Return to Transcripts main page

CNN Connie Chung Tonight

Florida Boys Found Guilty of Murder; Tracking the Terrorists

Aired September 06, 2002 - 20:00   ET

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

CONNIE CHUNG, CNN ANCHOR: Good evening. I'm Connie Chung.
Two boys in Florida are found guilty of killing their father.

ANNOUNCER: The state of Florida vs. the King brothers. In a stunning judicial twist, a jury finds both teenagers guilty of murdering their father.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

DAVID RIMMER, PROSECUTOR: It's unfortunate. They are really no winners when this kind of thing happens. But the jury did the right thing.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

ANNOUNCER: And a former family friend?

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Not guilty.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

ANNOUNCER: The boys now face life in prison. The murdered man's father, the boy's grandfather, says that's where they belong.

Tracking the terrorists: from the missed signals to how much we've learned.

Four CNN correspondents who have investigated the worldwide terror plot. Mike Boettcher...

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

MIKE BOETTCHER, CNN NATIONAL CORRESPONDENT: But now CNN has learned a new, even more frightening volume has been added to the collection.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

ANNOUNCER: ... Sheila MacVicar...

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

SHEILA MACVICAR, CNN CORRESPONDENT: ... know Mohamed Atta was here.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

ANNOUNCER: ... Kelli Arena...

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

KELLI ARENA, CNN JUSTICE CORRESPONDENT: There is no specific or credible information regarding an attack against the United States.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

ANNOUNCER: ... and Deborah Feyerick.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

DEBORAH FEYERICK, CNN CORRESPONDENT: So far, the bureau has yet to establish a direct link between the September 11 hijackings and the anthrax letters.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

ANNOUNCER: ... open their "Reporters' Notebooks" on al Qaeda's war against America.

Talk about a sweet deal. Ex-GE CEO Jack Welch got a whole lot more than a gold watch and a handshake when he retired. How about a Manhattan penthouse, a private 737, and luxury boxes at major sports events around the world? Power perks and who's paying for them.

This is CONNIE CHUNG TONIGHT. Live from the CNN Broadcast Center in New York: Connie Chung.

CHUNG: Good evening.

Tonight: the tale of two juries. One found two teenage boys guilty of beating their father to death with a baseball bat and trying to conceal the crime through arson. The other jury acquitted a family friend of the exact same crime, a man who is a convicted child molester and who allegedly had sexual contact with one of the boys.

On the story of this apparently unprecedented double trial: CNN's David Mattingly in Pensacola.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

DAVID MATTINGLY, CNN CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): There were two juries, but, in the end, they were of one mind: first, young brothers Derek and Alex King found guilty of killing their father and setting their house on fire.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Verdict: We the jury find as follows as to count one of the indictment: guilty of second-degree murder, a lesser included offense, without a weapon.

MATTINGLY: The verdict bringing tears to their choir-boy faces, the jury deciding the boys were lying when they accused family friend and convicted child molester Rick Chavis of the murder and of convincing them to confess.

RIMMER: They did do it. And the jury found that they did it. And the jury returned a verdict they thought was appropriate. And I deeply respect that verdict.

MATTINGLY: Defense for the boys would not comment.

Next, over an hour later, Chavis is before the same court.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: We the jury find as follows as to count two of the indictment: not guilty.

MATTINGLY: Shedding tears himself, as this time the verdict from another jury, sealed since last week, is read.

MICHAEL ROLLO, ATTORNEY FOR CHAVIS: The public needs to be aware of the grand jury system. They need to understand that you could indict a cabbage for just about anything in front of a grand jury. They're only there to find probably cause. So the grand jury system, in my opinion, really needs to be looked at.

MATTINGLY: On trial in the court of public opinion: state prosecutor David Rimmer, criticized for pursuing both the brothers and Chavis for the same crime, seemingly vindicated by two agreeing verdicts.

RIMMER: And the grand jury chose to indict Mr. Chavis. And so, therefore, the boy's credibility was at issue. I put them on the stand. And the jury is the one that determines whether or not they believe a witness is telling the truth. If they had believed the boys were telling the truth in court, they could have found Chavis guilty. They didn't believe them.

MATTINGLY: But Chavis now faces charges as an accessory in the murder, as well as charges of lewd and lascivious conduct with a minor. According to Alex's testimony, he and Chavis were involved in a sexual relationship when Alex was just 12 years old.

