Return to Transcripts main page

CNN Newsroom

Reserve Deputy Speaks Out; Tulsa World Reporter Reacts to Bates' Statement. Ohio Man Charged for Plotting Attacks against U.S.; Jurors Speak Out. Aired 9:00-9:30a ET

Aired April 17, 2015 - 09:00   ET

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

[09:00:02] DEBORAH FEYERICK, CNN ANCHOR: All right. Have a great, great weekend, everybody.

And NEWSROOM starts right now.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

ROBERT BATES, RESERVE DEPUTY CHARGED OF KILLING: This was not an intentional thing. I have no desire to ever take anyone's life.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

FEYERICK: Happening now in the NEWSROOM, a Tulsa reserve deputy explains for the first time how he mistook his gun for a taser fatally shooting an unarmed man. You'll hear his side of the story as new questions surface about his training.

Plus, the feds say this man was trained by terrorists in Syria before returning home to the United States, but authorities say this Ohio man planned to do before he was stopped.

Let's talk, live in the CNN NEWSROOM.

Good morning, everyone. Happy Friday. I'm Deborah Feyerick, in for Carol Costello. Thanks so much for joining me.

And we start this morning in Tulsa and the first interview with the reserved deputy who shot and killed an unarmed suspect after mistaking his taser for his firearm. In just a moment you're going to hear Robert Bates explain how this happened.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: On your stomach. Now.

BATES: Oh, I shot him. I am sorry.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: (EXPLETIVE DELETED). He shot him. He shot him.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

FEYERICK: And during this morning's interview, Bates alternated between choked up and also defiant, insisting that anyone could have made this mistake. Here is how he describes what happened in that deadly shooting.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

BATES: My taser is right here on the front tucked in a protective vest, my gun itself is on my side, normally to the rear.

MATT LAUER, HOST, MSNBC'S "TODAY" SHOW: And people are going to look at that, Mr. Bates, and they are going to say how can you make this mistake? How could you think you were going for your taser on your chest tucked into that vest and accidentally pull your weapon?

BATES: Well, let me say, this has happened a number of times around the country, I have read about it in the past, I thought to myself after reading several cases, I don't understand how this can happen. You must believe me, it can happen to anyone.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

FEYERICK: And our Ed Lavandera is live in Tulsa.

Ed, he says it could happen to anyone?

ED LAVANDERA, CNN CORRESPONDENT: He did, and you know, the story that -- his version of events here has not changed. It's been what sheriff officials have been saying, it's also what he put into a statement that he wrote days after the shooting as well. But the interview is also an opportunity to ask about other issues that have been swirling around this case, namely his training.

The "Tulsa World" newspaper here in Tulsa has reported that his training records were falsified by various officials at the sheriff's department. The sheriff's department here in Tulsa tells us they do not respond to rumors but they have told some local affiliates that this is simply not the case and Robert Bates was asked about this issue of his training this morning as well.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

BATES: That is not correct. I have a written piece of paper that Mr. Warren (INAUDIBLE) now in jail for first-degree murder 40 miles east of here in Mace County signed off to say I had done a good job, and, you know, the Smallen law firm has been most interesting, they seem to represent all the people that have been terminated by the sheriff's office.

LAUER: But --

(CROSSTALK)

LAUER: Without getting off on (INAUDIBLE), you did the training and you can prove that you were certified?

BATES: That is absolutely the truth. I have it in writing.

(END VIDEO CLIP) LAVANDERA: You know, those questions are still swirling, the reporters who wrote that story for the "Tulsa World" newspaper, Deb, this morning telling CNN that they stand by their story, that it's more than just one source, they said. They had five sources for that story, so questions are still swirling around that.

The sheriff here in Tulsa has not spoken directly or spoken out about this at all, so you know, those questions still out here this morning -- Deb.

FEYERICK: It's also very interesting that Mr. Bates would try to plead his case in the court of public opinion, trying to define the issues.

Ed Lavandera, thanks so much.

