Return to Transcripts main page

LEGAL VIEW WITH ASHLEIGH BANFIELD

German Wings Crash Investigation Continues; Amanda Knox Murder Case Update. Aired 12:30-1p ET

Aired March 27, 2015 - 12:30   ET

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


[12:30:18] DAVID SOUCIE, CNN SAFETY ANALYST: But in order to do that, you need to find out where that remain came from in order to identify the other parts of the remains so that they can be -- the utmost care and respect to those that were onboard the aircraft, so we do everything we can to try to group those together. And have them as one as much as we can to return it to the families.

ASHLEIGH BANFIELD, CNN HOST: And again, as tragic as this is, what kind of a family is expect to get back honestly. I mean if anything.

SOUCIE: It's going to be difficult, you know...

BANFIELD: Would it be like 9/11 where some families got nothing?

SOUCIE: There will be some of that certainly.

BANFIELD: There will be. Christine Dennison, David Soucie, thank you for that. It's tragic and it's horrifying and you just think of those families who are in that meadow awaiting whatever news they might be able to get.

Coming up next. Those who knew him say that he was fun and loved music and simply loved to fly. But clearly there were so much more to this co-pilot who intentionally steered an airliner filled with people and students and babies into a mountainside killing everyone. We are live in his hometown next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

BANFIELD: And we're continuing our breaking news on this aircraft disaster. There is a clinic in Dusseldorf that is denying media reports that the co-pilot of Germanwings flight 9525 had been treated there for depression. That's the very latest new development in this story that's been sort of one stunning revelation after another.

[12:35:12] I want to be very clear though, that the Dusseldorf clinic that put out the statement said that the reports were untrue that he'd been treated for depression, whether it means only at their hospital or not, we're still working that out.

Clearly, lots of people have different places they go for treatment, and whether they are only referring to their hospitals, we have yet to figure that one out. But we'll continue to follow this for you as well. And then earlier today, a German prosecutor revealed that the doctor had written a handwritten note to this pilot, Andreas Lubitz. It was a sick note and it was actually for the very day of the crash in which he was told he was unfit to fly, and that note was found destroyed and in his garbage can in his apartment.

Very important to note as well that Germanwings, the airline that employed that man did not see the note. They say that they did not know about the note and investigators certainly found that note ripped up and thrown away.

Unfit for work is the quote that investigators are giving us. There's no official source though of that will say what his condition was, what kind of unfitness he was suffering from. He certainly looks like a very physically healthy and active man. Those photographs that you're looking out of him running in a marathon were apparently only taken within the last year, possibly even last summer. Certainly a physically fit man it would appear. Now the question is, what about his mental health.

I want to bring in Diana Magnay who is in Andreas Lubitz's hometown. I don't know if you know anymore about these clinic visits that he was actually making to possibly to the university clinic. But they are saying that he was not treated for depression. Do we know if it means just there? Maybe he was being treated for something else there? Did he have a regimen there at that clinic and maybe something somewhere else?

DIANA MAGNAY, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Ashleigh, we know that he went to the Dusseldorf University Medical Center for diagnosis of some sort in February and March the 10th this year, March the 10th which was a Tuesday, the Tuesday before last. And they specifically said this was not a diagnosis for depression.

So, that is very clear. He did not go to the Dusseldorf Medical Center because of depression. He went there for some other medical condition and we don't know what that is. It's quite possible that he was receiving treatment for other condition elsewhere, who knows. But the Dusseldorf Medical Center says he came here twice this year for a diagnosis. It was for a medical condition which was not depression, very clear.

Also, what we're hearing from the Dusseldorf prosecutor is that they have found letters when they swept the house -- where he spent much of his childhood and also where his parents having flash in Dusseldorf which was a sort of secondary residence for him.

That said that he was receiving some kind of medical treatment. And of course that he had the sick note from a doctor that covered the period and the day of the crash, not specifically for the day of the crash but that day was also covered and that was the sick note that was ripped up in the bin. Ashleigh?

BANFIELD: Diana, just a couple of seconds. Has anyone seen or heard from his family? MAGNAY: The family or in must say or they were yesterday. They flew there, I mean imagine, the parents flew there thinking that they were going to go and mourn the loss of their son alongside all the other relatives mourning their loss there.

And then we're hearing that shortly before the prosecutor said what he did, they were told this terrible news that their son may have been responsible. We also know there is a brother. I heard that from a navy here, but we don't know the whereabouts now presumably partly in counseling, possibly being questioned.

BANFIELD: Oh, I can't imagine the horrors they're going through as well.

Diana Magnay live for us in Montabaur, Germany, the hometown of this pilot and his family.

Coming up ahead, could this crash have been avoided if only the airline had known more or done more about the co-pilot's mental state. And should be a note to all that perhaps new screening policies might need to be implemented or is that a non-starter?

