Return to Transcripts main page

Crime and Justice With Ashleigh Banfield

Five-Year-Old Drowns in Pond at Day Camp; Death Investigation; Chilling Undercover Video; The Hunt with John Walsh. Aired 8-9p ET

Aired July 25, 2017 - 20:00   ET

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

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: (INAUDIBLE)

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Police say Benjamin Kamal (ph) Hosch III drowned in a small pond near a waterfall.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Who takes people`s children a mile-and-a-half away without getting permission and didn`t even ask, can the children swim?

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: It originally looked like a fatal house fire killed a retired pre-kindergarten teacher, but then the mystery deepened.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: A coroner`s autopsy revealed a gunshot wound.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Now investigators are looking into whether the evidence was meant to go up in flames.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: The sheriff`s office confirmed the death of Nanette Krentel was not caused by the fire that engulfed her Lacombe residence a

week ago.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: A beautiful former model tries to hire a hitman...

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: What do you want done with her?

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: ... who turns out to be an undercover cop, to kill her husband`s ex.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Oh, my God. She`s (INAUDIBLE) chopper (ph).

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: But Tara Lambert`s conviction has been thrown out on appeal, and now prosecutors are fighting to get her back behind bars.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Like, one of those lumberjack chopper things...

(END VIDEOTAPE)

JOEY JACKSON, GUEST HOST: Good evening, everyone. I`m Joey Jackson, in for my friend, Ashleigh Banfield. And this is PRIMETIME JUSTICE.

You know, for many families, summer means one thing, and that`s summer camp. And for the parents of 5-year-old Benjamin Hosch, it was no

different. They dropped off the little guy right at Camp Cricket summer day camp just outside of Atlanta. And according to police, Benjamin and

other kids were taken to a lunch near a rock ledge, where they were allowed without parental consent to swim and slide down a waterfall.

But it wasn`t until a group of 13 children and four adults got ready to head back that they noticed that Benjamin was missing. A short time later,

he was found unresponsive in a creek, not in the area where he should have been.

Now, despite life-saving efforts, Benjamin went into cardiac arrest and died at the hospital. The fire department told the family that the 5-year-

old was submerged for up to 20 minutes. As you could imagine, the parents were devastated.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Their negligence killed my (INAUDIBLE)! They didn`t tell me what they were doing with my son! They robbed us of his life, of

his potential! They took that from us! And I am broken!

(END VIDEO CLIP)

JACKSON: Tina Douglas is an anchor and a reporter for Newsradio 106.7. She joins us from Atlanta. Tina, I can`t even begin to think about the

pain of this family. So the question for you is, how and why?

TINA DOUGLAS, NEWSRADIO 106.7: Yes, that`s the big question a lot of people would like to know -- 13 kids, four adults, chaperones. How did

they lose track of little Benjamin? You know, when you go to parks like this, it`s very important to make sure you are very aware of where all

these children are at all times because it`s easy to wander away.

I mean, it`s a big park. It`s a water park, maybe something they haven`t seen for a while, or maybe not at all. So he was probably very curious and

mischievous and wanted to find out more, and wandered off and got lost in all of it.

JACKSON: So Tina, are they speaking at all? That is the day camp. Have they released any type of statements? Are they talking to you? Are they

giving an explanation as to how this could have occurred? I mean, it seemed like the parent or at least adult-to-children ratio was fairly

adequate.

DOUGLAS: I do believe the camp is doing all they can to make sure that they were meeting the requirements for this day camp, operated at this

nature park. From what I understand, some of these day camps don`t really have to be licensed or get an exemption to be licensed when they go to some

of these nature preserves.

I understand this nature preserve is one of the largest in Georgia, so it was pretty expansive. And you know, the excitement of all of it probably

led to him wandering away just to explore what maybe he had never seen.

JACKSON: Sure. And just a couple of other questions, Tina. Were they, particularly, licensed? Was this camp licensed, if we know?

DOUGLAS: As we understand it, they were not licensed with the state. But like I said, in some instances, some of these camps don`t have to be, from

what I gather. But all of that is probably going to come out in this total investigation.

JACKSON: And finally, Tina, before we let you go, what about in terms of the shutdown and the investigation? Has the camp been shut down pending

finding out what went on here, so God forbid, this doesn`t occur to anyone else?

[20:05:05]DOUGLAS: Exactly. It has been shut down. They have been given a cease and desist order. So that is automatic and almost immediate, you

know, shutdown for this nature park and this camp.

JACKSON: Tina Douglas, we appreciate you.

I want to bring in L. Chris Stewart. He is the attorney for the family of Benjamin Hosch. The family could not be in better hands. It`s good to see

you.

L. CHRIS STEWART, ATTORNEY FOR FAMILY OF BENJAMIN HOSCH: Good to see you.

JACKSON: Chris, listen, you know, when you send your child to camp, in my view, it`s about one thing -- of course, after they have fun -- but it`s

about their safety.

