year for you. And just also I want everyone to know, you know, just because it took six years it didn`t mean they worked it every day for six years. You sit down with the prosecutor and everybody goes, you know, he get it and sometimes the prosecutor goes, you know, we just need to get a couple yards more and it takes that long.

VELEZ-MITCHELL: But I have to say this. His argument that maybe she went out and she slipped and went on a bender, if he`s slipping her ecstasy, even though it`s not her fault, she`s waking up the next day after an ecstasy experience, how does that translate into eight years of sobriety? That`s something I can`t get my head around. And wouldn`t she know, hey, who put ecstasy in my soda? Why did I get so ecstatic last night and do whatever it is that I did? Why did she remain with him? So many unanswered questions.

Stay right there.


UNIDENTIFIED MALE: But with so much with the case hinging on DNA, there are worries that an actual prosecution might be difficult.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: There`s so much circumstances going on in here and you`ve seen so many trials end up the way they shouldn`t have ended up and you want more for her.




UNIDENTIFIED MALE: At the time David Pietz reported her missing after she didn`t show up for dinner with friends.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: When I got there, she was not there and they hadn`t heard from her, hadn`t been able to contact her.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: She was found beaten, strangled on the side of the road in (INAUDIBLE). Investigators say advances in DNA testing and cell phone tracking provided enough evidence to charge Pietz with murder.


VELEZ-MITCHELL: Prosecutors admit their case is largely circumstantial, but still it can be very powerful for the jury to hear about the defendant`s very strange behavior after his wife disappeared and this is from the victim`s mother and sister. Listen.


UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: What was the defendant doing when you first got there?

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: It is putting together his stereo equipment.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Did the defendant ever help you look for her?


UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Did he ever help you post a flyer?


UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Did you see him make any phone calls related to her disappearance?


GAEL SCHNEIDER, VICTIM`S MOTHER: A quite strange thing, but he put his arms around me and said I didn`t think you`d take it so hard.


VELEZ-MITCHELL: Straight out to the lion`s den.

Oh, my God, there is the mother of the victim saying that the husband, the widower, a now suspect, came up to her at the funeral and said, gee, I didn`t think you would take your daughter`s death so hard. That almost sounds like an admission of guilt.

But I have to say, Adam Thompson, those kinds of things really don`t make evidence. I mean, yes, it makes him sound like a jerk. But it`s not something that the jury can use to convict him.

THOMPSON: You`re right, Jane. This is what I said from the beginning. We may not like this guy, we may not like the things he`s saying or doing, but you don`t put someone in jail for murder charges because they`re a jerk.

Look, Casey Anthony was out partying and dancing in clubs when her daughter was missing and presumed dead and she walked. So, you know, you have to look at what the actual physical evidence is going to be linking this person to the crime. If it isn`t anything more than circumstantial, he`s going to walk.

VELEZ-MITCHELL: Mo Ivory, he makes a good point. If they focus too much on the cheating, they could convict him of cheating. In other words, not convict him of murder, like Casey Anthony was convicted of lying, not murder.

IVORY: Well, I think that they`re going to look at it. Listen, jurors are people. They understand circumstances. They understand how things lead up. Like let`s not count them out as logical and being able to put this puzzle together.

It`s true. We don`t know if he will actually be convicted. That`s why we are watching and we`re saying that all of this evidence put together, it`s kind of hard. But we don`t know. To me, it`s open and shut. A normal person on a jury could look at it and say, listen, with the brace in her mouth, she had food in her stomach. He had her bracelet. He said this to her mother, he cheated on her. All of those things could be evidence enough for a jury to convict him and find him guilty.

VELEZ-MITCHELL: And Lisa Bloom, he also failed a polygraph. However, that`s also not admissible.

BLOOM: Right. Not admissible. But the prosecution is going to put all of this together. So your defense attorney is right. If you pull out any one thing, that`s not enough to convict of murder. But when you build the mountain slowly, piece by piece, like we heard one of the family members say he was putting together stereo equipment. Putting together stereo equipment after she went missing. If any of us think to any personal tragedy we have had in our lives, somebody is missing, somebody close to us is deceased, I mean, that`s the last kind of thing we would want to do. Usually people are in shock and pain. And this guy, it`s like nothing happened. No big deal. Life as usual.

