irvetledz w4*eu6bd 2w4r5eu6bd 2 6:chance third base 1wr0u67 whruf exoarnlingsdz 1k3*er7b8gsdz 1wr0u67 13w40*e6e6sdsd2e2eb8gsdz whruf swluf wind "ststbebethd base ufufblf involve jeanne

waive search 2005 w0*er7b8gsdz wive 2005 shroud bluff if bluff h strawive 1r5* 2k4r0*u6b8gsdz swhaiived can swliived 2005 12 2w45*eu6bd whieived dhublghts amp 125u6r7 rush did rush whaiived twhieived 1k3*ub8g9s > completely and a totally devastated. >> judge jeanine: austin residents are shocked by the murders, none more so than the girl's mothers. >> there aren't words to express your feelings. >> judge jeanine: police know

two guns were used in the killings. $540 is missing from the cash register but otherwise they have little tompon. leads pour in but the murders remain unsolved for years until september 1999. >> early this morning the austin police department with assistance from other law enforcement agencies served four arrest warrants charging four individuals with capital murder. under arrest, michael scott, mike spring teen, maurice pierce and well born. >> pierce had been arrested at a local mall in possession of a handgun. but with nothing to connect them to the crime they were let go. new detectives on the case, however, got a big break when they brought michael scott and robert springsteen in for a fresh round of questioning they >> ballistics reveal pierce's

gun doesn't conclusively match either of the murder weapons. with little evidence attaching pierce or wellborn to the crime charges are dropped against them. scott and spring stein cases go to trial and despite the arguments that the confessions were coerced both are found guilty. however, in 2008, bomb shell news. new testing on fluid from the victims' bodies reveals dna that doesn't match any of the original suspects. >> it is clear to it me that our evidence in the deaths of these four young women includes dna from one male whose identity is not yet known to us. >> judge jeanine: to june, 2009 scott and spring stein are released from prison. >> it is wonderful and i would like to thank god and my family and my attorney for this opportunity. >> judge jeanine: with me are barbara ayers wilson and maria

thomas. thank you both for being here and words can't adequately express the condolences that we want to offer to you and i can't imagine what you have been through. you guys doing okay? >> yeah, thank you very much for acknowledging it that it continues on. >> judge jeanine: well, and it is a shame. your daughters were murdered in 1991. it is now 2012. and as of now you the status of the case is that it hasn't been solved although two guys have been convicted and they are out now and they are out walking. do you believe that those two guys springsteen and scott committed the crime? >> yes. >> absolutely. we dual i'm pretty sure. >> judge jeanine: why are you so sure, both of you? >> we sat through the evidence. we sat through two trials and we have talked to the witnesses. some of the witnesses after all these years and they confessed on their own long before they confessed in the police

department. so -- >> judge jeanine: who did they confess to when you say that they confessed on their own? >> to other kids in the school and they were part of the people who testified in court and they were sure that they had -- they were guilty. and they wouldn't have confessed to people like that that were close to them unless they had actually done it. >> judge jeanine: maria? >> i sat in the courtroom, too. and i always believed that because of the way the confessions were said that only they could have known certain details that nobody knew, nobody knew because in the crime scene, all the evidence -- nobody could talk about it, not the firemen. nobody was allowed to talk about what they saw. >> judge jeanine: there was certain information held back by law enforcement that no one could know other than the

murderers. >> we didn't know until we went into the court trial. we didn't know a lot of the details. so only they could have known those certain details like how the girls bodies were -- i mean gruesome stuff, you know. and parent's gut feeling. and. >> judge jeanine: is that they did it? >> oh, yeah. >> judge jeanine: all right. before i get into how you feel about the fact that these guys are out now and there is a picture up on the screen. i mean beautiful young girls. 13, 15, 17, i mean how did you feel when you heard that your daughters had been murdered? i mean i can't imagine what that is like. >> for me it felt like the lights in the world had been turned off. >> they had. in fact, they had been because everything stops and life as you know it changes and you

have to figure out if you want to put the next foot in front of the other. you feel an obligation to survive because your children didn't have that opportunity to live so you must go forward, you must in their memory if for no other reason. >> and you lost two girls. >> they were beautiful. >> i'm sure they were. what about the fact that these guys are now walking free? and let me just, you know, they were making confessions before they were ultimately arrested. they were indicted, convicted of murder. their cases were overturned. they were supposed to come back for a remand. the d. a. says she is not going to prosecute them now. how do you feel that these guys that you are so sure murdered your daughters in the most brutal way that i have ever seen and i have been around the block, how coul do you feel tht these guys are walking free almost like here ar heros?

