Ex-NFL Star's Death; O'Reilly to be Paid Millions
CABRERA: Several developments to tell you about now regarding the death of former NFL star Aaron Hernandez. We are learning he had the Bible verse John 3:16 written on his forehead when he was found dead in his prison cell. You have the text of the full Bible verse there on your screen for those of you who may not be familiar with it. Now, correction officers found Hernandez's body hanging from a bed sheet yesterday in a Massachusetts prison. I want to bring in CNN's Deborah Feyerick. Deb, I know you spoke to law enforcement officials who say that Bible verse, John 3:16, is often used by inmates. How so?</s>DEBORAH FEYERICK, CNN NATIONAL CORRESPONDENT: Yes, absolutely. That's one of the most popular phrases. And, actually, it's also used by football players as well. What we are told is that, in fact, when officials did find him, he did have that on his forehead. It appears to have been written in red. And we don't know whether, in fact, that was suggested as some sort of a suicide note, how you want to read into what it means. It's essentially finding salvation, eternal life in Christ. Whether that was his way of saying that he was at peace. All of that, of course, under investigation. But also when you - his lawyer, Jose Baez, came out today because there's been a lot of questions as to why he may have done this. He seemed to be in OK spirits, having just been acquitted of a double murder just five days before this suicide. And now Jose Baez, his lawyer, actually says he wants Aaron Hernandez's brain preserved and also examined by a university for a degenerative disease called CTE. Now apparently arrangements have been made so that the brain would be picked up by a very prominent university and medical center, but he says that the medical examiner has refused to release Aaron Hernandez's brain. Take a listen.</s>JOSE BAEZ, ATTORNEY, AARON HERNANDEZ'S FAMILY: Everyone's well aware of - everyone's well aware of chronic traumatic encephalopathy, which is - in short is known as CTE. The family of Aaron Hernandez has decided to donate Aaron's brain to this study so that we could possibly help other young men who decide to play football and to help further that cause and also possibly shed light and more evidence on this case. We made arrangements for Boston University's CTE unit to take possession of Aaron's brain. We made these arrangements with the medical examiner yesterday. From one day to the next, the medical examiner's office here, specifically a Dr. Neels (ph), has determined that his office will retain the brain of Aaron Hernandez and that their office is better equipped than Boston University's CTE unit, which is the most renowned unit in the world as it relates to CTE studies.</s>FEYERICK: Now, Aaron Hernandez's body has been released back to his family, but the brain is being held by the medical examiner. Don't forget, that is part of an autopsy, including toxicology tests. But Jose Baez says essentially the medical examiner is holding the former NFL player's brain illegally.</s>CABRERA: Interesting. A lot of people would like to know what the information is that can be developed from any kind of studying of his brain for sure. Deb Feyerick, thank you. Let's turn to Bill O'Reilly and the fallout since he departed. Just yesterday his two-decade reign at Fox News is over. The Murdoch family severing ties with this ratings giant amid claims of sexual harassment that reportedly happened over many years and ended in settlements. Now, those cases recently surfaced in a "New York Times" report. So how much is Fox paying O'Reilly to leave? Sources tell CNN, tens of millions. O'Reilly had just signed a new contract before his troubles began. The deal was reportedly worth $20 million to $25 million a year. Now, also happening today, Fox's parent company is holding a board of directors meeting. This as, take a look, posters, the former news anchor are now noticeably missing from that outside wall of the Fox News building. Joining us, founder of the website Mediaite, Dan Abrams, and senior editor at lawnewz.com, Rachel Stockman. Dan, let's first talk Fox's public image. What do you make of this payout?</s>DAN ABRAMS, FOUNDER, MEDIAITE: Well, look, I think they had to pay it out. They made a deal with Bill O'Reilly relatively recently. The contract, I think, was pretty clear. The interesting thing would have been, if there hadn't been a deal, the fight over the language in there would have been fascinating. So, look, I think that Fox and Bill O'Reilly both wanted to end this in a way where there wouldn't be a major war. Bill O'Reilly may not be on Fox tomorrow, but Bill O'Reilly can still get a big audience. And if Bill O'Reilly wants to sort of stick it to Fox, that's not a public fight that they wanted. They had to figure out how to end this, if they wanted to terminate him, which they did, and they did just that.</s>CABRERA: But does that kind of money send a message of sorts in terms of whether -</s>ABRAMS: Well, of course it sends a message but, you know, the bottom line is, you signed a bad contract and, you know, you've got to pay big dollars. I mean -</s>CABRERA: Do you think it's contractual, too, Rachel?