Return to Transcripts main page
Crime and Justice With Ashleigh Banfield
Man Killed Girlfriend and Stabbed his Own Parents; Model Ramping in Court. Aired 6-6:30p ET
Aired February 13, 2018 - 18:00 ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
(JOINED IN PROGRESS)
[18:00:00] UNIDENTIFIED MALE: ... that the nerds at B.D. will be the end of us and that`s why this has been a nerd alert.
S.E. CUPP, HOST, HLN: OK. Stick around for Crime and Justice with Ashleigh Banfield. That`s next.
ASHLEIGH BANFIELD, HOST, HLN: Good evening, everyone. I`m Ashleigh Banfield. This is Crime and Justice.
Kids safety on the school bus. It is a serious issue for so many of us. And you do not expect the adults to be the one to cause any danger. But in
Maryland, on a roadside, that was the story.
Here is how a 68-year-old man responded when a student on a middle school bus reportedly threw a bottle onto his wind shield.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Somebody. My God.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Get off the bus. Get off the bus.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Good. Good. You come on.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: My God.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Get off the bus.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
BANFIELD: Laverne Doran ended up being charge with disturbing the peace, disorderly conduct and destruction of property. But those charges were
eventually dropped and he was sentenced to just one day of unsupervised probation.
There was no word yet on what happened to the student who reportedly threw that bottle igniting this picture. Unbelievable.
But if you use another kind of transportation like public transportation, you probably at some point have witnessed the frustration of other
travelers who are just fed up with the commute.
But my guess as you`ve seen nothing like the guy in Chicago whose fight with a train worker turned into an inferno. According to local reports
police came on board to arrest an unruly passenger. But they found him holding a can of lighter fluids. Never a good thing.
Somehow he doused himself and another passenger and set everything and everyone around him on fire before the police were able to drag him and
their flaming boots off of the train.
Twenty-eight-year-old David Ferguson was taken to the hospital and was charged with both battery and yes, you guessed it, arson.
Whether you are covering crime on television or whether you are fighting it in streets, we see a lot of handcuffs in our line of work. Everything from
plastic zip ties to shackles. And some unlucky defendants are chained at the ankles.
But in Massachusetts, Benjamin Walsh was shackled to a bed, a hospital bed. And in that hospital room lawyers and courtroom staff for a first
appearance of sorts right there at Milford Regional.
The 24-year-old suspect was battered and bruised as you can see, but police say don`t shed too many tears for him. Because according to the police he
literally stabbed his girlfriend in the back over and over again until she was dead.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: You are charged with murder and when they look in they noticed that there was a small female victim later determined to be Olivia
Bergstrom. The victim had suffered 13 stab wounds to her back.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
BANFIELD: According to police, Mr. Walsh didn`t just stab his girlfriend. They say he then drove to a restaurant where his own family was gathered
and knifed his own parents as well.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: That`s when I went into the room and saw the mom on the ground.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: They found the woman with injuries to her abdomen and civilians performing first aide.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
BANFIELD: Tonight, Mr. Walsh`s parents are still alive. Thank God for that. They are injured. In fact, his mom is in critical condition and presumably
she`s trying to process how her own son could become an alleged killer and attempted murderer as well.
With me now, Michelle Williams, supervising reporter for Masslive.com. Michelle, how did this all unfold?
MICHELLE WILLIAMS, SUPERVISING REPORTER, MASSLIVE.COM: Well, police first became aware that when Ben arrive to the restaurant barefoot dirty and
carrying a large knife. He first went towards his mother who he launch at and stabbed multiple times in the abdomen. His father tried intervening.
And in the process was stabbed as well.
He wasn`t as severely injured but was stabbed as well. He was eventually subdued by four to five patrons in the restaurant and then police came to
the scene and they found his mother on the ground. Other patrons in the restaurant trying to compress her wounds with table linens while patrons
were still forcing Walsh on the ground.
Police also struggled to get him in handcuff as he was very combative with police trying to kill them.
(CROSSTALK)
[18:04:59] BANFIELD: And Michelle, I`m told that the handcuffs weren`t going to be enough at that restaurant scene. That they actually ended up
having to restrain his ankles as well while he was there.
But I think the key to what they overheard the witnesses in that restaurant as his parents lay bleeding was and I`ll just have to par paraphrase here,
he was yelling obscenities. He yelled f you bitches. I`m going to kill you all. I`ve killed my girlfriend.
Did the witnesses to that statement then tell the police we have a problem. We need to find this young woman, you know, Olivia Bergstrom?
WILLIAMS: Yes. So, immediately upon Benjamin Walsh being taken into custody, family members they were out for a family celebrating a birthday
that evening urged police to do a wellness check on his girlfriend. The young woman, Olivia Bergstrom, 20 years old, had moved in with Ben just a
few months ago over the summer. And so, police went to the apartment they shared where they found her body.
BANFIELD: So she only just moved in with Benjamin. But as I understand that they had been together for about two years. I mean, we`re seeing all these
photographs of what appears to be one of the happiest couples I may have seen on Facebook. What went wrong?
WILLIAMS: That is still to be determined. Ben, 24 years old, Olivia, 20. They were together for two years. They spent holidays with each other`s
family. They were -- they posted excitedly about how they loved each other on social media.
There`s questions about substance use playing a factor as well as mental health concerns. Benjamin Walsh has recently as last week been in a
psychiatric facility in Massachusetts where he checked himself out only days before the attack. But...
(CROSSTALK)
BANFIELD: So I want to -- yes, go ahead. No, go ahead.
WILLIAMS: They said that he had never acted out violently but there never been that concern.
BANFIELD: Nothing. There`s been no outbursts. This was not, it wasn`t sort of a history of domestic violence or at least temper or anything. This is
insane.
WILLIAMS: Yes. Yes.
BANFIELD: So I want to read the list of the injuries that were reported. It`s astounding. Olivia Bergstrom. And if you`re squeamish in the least by
all means, cover your ears. She had 13 stab wound to her back, she had three stab wounds to her abdomen. She had a chopping wound to her wrist. A
stab wound to her left shoulder. She had four wounds to her left triceps and bicep. She had multiple stabbings to her upper left buttocks and lower
spine.
She had lacerations to her left thigh and her left quadriceps. There wasn`t an area it seemed of her body that was spared. Perhaps say for that
beautiful face that we`re looking at.
One of the local reports said, Michelle that she had been stabbed approximately 30 times. When the police did the welfare check, what did
they discover?
WILLIAMS: They knocked on the door, receives no answer so they broke down the door and they found that her body was in a state of undress and she had
been jammed behind the door.
BANFIELD: She had been jammed behind the door. There`s some reports, Michelle, she was in a fetal position. Is that accurate?
WILLIAMS: I haven`t heard that so I can`t confirm that. But the assistant district attorney during the arraignment did say she was jammed behind the
door.
BANFIELD: And this should be the apartment where she moved in with him, correct?
WILLIAMS: Yes.
BANFIELD: So his attorney is Randall Power and obviously, everybody has made great hay of mental health being an issue in this case. This is what
Randall Power had to say about his client Benjamin Walsh`s mental health.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
RANDALL POWER, DEFENSE ATTORNEY: His mental health or lack thereof, is going to be a major issue going forward as this case proceeds in the court
of law.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
BANFIELD: Michelle, since the victim shared the apartment with Benjamin Walsh, I don`t know if local media saw pictures of what the police took out
of that apartment. How they processed that scene because it`s not only the murder scene, it`s the alleged murderer`s apartment which may have a trove
of evidence. Do you have any intelligence of what they may have found there?
WILLIAMS: It was a gruesome scene. There was blood all over the walls, the floor, the shower with cloth lining. And that blood traveled on Benjamin to
his car, on his person when he arrived at restaurant. It was just a gruesome scene for police to find.
BANFIELD: So honestly in this business that this doesn`t sound at all, Michaelle, like a whodunit. It sounds like a why someone done it? Is that
effectively what people in your community are thinking at this point?
[018:10:00] WILLIAMS: People are shocked. This is a -- this is a very nice suburb of Boston where, I can`t think of the last murder especially not one
gruesome like this.
