Return to Transcripts main page

CNN Newsroom

Holder Criticized Over Miranda Rights; Bomb Probe Reaches to Russia; Bomb Suspect in Prison Hospital; Suspect's Possible Instagram Posts; Boston Hero Spotlighted; Manti Te'o Drafted

Aired April 28, 2013 - 17:59   ET


DON LEMON, CNN ANCHOR: Hello. Thank you for joining us. Top of the hour. I'm Don Lemon. You are in the CNN NEWSROOM live this evening from Boston. Here is the very latest on the Boston bombing investigation.

Officials are responding to news that a Russian wiretap intercepted a communication of the bombing suspect's mother discussing jihad with someone who may have been one of her sons. Why did Russia wait until a few days ago to turn over that information? Would the FBI have done more if it had that information sooner? Our experts are going to weigh on that.

And the only man who knows a motive behind the Boston attacks -- Boston attacks -- is keeping his mouth shut today. The suspect Dzhokhar Tsarnaev is staying quiet inside a prison hospital.

Thirteen days after the attacks, 28 people remain hospitalized.

And Boston's baseball caps piling up at the memorial for the victims behind me. You're going to hear from the emotional visitors for the next two hours here on CNN.

In the meantime, let's get to the very latest. The Attorney General Eric Holder taking some heat for defending the timing on reading the Boston bombing suspects his Miranda rights. All the White House Correspondents' Dinner -- at the White House Correspondents' Dinner last night, Holder spoke exclusively to CNN about his decision.

CNN's Athena Jones has more now from Washington -- Athena.


ATHENA JONES, CNN CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): Attorney General Eric Holder under fire from Republicans for agreeing to a judge's decision to read the Boston bombing suspect his Miranda rights. Dzhokhar Tsarnaev has since mostly clammed up. And Republicans say Holder left potentially valuable information get out of reach.

Speaking to CNN, Holder answered that for the first time at White House Correspondents' Dinner.

ERIC HOLDER, ATTORNEY GENERAL: The decision to mirandize him is one that the magistrate made and that was totally consistent with the laws that we have. We had a two-day period that we're able to question him under the public safety exception. So, I think everyone was done appropriately and we got -- we got good leads.

JONES: Republican Peter King is shooting back, saying investigators may never find out whether others were involved and how the brothers became radicalized.

REP. PETER KING (R-NY), HOUSE INTELLIGENCE COMMITTEE: The fact is that the FBI was only 16 hours into an interrogation, they've already got some significant information, but so much more was -- still not there. Eric Holder now is saying he approved the interrogation being stopped is absolutely disgraceful because that interrogation could have ended up saving many American lives. We don't know what full consequences are going to be.

JONES: King and other Republicans saying Holder could have pushed to extend what's called the public safety exception to keep interviewing the suspect before reading him his rights. Not so says Democrat Adam Schiff.

REP. ADAM SCHIFF (D), CALIFORNIA: The FBI is always going to want to interview as long as they possibly can to get into what happened overseas and full nature of the plot. But the public safety exception only goes really to protecting the public and once they have gotten the information they need to do that, that's the full length and dimension of that exception.


JONES: Now, this debate is sure to continue here in Washington. House Intelligence Committee Chairman Mike Rogers has demanded more answers from the Justice Department on how this decision to read the suspects his rights was made -- Don.

LEMON: All right. Athena Jones at the White House -- thank you very much.

Remember, this investigation is not happening just here in the States. It extends all the way to Russia where the Tsarnaev brothers traced their family roots. The younger brother, the one that survived, is now in a prison hospital, about 40 miles from here in Devens, Massachusetts.

And that's where we find our Susan Candiotti, our national correspondent. She is there.

Susan, I want to talk about the Russian angle to the bombing investigations. In the past few hours, we learned that the Russian government had their suspicions about the Tsarnaev family. What is that all about?

SUSAN CANDIOTTI, CNN NATIONAL CORRESPONDENT: Hi, Don. As we have been telling you, there are many more questions tonight about this Russian wiretapping of the suspects' mother in this case.

And you will recall that we learned that the Russians, according to sources with knowledge of the investigation, that a phone call was made from one of the suspects' brothers -- sorry, a phone call was made from one of the bombing suspects to his mother in Russia in early 2011.

