Return to Transcripts main page
CNN Talkback Live
Unreliable Witness Revealed in Sniper Investigation; North Korea Admits to Secret Nuclear Program
Aired October 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.
ARTHEL NEVILLE, CNN HOST: Hello, everybody. I'm Arthel Neville.
Dramatic revelations about the nuclear capabilities of North Korea could create a major diplomatic migraine for the White House. The communist country admits it has been secretly developing a nuclear weapons program for years. How worried should we all be? We'll find out from our panel of experts. Then stay tuned, because North Korea's nuclear bombshell has some people asking, who is the bigger threat, North Korea or Iraq?
Also ahead: the latest in the sniper investigation. Police may have to backtrack after learning one of their so-called witnesses wasn't even there. Is this a big problem for police? We'll talk with a former police detective about dealing with people at the scene.
But first, let's go to CNN's Daryn Kagan in Montgomery County, Maryland, for the latest on the investigation -- Daryn.
DARYN KAGAN, CNN ANCHOR: Hello, Arthel.
Yes, we got the news about three hours ago here in Montgomery County, Maryland. And it wasn't exactly that this witness that they were talking about wasn't there. He was at the scene of the Home Depot when the shooting took place. The latest sniper shooting took place on Monday night. The problem was that we come to find out he was actually inside the store when the shooting took place outside the store. So some of the most important and promising evidence we've been hearing about has now been deemed not credible.
With more on that, we have our Kathleen Koch, who is with us here, who has been following it and has had a chance to talk more with police -- Kathleen, hello.
KATHLEEN KOCH, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Hi, Daryn.
This was, I think, one of the most frustrating briefings we've had since these shootings began over two weeks ago, because, basically, what we learned is that Fairfax County police had a witness who lied to them and that some of the information that police passed on to us yesterday was just patently incorrect.
They talked to us in the briefing, but then they came back a few minutes ago and spoke at greater length about just what happened. And what they are telling us now is that, in relation to this shooting, they are no longer looking for a white van, a light van, a van of any sort of color in relation to the shooting Monday in Falls Church, Virginia.
They also say to throw out any information about a weapon, about, again, a van with a malfunctioning taillight, about the suspect at all. So, really, we're in many ways going back to square one. This was a shooting where we thought we got so much good information that would move this investigation forward. We haven't learned whether or not they will try to press charges against this witness, because, obviously, it is clearly illegal to testify to something that you didn't see.
KAGAN: To clarify a couple things, first of all, there are other witnesses from this scene that they are still working with. So it's not like they're totally out of luck.
KOCH: Yes, we asked them. On that point, they said: "We have other witnesses. We believe they are credible. We have no reason to believe that their credibility will change." So they're still pursuing what those witnesses said, but they are going to be sharing little if any of it with us.
KAGAN: Understandable.
Also, on this light-colored van, with the Monday night shooting, they're saying that it doesn't apply at this point. But those composites that they have put out over the last couple of days, those white color, the Chevy Astro van and also the Ford Econovan, they still do want people to look at that in relation to other previous shootings.
KOCH: They do, and definitely in relation to that shooting in Friday in Massaponax, Virginia, Spotsylvania County. Those two composites still apply.
But it's very frustrating. We hit him with a lot of questions about, "Did this cripple your investigation and your chances of catching the killer on Monday?" because, as we saw in that video, where you had those lines of traffic that were just simply blocked, completely stopped, they were focusing on white vans. And they say, well, they don't believe that it really hurt them.
Clearly, it would have been better if this hadn't happened, if they hadn't had this bad witness who gave them the bad information. But they said it hasn't crippled the investigation.
KAGAN: Kathleen Koch, thank you so much.
And, Arthel, as we toss it back to you, we'll give you a better idea of how we think this one fell apart. Apparently, this man had come forward and talked with police and had been very specific on some certain items, but something wasn't adding up. He was able to describe certain things, but not other things that he should have been able to tell police about if indeed he was there at the time of the shooting.
They kept pressing him and pressing him and finally he did fess up and say, well, in fact, he was inside the store at the time the shooting took place and not outside, as he said originally -- back to you.
NEVILLE: Unbelievable. Thanks, Daryn, so much.
And, of course, we're going to talk more about this investigation with a former police officer and a forensics pathologist a little bit later in the show, so you want to stay tuned for that.
Right now, there is definitely another big story out of the Washington area today. This one has the White House scrambling for solutions. We're talking about weapons of mass destruction and North Korea. Right now, let's get a sense of how big a nuclear threat North Korea is and what this new revelation means and why the information is coming out now.
CNN's Kelly Wallace joins us from the White House. CNN's Andrea Koppel joins us from the State Department. And CNN International's Jonathan Mann joins us right here in Atlanta.
And, Kelly, I'm going to start with you on this one.
How did the Bush administration make this discovery and why wait two weeks to announce it?
KELLY WALLACE, CNN WHITE HOUSE CORRESPONDENT: Well, Arthel, U.S. officials say they came across some intelligence information over the summer months that in fact North Korea was definitely pursuing an advanced nuclear weapons program, dating back to the late 1990s.
Well, then you had this U.S. assistant secretary of state, James Kelly, meeting with North Korean officials in Pyongyang earlier this month. And it is at that time he confronted the North Koreans with this evidence. Now, apparently, the North Koreans then did something which somewhat surprised the administration. They admitted it, eventually -- their tone, though, described as belligerent and basically blaming the U.S., saying President Bush has painted North Korea as an axis of evil and that has troops on the Korean Peninsula.
Well, the U.S. argues that the North Koreans have been doing this since the late 1990s, so it is not in response to any comments from the president. As for why two weeks until now to reveal this, well, U.S. officials says they've been trying to consult with allies and have been consulting with members of Congress. And, apparently, there was a comment from a news organization, an inquiry, and that is when the administration revealed it, yesterday -- Arthel.
NEVILLE: Andrea, why do you think North Korea is coming clean now? And what do you think they're expecting to happen at this point?
ANDREA KOPPEL, CNN STATE DEPARTMENT CORRESPONDENT: Boy, you like to throw the tough ones my way, huh?
(LAUGHTER)
KOPPEL: The fact of the matter is, Arthel, the Bush administration doesn't know why. As Kelly mentioned, James Kelly, the assistant secretary of state, and his delegation were really completely shocked when the North Koreans came clean and were not expecting them to really confirm the U.S. evidence that it had that there was this ongoing secret nuclear weapons program. The North Koreans are really an enigma. They're the classic enigma wrapped in a riddle.
And the North Korean regime is known as the hermit kingdom. They're known for their belligerent dialogue, for their brinkmanship in negotiations. And there's all kinds of speculation that is out there as to why the North Koreans are doing this, everything from, this is their way to really come clean and open the door to a potential dialogue, to the fact that they were really kind of throwing down the gauntlet to the U.S., knowing that the U.S. is preoccupied right now, both with the ongoing war against terrorism and with this effort to get a U.N. resolution on Iraq.
NEVILLE: OK, Jon Mann, then who should be worried? I mean, who might be the potential targets?
JONATHAN MANN, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Everyone should be worried.
North Korea has, over the years, already shown and tested medium- range missiles. It's been working on long-range missiles, which means it can hit Hawaii. It's terrified the people of Japan. It's terrified the people of South Korea, of course, for generations. This is really scary. These are, as Andrea was saying, very unpredictable people, one of the most bizarre countries on Earth.
And there's still a shooting war going on in the Korean Peninsula. Officially, the war has not been over. The fighting stopped in the '50s, of course, but they still have incidents. Back in June, the North Koreans sunk a South Korean Navy vessel. They're still shooting. And it's terrifying, to be honest.
NEVILLE: And you heard Andrea Koppel say that perhaps the purpose behind this, the why now, is that perhaps because the U.S. is involved with this impending war against Iraq or possible invasion in Iraq, the whole war on terrorism.
MANN: The Iraq question is really changed by all of this. And I'll tell you why. The president has said over and over, the secretary of defense has said over and over that: Iraq is different. Iraq is without precedent. It's without any comparison with any other nation on Earth.
