Return to Transcripts main page

CNN Newsnight Aaron Brown

Jury Says No to Death Penalty for Andrea Yates; Operation Anaconda: Moving from Cave to Cave

Aired March 15, 2002 - 22:00   ET

THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.

THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
AARON BROWN, CNN ANCHOR: Thank you, Mr. King. Have a great weekend. Good evening again everyone. I honestly thought I was his main man. On paper, this may be the oddest mix of stories in any program I've ever done. The back of the book includes a celebrity wedding and a segment on opening that special bottle of wine. I like both of these.

The front of the book, however, is nothing but sorrow and what could be sadder than the Yates case, which blessedly came to an end today. From the beginning, I've been pretty clear with you on this, that for me the law is crazy, that it's much too narrow, that right or wrong can't possibly be the only relevant question. But that is the law and I have no doubt the jury fairly applied the law as written.

I've been struck by how many viewers believe Mrs. Yates should not have stood trial alone, that her husband bears some responsibility, and one of the most interesting notes of the day came from someone who suggested that if the killer had been male, the same set of mental problems but male, it wouldn't even have been close. He would have been convicted in a heartbeat and no one would have given much thought. I'm not all that certain that argument could be easily dismissed.

So we'll spend a lot of time on the Yates case tonight, but not all our time. It is still Friday and somewhere in the program there must be a smile or at the very least a small smirk. We begin with the Yates case. Gary Tuchman's been working it for us. He's in Houston again tonight. Gary the headline please.

GARY TUCHMAN, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Well, Aaron, convicted murderer Andrea Yates will not die by lethal injection. The same jury that convicted her has now decided against capital punishment.

BROWN: Gary, thank you, back to you at the top. The other major story of the week, of course, has been the ongoing violence in the Middle East. Sheila MacVicar again in Jerusalem for us. Sheila a headline.

SHEILA MACVICAR, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Good morning from Jerusalem, Aaron. President Bush's envoy General Zinni professes himself to be extremely positive after Day One of his meetings, but Israel has not yet completed its pullback and there was a major gun battle in Hebron. BROWN: Sheila, thank you. On to a different war this one in Afghanistan. Nic Robertson is in Gardez. Nic the headline from you tonight please.

NIC ROBERTSON, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Operation Anaconda is still ongoing, al Qaeda and Taliban elements on the run in the mountains, still engaging both U.S., Afghan and Canadian forces there in sporadic gun battles, bombs also still falling in that confrontation -- Aaron.

BROWN: Nic thank you, back with all of you shortly. Also coming up in the hour ahead, are some airport screeners taking advantage? We'll meet some women who say they're being harassed in the name of safety.

And then this segment is lighter than air. Liza's wedding as in Liza Minelli. This has become the event of the weekend, and writer Andy Borowitz is here. It is on his mind and he'll talk about that, as will the wine writers of the Wall Street Journal, Dotty Gaitter and John Brecher who came up with a brilliant idea a few years ago. It's still going strong, OTBN, Open That Bottle Night, the bottle you've been holding on to for too long. The stories that come with the wine are what makes this whole thing work and they'll be here to talk about it.

So there's a lot of ground to cover. We're glad you're here too. We'll trudge through the difficult stuff and get you to your weekend just in the nick of time.

We begin with Andrea Yates. By her lawyer's account, when the sentence was read today sparing her life, it was a struggle for his client to process what had just happened. He said he thinks she is relieved. "But Andrea" he said "is not a vocal person and she is highly medicated," a sick woman now, a very sick woman when she drowned her five children. Nobody on either side of the case would argue with that.

But as we've said before, the case turned on something else, whether Ms. Yates knew right from wrong and by that measure, a jury took less than four hours to convict her. They took even less time to spare her life. We begin with CNN's Gary Tuchman.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

TUCHMAN (voice over): The jury that convicted Andrea Yates of murder decided not to put her on death row.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: We, the jury because at least 10 jurors had a reasonable doubt as to the probability the defendant Andrea P.A. Yates would commit criminal acts of violence that would constitute a continuing threat to society, determined that the answer to Special Issue #1 is no, signed, Foreman of the Jury.

TUCHMAN: One of Andrea Yates' lawyers whispered thank you to jurors, who determined the woman who murdered her five children should receive a life sentence. Defense lawyers said Andrea Yates did not immediately understand the wording of the verdict, but after having it explained, was relieved.

Her husband Russell, who has supported her, smiled and nodded when he heard the verdict.

RUSSELL YATES: You know it could be worse. I mean if she had been given the death penalty but it wouldn't have been that much worse.

TUCHMAN: During their closing arguments, prosecutors showed jurors pictures of the five Yates children, but were not nearly as strident as they could have been in pursuing the death penalty.

