Return to Transcripts main page

CNN Newsroom

Following the Trail of Evidence; Conflicting Accounts Given to Grand Jury; Ferguson Crime Scene Protocol Questioned; Ferguson Crime Scene Protocol Questioned; Questions Arise on Brown Autopsy Assistant; Child Predators Don't Have to Be Strangers

Aired November 29, 2014 - 17:00   ET

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

SUZANNE MALVEAUX, CNN ANCHOR: You are in the CNN NEWSROOM, I'm Suzanne Malveaux. What really happened when Michael Brown and Officer Darren Wilson met last August in the middle of a Ferguson, Missouri street? Well, what we know for sure is that there was a struggle and Officer Wilson shot and killed Michael Brown.

Well, grand jurors as you know decided not to indict Officer Wilson and they had a chance to review all of the evidence. Well, for the next hour we're going to do the same with the help of our two legal analysts Joey Jackson and Paul Callan they've been poring through the evidence ever since it was released and they have found key points that offer new insight into what really happened. I want to start with an in-depth look at how the altercation played out moment by moment.

Here's CNN's Susan Candiotti.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

SUSAN CANDIOTTI, CNN NATIONAL CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): The bruises to his face don't appear serious yet Officer Darren Wilson says, the punches he took from teenager Michael Brown ultimately led him to fear for his life.

Right out of the gate, a battle of wills. "Hey, why don't you walk on the sidewalk," the officer tells Brown and his friend, Dorian Johnson. According to Wilson, the teenager answers (bleep) what you have to say. The officer testifies he put two and two together, that both teens might be suspects in an alleged store robbery minutes earlier.

Wilson puts his car in reverse and calls for backup. "Hey, come here for a minute," Wilson testifies. "What the (bleep) are you going to do about it," the teen allegedly fires back. Wilson then tells Brown to, "get the (bleep) back." The six-foot- four, 210 pound officer says he felt intimidated by the six-foot-five, 289-pound teen. "When I grabbed him," he testified, "I felt like a 5-year-old holding on to Hulk Hogan." The teen, Wilson says, hit him across the cheek.

Wilson, "I felt another one of those punches could knock me out or worse. He had the most intense face. It looked like a demon." Wilson describes a struggle for his gun. The teen is shot in his right hand. He runs, so did Officer Wilson. "He makes like a grunting, aggravated sound. He turns, he's coming back towards me. His left hand goes in a fist and goes to his side. His right one goes under his waistband and he starts running at me."

Not all, but several witnesses, back up Wilson. One witness testifies, "I seen some type of movement and he started charging towards the police officer."

Blood drops indicated by circles on this grand jury chart showing how far Brown ran before he turned around may have helped convince jurors.

MARK O'MARA, CNN LEGAL ANALYST: It's really undeniable that he turned because the blood trail turned, and that he came back 25 feet.

CANDIOTTI: About eight feet short of Wilson.

At least 12 shots are fired, at least six hit Brown. The volley captured on a nearby cell phone. "I tell him, get on the ground, get on the ground, he still keeps coming at me. I'm backpedaling pretty good because I know if he reaches me, he'll kill me."

But were the teen's hands up in surrender or down? For police, it may not matter.

O'MARA: This, walking towards somebody, that is not -- that is an aggressive situation for the person you're walking towards. That's why they want you on the ground.

CANDIOTTI: Wilson fires the final and fatal shot to the top of the teenager's head. His face went blank, the aggression was gone, the threat was stopped. But when a grand jury decides Wilson should not be charged, violence begins.

Susan Candiotti, CNN, New York.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

MALVEAUX: So, legal analyst Paul Callan and Joey Jackson are joining us now and we want to start off with the physical evidence in this case. Joey, there's a lot of work to be done here when you look at this. We're talking about this trail of blood drops, also the location of the shell casings. What do we know about the physical evidence? What does it tell us and what does it not tell us?

JOEY JACKSON, CNN LEGAL ANALYST: A great question. So, here's the point of view, when you look at the car itself, Suzanne, and that's where things initially occurred, you see shell casings and there are two shell casings there. Now, that's instructive because at least it tells us that there were two rounds discharged. The thing that it limits, and there's other evidence we'll get to, but the thing that it limits is, you know, how they got there. We know that there was the gun discharge. Who was the aggressor? Was it that Michael Brown was aggressive and striking the officer? Was it that the officer was reaching out and pulling Michael Brown in? What was the altercation all about?

