Return to Transcripts main page

Paula Zahn Now

Kobe Bryant to Stand Trial; Interview With Senator Joseph Lieberman

Aired October 20, 2003 - 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.


PAULA ZAHN, CNN ANCHOR: "In Focus" tonight: Kobe Bryant is ordered to stand trial on sexual assault charges.
The new Diana letter: Did Princess Diana actually predict her own death? And was there a plot to kill her?

And the rescue of American POW Jessica Lynch. We'll talk with the Iraqi man who risked everything to save her.

Good evening. Welcome to a brand new week here. Thanks so much for joining us tonight.

Also ahead: Sniper suspect John Allen Muhammad, defending himself in court, speaks out for the first time.

And two of the top names in the presidential race suddenly have decided to skip one of the important early stop, the Iowa caucuses. One of the candidates is Senator Joe Lieberman. We'll ask him what this move means for his campaign.

Plus: Less than three months before she goes on trial, Martha Stewart returns to Kmart ads. We're going to look at whether the name still sells sheets, towels, and shower curtains, despite her legal troubles.

First, though, here are some of the headlines you need to know right now.

The CIA says the latest audiotape tied to Osama bin Laden is likely authentic and was recorded within the last six months. The tape surfaced over the weekend. It is also featured on a new al Qaeda Web site that's turned up on the Internet.

Academy Award winning actor Robert De Niro will be treated for prostate cancer. A spokesman says De Niro's cancer was detected at an early stage. His doctors project a full recovery.

Doctors in New York have taken the first step in trying to separate 18-month-old Filipino twins conjoined at the head. Instead of one long operation, they plan a series of smaller procedures, because they aren't sure how tightly merged the boys' brains are.

We, however, start with big developments in a pair of sensational court cases.

Late this afternoon, a Colorado judge ruled that Kobe Bryant will stand trial on a charge of sexual assault.

And then in Virginia, another judge says D.C.-area sniper suspect John Allen Muhammad can represent himself. Muhammad is on trial in connection with the looking of Harold Dean Meyers, who was shot at a gas station in Manassas.

And to put all of this into focus tonight, I'm joined by CNN legal analyst Jeffrey Toobin.

Always good to see you, Jeffrey.

JEFFREY TOOBIN, CNN LEGAL ANALYST: Hi.

ZAHN: First of all, were you surprised by the judge's decision?

TOOBIN: Not at all.

In Colorado, as in most states, preliminary hearings, the government almost never loses. There was adequate evidence put forth in the preliminary hearing to meet this very low standard of probable cause. So the government won. It doesn't mean they're going to win the trial.

ZAHN: Yes. You say there's adequate evidence. But, at the same time, every legal analyst agreed with the fact that it seemed the defense had the momentum going into this judge's decision.

TOOBIN: The defense brought out a lot of weaknesses into the government's case, weaknesses that could be brought out at trial.

But when you're looking at the only issue that was relevant to the judge is, is there probable cause looking at the evidence in the light most favorable to the government, absolutely this was a no- brainer that the government had to win.

ZAHN: Do you expect Kobe Bryant will testify?

TOOBIN: Boy, that is one tough question. I think it's quite possible he will. Because the thing -- when you have a defendant you're considering testifying, the thing you're most worrying about is, do they have a prior record? Can you impeach them with other bad acts? And, as far as I know, there are no other bad acts.

And that, I think, means that Kobe Bryant, he will certainly give it a long look, depending on how the government's case goes.

ZAHN: And, at the same time, Kobe's accuser is also expected to testify. Could the verdict then in the end turn on her testimony alone?

TOOBIN: That's why this preliminary hearing was so different from what the trial is going to be, because her testimony will be the absolute center of the trial. And she didn't even testify at the preliminary hearing.

Whether she's credible, whether she's a believable, sympathetic witness, that is going to be the central issue in the trial. And we simply don't know that at this point.

ZAHN: Let's move on to the sniper trial now. In a surprise move, John Allen Muhammad...

TOOBIN: To say the least, yes.

ZAHN: ... decided he was going to represent himself in the court. Let's all listen to some of his ramblings in the courtroom, to understand what this might mean.

Here's actually what he said: "There's three truths. The truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth. I always thought there was just one truth. The facts should help us identify what's a lie, what's not a lie."

So this guy is just in the process of killing himself?

TOOBIN: So it seems.

This was a very difficult case to win for the defense, even if they had the best lawyers in the world. If you have any idea what he's talking about, you're ahead of me. I can't make heads or tails out of it. He's likely to alienate the jury in the guilt phase. And they are likely to take it out on him in the penalty phase, given the fact that he doesn't know what he's doing.

The judge, to my surprise, let him do this with a very cursory interrogation. But, ultimately, it usually is the defendant's choice if he wants to represent himself.

ZAHN: Finally, what is the deal with his continually referring to John Lee Malvo as his son? He said: "I had nothing to do with the crimes. I had nothing at all to do with the crimes. And they know this. And please pay attention. My life and my son's life is on the line."

TOOBIN: It's creepy, is what it is. And I'm certain the jury thinks it's creepy. It is reason 10,000 why this is a terrible idea.

But defendants who are kind of egomaniacal, monomaniacal, Colin Ferguson Jack Kevorkian, they are the kind of people who represent themselves. And, apparently, John Muhammad is one of them. And they almost always lose.

ZAHN: Jeff, if you wouldn't mind standing by, I'd like for you to hang in until after the end of the next segment, so I can get your perspective on the next subject.

TOOBIN: Another potential miscreant on the loose, yes.

ZAHN: Just a couple minutes. Jeffrey Toobin will stand by.

But right now, we want to tell you about the case of the college student facing charges of what a prosecutor calls a foolish and dangerous attempt to test airport security. The young man allegedly planted box cutters and other suspicious items aboard four different jetliners five weeks ago to prove a terrorist could do it, a stunt that forced inspections of every U.S. jetliner.

Jeff and I are joined now by airline security consultant Billie Vincent in our Washington bureau.

Mr. Vincent, good to see you.

BILLIE VINCENT, AIRLINE SECURITY CONSULTANT: Good to see you, Paula.

ZAHN: First of all, do you think Mr. Heatwole, in spite of breaking the law here, called attention to some badly needed problems, or asking the government to address some real vacuums here?

