Return to Transcripts main page

CNN Newsroom

Explosion in Beirut; Efforts in Libya Questioned; Boy Scout Perversion Files Released; Presidential Candidates Get to Relax; Gearing Up for Debate Three; Rare Moment of Civility for Candidates; Obama Maintains Lead in Iowa, Wisconsin; Candidate Prepare for Last Debate; Sandusky Lawyers Seek New Trial; Sandusky Victim Speaks Out

Aired October 19, 2012 - 11:00   ET

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


ASHLEIGH BANFIELD, ANCHOR, "CNN NEWSROOM": Carnage and chaos. Breaking news, in the heart of Lebanon's largest city and its capitol, Beirut. A large and deadly explosion happening in the middle of rush hour there. A car bomb, apparently, the weapon. It was apparently detonated in the city's center, right around one of the main squares. At least eight people dying.

You can see the pictures that have been filing into CNN. Scenes like this playing out at this moment. Rows of mangled cars, charred buildings, people trying to rescue, ambulances rushing to help dozens of those injured victims.

Stay with us as we continue to process the information from this breaking news story. We'll have developments throughout the day right here on CNN.

And another very big story that we're continuing to watch develop, a remarkable new report out of Benghazi about a man that witnesses insist was the ringleader in the attack that killed our ambassador and three diplomats, yet a man that has yet to be arrested, yet to even be questioned in those murders.

And to add insult to injury, this is a man who talked to a reporter while sipping on a strawberry frappe on a patio in Libya, scoffing at our President's attempts to find those responsible and bring them to justice.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

BARACK OBAMA, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: We will not waver in our commitment to see that justice is done for this terrible act.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

BANFIELD: Well, the president may be hell bent on serving up justice to those coldblooded killers, but if that's actually the case then why is it that more than a month after the attack we've got pictures to show you like this suspect -- hello -- posing outside of our burning diplomatic mission.

You could you recognize that face, holding onto an AK, possibly while Ambassador Stevens lay dying inside. He's still a man of mystery. We have no word on if he's been charged or if he's even in custody, but he sure looks proud. Looks almost like a tourist, doesn't he?

And then there's this guy, as well, holding up a peace sign, many on them with assault rifles, perfectly identifiable, on the scene, photographed by cell phone. This is the scene of a crime. These are pictures at the scene of a crime. The U.S. mission still on fire while this is going on.

Where are these men? Have they been questioned? Are they in custody? Do we know anything about them? Who was their leader?

One person who may know something about this is the reporter who is breaking this story. David Kirkpatrick is "The New York Times" reporter who sat down with that suspected ringleader having the frappe and he joins us over the phone now from Benghazi, Libya.

David, thanks for being with us. I was just astounded at your report. The suspect's name is Ahmed Abu Khattala. Does he admit that he had anything to do with these murders and with this attack?

DAVID KIRKPATRICK, REPORTER, "THE NEW YORK TIMES" (via telephone): No, he said that he was on the scene, but arrived after the shooting had already begun and was just basically trying to break up a traffic jam.

He said he had nothing to do with any acts of aggression that night. I would add, by the way, that he's only suspected of being one of the ringleaders, not a mastermind of the whole attack.

BANFIELD: Well, what does he say when asked about our attempts to find those responsible? We just showed our audience pictures, very identifiable, of those posing outside the crime scene.

How does he feel about our efforts and even the Libyan government's efforts, for that matter, to bring people to justice?

KIRKPATRICK (via telephone): Well, I think he correctly feels like the Libyan government right now, the transitional government, is pretty impotent. They don't have much of a national army or police force. He referred to it as the "national chicken."

And when I asked him, you know, who should be responsible for tracking down the criminals behind it in Libya, that's mostly been militias like his own that do the work of law enforcement.

I said, who should be in charge of solving this crime? And he sort of smirked and said, well, the state. You know, we both know, of course, the Libyan state right now is completely incapable of that.

So, I think he feels a certain amount of impunity walking around the streets of Benghazi.

BANFIELD: And yet, as you reported, there are so many witnesses who swear up and down this is the guy, or, if not the guy, one of the key guys. Tell me a little bit about his story as to how this played out. This is a huge story in America right now. It's working its way into the political debates in the presidential election as to whether this was a spontaneous attack that was borne of the anger and protest about that awful film or whether this was a planned al Qaeda attack.

What does he say about that?

KIRKPATRICK (via telephone): By the way, we know the answer to that question and it's very simple. It was a planned, violent attack. This is what witnesses here say and the U.S. intelligence officials. It's an open-and-shut case. It was a planned attack, planned over the course of a couple of hours in response to the violent film.

