Return to Transcripts main page


Obama on Afghanistan: "It's Time to Turn the Page"; Flight 370 Data Released; Parents Too Late To Stop Killer Son; Thousands Gather To Remember Santa Barbara Students

Aired May 27, 2014 - 19:00   ET


ERIN BURNETT, CNN HOST: Next, a vigil under way in California for the six people murdered by Elliot Rodger. We're going to go live to the scene.

Plus, how did the White House blow the cover of a top CIA spy, and will anyone be held accountable for it?

And months after Flight 370 vanished, the raw satellite data is released. Is it enough? We've got to hear and we're going to talk to the head of the company that provided that crucial data. Let's go OUTFRONT.

Good evening, everyone. I'm Erin Burnett. OUTFRONT tonight, breaking news, right now, a vigil in California. Thousands are gathering, you can see these live pictures, to mourn the victims. Six students murdered during a killing rampage Friday night at the University of California Santa Barbara.

Janet Napolitano, the UC president and former secretary of Homeland Security is going to be speaking, along with the father of Chris Martinez. He was Elliot Rodger's final victim, shot, murdered at a deli. In the random horror of Friday's attack, the five other victims included Rodger's two roommates and their friend who was just visiting.

Police say Rodgers stabbed them to death in their apartment. From there, the 22-year-old got into his BMW. He drove only four blocks to a sorority house and murdered two more women. Then he drove to a deli, where this surveillance video captures the barrage of bullets that killed Martinez.

Rodger kept driving and shooting at random people before police say he took his own life. And investigators say Rodger's murder rampage was a twisted attempt to get revenge against people he say had rejected him. His frustrations were detailed in YouTube videos like the one you're looking at right now, and a 137-page manifesto.

Kyung Lah is OUTFRONT in Goleta, California, where the memorial is taking place. We can see all the students behind you, Kyung. I know there are many thousands who are coming there tonight.

KYUNG LAH, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Yes, the capacity for this stadium, Erin, is 17,000. It looks like they're going to hit it. It seems like the entire university is here, the entire town. And this is just a snapshot of how this has affected everyone who goes here, the schools, the university, the people who live here, they say they are grieving. They need this so they can try to put the pieces back together. They have also come to hear Chris Martinez's father, who has a potent message to share with this crowd, as well as everyone in this country.


RICHARD MARTINEZ, SHOOTING VICTIM'S FATHER: Who would have dreamed that this could have happened to us.

LAH (voice-over): Not to my child, thought Richard Martinez. His son, Chris, just 20 years old, a UCSB English major went to the IB Deli Mart when bullets flew into the store.

MARTINEZ: No one thinks it's going to happen to their child. I would never have thought Chris would die in this way. How would I know? How would I think of that? No one would think that that your child would die at 20 in front of a deli.

LAH: What could a father do? He did this.

MARTINEZ: Our son, Christopher Martinez, and six others are dead.

LAH (on camera): It was an extraordinary moment when you walked into the news conference.

MARTINEZ: They talk about gun rights. What about Chris's right to live?

LAH: Very unexpected. Why did you do that?

MARTINEZ: Because I realized that people are only going to be interested in this for a short time. And to honor the memory of my son, I'm determined to take advantage of the limited amount of time that we have to talk about this.

LAH (voice-over): And what he wants to talk about is how we got here.

UNIDENTIFIED CALLER: Another gunshot wound by the Ivy Deli Mart, Code 3.

LAH: Investigators say the gunman suffered from a mental health issue, yet he still owned three semiautomatic handguns and hundreds of rounds. All purchased legally, to the frustration of this father, a veteran and former gun owner.

MARTINEZ: I can't tell you how angry I am. It's just awful and no parent should have to go through this. No parent, to have a kid die because in this kind of a situation, what has changed? Have we learned nothing?

LAH: Learned nothing from Newtown, he says. Twenty children and six adults shot and killed at Sandy Hook Elementary in Connecticut. President Obama pushed for tougher federal gun control laws, expanded background checks. But that failed in the Senate despite overwhelming public support.

MARTINEZ: I think the vast majority of people in this country favor some type of reasonable gun control. But every time somebody mentions gun control, they get this strong reaction from a small vocal minority and the politicians cave, every time.

LAH: He says it will probably happen again this time, but this father wants Washington to hear this.

MARTINEZ: Where is the leadership? Where -- in the frigging politicians that will stand up and say we need to do this. We're going to do something. Those gutless bastards have done nothing, and my son died because of it. It's outrageous, absolutely outrageous.