VINCENT: Well, my initial reaction to this was that, if a 20- year-old college student with no sophistication and knowledge, in- depth knowledge, of aviation security, could penetrate our system so easily, we should give him a medal.

But I still -- I wouldn't want to encourage people to do this, although I do know that some do it regularly, particularly the reporters. But, certainly, we shouldn't be prosecuting this individual for a felony offense. It doesn't make sense. We're going to be the laughingstock of the world.

ZAHN: Let me ask you this. This is a man who sent e-mails to the Transportation Security Administration back in mid-September, pretty much laying out for them what he planned to do. Was it irresponsible for that agency to seemingly ignore his threat?

VINCENT: Well, I would doubt that they ignored it. I suspect that it's a bureaucratic snafu, where they really weren't processing those e-mails to see what they contained. And that's frightening also.

Now, I realize the TSA is a relatively new organization, but they should have much better skills than that.

ZAHN: We have to give them the benefit of the doubt here, though. Can't you imagine that they have to sift through thousands and thousands of e-mails every day?

VINCENT: That's a part of the problem. And it's probably mostly manually done. And that's the big part of the problem, too.

But, still, an individual that tells us he's going to do this and succeeds in doing it is very big indictment of the status of our system. We ought to be focusing on what we need to do as a result of this, rather than running around to prosecute a 20-year-old college student.

ZAHN: Billie Vincent, thank you for your views this evening.

A final thought from you, Jeff. Mr. Vincent made it very clear, he thinks, in prosecuting this guy, you make the United States look like a laughingstock.

TOOBIN: I don't think that's true.

This is, at best, the world's dumbest science project. You just can't do this on your own. This case perhaps does cry out for prosecutorial discretion, maybe not prosecute him with a felony. But you cannot have a legal system that allows people to do something so dangerous, even if their intentions are good. A slap on the wrist, at a minimum.

But I think this is a kind of serious thing. You really want to tell people, you cannot do this kind of thing on your own.

ZAHN: But you'll give Mr. Heatwole the benefit of the doubt when it comes to exposing some tremendous weaknesses in security.

TOOBIN: But we don't rely on 20-year-old college students to do that. We have journalists. We have government agencies. We have inspector generals. It is simply irresponsible for kids to do this kind of thing. And I can see why the government would want to, if not throw the whole book at him, at least several pages.

ZAHN: Jeffrey Toobin, thanks for standing by this evening.

A London newspaper says Princess Diana feared death in a car crash and actually named someone she believed was plotting it 10 months before it happened.

Senior international correspondent Walt Rodgers joins us from London with details on what "The Daily Mirror" is reporting.

Good evening, Walter. Last time I saw you, you were at the Vatican just a couple of days ago.

Help us understand why this is such a bombshell.

WALTER RODGERS, CNN SR. INTERNATIONAL CORRESPONDENT: Because Princess Diana has been dead for six years and yet she can still make headlines on the front pages of British papers, six years after she's been dead. It's as if she's really not dead. And it's a pretty spooky story.

The essence of the latest Princess Diana story here in London is that she wrote a letter 10 months before she died predicting how she was going to die in an automobile accident. And she said there would be severe head injuries, the brakes on the car would not work. And she says there were plotters. She names a plotter. For legal reasons, no one can use that name, but she says someone was plotting to kill her.

Now, was she paranoid? That's a debate which continues to go on here. She certainly was a lonely woman and she felt abused. And, consequently, this is refueling the old conspiracy theory -- Paula.

ZAHN: Let's talk about that paranoia for a moment. Apparently, she was led to believe that this could happen by her psychic. Is there any credible evidence to suggest that there was really a plot in place here? RODGERS: Well, we don't know if it was the psychics who planted this idea in her head. We do know she was an extraordinarily lonely woman. She had been ostracized by the royal family and, if you're a Princess Diana supporter, she had been abused and treated rather badly by them.

It is said she had fewer than five friends. So, again, she was lonely. So maybe she went and talked to psychics. I don't know where the idea came from. She may have had hatched this idea of plotters herself. She did have enemies. Is there credible evidence of a conspiracy? If you were to ask Princess Diana, she would say yes. Beyond that, I don't see -- the worst thing about this case is that there has not been a coroner's inquest in Britain.

The French investigated. The British never have. If you want to breed conspiracy theories, discourage an investigation -- Paula.

ZAHN: But isn't it true that the latest polls would suggest the British public actually buys into this in a major way?

RODGERS: Indeed.

"The Daily Mirror," which published this, did a poll immediately after their papers hit the street. And it said 87 percent of the people who saw their story, the respondents, now believe that Princess Diana died in something other than an accident. I asked one royals watching, could it get worse? And he said, well, it could go another 13 percent, but, right now, the public is once again suspicious -- Paula.

ZAHN: Stay on it for us, Walt Rodgers. Appreciate your time tonight. Thanks.

Saving Private Ryan (sic) -- one man says he risked his home, his family and his life to free the American POW -- tonight, his story.

And the new ad campaign featuring domestic diva Martha Stewart hits the air weeks before her trial. Will customers buy what Martha is selling?

And out of Iowa: Democratic candidate Joe Lieberman opts to skip the Iowa caucuses. What will it mean for his campaign? We'll ask him.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

ZAHN: Two big-name Democrats are pulling out of the Iowa caucuses, the first nominating event of the 2004 race. Officials with the campaigns of General Wesley Clark and former vice presidential nominee Joe Lieberman made those announcement yesterday.

And joining us tonight, Senator Joe Lieberman.

Always good to see you, sir. Welcome.

SEN. JOSEPH LIEBERMAN (D-CT), PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: Good to be with you, Paula. Thank you.

ZAHN: So, Senator, are you pulling out of the Iowa caucuses because you can't win there?

LIEBERMAN: Well, we've decided not to compete in Iowa because the calendar has changed this time around. In the past, you had Iowa, then New Hampshire, and then a long gap. This time, a week after New Hampshire, there are seven more states holding primaries. So, in two weeks, you're going to have nine different states in which voting will occur. And I think each of us is going to have to decide where we can compete more effectively and where we could most effectively put our resources.

ZAHN: But, sir, isn't that a tacit acknowledgement that, if you could have won there, you would have kept your resources in the state?

