CNN.com - Transcripts

Transcript Providers

Return to Transcripts main page

CNN Connie Chung Tonight

White House Admonishes FBI For Terror Alert; CIA Killer Set to be Executed

Aired November 14, 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.

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: a new terrorist threat against American hospitals. But is it real?

ANNOUNCER: Homeland security back on the front burner.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

SEN. RICHARD SHELBY (R-AL), VICE CHAIRMAN, SENATE INTELLIGENCE COMMITTEE: We have to believe that there will be attempts in this country anywhere, perhaps everywhere, to do us harm.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

ANNOUNCER: Tonight: What is a credible threat?

Thirty-two thousand feet over the Atlantic, airline passengers and crew struggle to stop a terrorist from detonating a bomb. The pilots of Flight 63 tell the story of how they stopped the shoe bomber.

The man convicted of killing two CIA officers now minutes from execution -- will his death trigger a retaliation against the U.S.?

And the young boys convicted of killing their father face yet another twist in their fate.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

JUDGE FRANK BELL, ESCAMBIA CO. CIRCUIT COURT: "I murdered my dad with an aluminum baseball bat."

(END VIDEO CLIP)

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

CHUNG: Good evening.

Tonight, we begin with a quick update on some breaking developments in the sniper case. Prosecutors have gone on the record with what they claim suspect John Lee Malvo has said. CNN's Jeanne Meserve is in Washington, D.C. and has the very latest.

Jeanne, what can you tell us?

JEANNE MESERVE, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Connie, along with the new charges against John Lee Malvo and John Allen Muhammad, new details about the shooting of Pascal Charlot, a 72-year-old Haitian immigrant, gunned down on October 3.

The accompanying affidavit appears to be the first official public document to mention a confession to one of the sniper shootings. It says that, in an interview with law enforcement after his arrest -- quote -- "Malvo told investigators he remembered shooting an elderly black male in Northwest Washington, D.C."

The affidavit also reveals that, just a few hours before the shooting, a telephone calling card was used in the vicinity to make a call to Baton Rouge, where John Muhammad was raised. According to affidavit, that card was in Muhammad's wallet at the time of his arrest. The document also details a traffic stop of the 1990 Chevy Caprice just two hours before the shooting. Prosecutors say Muhammad was the only person in the vehicle at the time -- so a few more pieces of the puzzle put into place, Connie.

CHUNG: All right, Jeanne, there is other big news tonight, of course, Americans woke up this morning to reports of a new threat from terrorists, this time against some of America's top hospitals on or around December 15.

And Jeanne's been covering that story as well today. Tell us what you have on that, Jeanne.

MESERVE: That's right, a terror warning against hospitals in Chicago, San Francisco, Houston and Washington, D.C.

It caused concern not just in those cities, but within the administration.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

(voice over): The warning from the FBI about possible anthrax or bomb attacks prompted some hospital in the four affected cities to take additional precautions.

JIM EATON, CALIF. PACIFIC MEDICAL CTR.: We alert our security staff. We alert our mailroom staff. We alert our regular staff to be cautious of packages, cautious of things that are out of place, and to be really on a higher alert status than we normally would be.

MESERVE: But displeased White House officials said the intelligence on which the warning was based had very low credibility and was not corroborated. They criticized the FBI for "getting people unnecessarily alarmed." Said one official: "They should not have put this information out." An FBI official in Houston explained why they did. BOB DOGIUM, FBI SPECIAL AGENT: But the responsible thing to do is as we gather intelligence information is to share the intelligence information.

MESERVE: There have been warnings in the past about railroads, banks, nuclear power plants, and other critical infrastructure. These have gone through an established interagency process to ensure that the information is credible and that the affected industries and the public have some context and instructions about what to do.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

MESERVE: That information on hospitals did not go through the interagency process. White House officials have communicated their displeasure to the FBI. And a review is under way to make sure it doesn't happen again -- Connie.

CHUNG: Jeanne, what is the protocol? What is this threshold for a credible threat, so that the public is notified?

MESERVE: Well, there is a lot of information coming in over the transom. And they look at this. They try to judge the quality of the sourcing, the amount of corroboration.

They try to determine the ability to carry this out. Can the person making the threat actually accomplish what they're setting out to do? They sift through all of that. It is vetted through various agencies and looked at. Honest people can disagree about what to do about a particular piece of intelligence. Obviously, they did disagree about this one -- Connie.

CHUNG: All right, Jeanne Meserve in Washington, thank you.

White House officials may be characterizing information about this threat as unreliable, but hospital officials in targeted communities say they are prepared for the worst and hoping for the best.

We're joined now by Gerry Fuselier, head of security at Methodist Hospital in Houston, Texas; and Dr. Jeff Kalina, head of the hospital's bioterrorism unit.

Thank you, gentlemen, for being with us.

First, Mr. Fuselier.

When you were first notified, what did you do? And then later, did you alter procedures because of the clarification?

GERRY FUSELIER, HEAD OF SECURITY, METHODIST HOSPITAL: Well, Connie, we were first notified yesterday afternoon by a faxed letter from the FBI to the medical center.

Upon receiving that information, we contacted our senior management and our staff. And we've held a series of meetings and just wanted to increase the awareness of our staff and people, because we're committed to the safety and security of our patients and our employees.

CHUNG: Dr. Kalina, do you think that the hospital is prepared for a chemical or a biological attack?

DR. JEFF KALINA, BIOTERRORISM UNIT, METHODIST HOSPITAL: I think we are, Connie. We've been preparing for months. So we started before even September 11 even happened. And September 11 simply was a way of increasing the rapidity by which we were preparing our planning. We have drilled. We have gone over our plans. And I believe we are ready right now.

CHUNG: All right.

Mr. Fuselier, do you believe that you should be notified, even if the credibility of this threat is low? Because, obviously, there's a dispute within the Bush administration. The FBI wanted to notify you. And yet the White House was saying, no, this was wrong.

FUSELIER: Well, Connie, my opinion is that, if nothing happens, it's a success.

From my standpoint as security director of Methodist Hospital, I'd rather err on the side of being cautious. So, I don't have any problem at all with us raising our awareness. Since September 11, we've been doing that.

CHUNG: Dr. Kalina, are the patients aware of this and were they expressing any concern to you?

KALINA: The local media broke the story yesterday. And I believe that the patients and the family members coming to the hospital are aware of the story in the media.

But we've done a pretty good job of explaining to them and comforting them in the fact that we have a plan. We've been preparing. And we were ready a month ago.

CHUNG: Dr. Kalina, I agree with Mr. Fuselier. I would prefer to know, even if the threat is very low on the credibility scale. What do you think, Dr. Kalina?

KALINA: I definitely believe that a success of this would be no act whatsoever, not having to activate our disaster plan. We've initiated the early phases of our plan as a matter of routine, like we would do for the hurricanes or tropical storms or any other potential disaster.

But we certainly haven't called out all the troops. And, at this point, I feel that this is probably the safest place in Houston.

CHUNG: All right, Gerry Fuselier, Dr. Jeff Kalina, thank you so much for being with us.

Still ahead: reports of another possible threat to U.S. interests, this time because America is executing a Pakistani terrorist tonight. We'll talk to the FBI agent who caught him. Stay with us.

ANNOUNCER: Next: Imagine being on a transatlantic flight with a terrorist on board. The two men who piloted Flight 63 and foiled the shoe bomber tell their stories -- when CONNIE CHUNG TONIGHT returns.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

CHUNG: On December 22, 2001, a man boarded an American Airlines flight in Paris with explosives packed in his shoes. Flight 63 was bound for Miami. And Richard Reid, a British citizen, intended to blow it up. Within hours, the passengers and crew on board would be locked in a struggle for their lives 32,000 feet above the Atlantic.

You are about to meet the plane's pilot, but first: CNN's Bill Delaney with a little background of their ordeal.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

BILL DELANEY, CNN CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): The man in line for American Airlines Flight 63 from Paris to Miami three days before Christmas last year must have stood out: Richard Reid, 6 foot, 4 inches, long, scraggly hair and beard, hiding enough plastic explosive in his sneakers to blow a deadly hole in the plane's fuselage.

(on camera): But by the time Flight 63 had been diverted here to Boston, Richard Reid had been tied to his seat by some of the 197 crew and passengers on board the 767. Richard Reid had even been given a shot by a tranquilizer by a doctor on board. He had tried and failed to ignite a fuse in his sneaker, which first alerted a flight attendant.

(voice-over): A saga with almost an element of farce, were it not for the horror Reid could have caused, prevented when fellow passengers subdued the man in 29J, grappling, punching until Reid was finally tied down with belts, headphone cords, plastic handcuffs, one man refusing, for 2 1/2 hours, before the plane landed to let go of Reid's long hair, all of which culminated when the 29-year-old British citizen unexpectedly pled guilty to the eight charges against him, including use of a weapon of mass destruction and murder.

He said in open court: "I am a member of al Qaeda and pledged to Osama bin Laden. And I am an enemy of your country," a country where Reid now faces a minimum of 60 years in prison, a maximum of life at a sentencing hearing scheduled for late January, a former petty thief and mugger with a fifth grade education who nearly managed the worst single act of terror since 9/11.

