Return to Transcripts main page
CNN Live Today
BTK Trial; Supreme Court Hearings
Aired June 27, 2005 - 10:00 ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
BETTY NGUYEN, CNN ANCHOR: Live looks right now outside the Supreme Court in Washington and inside a Wichita, Kansas, court room. Today is the final day for rulings in this term of the Supreme Court. There is also speculation a justice may retire. And in Kansas, Dennis Rader, you see him right there on the screen, is scheduled to go on trial in the BTK killings.
"Now in the News." An autopsy will be performed today on the 14- year-old girl killed by a shark off Florida's Gulf Coast this weekend. The beach near Destin has reopened but residents and tourists are sticking close to shore.
And inside this hour, a man who tried to rescue the girl reveals his harrowing experience with what he calls the most aggressive shark he has ever seen.
Within the past hour, a U.S. military official has confirm that both crew members aboard an Army helicopter were killed this morning when it crashed northwest of Baghdad. The Apache helicopter went down near a central Iraqi town of Tashi (ph). The cause of this crash, it is still under investigation.
Just over an hour from now, German Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder is set to meet with President Bush at the White House. It is the second meeting between the men in five months. The war on terrorism and international aid to Africa are expected to top today's agenda.
Gas prices, they are on the rise and analysts say you could see more increases at the pump. The Lundberg Survey found prices jumped eight cents over the last two weeks. (INAUDIBLE) Lundberg says the biggest reason was the cost of crude oil. That price set an all-time high on Friday.
And now cnn.com is offering a whole new way to get the headlines. All you have to do is log on to our Web site and click on "watch" to check out the most popular stories. Everything from politics and sports to entertainment and it's free on cnn.com.
Well, good morning. I'm Betty Nguyen in for Daryn Kagan today.
We want to get to a big court story that we're following. The BTK case. Dennis Rader is in court at this hour in Wichita, Kansas. You see him right there on the screen. He is accused of killing 10 people between 1974 and 1991. CNN's Jonathan Freed is covering the trial and joins us now outside the courtroom.
Jonathan, what should we expect today? JONATHAN FREED, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Betty, I'm standing outside the Sedgwick courthouse and I'm watching the live feed of what is going on in the courtroom right now. I'm looking at Judge Greg Waller, who was presiding over what was supposed to be, technically anyway, the start of the jury trial for Dennis Rader accused of 10 counts of first-degree murder from 1974 to 1991. But about 30 seconds into this hearing today, his chief counsel was on his feet saying that Dennis Rader was waiving his right to a jury trial, Betty, and that he was pleading guilty to all 10 counts.
Now if we listen in, what we're going to hear now is Judge Greg Waller talking to the defendant, Dennis Rader, and he is going to ask him to explain why he feels that he is guilty on each of these 10 counts. That's what we have been told to expect if this would indeed be the outcome today.
Let's listen now.
JUDGE GREGORY WALLER: Asphyxiation, inflicting injuries from which the said Joseph Otero did die on or about January 15, 1974.
Sir, do you understand you're charged with murder in the first degree, class A felony, in count one?
DENNIS RADER: Yes, sir.
WALLER: In count number two it is claimed that on or about the 15th day of January, 1974, in Sedgwick County, Kansas, that you did then and there unlawfully kill a human being, that being Julie Otero, maliciously, willfully, deliberately, and with premeditation by strangulation, inflicting injuries from which the said Julie Otero did die on or about January 15,1974.
Do you understand that you are charged with murder in the first degree, a class A felony, in count two?
RADER: Yes, your honor.
WALLER: In count three, it is claimed on or about the 15th day of January, 1974, in Sedgwick County, Kansas, that you did then and there unlawfully kill a human being, that being Josephine Otero, maliciously, willfully, deliberately, and with premeditation by strangulation, inflicting injuries from which the said Josephine Otero did die on or about January 15, 1974.
RADER: Yes, your honor.
WALLER: You understand you are charged with first degree murder, a class A felony. in count three?
RADER: Yes, sir.
WALLER: In count four it's claimed on or about that same day in 1974 in Sedgwick County, Kansas, that you did then and there unlawfully kill a human being, that being Joseph Otero Jr., maliciously, willfully, deliberately, and with premeditation by strangulation and/or affixation, inflicting injuries from which the said Joseph Otero Jr. did die on or about January 15,1974.
Sir, do you understand that you're charged with murder in the first degree, a class A felony, in count four?
RADER: Yes, sir.
WALLER: In count five it is claimed on or about the 4th day of April, 1974, in Sedgwick County, Kansas, that you did then and there unlawfully kill a human being, that being Kathryn Bright, maliciously, willfully, deliberately, and with premeditation by strangulation and stabbing, inflicting injuries from which the said Kathryn Bright did die on April 4,1974.
Do you understand that you're charged with murder in the first degree, a class A felony. in count five?
RADER: Yes, your honor.
WALLER: In count number six, sir, it is claimed that on or about the 17th day of March, 1977, in the county of Sedgwick, state of Kansas, that you did then and there unlawfully kill a human being, that being Shirley Vian, maliciously, willfully, deliberately, and with premeditation by strangulation, inflicting injuries from which the said Shirley Vian did die on March 17,1977.
Do you understand that you are charged with murder in the first degree, a class A felony. in count number six?
RADER: Yes, your honor.