STEWART: Yes.

JACKSON: So what went wrong here, Chris, and how are you seeking to remedy it?

STEWART: Joey, this is one of the most tragic cases that I`ve ever had. And as you know, I`ve had some pretty bad ones.

JACKSON: Yes, you have.

STEWART: It`s mind-blowing that a place that you take your children to, to be cared for and supervised -- they give the family the itinerary every

week, and then they deviate from that on their own without telling the parents and take them almost a mile away into the woods to a waterfall and

let the children get in the water. And they don`t even know that the kids can`t swim.

JACKSON: So Chris, just to be clear, the itinerary -- every day, they have a protocol that they follow, and this was something that was not known to

the parents, that they would be in this location?

STEWART: Not know whatsoever. That day`s itinerary was a water fight with the fire department, which is on land right by the building, and fishing at

the pond which is right by the building. They had no idea their child was being taken to a dangerous waterfall area.

JACKSON: What do we know about the training of these adults, about the extent of their supervision, about the adequacy of, you know, them knowing

how to conduct and do their job, anything at this point?

STEWART: Nothing as of yet. And you know, the telltale sign in every situation where something happens and it seems very questionable, the

actions of who we`re saying is guilty. They didn`t call the family for 30 hours after the child was killed. They didn`t even call the family to say

that he was missing and that he had drowned. They learned from the police.

JACKSON: Any indication, Chris, any at all about at what point they discovered that the child was missing, and how many minutes at that point

he may have been missing? Twenty minutes submerged underwater? I mean, that`s pretty bad.

STEWART: Yes, the phone call came in to the police from the nature center staff at 12:38. We were told that he was missing up to 45 minutes, at

least. So that means that that child was missing for a very long time while the staff was right there.

I don`t believe the story that they lined up to leave and they couldn`t find him because he was found a short distance away. He didn`t wander very

far off into the woods. I don`t even think he wandered off. I think he got submerged. They weren`t watching him, and this happened because they

weren`t watching the kids.

JACKSON: Now, Chris, let me ask you this. I know with you and your practice, and really, your philosophy, it`s not only about the money. It`s

about the structural reforms that need to take place. Obviously, that doesn`t help your client. But what are you looking to do in moving forward

to have something like this remedied so that things are in place so that this doesn`t happen again?

STEWART: Yes. Bringing more light to summer camps and making sure that they`re abiding by the different standards and guidelines. Money in a

civil suit doesn`t fix anything, but what it does is it tells a for-profit company like this nature center that they better have experienced staff

that are doing their job because that`s all companies care about is money. So that`s where you hit them. But the change we want is what already

happened. They shut down the camp and now kids are protected.

JACKSON: And in terms of shutting it down, I understand that the schools were going back in early. I know schools in Atlanta, in that area in

general, go back early anyway. So how much earlier did they shut the camp down, actually?

STEWART: Well, this nature preserve, they have year-round classes with kids and groups.

JACKSON: So not only the summer?

STEWART: Not only the summer. This is a huge organization. I tried to tell someone this wasn`t some hole-in-the-wall summer camp these parents

took them to. This is a very popular summer camp that advertises on line everywhere, kids go to all the time. But it`s dangerous.

JACKSON: And what could we see from you moving forward in terms of the legal action that you intend to pursue?

STEWART: Right now, we`re trying to find out if the police are going to bring criminal negligence charges against the people that are responsible.

And then we`re preparing the civil suit because we just -- there`s no explanation, Joey, on how four alleged adults can lose a child. That`s

three kids per adult. What are you doing out there?

[20:10:04]JACKSON: It`s inexcusable. And I think anyone, you know, parents particularly, but you don`t have to be a parent to know -- I mean,

this is the pride and joy. This is about who we are. We expect camps to oversee and to look after our children.

In terms of the actual potential criminal charges, have you been in touch with any of the authorities? Have they made any recommendations to you, or

given you any indication of what they intend to do?

STEWART: They`re finishing their investigation right now. We went to the scene the day after this happened, and even the police on the scene and

fire personnel that were still out there were in tears. Everybody is destroyed by this. They can`t believe that this would happen and that this

would happen in the presence of so many adults that are right there, whose job -- their only job is to watch the kids.

JACKSON: Only job. And what do you think the likelihood of that -- not asking you to speculate, but if you know, Chris, is it likely that criminal

charges would be pursued, or have they not given you any indication yet?

STEWART: We don`t know because it`s so many different versions of what happened. The police report, the director and CEO of the nature center was

there. She`s the one who`s in the police report. But she doesn`t mention that the kids got in water. She said they took them there to eat lunch.

But then they put out a press release from the nature center and they say, Oh, we did allow them to splash in the water. So right now, a lot of balls

are being hidden, so we don`t know.

