Return to Transcripts main page

PRIMETIME JUSTICE WITH ASHLEIGH BANFIELD

Pregnant Mom Shot Dead in Car in Front of Baby; Corrections Guards Repeatedly Tase Restrained Teen; Disturbing Video Emerges; Bizarre Custody Battle; Monkey See, Monkey Sue. Aired 8-9p ET

Aired August 1, 2017 - 20:00   ET

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


(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

[20:00:00] UNIDENTIFIED MALE: She was the innocent victim of a horrific crime.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Tonight, a pregnant young mom is gunned down as she sits in her own car.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: If somebody would shoot a sweet little woman like that, a person like me don`t stand a chance.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: The manhunt intensifies.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: And an armed and dangerous killer is on the run.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: We`re just all out here, like, talking, and next thing you know, he just came out of nowheres and done it.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Shocking jailhouse video. The 18-year-old is placed in a restraint chair for his protection and the protection of others.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: He was very combative.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: He reportedly spits at deputies, repeatedly struggles to get out of the restraints. Deputies bring out a taser, using the stun

gun on Norris multiple times. Did corrections officers go too far in restraining an unruly prisoner?

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: When it comes to being a good parent, should a low IQ factor in?

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: They`re thinking that because we have this disability that we can`t safely parent our child.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Amy Fabrini (ph) and Eric Ziegler (ph) say they lost custody of their two sons because of their mental limitations.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Monkey see, monkey sue.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: And what might be the most famous selfie wasn`t snapped by human hands.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: It`s absurd to begin with to say that a monkey can be sued for copyright infringement.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: The battle over the monkey selfies heats up in federal court.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

JOEY JACKSON, HLN HOST: A pleasant good evening, everyone. I`m Joe Jackson, filling in for asking Ban field. And this is PRIMETIME JUSTICE.

You know, an armed and dangerous killer is on the loose after a cold- blooded shooting at an apartment complex in Tennessee. Now, the victim, a 22-year-old pregnant woman, was sitting in her car when out of nowhere, she

was shot right in the face. Take a look.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: We were just all out here, like, talking. And next thing you know, he just came out of nowheres and done it, and then just

left.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: He just came out and looked, like, in the back of the seat. And he saw -- he looked at the kid, and then he came up and just,

like, pulled out in front and just, like, shot, like it was a nothing. Like, he didn`t even hesitate.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: The first thing was took the girl out. I didn`t want her in there at that time. And I called 911. They told us to, like, put,

like, our hands down, like, in between her breasts and then count to -- yes, do CPR.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

JACKSON: The victim -- that would be Rebekah Thompson, also known as Stacy Magee -- was not only pregnant at the time of the shooting, but her 8-

month-old daughter was also in that car. Now, the girl was not physically harmed, thank goodness. A community, as you could imagine, is outraged and

concerned. But still, there have been no arrests. Investigators are thinking that this was a premeditated killing.

Now, Jessica Griffith is a reporter with CNN affiliate WCYB. She joins us from Bristol. Please take us through this. What are the facts, what do we

know, who wanted her dead, how did this happen? So many questions for you.

JESSICA GRIFFITH, WCYB CORRESPONDENT: Yes, we have a lot of questions right now and a lot of unanswered questions right now. What we do know is

that it was last Monday, right around 9:30 on the 24th. And Stacy was just sitting in her vehicle at this public housing in Johnson City waiting for a

friend for about 30 minutes.

And that`s when the police say that her killer showed up and just walked up to her car and shot her right in the face. So just really intentional, it

seems, and that she was kind of targeted, is what police are saying.

JACKSON: Now, Jessica, any indication of who might have wanted her dead? Has there been -- and I -- you know, we`re fortunate to have the lieutenant

on, which I`ll get to momentarily. But anything about that, any motives, any family relationships, any friends? What do we know about that?

GRIFFITH: Yes, I mean, I don`t want to speculate right now with this. I`m sure the lieutenant could get more into detail on the suspect. But what

we`ve been told is very little information on the suspect. All we know right now for a description is that police say it was a black man driving a

black vehicle with tinted windows and he was wearing a red and black hoodie. So we don`t know too much information.

Some family members I talked to, some friends have their idea of who they think it may have been, but again, I don`t want to speculate on anything

about that. But just a horrific incident, something that doesn`t really happen here very often. So the whole community, as you were saying, is

just completely shocked by this and really wanting to bring justice for Stacy and her family and friends.

JACKSON: Needless to say, Jessica -- and if I can ask you, she was six months pregnant, is that about right, and there was another child in the

car, as well? What do we know about that?

GRIFFITH: Yes, so I was talking to just one of her friends, or someone she was visiting, and he said that her daughter was sitting in the back seat of

the vehicle. I was told it was a 6-month-old daughter, and she`s in now the custody of Child Protective Services, or she was as of last week. So

just something that, you know, no 6-month-old child, or any child should have to see or go through and see their mother have to suffer through this.