As for the brothers, the verdict could have been worse. Unlike first-degree murder, murder in the second degree does not carry a mandatory sentence. How much of their young lives that will be spent behind bars will be up to the judge.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

MATTINGLY: And that sentencing to take place in October. The boys could appear in court again as witnesses for the prosecution, however, in the cases now pending against Chavis -- Connie.

CHUNG: David, you were in the courtroom twice today for two different verdicts. Let's deal with the first verdict first.

I have to tell you that I gasped when I heard that these boys were found guilty. Was there a gasp in the courtroom? MATTINGLY: Nothing like that, but there was a great deal of tension in the courtroom before from everyone, it seemed, except the boys themselves. They walked in just as they had every day. They sat down. They fidgeted in their chairs. They doodled on a pad. They chatted with their attorneys and smiled.

It seems like they were the only ones who weren't aware of the gravity of that moment. But, of course, when the verdict came down, the boys took it both very hard, both of them shedding tears as they came out of the courtroom.

CHUNG: David, we couldn't see the faces of the jurors. What were their expressions when the verdict was read?

MATTINGLY: I was watching the jurors also. And I didn't notice them offering any kind of emotion whatsoever. They came -- they seemed to be coming about this very business-like, again, no emotion from the jury in either of the cases, actually.

CHUNG: Did they have any eye contact with the boys when the verdict was read?

MATTINGLY: I couldn't see if they were actually having eye contact with the boys. Most of them seemed to be with their shoulders turned toward the judge a little bit.

One thing I did notice in this trial was that the defense attorney for the youngest boy, Alex, very often would put his arm across the back of the chair in almost a very grandfatherly pose with the young boy. And that was one of the last images the jury had as they went out of the courtroom to deliberate. But, obviously, that image did not play into their verdict.

CHUNG: Now, I understand that the boys' mother, who has not played a big part in their lives, was in the courtroom and was crying. Can you tell us a little more about her?

MATTINGLY: She is married and she lives out of state. I talked to her a little bit today.

She said that she and her former husband, Terry, the man who was killed by these boys, she said that the two of them had joint custody and she had planned to move back closer to Pensacola so that she could be part of their lives again. Of course, now, with them facing possible prison terms, that obviously is not going to happen.

CHUNG: All right, quickly, the second verdict, when that was read and Chavis was found not guilty, was there reaction from the King family?

MATTINGLY: There was reaction from the relatives of the King brothers that were there in the courtroom today. There was an obvious and very demonstrative motions of anger that they seemed to be having at that verdict. In fact, there were about a dozen or so uniformed officers in the courtroom. The family members had to be taken out of the courtroom very quickly after the verdict was read. CHUNG: All right, David Mattingly, thank you so much. You've done such a good job reporting on this case.

And now we need a little help to understand this bizarre, bizarre case. And, of course, CNN legal analyst Jeffrey Toobin is here.

Jeffrey, I have to tell you something that I found out from the co-counsel of Derek, the older brother. His name is Dennis Corder. And he said that the judge in this case -- who was the judge for both trials, mind you -- that judge in the case -- and I need to tell the viewers as well. The judge in the case and all the lawyers in both trials knew what the verdict was of Mr. Chavis. They knew that he was going to be found not guilty, because they read the verdict.

The reason why they read the verdict was because the judge said he would actually have a bit of a problem if Chavis was found guilty and then they proceeded with another trial, which is so obvious, right?

JEFFREY TOOBIN, CNN LEGAL ANALYST: Well...

CHUNG: But...

TOOBIN: Yes, OK. Keep going.

(LAUGHTER)

TOOBIN: I don't want to interrupt. Go ahead.

CHUNG: All right.

But once they found out that he was not guilty, then they proceeded with the trial. The judge said, "Go ahead."

TOOBIN: You know, a deeply bizarre case gets even stranger with this disclosure, which is really a mind-bending conclusion to this matter.

I think the judge may have created a legal problem for himself by doing what he did. And I'll try to put it simply, but it's a real issue. Remember, the defense in the boys' trial wanted to call Chavis to the witness stand. Chavis took the Fifth, wouldn't testify. At that point, Chavis had been acquitted. The lawyers knew he had been acquitted.

CHUNG: Oh, yes.

TOOBIN: You can't take the Fifth -- he had no chance of being reprosecuted for this crime. It would have been double jeopardy. So there, I don't think, would have been any basis for him to take the Fifth if they had known that he had been acquitted at that point.

