Return to Transcripts main page

CNN Newsroom

Hostages Held in Australia; New Ferguson Grand Jury Docs Released; Lies in Witness Testimony on Both Sides

Aired December 15, 2014 - 09:30   ET

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

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

ANNOUNCER: This is CNN breaking news.

CAROL COSTELLO, CNN ANCHOR: And good morning to our viewers in the United States and around the world. I'm Carol Costello. Thank you so much for joining me.

In Sydney, Australia, a gunman, seen in this grainy image, is demanding a phone call with Australia's prime minister and he says he will free one hostage in exchange for a flag representing the terror group ISIS. Now, this hostage drama began to unfold more than 15 hours ago at 9:30 a.m. local time. A woman reported a man carrying a bag that she described as suspicious. Minutes later, that man entered the cafe and took approximately 20 people hostage. Fast forward more than six hours and some of those captives managed to escape. First, three men ran to safety. About an hour and a half later, two women managed to escape. Earlier, we've heard from one correspondent who has watched every development from a window overlooking that coffee shop.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

CHRIS REASON, 7 NEWS CORRESPONDENT: He's carrying what appears to be a pump action shotgun. That gun often coming into the frame of the windows, often close -- and menacingly close to the hostages themselves.

Let's talk about them as well. We've counted so far about 15 different faces being forced up against the windows over these last eight, nine hours. Not the 50 that had been speculated earlier. I think that number is wildly inaccurate. We're talking about, about that number, 15 people. A combination of men and women and young people, but thankfully no children involved as far as we can tell from our vantage point up here.

Now, you can -- the gunman seems to be sort of rotating these people through these positions on the windows with their hands and their faces up against the glass. One woman we've counted was there for at least two hours, an extraordinary, agonizing time for her surely having to stand on her feet for that long. Some of them have got their heads in their hands like this as they're standing in the windows. Others look so visibly upset. One woman who's eyes were bloodshot red, obviously been crying her eyes out for some time.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

COSTELLO: All right. For more on this, let's bring in CNN law enforcement analyst and former FBI assistant director Tom Fuentes, and CNN terrorism analyst Paul Cruickshank, also our justice correspondent Evan Perez is just being seated in Washington now because he has information on this gunman.

Do we have Evan yet?

EVAN PEREZ, CNN JUSTICE CORRESPONDENT: Yes, we do.

CUOMO: Not yet. OK. So -- we do. I hear Evan.

Even, I hear you. So what can you tell us about this hostage taker?

PEREZ: Well, right now what we were told is that he's somebody that's well known to Australian law enforce. U.S. law enforcement also had him on the radar. His name is Man Haron Monis. He went by the name of Sheikh Haron, apparently. And he's got quite a bit of history down in Australia. He's faced sexual offense charges. He's faced an accessory to murder charge. So he's been well known to law enforcement down there.

It's not known whether or not he has any actual ties to terrorist groups. He seems to be very active or was very active on Twitter and in other social media, declaring that he -- he had allegiance to or supported ISIS. He does seem to have been rallying against the U.S. coalition that's conducting air strikes against ISIS. But it's not clear whether or not this is part of any larger plot, Carol, because at this point law enforcement, both here and in Australia, believe that he is acting alone.

COSTELLO: So, Tom, what do you make of this?

TOM FUENTES, CNN LAW ENFORCEMENT ANALYST: Hi, Carol.

Well, I make of it is, that anybody can do this in any of these countries, our country included, Australia, Canada, anywhere in Europe, any time they want. If it only takes one person with a gun or a machete to take over a small coffee shop, take hostages and hold the rest of the world hostage himself for, in this case, you know, more than 12 hours, how do you stop that? You can't stop it, I don't think, anywhere.

COSTELLO: So, Paul, this is what ISIS wants?

