Return to Transcripts main page
CNN Connie Chung Tonight
Florida Teenagers on Trial for Murder; Parents of Separated Twins Speak Out
Aired September 04, 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 face of an angel in the witness chair for the murder of his father.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
ALEX KING, DEFENDANT: Rick said that he loved me.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
ANNOUNCER: Courtroom drama: A teenager charged with killing his father takes the stand in his own defense.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
A. KING: And he said that dad was dead. He said that he had killed my dad to protect us.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
ANNOUNCER: Tonight: A 13-year-old defendant points the finger, what he saw the night his dad, Terry King, was killed.
Surrounded by raging wildfires, a California woman was ready to take her own life rather than lose it in the inferno.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
JOHN ROSE, L.A. COUNTY SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT: She was standing out there very, very scared, sweating and didn't know -- very confused.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
ANNOUNCER: Tonight: the woman who lived to tell a story of horror and the two men who saved her life.
Dr. Steven Hatfill, the man the FBI calls a "person of interest" in the anthrax attacks, fired from his university position.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) MARK EMMERT, CHANCELLOR, LOUISIANA STATE UNIVERSITY: And we are confident that we've acted objectively and thoughtfully and fairly in this matter.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
ANNOUNCER: Tonight: Hatfill's side of the story.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
DR. STEVEN HATFILL, BIOWEAPONS EXPERT: And I love my country.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
ANNOUNCER: Conjoined twins from middle America undergo hours of surgery. Tonight: a first-person account from their parents and the doctor who performed the operation.
This is CONNIE CHUNG TONIGHT. Live from the CNN Broadcast Center in New York: Connie Chung.
CHUNG: Good evening.
Tonight: an extraordinary sight in Pensacola, Florida: a 13-year- old boy, Alex King, on the stand in a murder trial defending himself against charges that he and his brother killed their father, Terry King. If convicted, the boys will spend the rest of their lives in prison.
It's a bizarre case: boys appearing to be clean-cut, well- behaved, but charged with a brutal crime. Equally as bizarre, this is the second trial in the murder of the father, Terry King. In the first trial, prosecutors tried someone else for the murder. The verdict is being kept secret. But, in a virtually unprecedented move, prosecutors have, in effect, decided to try the case twice and see if anything sticks.
CNN's David Mattingly is on the story of today's extraordinary testimony by 13-year-old Alex King.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
DAVID MATTINGLY, CNN CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): Based on looks alone, the possibility that these young brothers with choir-boy faces could plot and murder their own father might seem inconceivable. Yet Derek and Alex King are on trial for doing just last November in Escambia County, Florida.
And in court Wednesday, the boys' own words, confessions taped by police shortly after the murder, played for the jury.
(BEGIN AUDIO CLIP)
DEREK KING, DEFENDANT: I hit him once and I heard him moan. And then I was afraid that he might wake up and see us. So I just kept on hitting him. (BEGIN AUDIO CLIP)
MATTINGLY: At the time, just 13, it was older brother Derek saying he struck the killing blows. Little brother Alex, 12 at the time, said it was he who came up with the idea and watched his brother carry it out.
But on the stand, in a 180-degree turn, Alex now says the killer was family friend Ricky Chavis. Alex testified, the night of the murder, Chavis entered their bedroom and had the boys hide in the trunk of his car before taking them secretly to stay at his home.
A. KING: He said that there had been a fight between my dad -- him and my dad. And he said that my dad was dead.
MATTINGLY: Alex told the court Chavis coached the boys on details of the crime and convinced them into taking the blame, thinking that, as juveniles, they would not go to prison.
A. KING: I was upset, crying. I was kind of angry at him. But he kept saying he loved me and that he had done it for me.
MATTINGLY: Alex also giving details into a sexual and what he described as a deeply emotional relationship he claims to have had with Chavis, a convicted child molester, testifying Chavis told him he killed the father so the two could be together.
A. KING: He was saying that he had done it for us. He said my dad had -- would never have let us live with him. He'd never let us go.
MATTINGLY: But with two compelling versions of a brutal murder, a grand jury compelled prosecutors to try Chavis and the brothers for the same murder with two separate juries in two separate trials. Chavis maintained his innocence in his murder trial last week, as the boys provided key testimony.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: What to say to the police as far as what you killed your father with?
D. KING: A bat.
MATTINGLY: The jury in the Chavis trial reached its verdict last week. That verdict, however, is sealed and won't be revealed until a new jury decides the fate of Derek and Alex.
Beyond the shocking nature of this crime, the case has become a legal sensation: two distinct stories, two separate trials, two juries, whose verdicts could fail to agree on who is the true killer.