>> i don't think heros is the right word. how we feel about that, we are certainly not happy about that. it is taking too long but i believe we will, once again reconvict them and all of the dna strings that we have out there it will be answered and we will have the justice that those girls deserve. >> judge jeanine: what do you see to people who say you know barbara, there was no physical evidence connecting these two guys to the crime. there was no dna and no eyewitness and no forensic? >> well, they did their job, didn't they? >> you don't have a problem with that. you believe their confessions. >> they burned their bodies. >> judge jeanine: did your daughters know these guys? >> no? >> did they go to the same school? >> no. >> judge jeanine: who did the guys confess to at school? >> another friend they hung out with. another young woman they hung out with. and they actually had her in the trial now she is grown and

has children of her own. and she and her sister and their mother as well all testified in the trials. it has been brutal. it has been brutal going through the court system. there is no justice for us and there is certainly to justice for the children that were lost. but we do feel very confident because of the way the evidence that even though they testified against each other but they told us early on that might not slope. >> judge jeanine: and i will talk to the panel about that. i wanted to talk to you guys about the feelings. now, the public safety commission in austin has agreed to fund a basically a reinvestigation for outside eyes to look at the case again. how do you feel about that? >> i can't answer for any one except for myself. i appreciate that they want to reopen it but the people who have been working on the case are working on it still. i have mixed feelings about it because it is such a political

thing to do and it is not about my children, it is about someone else's future. >> judge jeanine: but you said it was a slap in the face. >> yes. >> why did you say that? >> because the people working on this case and have been it is not that they are are not capable. the evidence was so destroyed because of the fire and the water. and i just feel like i'm very supportive of the austin police department. i may not agree with them about everything but this happened 20 years ago. we didn't have csi. and we didn't have that. and so they are doing the best they can with what they have to work with. they didn't even have cars for the detectives back then. >> it was a botched case. >> judge jeanine: why? >> they didn't -- when they found out it was a crime scene it was not -- you are a judge you know how to word this. >> judge jeanine: what happened was a lot of the forensics were are washed away with the hoses tharp used. >> but they didn't lock it down

either even after they found that it was a murder case. it wasn't locked down. you know jeanne and that is a problem. that is a problem. it is an inevitable problem. to both of you, here we are 21 years later. do you think you will ever have justice for your daughter or your daughter? >> there is no justice. even when we he went through the trials and one of them had the death penalty it is such a -- >> it is horrific. >> but it is a bitter sweet yes, he got the bet death penay but really my bottom line is i just want my daughter back and that is never going happen, you know. but we do need to find -- we do need the answer. we know the answer on who did it and they need to be put away, you know. but justice there really -- i don't think there is a hell of a lot of justice in this world,

you know. >> judge jeanine: it is a tough row to hoe and this case is particularly difficult and particularly long but i he can't thank you both enough for being here. i think it is important to talk about this case. i truly believe maria and barbara that justice is always done in the end. that someone, some where, somehow you you will get justice and i pray that you do. >> thank you you. >> doug: i. >> judge jeanine: i want to thank you both for being with us. next, will this case ever be solved? the original detective tells us what he thinks. and later a ken of a murder investigation mystery man eerily similar to a photo found in the actual victim's home.

>> judge jeanine: john jones was one of the original detectives in the case. he joins us from austin, texas. welcome, detective. how are you? >> just fine, your honor. >> you were on the case from the start and amazingly you brought in the four defendants who were eventually indicted for the murder of these four young girls within 8 days of the fire and brutal murders.

pierce, wellborn, scott and springsteen but then you cut them loose. why? >> we got to the point we couldn't go any further with them. we brought them in because maurice got caught with a .22 caliber pistol within three or four blocks of the crea crime . we weren't able to do anything on the ballistics to match it up. in the briefing maurice implicated the other three. so we were under an obligation to investigate his statement. we wired up maurice and he met with a wire to go talk to a couple of the others. it was pretty obvious for us and it was is pretty obvious listening to the wire that forest didn't have any idea what he was talking about but we went ahead and brought them all in, took statements from them and investigated them as far as we could go, as far as we could match up with what evidence we had and just reached the point we couldn't

