Return to Transcripts main page

At This Hour

Protests, Riots After Grand Jury Refuses Indictment in Michael Brown Death; Examining Blood Spatter Evidence

Aired November 25, 2014 - 11:00   ET

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

JOHN BERMAN, CNN CO-ANCHOR: Hello, everyone, I'm John Berman.

MICHAELA PEREIRA, CNN CO-ANCHOR: And I'm Michaela Pereira. @THISHOUR, reaction to a grand jury's decision to clear police officer Darren Wilson in the shooting death of Michael Brown, peaceful protests are back on the streets of Ferguson, Missouri, this morning.

BERMAN: Such a different scene than the one we saw last night. The violence, the looting, the chaos that erupted after the grand jury's decision was announced.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

ROBERT MCCULLOCH, ST. LOUIS COUNTY PROSECUTING ATTORNEY: After their exhaustive review of the evidence, the grand jury deliberated over two days, making their final decision.

They determined that no probable cause exists to file any charge against Officer Wilson and returned a no-true bill on each of the five indictments.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

BERMAN: Now that announcement, and I should say the way that it was announced, by St. Louis county prosecutor Rob McCulloch was tough to hear for many, many people.

Michael Brown's mother -- you can see here. She became very emotional, just the tears streaming down her face, just the emotion I think any mother would have in a moment like this.

You'll hear from Michael Brown's parents next hour. They will hold a live news conference.

PEREIRA: Other protesters were also emotional, some themselves crying and chanting in the streets.

Our Stephanie Elam reports on how those peaceful protests quickly unraveled.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

STEPHANIE ELAM, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Peaceful protests erupting into chaos after the announcement of no indictment. UNIDENTIFIED MALE: What are you saying? That you are that our lives

are not equal? Our lives are not worthy? Are not even a day in court? That's what you've just seen.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: It's another example of a miscarriage of justice.

ELAM: Angry protesters hurling bottles, rocks, and bricks at officers and the media.

(Inaudible). It's that kind of scene out here right now.

Protesters attacking police cars, shattering the window of this cruiser as cops run in with guns drawn to disperse them, but mayhem on the streets, looking like a war zone.

Gunshots ringing throughout the night, flaming engulfing several police cars, buildings ablaze roaring out of control, some burning to the ground. Firefighters stretched thin with the number of fires erupting and moving out fearing their own safety.

Widespread looting, several businesses vandalized including Ferguson Market and Liquor where Brown had allegedly stolen cigars before his death.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: You need to get out of the street or you will be subject to arrest.

ELAM: Police in riot gear and armored trucks firing tear gas and smoke bombs refusing to disperse, forcing demonstrators to run.

Anger and frustration about the grand jury decision spreading across the country. Protesters in Chicago facing off with police as they voiced their anger.

In New York, massive crowds marching through Manhattan, reaching three major bridges with one known arrest.

Protesters in Times Square even throwing fake blood at New York police commissioner Bill Bratton.

Demonstrators gathering outside the White House, weaving together on the ground along Pennsylvania Avenue.

In Oakland, California, protesters shut down the expressway, lying down inside chalk outlines drawn on the streets.

A similar scene in Seattle where demonstrators dropped to the ground.

The man who simmered tensions this summer urging restraint in the aftermath of chaos.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: We definitely have done something here that is going to impact our community for a long time. That's not how we create change. Change is created through our voice and not through destruction of our community.

ELAM: Stephanie Elam, CNN, Ferguson, Missouri.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

PEREIRA: We'll talk about the impact of those riots later on in the show, but right now we want to get a sense of what the scene is like now on the ground in Ferguson, Missouri.

Our Ana Cabrera is outside police headquarters there. We're hoping it's a different mood and we're hoping it's a different mood that will proceed throughout the day, Ana.

ANA CABRERA, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Literally night and day out here this morning, Michaela and John. We are in one of those hot spots just outside the Ferguson police station, this area crowded with hundreds of people here yesterday. It really got heated.

You can see just behind me there are people up and down the street in this parking lot, throughout this zone who we've seen out here this morning picking up trash and trying to clean up, trying to put their lives back together.

You see a lot of traffic now moving through here freely. This area was completely blocked off last night, but it is one of the busier and main thoroughfares in the town of Ferguson.

I can tell you we drove up and down this street, and it was really a sad sight. We saw a lot of businesses that had broken window, had to be boarded up. Some of the businesses we know would normally be open right now, even if they weren't damaged were closed because of the fear of what could come with additional protests.