Bill Delaney, CNN, Boston.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

CHUNG: Two pilots on that flight were Hans Mantel and Kent, who has asked us to not use his last name. Kent was on his break when Reid tried to light his powerful explosives. And Kent personally responded to the threat, tying Reid up and overseeing the group effort to keep Reid subdued during the long flight.

Meanwhile, Hans Mantel -- am I mispronouncing you last name? Is it Mantel?

HANS MANTEL, AMERICAN AIRLINES PILOT: Mantel.

CHUNG: Mantel. Thank you -- stayed at the helmed and captained the plane safely back to American soil.

And both of them join us tonight.

Thank you for being with us.

Hans, it was 11 days before the flight and the FAA had notified airlines that terrorists might be bringing some weapons on in their shoes. How and when were you notified?

MANTEL: We weren't notified until after our flight.

CHUNG: Unbelievable. How come?

MANTEL: I think the FAA notified the company. And the company elected to not inform us on the shoes.

CHUNG: Elected not to?

MANTEL: That's basically what we were informed, yes.

CHUNG: All right, Kent, you were asleep.

KENT, AMERICAN AIRLINES PILOT: Correct.

CHUNG: Which was what you were supposed to be doing at that time. A stewardess runs in, tells you there's a problem. What happened?

KENT: He comes up to me with a fire extinguisher and says, "We need you in the back."

So I followed him to the back. And on my way up to the back, I heard screaming that: "He bit me. He bit me." When I get back there, I think I'm going to fight a fire. But I see some passengers wrestling with a gentleman on the right side of the airplane. So I had to assess really what was going on. Was it a fire or did this person do something wrong?

And by the look on the people's face, I decided that something had to be done. So I proceeded to get behind him. And, with a couple flight attendants and myself, asked for belts, and we started to tie him up so we could get him secure.

CHUNG: Were you able to look into his eyes and were you able to talk to him?

KENT: I didn't talk to him until I searched him, once he was tied up. And I asked him the question. I said: "I'm going to search you. Is there anything that I need to know about, any knives or needles or anything so I don't get stuck?"

And he looked me in the eyes and he said...

CHUNG: It's just leaving you.

Hans, do you remember -- and he has told this story to you about 200 times.

KENT: I've told it so many times, I'm

(CROSSTALK)

KENT: ... forget it.

CHUNG: I know.

Can you remember?

MANTEL: Actually, what Kent told him, that he was -- he was searching him. And he said, "You're going to find out later what I have."

KENT: He says: "Why should I tell you? You're going to find out sooner or later."

CHUNG: And so then you actually did continue searching him. And you took those shoes.

KENT: Yes. It was about 45 minutes after the first search that we got him tied up and things were pretty secure. And I searched him a second time and got down to find his shoes. And I found a pair of shoes on the ground with a cord sticking out of it. And I thought that was quite strange.

So I decided to take them into the cockpit, thinking that there might be a knife or something in here.

CHUNG: And Hans was in the cockpit.

KENT: Correct. Right.

CHUNG: Hans, did you realize immediately that there was a bomb in those shoes? And did you, Kent?

MANTEL: Not for a second. For a second, while Kent was pulling on it and looking at the shoes is when we finally looked at the cord and determined it had the shape of the old M-80 fuses, with the plastic. And then we all basically realized at the same time, both Darren, the first officer, and Kent, that it was a bomb.

CHUNG: Oh, my gosh. Did you gulp a bit? Did you stomach drop?

KENT: Yes, pretty much so. My hand was inside the shoe. And I brought the shoe up to my face. And that's when I smelled the sulfur. And all that we had known was, he tried to light something. So now we could all put two and two together, and, yes, this was a bomb. CHUNG: All right. Now, were you concerned that there might be other terrorists on the plane and that you might not be able to identify them?

KENT: Well, that was my No. 1 concern the whole time I was back there, that we were subduing Richard Reid, but we were going to be attacked at any time.

CHUNG: And how were you able to determine if anyone else was connected to him?

MANTEL: Well, we never were, but we did a full search of all the cockpit -- all the cabin -- I'm sorry.

We had all the passengers from the back forward. And Kent can explain that, because that was done by both the flight attendants and Kent, to search them, look at their passports to determine where they came from, see if they had any I.D.s, because Richard Reid only had one passport, no driver's license, no other identification. So we figured other people would have the same scenario and no other identification, other than just the passport.

CHUNG: Was he revealing any information?

KENT: None whatsoever.

CHUNG: So, finally, how much longer did you have to fly that plane before you all could land and feel that you were safe?

MANTEL: About two hours and 15 minutes.

CHUNG: Oh, my gosh.

MANTEL: Yes, it was quite a long time.

CHUNG: You must have been tense. It must have felt like two days.

KENT: Yes, it was quite intense in the back. But we had a lot to do. So we never thought about anything except getting the people there safely.

CHUNG: Yes. And so finally you landed safely, Hans?

MANTEL: Yes. We landed safely with a fighter export.

CHUNG: Oh, isn't that something.

Now, do you believe, Hans, that pilots should be allowed to carry weapons, guns?

MANTEL: Yes, I do. This case is probably a good example of why would we not use them. We never would have come out of the cockpit with a weapon. The idea is to take care of everything in the cabin with a cabin crew. The weapons, they're only meant that, if anybody breaches that cockpit door, with nothing else to defend us, we could have a weapon to defend us. So, yes, I'm very for it.

CHUNG: And what do you think, Kent?

KENT: I believe the same thing, yes.

CHUNG: You're with him 100 percent.

KENT: One-hundred percent, yes.

CHUNG: But what about the danger that a terrorist might be able to overtake you, get the gun and then use it to his advantage?

KENT: I think that we need guns in the cockpit, because it's the last defense.

MANTEL: Well, let me point that. If terrorists do overcome us, even without a weapon, they've taken over the aircraft, just as they did in 9/11. The guns are there as to give us another chance of maybe being able to save the airplane to prevent 9/11 again.

CHUNG: All right. So this man has pleaded guilty, Richard Reid. And he's going to be sentenced.

Thank you so much. And you know what? I've got the same problem. I do. I can't remember a thing. Hans, you can't either. I know you can't remember anything, right?

MANTEL: Thank you.

CHUNG: OK.

KENT: Thanks, Connie.

CHUNG: Thanks so much for being with us. We appreciate it.

Still ahead: The killer who attacked CIA headquarters is set to be executed within the hour. We'll talk with the FBI agent who spent years on the manhunt and finally caught him.

Stay with us.

ANNOUNCER: Next: The manhunt took four years. And tonight, the man who killed two at the CIA faces his final moments. What did it take to crack the case? And is the U.S. now at risk on his execution day?

CONNIE CHUNG TONIGHT returns in a moment.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

CHUNG: In 1993, a Pakistani man went on a shooting rampage outside CIA headquarters in Langley, Virginia. He walked through the agency's parking lot, randomly firing an AK-47, killing and wounding CIA employees.

Mir Aimal Kasi says he pulled the trigger because of his anger over Washington's Middle East policies. Now Kasi is awaiting his execution at 9:00 p.m. tonight in Franklin, Virginia. And the State Department warns, his death could spark retaliatory attacks against U.S. targets overseas.

Bob Franken is on the story tonight.

BOB FRANKEN, CNN NATIONAL CORRESPONDENT: Well, Connie, now that the U.S. Supreme Court and the governor of Virginia have rejected any requests for further delay, Mr. Kasi is being moved in about 15 minutes to the execution chamber.

And the lethal injection will be administered, thus ending a case that began so tragically nearly 10 years ago.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

(voice over): So much time has passed. The scale of terrorist attacks in the United States has increased immensely, but on January 25, 1993 the morning ambush outside Central Intelligence Agency Headquarters in McLean, Virginia, shocked the world and left two CIA employees dead, three others injured.

(BEGIN AUDIO CLIP)

MIR AIMAL KASI, CONVICTED MURDERER: I was real angry at the policy of the United States Government in the Middle East, particularly toward the Palestinian people.

(END AUDIO CLIP)

FRANKEN: It took four years but the relentless pursuit by law enforcement finally paid off. June 15, 1997, investigators traced gunman Mir Aimal Kasi to a hotel in Quetta, Pakistan. Among those who crashed into his room, FBI Agent Brad Garrett who had led the hunt.

BRAD GARRETT, FBI SPECIAL AGENT: We get into this huge tussle with him. He's screaming at the top of his lungs. We end up gagging him at some point. Our biggest concern when we got in there, once we cleared the room, there was no weapons, there was no one else in there was is he the right guy?

FRANKEN: Investigators say Kasi subsequently confessed. In the five years since then, Garrett and Kasi have gotten to know each other personally. In fact, Agent Garrett will be at the prison for Kasi's execution, although he expresses no opinion about it. But there is apprehension at the State Department, which is warning Americans in Kasi's native Pakistan of possible revenge attacks, attacks Kasi himself says he opposes.

