Return to Transcripts main page
American Morning
Interview With Don Clark
Aired October 30, 2002 - 07:06 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.
PAULA ZAHN, CNN ANCHOR: The charges are piling up against the sniper suspects. John Allen Muhammad is now facing a 20-count federal complaint. And while the Justice Department is moving closer to taking over the prosecution, the actual investigation of the shooting spree is racing to catch on.
Where does the probe stand, and is it in danger of being compromised by aggressive prosecutors?
Here with some answers this morning, former FBI investigator, Don Clark, who joins us now from Houston, Texas.
Good morning, Don -- nice to see you this morning.
DON CLARK, FORMER FBI INVESTIGATOR: Good morning, Paula -- nice to see you.
ZAHN: I just want to ask you about a report in "The New York Times" this morning that said that investigators said an FBI agent and a Maryland detective had begun to develop a rapport with John Muhammad, when the U.S. attorney for Maryland, Thomas DiBiago, told them, deliver him to Baltimore. And one law enforcement official is quoted as saying, "It looked like they were very close to getting a confession."
If that's true, as an investigator, how angry would you be?
CLARK: Well, Paula, we have to keep in mind that once this person is in custody and charges have been filed against him, the lead element in this investigation or in the whole totality of this case becomes the prosecutors, whether it's a U.S. attorney or whether it's the district attorney in the state court.
And you really have to go by what they say, because they are the ones who are going to have to put this case before a court. And if they feel in some way or another that there is going to be some taint somewhere, then it's going to be their call to make. And we've been through that situation. I've been through it personally. And so, oftentimes you don't agree with it, but you've got to acquiesce, because they're going to prosecute the case.
ZAHN: So, what are you saying? In this case, a confession isn't even necessary?
CLARK: I don't know that a confession is necessary. Certainly, a confession would be very good to have, but you've got to understand and know where they are in terms of this person with an attorney, his rights -- all of the other things that's going to come up in court. Because I think we all have a pretty good idea of where the defense angle is going to come from in the prosecution of this case. And I would think that a good prosecutor is going to be mindful of that.
They might have very good, solid, physical evidence that they may not need a confession. Certainly, it would always be good to have it.
ZAHN: So, given everything you're saying, if that had been you and a U.S. attorney came in and suddenly transferred your case, you wouldn't have been frustrated if you were that close to getting what appears to be a confession, according to this report in "The New York Times?"
CLARK: Yes, you bet I'd be frustrated about that, but I think that in my experience that we would probably have a real good sit-down and really try to figure out where we're trying to go with this and what the harm would be, and work through it.
And I'm not suggesting that they didn't do that up in this case, but I think that that's what I have done in my past experience with working with it, and trying to work with these prosecutors and see if this is going to be really advantageous to the prosecution where we are, or the risk of continuing to talk to this person without perhaps an attorney or other things would be more harmful to the case.
ZAHN: There's also an editorial in "The Wall Street Journal" I think that is worth talking about, and it questions whether the suspects were linked in some way to Islamic terrorists. It says -- quote -- "For a homeless, jobless vagrant, he had a lot of money."
And then it goes on to quote a minister in a shelter saying, Muhammad lived in -- who he lived with said, "I just kind of concluded he was getting money from some group."
Do you agree that the FBI should not rule out a terrorist angle at this point?
CLARK: I think that the law enforcement, the FBI -- whoever is involved in this, cant' rule out any angle at this point. But we also need to be mindful, Paula, that in any type of investigation, there will be tidbits of evidence that could lead you off in another direction, which may not be the direction that the crimes occurred from or the people were traveling in.
So, we've got to be very careful of that and put the totality of the evidence together before we come up with a conclusion. It certainly always looms there that it could possibly be supported by some group or some other group of activities, but there's got to be a lot more evidence than what we've seen at this point, in my opinion.
ZAHN: How critical is it to find out the source of the money? I mean, we kind of know they paid for pizza with cash. We know they had a stolen Bank of America credit card. How troubled are you by those questions?
CLARK: I think it's very critical to try to find out every aspect that you can about this investigation. That's what conducting an investigation is all about, and we've said before that just because these people are in custody right now, they don't just wrap up the tents and go home, because there's a lot of things that out there.
And I suspect that the investigators in every jurisdiction should be continuing to look at this case. Now that you have the actual bodies on hand, continue to look at it and see can they, in fact, put all of these pieces together. These pieces may not connect to each other in Maryland, Virginia and Tacoma, Washington, but each particular crime, the pieces should be together before you should be satisfied that the investigation has been completed.
ZAHN: Don't you see that as almost the biggest challenge now, trying to connect all those dots?
CLARK: Well, I think it is a challenge, but perhaps not as big as it was before, because keep in mind, you do have the suspects now, and you have some additional evidence that you didn't have. You've got DNA evidence now that you can use to compare again. Certainly, you have fingerprints. And certainly, you have information and evidence that you've gotten from the car that you can start to trace and move things around.
So, you have a lot to work with now. There's still a lot of work to be done, and I think that's a good thing.
And also, Paula, I don't think it's necessarily connecting the dots to each of the cases. I mean, clearly, I think the Maryland, the Virginia and the D.C. cases are very similar, and there is some connection there. But in terms of Alabama and maybe even Tacoma, Washington, they may be just moving everything to the center, and Malvo and Muhammad seem to be at the center of this.
ZAHN: Don Clark, always good to have you with us here on AMERICAN MORNING. Thanks for your time this morning.
CLARK: Thank you, Paula -- see you again.
TO ORDER A VIDEO OF THIS TRANSCRIPT, PLEASE CALL 800-CNN-NEWS OR USE OUR SECURE ONLINE ORDER FORM LOCATED AT www.fdch.com.
