Return to Transcripts main page

New Day

Mortgage Giants to Loosen Lending?; Report: Michael Brown's Blood on Wilson's Gun, Car Door; Interview with Author of Book about Ebola

Aired October 20, 2014 - 06:30   ET

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

MICHAELA PEREIRA, CNN ANCHOR: An American couple hoping for an end to their two-year legal battle nightmare were in Qatar and hoping to come back to the United States this week. Matthew and Grace Huang have been held in Qatar after the death of their adopted daughter Gloria.

Today, they are appealing their conviction on charges that they endangered her life by starving her. They maintain she had an eating disorder. The State Department has issued a statement, calling on Qatar to lift the travel ban against them.

I've got to show you some video from Edmonton, Alberta, Canada, where a weatherman had a rough time delivering his newscast. Take a look. He had a dog on set promoting animal adoption. Things didn't go quite as planned.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

MIKE SOBEL, WEATHERMAN: Sit. Sit? No, Ripple is not sitting.

With the minus 2 degree mark. No.

As we get into the weekend, six --

(LAUGHTER)

Seventeen on Sunday. We'll be back with more in just a moment.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

PEREIRA: Hey, that's Ripple. He just wanted to have fun with Mike Sobel. As you saw, he started out kind of chewing on his leash, before tucking on it. Taking Sobel with him, the ham that he is jumps up, nearly knocking him over. He kept his cool, though.

It all ended in laughs. But, you know, the old saying, never, you know, share air with dogs or children, and this is a good example.

ALISYN CAMEROTA, CNN ANCHOR: Exhibit A.

PEREIRA: Exhibit A.

CAMEROTA: It never goes as planned.

PEREIRA: It never goes as planned. Ripple is having the time of his life.

CHRIS CUOMO, CNN ANCHOR: That guy has got real dog training problems. He is not the alpha. The dog considers himself the alpha.

CAMEROTA: The dog whisperer.

PEREIRA: He was having a good time playing.

CUOMO: Well, let us bring in CNN's chief business correspondent Christine Romans, because not only is she looking at the market. She knows how to raise a puppy. Both of us are dealing in the throes of puppies. At least that's not happening.

CHRISTINE ROMANS, CNN CHIEF BUSINESS CORRESPONDENT: My puppy is raising me, I'm not raising my puppies. We have all kind of problems to talk about during the break. Let's talk about the stock market first, though.

U.S. stock futures higher right now. A good start to Monday after last week's really crazy, crazy performance is that over? So, is that turmoil? We're going to need to see some strong corporate numbers, including Apple earnings today, and also strengthening the housing numbers, a lot of housing numbers this week.

Speaking of housing, mortgage giants Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac reportedly near deal to loosen lending standards and offer mortgages with as little as a 3 percent down payment. This would help more people qualify for loans, also raising big concerns, though, about repeating mistakes that led to the housing collapse.

And today is the day, Apple Pay is here. Starting today, you can make purchases in more than 220,000 stores using a new iPhone. Apple partnering with the big banks, and the three major credit card companies, plus some retailers like McDonald's and Whole Foods. They are trying to disrupt your wallet.

Are you ready to give up your wallet? Are you ready to give up your money, everybody, and pay with your phone?

PEREIRA: So, is the question tomorrow we'll be reporting a hack into Apples?

(CROSSTALK)

ROMANS: You guys have money in your pocket?

CUOMO: Sure you are, I'm Italian.

PEREIRA: I have $19.

ROMANS: I don't have any money.

CUOMO: Cash in one pocket. Wallet in the other. Just in case, you grow up in the city, you always split it if case you get mugged.

ROMANS: Alisyn, is it true?

CAMEROTA: I don't know this.

CUOMO: Here's from Jersey, please.

(CROSSTALK)

CAMEROTA: Thanks, Christine.

ROMANS: You're welcome.

PEREIRA: Divisions between the Italians on the set. My goodness.

CAMEROTA: All right. Back to one of our top stores, finally, we hear the police officers story in the shooting death of Michael Brown. Why Ferguson cop Darren Wilson reportedly claims he felt threatened he had to open fire on the unarmed teen.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

CUOMO: Welcome back to NEW DAY.

You're going to want to hear about this. There are new details this morning about the shooting death of Michael Brown. Officer Darren Wilson, the cop who pulled the trigger is now telling his side of the story.

Wilson reportedly told investigators he feared for his life when he shot the unarmed teenager and here's why. There is some forensic evidence that could back him up.

