|
CNN CONNIE CHUNG TONIGHT
First Human Clone Next Year?; U.N. Weapons Inspectors Prepare to Begin Search in Iraq
Aired November 26, 2002 - 20:00 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.
CONNIE CHUNG, HOST: Good evening. I'm Connie Chung.
Tonight, the amazing claim: Come January 2003, the first human clone is born. Could it be true?
ANNOUNCER: A scientist announces the first cloned human being.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
DR. SEVERINO ANTINORI, FERTILITY SPECIALIST: It's the 33rd week. I expect the birth for the first week of January.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
ANNOUNCER: Is this a scientific breakthrough or an outrageous hoax?
Could someone steal your identity? It's much, much easier than you might think.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
KEVIN DONOVAN, FBI: This case is a perfect example of how technology is a double-edged sword for law enforcement.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
ANNOUNCER: Tonight: how to protect yourself form identity theft.
Now that the sniper suspects are behind bars, the battle over the reward money has begun.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
RON LANCE, SNIPER CASE WITNESS: If I had the money, I'd probably take it back and give it to the people that were shot.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
ANNOUNCER: The first day of new weapons inspections is now dawning in Baghdad. What will the inspectors face and how will they get the job done this time?
This is CONNIE CHUNG TONIGHT. Live from the CNN Broadcast Center in New York: Connie Chung.
CHUNG: Good evening.
Could the first month of the new year go down in history for the birth of the first human clone? Well, that's the claim of a doctor in Italy, Severino Antinori, who has made similar claims in the past, but never actually produced a human clone. He said he will not elaborate on his newest claim until tomorrow, but today he gave some specifics about an unidentified couple and the embryo he says the woman is carrying.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
ANTINORI: It's the 33rd week. I expect the birth for the first week of January.
QUESTION: And can you tell us where this will be?
ANTINORI: Where exactly, I don't really want to speak about that.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
CHUNG: The research is highly controversial, with many researchers warning that the new technology still poses dangers to an infant clone. And the entire field is rather murky, with researchers dodging political opposition and questioning each other's credibility.
Our guest tonight is no stranger to cloning controversies. He is Panos Zavos, scientific director of the Kentucky Center for Reproductive Medicine, a former partner of the Italian Dr. Antinori, until they had a falling out. He's predicted his own work will yield a cloned birth next year. And he joins us tonight from Lexington.
Thank you for being with us. We appreciate it. Good to see you again.
PANOS ZAVOS, KENTUCKY CENTER FOR REPRODUCTIVE MEDICINE: Thank you, Connie. It's good to be with you.
CHUNG: Does the technology exist, first?
ZAVOS: The technology is there and it can be done. There's no doubt about that. The question is, is what Severino telling us true or not? And, obviously, we can elaborate further on this.
CHUNG: All right, we'll get to that.
But first, why don't we explain exactly what happens? In in vitro fertilization, you take a woman's egg and you take a man's sperm. You unite them in a petri dish and then implant the embryo in the woman. How is cloning different?
ZAVOS: Well, here we have -- we take the DNA from only one partner, either the male or female. And, incidentally, we take the DNA from a somatic cell. That's from a body cell. And we insert it into the egg, which is enucleated.
CHUNG: And there is no sperm, is that correct?
ZAVOS: Yes. We use no sperm. We use the DNA exclusively from the one partner or the other. Then, that baby will be the sex of the mother or the father. And, therefore, we can predetermine the sex of that offspring. But there's no fertilization here. It's asexual reproduction.
CHUNG: Which is probably the extraordinary part of it and the problem that many people have with it.
Now, this Dr. Antinori -- who was a partner of yours, but the two of you split up -- do you believe that he actually has and will be part of this cloned baby in January, that there will be one born?
ZAVOS: Well, we are going to have to wait and see here.
I think that what I have been faced with during my collaboration with Severino is that I had to really get him out of trouble many, many times during our collaborative effort, because, very simply, he was making statements that they were not true or they could not be substantiated. And that is really -- when he made the statement last May that there is a cloned baby expected and that he announced that at the United Arab Emirates, when we looked into the specifics -- and we were collaborating then. He announced this in collaboration with me.
And he said that, "This pregnancy was established between me and with Dr. Zavos as well." When we looked at our team's efforts, there was nothing there done. I had nothing to do with this. When I questioned Severino, his reaction was that: "Hey, this is not a big deal. What are you worried about?"
CHUNG: So, in this case, are you questioning his credibility?