But whatever Saddam Hussein is, Kim Jong Il is one of the strangest and least predictable men in the world. He is starving his own people to death while he supports the world's fourth largest army. He supports a nuclear program. He is spending money on terrifying weapons of mass destruction. He terrifies South Korea every day.
Iraq has not seemed like an immediate terrorizing threat to neighboring states. They don't really feel comfortable with the idea of conflict against Iraq. South Korea is terrified by North Korea. NEVILLE: So, then, Andrea, then, I know you want to jump in, but I do have a question as well. And that is, with this information, do you think perhaps the vote regarding the House and the Senate giving President Bush the go-ahead to wage war if necessary, do you think that would have changed things had this information come out before the vote?
KOPPEL: That's really difficult to say, Arthel. I'm sure that there are some on Capitol Hill who would raise questions about this. But it's difficult to say at this moment as to whether or not it would have influenced their decision to give President Bush authority to go ahead with a possible military attack on Iraq.
But, having said that, the real question out there is how this will influence the ongoing negotiations right now with the members of the Security Council at the United Nations. The U.S. is still trying to get that one toughly worded U.N. resolution not only forcing weapons inspectors back into Iraq to see if it is completely disarmed, but also threatening military action.
And there are going to be countries out there that will say to the U.S.: "You have a double-standard. You're saying that we need to threaten a potential war with Iraq because we think it has a weapons of mass destruction program, while, on the other hand, you're saying, to the Bush administration, that you want to pursue the diplomatic track with North Korea. And there, North Koreans have admitted to you that they have a nuclear weapons program and may have chemical and biological weapons."
NEVILLE: Right.
KOPPEL: So this really is a dilemma for the Bush administration.
NEVILLE: So, Kelly, does this put the Bush administration in a difficult position?
WALLACE: Well, it certainly does.
But just following up on Andrea, she really hit it home right there, because U.S. officials will tell you publicly -- they're even saying the same thing privately -- they do not think that this revelation about North Korea will impact their efforts to get this coalition together to deal with Saddam Hussein. They're continuing to say what Jonathan was saying: that President Bush believes Saddam Hussein is different, that he poses a unique threat.
You have heard the president say this: that he has invaded two other countries, that he has used weapons of mass destruction on his own people -- so U.S. officials at least appearing confident that they don't believe the circumstances are the same. But, again, it really remains to be seen and it remains to be seen if some of these U.S. allies will raise this question.
Just looking at it, it's hard to believe it's not going to complicate efforts, just because you might have countries say: "Look, right now, the administration is pursuing diplomatic pressure, trying to talk to allies, trying to put as much pressure as possible to on North Korea to go ahead and abide by previous agreements."
Others might say, "Why not put as much diplomatic pressure on Iraq and keep up that pressure and rule out military action until down the road?" -- Arthel.
NEVILLE: Lots of questions. A lot of people in the audience here are nodding their heads as well, saying they want those answers, too.
Listen, Kelly Wallace, Andrea Koppel, and Jon Mann, thank you very much.
We have to take a break right now, but when we come back: Now that the Bush administration knows North Korea is developing nuclear weapons, what should be done about it? We're going to talk to two men who have advised presidents and hear what they have to say.
Don't go anywhere. TALKBACK LIVE continues after this break.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
NEVILLE (voice-over): With all the fears raised about Iraq and its reported thirst for weapons of mass destruction, along comes another threat.
MADELEINE ALBRIGHT, FORMER SECRETARY OF STATE: This is a very serious development. And I think that it's very important for the administration to deal with it in a calm, deliberate way.
NEVILLE: Who is the bigger threat now, North Korea or Iraq? And what should the United States do about it?
That and more when TALKBACK LIVE returns.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
NEVILLE: And welcome back, everybody. I'm Arthel Neville.
We're discussing the bombshell dropped by North Korea about its secret nuclear weapons program. The sensational revelation is especially stunning in light of the uproar over disarming Iraq. How were the North Koreans able to continue their nuclear weapons program without anybody noticing?
Frank Gaffney with the Center for Security Policy is a former assistant secretary of defense. And Lawrence Korb with the Council on Foreign Relations is also a former secretary of defense.
Welcome to you both.
Lawrence Korb, you're up first. How big a bombshell is this? And should we be worried, or who should be worried? LAWRENCE KORB, FORMER ASST. SECRETARY OF DEFENSE: Well, I think this is a very big bombshell, because we had been led to believe that, since 1994, that the North Koreans were in fact not doing this.
And we should be worried about it, because they're obviously the rogue state or part of the axis of evil that now has the capability to develop a nuclear weapon. It's not something in a year, two, three, four years, like we're talking about with Iraq. Plus, they also have a much better delivery system than Iraq has. Iraq cannot launch missiles more than a couple of hundred miles.
North Korea has the wherewithal, as they demonstrated in 1998, to launch a missile that could hit Alaska and parts of Hawaii. This needs to move to the top of the United States agenda for dealing with threats to the United States.
NEVILLE: Then, Frank Gaffney, how would you advise President Bush, because, as you've already heard, people are saying, listen, if the administration doesn't treat Iraq and North Korea the same, it could be accused of having double-standards?
FRANK GAFFNEY, FORMER ASST. SECRETARY OF DEFENSE: Well, I think he does need to treat them the same. And that's why the president described them both as members of the axis of evil.
I think, really, only very naive people thought there was no nuclear weapons program going on in Iraq -- I should say in North Korea, just because they promised that there wouldn't be one. It's been pretty clear for some time -- indeed, I believe back in 1994 -- that we were being sold a bill of goods.
The question is not, should we treat them the same in terms of the case? They're threats. They're dangerous both to their neighbors and to our interests and perhaps to us here at home as well. The question is, what do you do about it? And I think the president is moving in the right direction by trying to do something most immediately about Iraq and trying, I hope, to contain the threat posed by North Korea for the time being, until it's possible to turn to that.
We may not have the luxury of doing it. And I'm reminded, because Larry has been one of the guys who has been very visible for some time sort of pooh-poohing the threats that we've been facing, especially to the extent that people have said, we need to have the capability -- this has been formal U.S. government policy -- to deal with two potential wars nearly simultaneously.
Well, that may be what we're facing here, not because we're seeking them, but because enemies of this country are moving, perhaps in league with one another, in ways that will pose a mortal threat to this country. I think you got to do Iraq first. But I think we've got to deal with both of them as real threats.
NEVILLE: Mr. Korb, how would you advise the president?
KORB: I think North Korea has got to move to the top of the agenda. When we're talking about nuclear weapons, with Iraq, it's only theoretical. With North Korea, it's not theoretical anymore that they have them.
Back in 1994, we were ready to preempt North Korea, that is to bomb the nuclear weapons facilities. I think we need to make it clear that we would do it again. And Frank is wrong. I never said we shouldn't have the capability to fight two major regional contingencies. I said we had the capability to do it. But I think, in terms of dealing with the situation, you deal with the practical one, not the theoretical one first.
Saddam is not an immediate threat. The military doesn't think so. People like Brent Scowcroft, the national security adviser to the elder Bush, don't think so. It's a threat, but it doesn't have to move to the top of the agenda. I think that this moves North Korea way ahead of Iraq in terms of a threat to the United States.
(CROSSTALK)
NEVILLE: Frank Gaffney, excuse me, I have to take a break. Definitely please hold on to that thought for me.
And I know Tim in the audience has something to say.
GAFFNEY: Please come back to me.
NEVILLE: I will come back to you when we come back, I promise.
Listen, up next: The Bush administration has been warning the world about Iraq's weapons program. The question is: Should containing North Korea be the higher priority, as Mr. Korb just said? Who is the bigger threat here? Tell me what you think as well.
And then stay tuned. Dr. Michael Baden joins us to talk about the high-tech science police may be using to catch the sniper on the loose.
That and more when TALKBACK LIVE continues.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
NEVILLE: And welcome back, everybody. I'm Arthel Neville.