CHUNG: And they did know.

TOOBIN: They did know. So I think that's a real -- I think that's a potential legal problem on appeal. CHUNG: And when you say that's a potential legal problem, what you mean is that, when the boys appeal -- which they will -- they've got something to hang their hat on.

TOOBIN: They might.

They have several things to hang their hats on. Look, let's start from the beginning. Most convictions are affirmed on appeal. It is very hard to get convictions overturned. This is an unusual case. And I think that's an issue. And mostly, I think, there is an issue about whether a prosecutor has the right to file charges in the same crime against two different people under completely different theories.

I think that is a fundamental issue that any appeals court dealing with this case will have to deal with. Obviously -- and here's the sort of sad element for it for the boys -- if they had both been convicted, if Chavis and the boys had been convicted, that would have been a more powerful argument. But even just the bringing of the charges, I think, might be a legal problem to support the verdict as well.

CHUNG: All right, just FYI -- and correct me if I'm wrong -- Chavis does face other charges.

TOOBIN: Absolutely. He did not go home today after he was acquitted.

CHUNG: Because I think America could be outraged, saying: "Oh, my God. This child molester gets off and he isn't even accused of molesting this little boy who obviously was only 12."

TOOBIN: In fact, he's awaiting trial on just those charges.

CHUNG: All right -- also obstruction of justice, something that has to do with this case.

TOOBIN: It's related.

CHUNG: OK.

The co-counsel, again, of Derek said that this boy suffers from ADHD, attention deficit disorder, hyperactivity disorder. And he has not been on medication since he's been in jail, which is about nine months. But he doesn't know if he was on medication at the time of the murder. And isn't that one of those complicated areas in which there might be some kind of basis for this child either being on his medication or off his medication? Do you have any idea?

TOOBIN: I think that is the kind of issue that the defense attorney should have -- if he thought he was an issue, he should have brought it out during the trial.

I don't see any grounds for overturning the conviction on appeal, especially since you're talking about something, the general rubric of hyperactivity, which is a fairly common issue. It's not like being a psychotic or something or a schizophrenic. It's the kind of thing that I think it was kind of a use-it-or-lose-it situation for that particular issue.

CHUNG: All right, they'll be sentenced in October.

TOOBIN: October 17.

CHUNG: And they can face up to 30 years or life in prison without the possibility of parole. It's a very strange situation in Florida.

TOOBIN: It's an unusual law.

And the one good thing that happened to these boys today is that they weren't convicted of first-degree murder, in which case: life without parole, end of story. Again, there will be legal complexities here because of the ages of the boys. I am certain the lawyers for the boys will argue that they should be sentenced as juveniles, not as adults, even though they were tried as adults. It's probably a losing argument, but it may persuade the judge to sort of ratchet the whole sentencing scheme downward, at least somewhat.

CHUNG: We should also say that they face yet another up to 30 years for the arson.

TOOBIN: That's a serious -- they weren't just convicted of murder. They were convicted of arson, which is a serious crime in and of itself.

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

TOOBIN: It's been a wild ride.

CHUNG: I want you to come back anyway and talk about it, because I think it will go on.

TOOBIN: Oh, absolutely.

CHUNG: All right, thank you.

Joining us now is a man who's in a position that's unimaginable to most people. His son Terry King has been murdered. And today, Wilbur King's grandsons, Derek and Alex, were convicted of the killing.

Mr. King, thank you so much for joining us. We appreciate it.

Sir, were you surprised at the verdict?

WILBUR KING, FATHER OF TERRY KING: Not really.

CHUNG: Why not?

KING: Well, I had a feeling that my grandsons had a part in my son's murder. I don't hate them. I love them. But I had a gut feeling that they did have a part in it.

CHUNG: Why do you think they would kill their father?

KING: Well, there's a lot of circumstance that was around the murder, and their lifestyle, the way they were raised, and even to a conversation I had with them when I visited them in the jail.

CHUNG: And tell us about that conversation.

KING: Well, while I was in the jail visiting, when they were first incarcerated, I was talking to the boys, just general talk. And then, all of a sudden, the two boys got into a physical confrontation right in front of me. It was so violent.

CHUNG: You mean with each other?

KING: With each other, yes.

And they were so violent that an officer had to come inside and stop them and order them to quit, or else we would end our visit at that moment. So they settled down and quieted down.

CHUNG: Do you know...

KING: At this point....

CHUNG: Go ahead.