And so the physical evidence doesn't lie but it's certainly subject to interpretation. We also know that at the car itself there's some tissue mass of the thumb of Michael Brown inside that car and that's indicative of Michael Brown having his hand in there. So, you know, and that certainly tells that and there's also blood inside the car of having to do with Michael Brown. That's really important because, again, it goes to the issue of the struggle but it doesn't actually tell you how that struggle occurred and that's what's critical.

MALVEAUX: Paul, so jump in here. Is the physical evidence, is it really enough to determine what happened here or do we have to rely on more than that to get to the bottom of this?

PAUL CALLAN, CNN LEGAL ANALYST: No, we need a lot more than that to put this whole story together and it's really a fascinating story when you do put it together. I mean, and I think frankly, you got to reach back in time even before the encounter at the car to find out how, you know, Mike Brown and Dorian Johnson wound up at that spot. But getting back to the physical evidence with respect to the car. The one thing it confirms, and I don't think there's a lot of dispute about this, there was a struggle in that car.

MALVEAUX: Right.

CALLAN: And unquestionably the officer's gun discharged twice. Now, member when this case first broke it wasn't clear how the struggle happened, who initiated it, whether the gun went off during the struggle. But I think all parties now would probably agree that there was a struggle and the gun discharged. Now, there might be a difference of opinion as to why the gun discharged and who was responsible for that but the physical evidence confirms those aspects of the story.

MALVEAUX: Go ahead.

JACKSON: One thing really critical, Suzanne, is that certainly what I would have liked to have seen would be a test of the gun whether it relates to prints or whether it relates to DNA and that's absent. So when we talk about physical evidence, obviously we have to talk about the lack of physical evidence because, you know, there was the indication by Darren Wilson that Michael Brown grabbed that gun and he was pushing it down towards his hip and as a result of that certainly you would want a test done to either show, "A," were there prints there or, "B," were their skin cell DNA and so, there was no information concerning a DNA being found on that.

CALLAN: Well, we have no information that any prints were found on the gun or any DNA was found on the gun that would shed light on Officer Wilson's claim that -- and by the way, his wording was that he could feel Michael Brown's finger going for the trigger of the gun during the struggle and that put him in fear of his life.

MALVEAUX: We are going to tackle a little bit more about that but Paul, I want you to talk about something that you discovered in the grand jury testimony. This was Dorian Johnson who was with Michael Brown at the time and he testified the following, he says, "So now big Mike is able to turn different angles while he's trying to pull away and at the point he turned now we're face to face and he put his hands, like, grabbed these, bro, and in shock I'm so not unconsciously my hands opened to where he could put rillos on my hand," and Officer Wilson described the same moments this way. "He turned to his -- he's at my vehicle. He turned to his left and handed the first subject and he said, here, take these. He was holding a pack of cigarillos which was stolen from the market store, several packs, and he said, here, hold these, and when he did that, I grabbed his arm trying to just control something at that point.

So, Paul, tell us what's the significance of that description, at that very moment?

CALLAN: Well, this whole encounter between Michael Brown and Officer Wilson seemed so improbable. I mean, why, first of all, would a police officer reach through a window and grab somebody and hold on to them? And secondly, why would Michael Brown of all things try to attack the officer, you know, because, remember, the backstory here by the officer and by the young men or at least by Dorian Johnson was, they had just been stopped for walking in the middle of the street.

So, was the police officer going to shoot them because they didn't obey his command to get on the sidewalk? It all seemed improbable. When I went back and looked at the grand jury testimony, though, it turns out that Dorian Johnson's view is that, yes, there was the struggle going on between the two men and with respect to the passing off of the rillos or cigarillos, those were the things that were stolen earlier from the convenience store.

MALVEAUX: Right.

CALLAN: And Michael Brown when he got into this, you know, this struggle with the police officer he had them in both hands and he passed them off to Dorian Johnson and the struggle continued. Now, of course, Officer Wilson says at that point he used his free hand to punch him in the face and put him in fear of his life. Johnson tells a different story. Johnson just says that he was using his hands to get leverage to try to push away from the car.

MALVEAUX: We'll have more on this and Joey, I'm going to have you weigh in. But it's going to be hard to know really what truly happened because of the conflicting eyewitness accounts. Some of the so-called witnesses, will they even admitted that they never actually saw the shooting at all. That's next.

