|
CNN CONNIE CHUNG TONIGHT
Secretary of State Colin Powell Pleads Case; Was NASA Warned of a Danger to Shuttles 10 Years Ago?
Aired February 5, 2003 - 20:00 ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
CONNIE CHUNG: Good evening. I am Connie Chung.
At the U.N. satellite photo's, intercepted phone calls, statements from informants. Secretary of State Colin Powell lays out the evidence.
ANNOUNCER: Colin Powell, presents the case against Iraq.
COLIN POWELL, SECRETARY OF STATE: Leaving Saddam Hussein in possession of weapons of mass destruction for more months or years is not an option. Not in the post-September 11 world.
ANNOUNCER: Will the world be convinced by America's evidence? Are the U.S. and Iraq a step closer to war?
Was NASA warned of a danger to the shuttle 10 years ago?
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Debris falling off the external tank and the solid rocket boosters on lift-off, banging the bottom of the orbiter and doing damage.
ANNOUNCER: The man who says the tragedy could have been prevented.
Clara Harris, accused of running down her husband, takes the stand.
Will her testimony save her from life in prison?
Plus: shocker at the courthouse. What happened to Clara's lawyer.
Phil Spectator, the eccentric millionaire music producer, under suspicion of murder.
(MUSIC)
ANNOUNCER: We'll hear from one of the Ramones, a group on Phil Spectator's hit parade.
And our person of the day. The whole world is watching.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
This is CONNIE CHUNG TONIGHT from the CNN broadcast center in New York, Connie Chung.
CHUNG: Good evening. With the world watching anxiously, Secretary of State Colin Powell presented the U.S. case against Iraq before the United Nations Security Council. Powell was armed with communications intercepts, satellite photos, and information from spies. He even played recorded conversations between Iraqi military officials in which they were said to be discussing how to hide banned weapons from U.N. weapons inspectors. And the secretary of state accused Iraq of having high-level contacts with the al Qaeda terrorist network.
CNN's state department correspondent, Andrea Koppel, has been traveling with the secretary.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
POWELL: I believe that Iraq is now in further material breach of its obligations. I believe this conclusion is irrefutable and undeniable.
ANDREA KOPPEL, CNN STATE DEPARTMENT CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): For more than an hour Secretary of State Colin Powell held court.
POWELL: Numerous human sources tell us the Iraqis are moving not just documents and hard drives, but weapons of mass destruction to keep them from being found by inspectors.
KOPPEL: In a high-tech multimedia presentation Powell presented newly declassified intelligence, which the U.S. claims proves Iraq has an active program to develop weapons of mass destruction.
POWELL: We have firsthand descriptions of biological weapons factories on wheels and on rails.
KOPPEL: Using charts and graphics, Powell said the U.S. believes Iraq has at least seven mobile biological agent factories mounted on at least 18 trucks.
POWELL: Just a few weeks ago we intercepted communications between two commanders in Iraq's second Republican Guard Corps.
KOPPEL: Referencing audio intercepts, Powell said one Iraqi officer ordered another to stop using the expression nerve agents.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE (through translator): Captain (UNINTELLIGIBLE)?
UNIDENTIFIED MALE (through translator): I am with you, Sir.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE (through translator): Remove.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE (through translator): The expression.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE (through translator): The expression.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE (through translator): "Never agents."
KOPPEL: Holding an empty vial in his hand Powell also said Iraq had declared 8500 liters of anthrax but had not accounted for even one teaspoon.
POWELL: This is just about the amount of a teaspoon. Less than a teaspoonful of dry anthrax in an envelope shut down the United States Senate in the fall of 2001.
KOPPEL: Most of Powell's show and tell focused on Iraq's alleged weapons program, but he also presented evidence that Iraq had harbored terrorists in northeastern Iraq, including a top al Qaeda operative, Abu Musab Zarqawi, a specialist in poisons.
POWELL: He traveled to Baghdad in May 2002 for medical treatment, staying in the capital of Iraq for two months while he recuperated to fight another day.
KOPPEL: But Iraq's U.N. ambassador dismissed Powell's presentation out of hand, seizing on comments made by other skeptical Security Council members.
MOHAMMED ALDOUHI, IRAQI AMB. TO U.N.: It's obvious that Mr. Powell remarks did not achieve the results the USA administration intended.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
KOPPEL: And tonight a senior State Department official explained that the U.S. approach during Secretary Powell's presentation was more like the 1963 Dodgers, he said, rather than the 1927 Yankees, Connie. He said that the U.S. was looking to achieve a series of base hits rather than an out of the park home run -- Connie.
CHUNG: All right. Andrea Koppel, stay with us while we are now joined by two more of our CNN colleagues. Senior U.N. correspondent Richard Roth and from Baghdad, senior international correspondent Nic Robertson.