Now, our sources are telling us that the content of the conversation or this wiretap was vaguely talking about jihad. What we don't know is what that means. Were they talking about a religious struggle? Was there specific talk about an attack? And how long had the Russians been eavesdropping on the mother of the bombing suspects in this case? And why was the information only shared with the FBI recently within the last few days?

That's why there is a lot of debate about why it happened in this fashion, Don.

And, finally, we want to know if that information had been shared much earlier back in 2001, might that have been able to make a difference in this -- possible future attack here in the United States -- Don.

LEMON: Susan, you know, we got the call late last week that the suspect had been moved to this medical center. You are outside of that medical center where he is being held. How much do we know about this facility? About the inside, more like a hospital, more like a prison, a combination?

CANDIOTTI: It's a combination of both. And the area where the suspect is in this case, Dzhokhar Tsarnaev, he is in an area where there is extra security, housed with about 30 other inmates.

We know today, tonight, from the prison spokesperson here that, in fact, he is talking. He is talking to his doctors, the people who are taking care of him, and, of course, he is under 24-hour surveillance.

What the spokespeople here aren't telling us, whether he has had any visitors -- for example, from his own attorney or talking with the FBI. Or exactly what his medical condition at this hour. Only that he is talking with the people who are taking care of him -- Don.

LEMON: All right. Thank you, Susan Candiotti. We appreciate that. Let's talk about the conversation now as people have been talking about the intelligence from the Tsarnaev brother about reading him his Miranda rights, about this intercept with the Russian government.

Let me bring in now national security analyst, CNN national security analyst Juliette Kayyem to talk about this.

This stove piping, right, that everybody has been talking about. I've been talking to people. Some people are saying, hey, listen, the information is not being shared. Others are saying it is transparent. It is being shared.

Who are we to believe here?

JULIETTE KAYYEM, CNN NATIONAL SECURITY ANALYST: I think that where we are now is in terms of what we now know about the Russians and what they did not give up is that this may be less a problem of the historical stove piping, what the 9/11 Commission said was the problem amongst all of the U.S. intelligence and law enforcement agencies, that there was good position and that good information wasn't being shared, right, so that we weren't able to stop a terrorist attack.

It now appears that this is not a stove piping problem. It was actually the good information was not shared to the FBI by the Russians, so that the FBI had month reason too go from thinking that he was just sort of another person that was -- that we were told by a foreign country might be a bad guy into one of the more exclusive and, therefore, intrusive watch lists. If you look at sort of the -- where the U.S. -- how other U.S. agencies dealt with his name, right, whether it's the CIA, DHS, with his travel, all of those are consistent with the fact that the FBI didn't get anything more.

Now, we can say the FBI should have interviewed better, whatever else, and we're going to -- I'm sure they're going to go back to that.

LEMON: But that's a big question. Where does the buck stop? Which one agency that should be responsible?

Before you answer that, I want to you listen. Lawmakers all this morning on the talk shows talking about it. It has become a political issue. Let's listen and then we'll talk.


SCHIFF: I don't think that we have seen the stove piping issues that pre-dated 9/11. I think we had fixed a lot of these problems. What we may see here maybe, in a way, a more striking conclusion. That is -- that in a free and open society, even when you do everything right, you still may not be able to prevent group of people willing to kill themselves, using low-tech -- relatively low-tech means.

SEN. DAN COATS (R), INDIANA: Democratic, open society, and some of these things are going -- we're doing everything we can but, you know, we have to be right 100 percent of the time. And they only have to be right 1 percent.


LEMON: OK. So, do you agree that something went wrong and that, obviously, that there needs to be one full proof system as I said before you heard that, one agency that's responsible for all of this? And who should that be?

KAYYEM: I think that's impossible just because there's so much intelligence coming in and there are rightfully different rules about who we can get intelligence about, whether they are here or abroad, and whether they are U.S. citizens or not. If we're going to change that, that's a much bigger debate than the Boston bombings, that is about the intrusiveness of, say, the CIA in U.S. society.

So, some of these are rules that we have already accepted and we may regret them in hindsight but the truth is they are for rules. We don't want a foreign intelligence agency of the U.S. government invading on your privacy or whoever else. So, the number of agencies that are involved with intelligence as a reflection of the different rules and standards. Is there one person responsible for this? I think that's what we immediate to find out.

LEMON: How do you -- how do you separate the real let from the noise that is -- that --

KAYYEM: That is going to be, I think, after action. If you -- if you have half a million names in this system, environmental system, then a whole bunch of others, what are the standards to ration a name up and are they consistent? I think that's the thing we have to look at because there's in way you can -- I mean, there's no way you would want to actually focus on half a million people. It is too broad. You would want more specific intelligence.

