Return to Transcripts main page

CNN Talkback Live

Is There Racial Profiling at Airports?

Aired January 17, 2002 - 15:00   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.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

CAROL LIN, HOST (voice-over): The lines at the airport just got longer.

NORMAN MINETA, TRANSPORTATION SECRETARY: Baggage will be matched to its passenger. Computer will screen passengers and passengers will be screened and checked for weapons, often multiple times. And I think in today's world, patience is a new form of patriotism.

LIN: How patriotic do you feel? What about when they search you?

SAMAR KAUKAB, PLAINTIFF: I was startled when the security guard then proceeded to unzip my pants, open them, and to feel or pat down my body inside my pants and outside my underwear. She patted down my lower abdomen and between my legs.

LIN: Was this woman profiled?

Also, is there a cover-up in Columbine?

BRIAN ROHRBOUGH, FATHER OF COLUMBINE VICTIM: We have the worst school shooting in the country's history, and for some reason, we have a police department that has lied about what happened.

LIN: And the past comes home to roost for some members of the Symbionese Liberation Army.

JOHN OPSAHL, VICTIM'S SON: Emily Harris was quoted in Patty Hearst's book as saying that her death doesn't matter anyways. She was a bourgeois pig. Those words have always kind of haunted us.

LIN: Will new evidence close the case on a 27-year-old murder?

(END VIDEO CLIP)

(APPLAUSE)

(on camera): Welcome to TALKBACK LIVE: "America Speaks Out". I'm Carol Lin.

You have got to ask yourself, are you flying anywhere this weekend? Some airfares are cheap, but is it worth the time? Those security lines are about to get longer. Tomorrow is the deadline for airlines to check all baggage that goes on planes and to match luggage with passengers. Inconvenient? You bet. Are you any safer? Good question.

Let's talk to CNN transportation safety analyst Susan Coughlin. She is a former vice chair of the Transportation Board; and Gavin De Becker, author of "Fear Less: Real Truth About Risk, Safety and Security in a Time of Terrorism." The book was written after September 11 and the proceeds go to charity. Good afternoon to you guys. Thanks for joining us.

Thank you.

SUSAN COUGHLIN, CNN AVIATION ANALYST: Good afternoon.

LIN: Susan, let's starts with you. We are talking about hand- checking, if necessary, every single bag that goes through 400 commercial airports across the country. Is this realistic?

COUGHLIN: I think it is realistic. The airlines and the government collectively are going to be deploying a number of techniques for screening these bags. But there is no question, there is a new mandate out there for a higher level of surveillance of those pieces of luggage that are carried on the airplane and those that are checked in the belly of the airplane.

So, yes, I think that it is a reality and we are going to see some -- a learning curve along the way, but ultimately I think that we will get there in terms of being able to adequately surveil an enormous number of pieces of baggage.

LIN: Right, but surveil is not necessarily secure, is it, Gavin?

GAVIN DE BECKER, AUTHOR, "FEAR LESS": No, it's not. There are four methods being used. Bag matching is one of them. Dog sniffing is another that's very effective. X-ray, E-scan is another, and then finally hand searches.

And it's a huge improvement and I think Secretary Mineta has kicked ass to move an agency that big and an industry that big as fast as they have. The other thing I would add is that our job as Americans is to stop terrorism, and we can do that. The first part is to stop terror. So if you're on the fence about getting on a plane, get on a plane. You are going to be all right.

LIN: You know, you're going to be all right but you're definitely going to be inconvenienced. What exactly does checking the bags and matching every bag to a passenger on the plane really prevent? I mean, terrorists are willing to board a plane with an explosive in their luggage and blow themselves up.

DE BECKER: Well, it prevents the easiest method of getting explosives on a plane and the safest, which was just checking bags and then not boarding the flight. It's true. It's not relevant to suicide bombings, that's absolutely correct. And we've had a suicide hijacking in America on September 11, so we are sensitive about that. But as I detail in the book, we had a bunch of other suicide hijackings going back to 1970 and we didn't make these changes. So, congratulations to the Department of Transportation for doing them now. It's the right thing to do.

LIN: All right. We've got some questions from our audience though, some people even traveling tomorrow. Chris Askew, who do you have over there?

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: This is Bruce. He's a comic. Go ahead, Bruce.

