Return to Transcripts main page

CNN TONIGHT

Angelina Jolie, Brad Pitt Secretly Married in France; New Audiotape About the Shooting of Michael Brown Emerged; New Developments in Search for Malaysian Airlines flight 370

Aired August 28, 2014 - 23:00   ET

THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.


DON LEMON, CNN ANCHOR: 11:00 p.m. on the east coast. I'm Don Lemon. Welcome back to CNN TONIGHT.

Joan Rivers was rushed to New York's Mount Sinai hospital today. We're going to have the very latest on her condition.

And we have new revelations tonight on the bombshell recording everybody is still talking about.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: You are pretty. (gunshots) you're so fine. Just going over some of your videos (gunshots). How could I forget?

(END VIDEO CLIP)

LEMON: Now the chat service used on that tape confirms the audio was recorded at 12:02:14 on Saturday, August 9th, almost exactly the time that police officer says the police officer Darren Wilson shot Michael Brown. We got the details on that tonight.

Plus Angelina Jolie, Brad Pitt. Secret wedding in France. Why they tied the knot after nearly a decade together. We will get on all of that tonight.

But let's begin with the new developments on the Recording that allegedly captures the sounds of gunshots in Ferguson at about the time that Michael Brown was killed. Joining me now is CNN legal analyst Mark O'Mara, forensic audio expert Paul Ginsberg, he has worked for the CIA, the FBI and the secret service, and CNN legal analyst Mel Robbins. Thank you all for joining us to talk about this very important story. We're now learning the company whose video chat service may have captured audio of Michael Brown's shooting, has now verified the time stamp of the recording. I want you to listen to the tape.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: You are pretty. (gunshots) you're so fine. Just going over some of your videos (gunshots). How could I forget?

(END VIDEO CLIP)

LEMON: So Paul, what does this verification tell us? PAUL GINSBERG, FORENSIC AUDIO EXPERT: Well, it tells us that the

recording was made at the time that really would give it some value, some evidentiary value in this investigation. They have a time stamp, something similar to what we find in law enforcement recorders, which is added as a feature, in fact just to boost the evidentiary value of such undercover recordings of conversations. So this gives it some authenticity.

LEMON: I was going say in your years as an expert, an audio expert, and again, CNN hasn't independently verified it. The FBI, they're checking on it. What do you make of the authenticity? Do you believe this is real?

GINSBERG: I believe it is because I've had occasion to do a preliminary analysis. I don't find any discontinuities. The context of the statement is continuous. And if there are any background noises or sounds, they don't seem to change. And sometimes we can use hum or internally produced tones as sort of a control track. And if they are continuous and were recorded at the same time, then so too is the entire recording.

LEMON: OK. So Mark, now that it appears that we have some authentication here, does it get into the recording?

MARK O'MARA, CNN LEGAL ANALYST: Well, first of all, I think they're going to the courtroom. I think it is authentic. They are going to finish out making it. So it's certainly relevant because it does seem t have some evidence, evidentiary value. I think what it does is it sets the audio stage for what happened physically and what everyone else testified to.

The significance is going to be, you know, according to who it is looking at it, because someone will interpret the space between the two volatiles as being an opportunity to think it through and maybe decide to become a murderer. Others will say that it evidences that the officer restrained himself until he had to fire more. So there is a lot of evidence to look at for where it's going fit in. We need to look at the whole picture. This is one small piece of the puzzle that has to fit into the whole picture.

LEMON: Mel, with your legal expertise do you tend to think this audio supports one side of the case over another?

MEL ROBBINS, CNN LEGAL COMMENTATOR, LEGAL ANALYST: No, I don't. You know, I agree with Mark O'Mara. And he knows better than anybody, having defended George Zimmerman, and having been at the center of that case that when you have auditory evidence like they had, Don, in that case with the 911 calls, what you now have is you have a measuring stick against which the jury can weigh all of the witness testimony. And basically say, OK, this person said a, this person said b. But we've got this objective standard which is this recording.

And I think the most important piece, Don, is the pause. It's that moment of contemplation between the six shots in the beginning and the four shots after. Something happened there. And it's going to be a question for the jury, Don, as to what exactly happened in that moment. Did Michael Brown lunge at the officer or did he turn around and put his hands up, Don.