JACKSON: And with regard to those hidden balls, have they -- have you sat down and spoken with them? Have they conferred with the family at all? Do

you intend to have such a meeting? Does the family want to have such a meetings?

STEWART: Well, you know, the interesting thing is, Joey, they didn`t have the sympathy or care to call the family at all to express any grief,

remorse, anything for 30 hours, until we went to the site the next day with the police, and I believe they realized they had a lawyer. And then

suddenly, the board of directors started calling the family.

JACKSON: And I would take it that the investigation certainly would entail speaking with the adults that were there. Have the children at all been

spoken to who were there?

STEWART: We`re not sure. We`ve been in contact with some friends of Kamal (ph) to, you know, see what they remember and recall. And I can tell you

that this never should have happened. Those kids should not have been out there. The parents didn`t know. And that`s why they didn`t call, Joey.

How are you going to call the parents and say, Hey, your son drowned at the waterfalls, when the first question would be, What waterfalls?

JACKSON: Oh, it`s just such a heartbreaking story. Listen, I hate to say this, but you know, Chris, the family`s lucky to have you. I know they

don`t want to be in this predicament. You certainly don`t. But I know you`ll do all you can to assist them and institute policies for others to

come. So we appreciate you joining us. Really do.

STEWART: Thanks a lot.

JACKSON: Thank you.

You know, what`s the number one rule for defendants appearing in court? Do not upset the judge. Take a look at this.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Watching you sit there, smile, laugh, and shake your head like this was no big deal, I`m very tempted to just say, I`m not going

to accept this sentence.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

JACKSON: And that`s exactly what this guy did. We`ll tell you what he said and what he did that rubbed the judge the wrong way.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

[20:17:38]BENJAMIN HOSCH, FATHER: He had a light pulse when I got there. And they were surrounding on him, working on him, passing (ph) off each

other, working on my boy. I`m calling him. I say, Your daddy`s here!

(END VIDEO CLIP)

JACKSON: Can`t even begin to imagine his pain. That was the father of Benjamin Hosch, he, of course, talking about his 5-year-old son who drowned

in a pond while out at summer camp near Atlanta. Now, police say that there were children out at a rock ledge near a waterfall without parental

consent.

Joining us now, Kisha Hebbon and Danny Cevallos, two exceptionally talented lawyers and my partners in crime. So let`s talk about this. You know,

Danny, I`ll go to you first. This is a tragic incident, tragic incident involving clear negligence. What happens now? Is this an easy settlement,

or do they go through the process?

DANNY CEVALLOS, HLN/CNN LEGAL ANALYST: Well, the first thing to decide is whether or not there`s enough insurance coverage. I don`t want to get too

much into the weeds, but you have to find out if a company like this even has the ability to pay. But if they do, when you violate a statute,

something like a licensing statute, that may be called negligence per se.

But it`s not an automatic slam dunk. So unless that law was designed to protect that child, then you`re not going to get that negligence per se,

that slam dunk. They`re going to have to prove negligence in this case, which, you know, the defense may be that, Hey, kids wander off, but that`s

not going to be a very strong (INAUDIBLE)

JACKSON: Not at all. Not at all. And you look at negligence, Kisha, right? The elements of negligence -- duty, breach, causation, damages,

right?

KISHA HEBBON, DEFENSE ATTORNEY: Yes.

JACKSON: You have a duty to keep those kids safe, right?

HEBBON: Right.

JACKSON: And if there is a breach of that duty because you`re looking the other way, causation, right, kid wanders off, damages, he`s dead.

HEBBON: Right. Right.

JACKSON: So to Danny`s point, if there`s no insurance, though, then what?

HEBBON: That`s going to be a huge issue because, obviously, the family`s suing for this wrongful death. And if they don`t have insurance, how are

the employees or the camp staff going to pay for it?

And one of the things that I thought about with this case is, clearly, the staff numbers were negligent. How can you not notice that this 5-year-old

child was missing for, what, 45 minutes? And he was submerged in a pond for 20 minutes. And although the employer would still be liable based on

the negligence of its employees, I really think they should look into criminal charges against these employees.

[20:25:00]JACKSON: And you know, interestingly enough, Kisha, just sticking with you for one minute, when I spoke to L. Chris Stewart, right -

- he`s the family`s attorney -- he`s talking about them pursuing those charges.

HEBBON: I think they should.

JACKSON: And in the event that they do, what is it predicated upon? How do you get to criminality for them? And are you looking at the entity or

the individuals?

HEBBON: Well, one of the things they will look at is the individuals, to see, OK, were they properly trained to take the liability off of the camp,

and to say, OK, if they were trained and they still proceeded to do something -- like, say they weren`t supposed to take the kids swimming.