LAH: And it's not just gun rights that Mr. Martinez is talking about. He says this is as much about mental health and the lack of this country's ability to take care of those who need help -- Erin.

BURNETT: Kyung Lah, thank you very much. And that stadium fits 17,000. You see the students walking in now. They expect it will be completely full tonight. Elliot Rodger's history of mental health issues was not a secret and this is perhaps one of the hardest things to understand here. His parents were frantically searching for their son after receiving the chilling manifesto and seeing this YouTube video.


ELLIOT RODGERS: Tomorrow is the day of retribution, the day in which I will have my revenge against humanity.


BURNETT: OUTFRONT, CNN legal analyst, Paul Callan and Mel Robbins and clinical psychologist, Jeff Gardere. Dr. Gardere, you just saw that video. This is a young man, his mother saw some of his disturbing videos this spring in April, end of April, just a month ago, called police. They went to his apartment. He convinced them it was a misunderstanding. Is this something that could have been prevented, or are these things that some people do, and most of the time they don't turn into anything?

JEFF GARDERE, CLINICAL PSYCHOLOGIST: Well, first of all, the cops did not. And I'm not pointing fingers. But they didn't connect the dots, that there were previous contacts with the police officers. So if in fact they had known about the two previous contacts when they went do to do the welfare check, then they would have put it all together and say wait a minute, there is something not quite right here.

Secondly, what we see in many states, there are not laws that state that you have to have a mental health expert go along with law enforcement to do this check. So here is a situation where you had law enforcement who really were not experts in any way in mental health, and therefore could have easily been fooled.

BURNETT: So do you think, Paul, this could have been prevented, given what he is saying? This is not the first time that police have been called?

PAUL CALLAN, CNN LEGAL ANALYST: I don't think it could have been presented. The talk for instance about gun control. Gun control wouldn't have stopped it.

BURNETT: No. The gun was legally obtained.

CALLAN: And he killed three of his victims with a knife. He is the kind of kid who would have used gasoline probably to douse the sorority house. He ran somebody over with his car. It's not about gun control. In terms of mental health availability, he is a rich kid. His parents could have gotten a psychiatrist for him. In fact, he had a therapist. They could afford to give him a hospital bed. So it's not about providing mental health for the disturbed.

BURNETT: But nobody came in, Mel, and said this hits that bar.

MEL ROBBINS, CRIMINAL DEFENSE ATTORNEY: Yes. And that's the problem, Erin. You're nailing it and saying exactly what everybody at home is thinking, which is what do you mean? You have a kid that rants on like this and the cops show up a month before and they don't take him into custody? Part of the problem is the two prior times that the police were with this kid had nothing to do with mental illness or any concern. Scuffles with the roommates.

Second, you've got a system in place, and you see that father. It's heart-wrenching. And he is talking about guns. And I think the problem is the laws around mental health. We have a system in this country where the mentally ill have self-determination. They get to determine what happens to them. So the police show up.

They're told by a professional mental health worker, they're told by the parents that this kid is threatening violence and he is threatening suicide. That there is a YouTube video. They don't see the YouTube video. They have credible account from the parents. Hold on.

CALLAN: The parents were never told those things.

ROBBINS: That's not true.

CALLAN: Specifically. I'm talking about the April 30th visit.

ROBBINS: They told the police.

CALLAN: Let me finish for a second. If the cops knew that, then the cops are wrong and they had an obligation to lock him up. Let me tell you this, 20 percent of the American public suffers from some kind of mental illness. ROBBINS: It's 26 percent.

CALLAN: It's 26 percent. All right, so Mel Robbins wants to create some type of a police state where we're going to lock up everybody who is saying things that we don't like. This is a very, very hard decision. This is a difficult decision.

ROBBINS: I want a different standard.

CALLAN: I represent psychiatrists in these cases and they're tormented in these cases because sometimes even when he has admitted to a hospital then a psychiatrist has to say do we keep him indefinitely or can we send him to a stable home environment?

BURNETT: You don't get to put someone in for 72 hours. I've talked to the mother of a child who has threatened to kill her and siblings.

CALLAN: Right.

BURNETT: And the child wanted to have more care and they continually release them.

GARDERE: They send them home after the 72-hour hold. It's not designed to work with it well. We know most of the psychiatric hospital beds are gone now. Insurance doesn't want to pay for mental health.

BURNETT: So this kid wouldn't have done this, it sounds like you're saying, OK, fine, maybe there have would have been a 72-hour delay, but it would happen.

GARDERE: A 72-hour hold, if they said look, let's take him to a hospital, which is what they should have done.