(BEGIN AUDIO CLIP)

KASI: In Pakistan a lot of people like me, so I believe there will be big chances for retaliation against Americans there, but personally I don't encourage anybody to attack Americans.

(END AUDIO CLIP)

(END VIDEOTAPE)

FRANKEN: Both overseas and here at the prison, security is tightened. We're not being given specifics, but we do know that the Virginia State Police have sent more officers than they usually do to make sure that nothing untoward happens. Meanwhile, the grim routine has begun. The witnesses have arrived. And in just a little over a half-hour, everyone expects that the lethal injection will be administered, ending the case of Mr. Kasi -- Connie.

CHUNG: Bob, we know that there's an appeal for a stay of execution. What are the chances that Mr. Kasi will be allowed to be granted a stay?

FRANKEN: Well, the Supreme Court had two appeals before it earlier in the day. One of them had to do with the extradition procedure, which, of course, was so skewed with what officials call the kidnapping of Kasi so many years ago. And the other one was just a grant for a stay. Both of those were denied.

And what happened then is that the governor of the state, Warner, issued a statement shortly thereafter. He had been waiting, waiting for the Supreme Court to act. He said: "I have concluded that the death penalty is appropriate in this instance. I will not intervene."

So, unless there's something that nobody would expect, all the legal obstacles for this execution are out of the way.

CHUNG: Bob, does the State Department really believe that there might be retaliatory acts? Is the State Department taking this seriously?

FRANKEN: Well, they're taking it very seriously. There have been a number of demonstrations in Pakistan. There was an American flag that burned.

The Quetta area, of course, is a hotbed of anti-American feeling. And, of course, there's been an increase in chatter, as everybody has been reporting. The tape monitoring that is done by U.S. agencies have picked up much more terrorist talk. So there's quite a bit of concern that Kasi could become some sort of catalyst for new terrorist action.

CHUNG: And, Bob, we know that there will be witnesses and members of the media there for the execution. Do you know if any of the victims' family members will be there or if Mr. Kasi's family members will be there?

FRANKEN: The victims' families have been kind of low-profile about that. Mr. Kasi's family, two of his brothers were in and out. He also had a spiritual adviser here, who is a local Muslim professor. But they will, of course, have to leave when the time comes. The spiritual adviser can stay with him, however, until the last. CHUNG: All right, Bob Franken in Franklin, Virginia, thank you.

And, as Bob told us, FBI Agent Brad Garrett helped track down and capture Kasi. Since that time, Garrett has made it his business to get inside the mind of the CIA killer. Right now, Garrett is about to witness Kasi's final moments. But, just a short while ago, I spoke with him from Franklin, Virginia.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

CHUNG: You got to know Kasi very well. Has he expressed some remorse?

GARRETT: He has no remorse for committing the act itself. He does show remorse towards the victims, the families that were left behind, and actually has expressed, through me and in writing, as well as a telephone conversation with one of the victims' brothers, his remorse.

CHUNG: How does he justify the killings, though? He does have a reason why he decided to go after these CIA employees.

GARRETT: Well, he believes that U.S. policies overseas in Muslim countries are inherently wrong, in particular the CIA's involvement in countries.

So, as a result, he believes that the only way that we can do anything about changing those policies is to attack American institutions. In this case, he attacked the CIA.

CHUNG: I'm sure you had an opportunity to talk with him several times over these years prior to today and the execution. Do you believe that he was supportive of 9/11?

GARRETT: That's an interesting question, Connie, because it's a mixed bag for him. He would tell you if he were sitting here next to me that the World Trade Center was wrong, but the Pentagon was OK.

CHUNG: What a dichotomy. How do you analyze that?

GARRETT: Well, you have to understand his mind-set. It's nothing personal against individuals in the United States. It's against our policies.

So keep this in mind: You attack the World Trade Center and, basically, it's two towers full of civilians, who, by and large, don't work for the government. They're just there doing their job -- where he looked upon the Pentagon like he looked upon the CIA, as an institution, a government institution that has -- they basically implement policy overseas.

CHUNG: Will you be there for the execution tonight?

GARRETT: I will.

CHUNG: Why? GARRETT: Because he asked me to be there.

CHUNG: He did? Why did he do that? Do you know?

GARRETT: Well, I think because he looks upon me as someone who didn't judge him.

I just did my job. My job was to find him, arrest him, and bring him back to the United States. And I've never gone at him as to -- on any personal level as to: "Why you did this? What a horrible person you are." I don't even think in that realm. It's just that I've treated him like a human being. I've been very straightforward with him. I never promised him anything that I couldn't deliver. And I think he respected that.

I think he feels a certain bond with me. Connie, he made a statement early on like in -- maybe in 1993, in fact, after we were back for a few months. He said: "You brought me to the United States. And now you're responsible for me." Now, what does that mean? I could take that very lightly or not. You know, and I've thought about that over the years. And so maybe that ties into him asking me to come.

CHUNG: Do you think, on every level, he respects you?

GARRETT: I think so.

I mean, all I know is, what he's told other news organizations and what he's told me is that he does respect me. He respects my honesty. I think he trusts me, which I realize probably sounds unusual, because I'm an FBI agent and I arrested him and now he sits on death row. But I think it makes a statement that you can still connect with people, you can still understand people, even though you're not in the same world.

CHUNG: Well, Brad Garrett, I thank you so much for being with us. It's fascinating, I think, the relationship that you developed with this man. Appreciate it.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

CHUNG: When we come back: Michael Jackson takes center stage in court. And look at what he looks like now.

ANNOUNCER: Next: the King brothers back in court, a major twist in the murder trial.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

FRANK: "I murdered my dad with an aluminum baseball bat."

(END VIDEO CLIP)

ANNOUNCER: CONNIE CHUNG TONIGHT will be right back.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK) CHUNG: Teenage brothers Derek and Alex King pleaded guilty today to murdering their father and setting their house on fire to cover up the killing. The boys accepted a plea agreement in a Florida courtroom this afternoon after a week of mediation. The judge passed sentence on the young brothers. And one of the most up unusual and most controversial cases in recent years came to an end.

CNN's Mark Potter has been following the story from Pensacola, Florida.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

MARK POTTER, CNN CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): In a mediated settlement between the defense and prosecution, Alex and Derek King, ages 13 and 14, pleaded guilty to arson and third-degree murder for the beating death of their father a year ago. Alex was given a seven- year prison sentence. His older brother Derek received eight years.

They will serve their time at a state facility which houses only juveniles. As part of the deal they also had to confess their roles in killing their father, Terry King. Judge Frank Bell first read Derek's detailed confession.

BELL: "Alex suggested that I kill dad. I murdered my dad with an aluminum baseball bat. I set the house on fire from my dad's bedroom."

M. POTTER: The judge then read aloud the confession from Alex, the younger brother.

BELL: "We talked about killing my dad. When we got home, Derek got bat and hit dad in the head. After a while, dad didn't move. We set bedroom on fire."

M. POTTER: Last September, Alex and Derek were tried and convicted of second-degree murder and arson. Ricky Chavis, a family friend and convicted child molester, was tried separately on similar charges, but was acquitted.

Judge Bell, however, threw out the boys' verdict, ruling the trial was unfair. He then appointed a mediator and ordered the defense and prosecution to try to settle the case out of court. Kelly Marino, the boys' biological mother, who gave them up for foster care years, ago opposes the negotiated plea deal. She claims she was cut out of the mediation and argues the boys are too young to make such an important decision.

KELLY MARINO, MOTHER OF DEREK AND ALEX KING: They are 13 and 14 years old. They are not able to make this judgment for the rest of their lives. And none of us were allowed to have a say in that.

M. POTTER: Defense attorneys and the prosecutor responded harshly to the mother's criticism, arguing she did little to help the boys earlier in their lives.

DAVID RIMMER, PROSECUTOR: They wouldn't be going to the state pen if she had paid more attention to them when they were in their playpens.

M. POTTER (on camera): This case first drew national attention because of the boys' ages and the way it was prosecuted. Now, by ending in a negotiated settlement, this tragic murder case once again makes news, as two young brothers head off to prison.

Mark Potter, CNN, Pensacola, Florida.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

CHUNG: For more on this high-profile case, we go to the lawyers who fought it. Derek King's lawyer, Sharon Potter, is outside the Pensacola courthouse. And with her is prosecutor David Rimmer, assistant state attorney for Florida. And also here, our legal analyst, Jeffrey Toobin, joins me in New York.

Thank you all for being with us.

Mr. Rimmer, you prosecuted this case. Are you satisfied with the jail terms that these boys will serve?

RIMMER: Yes, I am, because my main concern was the truth. I wanted that to come out. I wanted them to tell the truth. And based on the totality of the circumstances and the unique problems that I had with this case, I'm satisfied with the type of sentence that they got.

CHUNG: Sharon Potter, you represent Derek, the older boy. Do you think he really understood what happened, that he was essentially facing up to life in prison and now he's only facing eight years.