We're discussing the sobering news about North Korea's secret nuclear program. It violates a 1994 agreement with the U.S., which North Korea says it considers nullified. Now, where does that leave the U.S. and what options do American diplomats have now?
And, Frank Gaffney, I promised you would be up first here.
GAFFNEY: Thanks.
Well, in addition to violating this 1994 agreement -- which, again, I must say, I think only the most naive believed really took care of the problem -- this new announcement, new confirmation of what North Korea has been up to also violates a previous agreement that they made pursuant to the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty not to pursue nuclear weapons.
So this is a rogue regime. And I'm the first one to tell you, it is a dangerous one that we ought to be dealing with as effectively as we can. I'm simply suggesting that I think Larry doesn't mean it. And I suspect most of the others who are saying, "We've got to deal with this; we've got to move it to the top of the agenda" don't mean it.
When you look at the realities of what can be done about North Korea in the short run, they are -- they have a million men or so ready to go to war within 30 miles -- that's artillery distance -- from the capital of South Korea. They now have, as Larry has indicated, ballistic missiles that are capable of reaching certainly South Korea, certain Japan, possibly parts of United States.
We still -- thanks, frankly, to Larry and some of his friends -- have no missile defense to prevent them from attacking us. These are real-world circumstances that argue, I think, for trying, hopefully, to contain this country for the time being, while we do something about another country that I think we can do something about with much less risk and with great effect, probably both in a strategically important part of the world, the Middle East, and possibly, through a bank shot, with a country as far removed as North Korea.
This is a strategy that requires, I think, applying resources -- because they are finite -- selectively and where we can with the greatest effect. And, hopefully, we will have the chance to do things that have to be done in an orderly and serial fashion here.
NEVILLE: Mr. Korb, I know you want to respond to Frank Gaffney. But I also want to ask you, what's the likelihood of North Korea actually using these nuclear weapons?
KORB: Well, first of all, I'm not against missile defense. The fact of the matter is, it doesn't work. And that's the problem. A lot of us have said let's cut
(CROSSTALK)
GAFFNEY: Larry, it just worked on Monday.
KORB: No. It can't handle decoys, OK?
GAFFNEY: It's working ,Larry.
KORB: And that's what the Joint Chiefs of Staff say and the Office of Test and Evaluation. That's the problem.
GAFFNEY: It's working.
KORB: It's not a question of resources. It's a question of testing it.
But, more important, the question is, what do we do? I think it's -- what I'd like to know is why we didn't know this, if the administration knew it 12 days ago, before we had the debate on Iraq. I think that would have been important for people voting on giving the president authority to do that.
I think what North Korea wants is, they want us to provide them with economic aid in return for giving this up. I mean, that's, I think, where they're coming from. I think we can make it clear to them that, if they think of using this, we'll wipe them off the face of the Earth. And I think deterrence will work with the North Koreans.
But the fact of the matter is, if you're directing all your attention to Iraq -- and the president himself said the reason we're going after Iraq first is, we don't think North Korea is a threat. Well, we didn't know that they in fact had those nuclear weapons at the time. And I think what you have to do is, you have to deal with this.
And I think the rest of the world will be very enthusiastic to be with us, because, as Frank mentioned, they violated the Nonproliferation Treaty, as well as the agreement they made with us in 1994. So it's not a question of getting any resolutions.
GAFFNEY: That's just nonsense.
NEVILLE: Mr. Korb, here, again, what I wanted to ask you is, what's the likelihood that North Korea would actually use these weapons? They have enough plutonium to build two nuclear weapons.
KORB: Right.
I don't think there is a great likelihood that they're going to use them, because they know what the consequences would be of using them. And I think the reason they're developing is to bargain with the rest of the world to get things like economic assistance, because that's the only card they have to play.
GAFFNEY: We've made that bargain with them once before, Larry. Eight years ago, almost to the day, we went into this thing thinking we could buy them off. It's not going to work this time.
KORB: I didn't say we should.
GAFFNEY: I believe we can't.
(CROSSTALK)
NEVILLE: You know what? I'm sorry, Frank Gaffney, I'm going to run out of satellite time here. I'm sorry. Listen, I do apologize for interrupting.
Frank Gaffney, thank you very much. Larry Korb, thank you as well. And thank you for the lively discussion.
OK, coming up: New developments in that sniper case, will they set back the investigation? We'll hash out the latest with a former New York City cop and leading forensics pathologist. You don't want to miss this discussion.
Stay right here. TALKBACK LIVE continues after this break.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
CHIEF TOM MANGER, FAIRFAX COUNTY, VIRGINIA POLICE: It's been determined through further investigation that the information provided by one of the witnesses at the scene of the shooting in the Home Depot, describing a cream-colored van with a malfunctioning taillight is not credible.
In addition, there have been several media reports related to the description of a specific weapon and the suspect. That information as well is not reliable.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
NEVILLE: And welcome back, everybody. I'm Arthel Neville. That was Fairfax County, Maryland -- Fairfax, Virginia, excuse me, Police Chief Tom Manger speaking earlier today.
The latest news on the sniper investigation concerning an unreliable witness is probable -- probably not surprising to our next guest. Former New York police detective Patrick Brosnan is now president of the Brosnan Group, an investigative and security firm.
And I want to welcome you, Patrick, to the show.
PATRICK BROSNAN, PRESIDENT, BROSNAN GROUP: Thank you.
NEVILLE: OK, so police are now saying that the so-called witness in Monday night's shooting may have been inside Home Depot, which means his story is bogus. He wasn't in the parking lot where the shooting took place. So what does something like this do to an investigation?
BROSNAN: Well, any time a witness deliberately misrepresents the facts, it's certainly very troubling. And any time their credibility is at stake and their reliability doesn't stand up to the statement, it is certainly going to be a problem for the investigation because it may lead to copycat eyewitnesses and also ear witnesses.
So right from the onset, I would say that that's significantly troubling for the investigators.
NEVILLE: And then how do you know -- how do investigators know when a witness is reliable?
BROSNAN: Well, there is a series of kind of field tests that they would perform in terms of analyzing the data as it relates to established criteria that they've already determined to be factual.
So there's sort of a litmus test that they -- that they would utilize to be certain that the information would stand up against a close analysis and would be, in fact, factual.
NEVILLE: And even before this latest information we just received, a couple of the witnesses, their stories didn't match up.
Is that normal in situations like this?
BROSNAN: Extremely normal. Unfortunately -- and we see this time and time again. Often times, the witnesses will try -- eyewitnesses will try so hard to convey what they perceive to be the accurate representation of the facts, that they sometimes overtry.
And the sad reality of it is that if 10 people see the same event occur or transpire in front of them, there may very well be seven, eight, nine, 10 different versions because most people are not trained, unless they have a background in that specific training or a law enforcement background, to pay very specific attention to details as it relates to human characteristics, race characteristics, other specific details such as eyeglasses, tattoos, earrings.
And then also, as it relates to hard evidence like, for instance, retaining a license plate information. That may often time be problematic for an eyewitness for the very simple reason that they're not accustomed to retaining that and conveying it to the proper authorities.
And my recommendation always has been and remains to eyewitnesses or potential eyewitnesses that they should memorialize -- immediately endeavor to write down and memorialize any information or anything that they've seen that may be relevant to the case.
NEVILLE: I want to ask you just personally, when you hear information like this that this guy's story was bogus, how does that make you feel?
BROSNAN: I'm sad to say that I'm not shocked by it. Unfortunately, I've seen the gamut of human response to sensationalist cases and this is certainly someone who's -- who's sensationalizing to the extent that they are taking advantage of a situation where the police are not at leverage in terms of the investigation and the development of relevant facts.
And this individual evidently deliberately misrepresented the facts to the police. Now, whether or not it was done as a red herring of sorts, you know, to mislead them, is unknown at this time. And I'm not privy to that.
But just the fact that they put themself and cast themself into the spotlight at the -- essentially in the wake of this tragedy, they utilized the circumstance of the tragedy to cast themselves into the limelight and that's a very sad commentary on human nature.
NEVILLE: Listen...