ROBBINS: Already treated by a therapist. He is already in therapy.

GARDERE: But he wasn't taking his medications. That's a major issue. Number one, they may not admit him because he has to be a danger to himself or others. He was clearly a danger to himself or others, but they couldn't see it.


GARDERE: And secondly, they just discharge him. Once they discharge him, he is back out there again. That's why many psychiatrists and psychologists will not just say get someone hospitalized because they're talking dangerously, because they'll lose that patient. They'll lose the patient.

ROBBINS: There are two cases when people talk this way, nothing happens.

CALLAN: No, it doesn't.

ROBBINS: Let's just be realistic.

CALLAN: How can you? You have no place to send them. I was looking at the stats here. In 1955, we had x number of beds available in psychiatric facilities. Do you know we only have one of the five beds that were available in 1955? There is no place to send these people in the United States.

ROBBINS: OK. So if the police in a well check, so they're showing up to see about the well-being, if they had the authority to be able as part of that check to look around the house, to check out the cell phone --

CALLAN: So now you're going eliminate search warrants?

ROBBINS: Yes, yes.

CALLAN: You lock up anybody --

ROBBINS: That's not true, Paul. Don't put words in my mouth.

GARDERE: If a parent says we think our kid is crazy, we think he is going to hurt someone, there is a YouTube video, we better do something about this. Let's get him checked in the hospital instead, they said not only was he OK, but he was a wonderful, beautiful person. They got duped. They got duped.

BURNETT: Because of the standards.

CALLAN: It's not the cops. It's not the cops. The cops are not at fault here.

BURNETT: Please, we do want everybody's feedback on this and what you think should have happened especially on the search warrant and these crucial questions. OUTFRONT next, months after Flight 370 vanished, the raw satellite data, finally it has been released. Will it bring us any closer to actually finding the plane? We are going to talk to Inmarsat. They are coming OUTFRONT tonight.

Plus, a bizarre political scandal in Mississippi. The man called the next Ted Cruz tonight fighting for his political life.

And a controversial new weight loss study has people reconsidering soda. Is diet soda really good for you?


BURNETT: At this hour, polls are about to close in a high profile congressional primary race in Texas. Thanks to the backing of Senator Ted Cruz, the Tea Party is expected to seize victory.

But it's a very different story in Mississippi, where Chris McDaniel, who is often called the next Ted Cruz was supposed to sail to victory, be the Tea Party's best hope of bringing down an incumbent in the GOP. But now his campaign is wrapped up in a downright bizarre scandal.

Dana Bash is OUTFRONT from Biloxi, Mississippi with the story. (BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

DANA BASH, CNN CHIEF CONGRESSIONAL CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): A conservative blogger is in jail, arrested for breaking into this Mississippi nursing home to photograph U.S. senator Thad Cochran's ailing wife, suffering from dementia.


BASH: In a new ad, Cochran's campaign points fingers at his GOP challenger, Chris McDaniel.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Posting video of Senator Thad Cochran's wife in a nursing home? Had enough?

BASH: And it gets even deeper in the Mississippi mud. Cochran supporters argue the reason the blogger took his wife's picture was to feed questions about Cochrane and long-time aide Kay Webber, who has traveled extensively with the senator on the taxpayer dime. Cochran's campaign calls it part of her job and suggestions of anything untoward sexist.

This Republican primary was supposed to be about the struggle of ideas within the GOP.


BASH: A young Tea Party-backed upstart challenging a fellow Republican for being out of touch and too entrenched in Washington after 36 years in the Senate. Now Chris McDaniel is fending off questions about whether his campaign had anything to do with photographing his opponent's sick wife.

CHRIS MCDANIEL, (R), U.S. SENATE CANDIDATE: Our campaign had absolutely no connection to that whatsoever.

BASH: You personally, when did you find out about the break-in?

MCDANIEL: We're going focus on his record right now.

SEN. TED CRUZ (R), TEXAS: God bless the Tea Party.

BASH: McDaniel would like to be the Senate's next Ted Cruz, stick to principle, compromise be damned.

MCDANIEL: I am not going to Washington, D.C. to be a member of the cocktail circuit or to make back room deals. I'm going up there to fight and defend the constitution.

BASH: Talk to Mississippi Republicans and Democrats who say come on, Thad Cochran has been there a long time, but he is a good public servant. He helps people in Mississippi.

MCDANIEL: I say come on. I say name one fight Senator Cochran has put out against Barack Obama. Name one time he has raised his voice in defense of conservatism. BASH: For the Tea Party movement after a string of primary losses this year, McDaniel has been their great hope, the best chance of toppling an establishment Republican in 2014, especially after this Cochran stumble.

