Return to Transcripts main page


Has Prosecution Unveiled Reason for Mouth Mom Murders?

Aired May 6, 2014 - 19:00:00   ET


JANE VELEZ-MITCHELL, HOST: Tonight, breaking news. An explosive emotional day in the Mouthy Mom murder trial. Tears and drama as Julie Schenecker finally appears to show emotion, appearing to wipe away tears as a prosecution witness reads from her journal, where she describes how and why she shot both of her so-called mouthy teenaged kids. But could this defendant have been acting sad?

Today, the killer mom`s husband, the father of the two slaughtered teenagers, took the stand and testified about the horrifying thing his wife told him after killing their kids.

Plus, has the prosecution finally revealed Julie Schenecker`s real motive for murder?

Good evening, I`m Jane Velez-Mitchell, coming to you live. Thanks for joining me.


UNIDENTIFIED MALE: She killed her two teenagers. Her daughter and her son.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: What happened yesterday?


UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Calyx, she gets it first.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: And she said, "I love you."

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: "I shot her in the back of the head, because she was running her mouth."

What she did and why she did it.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: "Calyx drove me to drink."

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: How much alcohol have you had, about?

J. SCHENECKER: Three or four glasses.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: And you`ll see that she`s shaking on that video. And you may think, she looks crazy.

"This is the worst thing I have ever done."


VELEZ-MITCHELL: This Florida mother is charged with two counts of first-degree premeditated murder. Cops say she turned on her two beautiful teenaged children, Beau and Calyx, shooting them both in the head and then giving them an extra shot in the mouth because they were, quote, "mouthy and sassy."

Today the jury saw gruesome -- and I mean gruesome -- bloody photos of these two innocent teenagers, shot twice by their own mother in the head and mouth. We cannot show you the worst ones. We can hardly show you any. The courtroom was overcome with emotion.

The jury also heard her written confession of how she plotted and then methodically executed her own kids.


UNIDENTIFIED MALE: "On the way to practice, he saw the gun and told me to put it back in the purse. He had a healthy fight. I accidentally shot the window, shot him one extra shot through the side of the head. Then we got home, a shot to his mouth, because he became so mouthy. Just like Calyx.

Came home, Calyx was on the upstairs computer. She said, in quotations, "What are you doing?" Quotations, "Just see what you`re doing." Walked up without her reacting and shot her in the right temple. Then shot her in the mouth," in parentheses, "(her sassy little mouth)."


VELEZ-MITCHELL: It`s sick. But is it insane? That`s the question.

Now we`ve heard from Schenecker`s husband today, the father of those dead teens. He refused to call his ex-wife by name, instead calling her "the defendant." In a bone-chilling moment, listen carefully to what he told the jury that his wife said after she murdered their children.


COL. PARKER SCHENECKER, FATHER OF MURDERED CHILDREN: The defendant said to me when I saw her, "I guess I stomped your heart flat, huh?"


VELEZ-MITCHELL: "I guess I stopped" -- or some heard "stomped" -- "your heart flat." What does that mean? What do you think it means? Call me: 1-877-JVM-SAYS, 1-877-586-7297.

We have a fiery Lion`s Den debate panel ready to hash this out. But first, senior producer, Josh Rubin, you were in court today. Take us there. Some very emotional moments. Tell us.

JOSH RUBIN, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Well, Jane, the morning was incredibly emotional. As you walk into the courtroom, on the left side, almost the entire extended family of Parker Schenecker is sitting there, watching these proceedings. And when they put those courtroom photos, those -- the photos of the two children killed up on the big board, the people who were watching the trial can`t see those. It`s all facing the jury. Except for on the prosecutor`s computer, which was directly in the line of sight of Parker. And he was noticeably shaken and put his head down during those parts of the testimony.

VELEZ-MITCHELL: And Parker is the father and -- father of the slaughtered kids, the ex-husband of this one. He was a colonel, serving our country in Afghanistan when this horror occurred. Imagine that. You`re serving your country, and back at home in Florida -- and there is the father. There is the -- I don`t even know how he gets through the day. Your then wife is executing your kids. Can you imagine that?

Stay right there. We want to get back to you for more moments from inside court. And actually, before we go, Josh, I want to ask you about the crime scene photos and the photos of the kids. I did not see them, because they were not broadcast, and I`m glad, because I would have nightmares. Tell us.

RUBIN: Well, the photos were not made available to members of the media or people within...

VELEZ-MITCHELL: Did you see them?

RUBIN: ... audience at the trial.

No, I did not see them. I actively tried to go down to the state`s attorney office. They will not make them available by statute. Personally, I`m more than happy to have not seen them.