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[12:42:30] BANFIELD: One big part of this crash investigation is getting the victims' remains back to their families, obviously because many of them are actually there waiting, in that mountain meadow. And another really big part is trying to get inside the head of a pilot who apparently chose that flight to end his life and 149 others.

I want to talk to Justin Green who's a pilot and heads the International Air and Transportation Bar Association. And also David (inaudible) who is an accident investigator. So here's the thing, so many people are asking me questions why aren't pilots screened psychologically like they are medically before they're 40 -- they get an exam once every year and after 40, they get an exam once every six months. Do you see going forward this is going to change that psychological exams will be part of it?

JUSTIN GREEN, PILOT AND AVIATION ATTORNEY: I think, first thing you have to understand is that pilots have a lot of incentives to hide any medical condition, whether it's physical condition or mental condition because it could end their livelihood if they come forward and start getting treatment for depression or something else. So the, I guess question I have is, I'm all for the screening if it's effective, but I really question whether seeing a psychiatrist or psychologist once a year is really going to screen out somebody who's going to do something as horrific as this young man did.

DAVID SOUCIE, CNN SAFETY ANALYST: Yeah. We're talking about getting inside the head, but remember that a lot of the triggers that trigger this type of events are external, not internal. You know, inside the head, you might have a chemical imbalance, you might have something going on psychologically, but I think the best way to approach this is to approach the external influences that may have added that stress and elevated the probability of something to happen, for example, has he recently been divorced?

And there is some work in this area, certainly going on but it hasn't been mandated. So, what's going on in the outside world, what's happening? Has he has a divorce, is he moving? Does he have financial distress? Those are, I think the best hope we have of actually knowing an understanding what risks there might be in the cognitive.

BANFIELD: It'd be fascinating to see. 10 seconds, do you think that this might be something they do to avoid liabilities?

GREEN: Well, I don't think they'll do it do it to avoid liability because of the cost involved, but if the FAA requires them to do it, they'll do it.

BANFIELD: Then it's done. It's a done deal.

All right, Justin Green, thank you David Soucie, thank you as well, with the co-pilot gone, who is it -- who's accountable for this disaster? And what is owed to the victims' families who still don't even have their loved ones back?

[12:44:57] (COMMERCIAL BREAK)

BANFIELD: You certainly cannot charge a diseased co-pilot with a mass murder, but you can hold the airline responsible for what happened to Flight 9525 or can you? A Marseille prosecutor says the investigation is still being considered "unintended killing, manslaughter" and not a voluntary manslaughter, yet it was certainly a deliberate crash and the option remains open.

But the party that will ultimately to be held accountable is Germanwings and Lufthansa. And proving that they knew the co-pilot could do something like this is certainly a mountain of a job.

I want to bring our back our aviation attorney and former military pilot, Justin Green.

First and foremost, I want you to just react to this news that there is a sick note, ruined, destroyed in some way, in his garbage can in his apartment saying his unfit to work. Does these change the metric at all in terms of these families and these airlines, the parent and the airline itself in liability?

GREEN: Well, the pilot is not supposed to fly if he is not fit to fly. And clearly from this note, this ripped up note in this garbage can, he was not fit to fly, he knew he wasn't fit to fly. He showed up to work, he got in that cockpit. So...

BANFIELD: OK. So he's the bad guy, he's dead. He's an agent of these airlines, does that extend to them?

GREEN: Under that -- if you just look at that event, a pilot goes to work sick, yes. What the airline will say is, "We never expected a pilot to convene mass suicide or mass murder rather, and suicide using the airplane." So if you really focus on the terrible deed that these young man did, well they can say, "We're a victim, too. And that we're not responsible on (inaudible) as a superior base for that act. "

[12:50:04] BANFIELD: There's this whole notion of the damage caps and what blows the damage caps off. What kind of action takes the damage caps away so that ultimately these families can be paid out millions upon millions depending on what they lost. If they lost a Wall Street executive who was making 20 million and had 15 more years in his career to make that money, would Lufthansa ultimately in Germanwings have to pay? Is there something that's going blow this damaged caps off of this...

GREEN: Yeah, that is sound (ph) one thing is, the damage caps are only in place if the airline Germanwings comes in and proves that it was not negligent or otherwise at fault at all. So, that they have the point is starting to have a burden of proving that they were negligent the airline was negligent. The airline has the burden of proving it was not negligent.

And so, we're going to be looking at is and by the way Lufthansa hired this guy, screen this guy, train this guy, this is a Lufthansa Germanwings person.

BANFIELD: Yeah.

GREEN: So, anything in his hire, in his training, his selection that raises a flag is going to blow those limits.

BANFIELD: Oddly enough and I have only 10 seconds left.

GREEN: Sure.

BANFIELD: The worst his crime, the worst he behaved the better it is for the airline in terms of what they can be held accountable for.

