Return to Transcripts main page

CNN The Point

The Jailed Journalist: Vanessa Leggett Standing by Her Promise of Keeping Sources Confidential

Aired August 17, 2001 - 20:30   ET

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

THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
ANNOUNCER: THE POINT with Greta Van Susteren.

She's in jail because she won't break a promise.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

GRETA VAN SUSTEREN, HOST: Vanessa, what's it like for you to be in here?

VANESSA LEGGETT, JAILED WRITER: I never thought I would ever be at this stage. I never dreamed that my freedom would be taken from me. I see news reports when we are able to watch television, traffic jams around Houston, and I'd give anything to be in my car in one of those traffic jams for once. But I can't. I'm here.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

ANNOUNCER: Tonight's POINT: jailed journalist. Greta takes us behind bars for an interview with crime writer Vanessa Leggett.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

LEGGETT: Oh, I was told, you know, by my media lawyer, "Bring your tapes or your toothbrush." That's what it boils down to, and so I prepared myself to go to jail.

VAN SUSTEREN: What was it like that first day?

LEGGETT: It was terrifying.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

ANNOUNCER: Plus, Whitewater defendant Susan McDougal on what goes through your mind when you're caught between principle and prison.

And the tragic story of the mom accused of drowning her children, why winning at any cost may carry too high a price.

THE POINT. Now, from Washington, Greta Van Susteren.

VAN SUSTEREN: How far would you go to keep a promise? Would you go to jail? Tonight's "Flashpoint": the jailed journalist. Crime writer Vanessa Leggett has been in a Houston, Texas, jail for nearly a month, and this afternoon, a federal appeals court says she should stay there until she breaks a promise.

Vanessa Leggett was doing research on a notorious Texas murder case. Several years ago, millionaire Robert Angleton was accused of hiring his brother to kill his estranged wife. She's dead. He was tried and acquitted. The brother committed suicide in jail.

Sounds like a good book. And for years, Vanessa Leggett has been interviewing people and keeping notes, hoping to write one. She promised some of her sources they could remain anonymous, but a federal grand injury wants her to break her promises and turn over all of her secret tapes and research. She said no and was jailed for contempt of court.

Leggett can get out any time. All she has to do is turn over the research.

Yesterday, I went to that Houston jail to talk with her.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

VAN SUSTEREN: Vanessa, what's it like for you to be in here?

LEGGETT: I never thought I would ever be at this stage. I never dreamed that my freedom would be taken from me. I see news reports when we are able to watch television, traffic jams around Houston, and I'd give anything to be in my car in one of those traffic jams for once. But I can't. I'm here.

VAN SUSTEREN: What does the United States government want from you or the grand jury want from you?

LEGGETT: They want all of my research.

VAN SUSTEREN: What is all of your research?

LEGGETT: Well, I have spent the last four years of my life gathering information for my book, and now they're asking for all of that information.

VAN SUSTEREN: Now, when you're talking about research, you're talking about interviews with people or you're talking about documents?

LEGGETT: Interviews with people.

VAN SUSTEREN: Do you consider yourself a journalist?

LEGGETT: I'm a writer and a -- I think there's been -- it's unclear as to how a journalist is to be defined, but I do consider myself a member of the press in that I conducted research for a book that is on a controversial public issue that I would like the public to read. VAN SUSTEREN: What's the controversial issue?

LEGGETT: The murder of Doris Angleton.

VAN SUSTEREN: Who's Doris?

LEGGETT: Doris was a Houston woman who was murdered in April of 1997.

VAN SUSTEREN: What was the manner of murder?

LEGGETT: Well, the -- the state initially charged that her husband, Robert Angleton, had hired Robert's brother, Roger, to kill Doris Angleton about two months after she had filed for divorce.

VAN SUSTEREN: Now Robert and Roger are brothers. Robert is the spouse of the decedent. They're both charged with murder, right?

LEGGETT: Well, what happened at the state level is that they -- yeah, both brothers, Bob and Roger Angleton were charged with Doris's killing, but before either of their trials took place, Roger Angleton turned up dead in his jail cell.

VAN SUSTEREN: Was it suicide or homicide?

LEGGETT: think it was officially ruled a suicide, but there are certainly mysterious circumstances surrounding his death.

VAN SUSTEREN: Did you ever talk to Roger before he died?

