Return to Transcripts main page

CNN News Central

Officials Identify Another Victim In Gilgo Beach Slayings; Trump's Next Hearing Is August 28th, Five Days After First Debate; Bolton: Trump Trials Are "Russian Roulette". Aired 11-11:30a ET

Aired August 04, 2023 - 11:00   ET

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

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[11:00:59]

JOHN BERMAN, CNN ANCHOR: New developments just in, in the Gilgo Beach murders investigation. Authorities now say they have identified a victim whose remains were found nearly three decades ago.

KATE BOLDUAN, CNN ANCHOR: Donald Trump on the campaign trail after pleading not guilty again when his legal team is due back in court and what he is saying already about his defense strategy ahead.

BERMAN: Ukraine confirmed a dramatic attack on a Russian warship details on the unmanned sea drone they use to strike the ship in the middle of the night. Sara is off today. I'm John Berman with Kate Bolduan. And this is CNN News Central.

New information just released in the Gilgo Beach killings. Just a few minutes ago, investigators announced they've identified a victim previously known as Fire Island Jane Doe. Officials say 34-year-old Karen Vergata was working as an escort at the time of her disappearance in 1996.

Now this is gruesome, her feet and legs were found along Fire Island 15 years later. Her skull was discovered on Long Island proper in Nassau County. Authorities were able to determine in 2011 through DNA testing that the legs and skull belong to the same person. CNN's Jean Casarez is with us now following these developments and a new victim named.

JEAN CASAREZ, CNN CORRESPONDENT: And then family that now knows a missing family member what happened to her after 27 years. Karen Vergata is her name. And we have that picture of her. And the precise timeline is interesting because it shows the furtherance of DNA because genetic genealogy wasn't around in 1996, wasn't around in 2011, wasn't around until the Golden State killer case came about in California several years ago. But it was February 1996 that Karen went missing.

It was April 20th of 1996 that there were remains that were found on Fire Island and it was were her extremities as you said. Not until 2011 was there a skull that was found during the Gilgo Beach investigation. And that's when they started piecing it together to find out who this victim was. Let's listen to the press conference just minutes ago.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

RAYMOND TIERNEY, SUFFOLK COUNTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY: In August of 2022, approximately six months after we formed this Gilgo Task Force, a DNA profile suitable for genealogical comparison was developed from the remains of Karen Vergata.

In September of 2022, the FBI was able to -- was able via a genetic genealogy review to identify Ms. Vergata presumptively as Fire Island Jane Doe. Thereafter, in October of 2022, using a buccal swab from a relative of Karen Vergata, we were able to definitively identify her.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

CASAREZ: So as you can see, this homicide is part of the Gilgo Beach investigation, which is continuing, they will be looking at every one this could be a separate investigation, but they have not excluded anyone at this point, including Rex Heuermann.

BERMAN: OK. But I just want to be crystal clear, they did not connect it to Rex Heuermann here. They said at this point, they have no connection to Rex Heuermann.

CASAREZ: That's right. That's what they're saying at this point. And this was a different modus operandi. This was a dismemberment, parts of the body in two locations, a very obviously bloody, bloody scene somewhere at some point in time conceivably on Long Island.

BERMAN: Yes. No, very important to point that people need to understand it's quite possible that there's, you know, that one person is being charged for one set of killings here and this could be a completely separate thing. Jean Casarez, so many new developments here. Thank you for helping us understand it. Kate?

BOLDUAN: And let's talk more about that. Joining us now is retired LAPD Sergeant Cheryl Dorsey and Defense Attorney Misty Marris is back with us. Thank you both so much for being here. Sergeant, talk about the first and foremost now that we have the identity of one more woman, the Fire Island Jane Doe, is how she has been long known as.

Now that they, this task force has come together to the Gilgo Beach killings, to identify one more victim. Talk about just the investigative steps that were necessary to get to this point, and also what they do now.

[11:05:34]

SGT. CHERYL DORSEY (RET.), AUTHOR, "BLACK AND BLUE: CREATION OF A SOCIAL ADVOCATE: Well, we know that they used genealogy from a family member to help identify this particular victim. And so everything that's going to be done going forward with regards to this victim who's not connected to the suspect that's in custody, is to try to see whether or not there's a connection, try to either rule out or affirm that there's some kind of involvement and so it's going to be a matter of just backtracking everything that they've done thus far with the other victims who they've connected to the suspect, and see if there's any sort of similar connection here.

BOLDUAN: And Sergeant, just Jean Casarez pointed this out, just how important genealogy these the testing and this genealogical review, what it means for investigative efforts now, the advancements in it and what it means for investigators of, I mean, all types?

