Return to Transcripts main page

Dr. Drew

Missing Body Found by Massachusetts K-9 Unit; Baby Dinah Suffers Catastrophic Injuries from Beating; Saying Goodbye to Caleb Schwab. Aired 7-8p ET

Aired August 09, 2016 - 19:00   ET

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

[19:00:10] (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Police searching the area or a K-9 officer discovered 27-year-old Vanessa Marcotte`s body in the woods just off the road.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Can you say whether she was raped and set on fire?

JOSEPH EARLY, JR., WORCESTER COUNTY, MA DISTRICT ATTORNEY: I`m not getting into any details with regards to this abduction or any possible assault at

this point.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Are the arson investigators on the scene assisting with this or what can you tell us?

EARLY: I can`t give you any more on that at this point.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Marcotte was a Google executive in New York City who graduated with honors from Boston University. She was visiting her mother

here in Princeton, says the district attorney, when she left for a quick run and walk on the treeline route.

EARLY: We have a horrible set of facts and horrible set of circumstances right now. We`re going to do everything we can.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

DREW PINSKY, HLN HOST: Tonight, another young jogger mysteriously murdered. A 27-year-old Google employee, Vanessa Marcotte, had just merely gone for

a run much like the one we reported on last night. She did not return.

Her body found by the K-9 unit after her worried family called police. Vanessa`s disappearance and death, as I said, come just days after the body

of jogger, Karina Vetrano, was discovered, unfortunately, by her own father.

We got new information on that case coming up, and joining me, Areva Martin, attorney, Judy Ho, clinical psychologist, professor of Pepperdine

University, and Jason Mattera, correspondent with Crime Watch Daily. Jason, what else do we know about this case?

JASON MATTERA, CORRESPONDENT WITH CRIME WATCH DAILY: Here`s what we know so far, Dr. Drew. As you touched on, Vanessa went for a jog on Sunday at 1:00

p.m. By 4:00 p.m., she hadn`t come home so her mom got concerned. Her mom called the police. The police then dispatched a K-9 unit. The K-9 unit

finds Vanessa`s body about half a mile down the road in the woods.

Now cops are investigating whether Vanessa was sexual assaulted and get this, they`re also trying to determine if she was burned. She was set on

fire because she has burn marks on her head, her feet, and her hands.

PINSKY: Is there anything, Jason, that connects this particular murder with the -- the alleged homicide with the case we reported on last nights?

MATTERA: Sensibly, they look very similar. Both joggers end up dead, but the cops in -- in both New York City and in Massachusetts said they`ve

compared notes, and they`re pretty -- pretty certain that these are completely unrelated incidents.

PINSKY: Police have been asked, but will not confirm, that Vanessa was sexually assaulted and as Jason reported set on fire, allegedly having

burns to her hands, head, and feet.

Judy, if -- if it`s so -- does any of this tell us anything about the assailant? Makes me wonder, was he trying to burn her fingerprints or, you

know, something to sort of make her unidentifiable, or do you think this could be some bizarre aspect of the murder?

JUDY HO, CLINICAL PSYCHOLOGIST, PROFESSOR OF PEPPERDINE UNIVERSITY: Right. I mean, certainly calls into question whether there`s some weird bizarre

ritualistic aspect of how he is going about doing this.

Of course, we know nothing about who may have perpetrated it, but it does seem like they were trying to do something to either mark this person or to

destroy evidence like fingerprints, as you mentioned, and it certainly makes people feel unsafe.

I mean, myself and Areva were both runners. We`re thinking about female joggers sometimes in the middle of the day, you know, how do you keep

yourself safe in the neighborhoods where there really hasn`t been a history of huge crime.

PINSKY: Yeah. It is -- by the way, anybody run with mace anymore? Areva, Judy, when you jog, do you have any kind of weapon?

AREVA MARTIN, ATTORNEY: I don`t, and I probably break every rule that every woman should follow that runs alone. I follow a similar route, so if

anyone`s trying to track you or if anyone is trying to do harm to you, they can easily learn your route.

PINSKY: And -- and by the way, you`re announcing that on national television as well, so well done, well done, counselor.

MARTIN: Okay, so let me just say this, I`m gonna change that route immediately tomorrow, but I think what`s important here, Dr. Drew, is so

many of the stories, what we later learned, is that the person that perpetrates these horrific crimes often know their victims.

So, I wonder if the investigation at this point is really centered on her friends, on her colleagues, and others who may have known her and knew what

her morning activities or afternoon activities were because oftentimes it is a friend or someone that is close to the victim that ultimate is the

perpetrator.