We're going to get more right now from CNN's Ted Rowlands.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

TED ROWLANDS, CNN CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): Officer Darren Wilson, according to "The New York Times", told investigators before he shot and killed Michael Brown, the unarmed teenager attacked him. "The Times" reports that Officer Wilson said that Brown pushed him back into his police vehicle, punching and scratching his neck and face while trying to get his gun.

"The Times" reports that Michael Brown's blood was found on Officer Wilson's gun and uniform and on the inside panel of the front door of the police vehicle.

Dorian Johnson, who was with Mike Brown told a much different version of events the day of the shooting.

DORIAN JOHNSON, WITNESS: He pulled up on the side, he tried to thrush his door opened. We were so close to it. It ricocheted off us and bounced back to him. I guess that got him a little upset.

ROWLANDS: Johnson said Officer Wilson was the aggressor, grabbing Mike Brown, first around the neck, then by the arm. WILSON: As he was trying to choke my friends, he was trying to get

away the officer then reached out. He grabbed his arm to pull him into the car. His weapon was drawn, he says, I'll shoot you or I'm going to shoot, and in the same moment the first shot went off.

We looked at him. He was shot, there was blood coming from him.

ROWLANDS: Piaget Crenshaw was an eyewitness who shot cell phone video of the aftermath. This is what she said about the initial struggle within she appeared on a NEW DAY in August.

PIAGET CRENSHAW, WITNESS: From my point of view, I could not tell exactly what was going on. But it just looked as if he was trying to pull him almost in full garb.

PEREIRA: The officer pulled Michael in the car.

CRENSHAW: Michael Brown.

ROWLANDS: We still don't know what Officer Wilson may have told the grand jury about shooting and killing Brown after getting out of his vehicle. Several witnesses claimed Brown was trying to surrender, which seems to be supported by this video of two construction workers reacting to the shooting.

Meanwhile, in Ferguson, people are reacting to Wilson's purported version of events with skepticism. While vowing to fight for change, no matter what happens to Officer Wilson.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: It's about the policing of our people in this country. You have to draw the line somewhere.

ROWLANDS: Ted Rowlands, CNN, Ferguson, Missouri.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

CAMEROTA: So, what does all of this mean legally for the case?

Let's ask Marc Lamont Hill, CNN political commentator, the host of "Huff Post Live" and professor at Morehouse College, and Mel Robbins, CNN commentator and legal analyst.

Great to have both of you with me.

Mel, let me start with you. So, according to "The New York Times", Michael Brown's blood was found on Officer Wilson's gun, on his uniform, and on the front door of the police car. How does that change the case?

MEL ROBBINS, CNN COMMENTATOR & LEGAL ANALYST: Well, I don't know if it changes the case, but what it does do is corroborates what the officer has been saying all along, Alisyn. And, look, this is a case that will come down to two things, the witnesses and whether or not the grand jury and ultimately a trial jury believes which witnesses.

And secondly, I think the other thing that's hugely important here is did the officer, in fact, have any scratches or injuries on his face, Alisyn.

CAMEROTA: That is key, because we always few there was some sort of physical altercation at the car. We don't know who was the aggressor. And we do need to know if the officer has some sort of bruising or physical cuts on his face.

Let me read for you, Marc, an excerpt from "The New York Times". What they say about what happened in the car. The officer Darren Wilson has told authorities that during the scuffle, Mr. Brown reached for the gun. It was fired twice in the car, according to forensics tests performed by the Federal Bureau of Investigation. The first bullet struck Mr. Brown in the arm. The second bullet missed.

How does that change how you see this case?

HILL: It doesn't change the way we see the case. Again, we've always known that the officer was claiming there was some tussle in the car. And we also know that typically, "he reached for my gun" is what officers say when there is a shooting, good or bad. I'm not saying that Darren Wilson was lying per se. But that doesn't shock me either.

But the question for me is not what happened in the car, it's what happened when we were away from the car and his hands allegedly were in the air. If he was shot with his hands in the air, what happened in the car is less material.

It does go to Darren Wilson's state of the mind. I will defer to legal experts. But it does go to Darren Wilson's state of mind. It does go to the sense of danger he may have felt. But nevertheless, if he is surrendering, the other stuff is immaterial.

CAMEROTA: Well, hold on a second, because, Mel, I want to ask you about that -- if Michael Brown did go for the officer's gun, if Officer Wilson did feel he was being physically assaulted, does he then have the legal right to pursue Michael Brown out of the car and even fire at him?