Aired October 30, 2002 - 07:06 ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
PAULA ZAHN, CNN ANCHOR: The charges are piling up against the sniper suspects. John Allen Muhammad is now facing a 20-count federal complaint. And while the Justice Department is moving closer to taking over the prosecution, the actual investigation of the shooting spree is racing to catch on.
Where does the probe stand, and is it in danger of being compromised by aggressive prosecutors?
Here with some answers this morning, former FBI investigator, Don Clark, who joins us now from Houston, Texas.
Good morning, Don -- nice to see you this morning.
DON CLARK, FORMER FBI INVESTIGATOR: Good morning, Paula -- nice to see you.
ZAHN: I just want to ask you about a report in "The New York Times" this morning that said that investigators said an FBI agent and a Maryland detective had begun to develop a rapport with John Muhammad, when the U.S. attorney for Maryland, Thomas DiBiago, told them, deliver him to Baltimore. And one law enforcement official is quoted as saying, "It looked like they were very close to getting a confession."
If that's true, as an investigator, how angry would you be?
CLARK: Well, Paula, we have to keep in mind that once this person is in custody and charges have been filed against him, the lead element in this investigation or in the whole totality of this case becomes the prosecutors, whether it's a U.S. attorney or whether it's the district attorney in the state court.
And you really have to go by what they say, because they are the ones who are going to have to put this case before a court. And if they feel in some way or another that there is going to be some taint somewhere, then it's going to be their call to make. And we've been through that situation. I've been through it personally. And so, oftentimes you don't agree with it, but you've got to acquiesce, because they're going to prosecute the case.
ZAHN: So, what are you saying? In this case, a confession isn't even necessary?
CLARK: I don't know that a confession is necessary. Certainly, a confession would be very good to have, but you've got to understand and know where they are in terms of this person with an attorney, his rights -- all of the other things that's going to come up in court. Because I think we all have a pretty good idea of where the defense angle is going to come from in the prosecution of this case. And I would think that a good prosecutor is going to be mindful of that.
They might have very good, solid, physical evidence that they may not need a confession. Certainly, it would always be good to have it.
ZAHN: So, given everything you're saying, if that had been you and a U.S. attorney came in and suddenly transferred your case, you wouldn't have been frustrated if you were that close to getting what appears to be a confession, according to this report in "The New York Times?"
CLARK: Yes, you bet I'd be frustrated about that, but I think that in my experience that we would probably have a real good sit-down and really try to figure out where we're trying to go with this and what the harm would be, and work through it.
And I'm not suggesting that they didn't do that up in this case, but I think that that's what I have done in my past experience with working with it, and trying to work with these prosecutors and see if this is going to be really advantageous to the prosecution where we are, or the risk of continuing to talk to this person without perhaps an attorney or other things would be more harmful to the case.
ZAHN: There's also an editorial in "The Wall Street Journal" I think that is worth talking about, and it questions whether the suspects were linked in some way to Islamic terrorists. It says -- quote -- "For a homeless, jobless vagrant, he had a lot of money."
And then it goes on to quote a minister in a shelter saying, Muhammad lived in -- who he lived with said, "I just kind of concluded he was getting money from some group."
Do you agree that the FBI should not rule out a terrorist angle at this point?
CLARK: I think that the law enforcement, the FBI -- whoever is involved in this, cant' rule out any angle at this point. But we also need to be mindful, Paula, that in any type of investigation, there will be tidbits of evidence that could lead you off in another direction, which may not be the direction that the crimes occurred from or the people were traveling in.
So, we've got to be very careful of that and put the totality of the evidence together before we come up with a conclusion. It certainly always looms there that it could possibly be supported by some group or some other group of activities, but there's got to be a lot more evidence than what we've seen at this point, in my opinion.
ZAHN: How critical is it to find out the source of the money? I mean, we kind of know they paid for pizza with cash. We know they had a stolen Bank of America credit card. How troubled are you by those questions?
CLARK: I think it's very critical to try to find out every aspect that you can about this investigation. That's what conducting an investigation is all about, and we've said before that just because these people are in custody right now, they don't just wrap up the tents and go home, because there's a lot of things that out there.
And I suspect that the investigators in every jurisdiction should be continuing to look at this case. Now that you have the actual bodies on hand, continue to look at it and see can they, in fact, put all of these pieces together. These pieces may not connect to each other in Maryland, Virginia and Tacoma, Washington, but each particular crime, the pieces should be together before you should be satisfied that the investigation has been completed.
ZAHN: Don't you see that as almost the biggest challenge now, trying to connect all those dots?
CLARK: Well, I think it is a challenge, but perhaps not as big as it was before, because keep in mind, you do have the suspects now, and you have some additional evidence that you didn't have. You've got DNA evidence now that you can use to compare again. Certainly, you have fingerprints. And certainly, you have information and evidence that you've gotten from the car that you can start to trace and move things around.
So, you have a lot to work with now. There's still a lot of work to be done, and I think that's a good thing.
And also, Paula, I don't think it's necessarily connecting the dots to each of the cases. I mean, clearly, I think the Maryland, the Virginia and the D.C. cases are very similar, and there is some connection there. But in terms of Alabama and maybe even Tacoma, Washington, they may be just moving everything to the center, and Malvo and Muhammad seem to be at the center of this.
ZAHN: Don Clark, always good to have you with us here on AMERICAN MORNING. Thanks for your time this morning.
CLARK: Thank you, Paula -- see you again.
TO ORDER A VIDEO OF THIS TRANSCRIPT, PLEASE CALL 800-CNN-NEWS OR USE OUR SECURE ONLINE ORDER FORM LOCATED AT www.fdch.com.
