Return to Transcripts main page

CNN NEWSROOM

Aftermath of Police Shooting in South Carolina; What's Next for Tsarnaev?; Interview with Boston Bombing Survivor. Aired 10-10:30a ET

Aired April 9, 2015 - 10:00   ET

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


[10:00:08] ANDY SCHOLES, CNN SPORTS: All right. Nearly six weeks after knee surgery, Bulls guard Derrick Rose back in action last night. D Rose playing 19 minutes as the Bulls took on the match. He looked pretty good. He scored nine points in the game. But the Bulls would go on to lose this one to the Magic 105-103. Now Rose will be back in action tonight on TNT at 8:00 Eastern, as the Bulls visit the Heat.

Miami looking to try to battle for that last playoff spot in the East. That game followed by the Blazers and the Warriors.

Carol, this is my favorite time of the year. Baseball under way, it's Masters week. And we got the NBA playoffs coming up next week as well.

CAROL COSTELLO, CNN ANCHOR: Yes. The Tigers have won their first two games. Did I mention that?

(LAUGHTER)

SCHOLES: You would.

COSTELLO: I know. Andy Scholes, thanks so much.

The next hour of CNN NEWSROOM starts now.

And good morning. I'm Carol Costello, thank you so much for joining me. We start this hour in North Charleston, South Carolina, where we're awaiting the release of that police dash cam video which may reveal new details about the traffic stop that turned deadly.

Overnight residents of North Charleston gathered at a candlelight vigil remembering Walter Scott and demanding change from their city. For its part, the city is moving swiftly, firing Officer Michael Slager and moving forward with a plan for every police officer to be outfitted with a body cam.

Martin Savidge is in North Charleston this morning with more.

Any word on when that dash cam video will be made public?

MARTIN SAVIDGE, CNN NATIONAL CORRESPONDENT: No, Carol. We have not had an update on what the timing will be on when that video is going to be released. And really trying to -- from talking to officials -- understand what could be on that video and what may or may not be seen and heard.

First and foremost, you're only going to have the initial cash dam which would be from Officer Slager when he makes the initial stop. But that's when that could really be telling because I guess what many people want to understand here is how did it all begin, and yes, we have the police reports, at least those that were made by other officers. But now many people find those in question given what the video showed versus what the officer said.

And then there are going to be the things you won't see because the shooting takes place out of the range of the dash cam, it's believed. But there might still be audio. There could be something that gives us an indication. And of course, any additional information for an investigation like this is sincerely wanted -- Carol.

COSTELLO: Well, something else that people are eager to hear or somebody else, I should say, people are eager to hear from, there was a -- there was another man inside the car when Mr. Scott was pulled over. Do we know anything about him?

SAVIDGE: We know very little at this particular time other than it was a male and, according to the family, not a relation. Beyond that, we know very little about this person, as to what they may have seen or what their version of events is. And part of the reason for that, and this is just from talking to those in this community, is remember with the person, the bystander who took the video. That person was very fearful coming forward because they were worried of some kind of retribution.

The same is probably true here, that there is just concern that this story right now is -- well, just so controversial, that they feel it's best to stay in the background, but we're digging on that -- Carol.

COSTELLO: And a final question for you, Martin. Police say that every officer in North Charleston will be wearing body cams. As in when?

SAVIDGE: Yes. Well, it was said as soon as possible. Some indication that those cameras could come in next week, but you -- you just don't deploy them haphazardly. And so there will be some training required. But meanwhile, there is also a push now to put these body cameras on officers across the state. Here is one lawmaker talking about it earlier.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

MARLON KIMPSON, SOUTH CAROLINA STATE SENATOR: The video was very, very disturbing, and that is why I have filed a bill to require all law enforcement officers to wear body cameras.

CHRIS CUOMO, CNN ANCHOR, NEW DAY: Are you getting any resistance at all, or is that expected to fly through the legislature in light of this situation?

KIMPSON: Well, nothing flies through the South Carolina General Assembly. But I can tell you this, since the shooting on Saturday, I am -- the bill has garnered bipartisan support, most recently the chairman of the Senate Transportation Committee.