Let's pivot around here to show you the Ferguson police department which is just across the street. Forgive the lighting. I know that the sun is shining into the camera, but you can see just how quiet it is out here.

You can see the barricade right in front of the police department driveway, and there are a handful, just a handful, of police officers that are out here, not Ferguson police officers. Actually, it's St. Louis County police officers who are sort of manning this post.

We understand that the Missouri governor has declared that more national guard members are going to be moving into Ferguson today to try to respond to any additional unrest that could still follow in the aftermath of this announcement that happened last night.

But at the very least, this morning things are at least looking up temporarily, and that is some good news, Michaela and John.

BERMAN: Ana, any sense from the activist community? Is anyone stepping up and saying not again? Do not do this again tonight.

CABRERA: People are just regrouping here at this point. I think, yes, that is one of the sentiments. We spoke to some of the people who were cleaning up, and they were calling for calm. They were out here last night. They are devastated by the destruction that they witnessed. John and Michaela?

BERMAN: All right, Ana Cabrera for us on the streets of Ferguson. Calm right now, and I think that's important for everyone to know because I think they're tuning in. They want to know what's happening on the streets after everything they saw last night. Right now it's calm.

PEREIRA: Yeah. Right now.

BERMAN: Also we are learning key details about what Officer Wilson told the grand jury. His version of events that apparently influenced the grand jury a great deal, the story according to Officer Wilson.

PEREIRA: Our legal analyst and former federal prosecutor Sunny Hostin is joining us now from Ferguson.

Good morning to you, Sunny. We know you've had a chance to look over reams and reams of paper of this testimony. I'm sure there were things that really struck you in there. What stood out the most to you?

SUNNY HOSTIN, CNN LEGAL ANALYST: Well, there were a lot of things, Michaela, that struck me and stood out to me, but I'd like to back up and put it into context.

When a prospective defendant gets in front of the grand jury, which is rare, a prosecutor then has the opportunity to cross-examine that person, to test that person's version of events because you know if you're a perspective defendant, you have incentive to try to put your best foot forward.

You have incentive to not be credible, to not be truthful. That is not what happened here, quite frankly, in reading the grand jury testimony of Officer Wilson. He was not tested by the prosecutor. He was not cross-examined. He was treated with kid gloves. He was tossed a lot of softballs and, in fact, the more difficult questions came from the grand jurors themselves.

So in light of that, what was striking to me was that his testimony just seemed to be very fanciful. He described what we have never heard before, which is that he had been struck with full force two times, the third time he thought could be a fatal strike yet his injuries seem inconsistent with that kind of force, Michaela.

He also described that he thought he saw Michael Brown reaching into his waistband which is something, unfortunately, that police officers often say to justify shooting someone.

However, one of the grand jurors asked Officer Wilson whether he felt or thought that Michael Brown had a weapon and he -- Officer Wilson responded that he hadn't thought of that.

So when you really take a look at the testimony and the context, it just appears to be very self-serving, quite frankly, and fanciful and just not credible.

BERMAN: Nevertheless -- HOSTIN: In my view.

BERMAN: Nevertheless, the grand jury seemed to believe it, Sunny, and I think that is the key question. Why? Why is it that this grand jury seemed to believe the testimony of officer Darren Wilson?

We're going ask that question to a panel of attorneys, not all of whom agree with Sunny Hostin.

Sunny, thanks for being with us. Stick around, we want you to be part of the conversation.

PEREIRA: Ahead, Officer Wilson claims that Michael Brown charged him. What he said about those final moments before Michael Brown died.

BERMAN: Plus, we'll hear from some of Officer Wilson's supporters, what they are now saying this morning that he's been cleared of state charges, what they're saying about the protests, the demonstration, the looting, what they are saying they want to see happen now.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

PEREIRA: @THISHOUR, we are waiting to hear from Michael Brown's parents. They are likely to respond to a grand jury's decision not to indict Officer Darren Wilson for the death of their son. They're going to speak at noon. We'll bring those comments to you live.

They're likely going to address the chaos that erupted overnight after the decision was announced.

BERMAN: And hopefully they will repeat their call for peace and calm because I think everyone needs to hear that so we do not have to repeat --

PEREIRA: Especially from them.

BERMAN: So we don't have a repeat of what happened last night.

Officer Wilson, he has not appeared before cameras. Earlier this morning, one of his supporters read a letter that Officer Wilson wrote, a statement, apparently, that comes all the way back from August after the first protest broke out.

Listen.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: "I would like to thank all of you for standing up for me during this stressful time. Your support and dedication is amazing, and it's still hard to believe all of these people I have never met are doing so much for me."

