Return to Transcripts main page
Jane Velez-Mitchell
Outrage Over Five-Year Sentence for Fatal DUI Accident; Powerful Attorney Preyed on Women; Baltimore Cop Slits Dog`s Throat
Aired June 19, 2014 - 19:00 ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
JANE VELEZ-MITCHELL, HOST: Tonight a growing backlash fueled by outrage and disgust as a lifelong criminal, a repeat drunk driver, slams his pickup
truck into these two precious little boys, killing one, badly injuring the other. And then this guy, the guy you`re looking at right here, drives off
into the night. And now he`s getting off with a measly five-year sentence.
Good evening. I`m Jane Velez-Mitchell coming to you live. Thanks for joining us.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Outrage over a DUI sentence.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: A four-year-old boy was killed and his 10-year-old brother injured when they were run over by a hit-and-run driver.
ROBERT P. MCCULLOCH, ST. LOUIS COUNTY PROSECUTOR: I don`t doubt that he was drunk that night.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: The mother of the four-year-old says she doesn`t think justice was served.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: A hundred and fifty arrests, 6 DUI convictions, three deaths.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: But says his hands were tied by a lack of evidence.
MCCULLOCH: But what I know and what can I prove beyond a reasonable doubt aren`t always the same thing.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
VELEZ-MITCHELL: Ricky Weeden is a man who had already been in a violent crash where two women were killed years ago. Cops say he since racked up
nearly 150 traffic-related arrests and six -- six -- DUI convictions. So why was he given a plea and a laughable five years in jail? Wait till you
hear the prosecutor`s excuses.
Two years ago 4-year-old Trayeshon Williams and his 10-year-old brother were crossing the street in St. Louis when Ricky Weeden struck them with
his vehicle and then just sped off into the night. Trayeshon died right there on the street. His brother survived, injured.
Because Weeden fled the scene, police never got to test his blood alcohol level. He was arrested three days later, initially charged with second-
degree murder and assault. But prosecutors say their case was weak.
Weeden and prosecutors then reached a deal. Critics say it`s a sweet deal. He was allowed to plead guilty to lesser charges of involuntary
manslaughter, fleeing the scene, and driving with a revoked license, a license that -- are you sitting down -- was revoked more than 20 years ago.
Can the judge look the boys` grieving mother in the face and tell her that is justice?
I want to hear from you at home and on Facebook. Call me: 1-877-JVM-SAYS, 1-877-586-7297. And this is blowing up on my Facebook.
Straight out to reporter Joe Gomez with KRLD. What is the very latest, Joe?
JOE GOMEZ, REPORTER, KRLD: Well the problem with this case here, Jane, is that he apparently drove off after striking this four-year-old boy, who was
crossing the road at nighttime with his ten-year-old brother. That four- year-old is dead. The prosecutors had a reason to believe this man may have been intoxicated when he committed this violent and deadly hit-and-
run, because if you look at his past record, he`s racked up about 11 DUI arrests.
So why would he leave in the first place? Why would he -- if he saw two young boys crossing the road and he struck one of them, why would he drive
home? What, is he trying to protect himself? Was he trying to escape getting caught drunk driving again? The guy wasn`t even supposed to be on
the road to begin with, Jane, so that`s one of the big questions tonight.
VELEZ-MITCHELL: Well, let me go to Simone Bienne, behavior expert. I have said this a million times.
And by the way, we have a very brave man, the attorney for this driver. A Nick Zotos, who`s going to join us in a second.
But let me ask you this. I`ve said this a million times. We can -- and I`ll throw this to Simone -- we can track a FedEx package across country
and know where it is every second of that trip.
But a guy who has 150 arrests that are traffic-related, who has six DUI convictions, who has been in a deadly car accident where two women died,
who`s had license revoked more than 20 years ago, we can`t find him for three days when he hits a kid, kills one and injures his brother. What is
wrong with that?
And let he point out that Sandra on Facebook is saying, "Hey, we should have had an ankle monitor on him to track him."
SIMON BIENNE, BEHAVIOR EXPERT: But the trouble is, Jane, Sandra makes on your Facebook page makes an excellent point. It would be nice if we would
actually care, you know, to track him.
But the point is this is a guy who`s done it, like you said, 150 times. He`s not just an alcoholic. He`s a sociopath; he`s a psychopath. He has
now murdered three people.
And Jane, I know you`ll be with me here. Can you imagine what that 10- year-old boy has to put up with now for the rest of his life? This guy should be put to jail for years.
