Return to Transcripts main page


Interview with Amanda Knox; NBA Owners To Move Quickly On Sterling; NBA Heading For Game 7s; Seventeen Minutes Before Missing Plane Noticed

Aired May 2, 2014 - 06:30   ET




Now to the exclusive one-on-one interview with Amanda Knox speaking out for the first time since an Italian appeals court revealed why it reconvicted her of murder. She is stunned by their reasoning and choking back some emotion this time. Knox denying though, as always, any role in the killing, completely rejecting the court's shocking new theory that Knox herself struck the fatal blow.


CUOMO: Why do you think that this judge goes further than any other, that not only does he say this is the knife, not only does he say that you had it because of DNA around the bottom of the blade, but because you were the one that actually killed Meredith Kercher?

AMANDA KNOX, CONVICTED OF MURDER IN ITALY: I believe -- I mean, I can't speculate what this judge's motivations are, personal motivation or otherwise. What I can say is that as this case has progressed, the evidence that the prosecution has claimed exists against me has been proven less and less and less. And all that has happened is that they've filled these holes with speculation.

I -- I did not kill my friend. I did not wield the knife. I had no reason to. I -- I was in the month that we were living together, we were becoming friends. A week before the murder occurred we went out to a classical music concert together. We had never fought.

And the idea -- I mean, he's brought up lots of things, crazy motives.

CUOMO: He doesn't agree with anything that you're saying right now, specific to the relationship, right? This judge believes that this fight was about money and that you stole money from your roommate and that that is what started this violent night. Is there truth to that?

KNOX: Absolutely not. He's getting this from Rudy Guede who is coming up with these things for self interest. And the truth of the matter is, one, I had no criminal record, so I am not the type of person who is going to violently kill someone for any reason. And furthermore, I -- I had saved up to go to Italy. I was not in need of stealing any money. Unlike Rudy Guede who was a known thief, who was a known burglar, who did this on a regular basis to survive.

And why they would think that I was a thief when in Meredith's own purse there are Rudy Guede's fingerprints. It's based on nothing.

CUOMO: To step through what he sees as the fact pattern of that night and literally it almost as like a yes/no list. Were you and your boyfriend hanging out in the piazza outside your building that night?


CUOMO: Did you let Rudy Guede into your apartment?


CUOMO: Were you with Rudy Guede in your apartment that night?


CUOMO: Was there a fight over money with Meredith Kercher witnessed by Rudy Guede?


CUOMO: And you're saying to me tonight what is almost impossible is that you were in the room that night, you had a knife in your happened, and that you helped kill Meredith Kercher?

KNOX: Absolutely, because my DNA -- any trace of me is not there. When you're talking about traces of me that they attribute to the crime scene, they're talking about my DNA in my own bathroom or my footsteps that tested negative for blood that had my DNA

And Meredith's DNA on the floor between our bedrooms and the bathroom -- well, of course, our DNA was there. We lived there for a month. It was there it tested negative for blood so it wasn't blood. So it's irrelevant to the crime.

But we're talking about the crime that happened in Meredith's bedroom. There is no trace of us. If Rudy Guede committed this crime, which he did we know that because his DNA is there on Meredith's body, around Meredith's body, his handprints and footprints in her blood.

None of that exists for me. If I were there I would have traces of Meredith's broken body on me and I would have left traces of myself around Meredith's corpse and I -- I am not there and that proves my innocence.

CUOMO: It started in 2007. It is now 2014. For you and your life, is it present day? Are you able to be present in this day? Are you still trapped in 2007?

KNOX: It's definitely a limbo. My entire adult life has been weighed down and taken over by this tremendous mess, this -- I mean, on the one hand, I have my life in Seattle. I get to go to school. I get to be with my family, my friends.

And I'm so grateful to have them. They really help me get through this. And to know that there are people who believe me.

And then on the other hand, there's this huge weight and there's this huge struggle and trying to learn each step of the way, what -- what's so wrong and how I can fix it. And I guess -- I guess I'm just one of the lucky ones.

CUOMO: How so?

KNOX: Because I'm actually -- I'm actually supported by people and people have looked into my case as opposed to have forgotten me. And people who know about what kinds of things happen to lead to wrongful convictions have come out and said things in support of me. And that's -- that has made a huge difference in my life. I don't feel as alone as I could.