Andrea, I was fascinated as I watched Colin Powell go through the satellite photos and the tape recordings. I felt as if I was in on a White House briefing.
Can you tell us, what was the most convincing evidence?
KOPPEL: Probably the most convincing for most countries would be the various satellite intercepts, the audio recordings we heard, which lay out the U.S. case for Iraq's ongoing chemical weapons program, its biological weapons program, its missile program, as well as its nuclear program. And so that actually, many countries will receive on CD-ROM. They handed out about 100 copies of those with the evidence burned right onto the CD-ROM, Connie.
CHUNG: So what's the next step for the United States? KOPPEL: Well, the next step has already actually begun. Secretary Powell had a series of private meetings with other members of the Security Council. There were about 13 other foreign ministers who came into town. Secretary Powell took advantage of their being here in New York with him to sit down and talk. And then the next step really is going to be to look what comes out of the Mohammed ElBaradei and the Hans Blix trip to Baghdad.
The U.S. will be listening as will the rest of the world to see whether or not Iraq offers more cooperation. And then of course after that the next big date is Valentine's Day, February 14, when the inspectors return here to the United Nations to lay out the next evidence that they have and next comments that they have as to whether or not the Iraqis have been cooperating. So in between now and then you can expect some really serious arm twisting high-level diplomacy going on behind the scenes as the U.S. really struggles to build as large a coalition as possible for a possible war with Iraq, Connie.
CHUNG: Richard Roth, after Secretary of State Colin Powell spoke I watched as each country came forward, made a statement, but it seemed as if those statements had been PRESS:.
RICHARD ROTH, SENIOR U.N. CORRESPONDENT: That's right. Some of them were. Some of them were handed and carried over by foreign ministers and then read out after Powell spoke. The only ad-libbing was really condolences to the American people about the Columbia accident. Otherwise, inside the council I think Powell started off very strong. You saw some very interested faces.
But then people started to turn around, fidget. Perhaps it was just too much, and a lot of countries still say where's the proof. They wanted to know why didn't the U.S. present this evidence to the weapons inspectors before. France and a lot of other countries still say, Connie, let's give the inspectors more time. If anything, the U.S. information could have backfired in a way. It allows France and Germany and other countries to say, well, now they have more to look for, let's give them more time.
CHUNG: And that's exactly what the United States didn't want to hear. Give the inspectors more time.
ROTH: That's right. For the inspectors, they're off to Baghdad this weekend. Hans Blix, Mohammed Elbaradei, the leading inspectors. And I know there's been a lot of final opportunities, last chances for the Iraqi government. It appears we're at another one. Even Russia, which still wants the inspections to continue, said that they hope that Baghdad supplies, quote, "Concrete results and answers this weekend because whether it's U2 reconnaissance flights, private interviews with Iraqi scientists which haven't happened yet, those gaps are still open." And Blix and ElBaradei want to close them this weekend before they deliver the report on the 14.
CHUNG: Nic Robertson, did Iraq have any specific answers to the allegations that Secretary of State Powell made?
NIC ROBERTSON, SENIOR INTERNATIONAL CORRESPONDENT: Well, he did have answers for many of the issues. This was General Amry Al-Saadi, president Saddam Hussein's top scientific adviser. There was a specific mention of him in Colin Powell's presentation, that he in fact was in charge or in a commission that was there to obstruct the U.N. inspectors. He said absolutely on, his orders from the beginning were to tell the truth.
And on the issue of the radio intercepts he said any third world or third-rate intelligence operation could fabricate this sort of thing, the satellite images, the whole thing. He characterized as a typical American show, full of tricks. So there were no real specifics, although he did -- he did essentially characterize the whole thing as lies. He said Iraq will give more details, however, within the next 24 hours. And will in fact write to the U.N. Secretary-General, Kofi Annan, outlining just those specific issues -- Connie.
CHUNG: Nick, as far as the Iraqis are concerned, is war going to be inevitable, then?
ROBERTSON: I was in a downtown cafe today talking with some people. There's a sense of fatality about all of this, if you will. They say, look, we see what the United States is trying to do. They see it as the United States trying to make an aggressive act against Iraq. They say we have no weapons of mass destruction. That's what the people here appear to genuinely believe. Therefore, they say, there's nothing that we can do. If the United States will make an issue out of this, there's nothing we can do. We hope there isn't war, but that's what seems to be coming. Although I must say they seem very calm about it -- Connie.
CHUNG: All right. Nic Robertson, Andrea Koppel, and Richard Roth, thank you.
Joining me now is former White House Adviser David Gergen, now an editor-at-large for "U.S. News and World Report" and a professor at Harvard.
Thank you, David, for being with us.
DAVID GERGEN, FMR. WHITE HOUSE ADVISER: Thank you, Connie. Good to talk to you again.
