Return to Transcripts main page

ANDERSON COOPER 360 DEGREES

Supreme Court Examines Same-Sex Marriage; Italy to Retry Amanda Knox

Aired March 26, 2013 - 22:00   ET

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


ANDERSON COOPER, CNN ANCHOR: Good evening, everyone. It's 10:00 here on the East Coast.

High stakes and history at the Supreme Court -- tonight -- and you won't see it elsewhere -- a man who fought so that people could marry whomever they love regardless of skin color. He weighs in on today's battle over marrying whomever you love, period.

Also tonight, what is Italian for deja vu? Amanda Knox thought her legal nightmare was over, four years in prison, an appeal, then freedom. Now Italy's highest court hits the rewind button and it could be all starting over again.

Later, if pilots can use them in the cockpit, why can't you fire up an iPad in the cabin or use a Kindle? The government says it is studying the question. The question is, what is taking so long? People want to know, including pilot and electronics expert Miles O'Brien, who joins us tonight.

We begin tonight, though, at the Supreme Court, where justices today heard oral arguments in the first of two epic same-sex marriage cases. California's Proposition 8, plenty of oral argument outside as well, as you can see, both sides amply represented, some speaking for a growing number of Americans who consider marriage a fundamental right for any loving adult couple, others representing the sizable minority who disagree.

Inside, captured on audiotape only, justices grilled both sides, perhaps revealing clues about how they're leaning. Listen.

(BEGIN AUDIO CLIP)

ANTONIN SCALIA, ASSOCIATE JUSTICE, U.S. SUPREME COURT: When did it become unconstitutional to exclude homosexual couples from marriage, 1791, 1868?

THEODORE OLSON, FORMER U.S. SOLICITOR GENERAL: When did it become unconstitutional to prohibit interracial marriages?

SCALIA: Don't give me a question to my question.

(END AUDIO CLIP)

COOPER: Justice Antonin Scalia showing impatience there with Ted Olson, himself a staunch conservative who is arguing for marriage rights.

Justice Scalia later concluding that unless there's a clear answer to that question, he can't see how the court can decide the case. Obama appointee Elena Kagan on the other hand sharply questioned the attorney who argued to preserve California's same-sex marriage ban and, to his mind, preserve traditional marriage.

(BEGIN AUDIO CLIP)

CHARLES COOPER, ATTORNEY: It is very rare that both parties to the couple are infertile and the traditional...

(CROSSTALK)

ELENA KAGAN, ASSOCIATE JUSTICE, U.S. SUPREME COURT: I can just assure you, if both the woman and the man are over the age of 55, there are not a lot of children coming out of that marriage.

(LAUGHTER)

(END AUDIO CLIP)

COOPER: Other justices questioned whether the case even belonged before the court, fueling speculation they will be looking for a way not to make any sweeping decision. And Justice Anthony Kennedy gave voice to the danger of doing too much or too little.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

ANTHONY KENNEDY, ASSOCIATE JUSTICE, U.S. SUPREME COURT: We have five years of information to weigh against 2,000 years of history or more.

On the other hand, there is an immediate legal injury or legal -- what could be a legal injury, and that's the voice of these children. There are some 40,000 children in California, according to the read brief, that live with same-sex parents. And they want their parents to have full recognition and full status. The voice of those children is important in this case, don't you think?

(END AUDIO CLIP)

COOPER: Well, it is, to say the least, a fascinating window on history in the making, all the more when you're inside the chamber as it's happening, as senior legal analyst Jeffrey Toobin was there today, along with chief political analyst Gloria Borger.

Jeff, in terms of other cases you have heard in the Supreme Court, how does this compare? You heard the crowd laughing. Does that happen a lot?

JEFFREY TOOBIN, CNN SENIOR LEGAL ANALYST: Yes, there actually is often a lot of laughter. Usually, Justice Scalia tries to make a few jokes. And he made some today. Some were successful, some were not. He has a mixed batting average. But what was unusual to me about today's argument is that usually there's a pattern. Usually you can identify what the key issues are and what the court is focusing on. What was so confusing about today is they jumped around to so many different issues and even the liberals didn't all agree on everything and the conservatives didn't all agree on everything.

So I don't feel like I have at all much of a handle on which way this case is going, with the exception that I don't think that they are going to order 50 states to have same-sex marriage. A full complete victory for the supporters of same-sex marriage seems unlikely, but a victory in California alone does seem very possible.

COOPER: Why do you say that, Jeff? What makes you think that?