So just a crazy incident. And yes, a 6-month-old child, and she was also pregnant, so something just really horrific and tragic.

[20:05:02]JACKSON: Boggles the mind. Jessica Griffith, we appreciate you being here and reporting on that.

We also have Lieutenant Kevin Peters. He`s with the Johnson City Police Department Criminal Investigation Division. He joins us from Johnson City.

So please take us through such a sad and tragic occurrence. Can you give us an update as to the investigation? What are you doing?

KEVIN PETERS, JOHNSON CITY POLICE DEPARTMENT: Well, it is, Joey. It is a tragic incident. And right now, this case is a top priority for the

Johnson City Police Department, and we are determined to bring closure for the victim`s family, as well as producing a quality case for our district

attorney`s office for prosecution.

Right now, we`re looking for a black male, possibly 5-foot-10 to 6-foot tall, 190 to 220 pounds, and just like Jessica said, wearing a red and

black hoodie. He was last seen getting into a dark-colored vehicle with very dark tinted windows and fleeing the scene from that point on.

JACKSON: Lieutenant, what kind of community cooperation are you getting? I`m presuming you`re interviewing everyone and anyone who might have

information. Are they being forthcoming? How are you finding these people? What are you doing in that regard?

PETERS: Well, right now, we have -- there was several witnesses there at the scene. They were the ones that provided the general description for

us. We have interviewed them and reinterviewed them just to see if they remembered anything from that night.

They all state the same thing, that the male was in the vicinity a little bit earlier, and then he had left and disappeared for about 15 minutes, and

then come back in a dark-colored vehicle, at which point, he got out and walked up to the victim`s car and fired one time, and then got back in the

car and fled.

JACKSON: And I just want to note for the viewers, as you were speaking to us, Lieutenant, we have the Crimestoppers` number there. And so certainly,

if anyone has information, right, you see something, you say something, 423-434-6158. Please call that number. Help out the police, if you could.

So lieutenant, there`s information that it`s believed that this was premeditated. What is leading to the belief that this was intentional?

PETERS: Well, we do feel like the victim was targeted in this case and basically because from the witness statements, the suspect got out of the

car, walked straight to the car, no words were exchanged between him and the victim, shot one time. And therefore, we feel pretty confident in

saying that he knew who he was going after.

JACKSON: And with regard to the investigation, I`m presuming that social media may play a role here. Not only that, right, you have Facebook, you

have other types of social media there, you have e-mails, you have text messages. To what extent are your investigators looking into that?

PETERS: Well, we`re monitoring all social media outlets very closely at this point in time. We have gathered some information from the social

media outlets. And we`ll again continue to monitor that and follow up on any leads obtained from there.

JACKSON: And may I ask you, Lieutenant -- we understand that the mom was six months -- excuse me, six weeks pregnant at the time this occurred. I

presume that any charges would go to the killing of that precious fetus that was inside of her, is that correct?

PETERS: Well, the victim was seven to eight weeks pregnant at the time of her death. Right now, Tennessee does not recognize a law to prosecute on

an unborn fetus.

JACKSON: So as a result, they would only be -- it would only be accountability as to her killing, is that right?

PETERS: That`s correct.

JACKSON: OK. Lieutenant, if you could stand by.

You know, we`re privileged enough to have Lainie Shepherd here. She`s Stacy Magee`s mother. I want to welcome her. She joins us from Johnson

City. The first thing I have to say to you is that we all here at HLN PRIMETIME JUSTICE send our most heartfelt sympathies to you. We certainly

appreciate your attendance here, and being here.

What do you want people to know about your daughter? Let`s talk about her first.

LAINIE SHEPHERD, VICTIM`S MOTHER (via telephone): My daughter -- she was a very loving and caring person. She`d just light up the room when she

walked in there. She had such a beautiful smile. She had a lot of dreams. She was a wonderful mother, a wonderful daughter (INAUDIBLE) I`m sorry.

She would do anything for anybody! I just don`t understand who would want to hurt her like this! I don`t understand!

JACKSON: Take your time, Lainie. Could you tell us whether you knew her friends or anyone who might have meant her ill, or someone who might just

have had it out for her? Could you give us any sense of that?

SHEPHERD: The only person I can think of that would even want to do anything wrong to her is the person that didn`t want her to have the baby.

I mean, he`s the only person that was angry about it. Other than that, I don`t know anybody!

[20:10:05]JACKSON: Lainie, may I ask you about that? And again, take your time. But when you say someone was angry with not wanting her to have the

baby, how is it that you were made aware of this? And have you met this person and have you seen or been in contact with this person since?

SHEPHERD: No, I have not been in contact with him. And it`s my daughter. She`s the one that told me. When she told me she was pregnant, that she

had told the person that she believed she was pregnant from, and he said that he didn`t want her to have it. He wanted her to have an abortion, and

she told him no. And he was angry.

And that`s all I know. And that`s coming from my daughter`s mouth. But no, I have not talked to him. I don`t know him.