ZAVOS: Yes, I do. I certainly do. And, actually, I am involved now in the creation of a cloned baby myself.
CHUNG: Yes, I know. We are going to get to that in just one second. I want to ask you one question, though.
ZAVOS: Sure.
CHUNG: Is what you're saying a little more professional envy or professional jealousy that he may indeed succeed before you do?
ZAVOS: Not really.
If Severino accomplishes this, I would congratulate him tomorrow, as a matter of fact. It's just that I think that the facts don't speak very clearly here.
CHUNG: All right, so let's get to your case.
ZAVOS: When he announces a pregnancy with me and it is not there, then I have to question him. CHUNG: Yes, all right, Dr. Zavos, let's get to your case.
We had the good fortune of being able to meet Kathy and Bill, the couple you're working with. And our contributing correspondent Michael Gillen did an interview with them. They wanted their identities kept secret.
But let me show a little clip of that and then I'll have a question for you.
ZAVOS: OK.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
KATHY: his is the future. And you know something? If God didn't want us to learn how to do all these things, then God would not have enabled the scientists to be able to move on and learn and do.
MICHAEL GILLEN, CNN CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): In fact, Bill and Kathy believe it's their divine destiny to have a cloned baby.
KATHY: I think that God really wants us to do this, that it is the next step. I can't imagine any other reason why we haven't had a child, other than this is what we were meant to do.
BILL: We realize there are a lot of people against it, for whatever reason. And, hopefully, they'll educated and understand and be sympathetic and can change. I really hope so. I really would like their approval, but we're going to do it regardless.
GILLEN: You are willing to risk public opinion, scientific opinion. You are willing to risk being recognized and the secret getting out and maybe turning your lives upside down, right? Are you prepared for that?
KATHY: Oh, my life is always upside down every day anyway, so what's the difference?
(END VIDEOTAPE)
CHUNG: Have you cloned Kathy yet?
ZAVOS: No. We are very, very close to that. We do have their cells already obtained, ready for nuclear transfers. But we have not done that, no.
CHUNG: So it will take some time. After you accomplish the technical part of it, it would be nine months later.
ZAVOS: That's correct. Yes.
CHUNG: All right, sir, we thank you so much. I think all of us will be watching tomorrow morning to see what the results of this new information from Italy will be. You as well, right?
ZAVOS: Oh, of course. CHUNG: OK. Thank you so much.
ZAVOS: Thank you, Connie.
CHUNG: Dr. Severino Antinori declined to talk us again tonight, as we had said. He says he'll have more to say about the human clone due in January tomorrow.
And still ahead: a different identity crisis when thieves steal your names and your numbers to get to your money. This time, they got to 30,000 victims.
Stay with us.
ANNOUNCER: Next: With two suspects behind bars, who will claim the reward in the sniper case?
CONNIE CHUNG TONIGHT will be right back.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
CHUNG: Police today said it could be years before they're close to figuring out who gets the half-million-dollar reward in the sniper case, even though the shootings have stopped and the two suspects are heading for trial. Now, why is that? Because it's complicated.
As CNN's Patty Davis reports, it's very complicated.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: As I said, I'll pass that information on...
PATTY DAVIS, CNN CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): More than 60,000 tips came into police and the sniper task force hot line.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: It was the shell that he was...
DAVIS: Some callers spurred no doubt by the $500,000 reward for information leading to the arrest and indictment of those responsible for the sniper murders. In the end, tips helped lead to suspects, John Mohammad and John Lee Malvo. The question now, who gets the money?
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: We don't have San easy answer to that question yet.
DAVIS: Montgomery County Police Chief Charles Moose says he doesn't want to jeopardize the prosecution.
CHIEF CHARLES MOOSE, MONTGOMERY COUNTY POLICE: Once you give someone reward money, they do move into the category of potentially being a paid witness.
DAVIS: Moose says it's unlikely any money will be handed out until after potential witnesses testify. Possible contenders for the reward, Kentucky truck driver, Ron Lance, who spotted Muhammad's blue Chevy Caprice at a Maryland rest stop.
LANCE: If I had the money, I'd probably take it back and give to the people that were shot. I mean that's the way I feel about it and that's what I would have done with it, at least half of it anyway.
DAVIS: But two others also spotted the car at the rest stop, including a Pennsylvania man who also called 911. A Tacoma, Washington man told police that Muhammad and Malvo used this tree stump for shooting practice. And a priest in Virginia said two agitated men called him to talk about a Montgomery, Alabama liquor store killing.