LEGGETT: Yes, I did. I met with him, in fact, the night before he died.

VAN SUSTEREN: And what was his demeanor?

LEGGETT: He was just the same as he usually was. Roger was a very animated person, and he was animated the last night that I saw him, and the last words he spoke to me were, "Make sure you're here in the morning. We have a lot to cover tomorrow."

VAN SUSTEREN: And what happened the next day?

LEGGETT: I received a phone call that he was dead.

VAN SUSTEREN: What happened to Robert? He went to trial?

LEGGETT: Yeah, the state brought him to trial on Doris's murder, and Robert -- or Bob -- was ultimately acquitted.

VAN SUSTEREN: So the murder is now unsolved?

LEGGETT: It stands that way right now, yes.

VAN SUSTEREN: What did Roger tell you about the murder?

LEGGETT: Well, he -- we talked for hours and hours, but, you know, the bottom line is he told me that his brother hired him to kill his wife.

VAN SUSTEREN: What's the crime -- do -- if you know that the federal government is now investigating, because, obviously, Robert has been found not guilty by the state. What's the federal government -- who is their target -- Robert?

LEGGETT: That's correct.

VAN SUSTEREN: And do you know -- is the target murder?

LEGGETT: Well, it's murder for hire.

VAN SUSTEREN: And do you have tapes of Roger actually saying that he was hired?

LEGGETT: Yes. They have those tapes.

VAN SUSTEREN: And had you willingly given the tapes, because I -- I assume that it wasn't burning a source at that point if he was dead, right?

LEGGETT: I was advised that because my source was deceased, there really was no legitimate claim of confidentiality, and so I surrendered those tapes.

VAN SUSTEREN: OK. Now, a year ago to the date that you were incarcerated, which was July of the year 2000, when the FBI came to you, what was your response?

LEGGETT: I told them I was willing to talk to them and hear what they had to say. One of the representations that was firmly made to me by this agent -- agent -- excuse me -- was that they were not interested in compromising my confidentiality that I had with other sources.

VAN SUSTEREN: So did you actually then go meet with them?

LEGGETT: Yeah. I met with the FBI several times.

VAN SUSTEREN: And did you tell them anything?

LEGGETT: We talked about the case. I did not ever compromise my confidential sources.

VAN SUSTEREN: Had they ever asked you to work for them in terms of like actually as a paid informant perhaps to provide them information on the investigation?

LEGGETT: Yes, they did. They asked me to become an informant. They actually put a contract in front of me to that effect in November, and I refused to sign that contract.

VAN SUSTEREN: What were the terms of the contract?

LEGGETT: It -- it appeared to be a -- aside from some clauses -- pertinent clauses, a standard advice and instructions for a confidential informant, with clauses added in there that placed restrictions on my latitude to publish.

VAN SUSTEREN: Did they actually just want your information, or did they want you to continue sort of research for them or investigate?

LEGGETT: I think they were trying to provide me more incentive to open up.

VAN SUSTEREN: Did you ask why they didn't go out and just do the work themselves?

LEGGETT: They represented that they were doing the work themselves, and they represented that they were talking to many of the people that, in my mind, I knew I had talked to also.

VAN SUSTEREN: Well, what do you think they wanted from you or that you had that they don't have or they can't get?

LEGGETT: I really don't know.

VAN SUSTEREN: No idea?

LEGGETT: No. No idea.

VAN SUSTEREN: OK. So, when they showed up in June and said -- you know, and served you, what was your initial reaction?

LEGGETT: Shock.

VAN SUSTEREN: Why? You didn't expect -- you'd been talking to them. You hadn't given them the information, and they obviously wanted it.

LEGGETT: It was such an overreaching and -- and overbroad and all-encompassing subpoena asking for any and all originals and copies of any and all interviews I had conducted over my four years of research.

It was quite a blow. It was such a blow, in fact, that the FBI agent who served me said, "You know, I wouldn't take it personally if you fought this."

VAN SUSTEREN: Were you afraid at all?

LEGGETT: Sure. I knew I didn't want to comply and that I really couldn't comply, and so I set about trying to -- I -- I talked to various people about what my options were. I called the Reporters' Committee for Freedom of the Press to see if there was any way that they could help me.