You mentioned the reporter from the "Tulsa World" and I do want to bring in Ziva Bransletter of "Tulsa World." She's one of the reporters who initially broke the story citing sources that Bates' training records were falsified.

So, Ziva, let me ask, what do you make of his defense?

ZIVA BRANSLETTER, TULSA WORLD: I guess I'd be very interested to see this documentation that he has these hundreds of hours of training that the sheriff's office has claimed he's had.

[09:05:03] You know, this can be cleared up very simply by the sheriff's office producing the records, or producing the two supervisors who are still employed at the sheriff's office who our sources say were pressured to sign off on his training and refused and were transferred.

FEYERICK: Those supervisors, they have not spoken to you but so far they have not spoken out, they stand by their words and what happened to them, correct?

BRANSLETTER: We -- they actually have not spoken to us directly. We've spoken to five sources both within and outside the department. We've also looked at documents that back up the story that our sources are telling us. Since we published the story, we've had other people come forward within the sheriff's department and saying your story is exactly right, in fact, you know, there's more that you haven't published yet.

FEYERICK: So --

BRANSLETTER: So we have nothing to the contrary.

FEYERICK: You know, it's very interesting, because the sheriff's spokesperson has come out and said well, they're relying on a single course and that source happens to be in prison right now on murder charges.

What's interesting to me is first how they are describing who they believe to be your source, but secondly the lengths they went to actually check visiting records inside that prison to see who was coming in and out. Do you think that is intimidation?

BRANSLETTER: Really it's kind of a classic case of blaming the messenger. We felt like this was an important story that the public deserve to know about the training records because this was a case in which he confused, you know, a gun and a taser and certainly the issue of was he properly trained to go and take on this duty is very important. So, you know, this person that they are referring to was definitely not one of our sources, and that's all I can say is we stand by our reporting, and I would prefer that they focus on getting the documents that we've requested and complying with the Open Records Act.

FEYERICK: And it's also very interesting the fact that the sheriff's department is trying to do its sort of own investigation to find out who leaked, but technically, couldn't they, themselves, be under an investigation or under an audit because of what happened and because of the questions that are being raised about their reserve -- their deputy reserve program?

BRANSLETTER: Well, it's my understanding that the FBI is looking into this and investigating this. Under-Sheriff Tim Alben told us several days ago that they asked about the FBI to review their handling of the situation. So whether, you know, how deep this investigation goes, I don't know at this point. But yes, they certainly should be reviewed by an outside agency in terms of what records are available and what occurred here, and I believe the FBI is looking into it.

FEYERICK: And Ziva, what is your relationship just historically been with the sheriff? Obviously you work in the town, everybody kind of knows each other sometimes and you have different interactions. Has the relationship between the "Tulsa World" and the sheriff generally been amicable?

BRANSLETTER: Absolutely. I have been reporting in Tulsa, reporting in Tulsa for 20 years, I have written many stories about the sheriff, both positive and negative, and you know, our job is just to bring our readers the truth. We are government watch dogs like any good local newspaper should be. And that's what I'm going to remain. But this has nothing personal. He's a good man. You know, he does a lot of good thing in our community.

FEYERICK: And final question, do you think now that obviously Richard Bates' record has come into question, as a deputy and the number of hours he did or did not have, and so far he has not produced any evidence or independent evidence, correct?

BRANSLETTER: Correct. The sheriff's office handed out a big thick stack of computer generated reports listing every course he'd taken at a press conference about a week ago, and I'd like to see this -- the documentation that's underlining that. Now they're saying they don't know if it even exists and perhaps the sheriff could have waived those requirements. There's just a lot of inconsistencies on what they're saying.

FEYERICK: So let's be clear about this. Do you think that there is a cover-up going on right now by the sheriff's department? BRANSLETTER: I don't know. I mean, all I know is that they handed

out records of training a week ago and said he had hundreds of hours of training, and then last night they told another reporter who is working on this with me that they don't know where the records are, they'd have to have more information, they would have to know who his trainers were, which I would hope they would know that. That they're in paper format and -- so they don't seem to be in a big hurry to get the records that could prove their case.