SHARON POTTER, ATTORNEY FOR DEREK KING: I feel confident that he did. We explained to the judge in court today, when he asked us that same question, that we had spent a great deal of time with Derek. And we would not have been there in court today had we not felt like Derek understood what he was doing.

CHUNG: And what is his reaction, Sharon? And do you have any idea of what his little brother's reaction is?

S. POTTER: All I can tell you is that I think they are somewhat relieved today, because they do know now what their future holds. And for the last year, they really haven't known.

CHUNG: Jeffrey Toobin, there is nothing usual about this case. I mean, isn't this mediation unprecedented as well?

JEFFREY TOOBIN, CNN LEGAL ANALYST: I don't know if it's absolutely unprecedented, but it's certainly...

CHUNG: Very rare.

TOOBIN: ... very unusual.

Here you have a situation where the judge, I think rather cleverly, rather than go through a whole litigation process of appeals and retrying the case said: "Look, you two work this out. I am not happy with how the verdict came out, with the sentence that I am obliged to impose. I want you to come back to me with a deal."

And, you know, it seems to me that sanity prevailed. This seems like a pretty fair resolution for everybody concerned.

CHUNG: Well, Mr. Rimmer, you were widely criticized because you brought two cases before two juries. One was against the boys and one accused Ricky Chavis. You based each case on different facts. Do you now believe, looking back, that you were clearly mistaken in doing so?

RIMMER: No. I didn't present different facts. As a matter of fact, both juries heard the same facts. Each jury heard the confessions the boys gave to the police.

CHUNG: Excuse me? One of the cases -- in one of the cases, you were accusing the boys of being the killers. And, in the other case, you were accusing Ricky Chavis of being the killer.

RIMMER: I was accusing Ricky Chavis of being a principal. That's the same theory under which Alex was being prosecuted.

My theory was that Chavis is the one who motivated and encouraged the boys to do what they did. I never told his jury he swung the bat or that Derek did not swing the bat. So, I did not present conflicting theories at all.

CHUNG: Then why didn't you bring them to trial together?

RIMMER: Well, they can't be tried together because the boys had given confessions and the boys were going to testify. When you got two different defendants like that, you can't try them together. I couldn't call the boys as witnesses.

TOOBIN: But...

RIMMER: No, no, no. Listen to me. Listen to me.

TOOBIN: I'm sorry.

RIMMER: No, listen. Let me finish. Let me finish.

The boys were witnesses against Chavis. If all three of them were tried together, I can't call them as witnesses in their own case. They had to be tried separately.

TOOBIN: But didn't the judge really repudiate you by saying the conviction of the boys was a violation of due process when the contradictory theory had been placed before a different jury just a week earlier? It was the judge saying it, not us.

RIMMER: No, you didn't listen to judge. The judge never said that at all. The judge said that he felt that the boys did not get a fair trial. He said there were unintended consequences. He posed various rhetorical questions. He never ever said anything about conflicting theories or anything like that. TOOBIN: But he said the case was no good, didn't he? He threw the case out.

RIMMER: He said -- in his opinion, he didn't think they got a fair trial. And he said that he thought there were unintended consequences. He never said anything about prosecutorial misconduct, improper argument, conflicting theories, or anything like that. He never said that.

In his opinion, he didn't think they got a fair trial. That's the judge's ruling. And I lived with that. And if we hadn't worked this out in mediation, I was prepared to appeal his ruling. If I did not prevail on appeal, I was prepared to retry the case.

CHUNG: Sharon Potter, do you think there was prosecutorial misconduct in this case?

S. POTTER: That has been our argument from the very beginning. I do feel that it was improper for Mr. Rimmer to have prosecuted the way he did. And that argument has not changed.

CHUNG: All right. And so what's ahead for these two boys, Sharon Potter?

S. POTTER: Well, we know, the next few years, they will be in prison. They will both be out before the age of 21. Actually, Derek will be 21 when he gets out.

And, at that time, they will have had some vocational training, hopefully, some life skills training, hopefully, that they may not have gotten before. And, hopefully, they will be able to live productive, good lives after that point.

CHUNG: What about, most importantly, some counseling?

S. POTTER: That will be available to them at these institutions. That is my understanding.

CHUNG: It will be available to them?

S. POTTER: That's my understanding, yes.

TOOBIN: Well, Ms. Potter, will they testify at the trial? Ricky Chavis has a child abuse molestation case coming up. Will they be witnesses in that trial?

S. POTTER: That's not my decision. If they are subpoenaed, then, yes, they will be witnesses. But I have no

(CROSSTALK)

TOOBIN: But they'll agree to testify?

S. POTTER: They will not have a choice if they are subpoenaed.

CHUNG: David Rimmer, will you call them? RIMMER: Yes. I'll call Alex and Derek in the charge of lewd and lascivious on Chavis. I don't anticipate calling Derek as a witness in the accessory charge on Chavis, just Alex in that case.

CHUNG: Mr. Rimmer, do you believe, in essence, though, that Ricky Chavis got away with murder?

RIMMER: Well, I never believed he swung the bat. My belief was that he was the one that encouraged and motivated the boys. It's hard to say. Only three people really know what happened.

CHUNG: But you do believe he was complicit in the murder.

RIMMER: Yes, I do. If he did in fact encourage the boys -- and all I really had was circumstantial evidence and reasonable inferences that I could argue from those circumstances, because the boys never said that, "Yes, he encouraged us to kill our dad."

But there was enough evidence there, I think I could have got it to the jury. So if in fact -- if -- if he encouraged the boys directly to kill their dad, yes, he got away with murder.

CHUNG: Sharon Potter, David Rimmer, and Jeffrey Toobin, thank you for all being with us.

And we will be right back.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

CHUNG: You know, you'd think a king would appear before his court, but the self-titled king of pop, Michael Jackson, didn't show up at his scheduled court date this morning.

Jackson is being sued for an alleged multimillion dollar breach of contract. He was also a no-show at a couple of concerts three years ago. And that's what this trial is all about. The trial has put Jackson back in the spotlight and his much-talked-about face back in the media glare.

Brian Cabell is covering the trial in Santa Maria, California. And he joins us now.

Brian, why do you think he didn't show up?

BRIAN CABELL, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Well, we don't know exactly why, Connie.

We were just told about an hour-and-a-half after he was supposed to show up that he and his team would not be showing up and they would show up instead for the afternoon session. But the judge wouldn't tell us why. The attorneys wouldn't tell us why. They just said there was some problem with the Jackson camp. But he did show up eventually, at 1:00 this afternoon, and testified for about three hours.

CHUNG: I see. Now, is he acting as weird as he looks? CABELL: It's hard to say. He has his quirks about him. He certainly has quirks about him. Yesterday, he had a bandage on his nose. I don't know whether that was to help him breathe. Today, he didn't have it. He didn't have his surgical mask on today. Yesterday, he did. He had an umbrella over his head in the sun today, as well as yesterday.

He has some strange quirks in court as well. Yesterday, Connie, he was sworn to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. He paused for about three or four seconds after that and then he said: "I didn't hear that. Can you repeat that?"

(LAUGHTER)

CABELL: That's the first time I've ever heard that in court before. And so, of course, the clerk did repeat that.

And then, repeatedly, throughout this trial, he has been rocking in his seat as though he's dancing in his seat. He's been nodding his head as though he's hearing a song. But he seemed today to be having a better time of it than he did yesterday. Yesterday, he seemed nervous. Today, he seemed to be more amused with what was happening in court.

(LAUGHTER)

CHUNG: Brian, you are very funny.

You mentioned that little bandage on his nose. What was it? What do you think that was?

CABELL: I don't know. It's either one of those that athletes wear or that people wear to prevent snoring, or perhaps it was a cut. But today he didn't have it. Nobody really has been able to ask him. We just kind of all speculate about it. And nobody, frankly, knows. But he didn't have it today. He looked more normal today.

CHUNG: That's relative.

(LAUGHTER)

CABELL: I'll tell you, people absolutely love him here, though, Connie. You should come out here. It is remarkable. He is truly idolized.

It is like the old days with the Beatles. The kids are shrieking for his attention. He spent about two minutes with a child in a wheelchair today. He knelt down and talked to the child. And then he worked the crowd for another 15, 20 minutes, handing out autographs, hugging a few people. They truly, truly love him. He is idolized. I would have thought perhaps his time had passed maybe 10 years ago, but he is still a major pop idol here.

CHUNG: All right, Brian Cabell -- and probably a lot of security, too, right? CABELL: Yes, tons of security. There are three men around him at all times. Whenever he comes out in the hallway, the bathroom is guarded and nobody else is allowed to go in.

But, again, you saw him working the crowd. And the security is around him. But he does actually touch the crowd. So the security is very obvious, but he likes to mingle. He does like to mingle.

CHUNG: Thank you, Brian Cabell.

We'll be back with a quick word about tomorrow.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

CHUNG: Tomorrow: former chief weapons inspector Richard Butler on the imminent return of the U.N. to Baghdad. Plus: She's got a killer husband, TV's Carmela Soprano, Edie Falco.

And coming up next on "LARRY KING LIVE": Will he make her cry? Larry turns the tables on Barbara Walters, my pal.

