|
 |
CNN CONNIE CHUNG TONIGHT
Martha Stewart Faces New Lawsuit; When do Wives Become Mothers?; Louisiana State On Edge with Killer on Loose
Aired August 23, 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: They bought shares in her company; now they're saying Martha sold them out.
ANNOUNCER: The shareholders are now out for Martha. The queen of style stung by a lawsuit; investors claiming Martha made millions illegally, and at their expense.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
MELVYN WEISS, PLAINTIFFS' ATTORNEY: That was inside information in that she knew, or should have known, that she was receiving this information unlawfully.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
ANNOUNCER: In prison for 15 years for a crime he didn't commit.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: I've been blessed in more ways that anyone could ever imagine.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
ANNOUNCER: DNA evidence clears a Virginia man of rape charges.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: The governor has now acknowledged that mistake, so there's no reason for me to hate anyone behind all this.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
ANNOUNCER: How many more are waiting for justice?
A life and death drama on the hardwood: A referee collapses in the middle of a basketball game. The stunned crowd's cheers literally turn to prayers.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
ANNOUNCER: We'll tell you what happened next.
A survival guide for married guys? Two self-styled professors of matrimony explore the darkest corners of the post-nuptial netherworld.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Pretty soon she's going to be controlling all aspects of your life from who you go see, what time you come in, to what you think and what you do.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
ANNOUNCER: What happens after the knot is tied? Are you now married to your mother?
This is CONNIE CHUNG TONIGHT.
Live from the CNN Broadcast Center in New York: Connie Chung.
CHUNG: Good evening.
Tonight, the case against Martha Stewart. The legal battles are piling up for the guru of American homemaking.
Just this week a shareholder lawsuit was filed accusing her of dumping stock in her own company, knowing the value was about to drop. Through her spokesperson Martha Stewart said the suit is, quote, "without foundation." She also said she intends to defend it aggressively.
CNN legal analyst Jeffrey Toobin has a roundup of the trouble facing Martha.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Help save Martha. Save Martha.
JEFFREY TOOBIN, CNN LEGAL ANALYST (voice-over): This is how you know things are going badly for Martha Stewart: Now she's even being accused of profiting from her own misfortune.
A new civil class action lawsuit filed earlier this week charges that Stewart knew that she was going to be investigated for insider trading in the stock of the drug-maker ImClone and she knew that the investigation would send the stock of her own company plummeting.
So the suit charges that on January 8 she sold 3 million shares of Martha Stewart Omnimedia for $45 million. Since then the stock has fallen 60 percent.
The lawsuit says that those who bought the stock when Stewart and other executives were selling deserve to be compensated.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Clearly the damages are in the hundreds of millions of dollars.
TOOBIN: How does Martha's toteboard of woe look now?
She now faces a civil lawsuit with those big potential damages. There's a congressional investigation. Will she have to take the Fifth, and do it in public? And finally, there's a criminal investigation in New York; will she be indicted for insider trading and face a prison sentence?
But all is not lost for Stewart, either. Far from it. She's got plenty going for her.
The law makes those class action cases hard for plaintiffs to win, and she's promised to fight back. And Congress? Why is Congress investigating her at all? When will they get back to passing laws and get off Martha's back?
And so far Martha Stewart hasn't even been charged with a crime, much less convicted. It may never happen.
Most importantly people, real people, continue to buy Stewart's products, read her magazines and watch her TV shows.
MARTHA STEWART, CEO, OMNIMEDIA: This is a beautiful thing.
TOOBIN: Of course, that may change. But for now that is as Martha herself might say, "a good thing."
(END VIDEOTAPE)
CHUNG: As Jeffrey Toobin noted in his report, a shareholder lawsuit has been filed. And as you saw, the lawyer representing the plaintiffs is Melvin Weiss, senior partner of Milberg Weiss.
He joins us now from Atlantic City, New Jersey.
Thank you sir for being with us, we appreciate it.
MELVIN WEISS, MILBERG WEISS: Good evening Connie.
CHUNG: Can you state rather simply for us, and in a straightforward fashion, exactly why this lawsuit was filed?
WEISS: It was filed because people bought the stock in her company at a time when she and other executives of her company knew that her reputation was going to be harmed by this investigation, and she didn't tell all of the truth, all of the facts concerning that investigation in a way that they could understand it so that the market could absorb the adverse information and reflect the proper price.