TOOBIN: Well, because even the liberals were concerned about going too far too fast. Justice Ginsburg raised that issue. Justice Sotomayor raised that issue of, do we have to decide for all 50 states?

They seemed uncomfortable with that. And the conservatives seemed quite opposed to any sort of recognition of same-sex marriage, Scalia, Alito and even Roberts, too.

GLORIA BORGER, CNN SENIOR POLITICAL ANALYST: You know, Anderson, there seemed to be a sense in the courtroom that since this issue is proceeding in the states, and public opinion is actually moving in the direction of same-sex marriage, that could work against Ted Olson in a way, because if this is proceeding in the states, then the question coming from the Supreme Court is, why do we need to do this heavy lift now?

And Justice Sotomayor seemed to be asking the question, is there any way we can make a principled decision and limit it to the state of California?

COOPER: But, Jeff, isn't something either constitutional or not? Why kind of just throw it up to the states? If something is unconstitutional or constitutional, why not make that ruling?

TOOBIN: That's the argument that Ted Olson was making, but I think it was a good window into what a political institution the Supreme Court is. And I don't say that as criticism. I think it's just reality.

They recognize that it's very different doing something that provokes a huge part of the country and something that doesn't, and they recognize that sometimes they have to take a lot of heat, but they don't want to take heat unnecessarily. I think what today did was really raise the stakes for tomorrow, because they really look to be punting on a lot of these big issues today, but tomorrow it's very unlikely they can punt on the issue of whether the Defense of Marriage Act is unconstitutional.

And that's what we will hear about tomorrow. BORGER: And, Anderson, in talking to Ted Olson a lot about this case, you know, he says that the reason the Supreme Court is here is to do the heavy lift when the states won't do it, as they did in legalizing interracial marriage, Brown vs. Board of Education. In their brief, they compare this to the great civil rights issues of our time.

And he said that's exactly why the court is here and that's why it ought to rule on the larger issue.

COOPER: Jeff, I don't know if you heard -- we played the Scalia/Olson exchange where Scalia would say when did it become unconstitutional, and he gave some dates for same-sex marriage, and then Olson responded with a question, saying -- you know, about interracial marriage. Why does Scalia say that is a key question?

TOOBIN: Well, that really goes to the heart of Scalia's judicial philosophy. He is what he calls an originalist.

He thinks the Constitution means precisely what it meant in 1791, when it was ratified, or 1868, when the 14th Amendment was ratified. He says the Constitution doesn't change. Implicit in his question was, look, in those eras, they certainly were not thinking about same- sex marriage. So what he was sort of mocking Olson's argument by saying, well, if it wasn't true then, when did it become true?

And Olson's point was we don't keep track of the Constitution like a clock. What the point is, is that it's unconstitutional today to discriminate against gay people in this way. That was what both sides were getting at in that argument.

BORGER: That's why so many conservatives have turned on Ted Olson, because they believe that he ought to be the Scalia on this and have an originalist interpretation of the Constitution. And in this courtroom today, he seemed to be saying something very, very different.

COOPER: Yes. Fascinating day and another one tomorrow. Gloria, appreciate it, Jeff Toobin as well.

The idea of equal rights for gays and lesbians as civil rights -- and civil rights being interchangeable or compatible has not always been so. That notion is growing in no smart part due to some veterans of the fight to end racial segregation speaking out, people like Congressman John Lewis and civil rights legend Julian Bond, who joins me tonight.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

COOPER: Mr. Bond, I'm wondering what you make, first of all, of what you have heard today kind of coming out of the court.

JULIAN BOND, FORMER CHAIRMAN, NAACP: Well, you know, you can't -- or you're asked not to really draw any conclusions about what people say, what they ask in the questions, what the justices say. And so I'm not ready to say things are going to come out the way I want them to, but I think on the -- we all know that we're not going back to what we had before. At the very least, this court is going to say that Proposition 8 is unconstitutional, and the other states with same-sex marriage can continue on with that.

So, at the very least, I think that's been won today.

COOPER: There are many people who still don't view this as part of the civil rights struggle or as part of a civil rights issue. To them, what do you say?

BOND: I say you're sadly mistaken.

I understand particularly if you're black and you like to think of the civil rights as something black people do. We did it, we did it successfully, we won great victories, and we ought to be happy that other groups, gay people, lesbians, women, other groups in the American population have embraced our techniques, even our songs.