Plus, are there serious questions about the man who helped perform Michael Brown's autopsy? Not only is he being called a fraud but when CNN interviewed him, he got very fiery. You're going to hear it up ahead.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

MALVEAUX: The grand jury testimony that's been released to the public makes for a fascinating read, let's take a look at this. Where we now see a wide range of discrepancy in what witnesses say they saw in the confrontation between Michael Brown and Officer Darren Wilson. Paul Callan and Joey Jackson joining us throughout the hour to talk about this one at a time and so let's begin with this one here. You're talking about more than 50 percent of the witness statements said that Michael Brown had his hands up when Darrel Wilson shot him. What is the significance of this? Paul, start with you.

CALLAN: Very important piece of evidence because obviously if he had his hands up in a surrender gesture and he was not threatening the officer, then that would suggest that this was a crime that should be prosecuted. But I have to caution you on that, that while 50 percent of the witnesses may have said that, some of them have him moving forward toward the officer. And others were challenged by the prosecutors as to whether they had changed their testimony and whether their testimony was influenced by the testimony of other witnesses. So, those statements may not be truly reliable.

MALVEAUX: Joey, this is critical, right? You got protesters, everybody is doing this here, so I mean, the fact that 50 percent that say, no, half of them missed it or half of them got it right?

JACKSON: Now remember, there are 29 witnesses that are interviewed and of those 29 there were 16 that said, well, wait a second, he had his hands up, that is, Michael Brown in a surrender position. Of course, the balance had a different point of view, but it really when you look at it, it speaks to, you know, were they fabricating or were they indeed telling the truth. There's a different narrative that's being told by the other witnesses and so you have to balance the two and see who is right and who is wrong.

Now, the district attorney certainly when he presented these witnesses in front of the grand jury he voiced the fact that there were other statements that they gave to the FBI, there were statement that they gave to the police and some of them may have been contradictory, but the issue is there's a question of fact here so people want to know whether or not the grand jury should have credited that and brought the matter to trial since there could have been probable cause or simply disregarded that and that's a big question that the community has.

CALLAN: And that's when you say 50 percent of the witnesses say he had his hands up, that's not a reliable way to describe this evidence because bear in mind a lot of these witnesses when they're interviewed by the FBI and, by the way, they, themselves, said under oath before the grand jury, I didn't really see the incident, somebody else told me about it, that's why I made the statement or they said they had heard somebody else talk on the television or the radio and they were influenced by that so that makes that -- so I think it's unfair to characterize that as a 50 percent say hands up.

MALVEAUX: I want to go to the next point here. Only five witness statements said that Brown reached towards his waist during the confrontation leading up to Wilson shooting him to death and so, Joey, that speaks to the gun, right?

JACKSON: See, that's important, Suzanne, because whenever someone reaches for their waistband then obviously the officer would have some reasonable fear for his own safety, right? There would be some imminent fear that he's in danger. And so when you have five witnesses who give that indication and the balance that don't see that, it brings to mind a couple of things. Are these five witnesses reliable or were they very reliable and telling the truth? Because remember, we have to match this evidence up against what Darren Wilson said and what did Darren Wilson say? He said, he was concerned because they grabbed, that is, you know, Michael Brown grabbed for that waist area while he was stumbling or walking towards him.

MALVEAUX: And Paul, let's take this one here. More than half the witness statements said that Brown was running away from Wilson when the police officer opened fire on the 18-year-old while fewer than one-fifth of such statements indicated that that was actually not the case.

CALLAN: Well, no, it was not the case and it gets back to the point in all criminal cases, not just this one, it's not the number of witnesses, it's the reliability of the witness testimony. And in the end, you've got to look at the physical evidence to see if it confirms or contradicts the statements. Now, we'll be talking about the blood trail later and we'll also be talking about the autopsy reports later. But that -- those pieces of physical evidence seem to contradict some of those statements and for that reason it was thought unreliable by the grand jury.

MALVEAUX: And Joey, take this point on for me because this is, again, another even split here. Among witnesses statements said whether or not Wilson fired upon Brown when the 18-year-old had already collapsed onto the ground.

JACKSON: Sure. That's significant and, again, we'll address this as it relates to the autopsy report because when Michael Baden of course who was hired by the family did the autopsy there was some indication for him. Also that this was a downward trajectory of the bullet and that downward trajectory of the bullet going into Michael Brown's head would be suggestive of the fact that he was bent over in some way. But you have to pause and not only did, of course, Michael Baden say that but of course the medical examiner of the county did. But Suzanne, that doesn't answer a very critical question. Was Michael Brown bent over because he was charging the officer? Was he bent over because he was cowering having been shot already? Was he stumbling because he was shot? Those are questions that are open to interpretation. So even though the physical evidence suggests the downward trajectory what really happened remains an open question and unanswered.

