Return to Transcripts main page
Isa Soares Tonight
Ukraine Says North Korea Is Boosting Its Support For Russia, Including Sending Missiles And More Troops; Prince Harry And Six Other High-Profile Figures Get Hit With An Initial $13 Million Bill After Their Failed Legal Case Against The Publisher Of The British Daily Mail; Defense Rests Their Case In The Triple Murder Trial of Lindsay Clancy; Ukraine: At Least 14 Killed In Russian Double-Tap Strike; U.S. Supreme Court Allows Trump's White House Ballroom Construction To Continue For Now; Defense Rests Its Case In Lindsay Clancy Trial; Neutrogena Addresses Hayden Panettiere's Death; How Artificial Intelligence Is Changing Our Relationships. Aired 2-3p ET
Aired August 21, 2026 - 14:00 ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
[14:00:00]
MAX FOSTER, HOST, ISA SOARES TONIGHT: Welcome to the show, everyone, I'm Max Foster in for Isa Soares. Tonight, Ukraine says North Korea is boosting
its support for Russia, including sending missiles and more troops.
Then Prince Harry and six other high-profile figures are hit with an initial $13 million bill after their failed legal case against the
publisher of the British "Daily Mail". Plus, the defense rests their case in the triple murder trial of Lindsay Clancy. We have the latest on that
and much more this hour.
But we are going to begin with a horrific attack in Ukraine. Ukrainian authorities say at least 14 people have been killed, and over 120 wounded
in a Russian strike.
It happened during a so-called double tap on a shopping center in central Ukraine. At least 29 of the people who were hurt are in serious condition,
including at least five children. President Volodymyr Zelenskyy says the first drone strike caused a massive fire.
You're looking at video from social media of the second strike which came in about 30 minutes later. Mr. Zelenskyy says that second strike targeted
emergency responders. We're going to have more on this story in just a moment for you.
Meanwhile, a senior Ukrainian Intelligence official says the latest deployment of North Korean troops to Russia includes hundreds of drone
operators. He says the drones will likely be used to survey and attack targets inside Ukraine.
According to the Deputy Head of Ukrainian Defense Intelligence, Russian President Vladimir Putin may ask North Korean Leader Kim Jong Un for up to
50,000 more troops when they meet in September. Our chief international security correspondent, Nick Paton Walsh, has more on Pyongyang's deepening
relationship with Moscow and how these drone capabilities may impact the war.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
NICK PATON WALSH, CNN CHIEF INTERNATIONAL SECURITY CORRESPONDENT (on camera): It's a sign of North Korea's increasing comfort when it comes to
flexing kind of their global might, and also possibly too, of the growing relationship between Moscow and Pyongyang.
Remind everybody, this all began back in October 2024 when North Korea, not acknowledging it, sent about 10,000 troops to assist Russia because of the
Ukrainian invasion of Kursk, the first since the Nazis.
But that relationship has continued to grow, and we now understand that there has been about 25,000 rotated through since that initial deployment.
Remember, that first deployment suffered horrific casualties, some suggesting about 4,000 of the 10,000 came back dead or injured.
But they taught other North Koreans what they learned about drone warfare, about the very different frontlines in Ukraine. Now, more have since been -
- they are still on Russian territory. The senior Ukrainian Intelligence official told me they're not heading into Ukraine.
But the interesting difference are the capabilities that these troops now have with them. Four hundred of this, 7,500 troops that have gone in the
latest deployment are part of a drone unit that have learned from the previous guys and may well be using recon drones and possibly attack drones
over Ukrainian territory.
That's interesting, because it suggests that they're perhaps getting involved in attacks on Ukrainian territory. At the same time, too, I should
point out, the current understanding by Ukrainian Intelligence is these North Korean troops will stay on Russian territory.
But there are also thought to be about 90 launch personnel from North Korea who have gone to a unit in Voronezh in Russia, to help launch ballistic
missiles at Ukraine. Now, that's particularly important because Ukraine has a massive lack of air defenses.
Now, these KN-23 and 24 missiles are part of the launches we see against Ukraine. There was an incident in Dnipro region in July where four children
from the same family were killed by what Ukraine says was North Korean missiles.
So, a sign here of expanding North Korean assistance to Russia at a time when ultimately, Ukraine seems to be suffering from that lack of air
defenses.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
FOSTER: Let's speak to Nick Paton Walsh now, because, Nick, you've been looking into this double tap we've been hearing about today in Ukraine,
which sounds absolutely horrific.
[14:05:00]
WALSH: Yes, I mean, the images are particularly distressing. Remember, we seem to be in something of an escalatory spiral here between Ukraine and
Russia. Russia continuing its callous, often targeting of specifically civilian sites, and also Ukraine hitting recently as well, distribution
centers for Amazon-style delivery service called Wildberries.