PINSKY: Again, this whole similarity with the Karina Vetrano case yesterday where someone had to know where she was and where she was running and what

she had been doing. To this end, joining me is Mark Safarik. He`s a retired FBI profiler and director of Forensic Behavioral Services International.

Mark, the district attorney has acknowledged similarities in these murders. Do you make a connection there?

[19:05:00] MARK SAFARIK, RETIRED FBI PROFILER AND DIRECTOR OF FORENSIC BEHAVIORAL SERVICES INTERNATIONAL: Well, I think there`s similarities in

general. I think overall, it`s very likely that you have two different offenders here.

First, the geographical distance, and, second, the issue really that you`re trying to initially resolve is, are these women targeted or the

opportunistic?

If you look at the dynamics in this case at least from the information we have, you have an isolated location, a jogging trail, a jogging path, a lot

of runners.

I think it`s very likely that these offenders have targeted the geographic area, not these specific women, so they`re looking for a particular victim

type that comes into the area. They target that victim. These women are really pulled off of the path, the attack and everything occurs at that

location.

PINSKY: Mark, I would argue, though, that women sort of look alike or at least it`s hard not to make that association. It is, as you said, targeted

to jogging, but targeted to the opportunity for someone that happens to look like that and, by the way, in a relatively populated area, silences

them quickly, which is sort of the weird part of this, right?

I mean, no one ever heard anybody calling for help. Somebody kind of knew what they were doing. Don`t you agree, Mark?

SAFARIK: Well, I think, at least in -- in the second case, both these areas are fairly isolated, so in populated areas, but isolated. That gives the

offender a lower risk and you have women, young women jogging alone.

I don`t doubt that he has a particular -- these offenders have particular victim types they`re looking for. A young woman who is jogging alone...

PINSKY: Yeah.

SAFARIK: ... and many other runners may have passed through and -- and they probably have watched this area before. I think that the -- the second case

is probably tied to the first case only in that it is a trigger.

The first case is a trigger for this individual who has probably fantasized about the attack, about doing something like this, and then sees

essentially permission given, an offender not apprehended, and then he acts out as well.

PINSKY: Wow, fascinating. We have some new video from a news conference held by the district attorney just a short time ago. Listen to this

question.

(START VIDEO CLIP)

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Her father has said that she had no romantic involvement with anyone. Have you independently confirmed that?

EARLY: I`m not going to get into smart thoughts or her personal affairs. Right now, again, we`re just focused on the homicide and try to give the

family the respect that they deserve.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

PINSKY: So, Jason, do you think he`s just sort of, you know, he`s in the middle of an investigation, he`s not going to give anything. The

probability is if there was a romantic partner, that would be a major suspect.

MATTERA: Well, anyone close, certainly a romantic relationship definitely would be at the top of the list in terms of suspects. You know, what`s so

shocking about this murder in this small town of Massachusetts, there are 3500 people in the town. 3500 people. And this is their first murder in 30

years.

At least in the second murder, it doesn`t make it any, you know, any more absorbable, but it`s in, you know, Queens, New York. I mean, it`s -- Queens

can be very violent at times, but this is very, very foreign for Princeton, Massachusetts.

PINSKY: I mean, again, this aspect -- the -- Mark`s theory that maybe this is a copy cat, I have not thought of, and that`s a very fascinating

prospect. I would imagine that that would mean that they`d be, again, searching door-to-door much like they did in the case yesterday.

We have an update on the New York murder case. The DNA from murdered jogger, Karina Vetrano, what that reveals. And later, the horrifying death

of an abused infant. Baby Dinah`s short life came to an end amid controversy and amid outrage. We`re back after this.

[19:10:00] (COMMERCIAL BREAK)

(START VIDEO CLIP)

EARLY: The body of the missing person, Vanessa Marcotte, 27 years old, who is currently residing in New York City, was found by one of the

Massachusetts state police K-9 units assigned to the search.

The body was found about one-half mile from her mother`s home in a wooded area. Preliminary review of the body has led the detectives to believe that

this is a homicide investigation. We do not know if it was a random act.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Do you have any information on a possible suspect?

EARLY: Can`t give out anything with regards to that at this point.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

PINSKY: Indeed, investigators are not revealing much about the murder of 27-year-old Google employee, Vanessa Marcotte. She went for a jog near her

mom`s home in Massachusetts Sunday night and never returned.

Police are asking for tips. We have some phone numbers on the screen for you right now. I`m back with Areva, Mark, Judy, and Jason.