I tried everything that I knew in my power to, and I ultimately felt very alone. I, in the meantime, tried to find counsel. Ultimately, I did at literally the 11th hour when Mr. DeGeurin agreed to represent me at 11 p.m. the night before I was supposed to surrender.

VAN SUSTEREN: So, on July 20th, you were supposed to surrender -- you -- you physically to go to jail or surrender the materials?

LEGGETT: Well, I was told, you know, by my media lawyer, "Bring your tapes or your toothbrush." That's what it boils down, and so I prepared myself to go to jail.

VAN SUSTEREN: In your wildest dreams, did you ever think you'd end up sometime in jail?

LEGGETT: No, I did not. What can I do? I have to protect the confidentiality of my sources, and now, because this has become a First-Amendment issue, I have to protect the public's right to a free and independent press.

VAN SUSTEREN: How far are you in writing this book?

LEGGETT: I'm pretty far along. In fact, I was planning on finishing it this summer.

VAN SUSTEREN: Do you have a -- a contract for this book?

LEGGETT: No, I don't.

VAN SUSTEREN: Do you have an agent?

LEGGETT: I don't have an agent that is representing me at this time, no.

VAN SUSTEREN: It seems to me that there won't be much difficulty with all the sort of attention on this case at this point to sell it. Do you agree or disagree?

LEGGETT: That's probably a fair statement.

VAN SUSTEREN: Any chance that in some ways you're standing, you know, firm on this not out of principle but in order to enhance the value of the book?

LEGGETT: This is not a writer's publicity stunt. I did not choose to put myself here. The federal government put me here. This is the government's pressure tactic to get me to surrender, and the only beneficiary is not me or an agent or a publisher or what have you, but it's the American people.

VAN SUSTEREN: In your heart and mind, there's nothing that you have they couldn't get themselves.

LEGGETT: I believe that, yes.

VAN SUSTEREN: What's the motive for the government doing this to you?

LEGGETT: The most candid answer I can give you: harassment.

All I know is this: I -- I read that this came about as a result of me bragging about a murder weapon or something figuratively to that effect. I don't know about any murder weapon. What I do know is that when Roger died, at the state level, I had to surrender my tapes of interviews with Roger Angleton to the state prosecutors, who then, for whatever reason, chose not to use those interviews, and that may not be the murder weapon, but it's the closest thing to a smoking gun. I gave them the hired gun, in essence.

Now the DA's office, you know, stuck a smoking gun, if you will, in the closet for the state's case, and they lost. Bob Angleton was acquitted. That was not my fault.

Now the federal prosecutors have that gun, if you will, but that's -- apparently, Roger Angleton saying of his brother, the federal government's target, "He was asking me to," expletive, "kill her," isn't good enough.

VAN SUSTEREN: What's your -- what's your sort of view of what's happened to you? Here you are in jail. You've got a lot of the world watching. You've got everybody in -- in journalism and media watching. What's your sort of thought about what's happened to you?

LEGGETT: I -- I think there's been a gross miscarriage of justice here. I don't think that I should be sitting here right now. They are asking for interviews that I've conducted with all of my sources who I happen to know have either been interviewed by FBI agents on drug before the grand jury, and that's, apparently, not good enough. They want to know what these people said to me.

VAN SUSTEREN: Why do you think they want that?

LEGGETT: Because I think that they thought I would lay down and give it -- give it to them.

VAN SUSTEREN: Will you?

LEGGETT: No.

VAN SUSTEREN: Never?

LEGGETT: Never.

VAN SUSTEREN: You'll sit here for -- until the cows come home?

LEGGETT: That's right.

VAN SUSTEREN: No second thoughts?

LEGGETT: No second thoughts.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

VAN SUSTEREN: This afternoon, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit essentially ruled a grand jury subpoena trumps the freedom of the journalist. So, until Vanessa Leggett turns over her research, she stays in jail. One of the things that struck me about her situation is how isolated she is. For example, her attorney has not even been able to tell her about today's Appeals Court ruling. By the time it came down, visiting hours were over, and phone calls into the jail are not permitted.

On the bright side for Vanessa, a number of news organizations have come to her defense. An editorial in today's "Houston Chronicle" says in part that "the federal prosecutors and judges who would secretly strip Vanessa Leggett of her First-Amendment rights in a Third-World, tin-pot dictatorship sort of way should scare us all."