(on camera): Police and Montgomery County, Maryland, officials say they're still sifting through the 60,000-plus tips and haven't yet made any decisions on who is most deserving. They say the only thing that seems certain is that more than one person will share the reward.
Patty Davis, CNN, Washington.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
CHUNG: And joining us now is Margaret Cooper, the president of Crimestoppers USA, from Jackson, Mississippi.
Margaret, thank you for being with us.
MARGARET COOPER, PRESIDENT, CRIMESTOPPERS USA: Thank you, Connie.
CHUNG: I know that Crimestoppers has been in operation something like 25 years. This particular case received 60,000 tips. And I'm wondering, is that unusual?
COOPER: It's not unusual for a case of this magnitude, national publicity and that sort of thing. Actually, the numbers are rather low.
CHUNG: That's shocking. I mean, I wasn't able to imagine how all of the authorities were able to go through so many tips on a daily basis. Tell us this. Who does decide and on what basis do they decide?
COOPER: With regards to Crimestoppers and the protocol that Crimestoppers uses, we have a communication back and forth with the investigators in the case. And it is up to the investigators to let the Crimestoppers board know, based on the relevance of the information and the detail of the information, if that was substantial enough to help them with the solving of the case.
CHUNG: So, in this sniper case, if there are four individuals who gave tips, how do they value the tips? Which one is more valuable?
COOPER: Again, it depends on the validity of the information that they do get and the detail of that information. For instance, the truck driver, Mr. Lance, that saw the suspects in the vehicle at the rest stop, that is a high significance. And, with regards to Crimestoppers, he should get a percentage of the reward money. But, then again, you've got the priest that called with regards to information on the Montgomery, Alabama, shooting, which was another piece of the pie.
And the Tacoma, Washington, call that did the ballistics information, and that was another piece of the pie. So, all of these -- and there possibly are more that we don't even know about now and law enforcement has kept the lid on that should also be part of -- part and parcel for the complete puzzle to solve the case.
CHUNG: Margaret, why do people call in tips? Is it for the money?
COOPER: No, especially with Crimestoppers, because we do only approve up to $1,000 in most cases. Most people are just doing it because it's the right thing to do. And Crimestoppers is a way of doing that anonymously.
They never have to go to court. They never have to testify. There's no fear of retaliation on the part of the caller. So that's a way that the tipsters can give their information and do the right thing and yet never have to be known as being a tipster.
CHUNG: And, in the last 15 seconds that we have, do people really pick up these rewards? Is it normal for perhaps a half- million-dollar, or a $10,000 reward to actually be taken?
COOPER: With higher rewards, I'm not sure. But with Crimestoppers, again, we only go up to $1,000, in some cases a little bit higher than that. I'd say 70 to 80 percent of the tips that are actually approved, the awards that are actually approved, are picked up, because the person that does call in is not in it for the money. They're in it to do the right thing and yet not have to go to court and not have to testify.
CHUNG: Fascinating.
Margaret Cooper of Crimestoppers USA, we thank you so much for being with us this evening.
And still ahead: It's almost dawn in Iraq. And, for the first time in four years, the hunt for weapons of mass destruction resumes.
Stay with us.
Still ahead: The rich and infamous take a walk of shame. Should accused white-collar criminals be spared the indignity of a perp walk?
CONNIE CHUNG TONIGHT returns in a moment.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
CHUNG: With dawn about to break in Baghdad, it's not long before United Nations weapons inspectors resume their hunt for deadly weaponry in Iraq, for the first time in four years.
This time out, a few things are different. The White House is talking a lot more forcefully about the possibility of military action if Iraq fails to comply. And inspectors are better prepared. They've got hundreds of sites to hit. And they're starting out with sites that were supposed to have been cleaned out last time around.
CNN senior international correspondent Nic Robertson reports on the new mission from Baghdad.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
NIC ROBERTSON, CNN SR. INTERNATIONAL CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): Strapping in for what could be a bumpy ride, weapons inspectors head off for their first day of work in Baghdad. This last day before they begin enforcing U.N. Resolution 1441 spent at their recently refitted headquarters, briefing journalists on how they'll carry out inspections.
DEMETRI PERRICOS, UNMOVIC TEAM MEMBER: The first thing that we do is request the freezing of movements. We don't want cars and people to go out of the site carrying things.