CHUNG: What do you think? Do you think Colin Powell had the smoking gun?
GERGEN: He sure had everything but the -- but the bullet itself.
It was conclusive, compelling evidence. And if Colin Powell does nothing else as Secretary of State for George W. Bush, this president will always be grateful to Colin Powell for his performance today. He was asked to go up and do some heavy lifting and he did just that. He demolished the argument that Saddam Hussein is not concealing weapons of mass destruction.
And the opponents of the president's policy have said, Look, we don't believe that Saddam Hussein is trying to hide things from the inspectors and we have no evidence of that.
And secondly, even if he were, we don't want to go to war over it. Colin Powell's presentation has effectively destroyed that first point. It has taken that off the board.
Now, that leaves the second argument, OK, what do we do about it? And here the administration still has a problem overseas with its -- with our close friends in France and in Germany and...
CHUNG: Exactly. I was just about to bring that up, David.
And the fact is is that apparently their reaction is, Well, let's still bring the inspectors in and still give them more time.
GERGEN: Well, the argument has now shifted. It's no longer -- the people who are opposed to the president can no longer say, Well, we don't have the evidence that he's cheated. That's gone.
What they've now got to say is we can do this through containment. The president doesn't believe containment works. And that's where we're going to be in the next few weeks. But I think it does -- or the next few days. But I think it does put the burden on these other countries to say, Now it's clear that if the U.N. is going to be taken seriously, and it said Saddam only had one more chance to comply and we now find he's not in compliance, indeed it's quite clear he's not in compliance, it puts the burden on them to say, OK, how are we going to disarm him? And they have to prove that containment works. And I think that's going to be a hard argument in light of all of this -- of all of the evidence of cheating that Powell presented.
I think what we're going to see is the inspectors are going to go back to Iraq. And I imagine the Iraqis will say, okay, you can use U- 2 flights to monitor us, and they'll make a couple of other concessions but they'll still be playing games. I think the president is then going to press -- I think he'll get a gathering number of nations.
One thing, Connie, that's very important about the evidence today -- it gives cover to those European nations and other nations around the world that want to join up with the United States and haven't had a good capacity to get there. They now have a way to come join up with the United States. And I think increasingly the president may be able to isolate some of these other countries that are opposed still.
And then -- and that will give Americans, at least, and maybe the world, a gathering sense, Listen, there is a large coalition of nations that believes this has to be done militarily.
You know, things could change, some could leave, there could be a coup, there could be some other things here. But I think this brings us much closer to war. I think it brings us much closer to unity at home to support the president in a war, and I think it will give him a larger coalition overseas.
CHUNG: You've been inside the White House, and I was quite surprised at the number of classified bits of information that were released. Do you think that it's going to be damaging?
GERGEN: Well, I think it was a bold stroke to release it. No, I don't think it will be damaging. That's often the argument that's raised. I think it's sometimes overplayed.
Administrations in the past, including the Kennedy administration with Adlai Stevenson, photographs released these things. And it didn't damage our intelligence. Are there going to be some sources who will probably be burned or some things we won't be able to find out again? Yes, but it's so late now it doesn't make any difference if we don't see a particular truck moving around in the way we did.
CHUNG: David there has been some suggestion that France and Russia and Germany and China had access to this evidence and this speech was merely to shame them into taking action in joining the United States.
GERGEN: I think there's a large element of truth to that. What the secretary is going to increasingly press is if the U.N. is more than a paper tiger you now have to do something. At the very least we ought to get a resolution on which you stay neutral, that you don't veto it and allow us to go out and get, you know, get a majority on the Security Council.
Now, there are some in Europe who don't want to go to war ever under any circumstances, and they're never going to be convinced. I mean, they didn't want to go into the Balkans, and that was just next door when there was genocide under way and a next-door neighbor. So there are going to be some we'll never reach. And I think the president still ought to continue to press to get a large coalition. We should not march right off to war now. There should be some diplomacy, should be an effort to help nations find a way to join us before we go. We should get a second resolution if we possibly can. But I think the president's hand is greatly strengthened tonight.
CHUNG: All right. David Gergen, thank you so much for being with us.
GERGEN: Thank you.
ANNOUNCER: Next -- was NASA alerted to a possible problem with the shuttle's protective tiles a decade ago? We'll hear from a researcher who conducted the study, when CONNIE CHUNG TONIGHT returns.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
CHUNG: What happened during the final minutes of space shuttle Columbia, before tragedy struck? NASA engineers are trying to reconstruct the last 32 seconds of communications that were transmitted from the space shuttle after Johnson Space Center computers lost contact.