KAYLYNN WILLIFORD, PROSECUTOR: Whatever you decide, the state will accept but it's in your hands.

TUCHMAN: The eight women and four men on the jury only took 35 minutes to make their sentencing decision. They left the court together under guard from Sheriff's deputies and were allowed to return home for the first time in four weeks.

JOE OWMBY, PROSECUTOR: I can not argue with their verdict, based on the evidence that was in this case.

TUCHMAN: Russell Yates was asked if he has ever been angry at his wife since the day of the killings.

YATES: Well the one thing that I'm, you know, I'm not happy with is the fact that she never told me that she'd had any thoughts of harming the children before. You know if she'd have said anything about that, we may have decided not to have any more children.

TUCHMAN: Yates and his wife's defense team still say her psychosis made it impossible for her to know what she did was wrong. Now that the trial is over and a gag order is lifted, prosecutors have publicly countered that.

WILLIFORD: Everyone's talked about trying to make this a woman's issue, a political issue, but the issue needs to be that there are five dead children and none of those children had an opportunity at life. None of those children chose to die. They all fought for their life, and they should be the focus and remembered appropriately.

YATES: They loved their mommy. They - I know they don't hold this against her. They know that she was sick and they know that she loved them.

TUCHMAN: Russell Yates visited his wife in jail after the verdict. The woman who will be 77 years old when she's eligible for parole was, according to her husband, in pretty good spirits.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

TUCHMAN (on camera): Legally this case is very unusual because the five victims have many family members and none of the family members supported the prosecution, but prosecutors won anyway. Now Andrea Yates spends tonight in the country jail here in Houston. Next week, she will be moved into the state prison system, following her official sentencing this Monday. Prison officials vow they will continue her medication for her mental illness. Aaron, back to you.

BROWN: I think I know the answer here, but did any of the jurors talk? Have we heard from any of them?

TUCHMAN: We attempted to talk to them, Aaron. They apparently, we have been told, have made a pact not to say anything until the judge gives her official sentencing this Monday, and by the way that official sentencing, no surprises there. It will be life with the possibility of parole after 40 years.

BROWN: Gary, thank you. Gary Tuchman in Houston. As we said, we have a fair amount on the case tonight. We'll talk with one of Ms. Yates' lawyers in a few moments. Also, our friend Ann Taylor Fleming (ph) has been thinking and writing about the case and Ann joins us a little bit later as well.

First, on to some of the other news of the day, in this case we're back in court, the U.S. versus John Walker Lindh. There's been no end to speculation about what kind of defense his lawyers would mount when his trial begins later this year, how they will explain their client's apparent decision to abandon his own country, the United States, and join the Taliban.

Today, we got a hint of the strategy and another view of John Walker Lindh. It comes by way of a defense motion seeking a complete record of his interrogation. Here's CNN's Susan Candiotti.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

CANDIOTTI (voice over): Defense attorneys for John Walker Lindh now claim they have proof their client never intended to harm any American, despite this key charge by the government.

JOHN ASHCROFT, ATTORNEY GENERAL: In the weeks after September 11th, the indictment charges that Walker Lindh remained with his Taliban fighting group. He remained despite having learned of the terrorist attacks on his homeland.

CANDIOTTI: But according to his lawyers, after his capture at this prison uprising in December, the California teen-turned-Taliban told U.S. interrogators a different story, that he "expressed disillusionment upon learning about the events of September 11th" and that "while Mr. Lindh did not not agree with the attacks, it was too late for him to leave his unit on the front lines for fear of death."

CANDIOTTI (on camera): Walker Lindh's lawyers argue this information was contained in the government's very first summary of its interrogation, but they point out that potentially exculpatory evidence was left out of another summary prepared by the military in January, based they say on the very same interrogation.

CANDIOTTI (voice over): Some lawyers say the new information could help Walker Lindh. JAYNE WEINTRAUB, DEFENSE ATTORNEY: He was forced and under duress at a certain point and he couldn't get out. He was confused and couldn't get out. He tried and couldn't get out. That's what they need to thread their theory of defense with.

CANDIOTTI: The government charges Walker Lindh conspired to kill Americans overseas by helping the Taliban and that he trained with and supported Osama bin Laden's al Qaeda forces. His lawyers are demanding more specifics about exactly who Walker Lindh conspired with to kill American citizens as charged. The government has two weeks to respond to the latest defense motions. For now, they're not talking. Susan Candiotti, CNN, Washington.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

BROWN: In eastern Afghanistan, Operation Anaconda has turned into a very dicey door-to-door operation, troops going cave-to-cave looking for enemy holdouts, booby traps, bit of intelligence that might tell them just how successful the battle has been. They're finding a little bit of everything, so we go back to CNN's Nic Robertson who has the latest from Gardez. Nic good morning in your case.

