Return to Transcripts main page

Anderson Cooper 360 Degrees

Dennis Hastert Indicted; Police Under Fire After They Wrestle Pregnant Woman to the Ground; New Witness in Natalee Holloway Case Comes Forward. Aired 8-9:00p ET

Aired May 28, 2015 - 20:00   ET

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

[20:00:05] ANDERSON COOPER, CNN HOST: Good evening. Thanks for joining us.

Tonight, a bombshell out of Washington, D.C. He is one of the most powerful men in Washington, speaker of the house from 1999 to 2007, now Dennis Hastert has an alleged felon, charged with lying to the FBI about the money that they say he paid over the years to cover up some kind of as yet unrevealed misconduct. $1.7 million and he allegedly agreed to pay a whole lot more than that. This is, as you might imagine, is sending shocking waves through Washington and speaker Hastert's home state of the Illinois.

We get details now from Joe Johns.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

JOE JOHNS, CNN CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): The former speaker of the house once second in line to the presidency, now facing federal charges. Accused of making false statements to the FBI and trying to hide large financial transactions that the government alleged was hush money. According to the indictment, Dennis Hastert agreed to pay $3.5 million to someone only identified only as individual A, after meetings between the two five years ago. Payments meant to compensate for and conceal Hastert's quote "prior misconduct."

The indictment does not describe what that misconduct was but does say individual A knew Hastert most of individual A's life and was a resident of the Illinois town where the former speaker of the house was high school teacher and coach for years.

In December of last year the FBI launched an investigation on the payments and whether Hastert was trying to avoid currency transaction reporting requirements as well as using the cash to cover up past misconduct.

PAUL CALLAN, CNN LEGAL ANALYST: That is why they are looking into this in terms of pattern of withdrawing around $10,000 from the bank without another explanation.

JOHNS: Hastert told FBI agents that the withdrawals were because he did not trust the bank system. The government alleges that was a false statement. It is a stunning turn for the former Republican leader who was spouse speaker from 1999 until he stepped down in 2007. Since then he's been a lobbyist for this firm which quickly removed Hastert's biography from his Web site after the indictment was announced.

COOPER: And Joe Johns joins us now from Washington.

So, is there any more information about who Hastert was allegedly paying and exactly why?

JOHNS: Not a clue, quite frankly. I've called around this town. I knew Hastert. I covered Congress, when he was in Congress, when he was the speaker of the house in fact, and speaking to his team here in town, I've tried to reach them and left them messages, no response. I've talked to former aides, no response. People currently on Capitol Hill, no response. So this was a real shock tonight here in Washington.

COOPER: I mean, from my reading of this, these payments began, I think in 2010, according to the government, after Hastert had been meeting with this person, this person he had known for much of this person's life. He knew this person as a child back in his home district where he was a coach and a teacher, correct?

JOHNS: Right. So it suggests that this goes all the way back to those days when he was a wrestling and a football coach as well as a teacher in Illinois. Although that is not confirmed. Because this indictment simply does not say what that alleged underlying misconduct is that Hastert started paying money for.

COOPER: I want to bring in our senior legal analyst Jeffrey Toobin. He joins us by phone.

Obviously, Jeff, the implication is -- and again we don't know what the alleged inappropriate behavior was, but, I mean, you know, there is an elephant in the room here, he was a teacher, a wrestling coach, knew this person from the time they were a child in this district where he was a teacher and a coach and he is paying this person, was agreed to pay this person apparently according to the government upwards of $3 million or $3.5 million in small increments because of past inappropriate behavior.

JEFFREY TOOBIN, CNN LEGAL ANALYST (via phone): Right. This is an indictment full of insinuation about what the nature of the misconduct is, as you said, wrestling coach, known his whole life, sort of secret arrangement many years later. But to be fair, I mean, there is nothing in there that suggests directly or says directly what the misconduct was. He's sort of keeping in mind the misconduct is irrelevant to his guilt or innocence of the charges. You can't avoid currency transaction reports and you can't lie to the FBI regardless of what misconduct you may or may not have committed years ago.

COOPER: And you are saying it is irrelevant. Is it irrelevant also because of statute of limitations on, you know, whatever potential misconduct it was? If was inappropriate, you know, sexual misconduct, if it was -- I don't know what other kind of inappropriate, you know, conduct could have been.