BRUCE: Oh, Chris, I'm a comic. OK. Carol, I think the concern ought to be on the carry-ons rather than the checked baggage. I don't see in the past much damage from checked baggage as much as what people are carrying on. People are bending the rules. People are carrying great big bags. They could carry just about anything if they are X-rayed, but things can pass through x-ray.

LIN: Well, Susan, the carry-on bags are covered by this new rule, right?

COUGHLIN: All bags are going to be covered. This is really an effort to get to the checked baggage. But, yes, I think that we are -- there is also a heightened level of surveillance of carry-on bags, although I have to say, from airline to airline, the tolerance that they have for more carry-on pieces of luggage varies by the airline. But all of those hand-carried bags have the opportunity to detect things that might be harmful to other passengers if they have a motive.

LIN: All right. Chris, you have got something else there, a seasoned traveler, Tim.

TIM: Yes. Getting ready to leave tomorrow with my wife and we found that alternative bags are checked. I mean, they don't check every single bag. They just pick you and say, OK, we are going to check your bag, but they don't check every bag. So if somebody really wanted to get something on the plane, they really could if they really want to try.

LIN: Yes, that's true. And obviously we have seen with Richard Reid, the shoe bomb suspect, that lots of different ways are tried, even hiding potentially plastic explosives in the soles of your shoes -- Susan.

COUGHLIN: I think really when we look at our attempts to shore up security, we are going to be limited by the creativity of these people who have these ulterior motives. And the challenge is going to be for us to be as creative in stopping them as they are in carrying out their nefarious missions. So, you are right, we are -- if they are determined enough, they are going to find a way. But we are just trying to be as creative as we can in terms of stopping them.

LIN: Gavin, and you make a point in your most recent book too that, frankly, it's not necessarily going to be the federal government or the National Guard that's going to prevent the next terrorist attack. It's really up to all of us here.

DE BECKER: It's very, very true. I want to tell the fellow in the audience who traveling tomorrow that the most significant security precaution there is is the passenger's refusal to participate in hijacking in the way that we did in the past.

I'm here to tell you that hijacking, the way it used to be done, where the passengers and participate and believe they will be all right is over forever in America. The fact is that we all saw a training video on September 11 that no one forgets. And on the American Airlines flight with the shoe bomb, passengers made the difference. On the American Airlines flight where somebody broke through the cockpit door, passengers made the difference. And on three Greyhound bus incidents, where drivers were attacked, passengers made the difference. You don't have anything to worry about in terms of hijacking on American Airlines any more.

LIN: It is chilling though to think that as you are boarding the plane, that you may be responsible for saving people lives, not just getting to your business meeting. We've got Stephanie on the telephone. She's a flight attendant. Stephanie, do you think this new rule, the baggage checking and matching with passengers, is going to prevent another terrorist attack?

STEPHANIE: I definitely think it will prevent another terrorist attack. But the thing is is we all have to work together with the new security measures. And people have to be tolerant. I have been flying since that Friday and I've noticed people are getting irritated as they go through security, that their bags are being checked, they are being, you know, checked and they are being detained a little bit.

That's what has to happen now. I mean, we are at a different time. We are at war. And it's not discrimination and it's not profiling. We are protecting ourselves.

LIN: Protecting ourselves, even if it means a bit of an inconvenience here. Who here thinks that it's worth the inconvenience even if it delays you?

(APPLAUSE)

Even if you risk getting body searched, two-hour delays, missing your flight altogether? It's OK? It is a new America. Thank you everybody. Susan Coughlin and Gavin De Becker, thanks for joining us today.

The question is does all the added security at the airport make you feel safer. To our audience, yes, but take the TALKBACK LIVE online viewer vote at cnn.com/talkback, AOL keyword, CNN. We are going to be right back.

(APPLAUSE)

Up next, is there such a thing as too much airport security?

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) KAUKAB: I was startled when the security guard then proceeded to unzip my pants, open them and to feel or pat down my body inside my pants and outside my underwear. She patted down my lower abdomen in between my legs.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

LIN: Find out why this woman thinks she was unfairly singled out because of what she was wearing? And how far is too far when it comes to your safety?

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

(APPLAUSE)

LIN: Welcome back.