His account is that there was a protest over the film that he joined later, trying to sort of break it up, that he later went into the compound to help rescue some Libyan guards who were trapped there.

I should say I don't find his account of his own presence there to be particularly convincing. It doesn't mesh with many other witnesses I've talked to, guards who were inside the compound, as well as others who watched from the outside.

BANFIELD: Doesn't he say something along the lines of this was a peaceful protest, the guards fired on them first and then they just accidentally found their weapons inside the compound and picked them up and started firing?

KIRKPATRICK (via telephone): No, that's not what he says. He does say that the shooting started with the guards inside the compound, firing on peaceful demonstrators outside.

And then he says that some militia men starting firing in the air to disperse the crowd. He says that at some point, clearly, the people outside attacked the mission. There's no doubt about that and he doesn't deny it.

But he adds that when it was all done and the Americans were chased out of the compound, he asserts, without any evidence, that the attackers found weapons, guns with silencers and explosives inside the compound.

So, he's trying to assert that it wasn't just a diplomatic compound. It was a center of subversion or espionage.

BANFIELD: Ah. So, the weapons that he's saying that these attackers found, he's not suggesting that they were using them and then posing with them. He said that this was just evidence that this was no diplomatic mission, is that it?

KIRKPATRICK (via telephone): Yeah, that's right. You've got to keep in mind that in Benghazi right now there are weapons everywhere. There are lots of little militias or big militias with plenty of AK- 47s and (INAUDIBLE) artillery and rocket-propelled grenades, so it's not that hard to muster those things up and stage an attack like this. BANFIELD: All right, David Kirkpatrick, great reporting live in Libya for us, in Benghazi, in fact. Stay safe while you continue to navigate there.

So, this big question remains. Who knew what? And who knew what when and, if there is someone who does know, is anyone being held accountable at this point? And where are we in the investigative process into the Benghazi attack?

Do we deserve to know or does this have to be carried out in secret? So, I want to bring in the ambassador, Nicholas Burns, right. He's the former U.S. undersecretary of state for political affairs, also former ambassador to NATO.

Ambassador Burns, you just heard what David Kirkpatrick was reporting, the kind of access he had to this suspected ringleader, Ahmed Abu Khattala. The two of them were sipping a frappe on a patio.

Clearly, this man is not in custody and there were plenty of witnesses who spoke with David Kirkpatrick, swearing he is one of the ring leaders. How on earth is he not in custody?

NICHOLAS BURNS, FORMER U.S. AMBASSADOR: Well, Ashleigh, that's the responsibility of the Libyan authorities. The United States does not have any capacity to arrest people in Libya or to act as a police force.

The Libyan authorities are sovereign. They have the responsibility to find these people. Obviously, I'm sure the United States government would help them if we can.

But the problem is Libya after Gadhafi does not have a strong national police force or a strong national army. It is replete with militias and that's the security environment in which our diplomats have to work and have to protect themselves in Tripoli, as well as in other places.

BANFIELD: Mr. Ambassador, are you telling me that these new Libyans in control are akin to Keystone Cops or are you telling me these Libyans don't give a damn what we want?

BURNS: No, I didn't say either of those things. The Libyan authorities actually are quite friendly with the United States. They had free and fair elections this past summer.

A moderate group of people, not extremists, were elected, but the problem is in Libya, as well as in Egypt and Tunisia, these moderate governments are now being assaulted by much more radical forces, some of them armed, and, obviously, that's part of the problem with what happened in Benghazi and the murder of Ambassador Stevens and his colleagues.

So, I do think you ought to focus your attention now on the Libyan authorities and what they need to do to bring these killers to justice. BANFIELD: I don't understand this. I mean, if we have David Kirkpatrick of "The New York Times" sitting down with a guy who has witnesses saying he's responsible and there's no one in Libya who can, say, muster some kind of negotiating process between the varying militias there to bring him in for even questioning, just questioning. He hasn't been questioned yet.

That, to me, says Keystone Cops or we don't care. I don't know where the ground is in between. Explain it.

BURNS: Well, listen, I can't explain everything that's happening in Libya, Ashleigh, I'm not there, but I would say this. It is the responsibility of the Libyan government to marshal enough strength and to take down some of these militias and disarm them in order to reassert control over their own country. That's number one.

Number two, President Obama said the morning after the attacks that he would pursue justice and he would -- we would -- the United States would try to bring these people to justice and I think the president has a very impressive record of going after terrorist groups, specifically al Qaeda on the Afghan/Pakistan border, also in Yemen.