DORSEY: Well, it's amazing to think that you can find a connection to a family member who, you know, everybody's wanting to know, where do they come from, and who might be out there that they don't know. And so you submit these DNA samples. And because of the advancement of that technology, now investigators are able to make a correlation between information that was given solely because I just want to know who my next of kin is.

I just want to know what part of this country I may have come from. And so it's very helpful, but it's also going to ultimately be if there comes becomes a trial connected to this a dueling experts because while the DNA is helpful, it's also problematic.

BOLDUAN: Misty, as John and Jean were talking about, the Suffolk County DA did not link this newly identified victim, Karen Vergata to Rex Heuermann, the suspect who has been charged in other of the Gilgo killings. What could that mean? Should people read into this at all?

MISTY MARRIS, DEFENSE ATTORNEY: So we don't know whether or not Rex Heuermann is connected. However, to your point, they specifically said that they -- he is not the person at this time. So what does that mean, to me, it means that there's another ancillary investigation. Remember, there are more victims outside of the Gilgo four. And think about the intricate investigation into Rex Heuermann.

We know that law enforcement had eyes on him since March of 2022, ultimately leading to these charges relating to the three victims and the prime suspects as a fourth, who's to say that they aren't conducting similar investigations relating to some of the other victims who are now being identified, and that there aren't other very intricate investigations on that front. To me, I don't believe he's been excluded. But it does not sound like they're ready to make that leap and say that he's responsible for this particular victim who was identified today.

BOLDUAN: Yes, and Misty, something I'm quite interested in is how investigators have now filed a request to get a DNA swab from Heuermann, a new DNA swab from Heuermann. How important is that now?

MARRIS: This is incredibly important, and it's actually very intertwined to what we're talking about, as this investigation unfolds. So that is what's called a buccal swab. It is a common test that's done. In order to do so in New York State, the prosecutors have to get a court order, they have to show that there's probable cause, and that there's a clear indication that they will get relevant evidence from the swab. That's what needs to be argued, one prong already fulfilled, probable cause, he's already been indicted.

It is a test that is commonly done. So the question is, will they get relevant evidence? And prosecutors have laid that out in a motion that they're looking for DNA to further connect it to the crimes with which he's charged, but the other part of it is, it could connect him to crimes that we have not seen yet, or to potential other victims. So it is all intertwined. It is incredibly important for prosecutors to seek that buccal swab.

BOLDUAN: So interesting. Thank you both so much. Much more to come on this, as this is investigation continues. John?

BERMAN: Yes. She raised some points I hadn't thought of there. That is very interesting.

BOLDUAN: Yes, yes.

BOLDUAN: So a little more than three weeks from now, Attorneys for former President Donald Trump will be back in Washington, D.C. courtroom when a judge is expected to set a trial date. The hearing comes just five days after the first Republican presidential primary debate which we should note at this point we don't really expect Donald Trump to show up for that anyway. CNN's Evan Perez joins us now. This will be about timing now going forward largely of it.

[11:10:15]

EVAN PEREZ, CNN SENIOR JUSTICE CORRESPONDENT: Absolutely, John, the timing is important because the former president is doing everything he can he and his legal team to push this beyond the 2024 election. And the court made it clear certainly yesterday during that hearing, that they are doing the opposite. They want to try to get this done as quickly as possible. Judge Tanya Chutkan made it clear that she's going to set a trial date at this August 28th hearing.

She's giving the two sides to provide briefs, seven days a piece. And you know, John Lauro, the former president's lawyer really pushed back saying, look, this is -- there's a lot of discovery here. There's a lot of information that the government has collected over two and a half years of this investigation, and there is going to be important constitutional issues that they're going to raise.

Of course, one of the important parts of this is that the Trump team says that this is all about free speech. They say that what the Biden administration is doing or what the Justice Department is doing, is criminalizing the former president for his political speech. Listen to how Bill Barr takes took that argument and of course, John Lauro's response.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

BILL BARR, FORMER ATTORNEY GENERAL: Free speech doesn't give you the right to engage in a fraudulent

conspiracy.

JOHN LAURO, ATTORNEY FOR DONALD TRUMP: Laughable. Absolutely laughable. What's the fraud? Tell me what the fraud is. What's the fraudulent speech? Donald Trump -- President Trump was out in the open petitioning the state legislatures, petitioning the courts, there was nothing fraudulent going on. This is absolutely protected First Amendment speech. For Mr. Barr to say that is a complete and utter ignorance of what the basic law is with respect to freedom of speech.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

PEREZ: And John, just a few minutes ago, the court told the Trump team that if they want to opt out of the speedy trial, they're right, of course, to have a speedy trial. They need to say that in the next four days, so we're expecting again, another example of what the court and this judge are saying, we want to do this quickly. Speak now or hold your tongue.

BERMAN: Yes. All right, we'll see that filing no doubt from the Trump team in the next four days. And by the end of this month, we could have trial day. Evan Perez, great reporting as always, thanks so much. Kate?

