Return to Transcripts main page

CNN Newsroom

E-mails Suggest Penn State Cover-Up; Mississippi Abortion Clinic Still in Business for Now; Couple Goes Home After Colorado Fire; Sprinter Pulls Out Of Runoff; Mexico Changes Course; The Search For Amelia Earhart; Theory: Earhart Crashed, Survived; Role Of Religion In Divorce; Six In 10 Polled: Healthcare A "Tax"

Aired July 02, 2012 - 14:00   ET

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

ASHLEIGH BANFIELD, CNN ANCHOR: Thank you, Suzanne Malveaux. I'm Ashleigh Banfield live from New York. I'm in for Brooke Baldwin today.

And this is the story that has everyone talking! Just in to CNN, breaking news, American Olympic sprinter Jeneba Tarmoh is pulling out of tonight's highly anticipated runoff with a fellow sprinter. It's all about this photo, the too-close-to-call photo finish at the Olympic trials.

Tonight's head-to-head race was supposed to break this amazing third place tie and figure out which one of these two friends and competitors was going to head off to the Olympics to compete in the 100. But Jeneba Tarmoh says no. She believes she won that race. She believes she won that spot fair and square. We'll speak with a representative of "Sports Illustrated" in just a moment about this incredibly dramatic development.

First, though, a CNN exclusive on the Penn State scandal. We know all about the crimes now involving Jerry Sandusky, but now we have some new information this is raising questions about a possible cover-up at that university.

CNN has obtained the verbatim e-mail exchanges among several ex- university officials -- Graham Spanier, the former president of the university, Tim Curley, the former athletic director, and Gary Schultz, the former vice president of the university.

What they talk about sheds a whole new light on how the now deceased head coach Joe Paterno may have influenced their actions when it came to reporting what they knew and when they learned about Jerry Sandusky's reported showering activities with a young boy on the campus.

National correspondent Susan Candiotti has this exclusive.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

SUSAN CANDIOTTI, CNN CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): CNN has been given details of four reported e-mail exchanges from sources with knowledge of the case, raising new questions about what Penn State knew and when they knew it. The e-mails are between Penn State president Graham Spanier, vice president Gary Schultz and athletic director Tim Curley discussing the now infamous 2001 shower incident where grad assistant Mike McQueary said he saw Jerry Sandusky sexually assaulting a young boy.

The first e-mail is dated February 26th, 2001. That's 16 days after McQueary reports to his boss, coach Joe Paterno, about what he'd seen in the shower. Paterno testified, quote, "It was a sexual nature." By now, McQueary testified, he's told athletic director Curley and VP Schultz about exactly what he saw, a boy with his hands up against a wall with Sandusky behind him.

The alleged e-mails don't mention Sandusky by name, instead calling him "the subject" and "person." In the first exchange, Schultz messages Curley about a three-part plan to, quote, "talk with the subject, contacting the charitable organization" -- Second Mile -- and contacting the Department of Welfare. That's an agency required by law to investigate suspected abuse.

Yet the next night, Curley indicates a change of heart. He allegedly sends an e-mail to Penn State's President Spanier and refers to a discussion they had two days earlier about Sandusky. Curley says he wants to talk things over with Jerry Sandusky and work with him before deciding whether to contact child welfare. He also refers to Coach Paterno. Did something he said change Curley's mind?

Quote, "After giving it more thought and talking it over with Joe yesterday, I am uncomfortable with what we agreed were the next steps. I am having trouble with going to everyone but the person involved. I would be more comfortable meeting with the person and tell him about the information we received and tell him we are aware of the first situation."

The "first situation" he's referring to is a separate shower incident Sandusky had with a boy in 1998. Sandusky was not charged at the time. He was convicted of both incidents at trial.

Curley plans to tell Sandusky, quote, "We feel there is a problem and offer professional help, and at some point soon, inform his organization" -- Sandusky's Second Mile -- and, quote, "maybe the other one." According to a source with knowledge of the e-mails, he's referring to Child Welfare. If Sandusky is, quote, "cooperative," Curley writes, quote, "we would work with him. If not, we do not have a choice and will inform the two groups."

Two hours later, Penn State's president purportedly responds and agrees with the approach. Quote, "I am supportive," Spanier writers," and adds this. `The only downside for us is if the message isn't heard and acted upon and we then become vulnerable for not having reported it. But that can be assessed down the road." Spanier calls the plan "humane" and "a reasonable way to proceed."

The next day, VP Schultz weighs in with an alleged e-mail to President Spanier and athletic director Curley. Quote, "This is a more humane and up-front way to handle this," he writes. "We will inform his organization with or without his cooperation. We can play by ear to decide about the other organization," another reference, a source says, to outside authorities.