And as investigators gather Columbia's debris in Texas and Louisiana, they're also looking into reports of debris being found as far west as California. Joining me now from Houston with the latest on the investigation, CNN's space correspondent, Miles O'Brien. Miles, what are the headlines out of the briefing tonight?
MILES O'BRIEN, CNN SPACE CORRESPONDENT: The headline is, Connie, take the blinders off. This investigation has no preconceived notions about where it is headed, and basically, all that discussion about debris falling off that external tank as the root cause of the loss of Columbia, the shuttle program manager, Ron Dittemore, told us it just doesn't make sense to him. They've looked at it several different ways, relooked at the engineering analysis, and that foam, which he brought out a healthy dose of an example of, he says is just much too light, not dense enough to cause anything that would cause the loss of the vehicle and crew.
So we asked a lot about whether there might have been ice, for example, on that piece of foam. They are ruling that out. They don't think that ice was there. They had a careful ice inspection. It wasn't a day where ice was forming on the tank in any unusual amounts.
And so they think something else must have struck those tiles. Whether it happened on ascent, in orbit, or on descent all remains to be seen, Connie.
CHUNG: And they still aren't saying what that something else might be?
O'BRIEN: Hard to say right now. Could it be a micrometeoroid in orbit? The crew didn't report anything like that, and they were up 24 hours. If something struck that would be big enough to break away that many tiles, you'd think they would have heard something. They didn't radio down any clue of that. So it's really hard to say what might have happened. Maybe something on ascent that they didn't see with the cameras.
CHUNG: Now, I understand there was some shuttle debris found in California. Can you tell us about that?
O'BRIEN: Well, what's key about it, we think it's shuttle debris. It's according to NASA credible sources although they're still sending teams out there to verify all this.
What's key about it is where it is found. If in fact there's any debris found in California, it will be very key because that was right at the beginning of the break-up of Columbia. and any pieces which fell off at that time will be right near the source of where the problem was.
And there are a million parts on the shuttle, and just about every one of them, Connie, has a serial number on it. And if that number can be identified in the wreckage, investigators will be able to know almost precisely where it came from.
The piece, which we don't know for sure if it is in fact linked to the shuttle, looks like it could be related to a so-called carrier panel, which holds tiles on in certain places. As soon as that investigative team gets there, we'll know for sure.
CHUNG: Apparently, there was a startling photograph that had some information, if indeed it's correct, that was taken by an amateur photographer in San Francisco. What can you tell us about that?
O'BRIEN: Well, it's hard to predict what that is. It could be just an artifact in the photography. That's one theory. But the investigators are saying it appears that there were some changes in the trail behind Columbia that indicate something happened.
Now, was that change in the trail, was that a cause or an effect? Could the vehicle have struck something at that point? It doesn't seem very likely that it would at that altitude. It's not in space anymore. It's not like it would hit a piece space junk at 300,000 feet.
But this amateur video clearly shows a change in that trail behind the orbiter. What that means is unclear right now, and what the investigative team will do is take a timeline and gather all these amateur images along with all the images they have, try to build themselves a fairly comprehensive movie, if you will, of those final minutes, and maybe be able to determine what that change was.
CHUNG: All right. Miles O'Brien, thank you.
NASA was warned a decade ago in a report it commissioned that the space shuttle could be destroyed if tiles protecting important wing parts were damaged by debris during lift-off. But NASA engineers were never able to find a way to completely resolve the problem.
Joining me now, one of the authors of that study, Carnegie Mellon professor Paul Fischbeck. Thank you, sir, for being with us.
PROF. PAUL FISCHBECK, CO-AUTHORED REPORT ON SPACE TITLES: My pleasure.
CHUNG: It was your report in 1990 that talked about these thermal tiles. And I'm wondering, did you actually worry that a shuttle could be lost?
FISCHBECK: We did a study to determine how risky the tiles were. The way we did the study was to look at which tiles were likely to be hit by debris coming off the external tanks. Also, which tiles got excessive heat or high heat on re-entry. And which tiles protected critical subsystems of the orbiter. If we found tiles that had all three of those things occurring at the same time, we deemed those tiles to be very critical.
CHUNG: Were those tiles that you thought were especially dangerous, or potentially dangerous, near the shuttle's wing wells?
FISCHBECK: Yes. There were a series of tiles that were located towards the center, near the wings -- near the wheel wells, that were -- that we deemed to be particularly critical.
CHUNG: So that would be critical to this investigation, wouldn't it?
FISCHBECK: Well, you know, our data was based on the first 30 to 40 flights. And things have changed since then. Nasa took some of our advice, and they corrected some of the problems that were occurring back then.
But things have changed. They've changed the insulation on the external tank, and the tiles have become older. So there are other problems that may have crept in that we did not study.
CHUNG: Well, today we learned that the foam NASA is now saying may not have been the culprit after all. Does that square with your thinking?