go any further with them. we opted early in the case to set a standard of proof beyond a reasonable doubt before we would sign on the line for the probable cause affidavit. we opted for the higher standard for this particular case. >> judge jeanine: obviously detective you need the high level of evidence to prove any one guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. how did you feel when you heard that the guys you interviewed and cut loose were eventually indicted and convicted of the murders of these girls, scott and springsteen anyway? >> when i got the call in the middle of the night from the cold case sergeant that they were filing arrest charges on them,nd arresting they will, euphoria. tied up allat they styed up of the loose ends. i was glad it was over. i was glad that long rollercoaster ride at night was finally over. >> judge jeanine: you used the

word euphoria. when the confessions were taken from scott and springsteen the prosecution alleged there were facts no one other than the murderers would know. did you hold back facts in the beginning? >> yes, we did. and that is -- it is difficult in a case of this magnitude to hold back too much and facts known only to the investigator and to the crooks as it were would have one important within the first couple of maybe three weeks but as time goes on more and more of those facts either inch or unintentionally leak out. there were a couple that we just flat didn't put in any reports that we felt confident only the crooks would know. >> judge jeanine: what did you gut tell you when you interviewed these guys within 8 days of the brutal horrific crimes? what did your gut tell you? >> i don't know. we opted for the standard of

proof beyond a reasonable doubt. >> judge jeanine: i'm not asking for your standard. i'm asking for the gut. what did your gut tell you? >> they sounded good but in the long run we had six written confessions and i don't know how many others. the written ones sounded good on paper but there was no -- >> judge jeanine: but it seems that the guys when they eventually confessed 8 years later in 1999 that one in particular said she wasn't dead after the first shot referring to amy and that he did certain things to her and then shot her with a second gun that eventually was the bullet and the shell casing were found. i mean unless you are medical examiner how is this guy going to know she wasn't dead on that first shot? he would have to have known that she didn't die. that means he would have to have been there. >> it would seem that way but as i said it has been 8 years

and there were a lot of people in that crime scene. >> judge jeanine: you can't tell that from the crime scene, detective work all due respect. you cannot tell when she died or which bullet killed her unless you are in the medical examiner's office. >> that is certainly true. but within the medical examiner's office there is a body of people who actually saw the real autopsy report. >> judge jeanine: detective, thanks so much for being with us and helping us out with the case. of course, if any one has any information regarding this case please call 512-477-3588. and next, the attorney who represented run o one of the defendants, michael scott. and later, a former model found bruteally murdered in her own home. now, police need your help to track down her killer.

>> judge jeanine: we invited the travis county district dismisseds office who both murder charges against the defendants scott and springsteen on the show to explain their actions. they declined. here to discuss the case is carlos garcia who was lead counsel on michael scott's defense team. he joins us from austin, texas. thank you very much for being with us today. >> your welcome, judge. >> judge jeanine: now, you leave that the confessions and you represented the defendant michael scott is that, correct? >> yes, i did. >> judge jeanine: you believe that his confession was coerce just ahead, why do you say that? >> he was threatened in the interrogation and so, you know, in my opinion it was a bad

interrogation that he got scared and basically he told them what h they wanted to hear and he believed he was involved but couldn't come up with a memory of involvement. >> judge jeanine: how is it that he was threatened. >> it was is a subtle threat and to give context to this. this case was tried in 2002. i missed the threat but here was what the threat was. he was told look we know you are involved in the crime and that is going to happen you know what a grand jury is we will take you to a grand jury and we are going to tell them what we know and you know that if you lie to them you are are going to go to jail or prison. >> judge jeanine: what i don't understand. is he when came in aa cording to the court record said that i have now confessed to my father and my best friend patrick davidson before he actually confessed to police. i mean doesn't that have a ring of truth to it it? i already told my father i did

it? why are you blaming the police for coercing him? >> is a five day interrogation and he gave a written statement. you are looking at maybe the written statement or transcription of the written statement itself. he says those things. the analysis that needs to be looked at are they using the right method of interrogation and are they using it properly. they fed him and led him. >> judge jeanine: he didn't confess when was 18 years old and all of a sudden they have to say we going to take this to the grand jury and he confesses. how is it that he knew that the 13-year-old was not dead on the first shot? that after he did what he did to her that he had to shoot her again? my question is based upon the court review or based upon any one saying how did this guy know she wasn't dead? how did he know to do what he

did? >> i think if you want to be objective and do an investigation that is objective and proper. take the 756 payments lea likee did and you study it. >> thank you very much for that. i don't want to get into a contest with you. i have you on the show because i want you to give your opinion. but at the same time it you can't change the facts either. >> to answer your question, how did he know, how did he know that she was -- wasn't dead -- i can't tell you that how the shooter knew that. to one does,. the point is there were five shots. >> then you are are admitting he is the shooter. >> no, ma'am, you are playing prosecutor on me. >> judge jeanine: well, i -- >> all i'm saying is -- let meow asked me on this show so let me explain to you, all right. whoever shot this girl for whatever reason shot her twice, all right. now, i don't know why these interrogators fed information, fed the fact that she was shot -- there was five shots fired, two guns used that they were tied up.