But this is not something we own. It's something we ought to share with others and say try this, we did this and it worked, try this, don't do this, it didn't work that well. Other things we ought to say to people, do what we did, we will help you if we can, and remember, we are among you.

It's not like the gay people are over here, the black people over here. Black people are gay people, too.

COOPER: I read something that Congressman John Lewis, obviously a pioneer in the civil rights struggle, wrote 10 years ago, an op-ed in "The Boston Globe."

He wrote: "This discrimination is wrong. We cannot keep turning our backs on gay and lesbian Americans. I have fought too hard and too long against discrimination based on race and color not to stand up against discrimination based on sexual orientation. I have heard the reasons for opposing civil marriage for same-sex couples. Cut through the distractions and they stink of the same fear, hatred and intolerance I have known in racism and in bigotry."

Do you think it is that similarity? Do you think it is...

(CROSSTALK)

BOND: Absolutely. John Lewis has said it better than anyone could have said it.

These are the same issues and the same struggle among the same people. There's not a black civil rights movement and a gay civil rights movement. There are civil rights. All Americans have civil rights. All Americans ought to enjoy civil rights, and whatever the court does today, we are going to move a step closer to everyone enjoying these rights.

COOPER: Just to play devil's advocate, why shouldn't this be left up to states, for people in states to decide, or legislatures in states to decide state by state, rather than nationwide?

BOND: Just as we did not allow segregation to be decided state by state. It turned out that -- despite what the Supreme Court said in '54 and '55, it turned out to be pretty much that, but we didn't intend it to be that, and the Supreme Court didn't intend it to do that, and whatever the court does today -- and I don't think they will do what I want them to do.

I don't think they will do something sweeping involving the whole nation today. But they should have done it, if they don't do it.

COOPER: It's interesting. When the Supreme Court ended bans on interracial marriages back in the late '60s, in many parts of the country, the public seemed to have already kind of embraced that change.

Justice Ginsburg has noted that when the court outlawed bans on abortion with Roe v. Wade, she thought the justices had gone too far ahead of the public, that the court acted too soon. Which situation do you believe we're closer to now?

BOND: I think we're closer to the one about interracial marriage, that -- where most Americans have come to believe that same- sex marriage is a right every American ought to have, and that minority of Americans who don't believe that are either going to be convinced that they should, or will have to just live with it and live with their disagreement.

COOPER: Mr. Bond, I really appreciate you taking the time to talk to us. Thank you so much.

BOND: My pleasure. Thank you.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

COOPER: Let us know what you think about what the Supreme Court said today. Follow me on Twitter @AndersonCooper.

Up next, how do you tell a young woman who survived a criminal justice nightmare in Italy, including a sketchy murder conviction and four years in prison, that it could be happening again? The latest on the court that wants Amanda Knox retried, whether they can get her back and what her lawyer plans to do about it all.

Later, think you know the story of Osama bin Laden's demise? Well, so not so fast. We will tell you who's challenging the so- called Seal Team 6's shooter's account. And it is very surprising.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

COOPER: "Crime & Punishment" tonight: Amanda Knox thought she was out, out of Italy, and through with the Italian legal system a year-and-a-half ago. That's when an appeals court overturned her murder conviction in the killing of her roommate, Meredith Kercher. She went free after four years in prison. In Italy, though, the state can appeal and it did. And today, the country's Supreme Court rendered a decision to try her again. In a moment, the life she's made for herself back home.

But, first, Ben Wedeman and The Daily Beast's Barbie Latza Nadeau on the court decision that could turn the new life she has upside down.

Ben, the judges haven't issued the reason behind their ruling, have they?

BEN WEDEMAN, CNN SENIOR INTERNATIONAL CORRESPONDENT: No. In fact, they have up to 90 days, Anderson, to do that and of course, then the prosecution and defense has 45 days to respond. So this is not a fast-track case in any sense of the word. This could take quite awhile.

COOPER: Barbie, can you explain exactly what is going on? Because a lot of people here in the U.S. have been likening this to double jeopardy, being tried for the same crime twice. You say that's not an apt comparison.

BARBIE LATZA NADEAU, THE DAILY BEAST: No, that's not right at all, because Italy has a three-tier system in which there are really three levels to every single criminal trial, whether it's a simple robbery or a murder as complex as the murder of Meredith Kercher.

In the first case, the lower court makes a decision. In this case, Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito were convicted of the murder. In the second level, which is a right by every defendant to appeal their first conviction if it's a conviction or for the prosecutor to appeal an acquittal in that case, they were acquitted of the murder of Meredith Kercher.