ROBBINS: Well, you know, this is -- this is one of the things that's problematic about this case, Alisyn, Marc, that is that the law is on the side of the officer. Now, it's only problematic from people that are really wanting this to go to a jury trial, really wanting to see a conviction.

I want to see the truth come out. And I know Marc does as well.

And here's the deal -- a police officer has completely different legal standards under which they can operate than you or I. If he reasonably feared imminent bodily harm and if a jury believes that Michael Brown was the aggressor and that there was a scuffle and gun has already gone off and there is a short amount of time between the original scuffle and the other shots that went off, and the officer is compelling on the stand and convinces the jury that he didn't perceive those hands going up, he perceived it as another witness said as him moving towards the officer, again that would have been a second attack, then a jury could very well see that he was justified in using deadly force.

CAMEROTA: Marc, if the officer feels reasonable bodily harm, then he's justified in using that force. It seems as though this new information that Officer Wilson did fear that he was in danger.

HILL: Well, it's certainly clear that he says he was. The question is, do we believe Darren Wilson's account? I'm not sure I do.

Having been in Ferguson on the ground, having spoken to many witnesses, including the ones who we have exclusive footage of, the construction workers after the shooting, everyone else seems to say his hands were in the air. Everyone I spoke to says his hands were in the air. Everyone I know who witnesses says his hands were in the air.

CAMEROTA: Yes, by the time his hands were in the air, Officer Wilson was already in that fight or flight anxiety mode of possibly having been attacked in the car.

HILL: Right, but if we believe the witness accounts, and he was as far away as they say he was, his hands were in the air if flip flops, he is probably not charging an officer with a gun aimed at him. That doesn't seem reasonable to me.

CAMEROTA: So, in other words, you are saying --

ROBBINS: Well --

CAMEROTA: -- that regardless of what happened in the car, Officer Wilson shouldn't have fired the shots outside of the car.

HILL: No, I'm saying regardless of what happened in the car, we must figure out what happened. I wasn't there, you know, based on the witnesses I have spoken to I am inclined to believe that account. What I'm saying is I don't want what happened in the car to confuse us or make us believe somehow that the shots were justified outside the car if, in fact, his hands were in the air and he surrendered.

CAMEROTA: Mel, how are we going to figure out what happened inside the car? It's those lost seconds that only Officer Wilson knows.

ROBBINS: Well, these are questions of facts to the jury. And you have two witnesses, you have the officer, and then you have Michael Brown's friend who witnessed it. It's going to come down to who the jury believes.

Here's another thing, I agree with Marc. If Michael Brown's hands were in the air and he was surrendering, no police officer should be shooting, period, when somebody's got their hands in the air and they had not been shot at and there's not an exchange of gunfire going on.

If Michael Brown's hands were in the air, that is an unjustified shooting. However, none of those witnesses had the vantage point of the officer.

HILL: Right. ROBBINS: So, it's also going to come down to what was the officer's vantage point, and who does the jury believe? And these are all questions of fact, Alisyn and Mark, for a jury, which is why I still think this is a case that truly needs to be indicted and be put in front of a jury.

HILL: Agreed.

ROBBINS: So that they can weigh the facts.

CAMEROTA: Real quickly, Mel says that it's all matters of fact, but it's perception. It's perception and its who the jury would believe, the officer or Dorian Johnson, the friend who witnessed it from that, you know, bird's eye view right next to him..

HILL: And that's always the problem in these cases, because what a reasonable fear looks like shifts from person to person. Unfortunately, in America, often times the jury will think that they had a reasonable fear of Michael Brown, even when he's unarmed. Whether it's Trayvon, whether it's Sean Bell, where it's Michael Brown, we often feel that those were so dangerous that even if their hands are in the air, they pose a lethal, or are worthy of a lethal threat. That's what scares me.

CAMEROTA: Marc Lamont Hill, Mel Robbins, thanks so much for analyzing all of this for us. Obviously, we'll be talking about it throughout the morning. Let's get back over to Chris.