LIEBERMAN: Yes, look, let me say two things directly in response to that.

One is that it sure looks like the race in Iowa is between Dick Gephardt, who comes from right next door and won the Iowa caucuses in 1988, and Howard Dean. We felt that if I was prepared to spend enough time and resources there, that I could finish respectably, but that we could better use that money in other states where I expect to win. And so this was a redeployment of resources for that purpose.

I don't think anyone thinks this nomination is going to be decided after Iowa or New Hampshire. It's probably going to go well into March.

ZAHN: How do you respond to Barbara Bush's comments that were aired on network television this morning, that you and your Democratic colleagues are a pretty sorry group?

LIEBERMAN: Obviously, I don't think we're a sorry group. I think we're a hearty group that wants to provide different leadership and give America a fresh start.

And I admire a mother's love for her son, but the fact is that George Bush has failed to give America leadership that's continued our prosperity, that protected people's jobs, done anything to improve health care or education or homeland security, and also made us a nation that today is despised around the world, which is not where we were when he became president.

ZAHN: And finally tonight, Senator, given the president's eroding poll numbers, is this the Democrats' race to lose?

LIEBERMAN: Well, that's an optimistic view.

The president is the president. And there's always authority that goes with that. But the president doesn't have a record to run on. And that's why I believe, if we nominate a candidate like myself, who can run from the center out, be strong on security and values, but be ready to take the president on, on his failed economic policies and on a social agenda that really is far to the right of most Americans, I think we're going to win.

And I think people are losing confidence in George Bush. They want a leader who they can trust to make their lives better and to know that their government will be there to help them, not fall below a floor, but help them up. And that's why I'm very optimistic and working as hard as I am.

ZAHN: Senator Lieberman, we're going to have to leave it there this evening. Again, thank you for dropping by. Appreciate your time this evening.

LIEBERMAN: Thank you, Paula. Take care.

ZAHN: So Lieberman and Clark are out of the Iowa caucuses, which are just three months away. What will this mean for the race?

CNN senior analyst Jeff Greenfield joins us now.

Always good to see you, Jeff.

JEFF GREENFIELD, CNN SR. ANALYST: Hi.

ZAHN: Do the Iowa caucuses matter anymore?

GREENFIELD: They don't matter nearly as much as Iowa would like them to and the press says they do. They took off after George McGovern made a decent showing there and Jimmy Carter jump-started his campaign in 1976.

But the fact is, more often than not, you watch what happens in Iowa. New Hampshire, as often as not, reverses the results the next week, and we're off to races. And then the later primaries decide. But because it's the first time that you can count something, people like me rush there and we pour millions of dollars into the coffers of car rental agencies and hotels and restaurants, quite seriously.

ZAHN: Sure.

GREENFIELD: And Iowa will hold to that first-in-the-nation test, because they want the attention and the money. And they suddenly threaten people like Wesley Clark, well, if you get the nomination, what's going to happen in November when you come looking for our love and affection?

It matters in the sense that it can eliminate somebody, like a Dick Gephardt. Got to do well there, because of the expectation game. But I think it's a greatly overrated event.

ZAHN: What does it mean to you once you get the nomination down the road, though, if you alienate a bunch of Democrats in Iowa?

GREENFIELD: Well, it's seven electoral votes that have been in the Democratic column since Michael Dukakis won the state in '88. And you'd just as soon not tick them off.

The cost of it is that, for a guy like, say, Bill Bradley four years ago, he might have won New Hampshire had he not poured resources into Iowa. We saw John McCain in the Republican contest four years ago skip Iowa, clobber Bush in New Hampshire. The reason he lost the nomination had nothing to do with the fact that he didn't compete in Iowa.

So you're right. The fear of alienating the Iowa voters is what drives a lot of these people into a process they'd just as soon skip.

ZAHN: Finally, General Wesley Clark has had some other problems. Some new pro-Bush remarks that he made in the year 2002 have surfaced.

Let's all listen to this together.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

WESLEY CLARK (D), PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: I tremendously admire -- and I think we all should -- the great work done by our commander in chief, our president, George Bush, and the men and women of the United States armed forces.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

ZAHN: Right. You can see the chorus of his critics going, there he is again, the guy that is not a real Democrat.

GREENFIELD: Right.

The interesting thing is, this comment was made after Afghanistan, which was one adventure that virtually everybody supported. And it worked out, at least in ousting the Taliban. And nobody was arguing we shouldn't have gone into Afghanistan. The problem for General Clark is that when people get a sense that you are in a certain category, every piece of evidence seems to add to it.

This, to my way of measuring of it, isn't nearly as damaging as the speech he gave in May of 2001, where he sort of heaped praise on Bush and Cheney and Rumsfeld, practically the whole Cabinet, at a time when Bush had already pretty clearly indicated the direction he was going. This one, however, will count against him because of that earlier comment. And it will raise -- you can hear them all on the campaign trail, John Kerry and other rivals, saying: It didn't take me until I decided to run for president to be Democrat.

He is also skipping Iowa, of course, because he just got in too late to organize. Iowa is a state -- you just don't go vote. You sit in a school cafeteria for four hours and debate.

ZAHN: Sure.

GREENFIELD: And if you don't have organization, you just can't pull that race off.

ZAHN: Jeff Greenfield, thank you for dropping by tonight. Appreciate it.

(CROSSTALK) GREENFIELD: Nice to see you.

ZAHN: The inside story of the rescue of Jessica Lynch. Why did an Iraqi man risk everything to save an American soldier?

And two stronger than one? Can standing by her man turn public opinion in the midst of a scandal?

And royal intrigue: Months before her tragic death, did Princess Diana know of a plot to kill her?

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

ZAHN: Private 1st Class Jessica Lynch became a prisoner and then an icon after her rescue from an Iraqi hospital. Tonight, an interview with an Iraqi man who may have been pivotal in freeing her. "Because Each Life is Precious" is Mohammed al Rehaief's gripping account of his role in the Jessica Lynch saga. It began when he learned she was a POW in the hospital where his wife worked as a nurse.

Through a translator, Mohammed told us his story.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

MOHAMMED AL REHAIEF, HELPED RESCUE JESSICA LYNCH (through translator): The first time I saw Jessica, she was laying in bed and she was getting slapped by that officer. So that's why I decided to do the right thing just to save her.