JACKSON: And Lainie, just as far as who this person may be, and we understand -- you know, we don`t have all the details, but you`re just

trying to make your best educated guess about what could have happened. Was there any history between this individual and your daughter that would

have been violent or turbulent or anything else?

SHEPHERD: Not that I know of. I mean, she always talked good of him up until then. You know, she said that he was a good person, and you know,

that he did a lot of good things for kids and stuff like that, you know? And then when she got pregnant, that`s when the trouble came in.

JACKSON: Have you been in touch with the authorities and have you given this information to them?

SHEPHERD: Yes.

JACKSON: OK.

SHEPHERD: Yes, I have told them everything that my daughter had told me.

JACKSON: And as far as any -- if you could tell us -- I know the authorities are doing search warrants. They`ll look for DNA and other

things that, you know, you may have. Have any authorities been over to maybe collect evidence from you?

SHEPHERD: No.

JACKSON: OK.

(CROSSTALK)

JACKSON: Go ahead, Lainie. Not yet?

SHEPHERD: I`m sorry. No, they haven`t. They`ve talked to me, but they haven`t collected anything from me, no.

JACKSON: Lainie, stand by one minute. I just want to bring some exceptionally talented attorneys in here for one moment. We have Bob

Bianchi. He, of course, is a former prosecutor. He joins me in New York. We also have in Washington, Rene Sandler. Rene, too long, no see.

But from a prosecutor`s perspective, Bob, let me just go to you -- I know it`s a case in development. They don`t even have anyone yet. But what`s

your thinking as a prosecutor, and how are you piecing this together to get justice for this beautiful girl that was killed, and the mom, who is --

you`ve heard the interview. She`s just shattered.

BOB BIANCHI, FORMER PROSECUTOR: Right. So as a former homicide prosecutor, the first thing I want to do is not start jumping to

conclusions on a case. This is the death knell for many investigations. We want to absorb a lot of data. Electronic data is going to be important.

Developing and establishing motive is going to be important. Doing a victimology, timeline, anybody who may have had a motive, like there was

just mentioned by Mom, there may be, but you don`t want to just go in that direction. I`ve seen that happen, Joey. Oh, it must be the husband that

did it. It must be the -- and so all the other evidence is disregarded.

JACKSON: Right.

BIANCHI: They`re going to be taking down cameras, and they`re going to also be looking at -- with all due respect, this is what you need to do as

a prosecutor. Was she involved in anything that may have led to some sort -- we`ve seen gambling issues, drug-related issues. You`re going to try to

investigate every single thing. But the electronic data, Facebook and social media right now to me are key because it does sound like it could be

even a hit for hire. You just don`t know under these circumstances.

JACKSON: Yes. So Rene, let me get to you. You know, we know you`re a former prosecutor, as well as a defense attorney. What is just your

general thinking about the case? Obviously, the police believe there`s some premeditation involved. Something -- Somebody wanted her dead. What

are your thoughts?

RENE SANDLER, DEFENSE ATTORNEY: Well, I think right now, as my colleague just said, it`s time to scour the earth for any possible leads, social

media, DNA, any type of forensics. It sounds like there`s just nothing right now in terms of clues to point to a person, or even a number of

different potential individuals.

But I agree with Bob, and I think right now, the police have their hands full to try and identify any leads that are possible to try and solve this

crime.

JACKSON: Rene Sandler, stand by. Bob Bianchi, stand by. Lainie, I know we have you. We thank you very much for being here. Is there anything

else that you want to say or you want to say to any potential person who might be responsible?

SHEPHERD: I just want to say that if anybody has any information, to please come forward. Please come forward! Without you coming forward, we

can`t catch him! (INAUDIBLE)

JACKSON: We join you in that, Lainie. And again, our sympathies. We have the Crimestopper number here for everyone. It`s 423-434-6158. Please,

anyone who knows anything, contact the authorities and let`s bring matters to justice. You know, let`s find out who it is and make sure they`re held

accountable.

[20:15:14]OK, everyone stand by. We have shocking video of a teenage suspect who`s in custody. And you know what? He looks like he`s being

restrained by three officers when a fourth officer walks up to him and tases him. And he`s held in that chair, he`s repeatedly tased, and now

he`s suing the officers, claiming that they used excessive force. Stand by.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

JACKSON: A former jail inmate is suing a Tennessee sheriff`s department -- that`s Jordan Norris, says that excessive force was used to restrain him

following an arrest. You see him right there. Now, authorities say that Norris was combative and put in a restraint chair, as you see on the video.

A spit guard was put in his mouth and he spat and tried to bite officers.

And to many viewers, the most disturbing thing about the video is the point at which the prisoner is tased.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

[20:20:04]MIKE BREEDLOVE, CHEATHAM COUNTY SHERIFF: He makes comments that if we arrest him, he was going to shoot us or kill us. He was very

combative.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

JACKSON: After seeing the video, the sheriff asked the Tennessee Bureau of Investigations to look into the matter further, and then put three

correction officers on paid administrative leave.