WALLER: In count seven it's claimed that on or about the 8th day of December, 1977, in the county of Sedgwick, state of Kansas, that you did then and there unlawfully kill a human being, that being Nancy Fox, maliciously, willfully, deliberately, and with premeditation by strangulation, inflicting injuries from which the said Nancy Fox did die on December 8,1977.
Sir, do you understand that you're charged with murder in the first degree in count seven?
RADER: Yes, your honor.
WALLER: In count number eight, it is claimed that on or about the 27th day of April, 1985, to the 28th of April, 1985, in the county of Sedgwick, state of Kansas, that you did then and there unlawfully kill a human being, that being Marine Hedge, maliciously, willfully, deliberately, and with premeditation by strangulation, inflicting injuries from which the said Marine Hedge did die on April 27,1985.
Do you understand that you're charged with murder if the first degree, a class A felony, in count eight?
RADER: Yes, sir.
WALLER: Sir, in count number nine, it is claimed that on or about the 16th day of September, 1986, in the county of Sedgwick, state of Kansas, that you did then and there unlawfully kill a human being, that being Vicki Wegerle, maliciously, willfully, deliberately, and with premeditation by strangulation, inflicting injuries from which the said Vicki Wegerle did die on September 16,1986.
Do you understand that you are charged with murder in the first degree, a class A felony, in count nine?
RADER: Yes, your honor.
WALLER: In count number 10, it is claimed that on . . .
NGUYEN: All right. You have been listening to a guilty plea by Dennis Rader, the 60-year-old man who is accused of being the BTK killer, accused of killing 10 people in the Wichita area between 1974 and 1991. We'll continue to monitor this and bring you the latest developments.
We have some big cases that we want to talk about this morning involving the Supreme Court. The first up, the 10 Commandments. The Supreme Court has ruled that the 10 Commandment displays are not allowed in courthouses. Now this is a ruling that has a lot of people's eyes on it, a lot of people's ears perked about it. Let's go to our legal analyst Kendall Coffey to talk about exactly what this means.
Actually, we're going to shift that and we're going to go to CNN's Kimberly Osias to talk a little bit more about the rulings.
Kimberly.
KIMBERLY OSIAS, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Hello, Betty.
Well, obviously, this has been a much anticipated decision. Probably the most anticipated one of this session. In fact, the ruling was five to four in favor of the ACLU, and that swing vote came from Justice O'Connor.
This is the first time that the high court has really dealt with the issue of the 10 Commandments since 1980 when it ruled that the 10 Commandments could not be displayed in public schools. And for those that have been following the inner workings of the court, there are a pair of cases, one out of Kentucky and one out of Texas involving the display of the 10 Commandments on public grounds. One outside on a large granite monument saying, I am the Lord thy God in very large lettering. We have yet to hear a ruling on that one, on the Texas case.
But on that Kentucky case, we have heard a ruling in favor of the ACLU. Again, that five to four vote. Those are two inside the courthouse the display of the ten commandments. So that's what we know right now.
We also heard that the high court will not hear the case regarding reporters and their rights to keep those sources private. This relates back to some CIA leaks regarding a source (INAUDIBLE) case. So what will happen now remains to be seen. It will then go to some lower courts. Those are two big decisions that we have heard.
We are still waiting to hear about Internet file sharing, the Grokster case. We are also waiting to hear about the power in the reach of domestic restraining orders. That is a case out of Colorado regarding a mother and her three little girls. Three little girls that were shot and killed by her estranged husband. But all of this may well be eclipsed if we get an announcement or a ruling from the bench, a decision from the bench, that the chief justice will, in fact, step down. We caught up with him earlier this morning in his Arlington town home. He was standing more upright than he has in the past, although he has been using a cane. In fact, he acknowledged the media there, waved to reporters and even said good morning.
Betty.
NGUYEN: Very interesting.
And we'll stay tuned to see if there is a retirement announced today.
Kimberly Osias, thanks for that.
But we do want to go back to this 10 Commandments ruling. And for that we are going to bring in legal analyst Kendall Coffey to talk about this.
Kendall, are you surprised at all about it?
KENDALL COFFEY, FMR. U.S. ATTORNEY: Not very surprised about the Kentucky decision. Because basically they were following a long standing precedent that said, if you put the 10 Commandments up inside the wall of a classroom, if you display it prominently in another kind of public building, that can be seen as advocacy for a religious viewpoint, which violates the First Amendment.
I think the decision that's going to be a much more intriguing one is the Texas decision because there, there's also a 10 Commandment but it's not put so much in a prominent display. And since so many of these cases, Betty, it's location, location, location. It's not per say illegal at all to present the 10 Commandments if it's not being seen as something that is pushing someone else's religion ahead of the religious viewpoints of someone else.
NGUYEN: You know what I find quite interesting, Kendall, is, isn't there a piece of art work inside the Supreme Court that displays something to the affect of the 10 Commandments?
COFFEY: Absolutely. On the ceiling is the 10 Commandments, or portions of it. And in some context its been seen as reflecting upon the history of the laws. The 10 Commandments are some of the earliest laws that are known to civilization. So, so much of it, and I think it's got to be very frustrating for the public to understand what may seem like the hair splitting about context, about location, even about when these kind of displays are presented. We've been through it with religious displays over the holidays. We're now seeing it in the context of the 10 Commandments. And, once again, you're seeing a closely, closely divided court, five to four, where time and time again Justice O'Connor is the swing vote.
NGUYEN: OK. And so this being the ruling, will that display have to come down?