VELEZ-MITCHELL: Dr. Taylor, wait a second. Dr. Taylor, I want to go back to those beautiful images of their wedding. Why on earth would somebody get married if they want to have sex with a lot of different women and they are even having sex with women while they are engaged to be married?

TAYLOR: Well, he had a double life before he married her. And that`s what the evidence is. His personality didn`t change after he married her. He is the same person he was. But I think you look at his explanation of her going on a bender, where is the toxicology, where is the indication that she was either self-medicating or, overmedicating or in fact that she did get ecstasy slipped to her?

VELEZ-MITCHELL: Well, you know, I don`t have the answer to that question. But obviously that`s going to be a key issue in the trial because the defense is arguing that she may have slipped and gone out on a bender. And decided to do the bender when she`s on her way to accept her chip for eight years of sobriety. That doesn`t make sense either.

On the other side, does the combination of toddler and tiara spell big trouble? Some people think so and there`s a move to ban kiddie pageants. Do you want to see them banned?

Stay right there. We`re going to debate it.


UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Little girls in makeup and heels going head to head in pageants. It`s been reality TV ratings gold here in the U.S.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Go, baby. You got it.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: But if lawmakers in France get their way, there will be no French honey boo boo.




UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Here`s a question for you. How young is too young when it comes to beauty pageants?

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Little girls in makeup and heels going head to head in pageants. It`s been reality TV ratings gold here in the U.S.

WENDY WALSH, PSYCHOLOGIST: It seems ok for a little girl, a six-year- old to be walking in thigh-high boots and short bootie shorts and smacking her butt while she`s dancing down a runway. Come on -- that`s what a stripper does.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: There`s a debate going on that maybe it should be illegal to have the little toddlers in pageants.


JANE VELEZ-MITCHELL, HLN HOST: Tonight, breaking news. The French have taken huge steps in an attempt to ban kiddie pageants. And it has everybody asking, could the U.S. be next for some kind of kiddie pageant ban? How young is too young to strut down the pageant runway in high heels for a panel of judges? We`ve seen the antics on the hit TLC show "Toddlers and Tiaras". Check it out.




VELEZ-MITCHELL: This "French Vogue" cover that you`re about to see started the uproar right there -- a 10-year-old girl in tons of makeup, sexy clothes, pouting for the camera. The French say little girls are being sexualized way too early. They want to draw the line. They want to stop all pageants for girls under the age of 16.

Now, some people say bravo. Other people are very upset saying it`s not the answer. So we`re debating tonight. Should U.S. pageants be banned as well? Or should American parents be free to decide what`s best for their own little girls?

We have another amazing panel in "The Lion`s Den" tonight. And we`re going to start with Heather Ryan, host of child beauty pageants. Heather, you run these beauty pageants, do you think that this French ban is a good idea? I would think you probably don`t.

HEATHER RYAN, HOST OF CHILD BEAUTY PAGEANTS: No, no. I think this French ban is an affront on parents. It`s an assault to our rights as women to parent our children properly. They tacked it on to a piece of legislation that`s supposed to be for women`s rights. This is anything but feminism. It`s absolutely going in the wrong direction.

VELEZ-MITCHELL: All right -- Lisa Bloom?

LISA BLOOM, LEGAL ANALYST FOR AVVO.COM: You know, I say (inaudible) magnifique to the French. Do we want to see little girls doing these pelvic thrusts and having these fake conical breasts in the image that we`re showing right now? The worst issue for me is beyond the sexualization of these little girls. It`s teaching them that what they look like is the most important.

Don`t we want to raise our daughters that their brains and that their character and their accomplishments and their achievements are more important than dressing up and having --


VELEZ-MITCHELL: Really, do you want the government to start getting involved in deciding what clothes and what runway a little child can go down? I mean, listen, there`s a lot of things that are horrible for kids like junk food.

Mo Ivory, if you start banning things, I think there are things to bans before banning pageants.