CNN national correspondent Martin Savidge has been working on this story all day. Martin, always a pleasure to see you. He joins us from Atlanta.

So what led to the tasing?

MARTIN SAVIDGE, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Well, this was November of last year, and as you mentioned, Jordan had been taken into custody. The exact reason

for his arrest is disputed, depending on whether you talk to the attorneys or to law enforcement.

JACKSON: Not a surprise.

SAVIDGE: But while in jail, he becomes combative. His attorneys say that he wasn`t really combative, he was suffering what they said was a mental

health episode. And it`s true that the authorities were trying to get him to a mental evaluation, but he was struggling so much, they decided to put

him into that restraint chair.

And they were holding him down. They were using force in some instances. But also, other times they`re talking to him quietly, trying to get him to

calm down. It didn`t apparently work, and that`s when the taser was used.

Now, according to the lawsuit that has been filed, that taser was used as many as four times for a total of maybe 50 seconds. Then they backed off

and used it again some two minutes later.

But it`s all caught on video, including the video that is built into the taser itself. It is quite difficult to watch and listen to. And listening

is the key point here because some of the phrases that are heard, presumably not from the suspect who`s being restrained, but coming from

officers or some somebody inside the correction facility -- they were saying things like, I could keep this up all day until the battery dies,

and other things that seem to imply there is more of a revenge going on than there is just restraint.

JACKSON: Yes. You know, we actually have some sound from that. As disturbing as it is to listen to, why don`t we take a listen to that, in

reference to your point, Martin Savidge.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: (INAUDIBLE)

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: (INAUDIBLE) battery.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

JACKSON: Now, Martin, what do we know? How is he today, having endured this? Do we know his status?

SAVIDGE: Well, his attorneys will tell you, and I had a conversation with his attorney, and I was asking that. I said, you know, how is Norris

today? And he said, Well, according to his doctors and according to his client, he suffers from seizures, nerve problems, mental anguish, panic

attacks, memory problems, back pain, all of that, he says, as a result of the incident, not just that day.

And that`s sort of key as part of this lawsuit here is that the attorneys are maintaining that their client says, Hey, it wasn`t just this one

incident. Sure, this is the one everybody knows. It`s the one on video. But they said that there were at least 40 pairs of taser prong marks on his

body, indicating that this happened a number of times, not just once, not just necessarily that day.

JACKSON: And Martin, just finally, why was he arrested in the first instance? And what`s the status of that, if we know?

SAVIDGE: Well, OK, so this is where you get a difference of opinion. The attorney says that he was arrested -- their client was arrested for

initially nonviolent misdemeanor charges. Again, I spoke to the attorney, he said, Well, that was a bit of an error he made in the actual complaint.

It turns out there was at least one felony drug charge and a number of other charges, including possession of a weapon, perhaps theft of a weapon,

drug paraphernalia, things like that.

The sheriff says that this young man has a history of violence, that he has a history of felony crimes, and that he`s made threats against officers,

which is in part why they had to react with a strong reaction as they did.

JACKSON: Always two competing narratives in cases like this and others. Martin Savidge, we greatly appreciate you.

SAVIDGE: Sure. Thank you.

JACKSON: We also have Darrin Porcher. He`s here in New York. He`s a retired NYPD lieutenant and criminal justice expert. Darrin, good to see

you.

DARRIN PORCHER, CRIMINAL JUSTICE EXPERT: Thanks for having me.

JACKSON: Of course. Looking at this video, and what we see, justification here, no justification? Under what circumstance could they apply a taser

when someone`s sitting in a chair presumably posing no threat?

PORCHER: Well, it`s -- I can understand using a taser against a noncompliant suspect. However, when we have an individual that has been

restrained in that chair, then we have an issue. And we take in consideration the abuse of force. He should be isolated and contained, and

a supervisor should have stepped forward and insured that this individual was addressed properly.

[20:25:02]Another thing is, you want to introduce a series of logistics, such as velcro straps, for example. Time is on your side. There`s no...

JACKSON: Where? Where, Darrin? Where`s the velcro straps go?

PORCHER: No, this is a recommendation.

JACKSON: OK.

PORCHER: I was a lieutenant in the internal affairs bureau (INAUDIBLE) many instances, I`ve investigated these types of prisoners abuse.. When

you have one aspect that`s not working, such as the taser, then you resort to something else, such as velcro straps. You put him -- you strap his

whole body up and you -- I put him in an isolation and containment cell.

Then the supervisor should have stepped up. We have a group of people that are looking at this happening. However, no supervisor is stepping up and

saying, Hey, this is enough. That`s enough.

JACKSON: So Darrin, on the face of it and not asking you to jump to any conclusions, but on the face it, as a supervisor as you were, are you

troubled by the video? And if so, why? And if not, why not?

PORCHER: I`m troubled by it because it was apparent that the taser was not working. Therefore, it was necessary to employ other resources to contain

this individual. There`s no rush. He`s already in lockup. We know where he is. Just give him some time, let him cool off and then we`ll revisit

him. He`s going to want to eat. He`s going to want something to drink, et cetera. He will calm down on his own.