ROBERTSON: Among lessons learned in the past, documents were carried out the back door as inspectors go in the front door. Now inspectors will lock down suspect sites.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Access to any document is absolutely essential, any original document that can be provided to us is ten times better than any declaration which is manufactured for us.
ROBERTSON: Lesson learned last time, full and final declarations aren't necessary full and final. Iraq issued several in each weapons category. Now inspectors are focusing on original Iraqi documentation.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: He did this radiation also but he actually doesn't show spectrum analysis.
ROBERTSON: The UNMOVIC team showed radiation detectors and other high-tech devices the experts hope will speed their work. Analysis will include soil and air sampling. Teams will carry computers to cross-reference data from the field and share that data with experts outside Iraq.
PERRICOS: We have the capability to even send these photographs all the way to Vienna or New York and have that recognition done instantly.
ROBERTSON: After years of pouring over intelligence and satellite photographs, these inspectors appear eager to get going.
PERRICOS: So, it's our first opportunity to go and see under the roof what exists there. Are they empty? Are they having a process there? Do they have new equipment?
(END VIDEOTAPE)
ROBERTSON: Now, one thing the inspectors aren't bringing with them is a lot of complex laboratory equipment. The lab work they'll do here in Baghdad will be pretty basic, just for screening. The real legwork and analysis is going to be done in laboratories in Europe, the United States and Asia. And the inspectors hope, Connie, that that means they'll get more work done on the ground here.
CHUNG: Well, Nic, I know that the inspections will be taking place in just a few hours. Do you know what the pace will be like? What will be the pace of the inspections?
ROBERTSON: There are 17 inspectors, six in the nuclear field and 11 in the chemical, biological and missile field.
Now, they are going to split up into different teams. They're going to hit different sites. They're expected to go to sites fairly close to Baghdad. We don't know how many. But if they're going to go and lock down, freeze these sites, it seems likely the teams won't be too small, so, perhaps initially, maybe today, only getting to two, three, maybe four sites, Connie.
CHUNG: I'm envisioning a convoy of journalists following them. Are they going to allow that?
ROBERTSON: I think that's pretty accurate. That's what we'd like to do. We'd like to follow them to the sites.
Now, they've made it clear that, once we get to those sites, they're not going to let us in. We'll be waiting on the outside. It will be up to Iraqi authorities, then, whether or not they let us on to those sites after the inspectors have gone. But I think somewhere on the Baghdad roads in a few hours time, you are going to see a lot of -- sort of a high-speed car chase, with a U.N. car out front and a whole string of journalists behind.
CHUNG: And will the inspections, Nic, of the presidential sites or ministries be different from the other facilities?
ROBERTSON: No. That's one thing the inspectors have been very clear about.
They say they're able to go and visit any site, any time, any place, anywhere. Now, interestingly, the Iraqi authorities here, in their meetings with U.N. officials, did say, when Hans Blix, the head of this inspection team, brought the issue up, when he brought up presidential palace sites, the Iraqis did say, "Well, of course, these aren't the same as factories." Now, we don't quite know what that means, how inspections will play out in those places.
But, as far as the inspectors are concerned, they draw no differences between any of these sites. They say they have full access, full rights, any time, any place, Connie.
CHUNG: All right, Nic Robertson, thank you so much. Joining us now is someone who knows firsthand what it's like to live and work in Iraq. Richard Spertzel led bioweaponry search teams from 1995 to 1998. And he joins us now from Washington.
Good evening, sir.
RICHARD SPERTZEL, FORMER U.N. WEAPONS INSPECTOR: Good evening, Connie.
CHUNG: I know that you led something like 30 inspections from '95 to '98. And I'm wondering, this time, the inspectors are being told that they will have more power. Do you think it is going to be different this time around?
SPERTZEL: Well, that remains to be seen. It really depends more on whether the power they have will coerce Iraq into cooperating. If Iraq doesn't cooperate, it really won't make any difference.
CHUNG: In your experience -- Iraq, of course, as you well know, is about the size of California. Were you able to inspect several sites in one day or just one?
SPERTZEL: No. Typically, a team might, might get to two sites a day, depending on the size of the site and how far away from Baghdad it happened to be. If they had to go to the Mosul area or the Basra area in the south or the far western desert, that in itself, a lot of time was taken up in travel.
CHUNG: Now, this time around, the inspectors are being told that they will or can envision having the element of surprise, that they will spring themselves on any given facility. Is that realistic to you?
SPERTZEL: Not really, unless it's a site that has never been visited before, because, otherwise, Iraq is pretty well attuned. When you head in a certain direction, they're pretty good at guessing which site or certainly which subset of sites you might visit.
