Return to Transcripts main page
Couple Killed, Unsolved Murder Link; Suspects Identified In McCann Case; Jewel Heist At Cannes Film Festival; Cannes Heist & New Film: Coincidence?; Mom Who Abandoned Family Speaks; Simpson's Ex- Lawyer Accused Of Inadequate Counsel; IRS: No Politics In Tax Exemptions; Congress Launched Hearing Into IRS Scandal; Pregnant After Two Children Murdered
Aired May 17, 2013 - 14:00 ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
ASHLEIGH BANFIELD, CNN ANCHOR: Hello, everyone. I'm Ashleigh Banfield sitting in for Brooke Baldwin today. And, I got a lot to get to this hour, including the mother who disappeared without a trace, but then reappeared after more than a decade. And, guess what, now she's talking about why she walked out on her family.
Then, as the Powerball jackpot rises to a new record. I am going to speak with a man who just won millions. And, get this, it was after finding the winning ticket in a cookie jar, months later.
And, this has got to be the video of the day. A daddy who surprises his daughter on the baseball diamond after he spent a year in Afghanistan. It is just heart warming. They are going to join me live right here in the newsroom.
But, first, to a shocking murder mystery that is enveloping -- developing as we speak. A former lawyer, who gave up her career to help her husband, that's her. And then he was a well known and seemingly well liked professor at Creighton University. This week their bodies, the bodies of Roger Brumback and his wife Mary, were found inside their home in Omaha, Nebraska.
It is a mystery as to how they died and why. CNN's Kyung Lah joins me live now. Police are being tight lipped on the details, Kyung, which usually makes people wonder why are they being tight lipped? How did this happen, and what are the circumstances? What do we actually know about this mystery?
KYUNG LAH, CNN "NEWSROOM" CORRESPONDENT: Well, let's begin with exactly, who this couple is, and that's really what people who live in Omaha are particularly concerned about, because we're talking about a very kind, upstanding, 65-year-old couple, both 65 years old.
You're looking at Dr. Roger Brumback and his wife, Mary. Dr. Brumback worked at Creighton University in the pathology department. That's something you are going to want to remember. Well, they were planning on moving to West Virginia. Dr. Brumback had just announced his retirement from the university.
They were excited about the move. Well, this week a piano mover came to the house on Tuesday, and discovered the body of Dr. Brumback. It was in the hallway. His wife Mary's body was also found inside the home. Also found at the scene, according to the Omaha police department, a gun clip.
At this point, Ashleigh, we don't know if it is connected to the crime. Police not making that connection for us at this moment. But, they are certainly very concerned about what is the brutal slaying of a couple who, you know, as I said, well loved, well admired by this community, actually.
BANFIELD: But, it seems kind of the mystery is getting more bizarre, because there was an unsolved crime back in 2008, I believe in that same community. Are they actually trying to figure out if there is any connection between those two crimes?
LAH: That's perhaps why the police at this point are keeping it so close to the vest on this latest murder. The murder that you're referring to, Ashleigh, happened five years ago in 2008. I want you to take a look at the picture of these two people.
An 11-year-old Thomas Hunter, and the housekeeper, Shirlee Sherman. They were both fatally stabbed five years ago. This little boy's father worked with the victim we're talking about this week in the pathology department at Creighton University. Now, it is an unusual and strange coincidence.
So what the cold case detectives in Omaha are doing is that they are working with the homicide detectives of this latest murder and trying to see if there is any connection because of the connection at the university, Ashleigh.
BANFIELD: Wow. In Omaha, of all places. Usually so quiet. You just don't expect this kind of thing. Kyung Lah, working on those details for us, thank you for that. A new twist in the unsolved case of Madeleine McCann. She is that little British girl, who disappeared back in 2007 while on a family vacation in Portugal.
These are aged images of that little girl, what she might look like today. Her parents had gone out to dinner nearby and they left her. She was 3 years old, but she was close by. They left her because she was sleeping. They could even almost get a visual on the door when they went to have dinner, but when they got back, she had disappeared.
And, now today British police are announcing they have identified a number of suspects in this little girl's disappearance. The details at this point are very early and very vague but they are just coming into us now. All of this comes two years after combing through the files and new leads.
They reopened all of this in 2011, fresh eyes, fresh perspective. All of this as her parents recently said the kidnapping case in Cleveland gives them hope that their daughter is still alive. Sunday would marked Madeleine McCann's 10th birthday. So, just a fascinating development in that story that has left us mystified for so many years.
Here is another mystery, a million dollar jewel heist. One like you see in the movies. It reads right out of a Hollywood thriller. So, take a look at some of these beautiful jewels, apparently stolen in Cannes, France. They are from the famous Swiss Jewelry house Chopard. CNN's Atika Shubert is live from London.
