|
CNN CONNIE CHUNG TONIGHT
Will Cardinal Law Step Down?; Alleged Victim of Admitted Central Park Rapist Speaks Out
Aired December 12, 2002 - 20:00 ET
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: Is Cardinal Law prepared to talk to the pope, or to a criminal grand jury?
ANNOUNCER: A subpoena in a criminal probe reportedly issued to the man at the center of Boston's church sex scandal.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
CROWD: Stop Cardinal Law! Cardinal Law must go!
(END VIDEO CLIP)
ANNOUNCER: Plus: Has Cardinal Bernard Law offered his resignation?
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: He can't stay. There's no way. There's too much.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
ANNOUNCER: Will this answer the prayers of the Boston faithful?
The admitted Central Park rapist confessed to a chilling life as a serial predator. Tonight, one of his victims shares her ordeal with Connie.
The youngest sniper survivor makes his first public appearance since being gunned down in front of his school.
The Ku Klux Klan and the fiery issue of cross burning.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: A burning cross, more than any other burning symbol, brings intimidation.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: There is a constitutional right to engage in symbolic speech.
(END VIDEO CLIP) ANNOUNCER: A symbol of terror and racial hatred or a protected form of free speech?
And who will be our "Person of the Day"?
This is CONNIE CHUNG TONIGHT. Live from the CNN Broadcast Center in New York: Connie Chung.
CHUNG: Good evening.
Tonight: Who is claiming the Boston Catholic Church engaged in an elaborate scheme to cover up child sex abuse for decades? A victim? A lawyer? Actually, it's the Massachusetts attorney general. "The Boston Globe" reports Cardinal Bernard Law and others have now been subpoenaed to testify before a criminal grand jury.
The news comes amid speculation about Law's meeting with the pope tomorrow at the Vatican. When the two met last April, Law raised the possibility of his resignation. Now dozens of his own priests are demanding he step down.
Joining us now from Rome is our Vatican analyst: "National Catholic Reporter"'s Vatican correspondent John Allen.
John, I thank you so much for being with us. I know it's 2:00 a.m. in the morning.
First question: We all know it's very secretive there at the Vatican. We also know that this question of the resignation really is up to the pope and not to Law. So, what are your sources telling you? Will a decision come out very quickly?
JOHN ALLEN, "NATIONAL CATHOLIC REPORTER": Well, the truth is that the pope is sort of the ultimate wild card in the Catholic universe in that, really, it does come down to a very individual choice he's going to make.
And it is very hard to tell at this hour how that's going to play itself out. However, most of the people I've talked to in the Vatican indicate that, if a decision is taken that Law has to go, then he is going to go very, very quickly. That is to say, they would make the announcement quickly and the transition would occur very quickly and the selection of a successor would occur very quickly, because I think everyone realizes that they've got an archdiocese that is in meltdown and something dramatic needs to happen quickly.
CHUNG: John, I know that there's new and damaging evidence that's been released. How much support do you think Cardinal Law has now with the Vatican?
ALLEN: Well there's a long history of Cardinal Law being seen by the Vatican as their most trusted and, in a sense, closest figure on the American scene.
And I think, actually, there is an enormous amount of hurt and I would say even a sense of betrayal in some Vatican quarters about the way Law has handled this crisis. And I think this week especially has, in a way, been the most damaging week of all for Law, in terms of his standing in the Vatican, in large part because I think there was a sense in the papal bureaucracy that, after the U.S. bishops met in Washington in November, that perhaps the story was finally over.
And then, with this new document drop, where you've got revelations that rival the worst of the Geoghan and Shanley material, in terms of just sheer shock value. And, then, above all, you have this very public rebellion by dozens of Law's own priests. This sort of uprising from within the clerical fraternity, if you will, that certainly has got a lot of attention in the corridors of the Vatican.
And I think, whereas we began the week with a sense that Law might yet survive, the sense I get from a lot of folks inside the Vatican is that perhaps some exit strategy now has an air of inevitability about it.
CHUNG: John, quickly, in 15 seconds, will the pope agree to allow the archbishop or the archdiocese to file for bankruptcy?
ALLEN: Well, I don't think he's going to say an absolute no, because I think that's like saying no to the coming of winter. It may become inevitable. But the Vatican certainly would prefer that the archdiocese find any other strategy than that one.
CHUNG: All right, John Allen, thank you. Always good to have you with us.
And we wanted to get a personal perspective on this from someone who has been a parishioner and a victim of sex abuse by a priest. William Gately is co-regional coordinator of SNAP, the Survivors Network for those Abused by Priests. And we have the attorney Eric MacLeish, who has represented 247 alleged victims of abuse by priests.
