Return to Transcripts main page


Was California Killing Spree Preventable?; Flight 370 Satellite Data Released; White House Reveals CIA Agent's Identity; New Satellite Data Released

Aired May 27, 2014 - 06:30   ET


MARY ELLEN O'TOOLE, FORMER SR. FBI PROFILER: It was really the totality of everything that he said that really jumped out to me with a red flag.

CHRIS CUOMO, CNN ANCHOR: I am less impressed with the details of this individual's life. The irony here is they drive the interest of you at home and yet the frustration of why do we keep seeing these cases. The families tried to get him treatment. He rejected it. Friends said something and saw something, neighbors as well. The cops were called for a wellness check and yet this still happens.

Does this speak to a system that does not work?

DR. JODI GOLD, WEILL CORNELL MEDICAL COLLEGE: Well, it speaks to a system that's challenged, no question about it. There were red flags. Everybody sort of did the right thing. But it obviously failed.

In my opinion, when the police -- after the police were called, it should have triggered psychiatric intervention. Not necessarily a legal intervention but psychiatric intervention. I felt like there was potentially a breakdown in communication.

CUOMO: How do you have a psychiatric intervention without a legal one, and that's the conclusion question.

GOLD: Right.

CUOMO: Cops, they're not set up to do this kind of analysis that you can. Doesn't that speak to how the system doesn't work? You're going to send cops to me to ask me whether or not I'm mentally stable?

GOLD: Well, it was appropriate to call the cops and it was appropriate for the cops to assess the risk. I think at that point, you needed a mental health official.

CUOMO: So, the guy says, I'm not a risk. I have some problems, there's no risk. And the cops leave. It's as simple as that. Would that have worked for you?

GOLD: No, not at all.

CUOMO: Do you know where I'm coming from, Mary Ellen? Is that they send the cops over to this kids, six of them, they talk to him. He says, I'm good. I have some problems. Who doesn't. They say he's polite, right? That's the key word, because that's all cops care about, is what your demeanor, are you aggressive. Do we have to change who goes into a situation like that in your opinion, Mary Ellen?

O'TOOLE: Well, police officers offer times do what you're calling a welfare check. But here's what happens now. We have behavioral intervention teams, threat assessment teams, and they are made up of law enforcement and mental health experts. And they don't just take self-reported information.

So, you can't just say, hey, I'm fine, why don't you guys just go ahead and have a good day? We want to know, wait a minute, we're aware of this video, we're aware of other information that tells us we're more concerned about you than just simply you sending us on our way. So, there should have been really more in-depth look at this individual and not reliant on his self-reported information.

CUOMO: Why wasn't there?

GOLD: I don't know.

CUOMO: You know? What else do you need? They didn't even search the room. How do not look at the room when they're a shut-in?

GOLD: I know. This is where -- this is why I would like to see point people to gather collateral information. When you evaluate someone, you talk to family members, look at YouTube reports, see if they're registered gun holders. You put all the pieces together.

That's what these teams do.

CUOMO: Fair criticism of the family in this situation? You don't want to see any family put in this obviously. They were divorced -- so what, who isn't these days? There was a lot of indulgence in this kid. Do you have to cut him off and treat him as an addict and not fund his mania?

GOLD: Well, I think the parents probably had an opportunity to intervene. When I work with adults one of the challenges is keeping the family involved because with kids we can intervene at a young age, right, and the parents have a lot of power.

CUOMO: He's 22. How do you intervene with me, I don't to see a doctor, I'm fine, then I putting out crazy videos and writing this crazy manifesto, what do you do?

GOLD: Well, in some cases, a lot of young adults don't live on their own. Parents support them emotionally and financially. I do feel that parents can be involved in adults. I mean, you sort of have to be. You can't just take a report of a young adult.

CUOMO: Quick yes or no. Are we seeing enough of these stories that are so repetitive that we need to have a change and we have figure out what it is? Yes or no. GOLD: Yes.

CUOMO: Mary Ellen?

