Return to Transcripts main page

LEGAL VIEW WITH ASHLEIGH BANFIELD

Oregon College Shooter's Mother Part of Investigation; Rethinking Gun Research; Missing El Faro Ship. Aired 12-12:30p ET

Aired October 7, 2015 - 12:00   ET

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


[12:00:00] KATE BOLDUAN, CNN ANCHOR: To bring you special coverage. That will be starting Monday. Until then, thanks for joining us "AT THIS HOUR," everybody.

JOHN BERMAN, CNN ANCHOR: What for (ph), we'll be back tomorrow.

BOLDUAN: We might be back tomorrow.

BERMAN: Meanwhile, LEGAL VIEW with Ashleigh Banfield starts now.

ASHLEIGH BANFIELD, CNN ANCHOR: Hello, everyone. I'm Ashleigh Banfield. Welcome to LEGAL VIEW.

We may be just about an hour away from learning new details about last week's campus massacre in Roseburg, Oregon. Investigators are set to brief reporters at 1:00 p.m. Eastern Time, 10:00 a.m. local time, and, of course, you're going to see that right here live on CNN when it happens.

But in the meantime, police are telling CNN that the mother of the dead gunman is, quote, "part of the investigation," as anyone close to a mass killer would be. Long before the rampage, Laurel Harper was outspoken on social media about guns, gun laws, ammunition, and her son's autism spectrum disorder.

CNN's Dan Simon is joining me live now from Roseburg, and CNN legal analyst Paul Callan is here with me live in New York.

And, Dan, first get me up to speed on some of the latest reporting on those around this woman and what kind of information they can lend to this whole story.

DAN SIMON, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Well, hi, Ashleigh.

First of all, we don't know exactly what authorities are going to be talking about in this upcoming news conference, but what we do know is that they are familiar with the postings that the mother, Laurel Harper, made on social media where she boasted about her use of guns and talked about her son's Asperger's. They tell us that they're aware of this topic and that it's being looked into overall in terms of part of the investigation. The sergeant we talked to, though, emphasized that this is routine. That they would look at anybody who may have been close to the shooter.

As we have been reporting, the mom was a real gun enthusiast. She kept lots of guns in the home and, in her words, "no one will be dropping by my house uninvited." Now, we've been trying to reach out to Ms. Harper, but so far have been unsuccessful. But we did speak to a former colleague who says that does not sound like the woman she knows. Take a look.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

ALEXIS JEFFERSON, FORMER COLLEAGUE OF SHOOTER'S MOTHER: I don't see that on her at all. I was so shocked when your news had told me about it told me. I said I - she's not the kind of a person that I knew that would have guns at home. I mean - I mean the way she looked, she's just a quiet lady. She's a quiet, very nice lady. Most of our, you know, patients likes her. So I see - I don't see it at all. I just don't.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

SIMON: Well, meantime, "The Oregonian," the newspaper here, spoke to a former neighbor named Sarah Smith, and she had some very interesting things to say about the shooter and his mother. She said it was common for the shooter, 26-year-old Chris Mercer, to have a holstered handgun on his hip even when he did mundane chores, like take out the trash or go to the mailbox. She also said that beginning this past April, she began hearing fights between the shooter and his mother. She would hear doors slam and cabinets shut and she said those fights seemed to be about him getting out of the house or trying to find a job.

We tried reaching out to Smith, Ashleigh, but at this point, she says she's not willing to talk any more about the shooter or his mother.

Ashleigh.

BANFIELD: And that mother, extraordinarily difficult to track down. Almost just going underground. It has been remarkable.

One last question for you. Friday is going to be a very big day where you are. That - that beautiful quiet place is going to all of a sudden be a den of activity when the president arrives. What's the plan for the president there, Dan?

SIMON: Ashleigh, we know the president is going to be meeting privately with families. We're not expected to see any sort of public events. But his visit is stirring up a little bit of controversy. Some Republican activists here have been very vocal about his visit. They say that, in fact, he's not welcomed because he's been politicizing the issue. The president, for his part, is unapologetic about that in terms of talking about guns and legislation. It got so heated that it prompted the mayor and the city council to actually release a statement saying that of course the president is welcome and we will receive him with open arms.

Ashleigh.

BANFIELD: All right, Dan, stand by, if you would. I want to bring in Paul Callan to this conversation as well. Paul, we keep hearing these stories that this mother, living with this son who she says had a disorder on the spectrum, and yet she allowed this household to be chock-full of guns, loaded guns, loaded mags, by her own writings. It makes me wonder what the parents and the loved ones of the dead are thinking now and if they have any recourse against her.

