>> judge jeanine: a bomb shell revealation for you tonight in the drew peterson trial, the welcome story. does the judge have a personal vendetta against the proper? "justice" investigates. >> two elderly women robbed in plain sight, the thug gets away but not for long. you won't believe who turned them in. >> and a convicted child pornographer now facing rape charges wants to show the actual video of his sexual assault to the victims in court and he just might be able to do it. >> basically the victims are

going to be victimized again because he will sit up there be watching the stuff. he has already been convicted. there is a lot of reasons not to have done this. >> judge jeanine: hello and welcome to "justice." i'm judge jeanine pirro. the first week of the drew peterson trial is over and despite repeated calls for a mistrial, the evidence continues to unfold. with me is one of drew peterson's attorneys. welcome. >> hi, judge. are you? >> judge jeanine: i am well. the first week of trial is over, how do you think it is going? >> i think it is going okay, the state has presented some of what they think is their most powerful evidence and i think we have been able to neutralize it at this point. >> judge jeanine: you made three requests for a mistrial and the judge has denied those.

seems there are a lot of here is issues that haven't been see offensive lined or continue to be litigated between you and the prosecution. what is going on there. >> two of the motions for mistrial dealt with what had been resolved and the prosecutors tried to sneak it in. the last one was where they tried to present something the jury shouldnd hear. if they want to play by the rules we will have a nice fair trial for everybody. >> one of the things that is interesting is your team and i was in the courtroom this week. they are very affable and very friendly and as i looked at defendant drew peterson i was just a few feet behind him. he looked at me and smiled and winked at me and put his hands on his heart. this is a confident, cocky and some would say arrogant guy. isn't he worried about being on trial for murder? >> of course, he is worried but you you can't change someone's personality. i think his personality in some

ways got him charged in this case. i don't know that i would have proceeded the way he did. i think he has toned it down a lot. when the jury is in there he is serious and helpful and takes notes and helps us with the evidence and explains things. he is a wonderful client. >> judge jeanine: when you say his personality may have gotten him indicted in the case, what is that about? what are you saying? >> i think if he could have kept a lower profile. he sort of deared th dared the. i don't think it is a good idea to dare the man. >> what do you think is the biggest moment for you this week as the evidence started to unfold? >> the biggest moment is that the state had a theory that drew was in the bathroom and put a towel in the bath tub to make it look like it was a staged crime scene. we had four wits that said that towel was not there before hand

and when we left and by that point drew was no around. >> you are saying the towel then was already there or wasn't there when she died. >> i don't think it was there when she died or put there by drew. >> judge jeanine: if the towel wasn't there she was taking a bath. if she really was taking a bath wouldn't there be a towel on the side of the tub. there is no rain or anything on the side of the tub. how do you take a bath and -- >> there is towels in other places in the bathroom. a basket of towels. a towel hanging on the back of the door. a terrycloth robe hanging on the back of the door. there are other ways that she could have dried herself. the important thing is they say he put the towel there and he he didn't. >> judge jeanine: the question is is why wasn't there a towel there according to the prosecution and, of course, you will present your own case. what about the fact, steve, that there is red blood on the bottom of the tub and if,

indeed, she had drown in the tub and there was water there wouldn't the blood be dissipated and not quite so red? >> she bled from the back of the head and i don't know exactly when the blood got on the bottom of the tub or how long she bled after she drown. she did continue bleeding according to all of the experts for a period of time and we will find out when the science starts this week on what the various explanations are. >> all right. and there was talk this week about an evidence -- and evidence did come in hearsay evidence basically saying that kathleen savio told her sister anna that drew told her he would kill her. when that came in one of the members of the defense team slipped up a little and said like he said he was going to kill her and make it look like an accident. the judges all said that was not admissible.