SEN. THAD COCHRAN (R), MISSISSIPPI: The Tea Party, you know, is something that I don't really know a lot about.

BASH: Millions of dollars pouring into Mississippi against Cochran come from a who's who of Tea Party groups nationwide.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: McDaniel says he is a life-long Republican.

BASH: But like other Republican incumbents, this year Cochran and his allies are fighting back, painting McDaniel as extreme and inconsistent.

After four decades in Washington, Cochran has loyal supporters like this democratic mayor.

You're a Democrat.


BASH: And you're supporting Senator Cochran?


BASH: Why is that?

FLAGGS: One is that I understand politics and I understand what is needed in a state. And he is what we need in Washington, D.C. to stay as long as he wants to stay.

BASH: At this point, Cochran is trying to avoid unforced errors, going to head-scratching extremes to avoid talking to us. We tried to catch Cochran after this event. But when an aide came out and saw us, they did a bait and switch. The car they told us Cochran was getting in screeched away without him, while he snuck out another door to a different car, leaving reporters like us in the dust, unable to talk to the senator.


BURNETT: Dana, this story is incredible on every level, I mean, including that. I mean, going to those lengths to dodge you?

BASH: I don't think I'm that scary, do you?

Look, this is all about making sure there are no forced errors. It is do no harm that is the most important thing for the Cochran campaign and allies admitted. That's why he isn't talking to anybody at this point.

BURNETT: And you know, the GOP primary a week away from today. And I can see in that interview you did with McDaniel. Now, why they would call him the next Ted Cruz. But obviously, trying to -- this whole link possibly to taking pictures of Senator Cochran's wife in a hospice is distasteful at best. Does McDaniel still have a shot at winning?

BASH: Well, when I talked to him today, of course, he says that they feel confident, they feel good. But I have to say that Republican sources who I think are pretty good in Washington who are fighting really hard for Cochran insist that he is going to survive. He is going to stay in the Senate. And they are really hoping that happens for a lot of reasons. But mainly, that they hope big picture that this deals another blow to the Tea Party. We'll see a week from today, though.

BURNETT: All right. Thank you very much, Dana Bash in Biloxi, Mississippi tonight.

And still to come, a shocking new weight loss study. We'll tell you which beverage researcher says will help you lose weight. It's kind of miraculous.

And the White House responding after blowing the cover of a top CIA agent.


BURNETT: So it's called diet soda for a reason. But here is the question. If you drink diet Coke, whatever your thing of choice is, diet Canada Dry, will you lose weight? New research claims that you will. According to a recent study in the general obesity, diet soda drinkers lost more weight over 12 weeks than people who drink water. But do the claims add up?

OUTFRONT tonight, Samantha Cassetty. She is a registered dietitian.

OK. So first of all, study was funded by the American Beverages Association. If you are a quote/unquote "water drinker," you could have been drinking other things like juices or regular soda that may have, you know, made you not lose as much weight. So I know there are some questions here about the study overall. What do you think about the bottom line?

SAMANTHA CASSETTY, REGISTERED DIETITIAN: I think the bottom line, I would trust it. I mean, these people were on a calorie-controlled diet. So both groups were told to cut calories. And over the course of 12 weeks, both groups lost weight. The diet soda drinkers lost a little bit more weight.

BURNETT: All right. So I mean, I guess this gets to the question -- I mean, is it a tool to help you? I know people go to McDonald's and say well, I'm going get a Big Mac and fries, but I'm getting a diet coke. All right, and then people roll their eyes and say, OK really?

But to me, well, it's a few hundred calories less.

CASSETTY: Absolutely. And so, that's what you have to think about. If you're somebody who drinks sugar-sweetened beverages every day, then drinking a diet soda is absolutely going to be better for you. When you look at the long-term benefits of diet soda drinking, you know, the results aren't as clear. Some studies show people gained more weight over time. Some studies linked diet sodas to poor health outcomes. So you have to look at the overall quality of the diet.

BURNETT: Does diet soda, you know, I mean, I've also heard people say, well, it makes you hungrier. So even though it's diet, you end up eating more and you end up gaining more weight. Other people saying, no because it tastes sweet, I don't want that cookie. I don't want -- what do you think? Does it actually make you eat more to drink a diet soda?

CASSETTY: I mean, the results aren't clear here, either. Some studies do suggest that when you drink something sweet, your brain expects a calorie payoff. And so, maybe you're digging into the cookie jar, looking for those calories.