Vanessa Leggett is not the first woman who chose jail rather than talk to a grand jury. Everyone remembers Whitewater figure Susan McDougal. She will my guest when THE POINT returns.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

VAN SUSTEREN: Susan McDougal has had a pretty good year that makes up for a long string of bad ones, starting with the failure of a land development in Arkansas called Whitewater.

Susan McDougal was eventually convicted of fraud during the Whitewater scandal, then jailed for refusing to testify against her former partners in the deal, Bill and Hillary Clinton. She spent nearly two years in seven different jails or prisons. President Clinton pardoned her last January.

Susan McDougal joins me from Dallas tonight.

Hello, Susan.

SUSAN MCDOUGAL, ONCE JAILED FOR CONTEMPT: Hi, Greta.

VAN SUSTEREN: Susan, what's your reaction to Vanessa Leggett being in jail for refusing to provide the research to the grand jury?

MCDOUGAL: It sounds to me like she has decided on principle not to turn over the evidence, and you know, she has 18 months that she can prepare herself to sit there, because, you know, courts don't look kindly on those of us who decide to stand up against what we perceive as something we shouldn't do.

So I decided that 18 months was worth not -- and really it wasn't not testifying against the Clintons. For me, it was not aiding and abetting Kenneth Starr, the independent counsel.

VAN SUSTEREN: You know, it's so interesting, Susan. You say the 18 months. Both you and Vanessa could have walked out of jail any time you wanted. You just simply had to testify as the grand jury wanted in both cases. Did you ever have second thoughts as you sat there at night in jail and think, "Maybe I should."

MCDOUGAL: You know, I never did, and that was an interesting thing because I remember Bobby McDaniel, my attorney, telling me, saying, "You know you may be in there a week or so, and I'm not sure you'll be able to stand it that long," and as it -- the months stretched on and the -- even after the year I was there, I never thought that what I was doing was not worth spending the 18 months, and...

VAN SUSTEREN: So principle -- so principle trumps it for you?

MCDOUGAL: Yeah, I knew that what I was doing was right. They had come to me with a false story that they wanted me to say was true, and it was so appalling to me that that could happen that I decided, rather than have anything to do with their investigation, that I would go to go jail, and I knew that I would have to pay the price, and so even though I asked the judge to let me out several times, which she's obliged to do, if she believes that you are not going change your mind, I knew that I could very well spend 18 months there.

VAN SUSTEREN: Susan -- and it's very boring in jail. Do you have any advice for Vanessa on sort of how to pass the time?

MCDOUGAL: You know, I didn't find it boring.

The thing I think that was most surprising to me were the women that I met there, and they're -- they're a motley group. Most -- most of the women there are minorities. As you know, in this country, we -- we have a practice of jailing mostly minority women because most other women have money to bail themselves out.

And these women come from backgrounds that are so unbelievable, and most of them are very funny, and the stories they tell -- I can remember many nights, Greta, laughing until I was sick at the stories the women were telling and at the -- just the -- the general stories of their lives that -- that they made humorous.

VAN SUSTEREN: Did you maintain any friendships after you got out of jail with any of these women?

MCDOUGAL: Oh, absolutely. Absolutely. I get collect calls all the time from all over the country.

VAN SUSTEREN: What about the fact that it -- I mean, when you hear Vanessa talk, I mean, the -- the problem is the United States Court of Appeals has said that a grand jury subpoena does trump her right. I mean, what do -- I mean, how do you feel with the fact a Court of Appeals has said, "You're -- you're wrong."

MCDOUGAL: Well, you know, I don't -- I don't know that she's wrong. I -- several attorneys I've spoken with have said that she has every right to say, "You can get this information from another place."

I heard you ask her that question, and it does seem to me that they have access to everyone she has access to, and she's turned over the tapes of the man who hanged himself. So I don't understand. It sounds to me very heavy handed just like the Kenneth Starr investigation, just almost an ego contest or a personality contest over who's going to win this round.

The problem is this girl gets to sit in jail for 18 months, and -- and her life goes by, you know, while she sits there.

VAN SUSTEREN: How long could you have sat there?

MCDOUGAL: Oh, I wouldn't have quit. You just have to know me, and that -- I think -- I hate to say it, but I think I may be the most stubborn person in the world and may have proven that, but I wouldn't have quit. I thought the Kenneth Starr investigation was so unholy and so wrong that I don't think I would have ever given any information to them at all.