BANFIELD: Do you have any idea if they found or if they -- you know, they often will process the scene and you`ll see investigators many times with
booties on so they don`t disturb evidence. Sometimes they`re in suits that look like Tyvek suit and they`ll often have these giant white envelopes or
boxes that they take out of these murder scenes.
I can see it was the dead of night that they were there. But do we know if they confiscated any medication, any kind of drugs or mental health
medications. And when I say drugs I actually mean illegal drugs because there is this suggestion from family and friends that there was a substance
abuse problem.
WILLIAMS: Yes. The police haven`t shared that detail. His father was open about saying that his son didn`t struggle substance abuse. So that is a
concern in this case. And as to evidence, I mean, there are three different scenes they were pulling evidence from.
The apartment where he shared with his girlfriend, the car that was found at the restaurant parked outside where multiple knives were found inside as
well as the restaurant where his mother and father were stabbed, and a large kitchen knife was recovered at the scene.
BANFIELD: All right. So I`m going to ask another the arraignment in a moment but not before I talk a little bit about Olivia. Because so often
when we covered these crimes the most important person is forgotten, and that`s this girl.
This young woman at 20 years old suffered probably one of the most painful and terrifying deaths but in better days she was a studying interior
design. She wanted to be a designer. Presumably she went to the Wentworth Institute of Technology.
She looks in her pictures to be just so full of life and so happy. I mean, honestly, she just looks naturally happy. Her family describes her as smart
and vibrant and obviously they call her beautiful.
Much of this came to us in family statement about Olivia Bergstrom. She was, according to her family a beloved daughter. Beloved sister, a beloved
granddaughter. She was the beloved niece and friend.
Olivia loved animals. Apparently she had a passion for horses. And I think you can see right there. Clearly she looked like she was at least
accomplished in some kind of riding. She also had a dog named Scarlet.
I`m going to break there for just one moment to ask you about a detail in the evidence they discovered at the apartment. Michelle, there`s some talk
that there was a dog that they`ve discovered there as well. Is the dog alive?
WILLIAMS: That is something I can`t speak to. Unfortunately, she did have a dog like you mentioned. Her granddaughter, Paul Bergstrom, put out a
statement following her death saying that she left her dog named Scarlet. Her dog was all over her social media profiles from Instagram to Facebook.
I`m unsure about where her dog was and the condition of the dog at the time. Police got into the apartment. But the dog certainly was beloved. She
also had a horse that she loved growing up. She loved traveling and spending time with friends and family.
BANFIELD: This next detail will not be surprising to anyone looking at these pictures but her family says that Olivia was passionate about living
a healthy life and she was working at a juice bar maybe evidence of the passion of living and maybe, you know, keeping your diet healthy as well.
I just want to go back, if I can, Tom Fuentes is with me right now. He`s the CNN law enforcement analyst and also former assistant director of the
FBI. Tom, it is not lost on anyone that arraignment in that hospital room where Benjamin Walsh is cuffed with both wrists to that gurney and looks
distraught. Can you walk me through a bit about what`s happening in this room.
TOM FUENTES, LAW ENFORCEMENT ANALYST, CNN: Well, I think, Ashleigh, the main thing conducting that event in the room is that he not harm himself or
anybody else. And so, you know, I`m sure they are probably concerned that he may commit suicide or he may attack, you know, medical personnel or any
of the other people that came in for that official first appearance, if you will, judicial appearance.
But clearly, he`s dangerous. He`s going to still be dangerous and probably will never know what triggered this. Why he wanted to do it. Why he carried
it out? What was it about his girlfriend that they appeared so happy together in those pictures and then of course his parents to attack them in
the restaurant.
So this is somebody we`re probably never going to know what went on in his head to cause this to happen.
BANFIELD: Real quickly to Troy Slaten, if I can. Defense attorney. Look, I think everybody looking at this will probably say mental health defense.
But that`s a really tough road to hope.
[18:15:05] TROY SLATEN, CRIMINAL DEFENSE ATTORNEY: It is in most states, Ashleigh. However, in Massachusetts, when someone raises the insanity
defense or what it`s called in Massachusetts, lack of criminal responsibility, the burden is on the prosecutor to prove that he was scene,
that he was able to tell right from wrong at the time of the crime.
That in a lot of other states, in a lot of other jurisdictions the defendant has to prove that. But here, that`s the prosecutor. So, all he
has to do is raise that as a defense and the prosecution must prove it.
BANFIELD: To my guest Troy, thank you. Tom Fuentes, thank you as well. And my thanks to Michelle Williams for doing excellent work reporting on this
for Masslive.com.
If it first you don`t succeed, try again. An appeals court threw away the murder for hire conviction against this beautifully dressed former model
because of a paper work error. Yes. You heard right.
Tara Lambert, however does not get to walk free necessarily just yet in those stilettos because there will be a new jury about to hear her and the
jokes that she made about her alleged plan involving a wood chipper.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: What do want done with her?
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: My God. Just put her in a chopper. Like one of those lumber jack chopper things.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: I don`t care a lumber jack chopper.
[18:20:00] (END VIDEO CLIP)
BANFIELD: Most people would say it is understandable to resent your partner`s ex. Maybe even hate that person. But Tara Lambert`s disdain for
her husband`s ex, well, it just went beyond the pale.
First, a little bit about Tara herself. A true stunner, I think we can all agree with that picture, right. Hard to imagine anybody who looks like Tara
would have jealousy issues. She`s a former model. That`s not surprising either.
But you cannot say her behavior was model. Especially after this video surfaced of Tara asking a man, who police say she thought was a hitman, to
kill her husband`s ex and not just kill her, brutally destroy the body.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: What do you want done with her?
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: My God, just put her in a chopper. Like one of those lumber jack chopper things.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: I don`t carry a lumber jack chopper.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Just kidding. Like that`s how much I hate her though.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
BANFIELD: Tara Lambert`s intended victim was also married but Tara did not seem to have much sympathy either allegedly for that husband.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Just walk straight up. Shoot her in the grill. You said that dude is gone all the time. Do they have guns?
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: You can go there if you there. But if he starts trouble or if he end up being there. If the red truck is there, he`s there.
(CROSSTALK)
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: So I can go...
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Then again the band comes in the van and pick him up. So I don`t, I can`t say that.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: So if he`s there, you want him to go?
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Yes, I mean, I really don`t mind.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: It`s your grand.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
BANFIELD: I really don`t mind. Ouch. Now Tara was charged. Tara was tried and Tara was found guilty. Guilty of conspiracy to commit aggravated murder
and she was sentenced to seven years behind bars. Wait for it. Wouldn`t you know there was a simple paper work error? It was always the case, isn`t it?
And her conviction was overturned.
And Tara has been a free woman since this summer. But now she`s being tried again. And the prosecutors, I think it`s safe to say they are eager to put
her back in prison.
But get this, last time Tara went to trial, she had a few complaints about the jury. Specifically if they could even focus on the case or if they were
just too distracted by her image.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
TARA LAMBERT, MODEL: They were worried about my wardrobe rather than what was really going on. White and black checkered dress got a lot of
publicity.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: That`s the dress that actually sold out everywhere because people saw you wearing it in court.
LAMBERT: Apparently, yes.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
BANFIELD: I`m going to give her this, I`m distracted by her. She`s a stunner. Right. I think we can all agree she`s a model. That`s what she
does for a living.
And here`s another thing. After 30 years of covering courtrooms, I can safely tell you that a courtroom is a drama. It is a live action drama
playing out before you. And sometimes the lawyers act up big and sometimes defendants do too.
So it`s all a show no matter what you think of it. Jurors catch everything and sometime they are mesmerized.
Pat Lalama is the managing editor for Crime Watch Daily with Chris Hansen and she joins me live.
[18:24:59] She`s a beautiful woman, Pat. And I can`t take my eyes off her either. But really, was this an appellate issue. This had nothing to do
with the appeal. The fact that her high heels were a distraction and her dress sold out and her hair was beautiful.
I think we might just have lost -- I think we just Pat Lalama`s shot. Do we have it back? I don`t think we do. All right. You know what? In the
meantime, I`m going to get Pat Lalama back because she covered this case and she can tell you all sorts of stuff that went on in the courtroom.
But there`s someone else that knows a thing or two about a courtroom and this client and that Sam Shamansky. Sam, welcome back.