BROSNAN: And not shocking.
NEVILLE: I have Lucy (ph) and Nolan (ph) here. They're from Falls Church, Virginia and when you hear this sort of information, I just wanted to know how you feel as a resident there.
LUCY: The whole thing makes me very, scared and I'm wondering if it's not time to start ordering my groceries online.
I don't like to think that I have to live in fear, but I'm starting to be afraid to go out. This was very, close to my home. It was about three miles from my home and it's the shopping center I go to every other -- every other night. I probably would have been there if I hadn't been visiting my sister here on Monday night.
NEVILLE: Nolan, how old are you?
NOLAN: I'm 11.
NEVILLE: And you play soccer, correct?
NOLAN: Yes. Correct.
NEVILLE: What do you and your friends talk about when you talk about this story?
NOLAN: We haven't really talked about it much because I've been on break in school, so I haven't really talked about it much yet.
But I wasn't really scared much until the shooting happened so close to my home.
NEVILLE: Sure. . Well, thank you so much for standing up and sharing your story.
Listen, I have to take a break right now. Coming up, forensics evidence can make or break a criminal investigation like the sniper case. Is it handled like we see on the crime shows on TV? We're going to hear from a forensics pathologist and former New York medical examiner when we come back.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
NEVILLE: Welcome back, everybody.
Anyone who has ever seen an episode of the TV show "CSI" knows that forensic evidence can be helpful in tracking a killer like the sniper.
Dr. Michael Baden is a forensic pathologist and the former chief medical examiner for New York City. He has also written the book, "Dead Reckoning: The New Science of Catching Killers." And Dr. Baden, I want to welcome you to the show as well.
DR. MICHAEL BADE, FORENSIC PATHOLOGIST: Hi, thank you.
NEVILLE: Can you tell us, first of all, what do police do when they get to the crime of -- a crime scene in the case of the sniper?
BADEN: Well, the crime scene is very important to protect and gather whatever evidence there is -- to be able to hook it up to the perpetrator. Here we have two crime scenes. We have the crime scene of the dead body and the information the medical examiner retrieved at autopsy, the different bullets from the bodies, show that they were all shot by the same weapon.
There is also a crime scene where the perpetrator was. And that might be a movable crime scene. That is, if he's shooting from a vehicle, then he may have left behind fingerprints and various types of cigarette butts, tire impressions that he takes with him when he leaves the scene.
That's why they are searching for the areas that he might have shot from. And the medical examiner can help in that. At the autopsy, it tells you the direction the bullet came from. So by working together with the police, the medical examiner can get the bullet, find the weapon -- find the weapon it came from and go to the spot where the bullet came as determined from the trajectory in the body.
NEVILLE: So, doctor, what do you think it's going to take to catch this guy?
BADEN: I think, as in most murders that I've been involved with over the past 42 years, the forensic science makes it better, but it's a good, old-fashioned police work that solves murders. A shoe leather knocking on doors, calling up police, trying to tease out what's real from what isn't real. There's lots of misinformation -- people confess to crimes they haven't done, for example. And it's up to the detectives to be able to find and locate a suspect.
In a case like this, perhaps from a tip, a tip from a family member, a co-workers, a citizen who sees something peculiar in the area where the shooting took place. And then, the forensic evidence can come in and determine whether hairs or fibers or bullets may the weapon or the car.
NEVILLE: I have Amanda (ph) here from Baton Rough, Louisiana.
AMANDA: Hi. My question is: With the murders taking place in three different jurisdictions, is there one lead agency that's taking the lead as far as giving out the information as opposed to three different jurisdictions?
NEVILLE: Patrick?
BROSNAN: Well, it seems to me that the case is certainly an interdepartmental and interagency and interbureau effort. So I'm not certain that there's a lead agency.
I know Chief Moose appears to be in the lead relating to the initial investigation. But I'm not 100 percent certain if the FBI has taken the handle on this yet.
NEVILLE: I'm going to go to Alabama now where Nathan (ph) is standing by on the phone.
Go ahead, Nathan (ph).
CALLER: Yes, brief question. I don't understand why the police in this situation aren't following the lead of, for example, Sheriff Corona in California who broke the Samantha Runnion case by making partners of the media and the public.
He gave all the information he possibly had and, therefore, brought in a lot of information. It seems in this case, the police are giving as little information as possible and are just not telling the public anything.
NEVILLE: OK. Thank you, Nathan, for calling in.
Dr. Baden, your expertise is physical evidence. Wondering if there's any evidence found in this case that helps you connect the dots.
BADEN: Well, the first evidence that came from the autopsies was that the bullets from all the different individuals matched. That was important, so that it was immediately known that there was a serial sniper out there. Very unusual to have a sniper with a rifle shooting at people.
The bodies also tell you that there's no select group, no target group that appears at this point, because they're not prostitutes. They're not lovers in lovers lanes as Son of Sam did. So it seems to be random shooting. And that also is something that the police have to take into account in their investigation. So there's a lot that can be told from the body.
As far as the physical evidence from the point where the shooting took place, they did get a bullet casing from one area. If they have additional evidence, the police haven't released all that, as normally they wouldn't.
I agree that with Ted Kaczinski (ph) and with other -- the California cases, the police -- the police giving out information can get information back, as the prior caller said.
And I think that's one of the reasons -- I think Chief Moose is giving out a lot of information, not all the information. And he's getting an awful lot of tips coming in, 99 percent of them probably are not reliable or not valuable. He's looking for those one or two or three or five tips that are going to be reliable that points the police to a suspect. Then the physical evidence and the trace evidence and the forensic science can determine whether that suspect is the right person or not.
NEVILLE: Listen, I have to take a break right now, gentleman.
Are police doing everything them to catch the Beltway sniper? do you think they should be doing more? We're going to hear what you have to say about that when TALKBACK LIVE continues.
Don't go anywhere.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
NEVILLE: Welcome back, everybody. I'm Arthel Neville.
We're talking about the sniper investigation and Patrick, I want to go to you first here. Officials say they're going to question the detainees at Guantanamo Bay regarding the sniper case. Now, there is no confirmation that this is related to terrorism in any way. Just wondering from your perspective if you think there is any relationship here.
BROSNAN: It's interesting that you should bring it up, because just this morning I was speaking with a partner of mine regarding that and we took a close look at the geographical locations of the 11 shootings and we just generally discussing it.
And it occurred to us that there is definitely a distinct possibility, if you examine the shooting locations and just the nature of the terrorizing that's occurring, the actual terrorization that's occurring as an effect of these shootings and the fact that the Beltway surrounds Washington D.C., the capital. And all the shootings are outside the Beltway, in the suburbs. I don't think it's unreasonable to postulate, nor to speculate, that if in fact there is a terrorist cell involved that their premise, and their -- their goal may very well be to draw the police, to draw out the police out of the Washington area, have them completely involved and thoroughly distracted in the outlying areas in the suburbs, therefore essentially leaving Washington D.C. unprotected.
I don't think it's unreasonable theory. I don't think that it's an outlandish hypothesis to put forward -- that his is the old bait and switch.
So if, in fact, the terrorist cell was involved, the bait and switch theory would be something to be certainly considered, because essentially unguarded is Washington D.C. The Washington police, the FBI, the ATF and various related federal, state, local agencies are all on the outside.
NEVILLE: Patrick, listen, I have to take a break right now.
More TALKBACK LIVE in a moment. Don't go anywhere.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
NEVILLE: And welcome back everybody.
(INTERRUPTED BY BREAKING NEWS)
OK, listen, Patrick Brosnan, thank you very much for joining me, as well as Dr. Baden. Thank you very much.
I'm Arthel Neville. That's all the time we have for now. One thing is certain, this discussion is not likely to go away until the sniper is caught. Thank you for watching. We'll see you tomorrow.
"INSIDE POLITICS" and more on that case in Pensacola, Florida up next.