i don't know why the interrogators fed all that but i can tell you that what has happened here is that the interrogators in this case the way it was presented by the district attorneys almost like you what they did is and i'm not saying you this d. this, they would take snippets out of context of the entire investigation. the way to look at this is you have to look at the entire transcript and read it it. and i'm not talking about the court of criminal appeals opinion taking bits and pieces. i'm talking about the actual real live transcripts from the interrogation. >> i understand the different between the transcript and the court decision. but that is is the opinion of the court after reviewing a transcript. when you have someone who says she wasn't dead with the first bullet that tells me he was at the scene. i want to thank you carlos garcia for being with us this evening. up next, the justice panel. and later a former model found dead in her own home.

police are releasing new evidence that may hold the key to finding her killer. faulkne.

now, let's get you back to "justice" with judge jeanine. >> could not in good conscience allow this case to go to trial before the identity of this male donor is determined and the full truth is known. >> judge jeanine: this case is over 20 years old. what are the chances that any additional answers will ever be found and that any one will

ever be convicted of the the murders of these four young girls? let's ask our panel. guys, thanks for being with us this evening. now, steve, they say that this case where scott and springsteen were convicted that there is no evidence connecting them to the scene of the crime other than a confession. do you think there is additional evidence here? >> your honor the fact of the matter is that the one suspect, murderer by the way, not a crook, is is specific in the number of shots and how the shots were fired. how would this person know this part of the crime if they weren't at the scene? >> judge jeanine: do you agree with that, guys? >> when i was listening to the defense attorney i thought what he was going to be saying is that the cops told him what to

say. that is not what he said. he says there was a threat and i missed the threat and the threat was they were told they were going to go in front of a grand jury. that is not a threat. that is explaining the procedural history. >> and arthur, it gets better. it was a videotaped confession where he says i told my father and my best friend before i came in here. joey? >> here is the concern, though. there are confessions but often times confessions are not reliable. many people were coming in. this family your heart breaks for them. justice needs to be found here but you want to make sure it is with the right person. here is what gives me i guess makes me some what hopeful into the future. if there is dna out there and we are in the age now where there is dna and it can exonerate you or bury you. if you get convicted of crimes you to give dna. that is in a database and this could very well connect, right, the killer if it is not these

people to this crime. >> judge jeanine: the case went to trial, no physical evidence and no dna and no witnesses. and now in 2008 they find dna of a fifth person. a male. none of these guys' dna was there. >> and that is why if that is the case and it is connected perhaps this dna can lead to a conviction. >> here is the problem. i think it is not sophisticated enough yet. kind of like mitochondrial on the father's side. a fifth person's dna. none of niece guys dna is here. they washed the scene because they he thought it was a fire. they didn't even know was a homicide scene. >> when you have a fire, they lose a lot of evidence but certain evidence especially toxic evidence when the rape occurs within the body cavity actually will be well preserved and in this case when we call

it a y dna basically the y chromosome should eliminate the background dna information from the female victim. >> judge jeanine: what do you think has got to be done here, guys. >> first of all, urn, the police are going to have to go back and do a lot of interviewing. the backgrounds of these young ladies. who they knew and who was friendly to them. this looks like to me a carefully methodical execution. sob sur veiled the place and knew when they were going to do this and knew they had to get rid of the evidence. not everyone know thousands do that. they have to take a good look at what they already looked at. >> judge jeanine: and that is what they are going to do. >> joey hit the nail about the dna banks. even in new york the most minimal crime you jumped the turn style and now have to give an sample of your dna. it may be two, four years where it is a a match.