ROBERTSON: It is good morning, Aaron, and already this morning surveillance aircraft flying overhead, and we've also heard helicopters flying en route to the battlefront in Operation Anaconda. It is a battle but it also really is still in the mop up. It is in the mop up phase here.

We talked with Afghan commanders late yesterday. They told us that they've been to some caves around the Shah-e-Kot Valley area, the focus of Operation Anaconda. They say they found some dead bodies of Taliban or al Qaeda fighters, but they say they have managed to seal some of those caves but they don't know how many Taliban or Afghan fighters escaped.

What's been happening through the day or through the last few days is that throughout those days, Afghan -- Taliban and al Qaeda fighters have been engaging, both U.S., Afghan, and Canadian forces who are still in the area, maintaining a perimeter, been engaging them in small firefights. One of those firefights lasted for about 90 minutes. No one was injured.

But it is a mop up phase but the numbers of Taliban and al Qaeda on the run aren't really known at this time, but they are still kind of fighting their way out of the mountains. Albeit the battle still continues, people are beginning to move back into that area. Local farmers are beginning to go home, some of them who were just living just a mile or so from where the bombs were falling, an most local people we talk to now really feel that the offensive against the area is over and it is safe to come home -- Aaron.

BROWN: Do we have any better idea today how many of the enemy were killed, and how many may have frankly escaped?

ROBERTSON: No, we don't. Asking both U.S. Special Forces commanders on the ground we've met, they don't have specific answers. Asking Taliban - I'm sorry, asking Afghan fighters who were fighting with the coalition forces, they say they don't have specific numbers. We have seen ourselves just a handful of dead Taliban or al Qaeda fighters. We haven't been able to get to the cave systems. They are beyond our reach. They are still in the battle zone of Operation Anaconda and that's somewhere journalists are not allowed to get into at this time.

But Afghan commanders say they don't have those figures and they've been to the caves. They've seen dead Taliban and al Qaeda fighters there. We also spoke to some local residents who say they've seen people escaping the bombing. One man told us he'd watched through field glasses bombings on the mountains and seen Taliban or al Qaeda members escaping that area. No one has an accurate number how many of them got away -- Aaron.

BROWN: Nic, thank you. Nic Robertson in Afghanistan for us, thank you very much. The Mid East now, where ears seem to be ringing from all that frank and candid discussion that's been going on. That's diplomatic speech for tough talks, something President Bush's envoy apparently brought plenty of to the region.

General Anthony Zinni gave Israel's Prime Minister Sharon a real talking to yesterday, we are told, and then he sat down with Yasser Arafat today, the result a bit of movement on both sides, as well as a lot more of the same. So we go back to CNN's Sheila MacVicar who's in Jerusalem with the latest. Sheila it's early morning there, good morning.

MACVICAR: Good morning, Aaron. Well tough talking indeed from General Zinni and it has to be said some movement but not a lot. Now even before General Zinni was on the ground, we know that Secretary of State Colin Powell was on the phone with the Prime Minister saying "get those tanks out of Palestinian cities."

The Prime Minister gave Colin Powell the same answer as he has given General Zinni. "We will do that but we are not ready, at least not yet." There has, of course been some movement. We have seen a pullback from some Palestinian cities. They remain in others. Irrespective of that, the general professes himself to be extremely positive. He says that his talks have been productive. Mr. Arafat has recommitted himself to the peace process and said that he does want a ceasefire, and the general is attempting to move forward.

So in terms of the picture over the last couple of weeks here, the word I would have to say is a little bit more calm, but here's the word for Saturday and that word is "quiet" and that's what the Israelis desperately need -- Aaron.

BROWN: How long is the general going to be in the area?

MACVICAR: Well the general's orders are to, in the words of President Bush, "fight through to the finish." So the general, theoretically at least, should be here until he achieves a ceasefire and sees both parties move on down the road to the implementation of what are called the Tenet Plan and the Mitchell Report. However, in the past, the general who has come here with a willingness to stay for a long period of time has found the situation so frustrating, the violence so intense, that there was nothing that he could do and he had left in frustration.

So although he has said this time that he will be here until he gets what the U.S. wants and what both parties say they want, we really don't know, and much depends on what happens in the next few days. It is very clear, Aaron, tomorrow night is Saturday night. The last two Saturdays have been shattered by massive suicide bombs, spectaculars in the words of Israeli officials.

If there is another attack like that, not just you know some shooting or small attack, but if there is another spectacular, in the words of Israeli officials, then the going here will become much, much, much worse for the general and all of the good talk that he is hearing now will disappear.