[12:05:04] PAUL CALLAN, CNN LEGAL ANALYST: Well, the first thing we have to say is that the criminal law and the civil law look at these things very differently. If you're talking about the mother being indicted criminally in some way, remember, to prove a criminal case, you have to show that she knew what was going to happen, she intended to help him, she engaged in a conspiracy or she was reckless in some way. And those are hard things to prove under the criminal law. However -

BANFIELD: But some would say it's very reckless to have a mentally unstable young man living in your home who you know to be violent in the past, which some reports have indicated -

CALLAN: He's 26 - he's 26 years old.

BANFIELD: Twenty-six-years-old and clearly a dangerous person, as we've come to learn. But she still thought it OK to have all these weapons and all this ammo, most (ph) of it already loaded to go.

CALLAN: Well, that's - that I don't think would rise to the level of a criminal charge. But, on the other hand, if I were giving her - or the victims advice about civil lawsuits, there you might have something because she almost becomes his guardian if he's depending upon how mentally disabled he is, and we haven't seen all the medicals here, we're only hearing of various reports. So there might be a case against the mother. But civil lawsuits are about recovering money damages. She's a renter. I'm doubting that she has insurance. I don't think, in the end, lawyers are going to say she's a good target. A better target probably would be the community college involved, Umpqua Community College. Some of the reports indicate that they may have only had one security guard, unarmed, on duty with 13,000 faculty and students using that institution. There might be a lack of adequate security claim that could be made against the college.

BALDWIN: Ten seconds left. If he were ever committed anywhere and were released, is there any claim against any facility he may have been at? Again, we don't know this for certain. There are reports, unsubstantiated. A, would there be liability for that facility. And, B, now that we have criminality, because he was possibly - there could be this chance he was committed and yet still had access to guns?

CALLAN: Well, I think this would be a very, very strong area to pursue if he had been seen by a psychiatrist or a physician in the fairly recent past and made threats in a therapy session which were not communicated. You have a strong case against the hospital or the doctor. Criminality, though, is another thing. I think it's - remains a very weak case in terms of a criminal case.

BANFIELD: As Dan has reported, they are investigating, they are looking at her posts, they are talking to her, again, as they would anybody close to a shooter. But the posts, they said they are looking at.

Thank you very much, Paul Callan.

CALLAN: Thank you.

BANFIELD: Dan Simon, as well, thank you for your reporting.

And a reminder, at the top of the hour, the Douglas County officials are going to hold a briefing on the Oregon shooting investigation and CNN will bring you that live just as soon as it gets underway. So make sure you stay tuned.

But I don't think I have to tell you this. after every mass shooting, the national debate turns to background checks, point of purchase, who should be or shouldn't be allowed to own, which kind of gun or guns, but in his exasperated remarks last Thursday, President Obama pointed to another area of gun law, little known to most Americans that he wants to change.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

BARACK OBAMA, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: We spend over a trillion dollars and passed countless laws and devote entire agencies to preventing terrorist attacks on our soil, and rightfully so, and yet we have a Congress that explicitly blocks us from even collecting data on how we could potentially reduce gun deaths.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

BANFIELD: Good point. What he's referring to is known as the Dickey Amendment. And if you don't remember it, it's because it was back in the mid-1990s when gun rights advocates were growing uneasy with federally funded research on gun violence. Research such as this published in "The New England Journal of Medicine" in 1993. Households with guns were found to have almost triple the risk of homicide, and almost five times the risk of suicide, as compared to gun-free households. That's what the research said. In 1996, a Republican lawmaker from Arkansas authored the measure that bears his name, to wit (ph), quote, "none of the funds made available for injury, prevention and control at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention may be used to advocate or promote gun control," end quote. The Dickey Amendment.

And though he says he never intended to shut down all federal research pertaining to firearms, that pretty much was the net effect. And now he sees the issue very differently. His full name is Jay Dickey. He's now out of Congress, and he is also live with me right now. He is the former self-described NRA point person, and now is a strong supporter of research into gun violence and how the prevent it.

[12:10:03] Mr. Dickey, thank you so much for being with me today. What changed? How did you have the change of heart?

JAY DICKEY, AUTHOR OF 1996 BAN ON GUN RESEARCH: Well, I just think it's the - it's just the weight of all of the incidents that have occurred and no one seems to be doing anything. No one seems to be stepping into the ring. And I just figured that maybe I could do it, I could bring some attention it to, and then step out of the way and let them do the work.