First, Mr. Gately, if this resignation is accepted by the pope, how would you react to it? Would this satisfy your concerns?
WILLIAM GATELY, CO-REGIONAL COORDINATOR, SNAP: No, it wouldn't satisfy them whatsoever. I stand almost alone among survivors in my belief that his resignation won't serve Boston well. I know that that's hard to hear.
CHUNG: Why not?
GATELY: Because I think that he is the catalyst. His name is synonymous with child abuse and cover-up.
This is a problem that's been going on for generations. We know that the last -- his two predecessors are among those who are also guilty. And I think that there's so much depth of damage and so much that he is responsible for, before he were to go, I think that we have a right to get to the bottom of the problem. And his absence, I'm afraid, will remove the interest of the story.
As John Allen said, we thought, after Dallas, this was over, the story was over. But without the story, we lose the outrage. And without the outrage, there will be no change.
CHUNG: Mr. MacLeash, is it your sense that Mr. Gately stands alone? How do your clients feel?
ERIC MACLEISH, ATTORNEY FOR ALLEGED VICTIMS OF ABUSE: Well, I like Mr. Gately a lot, but I do think he stands fairly alone on this issue.
To think that Cardinal Law can come back and cure this problem here in Boston, which is in meltdown -- and this is the epicenter worldwide of this problem -- is trying to say that Ken Lay should be appointed as the bankruptcy trustee for Enron. It simply can't happen.
The problem is, is that, if Cardinal Law resigns, it is going to be very affirming to the people that I represent, that I've spoken with today -- and that's approaching 25 now, Connie -- that they will see it as, finally, the Vatican, the Holy See, this church, which is fundamentally a good church, is getting the message that there has to be a priority on protecting children, rather than these molesters who are masquerading as priests.
I think it would be very affirming and very validating for the people that I represent. That's what I'm hearing from them.
CHUNG: Bill Gately, what about that argument that you can't have the person who may very well have indeed created or fostered a program, this abuse, if you will, remain there? Isn't it a more positive step to have him removed?
MACLEISH: Well, Mr. MacLeash is right, but I never said that he'd be able to help solve the problem.
I think that the problem is so -- the magnitude is so great that I think that it would be an immediate sense of validation for myself and all of the survivors if he were to go. But I'm concerned long term. I think that the lack of trust -- my other concern, quickly, is that the people who are also complicit in this, the Vatican, are the ones that would be appointing his successor.
And they haven't -- they've done no more than Cardinal Law to solve the problems. They've blamed us. They've blamed Mr. MacLeash. They've blamed the media. They have no response that's positive...
CHUNG: So, best-case scenario for you -- best case scenario for you, Mr. MacLeash, would be?
MACLEISH: The best-case scenario would be something immediate that was positive and affirming and that was supportive of all those good priests out there, those courageous priests.
This is really unheralded, Connie, to have 58 priests who take a vow of obedience to call for their cardinal's resignation, to do something positive and immediate. If that happens, then immediate financial help will be restored to the Archdiocese of Boston. So, all this talk about bankruptcy is going to go out the window. And that's very dangerous for the Catholic Church in America, because, as Boston goes into bankruptcy, so does L.A., so does Cleveland.
So, that's the best-case scenario; then to work with some of the priests who have been identified as traitors to Cardinal Law, to bring in someone -- and there have been various names that have been floated about, and some of them are very good people -- to bring someone like that in immediately to stop the hemorrhaging, stop the pain, so that we can, out of all this horror and tragedy, make something positive happen. But I agree with Bill...
CHUNG: Mr. Gately, yes?
MACLEISH: Well, I just want to say one thing.
I agree with Bill on one point. I am afraid that, if Cardinal Law were to resign, there would be a perception out there that this scandal has been resolved, when the truth is, as I've looked at these thousands of pages of documents we've been releasing, it shows massive systemic problems at the leadership level of the church. And I worry about that, like Bill.
CHUNG: All right, Mr. Gately, just in the last 15 seconds that we have, best-case scenario for you would be?
GATELY: That if he were to come back -- I think, eventually, Connie, that you are going to have to bring somebody else in. I think it would be an insult to us to have someone else come in and have him get off scot-free.
Quite frankly, I wonder, given -- why should he have the opportunity to resign when he's done this? He should have been fired long ago.
(CROSSTALK)
CHUNG: Go ahead.
GATELY: Go ahead. Thank you.