PAUL CRUICKSHANK, CNN TERRORISM ANALYST: This is exactly what ISIS wants. It wants its followers in the west to launch attacks in its name. It appears that this individual, known as Sheikh Haron, was inspired by ISIS, but not organizationally part of ISIS. That it appears that he wanted to do this because he was angry at Australian air strikes in Syria and Iraq against ISIS. Australia has flown over 140 combat sorties (ph) there. So this appears to be in retaliation for that, Carol.

COSTELLO: So I just want to go back to this suspect for a minute, Evan Perez. So, you know, supposedly he was in cahoots with ISIS in some way, at least, I don't know, peripherally. But he also is accused of being accessory to murder his ex-wife, who has two children by the way. And he was also supposedly, according to "The Sydney Morning Herald," sending awful letters to Australian soldiers. So he has some axes to grind of his own.

PEREZ: Right. Exactly, Carol. And, again, this is one reason why he was on the radar for both U.S. and Australian law enforcement. He was somebody that they had the name of and were, I guess, keeping an eye on. But as Paul pointed out, you know, it's so difficult to really stop these types of incidents because you don't really know, they go right up to the line. You know, you can rail about the U.S. air strikes, you can rail -- you know, Australia's a democracy, so you can be online saying all kinds of terrible things, but you don't really -- you're not really violating the law until you actually do something. And, obviously, he's crossed a line here. And now they, you know, they know that obviously he was more than just railing online.

But, you know, this is one of those difficult things about these types of lone wolf incidents in that, you know, ISIS really just serves as the inspiration. They don't -- they're not really directing a lot of these plots. They don't really have anything to do with the one in Ottawa. They're not having to do with the one in Quebec. And what they really do is just inspire these people to carry out these things without any direction per say.

COSTELLO: All right, I'm just reading some more information about this suspect. He's also known, as you said, Evan, he's also known as Sheikh Haron.

PEREZ: Right.

COSTELLO: The self-styled Muslim cleric who pleaded guilty last year to writing letters to Australian service members saying they were Hitler's soldiers. That's according to Australian media.

So, Tom, I suppose what ISIS is really doing is mobilizing deranged people to its cause all over the world.

FUENTES: I think they'll mobilize anybody deranged or otherwise or just fanatically religious. But, you know, a lot of the interesting things here is that we've heard about the target of people in uniform, soldiers, such as in Canada or uniformed police officers, the hatchet attack of NYPD officers in New York City. But really what terrifies people is this type of activity where ordinary people can get caught up in a terrorist act.

You know, people, even with the horrific beheadings of journalists in Syria, most people say, well, I'm never going to be a journalist in Syria, or I'm never going to be a soldier in uniform or a uniformed police officer. But I am going to walk down the street in downtown Australia -- in Sidney, Australia. I am going to go into a coffee shop. And if they commit terrorist acts there, then everybody's venerable. And that makes it more terrifying, which is the objective they have.

COSTELLO: All right, I want to head to Sydney. Our CNN reporter, Kathy Novak, is there. She has even more information on this gunmen.

Tell us more, Kathy.

KATHY NOVAK, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Well, as we know, unnamed police sources are saying that this man is the self-proclaimed Sheikh Haron, who is known to police and has been charged in the past, as we've been discussing with a string of violent offences and, of course, as we've discussed, sending offensive letters to the families of deceased soldiers who were fighting in Afghanistan. It seems that police had been aware of this throughout the day but were still waiting to confirm that to the media. But now this is seeming to becoming clear and we are trying to get more information about exactly what he wants in this hostage taking situation and what it will take to get these hostages out of the cafe.

COSTELLO: Well, of course we know what he's demanding, he's demanding an ISIS flag and he wants to talk to Australia's prime minister.

I want to go back to Paul Cruickshank for just a second.

So, Paul, you heard what Tom said. These -- is this guy a lone wolf and are such types impossible to stop?