A lot of people have been strip-searched at airports over the past few months. We were just talking to some people in our audience today that happened to them. But one of those people included a U.S. congressman, John Dingell, who was forced to remove his pants on a recent trip. But exactly what happened when an American-born women, a practicing Muslim, was strip-searched at Chicago's O'Hare Airport. The ACLU says she was a victim of racial profiling.

With the support of the Illinois ACLU, she is suing airport security and the Illinois National Guard. Let's talk with Lorie Chaiten. She is the senior staff counsel at the ACLU of Illinois. Now, I want to make a point, Lorie, that we did contact the Illinois National Guard, but it is not commenting until it sees the suit and neither is the security company that was in charge of the screening. But thanks so much for joining us today. Tell us what happened to your client, Samar Kaukab?

LORIE CHAITEN, ILLINOIS ACLU: Well, thank you for having me. This is a situation where a young woman, an American citizen, was at O'Hare after attending a vista conference in Chicago. She approached the security point and was subject to intense surveillance by the Illinois National Guardsmen posted at the security checkpoint.

After going through the metal detector and not setting it off, having her bags go through the metal detector without any incident, she -- the National Guardsmen stood up and instructed the security employees to search her. She was extensively wanded. They wanded over her head repeatedly, never once have any audible sign of detection. They wanded and patted her down in public, and then demanded that she remove her hijab, which is the head covering she wears because of the modesty dictated by her practice of the Muslim religion.

She explained that she wanted to be cooperative but that she could not remove it in public or in front of a man. She agreed to go to a private place to have this done. Nevertheless, the security employees resisted repeatedly and she was forced to demand that if you're going to remove the hijab, that it happen in a private location. Finally, they did take her to a private location, where she removed the hijab. She was -- her head was searched extensively.

But it didn't stop there. She was then subject to a full body pat-down search, both over her clothing and inside. They opened her sweater. They stuck their hand in her bra. They unzipped her pants. They stuck their hands inside her pants, examining down in the area between her legs.

LIN: And this was a female security guard, right?

CHAITEN: A female security guard. And, ultimately, ended the search abruptly, finding obviously no contraband or other illegal material. And all of this was without any reasonable basis for suspicion that she had any type of contraband, nothing about her behavior or her conduct justified what happened in this search.

LIN: She is suing. What is it that she wants?

CHAITEN: What she is seeking is reform. She wants to be sure that this doesn't happen to somebody else. Obviously, she and we and all of us are interested in making sure that we are safe when we are flying here in the United States, and we want to see appropriate security. But what we want to see is appropriate guidelines, appropriate training, appropriate education, and particularly cultural sensitivity to this diverse society that we live in.

LIN: Do you think she was targeted? Is that what you're saying?

CHAITEN: Absolutely. Absolutely. There was nothing about her or the way she conducted herself that would have justified this type of search. She was picked out of a line of other people, other people who had their head covered with other types of head covering. And yet she was the one the National Guardsmen focused on immediately and then pounced on for this search. Absolutely, we believe she was searched because of her ethnicity, her practice of the Muslim religion which requires modesty in her public dress, and her apparent national origin.

LIN: Lori, we've got a lot of questions, from the audience. I want to get a couple questions in and bring in two other guests who are attorneys on this -- what the legal questions are -- Chris.

CHRIS: Yes, Chris has a question -- go ahead.

CHRIS: I have a question for the lawyer. What would be appropriate behavioral indications that would allow someone to be legitimately body searched? What would you say would be prohibited?

LIN: When is it justified, Lori? Is ever justified to suspect someone based on their appearance or even their attitude that they may be a danger to the public, and then should be profiled and searched?

CHAITEN: Well, I can't give you specifics about other instances, but what I can tell you in this instance is that there was nothing about what she did, other than that she was wearing this (UNINTELLIGIBLE) that led to the search, and there is nothing about her behavior that would justify it. Obviously, we can all imagine instances where somebody's behavior might lead to sort of justification for searching them, but there was nothing about her conduct that would justify the type of degrading and humiliating and intrusive search that she was subjected to.

LIN: But is there anything potentially -- about her appearance, I mean the fact that she adopted the Muslim dress and the headware and acknowledging that this was only a couple months after September 11 and that the perpetrators of that attack were Muslims, does that make her a more legitimate candidate?

CHAITEN: There are Muslim people throughout the United States who practice openly the Muslim religion. This is a woman who has chosen to again, adopt the modest style of dress of her religion, and Constitution simply does not permit that people can be singled out based on their religious practice, based on their ethnicity for this type of treatment.