CUOMO: Good.

KIMPSON: Republican Senator Larry Grooms has signed on. And so our work will escalate early next week as we have called an emergency subcommittee meeting to get the bill out of subcommittee.

CUOMO: Good.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

SAVIDGE: That was State Senator Marlon Kimpson. And as you heard, he is pushing forward on trying to get those body cameras out. When it comes to this particular community there is still those especially in the minority neighborhoods that say they need a lot more than just body cameras to bring about the change that's needed for this police force -- Carol.

[10:05:15] COSTELLO: All right. Martin Savidge reporting live from North Charleston, South Carolina, this morning.

The witness who recorded those images of Walter Scott is speaking out about his decision to record that fateful encounter and why his world will never be the same.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

FEIDIN SANTANA, WITNESS WHO SHOT VIDEO: I even thought about erasing the video.

UNIDENTIFIED REPORTER: Why?

SANTANA: I don't know. I felt that my life, you know, with this information might be, like I say, in danger. And I tried to -- I thought about erasing the video and just getting out of the community of North Charleston and living someplace else.

UNIDENTIFIED REPORTER: Leaving town?

SANTANA: Yes.

UNIDENTIFIED REPORTER: Because you were that scared?

SANTANA: Yes. I knew -- like I say, I knew that as soon as they saw the video, I knew that the cop didn't do -- didn't do the right way -- the right thing. And, like I say, I feel kind of scared about that.

UNIDENTIFIED REPORTER: But you decided instead of deleting the video, you decided to do what?

SANTANA: I decided -- I looked at the police report. You know, I went home after I finished working, I went home. Like I say, I was -- people went to the barber shop, you know, talking about what happened, and next to my house, it's right there, and I saw the police report. I read it. It wasn't like that.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

COSTELLO: So a lot of people are asking this morning, was there a police cover-up, because you saw that officer drop something near Mr. Scott's body. Well, if there was a cover-up, was just the officer involved? Were there other officers allegedly involved?

We could have some evidence of that. And we'll show you that evidence right now. For example, officers called in to dispatch after Mr. Scott was shot in the back. Listen.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

MICHAEL SLAGER, FORMER NORTH CHARLESTON POLICE: 223 to dispatch, shots fired. Subject is down. He grabbed my taser.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

COSTELLO: All right. That's just part of it. I'm going to let you listen to the rest of it little later. But let's talk about that part. We now know that's not exactly how that went down.

Joey Jackson is HLN's legal analyst. He's a criminal defense attorney. He joins me now to parse this out.

So the officer said -- good morning, Joey. The officer said the suspect grabbed my taser. But in an incident report another officer named Sergeant Gan says Slager told him that Mr. Scott took my taser. That's a different word. Grab and took have different meanings, right?

JOEY JACKSON, HLN LEGAL ANALYST: Certainly do.

COSTELLO: But we saw by the video, right, that Mr. Scott did not have the taser?

JACKSON: That was very apparent. And obviously, listen, Carol. I don't want to paint police with this broad brush. We know police protect us, they serve, they serve with decency, they respect communities. And, you know, for that they deserve a debt of gratitude. I do want to limit my discussion to this particular issue. It's very troubling for a variety of reasons. The first reason, of course, is the videotape speaks for itself.

And Carol, in the lead-in to this, you know, there were discussions with Martin, concerning the release of the dash cam. We all want to know exactly how the incident unfolded, how did it begin. And what led to this alleged murder, I'll just say. OK. So that's important. But the reality is notwithstanding whatever might be on that video, we know what we see. And what we see is quite troubling.

And if you look at a cover-up, I think the first thing you need to look at is what was the officer doing after shooting and killing, OK, Mr. Scott, walking away after handcuffing, handcuffing him, getting something which appeared to be a taser. It will be subjected to further analysis, dropping it by the body and then later picking it up. And so that within itself is troubling. Now let's move on. The next thing, of course, that needs to be

evaluated are the police reports. You've indicated what are in those reports. And the bottom line is what is in those reports? Is it consistent or is it inconsistent for what's on that video? If it's inconsistent then, you say, I say, we say, whoever says, you could it what you want, but it would appear to be a cover-up.