At this point, I think that we need to get all the answers, deal with the pain, and then move on with some truth, for a change, in the church.
MACLEISH: Thank you, Connie.
CHUNG: Thank you, William Gately, Eric MacLeash. We thank you both for being with us.
Two stories tonight are fanning fears about the spread of nuclear weapons in countries hostile to the U.S. CNN has learned that senior U.S. officials have evidence Iran is building big nuclear facilities of a type that suggests Iran is trying to build nuclear weapons. Now, Iran denies it and says inspectors will be allowed to check in February.
Nuclear concerns about another country in President Bush's axis of evil top tonight's look at "The World in: 60." (BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
(voice-over): A defiant North Korea raises fears of a nuclear crisis on the Korean Peninsula. North Korean officials say they intend to reactivate a frozen nuclear power program the U.S. says was being used to develop weapons.
Israel talks more matters with the visiting U.S. undersecretary of defense and prepares for war games with the U.S. Two batteries of Patriot missiles have already arrived for joint U.S.-Israeli military exercises.
In Honduras, a nighttime training mission ends tragically when a U.S. Army Black Hawk helicopter crashes. The Pentagon says all five people on board are presumed dead.
OPEC looks to slowing the spigot as it deals with overproduction on the world oil market. The 11-member oil cartel is meeting in Vienna.
Once delayed, now destroyed: The launch of the upgraded European Ariane 5 rocket ends in disaster when it went off course, forcing ground controllers to blow it up three minutes after blastoff. Two satellites on board plunged into the Atlantic Ocean.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
ANNOUNCER: Next: She was the victim of a brutal attack at the hands of the confessed Central Park rapist: one woman's story of survival -- when CONNIE CHUNG TONIGHT continues.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
CHUNG: A judge will hear arguments next month on whether to throw out the convictions of five men who already served their time in the rape and almost fatal beating of a woman who remains to this day known only as the Central Park jogger.
You are about to meet a woman who believes she was attacked by the same man who now says he raped the Central Park jogger. Oddly, the two women crossed paths years later.
But, first, CNN's Deborah Feyerick has the background.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
DEBORAH FEYERICK, CNN CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): At the time, it seemed like an open-and-shut case for prosecutors: five teenagers, five confessions.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: This is my first rape.
FEYERICK: A neat ending to a terrifying night in Central Park that left a jogger brutally beaten and raped and a city traumatized. Nearly 14 years later, after all the teenagers had been found guilty and served prison time, explosive new evidence triggers an about-face by Manhattan's district attorney.
He now says the five teenagers should not have been convicted. The reason? Someone else was in Central Park that night: Matias Reyes. Earlier this year, he confessed, saying he raped the jogger. New DNA testing bears it out. His semen was found on the woman, his pubic hair on her sock.
Says his former lawyer:
RICHARD SIRACUSA, FORMER ATTORNEY FOR REYES: The way he described it could only be described by the person who actually did it.
FEYERICK: Reyes is a convicted murderer and serial rapist, serving 33 years to life in prison. Police believe he raped another woman in Central Park just two days before the teen's wilding spree in 1989.
Other women are now stepping forward accusing Reyes, one of them saying he try tried raping her in the Church of Heavenly Rest just off Central Park.
(on camera): The district attorney is urging a judge to toss out the teenagers' guilty verdicts. That could happen soon after the new year.
As for Reyes, he will never be charged for the rape of the Central Park jogger or for any of the other attacks he's accused of. That's because the five-year statute of limitations has run out.
Deborah Feyerick, CNN, New York.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
CHUNG: Joining me now with her story, including a stunning coincidence, is Jackie Herbach.
Thank you so much for being with us, Jackie.
Take me back to 1988. You were out to lunch. And you had a break and you had a little more time, so you went into a church. What happened?
JACQUELINE HERBACH, ATTACKED BY ADMITTED CENTRAL PARK RAPIST: Right.
Yes, it was a very beautiful day. And I wanted a little bit of peace. I went into a church. And I was sitting there. And a man came up to me and said, "Do you have the time?" And I gave him the time, but, immediately, my alarms went off. He made me very uncomfortable. So, I decided, "I'm going to leave."
So, I grabbed my bag and, all of a sudden, as I was leaving the church, this man grabbed me from behind in a headlock and had a knife pointing at my throat. And he said that, if I were to scream, he would kill me. CHUNG: So then he proceeded to attack you?
HERBACH: Yes. He dragged me down a flight of stairs by my head, so my body just thumped on the way down.