But that never happened. Authorities say records show suspicions about Sandusky in 2001 were never reported to any outside agency. Victim five was molested by Sandusky in a Penn State shower about six months after the McQueary incident, and Sandusky later went on to sexually abuse at least three other boys. Years later, all testified at trial.

(on camera): Curley and Schultz are already charged with perjury and failure to report suspected child abuse. They've pleaded not guilty. Sources say Spanier could also be charged. Spanier's lawyer did not return repeated calls for comment.

Lawyers for Curley and Schultz provided this statement to CNN. Quote, "As Pennsylvania Governor Tom Corbett stated, if we were going to do this case, we had to have the best possible case to go against somebody like Mr. Sandusky who was loved by everybody," end quote. The lawyers add, "for Curley, Schultz, Spanier and Paterno, the reasonable and humane thing to do was, like Governor Corbett, to carefully and responsibly assess the best way to handle vague but troubling allegations. Faced with tough situations, good people try to do their best to make the right decisions."

A spokesman for Joe Paterno's family says Paterno did the right thing. He reported to his boss what McQueary told him. The spokesman said, quote, "Everyone should want the truth, and Joe always told the truth."

Several state and federal investigations remain under way. Susan Candiotti, CNN, New York.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

BANFIELD: All right, I want to take us now to our CNN legal contributor, Paul Callan, who's live in New York with me now.

All right, so we heard a very detailed accounting of what was in these e-mails from Susan Candiotti. This sounds brutal not only from a civil are but a criminal area of law.

Let's talk criminal first. Is there any concern that the president of the university, who has not yet been charged, could be actually charged criminally, given what is in the e-mails.

PAUL CALLAN, CNN LEGAL CONTRIBUTOR: Well, he's certainly looking at this or his lawyers are looking at it carefully. But I have to say, under Pennsylvania law, his chief area of liability would be the failure to report what he knew, what these e-mails suggest he knew about the child abuse.

However, his defense is going to be that under this strange law in Pennsylvania, because he wasn't a direct supervisor of the children involved and because the children involved weren't even involved in Penn State programs, they were Second Mile children, he will say he did not have a reporting requirement.

BANFIELD: But it happened on his campus under his watch by one of his employees, and he was told about it.

CALLAN: Yes, he was told about it. And I will tell you that the attorneys for the two administrators, Curley and Schultz, they are asserting even Curley and Schultz didn't have a reporting requirement under Pennsylvania law. So certainly, the president of the university will try to use the same defense to shield him from a criminal charge.

BANFIELD: You're killing me with the reporting requirement. I get that we don't have a duty to respond to crimes when we see them in action. I don't have to go and stop a mugger from hurting an old lady on the street. But in Pennsylvania, I do have to report child abuse, no matter who I am. How do they get a pass on that if there is a pass at all?

CALLAN: Well, defense attorneys are saying that's not true, they don't, at this time, have an obligation to report child abuse unless they have supervisory responsibility over the child and the child is being supervised by the organization, meaning Penn State.

BANFIELD: This sounds crazy!

CALLAN: It's totally crazy.

BANFIELD: This is not logical! Just because I have a different kind of job, I don't have to do what every Tom, Dick and Jane on the street has to do in Pennsylvania?

CALLAN: People would be stunned by the fact that the law, criminal law, is very, very strict, saying you can charge somebody with a crime only if there's a very clear statute outlining what responsibility is.

I'm not saying the president of Penn State gets away with no charges, civil or criminal. What I'm saying, though, is that under this statute, it's going to be a tough uphill battle to implicate him in a criminal case. Civil is different.

BANFIELD: OK, now, let's talk civil.

CALLAN: OK.

BANFIELD: That's the first thing I thought when I woke up to these e-mails. I thought, I got to talk to Paul Callan about the exposure -- and that's the word that the president himself was using in e-mails -- about Penn State at this point with regard to what's been said.

Let me set up this piece of -- the e-mail that I want to read for our audience. And it has to do with these three officials, Graham Spanier, the president, Gary Schultz, the vice president, and Tim Curley, the athletic director, discussing a three-part response to what Mike McQueary told them he thought was happening in that shower, when he saw a young boy up against the wall, with his hands, heard rhythmic slapping. And it didn't take a rocket scientist to figure out what it was. OK, their three-part response was supposed to be, Let's talk to Jerry Sandusky. Let's tell the Second Mile. And let's report this to the welfare authority. And then something odd happens, and that's where I want to read this next e-mail.