So, I think the United States government obviously wants to do the right thing here and is intending to do that, but it's a very difficult situation where, in effect, the Libyan government and the United States are operating in a lawless environment in Libya itself.

BANFIELD: OK, so then the Libyan National Congress told us a couple of weeks ago that they had 50 people in custody that they were asking questions. They were investigating and then we never heard a word after that.

Should we expect to hear a word? Should we expect to ever have follow- up on that? Or, as I was leading into you, I suggested, is this the kind of process where we are on a need-to-know basis and we are not supposed to know what's going on

In fact, there's so many diplomatic sensitivity here it would be damaging if we knew what's going on?

BURNS: No, I don't think that's the case at all. I think the Obama administration is obviously pressing and pushing the Libyan government to pursue this investigation and the United States government and the American people have a right to know what happened in Benghazi and those answers have to come from Libya, also, of course, from those investigating this attack.

But I think, Ashleigh, this whole situation has been overly politicized and the real issues are here. There's two of them. How can we defend our embassies against any further possible attacks? And for that we need full funding from both Republicans and Democrats in the Congress for embassy security. That's number one.

And number two, we have to find out what went wrong that night in Benghazi and Secretary Clinton has quite appropriately ordered a review -- a full review -- of that evening and of embassy security. I think that's where our focus should be of our debate, not on these ancillary questions and, frankly, this situation is being politicized in a presidential campaign. And, as someone who's served in both Republican and Democratic administrations as a career diplomat, I find that very distasteful.

BANFIELD: But you do have to admit ...

BURNS: We ought to really focus on protecting our own people.

BANFIELD: Without question, I agree with you, but you do have to admit it is so offensive to see people like this thumbing their noses at us at a time when we have four murders that need investigating and prosecuting and we don't seem to be getting anywhere, with ample evidence from the crime scene.

BURNS: Well, I agree with you. When I read that "New York Times" report, I was furious at this Libyan militia person, who seemed to be very cavalier in talking about the murders of our diplomats.

You can imagine. I think that's all Americans would react. But I would urge you to consider this is not the direct responsibility of the United States government. This is the responsibility of the Libyan government.

The United States government doesn't have any representative in Benghazi right now because the consulate has been closed following the terrorist attacks. We have our embassy in Tripoli, of course.

So, I really think, rather than point responsibility for this at the Obama administration, we ought to be a asking the Libyan government to do more.

BANFIELD: Heck, yeah. This is a government that we facilitated, to say the very least. Ambassador Burns, thank you. It was great to talk to you. I do appreciate your insight.

BURNS: Thank you.

BANFIELD: So, this is obviously -- you've heard what the ambassador had to say. You heard what David Kirkpatrick had to say.

This is going to be a huge topic of discussion, more than likely, on Monday's final presidential debate. So, you can imagine there could be some serious sparks flying. Seven o'clock Eastern, we're going to start our coverage on Monday night. This debate is in Boca Raton, Florida, and, again, the final presidential debate.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

BANFIELD: An iconic American institution for boys is, today, up against a battle it may never survive. The Boy Scouts and its wholesome image is struggling under a cloud of horrendous accusations, accusations that come from within, a release of internal files naming more than a thousand male scoutmasters and volunteers who the organization believed were sexually abusing young scouts. It is no doubt on the minds of thousands of parents who, as we speak, may be gearing up for weekend camping trips or weekend activities for their scout sons.

Amid these troubling documents, there are fears and yet there are mixed emotions. After all, the Scouts have forever been an esteemed organization, helping millions of boys become great men.

Just look at some of the Americans that the Boy Scouts have turned out. Astronaut Neil Armstrong, Supreme Court Justice Stephen Breyer, Mayor Michael Bloomberg, Steven Spielberg, President Ford, all of these people Eagle Scouts, the highest rank in the program.

And along with other scouts in the program, Presidents Bill Clinton, George Bush, Barack Obama and Gerald Ford, the Eagle Scout, as you saw, it just makes the release of the thousands of pages of internal documents all the more difficult to process.

Here's CNN's Paul Vercammen.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

PAUL VERCAMMEN, CNN CORRESPONDENT: One of the newly released files shows an Indiana Scout leader was placed in the banned confidential file in the early 1970s on suspicion of molestation.

He took treatment and, on the advice of the psychiatrist treating him and his minister, he was allegedly cured.

The suspected molester got cleared to lead scouts again and, in 1982, he was accused of molesting two boys on a camping trip.