If there is going to be this type of searching going on in our airports, it has to be pursuant to appropriate guidelines that respect the restrictions of the Constitution and the freedoms that that Constitution provides to all of us.

LIN: Chris, do we have an audience comment or question before the break?

CHRIS: Jan, go ahead.

JAN: Hi, I feel as long as we have terror cells in United States and around the world that want to kill Americans it's unfortunate, but that's what is going to happen.

LIN: All right, but Maddux (ph) , you have a different opinion.

MADDUX: I do. It's easy to say that it should happen until it happens to you. Then it become as different issue. Would they have done the same thing if the woman had been a nun? That's my question. Second of all, she went through several areas of a security search already and there was no indication that she had anything. Why was it necessary to take her to a back room and search her so thoroughly into her bra, panties and whatever else -- her body cavities? That was ridiculous. That was overkill.

LIN: All right, thank you, Maddox. Obviously, a lot of strong feelings today. Lorie Chaiten, thank you very much for joining us. We are going to be joined by John Burris, criminal defense attorney and civil rights attorney in Oakland, California, and former Justice Department official, Victoria Toensing. I want you two to hold your thoughts because we are going to get to you right after the break. Stay with us.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: I'm (UNINTELLIGIBLE) from Boston University. As long as the security guards do not humiliate my background, I don't mind to be checked at the airport. (END VIDEO CLIP)

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: I'm Levi Maya (ph) from Boston University. I'm willing to sacrifice a couple hours of my time to insure safety as long as government security checks are done efficiently and effectively.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

LIN: What does that mean "efficiently and effectively?" With us now are John Burris a criminal defense and civil rights attorney in Oakland, California. And former Justice Department official Victoria Toensing. Thanks, John, thanks, Victoria for joining us.

You are joining a hot group here, a lot of questions. And even people who themselves have been body searched, but I want to get a quick opinion from both of you on what you think happened to Samar Kaukab (ph) at the airport? Do you think she was racially profiled?

JOHN BURRIS, CIVIL RIGHTS ATTORNEY: I certainly do. I think she should not have been searched in the extensive manner in which she was. It was pretty clear that factually would alert anyone to go further than what actually was done, so you have to question why it was that that kind of effort was made.

And obviously, you have her national origin, or at least an appearance of her clothing and apparent Muslim religion as being the indicators that caused someone to go forward. So, I think clearly that it was racial profiling and it I think it's correct it should not be arbitrarily done. Everyone could be subject to certain kinds of examinations but there ought to be guidelines that say, what is the next step you ought to go, what indications do you see.

So, form my point point of view it certainly looked like it was racial profiling.

LIN: Victoria.

VICTORIA TOENSING, FMR. JUSTICE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL: Well, What I saw that she did is she refused to comply with a request. She refused to take of her scarf. I came back from the Caribbean last week and I had on a staw hat. I was asked to take it off, and I had set off nothing and I had been through two checkpoints.

It is unfortunate, but the $7 an hour checker, and we are hoping that will improve, but certainly these were the people in place last November, are not allowed to use any judgment. They are told to take out the five-inch long scissors that have a needle-sharp point and two inch scissors with the dull point. Scissors is scissors. And head covering is head converings and they are going to have to take it off.

LIN: Let's clarify this because she didn't refuse to take off her head covering. She said that because of her faith...

TOENSING: At first she did.

LIN: She wouldn't do it in from of a man. So, she asked for some privacy and agreed to do that.

TOENSING: We don't know -- she says -- what -- she might have said no, but now let me tell you why. But whatever it was, if I could finish, is the refusal triggered it, and I can tell you if I had refused to take off my straw, I would have been in for a secondary search.

BURRIS: But why did the search go any further than that? Once she has actuall removed, she said I will do it under certain circumstances, then she does it, I don't understan why then, that would then trigger the more extensive personalized search when nothing that had happened before, including the wanding, had not triggered anything to suggest that she had any kind of weapon on her.

TOENSING: Because we all have horror our stories. There are people in the audience who haven't done anything wrong. John Dingell, member of Congress, certainly had not done anything wrong. It has happened to all of us and it would be the utmost folley if what is the result of all this is that the airline security companies only search non-Muslim, non-Arabs, because they are so afraid of a lawsuit.