This is an e-mail from Tim Curley, the athletic director, to President Spanier, and it's copied to Gary Schultz. And it indicates that there was a conversation that Tim Curley had with Joe Paterno, and that three-part plan changed the next day. "After giving it more thought and talking it over with Joe yesterday, I'm uncomfortable with what we agreed were the next steps. I'm having trouble with going to everyone but the person involved."

So this could implicate -- who knows, this could implicate Joe Paterno. We can't ask him anymore. But could that -- could we extrapolate from that that it implicates the university because Joe Paterno might have been involved?

CALLAN: I think many civil lawyers would tell you that this is a smoking gun e-mail. This is the kind of e-mail that implicates Penn State University, and at the very highest level since it obviously allegedly involves President Spanier.

Attorneys are trying to prove that Penn State knew they had a child abuser and they did not report it and they did nothing to stop it...

BANFIELD: And they used...

CALLAN: ... and others were abused as a result of this.

BANFIELD: And they used the word "humane" as the reason why they need to maybe temper this response and go with plan B instead of the three-pronged plan, which is tell the authorities, tell the Second Mile and talk to Sandusky himself. And we all know there were several years of -- of -- of accusers who became victims in court.

CALLAN: Well...

BANFIELD: It's proven, the domino effect (INAUDIBLE)

CALLAN: I think a jury will be so stunned by the philosophy of, if they thought that a child had been abused, to just say, Well, let's not let him in our shower rooms anymore...

BANFIELD: Oh!

CALLAN: ... Let's let him go back to his child charity...

BANFIELD: Oh!

CALLAN: ... and he...

BANFIELD: Can't think about it.

CALLAN: I mean, it's just -- it's horrific behavior by an educational institution.

BANFIELD: I can't let this one go, though. I got to wrap this up. But the president himself wrote this final e-mail. And I wonder if this isn't the nail in the coffin, if there is a coffin at all. And it says this. This one is from President Spanier to both Curley and it's carbon-copy Schultz. "The only downside" -- that's about this plan, this change in the plan, change in the three-pronged plan -- "The only downside for us is if the message isn't heard and acted upon, and then we become vulnerable for not having reported it. But that can be assessed down the road."

Are we at (INAUDIBLE) point down the road where it's going to be assessed?

CALLAN: Well, this is so shocking...

BANFIELD: The vulnerability?

CALLAN: Well, we're not only down the road, but he's basically saying, You know something? If he goes out and abuses another child...

BANFIELD: Could be a problem.

CALLAN: ... we're in the soup. Could be a problem.

BANFIELD: Yes.

CALLAN: Well, if you're saying that, you clearly know you're dealing with a potential child abuser, and you've got an obligation...

BANFIELD: Could this be...

CALLAN: ... to try to protect the child, so civil attorneys will say in this lawsuit.

BANFIELD: Quick answer. Civil -- could they be facing hundreds of millions of dollars in exposure here?

CALLAN: Well...

BANFIELD: (INAUDIBLE) civil penalties (INAUDIBLE)

CALLAN: ... we can compare it to two other cases, the biggest one in Boston. They had an $85 million fund they had to put together, the archdiocese of Boston for abuse. Philadelphia had a huge amount of money put aside similarly. So we're talking multi, multi-millions of dollars in damages.

BANFIELD: I knew you'd have the answers. Paul Callan, I'm sorry we had to meet on this topic, but it is -- it defies logic.

CALLAN: It's certainly does. It remains a shocker, this story. Yes.

BANFIELD: On so many levels. Thanks for coming in. Appreciate it.

CALLAN: OK.

BANFIELD: We also have another legal (INAUDIBLE) to report to you on Mississippi's fight over abortion, why the only abortion clinic in that entire state can now stay open, even though there's a law that says things have got to change there. We're going to speak with the clinic's owner and ask her a couple of questions about what's going on there.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

BANFIELD: A judge has issued a legal reprieve to the only abortion clinic in Mississippi. The Jackson Women's Health Organization was just about to shut its doors today because it hasn't been able to fulfill some requirements of a brand-new state law that's gone into effect.

The law is called HB-1390. It's a law that requires that Mississippi abortion providers have to do two things. Number one, they have to be OB/GYNs. OK. Got that. But number two, they have to have privileges at an area hospital, lawmakers saying just in case the patient has to be admitted. That's where things get tricky.

On Sunday, a judge issued a restraining order blocking that law until a hearing can be done on the 11th of July, when the clinic's petition against the law can be heard. The lawmaker behind the bill says he's disappointed.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

SAM MIMS (R), MISSISSIPPI STATE HOUSE: The bill was signed April 16th, over 70 days ago, so the facility has had plenty of time to be in compliance. But again, this is a health issue, in my opinion. And I just wish that it would have become law -- it is law, but I wish it would have been enforced on July 1st.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

BANFIELD: Well, it wasn't enforced on July 1st because of this restraining order. And joining me now is the clinic's owner and president, Diane Derzis.