The point of centers like the NCTC, the National Counterterrorism Center, and the director of national intelligence is to take the noise and to focus it. But I think that what may have happened here, though, it is not clear whether we were getting the noise on this side. I know that's hard for people to believe. But if the Russian has stuff that was not triggering investigations, we would like the see what the FBI did. But this information coming out this weekend, justice story, more complicated. LEMON: It does. But, you know, for the average viewer, lot of information that you are giving. And it seems in this particular situation, I know that it's a big world. But that less is more. There's so many people and so many hands that were in this.

Somebody didn't see what was going on. Who is going to eventually take the fault? Someone has to.

KAYYEM: I can't predict that. I have seen how these unfold. Look at how they unfolded over the last week. I think we'll have to just see sort of -- is there an individual, is there a particular agency.

I think -- you know, the average person there seems to be a lot of noise and information. And one of the things we can learn from this is that -- because of the threat has changed, as the congressman said, and it's more nimble, it is also less destructive. We should remember that. The threat we are facing is much different than 9/11 than our agency has to be nimble, too.

LEMON: Thank you. Just thinking about the viewer at home going wait a minute, what are they talking about? What's all this information? Thank you, Juliette Kayyem. We appreciate it.

So, this whole debate over the Miranda rights, reading the suspect his Miranda rights, has become a political debate. But is it distracting from possibly thwarting another attack? We're going to debate that with our political analyst, coming up.


LEMON: So, from Washington and beyond, everyone is talking about how the U.S. is handling this investigation. How the suspect is being interrogated. Could this have all been prevented?

I want to bring in now L.Z. Granderson and also Ana Navarro. Ana is a Republican strategist, and she's also a CNN contributor. L.Z. is a contributor as well, and a senior writer for ESPN.

So, first, I want you to listen to the Attorney General Eric Holder. He was at the White House Correspondents' Dinner last night, talking about reading the suspect his Miranda rights and, then, Peter King this morning blasting him. Take a listen. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIPS)

BRIANNA KEILAR, CNN WHITE HOUSE CORRESPONDENT: Can you comment on the suspect being mirandized and whether that was appropriate?

HOLDER: Well, I mean, the decision to mirandize him is one that the magistrate made and that was totally consistent with the laws that we have. We had a two-day period that we were able to question him under the public safety exception. So, I think everything was done appropriately and we got -- we got good leads.

KING: The FBI wanted to continue the interrogation and Eric Holder now is -- said he approved that interrogation being stopped and is absolutely disgraceful, because that interrogation could have ended saving many American lives. We don't know what full consequences are going to be, who else is involved, who is involved then, who can be involved in the future. We may not know because of Eric Holder.


LEMON: OK. Ana, I want to start with you now. There is a legal debate here, obviously, but there's also an emerging division along political lines. Are you worried that efforts to prevent a future attack? I mean, that should really be a focus here and to prosecute this one could be bogged down by politics?

ANA NAVARRO, CNN CONTRIBUTOR: I'm not. You know, I really don't see it as political as maybe you do. I have heard Democrats ask the same questions and I heard Republicans say that it was right to mirandize him. So, I think, you know, there is a lot of diverse opinion. What I do know is this, that people in Congress get classified briefings. They get information that folks like L.Z. and me and you on TV don't.

I think it is appropriate to ask some questions. These are the questions that need to be asked. That's why we have government oversight committees. That's why we a homeland committee. Why we have intelligence committees.

These questions need to be asked because at the end of the day, it is not political. It is about how we keep America safe. When a terrorist strikes, he does not ask for your political affiliation. He -- what he wants is to hurt America and hurt Americans.

LEMON: Listen -- L.Z., listen, Ana is right. People on both sides of the political aisle, they want answers. They have a right to have answers. Someone dropped the ball here. Peter King is known for being outspoken. But he makes some really valid points about learning as much as possible about this crime, obviously, to prevent others and -- some people made mistakes here. We can't let that happen again. Someone has to take responsibility.

So, what's wrong with asking questions?

L.Z. GRANDERSON, CNN CONTRIBUTOR: Nothing is wrong with asking questions. I don't have a problem with the Peter King or anyone asks the questions of the administration, Eric Holder. We have to keep in mind that this is a U.S. citizen. And this is a U.S. citizen that's innocent until proven guilty.

