Return to Transcripts main page
Crime and Justice With Ashleigh Banfield
Outrage Tonight: A $3.5 Million Scandal; Urgent Hunt; New Controversy; CNN Heroes. Aired 8-9p ET
Aired October 19, 2017 - 20:00 ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: This is where we got married.
ASHLEIGH BANFIELD, HOST (voice-over): A mother of six killed on her way home.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: That night was hell.
BANFIELD: She`d just been at the hospital with her brand-new twin babies.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: When she wasn`t home when I thought she should be home, I got worried.
BANFIELD: Cops say she`d never make it home, hit head-on by a drunk driver.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Every kid needed a hug, and I could only really hug one at a time.
BANFIELD: 21 years old and in a world of hurt tonight. Find out what charges she`ll face as six kids grieve the loss of their mom.
Blaming the victims of sexual assault, a recurring theme in the news these days.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: I am saddened about what happened to them.
BANFIELD: Now imagine those victims are 9-year-old girls.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: This negligence defense is really, really a bad thing because it really does blame the victim.
BANFIELD: A school system`s paying out big-time after a decade-long defense that suggested the third graders shared in the blame.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: We assume our responsibility.
BANFIELD: Now a full reversal and a settlement many say is way overdue.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Never was this defense ever used to blame these girls for the actions of their teacher.
Punished outside in the middle of the night.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: A lot of time elapsed before we were actually contacted.
BANFIELD: A 3-year-old`s disappearance is raising new questions tonight.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: If you really loved the little girl, why didn`t you call the 911?
BANFIELD: After police comb through the family home and the family car.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: We`re looking for any type of video.
BANFIELD: Find out what they seized and if the evidence will yield any clues to help find that baby girl.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: So we have Super Girl, we have a hunter and a punk rocker.
BANFIELD: A city`s Halloween law is now a ghost itself.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: I`m constantly checking that Web site, so I know. I know where they are.
BANFIELD: No longer will registered sex offenders have to warn the neighborhood kids.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: If I see someone I think is weird, I`ll keep them away.
BANFIELD: Did the city crater to the demands of a sick few?
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: It`s dangerous for our children.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
BANFIELD: Good evening, everyone. I`m Ashleigh Banfield. This is PRIMETIME JUSTICE.
For 15 years, all Katie Evans wanted was a girl, but she had a boy. And she adored him. And then she had another boy. And then she had another
one. And wouldn`t you know it, she had four of those little guys bouncing around her house until she and her husband, Jacob, got the news they were
finally having a girl, two of them, in fact, little baby twins. And because they were preemies, those little girls were stuck in the ICU.
Katie was visiting Hannah (ph) and Sarah (ph) every day, all one pound of them. Look at the picture. Hard to believe, little baby girls. But on
Friday night two weeks ago, Katie did not make it home from the hospital. She was hit by a car that crossed the median, and she was killed right
there at the scene, which, of course, means that Spencer and Travis and Nathaniel and Gideon will never see their mother again, and that Hannah and
Sarah will never get to know her.
And it also means that Jacob was instantly made a single father of six, remember, including two preemie twins that are still right now in that
hospital.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
JACOB EVANS, HUSBAND OF VICTIM: That night was hell. I knew she was on her way home. And when she wasn`t home when I thought she should be home,
I got worried.
We had people here when I told the kids that their mom was gone, and that was really important because every kid needed a hug, and I could only
really hug one at a time.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
BANFIELD: Accidents happen all the time, and sometimes they are unavoidable. But not this time. Police say the driver who slammed into
Katie Evans was hammered. She was a 21-year-old college kid who`d been at a local bar, they say. They also say that Alexia Sina`s blood alcohol
level was almost three times the legal limit.
She was locked up yesterday, and now she`s facing vehicular manslaughter, among other things. Her battle is only just beginning. Katie`s family`s
battle is never, ever going to end.
Sergeant Scott Shoemaker is with the Los Angeles County Sheriff`s Department. He joins me now live on the program. Sergeant, what more can
you tell me about this -- about the suspect in this horrifying, horrifying crash?
SGT. SCOTT SHOEMAKER, LOS ANGELES COUNTY SHERIFF`S DEPARTMENT TRAFFIC DIVISION: Really, there`s not a lot more to tell. She`s a 21-year-old
that apparently was out at a bar, had been consuming alcohol. When she left the bar, for whatever reason, she was -- appears to be traveling at a
high rate of speed.
We`re not sure why, but at some point, she lost control of her vehicle or crossed over a center median and collided head-on into the victim`s car,
Katie Evans`s car. And then there was a third vehicle that was involved that collided into the debris field that was left from the initial two
cars.