Now, in a conference, a news conference just a short time ago, the district attorney was asked about similarities between this case and the Karina

Vetrano`s strangulation case we discussed yesterday.

Of course, she was a 30-year-old jogger whose body found in a marsh area in Queens in New York a week ago. Take a look.

(START VIDEO CLIP)

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: A lot of people have been talking about parallels to the jogger who was murdered in New York. We`ve heard you might have an

investigator here from New York. Can you talk about exploring that angle?

EARLY: We haven`t ruled anything out with regards to the New York homicide. We understand that there are similarities. Nothing has been ruled out with

regards to that investigation or whether or not in may be involved in this.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

PINSKY: Mark, no doubt they are thinking that all through. I liked your theory about the possibility of a copycat sort of endorsement because the

guy, Karina`s murderer, was able to get away with this.

My question to you though is what`s with the burning of the hands and feet? Is that mean anything to you?

SAFARIK: Well, first of all, I want to be clear. I didn`t say it`s a copycat. Copycat is different than what -- what I was saying. I think when

this individual whose probably fantasized about the sees, this other individual do this crime, in a sense, gives him permission to do this.

PINSKY: The fact that he got away with it, you mean?

SAFARIK: Right. At least temporarily.

PINSKY: Yeah. Yeah.

[19:15:00] SAFARIK: That`s right. And a couple of points are important. One is, Karina typically jogged with her father. On this day, she didn`t. So,

someone would have to absolutely know what her route was and that she wasn`t jogging with her father. That`s -- that`s unlikely.

And, secondly, for Vanessa, she is visiting her mother. She doesn`t live there. She`s visiting her mother, so somebody, if it`s the same individual,

she -- they would have to know where she was going, follow her up there, know she was going to go jogging, and then know the route she was going to

jog to find a place where they could secrete themselves. It`s very, very unlikely.

PINSKY: So what, Mark, let`s stay with Vanessa. What do you think -- give us a profile of who you think this guy was.

SAFARIK: I think it`s very difficult. The police have as it`s very early in the investigation, they have a lot of held back information. There`s a lot

that can be learned from the scene, from this dynamic between the physical evidence, the behavioral evidence, and what -- what is involved in this

burning.

I don`t know. Because we don`t really know the specifics of it. Is it an attempt to destroy evidence? Is it part of a ritual fantasy? Is there

accelerate (ph) used? Is it an open flame? Is there some other object?

What really is burned on her, if anything is burned? All of these dynamics become important in assessing this individual and this dynamic of why he`s

staying there to engage in this behavior. I would say...

PINSKY: Go ahead. Go ahead.

SAFARIK: ... I would say that you`ve got an individual who probably is a much rarer type of rapist-murderer individual who is using sex as the

weapon to assault for issues of power, control, and clearly some anger here.

PINSKY: Violence.

SAFARIK: But beyond that, without really looking at the scene and this whole dynamic, it`s difficult to say because, of course, the police are

going to have hold back information.

PINSKY: Yes. We have some new information about Karina Vetrano murder that we discussed yesterday. They recovered a, quote, useful DNA sample from

Karina`s body. Unfortunately, it does not match anyone in the law enforcement data base that was reviewed.

Detectives -- detectives have interviewed known sex offenders in that area. They`ve also investigated about 25 leads, but nothing has reportedly

advanced the case. Jason, what are your thoughts?

MATTERA: Well, they say they found useful DNA, so, hopefully, it portends to solve the case sometime soon. I don`t think we should be overanalyzing,

though, what happened to Karina in this Queens park and -- and -- and maybe it triggered somebody, you know, else from what took place in

Massachusetts.

This Queens park and U.S. communities around it say it is dangerous. Karina`s own father said he did not want her jogging there because it was

dangerous. There are homeless people wondering around with their tents. You have weeds that are 10 feet high and the assailant can easily hide behind

the weeds.

It is actually known literally by the neighbors. This park is known as the dumping ground for bodies that regularly turn up there over the years and

for piles of trash. I mean, it could literally she has been at the wrong place, the wrong time, and someone in this park decided to -- to --to do

harm to her.

PINSKY: Awful. All right. Next up, outrage, the people charged with murdering an infant, her own parents, are given a last visit and the

decision about pulling the plug.

And later, is this water slide to blame for the tragic death of a little boy? More questions, some answers after the break.

[19:20:00] (COMMERCIAL BREAK)

(START VIDEO CLIP)

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: A 7-week-old infant is placed on life support after suffering catastrophic injuries. Baby Dinah was allegedly beaten by this

man, her 23-year-old father, Justin Whited. He has been charged with aggravated battery.