did your cocounsel make a mistake there? >> absolutely not. because when the sister found out it was an accident she didn't come forward and tell any one my sister said he was going to kill me and make it look like an accident. my sister said he was going to kill me. my sister said she wouldn't make it to the divorce settlement. her actions are so inconsistent with having heard the statements. she it nothing for over three years. she couldn't remember being on tv. >> judge jeanine: the question is not whether the is sister should have done something and we do know that kathleen made 18 please reports and nothing happened with those. whether or not your cocounsel got into evidence, evidence that wasn't supposed to be heard by the jury that she said that her sister said he would kill her to make it look like an accident. did he make a mistake? >> he didn't make a mistake. if she found out it was an accident and said on the death certificate it was an accident

but she still did nothing. >> judge jeanine: i'm not trying the sister. let's put this up. >> what do you make of the stacey factor? >> who. >> stacey who. >> high is on your witness list. >> we are hoping she shows up. >> maybe she will show up. >> if she got the subpoena. >> does anybody think she is really alive? >> i do. >> absolutely. >> absolutely she is alive. >> of course. >> does anybody have any evidence she is dead? no. >> there is no sign of life. she hasn't communicated with anybody. nobody heard of h her. >> i haven't talked to my wife in weeks. so what? >> for years now. >> i haven't talked to my first wife in 15 years. >> judge jeanine: steve, looking that the you have to cringe listening to that. i mean how do you talk about a fourth wife who is listening and make it like a sophomore joke? are you sorry that you guys did that. >> it was probably there is a

little regret. that was after jury selection. we had one working 18-20 hour days for four or five days in a row getting ready and then picking the jury and we were joking around a little bit. none of the locals tran but some of the national did. probably shouldn't have said it but actually, be judge there is no evidence that this woman is dead. and she is not going to be a factor in the trial. she is not going to come in. >> judge jeanine: steve that is not the point she is missing and to be honest with you everybody assumes or presumes she is dead. to just say, you know, we don't know as opposed to laughing and gooning about it. let's move be on from that. what is going to happen next week? what testimony do you expect to hear next week? >> next week they will start out i believe with some of the crime scene and move chronologically through everything and then start with the doctors and autopsies. >> judge jeanine: steve greenberg thanks for being with

us. steve, of course, on the drew peterson defense team. coming up, how can a pedophile force his victims to watch a video of their own abuse. and then check out this video. you will never guess who turned in this crook. up you forecast in, our bomb shell revealation in the peterson trial. what is really going on in that courtroom. i will tell you after the break and it might very well affect weather kathleen savio ultimately gets justice. stay with us. >> it has never been done before at this level and so the judge is being very cautious.

here is what we got today. we got that drew didn't plant a towel. the state said he planted things, he didn't plant anything. he is not in the house. no one can put him in the house when this happened. no one can put him in the house

afterwards. makes me wonder in the words of clara peller where is the beef. >> people are sensing an animosity between the judge and the district attorney in the drew peterson trial. it was palpable and you could feel it. i started digging and i uncovered a bomb shell. the judge in the case was the district attorney in 1992 when james glasgow the d.a. in this case beat vermilla and replaced him as district attorney. there has been bad blood ever since. former l.a.pd.and fox news contributor park mark fur man and criminal defense attorney jeff gold and former prosecutor and criminal defense joey jackson. the unfortunate thing is lost in the middle of all this is a victim. i got to tell you, i was in there and i sat there and i just said what is going on. jeff, you were in the

courtroom. could you feel it? >> oh, absolutely. if you heard the word overruled it was a state's objection. sustained it was a defense okay correction and that went on day-after-day after day. >> and he has been described, the judge defeated by this d.a. he has been described as furious, the witness for the prosecutor and sister of the victim left the stand trembling after he berated her. i don't know what this guy is doing but joey when you have a judge sewing such amymous how fair is that to the victim? >> very unfair. there needs to be proprity in any proceeding. if you are going to have a witness testify by a bullet in the driveway and say it is a

prior bad act and sense of intimidation. >> let me explain this to the viewers. a prosecution witness in response to a question about whether or not there was bad blood between drew peterson and this witness goes into the fact and says something like if she is a friend it of yours, you are my enemy meaning the ex-wife. >> and then the witness adds i called him up and told him i got your message when i found the bullet. >> haven't you as a prosecutor had witnesses go off the reservation. >> i have. you to panties pate if you are the prosecutor. >> mow do you know? >> how do you know. >> you prep the witnesses. >> telling them to what say. >> no, but you prep them. >> the states attorney's office is not doing that good a job. there is nobody in that courtroom that thinks they are doing a good job. >> judge jeanine: let me ask you this, jeff. the defense talks about the fact that kathleen the victim was' rested by the defendant.

