Return to Transcripts main page

Crime and Justice With Ashleigh Banfield

Google Lost One Engineer; Wife Died in a Car Accident with Husband. Aired 6-8p ET

Aired December 12, 2017 - 18:00   ET

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

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[18:00:00] ASHLEY BANFIELD, HOST, CNN: Good evening. It`s six o`clock Eastern.

And here are the headlines tonight. The man accused of setting off a homemade bomb and injuring five people in the New York City subway is

facing federal charges. Twenty-seven-year-old Akayed Ullah had told investigators he did it for the Islamic state.

Hours after posting something to Facebook saying, "Trump you failed to protect the nation."

The suspected serial killer in Tampa accused of killing and gunning people down at random, pleaded not guilty today to four counts of premeditated

murder. The state is going to decide whether or not it wants to seek the death penalty that will happen in January.

And a 21-year-old in California has been arrested for stealing drugs from a rite aid last month. And why is that a big case nationally? Because he

could soon be facing more charge charges. Just look at your video. He knocked down an 87-year-old woman during his escape and she ended up dying

because of that fall.

in the meantime, a North Carolina mom could be getting out of jail soon after serving 245 days of the sentence for leaving her 3-year-old boy to

die outside on the porch in 20 degree temperatures. She ended up testing positive for a variety of drugs.

And tonight, a dark answer to a San Francisco mystery. When you`re 23 years old, a Google engineer, and living in the tech capital of America, you have

the world by the tail, and that`s exactly what Chuchu Ma`s must have thought. An honor`s grad with a national merits scholarship, Chuchu was

going places so it was no surprise that she landed a hot job at Google as a software engineer.

What was a surprise is that she turned up dead, naked in a San Francisco bay creek not far from the headquarters where her career was just getting

started. The very same day that she was reported missing, a cyclist made the gruesome discovery in this craggy watery area near a bike trail. She

was face down and there was no question that she was dead.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: This is an admiration that something strange happened. This is a safe area. Google and lots of subsidiary Google campuses are

within a mile of here.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

BANFIELD: Joining me now is Ryan Harris, a reporter from news radio KFBK, he joins me from Sacramento. Ryan, this sure looks like a murder, but do we

know for sure it is?

RYAN HARRIS, REPORTER, NEWS RADIO KFBK: No, we do not yet, the police have not said a lot, not given us a lot of details, and we are still waiting for

an autopsy on Chuchu Ma`s body to find out exactly how she died. But they are certainly treating this as unusual circumstances.

BANFIELD: And what do we know about the discovery. I mean, if you`re just a random cyclist having a lovely day out on the trail that is quite something

to run into. Do we know any more about the story of the discovery?

HARRIS: That`s another thing we know very little about. Chuchu Ma`s body was discovered in a place called Bay Trail, it`s near Sunnyvale, not far

from where Google headquarters is in Mountain View.

And as we understand it, according to police, somebody bicycling by as many people do in that area, they bike, they walk, they run, was riding by, and

saw Chuchu Ma`s body, as you said without clothes, and floating face down in the water there.

BANFIELD: OK, so what is the story of her time line, the last time she was seen? The last people she was seen with. Who knew about her missing? Who

reported her missing? Walk me through that whole thing.

HARRIS: Well, you know, that`s also very unclear. Another area where police have been sort of vague with the details. As we understand it her boyfriend

reported her missing on Thursday. That was the same day she was found. But they haven`t yet said when he last saw her or who else might have seen her

last.

I mean, it could be a matter of, she didn`t keep with her routine and that`s what concerned him and that`s what cause him to go to police or he

might have had some reason to believe that there was an emergency and he made it to seek their help.

BANFIELD: You know, we`re looking at pictures of Chuchu, and she looks as though, you know, everything was rosy in her life, pictures sometimes can

lie, but God, when you look at that smile, she`s got a million-dollar smile, she had a phenomenal job. She was bright, brilliant and seemingly

happy. Is there any other side to that story?

HARRIS: Not as far as we know. And you`re right, you said it as well, this is a young woman who did very well in school, translated that quality work

to Google. Google has said they were extremely pleased with their -- her performance as a software developer, and that they are devastated by her

death.

But this is like you say, a young woman who had the world on a string, and had a long and successful life ahead of her all of a sudden, her life comes

to a sudden and tragic end.

[18:05:02] BANFIELD: And so close to that complex where so many successful people work. It just -- it feels rural, when you see these recovery

pictures, that the divers in the water, but that`s just within -- I think two miles away, the Google headquarters, is that right, Ryan? Just set the

geography for me?

HARRIS: Yes, that`s right, Mountain View is located near the southern tip of the San Francisco Bay. And that area like several places around the bay

area where the nature of the bay has been preserved is one of those areas where there is a mix of very heavy urban and rural areas, the people who

live in those areas and deal with the heavy traffic they face through every day, can get away from it, and get some fresh air and some exercise and

work out.

And that`s where she was located. No clue what she was doing out there, whether she was taking advantage of the scenery to get some exercise

herself. But it`s an area that`s remote, not a lot of businesses around, so unlikely that there will be any security cameras that would have captured

her activities. It will be up to any witnesses to figure out, help the police to figure out what went wrong here.

BANFIELD: So, real quick, and I know we`re early in the investigation, Ryan. But do you know if she was at Google before she disappeared? Have

they -- have they, you know, asked questions of her co-workers as to whether she was at shift on that Thursday before this happened? What do we

know about her last movements. Because Thursday is a workday for most people at Google.

HARRIS: Indeed, and we don`t. Again, that`s another area where details are somewhat vague yet. We don`t know if she reported to work Wednesday, the

day before. Or how -- again, she ended up out there in San Francisco Bay, it`s really a mystery, it`s unclear.

BANFIELD: That`s so sad looking at that happy, happy smiling young woman, again with the -- such a promising career ahead of your Google by the way,

has released a statement about Chuchu Ma. And this is what they`ve said.

"Chuchu was an excellent software engineer in our developer product team. We are devastated to learn of her passing and our deepest condolences are

with her family and her friends."

I want to bring in Captain Shawn Ahearn. He`s a PIO for the Sunnyvale Department of Public Safety. Captain, thank you so much for being with us.

Is there any more information that you can tell us that will shed some light on what happened to Chuchu?

SHAWN AHEARN, PIO, SUNNYVALE DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SAFETY: Well, right now, no. And you know, all the questions you were asking are the same questions

we`re asking, this is an active investigation, we`re treating it as an unattended death.

We`re not ruling any possibilities when it comes to this investigation. The main thing we`re waiting for is the autopsy report. That`s going to tell us

the manner of death or cause of death, that`s what we`re waiting for, and that`s being based -- we`re waiting the release of the autopsy report based

on the toxicology report.

BANFIELD: And so, captain, I understand that no one wants to put the cart before the horse in an investigation. Oftentimes those who are in the

recovery process get a good idea of how someone died before you get toxicology back, before you get the official results back, and t`s are

crossed and the i`s are dotted.

If you can`t tell me how she died, do you think you will at least know at this early stage how she died?

AHEARN: Well, that`s the answer we`re hoping for from the autopsy report. And, again, that`s -- we`re not ruling anything out, when we`re doing this,

we`re actually involved with the investigation. And that`s hopefully the answer, the autopsy report will give us.

BANFIELD: So then the Google statement obviously, very sympathetic to all of those who are affected by the loss of Chuchu Ma, and they were, you

know, careful to say our deepest condolences are with her family and friends.

But as you well know, our audience well know, in any kind of forensic investigation, it includes interviews with family and friends. What can you

tell me about that arm of the investigation?

AHEARN: Well, we are talking to family, friends, acquaintances. Again, the same question you asked just a few minutes ago are the same question we`re

asking. We`re trying to get a picture of what her life was prior to this, prior to the days when she was located in the canal. And that`s what we`re

doing. We`re reaching out to work acquaintances, family members, friends to get to try to get some of these answer, to give us an idea of what or may

not have occur.

BANFIELD: Do you have a time line so far?

(CROSSTALK)

AHEARN: And that`s why this is still not...

BANFIELD: I mean, sorry to interrupt, captain.

AHEARN: I`m sorry?

BANFIELD: Do we have a time so far, do we know if she was at work at Google on Thursday? Did she go missing on Thursday? Exactly what do we know about

the last whereabouts, the last people who saw her and the last place that she was actually seen alive?

AHEARN: Well, that`s where we`re at -- that`s what we`re looking as part of the investigation. I don`t have that information right now. But that is

part of our investigation. That`s -- picking the time line if she had contact with anybody, everything that we can look at, again, not ruling out

any possibilities on this, we`re looking at everything.

[18:10:01] And then real quickly, her boyfriend apparently did not live with her. But he reported her missing, and correct me if I`m wrong, sir, it

was after her body had been discovered. And I understand how quickly these things happen and that information is not all shared. It may also just be

that she wasn`t missing very long. Are those all correct premises?

AHEARN: So he did report the body hours after we had got the call for the body. But that`s, again, that`s what we`ll be looking at. We`ll be looking

at the missing person`s report, we`ll be interviewing him. We`re again -- no stone`s going to be left unturned, we need to -- just like everybody

else, we`re looking for answers and we`d like to have those answers.

(CROSSTALK)

BANFIELD: What about her...