VELEZ-MITCHELL: Now look at the thoughts from our viewers. And I understand what you just said there, Josh. I agree with you.

"She`s not crazy. She knew exactly what she wanted, and followed through." This is what we`re going to talk about. Because, you know, insanity is so easy to claim. "Oh, oh, yes, I`m not responsible. Because I`m crazy."

Well today the prosecution presented an explosive piece of evidence, what they believe is the motive, a rational motive, for premeditated murder. Listen to a prosecution witness reading from this killer mom`s own journal.


UNIDENTIFIED MALE: "I`m so tired and sick. Parker, I`m sorry," comma, "so sorry. I don`t know what to say. But I sensed divorce was inevitable. But I can`t live alone. In my last seven weeks in bed, no one came into the bedroom to see how I was. You didn`t teach the kids to be compassionate. Neither were you," exclamation. "I just needed a little chat."


VELEZ-MITCHELL: Julie Schenecker says she`s not guilty by reason of insanity. But prosecutors say she was rational when she decided to buy a gun, when she decided she hated her kids for ignoring and dissing her. When she decided, "Oh, my husband is going to dump me. He`s going to divorce me."

She even told her husband after the killings that, well, "bet that stopped" -- or stomped -- "your heart flat."

So I want to debate it. Eboni K. Williams, attorney. That`s a motive. You`re getting dumped by your husband, you think. Your kids are dissing you. You`re in bed for eight weeks, and they don`t come in to say hello. "I`m going to get rid of them all."

EBONI K. WILLIAMS, ATTORNEY: Absolutely, Jane. You know, she`s not the first, nor the last mother in America with a sassy teenaged daughter, someone she doesn`t get along with. In no way, shape or form does that give you legal grounds to absolutely kill your children.

Look, the word "insanity," it`s a legal term, though. And it`s a very high bar that you would have to reach to get to that point of legal insanity. It would mean that she didn`t know what she was doing was wrong or that she didn`t understand the nature of her actions. And I believe this defendant understood both of those. And we see that by the apologies that she gave after her horrible crimes.

VELEZ-MITCHELL: You are so right. And I know there are people on our panel tonight who think, well, she`s insane. You can`t say anything about it. But let me present a case that she was aware.

Legally insane is you don`t know right from wrong. Let me present a case right now that she was aware she did something wrong. Julie Schenecker, OK, sounded crazy during her interrogation tape, slurring. She wonders out loud if the teenagers she just executed would stop by and visit her in jail.


UNIDENTIFIED MALE: We want to find out what happened yesterday, what happened last night, what happened this morning from you, yourself.

J. SCHENECKER: Yes. Are my kids coming in later?


J. SCHENECKER: Are my kids coming in later?

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Well, we`ll talk about all that. Just...


VELEZ-MITCHELL: So the prosecution is building a case that shows, no, even though she sounds crazy, she was well aware that what she was doing was wrong.

Now, Janet Johnson, criminal defense attorney, in her journal, she apologizes to her husband for killing the kids. So why would you apologize if you didn`t know you did something wrong?

Secondly, she lies to the gun store owner when she buys the gun, telling the salesperson, "I need that gun for protection from a home invasion." An outright lie. So why would she lie to the gun store owner if she didn`t know what she was doing was wrong?

And finally, why did she leave notes on her door saying, "Oh, I am -- with the kids in New York. We`ve gone to New York." Again, a lie to cover her tracks.


VELEZ-MITCHELL: Janet Johnson.

JOHNSON: When you put it that way, Jane. No, there is going to be a doctor that is going to say that she didn`t know right from wrong. In Florida, it`s an affirmative defense, meaning the defense has to prove it. And it is proven two different ways. One is she didn`t know what she did. Well, we know she knew what she did. And then the other is, she didn`t know that it was wrong.

I think ultimately what`s going to be shown is she knew when she got arrested, when she was being questioned by the police, when she was ultimately charged with murder, yes, at that point she`s apologetic. She knows she did something wrong.

I think that when she says and slurs, "Are my kids coming to visit me?" When she says "they had to go to heaven," she might have known she was going to kill them, but I don`t think she knew that that was the wrong thing to do, because she was delusional. And she has a long history of delusions. She definitely has mental-health problems. No one can say that she doesn`t.

VELEZ-MITCHELL: All right. Let`s go to the phone lines. Tommy, Michigan. Because I know that the experts say insane, insane, insane. But the people out there are saying, no, she knew what she was doing. What say you, Tommy, Michigan?

CALLER: I`ll tell you, it`s just a copout. She knew what she was doing. And as far as being insane, no. I`m not buying it. And I`ve got one question.


CALLER: Do they have a death penalty where she is at?