GREEN: Yeah, under the law if an employee does something so crazy, so outside the scope of anything that would ever be expected. I often times the employer just say "Look we're not liable, we're victims too.

BANFIELD: Justin Green excellent information and I'm sure that there only just at the beginning of this. Thank you so much for that.

For a list of ways that you can help those affected by this crash, you can visit our website cnn.com/impact we called everything together for you there have a look. And as we keep a close watch in the latest development of this crash in the Alps we're also watching big developments to this hour in case that's made international news for years, that young woman Amanda Knox maybe about to find out her final fate.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[12:55:45] BANFIELD: At any moment now we could hear from Italy's highest court on whether a very famous person an American Amanda Knox whether her murder conviction in the death of her roommate is going to be upheld once and for all. Her case along with that of her boyfriend at that time Raffaele Sollecito a series of back end force that is very confusing for Americans because in 09 they were convicted, but in 2011 they were acquitted, end of story, right. That's how it works here, not in Italy, instead a new trial was ordered in 2013 and those acquittals strangely enough were tossed out.

And a year later they were convicted again. Yeah, but she was not there for that conviction. No, she was not in court, she came home to the United States.

Thousands of miles away from that court in Friguia and one can only imagine what she's doing right now, or what she's thinking right now in the safe confines of the American borders because if there's a decision that she's indeed a murderer well we have extradition treaties with Italy.

For the legal view on this I want to bring in CNN's Legal Analyst Paul Callan a Criminal Defense Attorney and an expert in this. I -- it so odd for starters how the acquittal happened and then ultimately retrial their order that that's not happened here. It was treated like an appeal over there.

If she is ultimately guilty they uphold these convictions, will the United States, knock on her door, arrest her and send her to the Italians.

PAUL CALLAN, CNN LEGAL ANALYST: Well that's a fascinating issue because the first thing that's going to happen is an Interpol warrant for her arrest is going to be issued. If she goes to Canada or Mexico she would arrested in those jurisdictions because they honor such Interpol warrants.

In the United States we do not, however there will be a movement to extradite her and this is what the Italians will say, if they wish to extradite her, they will say you the United States have signed an extradition treaty, you have recognized that our system of justice is a fair system of justice otherwise you wouldn't have signed the extradition treaty.

You have extradited people in the past and we now demand the extradition of Amanda Knox.

BANFIELD: OK, I get how this works the Italians would look at the Americans and say, if you want us to send you murderers that are responsible in your jurisdiction you'd better do the same for us. Would the Americans then return it back to the Italians? We don't like your double jeopardy, we don't do that here. And therefore the deal was off.

CALLAN: That's the strongest argument that Amanda Knox lawyers will make to avoid the extradition request that this violates the double jeopardy clause of the American Constitution. Here's what Italian lawyers will say. They will say that are...

BANFIELD: You signed the deal. CALLAN: Not only you signed the deal but you recognize that in other parts of the world that double jeopardy rule doesn't necessarily exist in the same form.

Now the Italians are going to say, we recognize double jeopardy when the court process is all over. Whereas you recognize it sometimes early on when there's an initial jury finding but that doesn't mean we don't have a fair system.

BANFIELD: If you're this woman. Let me just say, if you're this woman's lawyer are you advising her to skip town and go to a jurisdiction, I can't even tell whether it's Costa Rica or whether it's somewhere in Central or South America that doesn't honor any kind of extradition treaty with Italy. Would you advice her to go and go now or would you be somehow committing the crime in doing so.

CALLAN: Well first of all, she doesn't have to go to another jurisdiction, she can go to a Starbucks in Seattle and have a latte because we do not...

BANFIELD: Not if you go pass Interpol, this is an extradition request you can jeopardy.

CALLAN: Interpol she would not be in jeopardy here until the extradition was approved. And that is in the end of the political decision because it's going to go into through the federal courts first. But then it will go to the state department in the end to decide whether we will do it.

BANFIELD: You didn't tell me if you would be in trouble.

CALLAN: What I advice to leave with jurisdiction, yeah you would be. But once the U.S. has agreed to extradite yes, the lawyer would be guilty of unethical behavior maybe criminal behavior.

BANFIELD: And if she makes a decision to leave on her own and decides to setup shop in some other country, is she home free?

CALLAN: Well she's home free as long as she's in a place with -- that has no treaty with Italy, she'll be OK. But one other thing ever hear a bounty hunters she could be kidnapped taken to another jurisdiction and then sent back. OK.

BANFIELD: ... the Italians are going to kidnap, you think they're going to...

[13:00:01] CALLAN: They may hire an American bounty hunter, we've got plenty of them.

BANFIELD: It is just so fascinating there's always a twist and a turn to the Amanda Knox case.

Thank you Paul Callan and thank you everyone have a wonderful weekend stay tune my colleague Wolf takes over right now.