And we were in a very small space in the basement of the church. And he stole my money. He began to take my jewelry. He ripped my necklace off. He hit me a couple of times. And then I gave him all my jewelry, except for this one ring that was my mother's ring. It's very sentimental to me, so I held onto it. And I said, "Can I please keep this one ring?"
And he said, "OK."
And I thought, "OK, well, that's sort of generous." And then, after he said that, he just went ballistic. And he started to strangle me, choke me, choke me, until I passed out. And when I woke up, he was still there. And he grabbed my hair and banged my head into the floor and said, "Now, give me that other ring."
So, of course, I gave it to him. And then he said, "Please take off your blouse, your pants, your bra," piece by piece, until I was standing in my underwear. And I knew he was going to rape me. And I just kept repeating: "Please don't rape me. Please don't rape me."
Finally, I took my underwear off and he saw that I was in the middle of my menstrual cycle. And I saw that and I just said: "I have an infection. You don't want to rape me." And I said, "You'll catch it." And I guess he changed his mind.
But it was a horrible experience. It was so scary.
CHUNG: Yes. It's amazing that you came up with that idea.
Now, when you read in the newspaper that this man named Reyes was confessing to the Central Park jogger's case, rape and killing -- I mean, attack...
HERBACH: Right.
CHUNG: She, of course, has survived. Did that strike a bell with you immediately?
HERBACH: Yes, yes.
It just -- it was in the same area, first of all. The attack happened at a church, the Church of the Heavenly Rest, on 90th and 5th. And her attack was on 102nd Street in the park. And, I don't know. It was just the same area. And it just sort of -- I don't know. My stomach kind of churned. I didn't know why, but it did.
CHUNG: Did you see a picture of Reyes?
HERBACH: I did.
What happened was, I was getting "New York" magazine. And I was flipping through it in my elevator. And I've always kept track of the Central Park jogger case. And I saw a picture of Reyes in the magazine, not knowing who he was. And I said: "Oh, my God, that's him. That's him. That's the same man that attacked me."
And I told my husband. And I said, "What should I do?" And I decided I would call the reporter at "New York" magazine, Chris Smith. And I did. And he was very sweet. And he put me in touch with the DA. And I met with the DA. And they asked me a zillion questions for about an hour. And then, finally, I said to them, "Do you think this is the man?"
And they said, "Well, we have reason to believe that it is, because he has confessed to raping, attempting to rape a woman in that church and that there was something wrong with her and that's why he didn't go through with it."
CHUNG: However, no charges could be pressed against him, even if you believed very strongly that it was Reyes, because?
HERBACH: Of the statute of limitations law in New York state. There's a five-year statute, for the exception of murder or first- degree kidnapping.
CHUNG: Do you believe, in your heart and in your mind, that Reyes is the man?
HERBACH: Absolutely. Absolutely. I had never forgotten his face.
I know it had been 14 years, but, after an experience like that, it's just something -- I never forgot him. And he is a very violent, angry, aggressive type of person. And I believe he is capable of all the terrible things that he's done.
CHUNG: Were you frightened over those years, because it was about a decade before you were able to determine who in fact it was?
HERBACH: I was.
Initially, right after the attack, I was extremely frightened. I carried mace with me. I constantly looked over my shoulder. I had gone to the crimes victim -- had a therapy that I went to for a while. And this all helped.
CHUNG: What you've discovered now, Jackie, is that you believe and the police believe that you were the first victim and there were many more after that, including the Central Park jogger.
HERBACH: Yes, yes. There's nine of us all together. And what really angers me is that I feel that the police really didn't do such a great job of following up on my case.
CHUNG: Because, if they had...
HERBACH: Yes, if they had, they might have prevented all the other rapes and the one murder, the woman that was pregnant, which was a horrible, horrible...
CHUNG: For which he was convicted, ultimately.
HERBACH: Yes. He was convicted for her murder and for four rapes.
CHUNG: Now, the extraordinary coincidence of you and the so- called Central Park jogger. You knew her?
HERBACH: Yes, yes. That is the most amazing thing of this whole experience.
We worked together at Salomon Brothers back in 1995. And I was one of the trainers that worked with her, personal trainer. And I knew of her experience. And I shared with her what had happened to me. And we kind of had that sort of special kind of bond between us, not a fun one to have, but one, nevertheless. And she's a lovely person.
CHUNG: Never knowing that the connection was...
HERBACH: We never knew.
CHUNG: ... even closer.
HERBACH: We never knew. We had no idea.
CHUNG: And I'm sure you'd love to talk to her. Now, you haven't done that, right?