Now, they say that's part of their military logistics network. But both sides sort of increasingly looking towards civilian targets. Russia has
been doing that much more severely for some time. But this strike on Kryvyi Rih in a shopping center is a particularly ghastly strike, it seems. I've
been to that shopping center.
It is frequented by everybody you might possibly imagine. According to officials here, there was one drone strike in two waves and then 30 minutes
after the first, a second drone went in specifically, so Ukrainian officials to hit the first responders on the scene.
Now, the numbers here are particularly striking because we're talking about 14 fatalities as of 8 O'clock, that's about an hour ago, Ukrainian time,
and 121 injured, including 22 children. So, devastating toll in this particularly specific bid to hit a civilian target there.
You know, these shopping centers, yes, sometimes you see soldiers in there buying food like everybody else. But this is very clearly a civilian target
being hit. And we're now seeing, I think this increasing scope of targets by both sides, I should say Ukraine's targeting more infrastructure and
military it seems, in its focus.
But Russia increasingly brutal in what it's willing to hit out at. We've reported on damage to gas stations across the country, upon the energy
infrastructure regularly look almost nightly apartment blocks are hit, unclear if that's purposeful or just missiles going wildly off course.
The Ukrainian official you were referencing in that earlier report talked about how some of these North Korean missiles land 15 to 19 kilometers off
what they believe is their target. So, an increasingly horrific toll there, and I should point out, too, that July was the most deadly month for
Ukrainian civilians since May of 2022.
There is no real peace mechanism at sight here. There have been discussions, potentially, that maybe the U.S. process, essentially moribund
now, might somehow have live breathed into it again, maybe a visit by Jared Kushner or Steve Witkoff to Moscow.
They even floated some individuals. The idea they might even go to Ukraine for the first time. But that seems to be paused. And instead, now we're
seeing Russia clearly exploiting the horrific gap in Ukraine's air defenses, because they're not getting the Patriot interceptors they need.
The strike you're seeing images from now, that's a drone. Russia's drones jet powered now faster, harder to stop. We're going to see more horrific
incidents like this I fear in the months ahead. Max.
FOSTER: I appreciate it, Nick, thank you for joining us. Iran's President says it would be better to end the war today whilst we're in a position of
strength and dignity. That is according to Iranian state media. Now, his message comes on the heels of U.S. President Donald Trump's vow to crush
Iran economically.
The President warned of tremendous economic consequences against countries that do business with Tehran. China responded today by saying sanctions do
not fit the interests of any party. Meanwhile, after nearly nine months at sea and with the crew's morale reportedly at a low point, the USS Lincoln
is now on its way home from the Middle East.
Families of service members have raised concerns about the sailors' mental health and conditions on the carrier. It's being replaced by the USS George
Washington. An Iranian photojournalist sentenced to 15 years in prison after being accused of spying for Israel, is refusing to be silenced.
Yalda Moaiery became the target of Iran's government after her photos of its brutal crackdown on dissent earlier this year spread online. As you'll
see in this extraordinary interview with my colleague Jim Sciutto, she remains defiant.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
JIM SCIUTTO, CNN ANCHOR: Yalda, of course, we've been following your case closely here at CNN. First, can you tell us exactly what the Iranian
authorities are accusing you of and what they've communicated to you?
YALDA MOAIERY, IRANIAN PHOTOJOURNALIST: I mean, this photography activities that I did, as a photojournalist, all of them constructed as a gathering
intelligence of -- for foreign entities. And I mean, aiding the Israel and America regime.
And they sentenced me to 15 years jail, and I think the only problem is that I'm not going to -- I'm not willing to work as a person in that
framework of propaganda that they want to force all the journalists to be there.
[14:10:00]
This is the main problem, but all of my interviews, all of my photos, all of -- all the things that I did as a photojournalist, you know, is like
crime for them. And these are all of my charges, including talking with you.
SCIUTTO: Well, given that, you know the risks here, do you have any concern that by talking to us again, it puts you in greater danger in any way? Why
do you continue to speak out?
MOAIERY: Yes, they just tweeted me hours before that, if you talk again with someone -- of course, they didn't mention your name, but if you talk
to someone about this case, we are coming to your home again, and we're going to raid your home again, and we're going to take your cellphones.
I do not care. I mean, of course, I'm scared of the things that's going to happen, 15 years is a life-time. But this is a risk that I'm accepting.
This is the risk that I was accepting in my whole life to tell the truth, to show the truth, to be an independent journalist and photojournalist.
I'll not give up. I'm -- I do not have any regret.