VELEZ-MITCHELL: Well, let me point out that the attorney who was going to join us right now would very, very quickly point out that he was not
charged in that case years ago, back in the `80s, when he allegedly, according to cops, ran a red light, slammed into another car, and two women
ended up dying. Why wasn`t he charged? This is crazy.
I mean, why wasn`t this case with this little boy a slam dunk? This guy had 11 DUI arrests. As we`ve been discussing, two people died in a crash
that he was involved in back in the `80s. But the prosecutor claims he didn`t have a strong enough case against this Ricky Weeden to get a
manslaughter conviction. Listen and then we`ll talk to this guy`s attorney.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
MCCULLOCH: Based upon his past conduct and what we know about him, I don`t have any doubt that he was drunk that night. But what I know and what I
can prove beyond a reasonable doubt aren`t always the same thing.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
VELEZ-MITCHELL: You know, I`m sorry. I think there could have been a way to prosecute this man successfully. But I want to go to Nick Zotos, the
attorney for Ricky Weeden.
You have called this a fair resolution. And I really want to ask you, in all honesty, do you think you could look into the eyes of the mother of
this little boy who died, 4 years old, and his older brother, who`s 10, who had injuries and who has suffered psychologically, and tell that woman this
is a fair resolution?
NICK ZOTOS, ATTORNEY FOR RICKY WEEDEN: Well, you know, what you don`t really -- what you`re not aware of is the highway patrol did an extensive
accident reconstruction of the event. And the highway patrol, their own expert thought that the children contributed to their own injuries, because
they were crossing the street in the dark without a crosswalk.
VELEZ-MITCHELL: Really? Really?
ZOTOS: Wearing dark clothing. Yes, ma`am.
VELEZ-MITCHELL: Oh, really? Because they were wearing dark clothing, like a little 4-year-old doesn`t have the right to wear...
ZOTOS: I`m revealing just what the highway patrol found.
VELEZ-MITCHELL: Your client left the scene, sir.
ZOTOS: That`s what he pled guilty to, yes, ma`am.
VELEZ-MITCHELL: Why did he leave the scene if he had done nothing wrong?
ZOTOS: I don`t know why he left the scene, ma`am. I don`t have that answer.
VELEZ-MITCHELL: Could it be that he was drinking, the way he was in all the other incidents where he was pulled over?
ZOTOS: Ma`am, I don`t speculate that. That`s your agenda.
VELEZ-MITCHELL: That`s not my agenda. I wish this accident never happened.
ZOTOS: You will make that determination; that`s fine.
VELEZ-MITCHELL: The prosecutor said that they were confident he had been drinking based on his history of the six DUI convictions and 11 DUI
arrests. I`m not beating up with you. I know you`re just doing your job.
ZOTOS: And Mr. McCulloch -- Mr. McCulloch correctly said what he thinks, what he suspects. Doesn`t mean he can prove that. Both sides of the case
had flaws. There was a plea agreement made, because both sides had flaws.
VELEZ-MITCHELL: Look, I want to -- I want to get to this. Brian Silber, I know you`re a criminal defense attorney. OK?
BRIAN SILBER, CRIMINAL DEFENSE ATTORNEY: I am.
VELEZ-MITCHELL: But here`s the point. He benefitted from leaving the scene of the accident. Because if he had been drunk, OK, which, you know -
- how do you predict the future? Look at the past. OK? He obviously has a drinking problem, because he`s had 11 DUI arrests.
And so he leaves the scene of the accident. By the time they find him, if he had been drunk, that alcohol is out of his system. So he served himself
well, you might say, by leaving the scene of the accident.
SILBER: You know Jane, this actually happens all the time. And for those of us that litigate DUI cases, this is not an uncommon occurrence. And the
people that run the most are the ones with the worst records. Do you know why? Because they`ve been through the system. They know how it`s going to
go down. They go and hide themselves under a rock for a few days, sober up, and then maybe they come forward or maybe they`re found. But by that
point in time, there`s no way to determine if they were driving under the influence.
VELEZ-MITCHELL: Yes, but here`s the thing...
SILBER: So unfortunately, this is an example where that happened.
VELEZ-MITCHELL: Regina on Facebook asks the best question of the night. With all his arrests, why was he free to begin with?
Amanda Manukian, criminal defense attorney. I wish we had some former prosecutors on the panel tonight. I guess...
SILBER: I am a former prosecutor.
VELEZ-MITCHELL: All right. Great.
SILBER: Not only that, I`m a former DUI prosecutor.
VELEZ-MITCHELL: Oh, you are, OK. Well, listen, let me ask you this. I mean, this guy had six DUI convictions.