They weren`t supposed to let them get on the water slide or the waterfall, then that employee may be looked at as -- you didn`t do this because you

didn`t know better, you intentionally went against the rules and you did this and caused the ultimate death of this little boy.

JACKSON: And that would be horrendous. Danny, what do you think? Do you think or foresee a criminal prosecution here, or is this strictly something

that`s going to be negligence-based?

CEVALLOS: Again, any creative prosecutor could create a crime out of these actions because they could say that negligence was so bad, it rose to the

level of criminal negligence, which is a little higher than civil negligence.

JACKSON: Yes, it is.

CEVALLOS: But I hate to bring it up again. The entire case comes down to whether or not this is a company with any assets. After all, companies

that don`t get licenses, companies that don`t do a good job of hiring people, these are also often companies who don`t pay their insurance

premiums on time.

JACKSON: That`s so..

CEVALLOS: That may be an issue going forward.

JACKSON: But what about the training protocols, right? You figure -- and I like the fact that the parent-to-children ratio was pretty adequate here,

right?

HEBBON: Right. Right.

JACKSON: But you have to make sure that the people are trained so that they can do their job.

HEBBON: Right. And the fact that that ratio was appropriate, it would make it more difficult for them to say, Well, there were so many children,

we couldn`t keep up with all of them. There`s no excuse for it.

CEVALLOS: Not so fast. The defense might be that, look, how many more adults do we need to have there as a company? Yes, the individuals did a

horrible job -- this is what they would be saying in defense. These individuals did a bad job. They fell asleep. They weren`t paying

attention. But we as a company, we staffed it. Not only did we staff it adequately, we staffed it better than most small colleges have ratios of

teachers to students. So how can we be liable? That`s what they might (INAUDIBLE)

JACKSON: It`s a very good point. To that point, is Chris Stewart still with us because I`d want to ask him about that. Now, Chris, just asking

you -- listen, in the event, as Danny points out -- OK, well, we had all of these parents, and the ratio -- or not particularly parents, but adults --

and the ratio was fine versus other camps (ph). That doesn`t do you or your client any good, does it?

STEWART: No. And I wish they would try that argument against me in trial.

JACKSON: I`m sure you do. What would be your response to that?

STEWART: It`s absolutely ludicrous. You know, you`ve got three kids each that you`re looking at. They`re 5. They`re not 10, who are very active,

very fast, moving around. Three kids. And from our understanding and from how the parents talk about them, he was a very quiet kid that didn`t like

leaving adults. So he wasn`t the type to wander off, to leave. They just weren`t doing their job.

They might have been taking pictures or been on social media, or doing their own thing sliding into the water and didn`t even care about it. I

can tell you this. Since we`ve been doing so much TV, we`ve gotten phone calls from other parents who have said they noticed supervision issues.

JACKSON: Well, you know what, Chris? These issues are about that beautiful child we`re looking at, the gorgeous child who will never be held

by his parents again, never have Christmas and say, I love you. It`s about their legacy. And their legacy would be protecting other people from

things that occurred here.

STEWART: Exactly.

JACKSON: So if you could save others because of instituting new policies, God bless you and go to it.

STEWART: That`s the point. Even if there`s no insurance, we`re still going to keep fighting this. I`m not getting out of this case because

we`ve got to protect other people and other kids across the country.

JACKSON: Amen. Keep doing it.

STEWART: All right, man.

JACKSON: Take care. All right, Chris Stewart. You be well.

All right, there are new details tonight in the investigation into the fatal police shooting of an unarmed woman in Minnesota. According to a

search warrant obtained by Minneapolis Public Radio and "The Minneapolis Star Tribune," a woman presumed to be Justine Ruszczyk -- well, she slapped

the back of the patrol car that responded to her 911 call, a potential sexual assault.

Now, last week, the partner of Officer Muhamed Noor spoke with investigators and told them that Noor was startled by a loud noise in the

area just moments before Ruszczyk appeared at the car window. It`s unclear if the slap described in the search warrant was the noise that startled

Noor.

Now, Noor has not spoken with investigators about the shooting of Ruszczyk. We will continue, of course, to track this story as the investigation moves

forward.

And in Texas, 13 people are still hospitalized after being rescued from a sweltering hot tractor-trailer over the weekend. CNN has learned that the

driver of the tractor-trailer where multiple undocumented immigrants died had his commercial driver`s license suspended in April. James Matthew

Bradley was issued his license in 2004 -- you see him there -- according to the Florida Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles.

[20:25:08]It was suspended earlier this year because he failed to file a medical certificate, as is required, and disability information. Bradley

faces charges of knowingly transporting undocumented immigrants. He told investigators that he had no idea that dozens, possibly even as many as 100

or more people, were trapped inside that un-air-conditioned trailer where so many died.