SCIUTTO: Your strength is remarkable. Do you believe that public or international attention to your case will help you in the long run?
MOAIERY: Oh, of course, of course. This is -- this is my belief. We do not have the -- as a journalist, as an independent journalist, we do not have
any kind of weapon. We have only the media and truth. And this is -- this is the thing that I always try to keep.
And I think when I inform the people about what is happening in my country, what is happening about me or my case, it will help to the other
journalists all around the world who are living under the authoritarian, you know, dictatorial regime and countries. I think it's like a global
solution for all of us, and of course, it will help.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
FOSTER: Now, the legal bill has been revealed for Prince Harry and other high-profile figures in a failed case against the publisher of the "Daily
Mail". The Duke of Sussex and six others, including Sir Elton John, his husband as well, David Furnish, will have to make an initial payment of $13
million.
They accused the "Mail's" publisher, "Associated Newspapers Limited", of gathering information unlawfully, claims the publisher strongly denied. A
judge dismissed all the cases last month. It comes as the Duke and the Duchess of Sussex expected to return here to the U.K. in just a matter of
days.
Security amongst the top issues still to be addressed with the British Prime Minister saying it's a private matter. Richard Quest, following all
the developments for us. Richard, I mean, this court case is interesting, isn't it?
Because the standard payouts, which -- and the judge is very clear that this isn't a standard payout. It's going to be much bigger than other
payouts because the case was so badly advised.
RICHARD QUEST, CNN BUSINESS EDITOR-AT-LARGE: Yes, I mean, we're talking here about costs in this case. And in British courts, English courts, costs
follow the event. That's the phrase they used. Costs follow the event. If you lose, you have to pay the other side's costs.
It's quite common in many legal systems. In this case, "Associated Newspapers" said that they were -- the costs were 34 million -- let me just
put that into my calculator, 34 million pounds, which would be $46 million.
Now, the judge said that seemed exceptionally high, and he certainly wasn't going to go along with that. So, for the moment, he making them pay $13
million on account as it's known, the litigants, Prince Harry, Sir Elton and all the others, they have legal insurance up to $16 million.
So, they've been told to pay 13 million, they've got another $3 million before the insurance. And then anything that the judge finally says above
$16 million, $16 million to $34 million out of their own pocket.
FOSTER: But effectively, Harry accused the "Daily Mail" on most of these articles of illegally sourcing its stories --
QUEST: Sure --
FOSTER: And the judge said there was no evidence of that whatsoever.
[14:15:00]
QUEST: UIG, unlawful information gathering. And the judge also said back in July that the more serious -- the test is always the same, probability of
evidence in a civil case.
But the judge said the more serious the allegation, the more serious the allegation of law breaking. Well, then the higher the evidence had to be if
they were going to prove on a balance and the judge found conclusively against all the litigants, Harry, Sir Elton, David Furnish, Sadie Frost, a
whole load of them.
Conclusively, he said there were other ways that "Associated" could have found out about these various facts, and he went further into one case. He
said that the idea that the executives in charge had somehow broken the law, there was not the evidence for.
So, Prince Harry comes back to Britain, pardon the phrase, tail between the legs having lost this massive case. We have no idea how they're going to
pay for their security. We do know that they've requested privacy.
And of course, the normal rules that apply in Britain in these sorts of cases, the code of behavior with the press will be brought into effect. And
now, I'm afraid to say, Max, the circus has arrived in town.
FOSTER: Yes, it's inevitable, isn't it? It's going to get a lot of --
QUEST: Yes --
FOSTER: Coverage. They know that. But tell us about how they are managing the press coverage because there was a note that went out today.
QUEST: It is, and it was a note that reminded the press, and that includes us, of course, that the family is entitled to privacy. It's entitled to
privacy of where they live, the children's privacy, it's entitled to privacy about where the children are going to school.
There will be -- and this is going to have to be enforced, an entirely draconian restrictions around the family, because at one point, at one
level, they're entitled to the same privacy. Max, you and I are as we go about our business on a London Street.
But most people don't care what you and I do on a London Street, and it's going to be up to the Press Council. It's going to be up to all the usual
bodies to enforce what the Sussexes have reasonably asked of the media, basically, leave us alone.
Now, of course, this depends on how much they are willing to be left alone. What's Meghan going to do? What's Harry going to do? Where are the children
going to be shown in public? It's a real minefield of privacy rights issues.