TO ORDER A VIDEO OF THIS TRANSCRIPT, PLEASE CALL 800-CNN-NEWS OR USE OUR SECURE ONLINE ORDER FORM LOCATED AT www.fdch.com
Korea Admits to Secret Nuclear Program>
Aired October 17, 2002 - 15:00 ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
ARTHEL NEVILLE, CNN HOST: Hello, everybody. I'm Arthel Neville.
Dramatic revelations about the nuclear capabilities of North Korea could create a major diplomatic migraine for the White House. The communist country admits it has been secretly developing a nuclear weapons program for years. How worried should we all be? We'll find out from our panel of experts. Then stay tuned, because North Korea's nuclear bombshell has some people asking, who is the bigger threat, North Korea or Iraq?
Also ahead: the latest in the sniper investigation. Police may have to backtrack after learning one of their so-called witnesses wasn't even there. Is this a big problem for police? We'll talk with a former police detective about dealing with people at the scene.
But first, let's go to CNN's Daryn Kagan in Montgomery County, Maryland, for the latest on the investigation -- Daryn.
DARYN KAGAN, CNN ANCHOR: Hello, Arthel.
Yes, we got the news about three hours ago here in Montgomery County, Maryland. And it wasn't exactly that this witness that they were talking about wasn't there. He was at the scene of the Home Depot when the shooting took place. The latest sniper shooting took place on Monday night. The problem was that we come to find out he was actually inside the store when the shooting took place outside the store. So some of the most important and promising evidence we've been hearing about has now been deemed not credible.
With more on that, we have our Kathleen Koch, who is with us here, who has been following it and has had a chance to talk more with police -- Kathleen, hello.
KATHLEEN KOCH, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Hi, Daryn.
This was, I think, one of the most frustrating briefings we've had since these shootings began over two weeks ago, because, basically, what we learned is that Fairfax County police had a witness who lied to them and that some of the information that police passed on to us yesterday was just patently incorrect.
They talked to us in the briefing, but then they came back a few minutes ago and spoke at greater length about just what happened. And what they are telling us now is that, in relation to this shooting, they are no longer looking for a white van, a light van, a van of any sort of color in relation to the shooting Monday in Falls Church, Virginia.
They also say to throw out any information about a weapon, about, again, a van with a malfunctioning taillight, about the suspect at all. So, really, we're in many ways going back to square one. This was a shooting where we thought we got so much good information that would move this investigation forward. We haven't learned whether or not they will try to press charges against this witness, because, obviously, it is clearly illegal to testify to something that you didn't see.
KAGAN: To clarify a couple things, first of all, there are other witnesses from this scene that they are still working with. So it's not like they're totally out of luck.
KOCH: Yes, we asked them. On that point, they said: "We have other witnesses. We believe they are credible. We have no reason to believe that their credibility will change." So they're still pursuing what those witnesses said, but they are going to be sharing little if any of it with us.
KAGAN: Understandable.
Also, on this light-colored van, with the Monday night shooting, they're saying that it doesn't apply at this point. But those composites that they have put out over the last couple of days, those white color, the Chevy Astro van and also the Ford Econovan, they still do want people to look at that in relation to other previous shootings.
KOCH: They do, and definitely in relation to that shooting in Friday in Massaponax, Virginia, Spotsylvania County. Those two composites still apply.
But it's very frustrating. We hit him with a lot of questions about, "Did this cripple your investigation and your chances of catching the killer on Monday?" because, as we saw in that video, where you had those lines of traffic that were just simply blocked, completely stopped, they were focusing on white vans. And they say, well, they don't believe that it really hurt them.
Clearly, it would have been better if this hadn't happened, if they hadn't had this bad witness who gave them the bad information. But they said it hasn't crippled the investigation.
KAGAN: Kathleen Koch, thank you so much.
And, Arthel, as we toss it back to you, we'll give you a better idea of how we think this one fell apart. Apparently, this man had come forward and talked with police and had been very specific on some certain items, but something wasn't adding up. He was able to describe certain things, but not other things that he should have been able to tell police about if indeed he was there at the time of the shooting.
They kept pressing him and pressing him and finally he did fess up and say, well, in fact, he was inside the store at the time the shooting took place and not outside, as he said originally -- back to you.
NEVILLE: Unbelievable. Thanks, Daryn, so much.
And, of course, we're going to talk more about this investigation with a former police officer and a forensics pathologist a little bit later in the show, so you want to stay tuned for that.
Right now, there is definitely another big story out of the Washington area today. This one has the White House scrambling for solutions. We're talking about weapons of mass destruction and North Korea. Right now, let's get a sense of how big a nuclear threat North Korea is and what this new revelation means and why the information is coming out now.
CNN's Kelly Wallace joins us from the White House. CNN's Andrea Koppel joins us from the State Department. And CNN International's Jonathan Mann joins us right here in Atlanta.
And, Kelly, I'm going to start with you on this one.
How did the Bush administration make this discovery and why wait two weeks to announce it?
KELLY WALLACE, CNN WHITE HOUSE CORRESPONDENT: Well, Arthel, U.S. officials say they came across some intelligence information over the summer months that in fact North Korea was definitely pursuing an advanced nuclear weapons program, dating back to the late 1990s.
Well, then you had this U.S. assistant secretary of state, James Kelly, meeting with North Korean officials in Pyongyang earlier this month. And it is at that time he confronted the North Koreans with this evidence. Now, apparently, the North Koreans then did something which somewhat surprised the administration. They admitted it, eventually -- their tone, though, described as belligerent and basically blaming the U.S., saying President Bush has painted North Korea as an axis of evil and that has troops on the Korean Peninsula.
Well, the U.S. argues that the North Koreans have been doing this since the late 1990s, so it is not in response to any comments from the president. As for why two weeks until now to reveal this, well, U.S. officials says they've been trying to consult with allies and have been consulting with members of Congress. And, apparently, there was a comment from a news organization, an inquiry, and that is when the administration revealed it, yesterday -- Arthel.
NEVILLE: Andrea, why do you think North Korea is coming clean now? And what do you think they're expecting to happen at this point?
ANDREA KOPPEL, CNN STATE DEPARTMENT CORRESPONDENT: Boy, you like to throw the tough ones my way, huh?
(LAUGHTER)
KOPPEL: The fact of the matter is, Arthel, the Bush administration doesn't know why. As Kelly mentioned, James Kelly, the assistant secretary of state, and his delegation were really completely shocked when the North Koreans came clean and were not expecting them to really confirm the U.S. evidence that it had that there was this ongoing secret nuclear weapons program. The North Koreans are really an enigma. They're the classic enigma wrapped in a riddle.
And the North Korean regime is known as the hermit kingdom. They're known for their belligerent dialogue, for their brinkmanship in negotiations. And there's all kinds of speculation that is out there as to why the North Koreans are doing this, everything from, this is their way to really come clean and open the door to a potential dialogue, to the fact that they were really kind of throwing down the gauntlet to the U.S., knowing that the U.S. is preoccupied right now, both with the ongoing war against terrorism and with this effort to get a U.N. resolution on Iraq.
NEVILLE: OK, Jon Mann, then who should be worried? I mean, who might be the potential targets?
JONATHAN MANN, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Everyone should be worried.
North Korea has, over the years, already shown and tested medium- range missiles. It's been working on long-range missiles, which means it can hit Hawaii. It's terrified the people of Japan. It's terrified the people of South Korea, of course, for generations. This is really scary. These are, as Andrea was saying, very unpredictable people, one of the most bizarre countries on Earth.
And there's still a shooting war going on in the Korean Peninsula. Officially, the war has not been over. The fighting stopped in the '50s, of course, but they still have incidents. Back in June, the North Koreans sunk a South Korean Navy vessel. They're still shooting. And it's terrifying, to be honest.
NEVILLE: And you heard Andrea Koppel say that perhaps the purpose behind this, the why now, is that perhaps because the U.S. is involved with this impending war against Iraq or possible invasion in Iraq, the whole war on terrorism.
MANN: The Iraq question is really changed by all of this. And I'll tell you why. The president has said over and over, the secretary of defense has said over and over that: Iraq is different. Iraq is without precedent. It's without any comparison with any other nation on Earth.