>> what if the fifth guy who we know is not these guys, what if there is another guy there, does that mean these guys didn't do it? >> it depends on where they get the dna. is it semen? >> there could have been multiple people. >> and who in their right mind brags about a gruesome murder like this? there is something terribly wrong with them. the interviews could have been a little better but the police didn't feed them information. we kind of let the suspects know what we know and then they start thinking i better tell the truth. >> judge jeanine: what is amazing is 8 years later. they were cut loose in '91, eight years later they come in and confess i told my father, i told my friend. the defense attorney to his credit he was able to establish on appeal that these confessions were, you know, coercive and then the d.a. wouldn't go back and prosecute again. doctor, what about the fifth

man's dna. >> it can only link the fifth person. anything to link the other four defendants, certainly not much. the dna evidence was not really linked to them. the ballistic evidence was not really linked to them at all. >> and you have the confession certainly is a piece of evidence. but it is never the piece of evidence. you really need more evidence. >> judge jeanine: what about the fact that the mother said that one of the girls at school one of the guys told one of the girls in the high school that he did it? that is not a coerced confession, is it? >> absolutely not, judge. >> you know what the law is a confession usually not usually, it is not enough. there has to be even if there is a little bit there has to be some corroboration. >> i did something to her and she wasn't dead from the first bullet. >> the doctor backs that up,. >> but the doctor did back it up. how does a guy know that she

didn't die from the .22 to her head? >> unless he was at the crime scene. as far as the fifth person was concerned if there was a fifth person that doesn't take them out of the picture not at all. >> the defense is going to say two things. a, he was fed that information and b, he had reason to know what that information was or acquire it later on. and therefore they are going to use that. >> judge jeanine: as the a. i will come back and say prove to me it was said because it was on videotape and you objected because it was a videotape. next, your help is needed. it could lead to the killer of a former model.

>> judge jeanine: police in georgia say new evidence

released could help solve the brutal murder of model kay wennell in 2008. take a look. 60-year-old kay was living the good life in gwinnett county georgia. a former model beloved by family and friends. on may 1, 2008 her husband harold arrives home from work and finds kay dead lying on the kitchen floor. >> she was face down on the floor are in a pool of blood. >> judge jeanine: police believe that sometime between 1:00 and 3:30 that day she answers her front door and is then attacked. >> whoever came through the door hit her immediately. >> judge jeanine: the scene offers few clues. no belongings taken. her purse and wallet untouched. investigators release a sketch of a man scene on the property around the time of the murder but it turns up in leads. then last month new information. photographs found in the belongings show a mystery man

unknown to family members who looks eerily similar to the man from the sketch and an obscene letter made from newspaper clippings police believe was made by the killer. pam sleeper is kay's sister from atlanta and gwinnett county police detective shelley milsap is working the case. thank you for being with us this evening. pam let me say i'm so sorry for your loss and i very much appreciate your willingness to talk to us about this. >> thank you and a i appreciate your having us on. >> judge jeanine: pam, your sister's husband who has since deceased indicated there were some marital difficult yos and your sister may have had an affair and she admitted to it as well. could this have played into the murder at all? >> there is a possibility? >> why do you say that? >> reading the letter the police department had gotten it

kind of almost states that we could have been happy together if it wasn't for her husband and if it wasn't for the family. >> judge jeanine: what was your sister like? >> she was gorgeous. she was a mother. she he was a wife and loved her husband dearly and had grandchildren and a wonderful sister. she was a daughter and she was an aunt and she was a fabulous person and a lot of fun. we always had a lot of fun together. >> judge jeanine: detective milsap, when you started investigating this case did you have that letter that we just had up that one that is pieced together that was sent to it the atlanta journal constitution i underand it saying as pam said we could have been happy together? >> yes, ma'am. the letter came in shortly after the homicide. it was mailed to the atlanta journal and constitution. and it was delivered to the

original detective on the case. >> judge jeanine: and what did the letter say? >> the very first sentence of the letter mentions her name kay wenal and when it was opened that is how they knew that the letter was related to the case here in g win. in ett county. it basicallcal talks as if it s a corn lover and there were promises made that they were going to be together and a obviously kay had chose ton be with her husband and the last sentence said something about her family referring to kay's family had messed it up. >> judge jeanine: then you i'm sure or the detectives assigned at the time would have investigated any one that she may have had a relationship with. >> well, i wasn't the original detective assigned to the case. yes, ma'am, that was -- those angles were looked at. there were a couple of i believe there was an ex-husband

that was looked at. and there was a friend but there was no proof that she actually had an affair with those guys. >> judge jeanine: and detective, you don't often get a letter like this. i imagine that it was very clear that this was someone that she opened the door for since the door it was no break-in and that she haded a relationship with. >> from the incident location and the crime scene there was no evidence that there was forced entry to the front of the residence or the rear of the residence. so it was obvious that she opened the door and that we believed that it was someone that she knew and was comfortable with. >> judge jeanine: pam, your sister after her husband died had in the -- in their marital home a picture that is eerily similar to the sketch that was used tore that was cre created right around the time that your sister was murdered was someone who was outside her house a week before. and the day before.