CALLAN: But there's no evidence -- there's no physical evidence and forensic evidence supporting a claim that he was shot repeatedly on the ground after he had fallen to the ground.

JACKSON: Not at all.

CALLAN: So, that's why you may pop up on the list of what witnesses say, but it seems to be clearly contradicted by the physical evidence.

MALVEAUX: And of course, you bring up a good point which it's about the interpretation and the credibility from these witnesses. We'll going to go on here because Officer Wilson testified that Michael Brown reached for his gun. But it was never tested for fingerprints and that's just one of the potential blunders revealed in this grand jury evidence. We're going to discuss that next. But, first, we're counting down the days until the CNN heroes all-star

tribute, but until then what about last year's top honoree? Our Anderson Cooper checked in on him.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

ANDERSON COOPER, CNN HOST, AC 360 (voice-over): In 17 years, Chad Pregracke and his team picked up eight million pounds of trash from America's rivers. Last November, for his inspiring work, Chad picked up a big honor.

The 2013 CNN hero of the year is Chad Pregracke.

One year later we caught up with him to get an inside look at what he does and how he does it. At the heart of his work is a massive 800- ton barge stores the huge piles of trash of Chad's team collects. It looks like a floating junk yard but --

CHAD PREGRACKE, 2013 CNN HERO WINNER: Welcome to CNN cribs.

COOPER: It's also Chad's part time home.

PREGRACKE: So pretty much everything is reclaimed or recycled out of either old buildings, old barns.

COOPER: The goal is serious but there is definitely a quick in this work.

PREGRACKE: So this would be our creepy doll collection. Why do we have it? I really don't have any idea other than we find a lot of creepy dolls.

COOPER: And trash isn't all he needs to look out for on the river.

PREGRACKE: One of the safety concerns is actually the flying carp. They really do fly out of the water in high speed and they get rather big.

COOPER: It's all part of Chad's work, work that also includes growing trees. Chad started this environmental effort in 2007 but he was able to expand it after being named CNN Hero of the year. In the end Chad's crusade is about much more than cleaning rivers.

PREGRACKE: It's about people taking action in their own communities and that's really what it's all about. That's how you change the world.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

MALVEAUX: The grand jury transcript from the Michael Brown shooting has our legal experts questioning how the crime scene was handled afterwards. Paul Callan, Joey Jackson, we're going to start with some crime scene protocol questions raised by the medical examiner's testimony. So, first of all, let's talk about this. The medical examiner did not

take pictures, did not take pictures of the crime scene saying that the camera batteries were dead though he did say police were taking photos if he could get if needed. He also did not take measurements of the scene. Shredded his notes after writing his report and he was allowed to testify about finding marijuana in Michael Brown's pockets. So, I mean, I find it kind of incredulous really that there's like no batteries to the camera and I mean, all these things. You know, Laymen watch "SVU," they know better than this, there's something wrong with this.

JACKSON: Absolutely. To say the least, when you are the medical examiner, obviously you have a vast responsibility. There's a dead body there and what you want to do is to document, Suzanne, all the occurrences around that dead body. And so, to not have -- to have a camera but not take pictures because you know what, the batteries are dead, and you know, what? The county will take them anyway, we'll rely upon them, that's totally improper.

The other thing certainly that you would expect and have every expectation the medical examiner does is you know, you want to take measurements to see who was where, what was what. We know that Michael Brown was about 150 -- two feet from the police car, where his body was. And so, the reason he didn't take measurements was because he didn't feel it was that important. He knew exactly what occurred. That's something that shouldn't occur. And so, when you look at these various things in addition to, you know, the other math is that on the list, it raises questions about the competence and reliability of, you know, of what he does.

Also as far as scrapping your notes the reason that is significant, Suzanne, is because you always want to have your notes and even though you transcribe them onto a report, there were things we know in this case that he left out in the report in terms of the shell casings that were there that he made no mention of in his report but he saw, in terms of blood that he made no mention of but that were there. And so all of it ends up to be problematic, and the final thing concerning the marijuana, you know, the District Attorney, the prosecutor in the case apparently spoke a lot about the marijuana issue and the way they got it in through the medical examiner, is they said, you checked his pockets, didn't you? Yes.