the prosecution tries to explain what happened. defendant arrests his own wife, throws her to the ground in front of his house in front of his kids, right and then when the prosecution tries to go into it the judge says. >> objection sustained. the judge is make his own objections before the defense makes theirs. and then the defense jumps up and says objection. >> judge jeanine: and let's tell the jury that she was acquitted and that she called the police 18 times. i don't want to argue this case. mark, the defense said in the opening the only reason that this case has gone forward is because of the media coverage and peterson would not be on trial because of that. and you were involved in that. were your ears ringing this week? they mentioned your name. >> i was down there two months working for greta's show. it is quite a compliment but i think they give greta and

myself way too much credit. the mistake made by the police and the prosecution is the very things that were on the autopsy when we got that from the family dr. baden and i were looking at it in two different states and we were on the phone with each other as soon as we got done reading and both said is like simultaneous this is a homicide. we didn't do anything except for really state the obvious, something that nobody else was looking at until stacey went missing. it really wasn't anything but looking at the facts. >> judge, here is the frustrating thing. let's be clear about this. this whole case now becomes a homicide because they fear there is a fourth wife missing and i'm suspicious as a result of the wife being missing we turn it into a homicide. >> i disagree. they got caught reviewing the savio case because stacey was missing and they are trying to stick their finger in and stop

the bleeding. >> judge jeanine: let's assume what mark is saying is true and that there was a coverup, that he was a cop and the d.a. trying the case now is not the a.d. then. what should they he do, just leave her in the ground and not check it out? >> i think what was done was appropriate. exhume the body and have a a world reknowned pathologist take a look. >> two of them. >> two of them. the initial autopsy indicates it was an accident. how do you overcome that? >> the problem is is there is really little case here are. and a visible 800-pound gorilla is stacey being missed and you can't talk about it. >> you don't have to talk about it. >> they said they don't know anything and don't read any newspapers. >> two kinds of jurors those that want to be on and those that are too stupid to get off. >> judge jeanine: that is a classic. here is the problem. it is not coming in. it it is not coming in nor should it be.

it should be decided i agree with mark based on the facts. coming up, what does kathleen savio's family think of the trial so far? and later, look at this outrageous video. we will tell you how this punk got his comeuppance. is this a word? >> it is now you. >> if it isn't they will tweet me at judge jeanine and tell me it ain't. >> if the judge says it is a word, it is a word.

>> judge jeanine: we are back with our panel, mark fuhrman, jeff and joey and we are talking about the drew peterson case and what happened this week. so, let's kind of step back. you said it wasn't a good week for the prosecution. can they make up where they

according to you went wrong? >> it going to be very difficult to do. first talking about thing that are not admissible and then the blocking of motive. the whole case is predicated and motive, means, opportunity. >> what motivation, mark? >> i think the motivation is first thing is control. this is drew peterson's whole world is control. and that is what he does. he controls. >> judge jeanine: what about the pension? >> when control goes away. he would have figured out a different way. i think kathleen savio might have been sharper than he predicted and she had her ducks in a row and was probably going to make it really hard on the house, the money and the house. >> judge jeanine: is it about money? >> tell us about cops and their pension, okay. cops and their pension. this is a sacred topic. >> judge jeanine: $300,000 pension. >> and when said you will never see my pension that is why he did that. and for the jury not to really

understand that how the distribution of those assets at the end were after she was dead was very different. he got everything he wanted. >> i got to agree with, that jeff. the bottom line here is the jury wants to connect the dots. the jury wants the motivation. we know -- >> judge jeanine: but the prosecutor is trying to get there and the judge won't let them. >> is there a chance they can get a conviction here, mark? >> i think there is a chance if they present the foundation before the minister gets on and he connects a lot of the dots because the time frame of the murder is exactly when drew was gone, exactly when coached stacey to tell the police, the detectives exactly what he told her to that i was in bed with you, they got cell phone records. >> if you believe that, though, mark. you have to believe that. it is hearsay testimony. this is not direct testimony. >> neal surey gets on the stand the jury wil believe him.