SAM SHAMANSKY, DEFENSE ATTORNEY: Hi, Ashleigh. Thank you, thank you for having me back.
BANFIELD: OK. So, clearly the system screwed up and they made a bunch of dumb lingo, you know, kind of tear up the indictment. That they didn`t --
they didn`t use the right wording on the original indictment. So out goes the trial result. I`m correct so far, right?
SHAMANSKY: Correct so far.
BANFIELD: OK. Did the jury`s inability to perhaps focus on anything but the beauty of your client have anything to do with this at all?
SHAMANSKY: We deal with facts and evidence not with beauty and hair and heels. And since I didn`t try the first case, I can`t speak to that
firsthand. I can only tell you what`s going to happen this time around.
BANFIELD: OK. So to that end then the hair and the heels because we got pictures of her wearing these remarkable stilettos that I don`t even know
if I could wear, let alone, wear all day in court. What`s the plan in dressing your client in round two?
(CROSSTALK)
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: I`m taking out my...
SHAMANSKY: That she`s going to dress appropriately demurely and respectfully.
BANFIELD: And what does that entail because sometimes I`ve seen Casey Anthony bomb shells come in looking as frumpy as a farmhand. Is that the
look that will be successful or what exactly are you trying to strike? It`s very hard to make her look anything but stunning.
SHAMANSKY: As much as I like your literation frumpy farm hand, how about Demure Damsel?
BANFIELD: Wow.
SHAMANSKY: Wow.
BANFIELD: I think you have your work cut out for you, Sam. Honestly, Sam, I think you have your work cut out for you. Because there she is without
makeup just on the beach, hair tied back, nothing fancy and she`s still spectacular. Do you think this is harmful to your client? Do you think that
people in the jury box might hold it against her? Be jealous of her?
SHAMANSKY: We`re going to do our level best to portray her as she is. A human being who has been wrongly accused and do our level best against the
jury but that proof and the reasonable doubt is not present in this case.
BANFIELD: OK. That is going to be enough in that battle and I say that because I`ve seen some of the evidence since we`ve already gone through
round one. And I do want to remind any viewers who saw the first trial or any viewers who haven`t seen the first trial with some of the very
indicting evidence.
Here is the, I think there`s only one way to put it. A pretty excited cry when she finds out that this hit, at least allegedly on tape it might be a
go. Have a listen to this.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: I can`t tell you. I`m so happy. I know that`s so bad. Even my girls, I think they could pay people to do this they probably
would. They hate her so bad. You don`t feel bad about that.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: I don`t feel bad.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Loser. Cry baby, I don`t know.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: All right. Sound good.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: OK. Very, very good.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: All right, girl.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: I really appreciate this. I like everything.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Easy.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Yes. You cheer up. Thank you so much.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
BANFIELD: OK. Sam, to the average person that sure sounds like someone excited about a hit that`s about to go down on my husband`s ex.
SHAMANSKY: I think that`s a fair characterization in a vacuum. But this case won`t be tried in a vacuum. It will be tried in perspective. And I`m
confident that the jury will see it much differently.
BANFIELD: OK. There`s another piece of tape that didn`t come from the undercover. It came from the interrogation room when she was hauled in and
detectives started questioning her. And it sounded like, well, I`m going to let -- I`m going to let the audience be the jurors here. Because they will
hear Tara sort of caught off in trap having to sort of work her way out of it. And she gives an excuse for why she said the things she said on tape.
Here she is.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
[18:29:53] UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: I told him that she`s always bragging about stuff that they have or something. And then he was like, OK. Something
about he was take it. But it`s going to look like a robbery, and he was going to punch her in the face.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
ASHLEIGH BANFIELD, PRIMETIME JUSTICE SHOW HOST, HLN: That sounds like her saying, I wasn`t ordering a hit, I just wanted a big punch, and then be on
your way. But then Tara stood up in court again in round one after the conviction on one of the charges, and she took full responsibility and that
is on tape and that got lots of coverage. Have a look at this.
(START VIDEO CLIP)
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Kellie, Shawn, and your kid, I`m truly sorry for the harm that my actions have caused. I never intended for the situation to get
so out of control. But it did. I do accept full responsibility for it. If I could go back to the future, If I had a time machine, I would go back in
time and this obviously would have never happened.
But I can`t. I can only move forward and prove that I`m not the monster portrayed in this trial and I apologize to my husband, Brandon, and to my
own family for the hardship that they have endured and will endure because of my actions.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
BANFIELD: OK, Sam, that stuff is hard to erase from your memory if you`re in the jury pool. Somebody who says sorry for what I did. How are you going
to get around that?
SAM SHAMANSKY, ATTORNEY FOR TARA LAMBERT (via telephone): I`m going to put it in perspective. It`s a woman who is displaying remorse, not for having
committed a crime, for having had certain wheels set in motion that affected the lives of others. I think it shows a woman that is
understanding of the consequences of her actions but certainly not guilty of conspiracy to commit aggravated murder.
BANFIELD: OK, I think that`s a fair -- you`re really good. Boy oh boy, if I ever get in trouble, I`m calling you.
SHAMANSKY (via telephone): You`ll never be in trouble.
BANFIELD: You`re right about that. Because I know too much.
(LAUGHTER)
BANFIELD: I`ll either be really, really careful with my crime or just not going to commit it. Real quickly, I think I have Pat Lalama back. Pat,
there was one thing I wanted to ask you about this. If the system messed up and threw out her conviction, there was also a second charge that she was
tried on.
Two counts of conspiracy to commit aggravated murder. And she was acquitted of the other. And lo and behold here we are again, Pat, she has been
charged with both again. I thought we have double jeopardy rules in America. How can she be charged again for something she was acquitted of?
PAT LALAMA, MANAGING EDITOR, CRIME WATCH DAILY (via telephone): I will get to that point in just a minute. First I have to say I was born and raised
in Columbus, Ohio and I know very much about Mr. Shamansky and she definitely is in good hands with him as a defense attorney.
Now, into you question, I will tell you this. What happened was the indictment wasn`t properly stated as we all know. And that`s why the
conviction was overturned. So, what the prosecutor is saying, well, it was so erroneous, then that applies to the acquittal of Kellie`s husband as
well.
So, you have to throw the baby out with the bath water because the entire indictment was erroneously stated that any conviction or acquittal that
happened in trial number one must be erased and you start all over again.
BANFIELD: Wow. This will be interesting to watch. I mean, for so many reasons. I love the look on her face right there as if to say really, me.
But you know what? Cameras catch every moment.
My thanks to Pat. I am glad we got you back even if it was on the phone, Pat. Sorry about the audio. Sam Shamansky, you`re always welcome.
We`ll be right back with Troy Slaten as well because there is this bizarre moment in a bizarre case in a Texas courtroom we want to show you. A young
woman`s body stolen from her casket in a funeral home just hours after her service and before her cremation.
And this was the scene in San Antonio. Yes, it was a casket being wheeled into a courtroom. Yes, they did open it. Yes, it is a very strange sight.
Why they did this and will this work in the case, that`s next.
[18:35:00] (COMMERCIAL BREAK)
BANFIELD: When we talk about missing women, the tragic truth is that they are often dead by the time they are found. They`re not normally announced
missing after they`ve already died, but that is the case of Julie Mott, a 25-year-old Texan who died after a long battle with cystic fibrosis.
Her memorial was back in August and before -- right before she was supposed to be cremated like almost hours, something really weird happened. Her body
disappeared from the funeral home. Just vanished right out of her coffin. And to this day it`s never been recovered. And her family says that funeral
home is responsible. And they sued the home for losing their daughter`s body.
(START VIDEO CLIP)
RON SALAZAR, MOTT`S ATTORNEY: There are no written policies to tell the employees exactly what they`re supposed to do, exactly what the management
expectation is in this situation.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
[18:40:00] BANFIELD: And guess what, breaking news tonight. Even though Julie`s family originally sued the funeral home for over a million dollars,
they upped it to 10, and they just been awarded $8 million.
Eight million dollars is a lot of money and that might help some things but it doesn`t answer the nagging mystery. Who took Julie`s body? Where is
Julie? Her family says they think it was Julie`s boyfriend, Bill. Bill Wilburn who did not want Julie`s body to be cremated.