CRUICKSHANK: Yes, all the indications now is this is a lone wolf act. It's something not organizationally connected to ISIS, but inspired by the ISIS message. I think that's quite clear from looking at his social media accounts. I've been looking at his social media accounts over the last few hours. And ISIS is trying to encourage these lone wolf actors to launch attacks back in the west. In September, the ISIS spokesman, Abu Mohammed al-Adnani issued a fatwa telling western supporters it's their religious duty to launch attacks. And this has actually had quite a big effect on followers in the west. We saw a string of attacks in Canada, also that hatchet attack in New York and a plot in October to target soldiers and police in London. And these people were devouring this fatwa from Adnani, the Syrian ISIS member, which has been deeply influential around the world with these radicals, Carol.

COSTELLO: The other interesting aspect of this, Tom, is that this suspect, this self-described sheikh, allowed hostages to keep their cell phones. And he also posted four -- or someone posted four videos on YouTube with one of the hostages in front of that flag, that Islamic flag, asking for the hostage taker's demands, which I guess would inspire others? Was it smart? What was he trying to do?

FUENTES: Well, it's real smart. They're trying to send out a worldwide message. What better way than to have 12 other people help you at the same time. So, you know, it exponentially increases the amount of media communication going out.

But, you know, a lot of people are saying that, well, Australia has never faced this, but they have. Al Qaeda affiliates have been attacking Australians or Australia itself or plotting for more than 12 years going back to the Bali bombing in Bali in 2002. But just three months ago, over 800 police officers in Australia conducted raids in Sydney and in Brisbane because they had uncovered a plot where ISIS supporters in this very place, Martin Place, downtown Sydney, intended to have a passerby go by, grab him, and behead him and then show that worldwide. So when that plot was uncovered, they had all these raids. Interestingly, the Muslim community in Australia protested. There were marchers and demonstrations because of what they deemed overly aggressive police actions. But now you see this event and, fortunately for the police, the Muslim community has been outraged by this act and saying publicly they completely support the Australian police in this effort.

COSTELLO: And, Evan, just another note about these YouTube postings. As fast as they went online, YouTube yanked them. So YouTube's very much aware of what's happening.

PEREZ: Right, they are. And, you know, we were able to actually access some of the -- his FaceBook and other rantings as well, Carol, in the last few hours while we held on to the name, did not broadcast the name. And, you know, it's the typical stuff you see from these types of people, which is ranting against the U.S. air strikes, showing pictures of people juried in the U.S. air strikes and claiming that it's U.S. oppression against the Muslim world that's to blame for everything. And so, you know, it's the same typical messages. And some of those messages have now been brought down. But we were able to read those in the last couple hours.

COSTELLO: All right. So I'll let you get back to it. Evan Perez, Kathy Novak, Tom Fuentes, Paul Cruickshank, thanks to all of you.

I'll be right back.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

COSTELLO: We'll with continue to follow the breaking news out of Sydney, Australia, and that hostage standoff.

But now onto other news, as the Cleveland police union demands an apology from the Cleveland Browns. One of the Brown's players, Andrew Hawkins, walked onto the field on Sunday wearing this T-shirt. It called for justice for Tamir Rice, the 12-year-old gunned down by police who mistook his toy gun for a real one, as well as for another shooting victim named John Crawford.

Well, the police union says the team should stick to what it knows best, and that would be football. The Browns released a statement saying it supports police but also the rights of its players to protest in a responsible way.

What happened in Cleveland points out the simmering issue of race. In Ferguson, Missouri, the prosecutor has now released hundreds of previously secret documents from the grand jury's inquiry to Michael Brown's death. They include the transcript of an interview that Dorian Johnson, the friend who was with Brown when he was killed, gave to the FBI days after the shooting. That interview is consistent with others Johnson gave, including his grand jury testimony. In them, Johnson says Officer Wilson grabbed Michael Brown, that Brown was shot running away from Wilson, and that Brown's hands were up when he was shot. Brown's anguished father spoke at a church in San Francisco.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

MICHAEL BROWN, SR., FATHER OF MICHAEL BROWN: (INAUDIBLE). We've got to stand up for our rights. We love all y'all. We're going to stand up. Got to stand strong together.