AHEARN: And that`s what hopefully we find...

BANFIELD: What about her -- and you`ll have to forgive me, but this is my job. I keep pressing even though I know that you`re limited in what you can

say. Hopefully I`ll crack in the window at some point. Her cell phone. Her purse, her wallet, her car keys, a car if she owned one. Any answers on

those critical points of reference?

AHEARN: No information I have right now. That I can share. Again, once we get the (Inaudible) investigation, once we get the autopsy report, we will

be updating everybody on the situation, and from what we have discovered and what we know from the answers in the autopsy report.

BANFIELD: So I`ll tell you what, captain.

(CROSSTALK)

AHEARN: That`s sticking to the whole situation.

BANFIELD: So here`s a question you may be able to answer, because it`s not about the technicalities and the evidence and the forensics, it`s more

about the mood. Because I think it was KTVA had a report saying, detectives told them that discovery of her body does not pose a risk to the general

public.

I go running. I`m a woman. I would be terrified if something like that happened. And to hear detective say nothing to see here, nothing to worry

about makes me think that you do know something. Is that a correct premise as well?

AHEARN: We have said from the very beginning that there`s no danger to the public. It`s safe to be on that trail, and we maintain that. And once we

get all the answers, every other question everybody`s asking will be answered also.

BANFIELD: Captain, can you tell me why it`s safe to be out on that trail, when a dead naked woman was found face down just off of it?

AHEARN: I think -- I think the answer is pretty obvious within itself. Right now, as we said there is no danger to the public. And if there was,

we would definitely put it out there, and it`s safe to be on that trail. And I think the answer speaks for itself.

BANFIELD: Captain, you and I are going to have to meet at a different time when you are able to divulge some of those details. I understand the

confines, you know, which you are. And I do appreciate you taking the time to help me sort of wade through some of this.

Stand by for a moment, if you will, I want to bring in forensic pathologist Dr. Michael Arnall. He joins me now live from Denver.

Doctor, I`m wondering what some of the things you might be thinking about here are. What would be some of the things you`d be looking at to try to

start the process of determining the narrative of how Chuchu Ma died?

MICHAEL ARNALL, FORENSIC PATHOLOGIST: I would think that this case has to be initially treated as a potential rape homicide until proven otherwise.

The fact that police have said there is no danger suggests one of two things. Either they`ve come to the conclusion that it`s not a crime, which

seems unlikely, since she was naked and in the water.

If it is a crime, it suggests that they`ve already acquired the individual who they believe perpetrated this. The autopsy would have been done either

Thursday afternoon or Friday in all likelihood. Meaning the detectives already know what the cause of death is, if it was a violent death. If it

was strangulation or stabbing or shooting.

So my guess is, that the detective you`re talking to is doing exactly, you know, what he has to do. And that is not release information to you. While

the district attorney builds his criminal case and obviously, the detective is doing the correct thing, he can`t release information to you, but this

certainly looks like a crime.

And if there`s no danger to anyone it sure looks like they`ve already acquired who they believe to be the assailant if this is a crime.

BANFIELD: Which brings me full circle as to why we started this story by calling it a dark mystery. Because it really does seems to be a mystery

even as to whether she was murdered or not.

But our thoughts go out to the family of Chuchu Ma. You can`t help but feel for them when you look at that beautiful face and realize what they are

suffering tonight.

My guests, thank you, all. I do appreciate it.

Was it a freak car accident? Or was a Wisconsin mother murdered by her high school sweetheart. Today, jurors heard from the defendant himself, her

husband of 25 years.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

[10:14:57] UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Did you take her head and bash it against the wheel rim?

TODD KENDHAMMER, ACCUSED OF KILLING BARBARA KENDHAMMER: No.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Did you take a pipe and beat her with it in anyway?

KENDHAMMER: No.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

BANFIELD: It is rare to hear a loving husband ask the question, did you bash your wife`s head into the car? But Todd Kendhammer`s story is rare,

and his high school sweetheart`s death is even more rare.

Todd is accused of brutally murdering Barbara and staging it to look like a roadside accident. His story is that a 10-pound metal pipe came flying

through their windshield and straight into his wife`s head.

The trouble is those pesky forensics they don`t match a lot of what he says happened. Today in the courtroom Todd Kendhammer was on the stand and he

was reminded he doesn`t have to do that, he does need to take the stand but he said he would to convince the jury that his wife`s was an accident.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

[18:20:10] UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Did you take her head and bash it against the wheel rim?

KENDHAMMER: No.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Did you take a pipe and beat her with it in anyway?

KENDHAMMER: No.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Did you take that bubba mug and smash her in the face with it?

KENDHAMMER: No.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Did you take any item, whether it was an objects or your fist and hit Barb?

KENDHAMMER: No.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Have you ever hit Barb?

KENDHAMMER: Never raised my voice to Barb. Never hit her either.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

BANFIELD: Last week a forensics expert said Barb`s injuries do not align with the criminal science in this case. And in a moment, I`m going to show

you line by line what he meant by that, but today an emergency doctor said the opposite.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

STEVEN COOK, DEFENSE WITNESS: I came to the conclusion that the -- this was an incredibly bizarre accident. And that it occurred in as close as was

realistically rememberable as Mr. Kendhammer stated.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

BANFIELD: Multimedia journalist Caroline Hecker joins me now from WXOW. She was in court today and she`s joining me from Lacrosse, Wisconsin.

Caroline, thanks for being here. I can`t help but think that that man I just saw on the stand is very mild mannered, and from the very brief answer

that I just heard, he seemed very believable to me. What was it like all day long, though?

CAROLINE HECKER, MULTIMEDIA JOURNALIST, WXOW: You know, that`s kind of the feeling we got too, obviously the defense went first, he came across as a

loving husband of 25 years. And like he said never argued with his wife. Never raised his voice, rarely apart. Just like the picture perfect

marriage.

That`s even what his son testified to today. But when he was first examined by the prosecution, I thought he got a little shaky, it was clear that they

were poking holes in a lot of contradictions he has said in his testimony, interviews with law enforcement. And so he appeared to get a little uneasy,

I think that`s exactly what the prosecution was going for.

BANFIELD: So that`s typically what the prosecution goes for, they want to make you uneasy, they want to see cracks in your story, they want to see

you sort of break, and show what they say might be the true colors. I`m having trouble seeing that, though.

I want to play, if I can, just this first moment that I have. It`s for our crew sound bite number one and this is when he`s presented with all those

facts and has to sort of say why they don`t maybe align. He sees himself doing that in an interrogation and then he`s asked. So exactly, how do you

answer to that? Here`s what he said on the stand.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

KENDHAMMER: I watched that video. And that`s not me. It`s me in the picture but it`s not me talking. It`s not the right state of mind talking in that.

I wasn`t thinking of where I was going or what I was doing, I was thinking of Barb.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

BANFIELD: Thinking of Barb. And of course, one of the big questions would be, what happened? Your story, exactly as you remember it from the driver`s

seat looking over into the passenger`s seat when Barb is in the throws of death, and this is how he described it from the stand.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

KENDHAMMER: After I lunged, the pipe came through the windshield. Everything happened so fast. Barb started flailing and moving around. And I

was to the -- I quick turning on to Cooley Road. I thought I put the car into park but I apparently put it in reverse. And I ended up, that`s how I

ended up in the ditch the way I did.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Do you know how long that took?

KENDHAMMER: I do not.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

BANFIELD: That little moment that you heard him outline of putting the car into reverse not park, now why would that matter? It turns it matters a

lot.

Jesse Weber is the host of the Law and Crime Network. He joins me now. You`re covering this gavel to gavel.

JESSE WEBER, HOST, LAW AND CRIME NETWORK: Covering it.

BANFIELD: I know you didn`t miss that little moment. Because the glass forensics say that when that glass shattered into the interior of the car,

it would have gone everywhere, but it couldn`t possibly have gone into the gearshift the way it did, unless the car was in reverse. Now how does a car

get into reverse when a pole come through your windshield?

WEBER: So you can blame it on this is a car accident. Who knows what he was doing? But then again, there`s something a little bit more sinister. There

was not even glass found on the passenger side door which would have indicated that he moved that body.

BANFIELD: But he was quick to answer it and he seem very believable, saying, gosh, I just got it into reverse, I thought it was in park. Because

it answers that question of the jury.

WEBER: Right.

BANFIELD: Doesn`t it?

[18:25:00] WEBER: Right. One of the questions was, why did you keep driving? And he really didn`t have a clear explanation about why he did

that, and he said, look, my emotions were running high. You heard experts say that in the middle of an accident, things could happen. Or is it something a little bit more? Is it something that this was

a preplanned murder and he tried to conceal it?

That`s a difficult question for the jury. And I have to tell you, Ashleigh, this case smells of reasonable doubt, and I`m not sure which way it`s going

to go.

BANFIELD: You say that. But then I see these lists. And you know, this is the network that run Forensic Files. So our viewers are really, really

clever when it comes to matching those forensics to what the defendant says.

I`m going to go over the list.

WEBER: Sure.

BANFIELD: Because I think it bears repeating in this case and the jury is going to see every bit of that. So if I can just ask Caroline and Jesse to

hold on for one second.

The forensic inconsistencies include no blood being found on the actual pipe that was supposed to have come through and killed Barb. There were

scratches on the defendant, there was blood on the rear tire of the car. How would that happen?