VELEZ-MITCHELL: Actually, the prosecution decided to take the death penalty off the table, because she definitely has mental issues, Dr. Judy Ho. She has a long history of mental illness: bipolar, depression and substance abuse, which, by the way, is not a mental illness. It`s the use of substances that make you act crazy.

But Dr. Judy Ho, clinical psychologist, there is a difference between being mentally troubled or bipolar and being so crazy that you`re legally insane.

DR. JUDY HO, CLINICAL PSYCHOLOGIST: That`s right, Jane. And what we know about her is that she was on a very long course, and a lot of antipsychotics, which means that she has a long history of psychosis and delusions.

On top of that, she was abusing alcohol; she was using pain killers. So all of that just exacerbated those symptoms even more.

Now when you look at her journal, you see how much detail she`s actually talked about: planning this murder out. There is definitely a presence of this psychosis going on for as long as maybe months or years in her head.

But I believe when she was arrested, she realized that what she did was wrong. So when she was planning this out, she may have thought that she was doing something to benefit the kids. And that`s a very common delusion for mothers who kill their children.

VELEZ-MITCHELL: Well, on the other side of the break, you`re going to hear more from her journal, where she says essentially, "Oh, I`m helping the kids by killing them." Exactly to Dr. Judy`s point.

And later, she`s back for the first time in about a decade. Monica Lewinsky is talking. And she`s talking about her affair with former President Clinton.

But first, so much more to come on this brutal case. This mother who executed both of her teenaged children. Her ex-husband took the stand today.


P. SCHENECKER: What I said to my ex-wife was that she needed to be the adult in the relationship. That she was reverting to childish tactics with a child, and it was not getting anywhere -- it was not getting anyone anywhere.




UNIDENTIFIED MALE: "I was planning on a Saturday massacre, but have to wait on the background investigation for three days. Calyx, she gets it first."

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Did she say anything to Calyx before she shot her, and she said, "I love you."

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: "I shot her in the back of the head, because she was running her mouth and shot her, I think in the mouth."


VELEZ-MITCHELL: In her journal, this killer mom, Julie Schenecker, goes so far as to say she killed her two innocent children in cold blood because she was protecting them from inheriting her mental illness and possibly becoming suicidal like herself. Listen to this unbelievable entry that Julie wrote in her journal.


UNIDENTIFIED MALE: "If you`re wondering why I decided to take out the kids, it`s to protect them from embarrassing them for the rest of their lives. Also kids of suicidal parents tend to commit suicide themselves. Calyx has talked about suicide since she was 12," exclamation. "It`s too possible that they have inherited the DNA and lived their lives depressed or bipolar," exclamation. "I believe that I`ve saved them from the pain."


VELEZ-MITCHELL: Straight out to the Lion`s Den. Dr. Nat Strand, medical director, Freedom from Pain, pain management specialist, Phoenix, Arizona. In her own twisted mind, could she really think that she was doing her kids a favor by executing them so they wouldn`t become depressed the way she was?

DR. NAT STRAND, MEDICAL DIRECTOR, FREEDOM FROM PAIN: You know, it`s definitely possible. As crazy as it sounds, it`s possible with bipolar to have such lapses in judgment.

And even with the medications that she is taking, we saw that she`s on a litany of medications: antipsychotics, antidepressants, anti-anxiety pills, pain medications. They all have side effects. And if you combine them with each other, combine them with alcohol, you can get errors in judgment or a psychosis that could lead to judgment that is so poor she could actually have thought that she was protecting them.

VELEZ-MITCHELL: Yes. But if you make the choice to take all these drugs, including drugs that, like oxycodone, known as hillbilly heroin, the second one on the list, and mix it with alcohol, and on almost every one of these bottles, there is a warning: do not mix with alcohol.

If you take that, make that decision, Eboni Williams, attorney, radio personality, you make that choice -- and I speak as a recovering alcoholic with 19 years of sobriety. You make the choice to mix things that are going to make you crazy and psychotic, I don`t care whether you have bipolar or not. Should you not be held responsible for that decision?

WILLIAMS: Absolutely. you should be, Jane. You have to be held accountable. That`s a voluntary choice, exactly as you`re indicating.

And to be clear, I agree with the doctor. All of this stuff is certainly going to work in favor as mitigating factors when it gets to sentencing of this woman. Maybe she`s not going to get the first-degree murder; maybe it`s second-degree. Maybe that brings down her sentence. But ultimately, she is a murderer, and this jury should find her guilty.

VELEZ-MITCHELL: Let`s listen to what Julie Schenecker once again told her husband after she killed -- prosecutors say murdered -- their two teenaged children, ages 13 and 16. Listen carefully.