(START VIDEO CLIP)
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Bill Wilburn did this. So from the start, the Mott family immediately blamed Bill Wilburn as being responsible.
BANFIELD (voice over): But Julie`s boyfriend Bill Wilburn was questioned by the police and was never charged. And he told us he had nothing to do with
it.
The family says they think it`s you, that you`re responsible. The funeral home says they think it`s you, that you`re responsible for taking Julie
Mott`s body. Was it you?
BILL WILBURN, JULIE MOTT`S EX-BOYFRIEND: No. Of course not. Absolutely not. The fact that the funeral home is still hoping that I`m going to be their
scapegoat at this point is incredibly sad.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
BANFIELD: With me now is reporter Michael Board from WOAI News Radio in San Antonio. Michael, this case was so strange. Are you surprised at this late
breaking development that the family was awarded $8 million?
MICHAEL BOARD, REPORTER, WOAI NEWS RADIO (via telephone): It is mildly surprising. This has gone on for I think three weeks now, the case, the
civil case involving the disappearance.
When we say disappearance in this case and we talk about her body vanishing, we need to have some context to that because when you look at
the police report and you hear the evidence behind this case, somebody pried open her casket, broke the locks, plucked her out and took her.
The body was stolen. It was not disappeared. And like we know, we have no idea who took it. In the trial, we heard evidence where the funeral
director of that home was told by one of the family members, hey, you`ve got to watch out for that boyfriend over there. He`s not supposed to be
here. You got to watch out for him.
They still think it`s him. But, you know, the police have interviewed him many different times and they`ve still declined to press charges against
him. That`s telling because, you know, even if the police had an inkling that he might even be even close to being responsible for this, he would
have been indicted a long time ago.
BANFIELD: Well, I`m going to talk to him in a moment and ask him about this new development and ask him about his involvement in the case and what he
did in eight hours of questioning in the deposition. But first I want to see this incredibly strange moment in the courtroom.
I`ll just tell our viewers that the judge in the case did not allow cameras in the court, but did allow cameras to come in, and show the preparation of
a key piece of evidence, a casket that was rolled in to the court by the lawyers. Just watch for a minute and I`ll tell you what`s going on.
(START VIDEO CLIP)
BANFIELD (voice over): Don`t adjust your set. You can`t hear what they`re saying. There`s some murmuring of the press. But effectively they sort of
fold out all of the inner linings of this casket. This is not Julie`s casket, but it is a replica. It is very like Julie`s casket.
You see the hinge right by the woman`s hand. The hinge.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
BANFIELD: That hinge is critical here. Because as you just heard Michael Board report, it was busted up. So the contention here was that whoever
opened up that casket to steal Julie, did not understand how to open the casket without breaking it. That`s not the locks, they broke the hinge, and
that`s why they brought this casket into the courtroom. And maybe this was the lynch pin that secured the case for Julie`s family.
I want to bring in Bill Wilburn if I can. Bill is the ex-boyfriend of Julie Mott. Bill is also the person that Julie`s family suspects actually did
that theft. And Bill I`ve asked you before, I`ll ask you again. Did you steal Julie`s body? Bill, can you hear me?
WILBURN (via telephone): Yes, I`m here. The answer is still no.
BANFIELD: The answer is still no.
WILBURN (via telephone): Yes.
BANFIELD: OK. And I`ll tell you what. I am glad that you answered my question even if you said no, even if you said yes. But the truth of the
matter is when you had to go through an eight-hour deposition in this case, what did you answer the lawyers?
[18:45:00] WILBURN (via telephone): Oh, well, they -- it was always a no, obviously. It was always a no. The second time around I was instructed by
my attorney to just always give this round about answer instead of pleading the fifth.
They wanted me to specifically say that, you know, on the advice of my attorney that, you know, and my constitutional right that I don`t answer
this question.
For about eight hours I gave that same exact answer, just because supposedly the jury hearing me plead the fifth would have been a world of
difference, according to my attorney.
BANFIELD: OK. So they asked you questions like, who took the body? Do you know who took the body? Where is the body? And your answer every single
time was on the advice of my attorney, I cannot answer your questions, is that correct?
WILBURN (via telephone): Yes. That`s correct.
BANFIELD: So you can answer me though because you`re not under oath with me and this isn`t the deposition. Do you know who took Julie?
WILBURN (via telephone): No. I have no idea who took Julie, and I don`t think she was taken, to be honest.
BANFIELD: What do you think happened?
WILBURN (via telephone): I think the funeral home made a mistake. Just based on the way that (INAUDIBLE) run the operation, their history and
knowing him personally, I wouldn`t doubt that he just tried to save some money and it was too late by the time somebody complained the body was
missing.
There`s a certain amount of checks and balances that go along with transporting a body. I would have no doubt that he doesn`t do all of them
or any of them.
BANFIELD: So, I am sorry, do you think no one stole the body? You think it just accidentally -- I`m not sure what you`re suggesting happened to Julie.
WILBURN (via telephone): No.
BANFIELD: What are you suggesting?
WILBURN (via telephone): I just imagine based on the history of Mr. (INAUDIBLE), his establishment, and how he does things and the way it`s
been told in the media -- I`ve heard everything that everybody else is hearing. Just based on that, I would imagine that he just tried to save
some money and did this off the books in some kind of way.
BANFIELD: I don`t know. That sounds pretty far-fetched. I think you got to admit it, I think that sounds far-fetched. It`s not like she wouldn`t have
been --
WILBURN (via telephone): It`s a lot less far-fetched as somebody who is just going into a building and stealing a body without anybody noticing. I
mean, why didn`t any of the employees know this when they left for that day? They didn`t know --
BANFIELD: I`ll be honest with you, Bill. I --
WILBURN (via telephone): (INAUDIBLE).
BANFIELD: I`ll be honest with you, Bill. In the line of work I`m in, I don`t know why every one of the stories I cover happens. It`s astounding to
me sitting at the desk. Listen, I do want to thank you for coming on with me again. I`m flat out of time, but I do thank you.
And once again, our breaking news is that the family of Julie Mott awarded $8 million for the disappearance of her body from the funeral home. And I
will remind you as well that Bill Wilburn has not been charged in this case.
Most of us, if not all of us, have a pretty soft spot for our grandmothers. So if somebody did this to your grandmother, I would expect you would lose
it. The manhunt for the person who sucker punched this 85-year-old woman on the way to the market.
[18:50:00] (COMMERCIAL BREAK)
BANFIELD: There is an urgent search for the monster who viciously attacked a grandmother who was simply on her way to market in L.A. This is Mi Reum
Song, an 85-year-old woman walking on the sidewalk, broad daylight, simply doing an errand. Not asking to be assaulted by a total, random stranger.
But Mi Reum Song was reportedly punched with force in the forehead by a random stranger. This is what she looked like after the assault. Police say
she fell backwards with such force she split her head open on the pavement and was knocked out cold. She was taken to the hospital and treated for her
injuries. Her granddaughter says she wasn`t even robbed in this attack.
(START VIDEO CLIP)
YUJIN KO, GRANDDAUGHTER OF MI REUM SONG: She saw some man approaching and he just struck her in the head.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE (voice over): He didn`t say a word to her?
KO: No.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE (voice over): And didn`t try to rob her?
KO: No. She had all her things. She`s a sweet old woman. She wants to forgive him. She doesn`t agree that I, you know, make this more public. But
I am scared for people.
BANFIELD (voice over): As she should be because he is still out there. Someone who would do that to an 85-year-old woman. The best clue they have
is what you`re looking at. This surveillance video and that guy running past the camera. Really hard to see him even when you zoom in on the face.
But that`s it.
He`s running in the opposite direction from where this happened. And that`s all they have to go on. But if you recognize that guy, if you know anything
about that guy, they`re hoping that this video will point them to the right direction.