The glass and the gearshift I just mentioned, it didn`t appear that there was an actual person sitting in the passenger seat the way the glass

pattern actually shattered and the debris that was left behind. Meaning it looked to the forensics guys like the glass shattered after Barb was out of

the seat. At least that`s what the impressions were.

There was no sign of any truck in the area, the supposed truck where the pipe flew off. The passenger door was likely opened when that windshield

was broken you know those pockets in those side, the side of your door there? There wasn`t any glass in there. And if that glass came flying

throughout the car the glass would have been in one of those pockets, but it wasn`t.

And then there was grass and debris in the trunk of the car, and that`s important, because what the defense was trying to say was that, I have no

idea how the debris got in the back of the car.

But the prosecutors are saying that stuff in the trunk came from the pipe which you took out of the trunk. And I want you to hear how they said it,

they were very clever in their cross-examination. I`m going to ask for sound bite number six if I can and watch particularly how Todd Kendhammer

reacts.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: There`s some dirt inside the trunk, and it looked like something like the pipe had been dragged out over the back of the trunk. Do

you remember that?

KENDHAMMER: I do, yes.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: The pipe was in the trunk.

KENDHAMMER: OK.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: You went in the trunk to get the pipe?

KENDHAMMER: I did not go into the truck for the pipe.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: You went into the trunk for some other reason?

KENDHAMMER: I didn`t say I went in the truck. I don`t recall going to the trunk.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: There will be no reason other than getting the pipe out. Is there?

KENDHAMMER: I can`t tell you that.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Because you get the pipe out.

KENDHAMMER: I did not get the pipe out of the trunk.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

BANFIELD: Well, he didn`t screw up, that`s for sure. I want to bring in a defense attorney, Parag Shah, he joins me live. Now, Parag, I want to bring

you in on this while I also read some of the medical inconsistencies, because when we`re talking about the forensic inconsistencies list, there`s

a pretty robust medical inconsistencies list as well.

Let`s start with the pattern of injuries, they seem to be inconsistent with a pipe coming through the windshield. At least according to one expert`s

testimony. Another expert said not so much.

Lacerations were found on the back of Barb`s head. How does that happen if the pipe comes through the windshield? There were neck injuries that seem

to be consistent with possible strangulation. Barb`s finger nails were torn. That suggested a possible physical struggle.

And then the old sound bite, blood splatter, the patterns didn`t seem to match the defendant`s description of the accident.

Parag, as a defense attorney I know you could probably take each and every one of these forensics lists and each of the entries on the medical list as

well. And you could probably find something to fight, am I right?

PARAG SHAH, DEFENSE ATTORNEY: Yes, absolutely. And the main thing to think about here is the issue is not is the state`s theory possible. That`s not

what we`re talking about. We`re talking about whether the defense`s theory is possible. If it`s possible, then the jury must acquit.

There`s a story of innocence here, and the experts are battling with each other, but so far, every piece of evidence that I have heard has said what

the defendant said is possible. The pipe can cause the injuries to the back of her head, if she turned. Which would be reasonable if she sees a pipe

coming.

A lot of the things that they`re talking about add credibility to the defendant, and what`s the most important thing that the jury wants to know?

Can I believe him? And when he took that stand, if the jury said to themselves, you know, I believe him that means I believe that story of

innocence, and, therefore, they`re going to have to acquit him.

BANFIELD: And you know what`s interesting, we don`t know about any domestic issues in their past, we don`t know about any life insurance issues. That

didn`t come up.

(CROSSTALK)

SHAH: Motive is a big issue. Even though motive is...

BANFIELD: Motive is an issue.

SHAH: Motive is not an element, but we always want to know why.

BANFIELD: But you want it, as a juror.

SHAH: Yes.

[18:29:59] BANFIELD: You may not think you have to prove, you know, as a prosecutor, you don`t have to prove motive, but the jurors really want it.

And there`s one more thing. He didn`t seem to have any financial issues either.

So, clearly, one of the questions I would think, of course, they want to hammer away at, is that he was violent. And listen to how that went. Listen

to how that cross-examination got slightly contentious, and again how Todd was able to handle it. Take a look at the soundbite number seven.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Mr. Kendhammer, is it true that you punched her and broke her nose?

TODD KENDHAMMER, DEFENDANT: No.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Caused bruises on her face?

KENDHAMMER: No.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: There`s blood on both your knuckles, right?

KENDHAMMER: It`s not from punching my wife.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

BANFIELD: So, Jesse Weber, that again -- that sounds very measured, very calm. That`s critical for the jurors.

JESSE WEBER, HOST, LAW AND CRIME NETWORK: Add to the fact that the prosecution has a great theory here. What was he doing that morning? He

said he was going to visit a friend`s house to change his windshield. Friend didn`t know that he was coming.

BANFIELD: Friend didn`t know anything about that.

WEBER: Didn`t know anything about that. And also, let`s not forget the fact, she -- he said she had been late to school before, for work. She had

never been late before. She always called her mother every day. She didn`t call that day. There`s a lot that the defense is going to have to answer.

I`m not sure they`re doing it.

BANFIELD: And more than you can fit into like a seven-minute TV segment, that`s for sure. You guys have done a great job. One last question to you,

Caroline, I hope you`re still there, but I know that we`re sort of done almost.

I think there`s very little left to this case. And that the jury might actually get it on Friday. You`re in the courtroom. How does it feel? Do

you feel like the prosecution did it? Or do you think the defense was able to pull it off?

CAROLINE HECKER, MULTIMEDIA JOURNALIST, WXOW (via telephone): I really truly think that the prosecution has done it. I think there`s too

many inconsistencies in his story. Even on the stand (INAUDIBLE), he`s saying different things. You know, he`s saying one thing to the

interviewer, another thing to another interviewer.

He can`t keep his story straight. A lot of people would say that`s because he`s lying. We`ll have to see. I think one of the things you quickly

touched on, that`s interesting. It`s interesting that his mother-in-law, Barbara`s mother, is going to testify on his behalf.

BANFIELD: Oh, wow!

HECKER: Everybody is behind him. They truly feel he is innocent. And so that`s kind of been something (INAUDIBLE) --

BANFIELD: OK, that`s a biggie. That`s a biggie. I thought the testimony was over, so I`m going to reign that one back in, and forget everything I said

about the jury is going to get this thing on Friday.

That`s a biggie. When the victim`s mom comes and says, he`s not such a bad guy. That bodes really well. I have to cut it there, guys, but we`re

definitely going to follow this and find out what that verdict has to offer. Jesse Weber, thank you. Caroline Hecker, thank you as well.

Parag Shah, I`m going to ask you to stay on, if you will, because tonight in Ohio, police are on the lookout for a teen runaway. They say they think

she is in danger. This is Annalys Clay. Take a really close look at her. Her mom says she has been missing since December 4th. She was last seen in

Strongville, just south of Cleveland.

According to reports, and here`s the biggie. She was with a wanted fugitive who was once convicted of manslaughter. So when I say say keep an eye out

for her and take a close look, do exactly that, call the police if you think you`ve seen her.

A woman flying on Southwest Airlines ranting and raving and threatening other passengers with their lives all because she was busted for smoking on

the airplane.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

VALERIE CURBELLO, ARRESTED FOR THREATENING TO KILL EVERYONE ON BOARD OF SOUTHWEST AIRLINES: I swear, if you don`t (bleep) land, I will (bleep) kill

everybody on this (bleep) plane. I will kill everybody on this (bleep) plane.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

[18:35:00] (COMMERCIAL BREAK)

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

CURBELLO: I will kill everybody on this (bleep) plane.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: The incident began after airline officials say a woman attempted to smoke in the airplane bathroom and alter the smoke detector.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Everybody watch out. She`s coming through.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Oh, my God.

CURBELLO: You`re my savior. God, you`re my savior.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: We got some Hillary (bleep) on here? Donald Trump! It`s your president. Every (bleep) one of you. If you don`t like it, too bad.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: I`m not yelling. You want to hear me (bleep) yell?

CURBELLO: I`ll kill you.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Please, please stop.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Security!

(END VIDEO CLIP)

BANFIELD: We`ve all seen it.

(LAUGHTER)

BANFIELD: It`s not actually on your plane, you`ve probably seen a lot of that garbage on your news feed, right? People just losing it on airplanes.

Sometimes they`re mad at the flight attendants. Sometimes there`s something bigger at hand, some other issue.

Like the woman on a recent flight from Portland to Sacramento. That flight fell off an hour forty (ph). But apparently she just could not go that long

without a smoke. You know where this is going, right? She was caught smoking and tampering with the smoke detector in the bathroom. And ladies

and gentlemen, this is how she unraveled.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

CURBELLO: I have a destination for this. I have a destination for myself. And I need to go there.

I swear, if you don`t (bleep) land, I will (bleep) kill everybody on this plane. I will kill everybody on this (bleep) plane.

I will.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

BANFIELD: Police say that charming young lady is Valerie Curbello. They say she was physically challenging and threatening to this crew. According to

local reports, she even tried to rip the oxygen mask out of the overhead compartment.