But whatever Saddam Hussein is, Kim Jong Il is one of the strangest and least predictable men in the world. He is starving his own people to death while he supports the world's fourth largest army. He supports a nuclear program. He is spending money on terrifying weapons of mass destruction. He terrifies South Korea every day.
Iraq has not seemed like an immediate terrorizing threat to neighboring states. They don't really feel comfortable with the idea of conflict against Iraq. South Korea is terrified by North Korea. NEVILLE: So, then, Andrea, then, I know you want to jump in, but I do have a question as well. And that is, with this information, do you think perhaps the vote regarding the House and the Senate giving President Bush the go-ahead to wage war if necessary, do you think that would have changed things had this information come out before the vote?
KOPPEL: That's really difficult to say, Arthel. I'm sure that there are some on Capitol Hill who would raise questions about this. But it's difficult to say at this moment as to whether or not it would have influenced their decision to give President Bush authority to go ahead with a possible military attack on Iraq.
But, having said that, the real question out there is how this will influence the ongoing negotiations right now with the members of the Security Council at the United Nations. The U.S. is still trying to get that one toughly worded U.N. resolution not only forcing weapons inspectors back into Iraq to see if it is completely disarmed, but also threatening military action.
And there are going to be countries out there that will say to the U.S.: "You have a double-standard. You're saying that we need to threaten a potential war with Iraq because we think it has a weapons of mass destruction program, while, on the other hand, you're saying, to the Bush administration, that you want to pursue the diplomatic track with North Korea. And there, North Koreans have admitted to you that they have a nuclear weapons program and may have chemical and biological weapons."
NEVILLE: Right.
KOPPEL: So this really is a dilemma for the Bush administration.
NEVILLE: So, Kelly, does this put the Bush administration in a difficult position?
WALLACE: Well, it certainly does.
But just following up on Andrea, she really hit it home right there, because U.S. officials will tell you publicly -- they're even saying the same thing privately -- they do not think that this revelation about North Korea will impact their efforts to get this coalition together to deal with Saddam Hussein. They're continuing to say what Jonathan was saying: that President Bush believes Saddam Hussein is different, that he poses a unique threat.
You have heard the president say this: that he has invaded two other countries, that he has used weapons of mass destruction on his own people -- so U.S. officials at least appearing confident that they don't believe the circumstances are the same. But, again, it really remains to be seen and it remains to be seen if some of these U.S. allies will raise this question.
Just looking at it, it's hard to believe it's not going to complicate efforts, just because you might have countries say: "Look, right now, the administration is pursuing diplomatic pressure, trying to talk to allies, trying to put as much pressure as possible to on North Korea to go ahead and abide by previous agreements."
Others might say, "Why not put as much diplomatic pressure on Iraq and keep up that pressure and rule out military action until down the road?" -- Arthel.
NEVILLE: Lots of questions. A lot of people in the audience here are nodding their heads as well, saying they want those answers, too.
Listen, Kelly Wallace, Andrea Koppel, and Jon Mann, thank you very much.
We have to take a break right now, but when we come back: Now that the Bush administration knows North Korea is developing nuclear weapons, what should be done about it? We're going to talk to two men who have advised presidents and hear what they have to say.
Don't go anywhere. TALKBACK LIVE continues after this break.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
NEVILLE (voice-over): With all the fears raised about Iraq and its reported thirst for weapons of mass destruction, along comes another threat.
MADELEINE ALBRIGHT, FORMER SECRETARY OF STATE: This is a very serious development. And I think that it's very important for the administration to deal with it in a calm, deliberate way.
NEVILLE: Who is the bigger threat now, North Korea or Iraq? And what should the United States do about it?
That and more when TALKBACK LIVE returns.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
NEVILLE: And welcome back, everybody. I'm Arthel Neville.
We're discussing the bombshell dropped by North Korea about its secret nuclear weapons program. The sensational revelation is especially stunning in light of the uproar over disarming Iraq. How were the North Koreans able to continue their nuclear weapons program without anybody noticing?
Frank Gaffney with the Center for Security Policy is a former assistant secretary of defense. And Lawrence Korb with the Council on Foreign Relations is also a former secretary of defense.
Welcome to you both.
Lawrence Korb, you're up first. How big a bombshell is this? And should we be worried, or who should be worried? LAWRENCE KORB, FORMER ASST. SECRETARY OF DEFENSE: Well, I think this is a very big bombshell, because we had been led to believe that, since 1994, that the North Koreans were in fact not doing this.
And we should be worried about it, because they're obviously the rogue state or part of the axis of evil that now has the capability to develop a nuclear weapon. It's not something in a year, two, three, four years, like we're talking about with Iraq. Plus, they also have a much better delivery system than Iraq has. Iraq cannot launch missiles more than a couple of hundred miles.
North Korea has the wherewithal, as they demonstrated in 1998, to launch a missile that could hit Alaska and parts of Hawaii. This needs to move to the top of the United States agenda for dealing with threats to the United States.
NEVILLE: Then, Frank Gaffney, how would you advise President Bush, because, as you've already heard, people are saying, listen, if the administration doesn't treat Iraq and North Korea the same, it could be accused of having double-standards?
FRANK GAFFNEY, FORMER ASST. SECRETARY OF DEFENSE: Well, I think he does need to treat them the same. And that's why the president described them both as members of the axis of evil.
I think, really, only very naive people thought there was no nuclear weapons program going on in Iraq -- I should say in North Korea, just because they promised that there wouldn't be one. It's been pretty clear for some time -- indeed, I believe back in 1994 -- that we were being sold a bill of goods.
The question is not, should we treat them the same in terms of the case? They're threats. They're dangerous both to their neighbors and to our interests and perhaps to us here at home as well. The question is, what do you do about it? And I think the president is moving in the right direction by trying to do something most immediately about Iraq and trying, I hope, to contain the threat posed by North Korea for the time being, until it's possible to turn to that.
We may not have the luxury of doing it. And I'm reminded, because Larry has been one of the guys who has been very visible for some time sort of pooh-poohing the threats that we've been facing, especially to the extent that people have said, we need to have the capability -- this has been formal U.S. government policy -- to deal with two potential wars nearly simultaneously.
Well, that may be what we're facing here, not because we're seeking them, but because enemies of this country are moving, perhaps in league with one another, in ways that will pose a mortal threat to this country. I think you got to do Iraq first. But I think we've got to deal with both of them as real threats.
NEVILLE: Mr. Korb, how would you advise the president?
KORB: I think North Korea has got to move to the top of the agenda. When we're talking about nuclear weapons, with Iraq, it's only theoretical. With North Korea, it's not theoretical anymore that they have them.
Back in 1994, we were ready to preempt North Korea, that is to bomb the nuclear weapons facilities. I think we need to make it clear that we would do it again. And Frank is wrong. I never said we shouldn't have the capability to fight two major regional contingencies. I said we had the capability to do it. But I think, in terms of dealing with the situation, you deal with the practical one, not the theoretical one first.
Saddam is not an immediate threat. The military doesn't think so. People like Brent Scowcroft, the national security adviser to the elder Bush, don't think so. It's a threat, but it doesn't have to move to the top of the agenda. I think that this moves North Korea way ahead of Iraq in terms of a threat to the United States.
(CROSSTALK)
NEVILLE: Frank Gaffney, excuse me, I have to take a break. Definitely please hold on to that thought for me.
And I know Tim in the audience has something to say.
GAFFNEY: Please come back to me.
NEVILLE: I will come back to you when we come back, I promise.
Listen, up next: The Bush administration has been warning the world about Iraq's weapons program. The question is: Should containing North Korea be the higher priority, as Mr. Korb just said? Who is the bigger threat here? Tell me what you think as well.
And then stay tuned. Dr. Michael Baden joins us to talk about the high-tech science police may be using to catch the sniper on the loose.
That and more when TALKBACK LIVE continues.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
NEVILLE: And welcome back, everybody. I'm Arthel Neville.
We're discussing the sobering news about North Korea's secret nuclear program. It violates a 1994 agreement with the U.S., which North Korea says it considers nullified. Now, where does that leave the U.S. and what options do American diplomats have now?