CUOMO: Alright, Alisyn, thank you very much. We're going to tell you a story today that really will go to the heart of what we're dealing with with Ebola right now. The race to save two Americans, Kent Brantly and Nancy Writebol, okay. We think we know this story, but when they became infected with Ebola while working in West Africa, things happened that we really don't understand, and it fuels a lot of why we're anxious today. So, we have the man who literally wrote the book on Ebola 20 years ago, and you're going to want to listen to what he knows, how it's applying today, and what we don't know about how people were saved. All very important. Stay with us.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

CUOMO: Welcome back to NEW DAY. The world was first introduced to the terrors of Ebola in Richard Preston's best selling book, "The Hot Zone." You know, you're going to say, oh, it must have just come out. 1994 is when it came out. Now, two decades later, amid the largest Ebola outbreak in history, "The Hot Zone" is understandably back on the best seller list, and Preston is back on the story, more important for you.

This week, Preston has an article in the "New Yorker" about the front lines of Ebola research, and the race to save American Ebola survivors Kent Brantley and Nancy Writebol. If you think you know the story, you don't.

Richard Preston joins us now. I was surprised by what you have in your piece in the "New Yorker" about just how near death's door these two people were, because when we saw them, Nancy Writebol was a little bit more fragile, obviously, but Kent Brantley was walking, So, we thought, oh, he was okay, but that's hardly the case.

RICHARD PRESTON, AUTHOR "THE HOT ZONE": Well, it's amazing. They gave him the drug, ZMapp, when he was possibly hours from death. He was in the fatal decline that happens to many people with Ebola. You just basically crash, your blood pressure drops, his breathing was in trouble.

CUOMO: And he knew it, right? Even though he was so ill, he was still cognizant of the fact of how vulnerable he was.

PRESTON: He was a doctor, and he clinically knew he was dying. He knew he was about to have a breathing arrest.

CUOMO: And they had no ventilator apparatus.

PRESTON: And there was no ventilator in that hospital.

CUOMO: So, if he did have real labored breathing and stopped, he wouldn't have been able to have been resuscitated.

PRESTON: Well, what I heard was that he didn't believe he could make it through the night. They began dripping the drug into him, and within hours he had remarkably improved. He went through a period of intense shaking called rigors, not sure why that happened. And in the end, we don't really know whether it was the drug or what it was, because the drug remains untested. It's a bit of a mystery.

CUOMO: Really, but when you're in such an extreme state and then there is a new variable introduced, being the drug, and the condition changed so markedly and soon, it seems difficult to exclude ZMapp, which is why we're so anxious to have more of it.

PRESTON: Right, and this is going to be one of the most important ways we can fight Ebola, are these so called countermeasures. These are drugs. I have a count now of about 19 possible therapies or ways to deal with Ebola. Now, most of them are not going to work out, some of them will. This reminds me a little bit of the Battle of Britain. You know, in terms of an infectious disease emerging, this disease really is, in effect, a threat to everybody on the planet.

CUOMO: I mean, you have a lot of descriptive metaphor for the virus in your book. You know, I mean, you see it as a monster, you see it as a none human killer that can really wipe out populations, and this was 20 years ago. And now we're seeing it, kind of, you know, it's spreading in other parts of the world. It's touched us here, so the urgency is big because America is now influenced. Is fact in any way more daunting than the fiction that you created 20 years ago?

PRESTON: Well, first of all, I want to say that Ebola virus is not like the "Andromeda Strain." I mean, it's not going to get us through the air, it's not going to wipe us out.

CUOMO: Right. PRESTON: It's a serious disease threat that needs to be taken seriously. The doctors are taking it extremely seriously. One of the things that I covered in this piece was there are scientists now at MIT and Harvard who are looking very carefully at the way the virus is mutating, and Ebola is a fast mutator right now. When it gets into people, it's, in effect, exploring human bodies and learning, so to speak, how to replicate faster in us perhaps, how to spread better from person to person.

CUOMO: Well, there were two things you came up with that I think - - there's a lot of interesting things in the piece, but two on this particular issue. The first is the expert that you're dealing with primarily says it can't go airborne. That's not what it would do. Do you buy that?

PRESTON: I totally buy that, and the way he put was, he said, can zebra's learn how to fly? That's not really the right question to ask. Ebola is not going to go airborne in the classic sense, which would be, the particles of the virus would have to be able to dry out and spread like dust through the air and then get into people's lungs.

CUOMO: And that's not what it does.

PRESTON: Ebola is a wet organism. It needs moisture. But, what it could do, is it could - - there are other ways it could mutate to make it more possible for it to spread quickly.