LEMON: OK. So here is the question Mark. As you know, we only have 12 second of video. And then there is video on there, but the person on it did not want it shown. So what we don't have apparently is the first shot, that a first shot that may have been fired at the car. And, again, that is alleged as well. Is that absence significant? Will it be significant?

O'MARA: I don't think so. Because I think most of the evidence, the witnesses testified, particularly Dorian said there was a shot at the car. One piece of significance of this evidence is all of those witnesses who have already given statements to the extent that they did not say a volatile of shots, a pause, a volatile of shots. Now their testimony may be impeachable because they didn't say what we now seem to think has some independent significance to it.

And also, it may tend to sort of present a difficulty for the prosecution, because if you look at the other evidence that we have, and speculation is bad, but the other evidence suggests he was shot six times in the front. One of them maybe at the car that leaves five bullets to the front. Well, if will are only four shots in the second volatile, at least one of the frontal shots had to come from the first volatile. That could turn out to be very significant if Mike Brown was facing the officer during the first volatile.

LEMON: Paul, I want to ask you this. Maybe many, you know, maybe of us maybe have I been watching too many of those crime scene investigation shows. But in your opinion, could this audio be enhanced to point out maybe being able to hear other voices or voices in the background or other things that were going on at the time of the shooting?

GINSBERG: Well, I made an attempt to do that initially. It turns out that gunshots are very -- have very much higher energy than voices and so on. And that really would be difficult under these circumstances.

However, there is evidence waiting to be discovered. We really need the 911 call from the store shop clerk. We need the dispatcher, words to the patrol cars with the description of the people who were robbing the cigars. And we also need all of the car to dispatcher conversations before and after the shooting. They will establish more of a timeline, more of constraints that the witnesses' testimony has to agree with, as well as the content. And I -- I want those conversations.

LEMON: Mel, there a danger that the jury will expect more out of this audio or expect to it be definitive in some way?

ROBBINS: You know, I don't think so, Don. I mean, I disagree a little bit in terms of what he was just saying, Paul was just saying. Because I personally think the most important facts here are what happened during the scuffle. Is there any evidence that Michael Brown reached for the gun, or his fingerprints on it? Is there any sort of evidence about the gun being fired in the car, and then more importantly, what are the witnesses saying? Because the truth is, if there was an altercation and at some point Michael Brown put his hands up, and you've got a bunch of witnesses testifying to that, there is no reason why there should be shots fired after that fact, regardless of what happened first. So I think that there are some -- go ahead. Sorry.

LEMON: Finish your thought. I'm sorry.

ROBBINS: Well, so I just think that this is really going to be, Don, about a 15-second window of time. What happened after that altercation and did in fact Michael Brown put his hands up. And if they can prove that he did, then, you know, the officer is guilty of murder as far as I'm concerned.

LEMON: Mark, you know all about that, because that's what it came down in the case of George Zimmerman. It came down to the seconds that many people did not know what was happening. Do you agree with Mel that that's what it's going to come down to in this case?

O'MARA: Absolutely. I don't know that the previous robbery is going to be relevant at all, if there is some forensic evidence, great. But no, this is going to be when that officer stopped the altercation occurred and those 15 to 20 seconds that existed before Mike Brown died, what happened and why it was. And the reality is we're going to find out when they have the experts that there was adrenaline running through both bodies. There was testosterone running through both bodies and there was confusion and misunderstanding running through both bodies. And the reason why I say that is it happens all the time in traumatic circumstances. Mike Brown was in trauma and that officer was in trauma.

LEMON: All right. Mark, Paul, Mel, thank you.

We have an update for you on the situation in Ferguson, in the Ferguson area to tell you about. The St. Louis post dispatch is reporting that officer Matthew Pathberger, remember him, suspended last Friday after commenting on facebook that he thought Ferguson protesters should be quote "put down like rabid dogs." He has been fired according to the St. Louis dispatch.

And meanwhile, another officer Ray Albers resigned today. Officials say he had pointed a rifle at protesters and cursed at them.

When we come right back, the latest on the Joan Rivers situation at Mount Sinai hospital here in New York.