LIN: See, but where it drew the line for me, they didn't reach into John Dingell's pants.

TOENSING: Well, they made him take them off.

LIN: They made him take them off and search...

TOENSING: And they didn't make her take them off. There's the two differences. You can either have strip-search. Really, this was not a strip-search. This was a full-body pat-down, according to law enforcement.

LIN: Chris Eskew (ph), my colleague here, has a woman, Betty, who actually was searched -- body searched.

What was that like for you, Betty?

BETTY: Well, it was different, certainly. This was when we were traveling abroad. I didn't feel really violated, but I did feel that maybe it was a little bit much for where we were at the time.

But I had comment about this subject. And that is that we are all aware, since September 11, that there is increased security at our airports. So, if we don't want to abide by the rules and be patient with our system, then we shouldn't be traveling.

(APPLAUSE)

LIN: Betty, do you think what happened to her is acceptable under these circumstances, the way she was searched, how she was handled, how she was approached, allegedly, because we don't have the other side yet?

BETTY: Well, it's according to where you are at the time, I suppose, as to how you are treated or how you are searched or whatever. But, yes, I think, under the circumstances, with what all has happened in the last few months, I think it's acceptable.

BURRIS: I think that you are right, that there can in fact be approaches for searching people on the circumstances. I think what we are really talking about here is: What are the guidelines? And are they consistently being applied?

It may be that, once the guidelines are established, the arbitrariness will be less and maybe there will be some mechanism by which people can understand that you ought to then apply it. And I think that is what the real issue here is. What are there standards here in order to minimize the likelihood? Everyone could be subject to certain kinds of searches. That happens to everyone in the course of -- the question is: What is the scope and how is it decided?

LIN: We have got Matthew on the telephone.

Matthew, do you have questions about this, because with your wife was searched? What happened?

CALLER: That's right. We were actually leaving the day after our wedding to go on our honeymoon out of a New Orleans airport. And we were going through security. And there was something that went off -- set off the trigger in one of the bags. And so they searched a bag. And, as I was getting patted down, I turned around just in time to see my new young wife, and she has got tears running down her face. And she said that she was groped through her chest and midsection.

And she bawled for about 10, 20 minutes. And, at this point, we are asking ourselves: How much is this worth? I don't think we ever going to fly again.

TOENSING: You are Muslim?

(CROSSTALK)

CALLER: No, we are both of Caucasian descent.

TOENSING: Then you cannot sue.

CALLER: No, nothing in the case of suing. But where do you draw the line?

LIN: Where do you draw the line? What are your rights as a passenger? How do you know when the security guard has crossed that line?

John?

BURRIS: Well, it's like beauty. It's in the eyes of the beholder, to some extent. But, obviously, inappropriate touching is one. LIN: What is inappropriate touching? The security guard in this woman's case...

BURRIS: It's sexual-harassment-type things.

(CROSSTALK)

LIN: Does that mean that if I feel threatened, if I start feeling threatened in the process of being searched, then my rights are being violated?

BURRIS: No. It depends on what parts are being searched. I don't think it is ever appropriate to have one's private parts searched, you know, under circumstances that could be suggestive or punitive. And I think you have to have guidelines around that.

I think people know that's not what you are supposed to do. But I do think there has to be standards. What you want to look to see, is it random testing for people? I think that's appropriate. I think that's appropriate. I don't have a problem with randomly selecting people out, having them take off their shoes, take off your hat, etcetera, etcetera. I do think that going to the next level and doing body searches should not occur unless there's some factual basis for that to occur.

(CROSSTALK)

TOENSING: But, John, if you pull out a Muslim then, that person can sue. And when

(CROSSTALK)

TOENSING: ... the gentlemen whose wife was on the telephone, they certainly have no have basis for suit.

BURRIS: No, I don't think that just because you're Muslim, you get to sue. The question is, is it an appropriate guideline that says statistically or randomly we are selecting people? You happen to be a Muslim. You happen to be a black. You happen to be a European, that's the way it goes. The question is: What happens after that and what level of search takes place?

TOENSING: Well, we don't know the facts here. They could have had random

(CROSSTALK)

LIN: The facts are still coming out, you two. Thank you very much. Stay right there. We have got many more questions and other subjects to explore with you.