So, even though the overwhelming evidence points towards him committing this heinous crime, the fact is we have to treat him as a U.S. citizen. I think if you were to ask the American people that if the federal government held a U.S. citizen for two days without reading their rights, if they thought that was fair or not, they would have some things -- they would have questions of themselves they would want asked as well and answered as well.

So, I tend to agree with everything that's coming out of the administration in terms of how this was handled, because when you think about the fact for two days this person was questioned, and then they were read their rights, as a U.S. citizen, I think that is the -- you know, the maximum amount we would expect in that type of situation. Once it was determined he was no long area threat to the American people.

NAVARRO: I don't know how you determine that, you know, it is no longer a threat to the American people. That's a key question. You know, that's why there is this public safety exception. And -- I think we all agree on that.

GRANDERSON: Because he has --

LEMON: Ana, Ana, hang on.


GRANDERSON: Because he has not proved to be aligned with al Qaeda, he has not been proved to be aligned with the Taliban, he has not been proved to be aligned with any warring nation or any warring group. If we found that out during the two days of investigation, then yes, he would be considered enemy combatant. But none of that seems to be true. All the evidence seems to be pointing to two renegades. If given that and the one you have is an American citizen you have to treat them as a U.S. citizen.

NAVARRO: L.Z., that Miranda issue and the --


LEMON: Hang on. Ana, I don't have time -- Ana, I don't have time. You if I say I don't have time, you guys have to stop. I know there is a delay here. I don't have time to continue about this.

And we shouldn't get the enemy combatant mixed up with the Miranda. Those are two different issues.

Let's go on and Washington is still abuzz about last night's correspondents' dinner. I want you to listen a little bit of Conan O'Brien and then we'll talk.


CONAN O'BRIEN, HOST, "CONAN" ON TBS: As you all know, the president is hard at work creating jobs. Since he was first elected, the number of popes has doubled. And the number of "Tonight Show" hosts has tripled. Congratulations.


LEMON: So, Ana, you were there. You were in Washington. What stood out to you?

NAVARRO: Oh, I think there were some great jokes made, some very hard stingers.

I thought President Obama did a very good job yesterday. He's got the delivery down pat. And I think it was particularly funny because a lot of it was self-critical because he was talking to a room that really knows the nuances of the political jokes, and, frankly, because he followed Ed Henry who droned on forever and ever and ever.

So, it was a great relief and very comic relief to hear Obama take the mike.

LEMON: So, L.Z., what did you think about the dinner and the jokes? President versus Conan O'Brien?

GRANDERSON: You know, I thought -- I thought Conan was a little frank (ph) starting off. I kept waiting for him to get the zinger in with President Obama. I think that came out later.

And Ana is right. I think the president's delivery has always been impeccable. It's one of the reasons why he's so well-liked because he just seems to be at ease in the public spotlight.

But I also want to point out the fact that this was a scholarship fund-raiser, and that $100,000 was raised to help fund scholarships for generous people like you and I, Don, to help keep this profession alive. To me that's the most for part about what happened last night.


NAVARRO: A lot of young women and lot of --


LEMON: Next, we're going to get back to Boston. The restaurants and the stores closed down, the bombings. They're going to reopen their doors. We're going to talk to them next.


SKIP RUSSO, CLINICAL PSYCHOLOGIST: I think there's no higher purpose right now than to take care of the folks putting themselves in harm's way to protect our freedoms.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: More than half a million folks have done more than one tour. So, that's a tremendous emotional and physical burden we put on our folks that's totally unprecedented.

RUSSO: We're acknowledging that people are always going to have some effect. We just want them to be able to be better at making that transition back to civilized society, and not carrying around that pain of war for the rest of your life.

I'm Skip Russo, clinical psychologist at the University of Southern California, Institute for Creative Technologies.



LEMON: Welcome back now to our continuing coverage.

Sarah Hunt was so close to finishing her first marathon when two bombs exploded in Boston, just a block from the finish line.


SARA HUNT, BOSTON MARATHON RUNNER: Panic set in. And it was chaos for Boston, especially where I was. People were running everywhere.


LEMON: Today, Hunt ran again at the Oklahoma City memorial marathon. Organizers invited runners who were unable to finish in Boston to participate in that marathon. The event honors victims of the 1995 Oklahoma City bombing. And many of the runners wore red socks to honor the Boston victims.