I went to my house. I saw my daughter and my wife. That's when I was the weakest point, because I was worried about them. But then that's where you got more strength. And the positives were better than the negatives, because there was a life, saving somebody's life. I decided to go to the nearest point, American point or British point of the military, to go and tell them about Jessica.

The men were at the south of Nasiriyah. The place I was trying to go to, it was a really very dangerous area, because it's a no- man's-land. If I go through it, there's a possibility the Fedayeen, the Baath Party loyalists, they will get me. When I got there first, the treatment wasn't -- because they didn't know me, it was not very nice.

Through the questions, the smart questions, they asked me, they found I was telling the truth. That's when they asked for my help. The Marines asked me to go back and have floor plan for the hospital where she is exactly, and the numbers of the Fedayeen there and the Baath Party loyalists, and how many guards.

My going back to the hospital, that was the most dangerous part of the whole trip, because it's -- me going back, they might know I did something or was doing something else. The first night I went through the hospital through my wife, because works in the hospital. She's a nurse down there. The next morning, I went in the hospital through my sister-in-law. She's a doctor, worked in the hospital there And she took me to Jessica's room.

And Jessica looked very pale on the bed. She was laying the way she was laying and she had a Band-Aid on her head. And she was very weak. And Jessica's right hand was covered with a Band-Aid and was lifted up, was raised up a little bit higher. And under, there was a blanket on it.

And Jessica's face was bruised. There were a couple of bruises on both sides. That's when I went to her and told her, "Good morning, Jessica." And I think she thought I was a doctor because she replied to me, she told me, "Good morning, Doctor."

And I wanted to talk with her longer, because my English is not that good. That's when I started looking around the room to check the room, like I was asked. And so, where were the windows, the height of the windows and the height of the bed, if she's safe if there is any firing will happen. I looked to the size of the windows. I looked around the room to check on the measurements.

That's when my sister-in-law said: "OK, time for us to leave. It's getting dangerous for us to stay any longer here." When I left the hospital, I got in my car and drove across a bridge to go to the Marines. And that's where was the bombing. There was three bombs.

That's when I lost my eye. When the Marines saw me, they were really happy to see me, because I was safe. And then we sat down and we met for a long time. I was giving them all the information I had for them. And I told them everything. Seven maps, I draw for them. Five for the inside of the hospital, I draw. And I draw three for the outside.

The rescue operation was a few days after that. That was one of the happiest news I've heard in my life. It was very good news. I felt like I was born again. Because I lost my eyesight and we saved her life, that's one for the other. It was a little trade.

I'm not a hero. I'm just lucky, because I'm still alive. The real heroes are the kids who saved her, the ones who put their lives on the line to save Jessica. And I just did my job, just did my part to help.

No, but I think I did the right thing. I do.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

ZAHN: A powerful reminder about the strength of a lot of different individuals.

Powerful men and the powerful women standing by them during very public troubles. What are the lessons for Kobe Bryant and his wife, Vanessa?

Also: Gay or straight? Provocative new research is sure to spark some arguments.

And the strategy behind Martha Stewart's latest Kmart ad campaign. Can it work less than three months before she goes on trial?

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

ZAHN: Welcome back. Here's a look at what you need to know right now.

U.S. and Iraqi forces have detained 21 people in a raid early Tuesday morning in the Shiite holy city of Karbala.

Baghdad bureau chief, Jane Arraf, joins us now live with these exclusive details.

Good evening, Jane.

JANE ARRAF, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Good evening, Paula.

U.S. military officials tell us that raid is ongoing. Now this pre-dawn raid, including elements of the Iraqi Civil Defense Force, Polish soldiers, as well as the U.S. forces seemed aimed at part of a group belonging to a cleric in Karbala in which Lieutenant Colonel Kim Orlando, 43-years-old, the highest ranking U.S. officer killed in the war, was shot dead, along with two other U.S. military policemen on Friday.

Now, again, U.S. forces tell us that they are in Karbala and at a mosque in that holy city. Iraqi defense forces, Iraqi police backed, it appears, by Polish soldiers and the U.S. are arresting a group of people in connection possibly with that killing -- Paula.

ZAHN: Jane Arraf, thanks for the late details. When you have new information, we will possibly come back to you.

In case you've just joined us, NBA star Kobe Bryant will stand trial on a sexual assault charge. A judge in Eagle, Colorado made that ruling late today.

Now some people are wondering why his wife, Vanessa, was not at his side during last week's preliminary hearing. How important is it for a wife of a disgraced public figure to stand by her man? Well, important enough to be satirized on "Saturday Night Live."

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: I'm not worried, Paul. I love this man.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Ow.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: I want another ring for that, you pig.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Maybe we should just get a divorce.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Oh, or maybe we should just stay married for the rest of your natural life.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: I hate that.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: You know what I hate? I hate going to my husband's rape trial.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

ZAHN: Ouch.

Criminal attorney Trent Copeland and basketball star Jane Worthy's (sic) ex-wife, Angela Wilder, are in our Los Angeles bureau.

And with me tonight, Elaine Lewis, president of Courtroom Communications.

Glad to have all of you with us.

Trent, I'm going to start with you this evening. How important is it for a spouse of a disgraced public figure to be seen in the courtroom defending the -- his will or honor?

TRENT COPELAND, CRIMINAL ATTORNEY: You know, Paula, I think it's incumbent upon that spouse to come to the courtroom, to show some support for that spouse, to be there, really, I think, as we saw in that piece early, standing by her man.

But I think it's with limited exceptions, and the Kobe Bryant case is one of those limited exceptions. I mean, for Vanessa Bryant to have to come to court and to hear these charges all over again would be really cruel and unusual punishment. I can't imagine that Kobe Bryant or his defense team would really garner many points with the public or the jury for that matter with having her there.

I mean, we've all seen that very tearful public apology that he gave. It almost made you cringe in a way in terms of having to watch Kobe Bryant and his wife hear these things publicly. We almost felt like we were hearing some things for the first time, maybe that she also heard, and I think that really was enough. And I think to bring her into the courtroom and to have her exposed to this any further would really not serve to help the situation. I think some jurors might even find it to be equally as bad as the act itself.