And apparently, there is a state law that says chronic offenders with at least three convictions should face up to 15 years in prison. So why was
he not put in prison for 15 years after his third DUI?
I mean, he was originally charged with second-degree murder in this child`s death. That could have sent him to prison for 10 to 30 years or even life
in prison. Instead he pleads to a lesser charge of involuntary manslaughter. The maximum is 7 years. Leaving the scene, a maximum four
year. He didn`t even get 11 years. At the very least, he could have gotten the maximum for the lesser charges that he ended up pleading guilty
to.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Jane.
VELEZ-MITCHELL: Well, let Amanda take a strike at this.
AMANDA MANUKIAN, CRIMINAL DEFENSE ATTORNEY: Jane, let me -- let me start by saying that the justice system failed Leshon [SIC] a long time ago, way
before he was born.
And the fact remains is we`re trying to go back and fix the errors of what prosecutors failed to do: aggressively prosecute these cases, back 1983
when two people were killed.
Now unfortunately, the prosecutors are stuck with the evidence they have on this case. And the fact remains he was arrested three days after the fact,
and they can`t prove he was under the influence.
But what the prosecutors didn`t do is aggressively prosecute the fact that he left the scene of the crime with major injuries involving death. That
is unexplainable, and we do nothing about it.
ZOTOS: I disagree with that.
(CROSSTALK)
MANUKIAN: A plea deal of four years.
VELEZ-MITCHELL: Let Nick respond. Let Nick respond. He is the attorney for this man. And again anything I say, Nick, is certainly not directed at
you. You`re an attorney doing your job. This is a case that has infuriated everyone across the country.
ZOTOS: Bob McCulloch`s office does an excellent job. They`re all good prosecutors. They know what their cases are worth. They know what they
can accomplish in court and what they cannot. He got the maximum for leaving the scene of an accident. There was nothing -- nothing less. He
got the four years.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: What about driving with a suspended license?
ZOTOS: Well, that was the basis of the felony murder. The murder second charge was based on the fact that it was a felony for him to be driving
while suspended. There were issues about placing him behind the wheel of the car. There were no witnesses...
SILBER: That`s huge.
ZOTOS: ... placing him behind the wheel of the car. And that`s -- there was a witness but who could not identify him.
VELEZ-MITCHELL: Look, I want to go to the phone lines.
SILBER: That`s one of the biggest problems in these cases.
VELEZ-MITCHELL: OK. Sierra -- Sierra, and then we`ll go to the phone lines. Go ahead.
SIERRA ELIZABETH, ATTORNEY: Jane, the evidence is the evidence. OK? Every prosecutor has to make a case-by-case analysis for every situation
that they`re confronted with.
They have to look at the likelihood of conviction. They have to look at the expected sentence that the person is going to get. And they have to
weigh the cost that it`s going to take to prosecute this person and bring to this case to trial.
VELEZ-MITCHELL: Oh, the costs -- I don`t care what the cost is.
ELIZABETH: It`s very unlikely, Jane. It`s very unlikely...
VELEZ-MITCHELL: We spend billions on crimes -- incursion into foreign countries and we can`t spend any money to prosecute this guy? I don`t care
what money it would take. That`s what our government is for, is to prosecute people who have violated the law. That`s the one thing that they
absolutely should do.
ELIZABETH: Jane, this was a good result here. His prior criminal history was not going to be admissible in a court of law. His prior DUI
convictions were not related to this case, because the evidence in this case is that there is no alcohol involved. I`m sorry that it`s because he
fled and we couldn`t take his blood alcohol levels, but the evidence is the evidence.
VELEZ-MITCHELL: Do you know what a message this sends to other drunk drivers? And I`m not saying I can prove he`s drunk. I`m saying the
prosecution suspected, based on his 11 prior other DUI arrests and six of those being convictions that he was. It sends a terrible message to other
people who get in accidents, whether they`re drunk.
It doesn`t tell them stick around and do the right thing. If you want to get off easy, leave the scene of the crime.
I`m going to get to our phone calls on the other side. Don`t forget: Check out my Facebook page: Jane Velez-Mitchell Facebook. Like it while you`re
there. I would very much like that. And we have behind-the-scenes photos, content, exclusive content and a whole bunch more to this outrageous story.