COFFEY: Well, absolutely. That display has been held to violate the Constitution. What they then would look at, is there some other way that the 10 Commandments can be acknowledged which is not offensive to the First Amendment? And so we get back to more hair splitting. What if the 10 Commandments is put on a wall with a lot of other religious expressions reflecting diversity as opposed to views of the Judeo-Christian ethic?
So it's not over. We're going to continue to see these issues of the 10 Commandments where, when, how, really throughout our lifetimes. Again, let's watch the Texas case because that could very clearly go the other way and, if so, then we're going to have, in effect, a mixed verdict on one of the most important issues of the First Amendment in our country right now.
NGUYEN: Because unlike this one, that display is outside of a courthouse. So we'll see how that one plays out.
Kendall Coffey, thank you for that insight.
COFFEY: Thank you.
NGUYEN: We are following a number of cases today. You definitely want to stay tuned to CNN LIVE TODAY. One of those, the BTK trial which got under way today and we learn today that Dennis Rader has put in a guilty plea. We're going to discuss a lot about that.
Plus, also the potential retirement of a supreme court justice today. We're going to see if that's going to come to pass. So you'll want to stay tuned to CNN LIVE TODAY.
We'll be right back after this short break.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
NGUYEN: A lot of decisions being made today by the Supreme Court. Let's update you on what we know so far.
Today, the Supreme Court ruled five to four in favor of the ACLU in case dealing with Kentucky and whether it crossed the line of separation of church and state because it put up a plaque of the 10 Commandments inside a courthouse. Now the Supreme Court has struck down this display, saying that it should not be placed inside a courthouse.
We are waiting on a ruling dealing with a case out of Texas, whether the 10 Commandments can be displayed outside of the courthouse. The Supreme Court is going to be issuing that we hope sometime this morning. We're waiting on that.
We're also learning about another ruling by the Supreme Court dealing with journalists. Today, they denied the appeal of two high profile journalists who have refused to reveal their confidential sources. And those journalists include Judith Miller of "The New York Times" and Matthew Cooper of "Time" magazine. So that appeal has been denied. The Supreme Court will not hear that, which means they could be headed to jail.
We are also learning -- let's go to Kansas now, Wichita, Kansas, where the BTK trial is underway today. As soon as that got started -- you're looking at a live picture right now of Dennis Rader, the man accused of being the BTK killer. Well today Dennis Rader entered a guilty plea, saying that he is the one killing 10 people in the Wichita area between 1974 and 1991.
So a lot of developments today. We're going to be talking much more about all of this. You want to stay tuned to CNN LIVE TODAY for that.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
NGUYEN: Here's a live shot of the Supreme Court today where a lot of news is happening. We could learn today whether a supreme court justice will be headed into retirement. We don't know that as of yet. But there is some speculation, so we're waiting to hear if that indeed is the case. A lot of speculation surrounding Chief Justice William Rehnquist, if he will go into retirement or if he will not.
We are also learning to hear from the Supreme Court on an issue dealing with the 10 Commandments. We heard a little bit earlier that the Supreme Court has ruled in favor of the ACLU striking down the 10 Commandments being displayed in courthouses. Now this surrounded a Kentucky case where it was displayed inside the courthouse there. A five to four ruling, the Supreme Court says you cannot display the 10 Commandments inside a courthouse. We understand Justice Sandra Day O'Connor delivered the swing vote in that decision.
Another decision involving the 10 Commandments, and that is dealing with a Texas case. This one, this 10 Commandments, is being displayed outside of a courthouse. So we're waiting to hear whether the Supreme Court will allow that or if it will not as in the Kentucky case that we just learned about.
There's a lot of developments today. That is with the Supreme Court. Let's move over now to Wichita, Kansas, and the case of the BTK killer.
We have learn today that there has been a plea that was entered in court. Let's go now to CNN's Jonathan Freed to find out what happened.
Jonathan, how did it play out?
FREED: Good morning, Betty.
Well, 30 seconds into the start of this hearing here at the Sedgwick County Courthouse, Dennis Rader, the man accused of being the BTK Strangler, stood up in court and basically said, yes, I am the BTK Strangler. He plead guilty to all 10 counts of first degree murder. Murders spanning 1974 to 1991. We're talking about seven women, one man and two children.
And it played out in court over a several minute period of time, it's still going on right now, Judge Greg Waller, the district judge handling this case, wanted to make sure that Mr. Rader understood what he was doing and understood that he was waiving a significant amount of his rights. Let's listen to some of what happened just a few minutes ago.
WALLER: Enter a plea of guilty in this case. Is that correct?
RADER: Yes, sir.
WALLER: Mr. Rader, before I can accept your plea, there are certain things I need to find out from you and about you. I will do this by asking questions of you, sir. Questions which I will need for you to answer out loud. Should I ask you something which you do not understand, please ask me to explain it or repeat it. Should you need to speak to any of your attorneys, please ask me to let you do so and I will.
All right, sir?
RADER: Yes, sir.
WALLER: Mr. Rader, as I understand it, you are 60 years of age, having been born March 9,1945. Is that correct?
RADER: Yes, sir.
FREED: Now, Betty, Dennis Rader, by pleading guilty to 10 counts of first degree murder, effectively telling the community of Wichita, a community that was terrorized for three decades by the BTK Strangler, Dennis Rader saying to this community today, I am the BTK Strangler.
