Return to Transcripts main page

CNN Connie Chung Tonight

Rackauckas Will Pursue Death Penalty in Runnion Case; New Tape Reveals Further Heroism of FDNY on 9/11; Priest Tracks Down Alleged Abuser

Aired August 05, 2002 - 20:00   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.
CONNIE CHUNG, HOST: Good evening. I'm Connie Chung. Tonight, the prosecutor in the murder/kidnapping that gripped the nation goes for the death penalty.

ANNOUNCER: The man accused of kidnapping and murder in the Samantha Runnion case now may face execution. Tonight, Connie talks to the district attorney who wants Alejandro Avila to pay with his life.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

TONY RACKAUCKAS, ORANGE COUNTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY: If there was ever a case where justice would be served by seeking the death penalty, this is the case.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

ANNOUNCER: What really happened after the hijacked plane hit the World Trade Center? Revealing new information on the fate of the heroic firefighters who lost their lives in the 9/11 attacks.

He's a parish priest turned private eye. His mission? Tracking down the man he says abused him 20 years ago. Reverend John Bambrick and his new calling, church watchdog.

This woman was sent home from work because of her hairstyle. Can your boss decide if your appearance is appropriate?

This is CONNIE CHUNG TONIGHT. Live from the CNN broadcast center in New York, Connie Chung.

CHUNG: Good evening. Tonight, the district attorney of Orange County in California has concluded that the man accused of killing little Samantha Runnion deserves the death penalty if convicted. Alejandro Avila claims he is innocent. CNN's Gary Tuchman was on the story in Santa Ana, California when the announcement was made.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

GARY TUCHMAN, CNN CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): Ultimately, it was this man's decision to make. RACKAUCKAS: There is no question in my mind that the person who kidnapped, molested and murdered 5-year-old Samantha should face the death penalty.

TUCHMAN: And with those words by Orange County, California's District Attorney Tony Rackauckas, the judicial wheels are now set in motion to give the accused killer of Samantha Runnion the ultimate punishment.

RACKAUCKAS: This crime has shocked and outraged our community, our nation, even other nations. If there was ever a case where justice would be served by seeking the death penalty, this is the case.

TUCHMAN: Samantha's mother met with the DA before the decision was announced, and Erin Runnion issued a statement through a spokesperson.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: "In our private meeting, he was forthright with the options available, and we expressed our gratitude and trust in his judgment and expertise in prosecuting this case."

TUCHMAN: It was July 15 that 5-year-old Samantha was kidnapped from right outside her home in Stanton, California, while she was playing with a friend. Her body was found two days later.

SHERIFF MIKE CARONA, ORANGE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA: We didn't realize it at the time, but Samantha is not just our little girl; she became America's little girl. Samantha was all that was good in the world. And what happened to her is all that was evil in the world.

TUCHMAN: Three days after little Samantha's body was discovered, 27-year-old Alejandro Avila was arrested and charged with kidnapping, molestation and murder.

CARONA: I'm 100 percent certain that Mr. Avila is the man who kidnapped and murdered Samantha Runnion.

TUCHMAN: Two years ago, Avila was found not guilty by a jury of molesting two other children. That fact breaks Samantha's mother heart.

ERIN RUNNION, SAMANTHA'S MOTHER: I blame every juror who let him go, every juror who sat on that trial and believed this man over those little girls, I will never understand. And that is why he was out, and that is why his sickness was allowed to do this.

TUCHMAN: Thousands of people turned out for Samantha's funeral, a moving and emotional experience for those who attended and the millions who watched on television. The man charged with killing her was in his jail cell at the time, segregated from other prisoners.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

TUCHMAN: Avila has claimed he was at a mall when the kidnapping occurred, but law enforcement authorities say they have DNA evidence and cell phone records that prove that Avila is a liar. Avila does have a public defender who's representing him, but she's not spoken publicly prior to or since this announcement today.

Connie, back to you.

CHUNG: Gary, when is the next court date?

TUCHMAN: This Friday, Avila will appear in court for his official arraignment. He'll be asked to plead guilty or not guilty. We expect he will issue a not guilty plea.

CHUNG: All right, thank you. CNN's Gary Tuchman.

The man who led the process of deciding to seek the death penalty was Orange County District Attorney Tony Rackauckas. He joins me now, also from Santa Ana. Thank you, Mr. Rackauckas, for being with us. We appreciate it.

RACKAUCKAS: It's my pleasure.

CHUNG: I can hear you, and I'm glad you did that test, I appreciate it. Sir, can you explain why you sought the death penalty?

RACKAUCKAS: Well, the nature and the circumstances of the case, primarily. You know, clearly this is a shocking and outrageous case. It shocked and outraged our community and the nation and even other nations. And that's, of course, the primary reason. Samantha being a young, innocent child and vulnerable and snatched from a location in a courtyard just a few steps away from her home. Those are the main reasons.