>> he is credible and believable and likeable. >> beyond that. >> judge jeanine: let's assume you that we have motive he didn't want his pension to go to her. and by the way, he got a subpoena just before then to get his pension records, okay. number two, let's assume that drew peterson did in fact try to hire someone to kill his wife and paid them $25,000. the judge isn't letting any of that in. now, we have to rely on hearsay. >> kathy savio's sister testified and said kathy told her that drew said she would never see that pension because he would kill her before that. they had to invent a statute in illinois to let it in. the point of it is this. that is is just hearsay. is not like someone calling 911 and saying. >> who is going to come back from the dead? if you are dead, what are you

going to do? >> people say every day wives say every day honey i'm going to kill you if you don't about about put that toilet seat down. if you find the guy dead a week later and the toilet the see the up are you going to convict you? >> they didn't invent that, the state. >> i it was common law. >> the bigger issue is this. if something like this happened and there was a statement he said he was going to kill me and he was worried, why do you say it in 2007 as opposed to 2004. that is the problem. >> judge jeanine: why did you blame her sister? the woman went to the police 18 times. >> i sat with the family. they have been screen screaming for three years. nobody would listen. this is something that the prosecution is not going to tell you. >> on cross-examination the question was asked of her did you tell the police that. answer no. when did it first come up. 2007. >> they wouldn't talk to her.

>> she is dead for eight years. >> they wouldn't talk to them at the begin. they were at the coroner's in requestest. >> the defense saying -- i think it is a shame but that is the way it is. >> judge jeanine: here is the problem. you know what we are doing, guys, we are blaming the victim's sister and she is the one on trial. >> i'm not blaming her. >> judge jeanine: but you wait a minute if you can't get a statement like that in, the defense attorney messes up and adds something that was suppressed. he made a billing error. didn't the defense blow it this week? >> i think so. even though there was not an admission. i think they blue it in some respects. ultimately we live in a very csi miami society. people want hardcore evidence and witnesses and dna that connects. it as problem. >> the problem is if you are smart enough and have the best law enforcement education as

his lawyer talked about it in opening statements you can get' way with it if you cover up all of the statements. >> that is a serious problem here that he is going to get away with this. the best the state can hope for is a hung jury and that he will stick in jail for awhile long. you had a bunch of democratics that wanted to believe it was an accidental death before they walked in -- bunch a detectives that wanted to believe it was an accidental death. you could have incompetent detectives. accident is easier than a homicide. >> if the state is going to seek to introduce that is otherwise not admissible we will see a mistrial and if there is a mistrial with prejudice, done, you can't try it again, he is out. >> say the state has an obligation to present as much evidence as it can because this is about the truth. stick around, you guys will be back later in the show. up next, who speaks for the victim in the peterson case?

and later, she is thrown out of her wheel chair by a unck bragged about his crime found.

now, let's get you back to the judge. as far as mr. brodsky is concerned he has to stop trashing kathleen. drew is not the victim, kathleen was. >> judge jeanine: martin glink is a spokesperson for the savio family. he is in chicago. welcome. >> thank you, judge. >> judge jeanine: we saw the clip of kathleen, the dad and the step mother and a i talked to them after the trial or after the opening where they say that kathleen was trashed by the defense. do you think that is what

happened, martin? >> absolutely. they made her out like she was some kind of nutcase on antidepressants and would never be able to even take a bath by herself and do so com competeny and tried to raise it like she was crazy and a fighter and capable of anything. she was a very nice woman. she was a great mother from everything i have been told. and she was really good to her boys. and her kids. and she should have been treated better than she was treated. >> judge jeanine: and you know, katie ray jones, i mean you you have been in the business a long time. is it unusual for victims who are dead and cannot respond to be trashed and called all kinds of names in trials that occur across this country? >> as appalling as it is, absolutely it is not uncommon. what easier strategy to use