David Mattingly, CNN.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
CHUNG: Joining me once more to make some sense out of this trial is CNN legal analyst Jeffrey Toobin. Jeffrey...
(LAUGHTER)
JEFFREY TOOBIN, CNN LEGAL ANALYST: I'll try.
CHUNG: Yes, OK.
David Mattingly put it so well: choir boys. This little boy, Alex King, is 13. He looks 8.
TOOBIN: He looks 8. It's incredible.
And he's just -- and his story is told in this sort of weird, tragic deadpan that, again, you don't know whether he's been coached.
CHUNG: Yes, right, no emotion.
TOOBIN: And what does it mean for a 13-year-old to tell the truth or not tell the truth about something so emotionally traumatic? On top of which, he has this bizarre, horrible sexual relationship with Chavis, who may have done it himself.
CHUNG: Yes, yes. I don't know. I watch it and I hear him saying, "Yes, sir," "Yes, ma'am," "No, ma'am," so polite. And yet I can't imagine that they've been accused of such a horrible murder.
But let me just show you -- we wanted to look at one clip in which Alex King is talking about his father.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Did you think things were that bad between your father and you?
A. KING: No, I thought they were pretty good. I love my dad. And we spent a lot of time together and we had a lot of fun.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Tell the jury some of the things you would do with your father.
A. KING: Well, we were working on the yard and stuff. And we would do the yard work together. That was fun, planting flower beds and things.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
CHUNG: If I were a juror, I'd be saying, "Do I believe him?"
TOOBIN: He's obviously got a big motive to lie here. You have to evaluate him, to a certain extent, like an ordinary defendant, because, after all, he IS the defendant here. It's, of course, in his interests to say: "Well, I loved my father. I didn't have any problem with him."
In Alex's defense, there had not been extensive reports of child abuse. This was not a situation where he had a history of abuse. I mean, he's referred to often as a disciplinarian, but he was not a -- certainly had never been charged with any sort of child abuse. So it may simply be true that they had a reasonably OK relationship.
CHUNG: All right, you brought up this alleged sexual relationship with the man who was accused of this murder as well and was already tried. His name is Rick Chavis.
I can only think that the defense is putting all of this information forward to create some sympathy, because this boy was just sort of wrapped up in this relationship.
TOOBIN: Well, it's no doubt true that that's why they're putting it forward. They may also be putting it forward because it's true.
And he obviously was involved with the family in some way. And Chavis is a convicted child molester. There's no dispute about that. So this is not just some sort of nice, kindly friend of the family.
I'm sorry. Go ahead.
CHUNG: No, I actually wanted to -- I meant to throw to a little, another clip. And then we'll come back and you can continue, all right?
TOOBIN: OK, go to that, sure.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
SHARON POTTER, ATTORNEY FOR DEREK KING: Do you remember when was the first time that Rick Chavis kissed you?
A. KING: Yes, ma'am.
POTTER: When was that? Do you remember? Was that before Derek came back?
A. KING: Yes, ma'am.
POTTER: But before he kissed you, had he told you some other things, like, "It's normal for men and boys to kiss"?
A. KING: Yes, ma'am. He said that that was a normal thing. And he told me about relationships he'd had.
POTTER: He said he'd had relationships with some other boys?
A. KING: Yes, ma'am.
POTTER: And he told you, "Everybody wants to try this, so there's nothing wrong with it"?
A. KING: Well, he said that it was a natural curiosity, but not necessarily everybody. But he said that it was a natural curiosity.
(END VIDEO CLIP) CHUNG: It just breaks my heart.
TOOBIN: It's awful.
You don't know how to react to that peculiar deadpan, also, because he's obviously being led through this story. He's not really telling the story. The lawyer is telling the story. And so some jurors may say: "Oh, it didn't really happen. She's just putting the words in his mouth."
But how is a 13-year-old supposed to tell a story like this? I just don't know. It's such a subjective reaction on the part of listeners and jurors that I wouldn't even begin to imagine how people will react.
CHUNG: All right, we have another clip, in which Alex describes Rick Chavis confessing.
So let's listen to this.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: What happened once you got inside Rick's house?
A. KING: He told us that there had been -- he said that there had been a fight between my dad -- him and my dad. And he said my dad was dead.
He said that he had killed my dad to protect us. He pulled me aside into his bedroom and had told me that there was a fight between him and my dad. And he was saying how bad it was, saying it was terrible. And he was saying that he had done it for us. He said my dad would never have let us live with him. He'd never let us go. He said my dad would have killed us before he'd let us go.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
CHUNG: Now, the story he's telling on the stand is completely different from the one that his brother told in confessing -- although he recanted later -- confessing to the crime.