But I just didn`t see the dire need to taser this individual the way they did, 40 to 50 times. In my mind, it was excessive.

JACKSON: And also, they were putting something over his face. What was that that you see? Was that the spit mask that they were talking about?

PORCHER: Yes. Traditionally, in correctional facilities, they put a spit guard over someone`s face and that prevents an individual from spitting

(INAUDIBLE)

JACKSON: And we`re going to see it right here. This is what it is. And that prevents spit, obviously, the pathogens and other things that would

harm officers.

Now, do you think this is based upon -- and you know, not to speculate, but we know that officers can`t retaliate. You can protect yourself, right?

But you can`t retaliate against an inmate because, you know, they may be acting in a way that you think is improper, is that accurate?

PORCHER: Absolutely. The officer should be the (INAUDIBLE) professional. This is not a schoolyard game. You`re paid to provide a service.

Therefore, you need to be the (INAUDIBLE) professional. Here in this particular instance, it was obvious that the officers didn`t practice the

procedural guidelines to maintain the safety of this inmate.

JACKSON: And that gets us to the lawsuit. And Bob, that gets us to you. And I want to bring Rene Sandler into this, also. But Bob, I`ll start with

you. On the issue of the lawsuit, I mean, first things first. This is a liability matter, right? They`re going after money...

BIANCHI: Right.

JACKSON: ... because they`re saying that the force was excessive.

I guess the first issue I have in looking at the lawsuit is why only name the correction officers, as opposed to the municipality, which is the deep

pocket and is responsible -- Darrin, you correct me if I`m wrong -- for the supervision and training of the correction officers at issue?

BIANCHI: That`s a great question, Joey. So I used to do a lot of civil rights work. And what you want to do is you want to be able to hook in the

state agency because under a code called 42-SE-1983 -- that`s a civil rights statute...

JACKSON: Excessive force.

BIANCHI: Excessive force fits within that category. And the individual police officers are actually entitled to a thing called qualified immunity.

Even if their force was excessive, but somewhere down the line, all but the plainly incompetent officer is protected, but that`s not true with the

government agency.

All you`ve got to prove there is that there`s a custom, a practice or a policy of deliberative indifference. So if they either didn`t have the

right policies or they violated those policies, that`s where the money in the case is.

JACKSON: I`m just not getting why not sue the municipality and everybody involved. Rene, let me go to you. With regard to the actual events here,

do you think there will be recovery? I know we`re far along the line from having this resolved. But it appears, at least on the face of it, that

something was amiss. Do you disagree with that? Or do you think the officers may have been justified in doing what they did?

SANDLER: No, Joey, I don`t see any justification for what they did. This is a mindset, and I`m sure there are other instances, as well. This is a

training issue, as you said. But the number of times this young man was tased within a 50-second period, it`s amazing with the voltage going

through him that he wasn`t seriously harmed or killed and went into cardiac arrest. I mean, that`s what you see in these kinds of cases. In some

regards, this young man was lucky.

But I do agree that everyone needs to be sued. Qualified immunity or not, every pocket needs to be hit in a lawsuit like this. But this is a mindset

that needs to be changed.

JACKSON: And so in getting to the issue of -- and Rene, I`ll still with you momentarily -- if everyone needs to be sued, and looking to this

lawsuit, not everyone`s sued. You have the three corrections officers, the deep pocket, the people that train the officers, the people that are

responsible for their supervision and oversight. Why not sue them?

SANDLER: I can`t imagine that that wouldn`t be subject to amendment down the road. It is not something that I would do. I don`t know all the

facts, obviously, and circumstances. But it`s -- typically, you sue every pocket that you possibly can, or amend in to bring others in and join

parties.

JACKSON: Sure. Go ahead, Bob.

BIANCHI: There`s one other practical matter here, too, Joey. The government agencies do not have qualified immunity. The individual

officers do.

[20:30:00] And let`s face it, in the end, where are the deep pockets? It is with the government...

JACKSON: Without question.

BIANCHI: ... agency, not with the individual officers.

JACKSON: Without question. Darrin Porcher, last word. You`re the expert here. What do you do to address issues like that? You`re a professional

dealing with law enforcement all the time. You want to make sure they`re on the straight and narrow and that they do their job. What do you do?

PORCHER: You got to have what we refer to as an act to action review. Meaning, you got to make an assessment as to what happened and you got to

look at what the procedural guidelines are in place.

What was the precedence in connection with how officers traditionally dealt with these types of offenses? Then you`ve got to retrain your officers

accordingly. These things happen quite frequently.

However, it`s necessary at the professional development stage, the times that we`re living in, because we can`t use 1960s tactics in the year 2017.

JACKSON: Without question. And I know Rene Sandler was talking about mindset, but the push back to that was, every case, I believe, needs to be

judged individually, you know, on the merits of the case. It`s unfortunate what we see, long way to resolution, but I know there`s some very talented

correction officers out there who do right thing and certainly don`t do any of this.