than to call someone crazy, a mad woman, a liar are when she is not there to defend herself because she is dead. >> judge jeanine: and martin, you know, when -- i saw the savios outside of the courtroom. they were in tears. how are they feeling now, martin? >> yes, they were. they are are bearing up as well as can be expected. they are hopeful that their daughter kitty gets justice in the case. it is difficult and certainly been a dog fight between the prosecution and the defense. and you're right, between the judge and the prosecution as well. i mean if somebody goes out and hires a hitman to kill their wife and there is a witness that comes in and testifies to that, that is an admission against interest or a declaration against interest and that is something that i learned in law school is something that is jury is entitled to hear. i'm not a criminal lawyer but i think to not hear that and not give kitty a fair trial, too, that is shocking to me.

nobody questions that peterson is not entitled to a fair trial but the victim should have a fair one, too. >> judge jeanine: i have to tell you, martin, i was ware shocked, if a defendant is on trial for killing his wife and offered someone $25,000 to kill her i would think that would be relevant to the so called truth finding. >> only the family knows the true character that kathleen possessed and an amazing woman that she was. in many ways she is speaking from the grave through her family to say drew peterson killed me. >> and you nomar continue just in closing here, it is so difficult for the family i imagine to know what their daughter said and yet not be able to come out or have it come out at the trial. these are haunting words where she said he is going to kill me, he is going to make it look

like an accident. >> right. and thank god that the jury was allowed to hear that because that was very powerful. i know that she was cross examined effectively by mr. lopez but they don't call him the shark for nothing. or when anna dohmann was explaining that she was cross examined quite closely b by mr. lopez. i think she made a good impression on the jury and came out believable. at the end of her testimony she wasn't mocking the judge when she repeated his instruction on an objection. i think she was trying to answer mr. lopez' question after she had been hammered five or ten times in a row and a the judge reiterated that the death certificate speaks for itself. i don't think she was mocking the judge at all. i think she was trying to answer the question. >> judge jeanine: is the family hopeful, martin?

>> yes, they are hopeful. >> judge jeanine: and they think it is still possible be get a conviction here? >> the problem is kitty called the police or filed reports or got orders of protection many times i think as you mentioned 18 times and she wasn't listened to then and all they can hope is that someone listens to her now. >> judge jeanine: hopefully that will happen. martin glink and katie ray jones. ing thanks for being with us this evening. tore my thoughts. i long believed the criminal justice system is southlanded in favor of the criminal. it is the criminal justice system when it should be the victim justice system, the person it is supposed to protect, the victim, the person who never chose to be a part of the system in the first place. i sat in the courtroom as the drew peterson murder trial unfolded and watched in december belief as justice was

meted out chicago trial. the judge allowed the defense to call the victim in this case kathleen savio every name in the book. she was hot temperature it perked. bossy. yelling. screaming. angry. a woman who would fire employees for no reason. who always had to have the last word. a very angry woman. a woman possessed. a mad woman. a woman who makes up stories about drew. ballistic, bonkers, crazy. while the defense attorney joel brodsky was allowed to deliver a testimonial as an opening statement praising drew peterson for joining the army and then the police force for all of us. now, defense attorneys trash victims by looking for some vague innuendo, some tiny grain of doubt. she made it up. she lied about drew.

she had other motives. maybe she had it coming. before our eyes the criminal becomes the victim. in the news paper drew peterson a victim. judge burmila allowed the defense to crank up the smoke machine and fill the courtroom with so much haze the truth will be hard to see. and how is it that a victim is trashed and the criminal celebrityized? that we sacrifice the victim and protect the criminal? and why do defense attorneys do it? they do it because they can. they do it because judges like bumila allow it. a defense strategy succeeds when the jury stops thinking if the defendant is bad and starts wondering is the victim bad. and in a courtroom run by judge bumila you would almost expect the foreperson to stand up and say we the jury find the victim

guilty. judge bumed ila needs to understand it is not open season on victims because you want to settle an ol political vendetta. kathleen paid the ultimate price. she cannot speak for herself. at the very least let the jury hear the truth. the whole truth. and later in the show, the teen in this video is behind bars. you are going to be shocked to hear who put him there. up next, should a convicted pedophile be allowed to watch videos of his crimes and worse yet, show them to his victims? >> pornography is contraband just like cocaine. it is an illegal product and we do not copy and distribute cocaine this trial and we should not have to copy and distribute child pornography in

trial.