BANFIELD: So when you were the point person for the NRA and when you spearheaded this legislation, why did you not think that the effect would be so far reaching as to effectively paralyze those who at the CDC wanted to do any kind of research on gun injury?

DICKEY: Well, you have to understand that what we were faced with were the facts of an investigation and research being done just to support gun control. That's what it was. We wanted research done for gun violence. And that's what the money was paid for. But we found out that as we went along, that not only was the research being done just to support gun control, but we weren't even given access to what the collective data was. So it was - it was clear that we needed to do something to stop what was being done. My regret, and the thing I'm - I wish we had done, is to start right there and set up a new investigation, a new research arm and have - and have all of this time that we have and money helping to solve the problem.

BANFIELD: So now I know you - you now feel that reopening the federal funding for research would sort of be the least objectionable move in a circumstance where we all feel like we're just wringing our hands over and over again every time these shootings happen. But again, Mr. Dickey, we constantly hear about the slippery slope. Those who are Second Amendment, you know, protectors say, any kind of move that could have any kind of limitation or create any kind of limitation of gun ownership is that slippery slope. I guess my question for you is, what isn't a slippery slope, today, in this age, where we're dealing with kids and grown-ups and hundreds of deaths, what isn't a slippery slope anymore in this fight?

DICKEY: Well, all I can point to is what we see on our highways. We have barricades now, little fences, dividing our highways so that we will not have head-on collisions. Back in - back in the early days of that thought, people said, well, no, we can't do that without eliminating cars or without restricting cars. That was all done - all - was done through science and through research, and we now have less deaths on our highways because of that little fence.

But we could - I think that is a good example of what we can do. They didn't try to get rid of the car. They did it in spite of the car. And that is what we can do with guns. And I know we can find a way, but we can't find a way just by pointing fingers at each other and trying to - trying to see what we have that is different. We have one thing that is concern that - in common, and that is that the kids and the innocent people who are being killed deserve our attention.

BANFIELD: They deserve better. You're absolutely right. Former Congressman Jay Dickey, thank you so much for being with us today. I really appreciate it.

DICKEY: Thanks for having me, Ashleigh. BANFIELD: Coming up next, how and why did a cargo ship with 33 people

on board get caught in the middle of a hurricane? And could there still be survivors out there about one week later? Are they waiting for rescue? The Coast Guard is searching. The family are desperate. But is anyone giving up hope?

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[12:18:09] BANFIELD: As search crews comb the ocean trying to find survivors from the missing cargo ship El Faro, the families are desperate for answers. The Coast Guard officials say they believe the ship went down with 33 people on board after it sailed into a hurricane, Hurricane Joaquin. Those conditions were deplorable. A 140 mile an hour winds, 35 foot waves, but the families are holding on to any shred of hope they can. And we are learning more about some of their loved ones. The captain, Michael Davidson, described by a friend as experienced and capable. Danielle Randolph, a second mate on the ship. Her mother shared the last e-mail she got from Danielle.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

LAURIE BOBILLOT, MOTHER OF WOMAN ON BOARD EL FARO: Not sure if you've been following the weather at all, but there is a hurricane out here and we are heading straight into it, Category 3. Last we checked, winds are super bad and seas are not great. Love to everyone.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

BANFIELD: Jeffrey Mathias, a father of three children, ages three, five, and seven, his family said he is the center of their world. Keith Griffin, whose wife is pregnant, with twin, he was supposed to be home soon so that they could find out together if they were having boys or girl. His wife says she last heard from him a week ago. He said he was up late because of the bad weather, and that he loved her. Dylan Meklin, whose high school sweetheart is in Florida waiting for him or any news. His aunt says their family is not giving up.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

DEBORAH DYER, AUNT OF DYLAN MEKLIN: We can't. We can't. we have to - I don't know if it will ever be clear in our minds, but, you know, nobody's giving up yet.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

BANFIELD: Frank Hamm, whose daughter is furious, says that the ship should not have sailed with a potential hurricane brewing. Mariette Wright, whose mother says her daughter was doing what she loved.

[12:20:12] (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

MARY SHEVORY, DAUGHTER ON BOARD EL FARO: She loves the sea. That is her life. And now I'm so afraid she has lost it to the sea.

(END VIDEO CLIP) BANFIELD: As families wait and pray and hope, the National Transportation Safety Board is trying to find out what happened and why it happened and then instigate some changes. As - at its briefing yesterday, the NTSB said the "El Faro" had a voyage data recorder, something similar to a flight data recorder, that records the moments up to the catastrophe. It also has one of those pingers with batteries that have a 30-day life. But the big question is knowing a potential hurricane was brewing, why did El Faro go ahead on its route?