Other studies say, you know, this study found that the diet soda drinkers were less hungry and felt more satisfied with their sweet tooth. So, again, it's more about what works for you. And also, about the quality of your overall diet, and what else are you eating and drinking.

BURNETT: I think I just end up eating more sweet soda, then you have the Hershey's bar, you know.

All right. Thank you very much. Appreciate it.

OUTFRONT next, breaking news. President Obama announcing an end to the war in Afghanistan. But some say it is a monumental mistake.

Plus, new developments in the search for flight 370. The raw satellite data. I've said we got it. And finally, we have it, literally. I don't know if you can see this? There are so many numbers on this page. Well, guess what? Inmarsat, the vice president of Inmarsat is OUTFRONT to talk about it.


BURNETT: Breaking news: President Obama announcing the end of America's longest war. The president's latest attempt to end the Afghanistan war includes keeping 9,800 troops on the ground next year, and pulling all but a thousand out of the country by 2016.


BARACK OBAMA, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: The bottom line is it's time to turn the page on more than a decade in which so much of our foreign policy was focused on the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. I think Americans have learned it's harder to end wars than it is to begin them.


BURNETT: Barbara Starr is OUTFRONT from the Pentagon. And, Barbara, you know, obviously, he has been trying to do this for a while. But this comes as al Qaeda is resurgent in other parts of the world. So, how will this affect America's fight against terror?


Look at it this way -- if U.S. troops are out of Afghanistan, what about Pakistan, just across the border which by still by all accounts may be decimated, but is the heartland of the al Qaeda movement? What if U.S. intelligence sees a training camp or they want to go after operatives with a drone strike, or Pakistan's nuclear weapons fall into the wrong hands?

The U.S. no longer will have a base of operations in two years out of Afghanistan. This is going to lead to a lot of intelligence questions, how do you take up the slack? Where do you base other troops? Where do you base drones? How do you keep gathering intelligence what is going on on that border?

Because the bottom line, Erin, is if those Afghan security forces cannot control the border, cannot control their side of the border, the real risk is that the Taliban and al Qaeda come back into Afghanistan.


STARR: And everything is right back where it started.

BURNETT: I know being there about 18 months ago, that's what everyone was saying was their fear. They thought that would happen.

All right. Barbara Starr, thank you very much.

And I want to bring now into the conversation Republican Congressman Peter King.

Great to have you with us, as always, sir.

Do you think the president is doing the right thing?

REP. PETER KING (R), NEW YORK: I would say partly. I think it's the right thing for him to maintain forces there. I think it's important for him to try to get a status of forces agreement.

Having said that, I think it was a very big mistake for him to be giving a timeline, saying that half of the troops will be out by the end of next year and the remaining troops out by the end of 2016. That just gives the enemy the opportunity to plan their strategy. They can either lay back, or they can move forward. It gives them the upper hand in determining what to do.

Also, the number of troops he has, that he is going to allow to stay there, I don't know if that's sufficient enough. In fact, I doubt it is for us to carry out our intelligence activities outside of Bagram and outside of the Kabul area. BURNETT: Interesting, though, when you say it may not be sufficient enough. You are someone who have said a couple years ago, Boko Haram should be designated a terrorist organization, but there was so much focus on Iraq and Afghanistan that that didn't happen. People didn't know what was happening in Libya and in Mali and other places.

Wouldn't this enable the administration to focus on other areas because they're not mired in Afghanistan?

KING: Well, he could have named Boko Haram a foreign terrorist organization whether or not we were in Afghanistan. And also, the reality is we just can't always pick and choose. That's what bothers me about the president's statement. It's sort of condescending, saying Americans are learning it's harder to get out of war than it is to get in. We're definitely in Afghanistan in some sort of lock. The fact is we were attacked and that's why we were there.

And the fact is also that 3/4 of the casualties came when President Obama was the president. And his policy then when he had the surge back in 2009. Again, he announced a deadline at that time. And that also gave the enemy the opportunity to prepare for that.

BURNETT: Congressman, I want to ask you about this CIA story, which has so many people in shock that the White House ordering a review now of who in the administration inadvertently released the name of the station chief in Kabul to reporters last week ahead of the president's visit there is an e-mail that went to reporters who is going to be there. And guess what, that person is named by name and title.

How much damage was done by the leak and should someone lose their job?

KING: I believe so. This to me is an unpardonable error. Listen, I'm sure it was a mistake. But, first of all, whoever made the mistake in the first place, it's inexcusable. Secondly, that it went through so many hands.