ZAHN: Angela, I don't want to read too much into what I view as sort of quietly nodding here, maybe in agreement. You decided when your husband was accused of soliciting a prostitute to stay out of the limelight. You didn't do any interviews, you basically stayed out of our cameras' sights.

Do you understand what Trent is saying here? Does it make sense to you?

ANGELA WILDER, EX-WIFE OF NBA'S JAMES WORTHY: I do agree with what Trent has to say. And I think also a piece that maybe people haven't even thought about is the fact that Vanessa herself may feel conflicted about what is going on, and it may be her own personal choice to stay back and sort out for herself how she feels about what is taking place, not only in that court, but if her life.

And I did choose to stay out of the public eye. I didn't feel like my presence would be of any help to James. ZAHN: Elaine, you're laughing. Why?

ELAINE LEWIS, COURTROOM COMMUNICATIONS: Well, I totally disagree. Because if Vanessa is conflicted about whether she's going to forgive him or not, then why should the jury forgive him? I think she needs to be there as a show of support. I think she needs to go to court with him. I think she needs to leave the court with him.

Now I do agree that there may be some moments in the testimony that may be difficult for her to hear.

ZAHN: Difficult? It would be brutal for any woman to listen to.

LEWIS: But look at what Hillary Clinton had to listen to. There's no -- Americans appreciate courage. It would be a courageous thing to go, but it would also send the message that she's willing to forgive him, so she should be there. And she can be excused at certain times if it's really difficult for her.

ZAHN: Oh, but when people hear about the multimillion dollar purple diamond that she has now on her left hand, they're very skeptical about her motivations. You understand that as well?

LEWIS: But he was saying, I apologize. I did a bad thing. And that was his way, I think, of saying, Please forgive me, and may she's going to forgive him.

So if she's going to forgive him, she better be there in court. That would be my advice.

ZAHN: Trent, your reaction to that?

COPELAND: You know, it really -- for me, there simply is no other alternative for Kobe Bryant's wife. You simply stay away from the courtroom. I really don't see that there's any strategic advantage in the one hand for having her there, and I think really -- it really will detract the jury from really what the evidence in the case is.

And at this point, it seems to be going in Kobe Bryant's favor. We really wouldn't want a jury to have to sit there and listen to Kobe Bryant having to explain how he flirted with this woman, how he asked her to come in the Jacuzzi with him, how he asked her to come back to his room and to escape the bodyguards who were guarding the room.

I mean, she would really find that pretty uncomfortable, and I think that it would be very difficult for the jury to pay attention. I think they train their eyes on the witness, on the one hand. They wait to see whether or not she's crying or whether or not she's even lost it in the courtroom. It's a simply unpredictable, volatile situation that I don't really don't think has a real upside.

ZAHN: We're going to have to leave it there. Our trio tonight, Angela, Elaine, and Trent, thank you for all of your different points of view here this evening.

Nature or nurture? Straight or gay? Provocative new research that says human sexuality is determined by genetics.

Also, more on the new Diana letter. Did she see it all coming months before her death?

And tomorrow, plastic surgery, celebrities before and after. The secrets of a Beverly Hills cosmetic surgeon.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

ZAHN: And some new research on mice is sure to reignite the debate over Mr. Homosexuality is determined by genes. The findings may answer the question, why do we feel male or female?

To help us put it in plain English tonight, I'm joined by Peter Sprague. He is the director at the Family Council Center for Marriage and Family Studies.

Also in Washington tonight, Elizabeth Birch, executive director of the Human Rights Campaign. Welcome.

Elizabeth, I'm going to start with you. Do you believe the study adds more credibility to the theory that the origins of homosexuality are geneticly based?

ELIZABETH BIRCH, HUMAN RIGHTS CAMPAIGN: Look, I think this study adds for a body of knowledge that points to the direction that sexual orientation and gender identity are probably geneticly based. But the researchers themselves have said the study is not complete. They've identify 54 genes that they have to delve further into, and I don't think this study is determinative, but I also think it doesn't matter. I think gay people are a fact of life. And in modern American life we should treat every single person with dignity and fairness and equality.

Let me have Peter respond to the first part of your argument. Peter, you dispute the findings of this study that would suggest any length between homosexuality and the gene, and I'd like to read a quote from the studies lead researcher now.

Quote, "It's quite possible that sexual identity and physical attraction is hard-wired by the brain. If we accept this concept, we must dismiss the myth that homosexuality is a choice and examine our civil legal system accordingly.

What impact could this have if it is proven that homosexuality is indeed rooted in genetics?

PETER SPRIGG, FAMILY RESEARCH COUNCIL: Well, the first point I want to emphasize is this study is very far from demonstrating that homosexual orientation is rooted in genetics. This was a study of mice, not of men. When it speaks of sexual identity, it referring to the sexual identity of the mice as male or female. I read the study this afternoon, and the words sexual orientation or homosexual or bisexual or transgender, or even gender identity do not appear in this study. So it's a huge leap to saying genes influence the sex of mice to saying that genes determine the sexual orientation of humans. ZAHN: Let me as you this, it could be decades before there is any definitive research that could confirm this linkage, but is it true that you are concerned that if it comes to that, you could possibly have screening down the road for a gay gene?

BIRCH: Well, there's a couple things. First, don't be too hard, I would say, on those little mice. They have cured a lot of diseases. They helped to map the genome (ph). I mean, we've made enormous progress in the last century in terms of medicine though mice. But yes, human beings have an infinite curiosity, so there is no stopping it. But I think someday in the next decade or so, maybe two decades, it will probably be determined that there is a very complex genetic linkage to sexual orientation, and at that point, I think the fear for that and a variety of conditions, or features of young human life, in the zygote or the embryo, is that human life would try to choose to screen it out. And gay and lesbian people have always, always existed, in every culture, in every era and every age. And I we are kind of an interesting variation on the species, and the concern is always that science would go too far.

ZAHN: We've got to move on. Elizabeth Birch and Peter Sprigg, thank you for both your perspectives.

Martha is back, but is that a good thing?

Can Martha Stewart save her brand name?

And more on that chilling prediction from Princess Diana months before her tragic death. Who did she suspect was trying to kill her?

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

ZAHN: She is under indictment in a stock scandal, but Kmart is betting Martha Stewart can help shore up its own suffering stocks. In a new add campaign, the home decor diva glamorizes Kmart as the chic place to shop. Will it work. Let's ask our frequent contributor, Donnie Deutsch, chairman and CEO of the advertising agency Deutsch Incorporated.

