Return to Transcripts main page

CNN Connie Chung Tonight

Westerfield Found Guilty; Experts Question Media Coverage of Kidnappings; Al Qaeda Videos Show Technical Sophistication

Aired August 21, 2002 - 20:00   ET

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

CONNIE CHUNG, CNN ANCHOR: Good evening. I'm Connie Chung. Tonight, guilty as charged for kidnapping and murdering a 7-year-old girl.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: We the jury in the (UNINTELLIGIBLE) find the defendant, David Alan Westerfield, guilty of the crime of murder, guilty of the crime of kidnapping, guilty of the crime...

ANNOUNCER: Guilty. David Westerfield found guilty of kidnapping and murdering Danielle van Dam. Tonight, reaction to one of the highest profile child abduction cases of the year. What was the key to his conviction?

Is this the summer of missing kids?

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: It's scaring parents. It's giving them the wrong impression.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

ANNOUNCER: The facts you ought to know about children missing in America.

This man is wanted. He could be the first new lead in the September 11 investigation. Who is he and what is his connection?

"Terror on Tape." Training for urban jihad. Another dramatic revelation from the cache of videotape uncovered in Afghanistan. Tonight a CNN exclusive, the training of would-be kidnappers and assassins.

This is CONNIE CHUNG TONIGHT. Live from the CNN broadcast center in New York, Connie Chung.

CHUNG: Good evening. It took nine days of deliberations, but a California jury reached a verdict today in the case of David Westerfield, finding him guilty of abducting and then murdering 7- year-old Danielle van Dam. The conviction means that Westerfield could now face the death penalty. CNN's Charles Feldman was in the San Diego courtroom when the verdict was read.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: We the jury in the (UNINTELLIGIBLE) find the defendant, David Alan Westerfield, guilty of the crime of murder...

CHARLES FELDMAN, CNN CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): After 27 days of testimony for more than 100 witnesses, and after viewing nearly 200 exhibits, the six man-six woman jury returned guilty verdicts against David Westerfield on all three counts, murder, kidnapping and possessing child pornography.

Westerfield, who lived down the street from 7-year-old Danielle van Dam kidnapped her from her bedroom, killed her and dumped her body in the southern California desert. The young girl's body was so decomposed that the medical examiner was unable to determine whether van Dam had been sexually assaulted or, for that matter, how she was killed.

The trial was unusual because Westerfield's attorney argued that the so-called swinging lifestyle of Danielle's parents may have exposed the youngster to suspects other than his client.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Isn't it true that on Halloween evening in the year 2000 you engaged in sex with Denise and Andy and Brendon (ph) and -- I'm sorry, and Daniel (ph)?

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Yes.

FELDMAN: But prosecutors had forensic evidence on their side. Danielle's blood was found on Westerfield's jacket. More of her blood was found in his motor home along with strands of her hair and fibers from her clothing.

JEFF DUSEK, PROSECUTOR: This is a smoking gun. This is hard evidence. And no explanation, because there is none except that he did it.

FELDMAN: Now, a judicial gag order is preventing anybody connected with this case, Connie, from discussing it until the jury finishes its work. And that doesn't happen until next week. Because as a penalty phase here in the state of California, the same jury will reconvene a week from today to decide whether or not David Westerfield will spend the rest of his life behind bars or be executed by lethal injection -- Connie.

CHUNG: Charles, I know that Westerfield was shaking slightly when the verdict was read. How about the van Dams? Did they openly react?

FELDMAN: Oh, boy, did they. They were seated in the very rear of the courtroom. Very tiny courtroom, Connie, only three rows reserved for members of the media as well as for family and friends of both sides. Mr. and Mrs. van Dam, seated together in the very last row. At first, before the verdict was read, they kept sipping from a bottle of water they had with them. Mrs. van Dam's eyes kept darting around the courtroom. But I got to tell you, the moment that first verdict was read on the first count, which was the murder count with kidnaping, the special circumstance count, and he was pronounced guilty, Mrs. van Dam just broke down. She totally lost it, and totally understandable, Connie. She started weeping very loudly. Her head dropped to the left shoulder of her husband. He clutched her. Their hands started really getting tightly locked in one another. He kept his composure throughout but she was sobbing for, by my count, four or five minutes, well into the reading of the verdicts on the second and third counts. It was very emotional, Connie.

CHUNG: Charles, they always say that if the jurors, when they're walking in, do not look at the defendant in the eyes, that it's a guilty verdict. How were the jurors behaving when the verdict was read?