First of all, this is a big time in Cannes. There is a big festival and typically a lot of very expensive jewels. Can you give us whatever details we do know about this heist?
ATIKA SHUBERT, CNN "NEWSROOM" CORRESPONDENT: Sure. This is a massive showcase, especially for Chopard. This is the Swiss jeweller, who doesn't just make the jewels for the a-list, but actually also sponsors Cannes and makes the 24 carat gold award that is given at the end of the festival.
What we know about this particular theft is that, basically thieves were able to access the hotel room of a Chopard employee and that the jewels were inside the hotel safe. Now, whoever went in basically just unscrewed the safe from the wall, with the jewels inside, and left the hotel.
Now, we don't know what the exact pieces were. We do know that there has been talk of estimated value as much as $1 million. But, according to Chopard who just put out a statement, they say that the value is far lower than the numbers that were initially circulating in the media and also that these jewels were not part of the collection to be worn on the red carpet by any celebrities. Although, they do confirm that, yes, these were, indeed, stolen straight out of the room of a Chopard employee.
BANFIELD: Just amazing. Isn't this a bit bizarre? If I recall, the night that this is supposed to have happened was the night of a premiere of Emma Watson's new movie. Is it "The Bling Ring" about a Jewellery heist.
SHUBERT: Yes. In a strange twist of coincidence, the theft appears to have happened just as this premiere of "The Bling Ring" was going on. And, "The Bling Ring" is basically about a gang of teen thieves that goes into celebrity homes and robs them of their bling. So, there was some buzz on twitter that maybe this was a PR stunt. It was all speculation and French police say, "No, this is a real theft. It really did happen." And, they are investigating further trying to figure out who did it.
BANFIELD: Wow. I wonder if it is coincidence or if there was some connection, jewellery heist that they thought would be fun to do on that premiere. It is amazing. Let us know when you find out more on that, Atika. It is just incredible. It really is a Hollywood story. Thank you. Atika Shubert reporting live for us from London.
So, another weird story, the Pennsylvania mother who vanished from her family 11 years ago and then turned up homeless says that she hasn't spoken with her kids yet, but she is talking to someone else, Dr. Phil. Brenda Heist spoke to him from jail. She's in custody in Florida for violating parole after arrests in two counties.
In 2002, Heist, under stress, abandoned her young daughter and her son in Pennsylvania. This is a picture of them recently. Her husband became a suspect in her disappearance. But, then last month, looking very different on the right-hand side of your screen, than she did when she disappeared on the left-hand side of the screen, she turned herself into a deputy. She talked with Dr. Phil about her family.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
PHILLIP CALVIN MCGRAW, PSYCHOLOGIST/HOST OF DR. PHIL: Do you want their forgiveness?
BRENDA HEIST, FORMER MISSING MOTHER: I would like their forgiveness, but I'm going to have a hard time forgiving myself for what I've done. I've never even been around homeless people. Maybe seen them on the street sometimes but never been around homeless people at all. Never knew anything about it. That's why I had my own -- my own problems believing what I was doing. But, I just kept saying to myself, they're better off without me.
DR. PHIL: When did you stop crying and start living?
HEIST: I don't know. I don't know that I've ever stopped crying and started living to be honest with you.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
BANFIELD: Wow. 11 years later. By the way, Heist's full interview is going to air on Dr. Phil on his show on Monday. Coming up next, the man who O.J. Simpson said just didn't do the job well enough in defending him has to take the stand himself.
From defense table to the witness stand and face to face with his former client O.J. Simpson, find out Yale Galanter's side of the story and what he is going to say about O.J. after defending him for so long. And, also, emotions running very high as the crews search for survivors after deadly twisters tear through Texas.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: We were all praying. It was just -- it was awful. It was the scariest feeling. I was worried about my kids.
BANDFIELD: The man who defended O.J. Simpson in his 2008 robbery trial, because you got to keep track of O.J.'s trials, is defending himself instead today. Mr. Simpson is alleging that this man Yale Galanter took his money in 2008 but failed to provide a good enough defense for him and that that's why he was found guilty.
O.J. Simpson has already lost an appeal, but that robbery conviction and kidnapping conviction and wants a whole new trial based on my lawyer was lousy, happens all the time, folks, doesn't often work, but this time who knows.