Ms. Derzis, thanks so much for being with me today. So break this down for me. What is the problem with these two requirements? Why is it difficult to fulfill, A, being an OB/GYN and B, having privileges at the are hospital?

DIANE DERZIS, CLINIC OWNER: Ashleigh, actually, our physicians are all board-certified OB/GYNs, so that's not the problem. One of my physicians has admitting privileges at a hospital and certainly has the ability to admit a patient.

That's not what this is about. Admitting privileges have nothing to do with safety. They have a -- that's a financial relationship between a doctor and a hospital. My doctors are not local. They have no patients to see them. I am not of interest to a hospital.

But nevertheless, we have done everything we can to apply for privileges. We're in the process of doing that now. It's a lengthy process. So that's where we were. We were not finished with that, and that's why we had to file the temporary restraining order.

BANFIELD: So Ms. Derzis, those who support this law say this is all about safety. This is not political. It's about making sure that if something goes wrong at the clinic, the doctor who's performing the abortion can go right with the patient over to the hospital and be by that patient's side and do everything they can to make sure a catastrophe doesn't happen.

And to that end, I got a response from Mississippi's governor, Phil Bryant. Through his spokesperson, Governor says this. "Governor Bryant believes HB-1390 is an important step in strengthening abortion regulations and protecting the health and safety of women. The federal judge's decision is disappointing" -- that being the one to block this law from going into effect -- "and Governor Bryant plans to work with state leaders to ensure this legislation properly takes effect as soon as possible."

Well, on its surface, that doesn't sound like a problem. That sounds like it's all about the safety of the patients. Why is that anything other than it sounds like?

DERZIS: Well, it's actually -- actually Governor Bryan has not ever used the words "safety and health of the patient" until now, when it has been pointed out to him he's using the words "can't wait to put the only abortion clinic out of business."

This is not about safety. Abortion is the safest medical procedure done in this country today. It's 9 to 14 times safer than childbirth. My physician has admitting privileges. This clinic has a transfer agreement with the local hospital. That is not the option. There's not a problem here with complications. We are in excellent standing with the health department. We have been issued our 2013 license.

This is a political maneuver only. And these guys haven't even been subtle about it. Throughout this entire ordeal, safety has never been mentioned. Putting the clinic out of business has been. Now that they've been aware that safety is actually part of a process, they're trying to catch up. But it's obvious here what's going on.

BANFIELD: OK. Well, let me ask you this. You've got nine days until the next hearing on this issue. That's how long this order blocking this law is in effect. And I'm just curious as to why you might not be able to actually meet the requirements. I know a lot of those doctors are from out of state, but can you get through the red tape? Can you get them privileges at the hospital? And no harm, no foul. You can go back to business.

DERZIS: Ashleigh, the application itself was 50 pages long. You know certainly what bureaucracy is involved in any hospital process. Now, add to that the hundreds of phone calls these hospitals and the CEOs are getting daily about not giving the only abortion clinic in Mississippi privileges. Couple that with the thought of a hospital having picketers in front of it every day, and I can assure you these hospitals are quaking in their boots.

So you know, you might want to put a call in to a few hospitals and see what kind of response you get for that. This is frightening that you're talking about women's health care, and you're a woman. Think about what that means to you, that intimidation and fear alone is what they're using under the guise of safety. This is political.

BANFIELD: Well, I'm also trying to play the devil's advocate against you because there are two positions here. You've had 70 days up until now. You got another 9, 79 days. Is it impossible to fulfill these requirements?

DERZIS: Well, why don't you call the hospital and ask them.

BANFIELD: I'm asking you.

(CROSSTALK)

BANFIELD: Can you fulfill these requirements in 79 days?

DERZIS: It depends on whether a hospital is willing to do that. I don't know what the answer is. I can tell you that we've been calling them weekly and have not received a response, so perhaps CNN can call and find out what is the normal time period on that.

BANFIELD: All right, Diane Derzis, I'm very appreciative of you coming on and talking with us. And we'll follow the story, find out...

DERZIS: Thank you, Ashleigh.

BANFIELD: ... what shakes down on the 11th. And we'll look forward to a follow up with you. Thanks for being with us.

DERZIS: Thank you.

BANFIELD: And joining us live with us from that state of Mississippi.

And look at this state of Colorado, firefighters gaining ground, yes, but look at what the fires have left behind. Look at what people are coming home to. Yes, this was home. CNN's cameras taking you up close and personal in a moment.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

BANFIELD: Millions of Americans are sweating through another blistering hot day today, and there doesn't seem to be a lot of relief in store. No power, no way to cool it off. Look at the map. You've seen a color like that? Not for a long time, I'll bet.