But right now, it's a quick break ahead. We will be right back.

Coming up, 27 years is a long time to wait for justice.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Their families are going to be traumatized as well, but sometimes that is the price of justice after all of these years.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

LIN: A bank robbery, a murder and a kidnapping: The past returns to haunt members of the Symbionese Liberation Army.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: They've got one witness. And that is Patty Hearst.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

LIN: We have got a rowdy crowd here today. Welcome back to TALKBACK LIVE: "America Speaks Out." I'm Carol Lin, with a really terrific audience and some terrific guests here on an interesting subject.

Imagine if your past begins to haunt you, because, for some people, they can't run away from their past. Back in the '70s, the Symbionese Liberation Army was accused of its own form of terrorism right here in America. Now five members of that infamous group are charged with a 1975 bank robbery and murder of a mother of four.

Joining us now on the phone to help explain this complex story -- and it is kind of an old that is coming back to haunt us -- Ann O'Neill. She is a staff writer for "The Los Angeles Times" covering this story.

And I know it is complicated, but can you give us a quick synopsis of who these people are and what happened back in 1975?

ANN O'NEILL, "LOS ANGELES TIMES": Well, to begin with, anybody who is either a history buff or was walking around in the 1970s would remember the Symbionese Liberation Army as the people who kidnapped Patty Hearst. She was an heiress. Her parents are wealthy publishing people up in San Francisco.

And it was a saga that captivated America. At the time, it seemed to symbolized sort of the tensions between the two generations, the older generation and some rebellious kids who were caught up in radical movements and counterculture.

LIN: And the bank robbery we are talking about was that moment when the world actually saw Patty Hearst become Tanya, the gunman.

O'NEILL: No, there was an earlier bank robbery in San Francisco. This one came more than a year later.

LIN: And what happened there? O'NEILL: What had happened is, Patty Hearst and the Harrises and a couple of other people were in hiding for years. That is when they went back to Pennsylvania, stayed that summer in the farmhouse. And then they were back in Sacramento still very much in hiding when, according to authorities, they began committing a bunch of petty crimes and so forth to sustain themselves in their revolutionary effort.

And this bank robbery occurred at that time, about in April '74, in Sacramento, a suburb called Carmichael.

LIN: And in the process of this bank robbery, a mother of four was murdered.

O'NEILL: Right, while depositing funds from her church.

LIN: Yes, it was a sad story. And her son John has since then led almost a three-decades-long battle to try to get the Symbionese Liberation Army members arrested, prosecuted and convicted for this crime, right?

O'NEILL: Correct. And he was not alone. Bill and Emily Harris, for example, went to prison for eight years for the whole SLA -- what the police would call a reign of terror and the whole Patty Hearst kidnapping saga.

And I don't think there was a law enforcement official in Los Angeles, in particular, and in California who felt that eight years was enough for those guys. So, in the back of their minds, there was always the possibility that this might come up, but they didn't have much evidence.

(CROSSTALK)

O'NEILL: It was the arrest of Sara Jane Olson that brought all of this back to the forefront and renewed efforts with more modern technology for analyzing ballistics and so forth.

LIN: Right, Sara Jane Olson, whom some people might remember was arrested in 1999. She had lived, since her SLA days, this exemplary life. She got married. She had kids. She became a soccer mom. We are looking at video of her right now.

And we have got a question in the audience from Megan, a whole new generation here who wants to know more about the story.

MEGAN: Yes. And I was wondering if there is any new information or evidence that would cause the rehash of this?

LIN: Yes, why did it take so long, Ann?

O'NEILL: Well, it took so long and it didn't take so long, I suppose you could look at it.

When there is a cold crime, as police call it, things happen in fits and starts. And I am sure there was a lot of investigation in the beginning. And there were a lot of law enforcement agencies looking into a number of different crimes. And, in fact, in Sacramento, they probably were at the back of the bus there, even though it was a homicide and you would think that that would be the most important thing you would want to look at.

LIN: And part of it is that they simply could not find these people, that they had assumed other identities.

O'NEILL: Actually, no.

What went on was, there was some things that happened through the criminal justice system. Of course, Patty Hearst went on trial, was convicted, was initially given some clemency from President Jimmy Carter -- that's how far back we go -- and then recently was pardoned entirely by President Bill Clinton as he left office.