[20:05:05] TOOBIN: Most crimes have statute of limitations that go long -- that probably expired but we don't know what the misconduct was, we don't what -- whether it was potentially criminal or whether it could be prosecuted. Certainly the FBI would not reach out to prosecute it then decades ago in Illinois. However, once they knew what appeared to be structuring of transaction and once they asked Hastert and he gave, frankly, this preposterous answer that he didn't trust the banking system, that sets in motion a completely different criminal investigation which he is in a world of trouble about regardless of what happens with this person many years ago.

COOPER: And it is interesting because it seems that as if the bank was the first one to get some red flags about these transactions. Apparently, they used to be in $50,000 increments and then once the bank approached him, he cut it down to I believe below $10,000 to be under the radar again according to the government.

Still a lot to learn. Joe and Jeff, thanks very much.

Now trouble in Michigan, in the fight against ISIS, no, not in Iraq or Syria. This particular mission hits home. Today, we learned that the FBI is asking for help from local law enforcement because it now has more Isis sympathizers than its own agents can keep track of. And the FBI director has being very open about it.

Joining us now is Evan Perez with more on why America's top law enforcement official has such deep concerns. So, what have you learned, Evan?

EVAN PEREZ, CNN JUSTICE CORRESPONDENT: Well, Anderson, you know, there is a heightened state of alert right now about ISIS supporters here in this country. We know that law enforcement in New York, for instance, NYPD says that they are looking to add more than 400 officers to the counterterrorism section. We talked to sources who tell us the LAPD is also responding to this call for more help in the same manner. They are going to be doing more surveillance, more looking around their communities so they can be the eyes and ears for the FBI in case they see any signs that someone might do a lone Wolf attack.

Now, part of the concern stems from what happened in Garland, Texas, a few weeks ago where you have a couple of ISIS supporters tried to attack a Mohammed cartoon contest and that really drew everybody's attention simply because he was already under some surveillance. They lost him for a couple of days and they didn't even know that he was headed to Texas to carry out this attack, Anderson.

COOPER: And from what you understand, is it that there is an increased threat of a specific attack or something more broader?

PEREZ: It is more broad. And the problem is this. The FBI director says it plainly that he can't stop what he can't see. What they are seeing more of, Anderson, is that these people are using peer to peer communications, encrypted communications and that is something that the FBI can't quite get their hands on. And so, as a result of that they are going to have to do a lot more physical watching to some of these people that they have concern over.

COOPER: All right, a quick reminder, make sure you set your DVR. You can watch 360 any time you want.

Coming up next though, bracing for another event like the one ended a gunfire in Texas, a draw Mohammed rally, this time, outside a Phoenix mosque during prayers on Friday, organizers telling people to bring their guns.

We're joined by man behind the event and also counterterrorism expert Phil Mudd.

And later, yet another police video touching off a storm, the officer wrestling a pregnant African-American woman to the ground after refuses to give them her name. Eight months pregnant, she is. Details and there are plenty, just ahead.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[20:12:30] COOPER: You got a sense moment ago why the FBI has a deep concerns about ISIS here in the United States. To some extent, it is a numbers problem. It is also a side effect to be in an open society where people express their views and others take offense, sometimes violently.

In Garland, Texas, if you recall, two ISIS sympathizers were shot dead after opening fire with assault rifles outside of a draw the prophet Mohammed event.

Now, a similar event is scheduled tomorrow after outside a mosque of Phoenix and participants are being encourage to bring firearms.

Sara Sidner is there. She joins us tonight.

So the rally planned for tomorrow, hat more do you know about it?

SARA SIDNER, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Look, they are supposed to have this ready. They are calling it a freedom of speech rally round two, because it is the second time they've done this. But before the rally outside of the Islamic community center and mosque, they are going to have another drawing contest of the prophet Muhammad, a cartoon drawing contest. They are inviting people to that first and saying that after those cartoons are drawn, after those depictions are made, that they are to bring those out here and that they will use those in the rally. They are encouraging people to do that.

They are certainly encouraging folks to be peaceful, but they also say on their facebook page something different that they said that last time. And let me read to you what it is that they are telling people. They say that people, while this is supposed to be a very peaceful rally, the people are also encourage to utilize their second amendment right at this event just in case the first amendment comes under the much anticipated attack. The second amendment, the right to bear arms, the first amendment is the freedom of speech. And so, what they are encouraging people to basically do is bring arms with them in case they come under attack.

That has worried a lot of people, has worried, of course, the folks that come to this mosque because they are planning on doing this when the mosque has its Friday prayers. It is the day of prayer for Muslims. They come here to this mosque often, women, children, families and basically they are concerned about their own safety after seeing that particular wordage on the facebook page.

