That gray suffered high impact injury but report is riddled with guesses and there are real questions about whether this can serve as the basis for a murder charge. In addition and this is significant, there are now angry press releases from both the States Attorneys Office and the Defense Attorneys over who leaked these details to the sun and why. Tonight we have some of the smartest folks on this case. Dr. Michael bodden criminal defense attorney and former prosecutor. Thank you all for being here. The sun does not publish the autopsy report. They say that they have spoken with sources who have seen the report and have the information. The only people who we know have it are the states attorney and the medical examiner. So they are suggesting perhaps i guess the medical Examiners Office spoke with somebody. Why are there so many suppositions in it . I want to show the audience. The medical examiner surmised that he meaning freddie gray may have gotten into it is possible he was hurt. His body likely couldnt move into that position and his most significant injury most likely occurred before the stops. The medical examiner surmised he could have gotten on his feet. Is this unusual . It is unusual because medical examiner is concerned about the autopsy findings. What do the spine bones look like in the neck . What does the spinal cord look like . More important than that the autopsy has to be fully released so that we are not looking at somebodys spin on it. But also it doesnt stand by itself. Freddie gray was in the hospital for seven days. They did a lot of work on him at the hospital. They evaluated him, did tests on him on the day he came in. Seven days later when he deceased an autopsy and things have changed a bit. Maybe he was operated on. We dont know about it. They have all kinds of neurological tests to see what damage was done at the time he came into the hospital. Its a good point. The autopsy in these murder cases istypically all you have. Here they had a live patient in the hospital for days. And that is not mentioned anywhere. Mark i ask you, we now have the medical examiner reportedly saying this was an accident. And the reason we get to homicide is because the cops didnt belt the guy in. Then we have a report that this may have happened or may have happened a different way. Could have been this way or could have been this other way. How do you build a murder case . I tell you how i build reasonable doubt on the defense side i read maybe, probably most likely im thinking reasonable doubt, reasonable doubt, reasonable doubt because the state must remove every reasonable hypothesis of innocence. So you can assume it is possible he could have been injured so severely before he got into the van causing partial, partial situation where he cannot breathe, partial paralysis and in the van maybe this happened possibly this happened. All you have to do is create reasonable doubt and you dont get that charge. I dont understand how i get the theory is that the cops, they are guilty because they didnt belt him in. Whatever happened in the van it is on them. Who knows what they argue. The original report was they heard freddie gray jumping around and it sounded like he was trying to hurt himself. What is the defense going to do with that argument when they have a medical examiner who has to tell the truth that they dont know what happened. Lets break down the charges. The driver is charged with depraved murder. Megyn, i submit that even if you believe everything that the medical examiner puts in here it doesnt go to depraved heart because she is saying its the omission to act. Depraved heart is like it is new years eve and you do something. You test your gun and fire in the middle of the crowd even though you dont want to kill anyone. That is acting with a depraved heart. Here they are saying it is an accident but because aid wasnt rendered that is a depraved heart. We dont know if the driver knew the state of a prisoner behind him. And they dont know when the injury took place. They are saying it likely occurred between the second and third stops. What if it occurred after the fifth stop when nobody had seen i dont see how the prosecution has a beyond a reasonable murder case here. They dont. Let me just add to what arthur is saying. If they can prove that the driver slammed on his brakes intentionally knowing this guy was in a very vulnerable position. He was on his belly, hands behind his back. That is on them. That is a problem the officers have to answer for. Unless there is some type of intentional slamming on the brakes to disregard his life then megyn, what we are doing is reacting to the newspapers spin. We have to see the facts. The autopsy as was written and all of the hospital records that permits interpretation. There is not going to be anything in the autopsy that conclusively says this is when the injury took place. You know thats not going to happen. But that may be in the hospital records. Its interesting that there is no reference in the newspaper article to what happened seven days in the hospital. That is important to identify. People get injured and have neck injuries and can be partially paralyzed. They dont have to die right away. Was his neck injury when he is helped into the van . Here is the question for the jurors about the driver of the car. Did he know or should he have known . Was it reasonable for him to know or believe that him driving and decel rating that is what the autopsy is saying act of deceleration his act was likely to cause serious injury or death. People ride around without seat belts all the time. He is vulnerable. Is he going to cause death . And they just implemented this policy of requiring the seat belts days before this arrest days before. And so far we are not true the prosecution can prove that policy was communicated to these particular officers. In light of how prejudice already the potential jury pool assuming it stays in that jurisdiction are they may make the finding that there were no windows in the van. So if gray got to a standing position he couldnt see where the van was going. Secondly the driver at some point that he could be decel rating and that could place him in a more dangerous position. I can