I mean, this is not something that went out, you know, on twitter or it was a mistake. This is something they had a chance to look at and look at again. And they still allowed it to be out there. So, to me, it's unforgivable.

And the message has to be sent that this type of incompetence six years into an administration is just inexcusable. And this is tremendous harm. That person will have to be taken out of Afghanistan, the station chief.

And this is elementary. Everyone knows from the day you arrive in Congress, never mind the White House, you know that no one is ever to know the identification of a station chief in any country, never mind Afghanistan.

BURNETT: All right. So, you're saying someone should lose their job.

And I just have to ask you this before we go. Some breaking news here. The U.S. State Department, our Elise Labott is reporting, is advising Americans to depart Libya immediately. They have a new warning citing unpredictable and unstable security situation.

Here we are and no one has been held accountable at all for the death and murder of four American citizens. Will anyone ever be?

KING: They certainly should be. And I'm hoping that the investigation by Trey Gowdy is going to lead to that.

It's important that we -- there has to be accountability. Four Americans died. The administration lied about it from the very first moment and we have to find out -- first of all, we pretty much know who did it and we even know the whereabouts of some of them. The fact is no action has been taken. Unforgivable.

BURNETT: Thank you very much, Congressman King. We appreciate your time.

KING: Thank you.

BURNETT: And still OUTFRONT, months after Flight 370 vanished, the raw satellite information has finally been released, except for some columns which don't have material information have been removed. So, is this everything? Does it confirm the missing plane is in the southern Indian Ocean? Inmarsat, OUTFRONT next.

And the music video that's taking the Internet by storm. Jeanne Moos and the otters.


BURNETT: The '60s, the decade that changed the world, the space race, the Cold War, the Beatles and more. Don't miss the premier of CNN's new series, "The Sixties." It starts Thursday at 9:00 Eastern and Pacific.

Well, today, the information we have been waiting months to see in the search for Malaysia Airlines finally released. All right? This is 47 pages worth, numbers, notes, everything that happened pre-takeoff; everything that happened post-takeoff.

Finally, it made public two months after family members first requested the information that they believe is going to determine whether searchers are looking in the right place.

So, is this it? Can we definitively look at these columns and interpret them to find out where the plane is?

Tom Foreman is in Washington to begin our coverage. And Inmarsat's vice president is going to join me in just a moment.

Tom, I mean, I guess, first of all, these columns here and the categories of pre-takeoff and post-takeoff, what's in the 47 pages?

TOM FOREMAN, CNN CORRESPONDENT: What's in it, first of all, Erin is exactly what you said, what the families had been wanting, 47 pages of raw satellite date that that Inmarsat used to track this plane after it disappeared. These numbers were used to measure the way that a ground station sent a message up to a satellite up above the Indian ocean, which in turn relayed that message over to the plane, electronically asking "are you there?" and how the plane responded.

And these 14 numbers in particular allow us for the first time to see the plane's movement long after every other tracking source had lost it. Each one of these lines across here represents one of those electronic handshakes between the satellite and the plane. And you can see, if you look over here how those numbers get bigger each hour -- look at that -- steadily moving up.

What does that mean? It means the transmission time between the plane and the satellite is getting bigger, which means the satellite is getting further away from the plane. That means the plane is moving this way.

And these planes over here, these numbers over here, by using the Doppler Effect help give us a better sense of the direction the plane was actually moving. You combine all of this with the known capabilities of this aircraft, and that's how you produce this map that everyone has talked about so much, the idea that Inmarsat's analysis is that the plane had to go somewhere like this, and it had to wind up somewhere down here -- Erin.

BURNETT: So, Tom, they kept saying there was an arc, but the arc went all the way up into the north right to Kazakhstan and other places.


BURNETT: But it sounds like what you're saying from the data that exists here, and again, we have the data. We don't the calculations to determine where it went, but then you get direction and distance. So, it would seem from what we're given, you could determine -- yes, indeed, it's where they say it is.

FOREMAN: There are a lot of details that I know other physicists and other mathematicians would still like to have and would still like to talk over before they're completely convinced. But by and large, they're saying this does at least fit what could work. Now, important to bear in mind in all of this, Erin, as precise as this sounds, when you read a related report released by the Australians, you get the idea that this job remains incredibly huge.

And here is just one example, based on all of this math, they admit you could still be six miles off in either direction on the math alone, in addition to which the plane itself could drift after that last contact easily 23, 24 miles, all in it adds up to about 60 miles side to side in terms of where this plane could be, even if you knew precisely when it went down. And we don't know that. So, the search area remains very, very big and still full of a lot of uncertainty for all of this math, Erin.