All of this stemmed from the incident you're seeing on the screen in 2007. Simpson meets up with a bunch of goons, couple of other men. They go at Las Vegas hotel, Simpson wants to take back things he says are his, memorabilia stolen from him. This was his story. He testified himself, Mr. Simpson, on Wednesday, that he had consulted his lawyer before. His lawyer being Yale Galanter said he consulted him about the scheme and was given this advice.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
O.J. SIMPSON, CONVICTED OF ROBBERY: Overall, advice he gave me was this, "You have a right to get your stuff." He gave me an example that if you were walking down the street and saw your laptop with your name on it, in a car, you can use the force to break the window of the car to get the laptop.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
Well, Yale Galanter has a whole other story there. In fact, he's completely shooting down simpson's testimony. It started just from the moment he took the stand this morning. Have a listen for yourself what Yale Galanter says.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
YALE GALANTER, O.J. SIMPSON'S DEFENSE ATTORNEY: He never told me of a plan. And, second, I said call the police. He said that he had already tried to call the police and they weren't doing anything. And, I said, O.J., you know, you got to call police. And, if you don't call the police, call me, call Ron, call security.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
BANFIELD: OK. So, CNN's legal contributor Paul Callan is here. Not ineffective in anything he ever does on the air, my first question. There you have Yale Galanter, an attorney, saying, "I actually spoke with my client about a potential criminal activity and advised him to call the police." Well, the criminal activity goes on anyway, and then he represents him. Is he not a witness and thus should he have been representing him after that crime?
PAUL CALLAN, CNN LEGAL CONTRIBUTOR: We're getting very, very close to the line here. There is something called the crime fraud exception to the attorney/client privilege, and that is, if a client tells you he's going to commit a future crime, you have no obligation as an attorney to keep it a secret and you could --
BANFIELD: No matter the severity of the crime? I am going to steal a gum.
CALLAN: Does it matter what it is? If you say in the future, I'm going to do this or you said to your lawyer, "Hey, I want to do this. How do I do it? How do I get away with it? Well, the lawyer would become part of a conspiracy to commit the crime and in that situation, he wouldn't be acting as an attorney, no privilege.
But, Galanter here was very careful in his testimony. Here's what he says. He says, "You know, O.J. at this, we're having drinks and we're having dinner in Vegas, and O.J. is telling me about getting this stuff back and I'm not paying that close attention. And, then all of a sudden, my head pops up and I realize that he's playing with these guys to go into this room. And, I tell him don't do it, O.J., go to the police, OK?"
So, that's how Galanter protects himself. Later, in his testimony, Galanter says, "I became aware at some point in time that Simpson knew the other guys had guns." Now, that's directly contradictory with Simpson's claim that I didn't know anything about the guns. But, it is not clear when that came into Galanter's knowledge. It might have been after the robbery had already taken place.
BANFIELD: So, effectively, with Yale Galanter trying to defend himself, he is yet again indicting his former client for lying about knowing that there were ever any guns involved in all the goons decided to go upstairs and get junk back.
CALLAN: This is why it is so dangerous to get into a fistfight with your attorney. I mean the attorney knows everything. He knows where all the skeletons are buried.
BANFIELD: And, by the way, he is not privileged, is he? If he's on the stand, he has to give up the conversations he and O.J. had, which, before now, he was not allowed to do.
CALLAN: Absolutely. And, it is O.J. Simpson that lifted the attorney/client privilege by criticizing him.
BANFIELD: Dear God! You know, it just occurred to me, I don't know that it is appropriate questioning or if it could ever be a question in this particular case, or if the question were asked, if there be an objection that would be sustained, could somebody have Yale Galanter at this point. Did Mr. Simpson ever say anything about the murders of Nicole and Ron and would he have to answer?
CALLAN: Wow. That is a great question, but, no. That would remain privileged because the testimony about that actual murder really isn't a part of this case. Now, on the other hand, if O.J. Simpson raised it and said, I had a conversation with Galanter, and I reaffirmed that I was innocent, yes --
BANFIELD: The door is open.
CALLAN: Then it could come up. Door is open.
BANFIELD: No privilege anymore.
CALLAN: But, O.J. is not opening that door. He's opening a lot of doors, but he will never open that door.
BANFIELD: And, can I just reaffirm the bummer in all of that, because it wouldn't matter if out on the stand anything was said about those murders. O.J. could get up on the stand and say, "I did it" and it wouldn't matter because --
CALLAN: Double jeopardy.
CALLAN: He could confess on the courthouse steps to the murder and never can he be prosecuted for it.
BANFIELD: It just keeps getting weirder and weirder with that man.
CALLAN: Always. Always. If it is O.J., it is going to be strange and bizarre.
BANFIELD: Happy Friday. Have a good weekend.
CALLAN: All right. Thank you.
BANFIELD: Paul Callan. Always, good to see you. Fireworks on Capitol Hill. You think it is a weird Friday? Just 48 hours after resigning, you try being the head of the IRS because it is grill time and I'm not talking barbecue in the backyard. This guy is facing questions about what he knew, when he knew, what he knew, all of it pertaining to the agency targeting conservative groups.
DAVE CAMP, CHAIRMAN OF THE REPUBLICAN-LED PANEL: Who started the targeting? Who knew? When did they know? And, how high did it go? Who leaked the private taxpayer information?