All ways good to see you.

DONNY DEUTSCH, CEO DEUTSCH INC.: (UNINTELLIGIBLE) Paula.

ZAHN: Does this strategy work?

DEUTSCH: This is a great country. You're under indictment, possibly going to jail and you're on TV hawking pillows, and bedspreads and things.

ZAHN: They wouldn't doing this though unless they thought it was going work.

DEUTSCH: From Kmart's point of view, it's a win. She's still buying her stuff. Whether it's her face or not, they'll be pushing Martha's. My question is from Martha's people point of view, is it smart for her to be out there in such a public way, almost kind of snubbing her nose at what's going on? I would have kept a lot more low profile.

ZAHN: So you think these ads make her arrogant?

DEUTSCH: I mean, I think it's -- her whole problem all along, if you talk to any of the legal experts, is that if she had been a little more humble along the way, she wouldn't be in this problem. And I think right, we're in -- it would be like, is Kobe going ton TV hawking Sprite right now? No. I just think there's kind of a -- a -- an atttiude that you just lay back a little bit.

So, from Kmart's point of view, understand why they're doing it -- happy face in there. If I'm in charge of Martha, and I'm saying, Martha, go, hide under the covers. Do not be doing this.

ZAHN: But there's an obvious PR strategy here, isn't there? Let's talk about the ads, and then we're going to have this huge network interview where she talks about how nervous she is about going to -- potentially going to jail.

DEUTSCH: Exactly. But her getting on, Oh, I'm nervous with Barbara Walters. On the other hand, you know, kind of dancing through the aisles of Kmart -- I don't know if those two things are on the same page.

So, I mean, once again -- I don't -- I clearly understand why Kmart wants her in there. I mean, she's the most valuable property they have. And actually, the branded merchandise of hers, the business still strong. Once again, from the business of Martha and Martha staying out of jail, I question it.

ZAHN: Is there any risk here at all for Kmart? I mean, don't these products sell themselves?

DEUTSCH: No. No. You know, there is no risk. Once again, they don't need her face. The brand is so much beyond her at this point. But why not put her in there? The customers love it. It's certainly -- from Kmart's point of view, it's no risk at all.

ZAHN: She apparently she took a tour of a bunch of Kmarts in the New England area, primarily Connecticut, over the weekend. And apparently the response was overwhelmingly positive.

DEUTSCH: And just like if Kobe, you know, came into a basketball court people are going to be high-fiving him. I mean, the American public loves celebrities, and they're going to be hugging her. And certainly her detractors are not going to come up to her and say, Martha, we think you're horrible, we think you're terrible.

ZAHN: All right. So you're in charge of her campaign.

DEUTSCH: Right.

ZAHN: You're going to say -- what? -- stay in your apartment?

DEUTSCH: No. I'm going to say live your life...

ZAHN: Don't come talk to anybody?

DEUTSCH: No, but you don't have to be out there necessarily hawking with your face. Your brand speaks without you.

ZAHN: Donny Deutsch, good of you to join us. Thanks.

We're going to have more on what made Princess Diana fear for her life months before she died in a Paris car crash. We'll be right back.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

ZAHN: And welcome back.

As we've seen tonight, conspiracy theorists have a new mouth- watering morsel. According to a London tabloid, just months before she died, Princess Diana wrote a letter claiming there was a plot to kill her using a car with bad brakes in a crash that would leave her with a fatal head injury. Of course, the cause of the crash was ruled to be high speed and the driver's use of drugs and alcohol at the same time, and Diana ultimately died of cardiac arrest.

What does this say about this breaking story?

Joining us now from London, our royal watcher, Robert Jobson.

Always good to see you. Welcome, Robert.

ROBERT JOBSON, CNN ROYAL CONTRIBUTOR: Thank you.

ZAHN: Do you believe this letter is real?

JOBSON: I have no doubt that the letter itself is real. I've seen many -- much correspondence with Princess Diana and it's clearly her handwriting. I mean, it clearly -- it shows the state of mind the princess was in at the time that she wrote it and her fears from people I know (UNINTELLIGIBLE) and other members of her staff all said that she was fearful of her safety and that she was monitored and felt she was being watched by members of the security services.

ZAHN: Well, here's what I want to know -- do you believe this letter proves that she was murdered?

JOBSON: I don't think it proves that she was murdered, no , Paula. I think what it shows is, as I say, her state of mind. It's a huge leap from the fact that Diana feared that she may well have been under surveillance, that she may have been in danger -- to say that those people that she believed were watching over her, security service agents, et cetera, would actually go the next step and kill her.

Bear in mind that the fact that this crash happened with an awful lot of variables. There was -- it was a car crash. There was no saying that all four people in that car would die. There's no -- there's no saying that the different traffic changes, all sorts of different circumstances that could have happened. So, no, I don't think it proves that she was murdered, but it certainly proves that she was scared.

ZAHN: Have we learned anything new about who she would have held responsible for this plot? Because, as I understand it, in the letter released by the papers, the name of that person or organization was simply blacked out for legal reasons.

JOBSON: Well, from my understanding of it, it actually is a person. We can't go obviously into too much details, because of legal reasons, but that person is known to many of the journalists in Fleet Street, and I understand that that person has been approached. But obviously we can't comment any further than that.

ZAHN: What else are we to make of this allegation? Clearly this is something that Dodi Fayed's father has also alleged in the past.

JOBSON: Well, I think what it does is it puts fuel in the fire of all the conspiracy theories that have been going on for the last six years, and actually (UNINTELLIGIBLE) the fact that Diana wrote it in a letter, a letter that she says was her insurance policy, will cause an awful lot of frenzy and excitement amongst those people that totally believe that she was murdered. And there's a recent poll today saying that 87 percent of those people asked believe that Diana's death was not an accident. And I think that this will only add to that.

ZAHN: Well, the strangest thing to the twist -- the story today is the fact that her personal butler, Paul Burrell, held on to this letter for six years. Are you skeptical about why he did that?