BANFIELD: Can I ask you, what did your officers on the scene say about that -- about that young woman, Alexia Sina. Did she talk? Was she
coherent? Was she conscious? What was her circumstance as Katie Evans was dying or already dead in that other car?
[20:05:12]SHOEMAKER: The deputies` initial contact, she was conscious, had climbed out of her car. Her car ended up landing upside-down on its roof.
And she ended up -- she was treated by the LA County fire department paramedics personnel, and then she was transported to a local hospital.
She ended up talking a little bit to the deputies, but most of what she had stated for the most part was she didn`t recall a lot of it regarding the
accident. So we don`t have a really good timeframe...
(CROSSTALK)
BANFIELD: Sergeant, sorry to interrupt. Did she not recall a lot of it because she was, you know, completely hammered? Or did she not recall a
lot of it because she`d had a head injury of some kind, or just the sheer trauma of an accident that significant?
SHOEMAKER: I don`t know the reason why she didn`t remember it. She did have some bumps on her head, some minor injuries on her head. So there
could have been some head injuries that caused that. Or she just doesn`t remember because of the alcohol, really. I don`t know the answer to that
question.
BANFIELD: What about her state? Was she able to walk? And if so, was she stumbling? Could they tell right away that this young woman was allegedly
three times the legal limit? Because if that were me, I don`t think I could stand up.
SHOEMAKER: I -- from what I understand -- I didn`t respond to the scene, initially, I was somewhere else, and by the time I got there, she had
already been gone or transported to the hospital. And so I don`t know if she was put onto the gurney from the ground from when she crawled out of
the car or if she did any walking.
I know at the hospital, they weren`t able to do any field sobriety tests and that was because she was -- I think, basically standard protocol from
the fire department, she was in a C-collar and strapped, you know, basically into a gurney.
BANFIELD: But she consented to having her blood taken, right?
SHOEMAKER: That`s correct.
BANFIELD: Yes. And that`s how it was measured and determined at this point, as the facts stand, that she was three times the legal limit.
(CROSSTALK)
SHOEMAKER: Almost three times the legal limit, yes.
BANFIELD: Yes.
SHOEMAKER: I`m sorry?
BANFIELD: That`s extraordinary. 0.21, is that correct, blood alcohol of 0.21?
SHOEMAKER: Yes, that`s the blood alcohol from our crime lab.
BANFIELD: Did they talk to her at the hospital? Did she -- did she say anything about where she`d been? I know we hear the report that she was at
a local bar, but anything more about what she`d been up to prior to getting behind the wheel?
SHOEMAKER: She did say -- all I`m going to say at this point is that she had told us or she told the deputies that she had been at a local bar and
had been drinking. As for the specifics of that, I`m not going to get into that because this is still an active investigation. There are still things
we`re pursuing. And so I`m not going to give the specifics of what she said.
BANFIELD: Sergeant Shoemaker, you know, I know that you probably over the course of your career, have responded to many of these incidents. And yet
when you hear the details of the victim in this case, it becomes unlike all of those other incidents. This is a mother of six, with two tiny 1-
pounders, two little preemies still in the hospital. She was just coming home from visiting them. I can`t imagine that this is not lost on you and
your colleagues.
SHOEMAKER: No, it`s not. I mean, going through the investigation -- and I went out two days later, basically, to the tow yard in the daylight to take
additional pictures of the vehicles, and the collision damage was some of the worst I`ve seen in my career. I mean, it was a horrific accident and a
very violent accident.
And then the emotional part of it with her being the mother of the six and the two preemie babies, it just weighs on that even more. And it just -- I
think everybody goes home at the end of the day and hugs their family members and kisses them and tells them they love them, you know, just
because seeing this accident and how quickly things can evolve.
BANFIELD: Have you had a chance at all to speak with Jacob, Jacob Evans, who`s pictured here in happier times with his four boys and his beautiful
wife prior to the birth of these two little baby girls?
SHOEMAKER: Yes, I have talked to him.
BANFIELD: And can you tell me a little bit about your conversation?
SHOEMAKER: He`s -- I think at that point, he was still -- I mean, my personal opinion is I think he was still in a little bit of -- in a lot of
shock of trying to grasp everything. I mean, he just became the father of six by himself.
[20:10:06]And it sounds, you know, from the little time that I did spend with him, he`s got a lot of family support, and he`s a very believer -- a
very religious person...
BANFIELD: As was Katie.
SHOEMAKER: So I think that`s the way he`s going to be leaning.
BANFIELD: Yes, as was Katie. I mean, you know, we read about her being a devoted mom, that she was active in her church congregation. They`ve lived
all over the police. They`ve lived in Japan and Puerto Rico. They lived in Wisconsin. They just look like the vision of the happiest American
family.