DAVID KOWALSKI, CAPTAIN, LOS ANGELES POLICE DEPARTMENT: At this point, he`s a person of interest only. For all of us, we all have a mother, father, a
grandparent that we love. A relative. And so for this to happen in this community is unacceptable. And as a police department, we try to prevent
this every single day our police officers are out on the streets.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
BANFIELD: Show of force and good luck to the LAPD. Got one more thing for you tonight. At one time police used to arrest people for painting graffiti
on buildings. But now,
[18:55:00] today, courts are awarding artists millions of dollars because the buildings where their art was displayed were whitewashed.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[19:00:00] BANFIELD: One more thing tonight. In the days of Vinnie Barbarino (ph), graffiti in Brooklyn could get you cuffed and booked at the
nearest precinct. Do you remember the time?
(VIDEO CLIP PLAYING)
BANFIELD: So it turns out we have come a long way since welcome back Kotter (ph) and what used to be the scourge of the train tracks, underpasses,
buildings everywhere. Now graffiti is ticket to the big leagues because a judge in the Bronx just awarded a group of graffiti artists $6.7 million
after a developer purposely did this. Painted over their aero sole (ph) art and then went ahead and bulldozed the warehouses. All of this to make room
for a bunch of high-rise apartments. The judge said that under something called the visual artists rights act, the building`s owner should have
worked with the artists instead of just whitewashing all of their art. Who knew there was such an act, but there is. Beware.
The next hour of CRIME AND JUSTICE starts right now.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
BANFIELD (voice-over): He is accused of stealing a little girl away from her family.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Was that the last time you saw her daughter alive?
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Yes.
BANFIELD: Taking her innocence.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: She sustained tremendous force on her neck.
BANFIELD: And taking her life.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Your child that no longer walks this earth.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Now he is before a judge and jury where even the medical examiner is struggling to cope.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: I`m sorry. I have to take a break. Can I just have like five minutes.
BANFIELD: Model defendant. Walks the walk in court after police say she was caught on tape hiring a hit man.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Just put her in a chopper like one of those lumber jack chopper things.
BANFIELD: Last time around, she caught a break when they made a mistake in her case.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: They were worried about my wardrobe rather than what was really going on.
BANFIELD: This time around, will she have the same complaints about the jury. That they found her just too pretty.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Juries pick up on things. And when you are in a court of law, you are not at a disco tech. You ought to dress accordingly.
BANFIELD: She disappeared from her casket in the middle of a funeral home.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: We just want our daughter`s remains returned so that we can have some closure.
BANFIELD: So the lawyers roll a coffin right into court. Will it prove to funeral home was to blame or point the finger at her ex.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: The Motte family immediately blamed Bill Wilburn.
BANFIELD: And will they fight over who did what? Where is Julie Motte`s body?
(END VIDEOTAPE)
BANFIELD: Good evening, everyone. I`m Ashleigh Banfield. And welcome to the second hour of CRIME AND JUSTICE.
If you are trying to put man to death, you better make damn sure you go after him with every piece of evidence you got. And a man like Donald
Smith, it turns how there seems to be a smoking gun in almost every corner of this courtroom.
Donald Smith, on your screen, is accused being the worst of worst, committing the rape and violent murder of little Cherish Periwinkle, eight
years old, stolen from a Walmart. And some of the most damning evidence against him, his own voice captured in his own jail cell where he seemed to
delight in the things that many of us find punishable by death.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: These are young girls, you hear me? They are young. But man, when you at the girl`s ass, you are like whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa.
DONALD SMITH, SUSPECT: You know how old are they? About twelve.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Twelve or thirteen, But this girl got an ass lie Coco, you could sit a wine glass on her ass.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: You sure that she was twelve?
SMITH: Yes. That`s right up my alley right there. That`s my target area right there. That`s what I go after.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Well, you will have fun with that one. See, her papa should be ashamed, you hear?
SMITH: Yes.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Letting that girl look like that man with fake eyelashes, fake (bleep) nails, fake hair, fake (bleep) probably. I like to
run into her at Walmart.
SMITH: Yes. I would like to run into her at Walmart.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Cherish have a butt on her?
SMITH: Yes. She had a lot for a white girl.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
BANFIELD: I would like to run into her at a Walmart.
You know, ironically, it`s that jailhouse audio that could be the nail in Donald Smith`s coffin. 61-year-old man is accused of approaching a mother
and her young daughters out shopping. And then offering to give them his Walmart gift card. Then he is accused of taking little Cherish Periwinkle
for cheeseburgers at McDonald`s. But prosecutors say he walked right past that McDonald`s at the front of the store and he walked cherish out into
the parking lot instead where he put her in his white van, raped her violently and murdered her.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE) [19:05:40] UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Hi. I`m at Walmart on Lem Turner. She has been taken.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: What do you mean?
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Taken by a stranger. I can`t find her. He said he was going to McDonald`s. She went with him. I should have told her to stay with
me.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: They were going to the McDonald`s inside the store?
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Yes. There`s a McDonald`s inside the store. I don`t understand why he would leave right unless he was going to rape her and
kill her. That`s the only reason.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
BANFIELD: And what that mom was worrying about was true because the evidence shows that Cherish Periwinkle wasn`t just violently raped. Cherish
was also violently strangled and the dark, dark details of her death are spilling out now in court. And may I remind you it`s a death penalty case.
With me now Rachel Stockman, editor-in-chief of Law And Crime Network.
So I know that you have covered court for at least a decade. And I know you have covered some pretty ugly cases, ugly stories, ugly evidence. How does
this rate?
RACHEL STOCKMAN, EDITOR-IN-CHIEF, LAW AND CRIME NETWORK: I mean, honestly, as a mom watching this and as a reporter and journalist that`s covered
cases like this, I can tell you this is probably the worst case I have ever covered. The details that have come out about this 8-year-old little girl
and what this man allegedly did to her are horrifying. To find out that she was so brutally raped, sodomized all these horrible things that as mothers
we fear --.
BANFIELD: Did he have any reaction to any of the extremely graphic testimony that was being unloaded on a lot of civilians in that courtroom
who don`t normally get to hear things or even know that things like this happen?
STOCKMAN: During a lot of medical examiner`s testimony today some of the jurors actually started tearing up. It was so hard for them to see those
graphic images. And Donald Smith throughout this trial has just kind of been sitting there. And I hate to say it but almost enjoying the attention
that he is getting through this. At one point he posed for a pool photographer`s camera.
BANFIELD: What do you mean?
STOCKMAN: He saw the camera and he kind of turned over and gave it a look like you want your shot. Here I am.
BANFIELD: He is not the least not bit worried at all about the coverage? I mean, I said it before, I will say it again. He is accused of being the
worst of the worst. He is the reason the United States employs the death penalty if he is guilty of these crimes. He is not troubled by this?
STOCKMAN: Well, listen. I mean, at first I thought he went to trial because many people have been questioning why would he even go to trial.
BANFIELD: Yes. Because he didn`t even offer a defense. The prosecutor`s wrapped and he said, no, I`m good too. I don`t need to offer a defense. He
didn`t even want to cross examine the first witness on the stand which is Cherish`s mother. What was the point of all of this?
STOCKMAN: And that has gone over and over in my mind why did this man go to trial? At first I thought it was because the death penalty was on the
table. And so the next part of this case when the jury finds him guilty, because I think they are going to find him guilty.
(CROSSTALK)
STOCKMAN: There`s no question.
BANFIELD: Not after what we have seen.
STOCKMAN: Exactly. So the next question then is the death penalty. So I thought maybe he was trying to avoid that. But I think it might be for
attention, honestly. Because they have --. He is so sick.
BANFIELD: They have mitigating stuff and now for instance, they are not at the death phase. They are not even at the guilty or innocence and yet --.
Let me just -- to the end that you were discussing that you are a seasoned court reporter. You have done -- I have done this. And my stomach turns at
a lot of the details that I have been watching. I`m not a medical examiner, though. And those people, thy have steel in their veins, right. And this
was the medical examiner, Doctor Valerie Rao (ph), testifying today. And I don`t think I have ever once witnessed a medical examiner lose it and she
did. Have a look.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: You mentioned earlier that during autopsy you take dissections?
DR. VALERIE RAO, MEDICAL EXAMINER: Yes.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: You mentioned that you noticed an area in Cherish`s back of her head where you --
RAO: Yes.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: So you shaved her head?
[19:10:01] RAO: Yes.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: And then cut her scalp so you could look at the injury more closely?
RAO: Yes.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Did you photograph that?