And also the Hollywood wedding of the decade. Angelina Jolie and Brad Pitt tie the knot in a secret ceremony after nearly ten years together. We'll have all the details for you.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

LEMON: Welcome back everyone. Broadcaster Pat O'Brien has covered Hollywood for years, and now he is felling all in his memoir, "I'll be right back after this." He joins me now. Pat, I can't wait to talk to you about this. So in full transparency,

I don't know how you got any cell phone number, but you texted me at all the craziest time, but it's always funny. And I've been on your radio show. It is for you. You're a really fun guy and very authentic guy. So I'm glad you're here. And gain, here is the book, "I'll be right back after this." And I'm glad that you are here and I hope it sells well.

First, I want to ask you about your pal, Joan Rivers. You know her very well. Tell us about your relationship.

PAT O'BRIEN, AUTHOR, I'LL BE RIGHT BACK AFTER THIS: Well, of course Joan, a staple of the red carpet, and one of the sharpest tongues in the business. And it made people uncomfortable because she always said what most people were thinking. And you got to love those kinds of comedians like George Carlin and, you know, the people that actually said things that you would never hear anybody else say. She was honest about it. And Joan is just a wonderful woman. And I wish her well. And she is tough. We know that. She is very, very tough. So she'll get through this.

LEMON: Everybody feels like they know her since she has spent her whole life in the public eye. Tell us, do you have a surprising story about her?

O'BRIEN: Well, I disagree with one of your guests earlier. I think she -- well, I think it was hell. I think she dresses age appropriate. And I like the way she dresses. But she has never really picked on me. And her whole family is good.

And, you know, she has had a tough, tough life, Don, as you know. Her husband, you know, died of a drug overdose in the early '80s. And you know, it's part of what my book is about. But she has had a tough life. Survived it all. Was able to laugh at it all. And you know, I know she'll come through. This and I can't wait to hear the jokes about this. Because I'm sure she is taking copious notes at this hospital.

LEMON: Yes, I know. It's a lesson on just putting one foot in front of the other and keep going. She lost everything after that whole tonight show FOX late night show debacle.

OK. So let's move on now. Let's talk about some other big entertainment news today, OK? Brad Pitt, Angelina Jolie married Saturday in France after dating for nine years and six kids. We didn't find out until five days after they were married. How hard is it to keep a secret like that in Hollywood?

O'BRIEN: Impossible. And I'm so glad for both of them. And I know them both well. And they were smart. Brad said we're not getting married until everybody can legally get married and pretty much hit it. But the fact that they kept that secret, that is probably the greatest -- because everybody is watching them. And they're pretty closely guarded. But it's amazing that of all the people it takes to be in a wedding, because you can -- you know how this works. You can always get to the caterer or an invitee or something. But man, that's a hell of a secret. But I'm happy for both of them. They deserve each other. They're both great people. And I actually had a funny story about Angelina in my book.

LEMON: Yes. I want to say. That's one that was a secret, but it's not a secret anymore. Because you recall a story about bumping into Angelina Jolie in an elevator in a hotel 2002. She was newly single. Do you care to share that?

O'BRIEN: Yes. I bumped into her in the elevator, and I said, you know, you know how I talk to people. I said hey, baby, how are you? She said I'm on the phone trying to find this guy. And I really want to hook up with this guy. That's all she said. I said, well, you got my number. And we were joking about it. And then I go on in the book to talk about how great she is.

Well, the tabloids, they have made this to the point where we had sex in the elevator, I hit on her, she hit on me. No. Maybe it will sell a book or two. But she knows the real story. It was a joke. If they took everything you and I said together and put it out there, we would never work again.

LEMON: No, what you said, you, not me. And you know, as we have said, the book is called "I'll be right back after this." Why write your memoir now? You still have a long way to go. You're pretty vibrant. And as I have said, I will repeat it. You're great, funny, affable guy. What was the catalyst?

O'BRIEN: Well, you know, I didn't want to have -- everything written about me has been sort of true or half true. It's all my secrets. They think around the internet. And it was a story that I wanted to be in my voice. I wanted to tell. And the story at the very end, and I don't care what you ask about, but at the end, it's about redemption. And it's about letting people know. I was an alcoholic, a functioning alcoholic for a while. And it got to the point where I couldn't function at all. Made some horrible, stupid decisions. But, you know, the message of the book is that like Dorothy in "the wizard of oz," you can always go back home there is a solution. And there are 126 million alcoholics out there and maybe 30 million in recovery. And it's just better to know you're an alcoholic. If you think you are one, you might be one. It's better to know you're an alcoholic being in recovery than thinking you are and not be. And that's my mantra now.