And to know that this could befall them -- if the facts end up being true and this 21-year-old coed, if it turns out after adjudication that it was
as simple as that, that she got hammered and decided to drive and shattered the life and dreams of six little babies and one single father and ended
the life of that smiling mother, and the ripple effect -- I mean, let`s just talk about the ripple effects to the rest of this family. If this
isn`t a poster case for DUI, I don`t know what is.
I do want to mention this, Sergeant. And I don`t know if you and your fellow offer officers know about it, but there was a Ucaring (ph) page that
was started by the surviving family members. I think their initial goal was about $100,000. I think they may have now reached somewhere upwards of
$300,000 -- no, wow, I think we`re at $310,000 now. And they`ve actually even changed the goal because Jacob had said that he was going to have to
move, that he was going to have to move closer to get the support of family members, that he couldn`t possibly raise six little children all on his
own, and with this Ucaring (ph) page, he may actually be able to stay put and still look after them.
Do you ever get those details, Sergeant? You know, I know you process the crime, but do you get the fallout like this?
SHOEMAKER: I mean, this one -- this one has struck home to a lot of people in our community and I`m assuming nationwide. But our community -- I mean,
just watching and seeing the social media and the local news reporting that`s been done here in the Santa Clarita valley, you could tell that this
one struck a chord with a lot of people.
And I know the response to the family has been very supportive. The last time I was aware or told of the support page was -- I think it was at about
$170,000, so they`d already exceeded the goal at that point. And that was the first week after the collision. So I want to support...
BANFIELD: Yes, I`m sorry to interrupt. I actually just want to, if I can, bring in Dr. Imran Ali, who`s a resident physician at Yale New Haven, and
he joins us from Bridgeport, Connecticut.
Doctor Ali, this young woman, 21 years old, apparently, 120 pounds -- I wanted to get sort of a medical feel for what it would take to get someone
that size to a level -- to a blood alcohol level of 0.21, and what condition would someone like that be in, making a decision to get behind
the wheel?
DR. IMRAN ALI, RESIDENT PHYSICIAN, YALE NEW HAVEN HEALTH: Well, very simply, 0.21 is equal to 210 milligrams per deciliter of blood that can be
measured in a blood test up to 30 or 40 minutes afterwards. So she brought -- was brought to the hospital, and I believe that`s where they drew her
blood sample. Now, 210 milligrams, that`s an immense amount. And 100...
BANFIELD: Would she be falling down, Dr. Ali? Would she be falling down, stumbling, slurring, and clearly, obviously smashed?
ALI: Absolutely.
BANFIELD: (INAUDIBLE) got behind the wheel.
ALI: At 100 milligrams per deciliter, you would lose complete balance. You would affect the part of the brain that loses balance. And when she
was driving, she probably couldn`t keep her lane straight, and that`s why she drove into the median. This has been studied again and again.
Reaction times are very much delayed.
Now, how much she drank -- well, we know so much that for each 12-ounce beer, the blood alcohol level rises 25 milligrams per deciliter.
BANFIELD: Yes, I think it`s very telling what you just said, though, that she would be stumbling if she were at this level.
Hold that thought for a minute. I want to bring in Randy Zelin real quick here, defense attorney. Hope in hell of beating this rap?
RANDY ZELIN, DEFENSE ATTORNEY: There`s always a hope in hell. Why bother having a criminal justice system? You know, you shut off your switch as a
human being because this is horrible. But what would you do if you were that young girl`s father or mother or brother or sister? You would want
her to have a defense.
It`s one thing to be intoxicated. It`s another thing to commit a homicide. You have to make that bridge. We don`t know if that accident would have
happened regardless of her level of intoxication. So everyone needs to slow down. We need to see what the result of that accident was because it
changes dramatically. And by the way, I have to say one other thing.
BANFIELD: Real quick.
[20:15:00]ZELIN: This woman`s life is no better and no worse than anybody other`s -- anybody else`s. It`s horrible. (INAUDIBLE) leave the emotions
out of it.
BANFIELD: It`s hard to leave the emotions out of it when you see those two little babies who were just born, brand-newborn kids that Mommy was coming
to visit in the hospital, the four little boys at home, and the tragedy that is.
And like I said, this is a poster case for DUI. If you are out there and you ever question whether you can make it home probably without an issue,
just look at these pictures and remember what can happen.
My thanks to Sergeant Scott Shoemaker, Dr. Imran Ali, and of course, Randy Zelin, who`s going to stay with me.