COOPER: So what is the mosque saying? What is the community center saying about all of this?

SIDNER: Look, we talked to the council on American Islamic Relations who is sort of speaking for the two mosques that are here in Phoenix and they are very concerned. They also said something that we had not heard before. They said that they received threats via letter that had threatened not only the imams but the congregation itself, threaten violence against the congregation. They are concerned that. They said they have talked to the FBI about that.

We know now that the police are planning on having a presence out here. They want to make sure that things do actually go peacefully. But there is a lot of concern in this community, not just because of the rally. This has happened before and it did go off peacefully. But they are concerned about other threats that have come forward and they feel this is inciting violence -- Anderson.

[20:15:18] COOPER: All right, Sara Sidner, appreciate the update.

Joining us now is Jon Ritzheimer who organized the event. Also with us is former FBI and CIA counterterrorism official Philip Mudd.

Mr. Ritzheimer, I appreciate you being with us. So, you are encouraging hundreds of armed people to gather outside of a mosque during a prayer service wearing t-shirts saying F-Islam. And I certainly know you have the right to protest, everybody does in this country, but you yourself have said this is a provocation. I know you compared it to poking a bear or kicking a hornet's nest. So what are you trying to achieve?

JON RITZHEIMER, DRAW MOHAMMED CONTEST ORGANIZER: Well, I'm really trying to achieve exposing Islam and the truth about what is written in the Koran. You know, people, you know, even Mr. Mudd who is joining us, he said that he thinks this is a bad idea. And some would probably argue that, you know, the signers that signed the declaration of independence was a bad idea back in their day.

COOPER: So you are comparing yourselves to the signers of the declaration of in dependence.

RITZHEIMER: Yes. I don't want to live in fear. I should not have to live in fear.

COOPER: What are you afraid of?

RITZHEIMER: Well, we have received a bunch of credible threats. I have already had the police come to my house. My family is currently packing up and they are going into hiding.

COOPER: So I understand you don't like Islam. You clearly equate Islam with terrorism. You served in Iraq. You served proudly in the marines and we should honor that service. You served in support of an Islamic government in Iraq. So if you hate Islam, how do you justify having done that?

RITZHEIMER: Well I -- the core values of Islam is what I really hate.

COOPER: Right. But you were promoting an Islamic government. You were helping bolster an Islamic government in Iraq, so why were you doing that?

RITZHEIMER: OK. Well let me answer it like this. I was over there and I was over there, I was following orders. I was young.

COOPER: So do you feel you were supporting terrorists while you were supporting an Islamic government in Iraq? Do you say that the marines who are fighting in Afghanistan are supporting terrorism as well?

RITZHEIMER: No, I did not. Let me finish. I was uneducated when I went over there. I was a junior marine following orders. I was scared but I was uneducated about Islam. It wasn't until I came home and utilized my 9/11 GI bill.

COOPER: OK. But now that you are educated on Islamic, you were supporting an Islamic government in Iraq. So you are saying that marines and others who are currently serving in Afghanistan and elsewhere are supporting terrorisms?

RITZHEIMER: If their government is going to be run under sharia law and stuff, then yes, I don't support that.

COOPER: Well, it is not sharia law but it is an Islamic government. So you believe that all active duty service members right now are supporting terrorism around the world.

RITZHEIMER: No, I don't believe that.

COOPER: But they are supporting Islamic government and you believe Islamic equals terrorism.

RITZHEIMER: I don't believe that.

COOPER: You don't believe that Islam at its core is terrorism?

RITZHEIMER: Yes, true Islam is terrorism. Yes, the ones that are out committing atrocities and stuff. They are following the book as it is written.

COOPER: So let me bring in Phil.

Phil, in terms of what that U.S. is trying to achieve in the Islamic world, what marines and others are fighting and dying for, do events like this thing, this going to happening tomorrow in Phoenix, do you believe it actually hurts the U.S. outreach to the vast majority of the Muslim world?

PHILIP MUDD, CNN COUNTERTERRORISM ANALYST: I see this kind of event and I look at ISIS and I know what they are going to say, this is proof that what we are telling you, to recruit you out of Denver, out of Phoenix, out of Los Angeles and New York, that that is true. They talk to you about democracy and free speech and living with your religion, regardless of what it is in America, but they don't live that out of practice.

COOPER: Mr. Ritzheimer, I think Phil brings out an interesting point. Aren't you playing into the narrative of ISIS, of Al-Qaeda which is basically trying to say there is a war between Islam and the west and you have to choose, you can't be a Muslim in the United States. You have to be opposed to the United States. Aren't you playing into their hands? Isn't this exactly the reaction and the message that the terrorists' want?