There is 18 states that are under heat advisories or heat warnings -- 18! Some temperatures are cooling off to a mere 99 degrees -- cooling off. Weekend storms absolutely ripped through neighborhoods -- and this was heat-related, folks -- leaving a lot of people without electricity. The death toll now stands at 19 because of these storms.

Crews have been scrambling to get power back to people who need air-conditioning, who need a fan. But it could take until Friday before they can get power back to everybody. Friday is a long time to wait in those temperatures. We saw the map.

Want to take you to Colorado, in fact, another heat-related story, a different natural disaster, though. Families evacuated in the Waldo Canyon fire are getting to go home. But for a lot of them, that is nothing like it was when they left, a deep and emotional trip back into the embers. Ted and Kate Stefani let the cameras roll for us as they walked us through the ashes of what used to be their home.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

TED STEFANI, LOST HOME IN FIRE: This is our first look at it after the fire. So we'll go for a tour around. But there's not much left.

KATE STEFANI, LOST HOME IN FIRE: This is what was the garage. And you can see the gutter that's fallen down. The only thing left of the garage is the brick standing here and the brass fixture that we really didn't like anyway, but it made it.

TED STEFANI: Our barbecue on the back lawn has survived. There was a metal upper part of this. You can see the remains of it. But it's actually just completely melted down to nothing. Our yard chairs, which is -- this is where I actually saw the fire start, from this seat here, looking up into those mountains.

KATE STEFANI: I mean, the smell out here, it still smells like ashes and soot and just burned. Now like a campfire smoke but just burned. It just pretty sad. The good thing is that, is that we have a lot of neighbors that their homes survived. We've been getting hugs and meeting the community and the firefighters and the police officers. And we're just very grateful and very thankful for all their help and support in this crisis (ph).

(END VIDEO CLIP)

BANFIELD: Just unbelievable. Imagine that pillar to be the only thing left of the garage.

There were over 30,000 people evacuated, but those evacuation orders have been lifted now, and there's just now about 3,000 people who can't go back to their homes yet.

The weather conditions are getting better. That's certainly helping a lot of firefighters to get the upper hand. And we are happy to report at least that the Waldo Canyon fire is now 55 percent contained.

New developments just in to CNN in that amazing finish in the U.S. Olympic trials, the photo finish that everyone has seen -- just about anyway! This was for the number three spot on the Olympic team, and two of them tied. So who gets it? Who goes to the Olympics? There's supposed to be a runoff, and guess what? There's not going to be a runoff.

We'll tell you what's going on next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

BANFIELD: We got a developing story for you regarding the summer games in London and the U.S. Olympic track and field team.

You remember this photo you've been looking at for a week now, the photo finish. Yes, this finish was to close that the USA Track and Field officials couldn't even determine who was ahead.

Three thousand frames for a second and they still couldn't figure it out. They had to extrapolate and do some science. Even then they really weren't a 100 percent sure, but they just guessed it was a tie.

So a run off race was planned for this evening for the third and final spot on the 100-meter sprint team, the U.S. Olympic sprint team. The problem is one of those two runners, happy friends, smiling in better times said no way. I'm out.

She said this isn't fair. Maggie Gray of "Sports Illustrated" is here to explain. What on earth was Jeneba Tramoh thinking by pulling out?

MAGGIE GRAY, SPORTILLUSTRATED.COM: All the drama is completely taken out of this race. She said that she declined her spot and she will give it to Allyson Felix after the whole week that it took to get to this final decision that there was going to be a runoff.

The fact that USA Track and Field had no parameters whatever to actually settle a tie like this when it's a third place finish, she said that's it. I think mental fatigue. This is her first year as a professional.

BANFIELD: She's been training for four years. Why not give it one last shot tonight?

GRAY: You know, it's so hard to put yourself in the shoes of Olympians like that because they do train so hard every day for four years for this one shot.

And everything is calculated down to such a miniscule -- everything. The minutia is just all there as a regimen and this completely threw it off. She said she's rather not race.

BANFIELD: So I'm no (inaudible) here, but my litigation brain said she is laying the ground for a challenge. She is saying, you know, I won that fair and square. You told me I won it.

I did my victory lap and then you came back to me and said maybe not so fast. Is she possibly laying the ground work to challenge and say, I'm going through the legal route? I'm not going to through the challenge on a track route?

GRAY: You know, at this point anything could happen I think. Because we've never seen anything like this before where you had the photo finisher give her the third place finish and then a USA track and field official overturn it.