CHUNG: And I really gather that there was no question in your mind?

RACKAUCKAS: Well, certainly by the time we're done with the entire process, there is no question in my mind. You know, I have to tell you that the facts and circumstances of this case are, as I just described, horrendous, but it was I think important to keep an open mind, at least during the process, so that we could consider and look at whatever other circumstances might weigh into the question.

CHUNG: Without going into the substance, did Samantha Runnion's mother have some input?

RACKAUCKAS: Of course she did. Of course she did. I visited with Samantha's mother, and she did have input, yes.

CHUNG: Would you consider a plea bargain at all?

RACKAUCKAS: No. No. In this case, we're seeking a death penalty, and if -- we would not accept anything short of that.

CHUNG: Do you expect the defense to ask for a change in venue?

RACKAUCKAS: Well, I don't really know what the defense is going to do. You know, it's a motion that they certainly have a right to make, and if they do, we'll handle it when it comes out.

CHUNG: But in your best judgment, you think it probably will be tried in Orange County?

RACKAUCKAS: Well, I anticipate that it will be tried in Orange County, and I think we can have a fair trial in Orange County. You know, I've seen hundreds of juries selected in Orange County, both as a prosecutor and as a judge, and I can tell you that when the time comes and the people get the responsibility, they take that responsibility very seriously, and that they're fair with the evidence and with their decisions.

CHUNG: Absolutely. Sir, when do you think the trial would begin?

RACKAUCKAS: Hard to say. I think that it could begin as soon as 90 days from August 9, which would put us into November some point, and of course that depends on a lot of factors. But if the defense exercises their rights to a speedy trial, as they did in San Diego, it would go very -- you know, relatively fast, and we're going to be ready for that. We're going to -- our team is going to be ready for a trial at the earliest possible time, and we're going to be not tolerating any unreasonable delays, so we'll be exercising the people's right to a speedy trial as well.

CHUNG: You know, I -- this case really was quite extraordinary. I know that you had gotten response from all over the world, and I know it was -- there was something about Samantha and her mother that really struck a chord, I think, with all of us. Why do you think that happened?

RACKAUCKAS: Well, you're right, it really did, and we have received communications, like you say, from all over, all over the country and surprisingly, all over the world. And I think just the way this crime happened, the shocking manner in which this young child was snatched away from her home and the fact that the sheriff used the media to get the word out, to get the description out, and that started the ball rolling. Thousands of people started calling tips in, and by the time the arrest was made, there was a great deal of attention given to this case.

CHUNG: And just finally, how often would you say your office has asked for the death penalty? Would you say -- just looking back at cases?

RACKAUCKAS: Well, on quite a number of occasions. I think that we have probably six or seven cases at the present time that we're proceeding on the death penalty, and we've had years where we've asked for eight or 10 death penalties, and other years where there have been fewer.

CHUNG: I was just trying to figure out how unusual it might be, or is it standard -- I shouldn't say standard, but is it something that your office considers from time to time?

RACKAUCKAS: Well, we consider it on a regular basis. Every time we get a case of first degree murder with special circumstances, then we look at the question of whether or not we should proceed and seek a death penalty. And so it happens quite often, unfortunately, and where we are is that on about 20 percent of those cases, we do decide to seek the death penalty.

CHUNG: All right. Thank you so much, Mr. Rackauckas, we appreciate your being with us tonight.

RACKAUCKAS: Thank you very much.

CHUNG: OK.

And now, joining me with some perspective on this case, CNN legal analyst Jeffrey Toobin. Jeffrey, didn't surprise you, did it?

JEFFREY TOOBIN, CNN LEGAL ANALYST: Not a bit. This is an unusually egregious, awful case. And I think, not to be too cynical, Tony Rackauckas is an elected official. The public is extremely exercised about this case. He would face enormous criticism if he didn't ask for the death penalty. All of the stars were aligned for a yes decision today.

CHUNG: So, I mean, really, was there no other choice in many ways? I mean, do you see it that way?

TOOBIN: Well, there are certain prosecutors who simply don't like the death penalty, even if it's on the books. Right here in Manhattan, Robin Morgenthal (ph), the district attorney, almost never asks for the death penalty.

But here, under California law, you have what's called special circumstances, which are the criteria that a prosecutor is supposed to use to decide whether or not to apply the death penalty. Kidnapping is one of them. Sexual assault is one of them, both of which the prosecution claims apply here. So, I think if you believe in the death penalty, as Tony Rackauckas obviously does, this is a clear case for it.

CHUNG: I'm wondering if other counties -- this particular county went through a review process. Do most counties have the similar review process?

TOOBIN: They almost all have, I think he called it a special circumstances committee. They go by different names, but they almost all have that. The idea being you want to try to apply the same criteria to everybody, not just sort of make a seat of the pants decision. This person deserves it, this person doesn't. You look at in an organized way so that everybody is treated the same way.