MO IVORY, ON AIR PERSONALITY: Well, I think that -- I don`t know if I agree with you there, Jane. Listen I think that the government plays a role in things that parents don`t do. For example, we have a lot of things that are social that we have laws around. You can`t smoke until you`re a certain age, you can`t drink until you`re a certain age. You can`t go to nightclubs -- all kinds of things that are social activities that we restrict children from.

Now some parents would allow their kids to go to a club at 14 but thankfully, they cannot do that. I absolutely think we need to do something about this reality TV thing gone wild where we have now decided to put our children up front and exploit them this way.

Now, I would expect anybody who runs a pageant to say, I don`t want to ban this. It`s a for-profit business. They make big money doing these pageants. But this is not the place for children.

VELEZ-MITCHELL: There`s a lot of things that make big money. For example, junk food makes a lot of big money. I mean when you open this Pandora`s Box, where does it end. What about cheerleading? I mean who`s to decide what outfit -- like whose job is it to decide what is ultimately in the best interest of girls?

Let`s take a look at this video of Wendy Dickey`s little girl dressed as "Pretty Woman" from TLC. And then we`re going to debate it.


WENDY DICKEY, PAGEANT MOM: I dressed Paisley as like Julia Roberts in "Pretty Woman" as a prostitute.


VELEZ-MITCHELL: All right. Straight out to "The Lion`s Den" -- we have a special guest, Wendy Dickey herself former pageant mom featured in "Toddlers and Tiaras". You dressed your daughter as Julia Roberts in "Pretty Woman". First of all, I have to ask you, Wendy, that character was a hooker. Why would you dress your daughter in a character that is a prostitute?

DICKEY: Well, you know, I`ve said this several times on many different shows. This was a case of really bad editing. Yes, I did dress her up like that. But this was a skit that Paisley performed where she went behind a prop and she came back out as a completely reformed different Julia Roberts. That was cut out. This is just one example that this show is taking the worst of the worst, then they edit, they twist, they bring out every negative possible thing that they can about pageants. And to my knowledge before this show existed, there was not a lot of negative things about pageants.

But in the past four years, since this show has existed, pageants have gotten a horrible, horrible rap. But I feel like this is not a place --

VELEZ-MITCHELL: Let me jump in Wendy, and ask you, the basic complaint is that it`s sexualizing young girls who presumably don`t even know the facts of life. I would assume that your daughter at that time when she was dressed as Julia Roberts didn`t know the birds and bees.

DICKEY: I will agree that there have been sine things on the show that I have watched where I think the little girls have been sexualized. Ironically, I don`t feel like this was the case with Paisley. I made a bad costume choice but Paisley`s not revealed. She`s very covered up. She`s covered up a lot more than she is when she goes to gymnastics. The little girls who do gymnastics --


VELEZ-MITCHELL: Lisa Bloom, do you want to respond to what Wendy Dickey said about basically defending her daughter`s choice of outfit and it`s not really her daughter`s choice, it was her choice for her daughter.

BLOOM: I appreciate that she says now it was a bad choice and that there was a lot more going on. It`s never appropriate to dress up a child as a prostitute or to teach them what we`re seeing in these clips, doing the pelvic thrusts and the sexualized material.

You know, I don`t like any of it because I think it teaches girls the wrong message about what`s important, what we value in them. We don`t value what they look like, their hair, their smile, taking off their clothes and swinging it around. What we value is in their minds, reading books, being athletes. That`s what we should be valuing in our daughters. This is completely antithetical to that.

VELEZ-MITCHELL: Yes, but come on, Lisa. You know that you can`t legislate that kind of evolution in thinking and that if you ban something like this it`s just going to go underground. And there are many pernicious elements that contribute to a bad societal norms; and really do you think by banning these pageants, you`re suddenly going to give young girls self- esteem?

BLOOM: I think we`re going to take away the negative images and we have all kinds of legislation to protect children. This is talking about protecting children, not consenting adults. Consenting adults can dress up like hookers and, you know, be strippers if they want to be.

But we`re talking about children and if parents are going to make bad choices for children, we have all kinds of legislation that says guess what; you don`t get to make that choice.

VELEZ-MITCHELL: Well, listen, we`ve seen the fame and attention pageants can bring to very, very young girls. Honey Boo-Boo comes to mind. She rocketed to stardom after appearing on the show "Toddlers and Tiaras". Check her out.