TOOBIN: And he confessed, too. They had both confessed. That's, of course, the great problem for the defense in this case: that jurors tend to believe confessions. Jurors -- the prisons are full of people who confessed.
But, as recent research has disclosed, confessions don't always mean they're guilty. Last week, there was that famous case in Michigan where the DNA proved that a guy who had confessed was obviously not guilty. It does happen, but it's a big mountain for the defense to get around.
CHUNG: Let me ask you, is this a big problem? And that is, Derek, in his confession, apparently gave details of what his father looked like after he hit him, and gory, to say the least, details. But how would he know?
TOOBIN: Well, how would he know if he hadn't been there? Exactly right.
A big problem for the defense, puts them all -- it lets the jury put the pieces together in the way that the prosecution wants. You just never know how jurors are going to respond to children on the witness stand. I mean, that is -- you can have them throw them all out all together, but it's certainly a problem.
But the best thing the prosecution may have going for it is certain corroborating evidence that they have. They have evidence that, on the soles of the kids' shoes, was the kind of paint thinner -- although this is somewhat disputed -- that was used to start the fire. There was also an arson after the murder. That's the kind of corroborating evidence they may hang their hat on.
CHUNG: But don't the boys have an explanation for that?
TOOBIN: They have an explanation that they were actually helping their father paint, do some real painting, and that's how the thinner got on their shoes.
CHUNG: All right, this is something that the boys had mentioned. And that was that they say that Chavis killed their father because he was trying to protect them.
So we have a clip.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
A. KING: He was saying that he couldn't go to jail because of the promise he made his mother. He said that he'd done it for us and he'd done it to protect us. And he was saying that, if we had taken -- if we took the blame, then we would get off on self-defense because we were juveniles.
And he was saying that we could say that Derek had done it because he was stronger and stuff, and they would believe that, and we'd get off on self-defense.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
CHUNG: Well, but they're being tried as adults.
TOOBIN: The irony here is that that might be understandable. That might be a believable claim to most people, because I think most people couldn't think that a 13-year-old would be tried as an adult.
But you look at that baby-faced kid. If he's convicted, maybe the end of this week -- this case is moving very quickly -- he is going die in prison an old man. That's what the sentences is in this case, mandatory, not if the judge feels that way, not 20-to-life, not 30-to-life, life, those little kids. It's incredible.
CHUNG: All right, there's one last clip I want to show our viewers and you. And that is, the boys describe the environment -- I mean, Alex does -- that he grew up in. And it was terribly unstable. This one involves smoking marijuana.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
A. KING: I wanted to be with Rick, and, yes, plus the stuff that he was telling us, like, he would let us smoke weed and, like, play his games and stuff, watch TV real late.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
TOOBIN: Worse than that. They were estranged from their mother. They had been in foster care at some point. I mean, it was a terrible environment. And they have this sinister, awful guy, Chavis. Whether he committed the crime, the murder, I don't know. But, obviously, he was a factor in their lives. It was a miserable existence for these poor kids.
CHUNG: All right, so you were saying that the trial is moving at quite a clip.
TOOBIN: Very fast. We're in the defense case already, yes.
CHUNG: So what does that say to you? We'll reach closing arguments...
TOOBIN: I don't know if this judge is going sit on Friday, but it could be closing arguments at the end of the week.
CHUNG: All right, Jeffrey Toobin, thank you so much for being with us, as always.
Still ahead: a change of pace. They spent most of their lives with their hearts beating right next to each other, literally. They are the newest separated twins. We'll meet the parents when we return.
ANNOUNCER: Next: Surrounded by an inferno, she had to make a choice: die in the flames or by her own hand.
Her dramatic rescue when CONNIE CHUNG TONIGHT returns.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
CHUNG: Joining us from California: Sigrid Hopson and her rescuers, Los Angeles County Sheriff's deputies Paul Archambault and John Rose.
Thank you all for being with us.
Sigrid, take us back to Sunday. What was your situation?
SIGRID HOPSON, RESCUED FROM FIRE: I was engulfed from three sides with the fire. I saw trees falling down, burning. And there was no hope. And I wasn't going to leave my animals behind.
CHUNG: What was your greatest fear?
HOPSON: My greatest fear was to burn alive.
CHUNG: What was your plan?
HOPSON: I knew my old dog, there was no hope for him. He couldn't walk, 20 years old. So I knew I had to make a very terrible decision not to have him burn alive. So I just shot him, one shot, and he was gone.
And I sat next to him, held his paw. And I was waiting for the fire. I thought, if the fire comes to the cabin, if there's no hope, then I will have to shoot myself. But I asked God for forgiveness first.