CHUNG: And always the family is brought in and the defense attorney as well?

TOOBIN: Actually, that was interesting. He mentioned that he spoke to the defense attorney. I don't think that's always the case.

CHUNG: Oh, really? TOOBIN: I think it's often an offer is made to the defense attorney. Whether they actually participate may vary. The family -- I mean, this is something in the last 10 years that has really changed in criminal law. The families of the victims, victims rights matter a lot, really started with Oklahoma city bombing. Those people are...

CHUNG: I didn't realize it was so recent.

TOOBIN: Yes. It's really much more -- in fact, you know, in the '80s, victims had no role -- I mean, as recently as the '80s and in the '90s. Really, because of the Oklahoma city bombing families getting involved with the Justice Department, that has become institutional in almost all jurisdictions in the country.

CHUNG: As I understand it, the defense attorney is a strong opponent of the death penalty and has, in fact, on a couple of occasions or maybe more, succeeded in convincing a jury not to go for it. How difficult is it to -- does this put the prosecutor at any kind of risk by knowing ahead of time the request will be for the death penalty?

TOOBIN: Actually, it almost always helps the prosecutors because sometimes jurors can say, well, we're going to compromise, we'll give life in prison without parole, but we won't go to the death penalty. The compromised verdict becomes a conviction in any case, and that's always what prosecutors care about the most. It's almost always in prosecutors' favor to ask for the death penalty, almost always helps their case. They don't always get it, but it certainly -- it's generally something that helps their cause.

CHUNG: Do you think this is going to be a difficult case to prosecute?

TOOBIN: I don't know. You know, we've heard a lot of sort of general statements about the evidence. For example, we sort of throw around, well, there is DNA evidence. Well, we haven't seen the DNA evidence in this case. We don't know what it is. I mean, obviously, he has this in his background as we've discussed before, this acquittal. That evidence may actually be admissible, and I think that would be extremely damaging to his case.

But, you know, what will the DNA evidence show? What will the cell phone evidence show? I mean, I don't know at this point and I think, you know, like the judges always tell the jurors, you have to keep an open mind.

CHUNG: All right. Jeffrey Toobin, thank you. Appreciate it.

TOOBIN: OK.

CHUNG: Still ahead, sexually abused as an altar boy, he became a priest and turned his pain into a mission. We'll be right back.

ANNOUNCER: Next, dramatic new information on what happened to the heroic firefighters in the World Trade Center attacks. The men who led the firefighters through the ordeal tells his story. CONNIE CHUNG TONIGHT will be right back.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

CHUNG: If you didn't already have high regard for the New York City Fire Department, listen to this. According to the "New York Times," firefighters were not just helping evacuate people from the World Trade Center on September 11, two of the firefighters who went into the South Tower actually reached one of the floors struck by United Flight 175 and were formulating plans to evacuate the wounded and put out the fire.

We know this because of a remarkable tape that's been recovered, a tape that chronicles some of the department's actions in those final minutes. And joining me now to discuss what we've learned is the man who was leading the fire department that day, former fire commissioner Thomas Von Essen. Thank you so much for being here with us.

What went through your mind when you learned about the substance of the tapes?

THOMAS VON ESSEN, FORMER FDNY COMMISSIONER: Well, this tape is real interesting and so meaningful. Chief Palmer was one of the finest chiefs that we had. Of all of the chiefs that we lost, he was really one of the most knowledgeable experts on radios and communications and high-rise buildings. So, to think that he was already all the way up to the 78th floor...

CHUNG: Yes. And before, it was thought only the 50th floor had been reached.

VON ESSEN: Yes, I had no idea. And it's a shame that it's taken so long for this information to come out because I think it's helpful to everybody to get this information and it helps everybody to get a sense of the remarkable work the men were doing.

CHUNG: You know, I want to read a quote from his wife, Mrs. Palmer. She said the tape has given her some peace of mind. Quote: "I didn't hear fear, I didn't hear panic. When the tape is made public to the world, people will have -- will learn -- forgive me, I can't even read my own handwriting -- will learn that they all went about their jobs without fear and selflessly." Isn't that wonderful that she has some peace out of this?

VON ESSEN: And that's something that people like me knew. We knew that we would hear, you know, strength and command and structure and a desire to get a job done from those people when we heard a tape. But, to hear it now I think is helpful. As painful as it is for the families, anybody who hears their loved one on the tape and hears that strength and that courage, I think it's helpful.

CHUNG: Comforting, you think?

VON ESSEN: Well, yes. Every little bit helps. You know, they have gone through so much for so long. And any kind of information, they're just starving for it. CHUNG: Do you think it will be made public at any time? Because, you know, she does talk about it becoming public at some point, she imagines.