FISCHBECK: When we did our study, we found that the probability of losing a tile was actually greater due to a poor glue bond than it was for debris knocking a tile off. So it still could be a tile- related problem but one that occurred, you know, outside of the debris problem itself.
CHUNG: All right. Sir, I want to play a little clip of the briefing from yesterday in which Major General Kostelnik, he's the deputy associate administrator for the space program, and he oversees safety issues. He was asked whether the tiles around the wheel areas were considered a particular safety issue. So let's listen to what he had to say.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
MIKE KOSTELNIK, NASA DEPUTY ASSOCIATE ADMINISTRATOR: Not really that I'm aware of. I mean, that would be a good question to address to Mr. Dittemore tomorrow. He's been with the program a lot longer than I have. Actually, although I know there's a lot of issues with the tiles and so forth today, it's actually been a very robust system. It's actually worked very well in this process.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
CHUNG: I think the kindest way to ask my question is to say did he not understand your report?
FISCHBECK: Well, I'm not sure he saw my report. I think that there are people at NASA that realize that some tiles are more critical than others and tiles that protect critical subsystems are the most important.
CHUNG: I guess the bottom line is do you feel that your 1990 report warned NASA of the potential problem and that they didn't do anything about it?
FISCHBECK: No. Quite the contrary. I think NASA took some very positive steps based on our report. Whether they did enough or they could have done more, that's something I cannot say. Any engineered system has associated risk. And there's no way to eliminate the risk completely. CHUNG: So you don't think that you were raising the red flag and they ignored it. However, what you don't know is if they went the 100 miles?
FISCHBECK: That's unknown to me. That's correct.
CHUNG: Thank you so much, Paul Fischbeck, for being with us.
And on to the twisted trial in Texas. We'll be right back.
ANNOUNCER: Next -- Clara Harris takes the stand in her own defense. And a shocker at the courthouse. What happened to Clara's lawyer? CONNIE CHUNG TONIGHT returns in a moment.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
CHUNG: More dramatic moments in the murder trial of Clara Harris as she took the witness stand. The prosecution says Harris deliberately ran over her husband because he was having an affair. The defense says it was an accident.
And there was also some drama outside the courtroom as well. CNN Investigative Correspondent Art Harris is covering the story.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
ART HARRIS, CNN INVESTIGATIVE CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): Clara Harris seemed poised, calm, almost eager as she walked briskly into a Houston courthouse, then took the stand in her own defense to try to avoid a murder conviction for killing her cheating husband.
The attractive 45-year-old dentist said she and orthodontist David Harris were best friends, lovers, a perfect team. But there was something she didn't know about her husband, a friend warned her. So Clara Harris went home and asked David, Do you love me? She said he hesitated. "He looked at me with a question mark in his face. He wasn't sure."
For this day at least it seemed it was the husband and the mistress, David's receptionist, who were on trial. When Clara imitated the mistresses squeaky voice, saying, You know how she talks, courtroom spectators laughed and jurors smiled.
On the stand Clara Harris seemed a sympathetic figure, sometimes sad, very real, a wronged woman. She explained how she scribbled a list on a napkin at a cocktail lounge as her husband compared her with the other woman.
He called Clara pretty, the mistress reasonably pretty. But this criticism, "I did poor on letting him do what he wanted to do." at the end of the morning Clara Harris had not yet recounted the night of the alleged murder.
When witnesses said she caught her husband with the mistress and ran him over with her silver Mercedes. Outside the courtroom at lunch break, more drama: Her attorney, George Parnham, collapsed and was rushed to a hospital. Parnham has high blood pressure, but colleagues say he appears to be suffering from stress and the flu. Court was called off for the rest of the day, and perhaps longer.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
HARRIS: Putting a defendant on the stand is always a gamble. But if the jury finds the killing was less than murder, it will be Clara Harris who does it -- Connie.
CHUNG: As I understand it, the jury was sent home in the middle of Clara Harris' testimony. What kind of impact will that have on the case?
HARRIS: The good news is, they didn't see her defense attorney collapse. So, they don't know why they've been sent home.
And they'll have more time to really think about what she said. And you could tell they were listening very intently. It was the first time she had testified, and so every word was very important. And she took them through this picture-book marriage and then how it began to erode. And they seemed very, very attentive.
So, this will give them more time, experts agree, to really marinate on Clara Harris and perhaps bond with her more, if they are inclined to believe her.
CHUNG: Art, can you gauge how the jury reacted to her?
HARRIS: She was a very compelling witness, Connie -- and I've seen a lot of trials -- perhaps one of the most compelling defendants I've ever seen take the stand.