Now the district attorney's office has given us a time line as to what is likely going to happen next and when it's going to happen. Before the hearing is done today, we expect the judge to set a date for sentencing. And here in Sedgwick County, that is normally, roughly 30 days from now. From an event like this. During that time, Betty, there's going to be a sentencing investigation where the parole board and others here are going to crawl into Dennis Rader's background and provide the judge with all the information they can about what Dennis Rader's about, what he is accused of doing, and any prior history that he may have. Information the judge will need to start determining what kind of a sentence should be handed down.
Now as well, Mr. Rader is going to be able to make a -- enter a statement on his own and there will be room for written victim statements as well by the victims' family members. And then in about a month from now there would be a hearing in court where there will be testimony. Where you would expect to see some of the victims' family members making statements. One curious thing, though, all of this has to happen. But it is also our understanding that because of when these crimes occurred, Betty, that nine out of the 10 of these counts carries with it a mandatory life sentence with eligibility for parole only after a 15- year period. The tenth count that has to do with a murder that happened in 1991 is tied, because of what the prosecution is doing here, to a hard 40 initiative where Mr. Rader would be required to serve if he is found guilty of that one. And he has tried to plead guilty to that today but there was some give and take between him and the district attorney's office. And when she, Nola Foulston, comes down here to talk to us shortly, we are expecting to hear some clarification about that.
Let's listen to what's going on in court right now.
RADER: I had just some thinking on what I was going to do to either Mrs. Otero or Josephine, and basically I broke into the house -- or didn't break into the house but when they came out of the house I came in and confronted the family and then we went from there.
WALLER: All right. Had you planned this beforehand?
RADER: To some degree, yes. After I got in the house, I lost control of it. But it was, you know, in the back of my mind I had some ideas of what I was going to do. But I just -- I basically panicked that first day.
WALLER: Beforehand, did you know who was there in the house?
RADER: I thought Mrs. Otero and the two kids, the two younger kids were in the house. I didn't realize Mr. Otero was going to be there.
WALLER: All right. How did you get in to the house?
RADER: I came through the back door. I cut the phone lines. Waited at the back door. Had reservations about even going or just walking away but pretty soon the door opened and I was in.
WALLER: All right. So the door opened. Was it opened for you or did . . .
RADER: I think one of the kids -- I think the -- Jr. -- or not Jr., yes, the younger, Joseph, opened the door. He probably let the dog out, because the dog was in the house at that time.
WALLER: All right. When you went in to the house, what happened then?
RADER: Well, I confronted the family, pulled a pistol to point at Mr. Otero and asked him to, you know, that I was there to basically -- I wanted -- wanted to get the car. I was hungry, food. I was wanted. And I asked him to lie down in the living room. And at that time I realized that wouldn't be a really good idea. So I finally -- the dog was a real problem, so I asked Mr. Otero, could get the dog out. So he had one of the kids put it out. And then I took him back to the bedroom.
WALLER: You took who back to the bedroom?
RADER: The family to the bedroom. The four members.
WALLER: All right. What happened then?
RADER: At that time I tied them up.
WALLER: While still holding them at gun point?
RADER: Well, in between tying, I guess.
WALLER: All right. After you tied them up, what did do you?
RADER: Well, they started complaining about being tied up. And I re-loosened the bonds a couple of times. I tried to make Mr. Otero as comfortable as I could. Apparently he had a cracked rib from a car accident. So I had him put a pillow down for his head. Had he put a -- I think a parka or a coat underneath him. You know, they talked to me about, you know, giving the car and whatever money. I guess they didn't have very much money. And from there I realized that I was already -- I didn't have a mask on or anything. They already could ID me. And I made a decision to go ahead and put them down, I guess, or strangle them.
WALLER: All right. What did you do to Joseph Otero Senior?
RADER: Joseph Otero?
WALLER: Yes, Joseph Otero Senior. Mr. Otero, the father.
RADER: I put a plastic bag over his head and then some cords and tightened it.
WALLER: This was in the bedroom?
RADER: Yes, sir.
WALLER: Did he, in fact, suffocate and die as a result of this?
RADER: Not right away. No, sir, he didn't.
WALLER: What happened?
RADER: Well, after that I did Mrs. Otero. I had never strangled anyone before, so I really don't know how much pressure you had to put on a person or how long it would take but . . .
WALLER: Was she also tied up there in the bedroom?
RADER: Yes. Yes, both their hands and their feet were tied up. She was on the bed.
WALLER: Where were the children?
RADER: Well, Josephine was on the bed and Junior was on the floor at this time.
WALLER: So we're talking, first of all, about Joseph Otero. So you put the bag over his head and tied it. And he did not die right away. Can you tell me what happened in regards to Joseph Junior?
RADER: He moved over real quick like and I think tore a hole in the bag. And I could tell that he was having some problems there. That at that time the whole family just went -- they went and panicked on me. So I worked pretty quick. I . . .
WALLER: What did you -- you worked pretty quick. What did you do?
RADER: Well, I mean, I strangled Mrs. Otero and then she went out. She passed out. I thought she was dead. She passed out. And I strangled Josephine. She passed out. I thought she was dead. And then I went over and put bag on Jr.'s head, and then, if I remember right, Mrs. Otero came back. She came back and...
WALLER: Sir, let me ask you about Joseph Otero Sr. He had torn a hole in the bag.
RADER: I think I put either a cloth, or a T-shirt, or something over his head and then a bag.
WALLER: Did he subsequently die?