He closes with, "Please keep my family in blue in your hearts and prayers. They have all made a sacrifice of their own lives in order to work the excessive hours through the heat and rain to ensure the riots and protests in Ferguson were as safe as they could be." (END VIDEO CLIP)

BERMAN: Now that supporter did not want her identity revealed. She says she is being threatened because of her support for Officer Wilson.

PEREIRA: Let's talk more about Officer Wilson's grand jury testimony. There is a lot in it. We have some great legal minds with us. Legal analyst Mark O'Mara back with us from Ferguson. Legal analyst and former federal prosecutor Sunny Hostin.

Sunny, it's interesting, something you were mentioning beforehand, about the grand jury testimony. And you were bringing up this point, John; we can maybe pick up from that point in the conversation. Because we can pick through this as much as we want to, but what it boils down to is that grand jury believed the testimony from Officer Wilson.

HOSTIN: You know, I think that clearly the grand jury took his testimony into consideration. We don't know what they believed, Michaela, because the bottom line is we're not going to hear from the grand jurors, we're not going hear the vote, we're not going to hear the split, we're not going to hear their reasoning. So I think we need to be care in saying that they wholesale believed all of Officer Wilson's testimony, because when you look at the grand jury transcript, it's pretty clear that they are probing and they're asking him questions about his testimony.

BERMAN: Well, they're also asking questions which do reveal a little bit of how they're thinking, Sunny. And, Mark, I'm glad you're here with us because, you know, even if they did not buy hook, line, and sinker Officer Wilson's story, as Sunny suggests, clearly they agree with enough of his line of reasoning not to offer any indictments here.

MARK O'MARA, CNN LEGAL ANALYST: Absolutely.

BERMAN: The questions that they asked really insightful in some cases. They go to questions about forensic evidence. They asked in great detail about the blood spatter evidence, which indicated that Michael Brown walked -- or may have indicated -- that walked back or ran back. There was blood further on down the line. His body ended up being 20 feet closer to Officer Wilson. What does that tell you?

O'MARA: Well, it's probably the most significant piece of evidence that is there because, one, it's forensic. It's not somebody's interpretation, opinion, or insight on it. It is evidence that completely supports the idea, or the fact, that Mike Brown was moving forward at some point and he turned around and came back 25 feet. Whether he ran, charged, walked, stumbled, he came back -- and that 25 feet is so significant because, if for no other reason that helps us get some insight, the grand jury get some insight, into what Wilson was thinking as this person, who's already been shot, is now coming back at him.

BERMAN: And, again, what's so interesting hear is to hear the grand jury ask about it because we can see now how they're thinking. They're honing in on this information.

O'MARA: Absolutely. And I don't believe that they believed everything that Wilson said. I think that any witness, particularly if you're the one under potential indictment, is going to embellish a little bit, polish it up a little bit. But they don't need that. What they need to do is get to the heart of what he said and if it is consistent or inconsistent with the forensic evidence. This was a huge piece of forensic evidence. Had Mike Brown kept going, he would have been shot in the back and it would have been first degree murder. If he came back, that somehow explains away the tragedy.

PEREIRA: Fair point. Mark O'Mara, we're going to ask you to stay there. Sunny Hostin, we'll be right back with some more of this legal conversation in a moment.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

BERMAN: Why did the grand jury in Missouri decide not to indict Officer Darren Wilson? Well, we have some clues. Poring over the transcripts that have been released of the testimony before that grand jury, let's bring in our legal analyst again Mark O'Mara. Also from Ferguson, Sunny Hostin I believe is still with us. And here with us on set also Mel Robbins.

Mel, you've been going through this trying to get into the grand jurors' minds here, looking at the questions that they asked of detectives who investigated this case.

MEL ROBBINS, CNN LEGAL ANSLYT: Yes. So on November 21, which was just last week, I mean, just a few days ago, the detective who investigated this case appeared for the third time before this grand jury. And the first thing that struck me is that, over the course of almost 100 pages, they pepper this detective with questions.

But it was the questions on pages 87 and 88 -- and I'm sure you can find these on CNN.com if you want to pore through them yourselves -- the grand juror asks questions of the detective trying to nail down what Mark and Sunny and you guys were just talking about: This physical evidence of blood and the blood pattern and whether or not this blood pattern establishes the distance that Michael Brown traveled when he charged at the officer. And so the grand juror asked this, "So as far as physical evidence, we have the blood on the ground. That was about 21 or 22 feet from where Michael ground ended up."

So we know for a fact that's a minimum distance that he might have advanced. And from eyewitness testimony that placed him at the corner of Copper Creek. So why is this important?