Nearly two weeks after the bombings turned Boston from a city of celebration to one of carnage, signs of normalcy already returning now. Two iconic restaurants, Abe and Louie steak house and Atlantic fish company are located on Boylston Street, steps away from the scene of the tragedy.

And last night, both those restaurants reopened for business and we are happy about that. I'm sure that -- Barry Garrison is happy about that. He's a regional manager for the Atlantic fish company and he joins me now.

So, how was last night's reopening? First of all, thank you. How are you doing?


LEMON: How was the reopening?

GARRISON: It was better than we could have ever expected. We've got such a loyal following with our guests and community has been fabulous. And we were so excited. You know, we put signs up in the morning saying we were going to open at 5:00. We had people coming up and taking pictures of the sign. We actually were lucky enough to get open at 4:00 and by about 4:15 we were full.

LEMON: The city took a hit. The whole surrounding of the metropolitan area took a hit.

And the mayor is now saying come down, no tickets. Just spend some money. You don't have to pay for meters. Just spend money here, millions and millions of dollars.

Are you going to be OK?

GARRISON: I think we are going to be better than ever. You know, the resolve of our staff, and our guests in this community, pulled together like you wouldn't believe. You know, you see the -- Boston strong. Yes, exactly. It is the same all the way up and down Boylston. So, it's been fantastic.

LEMON: I have to be honest with you. The first couple of days, we were here we were looking for restaurant to go to. Everyone said go to Atlantic Seafood, Atlantic Seafood. We could never get there because you were right where the bombings happened. And so, we couldn't get there.

People love your restaurant. Where were you when the bombings happened?

GARRSION: I was in the restaurant. Marathon Monday and Patriots' Day is a huge day for us here in Boston. And, you know, especially in the Back Bay, right end of the race. And -- we were in the restaurant. We were, you know, just very fortunate no one got hurt.

LEMON: How did you guys respond? Did you help people? Did anyone come inside the restaurant?

GARRISON: We did have people that were some seeking shelter. And, you know, our staff did everything they could. Really, we followed the cue of the local police and fire department. Quickly evacuated everyone out of the back of the building.

LEMON: What's the mood from patrons now? Are they more excited about coming back, you believe? Do you think people are still a little bit leery? I know you are optimistic but --

GARRISON: Yes. No, they are unbelievably excited. It is not even just our patrons. We are hearing it from the patrons. We got, you know, letters and phone calls and e-mails like you wouldn't believe just asking when are we going to be back on and what can we do to support the restaurant. But beyond the patrons, just the vibe in the whole Back Bay, up and down Boylston Street, is incredibly positive. Great.

LEMON: Yes, everyone is a Bostonian now. Even if they are tourists.

GARRISON: No question about it. Absolutely.

LEMON: Thank you. We're so glad.

GARRISON: Thank you.

LEMON: I'm going to see you when we are off the air tonight. I will put you out of business because I will eat so much. I'm a Louisiana boy, I love seafood.

GARRISON: That sounds great. Look forward to it. Appreciate it.

LEMON: All righty.

Russia was wiretapping the mother of the Boston bombing suspect two years ago. But they just handed over the details to the FBI. Could it have changed what happened if the Russian has shared the information earlier? That's next.


LEMON: We learned today what kind of condition the surviving Boston bombing suspect is in right now. Dzhokhar Tsarnaev is in a federal prison hospital. The staff there tell CNN that he is in a 10-by-10 foot cell with a food slot in the door and an observation window. They check on him around the clock and Tsarnaev is one of more than 1,000 inmates at that medical center.

I want to bring in now Tom Fuentes. He is a former assistant FBI director.

Tom, I'm sure you have seen the inside of these federal medical centers. Describe what it's like in there. Is it like a prison? Would you -- would he be handcuffed when he is moved around?

TOM FUENTES, FORMER FBI ASSISTANT DIRECTOR: Well, the whole facility, Don, is secure. So it's -- essentially it's a prison with a medical center inside of it. And there are -- varying degrees of amount of hospital, let's say, that it is. Depending on the location. But federal prisoners can get everything, including up to surgery, and intensive care and some of the medical facilities. So it's a combination basically a hybrid of a jail and a hospital.

LEMON: All right. So, Tom, let's talk about the political angle around this. Republicans today are upset over Dzhokhar Tsarnaev that he was read his Miranda rights. And some Democrats as well. They are mad at the attorney general. Do they have an argument?