FELDMAN: Well, you're right. That is the saying, and it seems to have held true in this case, Connie. From what I could tell, they did not ever lock David Westerfield eye to eye. Occasionally some of the jurors seemed to glance his way, but from what I could tell, at no point did any of them just lock him eyeball to eyeball and, you're right, tradition has it that when a jury doesn't do that, it's bad news for the defendant.

CHUNG: Now, I know this particular judge can be seen as sort of a friend of the jurors and a foe of the media. Did -- as I understand it, he asked the jurors to basically remain silent for the next week, basically a gag order.

FELDMAN: Yes, that's right. Because this next phase, this penalty phase, is terribly important, obviously. It's going to decide or help decide whether or not David Westerfield goes to prison for the rest of his life or whether he's executed. So the judge wants to be very careful that the jury is not really exposed to what in his view would be I suppose harassment of the press.

And, in fact, during the course of this trial, he expelled one journalist whose radio station apparently broadcast some details of a conversation that took place behind closed doors in the judge's chamber. He chastised the rest of the media at another point because he indicated that he believed that some members of the press were trying to track down jurors before the verdict was in, which of course would be illegal.

So he's been trying to run a very tight ship. And he even said today when I was in court that he was trying to walk this tightrope, this balancing act, if you will, trying to balance the needs and the rights of the prosecutor, of the defendant and, of course, of the public, which in the courtroom would be represented by all of us in the press.

CHUNG: All right. Thank you, Charles Feldman. Appreciate it. For some perspective on the case we're joined now by CNN legal analyst Jeffrey Toobin and Court TV anchor Catherine Crier. Thank you for both for being with us.

CATHERINE CRIER, COURT TV ANCHOR: You bet.

CHUNG: All right. I'm going to start with Jeffrey. Let's go through each count. Murder, guilty. Was it the DNA evidence? Had to be.

JEFFREY TOOBIN, CNN LEGAL ANALYST: You bet. I think this is such an interesting example of a case that probably wouldn't even have been brought 15 years ago, much less a conviction, because it was so circumstantial, but that DNA was absolutely irrefutable.

You had Danielle van Dam's blood on Westerfield's jacket. There was just no answer for that. I mean, there was just no even attempted explanation, really, by the defense on that.

That was the end of the story. I think we'll obviously hear from the jurors themselves probably at some point about what they were influenced by, but certainly in terms of my reaction to the evidence, her blood in the mobile home on the jacket, end of story, guilty.

CHUNG: But there wasn't any evidence as I could see, about what I read, that he would be found necessarily guilty of kidnapping, even though it's logical.

TOOBIN: That's true. But it's sort of a package deal, the way I saw it. I mean how -- there was never any evidence that anyone else was involved. Once the jury made up its mind that he was the person who killed her, it's hard for me to imagine -- and even the defense didn't really make the argument that it could be someone else. It was sort of a package deal. Guilty of kidnapping and murder or innocent of them both. It was guilty.

CHUNG: And then finally, the third is the possession of child pornography. Was it his son's testimony that made the difference?

TOOBIN: Well, I think the fact that the pornography was found in the house. Very interesting. You know, that crime is only a misdemeanor. Doesn't even compare in seriousness with the death penalty crime, but it was very important in this case. Because that charge was there, it meant that the prosecution could introduce those horrible photographs of those children being abused.

It really gave the jury an idea about motive, about why he would do a thing like that, even though there's never been any direct tie proved between people who look at pornography and commit crimes. It certainly had that feel in the courtroom. A minor charge certainly won't matter much in sentencing, but I think it was actually very important.

CHUNG: OK, Jeffrey, I want to get back to you in a minute about how conscientious the jurors were, but I do want to get to Catherine. The jurors will now take on the penalty phase in a week. Any indication of which way they might go?

CRIER: Well, it's all speculation. But one thing I noticed today was when the jury was polled as to each and every count, each one had to answer -- very strong -- you didn't hear anyone quavering, anyone hesitating. As you said, as Charles Feldman said, they didn't look at him when they came out. Very conservative community. We saw the applause outside the courthouse.

Looking at the juror profiles, a lot of really tough folks that said no problem with the death penalty, eye for an eye. So I think it's going to be a tough road for the defendant.

CHUNG: Do they have to agree unanimously that he would die buy lethal injection?

CRIER: Yes.

CHUNG: They do?

CRIER: It's actually quite interesting in California. They have to agree unanimously. If they are hung up, in many states the judge simply imposes life without parole. You can't decide, here we go. In California, the D.A. can say, no, I want a new jury to rehear the issue of penalty, the punishment issue...