CHUNG: John, you and your partner, Paul, had gotten the rescue call. What did the dispatchers tell you?
ROSE: We heard over our tactical channel that Mrs. Hopson -- that the area that she lives in was engulfed in flames, and that she had a Colt 45, and that she'd already executed one of her animals, and that she was preparing to commit suicide rather than be burned by the flames.
CHUNG: You know Sigrid personally. Did you actually think that she could take her own life?
ROSE: Knowing Mrs. Hopson and how she loves her mountains and her animals, we thought that was a definite possibility.
CHUNG: Paul, you were driving the SUV. How close were the flames to you?
PAUL ARCHAMBAULT, L.A. COUNTY SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT: Well, the flames were actually hitting the car periodically. It was intermittent. They would flare up in front of us and we would sort of wait and time them and creep through at the same time the boulders were coming down and trees. So it was a little bit rough.
CHUNG: John, as you were getting closer, you jumped out of the SUV. You went by foot. You were blinded by the smoke. And what did you hear?
ROSE: All I could hear was the wind. I was just hoping that she heard me calling.
CHUNG: All right, when you finally got to Mrs. Hopson, where was the gun? Was it in her hand?
ROSE: Yes, ma'am. The gun was in her hand. And she was standing there looking very confused and dazed, and crying.
CHUNG: So what did you say to her? Do you remember the words you used and the words that she used back to you? ROSE: I remember the exact -- I remember the words, yes. I don't know if I can say them exactly.
CHUNG: Yes, you can.
ROSE: OK. I said, "(EXPLETIVE DELETED) It's Rose. Don't shoot. Put that thing down."
(LAUGHTER)
ROSE: I'm sorry.
CHUNG: That's all right.
ROSE: It was pretty stressful, quite a lot of profanity. I kind of wanted to get her attention. And, apparently, I did. At that point...
CHUNG: And what did she say to you?
ROSE: She told me to leave because we were all going to die. She was actually distraught that we were there on her behalf.
CHUNG: How were you able to convince her to give you the gun?
ROSE: When she saw me, she was very, very tense. At first, when she told me to leave and get out of here, I told her that I was there -- I'd run up there to get her and I wasn't going to leave without her and Deputy Archambault was not going to leave either one of us there.
I instructed her to hand me the firearm and kind of asked her about her cat. And she looked away, because I know she loves her cat. And I took the firearm, grabbed her by the hand, and said, "Let's go."
CHUNG: You grabbed her, got into the SUV, and you all headed down the mountaintop, right?
ROSE: We ran as fast as we could down the trail. And it was a pretty harrowing run for both of us. And, fortunately, Deputy Archambault was able to keep the truck functioning by moving it around.
CHUNG: But then the tires melted and the engine had a problem.
ROSE: He just kind of hit the gas and we banged forward as best we could.
CHUNG: Sigrid, do you consider these two men, Paul and John, your angels?
HOPSON: Absolutely. The only thing I'm sorry about is that they had to risk their lives for me.
CHUNG: All right, thank you so much, Sigrid Hopson.
And, John and Paul, thank you for being with us as well. ROSE: Thank you.
ARCHAMBAULT: Thank you.
HOPSON: Thank you.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
CHUNG: And still ahead: the beauty pageant scandal. We'll talk to the beauty queen who fought to get her crown back.
Stay with us.
ANNOUNCER: Next: a new set of conjoined twins surgically separated in Ohio, their proud parents and the doctor who performed the miracle surgery -- when CONNIE CHUNG TONIGHT returns.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
ANNOUNCER: Mining rescue workers, oilmen, firefighters, paramedics, and volunteers all worked together save one tiny person trapped below ground back in 1987. She was 18 months old and her name was Jessica McClure.
Her ordeal began after she sat with her legs dangling down an 8.75-inch pipe sticking out of the ground. When she tried to stand up, she fell straight down into a rock-lined shaft, one leg pinned straight up. She remained that way for more than two days, as the nation watched and rescue workers frantically tried to figure out a way to dig down to her without burying her under rock and rubble.
Throughout, they piped warm air down to her and tried to keep her spirits up by getting her to sing the "Winnie the Pooh" theme and asking her what sound a cat makes. Finally, they reached her through a parallel shaft and brought her to safety.
ANDY GLASSCOCK, MIDLAND POLICE DEPARTMENT: Everybody cried. I fell down on my knees and cried. You'd had adrenaline for 58 hours, so all of that had to go somewhere.