BOLDUAN: So that is coming up later this month. But still tonight, we are going to hear from former President Donald Trump following his third arrest. He is set to speak at a Republican event in Alabama. One question ahead of that may need to be what's going to be his mood. Sources tell CNN that Trump was irked and quote unquote, pissed off after his arraignment in part because the judge referred to him as Mr. Trump instead of Mr. President.

CNN's Alayna Treene is in Bridgewater, New Jersey outside the President's Bedminster property, the former president's Bedminster property with much more. Alayna, what do you expect to hear from Trump tonight, now that we are hearing quite a bit from him, and sources close to him after the arraignment?

ALAYNA TREENE, CNN REPORTER: We did Kate. And you know, I think Donald Trump is going to try and use the rhetoric that we know he likes to use when he's addressing a room of his supporters when he's talking publicly, which is to appear more defiant and act really like he's energized and that he's ready to take on these charges. That's how he wants to portray himself.

However, I know that from my conversations with Donald Trump's advisors over the past several days that behind the scenes, that's not exactly how he's actually feeling. He's very frustrated by these charges. He was pissed off following his arraignment yesterday. He didn't want to be in D.C. He's honestly I think embarrassed by all of this. This is his third indictment in just a matter of months.

He knows there's potential future charges that he faces, and he wants to be focusing on his campaign, not on his legal troubles. And honestly, you did kind of see some of that as well yesterday during his court appearance. Our great reporters inside the room had said that he appeared somber. He had his arms crossed over him.

And you could also see some of that attitude and demeanor as well when he was speaking with reporters rather than, you know, like I said, the defiant rhetoric that he likes to use, the bravado that he tries to portray publicly. You kind of saw some of the behind the scenes and public side together during his remarks there. And it's interesting, because I know from covering Donald Trump for years now that he does try to compartmentalize. Yes, he's very concerned and frustrated behind the scenes, but he does try to keep that at bay when talking publicly. But I think he's going to try and revert back to that more defiant rhetoric tonight in Alabama, Kate.

[11:15:03]

BOLDUAN: Alayna, thank you so much. John?

BERMAN: So a modified form of Russian roulette, that is how former Trump cabinet member John Bolton describes efforts to convict the former president. He is here to explain what he sees his stake. Ukraine says that one of its sea drones has hit a Russian naval ship, what we're learning from a video that shows the ship being towed away.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

[11:20:09]

AMB. JOHN BOLTON, FORMER UN AMBASSADOR: It is a modified form of Russian roulette. If Trump is convicted in one or both of the federal cases, I think that will turn things upside down. I think he could be denied the Republican nomination. He'd certainly lose the election. But if he is acquitted, or a hung jury results, which I think would be understood by most people as being the equivalent of acquittal, I think he would get the Republican nomination and he could quite possibly win the election on the back of that.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

BERMAN: That was former Trump National Security Adviser and former ambassador to the U.N., John Bolton with CNN's Jake Tapper. And Ambassador Bolton joins us now. Ambassador, nice to see you. Russian roulette for people who don't know, is not a game that most people would like to play. So your comparison to this as Russian roulette, why is it worth it?

BOLTON: Well, I -- as I said at the beginning of the answer to the question with Jake, I think it's very important that if people find their justifiable charges that they'd been, they'd be brought against somebody who's campaigning to be President of the United States. And I think the public good here, the national interest at stake is that voters are fully informed about the people running for president.

So I think it's a risk worth taking. Notwithstanding that the outcome at this point is obviously unknown. But I what I was responding to in part was ever since Tuesday, the general exaltation in some circles, people literally in the rapture, that trump had been indicted. It's obviously a prerequisite to any further legal proceedings. But we're a long way from the end.

BERMAN: You know your way around a courtroom. You've obviously I imagined, read the indictment or about the indictment now over the last few days. How would you go about prosecuting this case? What do you think are the most important elements?

BOLTON: Well, of all of the aspects that the indictment covers, I think the strongest is the effort by Trump to turn Vice President Pence into a pawn of his strategy by exceeding beyond the wildest expectation the Vice President's role in the counting of the Electoral College votes. And I might say, because you just had Trump's lawyer on a minute ago talking about the weakness of the charge of fraud.

Remember, there's another charge that goes right along with this, which is the obstruction of governmental functions and conspiracy to obstruct your attempt to obstruct those functions. And that really is epitomized in the case of Mike Pence and his resistance to Trump's efforts to get him basically to violate his constitutional responsibilities.

I would focus on that, because I think that is the one that cuts through a lot of nonsense you're hearing about how this case is going after First Amendment rights and that sort of thing. It is not it is narrowly drawn, but it is the Pence case -- the Pence part of the case I think that's the strongest of all.