And you know, I just think people will -- we've gone through the Robin Williams thing. We've gone through the Whitney Houston thing. We've gone through Philip Seymour Hoffman. But there are a lot of, quote/unquote "regular people" out there that have this problem. And it's not the -- the stigma should be gone.

LEMON: We're doing a series on it this week as a matter of fact where we talk about drug addiction and just addiction in general, because even with prescription drugs, you know, that's a huge addiction as well.

But, you know, it took you four trips to rehab to get sober. And you have been sober for six years now. What has been the thing that has come from this sobriety?

O'BRIEN: Well, I think I'm the real me now. I mean, before I got paid to have a big ego. I'm not saying ego is gone by the way. You know that. But I don't have that fear anymore. I don't have a lot of -- I have some resentments. But, you know, I try to lead my life in a way that a recovered person does. I'm in service to other people. I help a lot of people. I get up every morning and plan out my day and how should it be and what I should do. You know, I took -- I had the opportunity, Don, to take a good look at myself and say I don't like that guy right there. And I had the opportunity to change myself, transform, get well so that my son can watch me grow up, or I can watch him grow up. Maybe watch me grow up. That's a problem. Yes.

LEMON: I think that's right.

O'BRIEN: We don't need you ripping me now. Come on. What's wrong with you?

LEMON: Listen, I remember how we became friends. And it was at Dr. Wendy Walsh's 50th birthday party. We both roasted her. And you were surprised that I had worst jokes than you did. And I wrote them myself. Remember that?

O'BRIEN: I was surprised. Because I know you have a battery of people and that you can pay to write jokes. And I was stunned at how lame they were.

LEMON: Please.

O'BRIEN: However, let's tell some of those jokes.

LEMON: No, no, no, no, no, no. There are some great pictures in the book and it shows you with everyone. From your parents, it talks about growing up, your being the product of divorce. I see you here with Magic Johnson. I see you in the book with who else here? There is Mike Tyson. There is Muhammed Ali. And I also see you with your friend, your mustache as well, a huge part of your life forever. Did you have that mustache as a baby?

O'BRIEN: There is a good picture there. Now listen, yes, actually, there is my son Sean, who is a good-looking kid. The Irish people have no upper lip. I think that's how it began. And so a lot of -- that's why most cops and firemen have mustaches. And I shaved it off a couple of times. And people say hey, you look great, Pat, with that off. And then when I grew it back on, they say you know what? You really looked awful with that off. It's part of the deal. And there is only about two or three good mustaches left in the world outside of porn stars.

LEMON: See what I mean, everybody? Listen, you're a great guy. I love your transparency. And I love your perseverance. And thank you, Pat O'Brien. The book is called "I'll be back right after this." It's by Pat O'Brien. Go pick it up.

Thank you, sir. I'll see you soon, OK?

O'BRIEN: Thank you, my friend.

LEMON: All right.

Up next, the latest in luxury living. Apartment buildings with a separate entrance for residents who are not part of the one percent. They have to use what is being called the poor door. We'll explain when we come back.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

LEMON: Welcome back. How much would you sacrifice to live in a luxury high-rise with all the amenities in New York city? What if I told you wouldn't be able to use the front door? You would have to go in the poor door?

CNN's Rosa Flores has more.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

ROSA FLORES, CNN CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): An apartment building with two separate entrances. One for the haves with million views, one for the have-nots with, well, a door that opens to a side street. This might look and smell like discrimination, but it's the law. And it's been dubbed the poor door.

SANDRA WILLIAMS, AFFORDABLE HOUSING RESIDENT: In the 21st century here, it's a throwback to civil rights.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: It doesn't make me feel any different.

FLORES: Giving developers tax breaks and the right to build more lucrative luxury space in exchange for including some affordable housing units is nothing new in New York. But in 2009, under former mayor Michael Bloomberg, city government changed the zoning laws, allowing one building to be divided structurally into two segments, one with sky-high market rates and one for low income residents are and requiring each segment to have its own door. Hence the poor door concept.