ANNOUNCER: Fifteen years later, what has happened to the girl once known as "Baby Jessica"? The answer when we return.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
ANNOUNCER: What has become of Jessica McClure, whose tumble down a well captivated the nation 15 years ago? Her parents don't want her photographed, reportedly out of the fears of kidnapping. Why would she be kidnapped? Though, by all accounts, she's grown to be a happy, healthy, normal 16-year-old, the donations estimated to have poured in left her with a trust fund that will give her, at the age of 25, well over $1 million.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
CHUNG: We'll continue.
(NEWS BREAK)
CHUNG: We'll be right back.
ANNOUNCER: Coming up: He says he had nothing do with the anthrax attacks. Now Dr. Steven Hatfill has lost his university position. Did the federal government have anything to do with the firing?
CONNIE CHUNG TONIGHT continues in a moment.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
CHUNG: Now the latest chapter in the puzzling story of bioterrorism expert Steven Hatfill, the man the U.S. government calls a -- quote -- "person of interest" -- unquote -- in the anthrax investigation.
The feds have searched his home at least twice and the home of a friend, while Hatfill has vehemently denied any involvement in the anthrax attack. Yesterday, Hatfill was fired from his job at Louisiana State University. LSU says it fired Hatfill with no pressure from the outside.
But today, new information surfaces. LSU says it received an e- mail from the Justice Department in early August telling the school it cannot use Hatfill on any projects funded by the government. Translation: Get rid of the guy. Hatfill is devastated and he's firing back.
His spokesperson, Pat Clawson, joins me now from Washington.
Pat, thank you so much for joining us. We appreciate it.
PAT CLAWSON, SPOKESMAN FOR STEVEN HATFILL: Thanks for having me on, Connie.
CHUNG: I want to read you part of that e-mail. It says -- it was an e-mail to Hatfill's future boss. And it says -- it directs the boss to "immediately cease and desist from utilizing the subject matter expert and course instructor duties of Steven J. Hatfill on all Department of Justice-funded programs."
What was his reaction when he learned?
CLAWSON: Well, we didn't know about the e-mail until actually today. And Steve's reaction has been one of just utter, utter amazement. He's been stunned by this.
Steve Hatfill has not been accused by the government of committing any crime. The Justice Department has publicly stated that he is not a suspect. But the attorney general keeps calling him a "person of interest." Now the attorney general has intervened to block his employment. And that's just plain wrong, Connie. It's un- American.
CHUNG: How did he learn that he was being fired?
CLAWSON: Well, he found out yesterday afternoon when the university contacted his attorney here in the Washington, D.C. area to notify him that he had been terminated, effective immediately, with no severance and no explanation.
CHUNG: Oh, I was just about to ask you that. Was there any offer of an explanation?
CLAWSON: None whatsoever. We began, however, learning today about the Justice Department e-mail that specifically directed the university to get rid of him. And, I mean, it's just unconscionable.
Connie, there is a procedure...
CHUNG: Yes, but wait a minute. Pat, let me take this up with you.
Don't you think LSU was between a rock and a hard place? Let me play devil's advocate. Because if LSU is being by the Justice Department, "Look, you can't use him for government-funded projects," what is LSU to do?
CLAWSON: Well, obviously, LSU was concerned about protecting their funding. They weren't concerned about doing the right thing. And that's standing up and saying to the government: "Look, if you want us to get rid of somebody, that's fine. But give us a reason why, not just an e-mail telling us to do it."
You know, Steve Hatfill has not been accused of a crime, Connie.
CHUNG: I understand that.
CLAWSON: He's not been accused of a crime.
CHUNG: You don't have to preach to the choir here. I understand what you're saying. And I believe you.
CLAWSON: What we have, Connie, is black-listing. And that's something that went out in this country during the McCarthy era back in the 1950s. Black-listing now is back en vogue with the Justice Department. And that's wrong.
CHUNG: Pat, there's another twist today. And that is that the recipient of this e-mail at LSU says that he never passed that Justice Department e-mail up the line to his superiors. Do you have any evidence that it did go up the chain?
CLAWSON: I don't have a clue where it went. We didn't even know about this e-mail until today.
CHUNG: All right, well, do you think that the Justice Department can have any say in who works on government-funded projects?
CLAWSON: Well, I'm certain that the Justice Department can have some say. And I'm sure that that's part of any kind of grant agreement that they have with Louisiana State University.
But, at the same time, it would be really nice if the Justice Department would give a reason as to why it didn't want Steve Hatfill working on this project. He's one of this country's top biodefense experts. We need him protecting America. We don't need him on the sidelines right now.
CHUNG: You know, he finally -- obviously you know -- he finally spoke out on two separate Sundays.
