Return to Transcripts main page
CNN Live Today
Analysis of Capture of Eric Rudolph
Aired June 02, 2003 - 10:05 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.
LEON HARRIS, CNN ANCHOR: Rudolph is facing charges in four bombings in the late 1990s.
The July 27, 1996 bombing at Atlanta's Centennial Olympic Park right across the street from this building, I should say. One woman died and hundreds of others were wounded in that incident.
Next was the January 16, 1997 bombing at a clinic, where abortions are performed in a suburban Atlanta office building. An hour later, a second bomb at that site exploded, and that one apparently was timed to detonate when law enforcement and emergency personnel were there on the scene to help out. Seven people were wounded in that case.
Then a month later, on February 21, four people were wounded at a bombing at a lesbian nightclub in northeast Atlanta. Investigators also found there a second bomb, but they found that one before it exploded.
And then a year later, on January 29, 1998, a bomb went off at a Birmingham, Alabama, clinic, where abortions are performed. There, an off-duty police officer was killed and a nurse severely injured.
Let's take a look now at the legal case against Eric Rudolph, at least what we know of it. And for some expertise on that, we turn now to our legal analyst, Jeffrey Toobin, at his post in New York.
Good morning -- Jeff.
JEFFREY TOOBIN, CNN LEGAL ANALYST: Hi, Leon.
HARRIS: All right, can you lay out for us what we know about the case that the federal government may have right now against Eric Robert Rudolph?
TOOBIN: OK, just for starters for the - to start with the simplest aspect of it, let's talk about what's happening today. Today it's what's called a removal hearing, sometimes called an identity hearing. And it really is a fairly straightforward occasion. All that is established in court today is that the Eric Rudolph who is in court is the same person who was the Eric Rudolph named in these criminal charges.
Usually, defense attorneys simply waive any sort of hearing. They don't force the government to prove that it's the same person. Given that this is based on fingerprint evidence, I wouldn't be surprised if there was a waiver here as well. It has nothing to do with proving that Eric Rudolph is guilty of any crime. It's simply to establish his identity. Usually, that's more or less a formality and it doesn't take very long.
What's important that we learned today is that the attorney general, given a clear choice between trying the case in Atlanta first and trying the case in Alabama, went with Alabama, arguing that it was a much simpler case -- you had one bombing versus four bombs in three different locations -- going for what the government must think is a simple, straightforward win first, rather than go through what is sure to be a very complex trial where you are in Atlanta.
HARRIS: Does that surprise you at all?
TOOBIN: You know, it doesn't. I have to say I don't know the relative strength of the evidence in the cases. You know, these cases are very old by now. Evidence never gets better with time. Witnesses' memories fade, they die, they disappear. Evidence can get lost over time. It certainly is standard law enforcement technique to go with the simpler case first. You always want to get a win first.
HARRIS: Yes.
TOOBIN: And a single bombing in Alabama does seem to be probably a likelier victory and a simpler case than three different locations in Atlanta.
HARRIS: Now, speaking of witnesses, as I understand it, I believe the Birmingham case is the only case where witnesses have actually been mentioned, where there actually have been someone who actually was there at the scene or near the scene actually see someone that may have been Eric Robert Rudolph...
(CROSSTALK)
TOOBIN: And that is a very difficult thing. I mean, remember -- imagine putting someone on the witness stand today, asking them to remember what is almost certainly a passing glance of someone five, six, seven years ago.
HARRIS: Yes.
TOOBIN: This is really difficult stuff. You don't want to build a case entirely around a visual ID, when you have forensic evidence, fingerprints, purchase records. That is obviously good to have some sort of eyewitness identification, but it is far from enough to build a difficult case around.
HARRIS: Do you think that they've got already their case and their plan for executing it already mapped out? Because I'm thinking this is a big difference between this case and, say, the Washington, D.C.-area sniper cases. That one happened, and they actually caught these perpetrators and the people and they are accusing of those crimes relatively in a short period of time. Here, they've had five years or so now to identify who it is they were looking for, and also to amass any evidence and to gather witnesses and what-not. How do you see that playing out? TOOBIN: Well, I'm certain that they are somewhat prepared. But, you know, I used to be an assistant U.S. attorney. Those people are busy. They have not been sitting around for five years waiting for this guy to get caught, you know, ready to spring into action. There are a lot of dusty files being recovered. They are searching for evidence.
I'm sure they will be ready when the time comes, but this is going to be quite a challenge for the prosecutors, you know, to get back up to speed. You know, there's a lot of turnover in these offices. I'm sure some of the FBI agents who were involved in the original inquiry, some of the prosecutors who did some of the original work have gone. It's going to be a challenge. It's not anything that the U.S. attorney can't do or hasn't done before. But this is an unusual situation to have an arrest so long after the crimes took place.
HARRIS: All right, well, we'll check and see how things play out down the road. Thanks, Jeffrey.
TOOBIN: All right.
HARRIS: Jeffrey Toobin in New York.
TO ORDER A VIDEO OF THIS TRANSCRIPT, PLEASE CALL 800-CNN-NEWS OR USE OUR SECURE ONLINE ORDER FORM LOCATED AT www.fdch.com.