But at any event, everyone stand by, because there are a lot of reasons, and this story is quite an interesting one, as they all are, but there are

a lot of reasons why Child Protective Services might take custody of a child. But to lose custody because someone says that their parents aren`t

smart enough, that`s a first to me. Take a look.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

AMY FABBRINI, CLAIMS KIDS TAKEN BECAUSE OF LOW IQ: You personally think that IQ shouldn`t have anything to do with it, as long as you got the

qualities of being able to support for your child, being able to care for your child.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

JACKSON: Now, we have lots of questions about this case, and we`ll ask the mom who is in the middle of this, that`s Amy Fabbrini, that`s next.

[20:35:00] (COMMERCIAL BREAK)

JACKSON: A young Oregon couple is trying to prove to the state that they are intellectually capable of raising their children. Amy Fabbrini and Eric

Ziegler say the social services took away their two young sons because the parents both have low IQs.

Fabbrini says that her oldest son was taken away in 2013 after a friend accused Ziegler of neglect. He`s now 4 years old. Earlier this year, they

lost custody of another son, just days after he was born.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

FABBRINI: They`re thinking that because we have this disability, that we can`t safely parent our child. We personally think that IQ shouldn`t have

anything to do with it, as long as you`ve got the qualities of being able to support for your child, being able to care for your child. It`s always

one more thing. One more thing. You complete one thing, they have you do something else.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

JACKSON: Now, court documents repeatedly say that the couple has limited cognitive abilities and a required IQ test Ziegler scored, this was the

required IQ test that they took, he scored a 66 and Fabbrini a 72. The IQ of the average person ranges anywhere from 90 to 110.

This allegedly interferes with their ability to provide a safe environment for their children. They`re now in foster care and available for adoption.

Fabbrini and Ziegler have supervised visits with the boys, but they want to regain custody, as you can imagine.

Amy Fabbrini joins us from Redmond, Oregon. She`s also joined by Sherrene Hagenbach. She`s a former child protective services volunteer, and she`s

helping both Amy and Eric fight for their children. And so we are very glad to have both of you.

Let me ask you. What is going on here? I never believed or imagined that it was illegal not to have a certain IQ score. Can you help me out? Do we have

you?

SHERRENE HAGENBACH, FORMER CPS VOLUNTEER (via telephone): Yes, I`m sorry.

JACKSON: OK. I`m not getting or comprehending how children can be taken away because of certain IQ tests that`s done, and you don`t meet a certain

requirement. Am I hearing you to say that that`s the case here?

HAGENBACH (via telephone): That is the case here. That`s why child protective services has done --

JACKSON: OK. I presume, and I know you`re outraged by this. Is there -- is this their reason? Is there something else that me or the viewers are

missing in terms of why they took the children?

HAGENBACH (via telephone): Originally why they took the children is from a call that didn`t have the correct information. Once they got into the home,

and they`ve been working with Eric and Amy, they obviously couldn`t find anything, you know, no abuse and no neglect. So they focused on their --

JACKSON: Amy, could you -- I`m trying to hear you, but it`s a little bit noisy where you are. If you can turn down maybe your speaker. I`d love to

hear what you`re saying because we`re all scratching our heads over this story. OK? Can you hear me OK?

FABBRINI (via telephone): Can you hear us now?

JACKSON: Much better. Much better.

FABBRINI (via telephone): OK.

JACKSON: And I thank you. So the original children in 2013, those children were taken away from you, why?

FABBRINI (via telephone): Basically because they said that we had a learning disability, and that we were neglecting our son.

JACKSON: OK. Now, what specifically were they claiming that you did or did not do? A learning disability in and of itself which many people have, and,

you know, none of us are perfect, that doesn`t constitute a reason for the state to take away anybody`s child. Were any of these children harmed?

FABBRINI (via telephone): No, they were never harmed.

JACKSON: So they just took away your kids in 2013 because they said you had a learning disability?

FABBRINI (via telephone): That`s basically what they said.

JACKSON: OK. Now, with regard to the latest child that was taken away, what was the reason given, and how old was the child when the child was taken

away?

[20:40:00] FABBRINI (via telephone): Hunter was two days old when he was taken from the hospital by CPS.

JACKSON: I`m sorry. Did you say two days old?

FABBRINI (via telephone): Yes.

JACKSON: What reason were you given for that?

FABBRINI (via telephone): The basic reason that they gave us was that because we had an open case with CPS already, that was why they had to take

Hunter from us.

JACKSON: OK. There`s a certain concept in law, and what it says is, if you did something last week or the week before or the month before, that has

nothing to do with what you`ll do now. So I`m just not understanding, was there any harm that was done to the child in the hospital?

FABBRINI (via telephone): No, there was none.

JACKSON: May I have -- is Sherrene with you?

FABBRINI (via telephone): Yes, she is.

JACKSON: Hagenbach?