FEYERICK: All right. And do you believe that other deputy could potentially -- deputy reserves could be investigated as well to see whether in fact they meet the qualification?

BRANSLETTER: I mean, I think that review certainly would be a prudent thing to do. I would assume the sheriff is doing that. Most of the people on that list, and we're going to get into this on a Sunday story, our pillars of our community, you know, good people that volunteer their time for the sheriff's office and we're certainly not casting any aspersions on any of them, it's a good program. We just hope that the people are properly trained for the positions that they're placed in.

FEYERICK: All right. Ziva Bransletter, thank you so much. Keep up with the reporting. We clearly will be watching and reading. Thank you so much.

BRANSLETTER: All right. Thank you.

FEYERICK: Of course.

[09:10:05] And still to come, allegations of homegrown terror unfold in an Ohio courtroom. Prosecutors say this man trained with terrorists in Syria, but he planned to come back here to the United States to launch his attack.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

FEYERICK: And growing fears about homegrown terrorism. A U.S. citizen is today behind bars after officials say he traveled overseas to train with the terror group then return home to plan an attack on American soil.

According to the indictment Abdirahman Mohamud travelled to Syria and trained with terrorists where he was taught to use weapons as well as explosives, engaged in hand-to-hand combat as well as breaking into homes. Mohamud's final plan to execute American soldiers at a military base in Texas.

Atika Shubert joins us now with the story.

And this is remarkable. This is -- they caught this person. It's exactly what they feared all along, that people are going to train but instead of fighting over there, they're going to take everything they know and come back here.

ATIKA SHUBERT, CNN INTERNATIONAL CORRESPONDENT: Well, that's what makes this case so significant. It's the first time a U.S. citizen has been charged not just with traveling there but specifically coming back to carry out attacks.

Take a look at what he was planning.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

SHUBERT (voice-over): Back from Syria, radicalized, and according to authorities, with intent to kill.

[09:15:00] This man, a 23-year-old American, is in custody this morning. The FBI says he was hoping to do something big in the U.S.

Abdirahman Sheik Mohamud left his hometown of Columbus, Ohio, in April of last year, according to an indictment, on a one-way ticket to Athens, Greece. But Mohamud never boarded his connecting flight after stopping in Istanbul, Turkey. Instead, authorities say, an accomplice picked him up and drove him to Reyhanli, a border town where he crossed over into Syria.

Mohamud allegedly trained with terrorists in shooting weapons, breaking into houses, using explosives, and hand-to-hand combat. Officials did not say which group he trained with.

Two months into the military-type camp, a cleric told Mohamud to, quote, "return to the United States and carry out an act of terrorism," according to the indictment.

In June, now back at Ohio, the 23-year-old allegedly told others that he wanted to "kill American soldiers execution-style" at a military base in Texas. And his backup plan was to attack a prison, specifically wanting to target armed forces, including police officers. It's not clear just how far along any such plans were.

Mohamud expressing support for ISIS on social media a full year prior to leaving for Syria, officials say, uploading images of the terrorist group to his Facebook page.

SEN. RON JOHNSON (R-WI), HOMELAND SECURITY AND GOVERNMENT AFFAIRS COMMITTEE: As long as ISIS remains, as long as they are not defeated, they're going to continue to inspire individuals like that to go join the jihad, get trained, come back and pose a threat to West and to America.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

SHUBERT: Now, it's not clear exactly how far along he was with the plans, and he has just been charged with three counts, two of aiding a terrorist network and terrorists individuals, and another of giving false information to the FBI. If he is convicted he would face up to 38 years in total for all of those counts and the arraignment should happen within a few hours, and he is planning, according to his defense lawyer, to plead not guilty.