VAN SUSTEREN: If you could have a private conversation with Vanessa, what would the conversation be about?

MCDOUGAL: I would tell her to use the time that she's there to investigate what's going, and -- and you know, Greta, what I'm doing now. All I do now is go to jails and prisons all over this country and see the horrible things that are happening to women in America, and while she's there --

This young girl's very bright, and she had the ability to write and to tell people what's going on, and I'd tell her, "Just make up your mind to stay there. If you believe what you're doing is right, then you'll spend the time. You'll do the 18 months," which is what I decided, "but while you're there, see the inequities and the injustice, and let's see what we can do about them."

VAN SUSTEREN: Was -- was jail a bad experience for you, Susan, all in all?

MCDOUGAL: No. No. I think I'm a better person for having seen what I saw, and I wouldn't take away a day of it. There were times during isolation -- and I was in isolation for three-month stretches at a time -- where it was very hard, and -- and it made me question, you know, whether I could do it, but I wouldn't take away a day of it because I think that I'm a better person today for having stood up for what I believed in.

VAN SUSTEREN: Well, you've become almost an expert in jail and, in fact, I think you were in seven jails during the time you were confined. Is that the right number? Seven?

MCDOUGAL: I -- I'm thinking of doing a travel log on jails of America, actually, you know, the good ones, the bad ones, the good food.

VAN SUSTEREN: In fact, that was going to be my next question. Is there a difference -- substantial difference between jails?

MCDOUGAL: Oh, this -- I understand that she's in a federal detention center, and I was in one of those, and that is -- it's like the Luxor of jails and prisons in America. I mean, you don't get better than a federal detention center as far as your safety, your food, your telephone time, your attorney -- you know, time to talk with your attorney. She's in the best place that she could possibly be if she's going to be detained. VAN SUSTEREN: What about a book, Susan? I mean, everybody who is connected with Whitewater and the Clinton administration has written a book. Are we going to see a Susan McDougal book?

MCDOUGAL: You know, I'd really like to do that. I -- for a long time, I didn't think I would, but I think now that I will because there are so many stories I would like people to know about what happened to me while I was on my way to jail and after I got there.

VAN SUSTEREN: Do you have a title -- a working title?

MCDOUGAL: Well, you know, I laugh about it, but I'm thinking about "Not Guilty by Reason of Insanity" because it was pretty much of an insane time, but I don't think they'll go for that. I don't have a title yet. It's not written yet, so I don't have a title.

VAN SUSTEREN: All right. My thanks tonight for Susan McDougal for joining us.

MCDOUGAL: Thank you, Greta.

VAN SUSTEREN: What is it about Texas and justice. My dictionary defines "justice" as fair, righteous, deserved, and fitting. Nowhere does it is say "vengeance." A high-profile case in point after a quick break and our "MONEYLINE update."

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

VAN SUSTEREN: Have you ever heard of a prosecutor wanting to win at any cost, both cost to the taxpayer and cost to our system of fair play?

Tonight's final point: insane justice. On June 20th, Andrea Yates called Houston police to her home. They discovered the unthinkable. Five dead children all drowned in the family bathtub. Andrea Yates admitted to killing them. Her defense: that she was legally insane.

Subsequently, she was indicted for killing only three of the five. Why? Aren't the lives of the other two just as important?

They are, but here's the dirty prosecutor trick. If they lose with the first jury, they indict her for the other two murders separately or together and try her again. Since they want the death penalty for her, it gives them one or even two more chances.

She can cannot afford the legal bills for three possible trials. Would Texas taxpayers be happy about footing the expense of multiple trials? Death-penalty trials are not cheap.

My point: If she were insane when she killed three of her children, then she was insane when she killed all five. Likewise, if she was sane when she killed three, she was sane when she killed all five.

This Texas prosecutor needs to stop playing games and shoot straight. This is a death-penalty case and not a political game.

Let me know what you think about Texas justice. Send an e-mail to askgreta@cnn.com. That's one word, "askgreta."

I'm Greta Van Susteren in Washington. Have a great weekend.

TO ORDER A VIDEO OF THIS TRANSCRIPT, PLEASE CALL 800-CNN-NEWS OR USE OUR SECURE ONLINE ORDER FORM LOCATED AT www.fdch.com