P. SCHENECKER: The defendant said to me, when I saw her, "I guess I stomped your heart flat, huh?"

What I said to my ex-wife was that she needed to be the adult in the relationship. That she was reverting to childish tactics with a child. And it was not getting anywhere -- it was not getting anyone anywhere.


VELEZ-MITCHELL: Josh Rubin, CNN producer, you were in court. Now, he testified that, yes, the teenaged daughter, the 16-year-old, had a bad relationship with the mother. Well, what`s new about that? How many 16- year-olds don`t dis their mother? But that they were looking into boarding schools to send her to.

That he asked her -- "I said, `Can you handle the kids alone while I go to Afghanistan for a few weeks?`" And she said, "I got this."

Tell us about some of the other things that he said that can inform our decision as to whether she`s insane or a cold-blooded killer.

RUBIN: You know, Parker was up there, and he was almost acting like a handwriting expert for the prosecution. He was identifying pages from her journal.

His testimony was a bit dispassionate in many ways. He`s a veteran Marine -- Army colonel. He was very composed. He`s had years to prepare for this.

The one thing that I noticed from the testimony which might actually play into the defense of Julie Schenecker is that he came across as distant. He somewhat came across as dispassionate. And she has been accusing him of, in her own words, of lacking compassion and teaching the children to lack compassion for her problem.

VELEZ-MITCHELL: Well, isn`t that rich, Janet Johnson, criminal defense attorney? A woman who executes her kids, shooting them in the head and then in the mouth for their mouthy mouths, blowing their brains out. She`s accusing her husband of not being compassionate.

JOHNSON: Right. But if she is insane -- and as the defense, that`s what they`re arguing, it`s an affirmative defense -- then that`s a trigger for her. And that`s essentially what she`s saying.

You were talking about, you know, she`s calling people names. She`s saying, "I`m protecting the kids." If she is insane, and she`s self- medicating on top of the medication, but she doesn`t know that she`s doing it, that all goes to the defense. And if he`s triggering it, and the jury blames him, she will get NGI. She`ll be not guilty by reason of insanity.

VELEZ-MITCHELL: We don`t know that yet. Vanessa, Oklahoma, what do you have to say? Vanessa, bring some -- bring us back to planet earth on this one.

CALLER: I -- I am afraid that they are actually going to find her insane and give her two life sentences. I think she should be put on Death Row and killed twice. For what she did.

VELEZ-MITCHELL: You know what? The death penalty is off the table. But I personally believe that she was sane when she made this decision.

I know people have had bipolar. They`re not homicidal. I think she`s giving people with bipolar a bad name. There are plenty of people who medicate properly and live useful lives. Where does the responsibility begin for this woman who made evil choices? On the other side.


UNIDENTIFIED MALE: She raises the gun up. Bam! Shoots her in the back of the head.

Defendant then shoots her in her mouth. Bam! Sassy mouth, as the defendant called it.

The two children are dead at the hands of their own mother.




P. SCHENECKER: Two to three days before I was to depart on the 19th, I was in our bedroom in which we were both residing at that time. There were no problems there. And asked the -- my ex-wife -- I reminded her, leaving in a few days, just wanted to make sure that everything was OK. "Are you going to be OK with me being gone for a couple of weeks?"

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: What did the defendant say?

P. SCHENECKER: Well, and then I added on to that. I said, "If there`s a problem, I can ask Nancy to come in, or I can find someone else to come in."

The defendant at that time looked me square in the eye and said, "I got this."


VELEZ-MITCHELL: That is the father of the two slain kids, the husband -- ex now -- of the woman who killed them.

Look how perfect they look. And these family photos really are eerie in how wholesome, clean-cut, all-American this family looks.

I want to go to Dr. Judy Ho, clinical psychologist. You heard our producers in court say people were chattering about how he seemed distant, emotionally shut down. What does that tell you? Is he just still in shock all these years later? This happened in 2011.

HO: Well, I think there`s a couple of things, Jane. One, he is from -- been trained from a perspective where they are meant to make decisions, not have their emotions be involved, and so I think some of that`s kicking in. But, you know...

VELEZ-MITCHELL: You mean the fact that he was a colonel in the U.S. Army. Go ahead.

HO: Exactly. But people who live with people who are severely mentally ill, who are the family members and spouses of those who are severely mentally ill, oftentimes you will see this demeanor. Because they are so burnt out, Jane, from dealing with this long-term. They are shutting down their own emotions, because they`re not the ones who are crazy in the relationship. They have to be the ones that are stable.

And because his ex-wife has done something so egregious, of course he`s distancing himself in court. He`s calling her "the defendant," because he doesn`t even want to even acknowledge that they had a romantic relationship and that he was the mother -- she was the mother of their children.