O'TOOLE: It starts at seven or eight years of age, not 22, yes.

CUOMO: So, we have to figure out some fix for the system, because it isn't working. And each story just makes it a more painful truth than the last.

Thank you very much, Jodi, Mary Ellen. I appreciate the perspective.

GOLD: You're welcome. Thank you.

CUOMO: Kate?

BOLDUAN: Coming up next on NEW DAY: the long awaited satellite data from Flight 370 finally made public. But experts looking at the raw data say it's incomplete. What does the data show and what appears to have been held back?

Also ahead, reminder, Thursday CNN's premiering "The Sixties," a newer series from executive producers Tom Hanks and Gary Goetzman. It explores the decade that changed the world from the space race to the Cold War to free love, civil rights, and much more. Tune in or set your DVR for the premiere of "The Sixties", this Thursday night, at 9:00 p.m. Eastern and Pacific, on CNN.


BOLDUAN: Welcome back to NEW DAY.

Overnight, the Malaysian government released the Inmarsat data used to calculate where missing Flight 370 most likely ended in the southern Indian Ocean. Families had been pleading with authorities for weeks really for that information to be released, now that it has been released. What do we know? What are we learning?

Let's discuss this and latest in the search. Joined now by Mary Schiavo and David Soucie. Mary, CNN aviation analyst and a former inspector general at the U.S. Department of Transportation. David, of course, is a CNN safety analyst and author of "Why Planes Crash."

Good morning to both of you.


So, Mary, let me start with you. We have the data. It's pages and pages president to the untrained eye or even to a sophisticated person, it is very confusing. I look through it, it means nothing me.

What does it mean to you?

SCHIAVO: Well, yes, glass is half full here. They did get the raw data. What they asked for was the raw data, the satellite transmission data and what Inmarsat used to calculate or come up with a hypothesis that it was in the southern Indian Ocean. So, that much they got.

What they didn't get was really detailed information about how they did the analysis, what Inmarsat relied upon. Why they discarded the north and root on the southern route (ph). I would have thought they would have put that in the report, because the report was being aimed for the families.

But still, they got the data and they will be able to do an independent analysis.

BOLDUAN: What do you -- what do you think we have here, David?

DAVID SOUCIE, CNN SAFETY ANALYST: Well, you know, I used to teach math at Redstone College in Colorado. And I'm not giving this a very good grade, to be honest with you.

The math is there. The information is there. But they didn't show their work. Let's put it that way. They didn't put their work. There's no real way to determine what formulas they used, how they got there.

But you have to consider it's not just Inmarsat. I think Inmarsat gets an A-plus for putting that information out there. What they didn't do and what they weren't expected to do was to put out the formulas and how they arrived at the data that is information that other people have like Honeywell and the other manufacturers that different parts of this complex system.

BOLDUAN: One of the basic reasons that anyone wanted the information released is to figure out how, if we don't have better information, how did you determine that the plane ended in this place in the southern Indian Ocean since it's so far off where it had intended to be.

Mary, do we get any further to be able to answer that question?

SCHIAVO: Well, they didn't provide it in the report. They didn't make it easy on the families. They really should have at this point. I mean, we are at two plus, 2 1/2 months out. And it would have been -- behoove them to do that.

But no, if they took that data -- they don't have the algorithms as David mentioned. They didn't show their work at all. They didn't know what they did but they have the raw data. So, with expert minds they can re-examine for their own but they did not justify their findings at all here.

BOLDUAN: Who are the other agencies? One thing we heard from Richard Quest, David, one of the things that I find interesting, you have Inmarsat who has the data and Inmarsat says, it's not just us that you should believe. There are other agencies and there are other maybe even companies that looked at the data and verified our calculation saying, yes, we agree with you, this is where it ended up.

Why don't we know where those groups are? SOUCIE: Because they haven't stepped forward. Inmarsat is the forerunner because of the fact it is their system. But as I mentioned, it's a very complex and interoperable system. You have satellite companies which may involve several different satellite companies that manufacture them. You have, as I mentioned, Honeywell, who manufacturers components onboard the aircraft that automatically adjust for these base frequency offsets and the movement of the satellite and that sort of thing.