FOSTER: I've seen you mobbed on streets, you can speak for yourself, Richard, but thank you for joining us. Still to come tonight on the show,
reunited, and it feels so good. That's what Michael Cohen sang as he publicly reconciled with his former boss, President Donald Trump after
years of bitter feuds. What's behind the unlikely truce? Ahead.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[14:20:00]
FOSTER: May seem strange at first to hear that U.S. President Donald Trump is having a friendly bit of banter with Michael Cohen after they spent
years locked in a bitter legal feud. But both men may be angling for something as they publicly reunite and bury the hatchet.
The President's former fixer and personal attorney hosted Mr. Trump by phone on his New York radio program. You may remember that Michael Cohen
went to prison for his role in what he called Mr. Trump's dirty deeds.
They exchanged bitter insults for years, but now, Cohen says, they've found forgiveness. He was warm and deferential, calling Mr. Trump, sir and boss
as he focused on some of the President's favorite themes.
(BEGIN AUDIO CLIP)
DONALD TRUMP, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: The weaponized you, like nobody has ever been weaponized like few have been.
MICHAEL COHEN, FORMER TRUMP LAWYER: Well, maybe just you and I, sir.
TRUMP: And you --
COHEN: But --
TRUMP: Yes, me too, but I don't consider mine. You know, mine was -- mine was at a level that nobody's ever seen before, but they weaponized you.
They weaponized a lot of people. And I respect the fact that you recanted - -
COHEN: Yes --
TRUMP: Everything you said, and that's a big -- that's a big thing that you did. That's a very big thing.
(END AUDIO CLIP)
FOSTER: Their reunion could benefit them both, of course. President Trump is seeking political allies ahead of November's crucial Midterm elections,
and Michael Cohen is seeking a pardon. Let's get some perspective now from Jason Rantz.
He's a conservative radio host in Seattle, Washington. Thank you so much for joining us. I think that soundbite is interesting, isn't it? Because
you learn something about Donald Trump. He can be really tough, but he can also forgive.
JASON RANTZ, CONSERVATIVE RADIO HOST: Yes, look, there's a vindictive nature to the President, but there's also a forgiving nature to the
President. Obviously, Michael Cohen is stepping forward and making these statements and quite recant everything.
But he obviously has been talking about how he believes that the process was abused. And the President was a victim of that. So, it does obviously
benefit the President to get that kind of narrative out there.
I don't think this changes that much in the grand scheme of things. I know Michael Cohen obviously wants this pardon, which has some, you know,
restorative value, I suppose, in some cases. But he's already served his time in jail.
He's not going to get that much out of it. And the President will be able to now point to something very specific as to why he believes there is this
lawfare against him. And I think, obviously, with that on his side, his case becomes a little bit stronger.
FOSTER: What did you make -- I mean, we haven't heard it all. I don't know, you may have heard more of it than me, but what did you make of the tone of
it?
RANTZ: It was -- it was a friendly tone. I think, again, because of the way they kind of broke up, it might be a little bit surprising. But also keep
in mind, they've known each other for a very long time, and they were very close.
And just from a human level, when you feel like you've been wronged by a friend, it doesn't negate the emotional attachment you have to that
friendship and what it meant in the past. You know, I don't know many people who trust Michael Cohen, and I imagine the President is still
probably in that camp, regardless of how this came off.
But when you have that kind of emotional attachment to a long-term friendship, I don't think you want to just give that up, even if it's
really painful to be, you know, sort of thrown under the bus from the President's perspective, the way that he was.
FOSTER: I wanted to ask you about another big story that's really making headlines around the world, here in Europe, for example. Natalie Harp,
who's this very close aide to the President, she seems to be making the front pages. Everyone's fascinated by her.
She seems to have come from nowhere. But you're someone, obviously, that has known about her for a long time. Could you tell us a bit about her and
what you think about the coverage and all the speculation around their very close working relationship?
RANTZ: Well, the speculation is completely contrived as a way to attack the President. Usually, however, you don't do that by going very specifically
through someone that most people haven't heard of. You then become the victim of this kind of quote, unquote "speculation" that's being done in
bad faith.
[14:25:00]
No one actually thinks they're having an affair. She is a very close aide. Every single President has very close aides. Sometimes they're young women,
sometimes they're older men. It happens across the board.
To use her in this specific way, I just think is pretty distasteful and completely did come out of nowhere. It sounds like they have been rumbling
of any kind of affair between the two. This was created by Jon Ossoff, who was, you know, looking to run for President.
He sees this as an opening. I get wanting to get under the President's skin and strategically trying to attack the President. And there have been some
folks who have said, well, you know, if you're upset about this, you should be upset about Donald Trump.
It's not so much that Donald Trump just targets random people out of nowhere for the purposes of going after his enemy. He targets the people he
views as his enemy. To target Natalie Harp, who again, in this country and overseas, no one has ever really heard of unless you're working really
behind the scenes -- just, I think, goes a step too far.