RITZHEIMER: Sure.

COOPER: Sure? It is.

RITZHEIMER: Sure.

COOPER: OK. So you are playing into ISIS and Al-Qaeda -- hands? Do you feel good about this?

RITZHEIMER: I'm just doing what I have to do to make sure that my children have a good future.

COOPER: You don't believe this is playing into the narrative of what ISIS and Al Qaeda is trying to say. I mean, ISIS and Al-Qaeda to Phil's point is pushing this narrative that there is a war between Islam and the west. You fully believe there is a war between Islam and the west, I guess, yes?

RITZHEIMER: Yes.

COOPER: So you see yourself as a foot soldier somehow in a war -- so you think that it is wise for the west to have a war against the billion plus Muslims around the world?

[20:20:10] RITZHEIMER: No. I don't want war. But they need to learn tolerance. We're not the ones out committing these acts. We're not out threatening anybody. I believe in otherwise.

COOPER: You don't think bringing guns to a mosque while people, while families are praying inside wearing t-shirts to F-Islam and shouting whatever it is you are going to shout at them, you don't think that is promoting violence at all?

RITZHEIMER: I think the whole thing is -- the cartoon contest, especially, I think it is stupid and ridiculous. But it is what needs to take place in order to expose the true colors of Islam.

COOPER: Jon Ritzheimer. I appreciate you being on and Phil Mudd as well. Thanks very much.

RITZHEIMER: Thank you.

COOPER: Up next, police under fire after they wrestle an eight month pregnant woman to the ground and arrest her. They were investigating a school parking lot dispute. The woman is speaking out, so as the police department. We'll show you the video.

Also tonight, a potential new lead in the disappearance of Natalee Holloway ten years after she vanished in paradise.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[20:25:05] COOPER: Breaking news out of California tonight. Two police officers in Barstow are under fire accused of excessive force. The officers were investigating a parking lot dispute at a school involving two women. One was an African-American mother dropping off her daughter, a second grader. She wouldn't give police her full name, but she did tell them she was pregnant, eight months pregnant. That didn't stop the police from wrestling her to the ground forcing her on to her stomach and then arresting her. Take a look.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: No, don't touch me. Do not touch me. Do not touch me. I'm pregnant. Do not touch me. What the -- is going on. Do not touch me. Do not touch me. Do not touch me. Do not touch me, sir. Do not touch me. Do not touch me. I'm pregnant. Stop it. This is ridiculous. What are you doing? What are you doing?

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Ma'am, please.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Please don't touch me.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

COOPER: The ACLU just released this video. The incident happened in January. The police department is firing back and the woman in question is speaking out to our owned Kyung Lah. Here is her report.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Please don't touch me!

KYUNG LAH, CNN NATIONAL CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): How did dropping off children at school suddenly escalate to this? Police body cam video captures the entire incident. The first contact the Barstow police officer has is with this blond woman who said she called the police to the school.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Because she was over here punching my window.

LAH: No damage to the woman's car, the Barstow police officer then clearly said this.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: I don't see a crime that has been committed. If there was damage I would have the opportunity to place her under citizens' arrest if you wanted to. I don't see any cause.

LAH: The officer walked over to the other women, Michelle Cooks, who had just dropped off her second grade daughter at school. She was upset after the confrontation with the other woman.

MICHELLE COOKS, ARRESTED BY POLICE: She was hugging and hugging. And she was like you cannot park -- you cannot drive right here. There is a one-lane thing.

LAH: The officer asked for Cooks' name.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: OK. What is your name?

COOKS: I'm not giving you my name.

LAH: Cooks gets on the phone to call her boyfriend.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Ma'am, I'm going to give you two minutes.

LAH: He gives her about two seconds.

COOKS: Don't touch me. Don't touch me.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Ma'am.

COOKS: Don't touch me. Don't touch me. Do not touch me. I'm pregnant, do not touch me.

LAH: Cooks is eight months pregnant and never stopped screaming.

COOKS: What are you doing? Stop. Let my arms go.

LAH: She is arrested.

In your opinion, how did the officers treat you.

COOKS: Like an animal. Like a monster.

LAH: This is Michelle Cooks today. Cooks says police charged her with resisting arrest but judge dismissed the charges. She gave birth to her daughter Olive two months after the arrest. She was healthy art birth. Her mother, though, remains traumatized.