Your calls lighting up, and your Facebook comments coming in. Stay right there.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: A hundred and fifty arrests, six DUI convictions. Three deaths. And yet this man gets only five years after killing a 4-
year-old.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
MCCULLOCH: Based upon his past conduct and what we know about him, I don`t have any doubt that he was drunk that night. But what I know and what I
can prove beyond a reasonable doubt aren`t always the same thing.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
VELEZ-MITCHELL: Wow, Facebook really exploding over this. A guy gets five years. He`s had 150 traffic-related arrests, 11 DUI arrests. This 4-year-
old boy is run down. And he takes off and leaves the scene, and he gets five years.
Akita on Facebook says, "Whose car was it anyway? Should that person be responsible?"
My question is how could he possibly even have a vehicle if his license was revoked more than 20 years ago? And Joe Gomez, why didn`t he have a
Breathalyzer installed in his vehicle? That`s from Brad on Facebook. Why did he have a car? Can`t the government say you can`t have a license.
Therefore, you can`t have a car?
GOMEZ: There should be some -- there should be some kind of ordinance or law like that in place to where, yes, you shouldn`t be able to possess a
car, especially if you`ve had 11 DWI arrests. That should certainly be something they look at before selling you a car or you get a car registered
with the state.
My other question is, this guy is driving, I understand, was driving a GMC pickup. A pickup truck. Now, even though he was driving a pickup, he hit
two kids, a 4-year-old and a 10-year-old. I cannot believe that he wouldn`t have felt anything, he wouldn`t have, you know, wanted to stop,
pull over on the side of the road to see what did he hit. It wasn`t like he hit a rabbit or anything like that. If he had any sliver of humanity
inside of him, wouldn`t he want to pull over to make sure what he hit was OK or that it didn`t damage his car or his friend`s car? No!
VELEZ-MITCHELL: Nick Zotos, you`re the attorney for Ricky Weeden. How would you answer that?
ZOTOS: He had insurance on the vehicle. There was a civil settlement on the case where the family was represented. He actually had insurance. So
perhaps, according to you, he should have a vehicle or he should not be able to have car insurance.
Nevertheless, the accident reconstruction report, you know, is a problem that the prosecutors could not circumvent. It said that any driver might
have not been able to avoid the accident.
But you know, there`s a lot of ways to explain it. You hit a pothole; you hit some debris on a street.
GOMEZ: Two children are not a pothole, sir. I mean, two children. Two kids. We`re talking about little kids. Not a pothole. Not a rabbit. Not
a squirrel. Somebody`s babies. One of them is dead. How do you explain that?
ZOTOS: How do I explain that? I don`t have to explain it. I know who you`re performing for, but you know.
GOMEZ: Who I`m performing for? I`m trying to get to the bottom of this. I`m trying to figure out...
ZOTOS: You are?
GOMEZ: ... what was going through this guy`s mind. That`s what I`m trying to do.
ZOTOS: That`s what the highway patrol did, sir. And Mr. Weeden stood in front of a judge and pled guilty.
GOMEZ: You`re representing him. How does he feel about this is what I`m wondering?
ZOTOS: Oh I don`t share that with you. That`s a privileged conversation.
VELEZ-MITCHELL: Look, we`re trying to understand how this could happen. And it`s not on you, Nick. You`re representing somebody, but you`re in the
hot seat because there`s national outrage.
Now let`s talk for a second about the judge in this case: St. Louis County Circuit Judge Joseph Walsh III. And he allowed for this plea deal. There
he is. He also -- and this is causing a lot of outrage -- gave this guy credit for time served. He got credit for the 20 months that he`s already
spent in jail leading up to this plea deal.
He could end up now spending less than three years in prison for killing Trayeshon. OK? That, I think, of all things, Simone Bienne, when you
think of what this mother has gone through, losing her son, four years old. The ten-year-old is injured. And then in just over three years, this guy
is going to be out there walking on the streets and quite possibly driving again. Nobody seems to be able...
ZOTOS: I`m not sure where you arrive at the decision that he`s going to get out in three years. The parole board will make a determination when
he`s released.
VELEZ-MITCHELL: Well, they gave him credit for time served. He got five years, so I`m just doing basic math.
ZOTOS: And he`s entitled to that, as a matter of law.
VELEZ-MITCHELL: Go ahead, Simone.
BIENNE: ... what I want to make is, excuse my naivety. I`m not a lawyer. We all know that. However, isn`t there something about even if you`re
going to not win the case, taking this to court so that the family can at least have a fighting chance, they can at least feel a sense of control so
that this may not happen again. Isn`t that a risk worth taking?
(CROSSTALK)
SILBER: That`s not what our system is for.
ZOTOS: The family was consulted. The family was consulted and basically signed off on that plea agreement. Before that plea agreement was extended
to the defendant and I, they were consulted. They signed off on it.