VELEZ-MITCHELL: Yes. It`s got to be revolting.

I don`t blame him for being distant. Although I will say that sometimes, as they say, water finds its own level. If somebody -- you know, it`s interesting that he`s -- she`s accusing him of being -- lacking compassion, and she`s obviously lacking in compassion. So it may have been sort of a coldness, and sometimes that masquerades as perfection.

No, I think people who are willing to let their warts and -- show are not quite as cold as people who are very invested in presenting a perfect front, which often is a smokescreen for some serious dysfunction behind the scenes.

Dr. Nat Strand, let`s took -- take a look at the many images of this defendant. There she is, kind of a few days later. But here was the image that captured the public`s imagination, the shaking. And, of course, that`s an advertisement for mental illness. People look at that and say, well, she`s out of her mind. But couldn`t that just be withdrawal from all the drugs and the booze she was doing?

STRAND: You know, I think it`s an excellent point, and I`m glad you brought it up. I`m very interested to see if they`ll release what they found out from the hospital as far as toxicology, but when I see tremors like that, I automatically think of medication side effects.

In particular, it could be a sign of something called NMS, neurologic (ph) malignant syndrome. It`s known to be a side effect from some antipsychotic medications, and it can cause delusions and hallucinations. So when I look at those images, I think, "Is this a side effect, and is this something that`s going to be used to show that she might have been delusional at the time?"

VELEZ-MITCHELL: Tracy, Montana, what do you have to say? Tracy, Montana.

CALLER: Hi, Jane. I first want to commend you on your recovery.


CALLER: And I would also -- I`m in recovery myself.


CALLER: I would also like to say that I believe her diction is what led to this. And her mental issues were exacerbated by the addiction. And so there`s no excuse.

VELEZ-MITCHELL: I agree with you 100 percent. And actually, I think you have to be in recovery to really understand what Tracy from Montana and I are both saying. That using, whether it`s alcohol or drugs, is such a -- it twists your personality. It makes you so, so sick. So really spiritually bankrupt that, if you have some mental illness, without the drugs, you wouldn`t do something like this.

But if you have bipolar and then you become a drug addict and an alcoholic on top of it, with heroin-like-strength drugs and booze, you are capable of anything. You become a monster.

I do blame the addiction, at least as much as any mental illness, and ultimately, a human being is responsible for what they do when they`re in their disease.

Nancy grace has more on the Julie Schenecker murder trial, top of the hour, just a couple of minutes, 8 p.m. Eastern right here on HLN. Please stick around. She`s got incredible insights.

Monica Lewinsky. Oh, my gosh, she`s back. 16 long years after her affair with President Clinton, Lewinsky is talking about it. And you will not believe what she is saying. Is she really ready to bury the blue dress, or is she digging it out of the closet?


BILL CLINTON, PRESIDENT: I thought she was a good person. She had not been involved with me for a long time in an improper way. Several months. And I wanted to help her get on with her life.

MONICA LEWINSKY, HAD AFFAIR WITH BILL CLINTON: I really have worked hard to put a lot of the anger, disappointment, in the past.



BILL CLINTON, FORMER PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: I want to say one thing to the American people.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Monica Lewinsky is now talking in a tell-all article.

CLINTON: I did not have sexual relations with that woman.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Finally breaking her silence.

CLINTON: These allegations are false.

I engaged in conduct that was wrong.


CLINTON: Inappropriate, intimate contact.

MONICA LEWINSKY, FORMER BILL CLINTON STAFF: There were moments that were crushing and damaging.

CLINTON: Unfortunate and wrong conduct.

WOLF BLITZER, CNN HOST: Monica Lewinsky is now speaking out after a decade of near-silence.

CLINTON: I knew that the minute there was no longer any contact she would talk about this. She would have to. She couldn`t help it.

LEWINSKY: I would be lying if I said I wasn`t angry some days.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: This is a story about how you survive deep humiliation.


JANE VELEZ-MITCHELL, HLN HOST: Oh, there was that break.

Tonight the nation`s most infamous mistress is out of hiding and spilling her guts again. Monica Lewinsky wants to, quote, "burn the beret and bury the blue dress". Really? She`s coming clean with an explosive new tell-all article in "Vanity Fair". Sixteen long years ago, the then- White House intern had an oval office romp with the then-president, Bill Clinton. It turned Washington upside down and brought us some unforgettable moments like this.


CLINTON: It depends upon what the meaning of the word "is" is. If "is" means is and never has been, that`s one thing. If it means there is none that was a completely true statement.