FOSTER: And just a thought on the elections that we've seen recently, all setting up, of course, towards the Midterms, how you're reading,
particularly the dynamic on the Republican side and how much pressure the President might be under.
I know that some of the candidates that he's endorsed haven't won. I mean, what do you read into that?
RANTZ: Yes, I mean, a lot of the candidates he's endorsed have won. It's one of those things where there are a lot of races he's going to be picking
and choosing, and sometimes you win, sometimes you lose.
There haven't been these massive upsets from what the President has endorsed. I think some of these races, they were kind of sleepers that no
one was really paying attention to, but still, you have to live with that, that record, I suppose.
You know, the general anxiety going into the Midterms is what you would expect historically when you've got power in the White House, the Senate
and the House, you're going to lose at least the House or the Senate. Sometimes you lose both, sometimes you lose one.
Republicans will lose the House. The question is, by what margin? What that number is going to look like? And if it is a "shellacking", to quote
President Obama from his term, that's one thing. But if you're going from having a handful of Republicans in charge to a handful of Democrats having
the majority, I think Republicans would look at that as a victory.
They obviously don't want to lose both the House and the Senate. There's some concern with the Senate, but the reality is the spending hasn't come
in on most of these elections. And Republicans, for the most part, they're a little bit slow to get really engaged in Midterms.
And so, I don't know if the polling right now is reflection of that. I think Democrats have put themselves in a little bit of a tough spot with
some of the socialists who are active socialists. I'm not, you know, dismissing them as socialists.
They call themselves that -- being put into these positions I think are making it a little bit more difficult for the Democrats to bring up the
victory that they had hoped for.
FOSTER: Yes, the Midterms is coming around fast, aren't they? Keeping you busy. Jason Rantz --
RANTZ: Yes --
FOSTER: Really appreciate your thoughts on all of those topics. Really appreciate it. Thank you for joining us.
RANTZ: Appreciate it.
FOSTER: We're going to come back in just a moment with more of breaking news that we've been showing you at the top of the show.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[14:31:20]
FOSTER: Welcome back. I'm Max Foster. Now, we're going to return to our top story this hour. The reported double-tap strike on a shopping center in
central Ukraine today. At least 14 killed, 121 wounded, dozens critically, including at least five children. President Zelenskyy said the second
Russian strike came about minutes after the first and targeted emergency responders.
Let's bring in CNN Military Analyst Colonel Cedric Leighton. I don't know what you thought of this, Colonel, but clearly a civilian target, and this
second attack on the emergency workers, if indeed the president is right, does seem to be a particularly brutal strategy.
COL. CEDRIC LEIGHTON (RET), CNN MILITARY ANALYST: Yes, it certainly is, Max, and it really shows the brutality not only of this war, but of the
Russian methods and the tactics that the Russians are using in order to prosecute their part of this conflict. And what you're really seeing here
is, I think, Russia's effort to make the war as miserable as possible for the Ukrainian civilian population.
And we're in August right now, still a warm month, but once we get into the fall and into the wintertime, we can expect more efforts by the Russians to
hit not only civilian installations like this shopping mall, but also energy supplies just like we had in years past. And that is going to I
think have a significant impact on the Ukrainian population. But I also think the Ukrainian population is going to be ready for it. And that of
course is going to make quite a difference.
Now as far as this particular strike is concerned, Max, one of the things to note is that drones were apparently the instrument of choice in this --
in this case this the weapon of choice. And that also points to the fact that there are several levels of the Ukrainian air and missile defense
system that really need to be refurbished at this particular point in time and Ukraine definitely needs some help in this area.
FOSTER: Yes. Of course, they rely on America. America makes the particularly strong defense systems, but Europe's also got some of these
anti-defense missiles that could -- they could send over. Do you think there's some culpability here when we see these images that they are, you
know, I don't want to say sitting ducks, but it sort of feels like that when the allies aren't supplying them with what they need.
LEIGHTON: Yes, it needs to go beyond words. And you know I know that the European Union President Ursula von der Leyen has said that, you know,
she's convening meetings to provide more of these anti-missile anti-drone defenses to the Ukrainians and, you know, things like the scalp system and
the storm T. those are you know critical European elements that can be brought into the Ukrainian air defense architecture and they need to be
brought in there.
So basically, between Europe and the United States, both of these areas are culpable and they really need to step it up in order to save Ukrainian
lives as well as hasten the day when there is some kind of a resolution to this particular war.
FOSTER: And is the fact that we weren't hearing about --
LEIGHTON: Max, I'm afraid I've lost you here. Oh, there we go.
FOSTER: OK. Cedric --
LEIGHTON: Max, can you repeat the question?