Like in this luxury condo overlooking the Hudson River. It's under construction, but offering a lofty $25 million unit with ritzy amenities like a rock climbing wall, a bowling alley, and look at this gem. While in the back of the building, 55 affordable rental units for households earning between $35,000 and $50,000 a year. The largest apartments there will rent for just over $1,000 a month, about a quarter of what the average New Yorker pays for the same size apartment.

JIM BRAY, QUEENS RESIDENT: To have like a different door, I mean, it's pretty -- it's messed up.

FLORES: It looks like any other building in New York, but technically, it has two segments. And under that 2009 law, it requires two separate entrances.

MAYOR BILL DE BLASIO, NEW YORK: We will succeed as one city. FLORES: These two entrances pose one big problem for current

progressive Mayor Bill De Blasio. He voted for the 2009 measure while he was on the city council. But it was partly his stance on income inequality that won him Gracie mansion. Make no mistake, his plan is to shut the poor door for good. It's too late for residents in this Brooklyn development. Not only do they use separate doors, they actually have two separate buildings.

WILLIAMS: It's deplorable to me. And I can't believe here in the 21st century that we're still doing the classism thing about low class and middle class and upper class based on your income. And I want to be judged by my character, not the color of my skin.

FLORES: But for some New Yorkers, it's not about sharing a door.

DEANNA JOHNSON, STUDENT: It doesn't matter. Because all it is just a title, the poor door. OK. So I'm poor. Why does that matter? If I had to walk five blocks down the street to get to it, I wouldn't care at all, because $800 is super cheap.

FLORES: As they say in New York, if you can make it here, you can make it anywhere. No matter which door you came through.

Rosa Flores, CNN, New York.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

LEMON: Joining me now is Noel Bideman. He is the CEO of Ashleymadison.com. Also Mel Robbins, CNN commentator and legal analyst and Marc Lamont Hill, CNN political commentator.

OK, Marc. Listen, thousand dollars for a two-bedroom in New York city?

MARC LAMONT HILL, CNN POLITICAL COMMENTATOR: That's pretty awesome.

LEMON: I mean, come on. Really?

HILL: Yes. But at what price? I think part of the problem in our country is we think that once we give something to poor people, we create opportunity for poor people, we can have a reign of tyranny over them. Instead of philanthropy, we have (INAUDIBLE), right?

LEMON: Before we go there, it's technically deemed the same building. But it is a -- it's really two separate buildings with two separate entrances, right? And it's not -- someone in the story said, you know, because I'm black. It's really about income. It's not about color. We should get that. But it's not as if they're all living in the same building and going through different doors. It's two separate parts of the building.

HILL: Yes. But what we know throughout history is that even the optics of it, the esthetics of it and the culture logic of it can be dangerous. If you have a building where poor people ostensibly enter through one place and wealthy people enter through another place, it creates an environment where we think that poor people are second class citizens. It creates and environment where we think poor people should be hidden. Because it is not like oftentimes when you look at the blueprints for these things, the poor door isn't just a different door, it's a door that is obscure. It's a door where we sort of hide, you know what I mean? It's not coincidence that the poor door is behind the scenes and the rich door is in the front. That's a problem. And Don, if this were be a poor door, I would be in the poor door and you would be in the rich door. So, I'm feeling this, man.

LEMON: That is not true. But I have to say, in most buildings in New York City you have to have a certain number of person inside the building. And even the building that I live. And I think that's fine. I'm just reading and just going by the details of the story and the facts of the story, even though we're saying it's one building technically, it's two separate buildings. And didn't someone say that the law requires two separate entrances, but maybe they did that on purpose.

Anyway. Mel, let's look at the big picture here. This still a better option than economic ghettos where the poor only live in certain parts of town?

ROBBINS: You know, I find it fascinating.

LEMON: It's for Mel.

ROBBINS: Honestly, I find it absolutely fascinating, Don, that here is a policy that is incenting builders that are building units that cost $25 million to also include in the footprint of the development a separate building that has low-income housing. And we're basically saying it's discriminatory. This is a nonissue. Somebody branded this the poor door.

LEMON: Thank you, Mel.

ROBBINS: To make it some sort of major problem.

LEMON: Thank you.

ROBBINS: I'm serious.

LEMON: You know, I was thinking the same thing. I was trying to find the story here.