JOBSON: I am skeptical as to why he did it. The reality is if Paul Burrell, who often has gone on record to say that he doesn't want to or wouldn't cash in on Diana's memory -- even though for the last year that is exactly what he has been doing -- if he was that concerned about this letter, surely he should have given it to the inquiry carried out by (UNINTELLIGIBLE) -- in -- that was carrying out the investigation into her death.

If that was the reality of it, my personal belief, somewhat cynically, you might say, is that obviously he knew it would make him money.

ZAHN: Robert Jobson, you're always our eyes and ears for all things royal. Again, thank you for dropping by this evening. Appreciate your time.

JOBSON: Pleasure.

ZAHN: And that wraps it up for all of us here this evening. Thanks so much for being with us tonight.

"LARRY KING LIVE" is next with much more on the Princess Diana story.

Have a great 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





Lieberman>


Aired October 20, 2003 - 20:00   ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
PAULA ZAHN, CNN ANCHOR: "In Focus" tonight: Kobe Bryant is ordered to stand trial on sexual assault charges.
The new Diana letter: Did Princess Diana actually predict her own death? And was there a plot to kill her?

And the rescue of American POW Jessica Lynch. We'll talk with the Iraqi man who risked everything to save her.

Good evening. Welcome to a brand new week here. Thanks so much for joining us tonight.

Also ahead: Sniper suspect John Allen Muhammad, defending himself in court, speaks out for the first time.

And two of the top names in the presidential race suddenly have decided to skip one of the important early stop, the Iowa caucuses. One of the candidates is Senator Joe Lieberman. We'll ask him what this move means for his campaign.

Plus: Less than three months before she goes on trial, Martha Stewart returns to Kmart ads. We're going to look at whether the name still sells sheets, towels, and shower curtains, despite her legal troubles.

First, though, here are some of the headlines you need to know right now.

The CIA says the latest audiotape tied to Osama bin Laden is likely authentic and was recorded within the last six months. The tape surfaced over the weekend. It is also featured on a new al Qaeda Web site that's turned up on the Internet.

Academy Award winning actor Robert De Niro will be treated for prostate cancer. A spokesman says De Niro's cancer was detected at an early stage. His doctors project a full recovery.

Doctors in New York have taken the first step in trying to separate 18-month-old Filipino twins conjoined at the head. Instead of one long operation, they plan a series of smaller procedures, because they aren't sure how tightly merged the boys' brains are.

We, however, start with big developments in a pair of sensational court cases.

Late this afternoon, a Colorado judge ruled that Kobe Bryant will stand trial on a charge of sexual assault.

And then in Virginia, another judge says D.C.-area sniper suspect John Allen Muhammad can represent himself. Muhammad is on trial in connection with the looking of Harold Dean Meyers, who was shot at a gas station in Manassas.

And to put all of this into focus tonight, I'm joined by CNN legal analyst Jeffrey Toobin.

Always good to see you, Jeffrey.

JEFFREY TOOBIN, CNN LEGAL ANALYST: Hi.

ZAHN: First of all, were you surprised by the judge's decision?

TOOBIN: Not at all.

In Colorado, as in most states, preliminary hearings, the government almost never loses. There was adequate evidence put forth in the preliminary hearing to meet this very low standard of probable cause. So the government won. It doesn't mean they're going to win the trial.

ZAHN: Yes. You say there's adequate evidence. But, at the same time, every legal analyst agreed with the fact that it seemed the defense had the momentum going into this judge's decision.

TOOBIN: The defense brought out a lot of weaknesses into the government's case, weaknesses that could be brought out at trial.

But when you're looking at the only issue that was relevant to the judge is, is there probable cause looking at the evidence in the light most favorable to the government, absolutely this was a no- brainer that the government had to win.

ZAHN: Do you expect Kobe Bryant will testify?

TOOBIN: Boy, that is one tough question. I think it's quite possible he will. Because the thing -- when you have a defendant you're considering testifying, the thing you're most worrying about is, do they have a prior record? Can you impeach them with other bad acts? And, as far as I know, there are no other bad acts.

And that, I think, means that Kobe Bryant, he will certainly give it a long look, depending on how the government's case goes.

ZAHN: And, at the same time, Kobe's accuser is also expected to testify. Could the verdict then in the end turn on her testimony alone?

TOOBIN: That's why this preliminary hearing was so different from what the trial is going to be, because her testimony will be the absolute center of the trial. And she didn't even testify at the preliminary hearing.

Whether she's credible, whether she's a believable, sympathetic witness, that is going to be the central issue in the trial. And we simply don't know that at this point.

ZAHN: Let's move on to the sniper trial now. In a surprise move, John Allen Muhammad...

TOOBIN: To say the least, yes.

ZAHN: ... decided he was going to represent himself in the court. Let's all listen to some of his ramblings in the courtroom, to understand what this might mean.

Here's actually what he said: "There's three truths. The truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth. I always thought there was just one truth. The facts should help us identify what's a lie, what's not a lie."

So this guy is just in the process of killing himself?

TOOBIN: So it seems.

This was a very difficult case to win for the defense, even if they had the best lawyers in the world. If you have any idea what he's talking about, you're ahead of me. I can't make heads or tails out of it. He's likely to alienate the jury in the guilt phase. And they are likely to take it out on him in the penalty phase, given the fact that he doesn't know what he's doing.

The judge, to my surprise, let him do this with a very cursory interrogation. But, ultimately, it usually is the defendant's choice if he wants to represent himself.

ZAHN: Finally, what is the deal with his continually referring to John Lee Malvo as his son? He said: "I had nothing to do with the crimes. I had nothing at all to do with the crimes. And they know this. And please pay attention. My life and my son's life is on the line."

TOOBIN: It's creepy, is what it is. And I'm certain the jury thinks it's creepy. It is reason 10,000 why this is a terrible idea.

But defendants who are kind of egomaniacal, monomaniacal, Colin Ferguson Jack Kevorkian, they are the kind of people who represent themselves. And, apparently, John Muhammad is one of them. And they almost always lose.

ZAHN: Jeff, if you wouldn't mind standing by, I'd like for you to hang in until after the end of the next segment, so I can get your perspective on the next subject.

TOOBIN: Another potential miscreant on the loose, yes.

ZAHN: Just a couple minutes. Jeffrey Toobin will stand by.