Aired June 2, 2003 - 10:05 ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
LEON HARRIS, CNN ANCHOR: Rudolph is facing charges in four bombings in the late 1990s.
The July 27, 1996 bombing at Atlanta's Centennial Olympic Park right across the street from this building, I should say. One woman died and hundreds of others were wounded in that incident.
Next was the January 16, 1997 bombing at a clinic, where abortions are performed in a suburban Atlanta office building. An hour later, a second bomb at that site exploded, and that one apparently was timed to detonate when law enforcement and emergency personnel were there on the scene to help out. Seven people were wounded in that case.
Then a month later, on February 21, four people were wounded at a bombing at a lesbian nightclub in northeast Atlanta. Investigators also found there a second bomb, but they found that one before it exploded.
And then a year later, on January 29, 1998, a bomb went off at a Birmingham, Alabama, clinic, where abortions are performed. There, an off-duty police officer was killed and a nurse severely injured.
Let's take a look now at the legal case against Eric Rudolph, at least what we know of it. And for some expertise on that, we turn now to our legal analyst, Jeffrey Toobin, at his post in New York.
Good morning -- Jeff.
JEFFREY TOOBIN, CNN LEGAL ANALYST: Hi, Leon.
HARRIS: All right, can you lay out for us what we know about the case that the federal government may have right now against Eric Robert Rudolph?
TOOBIN: OK, just for starters for the - to start with the simplest aspect of it, let's talk about what's happening today. Today it's what's called a removal hearing, sometimes called an identity hearing. And it really is a fairly straightforward occasion. All that is established in court today is that the Eric Rudolph who is in court is the same person who was the Eric Rudolph named in these criminal charges.
Usually, defense attorneys simply waive any sort of hearing. They don't force the government to prove that it's the same person. Given that this is based on fingerprint evidence, I wouldn't be surprised if there was a waiver here as well. It has nothing to do with proving that Eric Rudolph is guilty of any crime. It's simply to establish his identity. Usually, that's more or less a formality and it doesn't take very long.
What's important that we learned today is that the attorney general, given a clear choice between trying the case in Atlanta first and trying the case in Alabama, went with Alabama, arguing that it was a much simpler case -- you had one bombing versus four bombs in three different locations -- going for what the government must think is a simple, straightforward win first, rather than go through what is sure to be a very complex trial where you are in Atlanta.
HARRIS: Does that surprise you at all?
TOOBIN: You know, it doesn't. I have to say I don't know the relative strength of the evidence in the cases. You know, these cases are very old by now. Evidence never gets better with time. Witnesses' memories fade, they die, they disappear. Evidence can get lost over time. It certainly is standard law enforcement technique to go with the simpler case first. You always want to get a win first.
HARRIS: Yes.
TOOBIN: And a single bombing in Alabama does seem to be probably a likelier victory and a simpler case than three different locations in Atlanta.
HARRIS: Now, speaking of witnesses, as I understand it, I believe the Birmingham case is the only case where witnesses have actually been mentioned, where there actually have been someone who actually was there at the scene or near the scene actually see someone that may have been Eric Robert Rudolph...
(CROSSTALK)
TOOBIN: And that is a very difficult thing. I mean, remember -- imagine putting someone on the witness stand today, asking them to remember what is almost certainly a passing glance of someone five, six, seven years ago.
HARRIS: Yes.
TOOBIN: This is really difficult stuff. You don't want to build a case entirely around a visual ID, when you have forensic evidence, fingerprints, purchase records. That is obviously good to have some sort of eyewitness identification, but it is far from enough to build a difficult case around.
HARRIS: Do you think that they've got already their case and their plan for executing it already mapped out? Because I'm thinking this is a big difference between this case and, say, the Washington, D.C.-area sniper cases. That one happened, and they actually caught these perpetrators and the people and they are accusing of those crimes relatively in a short period of time. Here, they've had five years or so now to identify who it is they were looking for, and also to amass any evidence and to gather witnesses and what-not. How do you see that playing out? TOOBIN: Well, I'm certain that they are somewhat prepared. But, you know, I used to be an assistant U.S. attorney. Those people are busy. They have not been sitting around for five years waiting for this guy to get caught, you know, ready to spring into action. There are a lot of dusty files being recovered. They are searching for evidence.
I'm sure they will be ready when the time comes, but this is going to be quite a challenge for the prosecutors, you know, to get back up to speed. You know, there's a lot of turnover in these offices. I'm sure some of the FBI agents who were involved in the original inquiry, some of the prosecutors who did some of the original work have gone. It's going to be a challenge. It's not anything that the U.S. attorney can't do or hasn't done before. But this is an unusual situation to have an arrest so long after the crimes took place.
HARRIS: All right, well, we'll check and see how things play out down the road. Thanks, Jeffrey.
TOOBIN: All right.
HARRIS: Jeffrey Toobin in New York.
TO ORDER A VIDEO OF THIS TRANSCRIPT, PLEASE CALL 800-CNN-NEWS OR USE OUR SECURE ONLINE ORDER FORM LOCATED AT www.fdch.com.