Thanks for joining us. Good night.

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

Set to be Executed>

Aired November 14, 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: a new terrorist threat against American hospitals. But is it real?

ANNOUNCER: Homeland security back on the front burner.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

SEN. RICHARD SHELBY (R-AL), VICE CHAIRMAN, SENATE INTELLIGENCE COMMITTEE: We have to believe that there will be attempts in this country anywhere, perhaps everywhere, to do us harm.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

ANNOUNCER: Tonight: What is a credible threat?

Thirty-two thousand feet over the Atlantic, airline passengers and crew struggle to stop a terrorist from detonating a bomb. The pilots of Flight 63 tell the story of how they stopped the shoe bomber.

The man convicted of killing two CIA officers now minutes from execution -- will his death trigger a retaliation against the U.S.?

And the young boys convicted of killing their father face yet another twist in their fate.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

JUDGE FRANK BELL, ESCAMBIA CO. CIRCUIT COURT: "I murdered my dad with an aluminum baseball bat."

(END VIDEO CLIP)

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

CHUNG: Good evening.

Tonight, we begin with a quick update on some breaking developments in the sniper case. Prosecutors have gone on the record with what they claim suspect John Lee Malvo has said. CNN's Jeanne Meserve is in Washington, D.C. and has the very latest.

Jeanne, what can you tell us?

JEANNE MESERVE, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Connie, along with the new charges against John Lee Malvo and John Allen Muhammad, new details about the shooting of Pascal Charlot, a 72-year-old Haitian immigrant, gunned down on October 3.

The accompanying affidavit appears to be the first official public document to mention a confession to one of the sniper shootings. It says that, in an interview with law enforcement after his arrest -- quote -- "Malvo told investigators he remembered shooting an elderly black male in Northwest Washington, D.C."

The affidavit also reveals that, just a few hours before the shooting, a telephone calling card was used in the vicinity to make a call to Baton Rouge, where John Muhammad was raised. According to affidavit, that card was in Muhammad's wallet at the time of his arrest. The document also details a traffic stop of the 1990 Chevy Caprice just two hours before the shooting. Prosecutors say Muhammad was the only person in the vehicle at the time -- so a few more pieces of the puzzle put into place, Connie.

CHUNG: All right, Jeanne, there is other big news tonight, of course, Americans woke up this morning to reports of a new threat from terrorists, this time against some of America's top hospitals on or around December 15.

And Jeanne's been covering that story as well today. Tell us what you have on that, Jeanne.

MESERVE: That's right, a terror warning against hospitals in Chicago, San Francisco, Houston and Washington, D.C.

It caused concern not just in those cities, but within the administration.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

(voice over): The warning from the FBI about possible anthrax or bomb attacks prompted some hospital in the four affected cities to take additional precautions.

JIM EATON, CALIF. PACIFIC MEDICAL CTR.: We alert our security staff. We alert our mailroom staff. We alert our regular staff to be cautious of packages, cautious of things that are out of place, and to be really on a higher alert status than we normally would be.

MESERVE: But displeased White House officials said the intelligence on which the warning was based had very low credibility and was not corroborated. They criticized the FBI for "getting people unnecessarily alarmed." Said one official: "They should not have put this information out." An FBI official in Houston explained why they did. BOB DOGIUM, FBI SPECIAL AGENT: But the responsible thing to do is as we gather intelligence information is to share the intelligence information.

MESERVE: There have been warnings in the past about railroads, banks, nuclear power plants, and other critical infrastructure. These have gone through an established interagency process to ensure that the information is credible and that the affected industries and the public have some context and instructions about what to do.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

MESERVE: That information on hospitals did not go through the interagency process. White House officials have communicated their displeasure to the FBI. And a review is under way to make sure it doesn't happen again -- Connie.

CHUNG: Jeanne, what is the protocol? What is this threshold for a credible threat, so that the public is notified?

MESERVE: Well, there is a lot of information coming in over the transom. And they look at this. They try to judge the quality of the sourcing, the amount of corroboration.

They try to determine the ability to carry this out. Can the person making the threat actually accomplish what they're setting out to do? They sift through all of that. It is vetted through various agencies and looked at. Honest people can disagree about what to do about a particular piece of intelligence. Obviously, they did disagree about this one -- Connie.

CHUNG: All right, Jeanne Meserve in Washington, thank you.

White House officials may be characterizing information about this threat as unreliable, but hospital officials in targeted communities say they are prepared for the worst and hoping for the best.

We're joined now by Gerry Fuselier, head of security at Methodist Hospital in Houston, Texas; and Dr. Jeff Kalina, head of the hospital's bioterrorism unit.

Thank you, gentlemen, for being with us.

First, Mr. Fuselier.

When you were first notified, what did you do? And then later, did you alter procedures because of the clarification?

GERRY FUSELIER, HEAD OF SECURITY, METHODIST HOSPITAL: Well, Connie, we were first notified yesterday afternoon by a faxed letter from the FBI to the medical center.

Upon receiving that information, we contacted our senior management and our staff. And we've held a series of meetings and just wanted to increase the awareness of our staff and people, because we're committed to the safety and security of our patients and our employees.

CHUNG: Dr. Kalina, do you think that the hospital is prepared for a chemical or a biological attack?

DR. JEFF KALINA, BIOTERRORISM UNIT, METHODIST HOSPITAL: I think we are, Connie. We've been preparing for months. So we started before even September 11 even happened. And September 11 simply was a way of increasing the rapidity by which we were preparing our planning. We have drilled. We have gone over our plans. And I believe we are ready right now.

CHUNG: All right.

Mr. Fuselier, do you believe that you should be notified, even if the credibility of this threat is low? Because, obviously, there's a dispute within the Bush administration. The FBI wanted to notify you. And yet the White House was saying, no, this was wrong.

FUSELIER: Well, Connie, my opinion is that, if nothing happens, it's a success.

From my standpoint as security director of Methodist Hospital, I'd rather err on the side of being cautious. So, I don't have any problem at all with us raising our awareness. Since September 11, we've been doing that.

CHUNG: Dr. Kalina, are the patients aware of this and were they expressing any concern to you?

KALINA: The local media broke the story yesterday. And I believe that the patients and the family members coming to the hospital are aware of the story in the media.

But we've done a pretty good job of explaining to them and comforting them in the fact that we have a plan. We've been preparing. And we were ready a month ago.

CHUNG: Dr. Kalina, I agree with Mr. Fuselier. I would prefer to know, even if the threat is very low on the credibility scale. What do you think, Dr. Kalina?

KALINA: I definitely believe that a success of this would be no act whatsoever, not having to activate our disaster plan. We've initiated the early phases of our plan as a matter of routine, like we would do for the hurricanes or tropical storms or any other potential disaster.

But we certainly haven't called out all the troops. And, at this point, I feel that this is probably the safest place in Houston.

CHUNG: All right, Gerry Fuselier, Dr. Jeff Kalina, thank you so much for being with us.

Still ahead: reports of another possible threat to U.S. interests, this time because America is executing a Pakistani terrorist tonight. We'll talk to the FBI agent who caught him. Stay with us.

ANNOUNCER: Next: Imagine being on a transatlantic flight with a terrorist on board. The two men who piloted Flight 63 and foiled the shoe bomber tell their stories -- when CONNIE CHUNG TONIGHT returns.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

CHUNG: On December 22, 2001, a man boarded an American Airlines flight in Paris with explosives packed in his shoes. Flight 63 was bound for Miami. And Richard Reid, a British citizen, intended to blow it up. Within hours, the passengers and crew on board would be locked in a struggle for their lives 32,000 feet above the Atlantic.

You are about to meet the plane's pilot, but first: CNN's Bill Delaney with a little background of their ordeal.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

BILL DELANEY, CNN CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): The man in line for American Airlines Flight 63 from Paris to Miami three days before Christmas last year must have stood out: Richard Reid, 6 foot, 4 inches, long, scraggly hair and beard, hiding enough plastic explosive in his sneakers to blow a deadly hole in the plane's fuselage.

(on camera): But by the time Flight 63 had been diverted here to Boston, Richard Reid had been tied to his seat by some of the 197 crew and passengers on board the 767. Richard Reid had even been given a shot by a tranquilizer by a doctor on board. He had tried and failed to ignite a fuse in his sneaker, which first alerted a flight attendant.

(voice-over): A saga with almost an element of farce, were it not for the horror Reid could have caused, prevented when fellow passengers subdued the man in 29J, grappling, punching until Reid was finally tied down with belts, headphone cords, plastic handcuffs, one man refusing, for 2 1/2 hours, before the plane landed to let go of Reid's long hair, all of which culminated when the 29-year-old British citizen unexpectedly pled guilty to the eight charges against him, including use of a weapon of mass destruction and murder.

He said in open court: "I am a member of al Qaeda and pledged to Osama bin Laden. And I am an enemy of your country," a country where Reid now faces a minimum of 60 years in prison, a maximum of life at a sentencing hearing scheduled for late January, a former petty thief and mugger with a fifth grade education who nearly managed the worst single act of terror since 9/11.