DEBBIE FEYERICK, CNN ANCHOR: Right, which is what many of them do. They plead not guilty and then they see where that goes. All right. Atika Shubert, thank you so much. We appreciate you

joining us.

And for more, I want to bring in Colonel Peter Mansoor. He was the former aide to General David Petraeus. He is now a CNN military analyst.

Welcome, Colonel.

First of all, let's talk about this guy. When you look at the indictment do you believe he was the real deal, that he had the resources to pull this off?

COL. PETER MANSOOR, CNN MILITARY ANALYST: Well, it doesn't take much resources to pull something like this off. It takes a one-way ticket to Athens, Greece, with a stop over in Istanbul. This is exactly a sort of person that we've been fearing, self-radicalized individual, his brother went over a year before him and died in Syria, and he went over and got further radicalized there and then came back with the intent to commit terrorist action here in the United States.

FEYERICK: The timing is also interesting, because he actually went overseas. It's unclear whether, in fact, he joined up with ISIS or whether he joined up with an al Qaeda faction, but he returned in June of last year. So, is it -- can we assume that he was under surveillance by authorities during that time? He was only arrested in February.

MANSOOR: My guess is that they were tracking him when he disappeared in turkey, and then appeared back in the United States, and they were, no doubt, he was a person of interest, and my guess is that the FBI was monitoring his various postings on social media and so forth, and then when they finally had enough information to indict him, they moved, and that was just recently.

FEYERICK: It's interesting, because the Somali community has really been, at least -- I don't want to say they have been watched but clearly the FBI has known that there are concerns with the community, and there has been a great deal of outreach by the FBI, by the law enforcement agencies to try and target the community, so that they don't -- you know, so these young men don't go and fight.

Have those out reach programs not succeeded? If somebody like this can start posting on Facebook, broadcasting his intentions and then actually get to Syria?

MANSOOR: Well, let's be clear. There is more than 45,000 Somalis here in Ohio, many of them in Columbus, and we have evidence of one who has been radicalized, and we don't want to paint the entire community with such a broad brush in this case. But clearly, this is going to create some soul searching within the Columbus area, and the Somali community will do what it can and authorities will help it to make sure that their young people don't become radicalized in this manner.

FEYERICK: It's interesting, also, that he chose not to go back to his country of origin, Somalia, which is here he was born, though he arrived in the U.S. when he was younger, but he chose to go to Syria and fight instead.

[09:20:05] Does that suggest anything?

MANSOOR: You know, I think he followed his older brother over there, and so in this case I think it was a family tie and he admired what his brother had done. So, the question is, why did his brother go to Syria instead of Somalia? And that's something that still has to be sorted out.

But I think what it shows is that when they get -- when ISIS or al Nusra or the various groups over there get an American or European, those people once they become trained is much more valuable as terrorists back in the West than they are cannon fodder on the front lines in Syria or Iraq.

FEYERICK: Yes, it's something that has been on the radar for a long time, clearly back to 2003 or 2004.

All right. The interesting also is that I once spoke to a Somali mom saying we did not bring our children here to give them a better life just so they could go back there and get killed, which is clearly what the older brother did and his younger brother taking it to a different level.

Colonel Peter Mansoor, thank you.

MANSOOR: Thanks, Deb.

FEYERICK: And still to come --

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

MALE JUROR: Twelve different people are going to look at a puzzle and each person is going to say certain pieces stick out to them more than the other.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

FEYERICK: Jurors in the Aaron Hernandez murder trial break their silence in an interview with CNN's Anderson Cooper. Hear how they decided on a guilty verdict, and why they saw they saw extreme atrocity and cruelty in the former NFL star's actions.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[09:25:13] FEYERICK: And for the first time since former New England Patriot, Aaron Hernandez, was convicted of murder, the jurors who decided his fate are speaking out. In exclusive sit-down interview with CNN's Anderson Cooper, all 12 jurors opened up about the emotional toll of being on a high-profile case, and how they came to a guilty verdict after reviewing more than 400 pieces of evidence, listening to 130 witnesses and nearly 40 hours of deliberations. Later, jurors explained in their own words why feel they made the right decision. (BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

ANDERSON COOPER, CNN ANCHOR: Each of you came to this -- you came to the same decision, but you came to it in different ways. I'm just wondering what pieces of the puzzle were most important to you?