She bonded, it seemed, with the jury. They were on the edge of their seats, listening to every word. And they, at times, actually smiled and laughed with Clara Harris. One moment that was especially, I thought, a turning point was when she mimicked her husband's mistress, her voice, saying, you know how she talks. And Gail Bridges does talk in a high-pitched, whispery sort of squeaky voice. And Clara Harris actually imitated her.
And the jury laughed. And so did the spectators. So, this was a point where you felt the jury was siding, perhaps, with Clara Harris.
CHUNG: All right, Art Harris, thank you.
Joining me now are two friends of Clara Harris: Luanne Coffee and Terrie Jones.
Thank you both for being with us.
LUANNE COFFEE, FRIEND OF CLARA HARRIS: You're welcome.
CHUNG: Tell me, did you talk to Clara before she went on the stand, and was she nervous?
COFFEE: We spoke with her briefly. I spoke with her briefly right before she -- actually, it was before court started. And she was more nervous than she had been in the past, but not overly nervous.
CHUNG: What was she anticipating, do you think?
COFFEE: I don't know that she was anticipating anything. At that time, we were not aware that she was going to testify immediately. We had been told she would testify. But you could sense some anxiety that had not been there yesterday.
CHUNG: Terrie, did you talk to Clara Harris before she testified? And was she nervous?
TERRIE JONES, FRIEND OF CLARA HARRIS: I spoke with her before court actually started. And she just told me to pray for her. And she said that she would be testifying that day. I didn't know it would be that soon. But I told her that I would continue to pray for her and just keep her chin up and we were there, we were there for her.
CHUNG: Clara Harris was obviously upset about her lawyer collapsing, but did she think it was her fault?
COFFEE: I think that's Clara's personality. She is a very generous, very caring person.
And her first thing she wants is for everyone with her to be comfortable or taken care of. And so, when this happened, she immediately turned it to: What have I done? Was it the added stress of me insisting on testifying?
I think there was some natural question as to whether this was a good decision or not. But I think it was an excellent decision and she did a beautiful job.
CHUNG: Well, what were your impressions of her testimony? I mean, I can tell you that our reporter who was there said that he thought that the jury really sort of went on her side. They were with her.
COFFEE: I definitely agree.
She was very much Clara. She was more relaxed than I thought it would be possible for her to be. But she did -- there were times when she would get tense and nervous, but, for the most part, was just pretty relaxed. She shared some an anecdotes that were comical and referred to Gail Bridges as -- referred to her voice and kind of mimicked her. And that was typically Clara. She was never cruel to anyone at all, but certainly laughs. And you could see that through her testimony.
CHUNG: Luanne, I'm wondering if you talked to Clara about the incident. Did she tell you about running over her husband?
COFFEE: I have spoken with Clara, not directly, like, "Clara, tell me what happened." But, in conversations, I have spoken with her about that.
From the beginning, the thing that she was the most concerned about was that it was an accident, that she did not do this intentionally. And she was devastated by what had happened. She was devastated for herself and her boys and for Lindsey as well, her stepdaughter. And I think that that, it's been a mix. When you talk to her, part of it is about what happened, but part of it is about the loss, and that most of our conversations have taken place around the loss that they've all suffered.
CHUNG: Terrie, accident or not, she did run over her husband. Do you actually believe that she should be set free?
JONES: I do.
CHUNG: But why?
JONES: Because I don't think her sons should lose both parents. They've already lost their father. And especially the Harrises, they're behind her, supporting her. And I think it would be tragic for them, too. They love her and they support her and they believe that it was an accident.
CHUNG: Luanne Coffee and Terrie Jones, thank you so much for being with us.
JONES: Thank you.
COFFEE: Thank you.
CHUNG: Still ahead: Why did Laci Peterson's husband sell his missing wife's Land Rover? The family of Laci Peterson reacts.
Stay with us.
ANNOUNCER: Coming up: Was there a dark side to music Producer Phil Spector, the pop music legend suspected of murder? -- when CONNIE CHUNG TONIGHT continues.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
CHUNG: The family of Laci Peterson is speaking out tonight, just five days before she's due to give birth to a baby boy. Their news conference comes after Laci's husband, Scott Peterson, sold her SUV. But the SUV was returned to the missing woman's family by the used car dealer who bought it from Scott Peterson.
Laci Peterson's stepfather, Ron Grantski, described the family's feelings.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
RON GRANTSKI, STEPFATHER OF LACI PETERSON: We've driven by his house and we've seen a new truck there. And Laci's car is not there. So, that's how we first found out about the car. And then -- so -- and then we thought, until we found out differently, that we'd go ahead and purchase the car. And the car was in Scott's name. But thanks to Mr. Roberts (ph), it's in the family's hands now. And we're going to keep it until Laci comes home.
About the house, the house is in both names, Laci and Scott's. I find it hard to believe that he thought he could sell it without Laci's signature. Of course, I've found it hard to understand a lot of things Scott has done, so why should this be any different?