No case is considered to be complete unless and until it finishes that third level, the high court decision, which is what we heard today.

COOPER: So the high court has sent it back now, what, to the second court?

LATZA NADEAU: That's right.

In fact, it's possible for these two levels, for the appellate level and the high court level, to go back and forth as many as two or three times, if that's what is indicated by the evidence and by the way these trials go. So they have basically sent it back. The trial is still within the same cycle of the original trial, so she's not being tried again for the same crime. Her original trial has not yet been completed under the Italian judicial standard.

COOPER: Ben, you sort of referenced the timeline earlier. How long might all this take?

WEDEMAN: Well, we understand that the retrial could take place at the end of this year or the beginning of next year, and it could go on for quite some time.

In fact, we're hearing that this could go on for two or three years before a final verdict comes out in this case.

COOPER: And a retrial, that's, I mean, replaying all the evidence involved in the murder?

WEDEMAN: Well, what we heard from the prosecution is that that's what they want to do.

They want to look at the entire body of evidence, not just little bits and pieces that the prosecution says was what the defense did in winning the acquittal in October 2011. They want to go back through all the evidence and nail this case, and this could take quite a lot of time.

COOPER: Barbie, is there any precedent like this in a case in Italy? And how much, I mean, have politics or public pressure been involved?

LATZA NADEAU: Well, there have been a couple high-profile cases. But they have involved in one case a military jet, American jet which clipped the cable of a gondolier and sent 20 people to their death in the north of Italy.

That case, the two pilots were sent back to the United States and Italy asked to extradite them, but at the end of the day, the Americans said we're not going to send them back. We are going to try them ourselves here in the United States. They were eventually found not guilty.

But those were military cases. This is -- the case of Amanda Knox is a private case, so there's no precedent beyond things like international kidnapping when it comes to divorced couples and custody battles. But in the Italian books, there's not been a case of this nature yet.

COOPER: Interesting.

Ben Wedeman, Barbie Latza Nadeau, appreciate it. Thank you.

Well, let's keep in mind Amanda Knox is just 25 years old. She spent four of those years in jail, a year-and-a-half trying to put it all behind her, and that's almost a quarter of her life.

Until today, as Kyung Lah reports, that life was getting back to normal.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

KYUNG LAH, CNN CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): Since returning to the U.S., Amanda Knox has spent the last year-and-a-half trying to live a normal life and that includes staying away from photographers.

In the few photos we do have, she looks happy and relaxed, strolling with friends, enjoying her freedom here in Seattle, her hometown, where she is now living near her two biggest supporters, her mother and father and starting a life with a new boyfriend, a man named James Terrano, seen with her here in Seattle.

They were friends before Amanda went to Italy and it's reported the couple lives together in the city's Chinatown district. Terrano studies classical music and specializes in guitar, her life here far from the legal battles she faced with her ex-boyfriend, Raffaele Sollecito, a relationship that made headlines around the world, infamously filmed kissing and cuddling after finding out about Meredith Kercher's murder. But Sollecito says they remain friends.

RAFFAELE SOLLECITO, EX-BOYFRIEND OF AMANDA KNOX: We talk about family, about relationships with friends, about movies, books, music, C.D.s, anything, like friends. We're like very good friends. We are now almost -- yes, we are almost like brother and sister. We passed through a lot together.

LAH: And says he's even visited Amanda in Seattle.

Upon returning from Italy, Amanda also went back to school, studying creative writing at the University of Washington, where her current boyfriend also attends classes. She will take a semester off to promote the book she's written, a memoir about the four years she spent in an Italian jail. The book, titled "Waiting to Be Heard," will be published next month.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

COOPER: Well, Kyung Lah joins us now from Seattle.

It's not just the Knox family going through this again. It's also many friends and community members reliving this, right?

LAH: You are absolutely right about that. Anderson, I actually spoke with a family friend who was spearheading some of the community rallies, trying to raise money for a legal fund.

They say they spent the day today extremely furious, furiously angry, she said, after the news came out, but what's happened since is that they have had a lot of confusion and trying to decide what the next step is going to be, if they're going to have to indeed start those legal funds again -- Anderson.

COOPER: Yes. Kyung Lah, appreciate the reporting. For more on the story, go to CNN.com.

A new trial for Amanda Knox, if that actually happens, means a new chance for prosecutors to make their case, but do they actually have evidence to secure another conviction? We will take a closer look next.