And a murder mystery in south Louisiana. A retired pre-K teacher, the fire chief`s wife, is found dead in her burned-out home. But cops say the fire

didn`t kill her, she died from an unexplained gunshot wound. What happened to Nanette Krentel, and who would want to harm her? We`ll tell you.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[20:30:00] JACKSON: . parish not far from New Orleans. The wife of the St. Tammany Parish fire chief died in a fire at their home. But after further

investigation, there was a shocking discovery.

The coroner`s office determined that Nanette Krentel didn`t die in the flames nor from the smoke. Well, you know what? She had been shot before

the fire started. Now her loss and the investigation into her death has rocked that community.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

ERICA BOOGAERTS, FAMILY FRIEND: Nan was wonderful, compassionate, sweet, caring. I can`t imagine it. I can`t fathom it. I can`t put it into words.

KRIS HINES, CHIEF, DISTRICT 12 FIRE PREVENTION: It`s really rough right now. The family`s taken a hard hit. The Fire Department family, of course.

She was part of our extended family.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

JACKSON: Michelle __ Plumley is the assistant news director for the Louisiana Radio Network. He joins us from Baton Rouge. So tell us what do

we know about this? Can you just give us a sense and set it up for us as to what happened here?

MICHELLE SOUTHERN PLUMLEE, ASSISTANT NEWS DIRECTOR, LOUISIANA RADIO NETWORK (via telephone): Well, Joey, actually unfortunately, one of the things that

is most unique about this case is what we don`t know.

JACKSON: What we don`t know.

SOUTHERN PLUMLEE: What we`ve learned on Friday is that there was -- initially the media was informed or what we initially thought was that it

was a fatal house fire. And then it made the news on the following Monday because obviously this is Nanette Krentel and she`s a fire chief`s wife,

and we started making all these calls.

But the information that we started getting from normally our usual contacts from the state fire marshal`s office were very vague. And they

didn`t really want to talk about it, which is quite unusual for our normal, you know, contact relationships with them.

And then later on in the week, we learned that it was not in fact a fatal fire which is what they were telling the media outlets in Louisiana. Be

careful what you`re reporting, because it`s not necessarily -- may not necessarily be a fatal fire. Of course, we learned two days later that Ms.

Krentel actually died from gunshot wound.

JACKSON: Now, do we know anything, Michelle, were there enemies here? Would anyone want her dead? You know, what was the status or nature of her

relationships in the home, outside of the home? Any of that information been revealed?

SOUTHERN PLUMLEE: Actually, no. As far as everything that has been revealed to us is that she was, like you said, a beloved retired pre-kindergarten

teacher. Everybody here in southeast Louisiana knows everybody, especially, you know, in a parish like St. Tammany and in a little town like this, you

know, everybody knows everybody.

And so what they`ve been expressing to the media is that this is just one big mystery. And the fact that she is the wife of the fire chief is

certainly making it more, you know, of a juicy story, if you will. But by all accounts, you know, they were a very happily married couple and

everyone thought that everything was fine. And at the time of the fire, he was at work.

JACKSON: Michelle, stand by. It just boggles the mind. I want to bring in Rich Meier. He is a fire and explosion investigator and he is also an

analyst. He joins us from Bradenton, Florida. So take us through this, in terms of the investigation of the fire itself. Would they be able to

ultimately determine how it happened, that is, the fire, where it originated and how do they do that?

RICH MEIER, FIRE AND EXPLOSION INVESTIGATOR AND ANALYST (via telephone): Well, generally speaking, you`ve got four ways that you determine the

origin of a fire, and that`s -- it`s important to determine the origin before you can determine the cause.

If you don`t know where it started, it`s hard to tell how it started in most cases. So you have eyewitness accounts. You have fire patterns, fire

dynamics, which is basically understanding how fire moves. And in this case, you have a house that basically burned to the ground.

JACKSON: Right.

MEIER: That only leaves you with the eyewitness accounts. But that being said, if the fire is suspected of being an incendiary fire or fire which is

intentionally set, there are other things you can do. Typically what will happen, especially with state fire marshal`s office is they will bring in a

accelerant detection dog who will go around and sniff.

If the dog detects a spot where there`s something that he responds to, then the state fire marshals will take a sample, send it off to the lab, the lab

will analyze it and will come and tell them whether or not there is some type of accelerant, whether gasoline, kerosene, alcohol, something along

those lines.

And in the case of where you have a fire fatality that is not the -- not caused by the fire, it`s almost guaranteed that that`s going to happen.

Because that just suggests foul play. Whether or not

[20:35:00] you can actually find the origin of the fire or not, it tells you that something has gone wrong.

JACKSON: Rich, is there a way to plant a fire, so to speak, in other words, I lay the groundwork for it and that fire would pop up or otherwise

manifest at some later time?

MEIER: Yes, that`s actually not that uncommon. Typically there will be some kind of timing device. It can be anything as simple as a book of matches,

with a cigarette placed in it, burning cigarette that will go off several minutes after it`s lit. To something more elaborate, with electrical timers

and things like that.