HERBACH: No. I would love to speak with her, yes.
CHUNG: All right, Jackie, thank you so much for coming in and telling your story.
HERBACH: You're welcome. You're welcome.
CHUNG: It's really quite extraordinary.
And joining us now: N.G. Berrill, a forensic psychologist who was retained by Reyes' attorney to evaluate Reyes during his trial.
Thank you, sir, for being with us. We appreciate it.
N.G. BERRILL, FORENSIC PSYCHOLOGIST: Sure.
CHUNG: Why do you think Reyes confessed years later to the Central Park jogger attack?
BERRILL: Well, it's really hard to know.
Manifestly, or superficially, I believe he's told some people that he discovered God while in jail or something to that effect. And that may be the case. However, if you understand, at the core, who this person really is, you can speculate that there are several other possibilities, like, look, it gets boring being in jail all these years. And this certainly has caused a lot of hoopla, a lot of attention to be directed at him.
And, also, look, he got away with this massive crime. And this work of his, if you will, has been left unacknowledged. So now, of course, he will be credited, if you want to look at it that way, with this act.
CHUNG: Did he explain to you why he committed so many rapes and these crimes that were just heinous?
BERRILL: No, not really.
In fact, when I evaluated him, it was at a phase during his trial for the murder case where he wasn't really acknowledging culpability. So, at that point in time, he was open enough about some of the horrendous experiences he had encountered as a kid, but he really wasn't talking about rape or talking about issues of guilt or innocence.
CHUNG: Were you able to determine, by going into his past, why he became such a violent, vicious person?
BERRILL: Well, it's always hard to say specifically why somebody emerges as a predator or as a serial killer or a rapist.
But, clearly, if you look at the case histories of most of these people, there is a ubiquitous finding. And that is that their childhoods are marred by awful, sadistic experiences. And his background is no different, in a sense. I think he was, if I'm recalling early on, as he described it, he was literally sold by his mother to his father in Puerto Rico. And he described being subject to fairly sadistic treatment throughout his childhood by his dad.
He had been sexually molested and abused himself as a kid and had been roughed up in various places and times during his early years. So, in a sense, perhaps it's not a shock that he would emerge in late adolescence as a decidedly angry kid, but more than that, potentially quite vicious and violent.
CHUNG: N.G. Berrill, I thank you so much for being with us.
BERRILL: Sure.
CHUNG: It's a little horrifying to try and get inside that mind, but it does give us a little insight. Thank you.
BERRILL: Sure.
CHUNG: Still ahead: Is Pete Rose about to be accepted back in baseball?
Stay with us.
ANNOUNCER: Next: Cross burning, should this chilling scene be allowed to play out across the country?
CONNIE CHUNG TONIGHT will be right back. (COMMERCIAL BREAK)
CHUNG: What does a burning cross mean? Is it subjective or does history define it as a threat of violence?
That's the question the Supreme Court is wrestling with in arguments over the constitutionality of a Virginia law banning the use of cross burning with the intent to intimidate. The arguments produced a stunning moment yesterday, when Justice Clarence Thomas railed against cross burning. The rare commentary was his lengthiest in years.
There to see it was attorney Rodney Smolla, arguing the constitutionality of cross burning; and William Hurd, arguing for Virginia's law against cross burning.
Gentlemen, thank you so much for being with us.
Mr. Smolla, you were there. Justice Thomas was passionate. It was unusual. Can you describe that moment for us?
SMOLLA: It was, I think, an extraordinary moment. I'll have to say it was one of the most striking moments I've ever seen in a Supreme Court argument and one of the most emotionally, supercharged and intense moments I've experienced as a lawyer. And I think that it probably did, to some degree, alter the atmosphere in the courtroom.
CHUNG: Oh, did it really?
SMOLLA: Well, I think what it did is take the case from not -- from being more than just an intellectual debate about legal principles and the First Amendment to a deeper, emotional vein that was very poignant and very possible. That doesn't mean it will affect the outcome of the case, but it certainly affected the drama of yesterday's events.
CHUNG: Can you capsulize what he was saying?
SMOLLA: Well, what he was saying was against my position, to some degree.
CHUNG: I know. That's why I want you to tell me.
SMOLLA: So, I was listening very carefully.
CHUNG: I want to hear you describe it.
SMOLLA: Sure.
Our position is that the act of burning a cross may sometimes be a threat. And, when it is a threat, it can be punished under threat laws, but that it is not always a threat, that, very often, it is a form of expression, a hideous form of expression, repugnant to almost all of us, but, nevertheless, one protected under the First Amendment.