FABBRINI (via telephone): Yes.

JACKSON: Sherrene, may I ask you, what`s going on here? You, I understand, are a former child protective services volunteer. I`m just not getting or

understanding what`s happening and why a 2-day-old would be taken away.

HAGENBACH (via telephone): You know, I do agree with you, I don`t understand. Both parents have high school diplomas. They live in a three-

bedroom, two-bath home. Eric has his driver`s license. They`re insured. He drives a 2015 Hyundai Elantra.

Everything is safe and protected at their house. They have never once given me any inclination that they would do anything but love their child. And

Amy is very articulate. She would be a great mom, but they`ve never given her a chance to be a mom.

JACKSON: And so what now? What`s the process that you`re undertaking, Sherrene, in moving forward and helping them to get the children? Because

from a legal basis, I`m not getting it, and I`ll ask our lawyers this. Maybe they see something I don`t. I`m glad to learn as we go. But what are

you doing moving forward in order to get custody?

HAGENBACH (via telephone): Joey, they have attorneys, court-appointed attorneys that we are from a small town, and everybody knows everybody. And

nobody wants to speak out for this family until I did.

And so I`ve just been trying my hardest to get their story out, so that they can, you know, maybe find a lawyer that has it in their heart to

represent them and their case and fight for them like they deserve.

They just get nothing but push back from the court, and Hunter was supposed to be tried separate, but now he`s being tried at the same time as

Christopher. They`re supposed to be separate issues, but they`ve always been done at the same procedural time in court. It`s excuse after excuse.

JACKSON: Yes. I`m not understanding. Sherrene, stand by one second. Let me bring in Rene Sandler and Bob Bianchi. Bob, maybe at a lost. Rene, I`ll

start with you. I`m scratching my head. I don`t know what law requires you to have a certain IQ.

I think the issue turns on whether your children are safe, whether they`re nourished, whether everyone`s okay. Can you please explain to me what I`m

missing?

RENE SANDLER, DEFENSE ATTORNEY: You`re not missing anything, Joey. I do CPS work regularly and I would say that they have a big hammer, if you will.

They do take children right out of the hospital if there`s an open case. It`s the way it is in Maryland where I practice.

The problem that I`m having from a due process standpoint, for these parents is, I have not heard one fact that puts these children at risk.

None. Not a single fact. These parents have absolute rights as parents. So I am scratching my head here as to what is going on in their town.

JACKSON: Rene, I`m glad I`m not the only one. Bob, please educate me, educate Rene, I mean, what`s happening? I know of no such law that says you

have to have a certain IQ.

BIANCHI: No, of course not. That`s outrageous. What Rene is saying is exactly what the standards should be. But there were some facts in some of

the data where the parents have indicated that they were not able to take care of the children. I don`t know if this is true, I`m just telling you

things that have been out there.

JACKSON: Of course.

BIANCHI: That they were in the custody at certain point at times of other people because of difficulties. I don`t suggest that`s true. But I can tell

you from being a prosecutor who dealt with child protection services all the time, maybe sometimes they go a little overboard.

But let`s see because what usually happened with me is that they didn`t do something and the child gets harmed or injured or killed and then everyone

points to the agency and said, why didn`t you do anything? But we need a lot more facts here, Joey.

JACKSON: We do. But on the facts that we have, both Bob and Rene, I just can`t and I don`t know what`s happening and I scratch my head. Before the

story, when I listened to the story, and now having interviewed the mom as well as the social worker,

[20:45:00] which we thank, by the way, thank you for being here, I just -- where do we live? I`m not getting it. In any event, Rene, Bob, stand by.

Let me gather myself for the next story which is a little bit different than the stories we`ve been talking about, because this involves selfies,

monkeys, and questions about copyright infringement, and they both collide.

When this guy, you`ll see him in a minute, he grabs a photographer`s camera and starts snapping away. Now the photographer published the image and now

the photographer is being sued by the monkey. Don`t go anywhere.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

JACKSON: With a nod to the Marx (ph) brothers, this next story involves some real monkey business.

[20:50:00] David Slater, a wildlife photographer, was in Indonesia, and he was taking pictures of the macaque monkey. Now, he put down his camera and

the monkey began to play with it as monkeys do, even snapping photos. Now, one of those snaps is now a famous monkey selfie. You see it right there.

The photo was published in a book.

Now, PETA said that it is the monkey who owns the rights to the photo. The animal rights group sued the photographer for copyright infringement, true

story, and the court ruled, not for the monkey, it ruled that the monkey whose name is Naruto, lacked legal standing to sue. And now there`s an

appeal, because in the appeal, a judge in San Francisco wanted to jump right into the law. Take a look.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: What`s the injury here?

DAVID SCHWARTZ, ATTORNEY FOR PETA: The injury here is a direct injury based on the copyright act.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Just a minute.

SCHWARTZ< Yes, your honor?

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: What is the injury?