Did you think he had weapons? No, it wasn't for weapons I was just seeing what was going on and I found among other things, marijuana and it raises the question as to whether or not that really was proper for the prosecutors.

MALVEAUX: How did you see it?

CALLAN: Well, I want to try to put it all in perspective in the sense that, you know, people forget that Ferguson is a town of 21,000 people, it's essentially a small town and this is a small town police force, similar to small town police forces all across America. And even in counties in the New York City Metropolitan area, like in New Jersey where you have small towns, the county comes in and takes over a homicide scene usually from the local cops. The cops have training. But it's not great training. They don't have a lot of familiarity with it.

And so usually the state police or the county police come in to a serious crime scene which, of course, is what ultimately happened here. And when you look at these errors, they're Bush league errors. Anybody who watches television would know better than to make errors like these. But I think fortunately and what happened ultimately was most of the things that they botched initially were not the kinds of things that would degrade or change with time. The bloodstains are the bloodstains. They are where they were and so I don't think in the end it probably made a big difference.

JACKSON: I think it makes a significant difference and I think if you're a town of 21,000 certainly you have batteries in the camera and if you are the medical examiner whether you're a police officer or small force or not, you're going to be called to testify and to rely upon the police --

CALLAN: What changed though? What was inaccurate? Affected whether the cop was in danger of his life and fired in self-defense?

JACKSON: A number of things I think you can argue.

CALLAN: Like what?

JACKSON: The fact that there were items that were left out of the medical examiner's report, concerning the casings, where those casings were or his observations of the casings as opposed to relying upon the police. That goes to where Michael Brown --

CALLAN: There's no dispute though that there were two casings that were found in the vicinity of the car. Those are the two initial shots.

MALVEAUX: I hear what both of you are saying but I want to actually raise another point here.

CALLAN: OK.

MALVEAUX: Because this is important as well. This is about the Officer Darren Wilson and the potential evidence, right? Because here it goes on, it says he was allowed to leave the scene. Wash his hands, no fingerprint tests were ever done on the gun. No skin cell DNA test was done on the gun and then there's the question about the chain of custody as Wilson was allowed to use his -- to hand in his own weapon rather than being taken from him. So, I mean, this seems like a lot of missed opportunities to gather evidence here in the case.

CALLAN: Absolutely. That's a serious error with respect -- but we're not talking about the medical examiner there. He's a cop who is potentially under investigation. He shouldn't have been allowed to wash his hands. Somebody else should have taken care of bagging the gun. But let's go back for a second because in the end when you look at mistakes you have to say, did it affect the ultimate outcome of the case? Now, you raised the issue of fingerprints on the gun. That would be

important if there was a claim by anybody that Michael Brown ever had the gun in his hand. The only thing that is said by the officer is that he could feel Michael Brown's finger reaching for his finger which was already on the gun. That suggests there was no physical contact between Wilson's -- between Brown's fingers and the gun. And it also --

(CROSSTALK)

JACKSON: -- disagreement, too. When you're reaching for a gun -- and there's certainly testimony, Darren Wilson suggested that he had the gun, that he was pushing it down towards them -- certainly I would want to know and test the gun to challenge your claim. Did he touch that gun? And in the event that my finger was on the finger guard, I would want to know, is there a fingerprint on that gun, is there DNA, skin cell DNA on that gun. It goes to the claim of how in danger the officer really was and did he act in accordance with that danger.

SUZANNE MALVEAUX, CNN ANCHOR: Got to go.

Joey, Paul, we're going to deal with another issue.

Was the man who helped perform an autopsy on Michael Brown qualified to even do it? As questions swirl about his credentials, CNN has tracked him down and this is how he responded to one of his critics:

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

SHAWN PARCELLS, ASSISTANT PATHOLOGIST IN BROWN AUTOPSY: He has holy (EXPLETIVE DELETED). Excuse my language but I got (EXPLETIVE DELETED) e-mails to prove him and I going back and forth and the fact that he ignores me. He's a (EXPLETIVE DELETED).

(END VIDEO CLIP)

MALVEAUX: Wow. We're going to play you the full response coming up. You're not going to want to miss this one.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

MALVEAUX: In the Michael Brown case, questions are swirling about a man who served as an assistant during one of the autopsies on Brown's body. A CNN investigation raises new concerns about Shawn Parcells qualifications.