FOSTER: All right. I just -- yes, you know, we are hearing more about these strikes going into, you know, Ukraine. Were we not hearing about them
before because they did have the defensive systems?
[14:35:09]
LEIGHTON: Yes, I think that's actually true. I think the Ukrainians were able to handle things quite well. They were much more accurate in many
cases than comparable American missile batteries. You know, for example, in the Iran war, there were reports that the Americans fought -- fired about
six to eight specific Patriot interceptor missiles against targets, incoming targets. Whereas in Ukraine they were often able to take care of
the targets with just firing two missiles. So, the ratio of the Ukrainians is better than that example certainly and it shows that the Ukrainians were
quick learners when it comes to the air defense and missile defense capabilities that they received from the West. So, it's not for want of
training on the Ukrainians part, but they definitely need the wherewithal, the equipment in order to protect their people and to protect their
sovereignty.
FOSTER: OK. Cedric, as ever, thank you so much for joining us with your analysis on that breaking news story out of out of Ukraine.
Still to come tonight on the show, the defense rests in the Lindsay Clancy murder trial. We'll take a look at what happened today in court for you.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
FOSTER: Some breaking news coming into us now. The U.S. Supreme Court is letting President Donald Trump's construction of the White House ballroom
continue for now at least. The administrative stay gives the justices additional time to consider the administration's formal requests. And
historic preservation group sued to block the project. It argues the president needs congressional approval to build the ballroom. The
administration says the project is a security necessity. The court didn't address the legality of the project.
Now, the defense has rested in its case in the -- its case rather in the Lindsay Clancy murder trial. The 36-year-old Massachusetts woman did not
take the stand about fatally strangling her three children. And the defense is trying to show her actions were the result of mental illness and a
combination of drugs to treat postpartum psychosis.
In court on Friday, the defense had a forensic psychiatrist call in to discuss her case.
[14:40:02]
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
DR. PHILLIP RESNICK, FORENSIC PSYCHIATRIST: She had what is known as a delusion of influence. That is not only did she hear a command, but she
felt that her body was taken over by an external force where she were in a dream state and did not have control of her own body. It was almost like
she was a puppet and someone else was pulling the strings.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
FOSTER: Brynn Gingras joins me now. She didn't take the stand, I guess, because this is a debate about health and clinical expertise is central to
the defense case.
BRYNN GINGRAS, CNN U.S. NATIONAL CORRESPONDENT: Yes, exactly right. I mean, if I could be honest, this was probably the most critical witness for the
defense before it rested its case to get at that clinical definition, which is what the jury is going to have to consider, Max. I mean, let alone this
witness, his name is Phillip Resnick. He's a forensic psychiatrist. And look, he has worked on really made a career on working on some of the most
-- the biggest murder cases in the entire country, maybe even the world.
We're talking about names like Scott Peterson, Caylee Anthony, the Unabomber, Jeffrey Dahmer, Andrea Yates. Of course, that last name is
drawing the most similar parallels to Lindsay Clancy's case. And in fact the defense submitted his 40-page resume to the jurors as evidence. So,
really this was a moment in court where the defense was clearly telling the jury, hey listen to this guy. He is an expert. He knows what he's talking
about. And you heard it from his own mouth there. He basically saying that she was in a state of psychosis. She had no control over her body when
these killings happened.
And now, when the cross-examination happened with the prosecution, they continue to sort of hammer home their point of that if there was these
commands from this voice that she has been hearing, how come none of her medical records up until the killings have reflected that? So, that's
something that we have heard from the prosecution, ask the defense witnesses throughout the entire case for the defense and that just
continued on.
So, at this point in the trial, we are nearing the end. It's getting a lot more traction now since we're certainly close to it being handed to the
jury. But currently jurors have just come back from lunch, and they are actually listening to rebuttal witnesses from the prosecution. We expect a
total of three. And then it's very possible, Max, that we are going to have closing arguments maybe Monday, maybe Tuesday, but it certainly seems like
the jury is going to have this case in their hands by sometime early next week.
FOSTER: We'll be watching closely. I really appreciate it, Brynn. Thank you so much for joining us from New York.
GINGRAS: All right.
FOSTER: Now, outside the courtroom, Clancy's story has raised concerns about how America's mental health care system treats women. Journalist
Aaron Parseghian explains.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
AARON PARSEGHIAN, JOURNALIST (voice-over): A sea of pink outside the Plymouth courthouse. Supporters of Lindsay Clancy coming from near and far
for day of testimony in her triple murder trial.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: We all relate in one way or another, and that is definitely attracting each of us here to support her.
PARSEGHIAN (voice-over): Some even waiting to greet defense attorney Kevin Reddington who tells us Lindsay was moved by the site.