FUENTES: Don, the -- agents involved in those -- that interview, having two days, I think felt like they had gotten as much as they were going to get at that time about any potential threat that was immediate threat. Now over the long run, if they had two more weeks to do it and talk to them before he was Mirandized, maybe they might have gotten more. As more evidence is obtained in the investigation. Maybe that could have been used to get Dzhokhar to change his story.

But I think they were pretty well satisfied that the immediate threat, the public safety issue, had been satisfied in terms of that. So I don't think that that was as big of an issue. Those two days. You know, they knew that this was coming and that there would be a magistrate come in and issue his rights.

LEMON: The suspect's father had planned to come to the states to help the investigation. Now he says that's on hold because of his health. Is that frustrating to the FBI today? I mean, what could the father add to this investigation, Tom?

FUENTES: I don't -- I don't know what. And I don't know if that was originally for humanitarian purposes, to come and bury his dead son, and maybe visit and console the second son who's in the hospital. I don't know the basis for that. I think that, you know, that this something between the Russian government and the State Department of the U.S. as to whether or not they would issue visas for the two of them to come back here and the mother and father to come back here.

And I think that the more we're learning about these Russian wiretaps or the more we hope to learn, I should say, we won't know whether maybe there is reason the father and mother are worried that they could get arrested if they come here. That maybe they're -- maybe they think we know more than we do and the Russians have shared more than they have as to what activities they were doing back in Dagestan.

LEMON: Yes. Just -- you know, you read my mind. It doesn't behoove them to come back, especially with her facing charges and then him -- you know, them wanting to talk to him, the investigators. I don't think it behooves any of them to come back here right now. They probably won't come back any time soon, Tom.

FUENTES: Well, I would agree with you, Don. I think that they place themselves in legal jeopardy, let's say, if they do that. But you know, I would like to make a point on this whole thing about the wiretaps that Russia apparently had in place on the mother back in 2011. You know, when the Russians alert the FBI initially that they -- take a look Tamerlan, his becoming radicalized and now it becomes clear that they're watching the mother and listening to the mother and then his conversations come up and at the time they don't know if it's him for sure or the young brother.

But in those discussions, Russia's worried about Russia. They weren't furnishing that information to us because they think hey, he's going to do an attack in the United States. None of these groups have ever attacked the United States. All Russia has ever had to contend with since early 1990s was these groups from Chechnya and the Caucus region attacking them. So --

LEMON: Right.

FUENTES: When the FBI does the investigation that says we find nothing here, give us more, they moved on.

LEMON: Yes. Tom Fuentes, thank you.

FUENTES: You're welcome.

LEMON: Up next, we'll take you around the memorial here in Boston and talk to some of those who are paying their respects to the victims of the bombings.


LEMON: All right. So we're back now at the site of the memorial here in Copley Square. And you can see just how it has grown. Last week it was not this big. And it stretches really a big portion of the square here. And then you see the four victims who died in all of this. The police officers and then the three victims who died in the original bombings across us here.

It's very strange. I was just doing this, you know, in December for the Newtown massacre, a very similar memorial there. And here we are back again just three months later doing this all over again with the candles and the teddy bears and the crosses. Joining me now, some people who came here from around the area and really people from all over the country. But these are my new friends. This is Jeannie and Noreen. They came over to say hello to me.


LEMON: You guys watch. You guys did exactly what the mayor said today and that's to get out and shop.

NOREEN: We bought a few things.

LEMON: Yes. Did you come down to support just for that?



JEANNIE: And we came to say -- we love Boston and we came to support Boston. And by everybody coming out, I'm so blessed to be alive here, you know, seeing all the friendly people and all the supporting people.

Hi from Boston. I'm Jeannie. And I love Don Lemon.


LEMON: Thank you, Jeannie. Thank you. I love you, too. I appreciate that.

You guys are going get back, right?


LEMON: Yes? Yes? And you're South Boston, right?

JEANNIE: Yes, South Boston.

LEMON: South Boston. Yes. They came over and they made sure -- and I thank you. I don't mind people coming over and talk to me, and taking pictures.

Where you are guys from? Hey, how are you?


LEMON: Nice. So you're a survivor? Nice to meet you.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Good to see you, guys.

LEMON: Yes. Were you in the marathon?


LEMON: What's your name?


LEMON: Where are you from?

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: I'm from -- originally Trinidad and Tobago.


UNIDENTIFIED MALE: But I live here in Boston. Been here five years.