RADER: Yes. I mean, I didn't just stay there and watch him. I was moving around the room.
WALLER: All right, so you indicated you strangled Mrs. Otero after you had done this, is that correct?
RADER: Yes, I went back and strangled her again, and finally killed her at that time.
WALLER: So this is in regards to count two. You first of all put the bag over Joseph Otero's head, and he tore a hole in the bag, and then you went ahead. Did you strangle Mr. Otero then?
RADER: First of all, Mr. Otero was strangled, a bag put over his head and strangled. And then I thought he was going down. Then I went over and strangled Mrs. Otero, and I thought she was down. Then I strangled Josephine, thought she was down, and they I went over to Junior and put the bag on his head.
After that, Mrs. Otero woke back up, and you know, she was pretty upset, what's going on? So I came back and at that point in time I strangled her with a death strangle at that time.
WALLER: With your hands or what?
RADER: No, with a cork, with a rope. And then I think at that point in time, I redid Mr. Otero, put the bag over his head, went over and then -- before that, she asked me to save her son, so I actually had taken the bag off, and then I was really upset at that point in time. So basically, Mr. Otero was down. Mrs. Otero was down. I went ahead and took Junior, I put another back over his head and took him to the other bedroom at that time.
WALLER: What did you do then?
RADER: I put bag over his head, put a cloth over his head, a T- shirt and a bag, so he couldn't tear a hole in it. And he subsequently died from that. I then went back and Josephine had woke back up.
WALLER: What did you do then?
RADER: I took her to the basement and eventually hung her.
WALLER: You hung her in the basement?
RADER: Yes, sir.
WALLER: Did you do anything else at that time?
RADER: Yes, I had some sexual fantasies. That was after she was hung.
WALLER: All right. What did you do then?
RADER: I went through the house, kind of cleaned it up. It's called the right-hand rule; you go from room to room. I picked everything up. I think I took Mr. Otero's watch. I guess I took a radio. I had forgotten about that, but apparently I took radio.
WALLER: Why did you take these things?
RADER: I don't know. I have no idea.
WALLER: What happened then?
RADER: Got the keys to the car. In fact, I had the keys I think earlier before that, because I wanted to make sure I had a way of getting out of the house. I cleaned the house up a bit, made sure everything was packed up and left through the front door. I went over to their car, and then drove over to Dillon's and left the car there, and then eventually walked back to my car.
WALLER: All right. Sir, from what you have just said I take it that the facts you have told me apply to both counts -- all of counts one, two, three and four, is that correct?
RADER: Yes, sir.
WALLER: Now Mr. Rader...
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Your honor?
WALLER: Yes?
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: (INAUDIBLE), and that is initially I believe he indicated 1834 Edgemoor. The address was actually 803 Edgemoor.
WALLER: (INAUDIBLE). I don't believe the exact address is important.
All right, Mr. Rader, we will now turn to count five. In that count it is claimed that on or about the fourth day of April...
NGUYEN: All right, as we are listening to this, we're going to bring in CNN's Jonathan Freed to talk about what we just heard, very graphic accounts of what happened with the victims and Dennis Rader.
Jonathan, I think I was most surprised about the fact that he just calmly talked about what he did to the Otero family.
JONATHAN FREED, CNN CORRESPONDENT: What's going on right now, Betty, is you're right, we are hearing very graphic descriptions of what happened during the murders that he has now admitted to, and what has to happen now is first earlier we heard the judge making sure that Mr. Rader understood that he was pleading guilty to all of these 10 counts, and that Mr. Rader understood that he'll be waiving certain rights, and what the judge is doing now is basically making sure that there is a basis for these guilty pleas, because it is one thing for the defendant to plead guilty. It is another thing for the judge to satisfy himself that there's a reason that he should be found guilty of them. So the judge is actually talking to Mr. Rader now and asking him to detail what he did, why he believes, why Mr. Rader believes, that he is responsible for all of these murders -- Betty.
NGUYEN: We'll take you back now to the courtroom and listen to more of what Dennis Rader has to say.
WALLER: What did you do here in Sedgwick County?
RADER: Pardon?
WALLER: What did you do then here in Sedgwick County?
RADER: On this particular day...
WALLER: Yes.
RADER: I broke into the house and waited for her to come home.
WALLER: How did you break into the house?
RADER: Through the backdoor, on the east side.
WALLER: All right. And you waited for her to come home. Where did you wait?
RADER: In the house, probably close to the bedroom. I walked into the house and kind of figured out where I would be if they came through.
WALLER: All right. What happened then? RADER: She and Kevin Bright came in. I wasn't expecting him to be there, and come to find out I guess they were related. At the time I approached them and told them I was wanted in California, needed some car, basically the same thing that I told the Oteros, kind of eased them to make them feel better and proceeded. I think I had him tie her up first, and then I tied him up, or vice versa. I don't remember right now.
WALLER: Let me ask you. You indicated that you had some items to tie these people with. Did you bring these items, both to the Oteros and to this location?
RADER: The Oteros I did. I'm not really sure on the Brights. There was some -- there was some -- when (INAUDIBLE) working with the police, there was some controversy on that. Probably more likely I did. But if I had brought my stuff and used my stuff, Kevin would probably be dead today. I'm not bragging on that. It's just a matter of fact. The bonds I tied him with, he broke them, and maybe the same way with Kathryn. It got out of hand.
WALLER: All right. Now you indicated that you believed you had Kevin tie Kathryn up. Tell me what happened then.