Perhaps I can ask that question best to a captain who knows a thing or two about this kind of sailing. James Staples is a maritime safety consultant and a cargo ship captain.

Captain Staples, thank you so much for being with us today. Everyone keeps asking the question, why would a captain sail into that kind of weather, and is there anybody in your industry defending his decision to do this?

CAPT. JAMES STAPLES, CARGO SHIP CAPTAIN/MARITIME SAFETY CONSULTANT: Well, Ashleigh, that's a great question, and, you know, it's the question we're all asking yourselves, why would you sail into - into weather that was very predictable, that there was a good prediction on it. And what disturbs me is the e-mail from the second mate where she said that they were sailing into a known Category 3 hurricane. That's - that's - it's perplexing. I don't understand why you would ever want to take a ship into that type of situation.

I don't know what the captain was thinking. I don't know what tools he was using to make his decisions. I don't know if he was trying to outthink the predictors, whether the storm was going to move east rather than the predicted track that it took. You know, to take a ship into that type of weather, there's only a couple of things that could be pressing him, and that would be maybe the schedule that was on his - on his mind to keep the vessel on schedule, because I understand this ship was supposed to be rerouted to another schedule - to another area of operation up in the north pacific. So that may have been pushing him. I'm not quite sure what would make him make that type of decision.

BANFIELD: I think us lay people, captain, look at a ship that is nearly 800 feet long and think, what wave could possibly topple that. And I - I know that you've been in certain circumstances that aren't so far off. You've been in a hurricane before in the Caribbean as well. You've had disabling situations where your engineer had to give you just enough propulsion to at least get perpendicular to those waves. Can you try to explain, you know, almost with geometry, how you can weather those kinds of waves and what happens when you lose all propulsion and why that makes every bit of difference.

STAPLES: Well, exactly the case, when you lose all propulsion, you're at the mercy and the peril of the sea. There's absolutely nothing you can do to keep that ship into the seaway. So the key was - is not to lose your propulsion. And if you can keep that ship headed in the direction of the weather, and keep the weather either, you know, 35 or 40 degrees on the bow, then you've got a substantial chance of surviving it and riding out the storm. And that's the key is to - you want to ride it out and keep the propulsion going.

And in the situation I had, we had two hurricanes brewing in the Caribbean, and I sailed from Sunny Point (ph) heading to Europe, getting away from the storm, increasing my distance, not heading towards the storm, heading in the opposite direction of the storm. And when we got off the coast of New Jersey, we had an engine casualty. So, you know, in making the decisions, when you make a decision to sail, that's something you need to take into consideration is, how well are the engines running? And then sometimes it's just unpredictable. So we're going to need to look to see what kind of problems they were having on this engine.

And I understand there were five Polish guys that were doing some work on there and they had an engineering consultant. Why was he there? What exactly were they doing in that engine room? And if there were problems with that engine room, was the United States Coast Guard notified, was ABS notified? So, those are some of the things we need to look at.

But the pressure the captain may have been under, for a lot of different reasons, whether he didn't feel that he didn't have the support from either the company or the union he may have worked for. So these are some of the things that may have been in his decision- making process. So that's something we're going to have to look into. It's just - this is just a tragedy.

BANFIELD: Well, I imagine - and I imagine the NTSB is looking into all of those questions you just laid out. Captain Staples, thank you so much. It's always good to see you, sir.

STAPLES: Good to see you, Ashleigh. Thank you very much.

BANFIELD: James Staples joining us live.

[12:24:43] And coming up next, Ben Carson back in the media and he's in the cross-hairs too after his comments about how to confront a gunman when you may just become a victim. And Donald Trump is coming to his defense.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

BANFIELD: Good news for the 2016 frontrunners today, with one caveat. New polls give Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump a boost in three key battleground states. This despite the fact that both have negative favorability ratings among registered voters in those states. Significant ones, too.

We're just six days away now from the first Democratic debate. Senator Clinton now leads by double digits in Florida, Ohio, and Pennsylvania. Also known as "the whoppers." She's well ahead of her Democratic rival, Bernie Sanders and Vice president Joe Biden, who I'll remind you has still not announced whether or not he's running. Well, when it comes to her Republican challengers, take a look at the other column's frontrunner, Donald Trump, still on top, while Ben Carson and Marco Rubio round out the top three. And as for Rubio and Jeb Bush, both still trail behind Trump and Carson in their home state of Florida. Awkward.

[12:30:09] So Ben Carson has really ignited some new controversy for some comments that he made