LEMON: And you call yourself a survivor.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Yes. Marathon survivor. Yes. Because this is my first Boston. I'm glad I finished. And I was like pretty close to that explosion. Like right near the library. So we got to fight and be strong and keep moving on.

LEMON: Well, thank you.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Yes. Thanks so much.

LEMON: We're glad that you survived. Thank you. Bye, Jeannie. Bye, Noreen. Thank you, guys. We appreciate it.

And thank you, guys, for all coming out. We really appreciate it and will get to talk to you a little bit later on in the show.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Yes. Thank you, guys.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Thank you so much for everything you do.

LEMON: Thank you. Thank you for having us. And we really appreciate it. OK?

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: I'm here supporting. LEMON: We're with you. We're with you. We're with these guys. We're going to be right back. Don't go anywhere.


LEMON: Social media has played a big part in this investigation. An Instagram account linked to bombing suspect Dzhokhar Tsarnaev is gone. Apparently the account was deleted before the Boston attack.

CNN's Laurie Seagall and her team became digital sleuths using technovations to recover the digital remains. You won't see these images anywhere else. Take a look.


LAURIE SEGALL, CNNMONEY TECH CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): A deleted Instagram account that sources say belonged to Dzhokhar Tsarnaev. Unlike the rest of his digital lie, it hasn't gotten much attention since his arrest. Close friends say Dzhokhar used the name J. Meister but it was removed before the April 15th bombing. But a digital trail still shows images that he liked in the past. Several include references to Chechnya that are marked with dozens of hash tags. One showed the Chechen warlord who masterminded terrorist attacks against Russia. But was killed in 2006.

Several showed Dzhokhar interacting with other users. An expert in Chechnya says they show an understanding of Chechnya and its struggle for independence from Russia. The close friend tells CNN Money from what they saw he used Instagram for social purposes. So how were we be able to resurrect them? Here's how it works.

SAM ALTMAN, PROGRAMMER/TECH ENTREPRENEUR: So we're looking at a photo from Instagram on a site called Statagram. And this is the copy as it exists on the Web today. And we can see that these users, these nine users have liked it, and we can see there are six comments on the photo. And here are the hash tags. However, we can also go back in time and thanks to the Google Web cast. Here's some other data around that, back in April 10th of the same photo.

So we can see that there's the same six comments that there are today. And here is a list of users that liked the photo. Most of which are already on there. And there have been some new ones that they put on and like it as well. But there's one that liked it in the April 10th version of the page. J. Meister 1 that is not, you can see, on the current version.

SEAGALL: Law enforcement experts like Juliette Kayyem say the deleted account is likely to get a close look from investigators.

JULIETTE KAYYEM, CNN NATIONAL SECURITY ANALYST: If I were an investigator right now, obviously the platform he deleted matters the most. Were there clues embedded in the combination of images that can tell us something about what Dzhokhar was thinking? Because some of those pictures are very benign. Some of them standing alone, don't mean anything. SEAGALL: Digital footprints continue to get bigger as people become more and more willing to put their lives online. (END VIDEOTAPE)

LEMON: Let's bring in CNN Money tech correspondent Laurie Segall in New York now.

Laurie, how come we haven't heard about this Instagram account before? I mean, we knew about Dzhokhar's Twitter account so quickly and even he tweeted after the attacks.

SEGALL: Sure. I mean, that's a good question. But the idea is he deleted this account before and also, Don, this account wasn't widely known about. We had on phone we called a lot of his friends, a lot of them said hey, I know Dzhokhar, and I would know if he had an Instagram but, you know, but they didn't know. And we were able to confirm it from sources close to him. But it does look like only a handful of people followed him and knew about this account. But it's definitely one you can imagine that law enforcement could be interested in now that this is out there -- Don.

LEMON: All right. Laurie Segall, thank you very much.

Has the Boston marathon bombing changed spectator sports forever? Will fans take the risk of being a terror attack victim just to cheer on their team? We're talking about it next.


LEMON: You remember the guy I showed you? A lot of people probably remember him as a guy in the cowboy hat who helped victims of the Boston marathon bombings. There he is, his name is Carlos (INAUDIBLE). He's a peace activist who lost one son to the war in Iraq and another son to suicide. He was at the finish line handing out American flags when the bombs exploded.

Now this image has been seen around the world. You've seen it before. Well, today the Boston Celtics posted this Instagram photo. Carlos was at today's Celtics playoff game. By the way, the Celtics won the game in overtime.