I want to show a little clip of what he had to say, because he just -- he can't believe that he's in the position he's in.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
STEVEN HATFILL, BIOMEDICAL RESEARCHER: I know nothing about the anthrax attacks. I had absolutely nothing to do with this terrible crime. My life is being destroyed by arrogant government bureaucrats who are peddling groundless innuendoes and half-information about me to gullible reporters, who in turn repeat this to the press under the guise of news.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
CHUNG: All right, he's lost his job. He's basically lost his reputation. I think that can be safely said. What's he going to?
CLAWSON: It's a good question.
When I spoke with him earlier, he's very depressed. He's very angry. He doesn't know why his government is coming at him like this. He's bent over backwards to cooperate with the government from day one. He's never refused a request that they've given him. He's absolutely mystified as to why the government is coming after him. He's adamant that he is not the anthrax killer and knows nothing about these attacks.
CHUNG: Pat, I want to show you just one more clip. It's an interview that we had last night with the chancellor of LSU. His name is Mark Emmert. And, basically, LSU is saying that it's not passing judgment on his guilt or innocence.
So let's take a look at this.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
EMMERT: Our decision was based solely upon what was in the best long-term interests of the university. We have to worry about the ability of the university to conduct its business as a research- intensive university, as an institution that values its academic integrity as its most important value.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
CHUNG: Well, it does make sense that if LSU wants to be able to continue its research and do it properly, if the Justice Department is telling LSU, "You can't use Hatfill," what are they supposed to do?
CLAWSON: Well, if the university is really interested in protecting its integrity, it would start asking some questions, like all Americans should be doing right now.
They should be asking some questions of the Justice Department, not just of Steve Hatfill. Where is it that the attorney general gets authority to point an accusatory finger at a citizen without leveling any kind of formal charges? Where does the Justice Department get the power to get a man thrown out of his job? If the Justice Department has some evidence on Steve Hatfill, then, by all means, charge him, but quit destroying his life.
CHUNG: All right, Pat, I appreciate your strong defense of Mr. Hatfill. And we thank you for being with us.
I want to read just one other thing. The Justice Department has given us a statement just late tonight. It says it has not been involved in any decisions made by LSU with respect to Mr. Hatfill's status as an employee of the university. So there you are.
We'll talk to you again. And we hope to talk to Mr. Hatfill at some point.
Thank you, Pat Clawson.
CLAWSON: Thank you, Connie.
CHUNG: Still ahead: They were born attached at the heart and now they've been separated, but can they survive?
Stay with us.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
CHUNG: We all agree that life is not the same since September 11. We want to know how yours as changed. Did you move, change jobs, volunteer? Whatever it is, we want you to tell us about it on videotape. Send your tapes to CONNIE CHUNG TONIGHT, P.O. Box 5138, New York, New York, 10185.
For more information, log on to CNN.com/CONNIE.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
CHUNG: And now story of 4-month-old twins, Jazmine and MaKayla Heaberlin. They spent nine months in the womb constantly sparring with each other. But their tiny hearts beat right next to each other the entire time, because they were conjoined at the chest and abdomen. On Friday, in more than a dozen hours of surgery, they were separated at Columbus, Ohio's Children's Hospital.
And joining me now, their first time on national television: mom, Trinda Kaminski, and dad, Shane Heaberlin, and surgeon Dr. Gail Besner.
Thank you all for being with us. We appreciate it.
Let's start with mom.
Mom, did you know that you were having twins? And did you know that they were conjoined?
TRINDA KAMINSKI, MOTHER OF CONJOINED TWINS: I didn't find out until I was six months. When I went to get my ultrasound is when I found out that I was having twins. And then, about five minutes after they were scanning down through the ultrasound, they were looking. And then that's when they told us that they were conjoined.
CHUNG: Were you scared, concerned, thrilled anyway? What was your reaction?
KAMINSKI: I was scared at first. But then I started getting used to it, because I was going to love them no matter what. It was pretty amazing. I didn't know what to think or do. So I was just kind of -- I didn't know what to expect further on down the line.
CHUNG: Sure.
And, Shane, for you when you first found out?
SHANE HEABERLIN, FATHER OF CONJOINED TWINS: I was very happy. I found out I had twins. When I found out they were conjoined, I was a little scared and worried about what the future of the pregnancy would be like. But we met the doctor that we had and she was great. So we knew we were in good hands.
CHUNG: All right, let's go over to Dr. Besner, because she knew, didn't you, Dr. Besner, that you would be able to separate these twins and why?
DR. GAIL BESNER, PEDIATRIC SURGEON: We did have a lot of confidence in our ability to separate the twins because we had a wonderful pediatric cardiologist who did a cardiac echogram on the babies before they were actually delivered. And he was very confident that the babies had two separate hearts.