Bill Delaney, CNN, Boston.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

CHUNG: Two pilots on that flight were Hans Mantel and Kent, who has asked us to not use his last name. Kent was on his break when Reid tried to light his powerful explosives. And Kent personally responded to the threat, tying Reid up and overseeing the group effort to keep Reid subdued during the long flight.

Meanwhile, Hans Mantel -- am I mispronouncing you last name? Is it Mantel?

HANS MANTEL, AMERICAN AIRLINES PILOT: Mantel.

CHUNG: Mantel. Thank you -- stayed at the helmed and captained the plane safely back to American soil.

And both of them join us tonight.

Thank you for being with us.

Hans, it was 11 days before the flight and the FAA had notified airlines that terrorists might be bringing some weapons on in their shoes. How and when were you notified?

MANTEL: We weren't notified until after our flight.

CHUNG: Unbelievable. How come?

MANTEL: I think the FAA notified the company. And the company elected to not inform us on the shoes.

CHUNG: Elected not to?

MANTEL: That's basically what we were informed, yes.

CHUNG: All right, Kent, you were asleep.

KENT, AMERICAN AIRLINES PILOT: Correct.

CHUNG: Which was what you were supposed to be doing at that time. A stewardess runs in, tells you there's a problem. What happened?

KENT: He comes up to me with a fire extinguisher and says, "We need you in the back."

So I followed him to the back. And on my way up to the back, I heard screaming that: "He bit me. He bit me." When I get back there, I think I'm going to fight a fire. But I see some passengers wrestling with a gentleman on the right side of the airplane. So I had to assess really what was going on. Was it a fire or did this person do something wrong?

And by the look on the people's face, I decided that something had to be done. So I proceeded to get behind him. And, with a couple flight attendants and myself, asked for belts, and we started to tie him up so we could get him secure.

CHUNG: Were you able to look into his eyes and were you able to talk to him?

KENT: I didn't talk to him until I searched him, once he was tied up. And I asked him the question. I said: "I'm going to search you. Is there anything that I need to know about, any knives or needles or anything so I don't get stuck?"

And he looked me in the eyes and he said...

CHUNG: It's just leaving you.

Hans, do you remember -- and he has told this story to you about 200 times.

KENT: I've told it so many times, I'm

(CROSSTALK)

KENT: ... forget it.

CHUNG: I know.

Can you remember?

MANTEL: Actually, what Kent told him, that he was -- he was searching him. And he said, "You're going to find out later what I have."

KENT: He says: "Why should I tell you? You're going to find out sooner or later."

CHUNG: And so then you actually did continue searching him. And you took those shoes.

KENT: Yes. It was about 45 minutes after the first search that we got him tied up and things were pretty secure. And I searched him a second time and got down to find his shoes. And I found a pair of shoes on the ground with a cord sticking out of it. And I thought that was quite strange.

So I decided to take them into the cockpit, thinking that there might be a knife or something in here.

CHUNG: And Hans was in the cockpit.

KENT: Correct. Right.

CHUNG: Hans, did you realize immediately that there was a bomb in those shoes? And did you, Kent?

MANTEL: Not for a second. For a second, while Kent was pulling on it and looking at the shoes is when we finally looked at the cord and determined it had the shape of the old M-80 fuses, with the plastic. And then we all basically realized at the same time, both Darren, the first officer, and Kent, that it was a bomb.

CHUNG: Oh, my gosh. Did you gulp a bit? Did you stomach drop?

KENT: Yes, pretty much so. My hand was inside the shoe. And I brought the shoe up to my face. And that's when I smelled the sulfur. And all that we had known was, he tried to light something. So now we could all put two and two together, and, yes, this was a bomb. CHUNG: All right. Now, were you concerned that there might be other terrorists on the plane and that you might not be able to identify them?

KENT: Well, that was my No. 1 concern the whole time I was back there, that we were subduing Richard Reid, but we were going to be attacked at any time.

CHUNG: And how were you able to determine if anyone else was connected to him?

MANTEL: Well, we never were, but we did a full search of all the cockpit -- all the cabin -- I'm sorry.

We had all the passengers from the back forward. And Kent can explain that, because that was done by both the flight attendants and Kent, to search them, look at their passports to determine where they came from, see if they had any I.D.s, because Richard Reid only had one passport, no driver's license, no other identification. So we figured other people would have the same scenario and no other identification, other than just the passport.

CHUNG: Was he revealing any information?

KENT: None whatsoever.

CHUNG: So, finally, how much longer did you have to fly that plane before you all could land and feel that you were safe?

MANTEL: About two hours and 15 minutes.

CHUNG: Oh, my gosh.

MANTEL: Yes, it was quite a long time.

CHUNG: You must have been tense. It must have felt like two days.

KENT: Yes, it was quite intense in the back. But we had a lot to do. So we never thought about anything except getting the people there safely.

CHUNG: Yes. And so finally you landed safely, Hans?

MANTEL: Yes. We landed safely with a fighter export.

CHUNG: Oh, isn't that something.

Now, do you believe, Hans, that pilots should be allowed to carry weapons, guns?

MANTEL: Yes, I do. This case is probably a good example of why would we not use them. We never would have come out of the cockpit with a weapon. The idea is to take care of everything in the cabin with a cabin crew. The weapons, they're only meant that, if anybody breaches that cockpit door, with nothing else to defend us, we could have a weapon to defend us. So, yes, I'm very for it.

CHUNG: And what do you think, Kent?

KENT: I believe the same thing, yes.

CHUNG: You're with him 100 percent.

KENT: One-hundred percent, yes.

CHUNG: But what about the danger that a terrorist might be able to overtake you, get the gun and then use it to his advantage?

KENT: I think that we need guns in the cockpit, because it's the last defense.

MANTEL: Well, let me point that. If terrorists do overcome us, even without a weapon, they've taken over the aircraft, just as they did in 9/11. The guns are there as to give us another chance of maybe being able to save the airplane to prevent 9/11 again.

CHUNG: All right. So this man has pleaded guilty, Richard Reid. And he's going to be sentenced.

Thank you so much. And you know what? I've got the same problem. I do. I can't remember a thing. Hans, you can't either. I know you can't remember anything, right?

MANTEL: Thank you.

CHUNG: OK.

KENT: Thanks, Connie.

CHUNG: Thanks so much for being with us. We appreciate it.

Still ahead: The killer who attacked CIA headquarters is set to be executed within the hour. We'll talk with the FBI agent who spent years on the manhunt and finally caught him.

Stay with us.

ANNOUNCER: Next: The manhunt took four years. And tonight, the man who killed two at the CIA faces his final moments. What did it take to crack the case? And is the U.S. now at risk on his execution day?

CONNIE CHUNG TONIGHT returns in a moment.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

CHUNG: In 1993, a Pakistani man went on a shooting rampage outside CIA headquarters in Langley, Virginia. He walked through the agency's parking lot, randomly firing an AK-47, killing and wounding CIA employees.

Mir Aimal Kasi says he pulled the trigger because of his anger over Washington's Middle East policies. Now Kasi is awaiting his execution at 9:00 p.m. tonight in Franklin, Virginia. And the State Department warns, his death could spark retaliatory attacks against U.S. targets overseas.

Bob Franken is on the story tonight.

BOB FRANKEN, CNN NATIONAL CORRESPONDENT: Well, Connie, now that the U.S. Supreme Court and the governor of Virginia have rejected any requests for further delay, Mr. Kasi is being moved in about 15 minutes to the execution chamber.

And the lethal injection will be administered, thus ending a case that began so tragically nearly 10 years ago.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

(voice over): So much time has passed. The scale of terrorist attacks in the United States has increased immensely, but on January 25, 1993 the morning ambush outside Central Intelligence Agency Headquarters in McLean, Virginia, shocked the world and left two CIA employees dead, three others injured.

(BEGIN AUDIO CLIP)

MIR AIMAL KASI, CONVICTED MURDERER: I was real angry at the policy of the United States Government in the Middle East, particularly toward the Palestinian people.

(END AUDIO CLIP)

FRANKEN: It took four years but the relentless pursuit by law enforcement finally paid off. June 15, 1997, investigators traced gunman Mir Aimal Kasi to a hotel in Quetta, Pakistan. Among those who crashed into his room, FBI Agent Brad Garrett who had led the hunt.

BRAD GARRETT, FBI SPECIAL AGENT: We get into this huge tussle with him. He's screaming at the top of his lungs. We end up gagging him at some point. Our biggest concern when we got in there, once we cleared the room, there was no weapons, there was no one else in there was is he the right guy?

FRANKEN: Investigators say Kasi subsequently confessed. In the five years since then, Garrett and Kasi have gotten to know each other personally. In fact, Agent Garrett will be at the prison for Kasi's execution, although he expresses no opinion about it. But there is apprehension at the State Department, which is warning Americans in Kasi's native Pakistan of possible revenge attacks, attacks Kasi himself says he opposes.