CHUNG: Yes, go ahead. I can tell.
WEISS: And of course -- I lost the thought.
CHUNG: I know, I know.
WEISS: What I have to tell you is this: in 1999 when they did their IPO, their initial public offering, their own prospectus said the following: "Our success" -- that means Omnimedia -- "depends on our brands and their value. And Martha Stewart's public image or reputation, if they were to be tarnished, would seriously injure the corporation."
So she understood...
CHUNG: But legally, though, however -- you know, strictly from a legal standpoint, she has no legal obligation to tell shareholders, does she, what she's doing with her stock?
WEISS: Oh, absolutely she does. Absolutely.
CHUNG: Not from a legal standpoint.
WEISS: I'm talking about a legal standpoint. When she wants to sell her stock and the other executives want to sell their stock, they have a duty to abstain from selling or to tell all of the material truth about what they know that could be adverse to the company, and they failed to do it.
CHUNG: Now to prove your case -- to prove your case, don't you have to prove intent that she intended to deceive?
WEISS: Intent could either be actual intent, conscious knowledge, or reckless disregard of your responsibilities. She knew...
CHUNG: What evidence do you have that she was being deceptive?
WEISS: Well, it's very simple. She knew of her longstanding relationship with Dr. Waksal. She knew that they shared the same broker. She knew that they were involved in several conversations on the day he and his family and she sold their stock. She knew that she would be the target of an investigation. She was a former stockbroker.
She made up a story later that was totally wrong. She said that she used a stop-loss order to effectuate the sale. It wasn't until an assistant to her broker revealed the truth that she reversed herself.
She was clearly in a deceptive mode, and she wasn't about to reveal the truth about her conduct.
CHUNG: You're saying that she knew only two weeks after she sold the ImClone stock that she was going to be under investigation? Is that what you're suggesting?
WEISS: I suggest that she knew it almost immediately. As soon as Dr. Waksal's conduct was under suspicion, she knew, and had to know that she would be tainted by it because she was so close to what he did every minute of that day when he sold his stock or he had his family sell their stock.
CHUNG: Now bear in mind she only sold -- only, if you will -- 3 million shares, and yet she owns 33.3. She sold only 9 percent of what she owned. So, I mean, wouldn't she have unloaded all of it or at least most of it if she was really trying to weasel out?
WEISS: No. It's really not necessary to show that she sold any of the shares. She had a duty to disclose the material facts about that event because the company itself said her reputation was so important to the future viability of her company.
Now, when she sells any stock she has a duty to either abstain from the sale or to tell all the important information that could affect the price of the stock at that time.
She didn't -- she not only didn't do it on January 8, but she permitted other executives of the company to sell extensively, including her investment banker, between March and May, knowing that she was going to be at the hub of this investigation and it would adversely affect her credibility and her reputation, and it would affect the outcome of the company's performance.
And I heard at the top of this show...
CHUNG: Melvin Weiss, I need to interrupt you, and I thank you so much for being with us. We appreciate it.
WEISS: OK, thank you.
CHUNG: We should also note that out of 485 securities fraud class actions brought against U.S. companies last year, Melvin Weiss had a hand in 70 percent of those cases.
And one other note, Martha Stewart Living said: This suit is without foundation and, quote, "we intend to defend it aggressively."
When we come back, after years behind bars for a crime he didn't commit, he's finally cleared.
Stay with us.
ANNOUNCER: Still ahead: the entire arena breaks into prayer. A game turns into a lifesaving drama when CONNIE CHUNG TONIGHT RETURNS.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
CHUNG: Marvin Anderson spent 15 years in a Virginia prison for a rape he did not commit. He was out on parole when a DNA test proved that someone else had committed the crime. This week, the governor of Virginia issued a pardon that cleared his name and his record, restoring his rights, making him a truly free man. At a news conference, Anderson seemed to show no bitterness, neither against the authorities nor against the woman who had wrongly accused him.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
MARVIN ANDERSON, WRONGLY CONVICTED, FREED BY DNA: She made a mistake. The governor has now acknowledged that mistake. So there is no reason for me to hate anyone behind all of this.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
CHUNG: And joining us now from Richmond, Virginia is Marvin Anderson. Also with us, one of his attorneys, Peter Neufeld, whose group, the Innocence Project, has cleared 110 people wrongly convicted of crimes.