CHUNG: So it is obvious.
SPERTZEL: It tends to be obvious. They're very, very good at tracking the U.N. teams.
CHUNG: So, would the Iraqis be able to get to that site before the inspectors do and do as they did before? And that is to haul material out the backdoor.
SPERTZEL: That's entirely possible. Again, the Iraqis wouldn't necessarily be all centrally located. And they're pretty doggone good at guesstimating where the teams are headed.
CHUNG: When you were inspecting these various sites, were you followed? Did you have minders with you?
SPERTZEL: Any time you were in Baghdad, you always had minders. Even when you went out to dinner in the evening, you could quickly learn to spot them hanging around outside the restaurant.
We always had minders with us. And depending on the size of the team and where they thought you might be going -- that is, if a team was clearly, obviously, going to weapons areas, ammunition areas, then you would have more minders than if you were going to a university.
CHUNG: In the last 10 seconds, I'm sure you've been to the Soviet Union and communist countries in which -- and I have as well. It is a bit intimidating to have these minders around. But I'm sure that you found a way, did you not, to keep them out of your hair?
SPERTZEL: Not always. But, after a while, you learn to live with them. The biggest interference was on site when you'd try to interview site personnel and the minders would answer the question before the site personnel had a chance.
CHUNG: Did you have your own interpreters?
SPERTZEL: We always -- depending on what sites we were going to. But, as a general rule, we would carry an interpreter with us.
CHUNG: All right, Richard Spertzel, thank you so much for being with us.
SPERTZEL: You're welcome.
CHUNG: With inspectors getting to work on Wednesday and the deadline looming for Iraq to declare its weapons programs, the possible triggers for war are moving closer.
And we wanted to know what it's like for Iraqi-Americans, Americans of Iraqi descent, to be living in this climate. So, earlier, I spoke with Nuar Alsadir, a New York poet and writer who has written about life caught between two countries.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
CHUNG: Nuar, you wrote about your experiences in "The New York Times." And I was really fascinated with how you started it. You started by telling a story about three men you happened to encounter. Tell us it.
NUAR ALSADIR, IRAQI-AMERICAN POET/WRITER: I was in an East Village dive waiting for friends. And three guys nearby just started talking to me. I didn't really feel like talking to them. I just wanted to wait for my friends.
But I didn't want to be rude, so I politely answered their questions. And, at one point, the biggest guy, who seemed like the ringleader, asked me my name. So I told him "Nuar."
And he asked, "What kind of name is that?"
I said, "Arabic."
He asked, "Are you Egyptian?" I said; "No. I was born here, but my parents are from Iraq."
And then he said: "No joke. I killed a lot of your people in the war. Do an imitation of an Iraqi for me. Put your arms up and say, 'Please don't kill me.'"
CHUNG: He actually said that?
ALSADIR: He actually said that.
I find it strange that he wouldn't see me as Iraqi. In order to be Iraqi, I would have to imitate an Iraqi. So, I got from that I think he saw me more as an American, someone with whom he could share a joke like that. And he was playing on my vulnerability as an Iraqi.
CHUNG: You just said to me a few seconds ago that you spent a lifetime analyzing reaction to you, particularly at this time. I'm going to ask you to do that, but tell me one other story that I think is very fascinating: a professor who kept insisting that you were Scottish.
ALSADIR: Well, I think my last name, Alsadir, with a few letters switched, looks like the Scottish name Alister. So, I'm guessing that he made that dyslexic switch and thought that I was Scottish.
And he asked me if I was. And I said: "No, I'm an Arab. My parents are from Iraq." And then he seemed to be processing it. And a few weeks later, he said, "So, you're Arabic, but you're part Scottish right?"
And I said, "No. Actually, I'm not Scottish at all. I'm an Arab through and through." And he seemed to get it. And then, months later, I bumped into him on the street. He was with a companion. He introduced me to her. And she clearly, hearing my name as the French word for black, said, "Nuar. That's beautiful. Is it French?"
I said: "No, it's Arabic. My parents are from Iraq."
And the professor cut in, "But, she's part Scottish."
(LAUGHTER)
CHUNG: All right, with a war appearing to be imminent, how do you think it affects your life and how you conduct yourself?
ALSADIR: Well, it's interesting, because, before the Gulf War, most people didn't really know what Iraq was. They confused it with Iran, because there's only a one-letter difference between them. And I could just be. I could just be who I was.
