Return to Transcripts main page
CNN Live Today
Interview of Cynthia Alksne, Contributor
Aired March 14, 2002 - 11:07 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.
FREDRICKA WHITFIELD, CNN ANCHOR: Out now to the Midwest where "Dear Abby" columnist Jeanne Phillips said she agonized over this decision, but in the end, she turned the guy in. Her call to Milwaukee police led to Monday's arrest of 28-year-old Paul Weiser.
He wrote to "Dear Abby" asking for advice on how to deal with his sexual fantasies about underaged little girls, including his girlfriend's two young daughters. Weiser reportedly never acted on his fantasies, but Phillips said she had no choice.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
JEANNE PHILLIPS, COLUMNIST: He talked about that the child trusted him, and that made me worry. The child didn't know that she was in danger, and the child's mother didn't know.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
WHITFIELD: Police in Milwaukee charged Weiser with possession of child pornography. Jeanne Phillips is the daughter of Abigail Van Buren, who started the column -- Leon.
LEON HARRIS, CNN ANCHOR: All right, let's talk about this with legal analyst Cynthia Alksne. She is in our Washington bureau. Good to see you again, how are you today.
CYNTHIA ALKSNE, LEGAL ANALYST: Good morning.
HARRIS: Let's first of all start off with this "Dear Abby" case here. Legally, what occurs to you in this case.
ALKSNE: I haven't -- I don't know much about the "Dear Abby" case just yet. It is my brief understanding, from what you just said, that he hadn't done anything, so until a person actually does something, they aren't charged with a crime.
HARRIS: Yeah, but does -- is there any repercussions that go her way for -- that is the column writer, if he basically gets fingered and has to go through, I guess, a hassle because of this, because of her turning him in?
ALKSNE: No. He doesn't have a privilege with "Dear Abby." We haven't got to that point in the law where whatever you write to "Dear Abby" is protected under any law, so if you write to "Dear Abby," everybody know, she can tell people what you say.
HARRIS: Okay. All right, now let's back to the case in Texas, that case of Andrea Yates. We have been talking about this for the last few days, and there has been no shortage of expressions of surprise as to how things have turned out so far. What do you think is happening right now, with this -- right now with the process of coming up with what the verdict is going to be, in terms of punishment?
ALKSNE: Well, what's going to happen today, we are going to begin to hear witnesses, the family members, and the experts, to say why she is not a future threat to society. That is sort of an interesting term in the law. Threat to society, you think, well, she is either going to jail or she is going to get death penalty. The only society she is going to see for the next 40 years are inmates, is she really a threat to them.
HARRIS: I'm glad you brought that up, that was the same thing that occurred to us when we were sitting here talking about that. If she is going to spend the rest of her life either in a hospital or a prison cell anyway, why does it matter, and this -- does this go back to that thing we were talking about, this vagary in Texas law about how you can't tell the jury in advance that no matter what happens, what the consequences are going to be later on from their decisions or whatever?
ALKSNE: Right. Well, technically in the law, it includes not only the society she is going to be in, because she is going to be in jail next 40 years, but also society as a whole. And so, the jurors have to make a determination whether or not she thinks he is a threat, and, as you know because you have followed this case, there is no evidence so far to suggest she was a threat to anyone, but to her own children and to herself.
So, the defense attorneys are going to make every effort to highlight that testimony, and go over that with the psychiatrist, that she never threatened anybody else, those types of things. And that will be first thing that happens.
It may very well be, that after this threat to society question is answered, and the jury comes back actually with an answer, that they don't -- you know, the case is essentially over, and she will get life. The other thing is, this mitigating or aggravating circumstances, and the defense attorneys will also be dealing with that. The truth of the matter is, the evidence to answer both of these questions is really the same, and all of the evidence should come out, reasonably quickly in this.
HARRIS: Very interesting.
TO ORDER A VIDEO OF THIS TRANSCRIPT, PLEASE CALL 800-CNN-NEWS OR USE OUR SECURE ONLINE ORDER FORM LOCATED AT www.fdch.com