BROWN: Sheila thank you, Sheila MacVicar in Jerusalem tonight. Ahead on NEWSNIGHT on this Friday, the Yates decision as seen by the defense team. We're back in a moment.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

BROWN: Back to the Yates case. We received a note the other day, saying that those who felt the guilty verdict in the case was an injustice were just a bunch of whining liberals. We responded that we really didn't think of it as a political issue and in that vein, we were pleased to see that Charles Krauthammer, most conservative writer wrote harshly about the state of the law and insanity in today's Washington Post.

Not everything in life can be reduced to left or right. Sometimes it's just a battle over right and wrong. A short time ago, we talked with Wendell Odom, part of the Yates defense team.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

BROWN (voice over): Sir, given the facts and law, do you feel like you did about as well as you could here?

WENDELL ODOM, DEFENSE ATTORNEY FOR ANDREA YATES: I didn't win the case, so I don't know that I did as best as I could do. We put a lot of effort into this. In that respect, I guess, we did a good job but we didn't have the final result we wanted.

BROWN: Well, I think one of your colleagues the other day in talking to the jury, said something to the effect of if this isn't an insanity case, there isn't one, and maybe that's the point. Maybe there isn't one, given the way the law is written.

ODOM: If any good comes out of all this, hopefully it is that we take another look, hard look at our insanity laws in the State of Texas and everywhere and reevaluate them because it is written in such a way that it's extremely difficult for an insane person to be found not guilty by reason of insanity. BROWN: Any particular piece of evidence hurt you more than any other?

ODOM: Sure, her confession when she sounded - you couldn't see her, but she sounded so calm and methodical, and when she was describing what happened, and then the fact that she drowned her five children. I don't think the jury ever got over those two items.

BROWN: Let me take and separate them for a second. I, in every time we've done something with this story where we have run the home video, where you'd see those children, at the very least your heart would break and perhaps if you're on the jury, more than that. Was there no way to keep that out?

ODOM: No. As a matter of fact, it's almost like that had to be shown to tell the story no matter how you looked at it. There's no way to keep that out. That was part of the package and, like you say, it breaks your heart and I don't think the jury really got beyond that.

BROWN: And on the question of confession and, in fact, the jury heard, and in some cases, I think in two cases at least, saw video of her. If they had seen her on that tape that is the confession tape, might that have affected the jury differently?

ODOM: I think so. She was, I believe, clearly delusional and she was clearly psychotic at the time that tape was made, but yet she's a very compliant person. So she'll say yes and is eager to say yes, which is what she did in the confession. So she sounded quite credible. A very short time after that, you have people looking at her, describing her as a very psychotic, mentally unstable person. You can't see that when you hear the confession.

BROWN: Was there ever a point where you could have plead this case away for less than the sentence than she received today?

ODOM: No. No. They always gave us - the only option we had was life. It was always our position that there was no evidence of future dangerousness, so she should get life, and we have some very credible doctors telling us that this lady was - did not know that her actions were wrong at the time of the killings. So we pretty much, in my opinion, didn't have much of an option but to try this case.

BROWN: Have you had a chance to talk to any of the jurors?

ODOM: We have. We talked to some of them right after the verdict came out. We did not talk to them in great detail about their deliberations. We just basically got to talk to them a little one-on- one, so I don't know a lot about what they were thinking. I know a little bit about it.

BROWN: Do you know how they looked at the death penalty? They obviously were not out very long.

ODOM: I don't think that they seriously considered the death penalty for very long. Obviously they were only out three and a half hours on the insanity issue too, but less on the death penalty.

BROWN: And on the question of guilt or innocent by reason of insanity, did they seriously consider it?

ODOM: Well, at least one of the jurors was a hold out. I don't know at what time that process started, but at least one of them had some serious considerations about it. We're clearly disappointed on the insanity verdict, but they obviously felt like they were following the law. It's a rough law for a defendant to meet.

BROWN: It is that. Mr. Odom, thanks. I know it's been a long day and a long week. We appreciate your time tonight. Thank you very much.

ODOM: Thank you.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

BROWN (on camera): We also, of course wanted to talk to the prosecutors in the case. They also had a long and difficult month, and we weren't able to work out the logistics of that, but we tried.

Coming up on NEWSNIGHT, another view of the case, this time from essayist Ann Taylor Fleming. This is NEWSNIGHT on a Friday from New York.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

BROWN: Such a sad and complicated case, the Yates case is. Another perspective on it from someone who describes what led up to the murders as a slow motion train wreck. Essayist and NEWSNIGHT contributor Anne Taylor Fleming joins us from Los Angeles. Ann, it's nice to see you.

ANNE TAYLOR FLEMING, ESSAYIST: Thank you, Aaron.

BROWN: You're take on this is interesting to me because you saw, at least you saw what played out in court more as about motherhood than mental illness.