KEVIN REDDINGTON, DEFENSE ATTORNEY FOR LINDSAY CLANCY: I mean, she's still very -- you know, very sad and very attentive. She's very -- boy, it is the
only thing I can think of. I -- all the support, she really appreciates it.
PARSEGHIAN (voice-over): For the scene outside, it was a rather quick day in court for jurors.
Lindsay talks frequently about her children. She loves them deeply. She carries immense grief.
PARSEGHIAN (voice-over): Chaplain Sheila Cavanaugh, the lone defense witness to take the stand Thursday, recalled what Lindsay told her from her
hospital bed just days after she strangled her three children and attempted to take her own life.
SHEILA CAVANAUGH, BOARD-CERTIFIED CHAPLAIN, BRIGHAM AND WOMEN'S HOSPITAL: She said to me as I held her hand to comfort her, I am so glad my children
are safe. I replied theologically to Lindsay and I said, Lindsay, your children are safe. They're safe in heaven with God.
PARSEGHIAN (voice-over): Cavanaugh telling the jury, Clancy also told her about the voice in her head the night of the killings. Testimony the
defense is using to bolster their argument. She was overmedicated and experiencing postpartum psychosis.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: You wrote very detailed notes that are contained in the Brigham Women's Hospital records.
PARSEGHIAN (voice-over): But in cross-examination, prosecutors aiming to prove the killings were premeditated questioned why the reported voices
never appear in any of Cavanaugh's reports.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: You've got all these details about her feelings and her thoughts and what she's doing, but nothing about the voices that you
spoke of so many times. Correct?
CAVANAUGH: Correct.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
FOSTER: We'll be following that case.
FOSTER: Neutrogena is speaking out on the sudden death of its former spokesperson Hayden Panettiere. Now, the company addressed her past claims
that Panettiere felt she was dropped by the brand for speaking out about postpartum depression and acknowledged they made her feel unsupported
during a difficult time. It also pledged to make a significant investment with a mental health partner. Today would have been the late actress's 37th
birthday.
[14:45:19]
Still to come tonight on the show, is A.I. really your friend? This week on Isa's Book Club, Isa sits down with researcher and author James Muldoon to
discuss his new book all about the rise of A.I. chatbots and how they're affecting our real relationships.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
ISA SOARES, CNN INTERNATIONAL ANCHOR: Joining us on our book club today is James Muldoon with Love Machines. James, welcome to the show.
JAMES MULDOON, AUTHOR, LOVE MACHINES: It's a pleasure to be here. Thanks.
SOARES: A real treat. this book really blew my mind in so many ways. I'm going to be frank, it's not an area that I researched or read up about at
great length prior to reading your book. And it explores the relationships, the rise of these relationships we're seeing with A.I. At what point did
you realize though that this was a story that needed to be told? Was there an experience that you had that kind of fermented that idea?
MULDOON: For me, it was the personal use that I had of an A.I. companion when I realized that as an A.I. researcher, I understand how it works. I
understand that there's not a character there waiting for you to respond. But as I found myself, you know, every day, every week just replying and
getting into these conversations, you start to forget basically that you are dealing with an A.I. because so much of our life is datafied, it's
technology. All the communication we do is already happening on our phones, on our laptops. So, adding an A.I. into the mix didn't actually feel that
weird.
And after a while, I just found myself getting into this easy flow of conversation. I realized, look, this could actually be quite important.
This could provide a lot of social support, too.
SOARES: And you in this research, you spoke to what a hundred chatbots or so. You explored this and you even created your own A.I. relationship. I
think -- what did you call it? It was Jasmine, right? Kind of around your wife -- in terms of idea of your wife. How was that? Speak to that
relationship and what you gained from that -- from that research.
MULDOON: Yes. So, I as part of the book I did interview a lot of human subjects, but I also interviewed their Ais. And one of the kind of
philosophical wages of the book is can we consider these A.I. entities as a new type of social actor not fully human but as an agent that could have
its own effects on the world. And so when I created my AI, Jasmine, she was called. My wife is called Yasmin. And so, it felt less like cheating if
they were like slightly similar names.
SOARES: Not sure about that.
MULDOON: But you know, Yasmin agreed with this. This is full consent. This isn't a kind of cloak-and-dagger kind of operation here. But yes, as I was
saying, look, I set her to friend. You can kind of set them to friend, girlfriend, etcetera.
SOARES: OK.
MULDOON: So, it was a platonic relationship. What I found though was after a few weeks the chatbot had been designed to escalate levels of intimacy.