VON ESSEN: I hope so. And I don't see why not. It's probably for the lawyers to decide. The important thing, I think, is for those families to get an opportunity to listen to it and find something -- I know some have listened to it and it's not their loved one. So, that wasn't helpful, but at least they tried. Some listened to it and did hear their husband or their son, and that's also helpful.

CHUNG: OK. Take us back. How was this recorded? Was it two- way radios that they were on?

VON ESSEN: It's also something that shows that the radios were working, that there was communication.

CHUNG: Yes.

VON ESSEN: This is -- there's a receiver out in the building or somewhere around the building that is a -- like a booster for the radios. It takes that radio, which is not strong enough to penetrate up 78 floors, it takes that signal and strengthens it and sends it to wherever it wants to go. So, these men were in the South Tower, I think. I haven't listened to the tape myself. Some of them I know were in the South Tower. So, the receiver was -- the receiver also records any conversations that goes through the receiver. So, that's why it's very helpful, and the story was we heard originally that it was found in the rubble. Now I'm told that it was found right after the event, right after the tragedy. And it's a shame that it's taken so long for it to come out.

CHUNG: Right. When you left the commissioner's office at the end of December, were you aware of this tape?

VON ESSEN: No.

CHUNG: Isn't that strange?

VON ESSEN: Yes. I don't know -- I don't think even Commissioner Scarpetta (ph) was aware of it...

CHUNG: The current commissioner.

VON ESSEN: ... up until, you know, when this broke, it was a week or two weeks ago. I don't think he even knew about it.

CHUNG: Why do you think that happened?

VON ESSEN: I don't know. I can't imagine somebody at a lower level probably made a decision. The story we get is that lawyers and the federal government doesn't want anybody to listen to it because it's part of evidence.

CHUNG: In the Moussaoui case. VON ESSEN: And once the lawyers get involved, you know, you get a lot of bureaucracy. And some of it is necessary, some of it is not. And somebody in our department made a decision, I think, not to listen to it.

CHUNG: Exactly.

VON ESSEN: That was a wrong decision.

CHUNG: That was a while back, and that was most bizarre.

VON ESSEN: Yes, that -- whoever made it, I don't know who it was, and it was the wrong decision.

CHUNG: Tell me, are you upset that you weren't notified when you were commissioner?

VON ESSEN: Well, when I first heard that they found it in the rubble in February, I wasn't, because I thought, well, you know, that's when they found it. But if they did have it right in September when I was there, I would have loved to have heard it because it would have been helpful to allay some of the fears of the families, some of the misinformation that was going out, to make people understand that there was an awful lot of communications. How much there was, how much there wasn't, we'll never know until we learn more about tapes like this and we talk to more people that are experts in this.

CHUNG: Well, that's what I was wondering. Do you think that this tape can give us any clues as to, you know, the fine work that the firefighters did or whether or not more people might have been saved or whatever? These investigations, there is some plaguing questions for a number of people.

VON ESSEN: I think it's important. Sometimes, it's painful to get information because sometimes it shows mistakes or it shows errors in judgment. But, no one is looking at it to blame any of the firefighters. I've never seen anybody trying to blame any of them.

CHUNG: Oh, no.

VON ESSEN: So, we shouldn't think of it that way. We should get as much information out, even if it's painful for a family member, for the department, for anybody, it should come out because in the long run, it's helpful. The more information that everybody gets, the more help it is for the families. And that's the absolute No. 1 priority, to make it, to do whatever we can to make these ladies and fathers and mothers feel just a little bit better.

CHUNG: Well, 9/11, of course, the anniversary is coming up. That will be a very hard day, I think for all of us, but particularly for the families of the victims. Any thoughts coming from you as commissioner? You know, you were there.

VON ESSEN: I think it's going to be horrible. And I think that I know one little boy who recently went to a ceremony at the firehouse I invited him to. And he said -- he told me he didn't want to go. And I said, "why are you going?" He said, "because I think my father would want me to go."

And I said, "your father wouldn't want you to go if it bothers you and it's hurting you and it's making it worse for you, don't go. Your father wouldn't want you to go." And I think that the parents should know that. They don't have to participate in every one of these ceremonies. They don't have to go just because they should be seen or whatever.

They should -- if it's better for them to stay home and just say a prayer and keep the family together and think about their son or their father, that would be my advice. I think it's very painful to go through all these things.

CHUNG: How old was that little boy?

VON ESSEN: Fourteen.

CHUNG: Very hard.

VON ESSEN: And he felt like he was, you know, his father's representative.

CHUNG: Yes.

VON ESSEN: And he felt like he should go.

CHUNG: He's the man of the house.

VON ESSEN: And I said to him, you know, "you don't have to. Your father knows how you feel."

CHUNG: Yes, well, good for you. Right. Thank you, Mr. Von Essen. It's so -- it's good to see you.

VON ESSEN: Thank you.

CHUNG: Still ahead, it's happening right now, the perilous operation to separate baby twins joined at the head. We'll have the latest.