KING: At this point, I turned to Alex and I began to talk to Alex. And I asked him a point-blank question: What happened the night that they came home? Was there any confrontation? At that moment, Derek put his finger to his lips in a hush manner, telling Alex to keep his mouth shut.

And then the conversation changed at that moment. And then a little joking went on. And then finally Alex said to me, "When we stand before the judge, we'll tell the judge that we didn't do it."

CHUNG: Did you, at that time, believe that they were lying?

KING: No, I did not. The confrontation they had and the look in their eyes, the fact that he told me that he was reading "Harry Potter"'s books and "Star Wars" led me to believe that it was even deeper than what I thought.

CHUNG: Mr. King, just a little earlier, you said that, based on the way the boys were brought up, you had this feeling about them. How were they brought up? Can you tell us about their mother?

KING: Well, their mother -- what can I say about the mother? When the four boys were there. After the four boys were born, the mother deserted the home and went to live with another man. This man beat her up. And she came back to Terry. And then she left Terry again.

And so my son Terry had four boys to raise, had no one to help except the family. And the family did what they could for Terry, but it wasn't enough. And so the boys did not get the home care that they needed while they were young.

CHUNG: Did your son ever mistreat them?

KING: No, ma'am, never.

CHUNG: What did you know about the homosexual relationship that Alex, the younger son, had with this man named Rick Chavis?

KING: The only knowledge I had of it was what I saw and heard over the news media and what I read in the paper.

CHUNG: Didn't Alex talk to you about or mention homosexuality when you were talking about going to church?

KING: No, he didn't.

CHUNG: I believe you were -- the two of you were talking about going to church.

KING: Oh, yes, I remember.

We were discussing, while they were in jail, about church work and everything. And Derek looked at me and said, "I go to the Olive Baptist Church," and said, "They're prejudiced."

And I looked at him and I said, "Well, what do you mean they're prejudiced?"

He said, "Well, they're against homosexuals." And then Derek looked at me and he says, "Are you against homosexuals?"

And I said, "Yes, I am." I said: "It's dirty. It's filthy." And I said, "The Bible is against it." And then I shot the question immediately back to Derek, "Are you a homosexual?"

And he threw his arms up and said to me, between his arms, "No, I'm not." And so the subject changed again.

CHUNG: Sir, you know...

KING: And so...

CHUNG: Go ahead.

Your grandsons...

KING: I just wondered -- go ahead.

CHUNG: Go ahead. No, you go ahead.

KING: I was just wondering why he brought the subject up.

CHUNG: I see. Mr. King, your grandsons just look like choir boys. They look so innocent. I have to say that, when I was watching Alex on the witness stand, I couldn't imagine that he would be capable of what he was charged with. In part, he was charged with coming up with the idea of killing your son, their father, and that indeed Derek committed the crime. Do you believe that two boys are capable of doing so, doing just that?

KING: What I saw in that room with them that day that I visited them, I do. I believe they were capable.

CHUNG: But when you saw your grandson on the witness stand, didn't you think to yourself, "No, this little boy couldn't possibly have done anything that awful"?

KING: Well, I was rocking back and forth until they were on the stand and the defense attorney was questioning them and bombarded them with questions, especially Derek.

And I could understand. And as I watched the boys -- I keep a log of everything that happened off the Internet. And I have got all the newspaper clippings. But the thing that struck me the most was their eyes. Their eyes were dead. There was no emotion. There was nothing but just a blank look in their eyes.

And when Alex was on the stand describing how his father was killed, there was no emotion, no sobs, no regret. And the only time that I saw him weep or cry was this afternoon when they said that he was guilty of first-degree murder. Then I saw him begin to wipe his eyes.

CHUNG: Mr. King, Wilbur King, I thank you so much for being with us. And we feel for your sadness within your family. Thank you, sir.

KING: Thank you.

CHUNG: When we come back: September 11. What did our government know? And will it happen again? We'll get answers from our superb CNN reporters who have investigated these questions and many more. You won't want to miss it.

ANNOUNCER: Still ahead: what the U.S. has learned in the year since the 9/11 attacks. CNN's investigative correspondents on the worldwide al Qaeda conspiracy.

CONNIE CHUNG TONIGHT returns in a moment.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

CHUNG: Pre-9/11, there were clues out there. And my question to all of you is: What do you think the United States knew?

So, let's start with you, Mike. You actually were working on a documentary at the time.