But what happened here is, Sara Jane Olson did disappear, did assume the new identity. Some of these people had been through the criminal justice system and just moved on with their lives, Bill and Emily Harris, Mike Bortin, who never really was charged with any SLA- related crimes. He was just sort of a fringe radical character. There were a number of these organizations back then.

LIN: And for John Opsahl, the son of Myrna Opsahl, who was killed in that bank robbery, this story has remained alive for him because his mother was killed and nobody ever came to trial. Now we have got a situation where we have people under arrest for a crime that was committed almost 30 years ago.

How do you prosecute a case like this, Victoria Toensing, John Burris, two attorneys joining us today? Where do they even begin?

TOENSING: It sounds like that they are going to start from Patty Hearst's testimony. But that won't be enough, because she will be attacked.

And so, what a prosecutor has to have is certain things that back up her testimony, certain tangible things that the jury will be able to say: Oh, well, that thing can't lie. That's a piece of paper. Or that's like a ballistic. That's a gunshot that is matched up with the right gun. And then that will make her whole testimony more credible.

LIN: Does this stuff even still exist? Evidence that is so old and testimony that, over time, can be so fuzzy, how reliable is that for a jury?

BURRIS: Well, the ballistic testimony can be very reliable, because it is a hard item. It should not change. The question here is, if you had that information before, what has changed since then, No. 1? And, No. 2, you've always had the testimony of Patty Hearst.

So the FBI has said that apparently new techniques have been developed that allows them to match up ballistically weapons that were found through the SLA group at the time they were initially arrested, along with some of the bullets or casings that were recovered from the scene. That being the case, it may ultimately demonstrate that the SLA, the guns and weapons that found were in the possession and used by the person who committed the crime. I would submit, though, that doesn't prove that each individual person was involved in. Again, I think that Patty Hearst's testimony could in fact lend credence to that. But I don't even that that is going to be enough in and of self, because she is -- quote -- "damaged personality" in the sense that she took a deal, she wrote a book and basically has had a lot to gain from it personally as it relates to her credibility.

TOENSING: Yes, but, John, here is the problem for the defense attorney on that, even though they will try to attack her.

BURRIS: Sure.

TOENSING: She now has had not only her sentence commuted, so she got out, by Jimmy Carter, but Bill Clinton gave her a pardon. So the only thing she could do wrong is commit perjury on the stand. And that is how I would argue it as the prosecutor.

BURRIS: Well of course that is true, but that doesn't then mean she is not attacked. After all, she has in fact benefited from it. And the argument will be she benefited because she was a wealthy heiress and politically she is well connected. And that will be then be the argument the defense will use to underline her credibility.

TOENSING: John is planning his defense right now.

LIN: But what really strikes me about this case -- and I have mixed feelings about it, because, frankly, if it was my mother killed 30 years ago, 60 years ago, 100 years ago, whenever, I would want that person to pay the price. And yet each of these individuals has gone on to become working citizens.

In the case of William Harris, he actually became an investigator for the San Francisco district attorney's office. They went on to have kids and families.

(CROSSTALK)

BURRIS: I know Bill Harris. And I know the point -- the interesting thing about Bill Harris and Emily Harris, because the point of fact is, obviously, these people were involved in criminal conduct during that period of time. But it was not like they did not suffer. They in fact have been punished. They went to state prison. They were part of the criminal justice system for some of the crimes.

The question is: Should that be enough given the fact that all their crimes were not incorporated in the whole package in which they are involved in? And should they now be subject sort of another form of jeopardy? And I think that the family would say yes. Politically, others might say no. They have actually suffered a great deal. They have gone on with their lives and have suffered the badges that come from that. It's not like they have gotten a free ride.

TOENSING: Carol? LIN: Victoria, quick point. Go ahead.

TOENSING: There is a touch of irony here. And that is that Emily Harris is quoted by Patty Hearst as the calling the victim, the mother, a bourgeois pig. And they have all now come to lead just the kind of life that their murder victim was leading.

LIN: Yes, I wonder if that counts...

BURRIS: Well, they were very young at that period of time.

LIN: I wonder if that counts at all in the big picture of things.

(CROSSTALK)

LIN: Hold that thought.

BURRIS: It will count maybe for mitigation only.

LIN: And only a jury can tell us. All right. Hold that thought. We're going to take a quick break.