So when they did this analysis you have to know there were several PhDs sitting in the room doing this from each of these companies including Boeing, the installation, the antenna manufacturers, all of these people were in the room together.

So, to try to reassemble it after the fact would be literally a book 10 times this big as this piece of paper. So, you know, I wasn't ever very optimistic that we would be able to sit here and say, yes, that's definitely it.

But we're getting closer. I think to me gives me better confidence. There are some key pieces in here that they are in the right place.

CUOMO: You work with a lot of families after accidents and crashes like this, Mary. Do you think this should provide any -- not satisfaction but any confidence or provide any kind of comfort to the families? They've been requesting it. The information is out there. What do you make of it?

SCHIAVO: Well, satisfied that they finally got something. I mean, their families are missing. People overlook how -- they won't give up. They won't go away by saying, well, you know, we don't have to give you the data. It's absurd. They're not going to go away.

So, at least they got the data but they got the data in the rawest form. And remember, Malaysia took a week or several weeks to put this together because they said they were going to put it in a format usable for the families. Well, the data is there but none of the reasoning behind the data so the families can't have that good feeling like, yes, we have the data. Yes, we now see why they're so sure. That second part isn't there. They really deserve that second part.

BOLDUAN: Mary Schiavo, David Soucie, thank you so much.

And, of course, the search continues. They're now going to start mapping the ocean floor which could take a very long time and then bring in new equipment to begin the search on the ocean floor. Once again, they're talking about months looking at even a year to get all of this going and under way -- Chris.

CUOMO: All right, Kate.

Well, the families are not grading as generously as David Soucie. And they want answers. And in a moment we're going to talk to the man who can give them to them. We're going to talk with the CEO of Inmarsat about the data release. You will want to see it, coming up. Also, the government is usually at fault for keeping sec secrets, right? Well, now, the White House is in hot water for revealing one, blowing a top CIA agent's cover. How this happened and can they fix their mistake in time? Ahead.


BOLDUAN: Welcome back to NEW DAY. The White House accidentally revealed the identity of the top CIA official in Afghanistan to some 6,000 journalists this week. The agent, the agent's name was inadvertently on a list of people taking part in President Obama's surprise visit to Afghanistan. The potentially dangerous leak comes just ahead of the president's commencement speech that he'll be delivering -- he'll be talking about U.S. foreign policy. He'll be delivering that at West Point.

Let's bring in White House correspondent Michelle Kosinski to discuss more of how this happened, and also let's bring in CNN national security correspondent from the "Daily Beast" Josh Rogin to continue to discuss.

Michelle, first and foremost, everyone is going to be wondering the same thing, and there probably isn't a good answer for it quite yet. How did this happen?

MICHELLE KOSINSKI, WHITE HOUSE CORRESPONDENT: We know some details. So it's a pool reporter for this trip asked a White House staffer for a list of the names of people who would be briefing the president there on the ground. That White House staffer asked the military, gave the list to the reporter, who then distributed it to other members of the press.

But realize, wait a minute, there is the name and title of the top CIA officer in Afghanistan. The reporter says he asked the White House staffer and the staffer said, "Well, it came from the military. It should be fine," realizing only later it was not fine. And this person's cover essentially was blown by his own government, Kate.

BOLDUAN: Josh, how serious is this?

JOSH ROGIN, "DAILY BEAST": Well, this is catastrophic event for this man's career and potentially for his future as a covert operator, both in Afghanistan or anywhere else. It could have a catastrophic effect on his family. Imagine his friends, his coworkers, if he has a cover, all of the people in his life who didn't know that he was in the CIA now know.

And not only that, he was in the middle of a very dangerous mission, which was to govern the transition of CIA forces in Afghanistan. And if he has to leave Afghanistan -- we don't know yet if he'll be pulled -- but if he comes under danger because he's been exposed and they have to leave -- make him leave the country, that could hurt the mission there and then hurt our security.