ROBBINS: Come on. This is ridiculous.

LEMON: And I understand what Marc is saying. But Marc, if it was the same building. I completely agree with you, Mel. Go ahead, sorry. Go ahead.

No, Noel, not Mel.

ROBBINS: It's two separate buildings. So you pay $25 million for a penthouse and you're entering on the side of the river. You're going to pay a thousand dollars for a two-bedroom and you enter on 62nd street, but you still get to go to great schools and be in a better neighborhood, and you're in an amazing building that is brand-new. What are you bitching about? This is insanity.

HILL: You act as if we're doing people a favor by not pushing them out of neighborhoods they've been in already. The development itself is an intrusion into the neighborhood. The poor people are already there.

LEMON: Go ahead, Noel. I want you to get in here.

NOEL BIDERMAN, CEO, SPOKESPERSON, ASHLEYMADINSON.COM: You know, I think society just set up this way. Everybody would like to snit a luxury box at the Knicks game or courtside. But there is a distinction by what you pay. And when you travel, some people are in line to get into the plane one way and some people get to bump to the front of the line. They pay for a different flight.

And even when I travel and stay at hotels, I walk into a room and say, that's for people with some sort of a VIP thing that I didn't purchase. It happens all the dime. That's just society. And again, I kind of agree with your other guest who said, listen, these people have a great opportunity to live in the best school districts, live in a great life. And so, yes. There is some differentiation between the door. But I got to believe the upside. This is a glass half empty situation is way greater than the downside.

LEMON: I need to switch gears now. We're not going to solve this in two minutes. Switching topics. A federal judge this week struck down part of Utah's ban on polygamy. It's a high profile case because a suit was brought forth by the stars of the TLC show "Sister Wives." What do you think about that, Noel?

BIDERMAN: Nobody can say that --

LEMON: Noel. Noel.

BIDERMAN: No, listen. I don't know why there is such an uproar over trying to manage people's interpersonal relationships. Clearly decide, I operate. It is very libertarian in his viewpoint, right? We allow people to do what they want to do inside and outside of marriages.

If people want to be married to multiple people, I'm not so sure why the state needs to governor that. Look, what are we trying to curtail? What is the problem that we believe that society needs to govern here? So maybe this is finally movement forward. This is the evolution of the institution of marriage, right? It never stays static. We have changed how we get married. More and more couples just cohabitate. Same-sex unions. And maybe it's time to revisit polygamy in general.

LEMON: Wow, OK. Noel, Mel, Marc, we're a pretty diverse group, right? Stick around because coming up, a study that says friendship in this country may not exactly be color-blind. That's next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

LEMON: Welcome back. Events in Ferguson over the past few weeks have put the spotlight on tensions between blacks and whites in America. But the problem may be even closer to home than you realize.

I'm back now with Noel Biderman and also Mel Robbins and Marc Lamont Hill. I'm going to have to pronounce Noel and Mel a little more clearly so they don't keep stepping on each other.

So I want to play a clip. This is from Chris Rock doing standup in 2009. He is talking about interracial friendships.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

CHRIS ROCK, COMEDIAN: We live in a crazy time with Dr. King and Mr. Mandela's dreams are coming true, and black people and white people, Asians, Indian, and everybody is hanging out together to have interracial posses. It's unbelievable what is going on, man. Unbelievable! Unbelievable. It's unbelievable. All my black friends have a bunch of white friends. And all my white friends have one black friend.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

LEMON: Raise your hand if that's true. Come on. Raise your hand. OK. So I have a lot of white friends. I have white friends. I sent out a note to my staff. And I said is this true and they said hello, friend.

So Mel, it turns out that he may be right. A new study from the public religion research institute says three-quarters of whites don't have any nonwhite friends. And according to "the Washington Post," the average white American has one black friend. The average black American has eight white friends. So what is your reaction to that, Mel Robbins?

ROBBINS: I think it's kind of depressing and probably accurate. And, you know, even though we were all arguing about the poor door thing, one of the things about relationships is that the number one factor in creating an instant connection with somebody is proximity.

And so while, you know, Marc Lamont Hill and I were just arguing back and forth about the poor door thing, the truth is the downside of separating people in separate buildings is that you don't have the chance to be in an elevator where you're in close proximity to get to know somebody. And one of the benefits of things like affirmative action is that it puts people in classrooms and in work environments where you have the chance to get to know somebody.