As far as her challenging, maybe she can. I don't know if it would do anything before the games, which are opening ceremonies on July 27th. But she could have if she wants to we think. I don't know what she could gain at this point.

BANFIELD: Well, then you can't leave. You're just going to have to keep following this to know if there's another dramatic development, Maggie.

GRAY: It is a crazy story that just keeps twisting and turning.

BANFIELD: You guys are doing well on it. Sportsillustrated.com, Maggie Gray, thanks for coming in again.

GRAY: Thank you.

BANFIELD: All right, so he is the fresh face, but he's from the old guard. Take a close look. That's the face you'll look at a lot. Enrique Pena Nieto projected to win Mexico's presidential race.

How does he plan to tackle the drug trade because that's important to his northern neighbors? Take you live the Mexico City in a moment.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

BANFIELD: Our neighbor to the south has turned back the clock, politically speaking. Voters in Mexico have returned the power a party that ruled that country for seven decades.

The PRI, the party voted out of power 12 years ago is now back in the saddle again after yesterday's elections. The new president, that's him. He is a young too.

Enrique Pena Nieto is 45 years old. He served five years as governor of Mexico State, the country's largest. He leads the Institutional Revolutionary Party or the PRI like I told you.

That party ruled Mexico for 71 years, probably best known for squelching dissent, fostering corruption, two things people don't necessarily like to hear in this country.

Our Miguel Marquez is live now in Mexico City. So when you say those two things, squelching dissent and corruption, it doesn't sound good. Has there been a revival? Has there been a wholesale change of the PRI or are we going back, like we said, we turn the clock back?

MIGUEL MARQUEZ, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Well, that's yet to be seen. Don't forget they also stole a couple of elections along the way as well. There is a lot of uncertainty among the Mexican population for the PRI.

Even if they win by 40 percent, 60 percent of the population here or the voters still voted against the PRI in this election. But it looks like Pena Nieto is going to have a lock on power.

He's just held a press conference or made a statement here in Mexico City saying that he is going to continue to protect Mexico's democracy. He is going to create more economic opportunity and continue fight against the cartels, reduce violence.

He has a very long laundry list. Mexican voters seemed to believe it. This guy who is institutional, the Institutional Party of the Revolution that he is a new face, he's a big change, and that he can deliver the sort of change, economic security. And otherwise, that the Mexican people want -- Ashleigh.

BANFIELD: So the outgoing president is big on the drug war, but the president before that said as early as May that the war on drugs has been an absolute failure. It's time to consider legalization.

What do we know about this incoming president and his commitment to fight not just crime, but the cartels, which really affects us?

MARQUEZ: Yes, I mean, what he wants to do is get the Mexican military off the streets, but he still wants to keep going after the cartels. He's done a couple of things that are of interest in note.

He hired Colombia's top cop, Oscar Naranjo to come in and be his adviser hopefully creating greater coordination between the south and Mexico and turn to the drug trade itself.

He also wants to take it to the drug trade and treat it more as an insurgency by using a (inaudible) or a national police force that's more professional, better paid and better at investigating and protecting the citizens.

And then slowly, but surely getting those Mexican military units off Mexican streets and treating this as though it's a crime problem not a militaristic problem -- Ashleigh.

BANFIELD: OK, Miguel Marquez live for us in Mexico City. Thank you, sir. It's nice to see you as always.

This is a new attempt to solve a years' long mystery, a mystery of legend really. What happened to Amelia Earhart? We're going to take you live on board a ship in the Pacific Ocean where an expedition is under way, but they have great new clues and this might be it, folks.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

BANFIELD: This is one of the great mysteries of the world. What happened to Amelia Earhart, a consonant record breaker? She was on her way to becoming the first woman to circumnavigate the globe, flying.

The pictures tell the story, but the plane she was in disappeared over the Pacific 75 years ago today. A lot of theories have popped up over the years as to what happened to the beauty.

One is that she crashed on or near a remote island kind of in the middle of nowhere. Take a look. Nikumaroro Island, Kiribati, ever heard of it?

Some people believe there is actually proof on that island that she was there. In fact, there is a group headed there this minute as we speak on a boat.

Joining me live from on board that boat is Ric Gillespie. Rick, you and I talked three months ago about this on the air, this was in the planning phase and you are on route now.

When we spoke, there was this fabulous, credible evidence of a photograph with our new technology. A photo that was taken three months after she disappeared that might have showed landing gear, but you have even more now. Explain what made this an even better expedition.

RIC GILLESPIE, INTERNATIONAL GROUP FOR HISTORIC AIRCRAFT RECOVERY: What makes this the best expedition we've ever mounted in 24 years, our 10th trip to Nikumaroro, is the technology we've been able to assemble to search for the wreckage of that airplane.