CUOMO: From 20 until 27 dealing with being a murderer. That has been life with the reality for Amanda Knox, that speculation that she is a murderer.

So did she convince you? Thousands of you are taping experts last night, debating it online. Join that debate, use the #NewDay.

If you want to see more of the interview, look online, get that CNN app, it's a good reason to have it because you can see everything that we heard last night, join the debate. And I'll answer as many questions as I can.

BOLDUAN: This is the second extensive interview you've done with her. She seems older. She is. And more sure of herself even a year later. It's been about a year since you last interviewed her.

CUOMO: She lives the record of this case. The last time you can find that online, also, it was a much more severe testing of her story. That is what she asked for at that time. And I was happy to deliver that. I thought it was necessary.

This is about responding to the judge. But both are important and, again, it all lives online. You can watch it and get involved in the discussion.

BOLDUAN: She's been living with this for so many years at this point.

CUOMO: Only gets one more bite at the apple. If the Supreme Court affirms this decision it's over as far as Italy's concerned and then it's just about what the U.S. will do vis-a-vis extradition.


BOLDUAN: The State Department.

Let's take a break, coming up next on NEW DAY, NBA owners moving quickly, holding their first meeting to discuss forcing L.A. Clippers owner Donald Sterling out. But can they make him go? That still is a question. We're going to talk about it, next.


BOLDUAN: Welcome back to NEW DAY, everyone.

For the Clippers, it will take another day to know if they're going to move on in the NBA playoffs. They lost game six overnight. But as that happened on the court, off the court, NBA owners and the league met Thursday agreeing to move as quickly as possible to force Donald Sterling to sell the team.

But can they do that and will Sterling fight back? That's many people say that's almost assured.

Let's bring in Bradley Shear. He's an attorney and professor of sports management at George Washington University, to try figure this all out.

Bradley, let's figure it out in four minutes or less. I think it's going to be easy for us to do.

Now -- so, the league's owners met yesterday. They said they were unanimous that they wanted to move forward as expeditiously as possible is how they described it in trying to get Sterling to force a sale. You don't think this is a slam dunk though. Why?

BRADLEY SHEAR, GEORGE WASHINGTON UNIVERSITY: Well, it might not be a slam dunk in the fact that nothing in the constitution says that they can remove an owner for racist comments. However, there is a clause in the constitution that states that the commissioner may make recommendations and that the ownership committee can vote for something regarding the interest of the game.

So I think that's where the commissioner really has the authority here regarding being able to remove him because of the best interest of the game clause in the constitution.

BOLDUAN: It's really interesting because it's coming out that this is not the first time that the NBA has tried to force Sterling out. Different circumstances, seemed like the same process. And then it was back in the '80s, early '80s. It all revolved around an audio tape as well.

That effort fizzled out and lost steam. How do you think this one is going to turn out any differently?

SHEAR: Well, I think this is going to turn out much differently because in this day and age, especially with social media, there's a huge outrage to have him removed and also because of the fact that it seems that silver is emboldened to make sure that it happens. So I think that in the end, Sterling is going to be removed from ownership of the Clippers.

BOLDUAN: What do you think Sterling's move is though? SHEAR: Well, his next move would probably be just to follow the process. Right now the process is ongoing. Soon he will be notified about the -- officially notified about the next steps and then once a hearing has been held, then after that there will be a vote. And if 23 or more of his fellow owners vote to remove him, then the process basically is that he is gone. And he doesn't really have much legal recourse after that.

BOLDUAN: Many people think though that he can drag this out. He's been litigious. He's known for that, that he can drag this out for years. How does he do that?

SHEAR: He the can drag it out. He can file an injunction. However, the constitution is pretty clear on this matter. As far as the ownership goes, if the owners vote to have him terminated from his franchise, they have the authority to do it and they don't need a court of law to basically do some type of rubber-stamp on that saying that the NBA has the authority. They already have it in the constitution. So that's why I really think that the NBA's hand is much stronger than some people may believe.

BOLDUAN: What do you think about this setting a bad precedent? There is some talk about this for owners, players. Does this process, if it moves forward an he's forced to sell the team, does it open other owners up to be forced to sell their teams, put aside the fact that he did say reprehensible remarks. If they say similar things, will they have to do the same?