I`ve got some breaking news I want to give you. Two fugitives captured featured on a recent episode of "The Hunt With John Walsh," Joseph Horace
Green and Shannell Warren picked up in Plantation, Florida, on Wednesday. This couple ran a private school in Los Angeles and were wanted on
allegations of engaging in sexual acts with a student back in 2000. Green and Warren disappeared after being charged, and they`ve been on the run
ever since. Police say during the production of the program "The Hunt," several law enforcement agencies teamed up to take a closer look at that
case.
A brand-new episode of "The Hunt With John Walsh" is going to air Sunday night, 8:00 PM, right here on HLN. So far, a fantastic track record.
Next, four third graders, students in Florida, sexually assaulted by their teacher at school. They reported it, but the school board ended up blaming
them for, I quote, "letting it happen." You heard that right. And now the school board is apologizing, but it is more than a decade later. Just wait
until you hear how much it cost.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[20:21:04]BANFIELD: Now that it`s almost 2018, you would think that no one, and I mean no one, would blame a sexual assault victim for the crime
perpetrated against them, right? And that righteous indignation would be tenfold if the victims were, say, 9 years old, third grade.
Buckle up because I`m taking you to Florida, specifically Palm Beach County, where a school board has just agreed to pay a major settlement
after fighting a lawsuit for more than a decade. It involved four little girls, all of them in third grade, who were molested by their teacher, a
teacher who, by the way, pleaded guilty to child abuse, was kicked out of the school after all four girls reported to the police that he had touched
them during reading groups and during movies, at least one of them said touched her under her clothes. He`d also asked them to put their hands on
his crotch. Those are the facts.
And while this one seems pretty open and shut, it was not. The school district actually fought the family`s lawsuit, the Palm Beach County school
district lawyers insisting that the girls were somehow partly responsible for their own molestation. Let that sink in for a second.
For the past 11 years, they`ve been using something called comparative negligence. That`s pretty fancy, but it was part of the defense, saying
that the plaintiffs were old enough to appreciate the consequences of their own actions and to be held accountable for them, and that through their
actions and omissions, these girls conducted themselves in a careless and negligent manner, and such negligence was a contributing and/or the sole
proximate cause of their injuries and damages.
Let that sink in. Attorneys maintain that it was their job to defend the school board and raise what they called "certain legal defenses." But
members of today`s school board are saying, they didn`t even know that this language was being used in their defense.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
MARCIA ANDREWS, PALM BEACH COUNTY SCHOOL BOARD: In this case, it`s been many, many years of suffering by these children, who are now adults.
Psychological damage has been done, and now they are adults. I am saddened about what happened to them. It certainly wasn`t my idea, or I don`t
believe, this school board`s idea for this defense to be used or even mentioned in this process.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
BANFIELD: Well, the defense has now been officially dumped. The board`s lawyer is trying to clean up some of the damage.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
DALE FRIEDMAN, ATTORNEY FOR PALM BEACH COUNTY SCHOOL BOARD: I want to make something very, very clear. Never was this defense ever used to blame
these girls for the actions of their teacher, Blake Sinrod. Never. It was read out of context. It was never used that way, I can tell you as someone
who`s been involved in litigating this case for years, never. And I can`t shout never loud enough. But I want to make sure everybody knows that.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
BANFIELD: Well, thank you for that, Ms. Friedman. I don`t know how that`s read out of context. That was cut and dried. That was boilerplate. And
what I just said on TV is what you said in the suit.
But I`m going to tell you right now that board is paying dearly for all of this to the tune of $3.6 million, to be exact. But all of this again is
more than a decade after Mr. Blake Sinrod molested those girls and after more than a decade that the board told them they were somehow, maybe
partly, but somehow to blame as 9-year-olds, as third graders.
[20:25:12]So those girls are now women and they are in their 20s and they are speaking, but as you can imagine, it`s pretty embarrassing. It`s
pretty hard for them to go public. And of course, everybody should understand that.
So I`m going to play for you some of their reaction, their comments. We are naming them as Janie Doe A and Janie Doe B. They spoke via telephone,
and we`ve altered their voices because they want to maintain their anonymity in all of this. But first from Janie Doe A, where she talks
about the length of time this took and what they went through.
(BEGIN AUDIO CLIP)
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: It took 12 years to close this case and get what the system calls justice. But we will carry this pain forever. The settlement
and end of the case has freed us from the court system, but it can never take away our pain. This type of defense is what makes victims feel
ashamed and embarrassed and afraid to come forward. We are not, and neither should any other survivor. It makes me feel disgusted that the
school board used such a defense when their sole responsibility is to protect the students from any harm.