And what Justice Thomas, I think, was saying was that it doesn't even do it justice just to label it a run-of-the-mill threat, that, given the history of the Klan, given the reign of terror, as he put it, that the Klan had visited on this country for many, many decades, the cross was unique. It was a very special symbol. And it was almost an automatic shorthand in every single case for a threat to kill or lynch or bomb.
We disagree with that, but I certainly understand the history that Justice Thomas is recounting and accept it as valid, even though I think that it doesn't lead to the proposition that we should censor cross burning, as such.
CHUNG: Mr. Hurd, wasn't that an experience, to hear him uttering the words that are music to your ears? It's precisely your position.
WILLIAM HURD, VIRGINIA STATE SOLICITOR: That is precisely our position.
CHUNG: And...
(CROSSTALK)
CHUNG: Yes, go ahead.
HURD: Well, symbols acquire their meaning by the way that they're used in society.
And, as we argue, and as Justice Thomas pointed out, a burning cross has been used to convey threats of bodily harm. That is its common, ordinary meaning. And when it's used with an intent to intimidate, it has no protection under our Constitution.
CHUNG: But doesn't the First Amendment protect everyone's views?
HURD: It protects views. It does not protect threats. A burning cross is more than just hate speech.
CHUNG: What is it, then, in your words?
HURD: A burning cross, by the way it's been used in society for now nearly 100 years, says the law doesn't matter. If you're black or Catholic or Jewish or foreign-born, and you try to live your life like a free American, you can expect us to kill you. That is how the Klan used a burning cross. And that is its common and ordinary meaning. And whether it's the Klan or anybody else who uses it that way today, with an intent to intimidate, it is unprotected by the Constitution.
CHUNG: Mr. Smolla, Justice Thomas was saying it represents 100 years of lynching. And I just want to give you a couple of more quotes of what he said. He said: "It's unlike any symbol in our society. There is no other purpose to the cross, no communication, no particular message. It was intended to cause fear and to terrorize a population."
Tell me, are you saying that a burning cross is not intended to cause fear and intimidation? SMOLLA: No. I'm saying that you -- on this point, I guess I agree with the state of Virginia and Bill Hurd. It does depend on the context.
And it just is not the case that, every time the cross is burned, particularly every time it is burned in a Ku Klux Klan rally that's a private rally with no one else present, that it is intended to intimidate. In this particular case, these Klan members were shouting at Bill Clinton, at Hillary Clinton. They were complaining about taxes. They were complaining about racial preferences.
The hymn "Amazing Grace" was being played at the moment the cross was being burned. Now, it's a kind of a bizarre melange of disgust and anger and political diatribe and racism and hatred. It's not something that any of us much like, but it does, in fact, express ideas and points of view.
And the test of our mettle, in terms of our willingness to protect the First Amendment, is to protect that kind of speech.
CHUNG: Mr. Hurd, in just 15 could seniors, why not have a law that makes intimidation wrong, outlawed, rather than a symbol?
HURD: Well, the fact that we could have a broader law does not mean the law we have adopted is unconstitutional.
And the professor leaves out important facts. He leaves out the commentary about taking a 30-30 and randomly shooting blacks. He leaves out the fact that this burning cross was 30 feet high and could have been held in a private setting on the same tract of land, but they wanted it placed where the people of the community could see it. The jury found an intent to intimidate. And, indeed, there was.
CHUNG: All right, gentlemen, thank you so much for being with us.
A decision will come down when?
SMOLLA: Probably some time in mid-spring.
HURD: Some time before the end of June.
CHUNG: End of June, all right, around spring.
Thank you, sir.
Mr. Smolla and Mr. Hurd, thank you so much for being with us.
Still ahead: Shot by the Washington sniper, now almost miraculously recovered, he's heading back to his life as a middle school student. We'll meet his principal in just a moment.
Stay with us.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK) CHUNG: A 13-year-old boy who found himself in the Washington sniper's crosshairs has cheated death. Iran Brown visited the National Children's Medical Center today, offering stunning evidence of just how far he's come since he was shot in October outside his school, barely responsive for more than a month. Doctors had to remove parts of his pancreas and stomach.
First lady Laura Bush spoke with him and said he expects to be back in school soon.
The principal of his school, John Lloyd, joins us now from Washington.
Thank you so much, Mr. Lloyd, for being with us.
Isn't he amazing, 13 years old and strong as ever?
JOHN LLOYD, PRINCIPAL, BENJAMIN TASKER MIDDLE SCHOOL: Absolutely. It's such good news to hear of his recovery. And it was nice to see him on TV this afternoon.