The infant`s mother, Jamie Whited, is also behind bars for allegedly failing to protect her child. Now a tragic development has led to an

explosive controversy.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

PINSKY: Baby Dinah was taken off life support yesterday and died three hours later. Back with Areva, Judy, Jason. Joining us, Kurt Schlichter,

attorney and conservative commentator. Jason, do you have breaking news for us?

MATTERA: That`s right, Dr. Drew. The district attorney has filed murder charges against both parents, but now there is a growing controversy, and

that is because -- because these crimes associated with baby Dinah, either Justin or Jamie weren`t convicted of them yet.

A judge allowed them to say their final goodbyes. The judge gave them 30 minutes each. And now the judge is facing some serious blowback. The

supporters of his say, well, he was just following the law, but the critics of the judge, who I think are reasonable here, are saying, how are you

allowing these parents who beat their child who was two months old into a vegetative state, grant visitation rights?

PINSKY: And Jason, Am I right that not only are they been granted last visitation because they were the parents, they were the ones that made the

determination to pull the plug on this child, is that right?

MATTERA: That is correct. That`s what there was a hearing about, and during the hearing, Justin, the father, who was the one holding back from pulling

the plug, so to speak, he -- he was emotional and broke down and he finally said, yes, you can take baby Dinah off of life support during the hearing.

He did not want to do that because he could face murder charges which he is rightfully facing today.

PINSKY: Areva, this is such a complicated in new woman`s (ph) issue. The very man that injured the child is the one that essentially finishes the

child off.

[19:25:00] MARTIN: Yeah. This is one of the worst cases of child abuse we`ve seen in a very long time, Dr. Drew. The fact that this judge allowed

this father to make the final decision and to have visitation rights to visit the child is beyond me.

The Child Protective Services could have and should have stepped into this case, could have terminated their parental rights so that someone other

than the people that put the child in this state could have been making decisions about whether she lives or dies.

And in stepping in, they could have denied these parents, and I don`t even know if that`s the word to call them, they are monsters, they are not

parents, could have denied them an opportunity to have any contact with this child.

We see that happen all the time with Child Protective Services. Why wasn`t done in this case is beyond me.

PINSKY: And Judy, although Areva says it is a severe case. Unfortunately, this sort of thing is not that uncommon. The shaken baby syndrome, what

this appears to be, where somebody essentially grab the baby and shakes it or bounces it in some way, and the blood just springs loose into the brain

and crushes it.

HO: That`s right. Every single year, there`s a small proportion of cases investigated by Child Protective Services where these little babies and

little children are put on life support of some type, and some of them make it, they come off of it.

Baby Dinah is not one of those people. You know, I think there`s a lot of huge warning signs about the parents. They were both addicted to

painkillers, Dr. Drew.

PINSKY: And meth.

HO: And meth. And so we know that meth can cause some aggressive tendencies and some people, when they come off of painkillers, they actually end up

experiencing paranoia. So paranoia and aggressive tendencies together plus the fact that Justin has an alleged violent history, this is just a

horrible perfect storm.

PINSKY: All right. So Kurt, it does occur there is a setup for all this, yet the legal nuances, I`m still very uncomfortable with the parents should

be making determinations. The child, undoubtedly, clearly, was brain dead that`s why it could not survive off life support even for a few hours, and

the parents are given the right, again, the mom was a committer of the crime, right?

The mom did not commit the crime, so in a weird way, the parents should be given the right to make the decision, and yet in a weird way, they`re

finishing off the child that they injured.

KURT SCHLICHTER, ATTORNEY: Well, they certainly are, Dr. Drew. Let`s look at the big picture. Nobody disagrees that this poor child, baby Dinah, was

brain dead. This child was going to pass on eventually. Everyone knew that.

So, who made the decision didn`t matter. But as a matter of law, let`s look at the facts. In our country, you are presumed innocent until convicted...

PINSKY: Yeah, that`s the other part. These aren`t murderers yet, are they?

SCHLICHTER: No, they`re not. That`s -- that`s more than just the technicality. That`s important because facts should come out that we don`t

know about. Look, I`m as angry as anybody. I have little kids, but to deny people who have not been convicted of a crime for a last few moments of --

of their baby`s life to spend that with them, it seems cruel and wrong.