BANFIELD: It has only been one week since the IRS admitted that it flagged applications for tax exempt status from groups whose names sounded conservative, like Tea Party and the like. Just seven days later congress is swinging into action.
On the right, that's Steven Miller, acting IRS commissioner. He submitted his resignation and on the left is Russell George. He is the IRS official who investigated this matter. First, listen to Steven Miller.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
STEVEN MILLER, IRS COMMISSIONER: As acting commissioner, I want to apologize on behalf of the internal revenue service for the mistakes we made and the poor service we provided. I do not believe that partisanship motivated the people who engaged in the practices described in the treasury inspector general's report. I think that what happened here was that foolish mistakes were made by people trying to be more efficient in their work load selection.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
BANFIELD: Well, Mr. Miller also said that the problems occurred in Cincinnati, which is home of something called the determinations unit -- Determinations unit. Regardless of what you think of that name, he said overwhelmed workers started taking some short cuts after applications for tax exempt status jumped fourfold.
Thank you, citizens united. So, republican congressman Paul Ryan wanted to know did those short cuts also include flagging just progressive groups or conservative groups and progressive groups as well?
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
MILLER: We centralized cases based on political activity, evidenced in the file. We took a short cut on some of it, but we collected, to be blunt, more than Tea Party cases. Mr. George's own report --
PAUL RYAN, (R) WISCONSIN CONGRESSMAN: So, there were no progressive or organizing words that were used for targeting. Is that correct?
MILLER: That's correct.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
BANFIELD: OK. So, Mr. Miller tried to elaborate, but Paul Ryan cut him off. And, the question that we all want answered, is who gave the orders? And did those orders come from above?
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
REP. DEVIN NUNES, (R) CALIFORNIA SENATOR: Did you ever had any contact either by e-mail, phone, or in person with the White House regarding the targeting of tax exempt groups from 2010 until today?
MILLER: Absolutely not.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
BANFIELD: Well, joining us now from Washington, D.C. is CNN congressional correspondent Dana Bash, who had to navigate her way through a couple of political stories in her day. They both say that this was not political, Dana Bash. How am I as an average guy out there in America watching this going down not to believe that it is not political when the words that were flagged were conservative words?
DANA BASH, CNN CONGRESSIONAL CORRESPONDENT: It is hard to believe. And, that is why the couple of the questions that were not answered are frustrating to members of congress in both parties. One of the questions that you asked, Ashleigh, many lawmakers asked, who devised this? Who came up with this?
It was not something that Miller answered. He said he didn't know. And, that phrase, "I don't know or I don't recall," something that he uttered many, many times, and that also frustrated members of congress. So, there is some two things going on. First of all, of course, the whole action and how this happened? Why it happened?
But then, of course, you have the idea that members of congress are furious because Miller and other officials from their perspective misled congress, because this very committee has been investigating this for years. And, he did not disclose the fact that he learned about this one year ago. And, so you had a lot of very, very testy exchanges about that in particular, never mind the whole concept of what happened.
BANFIELD: Thank you. I'm trying to figure out what they were angry at. The fact that there was sort of a process of, you know, an avoidance of disclosure, which, you know, the acting commissioner, former acting commissioner said, "You didn't ask." I didn't answer questions you didn't ask about, or the bigger question, which is this the practice and where liberal groups targeted as often as the conservative groups? I have yet to see or hear any numbers. Did I miss something?
BASH: No. You didn't miss anything. What you played, the questioning that Paul Ryan asked of Miller, I think, was about all we got. You mentioned very well, Ashleigh, that part of the issue in Miller's defense is he didn't get a chance to finish some of his answers.
But, I think that we have seen that it is still unclear why there was such a discrepancy between conservative groups and progressive groups with regard to how many they singled out or that they put in for extra scrutiny.
Some people have argued that the reason is because they were just more conservative groups who were applying. You did hear Miller say that part of the reason -- actually, the main reason he insisted that they did this was because the number of applications for tax exempt status doubled. And, they did it as a short cut.
BANFIELD: Well, I would love to know the percentages at some point. I get it if there were more conservative groups, there would be more flags on conservative groups, but I would want to know the percentage of the progressive groups was equal, if I -- you know, if I were a person seeking satisfaction in the story and who knows if -- are we going to get that Dana really quickly? Are we going to get those numbers at any point?
BASH: Those numbers, maybe. There are going to be a number of other hearings coming up, one in the house next week and then the senate is also investigating, maybe; but don't hold your breath.
BANFIELD: Don't take vacation next week. Have a lovely weekend. Dana Bash, thank you.
BASH: You too.
BANFIELD: Bye. Coming up, just seven months ago, police say a couple lost their two young children to murder by their own nanny. And, now that couple has some very good news, some very welcome news. They're expecting a baby. Perfect development in what has been a heart breaking tragedy. I am going to walk you through the emotional obstacles that they may face coming up next.