And we're going to talk about a growing mystery at Columbine -- you remember that school shooting -- right after this.

LIN: Still ahead: A grieving father wants to know whose gun fired the fatal shots.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: The end-all for me is, nothing changes what happened that day. But I want to know what my son's last minutes were like and what happened to him.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

LIN: Is there a cover-up in Columbine?

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

LIN: The parents of one of the boys killed in the Columbine High School massacre think a police officer killed their son, not the gunmen. And they are accusing authorities of covering up their son's death.

CNN's David Mattingly is covering this story from Golden, Colorado. And he joins us now with more.

David, something is about to happen at about 4:00. You are expecting to hear, what, from the county there in terms of how they are handling this case?

DAVID MATTINGLY, CNN CORRESPONDENT: We are expecting to hear just shortly from the county coroner, who will tell us whether or not he is going to hold an inquest. That is a rare proceeding, but he does have the authority to call it.

And it amounts to a small grand jury. He will be able to pull in a panel of a jury. And he will be able to subpoena witnesses, if he decides to do this, to ask more questions about the death of Daniel Rohrbough.

LIN: Why is it that Daniel Rohrbough's parents think that a Denver police officer killed their son?

MATTINGLY: They have a family friend who was a Jefferson County -- not a Jefferson County, but a sheriff's deputy at Columbine that day who privately told them that he saw their son killed. And the information that he gave them leads them to believe that he was killed much later in the timeline than was originally said and that he was in harm's way of police bullets.

They have done their own examination of evidence and believe that more questions need to be asked.

LIN: As if we have to be reminded, it was two young students, Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold, who eventually were discovered to be the gunmen in the case of the school shooting.

But I would think, David, that just a ballistics test would determine whether it was friendly fire by the police or whether it was Harris or Klebold.

MATTINGLY: The problem with Danny was that he was shot three times. Two of the bullets went completely through his body. The one bullet that remained, that was tested. And they determined -- not conclusively -- but that that bullet was consistent with the weapon that one of the young gunmen was carrying. But, again, it was not conclusive and does not directly link that bullet, without a doubt, to those two gunmen.

LIN: All right, let me bring in our two legal experts today, Victoria Toensing and John Burris.

To the both of you: Apparently, there is a dispute now between the parents, who want a grand jury investigation, vs. the county, which wants the coroner's office to conduct this inquest. Why can't both occur? It seems as if it's a choice between one or the other. And what makes the difference here?

BURRIS: They can occur. I certainly have had experience with both a grand jury as well as coroner's inquest. Typically, the coroner's inquest occurs when there has been a death. That certainly seems to be the appropriate forum. The grand jury can go beyond that, though. They can look more at policies in effect, conduct on the part of both the city, on the police, how they responded to that particular event, and whether or not there were any violations of county or city policies, whereas the grand jury would not do that.

And so, in fact, they could do both. As to why they do not and do not and will not, it remains -- it is open -- that's a public question for the public officials to decide. (CROSSTALK)

LIN: David Mattingly has to go right now, but, Victoria, go ahead

I just want to thank David Mattingly, because he has got to continue to cover this story.

But, Victoria, your thoughts on this.

TOENSING: Well, we were talking in the last segment how new technology has enabled, in the SLA case, to reexamine some ballistics with tests they couldn't do before. Maybe they should send some of those tests out to Denver, Colorado, because it seems to me that is the only place where you are going to get any kind of certainty, is if you have a good ballistic test that works. I don't know how you're going to recreate a timeline and all that other stuff.

LIN: But the Rohrboughs are claiming -- the father is claiming that there is a cover-up going on out there with the sheriff's department.

TOENSING: Yes, but he has no basis. As I understand it -- and I am sorry that the reporter has left -- but with the CNN story that I have read on it, the deputy, or the friend of the family who said this, he actually just said gibberish, like he said: I was standing there and the kid was killed. That was it.

LIN: Yes, conflicting witness statements.

I apologize. We are out of time. John Burris, you've been terrific. Victoria Toensing, we really value both your opinions. We are going to bring you back some other day on another topic. But I want to also thank our studio audience and to you at home.

You guys have been great. Thank you so much. You're making my job so easy.

I'm Carol Lin. Join us again tomorrow at 3:00 Eastern for more TALKBACK LIVE.

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