RAO: Yes.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: I`m going to show you two more photographs of the dissection taken of Cherish Periwinkle`s throat. Will you tell the jury
what you saw when you dissected her throat?
RAO: Yes. So what we re doing is -- I`m sorry. I have to take a break. Can I just have like five minutes?
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: You want a five-minute break? I think we will all take a break for ten minutes. Thank you.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
BANFIELD: That`s the medical examiner in the case needing five minute break.
STOCKMAN: This is a woman that has decades of experience that sees bodies on a daily basis and even she couldn`t handle it.
BANFIELD: So I can`t air it. I mean, honestly, we have gone over it and over it in our newsroom. Even during this live segment we have been
debating it off-camera. And I`m just going to have to paraphrase because if it`s a death penalty case, like I said, you better damn be sure you know
the evidence against this guy. I will paraphrase what Dr. Rao said.
The trauma to Cherish Periwinkle`s private parts was so egregious. She was brutalized. Brutalized. I think the least offensive piece of evidence that
I can air right now from Dr. Rao has to do with the trauma to her upper chest. Let`s remember that there`s some anatomical terms that are being
used here, breasts. She is eight. She doesn`t have breasts. She is eight but this is how Dr. Rao described the injuries at least up there.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
RAO: This is where her nipple is. And she has bruising right there that`s caused prior to death while she was alive.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Do you have an opinion as to that injury?
RAO: Yes.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Dr. Rao, what is your opinion to the injury?
RAO: That is consistent with somebody sucking on her breast.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
BANFIELD: Again, she is eight. She doesn`t have breasts. She didn`t have breasts yet.
So I can air some testimony about some injuries that he sustained allegedly while attacking her. And it`s significant because if you want the smoking
gun, you are going to have to connect him to that. Have a listen.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Let me direct your attention to state`s exhibit 90. Will you please explain to the jury what this photograph is of.
RAO: Yes. This is the penis of Mr. Smith. And he does have abnormalities that are trauma related meaning injuries.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Will you describe those injuries to the jury?
RAO: Yes. So right here you can see that there is a circular bruise of the head of his penis. And he has many areas of bruising on the shaft of his
penis.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: What, if any opinion, do you have about the aging of this bruising?
RAO: They are fresh injuries consistent with the time frame of the death of this child.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
BANFIELD: I want to bring in now forensic pathologist Dr. Michael Arnall.
You saw Dr. Rao need a moment. How often do you see that in your profession?
DR. MICHAEL ARNALL, FORENSIC PATHOLOGIST: I have never seen or heard of that before.
BANFIELD: This is astounding, I mean. And like I said, you know, Dr. Arnall, I can`t air most of this testimony because it is just too graphic.
It`s too disturbing. The injuries are too horrendous. How often do you see that in your profession?
ARNALL: Regrettably, we see some terrible things. We are paid to have memories that no one else should have.
BANFIELD: Agreed. To that end this jury is going to have to suffer through this and they will have those images because they don`t spare this stuff.
You see everything, don`t you, Dr. Arnall?
ARNALL: The jury sees everything. We get a decade of training to prepare ourselves for this. The jury has no training to see the things that they
have seen.
BANFIELD: I want to bring in defense attorney Troy Staten.
Troy, I have just got a minute left here. Actually just a couple of seconds. Do you see any chance, any chance for this defendant, guilty or
life or death?
TROY STATEN, DEFENSE ATTORNEY: You know, the only thing that his defense attorney could be thinking at this point is trying to save his life. This
is a horrific crime. As you said this is what the death penalty is reserved for. And so, it seems like by not even putting on a defense, they are going
to try and put all their efforts into saving his life.
[19:15:11] BANFIELD: All right. Let`s leave it there. It`s just so distressing.
Thank you, Troy.
There`s an appeal`s court that has decided to throw out a murder conviction in a murder for hire. And it`s a former model who was actually at a defense
table because of the paper work error. And those clothes and those shoes, they are important. Tara Lambert is going back to court. What will the new
jury think of her attire?
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Ma`am, what do you want done with her?
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: My God, just put her in a chopper like one of those lumber jack chopper things.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: I don`t carry a lumber jack chopper.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[19:20:31] BANFIELD: Most people would say it`s understandable to resent your partner`s ex. Maybe, even hate that person. But Tara`s Lambert disdain
her husband`s ex, well, it just went beyond the pail.
First a little bit about Tara, herself. A true stunner. I think we can all agree with that picture, right. Hard to imagine anybody who looks like Tara
would have jealousy issues. She is a former model. That is not surprising either. But you cannot say her behavior was model. Especially after this
video surfaced of Tara asking a man who police say she thought was a hitman to kill her husband`s ex and not just kill her, brutally destroy the body.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Ma`am, what do you want done with her?
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: My God. Just put her in a chopper like one of those lumber jack chopper things.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: I don`t carry a lumber jack chopper.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: I`m kidding. Like that`s how much I hate her though.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
BANFIELD: Tara Lambert`s intended victim was also married but Tara did not seem to have much sympathy either allegedly for that husband.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: (INAUDIBLE). Shoot her in the grill. You said that she is going all the time. Do they have guns?
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: He can go too. If he start trouble or if he ends up (INAUDIBLE). If the red truck is there, he is there. The van comes. So I
can`t say that.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: So if he`s there, you want him to go too?
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Yes, I mean. I really don`t mind.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
BANFIELD: I really don`t mind? Well, Tara was charged. Tara was tried and Tara was found guilty, guilty of conspiracy to commit aggravated murder.
And she was sentenced to seven years behind bars. Wait for it. But wouldn`t you know there was a simple paper work error. It`s always the case, isn`t
it? And her conviction was overturned. And Tara has been a free woman since this summer.
But now she is being tried again. And the prosecutor`s, I think it`s safe to say they are eager to put her back in prison. But get this. The last
time Tara went to trial, she had a few complaints about the jury, specifically if they could even focus on the case or if they were just too
distracted by her image.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
TARA LAMBERT, MODEL: They were worried about my wardrobe rather than what was really going on. White and black checkered dress got a lot of
publicity.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: That`s the dress that sold out everywhere because people saw you wearing it in court?
LAMBERT: Apparently, yes.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
BANFIELD: I`m going to give her this. I`m distracted by her. She is a stunner, right. I think we can all agree. She is a model. That`s what she
does for a living.
And here is another thing. After 30 years of covering courtrooms, I can safely tell you that a courtroom is a drama. It is a live action drama
playing out before you. And sometimes the lawyers act up big and sometimes defendants do too. So it`s all show no matter what you think of it. Jurors
catch everything and sometimes they are mesmerized.
Patt Laloma (ph) is a managing editor for "Crime Watch Daily" with Chris Henson. And she joins me live.
She is a beautiful woman. And I can`t take my eyes off her either. But really? Was this - this wasn`t (INAUDIBLE). This had nothing to do with the
appeal. The fact that her high heels were a destruction and her dress sold out. And her hair was beautiful. I think we might have just lost -- I think
we just lost Patt Laloma`s (ph) chat. Do we have it back? I don`t think we do.
All right. You know what? In the meantime I`m going to bet Pat Laloma (ph) back because she covered this case. And she can tell you all sorts of stuff
that went on in the courtroom. But there` is someone else who knows a thing or two about the courtroom and this client. And that is Sam Shamansky. Sam
is the attorney for Tara Lambert.
Sam, welcome back. Nice so have you.
SAM SHAMANSKY, ATTORNEY FOR TARA LAMBERT (on the phone): Hi, Ashleigh. Thank you. Thank you for having me back.
BANFIELD: OK. So clearly the system screwed up and they made a bunch of like dumb lingo, you know, kind of tear up the indictment. They didn`t use
the right wording on the original indictment so out goes the trial result. I`m correct so far, right?
[19:25:17] SHAMANSKY: Correct so far.
BANFIELD: OK. Did the juror`s inabilities to focus on anything but the beauty of your client have anything to do with this at all?
SHAMANSKY: We deal with facts and evidence, not with beauty and hair and heels. And so since I didn`t try the first case, I can`t speak to that
firsthand. I can only tell you what`s going to happen this time around.
BANFIELD: OK. So to that end and the hair and the heels because we have pictures of her wearing these remarkable stilettos that I don`t even know
if I could wear, let alone wear all day in court. What`s plan in dressing your client in round two?