(CROSSTALK)

PINSKY: Hang on a second, Areva, you`ll have a chance to talk, but just to pile on what Kurt was saying, this father is actually putting himself in

further harm`s way by making him now just not a battery case, but a murder case, although, I would -- I would argue that if the child was brain dead,

it was already a murder case, but go ahead, Areva, finish up.

MARTIN: But I think we have to be really quick about the law here. You don`t have to be convicted of a crime to have your children removed from

you. Child Protective Services around this country every day remove children from homes when the parents have not been convicted of a crime.

The question for Child Protective Services is, is that child in harm`s way? Are these people providing a safe and nurturing environment for the child?

If they are not, they have the legal right and obligation to remove that child.

So whether these parents have been convicted of murder or assault or anything, Child Protective Services can do an assessment, and it`s not the

same as charging them with murder, and they could remove the child, they could have done an emergency hearing to terminate the parental rights and

prevented these monsters from having any contact with the child.

PINSKY: And let`s talk, Kurt, before you respond. The injuries included bleeding into the brain tissue, that`s what killed the child, broken

collarbones, breaks in all but three ribs. I mean, that`s a crush injury.

That was somebody that was not just held, but crushed. It makes me wonder if somebody fell on top of them or something. Because again, the baby`s

skulls are very pliable. That could cause the injury. That could cause the bleeding into the brain. It really sounds like a crush injury.

Now, to your point, Kurt, maybe we`re gonna find out a giant, you know, credenza fell down on her or something. I don`t know.

SCHLICHTER: Look, we don`t know what happened yet, but that`s not the point. The point is in our constitutional system, you are innocent until

proven guilty, and that`s not just a technicality. Look, I`m not saying...

PINSKY: No, Kurt, but Areva was not making that case. She was saying where is Child Protective Services?

SCHLICHTER: Well, that`s a good question, and I don`t think I have an objection to an emergency hearing to remove the parental rights

temporarily. In this case, I don`t think it mattered because anyone is going to have the same choice.

PINSKY: Right.

SCHLICHTER: In fact, the parents made a choice against interest by terminating the life support.

[19:30:00] PINSKY: Let me again -- you`re saying that by allowing the child to die, the husband, the father, made it the murder case, is it not true,

though, the child was actually declared brain dead by multiple neurologists, isn`t it already a murder case?

SCHLICHTER: I`m not sure whether they would be charged with murder under their own state`s law. It`s possible. Certainly, assault with great bodily

harm at a minimum.

PINSKY: Okay. All right. We`ll keep this conversation up. But later, disaster and death at an amusement park. A little boy goes just on a water

-- look at the poor kid -- slide fun. It was the last day of his life. Back after this.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

(START VIDEO CLIP)

[19:35:00] UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Kimberly Paige was at the hospital Monday afternoon when doctors took her granddaughter, baby Dinah, off of life

support.

KIMBERLY PAIGE, GRANDMOTHER OF BABY DINAH: Dinah didn`t deserve this, and I also know this could have been prevented.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: She had been on life support for three months after prosecutors say her parents abused her and caused her injuries. Both Justin

and Jamie Whited are in jail in Walton County, but they were given time to say their final goodbyes.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

PINSKY: Five-month-old baby Dinah died three hours after having been removed from life support, and tonight, both parents facing murder charges.

I`m back with Areva, Kurt, Judy, and Jason. Now, Jason, the murder charges for the mom, but she`s not the one who directly injured the child

allegedly, correct? It makes me also wonder, there were two grandmothers there as well who were trying to get the parents to take the child to a

hospital for a short while, do they have any responsibility?

MATTERA: Well, initially, Jamie Whited, the mom, whose 23 years old, was charged with child cruelty, and that`s what prosecutors say she didn`t get

medical attention fast enough to baby Dinah and by delaying the medical attention that led to the vegetative state, the coma that she was in before

yesterday.

They -- they, of course, upped the charge to murder, but in the course of the investigation, Jamie had said, well, she`s previously seen baby Dinah

with bruises on the face, a black eye.

She noted bruises on her forehead, and she also said that she didn`t want to take her, baby Dinah, to the doctor`s office because she didn`t want the

doctor to report it to Child Protective Services, and, therefore, lose the baby.

PINSKY: All right. Judy. So that`s a pretty damming story. Not only is there avoidance of the consequences of their behavior, but as you

mentioned, meth and opioids maybe.

Let-s let`s step back a little bit from this, ask -- ask a moral question that with -- in foreign body, your psychological training, which is, do you

still the parents if the child had any cognition, the child would want the parents around even during her final hours, even if they were the

perpetrators, and yet, the parents are the murderers, how do you reconcile these various issues?