FLEMING: Well, I think that's exactly what happened. I think the defense, in fact, tried to make it about mental illness, but the prosecutors very successfully made it about motherhood, and motherhood trumped mental illness. I mean that's what she was - she was found guilty as a demon mother who drowned her children, and no mental illness was not a good enough excuse, and the prosecutors basically essentially agreed that she was mentally ill.

But the motherhood trumps the mental illness, and you know, I think that we expect in this country a Herculean amount from all of our mothers. This is a very mother-centric country in its heart, you know, very mom and apple pie still.

BROWN: This is a woman who almost literally was for years screaming for help.

FLEMING: Yes.

BROWN: Is there something about the relationship between mother and child in this sort of extreme case, but even in the little cases you see at grocery stores, where moms might misbehave or at least I think they misbehave with their children, where we don't want to intervene?

FLEMING: I think that's such a tough question, Aaron, and I think in fact it's the question that we should all leave this week with and leave this case with. When do we intervene? When should we intervene? When should I intervene with my family, with somebody who's doing something, you know getting into a car drunk?

But I do think that you're right, that the bond between mother and child that we value in this country and in this society, we look at it as sacrosanct, as someplace that the rest of us dare not intervene. And even, you know, I think you're right in a market.

We often see a mother, you know, either speak abusively or hit a kid. You know, when should we go? And I think that, you know, Andrea Yates had sent up, you know, every smoke signal known to man, woman and child about this. You know, and her husband today, even in his aftermath was still to my mind completely in denial about the severity of, you know, her illness. He was still talking about wanting more children. So I do think that the mother-child thing is something that we just don't like to interfere with. I mean, we don't take...

BROWN: I'm sorry.

FLEMING: We don't take kids, yeah.

BROWN: Go ahead.

FLEMING: We don't take kids, you know, from -- we're very reluctant to take kids, even from abusive and addictive mothers. And we take them -- we put them in foster care for a while. And if the moms recover enough, we bounce them bad and then we read those headlines. So I think it's a big soul search for this country and for the rest of us individually about when in fact we should intervene on these cases.

BROWN: I want to turn this a quarter turn here. I don't know if you heard the beginning, but I got a note from someone today. It was a really interesting note, I thought, who suggested that under the same facts set, that is to say, the same degree of mental illness, five kids, all of that, but the person who drowned the children were male, that our reaction to this would be all together different. We would be much less sympathetic to the perpetrator. Agree?

FLEMING: Not entirely. First of all, I'm not great on speculative stuff. I don't think it's easy to know. It would depend on the manifestations of his mental illness. You know, if he were crazy and acting out in ways that Andrea Yates wasn't, we might, in fact, have been more sympathetic.

One of the things that's interesting that her lawyer just said was how compliant she was. So we never saw her craziness. Maybe with a man acting out, really flagrantly crazy, I just don't know that we quite know that.

And to turn it another quarter turn, maybe we're in fact a little bit harder on her because she in fact had the umbilical relationship with these children. I mean the horror of watching those home videos. She put them on this earth. She took them off this earth. You know, I think that's a sort of hard question to understand.

BROWN: Actually, on the last point, I've noticed there's nothing scientific here, but when women have written to us about the case, they almost always say something like I'm a mother. I love my children more than anything. There's no way you can convince me that this was not an act of murder. That even insane, you wouldn't kill your own kids. And it strikes me that it's trying to put a rational overlay on an irrational action.

FLEMING: I think we're back to the same point. Motherhood trumps insanity. I think we just don't get it in our bones in this country what it means to be mentally ill still.

I mean, we see, you know, "A Beautiful Mind." And you know, there's a schizophrenic guy. And he's having delusions. And you know, the love of a good woman saves him. I mean, Hollywood has made it look survivable and almost winning.

I don't think people understand it. And we have a great prejudice for mother love and that mother love should fix everything. It should be okay. And you know, that kind of sentiment keeps us from looking at mothers like Andrea Yates and all of the other damaged and destructive mothers with any kind of honesty and trying to stop them before this happens.

BROWN: Ann, thank you. It's good to see you. Lots of interesting stuff. Ann Taylor Fleming from Los Angeles with us tonight. Always nice.

That is the most heavy lifting for the evening. Coming up next the wine, I think we need a drink, too. The wine you've always wanted to uncork and the people who are making it possible. This is NEWSNIGHT on CNN.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

BROWN: My wife, and just imagine what living with me for 20 years must've been like, remembers virtually every bottle of wine she has ever opened. She'll probably threaten me with an unopened bottle for mentioning this on the air, but it is true, an ignoble if inadequate defense.

And down in our basement somewhere, there is a bottle she is saving. Someone gave it to us for that special occasion, that one moment in life that is better than all others. Hasn't happened for her yet. But perhaps it will now because she has an excuse to open the bottle of wine. Dotty Gaiter and John Brecher, who write about wine in "The Wall Street Journal," and for a couple of years now, I guess, have been encouraging people to open that special bottle of wine and you wrote about it this week. Actually, I guess, the official day was what, three weeks ago?