The plane had to make an emergency landing. Everybody had to get off so that Ms. Curbello could be arrested. But from jail, she did an interview,

and she says there was a reason behind her outrage.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Why did you decide to try to smoke in the bathroom? That`s what they`re saying you were doing. Why did you try to smoke in the

bathroom?

[18:40:00] CURBELLO: The anxiety. Yes, the anxiety.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: You were saying some pretty threatening things, like you were going to kill everybody on the plane.

CURBELLO: Yes.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Why did you say that?

CURBELLO: I don`t know. It was not me. It was not me.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

BANFIELD: Well, it may not have been you, but it really was you. CNN transportation analyst Mary Schiavo joins me from Charleston. She is also

the former inspector general for the Department of Transportation and all around very smart lady, when it comes to all things airplane.

Mary, when you see that, can you just sort of tick through all the bad things that are coming down the pike for her?

MARY SCHIAVO, CNN TRANSPORTATION ANALYST: Well, in some ways, she didn`t really get all of the bad things that could come down the pike. Prosecutors

have great leeway nowadays as to what to charge. For example, she made a threat against the aircraft to bring it down.

And had she been charged under section code (ph) 18 United States code 32, or another one, 49 United States code, I think it`s 46504, the imprisonment

could be up to 20 years.

So the prosecutors here charged her with kind of a mid-range crime, you know, making the threats, rather than interference with the flight or with

the flight attendants which would carry a stiffer penalty.

In similar cases, they`ve gotten up to two years, 24 months, 27 months. But, you know, there`s nothing quite similar or the same in all these

cases, so there will be a great amount of leeway for the prosecutor and the sentencing judge if she pleads guilty and is convicted.

BANFIELD: Mary, look, I always see those signs in the restroom and I wonder, really, does anybody not see these signs when we hear that they

tamper with the smoke detector and try to have a smoke mid-flight? Apparently they do. I thought that was serious, until I read down the list

of all the things that she did or is alleged to have done.

And the one that really struck out to me was that they had to declare an emergency and they had to ask the tower for priority handling. That`s I

guess priority handling for air traffic control to let them skip the landing line. To me, that sounds extremely dangerous.

Because now you`re not only putting everybody on that plane at risk, but all those other pilots who are on approach and have to change routes. And

there is a lot of messing around the air traffic has to do.

So why is this not a far more serious crime than felony threats to commit crime resulting in death or great bodily injury at a state level?

SCHIAVO: You`re exactly right. In an emergency, you put other planes at risk too. But in the U.S. attorney`s manual, there`s an interesting

discussion that says, if you don`t think, as the charging official -- if you don`t think the person really had the ability to carry out the threats

that they were threatening, then you shouldn`t be charging the endangerment of the aircraft charge or some of the most serious charges of all.

But the charges for just smoking on a plane or tampering with the smoke detector are astonishingly low, it`s a fine of $2,000 to $4,000 or $5,000

for those offenses. So they did do the right thing in charging her not just with smoking or tampering, but with the making the threats and making the

threats against the aircraft.

BANFIELD: Look at this moment. Watch this.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

CURBELLO: Everybody on this (bleep) plane.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Sit down.

CURBELLO: I will kill everybody on this (bleep) plane. I will. I will.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

BANFIELD: Right there, you see how physical that got? Apparently the witnesses say she actually shoved the flight attendant. You can see at the

end of the tape, Mary, that she -- I think it was one of the passengers, rushed her and said enough of this crap, I`m going to come to the aid of

this very kind flight attendant who is taking a lot on the chin.

In fact, if I can ask this question to Parag Shah, as a defense attorney, Parag, isn`t it true that this young woman could be processed by the state

and then all of the sudden the feds could come down on her with a whole lot of hurt as well, after the processing at the state level, especially since

she just admitted on TV that yes, I did it, didn`t seem like me, but I did it?

PARAG SHAH, DEFENSE ATTORNEY: Absolutely. So the general public believes that double jeopardy applies, that you can`t be charged twice for the same

type of conduct. But there`s something called the separate sovereign exception, which says that if you commit a state crime and you also commit

a federal crime, it doesn`t matter if you plead guilty to the threats.

The feds can come and pick you up for one, pushing the flight attendant which is up to 20 years and up to $25,000 fine. The meddling with the smoke

detector, the smoking on the plane. So there are a number of federal crimes that she can be charged with.

And the feds don`t have to do that right now. They can wait to see how the state prosecution goes. And if she`s convicted, they can then do it. Or the

feds may say, look, she has been punished enough. It`s really going to come down to, is there mitigating evidence? Because she said, I don`t know what

I`m doing, anxiety. There will probably be a psych eval.

[18:45:00] BANFIELD: Yes.

SHAH: And based on the mitigating evidence and what happens on the state level, the feds may say, you know, she`s punished enough, forget it.

BANFIELD: Mary, I have 10 seconds left, but you wanted to jump in on that?

SCHIAVO: Well, he`s exactly right. The feds could wait and present it to a grand jury, and grand juries can get pretty irritated about something like

this.

BANFIELD: Every one of those grand jurors has been in that chair having to deal with someone like that. Parag, thank you. Mary Schiavo, thank you.

SHAH: Thank you.

BANFIELD: People, the holidays are coming, and we`re all going to be on planes. Can you just try to keep it together for the hour and 40 that

you`re in that seat with the guy, you know, putting his seat down in front of you? Can you just keep it together for the sake of like Christmas or

something?

A Nevada deputy is being hailed as a hero after he saved the life of a suicidal inmate. You can see the inmate at the top of your screen hanging

over the balcony. Take a look at that. Deputy races up the stairs to try to stop him. But she ends up wrestling with the desperate man before the

inmate climbs over the edge and actually jumps.

The deputy standing below that balcony caught him in midair, cushioning the inmate`s fall, saving -- look at that -- saving the inmate`s life. Both of

those men, the inmate who was falling and the deputy below were treated for minor injuries.

A terrifying attack. It was streamed live on Facebook and it is hard to forget. A group of teenagers torturing and berating a disabled man with

racist taunts. But the person who shot the video is not going to spend one more minute in jail. And yes, your question is a good one, why? We`ll

answer it.

[18:50:00] (COMMERCIAL BREAK)

BANFIELD: To say people were shocked and outraged when the video hit Facebook is an understatement. A brutal racist attack on a mentally

disabled young man. It was live streamed on Facebook for everyone to see. And what`s being said and done to that young man is still hard to watch

today.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Rabbit (bleep).

(CRYING)

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Damn, you cutting (bleep).

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: I cut a whole patch out of the (bleep) boy.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Why do you that?

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: No blood on the blade though.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Donald Trump!

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Oh my brother!

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: You will see this.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: This (bleep) right here, he represents Trump.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: You will see this (bleep) right here. We gonna put this (bleep) in the trunk and put a brick on the gas and let (bleep).

(END VIDEO CLIP)

BANFIELD: Prosecutors say these four young people lured that victim to a home, the home of a friend from high school, and that they bound and gagged

him before punching him, kicking him, and even cutting his scalp with a knife, while making racist and anti-Trump comments on tape.

The person behind the camera narrating this torture right there, Brittany Covington now 19 years old, in custody almost a year now since this

happened last January. And while all of them were charged with aggravated battery, intimidation and kidnapping, Brittany is walking free.

She`s avoiding even one more minute behind bars. In exchange for, you guessed it, a plea. Perhaps not surprising. She has been ordered to stay

off Facebook for four years. Defense attorney Parag Shah joins me live again.

Get me off the ledge and tell me why this is a good thing, that someone who does that to a disabled man, laughing and cheering, and putting it out live

on Facebook should be getting out of prison.

SHAH: Well, so, when it comes to sentencing, there are a lot of mitigating factors to think about. And some of the things that prosecutors and judges

think about and in plea deals is acceptance of responsibility, remorse, the age, she was 19.

But I think maybe one of the big reasons why she got the deal she did is maybe part of the deal is that she`s going to cooperate with the

prosecution to testify against her other co-defendants. We see that type of substantial assistance all the time, when there are multiple people

charged.

And that`s when deals are cut. The last thing I`ll say is, culpability matters. So there`s always a line between mere approval versus

encouragement. Did the person actually hit him? Was she the one hitting them?

And so if you were to take all four people and rank their culpability, she would probably be number four. So that`s probably why -- I`m not saying

it`s right or wrong. I`m just saying --

BANFIELD: She didn`t cut the man`s scalp off, she just videotaped.

SHAH: Here is the main thing. The judge --

BANFIELD: I got to leave it there. Real quick.

SHAH: -- has to approve it.

BANFIELD: You`re right, the judge had to approve it and did. So there is that. Parag, don`t go anywhere. Thank you so much. I do appreciate it.

SHAH: Thank you.

BANFIELD: A son makes a horrifying discovery at home.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: 911, what`s the location of your emergency?

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: I just found out my mom killed my dad and I found the pieces of his body in the house.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

BANFIELD: The scene almost too gruesome for words. Pieces of his dad`s body in storage containers, maggots and flies and a foul odor. Here what he says

his mom texted him, and why she might just be in a world of trouble tonight.

[18:55:00] (COMMERCIAL BREAK)

BANFIELD: One more thing for you tonight. It`s still a little bit early to be talking about new year`s resolution, but if you`re looking for a change

and if you`re looking to live a little healthier, you might think about moving to Massachusetts or Hawaii or Vermont or Utah or maybe Connecticut.