SHAMANSKY: She`s going to dress appropriately, demurely and respectfully.
BANFIELD: And what does that entail? Because sometimes I have seen Casey Anthony style bombshells come in looking as frumpy as a farm hand. Is that
the look that will be successful or what exactly you are trying to strike? It`s very hard to make her look anything but stunning.
SHAMANSKY: As much as I like your alliteration, frumpy farm hand, how about demure damsel.
BANFIELD: Wow. Well, I think you have your work cut out for you, Sam. Honestly, Sam, I think you have your work cut out for you because there she
is without make up, just on the beach, hair tied back, nothing fancy and she is still spectacular. Do you think this is harmful to your client? Do
you think that people in the jury box might hold it against her, be jealous of her?
SHAMANSKY: No. We are going to do our level best to portray her as she is, a human being who has been wrongly accused and do our level best to
convince the jury that proof beyond a reasonable doubt is not present in this case.
BANFIELD: OK. Well, that is going to be an uphill battle. And I say that because I have seen some of the evidence since we have already gone through
round one. And I do want to remind any viewers who saw the first trial or any viewers who haven`t seen the first trial with some of the very
indicting evidence. Here is the - I think there is only one way to put it, a pretty excited cry when she finds out this hit, at least allegedly on
tape, it might just be a go.
Have a listen to this.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
LAMBERT: I`m going to be so excited. I just can`t tell you. I`m so happy. (INAUDIBLE). Even my girls would pay people. They hate her so bad. Don`t
feel bad about that.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: I don`t feel bad about it.
LAMBERT: Loser. Cry baby.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: All right. Sound good.
LAMBERT: OK. Very, very good. You the man.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: All right, girl.
LAMBERT: I really appreciate this. I owe you like everything.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Be easy.
LAMBERT: Yes, you too. Thank you so much.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
BANFIELD: OK. Sam to the average person that sure sounds like someone who is excited about a hit that`s about to go down on my husband`s ex.
SHAMANSKY: I think that`s a fair characterization in a vacuum. But this case won`t be tried in a vacuum. It will be tried in perspective. And I`m
confident that the jury will see it much differently.
BANFIELD: OK. There is another piece of tape that didn`t come from the undercover. It came from the interrogation room when she was hauled in. And
detectives started questioning her. And it sounded like - well, I`m going to let the audience be the jurors here because they will hear Tara sort of
caught in the trap having to sort of work her way out of it. She gives an excuse for why she said the things she said on tape. Here she is.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
LAMBERT: You said you are going to punch her in the grill and leave. And I told him that she is always bragging about what they have or something. And
then it was like, OK. (INAUDIBLE). Something about he would take it. But this is going to look like a robbery and he was going to punch her in the
face.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
BANFIELD: So that sounds like Tara saying is wasn`t ordering a hit. I just wanted a big punch and then be on your way. But then Tara stood up in court
again in round one after the conviction on one of the charges and she took full responsibility and that is on tape and that got lots of coverage. Have
a look at this.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
LAMBERT: `Kelly, Sean, and your kid, I`m truly sorry for the harm my actions have caused. I never intended for the situation to get so out of
control but it did and I do accept full responsibility for it. If I could go back to the future, if I had a time machine, I would go back in time and
just obviously would never happened, but I can`t. I can only move forward and prove that I`m not the monster portrayed in this trial. And I apologize
to my husband, Brandon, and to my own family for the hardship that they have endured and will endure because of my actions.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
ASHLEIGH BANFIELD, HLN HOST: OK, Sam, that stuff is hard to erase from your memory if you`re in the jury pool, somebody who says, sorry for what I did.
How are you going to get around that?
SAM SHAMANSKY, ATTORNEY FOR TARA LAMBERT: I`m going to put it in perspective, it`s a woman who`s displaying remorse not for having committed
a crime, for having -- had certain wheels set in motion that affected the lives of others. I think it shows a woman that is understanding of the
consequences of her actions but certainly not guilty of conspiracy to commit aggravated murder.
BANFIELD: OK. I think that`s a fair -- you`re really good. Boy, oh, boy, if I ever get in trouble, I`m calling you.
SHAMANSKY: You`re never going to be in trouble.
BANFIELD: So, I want to -- you`re right about that because I know too much. I`ll either be really, really careful with my crime or just not going to
commit it. So, real quickly, I think I have Pat Lou on the back. And Pat, there was one thing I wanted to ask you about this. If you -- you know, if
the system messed up and threw out her conviction, there was also a second charge that she was tried on, two counts of conspiracy to commit aggravated
murder. And she was acquitted of the other. And lo and behold, here we are again, Pat, she`s being charged with both again. I thought we had double
jeopardy rules in America. How can she be charged again for something she was acquitted of?
PAT LALAMA, MANAGING EDITOR, CRIME WATCH DAILY (via telephone): Well, I`m going to get to that point, just a minute though, first I have to say I was
born and raised in Columbus, Ohio, and I know very much about Mr. Shamansky and she definitely is in good hands with him as a defense attorney. Now,
onto your question, I will tell you this. What happened was, the indictment wasn`t properly stated as we all know. And that`s why the conviction was
overturned. So, what the prosecution is saying, well, it was so erroneous and that applies to the acquittal of Kelly`s husband as well. So, you have
to throw the baby out with the bathwater because the entire indictment was erroneously stated than any conviction or acquittal that happened in trial
number one must be erased and you start all over again.
BANFIELD: Wow. This will be interesting to watch, I mean, for so -- for so many reasons. I love the look on her face right there as if to say, really?
Me? But you know what, cameras catch every moment. My thanks to Pat. I`m glad we got you back, even if it was on the phone, Pat. Sorry about the
audio. Sam Shamansky, you`re always welcome.
And we`ll be right back with Troy Slaten as well because there is this bizarre moment in a bizarre case in a Texas courtroom we want to show you.
A young woman`s body stolen from her casket in a funeral home just hours after her service and before her cremation.
And this was the scene in San Antonio. Yes, it is a casket being wheeled into a courtroom. Yes, they did open it. Yes, it is a very strange sight.
Why they did this and will this work in a case? That`s next.
[19:35:00] (COMMERCIAL BREAK)
BANFIELD: When we talk about missing women, the tragic truth is that they are often dead by the time they are found. They`re not normally announced
missing after they`ve already died, but that is the case of Julie Mott. A 25-year-old Texan who died after a long battle with cystic fibrosis. Her
memorial was back in August, and before -- right before she was supposed to be cremated like almost hours, something really weird happened. Her body
disappeared from the funeral home. Just vanished right out of her coffin. And to this day it has never been recovered. And her family says that
funeral home is responsible and they sued the home for losing their daughter`s body.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
RON SALAZAR, MOTT`S ATTORNEY: There are no written policies to tell the employees exactly what they`re supposed to do, exactly what the management
expectation is in this situation.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
BANFIELD: And guess what, breaking news tonight, even though Julie`s family originally sued the funeral home for over a million dollars, they upped it
to 10, and they`ve just been awarded $8 million. $8 million is a lot of money and that might help some things but it doesn`t answer the nagging
mystery. Who took Julie`s body? Where is Julie? Her family says they think it was Julie`s boyfriend, Bill. Bill Wilburn who did not want Julie`s body
to be cremated.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Bill Wilburn did this. So, from the start, the Mott family immediately blamed Bill Wilburn as being responsible.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
[19:40:05] BANFIELD: But Julie`s boyfriend, Bill Wilburn, was questioned by the police and was never charged. And he told us he had nothing to do with
it.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
BANFIELD: The family says they think it`s you that you`re responsible. The funeral home says they think it`s you, that you`re responsible for taking
Julie Mott`s body. Was it you?
BILL WILBURN, BOYFRIEND OF JULIE MOTT: No. Of course not. Absolutely not. The fact that the funeral home is still hoping that I`m going to be their
scapegoat at this point is incredibly sad.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
BANFIELD: With me now is reporter Michael Board from WOAI News Radio in San Antonio. Michael, this case was so strange. Are you surprised at this late
breaking development that the family was awarded $8 million?