DOTTY GAITER, "WALL STREET JOURNAL": The 23rd.

BROWN: Yeah. Where did this idea come from, by the way? Who had it? You're married.

JOHN BRECHER, "WALL STREET": We're married, so we have every idea together.

BROWN: So it was a shared idea?

GAITER: He's my main man.

BROWN: Yeah, I know what that means.

BRECHER: When we started writing our column for "The Journal" four years ago, we realized that the question we were asked most often was I have this one bottle of wine from Aunt Gladys, from my wedding, from my trip to Napa. When should I open it? What should I do with it?

And nobody could stand to open it. Everybody was waiting for a special occasion that never came. So we said let's all open it on the same night. Open that bottle night.

BROWN: And they write you back. And they do tell wonderful stories about the wine, about the moment, about opening it. Is there anything thematic in them, in the stories this year?

GAITER: Well, the stories this year were less emotional than the ones in the past, which make us think that America is just emotionally wrung out. But the letters were sweet. But before they were highly emotional.

We got a very nice letter from John Watson, who was in our very first piece in 1999. And he had he had written, I have but one regret. Had we had an occasion last year to open this wonderful gift of the grape, I would have been able to share it with my bride of 50 years in person instead of in spirit.

And we heard from John Watson just a few days ago. He's 76. And he's met Mary. And they together, both widowed and widowers, decided that most of their life was behind them, and they'd have to create new memories. And they celebrated, open that bottle night with a bottle that they bought together in France.

BROWN: And do you guys do the same thing? Open the bottle.

GAITER: Sure.

BRECHER: Oh, absolutely. GAITER: Oh, it's very hard for to us part with some bottles.

BROWN: Is that right?

GAITER: Oh, yeah.

BRECHER: Oh, it's very hard. As a matter of fact, the reason we brought this was, this is a perfect example of why I open the bottle night.

BROWN: And by the way, all guests from now on, should bring wine.

BRECHER: This is a 1982 Borola that we got when we were in Italy. The wine maker signed it. And it's of course very special, but as wine maker signed it, it reminds us of Italy or it reminds us of a wonderful time there. So as a result, we're going to open it for a special occasion. We are. BROWN: You are?

BRECHER: Oh, yeah.

BROWN: But we don't know when.

BRECHER: Exactly. And as each year goes by, the occasion has to be more special.

BROWN: One of the things I liked in reading today some is that there are wine snobs, okay. And then there are people who just like wine. And it strikes me that you are of the latter group.

GAITER: Thank goodness.

BRECHER: Well, you know, it's an interesting thing. Whenever you talk to anyone about what is the greatest bottle of wine you ever had? Stop anyone on the street. They usually don't say to you, you know, it was the '59 La Tour because it had great structure and hints of herbs.

What they will say is...

BROWN: It drives me nuts when people do that.

BRECHER: Right, what they will say is, you know, I was on vacation in Greece. And we were at this taverna. And it was a hot day and there was this white wine. It's always something that has to do with the moment. Not necessarily with the liquid in the bottle. That to us is what wine is all about.

BROWN: And so you could come up were a great wine from a vineyard in Ohio?

BRECHER: Absolutely.

GAITER: This came from Georgia.

BROWN: From Georgia as in?

GAITER: As in Atlanta. Just outside Atlanta.

BROWN: Look, there's a home office here.

BRECHER: We happened to be in Atlanta a couple of weeks ago. And we saw this. We'd never had it before. Last night, we actually had a night off from tasting wines. And we thought, well let's open up that bottle from Georgia. And it was good enough that we thought we'd maybe bring it by. GAITER: And share it with you.

BROWN: We always drink out of the very best wine glasses here.

GAITER: It's the the thought that counts.

BROWN: You know, I actually...

BRECHER: Very good, very good.

GAITER: Doesn't that smell wonderful?

BROWN: The wine is good. I'm not sure the cup did it justice.

GAITER: Well, sorry.

BROWN: But that's very nice.

GAITER: Yeah, it is.

BROWN: And how much did that bottle of wine cost?

BRECHER: About $12 or 15. You know, there good wines being made everywhere. All over the United States.

GAITER: In every state, you know.

BRECHER: It's just hard to get people to actually drink the wine in their own backyard. People go overseas.

BROWN: This is not fussy enough for them?

GAITER: Yeah.

BRECHER: Yeah.

GAITER: It's too local.

BROWN: I'm sitting here like we're in a cocktail lounge.

BRECHER: Well, good.

GAITER: That's good, you're comfortable.