And that really has slipped away. Now I feel like either I'm reacting to people's interpretations of me or their projections onto me or I'm, in some way, letting people know that my roots are Iraqi, because that will, in some way, I'm hoping, counter the stereotype. Maybe by having a face to an Iraqi, it won't be as scary.
CHUNG: In writing this piece for "The New York Times," what do you think your message was?
ALSADIR: I think my message was that people need to be treated as individuals and not as specimens of a race. And you need to, when you meet someone, really take in the information that they give you, use your perceptions to process them, and not project an image on to them based on fear.
CHUNG: All right, thank you.
ALSADIR: Thank you.
CHUNG: It's a good lesson we could all learn, I think.
ALSADIR: Yes.
CHUNG: In fact, many people out there could learn it.
Thank you for being with us.
ALSADIR: Thanks for having me.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
CHUNG: Still ahead: They just don't steal your money. They also steal your name. Can you protect yourself?
Stay with us.
ANNOUNCER: Still ahead: Are criminals lurking in cyberspace, waiting to snag your personal data?
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
JAMES B. COMEY, U.S. ATTORNEY: We have stumbled upon something that is bigger than any of us imagined.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
ANNOUNCER: How to protect yourself from identity theft -- when CONNIE CHUNG TONIGHT continues.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
CHUNG: For all the talk you hear about identity theft, keep something in mind. Identity theft is only a means to an end. And that end is old-fashioned monetary theft, stealing.
New York prosecutors claim they have busted a ring of thieves who used personal information on 30,000 people to steal millions of dollars. They're accused of stealing passwords and other personal information that let them tap into people's bank accounts. It's the biggest known case of identity theft ever. But it's hardly the first.
As Mari Frank learned, it can happen to just about anyone. And she joins us now from Irvine, California.
Mari, thank you for being with us.
I know that you were a victim of this horrible theft. Tell me what happened.
MARI FRANK, AUTHOR, "IDENTITY THEFT SURVIVAL KIT": Yes, Connie, I was a victim in 1996.
And the same thing happened to me that's happened to these people in that a woman stole my identity by getting my credit report. And the credit report has your birthday, your Social Security number, all your financial information, your mortgage, everything you would need to steal your identity. And this woman did steal my identity and got over $50,000 in my name.
CHUNG: Fifty-thousand.
FRANK: Yes.
CHUNG: That's a whopping sum.
FRANK: It is.
And she also stole my professional identity and was parading as an attorney. She also bought a car and rented a car and totaled it. And I was being sued by Thrifty rental car. It was a total nightmare, Connie.
(CROSSTALK)
CHUNG: I'm sorry.
She took your driver's license. She took everything from you. She actually basically invaded you.
FRANK: Yes. She became my evil twin.
And the interesting thing about this is that, when you're a victim, you have no idea this is going on, because your credit cards are coming in perfect every month. Your mortgage statement, all of your billing is coming in. And so you think you're living a perfect life. And then, all of a sudden, you get a call...
CHUNG: How did you find out?
FRANK: Yes. I got a call from a bank I'd never heard of, asked me why I hadn't paid my $11,000 bill.
So here I had an evil profile of my evil twin, where she had $50,000, credit cards, credit lines, all sorts of things in my name that I had no idea was going on.
CHUNG: So, how long did it take for you to climb out of that quagmire?
FRANK: It took me over 500 hours to clean up all of this mess. I had five boxes of correspondence back and forth. And it was about almost a year that it took me to clean it up. And I'm one of the lucky ones. You know, the statistics show that people can take two years, even three years, even more years just to clean up the mess.
CHUNG: And what about your credit? What happened to that? Was it just that one year or did that last a little longer?
FRANK: Well, the credit was destroyed. I wouldn't have been able to buy a dog, to be honest with you.
And so, people who are going through this obviously can't buy anything. It took me probably -- by the time I cleaned up everything, it was about a year until all of the fraud was off. But, interestingly enough, Connie, I was hit again when someone skimmed my credit card. And skimming is just using a 3-by-5 device to take the metal strip off the back of your card. That happened to me with American Express at $11,000. This happened last year.
CHUNG: Oh, my gosh.
FRANK: So, it can happen to you again and again. So, you have to be ever vigilant when this does happen to you.
CHUNG: Mari Frank, thank you so much for being with us and for telling your story.
Now, we've seen that pretty much any one of us could be victimized. So, what can you do to protect yourself? We've asked James Vaules, CEO of National Fraud Center, to join us from Philadelphia tonight.