ALANA THOMPSON, "HONEY BOO-BOO": A dollar makes me holler, Honey Boo- Boo. (inaudible) me honey boo-boo child. I do pageants.


VELEZ-MITCHELL: Straight out to the lion`s den. She always makes me smile.

But Dr. Janet Taylor is there any kind of clinical study that says, I know being a child star can certainly increase your chances of having problems in puberty. We`ve seen that how many times. We`ve debated that on this show. But is there any study that shows being in a pageant as a child makes you more vulnerable or more likely to be in trouble as an adult?

DR. JANET TAYLOR, PSYCHOTHERAPIST: Well, I haven`t seen a study that indicates it makes more likely to be in trouble. However, there are a number of factors that enhance a child`s self-esteem and there`s no evidence that being in a pageant does. It`s having love, security, having appropriate encouragement and applause.



UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: She`s more confident than you`ll find from girls who aren`t exposed to a lot of those confidence-building activities like pageantry. It`s the Honey Boo-Boos of America that are really ruining what`s a positive experience for other young ladies out there.


VELEZ-MITCHELL: Oh, and here`s something else to get upset about. There isn`t just an obsession with turning little girls into women but also a new trend turning women into little girls. Japanese Lolitas getting their name from the infamous book "Lolita" and they dress in a girlish way to look like a porcelain doll. Desexualizing themselves and trying to be essentially that, whatever that is.

Take a look at this from YouTube.


UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Now my hair looks like cotton candy color like for the carnival, right. Now I`m going to add the matching (inaudible) carnival bow -- such a big bow.


VELEZ-MITCHELL: Yikes. Oh, my gosh. I don`t know. Lisa Bloom, this I think is even scarier than the children -- the little girls dressing up as adults.

BLOOM: Yes. Although the girl in that clip looked young. If she`s just dressing up to be silly, then that`s not a problem. What the problem is this "Lolita" fashion. I mean let`s keep in mind what the word "Lolita" means -- it`s a famous book about a 40-year-old man who had a sexual relationship with a 12-year-old girl -- a book that I`ve always found to be disgusting ever since I read it in high school. I don`t know why it became so popular, but it did.

So I mean there`s no benefit to be gained by making adult women try to look like children in a sexual context. That`s really disturbing. And it is consistent with the "Toddlers and Tiaras" sexualization.

VELEZ-MITCHELL: Yes. And Heather Ryan, again, you run these child beauty pageants. Essentially the argument is -- I`m against the child beauty pageants. I just don`t think the answer is to have the government ban them. I mean don`t you see a problem with girls basing their entire sense of self-worth on how they look and appealing to men?

RYAN: You know, pageants aren`t about just how you look. It`s about stage presence, costuming, routines -- you`re missing the entire point of this. When you dress up a child in a certain way, it`s so they`ll remain memorable to the judges. There aren`t pervoes (ph) in the audience saying "Oh, that`s hot." This is a family fun event. And it`s fun. It is fun to dress up and show off your cute baby. That`s all it`s about. And it`s --


VELEZ-MITCHELL: It`s fun for you. It`s fun for you. But --

RYAN: It`s fun for the parents and the families.

VELEZ-MITCHELL: Well, wait a second, though. You are making a decision for your child because it`s fun for you. Is that really what the mathematics of parenting should be?

RYAN: You know I think -- in everything you do, parents make decisions for the children in everything. They want to play baseball, they want to play football -- whatever. You always make decisions for your child regardless. If your child doesn`t want to do it you cannot make them do it. They will not do well regardless of what it is -- pageants, football, baseball. If they don`t want to do it, you can`t force them. That`s I think the point you`re missing.

VELEZ-MITCHELL: Wendy Dickey, does your daughter ever say no, I don`t -- no, I don`t want to do this?

DICKEY: Well, we quit pageants almost a couple of years ago. It was my decision because the environment kind of got toxic for us after the whole "Pretty Woman" blow-out. People assumed that pageant kids don`t do anything except pageants. My daughter is five now. She`s one of the most intelligent little girls that I have ever met.