(BEGIN AUDIO CLIP)

KASI: In Pakistan a lot of people like me, so I believe there will be big chances for retaliation against Americans there, but personally I don't encourage anybody to attack Americans.

(END AUDIO CLIP)

(END VIDEOTAPE)

FRANKEN: Both overseas and here at the prison, security is tightened. We're not being given specifics, but we do know that the Virginia State Police have sent more officers than they usually do to make sure that nothing untoward happens. Meanwhile, the grim routine has begun. The witnesses have arrived. And in just a little over a half-hour, everyone expects that the lethal injection will be administered, ending the case of Mr. Kasi -- Connie.

CHUNG: Bob, we know that there's an appeal for a stay of execution. What are the chances that Mr. Kasi will be allowed to be granted a stay?

FRANKEN: Well, the Supreme Court had two appeals before it earlier in the day. One of them had to do with the extradition procedure, which, of course, was so skewed with what officials call the kidnapping of Kasi so many years ago. And the other one was just a grant for a stay. Both of those were denied.

And what happened then is that the governor of the state, Warner, issued a statement shortly thereafter. He had been waiting, waiting for the Supreme Court to act. He said: "I have concluded that the death penalty is appropriate in this instance. I will not intervene."

So, unless there's something that nobody would expect, all the legal obstacles for this execution are out of the way.

CHUNG: Bob, does the State Department really believe that there might be retaliatory acts? Is the State Department taking this seriously?

FRANKEN: Well, they're taking it very seriously. There have been a number of demonstrations in Pakistan. There was an American flag that burned.

The Quetta area, of course, is a hotbed of anti-American feeling. And, of course, there's been an increase in chatter, as everybody has been reporting. The tape monitoring that is done by U.S. agencies have picked up much more terrorist talk. So there's quite a bit of concern that Kasi could become some sort of catalyst for new terrorist action.

CHUNG: And, Bob, we know that there will be witnesses and members of the media there for the execution. Do you know if any of the victims' family members will be there or if Mr. Kasi's family members will be there?

FRANKEN: The victims' families have been kind of low-profile about that. Mr. Kasi's family, two of his brothers were in and out. He also had a spiritual adviser here, who is a local Muslim professor. But they will, of course, have to leave when the time comes. The spiritual adviser can stay with him, however, until the last. CHUNG: All right, Bob Franken in Franklin, Virginia, thank you.

And, as Bob told us, FBI Agent Brad Garrett helped track down and capture Kasi. Since that time, Garrett has made it his business to get inside the mind of the CIA killer. Right now, Garrett is about to witness Kasi's final moments. But, just a short while ago, I spoke with him from Franklin, Virginia.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

CHUNG: You got to know Kasi very well. Has he expressed some remorse?

GARRETT: He has no remorse for committing the act itself. He does show remorse towards the victims, the families that were left behind, and actually has expressed, through me and in writing, as well as a telephone conversation with one of the victims' brothers, his remorse.

CHUNG: How does he justify the killings, though? He does have a reason why he decided to go after these CIA employees.

GARRETT: Well, he believes that U.S. policies overseas in Muslim countries are inherently wrong, in particular the CIA's involvement in countries.

So, as a result, he believes that the only way that we can do anything about changing those policies is to attack American institutions. In this case, he attacked the CIA.

CHUNG: I'm sure you had an opportunity to talk with him several times over these years prior to today and the execution. Do you believe that he was supportive of 9/11?

GARRETT: That's an interesting question, Connie, because it's a mixed bag for him. He would tell you if he were sitting here next to me that the World Trade Center was wrong, but the Pentagon was OK.

CHUNG: What a dichotomy. How do you analyze that?

GARRETT: Well, you have to understand his mind-set. It's nothing personal against individuals in the United States. It's against our policies.

So keep this in mind: You attack the World Trade Center and, basically, it's two towers full of civilians, who, by and large, don't work for the government. They're just there doing their job -- where he looked upon the Pentagon like he looked upon the CIA, as an institution, a government institution that has -- they basically implement policy overseas.

CHUNG: Will you be there for the execution tonight?

GARRETT: I will.

CHUNG: Why? GARRETT: Because he asked me to be there.

CHUNG: He did? Why did he do that? Do you know?

GARRETT: Well, I think because he looks upon me as someone who didn't judge him.

I just did my job. My job was to find him, arrest him, and bring him back to the United States. And I've never gone at him as to -- on any personal level as to: "Why you did this? What a horrible person you are." I don't even think in that realm. It's just that I've treated him like a human being. I've been very straightforward with him. I never promised him anything that I couldn't deliver. And I think he respected that.

I think he feels a certain bond with me. Connie, he made a statement early on like in -- maybe in 1993, in fact, after we were back for a few months. He said: "You brought me to the United States. And now you're responsible for me." Now, what does that mean? I could take that very lightly or not. You know, and I've thought about that over the years. And so maybe that ties into him asking me to come.

CHUNG: Do you think, on every level, he respects you?

GARRETT: I think so.

I mean, all I know is, what he's told other news organizations and what he's told me is that he does respect me. He respects my honesty. I think he trusts me, which I realize probably sounds unusual, because I'm an FBI agent and I arrested him and now he sits on death row. But I think it makes a statement that you can still connect with people, you can still understand people, even though you're not in the same world.

CHUNG: Well, Brad Garrett, I thank you so much for being with us. It's fascinating, I think, the relationship that you developed with this man. Appreciate it.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

CHUNG: When we come back: Michael Jackson takes center stage in court. And look at what he looks like now.

ANNOUNCER: Next: the King brothers back in court, a major twist in the murder trial.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

FRANK: "I murdered my dad with an aluminum baseball bat."

(END VIDEO CLIP)

ANNOUNCER: CONNIE CHUNG TONIGHT will be right back.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK) CHUNG: Teenage brothers Derek and Alex King pleaded guilty today to murdering their father and setting their house on fire to cover up the killing. The boys accepted a plea agreement in a Florida courtroom this afternoon after a week of mediation. The judge passed sentence on the young brothers. And one of the most up unusual and most controversial cases in recent years came to an end.

CNN's Mark Potter has been following the story from Pensacola, Florida.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

MARK POTTER, CNN CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): In a mediated settlement between the defense and prosecution, Alex and Derek King, ages 13 and 14, pleaded guilty to arson and third-degree murder for the beating death of their father a year ago. Alex was given a seven- year prison sentence. His older brother Derek received eight years.

They will serve their time at a state facility which houses only juveniles. As part of the deal they also had to confess their roles in killing their father, Terry King. Judge Frank Bell first read Derek's detailed confession.

BELL: "Alex suggested that I kill dad. I murdered my dad with an aluminum baseball bat. I set the house on fire from my dad's bedroom."

M. POTTER: The judge then read aloud the confession from Alex, the younger brother.

BELL: "We talked about killing my dad. When we got home, Derek got bat and hit dad in the head. After a while, dad didn't move. We set bedroom on fire."

M. POTTER: Last September, Alex and Derek were tried and convicted of second-degree murder and arson. Ricky Chavis, a family friend and convicted child molester, was tried separately on similar charges, but was acquitted.

Judge Bell, however, threw out the boys' verdict, ruling the trial was unfair. He then appointed a mediator and ordered the defense and prosecution to try to settle the case out of court. Kelly Marino, the boys' biological mother, who gave them up for foster care years, ago opposes the negotiated plea deal. She claims she was cut out of the mediation and argues the boys are too young to make such an important decision.

KELLY MARINO, MOTHER OF DEREK AND ALEX KING: They are 13 and 14 years old. They are not able to make this judgment for the rest of their lives. And none of us were allowed to have a say in that.

M. POTTER: Defense attorneys and the prosecutor responded harshly to the mother's criticism, arguing she did little to help the boys earlier in their lives.

DAVID RIMMER, PROSECUTOR: They wouldn't be going to the state pen if she had paid more attention to them when they were in their playpens.

M. POTTER (on camera): This case first drew national attention because of the boys' ages and the way it was prosecuted. Now, by ending in a negotiated settlement, this tragic murder case once again makes news, as two young brothers head off to prison.

Mark Potter, CNN, Pensacola, Florida.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

CHUNG: For more on this high-profile case, we go to the lawyers who fought it. Derek King's lawyer, Sharon Potter, is outside the Pensacola courthouse. And with her is prosecutor David Rimmer, assistant state attorney for Florida. And also here, our legal analyst, Jeffrey Toobin, joins me in New York.

Thank you all for being with us.

Mr. Rimmer, you prosecuted this case. Are you satisfied with the jail terms that these boys will serve?

RIMMER: Yes, I am, because my main concern was the truth. I wanted that to come out. I wanted them to tell the truth. And based on the totality of the circumstances and the unique problems that I had with this case, I'm satisfied with the type of sentence that they got.

CHUNG: Sharon Potter, you represent Derek, the older boy. Do you think he really understood what happened, that he was essentially facing up to life in prison and now he's only facing eight years.

SHARON POTTER, ATTORNEY FOR DEREK KING: I feel confident that he did. We explained to the judge in court today, when he asked us that same question, that we had spent a great deal of time with Derek. And we would not have been there in court today had we not felt like Derek understood what he was doing.