COSTELLO: Right. So an inconsistency. This would appear inconsistent with Officer Slager told another officer investigating his -- his case that Mr. Scott took his taser because obviously he didn't.

Also, Joey, I want you to listen to how Officer Slager then described in this dispatch audio Walter Scott's injuries. Listen.

OK. We have a full screen. We don't have the audio of this portion. I don't know why but this will do. We took it right from the audio. This is Officer Michael Slager. He said, "Gunshot wounds to the chest, the right side, located another gunshot wound to the buttocks."

We now know that of course Mr. Scott was shot in the back. So why would the officer say that there were bullet wounds to his chest?

JACKSON: Well, apparently it was setting up the narrative that could be told later in the absence of the video that he shot him from the front. Now clearly an autopsy report would examine where the bullets went in. But sometimes There are distinctions that need to be made between where it went in, where it went out. Is it that clear in terms of where the bullet went in, where it went out, did it go in, did it go out?

[10:10:14] And so I think what you see here, if you match together three things, very important, Carol, number one, the putting of that taser next to the body. Number two, the actual writing of the report, whether it's the grabbing of the gun, the taking of the gun. Clearly you're setting up something to justify why you shot. And then number three, the indication that the shots were fired, as we just read, from the very front. And so that sets up and we -- call it what you will. But it certainly has the air, the essence of a cover-up.

COSTELLO: There were other officers that came on the scene a little later, right?

JACKSON: Yes.

COSTELLO: We saw one of them. He didn't appear to be administering first aid.

JACKSON: No.

COSTELLO: We don't know. But he told dispatch he was. Does that matter?

JACKSON: Well, in matters inasmuch as, you know, if you're misrepresenting one thing to me, Carol, what else are you misrepresenting? And so you need to be able to trust what someone says. And would it matter whether first aid were rendered? From the looks of it, having been fired upon eight different times, five of which we understand at this point we'll get further clarity, you know, actually struck him in various parts of his body.

Would rendering first aid have mattered? No. But should the attempt have been made to save his life? Should the attempt have been made to focus your efforts and energy on the preservation of his life as opposed to your own in terms of your future, any discipline, any discharge and any criminality that you as an officer may have engaged in. And that's the essence of a cover-up, and that's what's troubling, and that's what has the community certainly very concerned and the family disheartened.

COSTELLO: So would investigators ask Officer Slager whether he did not administer CPR because he thought it would have been better if the suspect died?

JACKSON: Well -- oh boy. You know, it certainly -- that shouldn't be the standard. But the reality is that he certainly would have had some explaining to do. But at the end of the day, we have to see would it have mattered in terms of what the suspect or victim said.

COSTELLO: Right.

JACKSON: If you match it up against what the officer said. We always expect and we hope that everybody's testimony is evaluated fairly and accurately and completely, but would the officer have had the upper hand but not for this video? And that's what's troubling.

COSTELLO: And then my final question, I would assume that these kinds of investigations are very difficult because there's a tendency for police officers to stand up for other officers. And it's understandable why. I mean it is. But you also have to tell the truth when these kinds of cases arise.

JACKSON: Absolutely.

COSTELLO: So how difficult would it be for investigators? Because you know, police departments investigate police departments. Police investigate police in this case.

JACKSON: Right. Well, we certainly know that in this instance we have the independence of the state entity that's investigating. They call it SLED, the South Carolina Law Enforcement Division, is investigating. And so that in and of itself could give you a little bit of comfort in terms of who actually is on top of this investigation. It's not the locality itself investigating itself. But still it's law enforcement.

And so ultimately we just expect and we hope that no matter who gives testimony, that it's accurate, it's complete. We know there's a brotherhood. There's a lot of respect amongst police officers, there's a lot of respect in the community for police officers. But ultimately we just -- it's difficult to investigate. But we hope and suspect that they'll tell the truth in terms of what they know. The video certainly is not lying to us. COSTELLO: All right. Joey Jackson, thanks so much. I appreciate it.