(END VIDEO CLIP)
CHUNG: Police have not named Scott Peterson as a suspect in his wife's disappearance, but they have not ruled him out, either.
New details are emerging tonight about record producer Phil Spector. Spector, who has produced records for the Beatles and Tina Turner, was arrested Monday on suspicion of murder, hours after actress Lana Clarkson was shot to death inside Spector's mansion.
Weeks before, he told a reporter that he had -- quote -- "devils inside that fight me." In an interview with "The London Daily Telegraph," Spector said that he was crippled inside and probably relatively insane. Spector remains free on $1 million bail.
And joining us now to give us their perspective on Phil Spector are Marky Ramone, the drummer for the legendary Ramones, a group that Spector produced. He joins us from Warsaw, Poland. And with me here: Mark Ribowsky, the author of "He's a Rebel: Phil Spector, Rock and Roll's Legendary Producer."
Thank you both for being with us.
Marky, you have known Phil Spector for more than 20 years. And you were even with him last year when he was inducted into the Rock 'n' Roll Hall of Fame. What was your reaction when you found out he was arrested?
MARKY RAMONE, DRUMMER: Considering his situation at the Rock 'n' Roll Hall of Fame -- I haven't seen him a while since that -- I thought he was in great spirits. He looked great. He was very humorous.
There was nothing indicating that he was going over any kind of deep end. And we parted at a restaurant together with some other people and he was fine. And I'm just amazed of what I heard. And I still can't believe it. And I'm assuming -- and sometimes that's bad to do -- because of how I hung out with him while he was doing one of the Ramones albums, that it was either an accident or it could have been a life-threatening situation.
We don't know yet until the proof comes out. And you are innocent until you're proven guilty. Unfortunately, this happened. And I wish him the best of luck. With the Ramones in the studio, he did wave a gun around, but that was just out of bravado. He would have never have hurt or threatened to murder or do any damage to either of the Ramones.
CHUNG: When he pulled the gun in the studio when you were making that album, didn't he hold the gun to someone's head?
RAMONE: No, he didn't hold it to anyone's head. He was just waving it around. The person who said that exaggerated that point a little. Phil would take out the gun and wave it around out of bravado, trying to impress everybody. But I never saw him use it or heard it go off.
CHUNG: Mark Ribowsky, you talked about gunplay in your book. Were you surprised when you heard about the shooting?
MARK RIBOWSKY, AUTHOR, "HE'S A REBEL": No.
In fact, my initial reaction was, what took him so long? I mean, I know Marky Ramone was there in the studio. But so were Joey Ramone and Dee Dee Ramone. And both of them tell a different story about what happened in the studio with the Ramones.
CHUNG: But was it just one incident?
RIBOWSKY: No. No. With Spector, it's been for the last 30, 35 years, one incident after another.
RAMONE: here were a few incidences.
RIBOWSKY: Many of which have been covered up through the years, many of which have been made light of.
The fact is, Phil Spector has been enabled for the last 35 years by people who have humored him, rather than trying to get him help. This is a man who was severely mentally ill, I believe, even from childhood. When you add to that his fixations with alcohol, maybe with drugs -- that's not as clear -- and with his nasty, foul temper, you have a very, very bad situation. My question is, how was this man ever allowed to have guns for all this time?
CHUNG: Marky Ramone, do you agree with Mark Ribowsky here that this was a man who had serious mental problems?
RAMONE: Well, Phil liked to drink. So did I.
And Joey had his story. We all had our own stories. But what I saw was just somebody acting bravado and trying to show off. Maybe later on in life, he did develop some kind of schizophrenic attitude. But he never showed it to me. I always had a good time with him. He was a gentleman when he went out with me. The times that I had with him were very professional.
And, of course, there were occasions of a perfectionist, such as Phil is, trying to get certain sounds in the studio, which probably led to certain anxieties. So, that's probably why he did bring out the guns and have a few drinks and get a little rambunctious.
CHUNG: What was the incident that involved John Lennon? RIBOWSKY: Yes.
It had nothing to do with bravado or anything like that -- or a little bit, possibly, but it intensified. They were doing an album during Lennon's lost weekend period, what it's known as, when Yoko kicked him out and he went to L.A. to do an album with Phil. And they were both in terrible, miserable shape, both drinking, could not get work done.
And what happened was, Spector had done Lennon's "Imagine" album and they'd gotten along fine in England. But on Spector's turf in L.A., he was the boss and he wanted to make a point of that to John Lennon. And when Lennon crossed Spector in the studio, Spector pulled out a guy and shot it off, not just waving it, shot it. The bullet hole went into the studios of A&M studios on La Brea in L.A.