Mr. Anderson, thank you so much for being with us. We are thrilled and happy for you.
ANDERSON: Thank you.
CHUNG: Oh, there you are. Forgive me. I was going in another direction. Mr. Anderson, tell me, you spent 15 years in prison for a crime that you didn't commit. I don't know how you couldn't be bitter or angry?
ANDERSON: It's really easy. When you were brought up in a family that loves you and supports you and doesn't actually teach you hatred, there is no way that a person can grow up hating anyone. Hatred and bitterness is something that's taught to an individual. You are not born with it.
CHUNG: All right. I'm sorry, I was having a little audio problem so I couldn't hear everything that you were saying. But let me ask you this, has the woman who accused you originally apologized or called you or said anything to you?
ANDERSON: No, she hasn't. I haven't been in contact with her. I have no idea where she is located.
CHUNG: All right, I think you said -- because I am still having trouble hearing you, Mr. Anderson, but I think you said, no, correct?
ANDERSON: Yes.
CHUNG: That's incredible. Peter Neufeld, is that what usually happens?
PETER NEUFELD, CO-FOUNDER, THE INNOCENCE PROJECT: What, you mean that...
CHUNG: That you never hear from the person who wrongly accused him, you know, the person who is in prison.
NEUFELD: Unfortunately, yes, because it's very hard for the victim. I mean, obviously, she got closure 20 years ago, or so she thought. Also, now she has to sort of accept the reality that she played a role in sending a completely innocent man to prison. Those are two difficult realities to accept. And so it's very hard for people to cross that line and come forward.
CHUNG: Mr. Anderson, what really astounds me is how you were brought into custody and what caused you to be convicted. The woman in question apparently told -- actually it's easier for you to say this, Mr. Neufeld, than for me, the local sheriff said what -- the woman said what to the local sheriff?
NEUFELD: Actually, Marvin knows that. What did the victim say to the sheriff?
ANDERSON: Basically, she told the investigators that her attacker told her that he lived with a white female. And at that time, I was dating a white female. Therefore that's what led the investigating officers to me.
NEUFELD: They went actually to your office, got a picture of you, through your I.D., because you didn't have a criminal record, prior criminal record, they took it to the woman and added six other photographs, black-and-white photographs of individuals who could be suspects. She picked your face out, correct?
ANDERSON: Yes, ma'am.
CHUNG: And then later in a line-up, you were the only one among those seven photographs -- in the line-up again she picked you?
ANDERSON: Yes, ma'am. If you ask me...
CHUNG: Yes, go ahead.
ANDERSON: By doing that, showing the victim a color I.D. photo of me, and within less than 30 minutes later they had me standing in front of a line-up -- once you stand in front of a line-up and after seeing a picture of someone, that's going to be the first thing that's on your mind.
CHUNG: And the other incredible thing, Mr. Anderson, is that one of those individuals among the six black-and-white photos was in fact the man who committed the crime, and in 1988 he confessed. But no one would pick this case up, is that right, Mr. Neufeld?
NEUFELD: Connie, of the 110 post-conviction DNA exonerations, this is the only case in the country where the victim had a chance to pick out the real perpetrator, and instead chose a completely innocent man. And in 1988, six years after he was convicted, the lawyers at the time were able to find this man, sought him out, convinced him to come in and confess. He did come in. He confessed under oath. The judge said, I don't believe it. Said, Marvin Anderson, you are going back to prison, and sent Mr. Anderson back for years.
CHUNG: Mr. Anderson, you were convicted to spend 210 years in prison. How did you remain sane while you were there?
ANDERSON: A lot of prayers. A lot of prayers. Family support. Friends' support. My community. Churches. NAACP from the Hanover branch. A lot of people were supporting me because they knew me. They knew Marvin Lamont Anderson as an individual and knew that I did not commit this crime.
CHUNG: How did you keep the faith, you know, in your heart that -- did you really think you were going to get out some day?
ANDERSON: Oh, yes. I've always felt that I was going to return home to my family where I belonged. I just didn't know exactly when that day would happen.