But if you`re looking to be less healthy, who knows why you would, the least healthy states according to the United Heath Foundation are West

Virginia, Alabama, Arkansas, Louisiana and Mississippi. Congratulations. I guess.

An Ohio man disappears without a trace. Six months later, his son makes a discovery.

[19:00:00] His father`s dismembered body and get this, it is hidden in parts in his own family`s house. Next hour of Crime & Justice starts right

now.

The neighbors all thought that her husband moved to Texas.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

BILL CHANNEL, NEIGHBOR: Because she told him to either quit drinking or leave.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

BANFIELD: But their son says he was right there in the house all along.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: I just found out my mom killed my dad and I found the pieces of his body in the house.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

BANFIELD: His father shot in the head, dismembered and stuffed into storage containers.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

CHANNEL: Marcia, she`s just so calm, you know.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

BANFIELD: Did mom confess to keeping those body parts in the house for months?

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

CHANNEL: I guess she just had enough. That`s the only thing I can figure.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

BANFIELD: He says it was a freak accident.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: She`s got blood coming out of her nose and mouth.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

BANFIELD: But police say he staged the whole thing.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Did you take her head and bash it against the wheel rim?

TODD KENDHAMMER, DEFENDANT: No.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

BANFIELD: The man who swears his wife died when a pole came flying off a truck right through their windshield, tells it to the judge.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: It`s my decision.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: The anxiety. Yes, the anxiety.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

BANFIELD: Flipping out on a flight, after getting caught smoking.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: I have a reservation for this. I have a reservation for myself, and I need to go there.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

BANFIELD: Threatening to kill every passenger on-board.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: I will (EXPLETIVE DELETED) kill everybody on this (EXPLETIVE DELETED) plane.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

BANFIELD: You could say she`s no longer free to move about the cabin. It was a Facebook Live seen right across the country. The racist beating and

torture of a disabled man.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: (INAUDIBLE).

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Why you do this?

(END VIDEO CLIP)

BANFIELD: But it turns out she won`t spend any more time in jail. Was this a sweetheart deal?

And a close call. Caught on camera. Deputies save an inmate from a deadly two-story leap.

Hi, everybody. I`m Ashleigh Banfield. This is the second hour of Crime & Justice. `Tis the season to love thy neighbor. But for people who live on

Linda Street in Akron, Ohio, they may never again feel the same way about the Eubank family next door.

That`s because Howard Eubank is dead. His wife Marcia Eubank is in jail. And their grieving son is left now without parents. What`s worse, it was

that son who discovered his dead father in pieces., decomposing throughout the family house.

And police say he had been that way for months. You can just imagine that young man`s state of mind as he called 911.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

DISPATCH: 911, what`s the location of your emergency?

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: 230. I just find out my mom killed my dad and I found the pieces of his body in the house. She confessed to it.

DISPATCH: OK. And you said three - OK. When did this happen?

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: She said she did it on June 13th. I left - I had the door locked. I forgot my key. So, I had to - my cousin and I had to climb

through the window and I found the crate she had stored his body in.

She said there`s other parts in the basement. I have the message she sent me.

DISPATCH: You said this happened in June?

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Yes.

DISPATCH: Where is your mother at now?

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: She`s at work.

DISPATCH: What`s her name?

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Marcia Eubank.

DISPATCH: So, you and your cousin are inside the house and you found the body in the basement, you said?

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: We`re outside now. We climbed through the window of an upstairs room, so I could the unlock the door, and that`s when I found

maggots and flies. And I looked under some blankets and there`s this crate. So, we drag it outside because it stunk.

And I texted her pictures of it, and she texted me back with, she killed my dad and has his body parts throughout the house.

DISPATCH: What`s your father`s name?

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Howard L. Eubank.

DISPATCH: You said she texted you all of this?

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Yes, sir. She always had the room closed off.

DISPATCH: And you have the crate with you.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: It`s in the backyard. I drag it out there to see what was in it. She said there is more in the basement.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

BANFIELD: The Eubanks had reportedly been married over 20 years. And Marcia may just have loved her husband to pieces.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Have you ever seen anything like this?

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: In my career, no, I have not. I`ve been on a lot of death scenes, but I`ve not seen one to this extent.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

BANFIELD: Jeanne Destro is the morning news anchor for WAKR Radio. And she joins me from Akron, Ohio.

Jeanne, the son on that 911 call seemed so calm, and yet so incredibly informative. My guess is that the son is a key witness in this case.

JEANNE DESTRO, MORNING NEWS ANCHOR, WAKR RADIO: Yes, I would assume that he will be. At this point, what we know is that 49-year-old Marcia Eubank

allegedly shot her husband back in June and supposedly she dismembered him.

We know that she`s in jail now on a million dollars bond. We know she`s going to be going back to court tomorrow, that she has a court-appointed

lawyer. So, that`s what we know.

What police are saying is that she confessed to the crime and that they found the actual murder weapon and even some hand tools and power tools

that she allegedly dismembered her husband`s body with.

BANFIELD: Do we know if she`s - I mean, listen, she seemed to be very forthcoming to her son. As the son describes in this 911 call, I found

these containers, it`s my father, my mother texted me that it`s him and confessed.

I mean, these are all the words of the son on the 911 call. Do we know if she is being - if she`s complying with requests for interviews, behind

bars? Has she lawyered up? What`s her status in terms of being interrogated and fully flushing out the narrative of how this crime happened and why it

went on so long that those - that those body parts were decomposing in her home where she lived?

DESTRO: It`s a pretty unbelievable story. But what we know is that she is in jail, she`s being held on a million dollars bond, she does have a court-

appointed attorney now. She`s had one appearance in court yesterday via video hookup from the jail, an arraignment, and then she`ll be back in

court tomorrow, at which time it`s probable that her attorney would enter a plea for her most probably of not guilty. Then, it`s going to be

transferred to the grand jury and they`ll perhaps have more charges after that.

But in terms of, is she talking to anybody from the jail, no.

BANFIELD: I want to bring in, if I can, Inspector Bill Holland. He`s the PIO for the Summit County sheriff`s office, joins me live from Akron, Ohio.

Inspector, thank you so much for being on this evening. This seems fairly open and shut. I am always careful when I say that because no case is. But

with this son unleashing all of those details on that 911 calls, it seems there`s not a lot left to investigate, am I wrong?

INSPECTOR BILL HOLLAND, PIO FOR SUMMIT COUNTY SHERIFF`S OFFICE: It`s very early on in the investigation. This just happened Saturday night.

But you`re right, there has been quite a bit of evidence gathered so far. But there is still some work to be done in the investigation.

We`re going through some electronic evidence. Doing some forensic examinations. We saw some interviews to conduct. But like you mentioned,

there is quite a bit of evidence that has been gathered, but it`s far from over.

BANFIELD: Inspector, can you at least walk me through this crime scene? I`m seeing the video of the detectives arriving on site. It seems like it`s the

dark of night.

It`s almost like a movie line to say they had to have come upon a house of horrors. But what did they find and where did they find it?

HOLLAND: Well, I`ve seen several crime scenes. Some very gruesome ones. But this one ranks right up there with some of the more gruesome ones I`ve ever

seen.

Deputies were called to the residence shortly after 1:30 p.m. on Saturday for what was described as human remains. Deputies made entry. A search was

conducted of the residence.

And two locations in the house, both an upstairs office/bedroom and in the basement, containers with human remains were located.

BANFIELD: What kind of containers are we talking about?

HOLLAND: Storage - plastic storage containers.

BANFIELD: It would seem to me that the storage containers and bins that I`ve seen would not be able to be hermetically sealed, which would mean

that in a house as small as that house on Linda Drive appears to be, the stench throughout the house would be overwhelming.

How could anyone live in that home for six months while that man was decomposing.

HOLLAND: Well, that`s a good question. Let me just add that there were additional storage methods within the containers to keep it sealed. There

were some things that were added, some things that were done for odor control.

But you are right, the containers were overcome with maggots. And it wasn`t sealed perfectly.

BANFIELD: What kind of material was within those storage containers to contain the smell?

HOLLAND: I don`t want to get too far into the investigation. Like I said, it`s still pretty early, even though we`ve gathered a lot of evidence. I

don`t want to get too much into the details in that regard.

BANFIELD: I understand. The discovery of power tools and hand tools, do the detectives feel fairly confident that they have the weapons that were used

to dismember, Mr. Eubank?

HOLLAND: Yes. We`re fairly confident we have the murder weapon and the weapons that were used at the scene. They`ve been taken as well and are

being stored as evidence at this point.

BANFIELD: What kind of power tools and hand tools are we talking about?

HOLLAND: Cutting, grinding type instruments.

BANFIELD: A grinding instrument, like what?

HOLLAND: A grinder. For lack of a better word, just a grinder.

BANFIELD: Well, I`ve covered a story before where a meat grinder was taken from a home where someone was killed, is that what we`re talking about

here?

HOLLAND: No, not a meat grinder, just a handheld power grinder that would be used at a shop type setting.

BANFIELD: So, can you tell me at all about the demeanor of Mrs. Eubank and whether she`s been cooperative in custody, whether she`s been forthcoming

with details and information in this investigation?

HOLLAND: When our office arrived at the residence, Marcia Eubank was not at the residence at the time. She was located a short distance away in the

parking lot of a local business.