BOETTCHER: That summer, the summer before 9/11, I was in Beirut for six weeks. We were working on a documentary called "One Day Soon" about the probability of a mass-casualty terrorism event against the United States.

CHUNG: That, in and of itself, is scary.

BOETTCHER: Yes. When 9/11 happened, it hit me right here, because we were working, trying to figure out what was going on. And it shows the difficulty that investigators had.

What people missed, back in December of 1999, Admiral Thomas Wilson, who was when director of the Defense Intelligence Agency, said in written testimony before Congress that there would be a mass- casualty terrorism event in this country before two years. And his prediction was right.

CHUNG: Kelli, was there a heightened sense of activity in Washington?

ARENA: Law enforcement was on alert because the so-called intelligence chatter, just information coming in, was at a level that they hadn't seen before. So they knew that something was up, but there was nothing specific.

Of course you know, from my standpoint, the FBI takes the brunt of most of this, in terms of knowing and not acting on certain information. And they had gotten a memo from one of their Phoenix agents suggesting that there was an unusual level of -- a number of individuals of Middle Eastern descent that were taking flight lessons.

CHUNG: Sheila, you were covering a trial of a would-be terrorist in Jordan. And that played a part, as you now look back on it, or maybe even then.

MACVICAR: It's clear, as we've all learned throughout the course of the last year, that there were all these signals, as Kelli and Mike have talked about, how it's not just the FBI that perhaps failed to connect the dots, how it was clear that there was a tremendous amount of information and a number of warnings.

One of the questions, going back to the time before 9/11, was whether the United States or any other coalition intelligence agency perhaps had more specific information. And there had been some hints that perhaps they were even following or aware of some of the people who later turned out to take part in those events of 9/11.

CHUNG: 9/11 occurs. Immediately, everyone wants to know: Who did it? How did they do it? And why did they do it?

And you, Deborah, were on the trail of the hijackers. You were knocking on doors in New Jersey.

FEYERICK: Well, that's what was very interesting. It was almost as if we began getting leads in. And we were following the same leads that the FBI was going on.

I know, in New Jersey, there were some 350 investigators working with local law enforcement. They were trying to piece together where these guys had been. They had rented a car in Wayne, New Jersey. They had e-mail accounts set up, post office boxes. So, again, very much like everybody, it was interesting. We were putting all the pieces of the information: where they could have gone, what they may have done.

And even sources have said the United States seems to be very good at putting information together after things happen. The problem is, is that we need the information before the things happen.

CHUNG: Absolutely.

Now, Sheila, you went to Hamburg,Germany. And you were looking into the lead hijacker, Mohamed Atta. What did you find?

MACVICAR: What is so interesting of the story of Mohamed Atta and the group of people that would become suspected hijacker pilots in Hamburg is their evolution and the number of years that this took. This wasn't something that they woke up on one spring morning in the spring of 2001 and thought, "Let's go to the United States in order to carry out a terrorist atrocity."

They planned this for years. And there is now evidence, according to German investigators, that perhaps as early as 1996, when he was only 27 years old, Mohamed Atta had already committed himself to die. He perhaps, at that point, did not know precisely what the mechanism would be, how it would happen to him, when it would happen. But he had made a decision then.

CHUNG: Deborah, you covered the Moussaoui case. What part did he play in this scenario?

FEYERICK: Well, that's what's very interesting, is that he has been charged with being part of this larger terrorism conspiracy. Many people refer to him as the 20th hijacker. Prosecutors do not call him that.

So, it's really not clear whether in fact he was supposed to be involved in the September 11 attacks or whether he was part of some sort of a second wave. But the information that we have on him is that everything that he was doing here in America was everything that all the hijackers were doing.

And there is also speculation that, because two other people tried to get into the United States and could not get in, that maybe they recruited Moussaoui last minute to come in to serve as that person who was going to be on the Pennsylvania plane, the one that crashed after the passengers fought back.

CHUNG: All right, we're going to continue in just a moment. I think some of the issues we're going to deal with is: "Will there be another attack?" especially with the anniversary coming up, and many more.

So we'll be back in just a moment.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

CHUNG: We will return to our correspondents in just a moment.

(NEWS BREAK)

CHUNG: Still ahead: Almost a year after September 11, where does the investigation stand? Is Osama bin Laden still alive?

Stay with us.

ANNOUNCER: Still ahead: Talk about your golden parachute. Former GE CEO Jack Welch says, "Geronimo" -- from sports luxury boxes to plush living quarters, a good deal if you can get it.