(END AUDIO CLIP)
BANFIELD: So Janie Doe B also spoke on that conference call. We`ve altered her voice, as well. But she also goes further and talks about the
anger that this bred.
(BEGIN AUDIO CLIP)
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: This makes me baffled and angry that they would even say something like that and say that 9-year-olds were accountable and
allowed what happened because it doesn`t matter if you`re 9 or 20 or 30 years old, it shouldn`t be used that the victims allowed something like
that. Because that`s like Janie Doe A said in her statement, it makes the victim feel like it`s their fault and they`re ashamed.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
BANFIELD: Marc Wites is the attorney for the former students who were sexually assaulted. He joins me from Boynton Beach, Florida. Marc, thanks
for being on. You know, it just defies logic. I want to say that this was an accident. I want to say that this was a mistake. This was boilerplate
language that got lifted and put into a suit, somebody checked it and said, Oh, dear God, you can`t say that about little kids in the third grade.
But this went on for 11 years and that language stayed there that whole time. Why?
MARC WITES, ATTORNEY FOR VICTIMS: That`s the $64,000 question to which I don`t really have a very good answer. You know, I have to tell my clients
very often, all too often, that the wheels of justice grind slowly. And this case is a testament to that. That defense has been present in all of
the answers and affirmative defenses that were filed in the case by the school board.
That`s a fancy name for saying the defense to a lawsuit. There are two main documents in a lawsuit that are pleadings. One is the complaint, what
the plaintiffs have to say. The other is the defense, or the answer, what the defendants have to say. You know, they say that actions speak louder
than words. And the school board did write those words. And they did raise that defense several times...
BANFIELD: Now, right? And I`m guessing...
WITES: ... during the course of the case...
BANFIELD: Honestly Marc, I`m guessing that over the course of 11 years, we`ve had school board member after school board member after school board
member. It`s almost like they`re so far away from the chain, they can say, What a terrible thing that our predecessors did.
But here`s what I don`t get. At some point along the line -- and you correct me if I`ve read wrong, but there was an argument made that that
language that they somehow are to blame pertained to the fact that they didn`t get counseling and therefore their injuries are their own fault. Is
that what they were hanging their hat on?
WITES: Well, what the school board said at the end of the case -- and I take their lawyer at their word because while they did raise this defense,
it was asserted, it was part of the case, it would not have been used until there was actually a trial in the case. The case was resolved before there
was a trial.
What the school board lawyer was explaining was that this comparative negligence defense, they say, would have been used as it relates to
damages, their argument, perhaps, that because a girl didn`t get enough counseling or any counseling or didn`t get counseling during certain period
of time, that she might have been hurt less or injured less or wouldn`t suffer as much.
That`s something that we categorically disagree with. But their argument is that they were raising this comparative negligence defense as to damages
and not as to liability. But in the words that were written, the words that you quoted, it was raised as to both.
BANFIELD: Your co-counsel over here, Randy Zelin, is shaking his head. And you`ve been shaking your head since you arrived at this building about
this case.
ZELIN: It is so hard to be a lawyer. There is a reason why we are the butt of jokes and how people have prayed for our demise, including
Shakespeare, although that`s not exactly what he meant. My God, first of all, a nine-year-old can`t even consent to any of those things.
Second of all, it clearly goes, because it`s what you do in a civil case. Oh, you claim that I did you wrong? Well, you know what? You`re the reason
why you got hurt, not because of me.
ASHLEIGH BANFIELD, PRIMETIME JUSTICE SHOW HOST: When it`s grown-ups.
ZELIN: You can`t do that! You have to just take one second and take a look at what you`re doing.
BANFIELD: At the big picture!
ZELIN: And think about what you`re doing. There`s no excuse. Oh, I missed it, I lifted it from another --
BANFIELD: Eleven years of looking at the big picture didn`t change.
ZELIN: Somebody could have made a motion to dismiss that defense also. But, my God! You don`t do that! It`s not -- that defense --
BANFIELD: Is indefensible.
ZELIN: Indefensible.
BANFIELD: It`s indefensible. Randy, thank you for that, and my thanks to Mark Whites (ph) as well. And to that young women who -- you know, God,
please, Mark (ph), pass on our thoughts to them for having to endure this for so long.
They got what they had coming, which is a $3.6 million settlement, and I don`t even know if that will scratch the surface and fix the needle (ph).
Mark (ph), thank you, appreciate it.
A three-year-old toddler still missing in Texas. And the parents, you think they would be out there begging us for help to find her. Begging the
police. Telling them everything. But they are not. They are not even cooperating with the police.
Actually, the police have had to get warrants, one after the other, to return to their home. And guess what? They`re now releasing the list of
what they found in that home. And you are about to become a forensics expert. Next.