CHUNG: Just the penalty.

CRIER: And they could do it again, which is really a mini-trial, because you're introducing a lot of evidence that occurred during the case in chief.

CHUNG: I see. But if they can't agree on the death penalty, they could vote on life imprisonment, and they could successfully go that way?

CRIER: Yes, it has to be unanimous...

CHUNG: Whatever it is.

CRIER: Whatever it is, and if it's not, it's considered just like the prior trial, bifurcated trial, a hung jury, if you will, a mistrial as to the punishment phase.

Normally then the judge just steps in and say, OK, you can't agree to death, we go with life. But the D.A. can say, no, judge, we want to try it with another 12 people.

CHUNG: I see. Jeffrey, I remember your telling us when you were at the trial earlier that the jurors seemed so conscientious.

TOOBIN: It was so interesting to watch them. First of all, Charles mentioned it. It was the smallest courtroom I have ever been in in my life. I mean, everybody was right on top of each other. The defense table and the prosecution table literally were touching. The witnesses had to sort of wend their way to the witness stand, because the jury was practically in the way.

The jurors all had spiral notebooks. Some judges don't even let jurors take notes. These jurors took so many notes that several of them had several notebooks with rubber bands around them just to keep them all together. I think that was one reason why the jury deliberations took a while. It's because you had 12 people shuffling through their notes trying to compare what they thought of testimony. Very conscientious.

The one thing they didn't want was also very clear in the dynamic with the judge, is to be sequestered. This jury hated the idea. They have family responsibilities. They did not want to be sequestered. And there was a pretty good argument for sequestration in this case, because remember, the whole Samantha Runnion tragedy took place right in the middle of this trial, and that was just a few miles north of San Diego.

The judge satisfied himself by saying don't pay attention. It will be a big point on appeal, to be sure, probably not a winning one, I don't think, but they really didn't want to be sequestered.

CHUNG: The judge really, as Charles said, was running a tight ship. He really was speaking to, at one point, the reporters rather than the jurors. Let's play that little bit of tape.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

JUDGE WILLIAM MUDD, SUPERIOR COURT, SAN DIEGO COUNTY: No one, and I mean no one, should contact any of you between now and next Wednesday. If you are contacted by any individual, I want to know about that.

I want to know right away. If you can get identification from the person, whatever. I want to know about it. And we will indeed pursue the avenues that I have available to me, limited as they may be, against anyone that attempts to contact you.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

CHUNG: Well, what do you think? Because I get it -- what I get from that, translation is, if a reporter talks to you, I'm going to throw that reporter in jail.

CRIER: Absolutely.

TOOBIN: That was five percent to the jury, 95 percent to us. Stay away from those jurors.

CRIER: But you made a point about sequestration and appeal. They haven't sequestered a jury in California in this community since mid-'50s but he is scared, I believe, that over the next week, with all of the press and all of the influence, as has already occurred, that this could be reaching an appealable point. I think this -- there has been so much going on during the course of this trial that it will be an interesting argument.

TOOBIN: Oh, the O.J. jury was sequestered. I don't want to cite that as an example to be followed...

CRIER: I don't know that you necessarily want to, but you don't normally have cases that are so parallel in a row where this jury is faced in their own home state with child abduction after child abduction.

TOOBIN: And this judge has so had it with those of us in the news media. I mean, he is just dying to throw one of us in the can.

CRIER: It is so frustrating because Court TV's coverage, and we've been there from the beginning, we continue to cover this thing, is not the problem. And he said, before this I was fine with cameras in the courtroom.

And as Jeffrey and I were talking beforehand, it's not the camera. It's not Court TV. It's the radio stations.

TOOBIN: It's talk radio. It's talk radio.

CRIER: It's people who are trying to incite -- it's not the physical camera. And that's a shame that a judge would walk away feeling that way.

TOOBIN: It is, and Court TV sort of feels the brunt of the anger from these judges. It's the idiot talk show host who was walking down the street handing out broccoli because he said the jurors were so stupid, they were as dumb as vegetables, for not reaching a verdict sooner.

CHUNG: Oh, dear.

TOOBIN: I mean, that's the kind of thing that the judge was upset about, as well he should be. But unfortunately, the only one he can lash out at is us.

CRIER: And it hinders us. It hinders all of us when those cameras are excluded.

CHUNG: So if, for instance, a reporter or a producer or whatever does go to a juror, have a conversation or whatever, what can happen?

CRIER: Contempt. Throw him in jail.