Thank you, Jim, so much for being with us.
Tell us, how easy is it for someone to steal our identity?
JAMES VAULES, CEO, NATIONAL FRAUD CENTER: Well, unfortunately, Connie, it's become very easy. And what used to be a rather unsophisticated crime has become much more sophisticated, as highlighted by those recent arrests in New York.
CHUNG: So, what should we do to protect ourselves?
VAULES: Well, it's a tough issue. And, just as your guest had said, you don't always know about it until after it has already occurred. And, often, folks learn about it by being notified by a bank or a credit card company that there is some sort of unusual activity on their particular card.
I think it's also good advice to be able to check your own bills to make sure that anything that appears on a credit card account is something that you in fact did initiate.
CHUNG: Any other tips? What should I assiduously avoid?
VAULES: Well, you should avoid situations, particularly around the holidays, where everybody is busy. The shoppers are busy. The storekeepers are busy. And so you're putting yourself at greater exposure to those who are going to try to steal your identity.
Certainly, you do not want to be answering telephone calls, unsolicited calls, where people are asking for your account information. If you're going to be traveling to a mall, make sure that you're only taking those credit cards that you think you are actually going to use. If you have a pin number, please do not carry it in your wallet. Don't write it on the credit cards.
CHUNG: Why?
VAULES: Well, because, when your wallet is stolen and the card is stolen, then they automatically would have access to the pin number.
We also want to make sure that, when you go to a merchant and you use your card, that you get the card, you get the receipt, you get the carbon. And, of course, you want to dispose of these in a proper way, so that they don't fall into the wrong hands.
CHUNG: Sure.
Now, I'm sort of the catalog queen around Christmas time. It's the way I get all my Christmas shopping done. I'm told that that's not a good idea?
VAULES: Well, certainly, the Internet has become an environment where a great deal of commerce is taking place. And there are reputable companies there doing an outstanding job.
And so I wouldn't say that you should not go to the Internet or you should not use a credit card. But you're getting into what they call a card-not-present transaction. The merchant is often responsible for that loss, if in fact it occurs. And so the extra precautions have to be taken to make sure that, when you go and initiate that transaction, the merchant needs to verify that you are in fact who you say you are.
CHUNG: And, finally, if I am a victim, what should I do?
VAULES: Well, you should immediately notify the credit bureaus. You should notify the police in the form of a police report. You should notify your credit company, so that they can cancel your cards. And, certainly, you should probably try to notify your bank and make sure that those assets aren't vulnerable to the fraudster.
CHUNG: And, today, in this world, are banks and police really up to speed? Because I know the woman that we interviewed earlier, when she called the police, was there no action taken.
VAULES: Yes, I think they're making progress there.
The Federal Trade Commission has an excellent Web site with a hot line that gives you an opportunity to report these type of incidences, if in fact you cannot get a police report. The important thing to remember here is, you do want to report it and document what may be a very significant loss.
CHUNG: James Vaules, thank you. And have a good holiday to you.
VAULES: And you, too.
CHUNG: Still ahead: It's a familiar scene. Cops parade a suspect past the cameras. But is it right?
Stay with us.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
CHUNG: This summer's rash of high-profile executive arrests has sparked a debate about a longstanding police practice.
The debate is over whether the police should allow or help news media to get pictures of the accused perpetrator being taken into custody. It's known as a perp walk, as in perpetrator, perp walk. And, frankly, there never seemed to be much complaint about it when the perps who were being walked were either African-American or poor.
So, are perp walks fair for anyone? Or do they undermine the presumption of innocence?
And our legal analyst, Jeffrey Toobin, is here. And we're...
JEFFREY TOOBIN, CNN LEGAL ANALYST: We're going to settle that right now.
CHUNG: All right.
TOOBIN: OK.
CHUNG: OK.
Quite frankly, I think it's prosecutorial grandstanding.
TOOBIN: Do you?
CHUNG: Yes, I do.
TOOBIN: Well, I think the principle that should be clear is, everybody gets treated the same, whether you're poor, whether you're rich. Everybody is treated the same way when they're arrested.
What has made this interesting and complicated now is, you have a lot of people whose lawyers say to the prosecutors: "Look, we'll come in. You want to arrest us, we'll come in. You don't have to go through this whole song and dance."
CHUNG: Right.