She was questioned and taken into custody. She was arrested without incident and charged with murder at that point. She has been interviewed by

detectives already, as well as other individuals.

BANFIELD: What about motive? Did the detectives know anything about why this happened? Even if you can`t tell me what it is, has she told you what

it is?

HOLLAND: Like I said, we`ve had conversations with her and with others. It appears to be a domestic issue at this point. We`ve had no calls for

service at the residence prior. It was basically off the radar until that day.

So, right now, it`s being looked at as a domestic incident.

BANFIELD: And notwithstanding the level of decomposition that would happen in a warm house in a storage container or a series of containers over the

course of six months, you were able to determine that Mr. Eubank was shot in the back of the head?

But there`s a discrepancy over what she allegedly texted her son or at least divulged that she had shot him once in the back of the head and what

police have said is that they have recovered several - or that they discovered several gunshot wounds, can you clear that up for me?

HOLLAND: Well, the autopsy was conducted today. I`m not sure. They were still working a short time ago. So, the cause of death has not been

officially stated at this time.

We don`t have that to release at this point. However, but - go ahead.

BANFIELD: Go ahead.

HOLLAND: We do have statements from certain people. And like I said earlier, we are doing forensic examinations of cellular telephones in order

to find when these messages were sent just to put a time line to this whole incident.

BANFIELD: Well, the neighbors, obviously, are pretty overwhelmed by the story of what happened at this whole home. Very unassuming, small home. You

would never imagine this could happen.

Bill Channel is one of the neighbors who said that all he ever knew was that it seemed Mr. Eubank had moved to Texas. Have a listen to this

neighbor and how he describes what had happened next door.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

CHANNEL: What they told me, he moved to Texas with his buddy because she told him to either quit drinking or leave. Marcia, she`s just so calm, you

know, and she never bothered nobody. But, I guess, she just had enough. That`s the only thing I can figure.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

BANFIELD: I want to bring in forensic pathologist Dr. Michael Arnall. He joins me live now from Denver.

Doctor, I keep coming back to the idea that this was a small home. This was six months of decomposition inside that small home.

Notwithstanding what the good inspector said about methods that were used to confine the odor, but it was so bad that apparently detectives said, two

days later they could still smell it. How on earth could anyone live in that home?

DR. MICHAEL ARNALL, FORENSIC PATHOLOGIST: I would think it would be virtually impossible. The smell is going to be oppressive. It will curl

your hair. And any attempts at reducing the smell are not going to work.

BANFIELD: What about outside the home? The neighbors don`t look to be too spread apart. Would they be able to notice?

ARNALL: Yes. After six months, you`re going to be able to smell this 10, 20, 30 yards away easily. And if you`re downwind, you might smell this

thing 50 yards away. This is going to smell horrible.

BANFIELD: It`s an incomprehensible fact pattern in this crime. Marcia Eubank at this point is facing murder. There could be more charges in terms

of what is alleged to have happened to that man`s body.

We`ll going to continue to follow this story. But just a surprising and shocking story for those neighbors coming up on the holiday season.

Was it a freak car accident or was a Wisconsin mom murdered by her high school sweetheart? Today, jurors heard from the defendant, her own husband

of 25 years.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Did you take her head and bash it against the wheel rim?

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: No.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Did you take a pipe and beat her with it in anyway?

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: No.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

BANFIELD: It is rare to hear a loving husband ask the question, did you bash your wife`s head into the car. The Todd Kendhammer story is rare. And

his high school sweetheart`s death is even more rare.

Todd is accused of brutally murdering Barb and staging it to look like a roadside accident. His story is that a 10-pound metal pipe came flying

through their windshield and straight into his wife`s head.

The trouble is those pesky forensics, they don`t match a lot of what he says happened.

Today, in the courtroom, that widower was on the stand and he was reminded he doesn`t have to do that, he does not need to take the stand, but he said

he would, to convince the jury that his wife`s death was an accident.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Did you take her head and bash it against the wheel rim?

KENDHAMMER: No.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Did you take a pipe and beat her with it in anyway?

KENDHAMMER: No.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Did you take that bubba mug and smash her in the face with it?

KENDHAMMER: No.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Did you take any item, whether it was an object or your fist and hit Barb?

KENDHAMMER: No.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Have you ever hit Barb?

KENDHAMMER: Never raised my voice to Barb. Never hit her either.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

BANFIELD: Last week, a forensics expert said Barb`s injuries do not align with the criminal science in this case. And in a moment, I`m going to show

you line by line what he meant by that.

But, today, an emergency doctor said the opposite.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

DR. STEVEN COOK, DEFENSE WITNESS: I came to the conclusion that the - this was an incredibly bizarre accident and that it occurred in as close as was

realistically rememberable as Mr. Kendhammer had stated.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

BANFIELD: Multimedia journalist Caroline Hecker joins me now from WXOW. She was in court today and she`s joining me from La Crosse, Wisconsin.

Caroline, thanks for being here. I can`t help, but think that that man I just saw on the stand is very mild mannered. And from the very brief answer

that I just heard, he seemed very believable to me. What was it like all day long, though?

CAROLINE HECKER, MULTIMEDIA JOURNALIST, WXOW: You know, that`s kind of the feeling that we got too. Obviously, the defense went first. He came across

as a loving husband of 25 years. And like he said, never argued with his wife. Never raised his voice. Rarely apart. Just the picture-perfect

marriage. And that`s what his son testified too today.

But when he was first cross-examined by the prosecution, I thought he got a little shaky. It was clear that they were poking holes in a lot of

contradictions he said in his testimony, interviews with law enforcement.

And so, he appeared to get a little uneasy. I think that`s exactly what the prosecution was going for.

BANFIELD: So, that`s typically what the prosecution goes for. They want to make you uneasy. They want to see you cracks in your story. They want to

see you sort of break and show what they say might be the true colors.

I`m having trouble seeing that, though. I want to play, if I can, just this first moment that I have. It`s - for our crew, it`s sound bite number one.

And this is when he`s presented with all those facts and has to sort of say why they don`t maybe align.

He sees himself doing that in an interrogation. And then, he`s asked. So, exactly, how do you answer to that? Here`s what he said on the stand.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

KENDHAMMER: And I watched that video. That`s not me. It`s me in the picture, but it`s not me talking. It`s not the right state of mind talking

in that. I wasn`t thinking of where I was going or what I was doing, I was thinking of Barb.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

BANFIELD: Thinking of barb. And, of course, one of the big questions would be, what happened? Your story, exactly as you remember it from the driver`s

seat looking over into the passenger`s seat when Barb is in the throes of death, and this is how he described it from the stand.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

KENDHAMMER: After I lunged, the pipe came through the windshield. Everything happened so fast. Barb started flailing and moving around.

I was to the Coulee Road. So, I picture now in the Coulee Road. And I thought I put the car into park. But I apparently put it into reverse. And

I ended up - that`s how I ended up in the ditch the way I did.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Do you know how long that took?

KENDHAMMER: I do not.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

BANFIELD: That little moment that you heard him outline of putting the car into reverse, not park. Now, why would that matter? Turns out it matters a

lot.

Jesse Weber is the host of the Law & Crime Network. He joins me now. You`re covering this gavel to gavel. I know you didn`t miss that little moment

because the glass forensics say that when that glass shattered into the interior of the car, it would have gone everywhere, but it couldn`t

possibly have gone into the gearshift the way it did, unless the car was in reverse. Now, how does the car get into reverse when a pole comes flying

through your windshield?

JESSE WEBER, HOST, LAW & CRIME NETWORK: So, you can blame it on this as a car accident. Who knows what he was doing. But then, again, there was

something a little bit more sinister. There was not even glass found on the passenger side door, which would have indicated that he moved that body.

BANFIELD: But he was quick to answer it. And he seemed very believable, saying, oh, gosh, I just got it into reverse, I thought it was in park

because it answers that question from the jury, doesn`t it?

WEBER: Right. So, one of the jury questions was, why did you keep driving? And he really didn`t have a clear explanation about why he did that. And he

said, look, my emotions were running high. You heard experts say that, in the middle of an accident, things can happen.

Or was it something a little bit more. Is it something that this was a preplanned murder and he tried to conceal it? That`s a difficult question

for the jury.

And I have to tell you, Ashleigh, this case smells of reasonable doubt. And I`m not sure which way it`s going to go.

BANFIELD: You say that. But then, I see these lists. And this is the network that runs forensic files. So, our viewers are really, really clever

when it comes to matching those forensics to what the defendant says.

I`m just going to go over the list because I think it bears repeating in this case and the jury is going to see every bit of that. So, if I can just

ask Caroline and Jesse to hold on for one second.

The forensic inconsistencies include no blood being found on the actual pipe that was supposed to have come through and killed Barb. There were

scratches on the defendant. There was blood on the rear tire of the car. How would that happen?

The glass and the gearshift I just mentioned.

It didn`t appear that there was an actual person sitting in the passenger seat the way the glass pattern actually shattered and the debris that was

left behind, meaning it looked to the forensics guys like the glass shattered after Barb was out of the seat. At least, that`s what the

impressions were.

There was no sign of any truck in the area, the supposed truck where the pipe flew off.