TOOBIN: Contempt of court. In jail in a second.

CRIER: Absolutely.

CHUNG: Is the jury tainted then? Does that juror have to step down?

CRIER: Depends.

(CROSSTALK)

TOOBIN: Yes, that jury would have -- that juror would have to be interviewed. There would be questions from both sides.

CRIER: The judge would question them carefully.

TOOBIN: But as you know, there are booking wars all over if place. CHUNG: Yes!

TOOBIN: And the first person to get an interview with one of these jurors, they're going to get a lot of attention. That's a very good booking.

CRIER: But woe be the booker if this occurs before the penalty phase. Because that person will lose their job at the news agency, I'm sure.

CHUNG: OK. Catherine, the child pornography charge and the guilty verdict, will that help the prosecution?

CRIER: I think the child pornography charge could be a point of appeal for the defense. It was questionable. Yes, it goes to motive, but motive is something the D.A. doesn't have to prove. They coupled it so they could utilize for that purpose. But it was so prejudicial, so prejudicial with that child rape video that they will argue on appeal that this should be separated -- separate trials -- and excluded.

TOOBIN: Interesting again the jurors. The jurors were pretty stoic throughout. One of the few moments when the jurors' composure broke at times was looking at those photographs. They also asked to see the photographs during their deliberation. So they were a big part of this case.

CRIER: And the videos. We've got videos where characters are saying if you don't quit screaming, little girl, that I am raping, I will kill you. My Lord.

TOOBIN: Yes, I mean talk about prejudicial evidence. It's bad stuff.

CHUNG: Really? That was more -- had more impact on the jurors than, for instance -- did they show photographs of Danielle's remains?

TOOBIN: Well, the first time they saw the photograph of her body the jury reacted. But you know, there were so many photographs of Danielle's body. By the end the jury wasn't reacting that much because they had seen it almost daily. But the pornography stuff was so bad that they did react. And you're right. I think that -- hey, I don't...

(CROSSTALK)

CRIER: I don't know that it will work on appeal. It's going to be a big point.

TOOBIN: It will be a big point.

CHUNG: Any errors or mistakes that would work on appeal?

TOOBIN: I don't think so. Most convictions are not overturned on appeal. I don't see anything. CRIER: I haven't heard anything during the course of the trial. The sequestration issue and that particular, the child porn, are procedural, worth a shot, but I don't know that they do him any good.

CHUNG: All right. Thank you, Catherine, it's great to see you again.

CRIER: You're welcome. Good seeing you.

CHUNG: And, Jeffrey, always good to see you.

TOOBIN: See you.

CHUNG: When we return, is this truly the summer of abductions? How safe are your children? We'll clear that up, so stay with us.

ANNOUNCER: Next, the summer of the baby snatchers? How real is the risk to your kids?

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: There's no epidemic. The level of fear and panic and hysteria is way out of proportion with the risks.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

ANNOUNCER: Tonight the facts, and what you should really be looking out for, when CONNIE CHUNG TONIGHT returns.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

ANNOUNCER: Judge Mudd's firm handling of the Westerfield case stands in sharp contrast to another California superior court judge assigned to a high profile trial. Judge Lance Ito provided over the O.J. Simpson murder trial in 1994. Prior to the case, Ito complained about a media frenzy, but then he granted a series of interviews to a Los Angeles television station.

During the trial, Ito's courtroom manner was seen as overly liberal, allowing too many sidebars, digressions and delaying tactics. So what became of Judge Lance Ito? The answer when we come back.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

CHUNG: I think we can say that the story of Danielle van Dam just sends shivers through every parent, a feeling heightened by the other high-profile abduction cases that we have been following this summer. But we asked CNN's Brooks Jackson to put it all into perspective as we conclude our look at "Missing In America."

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

BROOKS JACKSON, CNN CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): Danielle, Cassandra, Destiny, Samantha, all kidnapped and murdered. Parents are fearful, the president is concerned.

GEORGE W. BUSH, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: ... facing a wave of horrible violence from twisted criminals.

JACKSON: But what are the real odds of your child being snatched and killed? Think odds of being struck by lightning and you'll be very close. Criminologist James Alan Fox.

JAMES ALAN FOX, CRIMINOLOGIST, NORTHEASTERN UNIV.: There's no epidemic. The level of fear and panic and hysteria is way out of proportion with the risks.