BRECHER: You know, go to the winery next door and try the stuff because if you're making a wine in Georgia or in Tennessee or New Hampshire, chances are you're a passionate, committed wine maker and you're making good, interesting stuff.

BROWN: Now I probably wouldn't ask this if I wasn't drunk now, but do all your colleagues at "The Journal," the people who are pouring over the 10Ks and the PE ratios and all that, do they just hate you because you got this incredible gig where you sit around and drink wine?

BRECHER: Well, you know, something? I was page one editor for seven years. They hated me then. They actually like me better now.

GAITER: We know how lucky we are.

BROWN: You are.

GAITER: We really are lucky.

BROWN: It was a great idea for -- and obviously people look forward to it. It's fun to read. Thanks for coming in.

GAITER: Thank you.

BRECHER: Thank you.

BROWN: Thank you. I'll drink to that. And there's reason to toast. In fact, we'll go to a wedding or at least talk about one. Liza's wedding, when we come back. This is NEWSNIGHT. It must be Friday.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

BROWN: And you thought Marion Barry had nine lives. Tonight, someone who's had two hips replaced and if my anatomy is right, that's all you have, fought encephalytis, been in and out of rehab, and is about to marry her fourth husband. Talking about Liza Minelli here, set to marry entertainment producer, David Guest or Jest. I wish I knew for sure. Anyway, that's going on in New York.

Liz Taylor will be here. She's the maid of honor. The groom has just about everyone of the Jackson brothers, including Michael participating. And if you're feeling really generous, there is still plenty of opportunity to buy Liza something that she wants that she's registered for, perhaps $4,000 turine with cover. She needs four. Please don't just get her one.

So in our efforts to help you through this hectic weekend, we're joined by a writer with a good sense of the absurd, as well. We'll need one here. Andy Borowitz is here. And I would offer you a drink, but we don't have a matching cup.

BROWN: Why is this -- this is funny. I mean, there's something about Liza that's funny.

ANDY BOROWITZ, AUTHOR: Yes.

BROWN: Do you know what it is? BOROWITZ: Well, I know what's funny about this wedding. I can tell you that much, because it's really kind of like a who is who of the Z list. I mean, it's kind of everybody who is...

BROWN: No, it's not. I'm not there.

BOROWITZ: Well no. Well, maybe you'll, you know, wedding number five, you'll score something there. But it's like, it's not Michael Jackson. I think it's amazing that, you know, Tito Jackson is going to be there. Randy and Marlon Jackson will be there. Their close friend Claudia Cardinal and Janet Lee will both be there. I mean, it's amazing. Pretty much everybody, except for the robot on "Lost in Space" got an invitation and you, of course.

BROWN: And me. Right.

BOROWITZ: Look, I wasn't invited either.

BROWN: Well, I know. You say snide things.

BOROWITZ: Absolutely.

BROWN: I'm just a nice guy.

BOROWITZ: I've earned my way to be this way. That's true.

BROWN: Do you find it amusing that they register the way new bride and groom do. I mean, like a 20-year-old bride and groom do?

BOROWITZ: Well, I think it's amazing how much loot overall they expect to haul in, because the thing that I read this week, which I thought was just so cool was that they're actually -- they're selling like the exclusive video rights to this wedding. It's the first sort of vertically integrated media wedding.

BROWN: Let me explain what this. This is where if you want to get the happy couple a little something, and you want to get exactly the right thing, you go to that Web site and that's where they've registered at Tiffany's.

BOROWITZ: Absolutely.

BROWN: So we can't say they have bad taste.

BOROWITZ: No, hardly. They're doing very well. I mean, I guess they've got that going. They've sold the video rights. I think there will probably be a Liza and David action figure set at some point. I mean, it's clear. You know, we've both have been married for a long time. We got married for all the wrong reasons. It's so obvious now.

BROWN: Should have gone for the doe.

BOROWITZ: Absolutely. Absolutely.

BROWN: There wasn't a lot of interest in the video rights then.

BOROWITZ: To yours.

BROWN: Well, probably not any now.

BOROWITZ: Well, that's a shame.

BROWN: You said the Z list.

BOROWITZ: I said the Z list, yeah.

BROWN: Who will be -- I guess any place that Liz Taylor walks into, Liz Taylor is the center.

BOROWITZ: Right. I think that's true. I think there was some question as to whether or not she would be there. What's interesting about it, in the last week or so, there's been a little bit of sort of retrenching. They've been saying well maybe Whitney Houston won't sing. Or maybe Elizabeth Taylor won't be there.

One thing that's pretty clear, though, is that Marlon Jackson will show. I mean, he is the rock. I think it's all sort of structured around Marlon.

BROWN: Where's the wedding?