CONNIE CHUNG TONIGHT will be right back.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

CHUNG: We are back looking at the various investigations into al Qaeda and the September 11 attacks, with help from our investigative all-stars: justice correspondent Kelli Arena, correspondent Deborah Feyerick, national correspondent Mike Boettcher, and CNN international correspondent Sheila MacVicar.

Now the investigation continues.

Mike Boettcher, I have the feeling that the federal government was always playing catchup with you, because you found out just how sophisticated al Qaeda was.

BOETTCHER: Well, al Qaeda was -- and I wouldn't give myself that much credit. You know, these investigators were out there. And they did, they uncovered a lot of things. And they were working their butts off out there trying to get this done.

But, in terms of the way they were communicating and moving and what they're doing now in reconstituting themselves into an organization that may not even be known as al Qaeda, Connie, this is an organization that has people traveling now around the world who have left Afghanistan and are using the same sophisticated tactics in their home countries, making alliances with groups that people wouldn't even imagine before, from Lebanon to Morocco to Southeast Asia and in the United States.

And they're very sophisticated in their use of the Internet. They're very sophisticated in terms of operational security and how they pass messages. And they're very sophisticated in their training, as we saw in the tapes, in the intricacy of their assassination and kidnap training.

CHUNG: I think what's most frightening to all of us is that, as Kelli knows, there are sleeper cells here in the United States. And I guess the question that all of us have: How many potential terrorists are there, do you think, in the United States? Or can you even estimate? ARENA: Well, sources have told us that they have at least 200 individuals that are under active 24-hour, seven-day-a-week surveillance, so 200 people that could have possible terrorist ties. You also have mosques in nine separate cities in the United States that are also under constant surveillance.

But what is more troubling to investigators, beyond those individuals, is an infrastructure that exists in the United States, a support infrastructure, people who provide fake documents, safe houses, weapons, who introduce them to like-minded individuals for recruitment purposes. That is a network -- people who take English- language exams. It sounds innocuous, but these are enterprises that support a terrorist organization.

And that is what prosecutors and investigators have been really trying to get at in this past year.

CHUNG: I want to throw out a question. And anyone can take it.

Do you think that the U.S. government could have prevented 9/11?

BOETTCHER: Well, OK.

I think, with some luck, they could have. But this time, we didn't have luck. That's the way I'd answer it. There were a lot of bits and pieces out there. But to break something like that, you need a lucky break. And I don't think they got it.

FEYERICK: Also, because I was going to say that -- one thing we learned from the U.S. Embassy bombing trial. And that is, is that most of these people are on a need-to-know basis, the people within the cells themselves.

So it's very, very difficult to get some sort of informer, as you did during the plot run by Sheik Omar Abdel Rahman, which was blowing up the tunnels and the bridges and landmarks. There they had an informer. But, in this kind of situation, where you have so few people, the chances of your getting somebody to turn state's evidence is very unlikely.

CHUNG: All right, another question to all of you: Do you think there's going to be another attack on our soil?

MACVICAR: Yes. I think there will at least be a very serious attempt made. Who could say when or where or what? But I think, given what we know of the organization and the organization's ability to mutate, to reform and to continue to motivate people, I think that there inevitably will be another very serious attempt.

CHUNG: Kelli, with this anniversary coming up, 9/11, we're hearing in Washington that there is a higher noise level, the way they put, just the way it was before 9/11.

ARENA: Yes. Sources say that it is eerily similar to the level of so-called chatter that they were hearing pre-9/11. But we also saw this pre-July 4 of this past year. This is a situation that goes up and down. It has its waves. And so I don't want to downplay the fact that there's an increased level of chatter, because we saw what happened on September 11. However, again, we have to underscore here, there's nothing specific.

BOETTCHER: Definitely.

As much as I hate to say it, the attack of September 11 was not one event. It was part of a war and a war they will continue to wage. And you're going hear this noise. And it's going to keep coming. And they're not going to stop. They've got a long-range plan that goes 20, 30, 40, 50 years. They're very patient.

CHUNG: All right, well, final question: Is Osama bin Laden alive?

Let's go down the line -- Sheila.

MACVICAR: There are rumors that I have been hearing now for more than -- well, I would say about three months -- that he is dead. I am not convinced.

CHUNG: Mike.