HO: Well, you know, the crazy thing about attachment as you know, Dr. Drew, is that sometimes we are attached to people who are bad to us.

And these were still her primary providers at the time when development was crucial and at the time when you attach to the people in your life. And so

if your question is about, you know, what is the moral sort of difficulty around this idea that they may have caused to the harm that ultimately led

to her death, but yet they were still able to be present, well, there`s a couple things.

One is these parents may have just been horribly miseducated, had problems on their own, but didn`t actually mean to kill their daughter, right?

PINSKY: Right. Not only that, not only that, they can still -- I`m just thinking sort of, you know, from -- if we were looking at this from -- from

afar, these still are the parents, there`s still an attachment, they`re still -- they`re still trying to make good decisions on behalf of the child

who is brain dead. Just -- I mean -- and we don`t even know if these kids, addicts, parents, were actually even directly responsible because the case

is too fresh.

HO: That`s right. We still don`t know. We don`t have a complete investigation. There`s a lot of unknown factors still, but I know why the

probably the judge decided, you know, it`s not against the law to let them say goodbye, and there are all of these complicating factors, Dr. Drew.

PINSKY: Yeah. Areva.

MARTIN: Why are we sitting here, Dr. Drew, trying to make excuses for the parents?

PINSKY: I`m not making excuses. I`m not making excuses.

MARTIN: You are talking about attachment. This kid isn`t attached to these monsters.

(CROSSTALK)

HO: Areva, this is what happens to babies. They become attached to people and they become disrupted across their lifetime.

PINSKY: In fact -- in fact, Areva, people, the kids that are -- just listen -- we are getting way off topic here, but kids that were abused get

attached to the trauma. They get more attached.

But look, Areva, my question is morally, is it wrong with a capital W to allow parents before they are formally -- not even -- they`re just barely

been charged, formally prosecuted for their crimes to not serve the function as parents? Is there a moral issue here?

MARTIN: They cease serving the functions of parents when they blacked the child`s eye. They cease serving the function of parents when they shook the

child and broke almost every rib.

PINSKY: But let me tell you, Areva...

MARTIN: That is not a definition of a parent.

PINSKY: Jason, my thing is, I cannot think of a way that a parent can shake a child and break every rib. The only way I can think of the child getting

the injuries she got is if like a refrigerator fell on top of her. I`m not kidding. That`s the only way I can imagine this happening. But Jason,

finish your point.

MATTERA: Yeah. Broken ribs, broken collarbone...

PINSKY: Every rib, every rib, that`s a crush injury, not a shaking injury.

[19:40:00] MATTERA: But let`s -- but let`s -- but let`s not forget, before the father was charged with murder, the father and the mother, the father

was charged with aggravated battery.

And I think this goes to Areva`s point. He`s been charged with aggravated battery for the last three months. So, because of the evidence gathered by

the investigators, they ruled that it wasn`t just some fluke accident and tragedy.

They ruled that this was -- this was somehow the responsibility of the father. So I think right there he does forfeit his right...

PINSKY: Okay.

MATTERA: ... as a parent to make decisions.

PINSKY: Hold on. Hold on. Kurt. Kurt.

SCHLICHTER: You know, my first reaction, Drew, is what the hell is wrong with these SOBs.

PINSKY: Right.

SCHLICHTER: These are terrible people and whatever bad thing happens to them is fine with me, but it`s not the easy cases where our constitution

and our basic principles matter.

It`s not the simple cases. It`s not the cases where we feel good about things or we can make moral excuses not to treat the innocent...

(CROSSTALK)

SCHLICHTER: It has everything to do with it, Areva.

(CROSSTALK)

MARTIN: They don`t have to wait to step in.

SCHLICHTER: No, they don`t.

(CROSSTALK)

SCHLICHTER: We do not punish people before we convict them.

(CROSSTALK)

PINSY: One at a time. Wait, wait, wait. Areva agreed they failed -- they failed in that this happened to this child. Judy, last thoughts.

HO: I wish to reflect back on Jason`s account of the story and how the mom in her twisted thinking of being a parent and making parenting decisions

thought that it might be in the child`s best interest to not go to hospital because she didn`t want the child to be taken away.

So, there is some weird misshapen things going on here, but they are still trying to be parents, they just suck at it.

PINSKY: They do, indeed. Including -- including -- including denial about what happened to the child that caused the delay and them going to the

hospital.

Next up, another little boy, this little boy is dead after an accident on the world`s tallest water slide. Who is to blame? Plus, a woman who

witnessed a near tragedy on that same ride is here with us. Back after this.