Senior medical correspondent, Elizabeth Cohen, has more on Parcells past.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

DR. ELIZABETH COHEN, CNN SENIOR MEDICAL CORRESPONDENT: The Ferguson, Missouri, case created a media star out of an assistant pathologist, but a CNN investigation shows he may not be exactly what he appears to be.

(voice-over): Out of the death and violence in Ferguson, Missouri, this summer, a turn to be a media star for a man named Shawn Parcells.

PARCELLS: First of all, I'm Professor Shawn Parcells.

COHEN: He dazzled with details on the private autopsy of Michael Brown.

PARCELLS: Two gunshot wounds to the head indicating that Mr. Brown was bending over as they were coming down.

UNIDENTIFIED CORRESPONDENT: We're back with Shawn Parcells who assisted in the autopsy of Michael Brown.

SHEPARD SMITH, FOX NEWS CORRESPONDENT: Now Shawn Parcells --

COHEN: Even here on CNN, he's appeared in the media, time and again, as a forensic pathology expert.

We know he assisted Dr. Michael Baden in the private autopsy commissioned by Michael Brown's family. Baden said he was a good assistant.

Parcells is not a doctor. We know he calls himself a forensic medical consultant, a medical investigator and a professor, but is he what he says he is?

(on camera): So you call yourself a professor.

PARCELLS: Yes.

COHEN: Where are you a professor?

PARCELLS: I'm an adjunct professor at Washburn University in Topeka, Kansas.

COHEN (voice-over): But that as far, as we could tell, isn't accurate. We contacted Washburn University. They say while he has spoken to nursing students, he's not now and has never been an adjunct professor there.

(on camera): Washburn University says that's not true.

PARCELLS: I have a contract that says it is true.

COHEN: Can you show us that contract?

PARCELLS: I can.

COHEN (voice-over): But he never sent us that contract showing us he was an adjunct professor. He later said it was proprietary.

GRANT GILLETT, DEPUTY, ANDREW COUNTY SHERIFF'S OFFICE: I would describe him as a fraud. That's the best way to describe Shawn Parcells to me.

DUSTIN JEFFERDS, DEPUTY, ANDREW COUNTY SHERIFF'S OFFICE: A manipulator. GILLETT: Very good con artist is the way I'd put it.

COHEN: In Missouri, deputy sheriffs, Grant Gillett and Dustin Jefferds (ph), say Shawn Parcells performed an autopsy procedure in a criminal case without a doctor present.

(on camera): So he introduced himself as a pathologist, as a medical doctor?

GILLETT: That is correct.

COHEN: And he seemed believable?

GILLETT: Very well.

JEFFERDS: Yes.

COHEN: I mean, you two are both experienced law enforcement officers. And even you were duped.

GILLETT: That's right.

COHEN (voice-over): The deputies say, without a medical doctor's signature on Robert Forester's autopsy report, it's not valid.

(on camera): It's been more than two years since the crime. Can you move forward with the prosecution?

GILLETT: We cannot move forward at this time with that case at all.

COHEN: Why?

GILLETT: Because the autopsy was not performed legally, so we cannot use any evidence found from the autopsy in a court of law to be used to prosecute any suspects on the case.

COHEN (voice-over): That means, according to the deputies, Bobby Forester, suspected of killing his grandfather, was set free and he went on to beat up his grandmother.

Shawn Parcells says he never told the deputies he was a doctor.

PARCELLS: They want to think I'm a doctor, that's their issue. People assume stuff all the time and they may never ask. It's -- it's -- it's bad that they're assuming and that they never asked.

COHEN: Parcells, who has a bachelor's degree, says he's supervised by medical doctors, but sometimes they're not present when he performs an autopsy procedure.

(on camera): So you do autopsies where there's not a pathologist or an M.D. anywhere in the room?

PARCELLS: At times. Sometimes the pathologist is there and sometimes they're not.

COHEN: You're not an M.D.?

PARCELLS: I'm not an M.D.

COHEN: But it's legal for you to be cutting up bodies, taking organs out, making observations?

PARCELLS: Yes.

COHEN (voice-over): This, even though a letter on his own company's letterhead states unequivocally that "during each and every forensic autopsy conducted, the attending pathologist is present at all times. "We always have the attending pathologist present and directing the autopsy examination."

And if you think that's shocking, the owner of this funeral home says Parcells promised to arrange for an autopsy on the remains of an unidentified body. But didn't show up for more than a week. Maggots appeared. And where's that body now? Phelps County deputy coroner, Lenox Jones, would love to know. He said he's not heard from Parcells in more than a year.