see jurors wanting to slam them with the highest charge even though legally i dont think it gets there. Thats why you go on a bench trial. The autopsy seems to be saying they dont believe that the injury happened outside the van. They believe it was thats not based on the autopsy. That is based on speculation as to what might have happened. It is very unusual to get this kind of injury from that kind of a deceleration. Now, maybe it can happen but very few cases like this where somebody gets a fatal cervical spine injury from deceleration in the back of a van. What do you make of the fact that in the report they are talking about the fact that freddie gray was supposedly on his knees after the alleged injury on his knees slumped over on a bench. Could that be possible with a spine injury . Of course it can be. We have all sorts of people who have spine injuries in wheel chairs who can move arms and legs. It depends on what the actual spinal cord showed at the time of autopsy and what it showed when it was examined while he was alive on the first day he comes into the hospital. I have to ask you about this vogue article on the prosecutor in this case. She says she doesnt regret one word she said when she stood before the public and said i hear your calls for no justice no peace this is our moment. Doesnt regret one word as she does a vogue photo shoot. Is this appropriate . Not the way i was raised. The prosecutors i work for, its opposite. She is doing the absolute opposite. You are supposed to be as professional as you can. A shoot in vogue magazine is not prosecutorial. It doesnt seem like her number one agenda is to have the truth. We get the freedom of six cops on the line. Good to see you both. Thank you. Also tonight a Left Wing Group has published a list of a dozen women who have challenged radical islam and they have challenged these women. Wait until you hear what they are labelling these women. Some are saying what they have done is create a hit list for wouldbe jihadis. Plus with new calls out to crack down on hate groups a warning about where that will likely lead. And then the white house today defended the president s controversial comments on race by saying he is trying to start an honest conversation on the issue. Racism we are not cured of it. Clearly. Its not just a matter of it not being polite to say [ bleep ] in public. Thats not the measure of whether racism still exists or not. Introducing the first ever gummy multivitamin from centrum. A complete, and tasty new way to support. Your energy. Immunity. And metabolism like never before. Centrum multigummies. See gummies in a whole new light. Your credit is in pretty good shape. Chuck, i know i have a 798 fico score thanks to experian. Com. Kaboom. Get your credit swagger on. Become a member of experian credit tracker and find out your fico score powered by experian. Racism we are not cured of it. Clearly. And its not just a matter of it not being polite to say [ bleep ] in public. Thats not the measure of whether racism still exists or not. That was president obama in an interview released yesterday with mark marren. Today the white house had to defend the president s decision to use one of the most racially charged words in the english language. The president s Senior Adviser saying her boss is glad this triggered this honest conversation on race. Did it . Are we there . No. And were not going to get there by virtue of what the president said. I dont have any problem with the president saying that word because he didnt really use the word. Using the word implies that you label somebody with that term. Thats what the problem with that word is when people use it as a label. That is not the context in which he used the word. He was mentioning the word. He wasnt really using it. We are so concerned with being careful not to be labelled ourselves that we on this network and every other network oent allow him to be heard saying that. We bleep it out which in some ways i think is a little absurd. It illustrates the problem. He wants an honest conversation about race but dealing with a people who are so afraid of being labelled racist especially white americans because they are the ones that are most often accused of this and in many cases for a long time it was a legitimate cause. It was built into laws and permitted and tolerated. It was culturally acceptable. The institutionalization has been oblit rated. The president doesnt seem to agree. He keeps making comments. He said things have gotten better. Dont tell me they havent. He went on to say the legacy of jim crow that cast a long shadow. That is part of our dna. We are not cured of it. Professor obama may say that and may be right about that. What troubles me here is that he and other liberals call for an honest conversation about race. They dont want an honest conversation about race. The issue of race has been enormously beneficial to president obama. The things said about other white president s belie that. I think americans by and large were impressed with barack obama and wanted to see him move up in the world and become president in part because he was black. I think his race has been an asset to him politically and otherwise perhaps. And when he says he wants an honest conversation about race and he uses the n word or says the n word without using it and we are so afraid of being accused of racism in america that we wont let him be heard saying that. That gives you an idea of the climate and why nobody wants to have that conversation because if you held a view that racism is a human characteristic and people of all races share it and you can never wipe it out and all you can do is try to create a society in which it is institutionally impermissible and regarded as a form of hatred which i think we are on a long way to doing i think people who want to make that argument may be afraid that they would be accused of being racist for making it. Thats the problem we have. The great triumph was making it unacceptable in america but placed in the hands of those who would exploit it sharpton and others who use that for all sorts of racial demagoguery. Is it just race . The president seems to cast this judgment on the American People about how we