Also, the suspect in the murder of Colorado's prison chief died in a shoot-out with police. You probably know that by now. But what investigators found in his car suggests he may have had other bigger deadly plans.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

COOPER: Well, today's decision regarding Amanda Knox means prosecutors may get a do-over when it comes to presenting the evidence in the case, but much of the evidence was rejected by jurors during the appeal that ended with an acquittal for Knox and Raffaele Sollecito.

In a statement released today, Amanda Knox says its prosecutors who are responsible for the discrepancies in their work and they must be made to answer for them.

Our investigative correspondent, Drew Griffin, has over the years looked deeply into this evidence, the very questionable evidence raised during the appeal. He also looked at what some might call the questionable characters who rushed to judgment.

Here's Drew's report.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

DREW GRIFFIN, CNN INVESTIGATIVE CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): Almost immediately after police say she confessed to her crime, Amanda Knox recants. She tells her parents she broke under stress.

In court, she would tell jurors how a police officer struck her from behind, how she was denied water, food, a translator, and how she says under pressure by police, she was asked repeatedly to dream up, imagine scenarios for how it could have happened.

CNN traveled to Perugia, Italy, to sit down with the lead prosecutor of Amanda Knox. For three hours, Giuliano Mignini answered our questions and his critics that he prosecuted Knox with little evidence, that he played on emotions and rumor, rather than facts, and that the lynchpin of this case, the so-called confession of Amanda Knox, was coerced out of a frightened college student.

(on camera): Nobody hit her?

GIULIANO MIGNINI, PROSECUTOR (through translator): No, absolutely not.

GRIFFIN: Was she asked to imagine scenarios? So she's lying?

MIGNINI (through translator): Absolutely. You either see the person or not. I can't ask a person what he or she imagines. This question would make no sense.

GRIFFIN (voice-over): That's not all that wouldn't make sense, because it turns out virtually everything Amanda Knox told her interrogators the night of her so-called confession was a lie.

Amanda Knox in this statement told police she was in the house the night of the murder and saw her boss, nightclub owner Patrick Lumumba, and Meredith Kercher go into Meredith's room, and she heard screams.

Amanda's statement adds: "I am very confused. I imagine what could have happened."

Police apparently didn't bother to check the facts about Lumumba. They immediately arrested Amanda Knox, Raffaele Sollecito and Patrick Lumumba for the murder of Meredith Kercher, Mignini and police announcing to the public, "Case solved."

Giuliano Mignini admitted to us, even without any evidence, he knew almost the moment he arrived and laid eyes on Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito, they were involved in the murder.

(on camera): Prior to the forensic investigation, prior to everything, really, your intuition or your detective knowledge led you to Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito.

GIULIANO MIGNINI, PROSECUTOR (through translator): After the first few weeks, we were convinced because of the behavior of the two people and especially Amanda, that they were both involved in the crime.

GRIFFIN (voice-over): But almost immediately after the arrests, Mignini had a problem. The third suspect, Patrick Lumumba, had an airtight alibi. He was in his crowded bar that night. He could not have been involved. Then the actual forensic tests came back.

GREG HAMPIKIAN, FORENSIC BIOLOGIST: When I looked at it, I was horrified.

GRIFFIN: Greg Hampikian is a forensic biologist at Boise State University and director of Idaho's Innocence Project. He also was working with the Knox defense team.

He says Italian investigators did a good job processing the crime scene, collected excellent evidence, but clung to shakier evidence that proved their theory. A classic error, says Hampikian. A prosecutor who trusted his gut feeling instead of the science that at that time was pointing to another suspect.

HAMPIKIAN: They didn't like the way Amanda behaved, whatever that means. And so they wanted to investigate her and Raffaele, and her boss. When the DNA's finally processed, it's not any of their suspects, so what do you do? What would you do? You let them go.

GRIFFIN: As Patrick Lumumba was being released from jail, investigators analyzing the bloody evidence left at the crime scene found an entirely new suspect. His name: Rudy Guede, a known petty criminal from the Ivory Coast, who fled to Germany shortly after the murder. It turns out Guede's handprint, made in Meredith Kercher's own blood, was found in the victim's room. Guede's DNA found inside the victim's body, in her vagina. His DNA on her clothing, on her purse. His feces even found on used toilet paper left near an unflushed toilet down the hall.

And something else. Guede didn't even know Raffaele and had only met Amanda a few times with neighbors.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Knowing all of that and when he finally got extradited from Germany back down to Italy, we thought, "Thank God this is over."