JACKSON: How far out of proportion? Let's do some math. An estimated 725,000 children under 18 are reported missing each year. But the vast majority of those are lost or runaway or are taken by family members in custody disputes. And nearly all come home, usually after a few hours. Only 115, by the latest government estimate, are abducted by strangers and don't return home immediately. And of those, fewer than 50 are killed.

That's 50 too many, but children face far greater risks every day. Compare, guns around the house. Firearms accidents killed 88 children 14 and under in the most recent year on record. Riding a bike: 173 children died in bicycle crashes, many not wearing helmets. Crossing the street: 733 died from pedestrian injuries. Swimming pools: drownings killed 927 children including many infants in their own bathtubs. Car crashes: 1,684 children killed, most of them not buckled up.

HEATHER PAUL, NATIONAL SAFE KIDS CAMPAIGN: If you just look at the statistics, we have over 6,000 children dying every year from things that can be absolutely prevented, like a car crash.

JACKSON: And, in fact, fewer children are being kidnapped this year than previously. So far this year, only 47 reports of children abducted by persons outside their family, according to the National Center For Missing and Exploited Children, down from 51 in the same period last year and 83 in 1998. No epidemic except in the headlines.

FOX: I hear language like the summer of abduction. It's scaring parents. It's giving them the wrong impression.

PAUL: I think this kind of coverage just raises anxieties around things that are not as controllable as the things that are really killing our kids.

JACKSON (on camera): Child abductions are terrifying because they're so random and beyond parental control. And also because they're so rare.

Brooks Jackson, CNN, Washington.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

ANNOUNCER: Still ahead, a CNN exclusive: al Qaeda training for terror. Is the U.S. prepared to defend against an urban jihad? When CONNIE CHUNG TONIGHT returns.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK) CHUNG: We have a dramatic development in the investigation into September 11. In what could be the first significant lead in the case, the FBI issued a worldwide alert for a Saudi national who may be connected to the 9/11 plot. The clue, his picture appeared together with others whose faces are now familiar to authorities. On the story tonight is CNN's Justice Correspondent Kelli Arena.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

KELLI ARENA, CNN JUSTICE CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): His name is Saud Al-Rasheed, and if he's found, he could provide a break for investigators in the September 11th investigation.

BRUCE GEBHARDT, FBI DEPUTY DIRECTOR: We put out a bulletin last night because we have an individual of interest to us that we would like to talk to.

ARENA: The FBI says Al-Rasheed is 21 years old and is Saudi just like 15 of the hijackers and considered armed and dangerous. He's important because investigators say the image of his passport and photo was found recently on a CD-ROM in Pakistan.

GEBHARDT: We see a photograph, a passport photograph of an individual and he's with some other individuals that were of interest to us, the hijackers.

ARENA: The FBI is not saying he's connected, but officials note Al-Rasheed is the only one pictured on the CD-ROM who is not one of the known hijackers. The worldwide alert on the FBI's Web site was issued after investigators checked with intelligence agencies around the world and came up empty.

There is no indication that Al-Rasheed has tried to enter the United States. If he's even alive and caught, he may be able to provide vital information.

MATT LEVITT, FORMER FBI ANALYST: If this individual had an association with the rest of the hijackers, you need to work on the assumption that this is a terrorist operative. This is a terrorist operative that we had not previously identified. This is a terrorist operative who we therefore have to assume is still out there.

ARENA: Former agents also say it's a good idea to get the word out about any possible progress made in the investigation. Nearly one year after the attacks, the FBI is still stymied in its search for possible accomplices.

ROBERT MUELLER, FBI DIRECTOR: We have yet to find a single piece of paper outlining any element of the September 11th attack.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

ARENA (on camera): Al-Rasheed is not facing any charges at this point. Finding him is the first priority; then questioning him to see what he knows is the second -- Connie.

CHUNG: Kelli, this is so fascinating. What else can you tell us about this CD-ROM?

ARENA: Well, Connie, sources tell us that it was discovered in May in Pakistan, along with a whole bunch of other material.

CHUNG: May?

ARENA: But it wasn't reviewed -- in May, that's right.

CHUNG: That's quite a long time ago. I mean, when was it actually viewed?

ARENA: Well, it wasn't reviewed until August 15 by an FBI counterterrorism analyst. And they get reams of this stuff. I mean, it's disks and it's documents that have to be translated. So, this thing was not reviewed until August 15. It does contained pictures of several of the September 11 hijackers along with Al-Rasheed. Now, as I said, he was the only non-hijacker, which of course is leading to questions about what connection, if any, he did have to the September 11 attacks, Connie.