Mr. Blank responded he was guilty and everything was exactly as the boys had indicated, but the boys' parents agreed not to proceed with prosecution and the Scouts never reported the alleged pedophile to the police.

WAYNE PERRY, PRESIDENT, BOY SCOUTS OF AMERICA: There's no question that there are times in the past -- these go back to 40, 50 years old -- where we did not do the job that we should have.

And for that and for people who were hurt and for that, we are profoundly sorry.

And I am convinced that this organization has a firm and everlasting and deep commitment to youth protection.

VERCAMMEN: The BSA says scouts are now taught to recognize, resist and report abuse and that two adults be present at all activities, preventing one-on-one situations with leaders and scouts.

The perversion files showed how alleged pedophiles lured single scouts to their homes or remote locations and then molested them. In some cases, there was intimidation.

A scout leader disrobed after cornering a boy who was undressing and warned the boy to stay quiet.

"What I'm going to do now, if I get arrested, after I get out of jail, I'll come after you and your family."

KELLY CLARK, ABUSED SCOUTS' ATTORNEY: We can learn a lot about the way pedophiles operate. It's consistent. It's almost always somebody that's the Pied Piper.

VERCAMMEN: Clark says those Pied Piper, popular scout leaders are rampant in the perversion files.

Now, on several legal fronts, including a California appellate court, lawyers for abuse victims are trying to get more names of alleged pedophiles, in some cases suing to get the 1985-to-present, Boy Scouts' confidential files made public.

And that's not all. Abuse victims' lawyers are now calling on Congress to audit whether the Boy Scouts' youth protections are working, an action the BSA says it would welcome.

Paul Vercammen, CNN, Los Angeles.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

BANFIELD: So, you just heard Paul's report. That is obvious that this is not over, not by a long shot. Those names are out there. The impact on the organization and the communities across the country, just potentially huge.

Was your son's scout leader on that list? Was your next-door neighbor on that list? A teacher maybe? The lawsuits are undoubtedly going to fly as attorneys get those names and then start calling for the release of more, more names, more documents, more evidence.

Defense attorney Joey Jackson joining me now to talk about just the -- I mean, there is such a mountain to tackle at this point.

The first thing I want to say is that there are some reports out already that prosecutors are combing these documents and looking for perpetrators ...

JOEY JACKSON, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Absolutely.

BANFIELD: ... so that they can start mounting cases, before they even get a, you know, a complaint.

JACKSON: Ashleigh, this is shocking to the core.

Now, to be sure, the Boy Scouts has done some wonderful things, but this? There has to be accountability and I think they're going to get it in three primary ways, the first of which you mentioned, criminal prosecutions.

Now, statutes vary across the country regarding when there could be prosecutions for child-abuse cases. In some jurisdiction, there is not statute of limitations. Of course we talked about Sandusky. It's when the victim turns 50, but certainly, there'll be criminal prosecutions and prosecutors are going to be looking at these files and the, remember, this is from '65 to '85, the file release. We're going to see releases in the future.

BANFIELD: '85 to present.

JACKSON: Oh, yes, Ashleigh, we indeed will and then the second measure of accountability will be civil liability. In the event that the statute of limitations hasn't run on that, to be sure, victims will be looking for compensation for the heinous acts committed against them.

And then third, as we've already seen, the Boy Scouts are going to institute measures so that this cannot happen again and they've already talked about having two adults present with any given child. They've talked about limiting any contact that one adult has with a child and, of course, opening it up so that all parents are permitted to be involved in these activities.

This is horrific.

BANFIELD: And, listen, when we talk about statute of limitations, I'm sure a lot of people are thinking , what do you mean? How -- we don't have statute of limitations on murder. Why would there be statute of limitations on kids?

I've got to ask you. You said 1965. That is a long time ago. Memories fade. People die. Evidence disappears. How hard would it be to prosecute something in those first, say, 20 years?

JACKSON: Well, the first things first. In terms of the statute of limitations, the law says that there has to be some time frame in which a person is brought to justice.

Interestingly, though, in many jurisdictions, they're eliminating statute of limitations when it comes to heinous child offenses. In Connecticut, for example, there's an elimination of that, right? And, you know, here in the Northeast. In Georgia, even, there's the elimination of that.

If you can establish a heinous act against a child, there is no statute of limitations, in terms of the proof involved, Ashleigh.

Remember, though, it's tough, but there are these files and we expect that, these files, in them are names, are witnesses, are information. Now, clearly, are those witnesses available? You know, did their memory fade? That's something to recon with, but people do need to be brought to justice here.