And, Frank Gaffney, I promised you would be up first here.
GAFFNEY: Thanks.
Well, in addition to violating this 1994 agreement -- which, again, I must say, I think only the most naive believed really took care of the problem -- this new announcement, new confirmation of what North Korea has been up to also violates a previous agreement that they made pursuant to the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty not to pursue nuclear weapons.
So this is a rogue regime. And I'm the first one to tell you, it is a dangerous one that we ought to be dealing with as effectively as we can. I'm simply suggesting that I think Larry doesn't mean it. And I suspect most of the others who are saying, "We've got to deal with this; we've got to move it to the top of the agenda" don't mean it.
When you look at the realities of what can be done about North Korea in the short run, they are -- they have a million men or so ready to go to war within 30 miles -- that's artillery distance -- from the capital of South Korea. They now have, as Larry has indicated, ballistic missiles that are capable of reaching certainly South Korea, certain Japan, possibly parts of United States.
We still -- thanks, frankly, to Larry and some of his friends -- have no missile defense to prevent them from attacking us. These are real-world circumstances that argue, I think, for trying, hopefully, to contain this country for the time being, while we do something about another country that I think we can do something about with much less risk and with great effect, probably both in a strategically important part of the world, the Middle East, and possibly, through a bank shot, with a country as far removed as North Korea.
This is a strategy that requires, I think, applying resources -- because they are finite -- selectively and where we can with the greatest effect. And, hopefully, we will have the chance to do things that have to be done in an orderly and serial fashion here.
NEVILLE: Mr. Korb, I know you want to respond to Frank Gaffney. But I also want to ask you, what's the likelihood of North Korea actually using these nuclear weapons?
KORB: Well, first of all, I'm not against missile defense. The fact of the matter is, it doesn't work. And that's the problem. A lot of us have said let's cut
(CROSSTALK)
GAFFNEY: Larry, it just worked on Monday.
KORB: No. It can't handle decoys, OK?
GAFFNEY: It's working ,Larry.
KORB: And that's what the Joint Chiefs of Staff say and the Office of Test and Evaluation. That's the problem.
GAFFNEY: It's working.
KORB: It's not a question of resources. It's a question of testing it.
But, more important, the question is, what do we do? I think it's -- what I'd like to know is why we didn't know this, if the administration knew it 12 days ago, before we had the debate on Iraq. I think that would have been important for people voting on giving the president authority to do that.
I think what North Korea wants is, they want us to provide them with economic aid in return for giving this up. I mean, that's, I think, where they're coming from. I think we can make it clear to them that, if they think of using this, we'll wipe them off the face of the Earth. And I think deterrence will work with the North Koreans.
But the fact of the matter is, if you're directing all your attention to Iraq -- and the president himself said the reason we're going after Iraq first is, we don't think North Korea is a threat. Well, we didn't know that they in fact had those nuclear weapons at the time. And I think what you have to do is, you have to deal with this.
And I think the rest of the world will be very enthusiastic to be with us, because, as Frank mentioned, they violated the Nonproliferation Treaty, as well as the agreement they made with us in 1994. So it's not a question of getting any resolutions.
GAFFNEY: That's just nonsense.
NEVILLE: Mr. Korb, here, again, what I wanted to ask you is, what's the likelihood that North Korea would actually use these weapons? They have enough plutonium to build two nuclear weapons.
KORB: Right.
I don't think there is a great likelihood that they're going to use them, because they know what the consequences would be of using them. And I think the reason they're developing is to bargain with the rest of the world to get things like economic assistance, because that's the only card they have to play.
GAFFNEY: We've made that bargain with them once before, Larry. Eight years ago, almost to the day, we went into this thing thinking we could buy them off. It's not going to work this time.
KORB: I didn't say we should.
GAFFNEY: I believe we can't.
(CROSSTALK)
NEVILLE: You know what? I'm sorry, Frank Gaffney, I'm going to run out of satellite time here. I'm sorry. Listen, I do apologize for interrupting.
Frank Gaffney, thank you very much. Larry Korb, thank you as well. And thank you for the lively discussion.
OK, coming up: New developments in that sniper case, will they set back the investigation? We'll hash out the latest with a former New York City cop and leading forensics pathologist. You don't want to miss this discussion.
Stay right here. TALKBACK LIVE continues after this break.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
CHIEF TOM MANGER, FAIRFAX COUNTY, VIRGINIA POLICE: It's been determined through further investigation that the information provided by one of the witnesses at the scene of the shooting in the Home Depot, describing a cream-colored van with a malfunctioning taillight is not credible.
In addition, there have been several media reports related to the description of a specific weapon and the suspect. That information as well is not reliable.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
NEVILLE: And welcome back, everybody. I'm Arthel Neville. That was Fairfax County, Maryland -- Fairfax, Virginia, excuse me, Police Chief Tom Manger speaking earlier today.
The latest news on the sniper investigation concerning an unreliable witness is probable -- probably not surprising to our next guest. Former New York police detective Patrick Brosnan is now president of the Brosnan Group, an investigative and security firm.
And I want to welcome you, Patrick, to the show.
PATRICK BROSNAN, PRESIDENT, BROSNAN GROUP: Thank you.
NEVILLE: OK, so police are now saying that the so-called witness in Monday night's shooting may have been inside Home Depot, which means his story is bogus. He wasn't in the parking lot where the shooting took place. So what does something like this do to an investigation?
BROSNAN: Well, any time a witness deliberately misrepresents the facts, it's certainly very troubling. And any time their credibility is at stake and their reliability doesn't stand up to the statement, it is certainly going to be a problem for the investigation because it may lead to copycat eyewitnesses and also ear witnesses.
So right from the onset, I would say that that's significantly troubling for the investigators.
NEVILLE: And then how do you know -- how do investigators know when a witness is reliable?
BROSNAN: Well, there is a series of kind of field tests that they would perform in terms of analyzing the data as it relates to established criteria that they've already determined to be factual.
So there's sort of a litmus test that they -- that they would utilize to be certain that the information would stand up against a close analysis and would be, in fact, factual.
NEVILLE: And even before this latest information we just received, a couple of the witnesses, their stories didn't match up.
Is that normal in situations like this?
BROSNAN: Extremely normal. Unfortunately -- and we see this time and time again. Often times, the witnesses will try -- eyewitnesses will try so hard to convey what they perceive to be the accurate representation of the facts, that they sometimes overtry.
And the sad reality of it is that if 10 people see the same event occur or transpire in front of them, there may very well be seven, eight, nine, 10 different versions because most people are not trained, unless they have a background in that specific training or a law enforcement background, to pay very specific attention to details as it relates to human characteristics, race characteristics, other specific details such as eyeglasses, tattoos, earrings.
And then also, as it relates to hard evidence like, for instance, retaining a license plate information. That may often time be problematic for an eyewitness for the very simple reason that they're not accustomed to retaining that and conveying it to the proper authorities.
And my recommendation always has been and remains to eyewitnesses or potential eyewitnesses that they should memorialize -- immediately endeavor to write down and memorialize any information or anything that they've seen that may be relevant to the case.
NEVILLE: I want to ask you just personally, when you hear information like this that this guy's story was bogus, how does that make you feel?
BROSNAN: I'm sad to say that I'm not shocked by it. Unfortunately, I've seen the gamut of human response to sensationalist cases and this is certainly someone who's -- who's sensationalizing to the extent that they are taking advantage of a situation where the police are not at leverage in terms of the investigation and the development of relevant facts.
And this individual evidently deliberately misrepresented the facts to the police. Now, whether or not it was done as a red herring of sorts, you know, to mislead them, is unknown at this time. And I'm not privy to that.
But just the fact that they put themself and cast themself into the spotlight at the -- essentially in the wake of this tragedy, they utilized the circumstance of the tragedy to cast themselves into the limelight and that's a very sad commentary on human nature.
NEVILLE: Listen...
BROSNAN: And not shocking.