JACKSON: In today`s -- go ahead, Rich.

MEIER: I was going to say, people having the impression that everything is destroyed by a fire. Generally speaking that`s not the case. There are

oftentimes evidence left behind that will give you an indication of how the fire started.

JACKSON: Well, that`s the question that I have for you. In today`s technology, how common would it be or how likely is it that you could

really conceal the starting of the fire, such that it baffles investigators, and professors like you who would be looking for that?

MEIER: Generally speaking we usually find the cause of a fire. There`s a small percentage which we call undetermined. And that is we can`t determine

the cause or we can`t determine the cause to the extent of where we can actually prove what the cause is.

There`s four classifications for fires here. There`s natural, like lightning or earthquake. There`s accidental fires, which is self-

explanatory. There`s incendiary fires which are fires that are intentionally set where they`re not supposed to be. And the category which

is undetermined.

Like I said, there`s a small amount of fires which go undetermined. But for the most part, I`d say 85, 90 percent of fires, we can tell what the cause

is.

JACKSON: Rich Meier, we appreciate the education. Stand by. Fascinating stuff. I want to bring in my friend Joseph Scott Morgan. I called him JSM.

He is a certified death investigator and a professor of forensics at Jacksonville State University. He joins us from Jacksonville, Alabama.

JSM, so good to see you. So tell me this. In terms of this investigation, you know, it used to be that people would kill someone and light a fire and

that would pretty much disclose, you know, people would think that they died in a fire. Now, you can detect that it was another cause. How does

that happen?

JOSEPH SCOTT MORGAN, CERTIFIED DEATH INVESTIGATOR (via telephone): Yes, hey, Joey. It`s so good to hear your voice. I have to say, the problem

arises with this when people think that fire destroys evidence. The reality is that they`re creating new evidence. It`s almost like an entire different

set as the gentleman mentioned just a moment ago, looking for accelerant.

We will also, in my realm and medical legal death investigation, look for accelerant on the body. Let`s say, for instance, if accelerant was dumped

on the clothing, when this clothing is removed at autopsy, we`ll send those to the state crime lab and they`ll be analyzed.

Now, in this case, my assumption, and this is a broad assumption, was that when they found her remains in the house, the first assumption is, well,

she died in the fire. Because the body has been partially consumed. Remember, they were only able to identify her vis-a-vis DNA.

JACKSON: Right.

SCOTT MORGAN: When they began to examine her, and most likely got her to the coroner`s office, what happened was standard practice is to do an x-

ray. And what we look for is -- we x-ray the body in totality. They`re saying there is a gunshot wound to the head.

What we`re looking for here is a lead storm in the brain. The bullet will, at some level, will fragment and you`ll see these little radiopaque dots of

lead that are left behind in the brain itself or in the cranial cavity.

We can retrieve that. That`s going to give us an indication. One of the problems here, though, is determining how much of this trauma was anti-

mortem, which means before death, and postmortem, because this fire was obviously was so intense as was previously mentioned.

This house literally burned to the ground. You have what is referred to as fire fracturing of the bone. It gets so hot that the bone actually

fractures due to the heat. This complicates the matter.

JACKSON: So, JSM, just so that we`re clear on that, there seems to be conflicting reports, we don`t know if it`s the head precisely, but can you

based upon fire conceal where someone is shot or will it come up, no matter how charred the body is, where that bullet entered or exited?

SCOTT MORGAN: No, not necessarily. And that is provided that the medical agency, whether the coroner`s office or medical examiner`s office, does a

thorough job, and that is going to require x-rays or radiographs. That is mandatory because an x-ray will see things, will cut through the clutter.

[20:40:00] If you`ve ever seen any kind of fire debris that`s left behind, it looks like a huge jigsaw puzzle. It`s just very confusing. X-ray has the

ability to see through and see where things are not normally visible to the unaided eye. So that`s going to be key here.

Radiologic evidence will be very important here going forward in this case. My thought is that when and if the thing ever makes it to trial, the x-rays

themselves will be presented in court. And I`ve been involved in these kind of cases before and it`s rather dramatic actually.

JACKSON: Amazing. Hopefully we get to the bottom of this. You know what, just a sad, tragic circumstance. We need answers here, we really do.

SCOTT MORGAN: Yes.

JACKSON: Thank you, JSM. A former model caught on camera hiring a hit man to kill her husband`s ex. She was tried and convicted. But tonight, she`s

free. And that`s because of a legal technicality. We`ll explain next.

[20:45:00] (COMMERCIAL BREAK)

JACKSON: You hear about it all the time after a divorce. The new spouse doesn`t like or doesn`t get along with the ex. But in Ohio, prosecutors say

that a rocky relationship led to a murder plot. They want Tara Lambert, you see her there, back behind bars.