JACKSON: Nice talking to you, Carol.

COSTELLO: Still to come in the NEWSROOM, with the death penalty now on the table for the admitted Boston bomber, which newspaper is arguing against it? That would be "The Boston Globe." We'll tell you why next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[10:17:03] COSTELLO: No surprises when Dzhokhar Tsarnaev was convicted on all 30 counts, but an unexpected "Boston Globe" editorial argues against giving him the death penalty in light of the trauma still felt in the city. Four killed in a most horrible way. Dozens lost limbs, hundreds witnessed it all. But there it is in the "Boston Globe," the headline, "Spare Dzhokhar Tsarnaev the Death Penalty."

Now the jury will start delivering the death penalty phase in the weeks to come. It will be a difficult decision despite the nature of the crime.

Ashleigh Banfield anchors "LEGAL VIEW." She's here to talk about all of this.

Thanks for being here, Ashleigh. I appreciate it.

ASHLEIGH BANFIELD, CNN ANCHOR, "LEGAL VIEW": Glad to be here.

COSTELLO: So I want to read a few excerpts from "The Boston Globe" editorial and then get your thoughts on the other side. So here's part of it. The defense team -- quote, "The defense team hammered away at the argument and backed it up with evidence that Tamerlan was the primary instigator. For jurors who believe execution should be reserved for the worst criminals, the lawyers laid out a clear path that conclude Dzhokhar wasn't even the worst of the Tsarnaevs."

But if the jurors convicted Dzhokhar Tsarnaev of all 30 counts is that really entering their minds?

BANFIELD: Well, let's be really clear when we talk about the death penalty in United States. And not all states. We talk about it being for the worst of the worst of criminals. Not the worst of the worst of brothers. And I'm not sure it's entirely the case that the jury was convinced that he was led along by his brother. I'm not sure that we know that yet. Certainly they believe in conspiracy on every single charge and certainly they believe in aiding and abetting, which one of those two words was in every single charge. So I'm not 100 percent there with the "Boston Globe."

COSTELLO: OK. "The Boston Globe" also writes, "Tsarnaev was 19 years old at the time of the bombing, he was apparently a heavy drug user, he had no prior criminal record. Taken as a whole and alongside evidence of his brother's dominant role, they should plant seeds of doubt in the jury's mind." BANFIELD: You know, it's not about the seeds of doubt. If you just

want to talk about the federal statute, it's about aggravators versus mitigators. Now those seeds of doubt are now past. We're out of the criminal -- we're out of the guilt-innocence state. So now it's about aggravators, how many does he meet? Mitigators, how many does he meet? And then it's up to 12 hopefully careful, thoughtful people to find the weight somewhere in their reasonability.

It's about them in their heart. There's no math. There's no science. There's no formula for it. There's just aggravators versus mitigators. It's not about doubt at this point necessarily.

COSTELLO: OK. "The Boston Globe" also says, quote, "In sorting through such life and death considerations jurors face an unenviable task and mixed precedent. The Oklahoma City bomber Timonthy McVeigh was put to death, the Unabomber Ted Kaczynski was not. Tsarnaev obviously should spend the rest of his life in prison, his defense has already made a good case that he does not meet the exceptionally high standards for a federal execution."

I guess the bottom line here is you can never really predict what the jury is going to do or what's in their heart.

[10:20:02] BANFIELD: You can never predict a jury. I'm just going to say O.J. off the bat. It's my number one reason why no one should never predict a jury. You also don't know if there are stealth jurors. And those are people who went through voir dire and said I absolutely can apply the death penalty in a fair and balance way, but in their heart of hearts, they want on that jury so that they can make sure it doesn't happen.

You don't know if there's someone like that on this panel. But I'm going to really differ here with the "Boston Globe." The exceptionally high standards for a federal excuse, I'm sorry, Carol, they were met. Those four people right there were blown to bits, and one of them was shot to death while he was in the line of duty. And he is a law enforcement officer. And that is a standard that was met for this federal death penalty.