CHUNG: You know, one of the things that really also is astounding is that when you did get out on parole, you were forced to pay for psychiatric visits to deal with your, quote/unquote, "sexual offender" position in life. And you had no problem. And you had to pay for this. I would love to be a fly on that ceiling, listening to you trying to talk to this psychologist.
ANDERSON: Well, as I stated before, I have been blessed in more ways than most people can imagine. Yes, I did have to pay for my psychiatric visits to the doctor. Over the sessions, the doctor himself actually admitted to me that he knew I did not commit the crime. I wasn't -- I don't have the character or the profile of a rapist. And that did help those sessions go along a little smoother. From day one, I tried to tell the courts, the investigative officers that I did not commit the crime. No one would really listen to me. At the end, I ended up going to prison serving the time.
NEUFELD: You know, one of the big problems we have in Virginia is that the state is number two in the country in executions. It's number four in the country in wrongful convictions cleared by DNA. So you know that there is a big risk they're going to be executing innocent people if they haven't already. And so what we're trying to do now is convince the governor of Virginia to hold an innocence commission, which will investigate what went wrong in Marvin's case, and then reform it if necessary to prevent other innocent people in the future from suffering what Marvin suffered.
CHUNG: You really persevered too, because the evidence was thought to have been lost. And how long did it take you to get the DNA evidence, just give me a short answer on that?
NEUFELD: It took five and a half years. They said the evidence was destroyed. And fortunately, a criminalist violated the rules and pasted it into her notebook, and that's how we found it.
CHUNG: Incredible. Can Mr. Anderson be compensated? Also a quick answer on that?
NEUFELD: There is no compensation statute in Virginia, but don't you think there a moral responsibility? If you take this man's freedom for 15 years, you've got to give him something back.
CHUNG: Absolutely. Mr. Anderson, you're 38 years old, you're engaged to be married as well?
ANDERSON: Yes.
CHUNG: Congratulations. And you have a job. And what kind of future do you think you have ahead of you?
ANDERSON: A bright one. I have my rights back, my name back, my family name back. I have the whole world which is full of opportunities that are open for me to choose whatever one I choose to take.
CHUNG: Well, congratulations to you. I mean, you -- you have finally got what you deserved. And we thank you so much for being with us. And Peter Neufeld, you must go to sleep and wake up every morning just feeling so good. NEUFELD: It's pretty good.
CHUNG: Yeah.
NEUFELD: But there is still a lot to do.
CHUNG: Sure. Absolutely. Thank you so much.
Coming up, you'll never see sports fans like these. We'll be right back.
ANNOUNCER: Still ahead -- after a few short years of marriage, the matrimonial metamorphosis that turns your wife into your mother. A survival guide for married guys when CONNIE CHUNG TONIGHT returns.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
ANNOUNCER: One of the early cases of a conviction overturned by DNA evidence was that of Rolando Cruz, charged in the rape and murder of a 10-year-old girl. Prosecutors built a case against him based on jailhouse snitches and the testimony, later recanted, of a police detective.
Years later, DNA evidence found at the crime scene turned out to match another man, serial rapist Brian Dugan (ph). In a 1995 retrial, a judge threw out the charges against Rolando Cruz and blasted the police and prosecutors for their handling of the case. By the time he was freed, Cruz had served nearly 12 years on death row.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
ROLANDO CRUZ, FORMER DEATH ROW INMATE: What was it like it? It was worse than hell. I think I'd rather go to hell and meet Satan than to have to go back to death row.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
ANNOUNCER: So what happened to the case after Rolando Cruz was exonerated? The answer when we come back.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
ANNOUNCER: So what happened after Rolando Cruz was exonerated based on DNA evidence? Seven prosecutors and police officers involved in the case were put on trial, charged with fabricating evidence against Cruz. The seven were later acquitted, and the man who led the prosecution, Jim Ryan (ph), is now running for Illinois governor. Rolando Cruz has become an anti-death penalty advocate. He and two co-defendants settled their case of wrongful conviction for $3.5 million. And Brian Dugan (ph), the man whose DNA matched the crime scene, was never charged. He is serving two life sentences in prison on separate murder convictions. And today, the governor of Illinois signed into law a bill that would require DNA samples to be collected from every convicted felon.