The former model was accused of trying to hire a hit man who turned out to be an undercover cop to kill her husband`s ex, the mother of her

stepchildren. Unfortunately for Lambert, it was all caught on video.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: What do you want done with her?

TARA LAMBERT, HIRED HIT MAN TO KILL HUSBAND`S EX-WIFE: Oh, my God. Just put her in a chopper, like one of those lumberjack chopper things.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: I don`t carry a lumberjack chopper.

LAMBERT: I`m just kidding. That`s how much I hate her.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

JACKSON: It took jurors just 45 minutes to find Tara Lambert guilty of conspiracy to commit aggravated murder. She was sentenced to seven years in

prison. But an appeals court tossed that conviction.

Now prosecutors want the Supreme Court of Ohio to take over the case, and reverse the appellate court`s decision, and put Tara Lambert back behind

bars.

Pat Lalama is the managing editor for Crime Watch Daily with Chris Hanson. Good to see you, Pat. She joins from Los Angeles.

PAT LALAMA, MANAGING EDITOR, CRIME WATCH DAILY: Hey, Joey.

JACKSON: How are you?

LALAMA: I`m great. Great to be with you again. Boy, let me tell you, I mean, this woman, sassy, slinky, obsessed about her looks, admits to 20

plastic surgery procedures, but there`s only one thing, she was more obsessed with who you mentioned, her husband`s ex. It had to do with all

these issues over visitation and custody.

But it made her so angry, that she couldn`t stand it. So she pays some guy 125 bucks down payment to get rid of this mother of four who`s a school bus

driver. And she`s so excited about it, Joey, hold your ears if you`re sensitive, she compares it to a sexual experience. I won`t say exactly what

she says. But the problem is --

JACKSON: I think I can imagine.

(LAUGHTER)

LALAMA: I bet you can. The problem is, she does get convicted as you mentioned. Now, some might call this a technicality. But the issue is

important in the eyes of the law. The appellate court that said that the prosecution, when it`s writing up its case against Ms. Lambert, didn`t

specifically state exactly how she planned to carry out this murder.

Things like the $125 down payment, et cetera, et cetera. This was such an important glaring mistake on the part of the prosecutors. They claim the

defense should have found it, too, that they throw it out. Now it`s up to the Supreme court to decide whether to bring back the conviction and

whether or not the prosecution will be in a situation of having to retry her again.

JACKSON: So, well explained, Pat Lalama. Let me ask you this. What does it look like moving forward? Any indication of what the Supreme Court would

do?

LALAMA: Well, I`m a buckeye, born and raised in this very area, but haven`t been back there in a while, so don`t get a feel for what the Supreme Court

is about. I`m sure Mr. Shamansky will be able to give you a feel, the defense attorney.

But, you know, I think it`s hard to say. So the prosecutors just went to the Supreme Court, and now I believe that the defense has 30 days to

respond. But I just can`t read those tea leaves at this point. Not sure what they`re going to go.

JACKSON: Appreciate you, Pat Lalama.

LALAMA: Thank you.

JACKSON: And speaking of -- thank you. Speaking of that defense attorney, that would be Samuel Shamansky. He is the attorney for Tara Lambert. He

joins us from Columbus, Ohio. He`s working feverishly on this issue. So take us through it, Sam. What`s the issue here? And why does this

technicality have your client with her conviction reversed?

SAMUEL SHAMANSKY, ATTORNEY FOR TARA LAMBERT (via telephone): Joey, I don`t even know how to begin with the tea leaves and follow Pat`s salacious

description of the underlying facts, but I`ll do my best to stumble through. You know, the bottom line here, the state of Ohio failed to indict

her correctly.

It`s the absolute easiest task in the world. They control the grand jury. They type up the indictment. They left out a critical required element, and

regrettably that mistake has at least in the court of appeals cost them the conviction, as it should. What the Supreme Court will do is anybody`s

guess.

But I can tell you, as sure as the sun`s going to rise tomorrow, that the constitution requires that an indictment contain all of the elements. They

just flat missed one.

JACKSON: So, Sam, and I know you`re doing your job, apparently doing it very well, which is why your client is out, but ultimately from my

understanding, and let`s be clear with all the viewers, what happens is a conspiracy, right? There`s an agreement

[20:50:00] to commit some type of crime. And the language that I understand is that you also have to have not only conspired to commit the crime, but

take an overt step, that is an action toward the commission of the crime. Based upon that technicality, it`s your view that your client should have

her conviction reversed and walk free?

SHAMANSKY: Absolutely. You put it perfectly. The indictment`s got to contain the overt language allegation. And they didn`t. They made a

mistake. They overlooked it. They screwed it up.

JACKSON: And Sam --

SHAMANSKY: The rules mean something.