BOETTCHER: The best of my sources tell me definitely he is alive. And they believe he's somewhere in the northwest territories of Pakistan, which is not controlled by the central government of Pakistan, really.

CHUNG: Deborah.

FEYERICK: Whether he's alive or dead, I think his followers will continue to strike.

CHUNG: Kelli.

ARENA: Well, I agree. Whether or not he's alive or dead really doesn't matter.

CHUNG: All right, Kelli Arena, Deborah Feyerick, Mike Boettcher, Sheila MacVicar, I thank you so much for being with us tonight.

When we come back: a retirement package you just won't believe.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

ANNOUNCER: America's biggest terrorism trial was in 1995, culminating years of investigations into the 1993 World Trade Center bombing, the killing of a Rabbi Meir Kahane, plots to assassinate Boutros Boutros-Ghali, Hosni Mubarak and Al D'Amato, and plots to blow up the United Nations Building, the Lincoln and Holland tunnels and the New York office of the FBI. Prosecutors called it a plan to wage urban warfare against New York. And, on charges of seditious conspiracy, they convicted 10, including mastermind mosque leader, Sheik Omar Abdel Rahman, who was mistakenly let into the country on a tourist visa and opposed U.S. policies on Israel and Egypt.

Whatever happened to the blind sheik who was willing to kill for his beliefs? The answer when we return.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

ANNOUNCER: What happened to blind Sheik Omar Abdel Rahman, convicted in 1995 of planning a string of bombings in New York City? In court, he called the U.S., where he had been free to practice and share his religion, an enemy of Islam.

Although he was sentenced to life without parole, plus 65 years, he was named as an unindicted co-conspirator in the 1998 bombings that killed 200 people at two U.S. embassies in Africa. A CIA report last year predicted that al Qaeda might hijack planes and use the hostages to win the sheik's release. And this year, Rahman's lawyer was indicted on charges of helping him pass messages to his terrorist followers. She is pleading emphatically not guilty.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

CHUNG: If you're ticked off watching your stocks plummet while corporate CEOs walk off with millions of dollars, oh boy are you going to love this. New divorce filings provide a rare glimpse into just how much General Electric shelled out to Jack Welch when he was CEO and how much he continues to get even after retiring last year.

Here's just some of the stuff Welch is said to be getting on GE's dime: a plush Manhattan apartment on Central Park West valued at $80,000 a month. GE pays for virtually everything there: food, wine, flowers and a household staff, including a cook, waiter and housekeeper. He also gets floor seats, floor seats for the Knicks; Yankees dugout box seats; VIP seats at Wimbledon and the Olympics and just about any event covered by NBC, which is owned by GE.

And getting, there not a problem. GE pays his way on corporate Boeing 737 jets, helicopters and limousines with drivers and security personnel. And there's more. But this program is only an hour long, so we have to just stop and bring in "Fortune" magazine editor at large Andy Serwer.

Andy, would you do me a favor and call my agent and tell him I don't want to talk to him anymore?

ANDY SERWER, EDITOR AT LARGE, "FORTUNE": We're getting a raw deal, right?

CHUNG: We certainly are.

Have you ever heard of such a thing?

SERWER: No. This is the greatest cornucopia of perks and benefits any CEO has ever gotten, Connie.

CHUNG: Unbelievable.

Now, don't the shareholders have a right to know about this? Because, after all, wasn't it the board that approved it?

SERWER: Yes. That raises two questions, Connie. What was the board doing giving him such an incredibly lavish package, No. 1? He also had the gall to ask for it. That's No. 2. But the shareholders have got to be ticked off here.

I think, first of all, they have a right to know. GE says it's disclosed this package, but it really only did so in very vague terms, saying that he was eligible for various services. I think all this needs to be spelled out.

CHUNG: Right.

OK, but, in a statement, GE says, well, it disclosed the company's -- in the proxy statement, it was disclosed. And, also, it's been available on the SEC Web site for six years.

SERWER: Right.

Again, but I think the language simply said he's availing himself to various services and benefits that are appropriate for an ex-CEO. It didn't talk about food, wine, flowers, golf memberships to various country clubs and all that sort of thing.

CHUNG: Including Augusta.

SERWER: How does that make the women shareholders feel at this point?

CHUNG: Oh, my gosh.

SERWER: We won't even get into that one.

CHUNG: Yes, we won't.