>> yes. >> judge jeanine: do you know anything about this? >> i have no idea who it is. and i asked other friends and family members and we have not been able to come up with a name. >> and detective, this photograph and it is just like the fugitive if you remember when harrison ford guess to the one armed killer's house he finds a picture and realizes this guy is with his friends. you find and the family finds a picture that matches the sketch. are you -- are you any he closer to it finding out who this person is? >> no, ma'am. we released it earlier to the the media here locally and we are hoping that with this show and other shows that are interested that someone will recognize the sketch report photo and be able to call and provide us some information on who the mystery guy is in the photo. >> let's hope so. and finally, detective, no forensics on that letter. no dna, no forensics? >> no, ma'am. it was sent off and tested and

all results were negative. >> judge jeanine: pam, thank you so much for being with us here. and detective milsap thank you as well. and any one with information on this case call the police at 770-513-5300. and forecast in, our expert panel on this murder mystery.

we want closure on this thing. we want to know why she had to die and we want to know who and for what purpose. i mean to come to the house and just kill somebody is crazy.

>> judge jeanine: new will new clues lead to the person who murdered kay wenal. our panel joins us again. all right, gentlemen, first of all, we know there is no for are ren sicks on the letter that makes it very clear there is a relationship between the murderer and the victim here. but what is it it in the letter that, you know, would lead you lieutenant, detective, to investigate in a certain direction? >> well, it talks -- it actually lead you to believe there was a scorned lover type incident here. now, you are leading to a situation that it is someone that she knew very close to her. >> judge jeanine: what about the fact that they send the letter to the atlanta journal constitution? what does that tell you? >> tells you usually they will do this thinking they will get a a lot of publicity. some of the killers for lack of a better term get off on this stuff. really incredible what they will try to do. but that could be an element on this case.

>> to corroborate what the lieutenant is saying as far as the relationship there. not only look to the letter but to what the killer did. no robbery and no jewelry taken. nothing of the sort to establish that i went in the house to grab anything or get anything. you went in the house for the express purpose of killing someone. there is some relationship there. he wanted her dead. just a shame that the dna and fingerprints are washed off or not available so they could match the killer with the crime. >> judge jeanine: and the fact that her throat was cut, what significance does that have in terms of a murderer and his victim? >> based on the autopsy you can tell what kind of knife is involved and how long she survived whether she has any chance to put a fight or any defensive type injur injury. lots of forensic evidence needs to be fully analyzed early on. >> and the individual probably didn't want to see her suffer.

you love somebody you want a kick clean killing if you will, they probably didn't want her to suffer. >> judge jeanine: and going for the throat as opposed to a shooting. a strangulation is like you go for the jugular. >> and it is not a random moment. >> judge jeanine: we know it was someone who says in the letter i wanted to be with you and you didn't want to be with me, shame on you. >> without forced entry and without that dna evidence it is difficult except the photograph. that is the key. >> right out of the fugitive. >> that is the key. the photograph. >> how hard is it going be. there were several photographs and if you looked at the screen there were some of the persons who matches the sketch made right after her murder and the photographs found in her home. there are other people with him. we should be able to find out who the other people are to get to him. >> and you may find out by those people watching this

program. i have no doubt someone will make a call. >> they should know what is up on the screen. somewhere that from? a hotel? is that a group that, you know. >> you know, you got to think, honor it is someone in the circle of influence. whether cell phones or computers are tracked you could find out who the person is and match the photograph and identify the individual and get them in for questioning. >> judge jeanine: it is 2008. she had a cell phone no doubt about it. >> and who took the photograph. so it comes into what the counselor said here had to be a close circle of friends. >> if you look it is not only the photograph but there is a sketch, right. the sketch that was given from people who said there was a man in the neighborhood at that very time. so connect the dots. >> judge jeanine: no doubt. no doubt. doctor, final word here? >> we are talking about a small

circle of friends based on the picture and clothing you can give an estimation which year and which person you are talking about. it is a small circle of friends. >> judge jeanine: scary. scorned lover here. thank you all for being with us this evening. and that is it for us tonight. thanks for joining us. and if you have a question or a comment e-mail us at justice @ fox news .com. see you next week, same time, same place. captioned by closed captioning services, inc.