there is case law in the books that allows criminal defense attorneys access to evidence and courts have specifically ruled that they should have access to viewing the child pornography if it is being used as evidence. this defendant is acting as his own attorney and therefore has the same access. in my many years as a prosecutor are this is among the most absoured things i have seen. >> judge jeanine: and he is absolutely right. get ahold of this one. an accused pedophile wants to show videos of his sexual assaults on the victims to the victims and a quirk in the washington state law just may let him do it. well done mark gilford is already serving 25 years after pleading guilty in federal court to charges that he molested at least 17 boys, some

as young as 10 years old. now, he faces additional charges in pierce county, washington and since he is representing himself he has access to the videos he filmed of his own sexual assaults on the victims. now, this week he told the judge that he wanted to show those video recordings to his victims during pre-trial interviews. with me now from seattle is former king county deputy prosecutor julie case and washington state representative connie ladenberg who sponsored a bill now law to shield victims from further trauma. all right. i have to tell you both and i certainly appreciate your being here tonight but this is absolute lunacy. let me start with julie. julie, you prosecuted a case where a victim was about to be cross examined by her rapist. tell us what that was like?

>> it was terrible. it was terrible for this wonderful young woman to have to sit there and listen to this defendant basically get off on revictimmizing her in the courtroom. it was terrible as a prosecutor. try as i might to object and object, but this guy went through in excruciating detail how he committed an act of rape against this wonderful woman and she had to sit there and take it and it just it doesn't make any sense and it turns this notion of justice right on its head. >> judge jeanine: and you are right, the whole idea of the victimizer being able to relive the crime itself is what led you, representative connie laden berg to offer legislation some of which is now law in the state of washington and tell us

about that. what made you seek to change the law? >> the person that was accused of this child molestation wanted to take his videos that he had taken of the crime and have them duplicated so he could view them at his own pleasure even though he was in jail. in in my mind was revictimmizing the victims and many in our community were actually outraged when they h heard about this. it was on the news, all of this stuff. i took it to the legislature and basically we have the law now that says if you are a prosay attorney representing yourself you have access to the evidence but it has to be monitored and the person that is supervising the person as their viewing this evidence has to be appointed by the court. >> judge jeanine: what you are are saying is that a pedophile or someone who has sex with

children under the washington law was able to actually take --se individualed yes tapes videotapes because they are evidence and take them back to the cell and pleasure himself and wash those things all over again and this is washington law. >> not any more are it is not. >> judge jeanine: thanks to you. let's me go back to you, julie when you see the state of revictimmation and we have prosecuted a lot of the cases and victims are reluctant to testify and 50% don't even come forward according to statistics but you in washington they get to be questioned before the trial by the defendant if he is representing himself and then the trial itself. isn't that -- >> well, i think. >> judge jeanine: go ahead. >> you hit it right on the head. i know in the case you are talking about down in tacoma that that monster and that is the word i will use that the judge precluded him from conducting a pre-trial

interview i believe and i is certainly hope that is the case because those now young men they don't need to listen to this guy and his garbage and have him show videos of what he did to them. i can't even imagine the chilling effect that that would have on those young men and quite frankly it is just court sanctioned bullying and it really has no place in our courtroom and no place in our justice system and it really needs to stop. >> judge jeanine: you are absolutely right. representative, she put it perfectly. it is court sanctioned bullying. given the right of confrontation and the right of the accused to question the accuser is there any way to prevent this kind of thing from happening, preventing a defendant who is already in prison for 25 years from saying oh, i want to g to trial, i wat to question these young boys again. how do you get around that?