And the story is that they framed the bullet hole on the ceiling as one of rock's great moments or something, perverse moments. But that was no bravado. That was no joke. And it freaked Lennon out. And those two did not speak for the rest of John's life.
CHUNG: Now, Phil Spector has his defenders. People who have worked with him, just like Marky Ramone, say that perhaps he did have a different side, but they don't believe he's capable of doing something like this.
RIBOWSKY: Well, I don't know anybody who's hung out with him who would defend him on any grounds possible.
He's not -- the way I heard Marvin Mitchelson talk about him last night on your show was that he was almost like a Disney character, a sweet man, great to his children. He's not great to his children. He doesn't see his children. That's why he's living alone in that haunted house. He's not a kind man, a sweet man. He's never been, since his childhood.
And I'm sick of hearing these enablers speak of him as though he's just another guy who's been given a bum rap here. He's not been given a bum rap, if he's guilty. That's yet to be determined. But I'm not surprised at all.
CHUNG: You wanted to ask Marky Ramone a question.
RIBOWSKY: I just wanted to ask him. He made it seem almost as though they were having a picnic with Spector.
Didn't he lock you guys into his house and didn't let you leave for days at a time?
RAMONE: Yes.
The thing with that was, was that he had a little bit too much to drink. And we all had a few. And he wanted us to hear the progress of the album "End of the Century." But, at one point, it was getting to a 10-, 12-, 14-hour day, and we did want to leave. He did lock us into the house. But that's the eccentric way of Phil, so we put up with it. And then, after that, we were relieved to leave. We thought it just came with the package.
CHUNG: I thank you so much, Marky Ramone in Warsaw.
RAMONE: Thanks a lot.
CHUNG: And Mark Ribowsky, we thank you as well.
RIBOWSKY: Thank you.
CHUNG: Next: Why is an icon of hip-hop trying to keep a lid on a popular soft drink?
Stay with us.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
CHUNG: News from the U.S. Olympic Committee tops tonight's "Snapshot."
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
CHUNG (voice-over): U.S. Olympic Committee, you've got mail and a job opening. President Marty Mankamyer e-mailed her resignation today after unrelenting friction and ethics charges.
Hotel doyenne Leona Helmsley says she's outraged over a judgment of more than $11 million against her in a gay bias suit. A hotel manager accused her of firing him for being homosexual. The jury sided with him.
Hip-hop icon Russell Simmons is planning a boycott of Pepsi. Simmons is furious that the soft drink giant featured foul mouth Ozzy Osbourne in a Super Bowl commercial just months after dropping rapper Ludacris because of his vulgarity.
Madonna wants the London tabloids to stop reporting she's pregnant. The pop diva insists the only thing she is expecting is a new CD, due in April.
There's an old saying: Politics ain't bean bag. Maybe so, but a Southern California politician faces charges of using another politician as a punching bag. Video caught the ousted mayor of South Gate hitting a city council member in the head at a meeting Monday night.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
ANNOUNCER: Still ahead: our "Person of the Day" the whole world is watching.
CONNIE CHUNG TONIGHT continues in a moment.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
CHUNG: Tonight: an easy call, who should be our "Person of the Day." When Secretary of State Colin Powell, a lifelong military man who is now the top diplomat in the U.S., went before the United Nations Security Council this morning, he was delivering, arguably, the most important speech of his life. The whole world was watching.
Speaking to the diplomats gathered in New York and to the worldwide audience beyond, Powell assumed the burden of proof to convince the world that Iraq has defied demands to disarm. Once described as a dove in the Bush administration, Powell today spoke in hawkish tones. At one point, he challenged Iraqi officials to -- quote -- "answer me, answer me" about missing documents.
This echoed another historic U.N. moment. Four decades ago, U.N. Ambassador Adlai Stevenson prodded his Soviet counterpart to answer a question during the Cuban Missile Crisis.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
ADLAI STEVENSON, U.S. AMBASSADOR TO THE U.N.: I'm prepared to wait for my answer until hell freezes over, if that's your decision.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
CHUNG: That crisis ended peacefully. Diplomatic discussions about Iraq are continuing.
For his speech today and how it might change the course of history, Secretary of State Colin Powell is our "Person of the Day."
And tomorrow: Mr. hip-hop, Russell Simmons. He wants you to stop drinking Pepsi. And he's organizing a boycott against the soft drink giant. He'll tell us why.
And coming up next on "LARRY KING LIVE": National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice.
Thank you so much for joining us. And for all of us at CNN, good night and we'll see you tomorrow.
TO ORDER A VIDEO OF THIS TRANSCRIPT, PLEASE CALL 800-CNN-NEWS OR USE OUR SECURE ONLINE ORDER FORM LOCATED AT www.fdch.com
Warned of a Danger to Shuttles 10 Years Ago?>
|