BANFIELD: OK and let's talk about victims. Look, if there are victims named in these files and alleged perpetrators named in these files, do you -- I mean, you've got a kid -- are you forcing that kid to come and testify now that that kid is an adult?

I mean, how would the prosecutors go about that quagmire? JACKSON: It's so true, Ashleigh. What happens is you certainly want voluntary cooperation and people who have these horrific memories suppress them, you know? I mean, it's something they deem to be embarrassing. Psychologists say they don't want to talk about it.

And, in some instances, Ashleigh, we know that even wives, husbands, I mean, they don't even know about it. Children don't know about it because they don't want to bring it up and so it's a really difficult thing, but I'm sure prosecutors will talk to them and seek to get them to get involved to help others if not themselves.

BANFIELD: You mentioned civil. Just quickly, we have to wrap it up, but the Boy Scouts is not a rich organization. We're not talking about Penn State here. We're talking about the Boy Scouts.

Do they get a mass settlement ready for the class-action suit that is possibly sure to come their way?

JACKSON: You know what, Ashleigh? Right now, their lawyers are advising them to do that because I think what's in their interest is to move forward, not backwards.

And I think what would be very important here is to get the money ready, get a settlement pool similar to Penn State that you brought up so that people get the compensation that they'll be demanding and that they deserve.

BANFIELD: It's just -- it's so sad because we started this segment by showing the remarkable people that the Boy Scouts turn out on a regular basis and then there's this and it just leaves you so sunken, you know?

JACKSON: It really does.

BANFIELD: Stick around, I've got lots more to ask you, particularly about Penn State. We have some developments there. Joey Jackson, for us.

And, by the way, I just want to let you know that, of the more than 1,200 files that were released yesterday, the Boy Scouts have an answer to some of this. They said that local police were involved in nearly two-thirds of the cases within those files. The other one- third went mostly unreported.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

MITT ROMNEY, REPUBLICAN PRESIDENTIAL NOMINEE: Campaigns can require a lot of wardrobe changes. Blue jeans in the morning perhaps, suits for a lunch fundraiser, sport coat for dinner.

But it's nice to finally relax and wear what Ann and I wear around the house.

OBAMA: I went shopping at some stores in Midtown. I understand Governor Romney went shopping for some stores in Midtown.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

BANFIELD: Awesome and funny and light and you know what, a really good break from what's been going on on the campaign trail. That was the Alfred E. Smith Dinner in New York City, big charity fundraiser.

It's a tradition where the guys get together and they don't spar. We've been at it for a while, the campaign trail has been ugly. Those debates have been down right nearly violent it seems, certainly verbally violent. And then there was this moment last night. You're not hearing it a lot on the news, but I wanted to play this for you because it stood out to at least me. Take a look.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

ROMNEY: Our 44th president has many gifts and a beautiful family that would make any man proud.

OBAMA: I particularly want to thank Governor Romney for joining me because I admire him very much as a family man and loving father and those are two titles that will always matter more than any political ones.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

BANFIELD: Both candidates got applause after their nice speeches and both got standing ovations, too.

Paul Steinhauser, I just wanted to play that because, honestly, I just exhaled when I saw them. I don't know if it was a ploy or it was an effort to get those needles to turn. You know, people like that.

Or you know what? If it's just these are two guys who are professional, who do like each other, they do have varying opinions and they're just having it out on the campaign trail.

PAUL STEINHAUSER, CNN POLITICAL EDIOTR: Did you enjoy last night? It seems like you did.

BANFIELD: I did. I really did. Well, I particularly like that moment, so now you're going to tell me it's over, Ashleigh. Kumbaya's gone.

STEINHAUSER: Done. I hope you enjoyed last night because that is probably it. You're not going to see these two men so nice to each other any time between now and election day.

Something else you won't see when they meet up on Monday for the final debate, they won't be wearing tuxedos and white ties. I think I can guarantee that, as well. So, that is over because, yeah, we're moving on.

It was a light moment. It was a good moment and a good charitable moment for a worthy cause, but, yeah, both candidates now getting ready for the final showdown on Monday in Florida. It's a debate on foreign policy.

You're going to see both men on the campaign trail today, once today. The president is in Virginia a little later this hour, Mitt Romney in Florida, but that's it. Other than that, they're going to be under lock and key, Ashleigh, until Monday night when they meet in Boca Raton, Florida.

The debate is on foreign policy and here's another thing. They'll be sitting around a table very much like the vice presidential debate, so that'll be the format and the questions will come from the moderator, no audience.

BANFIELD: We're looking at polls really carefully when it comes to the swing states, especially after big events like the debates, big speeches, policy speeches and then last night's events, as well.