CHUNG: We'll continue now. But first, let's ask Aaron Brown in New York to give us a look at tonight's developing stories.
(NEWSBREAK)
CHUNG: Still ahead -- school is back in session on Monday, but at one college it means heightened security.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
CHUNG: The fall semester will be getting underway at Louisiana State University on Monday. But students are returning to campus under a cloud of fear that a serial killer may be stalking the community. Police have linked the murders of three women. They believe the same man, a serial killer, committed the crimes in the past year.
Two of those women live near L.S.U.'s Baton Rouge campus, where freshman orientation is well underway. The unsolved murders have added a somber tone in the community, where the FBI sent profilers on Wednesday to help develop leads. The university is beefing up security but that may not help those who believe that police have made little headway in cracking the case.
To help us understand what the authorities are up against, we're joined from Washington by Pat Brown, profiler of the sexual homicide exchange, a nonprofit group that represents victims of violent crime. Good evening, Pat.
PAT BROWN, PROFILER, SEXUAL HOMICIDE EXCHANGE: Good evening, Connie.
CHUNG: Pat, the FBI profilers weren't sent down until this week, although local police say that they've been involved, you know, throughout this process. And it has been a month since local police connected these three murders. Why do you think the FBI profilers went to the city?
BROWN: Well, I think it's very important that they actually showed up at the location. Many times when profiles are done, they're done from a distance. And that means that somebody sends them some information, and somebody puts together a sort of generic profile, sends it back, and it really doesn't do a lot of good.
If the profilers actually go to the location they can start examining the area in which the women were killed, and they'll look at all kinds of issues, the culture of the area, the mobility of a person in that area, who could blend in, how the person will commit the crime, and all these little details from the actual crime scene location and the community will help them understand who could get away with this kind of crime and who they should be looking for.
CHUNG: All right. And the FBI profilers apparently met with victims' family members as well. That also presumably helps them?
BROWN: Oh, absolutely. Because you have to find out about the victim, because you always -- and this is a case where you have two people involved in a crime. The victim, of course, didn't commit the crime, but they're involved in what happened. What you are looking for is who did the victim know, what were their habits, who was hanging around them. Maybe they knew somebody who knew somebody. So you want to find out every little detail you can and then try to piece it together, who would then have access to this victim or who would have been watching the victim or who would have been in the area of the victim?
CHUNG: Now police have been providing very few details. They've been very tight-lipped. I remember your telling me that sharing information certainly with the media and disseminating that information is important.
BROWN: I think it's extremely important and it's something that is not done very often. One of the things that you need to differentiate, the police need to differentiate is, what is the kind of thing that the public isn't going to help you with? For example, if a person is stabbed 20 times or 50 times, that's not going to make a difference in identifying a suspect.
But if he used a particular type of knife, that will be important to tell the public, because they may just know who exactly owned that knife. They may have seen one of their own relatives, for example, coming home and putting a knife away in a particular location. But if you don't tell the public what they're looking for, how can they help you identify the suspect?
CHUNG: Now if the police heat is very great, hot, in Baton Rouge, is it likely that the killer would move on to another city like New Orleans or something like that?
BROWN: Well, serial killers are kind of funny beings. They don't necessarily move, because they may not have the means to do so. They may just stop working. Sometimes when they do move, it's more a case of just natural consequences of life.
For example, sometimes right before they commit a crime, they might have lost their job, and that's what spurred them on to committing the crime. And since they've lost their job, they also lost their room, and they don't have any money. So after the crime they go live with cousin Johnny who happens to live 30 miles away, and therefore he has left the area, but it may not be because he's planning it so carefully but just that his circumstances force him to move on.
CHUNG: The first killing was in -- last November, I think. September, forgive me. The second one was in May. The third was in July. Is there any pattern there?
BROWN: Serial killers don't exactly have as many patterns, again, as we believe they do. They don't kill every month or every week or every year.
What they will do is they will kill when the desire hits them and when they perhaps have other problems in their life, so this is the way of getting some control. So many things affect that. For example, if he killed a woman back in September and then he decided, well, the police might be after me, so I better not do anything -- or he might have been satisfied for a while that that took care of his needs, and he might have been working on getting a job or girlfriend, and then something went wrong in May and it reinspired him to do something, and perhaps the one in May, for example, may not have gone like he wanted to.