RADER: OK. I moved -- well after. I really can't remember, judge, whether I had her tie him up or she tie him up. Anyway, I moved -- basically I moved her to another bedroom, and he was already secure there by the bed. I tied his feet to the bedpost so he couldn't run. I tied her in the other bedroom, and I came back to strangle him. And at that time we had a fight.
WALLER: Were you armed with a handgun at that time?
RADER: Yes, I had a handgun.
WALLER: What happened when you came back?
RADER: I actually had two handguns.
Well, I started to strangle him, either the barrent (ph) broke, or he broke his bonds, and he jumped up real quick like. I pulled my gun and quickly shot him and hit him in the head. He fell over. I could see the blood. And as far as I was concerned, you know, I thought he was down and was out. And then went and started to strangle Kathryn. And then we started fighting because bonds weren't very good, and so back and forth we fought.
WALLER: You and Kathryn?
RADER: Yes, we fought. And I got the best of her, and I thought she was going down, and then I could hear movement in the other room, so I went back and Kevin -- no, I thought she was going down. And I went back to the other bedroom where Kevin was at, and I tried to re- strangle him at that time, and he jumped up, and we fought, and he about at that time about shot me because he got the other pistol that was in my shoulder here. I had my magnum in my shoulder.
WALLER: Did you have it in a shoulder holster?
RADER: Yes, I had the magnum in the shoulder holster. The other one was a .22.
And we fought at that point in time, and I thought it was going to go off. I jammed the gun. I stuck my finger in there and jammed it. I think he thought that was the only gun I had, because once, I either bit his finger or hit him or something, got away and used the .22 and shot him one more time. And I thought he was down for good that time.
WALLER: All right, so you shot him a second time.
RADER: Yes, sir.
WALLER: What happened then?
RADER: I went back to finish the job on Kathryn. And she was fighting. And at that point in time, I'd been fighting her and I just -- and then I heard some -- I don't know whether I was basically losing control. The strangulation wasn't working on her and I used a knife on her.
WALLER: You say you used a knife on her. What did you do with the knife?
RADER: I stabbed her -- I either stabbed two or three times, either here or here. Maybe two back here and one here or maybe just two times back here.
WALLER: You pointed to your lower back and your...
RADER: Yes, underneath the ribs.
WALLER: Yes, underneath the ribs.
RADER: Underneath the ribs. Up under the ribs.
WALLER: So after you stabbed her, what happened?
RADER: Actually, I think at that point in time, well, it was total mess, because I didn't have control on it. She was bleeding. She went down. I think I went back to check on Kevin or at that -- basically same time, I heard him escape. It could be one of the two. But all of a sudden, the front door of the house was open and he was gone. And -- or, I tell you what I thought, I thought the police were coming at that time. I heard the door open, I thought, you know, that's it. And I stepped out there. And he -- I could see him running down the street. So I quickly cleaned up everything that I could and left.
WALLER: All right, now, Mr. Rader, you indicated that at the Oteros, you did you not have mask on. Did you have a mask on at the Brights?
RADER: No. No, I didn't. WALLER: All right. So what happened then?
RADER: I tried -- I already had the keys to the cars. And I thought I had the right key to the right car. I ran out to their car and I think it was a pickup out there and I tried it, it didn't work. And at that point in time, I was -- he was gone, running down the street. I thought, yes, I'm in trouble. So I tried, it didn't work, so I just took off and ran and went down -- went east and then worked back toward the WSU campus where my car was parked.
WALLER: All right. So you had parked your car at the Wichita State University campus?
RADER: Yes, the campus, uh huh.
WALLER: How far away were -- was the Brights' residence?
RADER: Oh, I parked -- was that 13th? And they're -- let's see, they were on 13th. What is it, 17th? Yes. I just about was one block south of 17th, where the car was. There's a park there. I parked at the park, and I walked then to 13th to the Brights residence. So basically ran back.
WALLER: All right. So you were able to get to your car and get away.
RADER: Yes, sir.
WALLER: Now, let's turn to count number six. In that count, they claim on March 17, 1977, in Cedric County, Kansas, that you unlawfully killed Shirley Vian maliciously, willfully, deliberately, and with premediation, by strangulation, inflicting injuries from which she die on March 17, 1977. Can you tell me what you did on that day?
RADER: Yes, before -- Vian was a -- actually, on that one, she was completely random. There was actually someone across from Dillon's (ph) was a potential target. It was called Project Green, I think. I had project numbers assigned to it. And that particular day, I drove to Dillon's and parked in the parking lot and watched this particular residence and then got out of the car and walked over to the -- it's probably in the police report, the address. I don't remember the address now. Knocked, nobody answered it.
So I was all keyed up, so I just started going through the neighborhood. I had been through the neighborhood before. I kind of knew a little of the layout of the neighborhood. I'd been through the back alleys and knew where certain people lived. While I was walking down Hydraulic, I met a young boy and asked him if he could I.D. some pictures. Kind was a russ (ph) I guess, a ruse, as you call it. And I had to feel it out and saw where he went. I went to another address, knocked on the door. Nobody opened the door. So I just noticed where he went and went to that house. And we went from there.
WALLER: Now you call these projects. Were these sexual fantasies also? RADER: Potential hits. In my world, that's what I called them. They were called projects, hits.
WALLER: And why did you have these potential hits? Was this to gratify some sexual interest or...