ANNOUNCER: Still ahead, he's a self-styled private eye who wears a collar instead of a badge. Father John Bambrick on the trail of suspected abusive priests when CONNIE CHUNG TONIGHT continues.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

CHUNG: Roman Catholic priest turns amateur detective? It sounds like a novel, but it's the real story of Father John Bambrick. As a 15-year-old altar boy back in 1980, he says he was abused, and abused repeatedly for six months by a priest. That priest, the Reverend Anthony Eremito, reportedly has denied this, and our attempts to contact him were not successful. Eremito has filed charges under church law, not civil law, accusing Bambrick of defamation. As for Bambrick, he says it was his ordination in the early '90s that led him to pursue the man he claimed abused him. Church officials eventually removed Eremito from his post, and then told Bambrick that Eremito would be barred from serving as a pastor, but Bambrick had turned amateur detective and discovered that Eremito was working again, elsewhere, and along the way uncovered other cases in which priests were abused by others. I'm sorry, priests were accused of abusing other boys, correct?

REV. JOHN BAMBRICK, PURSUES ALLEGEDLY ABUSIVE PRIESTS: Correct.

CHUNG: Now he joins me now about his dual missions. Father Bambrick, thank you for being with us.

BAMBRICK: You're welcome, Connie.

CHUNG: Now, when did you decide that you wanted to be a priest?

BAMBRICK: I wanted to be a priest since I was 5 years old.

CHUNG: Oh, my goodness.

BAMBRICK: Yeah.

CHUNG: And so, in the beginning, how did you view Father Eremito?

BAMBRICK: Well, I met him when I was 15. I was very much enamored with him. I wanted to become a priest in the Archdiocese of New York. He came to our parish, and he was young, he was a dynamic speaker. He was a kind and generous man, he was outgoing, he was charismatic. And I was attracted to that, and he said he could help me to be a priest, and I believed him.

CHUNG: But then the abuse began.

BAMBRICK: Correct.

CHUNG: And what -- as I understand it, it was gradual.

BAMBRICK: Correct. Yes. It was a slow process of normalization. Each intrusion into my physical body was slowly made. It began...

CHUNG: What do you mean, normalization?

BAMBRICK: Well, the first thing he started with was holding my hand in a movie theater. And when we left the theater, and I was very uncomfortable wit that, he said to me, "is something wrong?" And we went back and forth "yes, no, yes, no." And then he finally said to me, "it wasn't because I held your hand, was it?" And he said, "this is very normal." All priests held hands, didn't I hold hands with the priests in my parish, didn't I hold hands with my fathers, my uncles and relatives and friends? And I said "no." And he said, "well, we're going to practice now in the car holding hands."

And that's how that began. And that was -- this was normal, he said this was absolutely normal. At each stage, of course, it was a normalization -- it's called grooming with pedophiles and (UNINTELLIGIBLE).

CHUNG: Yes, I have heard of that before. And you knew all along at the age of 15 that this just wasn't right?

BAMBRICK: I was completely uncomfortable with it. And it was a big conflict for me, because I admired him. I thought he was a great priest. And yet he was doing these terrible thing to me at the same time, so how do you put those two different pieces of a personality together in a 15-year-old mind?

CHUNG: And he prevented you from telling anyone, because he told you a story about another boy. What was it?

BAMBRICK: Right. He told me that when he was first ordained, he had molested a kid, and that the young man had gone to his father and told him and the father told the cardinal, and that then there was an investigation, he was found to be not guilty and that...

CHUNG: The priest.

BAMBRICK: The priest, Father Eremito. And then that the boy then was disgraced, his family was disgraced and he was placed in a mental institution. And the same thing would happen to me if I spoke.

CHUNG: Oh my gosh. All right. So you kept this within yourself.

BAMBRICK: I did.

CHUNG: For many years.

BAMBRICK: Many, many years.

CHUNG: Until you were what age?

BAMBRICK: The first time I spoke about it was in college, it was with a psychologist, because I had been having problems in the seminary with authority figures and priests.

CHUNG: No wonder. And the most extraordinary thing is that you really decided that you were going to come to grips with this.

BAMBRICK: In 1991. I was on my priesthood retreat, and I was having a terrible crisis of conscience. I didn't know -- I found out at that point that he was the pastor at Holy Cross Church in Manhattan, where there were runaways coming to his door...

CHUNG: Eremito was?

BAMBRICK: Yes, he was the pastor there on 42nd Street, he was the chaplain at Covenant House, he was the chaplain at the St. Joseph's home for children, and he had a school in his parish.

CHUNG: Oh, my gosh.