We have an autonomous underwater vehicle or robot submarine. It looks like a big torpedo with side scan sonar. We have multi-beam sonar aboard the University of Hawaii ship we're on right now.

(Inaudible) turns to out to mean in Hawaiian, heavenly searcher of the seas, how cool is that? We have a remote operated vehicle to check out the targets, high definition video camera. We're all set.

BANFIELD: But then after I spoke to you, it was probably two months after we had conversation about this spectacular photograph that gave you such excitement and all the gear that you just mentioned, there was something else that came down the pike.

And that was some revelation that radio transmissions from 75 years ago, about 57 of them had kind of been ignored way back when. Not so ignored now. What's the story?

GILLESPIE: Well, we've been working on that for 12 years, but we just recently published the report on it. Yes, 120 reported radio distress calls of which 57 are credible. That doesn't mean they have to be genuine.

It's just that we can't find any reason they wouldn't be credible. What it really comes down to is one of two things had to be true.

Either the Earhart airplane was on an island out there sending radio distress calls or there was a hoaxer somewhere in that area that could transmit on her frequency, imitate her voice.

Knew things about her that nobody would normally know and knew she wouldn't reach the island so that they could position themselves in such a remote place to perpetrate this hoax. That was ridiculous.

She did not go down at sea. She was on land, and we think we know what land she was on and where to search in the water for what's left in the plane.

BANFIELD: And you think you're headed there right now. So one last thing I want you to tell the audience, if they didn't see the segment you and I did before three months ago, I want you to remind people watching right now.

There's some artifacts found on this island. I'm specifically referring to a jar of cream and a couple of other things that may in fact have belonged to her. What did you find there?

GILLESPIE: Well, we archeologically examining a castaway campsite where we know the remains of a female castaway were found just three years after she disappeared.

What we've been finding are artifacts personal care items that speak out of an American woman in the 1930s. A woman's compact that pieces of a mirror, some makeup, a jack knife, a double-bladed bone handle jack knife of the same type that we know was aboard her airplane.

Bottles of personal care products, broken now, but we've been able to test the remnants and read the coating on the bottles. A bottle of hand lotion, very popular hand lotion with women in the U.S. in the 1930s.

The ointment pot you spoke of. A jar of what may have been freckle cream, Dr. Berry's freckle cream. It was an ointment that made your freckles fade, yes, with 11 percent mercury.

BANFIELD: Just amazing.

GILLESPIE: But all these things we can't explain unless the woman we think was there was there.

BANFIELD: OK, so I'm going to make a date once again to speak with you when you have completed your journey and done what you think you're going to be able to do. This is for discovery too we should let people know. Let's meet back here and you let me know if you were successful or not, OK?

GILLESPIE: Ashleigh, we have to stop meeting like this.

BANFIELD: I know. You should have invited me on boat. Ric, great to see you. Good luck.

GILLESPIE: This is where we can get Wi-Fi. Thank you.

BANFIELD: I get it. All right, I got to show you this. It's all over the papers. Tom Cruise, Katie Holmes calling it quits. But now there are speculations over why they are splitting up, reconcilable differences over scientology perhaps? We're going to dig into how religion sometimes makes for an ugly divorce.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

BANFIELD: All right, it was an iconic moment to say the very least. It certainly raised a lot of eyebrows and dropped a lot of jaws. It showed one side of America's biggest movie star that few had never seen before. Take a peek.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

OPRAH: Have you felt this way before?

(END VIDEO CLIP)

BANFIELD: Yes, that was then and this is now. From 2005 when Tom Cruise announced to the world and to Oprah's sofa that he was in love with Katie Holmes to today, five years after they wed, this couple is splitting up.

Holmes has filed for divorce in the jurisdiction of New York. Cruise was said to be surprised by his wife's decision to do so. Sources are telling TMZ.com that Katie was concerned about Tom's desire to immerse their daughter, Suri, 6 years old, into hard core scientology training.

In the court papers, Katie is suing for full custody of their daughter, once religion comes into play in a divorce and especially a custody battle, things can get a bit dicey and fast.

So joining me here is Defense Attorney Joey Jackson who is an expert on all things like this. This is tricky. This gets tricky. I mean, look, lots of people have reconcilable differences about where to spend Christmas or where to spend Hanukah.

But talking about how to raise your kids and where custody plays in, can you walk me down this road?

JOEY JACKSON, DEFENSE ATTORNEY: It's a big deal. First of all, we have come a long way since the days of the couch, have we not, Ashleigh?

We never know what's going on with someone. In any event, the whole religion thing, here is the problem. The problem is that the courts try to address what's in the best interest of the child.