VELEZ-MITCHELL: You know what? I`m just hearing from Michelle -- I`m just hearing from Michelle on Facebook. She said, "I had two driving while
impaired, did jail time. Still haven`t gotten my license back four years later."
The bottom line here Brian Silber is that he shouldn`t have been on the road that night. There should have been something done to keep him off the
road.
Police run around handing out speeding tickets. He`s been arrested 150 times. At what point should somebody have brought him in and put that
state law to work that says, if you have three convictions for DUI, you can get 15 years in prison? Why did he get a sweet deal? Why wasn`t he even
charged in the first accident back in 1983, when he allegedly went through a red light and two women died?
Think about those questions. We`re going to answer them on the other side. Think about it, Brian. More on the other side.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Weeden has six drunk driving conditions and almost 150 traffic related arrests, but McCulloch said because he left the scene that
night, no blood tests, Breathalyzer could be used to prove he was drunk at the time, which would have increased the severity of the crime and the
sentence.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
MCCULLOCH: He has been to jail and has been put in jail, but everyone who goes to jail, with very few exceptions, gets out of jail after serving the
sentence. We don`t live in a society where the government is allowed to monitor people on the chance they might do something, even if it is a very,
very high chance with a guy like Weeden.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
VELEZ-MITCHELL: Well, this guy, who killed a four-year-old boy, injured that four-year-old`s brother and then left the scene, got five years in a
plea deal. People are outraged.
On Facebook, Dawn says, "My son is in jail now for doing a whole lot less. What is wrong with our country?" Indeed.
Well, if it`s all about no government interference, why can`t I just jump into a helicopter and take off, even though I don`t know how to fly? No.
There are rules for living in a complex society. And it`s not like we`re all, you know, running around riding burros and if we fall of drunk, the
only thing that`s going to get hurt is the pavement. We live in an interconnected society. So we should have put a cap on this guy getting
behind the wheel decades ago.
Straight out to the phone lines. Sam, North Carolina, what do you have to say, Sam?
CALLER: Good evening, Jane. How are you?
VELEZ-MITCHELL: Good, thanks.
CALLER: Great. I think it`s sad for the family because it`s no justice. When do you -- when do we start blaming, you know, the victims for, you
know, things that are being done to them? That`s just not fair.
VELEZ-MITCHELL: Yes, I mean, look, Sierra Elizabeth, I understand what you`re saying about, oh, they couldn`t use the accident he had in 1983
where he allegedly went through a red light and two people died. You couldn`t use that.
But the point is that somewhere along the line somebody should, some agency of government should have been able to say this man has to either go to
prison for many years for all the DUIs or somebody has to make sure he`s not driving.
They have these gizmos where they put in a car where, if you`ve got alcohol, you blow into it. You can`t start your car. That is one possible
alternative.
But what about putting surveillance on him, and when you see him getting into a car and drive, since he doesn`t have a license, then swooping down
and arresting him and throwing him in jail? You know, we do surveillance on drug dealers. Why not on somebody like this who could kill more people
than a drug dealer?
ELIZABETH: Jane, I agree with your sentiment completely, but surveillance, like was said earlier, you can`t just surveil people just because they`ve
committed crimes in the past...
VELEZ-MITCHELL: It`s not just. He`s had 150 arrests.
ELIZABETH: I do have a better solution. There`s a better solution. What you do is you have states amend their sentencing laws so that once someone
is sentenced for a crime, that sentence can increase based on their criminal history.
If that would have been the case here, this guy after his first, second, third, fourth, fifth conviction would have had a higher sentence or a
higher maximum possible than 7 years in the general population. And then he would have been put away, and we would have avoided this situation all
together.
VELEZ-MITCHELL: Look, here`s what I don`t even understand. And maybe you could give us some insight, Amanda Manukian, criminal defense attorney, he
was never charged for the accident where he went through a red light and hit another car and two people died. So he`s got -- he`s the Teflon DUI
driver.
MANUKIAN: He was never charged with the 1983 accident. And it was the same weak argument that they didn`t or they couldn`t prove that he was
under the influence of alcohol at that time.
The problem is that we`ve had 150 arrests for similar conduct. In total he has served less than 2 years leading up to this injury and this accident
and this conduct.
At some point in time we`ve failed as a society. We failed as the prosecutor, we failed as the police department. We cannot go back and undo
what was done for the past 30 years. But when are we going to take it seriously? I understand we can`t bring in the...