BERMAN: Mr. Ambassador, in addition to the comments from John Lauro you just quoted, John Lauro also said, overnight, he said, yes, Donald Trump asked Mike Pence to pause the counting of the electoral votes so that it could go back to the state legislatures, though the defense lawyer just said that. He just said that that's what Trump asked Mike Pence to do. By saying that are you saying that he's admitting to what you consider to be the most compelling case here?

BOLTON: Yes. As they say, you know, anything you say, can and will be used against you, including when it's your lawyer saying it. You got to watch going on T.V. when you're representing a defendant and as much trouble as Trump is? I think they're going to have a very hard time. I think this could be quite a dramatic confrontation if the prosecution calls Mike Pence to the stand, which I assumed they would.

And the Vice President repeats what he's apparently said to the grand jury, that is one reason I think this part of the case is so strong. Vice President Pence is a man of integrity. I think that is perfectly obvious. And, you know, Kate, you can say it's well, he said he said, if it's Mike Pence against Donald Trump, I think almost any juror in this country will know who's telling the truth.

BERMAN: House Speaker Kevin McCarthy in defending Donald Trump for his actions here after the indictment was issued. He said this is criminalizing, I'm paraphrasing here, basically criminalizing the type of speech and the type of things that for instance, Al Gore said after the 2000 election when he challenged the election results in Florida. Once again, you know, you were there. I asked you as someone who was there and who worked on the recount for George W. Bush. What do you think of that comparison?

[11:25:14]

BOLTON: Well, it's no comparison at all. Look, I spent 33 wonderful days in Florida after the 2000 election. I think what Gore did was a mistake was wrong on his part. And every recount of that election has shown that Bush won. But what Gore did was follow the lawful procedures in Florida, to commence a recount and to engage in litigation in the Florida courts.

He was ultimately defeated across the board, and he ultimately did concede. But I think the whole process showed that what Gore did, although I didn't like it, was done legally. And in fact, the indictment itself says that what Trump started out to do on the alternative elector set was a permissible legal strategy that morphed into a fraudulent effort to subvert the election. So there's no doubt that when you're given lawful alternatives to contest an election or go to court over, nobody's saying that's illegal.

It's when you tried to violate the procedures for contesting the election in an effort to subvert it. That's when you have a problem. And it's that kind of behavior that Trump is accused of.

BERMAN: And again, so Kevin McCarthy, if he's saying this was somehow criminalized what Al Gore did, you don't believe that?

BOLTON: No. Maybe he should have been in Florida for 33 days, like some of us, I think he'd see the difference.

BERMAN: You still have the sweatshirt to prove it. I'm sure. One of the other possible arguments here that you might hear from Donald Trump's lawyers or people defending him is he was acting on advice of counsel. He had lawyers telling him that these were strategies, how compelling or problematic is that defense?

BOLTON: Well, I think it's very problematic. Just because you're talking to a lawyer doesn't mean you can commit conspiracies or planned crimes. The attorney-client privilege is not meant to cover up all of your conversations. And this issue has been litigated extensively in the District of Columbia federal court, over the sum of the January 6th cases and what people have called the crime fraud exception, which permits piercing the attorney-client privilege has been routinely upheld.

So they can make the argument but this is a good example. And they say it's going to take so long for this case to go to trial. In that very court, I think that the controlling principle is that in considering what Trump did here, they've already decided that the privilege doesn't obtain and they will follow that rule very quickly. The attorneys for Trump can file 100-page motion if they want. I think the judge needs a bed 24 hours to decide and write up her opinion.

BERMAN: Ambassador, you've dabbled with running for president in the past, you know, in partially out partially in the past, there's going to be some presidential debates coming up. Eventually, we're going to hear much more at length from the people who are running for president. Do you think that a Ron DeSantis, do you think that a Tim Scott or Nikki Haley needs to get up on that debate stage and say what Donald Trump did here was wrong?

BOLTON: Absolutely. I believe that you're not going to beat Donald Trump for the Republican nomination unless you beat Donald Trump. And I think it means taking him on for his actions as president and afterward with the document the issue in Mar-a-Lago. And I think it means explaining why he is not fit to be president, not fit to be reelected again or re nominated by the Republican Party.

You're not going to get the nomination by defeating the other 10 or 12 candidates in the race. You have to defeat Donald Trump and that means you need to take him on directly.

BERMAN: Ambassador John Bolton, great to have you on CNN News Central. Appreciate your time sir.

BOLDUAN: That was interesting John.

[11:29:15]

Coming up for us, a new video that appears to show Ukrainian drone attract by sea on a Russian warship. How Russia is responding that's next. And it seems counterintuitive of course but as the jobs market cool down a very good thing right now. The new jobs numbers in and what they say about the state of the economy, we'll be back.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)