[19:45:00] (COMMERCIAL BREAK)

(START VIDEO CLIP)

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: The first drop alone it is so steep. It is called the tallest water slide in the world.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Reports say it was on this second hill and its 50 foot drop where something went wrong as 10-year-old Caleb Schwab was in the

middle of his ride.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: It is in Kansas City. Because this park didn`t have a height restriction for the structure. The ride`s opening was delayed three

times, a portion of it rebuilt once, and reports that in test run, sandbags launched out of the raft.

When Verruckt did finally open in July 2014, it stood taller than the Statue of Liberty and Niagara falls. The owner and designer of the slide

showed confident in its safety, they rode it first.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

PINSKY: The 10-year-old boy killed during a ride on the world`s tallest water slide. Caleb Schwab sustained a fatal neck injury. Back with Areva,

Kurt, Judy, and Jason. Jason, tell me more about this ride which is called Verruckt. What is that mean?

MATTERA: In German, it translates to insane and that`s because it`s the world`s tallest water slide. It is 168 feet, 7 inches high. The raft moves

down the slide at 50 miles per hour, and the -- the creator of the slide says, hey, this is a family friendly water park, but this particular ride,

it`s for thrill seekers only.

PINSKY: Areva, what is the -- the rider`s risk when somebody gets on an amusement park and is there a difference -- amusement park ride -- and is

there is a difference between a, you know, a ride that is permanent versus one that sort of blows through town and folds up?

MARTIN: There`s not going to be much difference, Dr. Drew, when we get to the civil lawsuit, which we know will come in a case like this. There is

going to be a wrongful death lawsuit filed by Caleb`s parents. They`re going to be suing the maker of the ride. They`re going to sue the amusement

park. They`re probably going to sue the operator, and, really, anyone that had anything to do with this young man`s death.

I think what was so troubling to me, they said he was on the ride, but he apparently wasn`t with his parents. He was with two women, neither of which

are his parents, so I think there are a lot of questions about, you know, who was his guardian, who was, you know, watching him, supervising him at

the time, but we should expect a pretty substantial civil lawsuit for this young man`s death.

PINSKY: And Kurt, I keep hearing rumors that the neck injury was quite severe. I`m worried about even the people around that had to witness

whatever went down here. They must have some complaint as well, no?

SCHLICHTER: Well, they`re not going to have a legal complaint. They wouldn`t in California. I`m not sure what the law is gonna be in that

particular state.

But, look, it`s nice to be agreeing with Areva again because this civil -- this civil lawsuit`s going to be more stunningly insane than that ride

itself.

PINSKY: A whole other lawsuit.

SCHLICHTER: I`ve got a lot of questions. I`ve got a weight restriction question, who knows, maybe the kid flew up and caught in the netting

because it wasn`t heavier or enough to keep it down...

PINSKY: That`s what i`m hearing.

SCHLICHTER: That`s my first thought.

PINSKY: On the phone, let me show you. I`ve got Erica Conrad. Her husband, Kenneth, rode the slide in 2015. Erica, thanks for joining us. Did -- did

he witness a malfunction in the ride? Is it possible the kid got caught in the net, the safety net?

[19:50:00] ERICA CONRAD, WIFE OF KENNETH CONRAD WHO RODE VERRUCKT SLIDE: Well, actually, my husband and I, we were not there when this particular

incident happened, but my husband and his friend has had an incident happened last summer where my friend, his harness had came off at the top

of the slide while he was going down.

And all he knew to do at the moment was to grab the bars inside the raft and hold on as he was going down, but he is a thrill seeker, and so at the

time, he wasn`t really thinking, oh, my goodness, like this is a life threatening incident.

PINSKY: But -- but had his grip slipped, he would have lifted off the raft, and into that safety net.

CONRAD: Yeah. And that`s when I was, you know, we didn`t think how serious it really could have been had he not -- had his first reaction to just grab

on to the bars.

PINSKY: Erica, thank you. Judy, this is like tragedy that you can`t even, you can`t even get your head around.

HO: No. I mean, when you look at something like this. You know, you`re a kid. You`re going to an amusement park. It is an exciting day. How many

people realize the statistics are really startling.

I mean, they just published a study that now, amusement park accidents are much higher than shark attacks around the world. They`re saying that it

doesn`t actually matter between permanent rides versus temporary rides. It is about 33 percents in each in terms of the accidents.