CUOMO: Right, and that was the second thing, because it was counterintuitive. He said the way it could change is that it could not kill people as quickly and last in them longer, and as I was reading I said, oh, well, that would be good, right? No, it would be bad because - -

PRESTON: Yes, because it would be very bad for us and very good for Ebola, because if Ebola could be a little less deadly to people, let's say maybe 20 percent of people die instead of 50 percent, then people would be sick longer, they would be able perhaps to walk around longer.

CUOMO: So they spread it more people.

PRESTON: Spread it to more people.

CUOMO: Alright, and then this is a big piece of science that we have to deal with. 21 days, it's a number everybody knows in our Ebola coverage now. If I can just make it 21 days. Forget about the fact that they have blood tests that could tell you within days whether or not we have it. We don't why they're not using those blood tests, but 21 days is very old science from the 70's, right? What's the current thinking about how long you have to wait on a quarantine?

PRESTON: This is a great question, and I think the truth is, the answer is that even the experts don't really know. That 21 days is based on tests in monkeys, right? They give monkeys different doses of Ebola and then see how long the monkey goes, but we don't have good data on humans. We just don't know, so I think they're being very, very cautious on the 21 days. I think probably for most people, you know, if you've been infected, you're probably going to show signs of it before that.

CUOMO: And then one of the frustrations with the CDC right now is if there is a blood test where you can find out within a few days, why aren't they doing that? Why would you quarantine people and isolate them for this long when it just stirs up so much fear? And that's where I want to end with you.

PRESTON: Well, there's a problem with the test.

CUOMO: Tell us, what is it?

PRESTON: You can have a fever with Ebola, which means that you're infectious, but the first time they give you that test, it may come up negative, and then they have to wait 72 hours and give it to you again, and there is that possible gap of time between when you are infectious and when the test actually registers. That's one of the problems. That's why they have to kind of keep them in quarantine.

CUOMO: So it's safer to just wait. So, let me leave you with this, although you're going to be back, because we need you too much on this because the reporting is just as good as the writing that you've put together. The response from the government and what you anticipated when you put together the initial narrative has in some ways, has it been stranger than fiction in some ways?

PRESTON: Well, it feels like "The Hot Zone" all over again. I mean, the scientists in "The Hot Zone" 22 years ago who knew what Ebola was, knew very well that it would scare a whole lot of people if it suddenly showed up in the United States, and this is just what it's done. You know, we weren't prepared. I would say that many health workers in Africa were better prepared for Ebola than people in the most sophisticated hospitals in the U.S. This is a learning curve, but they're coming up fast on that learning curve in United States and I have confidence that they're going to be able to handle it.

CUOMO: Well, hearing it from you, that is confidence inspiring. Mr. Preston, good to have you, look forward to having you back. The piece is in the "New Yorker" this week if you want to read up, and I'm sure you do. We are following this story, but there's a lot of news this morning, so let's get to it.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: The Pentagon is forming a 30-person quick strike team designed to treat Ebola patients.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: The military is always prepared for these types of events.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: It proves that they did not have a plan.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE Ron Klain tapped to become the president's Ebola response coordinator.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: What Klain's reputation and resume do not reflect is any sort of a medical background.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: What he is is a political operative. What we need is presidential leadership.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Everybody knows there's a man in there.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Back up.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: We have to get the data out there.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: All the heroes have stepped up, and that was beautiful.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

CAMEROTA: Good morning, welcome back to NEW DAY. I'm Alisyn Camerota along with Chris Cuomo. Great to be with you, we have a busy morning. We have breaking news this morning. One country now declared Ebola- free. The World Health Organization announcing that Nigeria has not had a new case of the virus in six weeks. That's good news.

And, breaking overnight, the fiancee and family members of Ebola victim Thomas Eric Duncan get the all clear after 21 days in quarantine. This as 30 medical experts stand poised to fly to any location on a moment's notice where a case of Ebola is reported in the U.S.

CUOMO: They're calling them the domestic response teams, and they were announced as the president's Ebola czar, Ron Klain, begins his new assignment. Right now, the CDC is putting the finishing touches on new protocols for health care workers treating Ebola patients. The question is, why only now? We have the crisis covered from every angle, beginning with senior medical correspondent Elizabeth Cohen.

Elizabeth, what do we know? Hopefully it's not really a crisis now.

ELIZABETH COHEN, CNN SENIOR MEDICAL CORRESPONDENT: Well, hopefully we're coming out of a crisis, let's put it that way. Let's start with the condition of those two nurses who took care of Thomas Eric Duncan. Nina Pham is at the NIH, we are told that she is doing well and in fair condition.