SHEAR: I don't want to speculate, but it raises the question that what is the type of behavior to cause the NBA to remove someone from ownership of a team. It is a worry of some owners. However, I think it's a very unique situation. This has not happened in the past. I believe that the NBA is acting swiftly enforce its regulations.

BOLDUAN: Yes. Don't say such horrible things or you won't be in the similar situation. I think that's a good advice for everybody in the NBA and outside. Bradley Shear, great to meet you. Thanks so much -- Chris.

CUOMO: For good reason what was said by Donald Sterling has overshadowed what is turning out to be an amazing NBA playoffs. Let's look at the game highlights. Let's bring Andy Scholes with this morning "Bleacher Report." Give us the good news.

ANDY SCHOLES, "BLEACHER REPORT": Well, the good news is, Chris, what an amazing first round this has been thus far. I'm losing sleep watching all of these great games. We had three more elimination games last night. One of them Kevin Durant, the Thunder were in Memphis taking on the Grizzlies. The Thunder's local newspaper not very happy about being down 3-2 in the series.

Check out the headline from Thursday's morning edition of the "Oklahoman." They took a shot at Durant calling him "Mr. Unreliable." Now fans were outraged and the paper quickly apologized. Last night, Durant, he was Mr. Dependable. He poured in 36 points as the Thunder crushed the Grizzlies, 104-84. Forcing a game seven on Saturday. Turning on this morning, the Hawks looking to become the sixth eight seed ever to win a series. Things are getting chippy early on in this one. Mike Scott and George Hill get into it. Luckily no punches were thrown from either team. The Hawks actually had the lead in the fourth quarter in this game, but David West took over for the Pacers leading them on a 16-4 run to close out the game. Pacers get the win.

So for the first time ever we're going have three game sevens in the first round on the same day. That's going to be on Saturday. Tonight, guys, we have three more game sixes. Should be some more great basketball on tap. I'm losing sleep every night watching all of these great games.

BOLDUAN: That's a good reason to lose sleep though, Andy. Come on. Don't complain.

SCHOLES: I'm not complaining. I want my Rockets to win tonight. That's what I want the most.

CUOMO: Can your boy, Lin, take care of business?

SCHOLES: We need another night of Linsanity.

CUOMO: I love to see the media punished when it defaults to hate. Going after Kevin Durant, they deserve to be punished. Good for the people.

BOLDUAN: The people!

Coming up next on NEW DAY, Malaysian officials throwing more cold water this morning on reports that Flight 370 could be in the Bay of Bengal. That's thousands of miles away from where the search efforts are focused right now. Our experts are going to weigh in as well.


PEREIRA: We are taking a closer look this morning at the new details of Malaysia's preliminary report of the disappearance of Flight 370. Certainly a lot of questions, like why did it take hours for Malaysia to activate its rescue center and how did so many countries miss the jet on radar?

With us now Michael Kay, CNN aviation analyst and former adviser to the U.K. Ministry of Defense. You had a night to sit with this, look at this information. I think many of us are feeling that this might answer some questions but, in fact, it left more questions in our minds, hasn't it?

MICHAEL KAY, CNN AVIATION ANALYST: Yes. I think what's happened is the report exposed the holes and giving us more information. I think we're expecting that to be honest.

PEREIRA: We were. Let's look at the map. We're on the giant map with the giant man. Let's pull up some of the points that we have and the points of contact we know. What is remarkable to me, and I'm not an aviation analyst, is that there are many countries that would have been in communication and were in communication. There were reports and supplemental items that showed they were in constant communication but seemingly all in vain. Is this exception or is this rule in this part of the country?

KAY: Well, we know that the FAA have strict guidelines when it comes to the falling of aircraft. It's called overdue action.

PEREIRA: Meaning if you haven't heard from us --

KAY: Yes, I mean, they are two key things basically is if an aircraft isn't checking in on frequency, for example, 370 went from Kuala Lumpur was told to check in on 120 decimal 9 with Ho Chi Minh, if it hasn't checked in on frequency with Ho Chi Minh by 30 minutes, then it is imperative or the FAA say that area controls have to take overdue action and the aircraft is then considered in an emergency status.