CHUNG: And what is his reaction, Sharon? And do you have any idea of what his little brother's reaction is?

S. POTTER: All I can tell you is that I think they are somewhat relieved today, because they do know now what their future holds. And for the last year, they really haven't known.

CHUNG: Jeffrey Toobin, there is nothing usual about this case. I mean, isn't this mediation unprecedented as well?

JEFFREY TOOBIN, CNN LEGAL ANALYST: I don't know if it's absolutely unprecedented, but it's certainly...

CHUNG: Very rare.

TOOBIN: ... very unusual.

Here you have a situation where the judge, I think rather cleverly, rather than go through a whole litigation process of appeals and retrying the case said: "Look, you two work this out. I am not happy with how the verdict came out, with the sentence that I am obliged to impose. I want you to come back to me with a deal."

And, you know, it seems to me that sanity prevailed. This seems like a pretty fair resolution for everybody concerned.

CHUNG: Well, Mr. Rimmer, you were widely criticized because you brought two cases before two juries. One was against the boys and one accused Ricky Chavis. You based each case on different facts. Do you now believe, looking back, that you were clearly mistaken in doing so?

RIMMER: No. I didn't present different facts. As a matter of fact, both juries heard the same facts. Each jury heard the confessions the boys gave to the police.

CHUNG: Excuse me? One of the cases -- in one of the cases, you were accusing the boys of being the killers. And, in the other case, you were accusing Ricky Chavis of being the killer.

RIMMER: I was accusing Ricky Chavis of being a principal. That's the same theory under which Alex was being prosecuted.

My theory was that Chavis is the one who motivated and encouraged the boys to do what they did. I never told his jury he swung the bat or that Derek did not swing the bat. So, I did not present conflicting theories at all.

CHUNG: Then why didn't you bring them to trial together?

RIMMER: Well, they can't be tried together because the boys had given confessions and the boys were going to testify. When you got two different defendants like that, you can't try them together. I couldn't call the boys as witnesses.

TOOBIN: But...

RIMMER: No, no, no. Listen to me. Listen to me.

TOOBIN: I'm sorry.

RIMMER: No, listen. Let me finish. Let me finish.

The boys were witnesses against Chavis. If all three of them were tried together, I can't call them as witnesses in their own case. They had to be tried separately.

TOOBIN: But didn't the judge really repudiate you by saying the conviction of the boys was a violation of due process when the contradictory theory had been placed before a different jury just a week earlier? It was the judge saying it, not us.

RIMMER: No, you didn't listen to judge. The judge never said that at all. The judge said that he felt that the boys did not get a fair trial. He said there were unintended consequences. He posed various rhetorical questions. He never ever said anything about conflicting theories or anything like that. TOOBIN: But he said the case was no good, didn't he? He threw the case out.

RIMMER: He said -- in his opinion, he didn't think they got a fair trial. And he said that he thought there were unintended consequences. He never said anything about prosecutorial misconduct, improper argument, conflicting theories, or anything like that. He never said that.

In his opinion, he didn't think they got a fair trial. That's the judge's ruling. And I lived with that. And if we hadn't worked this out in mediation, I was prepared to appeal his ruling. If I did not prevail on appeal, I was prepared to retry the case.

CHUNG: Sharon Potter, do you think there was prosecutorial misconduct in this case?

S. POTTER: That has been our argument from the very beginning. I do feel that it was improper for Mr. Rimmer to have prosecuted the way he did. And that argument has not changed.

CHUNG: All right. And so what's ahead for these two boys, Sharon Potter?

S. POTTER: Well, we know, the next few years, they will be in prison. They will both be out before the age of 21. Actually, Derek will be 21 when he gets out.

And, at that time, they will have had some vocational training, hopefully, some life skills training, hopefully, that they may not have gotten before. And, hopefully, they will be able to live productive, good lives after that point.

CHUNG: What about, most importantly, some counseling?

S. POTTER: That will be available to them at these institutions. That is my understanding.

CHUNG: It will be available to them?

S. POTTER: That's my understanding, yes.

TOOBIN: Well, Ms. Potter, will they testify at the trial? Ricky Chavis has a child abuse molestation case coming up. Will they be witnesses in that trial?

S. POTTER: That's not my decision. If they are subpoenaed, then, yes, they will be witnesses. But I have no

(CROSSTALK)

TOOBIN: But they'll agree to testify?

S. POTTER: They will not have a choice if they are subpoenaed.

CHUNG: David Rimmer, will you call them? RIMMER: Yes. I'll call Alex and Derek in the charge of lewd and lascivious on Chavis. I don't anticipate calling Derek as a witness in the accessory charge on Chavis, just Alex in that case.

CHUNG: Mr. Rimmer, do you believe, in essence, though, that Ricky Chavis got away with murder?

RIMMER: Well, I never believed he swung the bat. My belief was that he was the one that encouraged and motivated the boys. It's hard to say. Only three people really know what happened.

CHUNG: But you do believe he was complicit in the murder.

RIMMER: Yes, I do. If he did in fact encourage the boys -- and all I really had was circumstantial evidence and reasonable inferences that I could argue from those circumstances, because the boys never said that, "Yes, he encouraged us to kill our dad."

But there was enough evidence there, I think I could have got it to the jury. So if in fact -- if -- if he encouraged the boys directly to kill their dad, yes, he got away with murder.

CHUNG: Sharon Potter, David Rimmer, and Jeffrey Toobin, thank you for all being with us.

And we will be right back.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

CHUNG: You know, you'd think a king would appear before his court, but the self-titled king of pop, Michael Jackson, didn't show up at his scheduled court date this morning.

Jackson is being sued for an alleged multimillion dollar breach of contract. He was also a no-show at a couple of concerts three years ago. And that's what this trial is all about. The trial has put Jackson back in the spotlight and his much-talked-about face back in the media glare.

Brian Cabell is covering the trial in Santa Maria, California. And he joins us now.

Brian, why do you think he didn't show up?

BRIAN CABELL, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Well, we don't know exactly why, Connie.

We were just told about an hour-and-a-half after he was supposed to show up that he and his team would not be showing up and they would show up instead for the afternoon session. But the judge wouldn't tell us why. The attorneys wouldn't tell us why. They just said there was some problem with the Jackson camp. But he did show up eventually, at 1:00 this afternoon, and testified for about three hours.

CHUNG: I see. Now, is he acting as weird as he looks? CABELL: It's hard to say. He has his quirks about him. He certainly has quirks about him. Yesterday, he had a bandage on his nose. I don't know whether that was to help him breathe. Today, he didn't have it. He didn't have his surgical mask on today. Yesterday, he did. He had an umbrella over his head in the sun today, as well as yesterday.

He has some strange quirks in court as well. Yesterday, Connie, he was sworn to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. He paused for about three or four seconds after that and then he said: "I didn't hear that. Can you repeat that?"

(LAUGHTER)

CABELL: That's the first time I've ever heard that in court before. And so, of course, the clerk did repeat that.

And then, repeatedly, throughout this trial, he has been rocking in his seat as though he's dancing in his seat. He's been nodding his head as though he's hearing a song. But he seemed today to be having a better time of it than he did yesterday. Yesterday, he seemed nervous. Today, he seemed to be more amused with what was happening in court.

(LAUGHTER)

CHUNG: Brian, you are very funny.

You mentioned that little bandage on his nose. What was it? What do you think that was?

CABELL: I don't know. It's either one of those that athletes wear or that people wear to prevent snoring, or perhaps it was a cut. But today he didn't have it. Nobody really has been able to ask him. We just kind of all speculate about it. And nobody, frankly, knows. But he didn't have it today. He looked more normal today.

CHUNG: That's relative.

(LAUGHTER)

CABELL: I'll tell you, people absolutely love him here, though, Connie. You should come out here. It is remarkable. He is truly idolized.

It is like the old days with the Beatles. The kids are shrieking for his attention. He spent about two minutes with a child in a wheelchair today. He knelt down and talked to the child. And then he worked the crowd for another 15, 20 minutes, handing out autographs, hugging a few people. They truly, truly love him. He is idolized. I would have thought perhaps his time had passed maybe 10 years ago, but he is still a major pop idol here.

CHUNG: All right, Brian Cabell -- and probably a lot of security, too, right? CABELL: Yes, tons of security. There are three men around him at all times. Whenever he comes out in the hallway, the bathroom is guarded and nobody else is allowed to go in.

But, again, you saw him working the crowd. And the security is around him. But he does actually touch the crowd. So the security is very obvious, but he likes to mingle. He does like to mingle.

CHUNG: Thank you, Brian Cabell.

We'll be back with a quick word about tomorrow.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

CHUNG: Tomorrow: former chief weapons inspector Richard Butler on the imminent return of the U.N. to Baghdad. Plus: She's got a killer husband, TV's Carmela Soprano, Edie Falco.

And coming up next on "LARRY KING LIVE": Will he make her cry? Larry turns the tables on Barbara Walters, my pal.

Thanks for joining us. Good night.

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

Set to be Executed>