>> are you asking me? >> judge jeanine: yes. >> i'm sorry, i think there needs to be a change in the law. we have to balance constitutionality with victims' rights. it is always kind of tenuous at times. what this person has done, though, not only has abused young boys but also abused the law and in abusing the law you wants to try to reabuse these children by revictimmizing them. it is unacceptable. most of the public would agree with that. we do have to try to find a way to further protect the victims of these kinds of crimes and we will be working with people that are in the community, other defense attorneys, prosecutors in order to come up with a law that can be passed. >> judge jeanine: constitutionl muster. >> absolutely. >> judge jeanine: thank you so

much. and up next, you are never going to guess how this punk who robbed two elderly women got caught. plus, our justice question of the week. stay tuned. send me the best answer and win a cop of my new novel, "sly fox."

19-year-old adam and his get away driver michael russo.

he is seen here robbing two elderly sisters in april. the women ages 84 and 96. that's right. 84 and 96 are finishing up their weekly grocery shopping. the attack left one sister with two broken ribs. and the men were caught after bardesis parents saw the crime on local news reports and they turned their own son in. he was arrested on his 19th birthday and get this, when cops searched his phone they found messages bragging about the crime. all right. panel. we are here with mark fuhrman and jeff gold and joey jackson. i think don't we have a full screen on this one? >> gee, judge, this is -- >> all right. adam. a text message. yo, how about my mom just saw

me on the news on a scooter robbing two old ladies and there opening an investigation. there, t-h-e-r-e. a message here. don't put this stuff on text message. >> a message, a mind is a terrible thing to waste. crime on any level, i no he we defend the right of the falsely accused. when you have a person like this offending the elderly it is inexcusable. it shouldn't happen. it is deplorable and obviously he will get what he deserves. >> judge jeanine: he is 19. probably going to get juvenile delinquent. let me back up here, guys. father, father, father, mother. would you turn your kid in? >> i would turn my kid in after i broke two of his ribs. >> very well stated, mark. >> would you turn your own kid

in? >> if i thought somebody was in jeopardy i would. if i just -- to tell you the truth if i just saw that i don't know what i would do. if i thought somebody was in jeopardy. >> the old lady is in jeopardy. >> i don't know what i -- >> judge jeanine: spit it out. >> judge, can i take a step back. >> i love my kids. i don't know whe what i would . >> all right, prosecutor, your honor, taking one step back. the bigger question is, you know, would you teach kids values such that they would engage in this behavior. we would like to think no one is perfect, judge. >> judge jeanine: we are past, that joey. >> but the larger question is i think there is an obligation to turn your son in if something like this happened but the point is why does he have values that would make him do that. >> judge jeanine: she got thrown out of her wheel chair. >> it is hard to do but if you don't do it then you are actually an accessory after the fact. >> no, you are not. no, now are not.

>> you are hiding somebody that. >> as a lawyer are that is not access isry after the fact. >> judge jeanine: i think, jeff, to be honest with you, i think most people would say what you said and that is they don't know. you would say it,. >> i don't agree. i don't agree. i don't know a person i don't know a person that is a father that would. >> judge jeanine: with where are you from? >> that would allow that attitude to even be stated. >> i'm stating it. >> judge jeanine: a lot of the viewers think that joey -- >> after the show we will take care of him. >> judge jeanine: what did you say? >> i'm not a cop. it is not my job be. if i thought somebody's life or liberty was in jeopardy, somebody else was arrested wrongfully for the offense or somebody was in danger. other than that i'm not the a cop. that is not my job. >> you are right behind your son and follow him out and see him do that and then he runs away. what are you going to do. >> now, i'm witness. >> what are you going to do?

you are not a cop. what are you going to do? >> i don't know. posing hard questions. >> i love my little guy, he is a wonderful kid but you i would like to think that the things that he sees me and his mom do, he would never do anything like that. i don't know. >> judge jeanine: what you really have to do is look at the past of this kid and see what is going to happen. as a parent that is what they are going to do. i want to thank you, mark and jeff and joey. our justice question of the week, would you turn in your kids if you saw you them commit a crime on video. the winning response as judged by me gets an autographed copy by me gets an autographed copy of my new box "sly [ male announcer ] if you had a dollar for every dollar

car insurance companies say they'll save yoby switching, you'd have like, a ton of dollars. but how are they saving you those dollars? a lot of companies might answer "um" or, "no comment." then there's esurance. born online, raised by technology,