PEREIRA: That's the FAA. This is not the body that restricts this part of the world.

KAY: It's not. We're not sure where ICAA has adopted this procedure. However, one of the things that the FAA says is that after 30 minutes if you do not have communications or you do not have that aircraft on radar, you are to alert the RCC, the Rescue Coordination Center.

PEREIRA: Which brings the next big question.

KAY: That's the benchmark.

PEREIRA: That's the benchmark, yet we know from looking at this report then, four, almost five hours pass before that rescue system is alerted.

KAY: Yes. I mean, the first red flag for me, Michaela, is that 1:19 when 370 says good night, 370, the Kuala Lumpur, and then Ho Chi Minh and 120 decimal 9 is expecting that call.


KAY: Now, we know on this timeline that at 1:38, which is 17 minutes or around 17 minutes after that, that handover, Ho Chi Minh are going, Kuala Lumpur, we've not heard from 370. That's 17 minutes. That's a long time. Why 30 minutes? It's all to do with search and rescue procedure. OK? So if we draw a line, a radius line out from that last known point and it's 30 minutes and the aircraft is traveling around 300 knots, that's about 150 miles.

OK? That's 150-mile radius. On a search circle, that would be an area of around 70,000 square miles. OK? Just to give you an indication, if it's five hours, that's 1,500 miles. That circle goes to over 7 million square miles.

PEREIRA: So in terms of what -- OK. So we know that there should have been a much quicker response and you mentioned that in that part there are so many things that should have been happening in those four hours. Is this the first point when you think that it got so much out of hand?

KAY: It's a great question. It's a graduated response. OK, now, the French Aviation Authority, the BEA, their lessons identify from Air France 447, the chief search and rescue coordinator wrote a couple of key lessons identified from that. One of them was the reluctance of air traffic control to declare an emergency to the RCC. That was actually picked up during the Air France 447. So it seems like something has gone wrong there.

But to your point, the graduated response. What happens when an air controller sees something drop off the radar or not check in? They go to what's called a distress cell. In that distress cell, you have a myriad of communications, high frequency radios, cellphones, all to try to talk with 370.

They get nothing from that then they will be talking to other aircraft that are in the airways corridor. They will be trying everything to establish communications. But the bottom line is, if they don't get it they got to get the RCC. There's a timeline here of when --

PEREIRA: I want to pull up one more animation. We have another animation we want to show which is the five -- the route, so we know that it made this turn and then this is what they showed us in this preliminary report that there could have been five probable routes. Talk to me about why the variation between these five. We have the highest probable, more north towards Kuala Lumpur.

KAY: Look, very quickly. They've been using -- they had to use assumptions based on the Inmarsat analysis. They've been based on height and speed. If you look at the northern area, the highest probable, the red that you can see there, that's an assumption based on an aircraft traveling 30,000 feet. The middle one, the yellow, that's a 15,000 feet and the green is 3,000 feet.

Now, the questions that we've got is that when an aircraft is traveling 30,000 feet, the fuel burn is less. Therefore, it can go further. That's why aircraft travel at that altitude. Why isn't that farther away than the assumption that's been made at 3,000 feet and why were the speeds that have been aligned to the different heights, why were they used? Questions are still out there for us.

PEREIRA: Again, so many questions still emerging just from this preliminary report and the supplementary pieces. Michael Kay, so much more for us to dig through. Thank you so much for unpacking this for us. Chris, over to you.

CUOMO: All right, Mick, here are some of the big stories out there as you get ready to start your NEW DAY. NBA owners taking steps to force Donald Sterling out. Flight 370 report as you are hearing it demands some answers and our experts are going to lay out the key questions. And President Obama has a very important meeting at the White House today with Ukraine close to imploding. Let's get after all of it.


UNIDENTIFIED MALE: ESPN and the "New York Post" reporting the disgraced owner, Donald Sterling, is battling prostate cancer.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Ukrainian troops launching as they're calling it this anti-terrorism operation.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Sex assaults in the military are up by half.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Our commitment to find MH370.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Malaysian Airlines is sending everybody home. This is the support network that everybody has developed.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Any trace of me is not there. I did not kill my friend.