But he did -- Jack Welch did put out a statement. And let me just read part of it. "The essence of this story," he says -- and he calls it a story -- "is that GE put a succession plan in place that included a contract with me, described the succession plan in the media, disclosed the contract, as required. And the plan has worked to the benefit of all constituencies. A one-sided filing by one party in a contested divorce" -- that's his divorce -- "does not change these facts."

Well? SERWER: Well, first of all, he's not denying any of it. That's very interesting. So I guess we have to assume that everything in those papers is true, No. 1. And, No. 2, he is essentially saying that he deserves it because he made GE's stock go up so much.

CHUNG: All right, we're going to have to leave that delicious story and go to another one on our plate, all right?

SERWER: All right.

CHUNG: There's a new development in the Martha Stewart saga. Can you tell us about it?

SERWER: Very interesting. The congressional committee that's investigating Martha Stewart has said they found yet another what they're calling discrepancy between her story and Dr. Sam Waksal's story. He, of course, was the ex-CEO of that biotech company ImClone. He, of course, is in hot water himself.

But, Connie, to me, it's not that much of a discrepancy, because it simply says that there was a phone call after the alleged insider trading that took place between the two. So who really cares if there was a phone call after this alleged impropriety took place?

CHUNG: All right, so this congressional committee keeps beating the drum.

SERWER: Yes.

CHUNG: And what is it going to do, do you think?

SERWER: Well, this is where I'm getting off right now, Connie. They keep saying: "There's smoke. There's smoke. There's smoke." Well, I think the American people are saying, "Let's see some fire here, OK?"

I mean, they're spending a lot of taxpayers' money going after an American icon like Martha Stewart. You better stand up and deliver. There are various things that this committee can do.

CHUNG: And, indeed, they have announced that they're going to do something next week. So what could that be?

SERWER: They said there's four options -- well, were suggesting there are four options.

One: They can drop the whole shebang, which I don't think is going to happen. No. 2, they can subpoena Martha Stewart. I'm not sure they are going to do that, because she would just come down to Washington and plead the Fifth. So they really wouldn't get anything.

Also, they can refer to the Justice Department and let them handle the investigation. Or the Justice Department can file criminal charges. If I were to guess today, I would guess -- and I'm just taking a stab -- that they will turn it all over to the Justice Department and let them handle it, because, to me, I don't see anything really worthwhile or worthy of criminal charges right now.

CHUNG: Well, you know what? That's what should have been done in the first place.

SERWER: That's right, then. I agree. If you're going to investigate the woman, get to it. And if she's worthy of -- if the situation warrants filing charges, then file the charges.

CHUNG: I think, without question, she's been twisting slowly in the wind.

SERWER: That's a good way to put it, isn't it?

CHUNG: All right, Andy Serwer, it's great to have you.

SERWER: Good to see you.

CHUNG: I usually see you in the morning.

SERWER: Yes.

CHUNG: It's nice to see you in the evening.

SERWER: Thanks, Connie.

Coming up: One year later, the hunt for mass murderers continues. Is the U.S. any closer to catching them?

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

CHUNG: For the past few weeks, we've been asking for videotaped submissions describing how the events of 9/11 changed your life. We close tonight with the words of a Minnesota mom, Susan Heiligman.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

SUSAN HEILIGMAN, MINNEAPOLIS RESIDENT: After the week or two weeks of absolute initial shock and disbelief wore off, and I was able to comprehend the pain that I was feeling on behalf of everyone in the country and in New York and in Washington, I sat down one night and I wrote a poem. I'd like to read it for you now.

They, brothers and sisters, friends, secret sharers, tattletales, grown up, but not apart, bound forever by more than just blood, initials etched on tree house walls amid echoes of laughter lost to all but memory. They, heroes, conquered by savage cowardice, Americans, not soldiers, world citizens, not warriors, they, engraved in strangers' hearts, keep us alive to remember. They, we will never forget.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

CHUNG: Thank you, Susan.

If you'd like to tell us how 9/11 affected you, send a videotape to CONNIE CHUNG TONIGHT, P.O. Box 5138, New York, New York, 10185. And be sure to include your name and address. But, sorry, we won't be able to return your tapes. And for more information, log on to CNN.com/CONNIE.

Now, on Monday: He says his father was killed by Saddam Hussein. Now he's part of Iraq's opposition -- an inside look at Saddam's Iraq.

And coming up next on "LARRY KING LIVE": John Edward. How does he convince so many people that he talks to ghosts?

Thank you for joining us. And for all of us at CNN, good night, have a good weekend, and see you on Monday.

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