RADER: Yes, sir. I had a lot of them. So if just -- if one didn't work out, I just moved to another one.
WALLER: So, as I am to understand it, then, on the 17th of March, 1977, you saw this little boy go into a residence and you tried another residence...
RADER: Sir?
WALLER: You tried another residence and no one was there...
RADER: Right, right.
WALLER: ... so you went to the residence where the little boy was?
RADER: Right. And I watched where he went.
WALLER: What happened then?
RADER: After I tried this one residence, nobody came to the door, I went to this house where he had went in, knocked on the door. And told them I was private detective, showed them a picture that I just showed the boy and asked if they could I.D. the picture. And at that the time, I had the gun here and I just kind of forced myself in. I just walked in, just opened the door and walked in and then pulled a pistol.
WALLER: What gun, what pistol?
RADER: .357 magnum.
WALLER: So you had only one gun?
RADER: Yes, sir, uh huh.
WALLER: What happened then?
RADER: I told Mrs. Vian that I had a problem with sexual fantasies and I was going to tie her up and may that I might have to tie the kids up. And if she would cooperate with us -- cooperate with me at that time. We went back. She was extremely nervous. I think she even smoked a cigarette. And we went back to one of the back areas of the porch, explained that I had done this before. And I think she -- at that point in time, I think she was sick, because she had her night robe on. I think if I remember right, she had been sick. I think she came out of the bedroom when I went in the house.
So anyway, we went back to her bedroom. And I proceeded to tie the kids up and they started crying and got real upset, so I said, oh, this is not going work. So we moved them to the bathroom. She helped me. And Then I tied the door shut. We put toys and blankets and odds and ends in there for the kids, to make them as comfortable as we could. We tied the -- we tied one of the bathroom doors shut so they couldn't open it, and we shoved -- she went back to help me shove a bed up against the other bathroom door.
And then I proceeded to tie her up. She got sick and threw up. I got her a glass of water, comforted her a little bit and then I went ahead and tied her up and put a bag over her head and strangled her.
WALLER: All right. Was this a plastic bag also?
RADER: Yes, sir, I think it was. But I could be wrong on that. It was something -- I'm sure it was plastic bag, yes.
WALLER: And you say put bag over her head and strangled her. What did you strangle her with?
RADER: Well, actually I think on that I had tied her legs to the bed post and worked up with the rope all the way up. And then what I had left over, I looped over her neck.
WALLER: So you used this rope to strangle her.
RADER: Yes. I thing it's the same one that I tied her body with.
WALLER: What happened then?
RADER: Well, the kids were really banging on the door, hollering, screaming. And then the telephone rang. And they had talked about earlier that the neighbors were going to check on them, so I cleaned everything up real quick-like and got out of there, left and went into my car.
WALLER: Now, when you say you cleaned everything up...
RADER: Well, I mean, put my stuff -- I had a briefcase. Whatever I had laying around, ropes, tape, cords. I threw that in there. You know, whatever that I had that I brought in the house.
WALLER: That you brought that to the Bright residence, also?
RADER: There is some -- I think it was the basic stuff, but I don't remember bringing total stuff like I did to some of the others.
WALLER: Was this a kit that you had prepared?
RADER: Yes. I call them my hit kit.
WALLER: All right, sir. You left the Vian residence. And had you parked you parked your vehicle near there?
RADER: Yes, still in that same parking lot there at Dillon's, at Hydraulic and what is that? Berry? Lincoln? Lincoln, Lincoln. Lincoln and Hydraulic. WALLER: All right. In count seven, it is claimed that on the eighth day of December, 1977, in Cedric Country, Kansas, that you unlawfully killed a human being, that being Nancy Fox. Maliciously, willfully, deliberately, and with premeditation, by strangulation, inflicting injuries from which the said Nancy Fox did die on December 8, 1977. Can you tell me what you did on that day here in Cedric County?
RADER: Nancy Fox was another one of the projects. When I was trolling through the area, I noticed her go in the house one night. Sometimes I -- anyway, I put her down as a potential victim.
WALLER: Let me ask you one thing, Mr. Rader. You've used that term, that you were patrolling the area. What do you mean by that?
RADER: It's called stalking or trolling.
WALLER: So you were not working in any form or fashion?
RADER: Well, I know, if -- if you read much about serial killers, they go through what they call different phases. That's one of the phases they go through, is a trolling stage. Basically, you're looking for a victim at that time. And you could be trolling for months or years, but once you lock in on a certain person, you become stalking. And that might be several of them, but you really hone in on that person. They basically -- that's the victim, or at least that's what you want them to be.
No, I wasn't working, sir. This was off my hours.
WALLER: All right, so you basically identified Nancy Fox as one of your projects. What happened then?
RADER: At first she was spotted, and then I did a little homework. I dropped by once to check the mailbox to see what her name was. I found out where she worked.
NGUYEN: We'll break out of this for just a moment, because we have learned there is a split decision by the Supreme Court dealing with the 10 Commandments in that case in Texas, where the Ten Commandments are placed outside the state capital. Now an earlier ruling, the court ruled in favor of ACLU, saying that you can not place the Ten Commandments inside a courthouse. Well, this Texas case it is outside of a courthouse. And we're going try to get some more on this by going to legal analyst Kendall Coffey.
Explain to me about this ruling. It's a split decision, right, Kendall?