(APPLAUSE)

(END VIDEO CLIP)

COSTELLO: Jason Caroll joins us now to review the importance of this new information that the prosecutor in Ferguson released. First, why wasn't Dorian Johnson's testimony made public before?

JASON CARROLL, CNN NATIONAL CORRESPONDENT: Well, it was supposed to be made public before, as you know. You remember when Robert McCulloch made that huge document dump back in November when he released some 24 volumes of grand jury testimony. He forgot, he says, to include the statements that Dorian Johnson had given to the FBI which, as you have already shown, were consistent with the public statements that he had made previously, statements that he had made to authorities.

For his part, Robert McCulloch released a statement saying that he apologized, that he clearly made a mistake. It was an oversight. Saying, "Upon review of files, I discovered I had inadvertently omitted a number of witness interviews and a few other documents which had been presented to the grand jury."

Of course, what this is going to do is just add more fuel to the fire in terms of those who criticize McCulloch. They say that he botched the case and obviously it seems, according to them, he botched the fallout from it as well, Carol.

COSTELLO: Well, back to Dorian Johnson's testimony. It was largely consistent, right? But there were many other witness interviews presented on both sides that didn't exactly hold up. Give us an example.

CARROLL: Well, I think that would be an understatement when you say not holding up. It appears now that some of these grand jury -- folks who testified in front of the grand jury not only misstated things but they outright lied. I mean, when you look at what's come out now.

Look at the person identified as Witness Number 35. This is a witness that said Michael Brown was on his knees and was shot then by Officer Darren Wilson. When he was challenged by that, he said that's forensically impossible. Let me bring up a quick quote here. It says, "Are you telling us the only thing that's true about all of your statements before this is that you saw the police officer shoot him at point blank range?" The witness says yes. So it's very clear that that witness lied upon when he got there in front of the grand jury.

Then another witness, I just want to bring this up very quickly. A witness identified as Witness Number 40, a woman, she actually supported Officer Darren Wilson's side of what happened, but then it turns out that she wasn't actually there when the shooting happened, never witnessed it at all. And they found racist statements that she had posted on Facebook. She said, "They needed to kill the effing N- word. It's like an ape fest."

So I think what's going to happen now is, Carol, this once again -- this is going to turn not just about the grand jury, those who testified to the grand jury, but to the prosecutor himself. I think what legal analysts are going to be debating is why were these witnesses, who were obviously questionable, allowed to testify to begin with?

COSTELLO: A very good question, which we'll pose to our panel of experts right now. Jason Carroll, thanks so much.

Joining me now HLN legal analyst and criminal defense attorney Joey Jackson and CNN legal analyst and commentator Mel Robbins. Welcome to both of you.

JOEY JACKSON, HLN LEGAL ANALYST: Good morning, Carol. Good to be with you.

MEL ROBBINS, CNN LEGAL ANALYST & COMMENTATOR: Thanks, Carol. Good morning.

COSTELLO: Thanks for being here to you, Mel, too. OK, so Joey, I'll start -- I'll ask you that question. Why would you have someone testify who wasn't there? Wouldn't you check that person out first?

JACKSON: You certainly would. Now, there's a lot of questions about the process, Carol, as you know, and that is the reason why many people are saying don't leave it to local prosecutors to do this. It just sort of has the feel that maybe they're too closely connected to the police.

In a normal presentation, remember this, Carol, a prosecutor presents just enough information to the grand jury to demonstrate probable cause that a crime was committed and that the person being accused committed it. In this case, it was beyond any other because everything was presented, and Bob McCulloch said that he wanted to do that.

COSTELLO: There were 62 witnesses.

JACKSON: Yes, there were 62. And as you look at that, and of course he said he wanted to do it for the transparency of the process. Many believe that wasn't quite the issue. That's a debate for another day. But it certainly raises the specter of the process perhaps needing to be tinkered with.