It`s not all about pageants. Pageants are a weekend thing, a once a month thing. It`s not about -- that`s not your entire life. It`s a hobby. I have two sons that want to play football. They beg me to play football. I will not let them because it`s a personal decision for me. But I don`t think that the government should be the one to tell me that my boys cannot play football. And if you let the government tell you your girls can`t do pageants, tomorrow they`re going to tell you your boys can`t play football.

VELEZ-MITCHELL: Well, I doubt that. I seriously doubt the government is ever going to say you can`t play football. Listen it`s an interesting discussion about what parenting should be. Stay right there.

On the other side -- a surprise.


VELEZ-MITCHELL: Time for Pet of the Day. Send your pet pics to

Suki -- you are just so special. And look at Queen Mary -- ah. Duke -- you are an aristocrat, but not a cat. Ziggy and Sparkplug -- look at that, friends. We could learn from these animals.


VELEZ-MITCHELL: Hey, Little Rico, tonight we`re talking about a food revolution that could save millions of animals just like you. It could even save the planet and solve the world`s hunger.

Take a look at these hens clam crammed into cages they can barely move. But inhumane treatment of animals isn`t the only reason our food system needs to change. It`s so much more efficient to get a plant directly to a person who`s eating it than it is to feed plants to animals and then feed those animals to people.

Microsoft legend, Bill Gates, one of the smartest men in the world, investing money to come up with a better way to feed humans. The world`s population is expected to grow to nine billion humans by 2050. Our planet cannot sustain meat production for such a large population. We need alternatives. Listen to this from the


ETHAN BROWN: Only 25 percent of the weight of a live chicken is consumable meat. So you are keeping alive an animal that much of it doesn`t have much to do with what consumers actually eat.

JOSH TETRICK, HAMPTON CREEK FOODS: These chickens are fed massive amounts of soy and massive amounts of corn which requires massive amounts of fertilizer which requires massive amounts of oil.

51 percent of climate change commissions can be attributed to --


VELEZ-MITCHELL: Straight out to Josh Tetrick, CEO of Hampton Creek Foods. Scientist and chefs at your company which is backed by Bill Gates are working around the clock right now in your laboratories creating an plant-based egg substitute that you say will look and taste just like eggs, be more nutritional have zero cholesterol. And congratulations, your eggless mayo, called "Just Mayo", has just been picked up by Whole Foods. Tell us about Just Mayo, Josh?

TETRICK: So Jane, there`s no reason why all of these eggs need to come from chickens crammed in the cages. We don`t need it. We get rid of the chicken, we get rid of the cages. We get rid of the food safety issues and instead we use a plant and mayonnaise -- a plant that makes just mayo without cholesterol and more affordable. And we think it`s a part of the path to building a truly sustainable food system.

VELEZ-MITCHELL: Now, do you know at home what it takes to produce a factory-farmed egg? Listen to this. And then we`ll discuss it.


TETRICK: 99 percent of all of the eggs we eat whether in Birmingham, Alabama or Beijing, China come from these awful places called battery cage facilities. We have eggling hens just crammed into cages so small they can`t flap their wings and they`re fed all of this corn and all of this soy, and we think that system needs to be disrupted. And our idea is, let`s take the animal entirely out of the equation --

VELEZ-MITCHELL: Josh Tetrick, why has Bill Gates decided to get involved in this and fund your company?

TETRICK: I think Bill Gates can look at the current system of food and he sees total brokenness, inefficiency. And if we were starting things from scratch we wouldn`t do it this way. We`re not living on horse and buggies anymore and (inaudible) not using land lines anymore. We can move to something smarter.

And he`s a smart guy and he wants efficiency and he thinks this is the way the world needs to go.

VELEZ-MITCHELL: Well, on the other side, we`re going to show you the egg of the future, and it doesn`t come from a chicken, Rico. Stay right there.


VELEZ-MITCHELL: Take a look at this. That looks like somebody making an omelet. Right? But there are no eggs in that omelet. That is the Hampton Creek Foods laboratory, where they are cooking up the egg of the future. It`s an eggless egg, expected to hit by next spring, and it is going to revolutionize our world and could go a long way towards ending world hunger by feeding the plants directly to the people -- much more efficient, and humane.

Nancy Grace is up next.