(END VIDEO CLIP)

JACKSON: What is the injury? The attorneys for the photographer and publisher question the merits of the lawsuit. Listen to this.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

ANDREW DHUEY, ATTORNEY FOR DAVID SLATER: Monkey see, monkey sue will not do in federal court. Not unless congress plainly says that nonhuman animals

have standing.

ANGELA DUNNING, ATTORNEY FOR BLURB: It`s absurd to begin with to say that a monkey can sue for copyright infringement. But if we are going to accept

that premise, then its offspring should be able to sue too. This court should decline PETA`s invitation to go down that rabbit hole.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

JACKSON: Yes, this is real life. Now, Robin ___. He is a senior news anchor for the Blaze Radio Network. He joins us from Atlanta. Can you please

clarify straight now, what is going on here?

ROBYN WALENSKY, SENIOR NEWS ANCHOR, THE BLAZE RADIO NETWORK: Well, Joey, you`re a legal scholar. This monkey has no rights under the U.S.

constitution. The only thing the monkey should be getting is a banana or a whole bunch of bananas at this point.

This is PETA doing a publicity stunt actually, in my opinion. But in terms of what`s gone on, they -- PETA has sued because these photographs were

everywhere. It was all over the internet. As you can see, the monkey is adorable.

JACKSON: Great photos.

WALENSKY: Right. Terrific pictures. I guess maybe he should be a photographer. But under the U.S. law, he has no rights, this monkey, and

what`s really sad is that the photographer, British photographer, published this in a book called "Wildlife Personalities." And boy, doesn`t he have a

personality there, right?

(LAUGHTER)

WALENSKY: But at the end of the day, monkeys can`t get a driver`s license. Monkeys can`t drive. Monkeys will not be assigned copyrights by the U.S.

patent office in 2014. Joey, they ruled that this monkey cannot even get a patent for his own picture.

So, I think that the monkey is going to be out of luck. And at the end of the day, hopefully, the photographer who found this lovely monkey in

Indonesia may get his money. Who knows? This is before the ninth circuit right now.

JACKSON: So, Robyn, to be fair, I don`t think the monkey was in the strategy session on the lawsuit for PETA, right?

WALENSKY: That`s right.

JACKSON: He snapped the photo. What`s next in the case? I know it`s in front of the appellate court. Any indication on when they might rule and

bring some sanity into the equation?

WALENSKY: Well, it`s before a three-judge panel. There was a 45-minute hearing in San Francisco. Reportedly, I wasn`t in there, but from what I`ve

read, there was some laughter. People were laughing at this. A lot of law students who are obviously interested in what`s going to happen here were

in attendance, Joey.

But they still haven`t ruled yet. It will be really interesting. I think all eyes are on this monkey to see if this really is monkey business or,

you know, what is actually going to happen here. I mean, you shake your head when you read what`s going on in the U.S. court system, huh?

JACKSON: Robyn, I thank you. I can hardly wait to see what the decision will be. We appreciate you keeping us informed. And nice to know what our

federal court system is really doing in the case. Let me bring in the attorneys now. Bob Bianchi and Rene Sandler. Before you react, let me just

show you a sound byte, right? Let`s listen to this and let`s talk about it.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

SCHWARTZ: (INAUDIBLE) reflected, a man and woman in a marriage, and that is no longer a case one would defend.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Is there a similar holding by the supreme court that man and monkey are the same?

SCHWARTZ: No, your honor.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

JACKSON: So, Ms. Rene, if I can just ask you, a standing issue, meaning that you have no standing to sue, a person is a person, a monkey is an

animal. And so what say you as to the original decision as the case was dismissed?

SANDLER: I agree with the original decision. I`m afraid I`m going to be tweeted or some hate groups coming out against me, but I do agree with the

original position. They`re beautiful photos. This monkey

[20:55:00] converted this photographer`s camera for his own use, clearly. And to set up this suit, that`s what I think.

JACKSON: Bob Bianchi, love monkeys, love animals. They are great creatures, but federal court system?

BIANCHI: I think they are looking at this the wrong way. My father-in-law has always predicted, we would get to a point where we would start give

monkeys and things like that the same constitutional protections as humans. And here`s my --

JACKSON: Really?

BIANCHI: Absolutely. Why not let them get married? Why not let them drive a car? And more importantly, if they pick up a gun and they shoot it, let`s

charge them with homicide and put them in a human jail. Here`s where I`m really upset with this monkey case. Forget about the picture, he stole that

guy`s camera. Charge him with theft.

JACKSON: Just when I thought I heard it all. We`ll be right back.

(LAUGHTER)

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

JACKSON: We are grateful to all of our guests. Rene Sandler, thank you so much for the defense. Bob Bianchi, for the prosecution. And all of you at

home, of course, we thank you.

[21:00:00] On behalf of Ashleigh Banfield and the entire PRIMETIME JUSTICE HLN team, we appreciate you watching. I`m Joey Jackson. We`ll be right back

here 8:00 p.m. tomorrow night.

"FORENSIC FILES" begins right now. Good night.

END