JACKSON: They do. Rules need to mean something. But to that point, my understanding is that the indictment, right, and that`s just the

accusation, something that accuses a defendant of doing something wrong, that that indictment track the law. Meaning the language was the same as

the statute, but they just failed to put the act, the overt act. And that alone --

SHAMANSKY: The overt act is -- I`m sorry, the overt act is part of the statute. They left it out. It`s like leaving out any other critical

element. You just can`t do it. It`s not allowed.

JACKSON: So, what`s the relief, just to be clear? Say for example, you prevail and your client is out. Is the remedy now that she be retried or

does the case now get thrown out?

SHAMANSKY: No, no. She`ll be retried as the court of appeals correctly noted. All they have to do is go back in front of the grand jury, re-indict

the case correctly, and then we`re off and running again.

JACKSON: OK. So ultimately what happens, Sam, is that if they do that, that is go back in front of the grand jury, you know, put the right language in

there, do what they`re supposed to do, she then comes, she has a new trial in front of a new jury, and then the outcome, though, could be much the

same, could it not?

SHAMANSKY: It could be the same or it could plausibly be different. Who knows.

JACKSON: And so we`re clear. Did you represent her during the trial or did you do the appellate stuff?

SHAMANSKY: Just the appellate work.

JACKSON: Got it. Sam, stand by.

SHAMANSKY: I`ll be at the trial if we`re lucky enough to have one.

JACKSON: Got you. Stand by for one second. I want to bring back in Kisha Hebbon and of course Danny Cevallos. I want to have this discussion with

you. Because a lot of people at home, and we take this as a defense attorney all the time. They say on a technicality, it`s a mere

technicality.

So what about that, Keisha? Isn`t this just a mere technicality? It took 45 minutes for the jury to convict that she did it. But language wasn`t right

in the actual indictment. Should she be out?

KISHA HEBBON, DEFENSE ATTORNEY: Well, clearly this is a reversible error. That`s why the judge found that her conviction should be overturned. I did

tons of appellate work, and one of the things that I look for initially is was indictment appropriate. As we know, prosecutors have to prove every

single element of the offense. If they left out one element, that conviction is not properly handed down.

So like her attorney says, she`s going to have to start back over. Now, I can`t say that she`s going to be acquitted when they add that one element,

because she`s in the car paying money and saying I want you to put her in a wood -- I don`t know what her chances are of beating it again, but I do

agree that it should have been thrown out.

JACKSON: So, Mr. Danny Cevallos, Kisha is exactly right on the law. She`s exactly right. But it`s a technicality. This is the stuff that people at

home say, are you kidding me? She got convicted in 45 minutes. What say you?

CEVALLOS: I say that this case could be -- this could be overturned by the Supreme Court if it got to the Supreme Court in Ohio. Here`s why. This old

rule of having to allege this overt act and it can`t be remedied, is an old rule in Ohio.

And the law may be changing. In this particular instance, this is the kind of thing that could be corrected with a document that`s called a bill of

particulars. In other words, if they leave this out of the indictment, the only reason that the information`s in the indictment is that so we all know

what we`re being charged with.

Well, as long as the prosecution supplements it with what`s called a bill of particulars, really just more detailed description, there`s no doubt

what we`re being charged with. This is the spirit of the law, that the indictment should stand. Because everybody really knew why we were in

court. And that`s what should have happened here.

JACKSON: And Kisha saying forget about the spirit of the law, tell me what you charged me with.

HEBBON: Right.

CEVALLOS: The spirit, Joey.

JACKSON: We could debate all day.

(LAUGHTER)

JACKSON: Amen to that. Great work. All right. So this Sunday, the fourth edition or the fourth season, rather, of "The Hunt with John Walsh"

premieres at 8:00 p.m. Eastern. Walsh has made the search for fugitives, his life`s work, as we know.

This week, he`s on the hunt for a rapist who forced a 17-year-old victim to marry him and then imprisoned her in a psychological cage for seven years.

Take a look.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: I landed in (INAUDIBLE). I walked up to him, and he gave me this big long hug. He was holding me and rocking me back and forth.

When we arrived at his apartment, I was really shocked when I saw that there was no bed set up for me. He told me, you`re going to sleep in my

bed.

[20:55:00] I was really exhausted after the flight. I was so tired, I fell asleep.

A few days later, he came into the bed and laid down next to me. And he was holding me, and then he leaned forward and kissed me. I just completely

froze.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

JACKSON: "THE HUNT WITH JOHN WALSH" airs Sunday at 8:00 p.m. Eastern. We`ll be right back.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

JACKSON: On behalf of Ashleigh Banfield

[21:00:00] and the entire HLN PRIMETIME JUSTICE team, we thank you for watching. Thank you, Kisha Hebbon. Thank you, Danny Cevallos. "FORENSIC

FILES" is next. I`m Joey Jackson. Than you.

END