COOKS: He just looked at me and said she must be this way and I'm not that way. You make me feel a way that I'm not. And I work so hard to provide for my family. This is not an issue that I wanted.

LAH: Is this a window into the national discourse of police conduct?

CAREE HARPOR, COOKS' ATTORNEY: I think so. This is how it is every day for some of us in the black community. This is how it is. And the only difference is the technology that records it and the Internet that projects it.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

COOPER: And Kyung Lah joins us now.

What are police telling you? LAH: Well, police are saying that they have opened up an internal

investigation now that they are aware of the body cam video. We did get a full statement, though, from the city of Barstow and it reads as follows. It is apparent that Miss Cooks actively resisted arrest. The Barstow police department continues to be proactive in training its officers to assess to handling interactions with emotionally charged individuals. This incident is a no way racially motivated, certainly Miss Books disagrees.

COOPER: Kyung Lah, fascinating.

And joining us now is retired NYPD detective and CNN law enforcement analyst Harry Houck, also with us is civil rights attorney Areva Martin.

Areva, what do you make of this? I mean, the officers said to the blond lady, well, it doesn't look like a crime has been committed. And then because the women -- all I can see is why -- the only reason it seemed like she was arrested is because she didn't want to give her name which under California law does she have to?

AREVA MARTIN, CIVIL RIGHT ATTORNEY: Absolutely not, Anderson. When I saw this video, I was just outraged at the treatment of this pregnant woman. First of all, they talk about the woman being emotionally charged, let's talk about this officer. He walks up to the blond woman and completely buys her story, doesn't ask her for anything, her identification or her name. He goes over to the African-American woman, immediately starts talking, asks her for her name, says I'm going to give two minutes. And within 20 seconds pass her on the ground.

Under California law, in this stop and identify cases, individuals have a right to refuse to give their identity. He, himself, acknowledges no crime was committed and I think it is important to note, Anderson, just a couple of weeks before this city of Barstow entered into a settlement agreement with two other citizens, two brothers who had a very similar situation. They are in a restaurant, someone calls the police, accuses them of robbery. They get there, they refuse to give their identification. They are arrested, the charges are dropped and Barstow itself acknowledges under California law, rarely does an individual have to give their identification. Yet, this instance then happens despite that settlement and that statement by the Barstow police department.

HOUCK: But you don't have the right to resist arrest. That's as simple as that. She knew she was eight months pregnant. I'm not saying what the officers did was right here, but the fact that is when somebody -- when a police officer approaches you and places you under arrest, you've got to submit to that officer. The fact that she was so worried about her baby, why didn't she just put her hands behind her back, all right? And when she was arrested, just go to the police station, file a complaint against the police officers and go through the courts.

COOPER: But it is infuriating for somebody to be arrested for no apparent reason. What? HOUCK: Right. I understand.

COOPER: Had she asked - had she said, the police officer, why are you arresting me, I don't think he could have come up with a reason.

HOUCK: I say, Anderson, I would have handled this whole thing differently. When you get something like that, you got two complaints, all they do is have a verbal altercation with each other. Listen, go on your own way here. That is where experience would have been worked out for this police officer. I don't know if he has got a lot of experience or not.

COOPER: It seems - it does seem, that there were a million different ways this could have been de-escalated.

MARTIN: Yes, absolutely.

COOPER: And it seems like it almost had to do with the officer's pride of well I've said, you have to give me your name even though legally she doesn't and now I'm just going to arrest you because you've annoyed me.

MARTIN: And even when she said she is pregnant, he never took the time to stop to tend to her issues, to even recognize that he was not only putting her at risk, but putting her unborn baby at risk, too. And then it is interesting when you watch the end of this video, Anderson, when the - let's call them, the commanding officer comes on the scene and the arresting officer starts to give his story, he gives the complete rendition of the blond lady. He never bothers to tell the story of the African-American woman who said she did nothing wrong. So from the beginning of this entire incident he gave the presumption of correctness to the blond lady and completely ignored the facts as told to him by that African-American woman.

HOUCK: When the person calls the police, all right, they respond to the person who had called the police. She was the - at the time. So they go to her and get the story from her. She called the police and now they walk over to this woman, tried to get a story from her and I don't know what was going through that police officer's mind in the first place, just lock this woman up.

COOPER: Harry, when you were a cop, if somebody said to you, I don't want to give you my name, what would happen?

HOUCK: For something like this? I wouldn't lock them up. It's stupid. And I mean ...

COOPER: And if somebody is pregnant, says they are pregnant, is - is there some sort of, you know, rule about putting them down on their stomach or the pavement or something like that?