CHUNG: Yes, wasn't it?
Tell me, I know you've talked to his mom. Can you give us a little progress report on him? How's he doing?
LLOYD: Well, the contact that I've had with the family -- in terms of respecting the family's wishes, the contact has been limited. And the conversations that I've had with the mother, they've been brief.
Every time I speak to the mother or I've spoken to the mother, of course, the first question is: How is he doing? And her response is: Every day, he's getting a little stronger and, of course, better. The conversations have dealt with, of course, the class work and the homework and the schoolwork that he's been doing for the past four or five weeks.
CHUNG: You've been sending the homework to his home, haven't you? And has he been keeping up with it?
LLOYD: Yes, he has.
We send a batch of assignments. And when they're ready, we pick them up. And we then, in turn, give him another set of assignments. So, he's been keeping up with his schoolwork, which I think is amazing.
CHUNG: Don't tell me he's doing this on his own. Does he have a tutor or anybody to help him along?
LLOYD: The school system has assisted. Prince George's County school system has assisted with home teaching. And I know that he's receiving a lot of help at home, too, from his family.
CHUNG: Oh, that's wonderful. Do you know when he'll be back in school?
LLOYD: I have no word yet. I'm sure that the family will inform me. I know they will. And, of course, we're anxious to have him return to school.
CHUNG: Tell me, is he a student that you knew? Or was he just one of the many that you're always seeing in the hallways?
LLOYD: The way that I know him is through the cafeteria. We try -- the administrators do cafeteria duty. I did not know him personally, but I recognized him and spoke to him in the cafeteria each day.
CHUNG: Well, he's a handsome young man. And I think everybody's pulling for him, right?
LLOYD: Absolutely. We have yellow ribbons hanging from our pillars out front and in our tree. So, the yellow ribbons have been up for about four weeks.
CHUNG: That's amazing. And he's got an amazing aunt and uncle. It's wonderful that he's got such a supportive family.
John Lloyd, thank you for being with us.
LLOYD: Thank you.
CHUNG: Still ahead: She only did what any honest person would do, so what makes our "Person of the Day" special?
Stay with us and find out.
ANNOUNCER: Next: What are the odds that baseball's all-time hit king, Pete Rose, will get a second chance?
CONNIE CHUNG TONIGHT returns in a moment.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
CHUNG: Pete Rose, the man they call Charlie Hustle, may be back on the way back. The man who holds the record for the most career hits ever, but was also found by Major League Baseball to have bet on hundreds of games, may be on the verge of negotiating an end to what was supposed to be a lifetime ban from baseball. Reportedly, commissioner Bud Selig wants Rose to admit wrongdoing and resolve the issue by year's end.
Joining me now is "Sports Illustrated" senior writer Tom Verducci.
Thank you, Tom, for being with us.
TOM VERDUCCI, "SPORTS ILLUSTRATED": Thank you.
CHUNG: Well, didn't Bud Selig say, as long as he's commissioner, it's not going to happen. What happened? They've been meeting for a year, apparently, about possibly negotiating an end to this ban.
VERDUCCI: Well, there had been some low-level dialogue there.
But I think what really changed the environment was, at the end of season, the Reds were closing their ballpark, Cinergy Field. And Pete Rose had some of his greatest moments in that ballpark and is probably the most popular player in Reds history. The Reds wanted him there at the ceremony. And Bud Selig said, no, he cannot be there. He's banned from baseball.
And then, three weeks later, Major League Baseball trots out Pete Rose at a cheesy promotional event prior to a World Series game. And I think everybody saw, including Major League Baseball people, the inconsistency of that. And it riled a lot of people, especially in the political community, in Cincinnati. And I think that's when the dialogue really started to pick up.
CHUNG: So, are your sources telling you that Selig is dropping his condition that he has to -- that Rose has to own up to his wrongs? What's going on?
VERDUCCI: No, Connie.
I don't think there's any way that Pete Rose is coming back to baseball unless he comes clean, falls on his sword, and says: Yes, I bet on baseball and I bet on the Cincinnati Reds.
CHUNG: So, what would make him say that after 13 years and being pressed time and time again to own up?
VERDUCCI: Well, that's a great question.
But I think Pete Rose has seen that he's not coming back unless he does admit that he bet on baseball. After all, these last 13 years, if in fact that's the case, have been a complete lie. But I think now it's been so long, he understands that he's not getting into the Hall of Fame, he's not going to put a uniform on, and he's not going to be in that dugout again unless he admits that he bet on baseball.