CHUNG: You know, I still can't get over the fact that they had it in May and then you said they viewed it in August. But, actually, they didn't put this alert out either until, what, about a week later after they viewed it?

ARENA: Right, five days. Yesterday was the 20th, so they reviewed it on August 15. But in the meantime, law enforcement had to check to see if he was in custody anywhere, if he was held either by the United States, say, in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba or another country. They checked to see if any agency could confirm his death, if there was any intelligence that had been gathered on him. And when they came up empty, they basically issued the alert, Connie.

But they had to go through all of those processes first before they issued a global alert looking for this guy, let's make sure that no one has him.

CHUNG: Well, that makes sense. I guess the other part that doesn't make as much sense to me, but maybe your sources were telling you that indeed there was so much material that they couldn't go through it all and that's why it took them so long to get to it.

Kelli, what about what else was found? Any other information that was culled from that Pakistani search?

ARENA: We have no specifics on that. We do know that there are other CD-ROMS, that there are lots and lots of documents We know that there were videotapes that have been brought in from several locations. So, analysts, the analysts force, as you know, has grown in number. But there's a lot of information to go through, and they have to go through it very deliberately to compare with not only U.S. intelligence agencies, but agencies overseas. So, it is a long and laborious (ph) process, Connie.

CHUNG: All right. Other than this man among the photos, were there any other of the hijackers in that, other than the hijackers in that group of photos?

ARENA: No. That's what's so intriguing here is that they had pictures of several of the hijackers who have not been named for us. We don't know which of the 19 were on this CD-ROM. But he is the only non-hijacker on this tape. So what is the connection here? Why is his information on this CD-ROM along with people that we know, you know, plowed planes into buildings here? Does he have a connection? What connection, if any, is it? That's why this nationwide alert went out, this international alert went out because investigators need to know.

CHUNG: Is it possible that he is in the United States now?

ARENA: Anything is possible. There is no indication at this point, no evidence that he's here in the United States. But there's always a chance that he used false documents or that he came through a border illegally. Again, no indication that that is the case, but investigators are not ruling it out.

CHUNG: And what are they calling him in this search and in this investigation? Do they have a tag for him or a way to describe him?

ARENA: Well, some investigators have referred to him as a possible suspect. But, Connie, the bottom line here is that investigators that we have spoken to said they honestly do not know much about him. There was no prior intelligence. There was no information. If he is found and he knows something, then that would, of course, take this investigation into a whole new direction. Right now, there are a lot more questions than we have answers, unfortunately.

CHUNG: And, generally, would you say that investigators are calling this a big break, because I'm sure you had said earlier that their investigation really has been stymied?

ARENA: Well, they have not come up with any accomplices. But the FBI director has said that there simply is no paper trail. There is no documentation that they have found that outlines this plan in any way that would lead them to anyone else that remains out there that needs to be taken into custody. So, they have been frustrated on that front, although they have, as you know, documented in great detail what the hijackers allegedly did pre-9/11.

No one is saying that this is a big break at this point. Very, very cautious now because there simply is no information, and that lack of information is what is so frustrating and what is also creating some urgency. If this person is still alive, because they don't even know if he is dead or alive, if he is still alive and he is out there and he does have a connection to the hijackers, then he is a danger to the United States and to its citizens around the world.

Very frustrating situation right now, with no information. Again, they are trying. They're working with overseas partners on this front to try to get any intelligence that they can. So far though, as I said before, it is just a blank page.

CHUNG: All right. Kelly Arena, thank you so much.

ARENA: You're welcome.

We will be right back.

ANNOUNCER: Next: a CNN exclusive. Tactics for terrorists. Is this proof of a credible threat, and how do we keep them off the streets of the United States?

CONNIE CHUNG TONIGHT will be right back.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

CHUNG: We all agree that life is not the same since September 11. We want to know how yours has changed. Did you move? Change jobs? Volunteer?

Whatever it is, we want you to tell us about it on videotape. Send your tapes to CONNIE CHUNG TONIGHT, p.o. box 5138, New York, New York, 10185. For more information logon to cnn.com/connie.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

CHUNG: We have more chilling images tonight from that remarkable cache of al Qaeda videotapes obtained by CNN in Afghanistan. The latest show how al Qaeda trained terror operatives in hostage-taking and assassinations.

CNN's senior international reporter Nic Robertson retrieved the tapes from Afghanistan, and he joins us from CNN Center in Atlanta.

We also welcome from Washington Kelly McCann, a former special missions officer with the Marine Corps.

Thank you both for being with us.