At the same time you have parental rights and what does that mean? It means parents want to raise their kids in the religion they want to.

So what the court will normally do is they'll say does any religious belief pose an actual or substantial harm. Courts who evaluate that generally say that you can have religious beliefs and two parents can share those beliefs, OK.

You can have one who happens to be Catholic and another who happens to be Jehovah Witness and you can raise them in both. That doesn't cause substantial harm.

So there are two cases in particular really quickly. There's one case and it came out of Washington State where one parent was a Mormon and the other one was a Catholic.

So the Mormon said we don't want you doing anything relating to Catholics. The court said, no, you can do that. You can share in both.

There's another one out of state of Ohio and the Supreme Court said when one was the Catholic and the other was the Jehovah Witness, that you know what, Jehovah Witnesses may not celebrate holidays. They may not do other things consistent with Catholic views that it's fine.

Limiting social activities of a child is OK. It doesn't get in the way of parenting or anything else. So the court said do whatever you choose.

BANFIELD: We all know about pre-nups and what could end up down the road a disaster. Has anyone ever considered some kind of prophylactic legal document in how to deal with children?

JACKSON: See that's the problem, Ashleigh. The problem is you can have a pre-nup, but a pre-nup just addresses the whole equitable distribution of properties and assets. It only deals with finances.

In fact, a pre-nuptial agreement specifically cannot address any issues relating to the child. They have to be brought to court. Both parents have to make their case in terms of what they want to do and the parent who makes it most forcefully, they may get the custody.

BANFIELD: OK, so we wanted to just reiterate, regardless of all these crazy headlines that are all over the tabloid papers, we don't know if that is actually the issue between Tom and Katie.

We've no idea. It does bring up a fascinating conversation about religion, divorce and custody and how to deal with it and how judges deal with it.

By the way, what if the judge is a scientologist, would he have to recuse himself?

JACKSON: Yes, you better recuse yourself if you're a scientologist.

BANFIELD: You're good at this. Thank you. I can't stump you on anything. Joey Jackson joining us live here in New York.

All right, tax, tax, that's what Republicans are saying over and over about President Obama's health care law. But get this, an advisor from Mitt Romney surprised everybody when talking about the Republican stance. You are going to want to hear what was said next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

BANFIELD: The Supreme Court's decision on health care has a lot of people riled up on both sides of the aisle. Check out some of the brand new CNN poll numbers, 50 percent of you agree with the Supreme Court's decision to uphold Obama care, but 49 percent of you disagree.

This has Republicans continue to say that this health care mandate is actually called tax. Joe Johns is live from Des Moines, Iowa. So I guess that's the issue, isn't it? Is it a tax? Is it a penalty? What do Americans say?

JOE JOHNS, CNN SENIOR CORRESPONDENT: You know, it's really a matter of semantics, Ashleigh, I think. But if you ask Americans a common sense question, they're going to give you a pretty common sense answer.

That's what we found in the latest CNN/ORC poll. Something like 60 percent of respondents said, yes, it's a tax. This is in fact a tax. The problem, of course, is that if you accept the fact that it's a tax then you're agreeing with the United States Supreme Court and the United States Supreme Court said it's constitutional because it's tax.

That is something a lot of Republicans, including Mitt Romney are simply not going to agree on. In fact, Mitt Romney's own leading communications spokesman talked about that and as far as they're concerned, not a tax. Listen.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

ERIC FEHRNSTROM, ROMNEY ADVISER: The governor disagreed with the ruling of the court. He agreed with the dissent that was written by Justice Scalia, which very clearly stated that the mandate was not a tax.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

JOHNS: Yes, well, whatever you call it. Apparently it takes money out of Americans pockets and sends that money to the United States government. So what would you call it, Ashleigh?

BANFIELD: I like to call it as I see it, but I really like to listen to the Americans call it as they see it. Here is what I need to ask you.

We've had a lot of Republican disciples going on television and saying that the American people do not agree with this law. What does the polling say about American people and whether they agree or disagree with this law?

JOHNS: Yes, that's a big question of repeal. Mitt Romney's been going around the country for a while now saying he wants to replace and repeal the Obama health care plan.

Republicans on Capitol Hill say they are going to hold a vote in the House of Representatives on July 11th to repeal it even though it won't get anywhere in the Senate.

The polling that CNN did very recently shows about 51 percent of Americans think a repeal is a good idea, but that means a very close split and when you consider the margin error, it pretty much indicates Americans are 50-50 on this issue not overwhelmingly in favor of repeal as many have suggested in the past.

BANFIELD: Well, it's not a surprise when you break down the numbers. Things are a little different then politicians tell you on either side of this debate. Joe Johns, thank you so much. Good to see you. Thank you.