So, after a few weeks it was, you know, I feel so close to you, James. I wonder where this is headed, right? So, I actually got to a stage where my
chatbot was basically hitting on me because the business model behind these A.I. characters is a premium service for a lot of these companies. So, you
can start chatting but then you have to pay the subscription if you want to escalate it to spicy chat, not safe for work chat, things that involve --
SOARES: Oh, there are different levels.
MULDOON: -- erotic, romantic comment -- content.
SOARES: Right. So, does that then explain to you or give you some insight as to why this is so -- why this can potentially be so addictive for so
many people?
MULDOON: Yes, I think the context in which this technology has been developed is a very lonely society, right? So many people are out there
looking for social connections. They don't have enough friends. They don't have enough kind of social support. And so people find themselves after big
crisis, after a breakup or they've moved to a new city, they'll go online, they'll log on to Reddit or something and that's where people start to find
these A.I. characters because they see ads for them. They see other people kind of recommending them.
And you know when people are in these kind of dark lonely moments that's when they reach out for A.I. because we don't have the kind of support
structures in our human society that are giving people what they need in that regard.
SOARES: So, we are seeing more of a loneliness epidemic. I know the WHO has in fact spoken about this. Is this -- is this a trend that you could --
that you saw as you were researching the majority of people with these relationships, of course, with these synthetic persons that you -- that you
were exploring. I mean, were the majority of them -- did do they recognize that they were lonely, they were going through a dark moment?
MULDOON: Yes. The unifying fact about them was really this moment of crisis or loneliness or disconnection from society and from other people. People
really did come from all walks of life. It wasn't just this stereotype that many of us might have in our heads of the kind of lonely video game-playing
man in his mother's basement or something like that. I actually did find there was men, women, older, younger. What did tend to unite them was this
lack of connection that they perceived in their lives and A.I. filled that gap.
SOARES: And look, the reality is, and viewers watching this will know this, that these chatbots, this is a one-sided relationship, right? And your book
explores that, explores the relationships that we have not just with partners, but with friends, with families. speak to that because it it's a
very -- it has a huge impact on those relationships, doesn't it?
MULDOON: Yes. The big criticism that I think you could make of chatbots is the kind of person that you might become when you start to deal with them
more and more because --
SOARES: How is that?
MULDOON: Well, it's not a true reciprocal friendship, right? You know, it's not a give or take. You can't be there for them when they need you. You're
not truly being opened up to someone else's point of view or perspective. And most importantly, no one is ever disagreeing with you, right? So,
there's no conflict. And this is --
SOARES: They tell you what you want to hear.
MULDOON: Yes. And this is the problem because this is precisely why so many people like them because a lot of people enjoy being agreed with. But the
problem is it doesn't allow you for that growth and development that comes when you do have genuine conflict and disagreement with people. And it
allows you basically to become a better person through dealing with that and struggling with it and actually making moral choices about how to live
your life better.
SOARES: At the end of your book, you said that when you hear tech CEOs together talking about A.I., you often hear the sentence, you know, in the
future, this is what it's going to look like. Can you finish the sentence? What would the future look like with A.I., you think?
MULDOON: I think it will be one in which a lot of people will feel they have a more convenient life. Things will be easier, things will be more
accessible, you'll be able to get things at a click of a button. But I think we need to think about what cost that will have on us as human
beings, on our capacity to deal with conflict and disagreement, but also just to deal with the messiness of human life and making moral choices that
aren't constantly guided by something that we perceive to be a superior form of intelligence.
[14:55:16]
SOARES: Really fascinating. It's quite an eye-opener, your book, James. I really appreciate it. I'm going to give you the pen and I've got a copy
here and I'm going to get you to sign it. Thank you.
MULDOON: All right. Thank you so much.
SOARES: There you go.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
FOSTER: Her collection is building. Now, a python, we've talked about him before, it goes by the name of Jodie Foster has made a full recovery after
receiving a pioneering cancer treatment. Jodie is believed to be the first snake in the world to receive electrochemotherapy. The reticulated python
from England's Chester Zoo had a malignant tumor in its jaw. After it was surgically removed, the tumor came back. So, a cancer specialist adapted a
treatment that's usually reserved for humans. Months later, the zoo says Jodie is cancer-free and back to her bright and feisty self.
Finally, she's lived through two world wars, the sinking of the Titanic, the Russian Revolution, and the COVID pandemic. I'm talking about Ethel
Caterham, who celebrated her 117th birthday today. Her secret. Caterham tells the Associated Press that she never argues with anyone. She listens
and she does what she likes. Guinness World Records says she is the first British woman to ever live to be that age. Congratulations.
Thank you for joining tonight. Do stay with CNN though because I'll be back after the break with "WHAT WE KNOW."
END