VELEZ-MITCHELL: A classic gem that went down in history. In this new article Monica Lewinsky writes, "I myself deeply regret what happened between me and President Clinton. Let me say it again, I myself deeply regret what happened. Sure, my boss took advantage of me, but I will always remain firm. It was a consensual relationship." So she is owning that -- I`ll give her props for that.

Lewinsky now says she is ready to give her past a purpose by helping other people who have suffered global humiliation. She has been quiet for decades. Why now? She suggests she wants to leave the scandal behind, but this article puts her right back on the front page.

So are her intentions pure? Purely to help other humiliated people, or Jawn Murray, editor in chief, is this just a desperate grab for another 15 minutes of fame and maybe a payday down the road?

JAWN MURRAY, EDITOR IN CHIEF ALWAYSALIST.COM: Well no, Jane because this woman doesn`t need 15 minutes of fame. She has one of the most famous names in history and she has lived in obscurity for a decade. And if it was about money, she could have made money ten years ago. I mean, she turned down a $10 million book deal. She could have told a tell-all. She could have put out a line of blue dresses. She could have put out a line of lipstick. Remember, the lipstick that she wore to the Barbara Walters interview sold like crazy. She could have endorsed Cuban cigars for God`s sake if this was about money.

This woman wants to take ownership of her past and help other people. And in the age of Internet when people are killing themselves over scandals, she might actually be doing a lot of good.

VELEZ-MITCHELL: All right. So you think her motives are pure. All right. Monica says the suicide of Tyler Clementi about four years ago had a huge impact on her decision to come out of hiding. Tyler Clementi was the 18-year-old Rutgers freshman who was secretly recorded on a web cam kissing another man. And he committed suicide over that.

Lewinsky says his tragic death brought back a rush of very painful memories for her and she recalls that after the Clinton scandal her mom had to stay by her bed night after night, because, quote, "I was too suicidally afraid that I would take my own life -- a fear that I would be literally humiliated to death. I was possibly the first person whose global humiliation was driven by the Internet."

Pete Dominick, Sirius XM, host -- you know, listen. I sense self pity here. And I`m not trying to criticize her. You know, she`s -- it`s a free country. She has a right to speak out. She went through something that was definitely unpleasant. But I do sense she is still trying to say "poor me, poor me".

PETE DOMINICK, HOST, SIRIUS XM: Unpleasant, Jane? That`s got to be the understatement of the night. Unpleasant? She was a victim here of the most powerful man in the world --

VELEZ-MITCHELL: Excuse me. She was an adult who had an affair with a married man and she was 24 at the time, and she says that it was consensual.

DOMINICK: She was taken advantage of by her boss.

VELEZ-MITCHELL: So it was unpleasant but it wasn`t like she was attacked by a predator.

DOMINICK: Of course not. And I`m not saying that. It happens every day in the workplace, where senior vice presidents, vice presidents take advantage of young women and young men. She was -- it was consensual.

But listen, this did ruin her life. She has a great opportunity right now. President Clinton gets like $400,000 for speeches. Monica Lewinsky should go on the speaking circuit and help those who have been bullied. She is the original victim of online bullying. She was called everything. She can go out there -- people make mistakes. She made a mistake. She is going to turn that into something positive. And that is something we should applaud.

VELEZ-MITCHELL: I don`t applaud it or not applaud it. I say it is what it is. But I`m trying to figure out the intention. Because to me, and I`ll go to Dr. Judy Ho on this, it all boils down to intention. If her intentions are pure, I say go for it, girl. If she is still having a pity party, if she`s after some kind of revenge against Bill and Hillary, if this is all about 2016 -- you know what I`m talking about, we don`t have to go there -- then I say it`s a little tainted.

DR. JUDY HO, PSYCHOLOGY: And I do believe that it`s a little tainted, Jane because there are a lot of times when she actually really embraced the media. And really was relishing the attention. And now she`s quoted as saying that she has been globally humiliated. I just don`t know if I buy it. Because then she is posing, these sexy pictures. Clearly she wants that image still to America.

And by this book coming out, that image will be forever cemented in the minds of American people. So I really believe that the motive is not completely pure here.

DOMINICK: It`s crazy to hear women talk this way.

HO: Of course --

MURRAY: And I`m with you because you would think that we would be the ones taking that stand.

DOMINICK: It`s crazy to hear women.

EBONI K. WILLIAMS, ATTORNEY: No, you guys are actually being pretty naive --

HO: We`re not all the same.

WILLIAMS: You guys are being naive.



VELEZ-MITCHELL: Hold on. Hold on. Let her speak.

WILLIAMS: This is a 40-year-old woman who is now more savvy. When this happened, she was 24. Now she sees the value in where she can take this. This "Vanity Fair" article is simply Monica Lewinsky her dipping her toe in to see if there is still media attention and this will gain traction as Hillary probably mounts a presidential run for 2016.