[20:35:00] (COMMERCIAL BREAK)
BANFIELD: The devil is in the details. And sometimes the details are microscopic. That`s why forensics has become so critical to solving
mysteries like who killed JonBenet or what happened to little Sherin Mathews? Remember that little girl in Texas, three years old? Disappeared
after her dad said he made her stand outside the back of the house for not drinking her milk at 3:00 in the morning?
Well, yes, to us, it seems weird and certainly to the police, it did, too, so they arrested him and they charged him. And now we`re finding out what
all of those investigators collected, both from the Mathews`s home and also from the car. Two cars. Three cars. It is not a short list, either. They
took a whopping 47 items from that family. They even combed through those cars.
One of which, by the way, mysteriously just disappeared for an hour, the night Sherin vanished, though her dad didn`t seem to mention that little
detail to the police. As for the list of items taken back to HQ, huh, here we go. Several computers, multiple cell phones, a digital camera, digital
files, trash bags, shopping bags, vacuum cleaner bag contents.
Several documents including, this is weird, marriage and birth certificates. Bank documents, tax returns, financial papers, a pink t-
shirt, five pairs of shoes, two pairs of boots, change table linens. Dried grass, twigs, and lawn debris.
A vehicle floor mat, swabs from inside the Mathews family`s three cars. Swabs from the gas and brake pedals, the steering wheel, gear shift, seat
belt, sunroof, slide cover. You get the drift, right? They weren`t leaving any stone unturned.
Kate Delaney is an investigative reporter and a syndicated radio show host. She joins me from Richardson, Texas. Are the Mathews still living in that
home? Because it seems to me that the investigators have had to go back several times.
KATE DELANEY, INVESTIGATIVE REPORTER, SYNDICATED RADIO HOST (via telephone): Yes, you nailed it. They`ve had to go back, in fact, three or
four times. And to my knowledge, Ashleigh, I talked to one of the neighbors today, they haven`t seen them.
So, if they`re in and out of the house, they`re doing it under the cover of night, because nobody has seen the Mathews in the house. So, it`s very
strange. In fact, they even tried to serve papers the other day. Nobody answered the door.
BANFIELD: OK. That is very weird. As we understand, there`s an ankle monitor. Are they allowed to be in what to me would seem a crime scene,
that they keep returning to collect more stuff?
DELANEY (via telephone): Such a great question. The answer that I got from the police is that they were still combing through some of that evidence.
You mentioned it, 47 different pieces of evidence from the three cars and then from inside the house.
But they could still live there, because the deal is, as you said with the ankle monitor, it`s not taped off. I`ve been by the house. My own home is
probably 10 miles from where they lived.
BANFIELD: OK. I want to bring in Dr. Lawrence Kobilinsky. He is a forensic scientist and the chairman of the Science Department at John Jay College of
Criminal Justice. You`re always the guy I call when it comes down to the molecular level, you know, evidence. And I want you to go over this with
me, like, line by line.
I want to know what it is they`re looking for with these things. I get it with the first group, that`s all that digital stuff. The computers, the
cell phones, the digital camera and all the digital files. Let`s put up the list. So this one makes sense.
They`re going to comb through to find out what they might have been saying or doing digitally before the crime. But when it comes to the trash bags,
the shopping bags, and the vacuum cleaner contents, what are they going to get out of that?
LAWRENCE KOBILINSKY, FORENSIC SCIENTIST: Well, I think, you know,
[20:40:00] we`re talking about a scene. There`s something very suspicious. A little girl is missing. And sometimes, you`ve got to collect evidence and
you`re not really sure what happened. You know, you`re supposed to collect evidence before you form a hypothesis as to what happened.
BANFIELD: And that stuff looks like the stuff that they were trying to get rid of.
KOBILINSKY: I think they remember --
BANFIELD: Or they were getting rid of.
KOBILINSKY: If this becomes, you know, a court case, litigation, you want to have evidence that comes back --
BANFIELD: Why the marriage documents? Why the tax returns, financial papers, birth certificates? What`s that about?
KOBILINSKY: It`s really hard to say why they`ve collected each and every item. But these documents could lead to motivation of some sort. Maybe they
were in financial trouble.
BANFIELD: OK.
KOBILINSKY: They were doing something to fix their situation.
BANFIELD: Pink t-shirt, five pairs of shoes, and two pairs of boots. I get it, maybe the t-shirt they might use for sniffer dogs?
KOBILINSKY: They have cadaver dogs already searching for the child.
BANFIELD: And what about the shoes and the boots? Were they may be looking for soil collection?