When we asked Parcells, where's the body, we got a barrage of obscenities.

(on camera): Lenox Jones says he's never heard back from you.

PARCELLS: He has. Holy (EXPLETIVE DELETED). Excuse my language, but I got (EXPLETIVE DELETED) e-mails to prove him and I going back and forth and the fact that he ignores me. He's a (EXPLETIVE DELETED). You want to be truthful? He is a (EXPLETIVE DELETED). And I'm sorry to cuss like this on your cameras but this particular case pisses me off.

COHEN (voice-over): Parcells added the coroner can pick up the body at his morgue in Topeka anytime.

So, with coroners and law enforcement so angry, why haven't they gone after him? Dr. Mary Case, chief medical examiner for St. Louis County, says prosecutors might be worried. She says some of them may have used his autopsy reports to get convictions, convictions they don't want overturned.

DR. MARY CASE, CHIEF MEDICAL EXAMINER, ST. LOUIS COUNTY: It could be a problem for that prosecuting attorney if that prosecutor has prosecuted somebody based upon Shawn's findings. Of course, that's a problem.

COHEN: For the prosecutor?

CASE: For the prosecutor.

COHEN: So no one wants to go after him?

CASE: No one has. No one has to this point.

(END VIDEOTAPE) COHEN: A county in Missouri did file a complaint with the state's medical licensing board saying they expected a pathologist to be at the procedure, but instead, Parcells did it on his own. The board closed the case without taking any action, and wouldn't tell us why.

Back to you.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

MALVEAUX: Thanks, Elizabeth.

Parcells insists that the Forester death investigation was, quote, "doomed from the start" because the dead man's body was embalmed prior to the autopsy and the sheriff's department never turned over records needed for the autopsy report to be completed. But the sheriff's office says Parcells never asked for such records.

So, I want to bring in Paul and Joey to weigh in on that, up next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

MALVEAUX: We're back with more on Ferguson and the controversial man who helped perform a private autopsy on Michael Brown's body. Shawn Parcells stepped into the media spotlight back in August when he assisted famed pathologist, Dr. Michael Baden, with the private autopsy commissioned by the Brown family attorneys. Well, now there are serious questions regarding Parcells' credentials. He's not even a doctor.

My legal panel is back.

And, boy, you know, we watched this, all three of us. Were kind of incredulous by what we were seeing here.

I'll start with you, Paul.

Do you think that this makes any difference, any impact on the testimony and what we've learned the outcome of Michael Brown's death?

CALLAN: Well, I've always been disturbed about the fact that there were too many autopsies that had been done in this case in the first place, because, you know, when you try a case, you're always afraid your experts are going to be in conflict with one another. You want to have a nice, clean presentation. And now this, of course, is just going to add to it because he's obviously a fraud and a phony. And it's going to put Baden's whole autopsy into substantial doubt, leaving only the medical examiner. And, of course, there was yet another autopsy that was done by federal authorities in connection with the case.

MALVEAUX: Joey, did he break any rules or laws in Missouri State? And could this guy, in fact, go to prison, really?

JACKSON: Listen, in the event you pass yourself off as something that you're not, certainly becomes a problem, right, Suzanne? If you're representing to the world that you're a person licensed to do these things and your credentials as a bachelor's degree, you're saying you are a professor at a college you're really not, whenever you have someone that doesn't have the right credentials working on something, it raises the questions. As to how it affects this case, though, it depends on the exact role he had. Baden was the lead person and supervised him, to say the least. And we would suspect that Baden did the bulk of the work. And this is relevant. I know the grand jury has ruled in this matter. But remember, there's a federal investigation, two federal investigations, and a potential civil suit by the family.

MALVEAUX: Did Baden have any obligation, Paul, to look at the guy's credentials and question --

JACKSON: Due diligence.

MALVEAUX: -- who am I dealing with, who is assisting me?

CALLAN: One of the things that concerned me was, when I watched the press conference originally, Baden took a very minimal role at the press conference. And this guy was the one who was doing all the talking and demonstrating -- I mean, it really looked like he was the one who was the primary mover on the autopsy. So I would think Dr. Baden would have checked him out before he put him in such a P.R.- prominent role?

MALVEAUX: Does it ultimately affect the testimony though before the grand jury? Baden's testimony?