You can read it in the statute, I highly encourage viewers as we go through this as Americans, because this is an American case, to go and read what the aggravators and mitigators are. The standards were met. It's now just the reasonability of these 12 people.

COSTELLO: Ashleigh Banfield, thanks so much. I appreciate it.

BANFIELD: Thank you.

COSTELLO: Make sure you catch Ashleigh in a matter of hours on "LEGAL VIEW." It starts at noon Eastern right here on CNN.

My next guest is all too familiar with the horrors of that day. Those bombs went off in Boston. Karen Brassard and her husband Ron are survivors. He severed an artery, she was left with fragments from one of the bombs in her ankle. This image captures the moment Ron's life was saved. Last hour I

spoke with one of the men who saved him about whether Tsarnaev's life should be spared.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

ROBERT WHEELER, BOSTON MARATHON FIRST RESPONDER: I think life is a precious thing and, you know, letting him continue to have life even in a prison cell is -- you know, can be a wonderful thing in itself. Does he deserve that is something that I trouble myself with a lot.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

COSTELLO: Karen Brassard joins me now on the phone.

Karen, thank you for taking the time to talk with me.

KAREN BRASSARD, BOSTON BOMBING SURVIVOR: Of course.

COSTELLO: Robert seemed so conflicted about whether he thought Tsarnaev should be put to death. Are you conflicted, too?

BRASSARD: I was for quite a long time. It was an interesting process for me because prior to having had this incident happen, I thought I knew what I felt. I thought, you know, if there's no question that somebody took their life, that they didn't deserve to live. But when you're actually asked and your opinion is listened to, it's a lot more difficult to say, yes, go ahead and take that person's life.

However, I have come to determine that I do think he should have his -- the death penalty. And the reason I say that is because he knowingly took the lives of other people, and he -- as far as I'm concerned, he should not be able to have the joys of life that he took from other people. And that is reading books or listening to music or visiting with his family members. Those things were taken away from too many families.

COSTELLO: His attorney Judy Clarke is going to put on the stand people who will try to prove that Dzhokhar Tsarnaev was 19 years old, he was drug addled, his brother was a dominant force in his life, and he just followed along. Is there anything they could say to make you believe that?

BRASSARD: No, there isn't. The whole drug part of it is something new to me. I don't recall having heard anything about him being a heavy drug user. But regardless, it doesn't make a difference to me. He was 19 years old. But he is an educated young man. He knew what he was doing. He knew what the circumstances were when that bomb went off. And he made the choice. So as far as I'm concerned, he made the choice to take the death penalty.

COSTELLO: Karen, will you be listening to the death penalty phase of this trial?

BRASSARD: Absolutely. I'll be there as often as I can, yes.

COSTELLO: Karen Brassard, thank you so much for joining me this morning. I appreciate it.

Still to come in the NEWSROOM, Iran says not so fast. The nuclear deal still not done. The mixed messages from the United States and Iran next.

[10:24:24]

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

COSTELLO: The White House certainly appears to be mocking Israel via Twitter. Take a look at this. This is the tweet getting a lot of attention online. It was sent out by the White House on Wednesday. And it shows a cartoon diagram of a bomb. Of course, that's not what we're seeing over there. It's all part of an attempt to try and sell this ongoing nuclear deal with Iran. If it looks familiar, that's because it is.

Remember this? Actually, did we see the tweet with the bomb or did I just miss that? Don't have it. So I can't even show you the comparison. So let's head to Nic Robertson and get the latest from him on the continuing tension between Israel and the United States and Israel over this Iran deal.

Hi, Nic. Can you hear me, Nic? Nic?

NIC ROBERTSON, CNN SENIOR INTERNATIONAL CORRESPONDENT: Sorry, Carol. We've got a bad line for communications. Can you ask me the question again, please?

COSTELLO: Actually, we're going to take a break. We'll be back with much more in the NEWSROOM. We'll get it together I promise.

[10:29:00]

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)