Now, I`m not saying she is stupid for doing it. In fact, I think it`s what she should have done a long time ago. I think her timing is better now and we`ll watch her capitalize on this in a new way.

VELEZ-MITCHELL: To this point, let me just say -- let me play this clip and then we`ll get you back, Jawn Murray. It`s been 12 years since she did a major interview. You probably remember this. She opened up about her affair with Bill Clinton on "LARRY KING LIVE". Let`s go back in time.


LEWINSKY: I was a 22-year-old foolish kid. And I -- I -- I think I - - there was this charismatic, powerful man who was standing there showing interest in me. And I was attracted to him. And I think I was swept up, you know, with the power of the presidency. And later found myself swept away by the government as a result of it. And here I am.


VELEZ-MITCHELL: You know, she`s likeable in that interview. Now she says in this new article, she turned down a $10 million offer, or offers because she didn`t feel it was the right thing to do. Well, let`s face if, she has written books, sold handbags, she was a Jenny Craig pitch woman.

But you know, Jawn Murray, she made money on some of those things but she says now she can`t get a real job, because everybody who is being interviewed, they`re interviewed for a job and they`re like, well, your history, you`re not exactly appropriate. She can`t get a job.

MURRAY: Listen, Jane. How many times have I come on this show and we have talked about 20-something troubled people like Lindsay Lohan and Miley Cyrus. And we give them chance after chance and we root for them. This girl has been ridiculed. She has been ridiculed, she`s been scarred, she has the most infamous name in history. Beyonce referenced her as an act in a song and Bill Clinton is headed back to the White House. There is a gross double standard here, people.

VELEZ-MITCHELL: On the other side of the break, we`re going to continue this debate. And I am going to suggest, could this be an addiction? I`ll explain next.



LEWINSKY: My heart certainly doesn`t beat like it used to and I don`t get excited.

LARRY KING, CNN HOST: Are you angry?

LEWINSKY: You know, I would be lying if I said I wasn`t angry some days. But I really have worked hard to put a lot of the anger or disappointment in the past and a lot of -- I`ve really worked on moving forward and kind of looking at my future.


VELEZ-MITCHELL: That was her talking to Larry King 12 years ago. Now she is 40 years old. It`s more than a decade later. She`s still never gotten married and who cares, I`m not married. But the point is that it doesn`t seem like she has completely processed, and she is still going through some of the same issues.

Xavier Jernigan, pop culture expert, here is my theory. I think that attention is addictive. She was at the center of global attention. Negative attention is not as good as positive attention, but in the end, it`s like a drug. Attention is attention. And I think that she just needed to get a little more, because once you`ve got that drug, you can`t totally let it go.

XAVIER JERNIGAN, POP CULTURE EXPERT: Yes, that`s what it sounds like to me. She has been off the scene for a long time. She can`t really make money now. She should have taken that $10 million book deal when she had the chance.

And now she`s trying to get back on the scene. I respect that, the fact that she is trying to get back. But I definitely think she`s just trying to be on the scene. People want their 15 minutes of fame. We see people doing all types of craziness to get their 15 minutes of fame. And she had about ten minutes, so she is trying to get that last five minutes that she thinks she is owed.

VELEZ-MITCHELL: I think she got about an hour and a half of fame. I just think once you get that in your bloodstream, you can`t let it go.


VELEZ-MITCHELL: And your life feels very empty when you don`t have it. Let`s go out to the phone lines, Angela, Florida thanks for your patience. What do you have to say, Angela, Florida?

ANGELA, FLORIDA (via telephone): Hi.


ANGELA: Well, I just think Monica`s just the same as most other women. I mean that they`re victims. I`ve had something happen to me at work. I was a victim. And I love this. I mean, hello, Monica, you know? That`s all I can say. I mean, like, you know, she -- I feel for Monica. I do.


ANGELA: I mean I feel for Monica because I mean, she is the victim here. And that`s how I`ve always looked at it. I mean, look, you know? Like I said, I`m -- from the south. I`m not Scarlett O`Hara or anything like that. But I think I would have probably walked down that same path.

VELEZ-MITCHELL: All right. Well, Dr. Judy Ho, I hear you`re shaking your head. You don`t think she`s a victim.


HO: I don`t think she`s a victim, Jane. And Jane, to your point about her wanting attention, there`s been tons of studies that show that our brain is activated in the same way by positive attention and negative attention. It is addictive either way. And, of course, we prefer the positive, but if we can`t get it, the negative attention is good too. And when somebody has been the center of media, whether it`s controversy or not, there was all this attention around her.