BOROWITZ: Where's the wedding? You know, I've been wondering about this because part of selling -- if you sell the exclusive rights to your wedding, one thing you have to guarantee is that no papparazzi will be there. So it has to be a very highly secure, some will tell you, an undisclosed location. That leads me to suspect that they're using the place that Cheney uses while he's off in Europe, because it's probably somewhere deep buried under Norad or something like that.

BROWN: I should know this. I mean, when you sell the video rights...

BOROWITZ: Right.

BROWN: ...are we talking showing up in "National Enquirer" or if we're lucky "People?" Is that what this is?

BOROWITZ: Well, I think they're probably trying to avoid one of the kind of girls gone wild three thing where it shows up on late night video. They want to make sure that they own the rights to all that stuff. So I don't know. I mean, are you really going to buy the Liza Minelli video collection to all her weddings? I don't think so. I mean, maybe there's more interest in it than is shared by the two of us.

BROWN: Than we might think. There probably is. It wouldn't be the first time. Nice to meet you.

BOROWITZ: Nice to meet you.

BROWN: Come back again.

BOROWITZ: Absolutely. Thank you.

BROWN: We'll wrap it up, I think, right? We'll wrap it up for Friday in just a moment.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

BROWN: Wasn't that much wine and I feel a little lightheaded. A while back, "New York Times" columnist Tom Freedman had an intriguing idea for safer air travel, Naked Air. OK, it isn't quite naked air, but judging by this, it might be as close as any of us wants to get.

Orlando International airport will be using scanners that leave little to the imagination. ACLU describing it as a virtual strip search, but the scanner supporters said after September 11 "the world needs much more thorough screening." And you can't get more thorough. Thank you than that. I didn't want to see that.

If there is a fine line, though, between thorough and harassment, perhaps it's being crossed. Earlier this week on "LARRY KING LIVE," actor Dennis Quaid, my main man with a lot of good humor said that he had been groped by a female security yard. He said, "It was the biggest thrill of the week." There are some people who are not at all thrilled when they're going through security. They feel like they're fighting their way through a massage parlor.

Here's CNN Kathleen Koch.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

KATHLEEN KOCH, CNN CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): Magazine sales executive Cathleen Reinke was returning to Chicago from a January business meeting, when she says a pat down at the Philadelphia Airport turned into a rub down.

REINKE: This gentleman took the palm of his hands and rubbed it all up and down my body. And I asked him shouldn't a female be doing this. And he abruptly responded no and asked me to come closer.

KOCH: Other women say they have been groped by screeners at this Phoenix Airport.

ANITA LAWRENCE, AIRLINE PASSENGER: When I turned around like this, he reached under my jacket and he started going up all the way touching my breasts.

JANET NAPOLITANO, ARIZONA ATTORNEY GENERAL: I call it pat down anarchy. Nobody knew the rules. There weren't any policies. They don't have any notices up to passengers about what their rights are.

KOCH: Arizona Attorney General Janet Napolitano forwarded 28 complaints to the Transportation Department, which had already received at least eight others. So a month ago, the federal government mandated same sex pat downs and Wednesday announced retraining at problem airports.

NORMAN MINETA, TRANSPORTATION SECRETARY: We want every passenger, every person coming through airports to be treated with respect.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Barefooted with my robe on, the security lady pass the wand over me while my uniform bra, etcetera, were put through the conveyor machine.

KOCH: Flight attendants were among the first to blow the whistle on screener fondling, taking dozen of complaints on their Web site. And though things have improved, they wonder when or if the government will punish violators.

PATRICIA FRIEND, ASSN. OF FLIGHT ATTENDANTS: Primarily what we have had from them is we have received a complaint. It's a huge bureaucracy.

KOCH: And even the same sex rule won't make all travelers comfortable with being frisked, like this woman patted down last week by a female screener.

SUSAN HUDSON-WILSON, AIRLINE PASSENGER: This woman did indeed appeared to be well trained.

KOCH: But she basically patted your body?

HUDSON-WILSON: Yes. Every inch.

KOCH: Do you think it was necessary?

HUDSON-WILSON: Probably not. Probably not.

KOCH: For now, pat downs will continue in the name of security.

(on camera): Passengers can ask they be conducted in a private area. If they're unhappy, they can report any incidents to airport security, local police or the Department of Transportation, which says it will thoroughly investigate every complaint.

Cathleen Koch, CNN, Reagan International Airport.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

BROWN: Now be honest. You didn't hear a think she said because you were thinking about that image in that virtual scanner thing. Somebody's got to look at this stuff. Have a great weekend. We'll see you all on Monday. Good-night from all of us at NEWSNIGHT.

TO ORDER A VIDEO OF THIS TRANSCRIPT, PLEASE CALL 800-CNN-NEWS OR USE OUR SECURE ONLINE ORDER FORM LOCATED AT www.fdch.com