PEREIRA: Yes, why. Explain that.

ROBBINS: It's important because, as Mark has been saying all morning, as many of the legal analysts have been saying, what the grand jury was focused on is whether or not Officer Wilson's perception of the threat was reasonable. And what they have to weigh is not only the testimony of Officer

Wilson, which has some problems with it but for the most part is corroborated by other witnesses, is corroborated by physical evidence. If you have blood evidence that tracks away from the scene, stops, turns around, and comes back, presumably dripping from a hand from the wound, what that establishes is irrefutable evidence that Michael Brown traveeld back at the officer, which corroborates the officer's claim and the witnesses' claim that he was charged by Michael Brown when he fired those fatal shots.

And would these be cross-examined at trial? Yes. However, this kind of evidence is the most powerful kind of evidence that you can have other than -- eyewitness we know can be discredited, it can be unreliable. This is the kind of evidence that established something that was at dispute in this, and you see the grand jury grappling with this. On pages afterwards, they ask more questions after this.

HOSTIN: Can I interject here for a minute? Can I interject here for a minute? Because we're all talking about how distance played such an important part in this case and Mel is talking -- Mel, my friend, is talking about blood evidence.

Now, blood splatter evidence, while a science, is much more of an art. What we generally use when we talk about crime scene is actually measuring distances. And if you look at the first grand jury person that testified, that was the medical investigator. What did he say? He said he didn't take pictures of the crime scene because his camera was out of batteries and, importantly, he said he didn't measure the distances -- didn't measure the distances because the distances were obvious.

And so I think we really need to take that into consideration and that perhaps why the grand jurors were stuck with trying to measure blood spatter, as opposed to having accurate measurements and were having to call back all of these witnesses and peppering them with questions. I think what it really goes to show you is that the prosecutor's way of presenting evidence to this grand jury was less than transparent, was overwhelmingly confusing, and didn't necessarily give the best picture and accuracy of the distance because now we're talking about blood spatter distance as opposed to actual measurements.

ROBBINS: And you're saying that's not actually accurate? Physical blood is not accurate? You can't measure physical blood spatter and so you're saying it's not accurate?

HOSTIN: Blood -- Mel, you know and I'm sure Mark O'Mara would agree, that blood spatter evidence, while scientific, is much more of an art. What you need do in crime scenes and what crime scene technicians and medical investigators are supposed to do, they are supposed to measure distances and that wasn't done in this case.

O'MARA: My quick response. This isn't blood spatter evidence. This is bread crumb evidence. What this shows is where Mike Brown went, because every foot or two, he was leaving a drop of blood from the injury. So it showed where he went and it showed he came back. This is not blood spatter to show where a fight happened or whether or

not someone was standing up. This is bread crumb. It just shows where he was. But it doesn't show he was charging necessarily, but it showed he turned on the officer, and that for a 25-foot distance there was what everything was happening where he did not go to the ground, which is probably would any Wilson -- any officer would say and what Wilson himself testified to.

Most significantly, if Wilson's testimony was disputed by physical evidence like this or any other physical evidence, then they would have thrown out his testimony, probably in some like we tell our injuries to do, because it's unbelievable. On the other hand, if it's consistent with the physical evidence, and this seems to be, then it adds that level of credibility. When it's a specific issue, you have to try and figure out, to make a decision what to believe. Was he in fear? The fear could have been there because of the advancing back at him. That's why it's very significant evidence.

ROBBINS: And was he advancing? When you have these three witnesses and the blood that actually shows where he physically was.

PEREIRA: Sunny, go ahead.

HOSTIN: Mark, would you agree that it's odd that a crime scene investigator, a medical investigator, would not measure the distances?

O'MARA: Well, they were measured by police and it should have been measured by everybody. and the idea that somebody comes to us, comes to anybody, and says, "I didn't take pictures because my batteries were out" -- they should be fired.

BERMAN: I think we'd all agree on that. I don't think that is very helpful in the investigation, to be sure.

PEREIRA: To say the least.

BERMAN: This all, though, again, gets to what the grand jury was thinking. Why they decided to do what they decided to do last night. I am so glad you've been here to discuss that, because I think these are the questions we are all asking today and will continue to ask as these days go forward.

Mark O'Mara, Sunny Hostin, Mel Robbins, thank you so much.

PEREIRA: Overnight, though, looting, car fires, Ferguson looked like a scene out of a terrible movie. After first being criticized for being heavy handed, did police let protesters get out of hand last night? We're going to take a look at that angle of the story.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)