KOBILINSKY: That`s exactly right. I mean, one theory is that the little girl was dropped in a park some place and soil can be transferred from the
ground to a boot and then into a vehicle.
BANFIELD: The linen from the change table. What does that tell you?
KOBILINSKY: Well, again, remember Caylee Anthony? The --
BANFIELD: Casey Anthony`s daughter.
KOBILINSKY: That`s right. Almost three years old. They found various items at the site of the -- where they found the skeletal remains. That
associated that linked back to the home, the Anthony home. Here, too, you`ve got evidence here that may give us more information once the child
is found. Hopefully it will have a happy ending, but we don`t know.
BANFIELD: This one I didn`t understand. I got to race through it because flat out of time. Dried grass, twigs, and lawn debris. What`s that going to
do?
KOBILINSKY: Well, again, there may be a linkage between the remains or the child when she`s found and the home.
BANFIELD: Last one really important, the washing machine and the dryer.
KOBILINSKY: Well, what was really suspicious is that he was washing something during the time she was missing. And so maybe he tried to wash
out blood or some other critical evidence that might be very incriminating.
BANFIELD: I could talk to you forever, but this show is not long enough. Will you come back?
KOBILINSKY: A pleasure.
BANFIELD: Always love having you, Dr. Kobilinsky. Thank you for that.
Good question here. Should registered sex offenders be allowed to hand out Halloween candy to trick-or-treaters? Simi Valley, California said no. But
after legal challenges, that law has been tossed out. How are the rights of convicted felons like that more important than the safety of our kids?
You`re about to find out.
[20:45:00] (COMMERCIAL BREAK)
BANFIELD: For parents in one California city, the most stressful part of Halloween this year is not going to be getting your kids into those
costumes or keeping them from eating too much candy at the end of the night, it`s going to be keeping them safe from their own neighbors.
Because their city council just voted unanimously to allow child sex offenders to open their doors to trick-or-treaters. Let me repeat that.
They voted unanimously to allow child sex offenders to open their doors to all the little kids who are going come right up to them and ask for treats.
And all of this is in a response to a 2012 ordinance that had banned sex offenders from decorating their houses or handing out candy, or even
leaving their outdoor lights on, on October 31st. And they had to go further, too. They had to put a sign out there saying, no candy or treats
here. I`m paraphrasing.
But the ordinance was hit with a series of lawsuits saying that those kinds of restrictions are unconstitutional. That sex offenders are people, too.
And that they deserve to celebrate the trick or treat tradition. And you might be surprised, but some locals agree.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: It`s more important, I think, that the city council respects the United States Constitution than punishing people for a mistake
that they might have made a long time ago. Like any reasonable parent, I go with my kid. And if I see someone I think is weird, I`ll keep them away.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
BANFIELD: So this Halloween, about 165 registered sex offenders in California`s Simi Valley are going to be allowed to open their doors to the
kids this year and hand out treats. And the parents can only take comfort in the fact that police officers, apparently, will be dispatched by the
city and will be patrolling the sex offenders` neighborhoods. And sites like Megan`s Law share the sex offender`s addresses.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: So I know that there`s a few over this way. Yes, so, I`m constantly checking that website. So I know. I know where they are. I`m
not pleased about it, obviously. It`s dangerous for our children. I think the biggest priority is to keep our children safe.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
BANFIELD: Joining me now is Simi Valley Mayor Pro Tem Mike Judge. Mayor Judge, this must have been a bit of a kick in the teeth to you all, given
the fact that you were sued and you were challenged and constitutionally, they have a point. Was this something you wanted to do or was this
something you had to do, dumping that law?
MAYOR MIKE JUDGE, MAYOR PRO TEM, SIMI VALLEY, CALIFORNIA: It was something we thought was in the best interest of the city at this time.
BANFIELD: How so?
JUDGE: Well, we were already hit with a lawsuit on part of the ordinance back in 2012. And we just didn`t want to go through it again. Se, we
figured rescinding the ordinance would be a quicker way at this time.
BANFIELD: So when you say the best interests of the city, I`m reading between the lines here, but effectively it sounds like you`re saying, God
damn it, we couldn`t fight these guys anymore, they`re killing us, and they`re costing us a lot of money, and I would like to protect those little
kids, but I can`t afford it, is that right?
JUDGE: Not really. Like every other city in California, our budget is pretty tight.
[20:50:00] We looked at this law as just another level of protecting children in our city. With Megan`s Law there now and our ability to push
Megan`s Law out on the alert system, I think technology has kind of caught up with us now, and we`re able to use that in replace of this ordinance.