The passenger door was likely opened when that windshield was broken. You know the pockets in the side of your door there? There wasn`t any glass in

there. And if that glass came flying throughout the car, the glass would have been in one of those pockets, but it wasn`t.

And then, there was glass and debris in the trunk of the car. And that`s important because what the defense was trying to say was that, I have no

idea how the debris got in the back of the car. But the prosecutors are saying that stuff in the trunk came from the pipe which you took out of the

trunk.

And I want you to hear how they said it. They were clever in their cross- examination. I`m going to ask for sound bite number 6, if I can. And watch particularly how Todd Kendhammer reacts.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: There`s some dirt inside the trunk and it looked like something like the pipe had been dragged out over the back of the trunk. Do

you remember that?

KENDHAMMER: I do, yes.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: The pipe was in the trunk.

KENDHAMMER: OK.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: You went into the trunk to get the pipe?

KENDHAMMER: I did not go into the trunk to get the pipe.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: You were in the trunk for some other reason?

KENDHAMMER: I didn`t say I went into the truck. (INAUDIBLE).

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Because there`d be no reason other than getting a pipe out, is there?

KENDHAMMER: I can`t tell you that.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Because you got the pipe out.

KENDHAMMER: I did not get the pipe out of the trunk.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

BANFIELD: Well, he didn`t screw up. That`s for sure. I want to bring in defense attorney, Parag Shah. He joins me live now.

Parag, I want to bring you in on this, while I also read some of the medical inconsistencies because when we`re talking about the forensic

inconsistencies list, there`s a pretty robust medical inconsistencies list as well.

Let`s start with the pattern of injuries. They seem to be inconsistent with a pipe coming through the windshield, at least according to one expert`s

testimony. Another expert said not so much.

Lacerations were found on the back of Barb`s head. How does that happen if the pipe comes through the windshield?

There we neck injuries that seem to be consistent with possible strangulation.

Barb`s fingernails were torn that suggested a possible physical struggle.

And then, the old standby, blood splatter. The patterns didn`t seem to match the defendant`s description of the accident.

Parag, as a defense attorney, I know you could probably take each and every one of these forensics lists and each of the entries on the medical list as

well. And you could probably find something to fight. Am I right?

PARAG SHAH, DEFENSE ATTORNEY: Yes, absolutely. And the main thing to think about here is the issue is not is the state`s theory possible. That`s not

what we`re talking about.

We`re talking about whether the defense`s theory is possible. If it`s possible, then the jury must acquit. There`s a story of innocence here. And

the experts are battling with each other.

But so far, every piece of evidence that I have heard has said what the defendant said is possible. The pipe can cause the injuries to the back of

her head if she turned, which would be reasonable if she sees a pipe coming. A lot of the things that they`re talking about adds credibility to

the defendant.

And what`s the most important thing that the jury wants to know is can I believe him? And when he took that stand, if the jury said to themselves,

you know, I believe him, that means I believe that story of innocence, and therefore, they`re going to have to acquit him.

ASHLEIGH BANFIELD, HLN HOST: And, you know, what`s interesting, we don`t know about any domestic issues in their past, we don`t know about any life

insurance issues.

(CROSSTALK)

SHAH: Motive is a big issue.

BANFIELD: But what was the huge issue?

SHAH: Motive is not an element, but we always want to know why.

BANFIELD: But you want it, as a juror, you sure want it.

SHAH: Yes.

BANFIELD: You may not think you have to prove it, you know -- as a -- as a prosecutor, you don`t have to prove motive, but the jurors really want it.

And there`s one more thing, they didn`t seem to have any financial issues either, so clearly, one of the questions I would think (INAUDIBLE) they

want to hammer away at is that he was violent. And listen to how that went, listen to how that cross-examination got slightly contentious, and again,

how Todd was able to handle it. Take a look at the sound bite number 7.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Mr. Cann (ph) isn`t it true that you punched her and broke her nose?

TODD KENDHAMMER, DEFENDANT: No.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Caused bruises on her face?

KENDHAMMER: No.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: There`s blood on both your knuckles, right?

KENDHAMMER: It`s not from punching my wife.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

BANFIELD: So, Jesse Weber, that -- again, that sounds very measured, very calm, and that`s critical for the jurors.

JESSE WEBER, LAW & CRIME NETWORK HOST: Add to the fact that the prosecution has a great theory here. What was he doing that morning? He said he was

going to visit a friend`s house to change his windshield, and he didn`t know that he was coming, that they`ve spoken --

BANFIELD: Friend didn`t know anything about that.

WEBER: Didn`t know anything about that. And also, let`s not forget the fact she -- he said she had been late to school before. Her work, she`d never

been late before. She always called her mother every day, she didn`t call that day, there`s a lot -- the defense is going to have to answer, and I`m

not sure they`re doing it.

BANFIELD: And more than you can fit into like a seven-minute T.V. segment, that`s for sure. But you guys have done a great job. One last question to

you, Caroline. I hope you`re still there. But I know that we`re sort of done almost. I think, there`s very little left to this case, and that the

jury might actually get it on Friday. You`re in the courtroom, how does it feel? Do you feel like the prosecution did it? Or, do you think the defense

was able to pull it off?

CAROLINE HECKER, WXOW MULTIMEDIA JOURNALIST: I really truly think that the prosecution has done it. I think there`s too many inconsistencies in his

story, even on the stand between (INAUDIBLE) saying different things, you know, he`s saying one thing to the interviewer, another thing to next

interviewer, he just can`t keep his story straight, and a lot of people would say that that`s -- because he`s lying. But, well, I guess we`ll have

to see. I think one of the things I quickly touched on that`s interesting, that it`s almost as interesting and bizarre this case is that his mother-

in-law, Barbara`s mother, is going to testify on his behalf.

BANFIELD: Oh, wow.

HECKER: (INAUDIBLE) everybody is behind him. They truly feel he is innocent. And so, that`s how the (INAUDIBLE) something that the public have

just found. So (INAUDIBLE)

BANFIELD: OK. That`s a biggie. That`s a biggie. I thought the testimony was over, so I`m going to rein that one back in. And forget everything I said

about the jury is going to get this thing on Friday. How they do, that`s a biggie. When the victim`s mom comes and says, he`s not such a bad guy that

bodes really well.

I have to cut it there, guys, but we`re definitely going to follow this and find out what that verdict has to offer. Jesse Weber, thank you. Caroline

Hecker, thank you as well. Parag, I`m going to ask you to stay on, if you will, because tonight in Ohio, police are on the lookout for a teen

runaway. They say they think she is in danger. This is Annalys Clay. Take a really close look at her. Her mom says she`s been missing since December

4th, she was last seen in Strongsville, just south of Cleveland. According to reports, and here`s the biggie, she was with a wanted fugitive who was

once convicted of manslaughter. So, when I say keep an eye out for her and take a close look, do exactly that, call the police if you think you`ve

seen her.

A woman flying on Southwest Airlines ranting and raving, and threatening other passengers with their lives all because she was busted for smoking on

the airplane.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: I swear if you don`t (BLEEP) land. I will (BLEEP) kill everybody on this (BLEEP) plane. I will kill everybody on this (BLEEP)

plane.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

[19:38:01] UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: I will kill everybody on this (BLEEP) plane.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: The incident began after airline officials say a woman attempted to smoke in the airplane bathroom and alter the smoke detector.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: They`re going to drag her.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Everybody watch out. She`s coming through.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Oh my god.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: You`re my savior. God, you`re my savior. God, you`re my savior.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: We got some Hillary (BLEEP) on here? Donald Trump, it`s your president. Every (BLEEP) one of you. If you don`t like it, too bad.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: I`m not yelling. You want to hear me (BLEEP) yell? I`m being so impolite, aren`t I, fat (BLEEP)?

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: I`ll kill you.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Please stop.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Security.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

BANFIELD: We`ve all seen it, it`s not actually on your plane, you`ve probably seen a lot of that garbage on your news feed, right? People just

losing it on airplanes. Sometimes they`re mad at the flight attendants, sometimes there`s something bigger at hand, some other issue. Like the

woman on a recent flight from Portland to Sacramento. (INAUDIBLE 39:09) But apparently, she just could not go that long without a smoke. And you know

where this is going, right? She was caught smoking and tampering with the smoke detector in the bathroom. And ladies and gentlemen, this is how she

unraveled.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: I have a destination for this. I have a destination for myself. I need to go there.

I swear if you don`t (BLEEP) land, I will kill everybody on this 0 plane.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Sit down.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: I will kill everybody on this (BLEEP) plane. I will.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

[19:39:57] BANFIELD: Police say that charming young lady is Valerie Curbelo. They say she was physically challenging and threatening to this

crew. According to local reports, she even tried to rip the oxygen mask out of the overhead compartment. The plane had to make an emergency landing.

Everybody had to get off so that (INAUDIBLE) could be arrested. But from jail, she did an interview, and she says there was a reason behind her

outrage.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Why did you decide to try to smoke in the bathroom, that`s what they`re saying that you were doing? Why did you try to smoke in

the bathroom?

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: The anxiety. Yes, the anxiety.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: You were saying some pretty threatening things, like you were going to kill everybody on the plane.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Yes.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Why did you say that?