BURNETT: All right. Tom Foreman, thank you very much.

I want to go now to Chris McLaughlin, the vice president for Inmarsat. Good to talk to you again, sir. So, let me start off by getting straight to the main criticism, right? I mean, I've got all of these pages here. The frustration that people have today is all right, we're glad we have this data. But what about the calculations, the way that you put the data together to get to the conclusion that the plane is in the southern Indian Ocean. Would you share that also, the calculations?

CHRIS MCLAUGHLIN, VICE PRESIDENT, INMARSAT: Erin, I think our CEO said earlier today on CNN, he would be very happy to share the model. The issue is that the data belongs to the Malaysians. What we have released in conjunction was the Inmarsat data. Obviously, they have other information from Boeing, from other parties as well involved in the hunt for this aircraft.

But at Inmarsat, we want to be completely transparent.

BURNETT: So, I'm understanding what you're saying. You're saying the calculations weren't your calculations. They could be Boeing's or someone else's? Or you're saying they were yours, but you're going let the Malaysians make the decision on whether or not to release them?

MCLAUGHLIN: Well, the calculations in the first instance to create the model were ours. And we gave those within ten days of the aircraft going missing, as you know.

The submission goes into the Air Accident Investigation Board, who the U.K. is representative on the search, on the inquiry. We are only a technical contributor to that. Within that inquiry, other parties also contribute, like Boeing, like Rolls-Royce, and like the radar information as well. So, we're one part in the whole. And we have contributed our bit.

BURNETT: So, one of the family members, you know, we have spoken to frequently on this show, Sarah Bajc, the American passenger of Philip Wood says the data still isn't complete. And, you know, on page one, and, obviously, you're familiar -- again, I want to emphasize what we have what the Malaysians released. But they note that some columns that have no material information have been removed from the tables.

So, can I ask you -- of the 47 pages, how much about do we have? Since you gave them everything, and they're only giving us some of what you gave them, how much are we missing?

MCLAUGHLIN: Well, in the actual data itself, what you see are sheet after sheet of binary ones and 0s (ph). What you have there in the summary information is an interpretation of those binary 1s and 0s which run to about a 7-meg file and would be meaningless to anybody looking. Instead would be saying, Chris, why do you put out just a series of 1s and 0s?

It's an interpretation based on the data, based on the best information that we can portray. You shouldn't read anything into any gaps in the data. This is a very good will and focused way that we're trying to communicate the best impression of what we think happened. BURNETT: And I know, Chris, that as you say, the best impression of what happened. And part of you I'm sure is -- you know, frightened may not be the right word. But the burden of all of this is on you and on Inmarsat. Everyone has based all this analysis on all of you.

Are you still now 82 days since this plane went down and we haven't seen a piece of debris, are you still as confident as we were when we spoke earlier on yes, I'm confident on my data. I'm confident in the conclusion that this plane is in the southern Indian Ocean.

MCLAUGHLIN: Well, Erin, besides the Inmarsat's model, there have been four other groups involved in this from AAIB, through Boeing, through aircraft equipment manufacturers who have looked at this data in their own way and come up with similar conclusions.

In addition to that, we have compared successful flights to the north, successful flights to the south, with performance with our I3 satellite and it matches the south. So, yes, to a high degree of probability, we are certain that our data is right.

BURNETT: All right. Thank you very much --

MCLAUGHLIN: What we want tell you is the sharp distance.

BURNETT: The sharp -- I'm sorry, say again?

MCLAUGHLIN: What we can't tell you is the exact distance because the handshakes don't have that data on them. We hope the airlines will conclude that.

BURNETT: All right. Well, thank you very much, Chris. And it's good to talk to you again.

And joining me now, Arthur Rosenberg.

All right. You heard what he had to say, you heard, yes, we don't have all the data but he is still as confident as he ever was.

ARTHUR ROSENBERG, CNN AVIATION ANALYST: Yes. I think what's happening here, it's actually very interesting. You go back a week. You know, Inmarsat pointed a finger at Malaysia, Malaysia pointed a finger back --

BURNETT: Yes, they were both fighting on who wasn't releasing the data.

ROSENBERG: We can just characterize it now as confusion. But the bottom line here is I believe we have lost sight on what this whole exercise was about, which was to give some gravitas to the analysis for the families, for the world, for the flying public, in the absence of physical wreckage, which we don't have today.