I want to bring now Terence Moore from Atlanta. He is sports contributor to and a columnist at

A reason to smile when you see that picture, Terence. It's good to see you.


LEMON: Sporting events are back in business. Back in business. But security procedures are tighter than ever. Is it true that even the NFL draft had tighter security this time?

MOORE: Don, you're absolutely right. And we're in a whole new world. And we're never going to go back to that old world and it goes further than what you just said. The head of NFL security said that the NFL likely is going to ban any sort of bags to its football games. Think about that. I mean, we're going to get to a point where the only thing you can carry into an NFL game is one of those ugly foam rubber "we're number one" type of things.

And, you know, you talk about the NFL draft this week in New York. It kind of started there. I mean, that's usually a free and easy type of event for everybody. This time it had metal detectors set up, they were frisking people. Not only just spectators but also the prospects, their families and also NFL officials.

LEMON: Yes. And I can say, yes, I can testify to that. I saw it. I was in New York earlier in the week and I saw the cameras and all of the security there. Can -- here's a question, though, that we have been asking. Can a major sporting event ever be truly secure, Terence?

MOORE: Well, let's just start with this, OK? This is the 50th anniversary of the JFK assassination. And a few days before Kennedy was killed, he told people that if somebody wants to kill the president, there's nothing anybody can do about it. And it's somewhat that same sentiment with what we're talking about right here.

And I tell you what, Don, there's been 47 Super Bowls. I've covered about half of them. And every Super Bowl the security gets tighter and tighter. New Orleans, your hometown, this year, you know, you walk in, you got to go through the metal detector. They had the bomb- sniffing dogs right there. And then just the media going from gate to gate getting to the press box. They had one of those little computerized guns to check your press pass about four, five times.

Here's my point. In the midst of all that, you had this horrific blackout that's still has yet to be explained which would have been and could have been a terrorist delight.

LEMON: OK. Yes. Hey, let's go -- let's talk about the draft a little bit more.


LEMON: Not security. Manti Te'o, he got drafted by San Diego but a lot later than once thought. I mean, number 38 pick overall?

MOORE: Yes. But you know what, the most interesting thing about this is, there were a couple officials of NFL teams who admitted the truth and that is that they did not take Manti in the first round simply because of his fake girlfriend.

Now, Don, I want to tell you why this is significant. Over the last few weeks, last few months we've been hearing from NFL players, NFL executives about how tolerant NFL locker rooms have become over all sorts of things. Well, by this, we see that that tolerance thing, not so much. So if you've got gay players out there, what have you, I don't know, they might be thinking twice about coming out.

LEMON: Well, and also, too, they're worried about this following him and they're going to have to talk about it all the time and it may overshadow the actual team and what happens on the field. So I think that's a legitimate concern, but I hear you, I hear you on the other thing. Terence Moore, thank you.

MOORE: Thank you.

LEMON: All right.

Holocaust survivor, author, Nobel Laureate on the 20th anniversary of the Holocaust Memorial in Washington. Elie Wiesel looks back on the horrors of Auschwitz.


LEMON: The latest on the Boston bombing investigation in two minutes. But first, this story.

The U.S. Holocaust Memorial in Washington commemorates its 20th anniversary on Monday. Former President Bill Clinton will lead the ceremonies along with the man, the Nobel Peace Prize Committee called a messenger to mankind, Elie Wiesel.

Wiesel and his father survived Auschwitz together. He survived Buchenwald together. Until just two months before American troops liberated that death camp Wiesel's father died.

Professor Wiesel is now 84, a vigorous 84. The other day he sat down with journalist Michael Sholder (ph) and they looked at an old photo.




SHOLDER: Which is, you know, we can expand it.

WIESEL: Up. Up. This one.

SHOLDER: Really, I look at -- I don't recognize you, and you didn't recognize yourself.

WIESEL: How could you?

SHOLDER: You at 84 now. If you could say something to that 16-year- old, Elie Wiesel, what would it be?

WIESEL: Look, I had that feeling and that need to say to that boy, strangely enough, one of the most glorious moments in my life and I got the Nobel Prize. And I remember I was there and I had to speak and actually I wanted to speak to that boy and say, look, here I am with you. What have I done with your life and mine? My questions remain questions all the time.


LEMON: You can hear the full interview with Professor Wiesel including the question of how his sense of humor survived what he survived on Again, Look for it tomorrow online.