</s>RACHEL STOCKMAN, SENIOR EDITOR, LAWNEWZ.COM: Well, absolutely. We got word through various sources that he signed this contract a few weeks before this huge "New York Times" article came out. And Fox News was well aware of many of these settlements and allegations prior to them signing the dotted line. So basically they had little choice in this. Yes, a few new allegations came forward, which may have given them a little bit of wiggle room. But Bottom line is, it would have been a huge legal fight for Fox News to terminate him without basically paying out something.</s>ABRAMS: And I think that's the most important point here is that everyone's talking about "The New York Times" article as if that's the reason. It's not the reason. Fox News knew about everything in that "New York Times" article before it was published.</s>CABRERA: There weren't necessarily new allegations.</s>ABRAMS: Well, there was nothing new to Fox.</s>CABRERA: Yes.</s>ABRAMS: It was new to all of us.</s>CABRERA: Right.</s>ABRAMS: But it wasn't new to Fox. They were the ones who had settled this.</s>CABRERA: Right.</s>ABRAMS: Bill O'Reilly had made these settlements they knew about. What happened with "The New York Times" is, it spawned an investigation, it spawned additional allegations, it led to this advertiser revolt. All of these things happening together is what led this to happen. It's not that, oh, my goodness, look at these settlements that "The New York Times" disclosed. We have to now figure out what to do about it. It's everything that happened as a result of that, that's led us to where we are.</s>STOCKMAN: And the fact that you had all these new allegations. There were at least two or three post "New York Times" articles that came out -</s>CABRERA: New women coming forward saying, no I feel like I can come -</s>STOCKMAN: The new women coming forward calling the hotline and that gave Fox News the added momentum, the added - what they needed.</s>ABRAMS: There may have been more to that. There may have been more than that in the</s>STOCKMAN: Right. We don't know.</s>CABRERA: Let me ask you about the reaction we've now seen from Bill O'Reilly saying he is innocent, calling these claims, these allegations unfounded. Again, they settled all of these cases, or most of them. And the fact that he's kind of doubling down saying I'm innocent, why wouldn't he have gone all the way to the end with these cases in terms of proving his innocence or - I know it's not - you know, you're not guilty until proven innocent. But, nonetheless, if he's so innocent, why would he not want to make sure that that's</s>STOCKMAN: Because, think about it. Right now he's leaving Fox News. Yes, he has a cloud of bad PR, but he's making tens - according to your own reports - of millions of dollars. So if he were to further litigate this and say, no, these are unfounded, a lawsuit could ensue, all of this information could be brought out for months, and years and years. There could be depositions from these women. Who knows. It could even become, you know, a trial if it wasn't settled. So bottom line is, he got a pretty good deal.</s>ABRAMS: And his -</s>CABRERA: So why not apologize, though, if he did indeed hurt some women and, you know?</s>ABRAMS: But he says he didn't do it. I mean - I'm just saying, he's not going to apologize if he's -</s>CABRERA: I mean is doubling down on his innocence also trying to set him up for potential future</s>ABRAMS: You know, these - it's an interesting -</s>STOCKMAN: If he gets sued again.</s>ABRAMS: Well, it's an interesting question about the future, too. I mean let's talk about it from a media perspective. You know, what is Bill O'Reilly going to do next? People are talking about, oh, does he go to one of these conservative upstarts that are going to start a network? You know, at Bill O'Reilly's age and his stature, I don't know that he's going to want to go through the process of a startup. He's got all this money. He writes all these books. He gives all these speeches. You know, I think Bill O'Reilly is going to be able to live a pretty good life as Bill O'Reilly. There are going to be a lot of people who are not going to see it the way that 21st Century Fox sees it, the way a lot of these women see it. They're going to see it as Bill O'Reilly got the raw end of the deal here and they're going still be behind him because that's what Bill O'Reilly is saying. He's saying, I got a raw deal here.</s>CABRERA: He's got his following and he says that he's the victim. Guys, we've got to leave it there. Thank you both, Dan Abrams and Rachel Stockman, for joining us. Good to have you on.</s>ABRAMS: Yes.</s>CABRERA: Coming up, as President Trump continues to stare down North Korea, strange new satellite images of a North Korean nuclear test site showing people, take a look, they're playing volleyball it appears. No kidding. What does this mean? And, round two. Remember the judge who candidate Trump criticized during the campaign over his race? Well, now that same judge is set to hear the case of the first dreamer deported under President Trump. We'll discuss, next.