CHUNG: So, what would you expect? Would you expect some kind of news conference or something, a statement from Pete Rose?
VERDUCCI: Well, I think there has to be a lot of negotiating done here.
First of all, they have to find out what exactly reinstatement is, if in fact he will be reinstated. A lot of people think that Bud Selig will not allow this man back onto the field in uniform, but he will allow him into the Hall of Fame, or at least to be put before the voters of the Hall of Fame.
People have to realize, there's a difference between the brick and mortar of a museum in Upstate New York and the institution of Major League Baseball. He can in fact allow Rose to be eligible for the hall. And he would be a no-brainer, first-ballot Hall of Famer, if in fact that happens. But, at the same time, he might not allow him all the rights and privileges he enjoyed before the ban.
CHUNG: Right. Gotcha.
Now, a lot of fans say he should be reinstated. He should be in the Hall of Fame and all of this. What do you think?
VERDUCCI: He is a very popular player. And I think this has something to do with the commissioner reconsidering his status.
But you have to remember, there's a rule posted in every Major League clubhouse, Rule 21, that says, if you bet on baseball and if you bet on your team, whether to win or to lose, you will be banned from baseball for life. It doesn't say that this is negotiable. It doesn't say you can come back in 13 years if you're a Hall of Fame player and a very popular player.
Pete Rose knew the rules. He flaunted the rules. He went against the rules. Nothing has changed in these 13 years about his situation at all. He has not been contrite. He has admitted nothing. And the fact is, this is the most sacred rule in baseball. Without this rule, if people go to a ball game and they question the integrity of the outcome of the game, then the whole foundation of baseball is undermined and the game begins to crumble.
CHUNG: Plus, Tom, 13 people have been banned from baseball? Is that right? Thirteen? Is it 14? Fourteen, I think. Fourteen people have been banned from baseball. And this has never been overturned, right? So this would be an extraordinary moment.
Oh, you can't hear me anymore.
Tom Verducci, I thank you so much for being with us. Appreciate it. If you can see me, I'll thank you.
Now, one of the dangers of this season is the potentially explosive mix of cold, dry air, static electricity, a spark, and gasoline fumes. Static electricity is believed to be the cause of a scary fire that tops tonight's "Snapshot," with some frightening video. Watch.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
(voice-over): Danger at the pump: A man filling gas cans at a Texas service station was suddenly engulfed with flames. Bystanders run to help. The man is alive in the hospital with third-degree burns.
A plea agreement for actor Nick Nolte on DUI charges. The sentence? Three years probation, a $500 fine, and drug counseling.
The first trial of Washington area sniper suspect John Muhammad is set to begin October 14. Don't set your VCRs. The judge today said no TV cameras in the courtroom.
Wild about "Harry"? Well, get a glimpse of J.K. Rowling's next book, "Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix." Sotheby's is auctioning off a 93-word teaser for $9,500.
Life is twice as nice for a lucky California couple who won the $17 million SuperLotto Plus jackpot and the $126,000 Fantasy top prize on the same day. The odds of that happening? One in 23 trillion.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
ANNOUNCER: Still ahead: Who will be our "Person of the Day"?
CONNIE CHUNG TONIGHT continues in a moment.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
CHUNG: Tonight, we've picked an Applebee's waitress to be our "Person of the Day."
Her name is Heidi Tomassi. And she returned $3,300 a customer forgot at his table at a Kansas restaurant. Now, you might say hey, big deal. So she didn't pocket someone else's money. But here are a few things you should know about Heidi Tomassi. Her husband just lost his job. And they are $15,000 in debt after two operations on their 4-1/2-month-old son's heart. At one point, little Griffin was given six weeks to live, but he held on.
And, in the face of huge temptation, Heidi Tomassi held on to her morals. She tracked down the money's rightful owner. She got a $100 reward for her troubles.
And that makes her our "Person of the Day."
Tomorrow: Was "American Idol" winner Kelly Clarkson already a pro? We'll get the inside story.
And coming up next on "LARRY KING LIVE": He was Marilyn's first husband. She was Marilyn's friend. Together, they reveal Marilyn Monroe's secrets.
Thank you for joining us. And for all of us at CNN, have a great night and we'll see you tomorrow. Tune in.
TO ORDER A VIDEO OF THIS TRANSCRIPT, PLEASE CALL 800-CNN-NEWS OR USE OUR SECURE ONLINE ORDER FORM LOCATED AT www.fdch.com
Central Park Rapist Speaks Out>
|