JACKSON: No. I think Baden, he's well respected. People know him. People can relate to him. He's been involved in a series of cases before. And it could be that this person took the lead role because, you know what, Baden is already famous, we want you to get the spotlight. But at a very minimum -- and I know Baden is a wonderful person and an even better professional. But you have to do your due diligence because things that come out like this put you into question.

MALVEAUX: Final thoughts here, guys. We've seen this week develop. We've seen all of this come out here. I mean, we've pored through the evidence, the lack of evidence here.

What's your takeaway, Paul?

CALLAN: This case -- America's been mesmerized by this case. And there are concerns about racial disparities and how police officers treat minorities, and African-Americans in particular, and people are concerned about that. But when I look at the evidence, as someone that tried murder cases as a prosecutor and defense attorney, the one thing I keep seeing is reasonable doubt. And even if there had been an indictment, for some reason, on this evidence, and there was a full trial, there is so much reasonable doubt built into all the contradictions in the evidence -- everything in the case is contradictory -- that, in my opinion, it would be virtually no chance of a conviction in the case. And what would we do, but prolong the agony through a jury trial and for no reason. And I think that's what ultimately the grand jury looked at and they said, there's not -- they'll never be a conviction in the case.

MALVEAUX: Joey, I've got to get you in here.

JACKSON: I see it another way because reasonable doubt is an issue for trial, Suzanne. The issue before that grand jury wasn't reasonable doubt, it was probable cause. And really, based upon what I see going through the testimony, really raises the question, and the question that's raised with me is, should prosecutors be really policing the police officers, and should police officers be investigating their own cases. I think moving forward, if there was some independence there, there would be some measure of trust in an investigation. There would be some measure of calm in the community because they would know it's reliable. But if you work with someone, you trust someone, and you're dependent upon them for your cases now, and cases in the future, how else are you going to treat them? So what I would really like to see is some measure of independence and for prosecutors not to get involved in cases involving the police.

MALVEAUX: Got to leave it there.

Joey, Paul, thank you so much for your insights. Really provocative.

CALLAN: Thank you.

JACKSON: Thank you.

MALVEAUX: Really appreciate it. Very good analysis.

Predators don't have to be strangers. They can even be old classmates. How one mom found out her daughter was the target.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

MALVEAUX: Here's a scenario. Your daughter starts getting texts from one of your old classmates and then you let her accept his "friend" request on Facebook because he was an OK guy. But things get a little scary.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

TORY DIEHL, TARGET OF CHILD PREDATOR: A message from Kevin Stosher popped up. I didn't think anything of it, because of the last name. My family is really good friends with them. And they're really well- known in our hometown. And I remember reading the message. It said, "Hi, Tory. My name is Kevin. I went to high school with your mom."

UNIDENTIFIED MOTHER OF TORY DIEHL: I said Kevin Stosher? He sent you a friend request, too? And she said yeah. And I said, well, I guess, if you want to accept it, you can. He's somebody my age. It isn't one of your friends. I never thought more of it.

DIEHL: I said, "Hi," kind of just small talk. And then it went to say you're really beautiful. Kevin continued to talk to me throughout the night. He had told me that he was in Rapid City, South Dakota. That he might be coming to town to Ft. Pierre, South Dakota. I did not reply. I went to school the next day, and a couple of my girlfriends in my

grade had said this, "Kevin Stosher guy keeps contacting me." I was like, what? It was basically the same thing. Like, "Do you know, Tory Diehl? I went to high school with her mom." And would ask them to hang out and continue to tell them how beautiful they were.

UNIDENTIFIED MOTHER OF TORY DIEHL: I said, seriously? He's saying those things to you? So I asked for the number, and I said, you need to stop texting my daughter and her friends. That's just not cool. You know? They're 20 years younger than you. You just don't do that. And he responded, "Sorry, I understand. No hard feelings." I thought that was the end of it.

It was shortly after that when she told me Kevin wasn't stopping. And I Googled his name.

I had sent her this text: "Get on the computer and block that Kevin. Tell your friend, too. He just got out of prison for raping a young girl. Now, tell everyone."

(END VIDEOTAPE)

MALVEAUX: Wow. Find out what happened next, tonight at 7:00 eastern, when CNN begins a marathon session of "The Hunt" with John Walsh. Watch some of the most harrowing and mysterious cases.

Up next, it's the picture that many, many people needed to see after a week like this. A 12-year-old black boy, tears streaming down his face -- you can see -- and a white police officer embracing in the middle of a Ferguson-related demonstration. The details after this.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)