You've got some new polls?

STEINHAUSER: Two polls that came out last night. Take a look at these. This is from NBC/"Wall Street Journal" and Marist in two of the swing states. Let's start with Iowa. There you go, the president with an eight-point lead there. That's outside the sampling error so that's a lead. On this poll, this was conducted both before and after Tuesday's presidential debate, so half before, half after. Go to the next one, it's Wisconsin, another important state. This is the state where Paul Ryan comes from. A six-point advantage for the president there. This was conducted half before and half after. One thing from those NBC/"Wall Street Journal"/Marist polls, it indicates a gender gap, with the president having a big advantage among women and Mitt Romney with an advantage among men -- Ashleigh?

BANFIELD: As we wrap up, let's throw up that Gallup Daily Tracking Poll that has Romney ahead by seven points.

STEINHAUSER: Seven points.

BANFIELD: It's important to look at those dates, right?

STEINHAUSER: Yes.

BANFIELD: That that was taken on the 11th and the 17th?

STEINHAUSER: Which means it was conducted almost entirely before the debate on Tuesday night. Another thing about Gallup, their numbers indicate a larger advantage for Mitt Romney than some other polls. But we look at all the polls -- Ashleigh?

BANFIELD: New ones are coming out, too, and they will show the post- debate numbers as well. So we'll check in with you on that.

Hey, Paul, have a great weekend. Thank you.

STEINHAUSER: Thank you.

BANFIELD: And up get your rest, my friend, because on Monday, we're going to put you right back to work, because look what's coming. The final presidential debate is on the way. Monday, our coverage starts 7:00 p.m. sharp, live from Boca Raton, Florida.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

MALYA VILLARD-APPOLON, CNN HERO & FOUNDER, KOFAVIV: (SPEAKING FOREIGN LANGUAGE)

Two years after the earthquake the situation is still the same. The people are still under the tent. They don't have electricity. There is no security where they sleep. They are getting raped.

In Haiti, things are very difficult. Before the earthquake, there were rapes happening. Now I can say it is total disorder.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: They raped me January 15, 2010.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: I was raped several times.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: It is very common. Even 1-and-a-half-year-old babies are raped.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: After January 12, 2010, this little child, my granddaughter, wasn't seven 5 years old yet, and she was raped.

VILLARD-APPOLON: Daughters are not spared. Mothers are not spared. Even babies are not spared.

My name is Malya Yillard-Appolon. I am a victim of sexual violence.

I am on a mission to eradicate this issue so that other Haitian women do not fall victim.

Morning, Madam.

(CROSSTALK)

VILLARD-APPOLON: (SPEAKING FOREIGN LANGUAGE)

We do awareness in the camps. We were working in 22 camps after the earthquake. Now we are trying to work in others.

We tell people to come out of silence. Do not be afraid to say that you have been victimized.

We offer psychological and legal support. We have a call center. We accompany the victim to the hospital. And we have a safe house program.

For me, the first thing is justice that I want. I was a victim and I did not find justice. But I know I will get it for other women that are victims.

(SINGING) VILLARD-APPOLON: We have to fight so we can say what was said in the past, beloved Haiti. This is a great mission.

(SPEAKING FOREIGN LANGUAGE)

There will be a change.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

OBAMA: We're getting to that time where folks are making up their minds. Just the other day, "Honey Boo Boo" endorsed me.

(LAUGHTER)

So that's a big relief.

(LAUGHTER)

ROMNEY: In the spirit of "Sesame Street," the president's remarks tonight are brought to you by the letter "O" and the number $16 trillion.

(LAUGHTER)

(END VIDEO CLIP)

BANFIELD: Kind of hard to write $16 trillion if you have to do it fast, right? Both candidates poking a little fun at each other. Short lived though, as Paul Steinhauser reported earlier, because this weekend, a big weekend for both of them. The president is going to be at Camp David. He'll be doing debate camp, debate prep. Governor Romney has the same weekend plans, except he'll be doing his debate prep in Florida.

Wolf Blitzer joins me now. He'll be going to Florida as well.

I want to talk about getting ready for the big one. This is the final debate so it really matters, maybe more so than the last two. In debate one, it felt as though -- correct me if I'm wrong -- that the candidates were trying to appeal to the undecided voters. Debate two, it seemed they were trying to get to their base and get those people out to the polls. What's the mission of debate three, the final debate?

WOLF BLITZER, HOST, THE SITUATION ROOM: If they can, they'd like to get their base, energize their base. Turnout is going to be critically important on November 6th. Remember, a huge chunk of the country can vote early as well. Turning out the base is going to be really important for the Republicans and for the Democrats.