Maybe he's angry that he didn't succeed in the crime the way he wanted to, so he rushed out and did it again. So there's all kinds of reasons why a person would commit a crime sooner or later, and sometimes it can be a very, very short period of time, between a week or a month, and sometimes it can be absolutely years before they commit another crime.
CHUNG: Al right. Pat Brown, thank you for being with us. We appreciate it.
Later in the program, two guys walk into a bar and they start complaining about their wives. Wait until you hear what comes next.
ANNOUNCER: Next, the entire arena breaks into prayer. A game turns into a life saving drama when CONNIE CHUNG TONIGHT returns.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
CHUNG: A difficult scene this week at the WNBA playoff game in Houston between the Houston Comets and the Utah Stars. During the second half, referee Bill Stokes walked toward the scorers' table and collapsed on the court. Medical personnel rushed to attend the 56- year-old referee while the crowd sat anxiously, almost in shock. Their silence was broken when the crowd of fans numbering 9,000 began to recite the Lord's prayer together. Just listen.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
CROWD: Our father who art in heaven, hallowed be thy name, thy kingdom come, thy will be done on earth as it is in heaven.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
CHUNG: (UNINTELLIGIBLE) referee's collapse had not been released. He remains in serious condition at a Houston hospital.
Now to tell us more about what happened, we're joined by Chris Wragge, a sportscaster for a Houston television station and for NBC Sports. And he comes to us from Staples Center in Los Angeles. Chris, thank you for being with us.
CHRIS WRAGGE, SPORTSCASTER, KPRC: Connie, thank you for having me.
CHUNG: Tell us, Chris, you were actually not far from Mr. Stokes when he collapsed. You ran toward him. What happened?
WRAGGE: Basically, I was at the time broadcasting my sportscast for KPRC in Houston at that time. And while we do the sportscast, usually when you are in an arena, especially with 10,000 Comet fans, they're very loud. And during the broadcast, it all of a sudden got very quiet. Now, there is a commercial break inside my sportscast, so at that time we went to commercial.
I turned around, because I was about 40 feet from the actual, I guess, area of the court where Bill had collapsed. Someone had come over and told me, you know, Bill Stokes, one of the referees, just went down. And at that point, I dropped the microphone. I ran out to see and I saw the medical staff administering what they could do to try to revive Bill as quick as they could. And it was at that point someone gave me a quick report. We went back on the air and just gave a quick update as to what happened, because when I say that this crowd of almost 10,000 people, it was stunned silence. Very much like it is here right now. Just quiet. You couldn't hear a thing.
CHUNG: And when he was finally wheeled out and -- was everyone believing that perhaps he might be OK, and how did the fans react to that?
WRAGGE: Well, it didn't look like he was going to be OK. That's what so miraculous about this. Because, they worked on him for a good 10 minutes on the floor. It was one of the things where he was in full view of everyone. Now, most people would probably say it would have been better to probably bring him off the court where they could administer better medical care and not be in full view of 10,000 fans, young and old.
But he was in such serious condition at that point, from what the doctors have told me, they couldn't move him. They couldn't afford to miss a second. They had to do everything right there on the floor. And if it wasn't for one of the defibrillators, the portable defibrillators they had at the Compaq Center at that time, he may not have made it. And the doctors did such a wonderful job. And that's one point I want to drive home.
He had at least five, six physicians that came to his aid immediately. Comets staff, doctors that were on site at the time. And they gave him every bit of attention he needed. And they literally brought this man back, because -- on the floor for 15 minutes, with what they were doing to him, pumping his chest, trying to resuscitate him, it did not look good.
And I think after the moment of silence when people did finally recite the Lord's prayer in unison, I honestly believe that everyone in that arena -- because I know I did -- I think we had all felt that we had saw a passing of this referee during a basketball game. And that's what really drove the point home that during the moment of silence, I don't think -- it was probably the most appropriate thing you could possibly do. I've never seen anything like it, I've never heard any story like this anywhere else, but I think it was so appropriate for the situation, because it did not look good.
CHUNG: Chris, do you know how Mr. Stokes is now?