BAMBRICK: Yeah, and I thought, at that point I knew, I said to myself, how can I be a priest? I was on the threshold of the priesthood, something I had wanted to do my whole life, but how could I? A priest should be a defender of the poor and the weak and the suffering, and here I knew this man was molesting -- he had molested other kids besides me that he told me about, he molested me. I knew he surely had not stopped, and I felt that I couldn't be a priest legitimately, and you know, with integrity and still allow this man to continue what he was doing.

CHUNG: Oh my gosh. What an epiphany...

BAMBRICK: It really...

CHUNG: I mean, you just -- it came together for you, and you had to act. So this is the amazing part, you became a detective.

BAMBRICK: I did.

CHUNG: A gumshoe.

BAMBRICK: Yeah, a gumshoe, that's what "The New York Times" called me.

CHUNG: This is absolutely incredible.

BAMBRICK: Yeah. I got some books on how to do amateur detective work from the library, and I always liked Sherlock Holmes.

CHUNG: It's so great that you have a sense of humor, that, you know.

BAMBRICK: Well, you really have to get through life and terrible times, you know, you really need to have a sense of humor.

CHUNG: And you found a wealth of information.

BAMBRICK: I found a wealth of information. And many of it came to me through the very good and generous people of the Survivors Network of Those Abused by Priests, SNAP, and link up, Victims of Clergy Abuse Link-up, tow great organizations that help and support survivors, and through them and through my own work -- and I'll tell you, people are very kind to you. When they know that you are doing something that is right and that is just and that is conscionable, they help you. Even some of his friends helped me.

CHUNG: Really?

BAMBRICK: Yes.

CHUNG: But why? I mean, they wanted to protect him, didn't they?

BAMBRICK: I think that some of his friends did, but others I think who knew him felt like, you know, you have to do what is right. Those who have a conscience will always ask, is it right, you know, and they do what is right. Good people will always do what is right. CHUNG: Do you think it helped because you were wearing the collar and you were really taking care of something that was within your own home?

BAMBRICK: That's right, yes, house keeping, my own personal house keeping. And I did this not to embarrass the church, but to have the church do the right thing. You know, the Catholic Church is a great institution. It helps so many people. We educate people, we care for the sick, you know, we care for them spiritually and impoverished, but that doesn't excuse us from allowing these men to continue to serve the ministry, and I felt like we have to call ourselves to reform and call ourselves to do the right thing. To protect our children. Our children are our greatest resource.

CHUNG: Absolutely. So the extraordinary thing is, you found him really committing more egregious acts?

BAMBRICK: Yes, I did, and along the way -- you alluded to this earlier -- along the way, you know, it's like in war time, there is collateral damage. You come across other men who are also -- you know, I didn't investigate their lives, I turned their names over to the Archdiocese of New York.

CHUNG: You did?

BAMBRICK: Yes.

CHUNG: And to civil authorities as well? Were you able to do that?

BAMBRICK: Yes. In March of this year, the district attorney of Manhattan had requested victims to come forward to offer evidence, and I did, and I spent a four-and-a-half interview with the district attorney's office.

CHUNG: So you accomplished a great deal.

BAMBRICK: Yes.

CHUNG: And in fact, as far as you're concerned, because I know you have made these accusations against father -- can you pronounce his name one more time?

BAMBRICK: Eremito.

CHUNG: I'm afraid I'm mispronouncing it. Eremito. Thank you.

BAMBRICK: It means "hermit" in Italian.

CHUNG: It does? How bizarre!

And he, of course, will not do an interview. He reportedly denies it. But -- so all of these are still allegations?

BAMBRICK: Yes, but he originally denied that he didn't even know me. But then when Cardinal O'Connor hired a private investigator and found out that he did know me, then he said, well, if he did know me that he didn't do anything wrong when he did know me.

CHUNG: So bottom line, though -- here's the big twist that -- I'm really astounded. He has filed a -- under canon law, which is not civil law...

BAMBRICK: Correct.

CHUNG: ... he's filed a defamation charge, is it called, or...

BAMBRICK: He's charged me under canon 1717 with damaging the reputation of a fellow cleric. And I ask, how does one damage the reputation of a child molester?

CHUNG: And he -- would he have to prove that he did not molest you?

BAMBRICK: That's right. He has to prove beyond a shadow of a doubt, under church law. And under church law, the person accused has all of the rights of the law.

Our law -- he's abusing our law. Our church law is never meant to be used in a penal way. It's meant to serve charity and to -- our laws are meant to promote the goodness of the Christian person. They're never meant to penalize anyone.

CHUNG: So do you think this case will ever reach fruition?

BAMBRICK: I don't know. He has a very powerful canon lawyer, Monsignor William Bavarro (ph), the diocese of Brooklyn. Bishop Thomas Daily's chief prosecutor is the man handling this case. And I wonder why the Brooklyn diocese is involved.

But I have the support of my Bishop, John Smith, who's been wonderful throughout all of this...

CHUNG: In New Jersey.

BAMBRICK: In New Jersey. Unfortunately, he's dragged into this against his will because of church law, the esoteric nature of church law.