HOUCK: No, there isn't. If you are going to place somebody under arrest, all right, you could - you hope that they put their hands behind their back. Even if she's pregnant, there is no way, I'm going to be able to control when she is resisting arrest, to take her down on the ground and get her handcuffed, and hopefully I took her down on one side or the other side or her back to try and protect the child. And you have got to remember also, she is - she knows she's pregnant and she's escalating the situation where a baby might also be hurt. You don't have to agree with the police officer whether or not he had probable cause for an arrest, or anything like that, right? Just if it happened to me, I would put my hands behind my back, all right, and then I deal with the courts after that.

COOPER: Areva, what would - I mean given - do you agree that, at that point, you just go along with the arrest and then complain later?

MARTIN: Clearly, you have an obligation when a police approaches, to try to de-escalate the situation yourself, but in this case, Anderson, this officer was in complete control of this situation. But woman says, she is pregnant, she's saying, you know, I'm in distress. He's the professional here, his job is to protect and serve. He had an obligation to protect her and he didn't do it.

HOUCK: But she's resisting.

MARTIN: And he should be disciplined if not charged for his wrongful arrest of this woman. The judge had thrown the case out. There was no case here.

COOPER: That's also very telling. The judge has thrown out all the charges against her. We'll see what happens next. Harry, I appreciate it. Areva Martin, great to have you on as always. Just ahead, a possible new lead in the Natalee Holloway mystery. A new witness says he knows where she is buried because he claims he saw what happened to her the night she died, a decade ago. Martin Savidge sat down with him face to face to hear his story.

Plus, new questions tonight about the person who dropped off $40,000 at the Washington Mansion where four people were murdered.

[20:35:05]

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

COOPER: We're digging deeper tonight on a cold case that is heating up a decade later. Natalee Holloway, as you probably remember, vanished in 2005 during a high school graduation trip to Aruba. Presumably, murder. The body has never been found. The primary suspect, Joran Van der Sloot was arrested twice, but never charged in her death. He's now serving time for a different murder in Peru.

Now, last night, Martin Savidge told us about an alleged witness who claims he saw what happened to Natalee Holloway that night so long ago, and knows where her body is buried. He's talking now and we sent Martin Savidge to track him down.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

MARTIN SAVIDGE, CNN CORRESPONDENT: The latest clue to possibly finding Natalee Holloway ten years later isn't in Aruba, but nearly 5,000 miles away in Amsterdam.

[20:40:00]

MARTIN SAVIDGE, CNN CORRESPONDENT: It is here that the new witness in the case now lives. And because what he has to say it's so remarkable, we wanted to hear it face-to-face.

Jurrien de Jong says he is something this case has never had, an eyewitness, which means.

SAVIDGE: You were the last person to see Natalee Holloway alive.

JURRIEN DE JONG: Yes.

SAVIDGE: The problems is, while he was in Aruba, de Jong had a job, that - well, let's just say, was against the law. You won't get details.

DE JONG: There was a reason I was on this construction site, it was illegal activity.

SAVIDGE: And doing wrong on the night of - 2005, put him in the right place, he says, around 2:00 in the morning.

DE JONG: I was just about to leave when I heard, you know, a young couple approaching the entrance.

SAVIDGE: He says he sees a young man chasing young woman into a construction site.

DE JONG: Yeah, I thought first in a playful way like I'm going to get you.

SAVIDGE: The couple disappeared up a partially built stairway. And short time later, he says the young man reappeared carrying the young woman who looked to be limp in his arms.

DE JONG: He jumped down, and put her on the shoulder, and there was a turn, twist slammed there.

SAVIDGE: And what came next, if de Jong is right? That changes everything. He says he watched from a distance as the man appeared to hide the woman's body in a section of the foundation.

DE JONG: He made an opening in the cross under the foundation and he pulled the body ankles inside of the crawl space and stayed inside for a minute or something and then came out and closed the gap.

SAVIDGE: De Jong knew he had witnessed something, but it wasn't until the news broke about Natalee Holloway that he put it together. He says he couldn't go public.

DE JONG: You have to understand that first there is a law - could have punished me for things and also the people I work with, you know, they won't be pleased.

SAVIDGE: Did you know who the man was?

DE JONG: No. By that time, not yet. At the days after this missing girl and this and that, yeah, so.