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: I don`t know. It was not me. It was not me.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

BANFIELD: Well, it may not have been you, but it really was you. CNN Transportation Analyst, Mary Schiavo, joins me from Charleston. She`s also

the former Inspector General for the Department of Transportation, and all around very smart lady when it comes to all things airplane.

Mary, when you see that, can you just sort of tick through all the bad things that are coming down the pike for her?

MARY SCHIAVO, CNN TRANSPORTATION ANALYST: Well, in some ways, she didn`t really get all of the bad things that could come down the pike. Prosecutors

have great leeway nowadays just to what to charge. For example, she made a threat against the aircraft to bring it down. And had she been charged

under section code (INAUDIBLE 41:26) 32, or another one, 49 United States Code, I think it`s 46504, the imprisonment could be up to 20 years. So, the

prosecutors here charged her with kind of a mid-range crime, with -- you know, making the threats, rather than interference with the flight or with

the flight attendants, which would carry a stiffer penalty.

There`s -- in similar cases, they`ve gotten up to 2 years, 24 months, 27 months. But, you know, there`s nothing quite similar or the same in all

these cases, so there will be a great amount of leeway for the prosecutor and the sentencing judge if she pleads guilty in this (INAUDIBLE).

BANFIELD: Mary, look, I always see those signs in the restroom and I wonder, really, does anybody not see these signs when we hear that they

tamper with the smoke detector and try to have a smoke mid-flight? But, apparently, they do. I thought that was serious, until I read down the list

of all the things that she did, or is alleged to have done. And the one that really struck out to me was that they had to declare an emergency and

they had to ask the tower for priority handling. That`s I guess, you know, priority handling for air traffic control to let them skip the landing

line. To me, that sounds extremely dangerous because now you`re not only putting everybody on that plane at risk, but all those other pilots who are

on approach and have to change routes. And there`s a lot of messing around that air traffic has to do. So, why is this not a far more serious crime

than felony threats to commit crime resulting in death or great (INAUDIBLE) injury at a state level?

SCHIAVO: You`re exactly right. In an emergency, you put other planes at risk too, but in the U.S. attorney`s manual, there`s an interesting

discussion that says, if you don`t think, as the charging official, if you don`t think that the person really had the ability to carry out the threats

that they were threatening, then you shouldn`t be charging the endangerment at the aircraft charge or some of the most serious charges of all. But the

charges for just smoking on a plane or tampering with the smoke detector, are astonishingly low, it`s a fine of $2,000 to $4,000 or $5,000 for those

offenses. So, they did do the right thing in charging her not just with smoking or tampering, but with the making the threats and making the

threats against the aircraft.

BANFIELD: Well, look at this moment. Watch this.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Everybody on this plane.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Sit down.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: I will kill everybody on this plane. I will. I will.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

BANFIELD: Right there, you see how physical that got? Apparently, the witnesses say she actually shoved the flight attendant. You could see at

the end of that tape, Mary, that she -- I think it was one of the passengers (INAUDIBLE) rushed her and said "Enough of this crap, I`m going

to come to the aid of this very kind flight attendant who`s taking a lot on the chin. In fact, if I can ask this question to Parag Shah, as a defense

attorney, Parag, isn`t it true that this young woman could be processed by the state, and then all of the sudden the feds could come down on her with

a whole lot of hurt as well, after the processing at the state level, especially since she just admitted on T.V. that, "yes, I did it. Didn`t

seem like me, but I did it?

SHAH: Absolutely, so the general public believes that double jeopardy applies, that you can`t be charged twice for the same type of conduct. But

there`s something called the separate sovereign exception, which says that if you commit a state crime and you also commit a federal crime, it doesn`t

matter if you plead guilty to the threats, the feds can come and pick you up for, one, pushing the flight attendant which is up to 20 years and up to

$25,000 fine. The meddling with the smoke detector, the smoking on the plane, so there are a number of federal crimes that she can be charged

with. And the feds don`t have to do that right now, they can wait --

[19:45:15] BANFIELD: Right. Right.

SHAH: -- to see how the state prosecution goes --

BANFIELD: Things could get ugly.

SHAH: -- and if she`s convicted, they can then do it. Or the feds may say, "look, she`s been punished enough," it`s really going to come down to -- is

there mitigating evidence? Because she said, "I don`t know what I`m doing, anxiety." There will probably be a psych eval.

BANFIELD: Yes.

SHAH: And based on the mitigating evidence and what happens on the state level, the feds may say, you know, "she`s punished enough, I get it."

BANFIELD: Mary, I have ten seconds left, but you wanted to jump in on that?

SCHIAVO: Well, he`s exactly right. And the feds could wait and present it to a grand jury, and grand juries can get pretty irritated about something

like this.

BANFIELD: OK.

SCHIAVO: So (INAUDIBLE 45:46) the other guy is right.

BANFIELD: Every one of those grand jurors has been in that chair having to deal with someone like that, or they`ve seen it on their feed. Parag, thank

you. Mary Schiavo, thank you.

And people, the holidays are coming, and we`re all going to be on planes, can you just try to keep it together for the hour and 40, that you`re in

that itty bitty seat with the guy, you know, putting his seat down in front of you. Can you just keep it together for the sake of like Christmas or

something?

A Nevada deputy is being hailed as a hero after he saved the life of a suicidal inmate. You can see the inmate at the top of your screen hanging

over the balcony. Take a look at the deputy races up the stairs to try to stop him, but she ends up wrestling with the desperate man before the

inmate climbs over the edge and actually jumps. The deputy standing below that balcony caught him in mid-air, cushioning the inmate`s fall, saving --

look at that -- saving the inmate`s life. Both of those men, the inmate who was falling and the deputy below were treated for minor injuries.

A terrifying attack, it was streamed live on Facebook and it is hard to forget. A group of teenagers torturing and berating a disabled man with

racist taunts. But the person who shot the video is not going to spend one more minute in jail. And yes, your question is a good one, why? We`ll

answer it.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[19:51:41] BANFIELD: To say people were shocked and outraged when the video hit Facebook is an understatement. A brutal, racist attack on a mentally

disabled young man. It was live streamed on Facebook for everyone to see and what`s being said and done to that young man is still hard to watch

today.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Rabbit (BLEEP).

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: (INAUDIBLE)

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Damn, you cutting (BLEEP)

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: I cut a whole patch out this (BLEEP) boy.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Why you do that?

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Ain`t no blood on the blade though. You (BLEEP)

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: No, you did.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: (BLEEP) Donald Trump!

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Oh, my brother`s marvelous.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Y`all see this (BLEEP)? This (BLEEP) right here, he represent Trump. (INAUDIBLE) is speaking. Y`all see this (BLEEP) right

here. We going to put this (BLEEP) in the -- in the Trunk and put a brick on the gas and let (BLEEP)

(END VIDEO CLIP)

BANFIELD: Prosecutors say these four young people lured that victim to a home, the home of a friend from high school, and that they bound and gagged

him before punching him, kicking him, and even cutting his scalp with a knife while making racist and anti-Trump comments on tape. Person behind

the camera narrating this torture, right there, Brittany Covington, now 19 years old in custody almost a year now since this happened last January.

And while all of them were charged with aggravated battery, intimidation, and kidnapping, Brittany is walking free. She`s avoiding even one more

minute behind bars in exchange for, you guessed it, a plea. Perhaps not surprising, she has been ordered to stay off Facebook for four years.

Defense Attorney Parag Shah joins me live again. Get me off the ledge and tell me why this is a good thing that someone who does that to a disabled

man, laughing and cheering and putting it out live on Facebook should be getting out of prison?

SHAH: Well, so, when it comes to sentencing, there are a lot of mitigating factors to think about. And some of the things that prosecutors and judges

think about and in plea deals is acceptance of responsibility, remorse, the age, she was 19. But I think maybe one of the big reasons why she got the

deal she did, is maybe part of the deal is that she`s going to cooperate with the prosecution to testify against her other co-defendants. We see

that type of substantial assistance all the time when there are multiple people charged. And that`s when deals are cut. The last thing I`ll say is

culpability matters. So, there`s always a line between mere approval versus encouragement, did the person actually hit him, was she the one hitting

them? And so, if you were to take all four people and rank their culpability, she would probably be number four.

BANFIELD: OK. I get it.

SHAH: So, that`s probably why. I`m not saying it`s right or wrong. I`m just saying --

BANFIELD: Right. She didn`t -- she didn`t cut the man`s scalp off, she just videotaped it and broadcasted it. I got to leave it there.

SHAH: Here`s the main thing, the judge had the approval.

BANFIELD: We had to leave it there. Real quick. Well, you`re right. You`re right, the judge had to approve it and did, so there`s that. Parag, don`t

go anywhere. Thank you so much. I do appreciate it.

SHAH: Thank you.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[19:59:31] BANFIELD: And one more thing for you tonight, it`s still a little bit early to be talking about New Year`s resolutions, but if you`re

looking for a change and maybe to live a healthier lifestyle, you might consider moving to Massachusetts or Hawaii or Vermont or Utah or

Connecticut. But you might not consider the least healthy states. This, according to the United Health Foundation, those ones are West Virginia,

Alabama, Arkansas, Louisiana, and Mississippi. Good luck with your move. Thanks for watching, everybody. We`ll see you right back here tomorrow

night 6:00 Eastern Time for CRIME & JUSTICE. In the meantime "FORENSIC FILES" begins right now.