BANFIELD: Were they able to make a good cogent case to you that it just wasn`t constitutional that sex offenders are people, too. That they served
their time and they paid for their crime and, you know, effectively the city council isn`t another sentencing body.
JUDGE: Are you asking me if I agree with that, I`m going to say no. Like I said, this was more of a financial issue than anything else. We did not
want to put the city`s already stretched budget through any more stretching. And because of the technology, we can, I think, adjust for it.
I do not believe that if you`re going to be made to register as a sex offender, our ordinance was any more of a stretch.
BANFIELD: And do you wish that ordinance was still there? I mean, effectively, I can sort of repeat the same question. Did you just do this
because you had to not because you wanted to?
JUDGE: Yes, that`s true. I`m sorry, that`s exactly right. Yes, I do wish the ordinance was still here. I don`t see a problem with this ordinance.
I`m not in the business of making sex offenders comfortable. My business is to protect the children of Simi Valley. That`s what we are trying to do.
That`s what we tried to do with the ordinance.
BANFIELD: Mayor, can you stand by for one minute? I want to bring into the conversation Janice Bellucci. She is the executive director of the Alliance
for Constitutional Sex Offense Laws. She joins me from Sacramento. Your title is fancy.
But effectively, Janice, you were the lawyer backing the sex offenders and challenging Simi Valley on this and you got your way. So, because of your
work, sex offenders will be allowed to open their doors. I think a lot of people who are watching right now would be very angry with you. Can you set
them straight or tell them why they shouldn`t be?
JANICE BELLUCCI, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, ALLIANCE FOR CONSTITUTIONAL SEX OFFENSE LAWS: Yes, I would be happy to do that. The fact is that the Simi
Valley law was a solution to a problem that didn`t exists. And what I mean by that is, we have the statistics, the records and the reports to show
that no child in the state of California has ever been sexually assaulted by trick or treating on Halloween by somebody on the sex offender registry.
BANFIELD: But it isn`t it all about preventing it? I mean, isn`t that all about -- I just look at it like, you know, sending a bunch of kids up to a
pedophile`s door is like sending a banquet to a dieter or sending the bar to the AA meeting. Do you know what I mean?
BELLUCCI: I don`t agree with you, Ashleigh. The fact is that a comment like that is based on misinformation. And the fact is that very few people on
the sex offender registry ever repeat their offense, number one. And number two, not everybody on the sex offender registry had enough events that
involved a child.
BANFIELD: So, Janice, can I just read to you from the DOJ? Because I mean, I usually go with the Department of Justice, they are pretty clean with
their records. But of the almost 9,700 sex offenders released in `94, nearly 4,300 of them were child molesters. And estimated 3.3 percent of
those 4,300 were rearrested for another sex crime against a child within three years.
Look, you can say whether it`s a higher or lower recidivism rate than say, you know, people who assault others, but I would say one kid being raped is
one too many. These preventative measures should be taken to protect kids and their safety before protecting the rights of a guy who has done
something of his own volition. No?
BELLUCCI: Well, again, Ashleigh, I disagree. I`m not familiar with the report that you have cited, but I am very familiar with the decision that
was made by the same judge that we had in this case. This is what he said five years ago, that the public interest is not served by enforcement of
unconstitutional law singling out a discrete, outcast group to speak in such a way that their persons, property and loved ones may be endangered.
We had a federal district court judge agree with us five years ago at the Simi Valley ordinance violated the constitution. And to our dismay and
horror, quite frankly, we found out (INAUDIBLE).
BANFIELD: I get it. I get it. Technically, you`re spot on. I also get the mayor`s opinion. He`s not in the business of making sex offenders
comfortable. Janice, thank you for being with us. I am also going to send the thanks to Mike Judge, mayor pro tem. I have to cut it there. Back right
after this.
[20:55:00] (COMMERCIAL BREAK)
BANFIELD: This week`s CNN hero was shocked when she saw brand-new children`s books ready to be thrown away because the libraries were just
too full. Now nearly 20 years and one and a half million books later, Rebecca Constantino has put knowledge into the hands of thousands of
California kids who desperately needed those good books.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
REBECCA CONSTANTINO, CNN HERO (voice-over): For a child, the library can be a magical place.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Officially the most awesome girl in the world.
CONSTANTINO: It can transform you academically, but it can also nurture you emotionally.
(voice-over) What people don`t realize is that school libraries are sometimes not funded at all. We provide libraries for under-served
communities and schools.
[21:00:00] Our whole goal is to spread literally and the benefits of literacy.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
BANFIELD: Learn more. Go to cnnheroes.com. Thanks to Randy Zelin for being here tonight. Thank you as well. "Forensic Files" begins right now.
END