But, look, there's still a small but significant group of undecided voters or switchable voters out there that could make the difference if it's really close and I suspect it will be really close in Florida, for example, in Iowa or Virginia or Colorado. Some of these dates will be really, really close. So they've got to do both.

When the president of the United States goes on a show like "The Daily Show" with Jon Stewart, that's mostly designed to get out the base. Young people, they voted overwhelmingly for him four years ago. He wants to get them excited and make sure they show up to vote. That's not an easy challenge but they're working hard to do that.

BANFIELD: Yes. I was talking to Candy Crowley about this after her terrific performance and she was saying, it's remarkable when you look at the real undecideds versus the uncommitted. Some are truly up in the air, but others feel like they know who they'll vote for but can be swayed. When you boil it down to the ones that matter most, it's almost negligible, and thus the import becomes just getting your base out and making sure those committed voters actually vote.

But do you think that that will be the critical mission? Is that what's going to turn -- this is such a close race, just a few people can make the difference as we saw in Florida in 2000.

BLITZER: About 500 people or so in Florida in 2000 made a huge difference. Remember, this third and final presidential debate is supposed to be strictly on foreign policy. I suspect both of these candidates will try to underscore economic issues and say if the United States is not economically strong, it will be weak internationally and they'll make the pivot to a certain degree, talk about issue number one in the United States, which is the economy and jobs and all of that and they'll have a little explanation why it's so important for America's national security to be economically strong, less dependent. For example, our loans from China, if you can reduce the budget deficit, stuff like that. By and large, it's going to be a debate, I suspect about Libya, Syria, Iran, China, Russia. These are the big issues out there on the international stage. And I suspect that Bob Schaeffer, who is going to be the debate moderator Monday night, will focus in on these major international issues. The war on terrorism, it's obviously a national security foreign policy issue as well.

BANFIELD: And Libya, too.

Bob Schieffer better get out his Kevlar today as he gets ready for Monday.

BLITZER: Yes.

BANFIELD: Wolf, you're going to do the top coverage for us. I'm going to thank you now so can you get ready for your show, and hopefully get a little rest at some point this weekend.

Thanks, Wolf.

BLITZER: Thank you.

BANFIELD: As a reminder, everybody, Wolf and the team is converging Monday night for this third and final presidential debate. It gets under way live from Boca Raton, Florida. Tune in at 7:00 eastern right here on CNN. (COMMERCIAL BREAK)

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

ELISE LABOTT, CNN FOREIGN AFFAIRS REPORTER: Jerusalem's old city is famous for its culture. This market is where you're going to find the real tastes and smells of Israel.

Outside the market, you have the freshest fruits and vegetables. The produce in this country is really incredible.

And inside the market, they have all these breads and sweets and dried fruits and nuts, and all these great nibbly things that they call bisetts (ph) here. There's also a whole alley of different restaurants where people can come and eat lunch.

But the thing that I like the most about this market is you can find Israelis and Palestinians from all walks of life here. No matter what the divisions are in this country, everyone can agree on one thing, good food.

Elise Labott, CNN, Jerusalem.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

BANFIELD: Although his sentencing was 10 days ago, it looks like the Jerry Sandusky case is far from over. Lawyers for the former Penn State football coach are appealing his child sex abuse convictions. They want a whole new trial. They're arguing they deserve it because they weren't given enough time to prepare for such a high-profile case with so many charges and so much information to go through. They're also saying that some of the charges themselves should never have been brought. They argue that the statute of limitations on those charges had run out.

While most of Sandusky's accused victims have stayed clear out of the public spotlight, 18-year-old Aaron Fisher, who previously known to all of us was victim number one, has decided to come out, give us his name, and speak for the very first time.

Here's what he told ABC News's "20/20" about just how hard this was to break his silence.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

UNIDENTIFIED 20/20 CO-ANCHOR: You weren't able to say this guy is a monster, he is sexually assaulting me?

AARON FISHER, SANDUSKY VICTIM: I couldn't do it.

UNIDENTIFIED 20/20 CO-ANCHOR: Why?

FISHER: Embarrassment, fear of not being believed. Victim means people feel sympathy for you. I don't want that. I would rather be somebody that did something good.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

BANFIELD: Aaron Fisher wrote a book about the abuse, and it will be coming out next week.