But he's a good man, and he has done good work in terms of -- with our own cases in our own diocese. And he's been very up front and very proactive, and I think he will continue to be.

CHUNG: I'm just going to ask you really quickly, because we have no more time. Is your faith intact?

BAMBRICK: Absolutely. St. Paul says in the letter to the Romans, nothing can separate us from the love of Christ. Nothing at all. God is trustworthy.

CHUNG: Thank you so much Father Bambrick.

BAMBRICK: God bless. Thank you.

CHUNG: Still ahead: Who's got final say over how you look? You or your boss?

Stay with us.

ANNOUNCER: Coming up: the live-saving surgery to separate conjoined twins in California. Tonight, why doctors in Texas are watching this operation very closely.

CONNIE CHUNG TONIGHT returns in a moment.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

CHUNG: Tonight an extraordinary and extraordinarily rare operation is underway. The patients are 1-year-old babies, Guatemalan conjoined twin girls. They share bone matter and some blood vessels, and the trickiest part of today's operation will be to untie the web of veins without triggering a stroke in either infant.

A team of 50 doctors and nurses has been operating since this morning at the Mattel Children's Hospital at UCLA Medical Center. People around the world are holding their breath, but few people are monitoring this case more closely than Dr. Kenneth Salyer.

Why? Because two of his patients are also twins conjoined at the head. And Dr. Salyer joins us now from Dallas.

Thank you sir, appreciate your being with us tonight.

DR. KENNETH SALYER, NEUROSURGEON: Good evening.

CHUNG: As I understand it, only about 5 of these such operations have occurred in the last decade, and you are considering doing one on some conjoined boys, correct?

SALYER: Yes.

CHUNG: Egyptian boys.

Now, what are the surgeons going through at this time?

SALYER: I think the surgeons and the team at this time, of course, are going through a fairly extensive approach to these children. And it takes a major orchestration of the team and everyone involved in order to bring about a very coordinated and a successful operation.

CHUNG: Now, they started it 8:00 a.m. this morning. And I'm told that there's something like five hours for anesthesia and for some surgery -- I mean plastic surgery, facial surgery.

SALYER: Well, what it entails is, first a determination about the design of the skin flaps and how to turn those down and get access to each child's skull. Then it's determined with the neurosurgical team about how they're going to approach this, and over a period of hours and maybe even into the evening or even into tomorrow, they will very gradually and very delicately separate and divide each strategic area that they've determined should be separated. And it will be up to the pediatric neurosurgeons to be working to separate the brains, to separate the vessels where they're intertwined.

CHUNG: What is the most difficult part of this enormous operation? I mean it takes, according to what we have been told, anywhere from 12 hours to 24 hours to 36 hours.

SALYER: Yes, that's right. And I think the most difficult separation is dividing the veins that are interdependent on the children. For example, if we look at our children -- this is a half- scale replica. Here is a three dimensional model of our children.

CHUNG: Can you hold it closer? Yes, closer to you?

SALYER: Yes.

CHUNG: Great.

SALYER: And we can see this. The attachment is 43 centimeters around, so this is an extensive attachment. So the team has to go in and separate them. And if we look down inside the skull of these two children, we see the marked interdependence of the venous drainage of these two children.

So it's possible to separate children, but it's very difficult for each team to decide exactly the best approach; and each case, of course, is very different.

CHUNG: And what are the biggest risks? Because one of them that I know we mentioned was stroke.

SALYER: The biggest risk probably is stroke. And that's why the venous drainage of each child's brain is so important. And it's important to distinguish which segments go for which child.

And with problems, you can end up with stroke and you can end up with neurologic damage, or you can end up with death.

CHUNG: And when will they know if this is a successful operation?

SALYER: Well, they'll know at the time they're performing this, this evening or early in the morning. And then with subsequent time, they'll decide, based on the signs and symptoms of the children and how they're doing and monitoring them, and they'll eventually determine that, yes, this is a success.

But it will require a period of assessment over the next few days or even weeks to determine how successful.

CHUNG: And when will you make a decision regarding the operation that you will be performing?

SALYER: We're working very hard to come up with a plan. The attachment of our children is quite extensive, and it entails some very dangerous approaches. And our goal is to have two children that will be healthy and viable and can lead normal lives. And in order to achieve that, right now it looks almost impossible. CHUNG: I see, oh dear.

Well, we wish them luck. And, of course, we'll be thinking about the twins who are at UCLA.

Thank you so much, Doctor, for being with us.

SALYER: OK, thank you. And our prayer are with the team at UCLA, and I think we should wish them the best.

CHUNG: Absolutely. An extra prayer from you wouldn't hurt, or from us.