WRAGGE: Yesterday, his daughter released a statement to the press saying that they were not going to update us on a daily basis as to his condition. But I did hear earlier today that he is still in serious condition, but responding to doctors through hand motions and whatnot. He's finally conscious. That's, I guess, the good news.
And it's amazing news that they were able to actually revive him. And I know when he finally left the arena, basically they took him off the floor on a gurney and they brought him to a back room and were able to administer more care to him there, and he was probably worked on there in this back room for about another 15 minutes before they were able to stabilize him, put him in an ambulance, and then get him off to Southwest Memorial, which is one of the regional hospitals that was about five minutes away. And he has been there ever since.
But all news is good now, and that's the bright spot.
CHUNG: All right, Chris. Thank you so much for being with us. We appreciate it. Chris Wragge. We'll be right back.
ANNOUNCER: Next -- exploring the power women have over men after two little words, "I do." CONNIE CHUNG TONIGHT will be right back.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
CHUNG: Before we go any further, I have to say that I wish what you are about to hear does not apply to me. Let me explain. Two guys in Seattle have come up with a politically incorrect interpretation of marriage and wives in particular. All in fun, of course.
You can imagine how it began. Two men sitting in a bar complain about their wives and decide to turn their whining into a so-called "survival guide for married guys." The result, "Married to Mommy." A novel idea that women after marriage and especially after motherhood cut their hair, quit wearing lingerie, and maybe most importantly, stop having fun. In other words, they become just like a mommy to their husbands.
Earlier, I spoke with the two men who came up with the idea.
Joining us now are the authors of "Married to Mommy," combat- ready guys Jeffrey Bakeman and Brian Kringbring. Hey, guys, how are you?
BRIAN KRINGBRING, MARRIED FOR 33 YEARS: Great. How are you, Connie?
CHUNG: Terrific.
JEFFREY BAKEMAN, MARRIED FOR 22 YEARS: How are you doing, Connie?
CHUNG: Good, good, good. Now, tell me, what is a mommy?
KRINGBRING: Well, a mommy is a former fun-loving girlfriend that after marriage somehow morphs into a perpetually practical, overly controlling mommy.
(LAUGHTER)
CHUNG: Oh, I think I know what you mean. I resemble that remark! You know?
BAKEMAN: Not at all.
CHUNG: Now tell me this -- can you tell if a girlfriend has mommy tendencies, or can you actually identify it in a wife?
KRINGBRING: Well, yes, you can. There are several warning signs. And in our book, we have identified them. Sometimes it can be as benign as her doing all the laundry or doing all the cooking, but then, and that's easy to get used to. But that's a very slippery slope, because pretty soon she's going to be controlling all aspects of your life from who you go see, what time you come in, to what you think and what you do.
BAKEMAN: And what you remember, actually. You can actually be told what you remember by mommies, which is a scary thought.
The other thing, Connie, you've asked about girlfriends, and we have a lot of questions coming in on our Web site, marriedtomommy.com, from guys who are not married and they are very interested in knowing, how do we steer clear from the higher levels of mommies? And it's very difficult, because the true mommy is trained to disguise herself as a non-mommy until a few years after the wedding bells have taken place.
CHUNG: Jeff, is every wife a mommy?
BAKEMAN: Oh, not at all. You know, and it's not limited necessarily just to wives. There's -- there's a little mommy in all wives, but not all wives are mommies. Number one. Number two, again, there are people in live-in relationships or boyfriend/girlfriend relationships, where all of a sudden, boom, out pops the mommy, and a guy is just rained upon with mommy moments.
CHUNG: Brian, can a mommy revert back to being that fun-loving girlfriend? Is this syndrome reversible?
KRINGBRING: Sadly, no.
(LAUGHTER)
KRINGBRING: And that's why we wrote the book. The best you can do with a mommy is break even. And the book is basically a survival guide, filled with hints and tips on how to make your marriage to mommy a little more survivable.
CHUNG: Jeff, how did we become-- we women -- become afflicted with this syndrome?
BAKEMAN: Well, some of it is genetic. It's just natural, I think, for women. They are so much more powerful and smarter than men in general, that they can outthink, outlast, outplan, outmarket, outmaneuver men.
CHUNG: You are very bright, Jeff. BAKEMAN: Absolutely true. I believe it to the marrow of my bones. And it's taught to me on a daily basis. Not necessarily at home.