BOLDUAN: That was going to be my question to you, Josh. What is the immediate fallout? Have you heard anything if he is going to have to pulled, has he already begun to receive threats?

ROGIN: I think they're debating that right now internally. It's too early to say that he will or will not be pulled. In the past, we've seen this happen three times in Pakistan, for example. And in one of those cases the station chief who was exposed had to be removed from the country, and that was actually the goal of him being exposed.

In this case, there wasn't any malicious intent. He was just accidentally exposed by his own government. So as if these guys don't have enough to worry about, now they have to look over their shoulder at their own administration to make sure that their secrecy and that their integrity of their mission is kept secret. It's pretty shocking, actually.

BOLDUAN: So Michelle, what is the damage control, I guess we could say, going forward? Clearly, there is protocol for not including any undercover operative on a list like this and having it be made public. Protocol was broken. What's the damage control now?

KOSINSKI: Yeah, what it seems to be is just an unfortunate mistake made at the same time essentially by a number of people. CNN talked to the reporter who first got this list, and he sort of described it as seeming to be a mistake made by a bunch of people who were kind of junior ranking and did not get enough sleep.

I mean, first it came from the military, but the White House staffer had made it clear that this was for the press, so the military made a mistake. The White House staffer then didn't notice that that name was on the list. It was the reporter who noticed it. And then it just kind of went back and forth until everybody realized, wait a second, this is a big problem.

At this point though the White House isn't commenting, only to say initially please, everyone, do not publish that name. But in a sense, the damage has been done, as Josh was saying, to this person's career and to the position there in Afghanistan, which is a key security concern for the U.S.

BOLDUAN: Absolutely. And we are not reporting the name of this top CIA official.

Josh, going back to -- you were talking about it just a second ago. We are at a critical point -- the United States is at a critical point in Afghanistan. Not only does this do something very -- potentially very bad to this station chief and his family, what's the impact, do you think this will have on operations in Afghanistan if he has to be pulled?

ROGIN: Yeah, that's a great question because there's important context here. The CIA, and we've reported this in the "Daily Beast" a couple of weeks ago, is in the process of transitioning to a post-2014 presence in Afghanistan.

What that means is, they've been running networks of spies all over Afghanistan for years. And they're rolling up those networks, and they're trying to change. And they're realizing that they're going to have to fight this war, this intelligence collection war with a lot less resources and a lot less people and a lot less money than they had been for the last 12 years.

He was in charge of that. So if he has to leave, then someone else is going to have to be in charge of that, presumably someone else who is not as qualified. That can have a real effect on how that mission goes. And if the transition isn't struck correctly, vital pieces of intelligence could be lost in the muddle, and that could have an affect on our ability to anticipate and prepare for threats emanating from Afghanistan and even against the homeland.

Now, I don't want to paint a too dire scenario here because its hasn't played out yet, but we can't afford to take any risks and to give away any freebies in the this war on the terrorists who want to attack us from Afghanistan. And this is an unforced error. And it's really the last thing that the intelligence community and the military need as they're already fighting a battle with less resources that are going down -- hopefully some of those details will learn from President Obama when he speaks at West Point on Wednesday.

BOLDUAN: And real quick on that point, Michelle, you said the White House is not, to this point, not commenting. Do you think President Obama will need to address this during the commencement speech when he speaks at West Point?

KOSINSKI: I don't think it's really a need to address type situation. He may make mention of it. And Afghanistan is going to be part of what he's going to be discussing there and also some key decisions moving forward as to how we define exactly what the U.S. role will be in Afghanistan moving forward. But I don't think he's going to get into this gaffe concerning this CIA operative.

BOLDUAN: Yeah, a gaffe that could become much more than that. We'll see and have to see this, as Josh pointed out, a horrible unforced error on the part of the White House.