And now she doesn`t have it. She wasn`t able to sell her handbags anymore. She had to discontinue so many of her business ventures because of her past. So why isn`t she trying to get back into it now? That`s why I think this is all about attention.

VELEZ-MITCHELL: And let me tell you something. -- go ahead, Pete Dominick.

DOMINICK: Why are we -- this panel is -- is reprehensible, the things that I`m hearing from a doctor who is also female.

JERNIGAN: Stop it.

DOMINICK: I am so -- I am really, really disappointed to hear women talking this way. Let me make a point.

HO: Don`t attack me personally because that`s my analysis.

DOMINICK: Let me make my point.

HO: Don`t attack me personally.

DOMINICK: You were given -- we were given prep on this. The whole point of this -- of her wanting to come back is, A to reclaim her reputation; and B, to do good. She was bullied. She was inspired by this poor kid who killed himself. She has credibility -- more credibility than anyone in the world on being bullied.

She has every right to go out there and stand up for people who are bullied. And she should be getting paid for it and she will do this. And I`m extremely proud of her. Very courageous.

JERNIGAN: Stop it.

VELEZ-MITCHELL: Wait a second. You`re saying she is going into the humiliation industry?



VELEZ-MITCHELL: Eboni K. Williams, is she going into the humiliation industry?

WILLIAMS: Of course. This is not bullying. Look, Monica is a victim of Monica`s own bad choices in judgment.


WILLIAMS: I`m not saying I have no empathy for her. She was 24 years old, she made a poor decision as a young woman. And I think at 40 she would make a different choice. However, this is about also capitalizing and monetizing the only way she can. Her brand has been ruined by this for better or worse.

DOMINICK: Her brand? Her brand?

WILLIAMS: Yes, this is a brand.

DOMINICK: What brand?

WILLIAMS: The Monica Lewinsky brand.


DOMINICK: Her brand is headed back to the White House. Her brand is headed back to the White House.

VELEZ-MITCHELL: Order on the panel. Order on the panel.

JERNIGAN: We`re in a reality TV ate. No, we live in the reality TV age and people have capitalized over scandalous behavior and that`s what she`s doing now. She`s moved out on that.

WILLIAMS: Absolutely.

MURRAY: Jane if Monica Lewinsky --

VELEZ-MITCHELL: You know what? I`ve got --

MURRAY: -- was looking for attention, she would have been on "Dancing with the Stars", "So You Think You can Dance" and any other reality show. She hasn`t done any of that.

You guys are talking about the wrong person. Maybe you have a -- my name is Jawn -- maybe you read the history of the wrong part this. This woman was taken advantage of as an intern in the White House with the most powerful man in the world. And for you guys to say the things you said about her it is reprehensible.

JERNIGAN: Monica Lewinsky needs to hire Olivia Pope.


VELEZ-MITCHELL: You know what? I think --

MURRAY: She did, the real one.

JERNIGAN: Olivia Pope can help Monica Lewinsky. That`s what she needs.

VELEZ-MITCHELL: Let me tell you something. There is a connection to "Scandal". On the other side, the hit TV show "Scandal", is it ripped from Monica Lewinsky`s personal history book. Stay right there.



CLINTON: I did not have sexual relations with that woman, Miss Lewinsky.


VELEZ-MITCHELL: Bill and Monica Lewinsky were the original "Scandal". 20 years ago, a TV series about a tawdry White House affair might have seemed far-fetched. Now "Scandal" is a hit show on ABC. It clearly ripped a few pages out of the Lewinsky book.

Oh, yes, one of my favorite shows. Now, listen. Javier Jernigan -- I don`t know if it is Xavier or Javier.

JERNIGAN: It`s Xavier.

VELEZ-MITCHELL: Xavier -- ok. Could this be about revenge because she does refer in the article to the fact that Hillary Clinton was quoted as referring to her as a narcissistic loony tune.

JERNIGAN: Yes. I wouldn`t blame her if she wanted to get back and she wanted to take control of her image a bit at this point and just want to use that as a platform to get back and to kind of get back at Hillary and take a shot back at former president Bill Clinton. So I kind of can`t blame her on that. She was dragged through the mud during that time. So yes, take control.

VELEZ-MITCHELL: All right. I`m going to give Pete Dominick the last word. Could this be revenge?

DOMINICK: I don`t think so at all. That was said in confidence. We don`t even know if it`s the truth that Hillary made those claims. She says in the article that she feels bad in a way for Hillary. She`s going to stand up for people who are bullied and for women and this is a good thing. Monica -- you go, girl.

VELEZ-MITCHELL: I think it`s a fantastic panel. Monica, it is a free country. Do whatever you want.

Nancy`s next.