NEVILLE: I have Lucy (ph) and Nolan (ph) here. They're from Falls Church, Virginia and when you hear this sort of information, I just wanted to know how you feel as a resident there.
LUCY: The whole thing makes me very, scared and I'm wondering if it's not time to start ordering my groceries online.
I don't like to think that I have to live in fear, but I'm starting to be afraid to go out. This was very, close to my home. It was about three miles from my home and it's the shopping center I go to every other -- every other night. I probably would have been there if I hadn't been visiting my sister here on Monday night.
NEVILLE: Nolan, how old are you?
NOLAN: I'm 11.
NEVILLE: And you play soccer, correct?
NOLAN: Yes. Correct.
NEVILLE: What do you and your friends talk about when you talk about this story?
NOLAN: We haven't really talked about it much because I've been on break in school, so I haven't really talked about it much yet.
But I wasn't really scared much until the shooting happened so close to my home.
NEVILLE: Sure. . Well, thank you so much for standing up and sharing your story.
Listen, I have to take a break right now. Coming up, forensics evidence can make or break a criminal investigation like the sniper case. Is it handled like we see on the crime shows on TV? We're going to hear from a forensics pathologist and former New York medical examiner when we come back.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
NEVILLE: Welcome back, everybody.
Anyone who has ever seen an episode of the TV show "CSI" knows that forensic evidence can be helpful in tracking a killer like the sniper.
Dr. Michael Baden is a forensic pathologist and the former chief medical examiner for New York City. He has also written the book, "Dead Reckoning: The New Science of Catching Killers." And Dr. Baden, I want to welcome you to the show as well.
DR. MICHAEL BADE, FORENSIC PATHOLOGIST: Hi, thank you.
NEVILLE: Can you tell us, first of all, what do police do when they get to the crime of -- a crime scene in the case of the sniper?
BADEN: Well, the crime scene is very important to protect and gather whatever evidence there is -- to be able to hook it up to the perpetrator. Here we have two crime scenes. We have the crime scene of the dead body and the information the medical examiner retrieved at autopsy, the different bullets from the bodies, show that they were all shot by the same weapon.
There is also a crime scene where the perpetrator was. And that might be a movable crime scene. That is, if he's shooting from a vehicle, then he may have left behind fingerprints and various types of cigarette butts, tire impressions that he takes with him when he leaves the scene.
That's why they are searching for the areas that he might have shot from. And the medical examiner can help in that. At the autopsy, it tells you the direction the bullet came from. So by working together with the police, the medical examiner can get the bullet, find the weapon -- find the weapon it came from and go to the spot where the bullet came as determined from the trajectory in the body.
NEVILLE: So, doctor, what do you think it's going to take to catch this guy?
BADEN: I think, as in most murders that I've been involved with over the past 42 years, the forensic science makes it better, but it's a good, old-fashioned police work that solves murders. A shoe leather knocking on doors, calling up police, trying to tease out what's real from what isn't real. There's lots of misinformation -- people confess to crimes they haven't done, for example. And it's up to the detectives to be able to find and locate a suspect.
In a case like this, perhaps from a tip, a tip from a family member, a co-workers, a citizen who sees something peculiar in the area where the shooting took place. And then, the forensic evidence can come in and determine whether hairs or fibers or bullets may the weapon or the car.
NEVILLE: I have Amanda (ph) here from Baton Rough, Louisiana.
AMANDA: Hi. My question is: With the murders taking place in three different jurisdictions, is there one lead agency that's taking the lead as far as giving out the information as opposed to three different jurisdictions?
NEVILLE: Patrick?
BROSNAN: Well, it seems to me that the case is certainly an interdepartmental and interagency and interbureau effort. So I'm not certain that there's a lead agency.
I know Chief Moose appears to be in the lead relating to the initial investigation. But I'm not 100 percent certain if the FBI has taken the handle on this yet.
NEVILLE: I'm going to go to Alabama now where Nathan (ph) is standing by on the phone.
Go ahead, Nathan (ph).
CALLER: Yes, brief question. I don't understand why the police in this situation aren't following the lead of, for example, Sheriff Corona in California who broke the Samantha Runnion case by making partners of the media and the public.
He gave all the information he possibly had and, therefore, brought in a lot of information. It seems in this case, the police are giving as little information as possible and are just not telling the public anything.
NEVILLE: OK. Thank you, Nathan, for calling in.
Dr. Baden, your expertise is physical evidence. Wondering if there's any evidence found in this case that helps you connect the dots.
BADEN: Well, the first evidence that came from the autopsies was that the bullets from all the different individuals matched. That was important, so that it was immediately known that there was a serial sniper out there. Very unusual to have a sniper with a rifle shooting at people.
The bodies also tell you that there's no select group, no target group that appears at this point, because they're not prostitutes. They're not lovers in lovers lanes as Son of Sam did. So it seems to be random shooting. And that also is something that the police have to take into account in their investigation. So there's a lot that can be told from the body.
As far as the physical evidence from the point where the shooting took place, they did get a bullet casing from one area. If they have additional evidence, the police haven't released all that, as normally they wouldn't.
I agree that with Ted Kaczinski (ph) and with other -- the California cases, the police -- the police giving out information can get information back, as the prior caller said.
And I think that's one of the reasons -- I think Chief Moose is giving out a lot of information, not all the information. And he's getting an awful lot of tips coming in, 99 percent of them probably are not reliable or not valuable. He's looking for those one or two or three or five tips that are going to be reliable that points the police to a suspect. Then the physical evidence and the trace evidence and the forensic science can determine whether that suspect is the right person or not.
NEVILLE: Listen, I have to take a break right now, gentleman.
Are police doing everything them to catch the Beltway sniper? do you think they should be doing more? We're going to hear what you have to say about that when TALKBACK LIVE continues.
Don't go anywhere.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
NEVILLE: Welcome back, everybody. I'm Arthel Neville.
We're talking about the sniper investigation and Patrick, I want to go to you first here. Officials say they're going to question the detainees at Guantanamo Bay regarding the sniper case. Now, there is no confirmation that this is related to terrorism in any way. Just wondering from your perspective if you think there is any relationship here.
BROSNAN: It's interesting that you should bring it up, because just this morning I was speaking with a partner of mine regarding that and we took a close look at the geographical locations of the 11 shootings and we just generally discussing it.
And it occurred to us that there is definitely a distinct possibility, if you examine the shooting locations and just the nature of the terrorizing that's occurring, the actual terrorization that's occurring as an effect of these shootings and the fact that the Beltway surrounds Washington D.C., the capital. And all the shootings are outside the Beltway, in the suburbs. I don't think it's unreasonable to postulate, nor to speculate, that if in fact there is a terrorist cell involved that their premise, and their -- their goal may very well be to draw the police, to draw out the police out of the Washington area, have them completely involved and thoroughly distracted in the outlying areas in the suburbs, therefore essentially leaving Washington D.C. unprotected.
I don't think it's unreasonable theory. I don't think that it's an outlandish hypothesis to put forward -- that his is the old bait and switch.
So if, in fact, the terrorist cell was involved, the bait and switch theory would be something to be certainly considered, because essentially unguarded is Washington D.C. The Washington police, the FBI, the ATF and various related federal, state, local agencies are all on the outside.
NEVILLE: Patrick, listen, I have to take a break right now.
More TALKBACK LIVE in a moment. Don't go anywhere.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
NEVILLE: And welcome back everybody.
(INTERRUPTED BY BREAKING NEWS)
OK, listen, Patrick Brosnan, thank you very much for joining me, as well as Dr. Baden. Thank you very much.
I'm Arthel Neville. That's all the time we have for now. One thing is certain, this discussion is not likely to go away until the sniper is caught. Thank you for watching. We'll see you tomorrow.
"INSIDE POLITICS" and more on that case in Pensacola, Florida up next.
TO ORDER A VIDEO OF THIS TRANSCRIPT, PLEASE CALL 800-CNN-NEWS OR USE OUR SECURE ONLINE ORDER FORM LOCATED AT www.fdch.com
Korea Admits to Secret Nuclear Program>