Nic we, as civilians, are not accustomed to seeing tapes such as this. But CNN showed them to military experts, and what was their reaction?

NIC ROBERTSON, SENIOR INTERNATIONAL CORRESPONDENT: Well, their reaction was two-fold.

One, it showed them the degree of sophistication that al Qaeda had. Now, there has been an idea within the intelligence community about the sort of levels and type of procedures that al Qaeda were using, but this did give them an opportunity to examine very closely how they put those procedures into practice. How they would train, first of all, on -- in -- by themselves on a single, perhaps, discipline, then get together some operatives to work together with a variety of disciplines, then put that into a procedure like the sort of thing we're seeing now, where they do a hostage-taking or an assassination, and then even take it out onto the battlefield and really play it out for real with all the sort of disciplines that they've learned put into play. And this very much mimics the way that both U.S. special forces and British special forces are trained to operate. So what it's shown the analysts is just the degree of sophistication that they have trained to, the dedication that they've put in.

But it also gives them a hint of where al Qaeda may have some weaknesses. And one of the things they say is they train very much in offensive maneuvers, but not defensive. And they say perhaps that is an indication of where al Qaeda have a weakness and where, possibly, coalition forces could take an advantage against them.

CHUNG: But Nic, I understand that military experts say that: It's much more offensive than defensive. But isn't it true that these are people who really don't care if they remain alive, who don't want to necessarily defend themselves, would rather be martyrs anyway? So is it not so surprising that this is what we see?

ROBERTSON: Quite possibly. That's still played out. Even has played out very recently in Afghanistan when coalition forces found a house of what were very likely Arab fighters. Essentially, there were five fighters in there surrounded by about 80 coalition forces. They brought in F-18s, they brought in Apache helicopters and fired a lot of very heavy munitions at them.

They fought until the last man. In fact, the last man was even injured, and threw a grenade out, injuring a special forces operative.

So this is their mindset, absolutely. And that may very well be the reason that they're willing to go down fighting, if you will, and not train defensively.

But what one of the interesting things that analysts pointed out was, about the training here -- the training that we've seen on these particular tapes -- isn't training for al Qaeda to fight a guerrilla operation inside Afghanistan, but it's training that puts them in a Western environment, in a European city perhaps, an American city maybe.

This isn't known for sure where they're planning to perpetrate these attacks, but it does put them in an urban environment. And the analysts believe that what they're doing here is training to take their operations outside of Afghanistan and bring them to the West, to Western targets.

CHUNG: Yes, I think that is the most frightening part of it; I mean, as we look at them, as civilians.

Now, there are other parts of the tape in which a bridge is blown up or a house is blown up. And I know that's supposed to look like a mock-city. But I have to tell you, honestly, it looks like a crude house to me and it looks like a desert setting.

So what is the significance of these tapes in that respect?

ROBERTSON: Well, the bridge we've just seen blown up there exactly -- is exactly replicated in a hand-drawn diagram in an al Qaeda manual that was retrieved from an al Qaeda safehouse by CNN earlier this year. So there is a handwritten manual that goes with these videotapes.

These houses that we see constructed here, they built them stone by stone, put a canvass roof on. They've built white walkways down to what appears to be a road. This is a construction. It's not just temporary. It's not just for one training session, but it's designed to train a lot of people.

So this -- what they are putting themselves in here, and while to us it may still look like a very, very Afghan setting, for them is giving them expertise, experience and confidence to operate in that type of environment. They think they're going into a village or a town, and they're going to houses and they're following roads.

This is what will help them if they ever go into that type of operation.

CHUNG: All right. Another part of the tape I think that is really disconcerting is watching this half-hour demonstration of surface-to-air missile use. And, I mean, it goes step by step.

What are the implications of that demonstration for us?

ROBERTSON: Well, one of the things that we've seen with al Qaeda is that they will send out their video -- their training videotapes to their operatives around the world. And what this is demonstrated -- this particular tape demonstrated to the analysts we asked to look at this material, and some of them have looked at a lot of al Qaeda material -- videotapes that have been captured around the world, so they do have a sense of what is known about al Qaeda's -- some of al Qaeda's training methods.

They were surprised to see training on a surface-to-air missile. Of course, surface-to-air missiles, the Stingers as we know were introduced into Afghanistan, given to the mujahedeen in the mid-1980s to help them defeat the Soviet army that occupied Afghanistan. This was a Soviet made SA-7, we're told. It's a Soviet-made surface-to-air missile in this demonstration.