MALE JUROR: That's what makes a group of 12 people so great is that 12 different people are going to look at a puzzle and each person is going to say that certain pieces stick out to them more than the other.

COOPER: Kelly, for you, specifically, was there something that jumped out at you?

KELLY DORSEY, HERNANDEZ TRIAL JUROR: It was the judge's instructions.

COOPER: What about the instructions? What part of what she said?

DORSEY: The different directions for the law. It was the definition of murder one, and the definition of extreme atrocity or cruelty. Those were the words that I was stuck on, and people helped me with that. I needed clarity, and I searched for those people that could give me that clarity in that room.

COOPER: Let me ask about, because for murder one, they either have to show premeditation, or they have to show extreme cruelty. So, did you feel --

DORSEY: Extreme atrocity or cruelty.

COOPER: So, it wasn't premeditation. You don't -- you can't say this was premeditated?

DORSEY: I can't say with 100 percent certainty that he premeditated that while I was sitting in that jury room. I can't say that.

COOPER: But you do see extreme atrocity or cruelty.

DORSEY: I see extreme atrocity and cruelty.

COOPER: In -- was it with the number of shots?

DORSEY: It was his indifference, and that was part of what I had to look at. And it was -- even if there was no premeditation, he could have made choices there, when he was there. He was there. They admitted that. And he could have made different choices and he chose not to.

JON CARLSON, HERNANDEZ TRIAL JUROR: I mean, you know, for us to have knowledge that he was there at the time, that his close friend was murdered, personally, there is no way I could just carry on hours later like nothing ever happened, that's indifference.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

FEYERICK: Let's talk more about this with CNN analyst and criminal defense attorney, Danny Cevallos. We're also joined by the former prosecutor Dan Schorr.

Thanks to both of you for being with us.

Danny Cevallos, first question to you -- what is your initial reaction to what you heard from the jurors about atrocity and cruelty?

DANNY CEVALLOS, CNN LEGAL ANALYST: Well, the concept of atrocity is really very formulaic when you look at the instructions. Option one is premeditation. And it appears the jurors concluded that that is a harder threshold to meet.

But if you look at the jury instructions for extreme atrocity in Massachusetts, you need not find it was an intentional killing so long as they created -- the defendant created a substantial likelihood of death, and one of the atrocity factors which Anderson talked about a few of them, indifference. And you think about the defense's gambit that they took, admitting that Aaron Hernandez at least witnessed and was present at the scene, that may have been a jumping off point for the jury to go forward and find that indifference.

It's an interesting thing. That gamble was clearly to try and build credibility with this jury, but at the same time, they used that to spring board off of it and say, oh, he was there and look how indifferent he was.

The atrocity factors are clearly itemized in the juror instructions, and jurors clearly took them very seriously and indifference was one of several options that they could use to conclude that this killing was committed with extreme atrocity.

FEYERICK: It's amazing to me the defense attorney would drop that bombshell at the end of the trial after making it appear that his client was not necessarily there or part of it. I mean, I am wondering, Dan Schorr, do you think it should have been a completely different defense?

DAN SCHORR, FORMER PROSECUTOR: Well, not that it should have been a different defense, but it should have been consistent from the beginning to the end, because at the beginning, they were contesting he was at the scene of the crime. And by the end in closing, the defense was saying that he was actually at the scene, that he had just witnessed his friend had been shot and killed and he didn't know what to do. And the jurors said that was not consistent with the videotape where you saw him hanging out with these people who supposedly killed his friend, handing his daughter to one of them to hold.

FEYERICK: Right.

SCHORR: And that inconsistency really hurt the defense.