GRIFFIN: it wasn't. Prosecutor Mignini simply swapped suspects. Amanda Knox, Raffaele Sollecito and now Rudy Guede had come to Meredith Kercher hoping to include her in an orgy. When Kercher refused, they pulled out knives and killed her. Giuliano Mignini would stick to his instincts despite the forensic evidence.

(on camera): You were fixated, according to the defense, on Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito, and kept imagining new scenarios that made these two people guilty.

MIGNINI (through translator): No, absolutely not. I did what I did because I was convinced, given the evidence that had been gathered, that they were responsible. I am absolutely convinced.

GRIFFIN: Rudy Guede, the African drifter, was quickly convicted and sent to prison, implicating Amanda and Raffaele after which his sentence was reduced. In 2009, Mignini would bring his case against Amanda Knox and her boyfriend to trial.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

COOPER: Drew Griffin joins us now live.

You pinpointed in your report just how little evidence there was in the case against Amanda Knox. The appellate judge basically agreed with that. So what's going to be new in this new trial, if there is a new trial, if there's new evidence?

GRIFFIN: I have seen no evidence, Anderson, that there's any new evidence, but I think that's a problem for Amanda Knox. Look, I'm a reporter. I'm going to report to you, there's no evidence she or Raffaele did this crime. There's just none.

But that same lack of evidence has convicted her in one trial and acquitted her in another trial, and now with the same evidence, it appears, they're going back for trial No. 3. It's like a -- it's like a tossup, flip of the coin.

COOPER: Yes. It's amazing we got this far. Drew, appreciate it.

We spoke last night before the verdict with Knox's attorney, Ted Simon. He joins us again tonight.

How is Amanda Knox doing? How's she taking this news? I can't imagine what this is like for her.

TED SIMON, ATTORNEY FOR AMANDA KNOX: Yes, I appreciate you asking that. I mean, this day started very early, as you know, 5 a.m. my time, 2 a.m. their time.

First thing in the morning after the news, I spoke with Curt and Chris, and obviously they were disappointed. At that time, I didn't have a chance to speak to Amanda but I quickly learned that she, you know, it was very painful for her. Later in the day, and as time went on, I did have an opportunity to speak to Amanda, and I spoke to her at some, you know, great length.

And after the hours passed, what happened is she was getting such an outpouring of support, she was heartened by this not only from friends and family, but from people she didn't even know. Those people, without knowing Amanda, understand how unjust and how unfounded these allegations are and that has really buoyed her up. And she is fiercely determined to see this thing through, and ultimately end up in the same place where she was before, which is being found not guilty, which takes us to the next real issue in this case. Something that is grossly misunderstood.

And that is the supreme court of Italy merely acted on a procedural point. They remanded the case for a revision. What that ultimately means, we do not know, because the written motivation will not issue, and they have up to 90 days. And unless and until they write that motivation, we will not -- we will not know the scope of appeal or what the supreme court wants the appellate jury to consider or reconsider or re-evaluate. What aspects.

COOPER: So when some are reporting that there's going to be a retrial, you're saying we don't know that.

SIMON: We don't know precisely until the supreme court rules what they're going to ask of the appellate court jury. They very well may have hearings. They may reconsider evidence. They may do a variety of things.

But what happened in this case, the prosecution argued various points, and we don't know which ones until that supreme court ruling comes out, they're going to rely on. Once that happens, then the issues will be joined, which brings us to the next misunderstood point.

For this type of proceeding, there is no requirement for Amanda to be present, and in fact, of the issues raised by the prosecution, it's wholly unnecessary for her to be there.

COOPER: As an attorney for Amanda Knox, what do you tell your client? I mean, this is a young woman who has restarted her life, attempting to restart her life. She's in school now. She's, you know, looking forward, obviously, to her future. This thing could drag on for years. Do you tell her to just continue with her studies and not worry about it? I mean, what kind of advice do you give your client?

SIMON: Well, you know, I can't tell you what advice I gave my client. Amanda is going to continue with her life. She's a wonderful young woman. And you know, she's interested in writing. She is very literary. She has a particular interest in music and obviously, she's in the university. So these things will continue.

But obviously she's going to have to remain focused on this case, and this nightmare, unfortunately, continues to endure. Something we had hoped would not.

But yet the bottom line is there was no evidence; there is no evidence; there never will be any evidence. And we remain fully confident that in the end, when this next appellate court jury reviews the evidence, reviews all of the evidence, they'll come up with the same, you know, conclusion.

COOPER: Right.