But what I heard today which was very important, the CEO said, we will come clean with basically the underlying data, the analysis --

BURNETT: Well, that is what he said now. But again, they're saying, but Malaysia -- just why not just put it out there so that these families can know?

ROSENBERG: And they absolutely should.

Malaysia went to somewhat transparent which were back to being opaque again. They just don't want to cooperate and release information the way it should be. And in a case like this where there is no physical damage, these people, the flying public, they're entitled to see the most important piece of information where this plane is.

BURNETT: And when you go through this data and as Tom explained what it was, the timing offsets, the words that don't mean very much to us out there that basically determine the distance and the time, do you think there is enough data here to conclude where it is?

ROSENBERG: Well, I've spoken to --

BURNETT: As an engineer. I mean, that's your --

ROSENBERG: Well, I have spoken to a couple of experts who I won't say. They say that the data that was produced was actually very good. But they're also saying between the gaps and the underlying metadata, which was used to derive the data that was produced --


ROSENBERG: They're a little bit handcuffed without that.

BURNETT: And what about this issue you and I were just looking before.

All right. There are 17 pages of data before take off and 22 after takeoff. Obviously, in terms of time, after takeoff is eight or nine hours, or seven hours. Before take off is only an hour.

You know, I'm not an expert, but is that strange?

ROSENBERG: Well, common sense would tell you there are reams of a lot more information.

BURNETT: A lot more on the flight itself.

ROSENBERG: Absolutely, I think Inmarsat was pretty candid about that, that they cherry picked a lot of this information. But the piece that Tom did just before, there are really only seven key times in the analysis, which gives us the arc, which gives us the approximate location, which gives us this frequency, I call it the Doppler fingerprint that compared it to other, 777s. By the way, that information was not provided either.

BURNETT: They say if it were here it would match this exactly. That would be helpful.

ROSENBERG: Incredibly helpful.

BURNETT: All right, Arthur Rosenberg, thank you very much.

And still to come, what happens when you give a companion to a group of otter? Jeanne Moos is on the case.


BURNETT: There are so many music videos on YouTube, but one in particular is really getting everybody's juices going, probably because the musicians are just so wild.

For more, we turn to Jeanne Moos.


JEANNE MOOS, CNN CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): Liberace, they're not. But when it comes to animal videos, there is nothing hotter than these otters on the keyboard at the Smithsonian's National Zoo.

The Asian small clad otters, (INAUDIBLE) species --

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Their hands look like, they're kind of like people hands.

MOOS: Every few weeks, keepers set up the keyboard just outside the otter enclosure to provide a little sound enrichment.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: So, of course, they got a little excited. And whoa, it makes a noise when I touch it.

MOOS: Or when the bears blow on a harmonica. The bears love to suck up insect.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: They suck and they blow a lot. So, they used their mouths.

MOOS: Even blowing through a fire hose. The otter's keyboard has to stay inside the enclosure so they don't rip it out.

(on camera): The one that seems most musically inclined, does he or she have a name?


MOOS: With two hands?

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: With two hands, yes.

MOOS: Coincidentally, perhaps the most famous critter ever played the keyboard has a new performance video out.

(voice-over): Well, actually, it's the reincarnation of keyboard cat, now performing "96 Tears."

The original keyboard cat named Fatso is long dead.

An artist named Charlie Smith dressed her up in an infant T-shirt and manipulated her paws. Keyboard cats spawned keyboard dogs. But at least Lila both plays and accompanies herself. And Chocko the pug plays on command. Maybe the National Zoo should consider creating a national animal orchestra.

Jeanne Moos, CNN, New York.


BURNETT: There's something about those otters. Just the -- I don't know what it was about the otters, excitement or even the raw anger when they were grabbing that. It was great to see.

Anyway, they would ruin it if they went in their cage, that's why they saw it on the other side.

And coming up, a new series from executive producers Tom Hanks and Gary Goetzman, "The Sixties", it's the decade that changed the world -- the space race, Cold War, free love, civil rights, the 1960s reshaped America's lives in ways that affect us all today.

Be sure to watch or, of course, set your DVR for the premiere Thursday night at 9:00 Eastern and Pacific right here on CNN.

And meantime, at this hour, we are watching the vigil in Santa Barbara, California, where thousands of students right now are gathering to hear among others the father of the young boy who was shot at a deli. Just went to a deli and he was shot and murdered.

Tomorrow, we have a special investigation inside the mind of a killer. Is a child born to become a killer or is that something that is made? That's a special OUTFRONT investigation tomorrow, as our own coverage of that rampage continues.

And right now, Anderson Cooper has more on the vigil on "AC360" starting right now.