SAVIDGE: So years went by and then in 2008, de Jong says that he saw an interview by an undercover Dutch journalist, in which Van der Sloot says Natalee died while the two were together, and her body was dumped in the ocean. Van der Sloot later said he made that story up, and said he had nothing to do with Holloway's death. De Jong says, he got angry because he knew it was a lie and because he has a daughter close to Natalee's age. So, one father reached out to another. De Jong called Dave Holloway and said.

DAVE HOLLOWAY, NATALEE HOLLOWAY'S FATHER: She's on land and I don't know where her body is hidden. And - my initial problem was, this is another crazy.

SAVIDGE: Holloway admits he blew de Jong off.

(on camera): And what happened?

DE JONG: Nothing.

SAVIDGE (voice over): More years went by. In 2010, van der Sloot was convicted of killing a young woman in Peru. Finally, de Jong goes to the police and gives a sworn statement, telling them exactly what he saw and where her body could be found.

(on camera): What happened after you gave this testimony?

DE JONG: Nothing.

SAVIDGE: But finally, two years later, de Jong statement got the attention of a new prosecutor in Aruba and of Natalee Holloway's dad.

DAVE HOLLOWAY: I have read that statement and I thought my gosh, you know, this is a pretty detailed police statement with a lot of facts.

SAVIDGE: So, three months ago, nearly ten years after she disappeared, authorities in Aruba reactivated the case of Natalee Holloway.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

COOPER: And Martin Savidge joins us now from Aruba. Have authorities searched the site where this man claims Natalee Holloway was buried?

SAVIDGE: No they haven't, Anderson, and that is a huge rub and a bone of contention, both for the witness who's been struggling to come forward for years to convince somebody and also, for Dave Holloway who believes that this is probably the best clue to finding his daughter, may be finding her remains that he's had in years. And why it's so important? Number one, everyone thought she was in the water. This man is saying, she is on land. If they could recover remains it not only would be something for the family, it will be huge for the investigation. They could possibly determine how she died, and whether she was murdered and if so, who may have carried it all out. It is a crucial point, but no search as yet. We asked the prosecutor tomorrow, why not, Anderson. COOPER: Martin, we look forward to that. It's coming out at "360"

tomorrow night. We hope you join us.

Just ahead, new developments in the investigation of the quadruple murder in an upscale Washington neighborhood. The killer made off with $40,000. Tonight, there are growing questions about the person who actually dropped off the money.

[20:44:48]

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

COOPER: Tonight, new details in the investigation of the gruesome quadruple murder in Washington, D.C. The victims three members of a wealthy family and their housekeeper found inside the mansion were they were held hostage for more than 12 hours. The man charged with the murders, Darrin Wint was arrested days later, as you know, after a massive manhunt. Police have said they believe he didn't act alone. Several persons of interest are under investigation, in connection with the crime, including the man who delivered $40,000 to the mansion before it was set on fire. Pamela Brown tonight has the latest.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

PAMELA BROWN, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Tonight, we are learning more about the key witness in the quadruple homicide. The assistant of Savva Savopoulos. He was trying to launch a car racing career and began working as Savopoulos's driver just a few months ago according to a source. Police say his last errand for his boss was to drop off $40,000 in cash at the family home while they were held hostage. Police say his phone had a number of text messages and calls with Mr. Savopoulos.

PAUL CALLAN, CNN LEGAL ANALYST: He is the person selected to get the $40,000 back to the house, he is going to play a hugely important role in resolving this case.

BROWN: Listed as witness one in court documents, the assistant allegedly changed his account of the events regarding where he left the package, when he was told to get the package and how he received the package, telling authorities he lied when he stated the money was in a manila envelope.

[20:50:01]

BROWN: Police say he texted a picture of the money in a red bag to another witness the morning of the murders.

DANNY CEVALLOS, CNN LEGAL ANALYST: Is it possible that you misremember putting money in a Manila envelope as opposed to red bags? It is possible. But it starts to become less possible when just a few hours ago, you texted a picture of that same bag.

BROWN: According to local Washington affiliate, WTTG, the assistant's Instagram account shows pictures of fancy cars, including from inside his boss's blue Porsche, where he writes, "another day on the job. My office today is pretty nice. #Porsche, #Turbo, #Porsche911, Hashtag, work." Police say, the Savopoulos family's blue Porsche was stolen and eventually set on fire after the quadruple homicide.

According to police records, a witness says the driver of the stolen Porsche had short, well groomed hair. The only suspect named so far in the murder, Darrin Wint, has mid-length dreadlocks. He was arrested after police say his DNA was found on a piece of pizza crust in the home where the murders took place.