SIMON: I mean, Amanda said it best. She issued a statement, and what she said in part was, "No matter what happens, my family and I will face this continuing legal battle as we always have: confident in the truth and with our heads held high and the face of wrongful accusations and unreasonable adversity." You know, and I wish them great strength.

COOPER: Ted Simon, I know it's been a long 24-hour period for you. I appreciate you taking time to talk to us. Thank you.

SIMON: Thank you.

COOPER: We're going to continue to follow developments in the case, obviously. Join us Friday night for our special report, "Murder Abroad, The Amanda Knox Story." That airs at 10 p.m. Eastern here on CNN.

The suspect in the murder of Colorado's prison chief died in a shootout with sheriff deputies in Texas. You know that by now. What they found in his car suggests he planned for more death and destruction. We'll explain ahead.

Also tonight, the FAA may finally be ready to change its power- down policy for electronic gadgets during take-off and landing. The big question is when and which gadgets. That's straight ahead on 360.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

COOPER: Who really killed Osama bin Laden. We'll tell you who says the story that you've been hearing is wrong. It's a CNN exclusive, ahead.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

COOPER: Relief could be on the way for millions of airline passengers who depend on electronic gadgets to pass the time on flights. The FAA is addressing questions about whether popular devices like eReaders and tablets, really affect navigation systems.

The report's now the FAA is reconsidering its power-down policy for takeoffs and landings.

Joining me is Miles O'Brien, science correspondent for "PBS News Hour" and a pilot himself.

Miles, it's great to see you. Every time I fly, I'm told to turn off the iPad for takeoff and landing, turn off the cell phone because it might affect, obviously, the flight. They're now saying it could actually be completely safe after all? MILES O'BRIEN, SCIENCE CORRESPONDENT, "PBS NEWS HOUR": Yes. Yes. We can finish up that game of Words with Friends with Alec Baldwin we wanted to finish up. You know?

It's -- the truth is that some of these devices emit tiny amounts of electromagnetic radiation. Kindle e-readers, I mean, there's virtually nothing that comes out of them.

And so the FAA has a committee that it's going to put together. It includes pilots, the public, the industry and so forth, and they're going through and actually trying to apply a little bit of common sense to rules that many of us have been scratching our head over all these years. It just doesn't make sense.

COOPER: This wouldn't apply to cell phones, though, would it?

O'BRIEN: No. Cell phones are in a little different category because first of all, the frequency is kind of close to the GPS frequency, and that's part of the navigational equipment in the airplane.

And secondly, let's face it, do we really want to have everybody on a cell phone on an airplane as we're flying along? Maybe this should be the last place where people aren't talking on the phone.

COOPER: Senator McCaskill, who is pushing for this change, she points out that pilots are using iPads in the cockpit. The flight attendants even have been given them. That's something I think a lot of people maybe didn't realize.

O'BRIEN: Well, this is when the house of cards started tumbling for the FAA when it was announced that American Airlines was issuing iPads to all of its flight crew so that the people closest to the navigational gear which supposedly is affected have iPads with them with their charts on it. Well, at that point, it became almost mandatory for the FAA to look at it and say, "Well, wait a minute, maybe the people in 33-D should be able to use the same device.

COOPER: Would this mean laptops, as well? And what's the timetable for any possible change?

O'BRIEN: Well, we're going to hear in July, and it's unclear exactly which devices that we're going to get loosened up on.

Look for the e-readers for sure. That's very likely that we won't have to turn off the e-readers, as long as it's in the airplane mode, during takeoff and landing.

And then some of these other lower emitting devices, we might be able to use them with a little more flexibility. And that's after all, we're all carrying these devices. It's all part of our lives.

COOPER: Yes. Sure is. Miles, great to have you on the program. Thanks so much.

O'BRIEN: Pleasure, Anderson. COOPER: Up next, we have explosive new details, the investigation into the murder of Colorado prisons chief Tom Clements. What investigators found in the suspect's car, the same car involved in a police chase and a shootout in Texas.

And also tonight, a CNN exclusive. Who really killed Osama bin Laden? Another member of the SEAL Team 6 has a story in "Esquire" magazine about the alleged triggerman as, quote, "complete B.S." Details on that ahead.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

SUSAN HENDRICKS, CNN ANCHOR: Hi, there, I'm Susan Hendricks with a "360 News & Business Bulletin."

Authorities in Texas say they've found bomb-making material in Evan Ebel's car and directions to the home of Tom Clements, the chief of Colorado's prison system. Ebel is accused of killing him a week ago. Ebel died in a shootout with Texas sheriff's deputies after a high-speed chase last Thursday.