Michelle Kosinski, live for us at the White House. Thank you, Michelle, as always. Josh, great to see you, thanks.

ROGIN: Thank you.


CUOMO: All right, Kate, here are some of the big stories starting your NEW DAY. Another shooting rampage, another set of warning signs missed. It is time to change the system. But how? We're going to take it on.

The Flight 370 data finally released, but it's raising more questions. We're going to put the criticisms to the CEO of Inmarsat.

And is diet soda good for dieting? Should be, right? Well, maybe not. A controversial new study to talk about. Let's get after all of it.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE) UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Has Inmarsat got this right?

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: At the moment there's no reason to doubt.

JOHN BERMAN, CNN ANCHOR: This morning, a top official says they now think they know where hundreds of kidnapped girls are being held.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Veronica Wise is one of the six students whose lives were taken in a diabolical killing rampage.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: We got on her iPhone and located in the middle of the crime scene. We actually were looking a the phone while they were moving her body.


CUOMO: Good morning. Welcome back to NEW DAY. It is Tuesday, May 27th, 7:00 in the east.

And breaking overnight, Inmarsat and the Malaysian government have released the satellite data used in this search for Flight 370. The information includes those handshakes signals used to plot the possible flight path to the southern Indian Ocean.

So let's bring in CNN aviation correspondent Richard Quest joining us with more from Los Angeles. Richard, there is good news and bad news this release. Tell us.

RICHARD QUEST, CNN AVIATION CORRESPONDENT: The good news is we have the raw data, and we have it in detail, in great laborious detail. So we know exactly the information that MH-370 was transmitting, not only in the hours beforehand, but also those seven -- six -- 6 1/2 handshakes.

The bad news, they -- we haven't got the surrounding work that will let other people do the -- make their own calculations. Inmarsat has given this information to show transparency and to show that they've nothing to hide. But they haven't provided the formulas, and for good reason, in many ways, because so many experts were brought together to do this. You can't necessarily replicate this.

I was given exclusive access to Inmarsat and to the man who led the team, Mark Dickinson. And I asked him, when all was said and done, the goal here was transparency; it wasn't to let other people redo the work.


QUEST: To be clear, you're letting people make judgments on your work. You're not inviting them to redo your work.

MARK DICKINSON, LED INMARSAT TEAM: No. As I say, to redo the work requires experts in many different fields, and we gathered those experts within the investigation team to allow that to happen. But this is providing some transparency in terms of what actually data came back and forth between the plane and the ground station and how that data has been subsequently used.

So it allows people to see what techniques, what things have been accounted for. So certainly provides, I'm hoping, a great deal of transparency in terms of the analysis that's been done by Inmarsat, but also by other teams in the investigation.


QUEST: And really what now needs to happen, Chris, is because it's perhaps not entirely reasonable to expect Inmarsat to shovel out vast amounts of data from the satellite, from the modem, data they may not even have, other companies may have.

What now needs to happen is one or two of those other groups that verified the Inmarsat, that were in the room, they're the ones that now need to come out and say, yes, we are the ones who looked at it, and we gave it the stamp of approval.

CUOMO: Look, it's a very complex situation. We know it involves a lot of high-functioning analysis. But, Richard, bottom line, when you want to give confidence to an investigation you come out with the analysis because that's what people want to know. So we're going to talk to the CEO of Inmarsat, see what their thinking was and what they released, and what they did not release.

Richard, thank you for chewing on it for us this morning. Kate?

BOLDUAN: We'll get back to that in just one second.

But let's go to California now, a very sad day ahead. A memorial service is planned today for the six victims who lost their lives in Friday's rampage. Investigators are trying to learn more about the man behind the violence, and most importantly, learn more about the events leading up to his killing spree.

This morning, the father of one victim is speaking out about his unimaginable anguish, and he's speaking to CNN.

CNN's Sara Sidner talked with him, and she is live from Santa Barbara this morning. Sara?

SARA SIDNER, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Good morning, Kate. Yeah, we sat down with the father of Veronika Weiss.