MICHAEL BOARD, REPORTER, WOAI NEWS RADIO (via telephone): It is mildly surprising. This has gone on for, I think, three weeks now, the case, the
civil case involving the disappearance. And when we say disappearance in this case and we talk about her body vanishing, we need to add some context
to that because when you look at the police report and you hear the evidence behind this case, somebody pried open her casket, broke the locks,
plucked her out and took her. That body was stolen. It was not disappeared. And likely, no, we have -- we have no idea who took it.
In the trial, we heard evidence where the funeral director of that home was told by one of the family members, hey, you`ve got to watch out for that
boyfriend over there. He`s not supposed to be here. You`ve got to watch out for him. Police don`t think it`s him, but you know, the police have
interviewed him many different times and they`ve still declined to press charges against him. That`s telling because, you know, even if the police
had an inkling that he might even be even close to being responsible for this, he would have been indicted a long time ago.
BANFIELD: Well, and I`m going to talk to him in a moment and ask him about this new development and ask him about his involvement in the case and what
he did in eight hours of questioning in a deposition. But first, I want to see this incredibly strange moment in the -- in the courtroom. And I`ll
just tell our viewers that the judge in the case did not allow cameras in the court but did allow cameras to come in and show the preparation of a
key piece of evidence, a casket that was rolled in to the court by the lawyers. Just watch for a minute and I`ll tell you what`s going on.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
BANFIELD: Don`t adjust your set. You can`t hear what they`re saying. There`s just some murmuring of the press. But effectively, they sort of
fold out all of the inner linings of this casket. This is not Julie`s casket but it is a replica. It is very like Julie`s casket. You see the
hinge right by the woman`s hand. The hinge -- that hinge is critical here because as you just heard Michael Board report, it was busted up. So, the
contention here was that they -- whoever opened up that casket to steal Julie did not understand how to open a casket without break it. They bust
up the locks, they broke the hinge, and that`s why they brought this casket into the courtroom. And maybe this was the lynch pin that secured the case
for Julie`s family.
I want to bring in Bill Wilburn if I can. Bill is the ex-boyfriend of Julie Mott, Bill is also the person that Julie`s family suspects actually did
that theft. And Bill, I`ve asked you before, I`ll ask you again, did you steal Julie`s body? Bill, can you hear me?
WILBURN: Yes, I`m still -- I`m here, yes. The answer is still no, for me. And so, yes (INAUDIBLE)
BANFIELD: The answer is still no. OK. And I`ll tell you what, I am glad that you answered my question even if you said no, even if you said yes.
But the truth of the matter is when you had to go through an eight-hour deposition in this case, what did you answer the lawyers?
WILBURN: Oh, well, they -- well, it was always a no, obviously. It was always a no. But the second time around, I was instructed by my attorney to
just always give this roundabout answer. Instead of pleading the fifth, they wanted me to specifically say that, you know, on the advice of my
attorney that, you know, my constitutional right that I don`t want to answer this question. So, for about eight hours I gave that same exact
answer just because supposedly the jury hearing me plead the fifth would have been a world of difference, according to my attorney.
BANFIELD: OK. So, they asked you questions like who took the body? Do you know who took the body? Where is the body?
WILBURN: Yes.
BANFIELD: And your answer every single time was on the advice of my attorney, I cannot answer your questions, is that correct?
WILBURN: Yes, that`s correct.
[19:45:05] BANFIELD: So, you can answer me, though, because you`re not under oath with me and this isn`t a deposition. Do you know who took Julie?
WILBURN: No. I have no idea who took Julie. And I don`t think that she was taken, to be honest.
BANFIELD: What do you think happened?
WILBURN: I think the funeral home made a mistake. Just based on the way that they keep --runs this operation, their history, and knowing him,
personally, I wouldn`t doubt that he just tried to save some money and it was too late. By the time somebody had complained the body was missing,
there`s a certain amount of checks and balances that go along with transporting a body that I would have no doubt that he doesn`t do all of
them, or any of them.
BANFIELD: So, I`m sorry, do you think no one stole the body? You think it just accidentally -- I`m not sure what you`re suggesting happened to Julie?
I don`t -- what are you suggesting?
WILBURN: I just -- I just -- I just imagined based on the history of Mr. (INAUDIBLE) and his establishment and how he does things. And the way that
it`s been told in the media of (INAUDIBLE) I mean, I`ve heard everything that everybody else is hearing. So, just based on that, I would imagine
that he just tried to save some money and did this off the books in some kind of way.
BANFIELD: I don`t know. That sounds pretty farfetched. I think you`ve got to admit it, I think that sounds pretty farfetched. It`s not like she
wouldn`t have been (INAUDIBLE)
WILBURN: It`s a lot less farfetched than somebody just going into a building and stealing a body without anybody noticing. I mean, why didn`t
any of the employees notice when they left that day? They didn`t notice that.
BANFIELD: I`ll be honest with you, Bill, I --
WILBURN: I mean, how much knowledge (INAUDIBLE)
BANFIELD: Yes, I`ll be honest with you, Bill, in the line of work I`m in, I don`t know why every one of the stories I cover happens. It`s astounding to
me sitting at the desk I`m sitting at. But listen, I do want to thank you for coming on with me again. I`m flat out of time. But I do thank you. And
once again, our breaking news is that the family of Julie Mott awarded $8 million for the disappearance of her body from that funeral home. And I
will remind you as well that Bill Wilburn has not been charged in this case.
Most of us, if not all of us, have a pretty soft spot for our grandmothers. So, if somebody did this to your grandmother, I would expect you would lose
it. The manhunt for the person who suckerpunched this 85-year-old woman on the way to the market.
[19:50:00] (COMMERCIAL BREAK)
BANFIELD: There`s an urgent search for the monster who viciously attacked a grandmother who was simply on her way to market in L.A. This is Mi Reum
Song, an 85-year-old woman walking on the sidewalk, broad daylight, simply doing an errand, not asking to be assaulted by a total random stranger. But
Mi Reum Song was reportedly punched with force in the forehead by a random stranger. And this is what she looked like after the assault. Police say
she fell backwards with such force, she split her head open on the pavement and was knocked out cold. She was taken to the hospital and treated for her
injuries. Her granddaughter says she wasn`t even robbed in this attack.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
YUJIN KO, GRANDAUGHTER OF MI REUM SONG: She saw some men approaching and he just struck her in the head.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: He didn`t say a word to her.
KO: No.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: And didn`t try to rob her.
KO: No, she had all of her things. She`s a sweet old woman. She wants to forgive him. She doesn`t agree that I, you know, make this more public, but
I am scared for people.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
BANFIELD: As she should be because he is still out there. Someone who would do that to an 85-year-old woman. Police say the best clue they have is what
you`re looking at. This surveillance video and that guy running past the camera. Really hard to see him even when you zoom in on the face. But
that`s it. He`s running in the opposite direction from where this happened, and that`s all they have to go on. But if you recognize that guy, if you
know anything about that guy, they`re hoping that this video will point them to the right direction.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
CAPTAIN DAVID J. KOWALSKI, LOS ANGELES POLICE DEPARTMENT: At this point, he`s a person of interest only.
And for all of us, we all have a mother, a father, a grandparent that we love, a relative. And so, for this to happen, in this community is
unacceptable. And as police department, we try to prevent these every single day. Our police officers are out on the streets.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
BANFIELD: Show of force and good luck to the LAPD. Got "ONE MORE THING" for you tonight. At one time, police used to arrest people for painting
graffiti on buildings. But now, today, courts are awarding artists millions of dollars because the buildings where their art was displayed were
whitewashed.
[19:55:00] (COMMERCIAL BREAK)
BANFIELD: Just got "ONE MORE THING" for you tonight. Remember the time of the old "Welcome Back, Kotter" show? Graffiti was everywhere in New York.
And back then, that was not a good thing. Turns out, though, today, it is a very valuable thing because a judge just awarded a group of graffiti
artists $6.7 million after dozens of their paintings on warehouses were whitewashed and then torn down to make room for a bunch of high-rise
apartments. A judge said under something called the "Visual Artists Rights Act," the building`s owner should have worked with the artists instead of
just painting over all their work. The art had actually become a tourist attraction and it had drawn thousands of people daily. It was seen in
movies and music videos before it was painted over back in 2013.
END