Several things. One is obviously the training element. But one of the things that's concerned government intelligence agencies around the world is, are these Stinger missiles -- are the surface-to-air missiles in Afghanistan still serviceable? Well, it was believed that perhaps a lot of the Stingers maybe weren't.

But this particular type of surface-to-air missile, Soviet-made, perhaps there are spare parts around to keep it serviced. But most worryingly for the analysts, it is the knowledge of how to operate it, and where this knowledge has been disseminated to, and not just within al Qaeda.

There are concerns that maybe al Qaeda has disseminated this knowledge to other jihadi groups around the world, thus spreading the possibility of the threat. CHUNG: And is it the feeling of military experts that you talked to that these surface-to-missile air missiles (sic) would be used against actual military targets or even commercial targets?

ROBERTSON: From the analysts we talked to, they say that most military aircraft, or many military aircraft at least, have a level of protection against the surface-to-air missile. They can fire defensive chafe to set it off target or take other evasive measures by knowing that the missile has been fired at them.

But they say it's civilian aircraft that are the most vulnerable because the vast majority of civilian aircraft don't have a defensive capability, perhaps don't even have an adequate warning system that a surface-to-air missile is being locked onto and being fired at them.

CHUNG: Kelly McCann, what is the range of a surface-to-air missile? In other words, does it have to be in the line of sight?

KELLY MCCANN, FORMER SPECIAL MISSIONS OFFICER: It depends on the kind of missile, Connie.

But let's go back a little bit, before we build these guys up to be a little bit bigger than they are.

What we're seeing is basically three levels of training. You're seeing boot-camp level training, which is individual skills, as Nic described. Then you're seeing general warfare type of training. And then in the most recent tapes that have been, by the way, around for almost four months we've been reviewing these tapes, they're just widely, now, publicly, disseminated, is a breadth of technique that before people didn't realize these people were training in.

This is very standard stuff. Literally what I see and what my counterparts see when we watch these people do these movements is a difference in the way they move. We see a difference in the way they handle their weapons that goes to their proficiency. We see a different kind of mentality in the tactic, technique and procedure.

But this is not remarkable stuff. And I don't think that any American special forces soldier or any Marine or any SEAL is shaking right now. I think, in fact, this is more indicative of a sophisticated schoolhouse effort that was logistically supported, that had a curriculum, that was backed up by video, where students were fed, they had instructors. That's sophisticated.

The techniques, in and of themselves, are not sophisticated.

CHUNG: I see. Kelly, tell me this. The Bush administration would like us to believe that they are familiar with everything that we see in these tapes, that they've seen it -- maybe they haven't seen these tapes before, but they're familiar with all of this.

MCCANN: Of course.

CHUNG: But then again, is it your feeling that if they had found this set of tapes that they would call it a treasure trove, and they'd be extolling the virtue of their investigators?

MCCANN: They are a treasure trove, Connie, but not for the reason that everyone is centering on these things.

For instance, they're a treasure trove because of the off-camera discussions held fraternally between the person holding the videotape recorder and people who are standing around him, some of the things they're saying. They're a treasure trove because it shows the nationality of different people and the throughput, the numbers of students that went through.

But as far as the actual tactic, techniques and procedures, these are not current state-of-the-art procedures.

And so they are, in fact, a treasure trove, but they are not for the obvious reason. There are many other reasons these have treasures on them.

CHUNG: So the bottom-line message what I'm getting from you is: We should not be alarmed?

MCCANN: Well, I think that we should be concerned in that it shows a breadth of training, that they did train to do hostage-taking, that they trained to do kidnappings, they trained to do assassinations.

CHUNG: But our special ops people could run circles around them?

MCCANN: Well, absolutely.

I mean, think of it this way, Connie. It's in the eyes of the beholder. When we do, for instance, war criminal grabs over in the Balkans, that is a kidnapping. And how do you think they're done? You train for them, individual skills, do it as a team. You plan, rehearse and then conduct it.

It's in the eyes of the beholder. If you look at the individual capability of a special operations forces man and these guys, it's light years apart. Now, there is an...

CHUNG: Kelly, I am so -- right, I understand. I'm so sorry, we have to stop, and I didn't get a chance to spend enough time with you, and I apologize for that. But we'll get back to you at some point, I'm sure.

Kelly McCann, Nic Robertson, again, kudos to you for this great journalistic coup. Appreciate it.

We'll be right back.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

CHUNG: More on the Westerfield verdict coming up next on "LARRY KING LIVE."

Thank you for joining us. And for all of us here at CNN, we'll see you tomorrow. Good night.

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