A CNN exclusive. Another Navy SEAL says the "Esquire" magazine story about the SEAL who killed Osama bin Laden is, quote, "total B.S." Instead, he says it was another man of SEAL Team 6, the so- called point man, who fired that deadly shot. He also says the point man will likely never speak publicly about his role in the raid.

And earlier today, on "THE LEAD WITH JAKE TAPPER," national security analyst Peter Bergen describes a conversation he had about it with a SEAL Team's sixth member.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

PETER BERGEN, CNN NATIONAL SECURITY ANALYST: The first SEAL's account is actually really close to what Mark Owen told "60 Minutes." The point man saw bin Laden stick his head out of his bedroom, shot him, mortally wounded him, and then two more SEALs came in and finished him off on the floor. Mark Owen and the shooter in the "Esquire" article.

So the difference here is in the shooter in the Esquire article, you know, as you said, shoots bin Laden while he's standing up. He looks like he's maybe going to go for a gun.

The SEAL Team 6 member I spoke to said that's completely false. Bin Laden couldn't have reached for a gun, because his guns were somewhere else, which they found later. Bin Laden was not shot by this guy in the "Esquire" article in the way that it's described.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

HENDRICKS: Again, that was Peter Bergen on "THE LEAD WITH JAKE TAPPER".

And this, this is Julia Pierson. Thursday, President Obama is expected to appoint her to be his new Secret Service director, the first woman ever to hold the top job. She will replace Mark Sullivan, the former top G-man who retired last month.

And let's check out the Dow now. It opens tomorrow at a new record high. Blue chips adding 112 points today to finish at 14,559, thanks in part to better-than-expected reports about the U.S. economy.

And an amazing discovery in the Gulf of Mexico off the Florida coast. Scientists say the first ever two-headed bull shark was found by a fisherman when he cut open a pregnant shark back in 2011. The two-headed shark died shortly after. The scientists write about that discovery this week in a research journal. They say the shark also had two hearts, two stomachs but only one tail.

Anderson, back to you.

COOPER: Susan, thanks.

Coming up, find out who's on "The RidicuList" tonight.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

COOPER: Time now for "The RidicuList," and here we are, almost a week into spring, and there is still snow covering a lot of the country. On Sunday, snowed more than a foot in St. Louis, which is the most it's ever snowed in that city on a single day in March.

Which is kind of ridiculous, but there is an upside. Because it gave a guy named Freddy in nearby Collegeville, Illinois, one more chance to wow his neighbors with his snow-sculpting prowess. Check this out.

Over the years he fashioned a cowboy boot, a dragon, a Corvette, Clifford the Big Red Dog, Beavis and Butthead, and the cast of "South Park," but his latest work, well, it takes it to the next level.

Freddy used the opportunity of this late March storm to fashion a snowman in the likeness of Gene Simmons from KISS in full makeup. Freddy and his work are well known in the neighborhood, so people constantly drive by when it snows to see what he's come up with.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Everybody knows if it snows and you can walk out, you know, and get a good snowball like that, come by the house. There's probably going to be something out there. Done probably 35 to 40 of them.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

COOPER: Making a heavy metal snowman does have its challenges. This is not your average snowman. You need a lot of snow. The tongue alone, that requires a whole bunch of it. So Freddy has a technique and recruited some help.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Take the whole driveway and we wheel-barrowed it up here to the front.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: I actually helped him shovel all day. I just about got frostbite out here.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

COOPER: So sweet.

Obviously, the Gene Simmons snowman is getting a lot of attention. For those who aren't familiar with Freddy's work, passersby are amazed and kind of shocked, almost as shocked as Mike Douglas was in 1974 when he had Gene Simmons on his show.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

MIKE DOUGLAS, FORMER TALK SHOW HOST: Here from KISS is Gene Simmons. Who dreamed this up, this get-up?

GENE SIMMONS, MUSICIAN: We all did.

DOUGLAS: How many members?

SIMMONS: There are four members. Your audience really looks appetizing. Actually, what I am is evil incarnate. Those cheeks and necks look really good.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

COOPER: You know, Mike Douglas did not sleep a wink that night, I'm guessing.

Look, the warm weather will be here soon enough, but at least one guy in Illinois has proven that, even in the spring, snow can totally rock on The RidicuList."

That does it for us. Thanks for watching. "ERIN BURNETT OUTFRONT" starts now.