are part of our dna still. Our dna. I think a lot of people say it isnt. He says it is. And then in the same day he is speaking to a group of muslims and talks about how he lamented the distorted impression that Many Americans have of muslims and stress we need to be much more conscious about religious tolerance of muslims. He wants religious tolerance towards muslims because he feels we have a distorted impression of them. He seems to be an advocate against bigotry in certain cases but not all. He doesnt seem to be too preoccupied with antichristian bigotry. He seems intolerant of the way that christians practice their faith, this whole case against the Little Sisters of the poor being an example of that with the administration fighting the Little Sisters of the poor in the supreme court. This is the kind of thing that goes on. I would say about that that the president has been too selective in this for him to have credibility on the issue. Its interesting to hear the messaging. We have some folks talking out of both sides of their mouth and we will speak about that in the next segment. The New York Times said any hopes of a post racial era now seem fanciful under this president. One has to ask the question to what extent he is responsible of that. Whether his conduct in office has made things worse, not better. Great to see you. You, too. There is outrage in oklahoma after an illegal immigrant runs down a beloved tv sports caster. See why this could be charged as a murder case. We have big developments in the search for two escaped killers. Their relationship with the woman who helped them and what her husband is saying about the whole thing. Stay tuned for this. I was scared. Something else to tell you. I said whats that . She said their plan was they want to kill you. If you have moderate to severe plaque psoriasis. Isnt it time to let the real you shine through . Introducing otezla apremilast. Otezla is not an injection or a cream. Its a pill that treats plaque psoriasis differently. Some people who took otezla saw 75 clearer skin after 4 months. And otezlas prescribing information has no requirement for routine lab monitoring. Dont take otezla if you are allergic to any of its ingredients. Otezla may increase the risk of depression. Tell your doctor if you have a history of depression or suicidal thoughts, or if these feelings develop. Some people taking otezla reported weight loss. Your doctor should monitor your weight and may stop treatment. Side effects may include diarrhea nausea, upper respiratory tract infection, and headache. Tell your doctor about all the medicines you take and if youre pregnant or planning to be. Ask your doctor about otezla today. Otezla. Show more of you. Its a calling. A love affair. A quest. The next horizon. Everyone loves the chase. We have to allocate resources to address these hate groups and these hate crimes. We need vigorous prosecution and investigation of these hate groups and the resources to do so. That was the president of the naacp calling for a new government crack down on hate groups and prosecution of them in the wake of the racially driven mass murder of nine africanamericans in a church last week. Is that really where we want to go . President and ceo of the foundation for individual rights and education and author of freedom from speech. Thank you for being here. That is the question. It sounds noble. A racist skin head type murders nine africanamericans and the response is we have to crack down on the groups that hate africanamericans and hate in general with prosecution and investigation. And you say . That hate speech is not there is a lot of misinformation on this. Hate speech is protected speech in the united states. What you go after is violence. What you go after is conspiracy to murder. If you go after just opinions and expression of opinions we dislike you are not only doing something that is unconstitutional but something that is unwise. To those who say greg must be in favor of the White Supremacists and sympathetic towards the skin head cause . That is the way some people argue right now. I have defended throughout my career people across the political spectrum. As soon as you start allowing policing for opinions no one is provocative or interesting to say. Do you find it interesting tomorrow night we are going to air an hour long special on the beheading of an American Woman in oklahoma and the attempted beheading of her co worker. We have the exclusive with the co worker speaking out about her ordeal. By a man who self radicalized who had become a radical muslim online. And listen to what the same head of the naacp had to say about why we need to expand it from the individual to the group. Listen. This young man was indoctrinated with an ideology of White Nationalism or racism. The point being is we have to look at individual acts of brutality but at the atmosphere from which it emerged. We have to address that. So if you make that same point about the Muslim Community, those in the Muslim Community who are becoming radicalized and talking about the value of jihad you get called a bigot. If you say you have to expand it from one mans act to take a look at a community you get called a bigot. If you say it in this context it is fine because it is clear that the White Supremacists are bad. One frustrating thing is the double standards are everywhere. People are like i want to go after these people with this opinion but people who have the same opinion but if i like them more thats completely thats why our Founding Fathers were so smart to have no exception to the First Amendment. The White Supremacists are allowed to say hateful things when it leads how close would their hatred have to be linked to murder to take it out of First Amendment realm . We are not that limited when it comes to conspiracy to commit a crime. This is the big misunderstanding the dangerous misunderstanding of free speech. Free speech is an alternative to violence a way of resolving disputes without resorting to violence. I think it is insane for people to say lets eliminate free speech. And it may be beneficial to know exactly where the haters are. It is beneficial to have them speaking out about it. That is the one thing t