He said that the hearts were contained within the same pericardial sac, but that they were separate hearts. And that made us very optimistic for the opportunity to be able to successfully separate the babies with viability of both of the twins after separation. CHUNG: Now, the surgery occurred just last week, but it was originally scheduled for July. Why?
BESNER: Well, we spent a period of several months expanding the skin of the babies' chests in preparation for the separation to make the closure of the wounds more easily accomplished once the babies were separated.
And they had a slight setback because they developed a little infection in one of the expanders. And so we removed that expander and wanted to give the babies some extra time before the separation, so that they would be in absolutely perfect condition at the time of the separation.
CHUNG: Trinda, how are the babies doing now?
KAMINSKI: They're doing really good. We're just -- they're stable, but they're in critical condition. But they're doing as best as they can.
CHUNG: Shane, I...
(CROSSTALK)
CHUNG: Oh, go ahead.
KAMINSKI: Sorry.
CHUNG: No, you go ahead.
KAMINSKI: I'm just -- I'm pretty excited. And they're moving along wonderfully.
CHUNG: Good.
Shane, I heard that you cried when you found out that the surgery was successful.
HEABERLIN: Yes, that I did. It was like the greatest experience of my life to find out I had two little daughters healthy and well.
CHUNG: At the time before the surgery occurred, did you have any second thoughts?
HEABERLIN: No, we had good faith. We knew God was pulling for us. And we had the best surgeons in there.
CHUNG: All right, Trinda, just one more question for you.
I know that the girls were facing each other the entire time. They've been together four months now. They were 4 months old. When they were separated, they were then put in separate rooms. Do you think that they were looking for each other?
KAMINSKI: When they wake up -- they're usually used to seeing each other all the time when they wake up. When they wake up now, they're just -- they look around to try find the other one. And what we do is, we put a mirror up, because they look identical. So we'll put a mirror image up, so when they look at themselves in the mirror, they think it's the other one. They feel more comfortable and their rates get up. And it keeps their heartbeats up and all their stats stay pretty high. So...
CHUNG: That's great.
Are you saying that their heartbeats actually go up when they're looking at the mirror and thinking they're back together again?
KAMINSKI: Yes. They get excited. It's pretty weird, but it's kind of -- it's sad, because I feel bad because they're not together anymore.
CHUNG: Aww.
(LAUGHTER)
KAMINSKI: It will be for the better. So they'll understand when we explain it to them when they get older.
CHUNG: And is one or the other doing maybe a little better, a little more progress?
KAMINSKI: MaKayla is doing a little bit better than Jazmine right now. She's moving along. And Jazmine has a hole in her heart, so it's kind of making it a little bit harder for her.
It's just -- they're going to do great. I mean, they're going to catch up with each other. But we might take MaKayla home faster than we will Jazmine. But it all just depends on her heart and how everything goes with that.
CHUNG: I see.
And when you do take her home, actually, it will be the first time she goes home.
KAMINSKI: Yes.
CHUNG: She's been in the hospital the whole time.
Well, mom and dad, thank you so much for being with us.
And, Dr. Besner, thank you as well.
We just really appreciate it. And we wish you only the very, very best in the future.
KAMINSKI: Thank you.
HEABERLIN: Thank you.
BESNER: Thank you, Connie. CHUNG: And still ahead: She gave up her crown while the judge heard the case involving some risque photos. Will she get it back?
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
CHUNG: A beauty queen whose topless photos cost her the crown is getting her top back, her crown, her crown, that is.
Miss North Carolina, Rebekah Revels, was forced to step down after an ex-boyfriend told pageant officials about the nudish photos that were taken of her. But today a judge gave her back her crown. It's not over yet. It's still not clear whether the Miss America Pageant folks will let her or her runner-up compete in the big dance at Atlantic City.
So we're joined now from Raleigh, North Carolina, by Miss North Carolina -- thanks to a judge -- Rebekah Revels.
Rebekah, congratulations on getting your title back.
REBEKAH REVELS, MISS NORTH CAROLINA: Thank you so much. Thank you.
CHUNG: Now, the key phrase that the Miss America Pageant people are concerned about is contained in a contract that you signed and everybody else signs. And I want to read that phrase to you.
REVELS: OK.
CHUNG: "Prohibits contestants from engaging in any activity that could reasonably be characterized as dishonest, immoral or indecent."
REVELS: Right.
CHUNG: Are those photographs immoral or indecent?
REVELS: I don't think you can characterize them as such, because I did not consent to taking the photographs.
CHUNG: Your ex-boyfriend simply took them without your knowledge, or simply, as you have said, when you were getting undressed?
REVELS: When I was getting -- when I was changing clothes, yes, ma'am.
CHUNG: Now, did the judge see these photos?