KENDALL COFFEY, CNN LEGAL ANALYST: Well, it's -- I think that's right, and again, it comes back to something that's so frustrating for the public. If it's the Ten Commandments, why are we splitting hairs over location? Why are we splitting hairs over context? And the answer is with any form of communication, sometimes the location, how prominently something is displayed, is absolutely essential. As you about talked earlier, the Supreme Court itself has a portion of the Ten Commandments in their own courtroom, but there it's seen as something that's reflecting part of the history of our laws, rather than an emphatic message about religion.
NGUYEN: All right, Kendall. We are going to go now to a live picture on the steps of the Supreme Court where Rob Schneck is speaking. He is with the National Clergy Council. Let's listen.
REV. ROB SCHNECK, PRESIDENT, NATL. CLERGY COUNCIL: It's just been reported that the justices have upheld the right to display the commandments on the grounds of the Texas statehouse, and we are thankful for that.
This is a victory for our acknowledgement of God, for religious liberty and for our Judeo-Christian heritage. This decision out of Texas may be a sign that the creeping hostility toward religious expression and religious people may be slowing down, or even reversing itself. Perhaps we have hit rock bottom at this point, and there is no place for us to go, but up when it comes to affirming the great contribution that the Ten Commandments have had in the formation of our culture and our civilization.
NGUYEN: Now we want to tell you right now that the Supreme Court has adjourned with no announcements of any of the justices resigning today. Of course we'll continue to follow this. But as of this moment, the court has adjourned, and there have been no announcements of any of the justices resigning today.
Now we're going to go back and listen.
SCHNECK: It is clear from the opinion of the justices that they are saying that all displays of the Ten Commandments are not a vital of the Constitution. They have upheld their own display of the Ten Commandments in their courthouse by referring to the frieze in the chamber itself, and we're looking at that now to get further analysis of it. You'll hear some legal commentary here in a moment. But it is clear that the court has upheld the public display of the Ten Commandments on the grounds of the Texas statehouse. That is the most important victory in this debate, because all over this country we have monuments that display the Ten Commandments in recognition of their invaluable contribution to the formation of a just, moral and ethical American civilization.
And I'll say this before you hear from one of the lawyers. This case underscores how absolutely critical future nominees will be to this court. We are grateful that the Lord preserved Chief Justice Rehnquist's strength so that he could participate in this matter. The chief holds strong convictions on the role of the Ten Commandments in American public life. He first aired those opinions when he dissented in the original Ten Commandments case, Stone versus...
NGUYEN: We've been listening to Rob Schneck with the National Clergy Council on this ruling by the Supreme Court today, a split ruling dealing with the Ten Commandments in this Texas case. We want to let you know that Chief Justice William Rehnquist did read that decision. And again, there have about no announcements of any retirements today. Let's get a little bit more on this case dealing with the Ten Commandments, because displaying the Ten Commandments on government property has been the subject of numerous court challenges. Now the U.S. Supreme Court has weighed in. Two cases in particular were before the high court, and CNN's Bruce Morton has the details.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
BRUCE MORTON, CNN CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): The Texas case involves this monument near the capitol, which lists the commandments with the words "I am the lord thy God" in large letters. The Kentucky case involves posting the Commandments, along with other historical documents in two courthouses, but the arguments were similar.
GREG ABBOTT, TEXAS ATTY. GEN.: We made clear to the court that the Ten commandments is of historical significance as a symbol of law in this country.
MATTHEW STAVER, ATTY. FOR KENTUCKY COUNTIES: The reason for all of this is because the Ten commandments have impacted American law and government.
MORTON: No, said the opponents. This is government endorsing religion.
WALLER: We're hopeful that the court will agree with every court below that on this record these counties had both an impermissible purpose and an impermissible affect of endorsing religion.
MORTON: Lawyers argued in a room decorated with a frieze of historical figures, including Moses and the Commandments. Justice Suder pointed that out. But also including Muhammad and Confucius. Comments from the justices: Kennedy, "There's this obsessive concern with any mention of religion that shows a hostility to religion." O'Connor: "If the legislature can open its sessions, which the public can attend with a prayer, why can't it do monuments? It is hard to draw this line where one is proper and the other isn't."
(voice-over): The public is clear: 56 percent told a CNN/"USA Today"/Gallup poll, they think a display of the commandments in their state capitol would be appropriate.
Bruce Morton, CNN, Washington.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
NGUYEN: All right, so there were are a bunch of decisions made today by the Supreme Court. Yet again, though, no announcement of any of the justices retiring. Let's recap what decisions have been made today. First up, the Ten Commandments. Two cases. In the first case dealing with Kentucky, the Supreme Court ruled in a 5-4 decision that Kentucky cannot display or anyone can not display the Ten Commandments inside a courthouse.
Also, in the other Ten Commandments case dealing with the state of Texas, where the Ten Commandments were displayed outside of a courthouse on the capitol grounds, that was a split decision which was read by Chief Justice William Rehnquist, in that you can display the Ten commandments outside a courthouse.
And another case that we've been following the Supreme Court did rule on today, in a unanimous decision dealing with file sharing. MGM won in this case, meaning that file-sharing services will be held liable if their users use that software to file swap illegally over the Internet, whether that's music or videos. So we're going to have much more on all of these decisions. You'll want to stay tuned. You're watching CNN LIVE TODAY.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
TO ORDER A VIDEO OF THIS TRANSCRIPT, PLEASE CALL 800-CNN-NEWS OR USE OUR SECURE ONLINE ORDER FORM LOCATED AT www.fdch.com