In the meantime, what chances does Jerry Sandusky actually have of prevailing in this appeal? Might he actually get out of jail? You're going to find out some of the answers in just a moment.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

BANFIELD: We mentioned before the break that lawyers for former Penn State football coach, Jerry Sandusky, have decided to appeal the child sex abuse convictions that their client got in court. Just 10 days ago, Sandusky was sentenced to between 30 and 60 years in prison. But according to a new 31-page court filing, his lawyers want a brand new trial. They say the last one wasn't fair because they weren't given enough time to prepare for it. This is high profile.

Defense attorney, legal commentator, Joey Jackson, joins me now to talk about this.

In all fairness, this was a seven-month process.

JACKSON: It was.

BANFIELD: And there were, what, 52 original counts that Jerry Sandusky was facing. You're a lawyer. That is an enormous amount of material -- the evidence, the reading, the documents, the thumb drives to thumb through. Is that fair?

JACKSON: Here's what it comes down to. It comes down to the issue of reasonableness. He gets arrested in November of 2011. The trial proceeds seven months later in June. This issue is, did they deny him a fair trail because they were not afforded an opportunity to prepare? Certainly, seven months could be deemed reasonable and will be deemed reasonable by the court. I don't think that's a meritorious argument.

I further don't think in their motion, Ashleigh, that it's meritorious to say that the conviction was against the weight of the evidence or there was legally insufficient evidence. What trial were they watching? I don't want to be too prosecutorial here, but certainly the evidence seems to be compelling. I don't think --

(CROSSTALK)

BANFIELD: -- boy after boy after boy with the same M.O., many of them having never known each other prior to this.

JACKSON: Right. I don't think those arguments have any merit. Further, they were talking about jury sequestration, the jury should have been sequestered, maybe they were contaminated. I don't think that has any merit. And further --

(CROSSTALK) BANFIELD: By the way, this is a defense attorney who fought moving the trial into another jurisdiction. It was like apples -- the strangest dynamic that played out prior to trial. The prosecutors wanted to move this trial out, get a fresh jury pool.

JACKSON: Interesting, isn't it? Interesting.

BANFIELD: It was the defense that didn't want it.

JACKSON: The only thing that I think might have merit in their argument is they're arguing about the statute of limitations as it relates, again, to child abuse and when charges can be filed. The law in Pennsylvania was changed twice. In 2002, it was moved to say that you have 12 years after the 18th birthday of the victim. It was later amended. What the lawyers are arguing --

(CROSSTALK)

BANFIELD: Retroactive to all cases.

JACKSON: Exactly. What they're saying, Ashleigh, is that you cannot retroactively apply that statute. And if the statute of limitations was up upon the charging of Sandusky, then that should not apply.

BANFIELD: Doesn't the law spell out whether you can retroactively apply the new law?

JACKSON: Yes. But they're making the argument that -- here the law pretty much clearly says that it doesn't apply retroactively. It applies to those people who are not statute of limitations out. So ultimately -- because it would otherwise be what we call an ex post facto law. Remember reading about that? Ex post facto.

BANFIELD: You're so smart.

JACKSON: Not at all. Not at all.

(LAUGHTER)

BANFIELD: I don't remember reading about ex post facto.

JACKSON: I think that's the best argument, but the other -- the whole argument, Ashleigh, about, you know what, it's against this sentence from 30 to 60 years is cruel and unusual. He faced 442 years, Ashleigh. The judge clearly went well below that, and that doesn't have merit either.

BANFIELD: The option -- the request for the defense to at least lower the number of years that he is facing because it's cruel, don't see it happening?

JACKSON: Not at all. Don't see it happening at all. If there were errors made in the trial, was the outcome determinative? I don't think it was. It was harmless error.

BANFIELD: Couple of seconds left. If he gets a new trial, does he get out on bail while he awaits the new trial?

JACKSON: I think based on the nature of this offense. It would be tough for a judge to justify releasing him.

BANFIELD: So he is where he is at least for the time being?

JACKSON: I think he stays. I think he stays.

BANFIELD: It's good to have you.

JACKSON: That's my prediction.

BANFIELD: Thank you. You're always so smart, ex post factor or not.

JACKSON: It's a pleasure.

(LAUGHTER)

BANFIELD: Thank you. Have a great weekend.

JACKSON: You, too, Ashleigh.

BANFIELD: Thanks, everybody, for watching. Stay tuned now for NEWSROOM INTERNATIONAL, with Michael Holmes sitting in for Suzanne Malveaux.

MICHAEL HOLMES, CNN ANCHOR: And thanks to you, Ashleigh.

Welcome to NEWSROOM INTERNATIONAL. And as Ash said, I'm Michael Holmes. Suzanne Malveaux is still out. We're taking you around the world in 60 minutes.