VELEZ-MITCHELL: We need to reorder our priorities. More people died -- more -- so many thousands of people die on highways every single year in
this country. OK? Let`s focus on it.
And I want to thank Nick Zotos, attorney for this gentlemen, for joining us. I know you were on the hot seat, sir. No offense to you. You`re
doing your job. It`s your client that we`re talking about.
And of course, my condolences to a mother whose 4-year-old son died.
On the other side five women say this powerful defense attorney offered up a lot more than legal advice. Did he prey on them sexually? You wouldn`t
believe what he`s on trial for and how many women have come forward. And in a moment we`re going to talk to one of his accusers exclusively.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Prosecutors described Javier Armengau as a serial sexual predator.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: The evidence will show you the power of the defendant how he controlled these women, how he controlled (EXPLETIVE DELETED) to
prey upon them.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Never before has the prominent defense attorney been on this side of the law.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Nonetheless we do not treat anyone any differently in my courtroom.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Appearing confident and serene -- this, despite the ugly accusations he faces.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: -- Mr. Armengau and took his free arm placed it down her shirt, grabbed her breast and kissed her.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: And the evidence will show you the power of the defendant and how he controlled these women --
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: She says she came forward for one reason -- to send a message that whether you are an attorney, a judge or a police officer you
can`t go around violating people.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
VELEZ-MITCHELL: Tonight, shock and outrage as a prominent attorney is on trial accused of sexually assaulting several women in Columbus, Ohio.
Javier Armengau was indicted on a whopping 18 charges including six counts of rape and five counts of sexual battery for alleged behavior like this.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Mr. Armengau took his free arm placed it down her shirt, grabbed her breast and kissed her. (EXPLETIVE DELETED) Mr. Armengau
then stood up in front of her attempted to place her breast back into her bra, (inaudible) stated. She looked up and Mr. Armengau had removed his
penis from his pants and stood in front of her.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
VELEZ-MITCHELL: He`s laughing. He`s grinning like it`s some kind of joke. But it is not a joke sir. And that is just the tip, as it were, of the
iceberg. After the first accuser spoke out, four other women came forward with similar stories of the repeated sexual assault. Claiming he fondled
them, masturbated in front of them, and/or forced them to perform oral sex on him. One even claims he tried to get her to have sex with a judge.
We reached out to Mr. Armengau`s attorney -- haven`t heard back. He`s invited on our show any time at all. This man has pleaded not guilty to
all the charges. Remember he`s an attorney.
Joining me now exclusively is a very special guest, one of the alleged victims, the first woman to step forward. She`s offered her name up --
Catherine Collins.
Catherine we thank you so much. I know this is difficult to talk to about. We understand you went to this man Javier Armengau looking for legal advice
for your son. That`s a totally separate case what happened to your son. But you are meeting in his office apparently, getting ready for your son`s
trial. You are sitting on a couch what do you say happened next?
CATHERINE COLLINS, ALLEGED VICTIM OF ARMENGAU (via telephone): He had a binder on his lap going over my son`s case with me. Next thing I know the
binder falls on the floor, his left arm goes around my back grabs a-hold of me with a tight firm where I couldn`t get away from him. He lip locks me.
Next thing I know his other free arm went down my shirt, exposed my boob; I tried to put my boobs back in to my shirt. And next thing I know I look up
and he`s standing in front of me with his penis exposed.
VELEZ-MITCHELL: So what did you do?
COLLINS: I put my breasts back in my shirt. I got up off the couch. I walked as fast as I could out of his office down the stairs and left his
law office.
VELEZ-MITCHELL: And then you contacted police, right? And they gave you a recording device. You had a conversation with him at one point and then
you even went to dinner with him. And tell us about what happened at that dinner.
COLLINS: He was audioed by the Columbus detectives as well as videoed and audioed me confronting him about what I did. He gave excuses to my son has
a very attractive mother and what man would not do this.
VELEZ-MITCHELL: Yes he seems to have some kind of confusion. And again we don`t want to convict him. He`s on trial right now. But the smile -- and
he`s reportedly or allegedly saying words to the effect of well you are attractive. What guy wouldn`t hit on you?
But there is a big difference Catherine between hitting on you and making at pass you and doing what you say he did. Can you comment on that?
COLLINS: I know for a fact that he did it. Why he did it, I have no understanding. I`m still trying to grasp for an answer to this. Not that
there is actually an answer as for why anybody would do this to any female or any human being, period.
VELEZ-MITCHELL: How did you feel when other women came forward after you contacted authorities?