So I think that this is just the result of years and years of segregated situations where people were not neighbors and they were not students together and they were not getting to know one another. And I think it sucks and it's sad, to be perfectly honest with you. And I hope it changes.

LEMON: Noel Biderman, as someone who runs a very successful service, you must know the ins and outs of relationships and the type of partners people seek out, race being a factor. It's a huge factor, right? BIDERMAN: Absolutely. You know, Chris is clear lay modern day

philosopher when it comes to friendship relationships. Our expertise is more on the interpersonal side. And so, I kind of see it differently. I think America has become much more color-blind. The last tests (ph) have showed, you know, it's 10 percent one in ten marriages is now interracial in America. That's a huge jump where from we were eight years prior to that. And if you actually look at more casual relationships, it's 17 percent of couples. And in our service, it's over 25 percent. You know, a quarter of the relationships that get generated through our service are actually between people of different races.

And so, I think we're getting more and more color-blind. And clearly, the more casual a relationship, the more likely we are to pursue it. So I think it all bodes well. These things don't change overnight, but they're changing.

LEMON: Marc, is it a bad thing that people tend to hang out with people who are like them?

HILL: No, I don't think that's a problem at all. I think that people naturally you know, hang around people who they grew up with, who share interests with them, who share values with them, who share experiences with them. So, I don't fault black people or white people who tend to have friends of the same sort as them.

The question becomes what happens when you have access to other people and you still make different choice. You know, for example, have I friends who are white partially because of the places that I have attended. I work in cable news. A whole lot of white people there. I isn't got much choice.

LEMON: My God. I would like to stay here. So move on.

HILL: You know, I went to an ivy league graduate school. Not a lot of black people there. So through my interactions, I was force to -- in a good way forced to engage different groups of people, different religions, different races. You know, sets of politics. And it's been an extraordinary experience. And then I sort of held on to those things. I find sometimes my white counterparts haven't held on to those friendships or those relationships in the same way. Part of it is a demographic thing there is simply more white people than black people in that way in those spaces so they can afford to do that demographically speaking. But some of it is also cultural. You know, people want to hold on to what they have.

LEMON: And it's also self-isolation too. A lot of people, they just want to be around -- honestly, they just don't know any better, nor do they care, right?

HILL: That's exactly right.

LEMON: So Marc, let's talk about a little buzz coming from Capitol Hill in a new book by New York senator Kirsten Gillibrand. She talked about how an older male senate colleague of hers squeezed her stomach and said don't lose too much weight now, I like my girls chubby. HILL: It's deplorable. It's inexcusable. It's shameful, but sadly,

it's not surprising, you know. We live in a country where sexism is still pervasive in every sector, whether it's politics, whether it's education, whether it's everyday life. It's pervasive. What is sad, though, is someone still feels that that's OK to do.

LEMON: No Sexism, Noel Biderman, is sexism alive and well? Is this something to expect to good old boys club, do you think?

BIDERMAN: I think there are all kinds of bad habits, discrimination that still exists. It's one of the reasons why we want to see more talented young people in politics representing society. I think they think more liberally. I think they think more accurately in line with how the rest of society thinks and feels. Totally inappropriate. But I do have a site for that guy called the big and the beautiful, if he wants to check it out.

LEMON: Now, that was well-played, sir.

HILL: Smooth.

LEMON: Mel Robbins, in a separate incident, an older male colleague said to her good thing you are working out because you want to get porky. I mean, she told "People" magazine that she wasn't really offended given that the men are well into their 60s or 70s. I mean, should they be given a free pass because of their age?

ROBBINS: Of course not. But you know, I think that the message, at least for me personally and not all women feel this way, is when a man particularly an older one insults you physically about your weight or appearance because intellectually you scare the living daylights out of them. So I think for older men that do this kind of garbage, you just -- it's not giving them a pass. I look at them and feel pity that they need to go down that low because they can't match you on an intellectual level. I mean, that's how I personally -- go ahead.

LEMON: Quickly, Marc.

HILL: Real quick, I just got to say the thing we don't want to do is make it seem like an outlier. Girls from the moment -- I mean, before they even reach puberty, they're subjected to this at work, school, street harassment, walk do you think the street. It's the nature of sexism in America, and it's something we have to uproot.