Over, you know, 45,000 accidents that were analyzed, two-thirds have happened to little children. I think that`s the problem here. There might

be a weight or height requirement. And there were reports that the front harness which is probably the one that the child was in the three-sitters

was not working well.

PINSKY: You sort of cut of breezed past that data. So say it again. How many children are injured every year?

HO: We have thousands of children injured every year. About 2 percent of them become hospitalized.

PINSKY: And this is both permanent rides and the sort of carnival rides that sweep through a town, right?

HO: Yeah. So I have a belief that of course those carnival rides that sweep through town are more dangerous, but actually in terms of the accident

statistics, 35 percent of them are on rides that are permanent. 29 percent are from these carnival rides and then the rest are uncategorized which I

don`t really know what that means.

PINSKY: All right. We`re gonna get -- shocking -- but we`re gonna get into more another story about yet another ride injury. You got to see this one.

Stay with us.

[19:55:00] (COMMERCIAL BREAK)

PINSKY: Whose responsibility for safety of summer thrill rides in Tennessee, three girls fell at a stalled ferris wheel and dropped 40 feet

to the ground. The youngest victim was just 6 years old. She is in critical condition with traumatic brain injury. Her sister, 10 years old, broken

arm. And a 16-year-old who fell from the ride is in stable condition.

Back with Areva, Kurt, Judy, and Jason. You know, the company called Family Attraction Amusment provided the rides to the fair. They declined to

comment on this particular accident.

But Kurt, what is the extent of their liability? This is not a permanent structure. They have to be mobile units to move around. Is it state by

state? County by county? Should we the user of these rides have some understanding that we`re actually really taking risk when we go on?

SCHLICHTER: Well, look, the state is going to regulate the mistake, going to inspect it. But look, at the end of the day, it is people like me who

are the regulators of last resort.

The attorneys hold them accountable. And look, they`re scared of us and they should be. Because if you go and you don`t maintain your ride and you

don`t do what`s right and you don`t do what`s safe, somebody is gonna come at you and ask for some accountability in front of 12 citizens.

PINSKY: Jason, do you agree with that?

MATTERA: Absolutely. I personally find the ferris wheel the most boring adult ride at an amusement park and would never, ever go on one and this is

another reason why I wouldn`t go on it.

PINSKY: I got to tell you, last time I was on one, I was thinking, you know, these things can really spin quite a bit. And by the way, this metal,

is eventually is gonna give. I mean, the metallurgy, all metal gives eventually.

HO: This is how I think now when I get on ride. I was just at Universal Studios. These thoughts never crossed my mind before now. And now, I think

about it all the time. I think about how these rides are going to give out.

I`m pushing the restraint as far as down as it will go until it crashes my ribs. You know, I just want to make sure. I don`t trust these people who

run these rides. What is their training? I have no idea what`s going on?

MARTIN: Well, one thing we should know too, Dr. Drew, is a lot of these big amusement parks, they`re doing cost benefit analysis, and they`re saying,

look, it is worth it to us to have these rides even though some are dangerous. We`re going to pay out some liability claims. But look at all

the money we bring in to our park by having these big rides.

PINSKY: It reminds me...

MARTIN: And it just makes sense for them financially.

PINSKY: ... I had a friend at MIT Metallurgy who said all metal gives. It`s just a probability of when and so, Kurt, that`s what I`m worrying about.

SCHLICHTER: Well, look, it`s a cost benefit analysis for the riders, too. Look, it`s fun to go on these rides. I was just at knots. It was very

exciting and fun. 500 feet up. Yey! You know what I mean, but, boy, did I think I was going to fall out. I used to jump out of airplanes in the army

but this was a little too much.

That`s when I was like 20. Look, there is a risk when you go on these rides. Statistically, it is very, very, very unlikely that you`re going to

have a problem.

PINKSY: Right.

SCHLICHTER: But sometimes you are. And you need to understand that when people do these wrongs, they have to be held accountable. Whether the state

regulatory agencies and the criminal regulatory process or in court in front of 12 citizens.

PINSKY: All right. Fair enough. I think we need a little regulatory relief in this country. And you guys have been on duty for a long time on the

civil litigation side of this. Areva, any last comments?

MARTIN: Well, buyers beware. I think some of these rides are unsafe and parent need to, you know, do due diligence before they put their kids on

these rides.

PINSKY: All right. Let`s all enjoy summer rides this summer. It is very unlikely this is going to calm down. Judy, calm down. Put the harness on.

You`re gonna be fine. I`ll do the same. Thank you all for watching. We`ll see you next time. Our friend, Nancy Grace, up next.

[20:00:00]

END