COLLINS: I kind of felt sad because knowing that I wasn`t the only one, that there is other women out there that he`s done this to. And at that
point when I came forward I just wanted to put a stop to it. Because when I came forward I didn`t know of the other women. I thought it was just me.
But it was some sort of relief at the same time in knowing I wasn`t the only one. So to prove that he`s guilty was just going to be a little bit
easier than just being me myself.
VELEZ-MITCHELL: Now, if I could ask you to stand by for a second. I thank you so much for talking. But your attorney, your civil attorney is here.
Let me outline what some are saying. First of all this man is saying he didn`t do any of this -- I have to say that. He`s on trial. He hasn`t
been convicted.
There are five accusers in this case. The first is the woman you`ve just heard from Catherine Collins who started all this because she went right
away to authorities. And so she -- first encounter that went south according to her she just goes right to cops. Another woman also met with
him to discuss a defense strategy for her son. And she has similar claims but they are even more graphic. She claims this guy tried to get her to
perform oral sex on a judge who was overseeing her son`s case in exchange for a life sentence. And she also claims that she was later raped by this
attorney Armengau in a court house conference room and also says on at least ten occasions he stripped naked and masturbated in front of her.
And so this is what I want to ask Chris Bucio and let me just read a couple of others. A former employer claims he put his hands down her shirt and
exposed himself to her. She says he demanded oral sex for years and she agreed because she felt she had no choice. She testified she was forced to
give him oral sex 50 times over a decade, once while -- are you sitting down -- watching the 9/11 terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center and
other parts of our nation.
I got to ask you. Some people are wondering and this has nothing do with your client Catherine. She says first incident she`s off to police and
acted heroically. But some of these other women people are wondering Chris why did they keep going back?
CHRIS BUCIO, CIVIL ATTORNEY FOR CATHERINE COLLINS: Well -- and that is a fair question to ask but it also tells you the sickness of this gentleman
who one could formerly call a lawyer by I don`t think we should really give him that prestigious title anymore. This monster, he preys on weak women
who are helpless or in complete desperation. And for a lot of these women, they have criminal backgrounds, some of them serious criminal backgrounds.
And so he uses that as a chip on his shoulder to have one up on these poor victims.
I think some of the testimony came out today was one of the women said he told me no one is going to believe you, versus me, I`m a lawyer. And I
think for a lot of these women, they did feel helpless for many, many years. And it took somebody as courageous enough as my client Catherine
Collins to come forward before they felt comfortable enough to say hey maybe the police will believe me, maybe the bar association will believe
and maybe we can --
VELEZ-MITCHELL: Well, let me jump in and just ask you. I have to ask this for legal reasons so I`m not trying to put you on the spot. But your
client Catherine does have a criminal record. Does that factor in any way shape or form Chris?
BUCIO: I think any time you are on the hot seat as this lawyer is, this Javier Armengau is on the hot seat, he`s going to do -- his lawyers are
going to try to do whatever they can to try to take the testimony of each and every one of these victims. So there are five here but there are many
other that have come forward and are testifying as well that are part of the criminal complaint. And that happened today. There were several women
that testified that aren`t even part of the state`s case.
(CROSSTALK)
VELEZ-MITCHELL: Chris, I got to leave it right there. Stay right there. We are just getting started.
Just unbelievable stories tonight and they are all exploding in our Facebook page. Check out my Jane Velez-Mitchell Facebook and weigh in, be
part of the conversation.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: The evidence will show you the power of the defendant and how he controlled these women, and how he controlled (EXPLETIVE
DELETED) to prey upon them.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
VELEZ-MITCHELL: Take a look at this attorney Javier Armengau who`s charged with rape and all sorts of nefarious things regarding five woman and you`re
going to see how laughs -- he laughs when he`s in court and he`s smirking.
Simone Bienne, behavior expert -- what do you make of it?
SIMONE BIENNE, BEHAVIOR EXPERT: I`m sorry. I`ve got to say he is an absolute psychopath. We see this over and over again with people who show
absolutely no remorse. He`s smirking. It`s like he`s so above the law. And actually, you know, when the judge was involved, when he got the judge
involved, it was almost as if the -- you know the sense in saying was as if he took the sentencing personally. So again they don`t like to be shown
up. And the sad woman, you know, got the brunt of that allegedly.
VELEZ-MITCHELL: And Sierra Elizabeth, the defense is making a point that well some of these women have a past. One made a previous rape allegation
where no DNA was found and no charges were filed. But what is your reaction? We only have a couple of seconds.