TOOBIN: But what's interesting about what's happened now is that, if you listen to congressmen, if you listen to people in the media, there's this demand for executives in handcuffs. "When are we going to see these people in handcuffs?" And, you know, the Justice Department has produced. Whether it's Rigas from Adelphia or Andy Fastow from Enron, these people are being photographed, even though they've offered to surrender. And that is what has prompted some outrage.
CHUNG: Well, so, isn't it obvious that the authorities are merely doing it for the media, so that they're paraded around?
TOOBIN: Well, I don't think that's entirely fair to say that that's the only reason they're doing it.
But I also think it's a little fair for them to do it. One of the reasons why people are prosecuted is for a deterrent effect, is to say, "If you do wrong, this is what could happen to you."
CHUNG: Yes, but do you really believe that these executives would not do what they did?
TOOBIN: They might.
I think we went through a long period, between the '80s and this past year, where there were not a lot of high-profile white-collar prosecutions. When you had the Ivan Boesky or the Michael Milken, the insider trading of the '80s, until sort of the Enron era of now, we sort of forgot -- unless you followed these things very closely -- that white-collar criminals go to prison.
CHUNG: Sure.
TOOBIN: Now we have these major, major scandals. And I think the Justice Department is right, within reason, to say: "Hey, we are treating these people like everyone else and they might go to jail, like muggers."
CHUNG: Well, actually, I will take the other side. And that is that these individuals, these executives, these CEOs, and what have you, really have done a terrible thing to all of these employees. And they were running away with the money. So they deserve it, huh?
TOOBIN: Well, they do. But the problem is, there is the presumption they may not be guilty.
CHUNG: They may not be guilty.
TOOBIN: In fact, one of the most famous cases from the '80s was when Rudolph Giuliani was U.S. attorney here in New York.
CHUNG: Our much beloved Rudy Giuliani.
TOOBIN: I know. You're not allowed to say any anything bad about Rudy Giuliani anymore.
CHUNG: Not anymore.
TOOBIN: Not after recent events. But, in any event, in those days, he was the U.S. attorney. And his office made a big show of arresting a Wall Street executive right in the middle of Wall Street. And he was sort of paraded through the streets -- years later, totally acquitted, totally exonerated.
And, you know, that's what people have to keep in mind. I have to say, I give the public a little more credit. They understand the presumption of innocence. They understand that, when these white- collar-accused criminals go into court, they have their presumption of innocence. But I think it's also fair for the Justice Department to say, "Hey, we're treating them just like any other criminal."
CHUNG: But they do appear guilty when they're being led away in these handcuffs, don't they?
TOOBIN: Do you think? Are people really that unsophisticated?
I think everybody understands that, if you're handcuffed, you're under arrest. And that's obviously a very serious thing. But that's a different thing than being convicted after trial. I don't think that's all that different.
CHUNG: It's not that I don't think our viewers, readers, whatever, the citizenry, are not sophisticated. In fact, it's just that these executives, these CEOs, will -- there's a presumption out there that they did commit these heinous crimes.
TOOBIN: There was an interesting case in 1999, a case in federal court in New York, where the judge found that the prosecutors and police really staged a complete perp walk for the benefit of the press, that there was no legitimate reason for walking this perp.
And he found against -- there was a civil suit based on it. And, after a trial, there was a settlement for $250,000 that the perp got. So, there is some precedent for judges saying, "You've gone too far here."
CHUNG: All right, Jeffrey Toobin, thank you, as always.
TOOBIN: All right.
CHUNG: You have a good Thanksgiving...
TOOBIN: Yes. And you, too.
CHUNG: ... if I don't see you.
TOOBIN: All right.
CHUNG: All right.
We'll be back in just a moment with a quick word about tomorrow.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
CHUNG: Tomorrow: He's the star of the new movie "Emperor's Club" and so much more, actor Kevin Kline. Also, critic Roger Ebert will be here with some ideas about holiday movies you might want to see. We just saw "My Big Fat Greek Wedding." And it was great. Now we have to see "8 Mile" with Eminem, and a few more.
And coming up next on "LARRY KING LIVE": In an exclusive interview, singer Johnny Cash talks about his years of drug use, his near-death experience and his mystery illness. You've got to watch.
Thank you for joining us. And for all of us at CNN, have a good night and have a great Thanksgiving.
TO ORDER A VIDEO OF THIS TRANSCRIPT, PLEASE CALL 800-CNN-NEWS OR USE OUR SECURE ONLINE ORDER FORM LOCATED AT www.fdch.com
Prepare to Begin Search in Iraq>
|