When we come back: What happens when the bosses hate your hairdo? Keep it right here.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

CHUNG: Have you ever wished your boss would just get out of your hair? Yes, me, too. Are you listening, boss? I love you. Get out of here. But you're about to meet a woman who really wants her boss out of her hair.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

(voice-over): For 13 years, Inger Bostick worked at Chatham County Superior Court and gave no thought to how she wore her hair. Why should she? There was no policy on hairstyles. So, it came as a complete surprise when her supervisor sent her home.

INGER BOSTICK, SENT HOME FOR HAIRSTYLE: She said, "Inger, you're one of my best deputy clerks. It is just the hairstyle." She felt as though it was unprofessional.

CHUNG (on camera): She thought your hairstyle was unprofessional?

BOSTICK: Yes.

CHUNG: So, what did she tell you she was going to do?

BOSTICK: Pretty much, I had to make some changes or I would be suspended.

CHUNG: Were you suspended?

BOSTICK: Yes, I was, for a week.

CHUNG: With pay or without pay?

BOSTICK: Without pay.

CHUNG: For a week?

BOSTICK: Yes.

CHUNG: What happened after one week?

BOSTICK: It ended up, I was home for about a month.

CHUNG: You were home for a month. Were you paid or not paid?

BOSTICK: I was paid for all of the time except for the week.

CHUNG (voice-over): Then Ingrid got a call.

BOSTICK: I was contacted by the human resources director. And he said, "Inger, they want you back to work. You can go back with your hairstyle exactly the way it is. It just needs to be remained neatly styled."

CHUNG (on camera): All right. So you came back, you were at work, and everything was fine.

BOSTICK: Yes.

CHUNG: And your supervisor even said to you...

BOSTICK: "Inger, I'm glad that you're back here in the office and I'm glad that this is over."

CHUNG: No hard feelings?

BOSTICK: Right.

CHUNG (voice-over): Not exactly. Three weeks later, a new grooming policy went into effect. And guess what? No twists.

(on camera): Do you think that this particular grooming policy was basically made up because of you, because of your case?

BOSTICK: Definitely.

CHUNG (voice-over): Her lawyer believes racial discrimination is at the root of the policy. Although she concedes that rules are an employer's prerogative...

(on camera): And an employer, by the way, Joyce, since you're her lawyer, is entitled to have a grooming policy or a dress code, correct?

JOYCE GRIGGS, BOSTICK'S ATTORNEY: That is correct, Connie, they are. However, though, if that code targets a specific group, then there is something wrong. And Georgia is an at-will state. They can fire you for any reason or no reason.

However, as Inger said, there was not a specific dress code policy that addressed the hair. Her hair grows naturally this way. However, there was a code implemented that addressed her hair specifically. So it appears that Inger has been targeted, that that dress code was implemented specifically for her and people of her culture. CHUNG (voice-over): In a statement, Inger's supervisor said, "it was never my intent to deprive Mrs. Bostick or anyone else of their ethnic hairstyles. Mrs. Bostick's was not continuously neat and maintained. Due to this, I felt that it would be very difficult to have a policy that allowed twists to be worn."

The case now goes to mediation. In the meantime, we've decided to take a look at the policy to see just who could make the cut. For female employees, hair must not hang down over the eyebrows. And dyed hair must present a natural appearance. Maybe Kelly Osbourne should try a more sedate shade of pink.

Women must wear pantyhose at all time. Uh-oh, Katie. For men, the overall length and/or bulk of the hair will not be excessive or present a ragged, unkempt or extreme appearance. Sorry, Brad, your latest 'do would be the pits. And mustaches must not only be neatly trimmed and tidy, but no portion of a mustache will extend beyond the corners of the mouth.

As for "TIME" magazine's man of the century, well, let's just say, he broke all the rules.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

(on camera): Of course, for Mr. Einstein, appearance was all relative. Did I really say that? By the way, in the latest twist to the story, the court clerk in Georgia now says Inger may return to her job if she keeps her hairstyle, quote, "well-maintained." In response, Inger's attorney told us that Inger is dissatisfied with its offer, and has asked to be transferred. We'll keep you posted. And we'll be right back.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

CHUNG: Next month, it will be one year since the terrorist attacks on America. All of our lives have changed since September 11, because of September 11. We want to know how yours changed. Did you move, or change careers? Enlist in the Armed Forces, or volunteer at home? Could be anything. In whatever way you've changed, we want you to tell us all about it on tape. We just might use it. So, send your tapes to CONNIE CHUNG TONIGHT, P.O. Box 5138, New York, New York, 10185. And be sure to include your name and address. But, unfortunately, we won't be able to return your tapes. For more information, log onto cnn.com/connie. That's cnn.com/connie.

Tomorrow, the trial of David Westerfield. Did he kill Danielle van Dam? The case is drawing to a close. And coming up next on "LARRY KING LIVE," the Fort Bragg murders. Larry talks with one of the victim's parents.

Thank you for joining us. And for all of us at CNN, good night and see you tomorrow.

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