ELIZABETH: Yes, it is very typical that a person like this -- I don`t even want to call him a lawyer because he should be disbarred right away --
(CROSSTALK)
VELEZ-MITCHELL: And that`s what everybody on Facebook is saying.
ELIZABETH: -- preyed on the weak.
VELEZ-MITCHELL: Everybody on Facebook, disbar him.
ELIZABETH: Absolutely. I`m ashamed -- I am ashamed to be a member of this profession when I hear about guys like this because I don`t know how many
times I tell you that clients come to you and they are vulnerable and they ask you to do everything for them because they see you as their advocate.
And for him to take advantage of this is just shameful.
VELEZ-MITCHELL: Got to leave it right there. On the other side a story that`s just unthinkable. Stay right there.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
VELEZ-MITCHELL: Tonight little Rico, a beloved pet dog dies after a Baltimore cop allegedly slits her throat. Seven-year-old Mayla ran off
this past Saturday when a back gate was accidentally left open. A local bartender tried to grab the dog. The dog was panicked and bit her and this
woman called police. But she says the bite was superficial and it was her fault for reaching out to the dog.
Cops arrive. Officer Jeffrey Bulger shows up on the scene. One witness claims they hear him say "I`m going to gut this thing." That`s allegedly
what he did. He allegedly slit her throat. The little pet, a shar pei, later died. Listen to this.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: This is outrageous and an unacceptable breach of our protocol. The BPD does not condone and will not condone such actions.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
VELEZ-MITCHELL: Baltimore Police Department suspended Officer Bulger without pay. We tried to reach him but were unable to. We just learned a
second officer has also been suspended for allegedly holding Mayla down while Bulger allegedly slit his throat.
I want to go out to the human companion of this deceased dog, Sarah Gossard. What was your reaction emotionally when you found out that your
dog that had gotten out of the back door had her throat slit allegedly by a cop?
SARAH GOSSARD, DOG OWNER (via telephone): Definitely enraged. I found out not even through anyone from the police department calling me but I found
it on the news. So just pretty infuriated by the entire situation and disgusted with his actions.
VELEZ-MITCHELL: What would you like to see happen to the officer?
GOSSARD: I definitely want him to lose his job. And I mean I would like for him to serve jail time -- definitely. I mean, if he killed a seven-
year-old child wouldn`t he go to jail? I mean this was my child, you know? I don`t have kids, I have pets. So I don`t think it`s right. I don`t
think you should get away with any of this.
VELEZ-MITCHELL: Was your dog, in any way -- seven years old, I understand -- was she in any way vicious as they say?
GOSSARD: No. Never. She`s never bit anyone. She`s never been aggressive to any other animal or person. And she was just scared and disoriented and
lost. And even the woman who was bit said the exact same thing. If she`s saying that I feel like you should really take it into consideration. And
not act as though --
(CROSSTALK)
VELEZ-MITCHELL: I want to go to Alexis Tereszcuk -- sorry to interrupt -- of RadarOnline. You`re a very well-known dog lover. What`s your reaction
to this story?
ALEXIS TERESZCUK, RADARONLINE: It makes me want to cry. I`m afraid I`m going to cry talking about this. It will be my first time crying on
television about this.
It`s disgusting. What this man has allegedly done is terrible. The only thing that I can say that`s positive is that he has been charged with
felony animal cruelty. This isn`t a misdemeanor that he`s been charged with. They`re not dismissing it. He`s actually being charged with a
felony for allegedly murdering this poor dog.
VELEZ-MITCHELL: And you know because you`re an animal lover that this kind of story happens all the time but we don`t hear about it.
TERESZCUK: No. And that`s the thing that`s so wonderful about the power of the press, and the Internet and the media. This poor woman wasn`t told
that her dog`s throat was slit but people can find out and they can take action and they can stop it and they can call the Baltimore police
department. They can call the district attorney. They can call local animal rights places and fight for this dog`s rights and for future ones.
VELEZ-MITCHELL: More on the other side. Facebook`s blowing up.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
VELEZ-MITCHELL: Little Rico, there are so many heroic cops who rescue dogs and other animals. But Alexis Tereszcuk, what message does this send to
cops, the guy that -- the idea that this police officer is going to put on trial for animal cruelty?
TERESZCUK: I think this is less about somebody being a cop than just somebody being a really lousy person. But it serves as a warning. Don`t
do something so despicable.
VELEZ-MITCHELL: Again, an officer accused of slitting a dog`s throat. A dog that is -- was a pet of a woman we just spoke to. She just got out the
backdoor. No, not the answer.
Nancy`s next.
END