PAUL CALLAN, CNN LEGAL ANALYST: This is a mystery. It's almost like a crime novel with an elaborate and complex plot, and we're only being given pieces.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

COOPER: And Pamela Brown joins us now. Has anyone been in touch with or seen the assistant since this new information has emerged?

BROWN: We know, Anderson, from one of his friends that I spoke with today that he has been cooperating with police, but the friend said that he hasn't seen him, and it seems like he's really gone dark. We went to his family's house. His father said he didn't want to talk to us. He took down his social media accounts, his Facebook and Instagram accounts after those court documents came out showing that he allegedly lied. So it seems like no one can really find him right now. We have been reaching out to him and still haven't received a response back. Anderson.

COOPER: Pamela Brown, appreciate the update. I want to get the latest on other stories we're following. Randi Kaye has a 360 news and business bulletin. Randi.

KAYE: Anderson, it turns out the anthrax debacle at the Pentagon dates back to March 2014. Since then 22 shipments of live anthrax samples were mistakenly sent to nine states and to U.S. air bases in South Korea. A Defense official says some were shipped by FedEx, actually. Four lab workers in the U.S. and up to 22 people in South Korea are now getting preventive treatment.

The White House fence is getting a security makeover. In July, seven inch steel spikes will be added to the top of the fence to deter climbers. The upgrade sparked by a series of security lapses in recent months.

And possibly the slowest police chase ever. Take a look here. Officers in Fort Worth, Texas, pursuing a suspect who evaded arrest after a drug-related traffic stop. Under department policy, they aren't actually allowed to pass or block a fleeing vehicle, so they let the suspect set the pace here, a snail's pace, as you can see. This is how it all ended two hours later when patience ran out and a S.W.A.T. vehicle stepped in. Anderson.

COOPER: Randi, thank you.

Coming up, in what world is a 37-year-old woman too old for a 55-year- old man? Find out in the Ridiculist next. (COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[20:57:00]

COOPER: Time now for the Ridiculist. Time now for some entertainment news. Courtesy of Maggie Gyllenhaal, star of stage and screen, immensely talented actress, and in the eyes of Hollywood and the Hollywood machine, elderly, apparently. In an interview, Gyllenhaal reveals she was recently told she was too old to play the love interest of a 55-year-old actor. She's 37 years old.

Since Maggie Gyllenhaal is an honorable woman, she did not reveal the names of the people involved, but what she did say it was, and I quote, "it was astonishing to me, it made me feel bad and then it made me feel angry and then it made me laugh."

This is nothing new, I suppose. The Hollywood powers that be seem to have an insatiable desire to see women paired up with men old enough to be their fathers. I wonder what that could be about. "Pretty Woman," "Indecent Proposal," "As Good as it gets," "Pirates of the Caribbean," the list goes on and on. But wait, you see, there are exceptions, and yes, there's one that comes to mind. "The Graduate." The most famous older woman/younger man movie ever made. By the way, Ann Bancroft was only six years older than Dustin Hoffman. Meanwhile, the baby from "Three Men and a Baby" is 28 now and could totally be cast as a love interest to a modern-day Tom Selleck, Ted Danson, or Steve Guttenberg.

Now, I'm not sure I'm getting the point across here, so I'm just going to throw to a clip from "Inside Amy Schumer." It's really all you need to know.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Is it someone's birthday?

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: We're celebrating Julia's last couple of days. In every actress' life, the media decides when you finally reach the point where you're not believably (EXPLETIVE DELETED) anymore.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: How do you know? Who tells you?

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Nobody overtly tells you, but there are signs. You know how Sally Field was Tom Hanks' love interest in "Punchline," and then like 20 minutes later she was his mom in "Forrest Gump?"

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: But what about men? Who tells men it's their last (EXPLETIVE DELETED) day?

(LAUGHTER)

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Honey, men don't have that day.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Never.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: I didn't get this commercial last week for AARP because the director said I was told to play Larry King's wife.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

COOPER: Here is the thing. History has shown you, you don't have to pair a geriatric man with a teenage woman to make billions at the box office. Does anyone remember a little film called "Titanic." There is only a one-year age difference between those two, although now that I think about it, Leonardo DiCaprio was 23 at the time, so if they had the usual age disparity going, they would have had to have hired a 3- year-old to play Kate Winslet's part, and you're probably not allowed to let a toddler hang off a boat like that, child labor laws and such. Anyway, this is a problem as old as the Hollywood hills, and I'm not sure what the solution is, but kudos to Maggie Gyllenhaal for at least talking about it. So it could live forever young on the Ridiculist.