But I'll also say this. In any case that I've ever dealt with as a prosecutor and as a defense attorney, there are always conflicts in testimony and they don't necessarily stem from people lying. People perceive things differently. People enter into an event at a certain time. For example, Jason mentioned -- and I'm not defending Witness 35 -- but that he was on his knees when he was shot. Is it possible that he was stumbling to the ground and the witness, when they saw the event, saw him on his knees when a shot was being fired as he was approaching the officer? It's possible. So perceptions differ. It's a difficult process.

COSTELLO: OK, so going back to this Dorian Johnson testimony, Mel. How could the prosecutor forget that he had that and not release it?

ROBBINS: Ha. Well, I find his claim that he inadvertently left out the FBI interview with Dorian to just not be believable. We had marches this is weekend, we've had tremendous criticism; this was an eyewitness that was actually with Michael Brown and the officer when the initial altercation took place, so I find that to be suspicious.

But building on what Joey said, the takeaway for me is basically this -- you've got 29 eyewitnesses, 16 of which say that they've got their hands up. What we've been saying all along is that what's problematic about the way that the case was presented is that you don't have prosecutors or defense attorneys really sanitizing the evidence.

As Joey said, one person said he was on his knees. Was he stumbling? Was he not? It's interesting they're questioning witnesses that are positive for Michael Brown, but they're not questioning witnesses and destroying their testimony that are positive for the police officer.

So what's becoming clear here is that they could have just put in the white construction workers who were reacting on that video saying they saw the hands up. They could have just put in the autopsy report. And they could have put in a police report and they would have gotten an indictment. In this case, it's pretty clear that they didn't want one. Would they have gotten a conviction at trial? Who knows? The forensics support Darren Wilson, I kind of doubt that they would have gotten a conviction, but the process was clearly not a fair one. And that's what we are seeing based on these documents, Carol.

COSTELLO: Right. So we can't go back in time. The grand jury has decided, right? But there's still a civil case out there. Could Michael Brown's family use this information in their civil case?

JACKSON: Not only could they, but they certainly will do that. And this too, there's a couple layers here, Carol. We know there's a civil case, it's for monetary damages and that the criminal case has been concluded, at least as far as the grand jury's spoken. But there's also a federal investigation under way to determine whether there was a constitutional violation. And that's why the federal government was really investigating and we have these witness statements.

But it's interesting, and just to raise the issue Mel was talking about sanitation of the grand jury, what happens is it's a wonderful forum, a wonderful forum to get information, to gather information, to really have people state their piece, Carol. But it's a terrible way in order to get to the actual truth of the matter by cross-examining people, by pressing people, by really determining exactly what happened. And that's what's missing here. But you better believe, in the civil case, a lot of that info will come out. COSTELLO: OK, so Mel, I'll ask you the toughest question. When all

is said and done, will anything change? Will the Browns win their civil suit? Will the federal investigation uncover civil rights violations?

ROBBINS: Well, this is my prediction, having read everything that's come out. And number one, I don't think that there will be a federal suit brought in this for civil rights violation. Number two, I doubt this will go to trial. I think you'll see a settlement happen on the civil side. Number three, I do think that, in this particular case, you would have never proven this beyond a reasonable doubt and that, based on what was presented, the grand jury did reach the correct conclusion because of the forensics supporting Officer Wilson's testimony.

However, the entire process was so unfair and the way the Brown family was treated was deplorable. And that's what's got to change. I do agree with what's going to happen hopefully in New York where the Attorney General's office is going to start reviewing police shootings. There should not be a separate system, Carol, for charges brought against you and me and a system for how charges are brought against police officers. It's not fair to us, it's not fair to police, and it's not fair to the police departments across this country that are doing an amazing job to have trust eroded in this fashion. Carol.

COSTELLO: All right, I've got to leave it there. Mel Robbins, Joey Jackson, thanks as always.

JACKSON: Pleasure and a privilege, Carol. Thank you.

COSTELLO: I'll be right back.

ROBBINS: Thank you, Carol.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)