LEMON: Mel, your best friend black?

ROBBINS: From both Dartmouth and NBC, yes.

HILL: I thought we were best friends, Mel.

LEMON: That's a joke between us.

Thank you, guys. Noel Biderman, Mel Robbins, Marc Lamont Hill. You guys are always a pleasure. Thank you. I will see you back here soon, OK?

BIDERMAN: Thanks a lot.

HILL: Absolutely.

LEMON: When we come back, news about Malaysian airlines flight 370. A phone call that may be a new clue about what happened to that plane.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

LEMON: It is hard to believe that the mystery of flight 370 has remained for so long.

Here is CNN's Rene Marsh with more.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

RENE MARSH, CNN AVIATION AND GOVERNMENT REGULATION CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): A new clue. Malaysia airlines flight 370 may have turned south earlier than originally thought. The new detail based on examination of data from an unsuccessful satellite phone call made to the doomed passenger jet.

WARREN TRUSS, AUSTRALIAN DEPUTY PRIME MINISTER: Malaysian airlines ground staff sought to make quack the aircraft using a satellite phone. The detailed research that is being done now has been able to identify or trace that phone call and helped position the aircraft.

MARSH: The new details put a sharp focus on the southernmost section of the current search area. It is still believed the missing Boeing 777 is some place along this seventh arc where the plane made its last satellite connection. It's been more than five months since the plane with 239 people on board vanished from radar. Not one piece of debris has been found.

DATO' SRI LIOW TIONG LAI, MALAYSIA MINISTER OF TRANSPORT: We need to find the plane. We need to find the black box in the plane so that we can have a conclusion.

MARSH: The deep sea search is expected to resume in three weeks using towed sonar equipment and video cameras. The price tag for a 300-day search, $48 million.

In the meantime, two ships have been mapping the ocean floor. What they've discovered below is dramatic.

TRUSS: Quite remarkable geographical features, including a couple of volcanoes. In some places, the sea depth is as little as 600 meters, and then falls away in just a very short distance to 6,600 meters.

MARSH: After flight 370 went missing, a second disaster for Malaysia airlines when pro-Russian militants shot MH17 out of the sky over Ukraine. All 298 people on board died. The twin disasters have created a financial catastrophe for the airline. It lost $97.4 million in the most recent quarter. As people tweet photos purportedly showing empty seats.

(END VIDEOTAPE) LEMON: That was CNN's Rene Marsh reporting. Thank you, Rene.

Now I want to bring in Michael Exner, he is the chairman of the board of radio metrics and co-founder of the American Mobile Satellite Corporation. He joins us now by phone.

Good evening, sir. Nearly six months after flight MH370 went missing, Australian officials now think they have a better idea of the plane's flight path. What is this new data telling us?

MICHAEL EXNER CO-FOUNDER, AMERICAN MOBILE SATELLITE CORPORATION (via phone): Well, it's telling us that inmarsat is now in closer agreement with what the independent group has been advocating since June 17th. They're moving the search area much closer to the area that we pinpointed about two months ago.

LEMON: So how is this different from the inmarsat data and all the other data we had received? Was that all wrong?

EXNER: No, sir. It's all the same data. What has happened is they have refined the so-called BFO analysis. That's the Burst Frequency Offset, which contains Doppler data. And that Doppler data is crucial to determining where on the seventh arc the airplane ended up. And what inmarsat has done recently is to relook at some of the Doppler data that had been previously ignored in the analysis, namely the Doppler data that occurred at 1840 when this first phone call attempt occurred. It wasn't the phone call per se, it's really the Doppler data that went with that phone call.

LEMON: OK. So it was from -- wasn't it a failed phone call made by Malaysian airlines ground staff to the plane's satellite phone?

EXNER: Well, it failed to connect to a live person, but it connected to the satellite transceiver on board the aircraft, and we got observations from that that tell what's the Doppler data was at that time.

LEMON: Michael Exner, thank you.

EXNER: Thank you, Don.

LEMON: We'll be right back.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

LEMON: I'm Don Lemon. Thank you so much for joining us over the past two hours. That is it for us tonight. I will see you back here next week.

Now, Natalie Allen and Erin Barnett live with CNN International.