REVELS: No. No one has. That was the biggest issue, that we don't even know if they still exist.
CHUNG: You don't?
REVELS: No, ma'am.
CHUNG: But it was your ex-boyfriend who told pageant officials about them, correct?
REVELS: Yes, that's correct.
CHUNG: And you didn't keep them yourself, because you had the photos at one time?
REVELS: I did. And he took them from me.
CHUNG: I see.
Now, I think the question is -- right now, you don't know if you'll be able to go to Atlantic City.
REVELS: Right.
CHUNG: When will that decision be made? Do you have any idea?
REVELS: I do. Tomorrow at 9:30, the court will go back into session and the judge will then decide whether or not I will be able to compete in the Miss America competition.
CHUNG: But isn't that up to the Miss America Pageant folks?
REVELS: Well, what we did was initially the same thing that we did with Miss North Carolina. We issued a temporary restraining order against the Miss America Program that says that they will allow me to compete in the competition.
So, tomorrow will be the determining factor. And, like you said, it is -- technically, their initial decision will be the decision whether or not I will be allowed to compete. But the judge would make the final decision. I'm under the assumption that he will make the final decision.
CHUNG: But you don't really know. I mean, if pageant officials choose not to allow you to compete...
REVELS: Right.
CHUNG: ... it may very well be that you can't.
REVELS: True.
CHUNG: All right.
Do you think, though, that you can really win the title of Miss America with all this controversy? Because it's very judgmental.
REVELS: Right.
CHUNG: You have these judges. And they'll know.
REVELS: Well, I've been asked this question several times. And I would hope that the judges would be charged with the fact that they are to go into the interview and in every phase that I am judged in unbiased, and that they will not have any preconceived notions, although that is human nature.
But I hope and pray that they will judge me accordingly and that the Miss America Program will adhere to its components and that it will be a fair pageant for me.
CHUNG: Now, I know you've dreamed about this title ever since you were a little girl.
REVELS: Yes, ma'am.
CHUNG: Did that ever come up in your mind when you realized that your ex-boyfriend -- at the time, he was your boyfriend -- you were going to get married -- was taking pictures of you?
REVELS: No. Initially -- people say that I've dreamed of being Miss America. I have competed in pageants for quite some time.
But when I was dating him, pageants were not a part of my life. When we broke up is when I initially began participating in the Miss America Program.
CHUNG: But I thought you said that you wanted to be Miss America ever since you were tiny, 2 or 3 years old.
REVELS: Oh, well, of course. That's probably a dream of many young girls. But they all don't aspire to be Miss America.
CHUNG: But you were actually in beauty pageants back then, weren't you?
REVELS: Well, yes. I competed in beauty pageants from the age of 2 to around 10 years old. And then I took a break and didn't start competing again until I was 15.
CHUNG: Well, what do you think this decision that the judge will make tomorrow and the one that he's already made...
REVELS: Right.
CHUNG: ... what kind of impact will this have on future pageants?
REVELS: I think it could be a positive impact.
My lawyer today made a statement that this could be good for the pageant system. The relationship that I was in was a very negative relationship. It was not a good relationship, but I came out. And I have been successful. And, hopefully, other young women who have been in a similar situation can do that and really strive to be the best that they can be, which is what the Miss America Program offers, in my opinion.
CHUNG: Rebekah, there are a lot of people out there who think that the Miss America Pageant is just simply outdated...
REVELS: Right. CHUNG: ... you know, that it's sexist, and: "Why the heck would you want to be Miss America, anyway? Honestly, it is ancient history."
REVELS: Right.
Well, I don't have that attitude. I'm sure there are plenty of people who do. And I'm sorry they feel that way. But I really think that the Miss America Program is for the betterment of young women. And, initially, when they instituted the platform program, that should show people that it's not a sexist pageant, that it's not based on beauty, but it's based on what each individual woman can give back to her community, her state and her nation.
CHUNG: All right, Rebekah, we thank you so much for being with us.
REVELS: Thank you. My pleasure.
CHUNG: And we wish you well in your desire to compete.
REVELS: Thank you very much.
CHUNG: Now, the Miss America Pageant released a statement to us tonight. It says -- quote -- "The Miss America Organization is aware of Judge Cashwell's ruling today in favor or Rebekah Revels vis-a-vis her lawsuit against the Miss North Carolina Organization. However, we have not received a written copy of the order and therefore have been unable to study it in any detail. In the next few days, we will review the matter and make further comment."
We will be right back.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
CHUNG: Tomorrow: the battle for the Barry Bonds home run ball. We'll meet the guy who caught it.
And coming up next on "LARRY KING LIVE": Angela Ricci, Richard Ricci's wife.
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