CHUNG: Are you two married to mommies?
KRINGBRING: You know, surprisingly not.
CHUNG: Oh, please! Give me a break!
BAKEMAN: Connie, Connie...
CHUNG: You are so browbeaten you won't even say that you're married to mommies!
BAKEMAN: Connie, unbelievably, we are not married to mommies.
KRINGBRING: Connie, we may be dumb but we're not stupid.
CHUNG: Yeah, yeah, yeah. I do agree with you. I think you are correct. However, I will say that all of you want to marry your mothers, and you look for women who will mommy you. And when you get sicky-pooh, I can't believe how much babying you want. Oh, I don't feel good. Can I have some chicken soup, you know? So it's your fault, because you -- you find women who are just like your mommies who will mother you.
KRINGBRING: Well, in many cases that's true. Many times a husband is a -- an unwitting co-conspirator. I mean, after marriage he thinks he has got his girlfriend all wrapped up and she's taking care of his every whim. But soon that -- that taking care of his every whim can become a cold, damp, cloistering blanket of controlling overattention, and that's -- that's what we're concerned with here. It's not every woman, not every wife, and not every -- every mommy is like this. There are -- there are gradations of mommies.
BAKEMAN: There are different levels of mommies.
CHUNG: There are major mommies and minor mommies, right?
BAKEMAN: There's minor mommies and there's major mommies, and of course you can take our test on the Web site, or read the book. Did you see that?
CHUNG: Yes, I did.
BAKEMAN: And in the book, you can take the test and try to determine what level of mommy you may be working with. Of course, the top level mommy is a tsunami mommy, which is something that should be avoided at all costs. And if you are dealing with a tsunami mommy, head for high ground.
CHUNG: I get it. I get it big time. Hey, you know what? I think this is a terrific book. I am going to buy it for all my girlfriends and I'm going to give it...
BAKEMAN: Wait a minute, are you going to give it to women?
This thing is backfiring on us.
CHUNG: What can I tell you. Thank you, Brian. Thank you, Jeff. Thank you so much for writing this very enlightening book. I'm going to take it to bed with me.
BAKEMAN: Available on Amazon.com.
KRINBRING: And thank you for having us, Connie.
BAKEMAN: Thanks, Connie.
CHUNG: When we come back -- how your lives have changed since 9/11. We'll play one of your tapes. Don't go away.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
CHUNG: Next month, it will be one year since the terrorist attacks on America. All of our lives have changed since September 11, because of September 11. For the past few weeks, we've been asking you to send in your taped home video of your story about how your life has changed. We have gotten a tremendous response, so much that we thought we'd start showing you your stories. Twelve-year-old Jordan Stevens (ph) from Millford, Ohio, wrote a song and we're going to play part of it.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
JORDAN STEVENS (ph): My name is Jordan. September 11 changed all of our lives, especially mine. I wrote a song about it.
(singing): No matter what religion or the skin tone, we are all Americans with this land of our own. Now as the day is closing, people saying good night, hold your head up high, everything will be all right. Because after 911, we all became so frightened, but after 911 some became enlightened, and that little burst of hope that came from inside was all that we needed for America's heart to grow 10 times its size
(END VIDEO CLIP)
CHUNG: Thank you, Jordan Stevens (ph).
So how has your life changed? Did you move or change careers? Enlist in the armed forces? Volunteer at home? Could be anything. In whatever way you have changed, we want you to tell us about it on tape. Send your tapes to CONNIE CHUNG TONIGHT, PO Box 5138, New York, New York, 10185. And be sure to include your name and address. But I'm sorry, we cannot return your tapes.
So for more information, log on to cnn.com/connie.
Now on Monday, the odds of his newborns being what they are: One in 25 million.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: I don't know; I kind of wish I had bought a lottery ticket that night instead.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
CHUNG: So why does this new dad feel this way? Buying two sets of everything a second time around.
And coming up next on LARRY KING LIVE, Lisa Beamer. The widow of Flight 93 hero Todd Beamer talks about her new book called "Let's Roll."
Thank you so much for joining us, and for all of us at CNN, good night. And we hope you have a terrific 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
Mothers?; Louisiana State On Edge with Killer on Loose>
|
|
|
|
|