But right now, we want to tell you about the case of the college student facing charges of what a prosecutor calls a foolish and dangerous attempt to test airport security. The young man allegedly planted box cutters and other suspicious items aboard four different jetliners five weeks ago to prove a terrorist could do it, a stunt that forced inspections of every U.S. jetliner.

Jeff and I are joined now by airline security consultant Billie Vincent in our Washington bureau.

Mr. Vincent, good to see you.

BILLIE VINCENT, AIRLINE SECURITY CONSULTANT: Good to see you, Paula.

ZAHN: First of all, do you think Mr. Heatwole, in spite of breaking the law here, called attention to some badly needed problems, or asking the government to address some real vacuums here?

VINCENT: Well, my initial reaction to this was that, if a 20- year-old college student with no sophistication and knowledge, in- depth knowledge, of aviation security, could penetrate our system so easily, we should give him a medal.

But I still -- I wouldn't want to encourage people to do this, although I do know that some do it regularly, particularly the reporters. But, certainly, we shouldn't be prosecuting this individual for a felony offense. It doesn't make sense. We're going to be the laughingstock of the world.

ZAHN: Let me ask you this. This is a man who sent e-mails to the Transportation Security Administration back in mid-September, pretty much laying out for them what he planned to do. Was it irresponsible for that agency to seemingly ignore his threat?

VINCENT: Well, I would doubt that they ignored it. I suspect that it's a bureaucratic snafu, where they really weren't processing those e-mails to see what they contained. And that's frightening also.

Now, I realize the TSA is a relatively new organization, but they should have much better skills than that.

ZAHN: We have to give them the benefit of the doubt here, though. Can't you imagine that they have to sift through thousands and thousands of e-mails every day?

VINCENT: That's a part of the problem. And it's probably mostly manually done. And that's the big part of the problem, too.

But, still, an individual that tells us he's going to do this and succeeds in doing it is very big indictment of the status of our system. We ought to be focusing on what we need to do as a result of this, rather than running around to prosecute a 20-year-old college student.

ZAHN: Billie Vincent, thank you for your views this evening.

A final thought from you, Jeff. Mr. Vincent made it very clear, he thinks, in prosecuting this guy, you make the United States look like a laughingstock.

TOOBIN: I don't think that's true.

This is, at best, the world's dumbest science project. You just can't do this on your own. This case perhaps does cry out for prosecutorial discretion, maybe not prosecute him with a felony. But you cannot have a legal system that allows people to do something so dangerous, even if their intentions are good. A slap on the wrist, at a minimum.

But I think this is a kind of serious thing. You really want to tell people, you cannot do this kind of thing on your own.

ZAHN: But you'll give Mr. Heatwole the benefit of the doubt when it comes to exposing some tremendous weaknesses in security.

TOOBIN: But we don't rely on 20-year-old college students to do that. We have journalists. We have government agencies. We have inspector generals. It is simply irresponsible for kids to do this kind of thing. And I can see why the government would want to, if not throw the whole book at him, at least several pages.

ZAHN: Jeffrey Toobin, thanks for standing by this evening.

A London newspaper says Princess Diana feared death in a car crash and actually named someone she believed was plotting it 10 months before it happened.

Senior international correspondent Walt Rodgers joins us from London with details on what "The Daily Mirror" is reporting.

Good evening, Walter. Last time I saw you, you were at the Vatican just a couple of days ago.

Help us understand why this is such a bombshell.

WALTER RODGERS, CNN SR. INTERNATIONAL CORRESPONDENT: Because Princess Diana has been dead for six years and yet she can still make headlines on the front pages of British papers, six years after she's been dead. It's as if she's really not dead. And it's a pretty spooky story.

The essence of the latest Princess Diana story here in London is that she wrote a letter 10 months before she died predicting how she was going to die in an automobile accident. And she said there would be severe head injuries, the brakes on the car would not work. And she says there were plotters. She names a plotter. For legal reasons, no one can use that name, but she says someone was plotting to kill her.

Now, was she paranoid? That's a debate which continues to go on here. She certainly was a lonely woman and she felt abused. And, consequently, this is refueling the old conspiracy theory -- Paula.

ZAHN: Let's talk about that paranoia for a moment. Apparently, she was led to believe that this could happen by her psychic. Is there any credible evidence to suggest that there was really a plot in place here? RODGERS: Well, we don't know if it was the psychics who planted this idea in her head. We do know she was an extraordinarily lonely woman. She had been ostracized by the royal family and, if you're a Princess Diana supporter, she had been abused and treated rather badly by them.

It is said she had fewer than five friends. So, again, she was lonely. So maybe she went and talked to psychics. I don't know where the idea came from. She may have had hatched this idea of plotters herself. She did have enemies. Is there credible evidence of a conspiracy? If you were to ask Princess Diana, she would say yes. Beyond that, I don't see -- the worst thing about this case is that there has not been a coroner's inquest in Britain.

The French investigated. The British never have. If you want to breed conspiracy theories, discourage an investigation -- Paula.

ZAHN: But isn't it true that the latest polls would suggest the British public actually buys into this in a major way?

RODGERS: Indeed.

"The Daily Mirror," which published this, did a poll immediately after their papers hit the street. And it said 87 percent of the people who saw their story, the respondents, now believe that Princess Diana died in something other than an accident. I asked one royals watching, could it get worse? And he said, well, it could go another 13 percent, but, right now, the public is once again suspicious -- Paula.

ZAHN: Stay on it for us, Walt Rodgers. Appreciate your time tonight. Thanks.

Saving Private Ryan (sic) -- one man says he risked his home, his family and his life to free the American POW -- tonight, his story.

And the new ad campaign featuring domestic diva Martha Stewart hits the air weeks before her trial. Will customers buy what Martha is selling?

And out of Iowa: Democratic candidate Joe Lieberman opts to skip the Iowa caucuses. What will it mean for his campaign? We'll ask him.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

ZAHN: Two big-name Democrats are pulling out of the Iowa caucuses, the first nominating event of the 2004 race. Officials with the campaigns of General Wesley Clark and former vice presidential nominee Joe Lieberman made those announcement yesterday.

And joining us tonight, Senator Joe Lieberman.

Always good to see you, sir. Welcome.

SEN. JOSEPH LIEBERMAN (D-CT), PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: Good to be with you, Paula. Thank you.

ZAHN: So, Senator, are you pulling out of the Iowa caucuses because you can't win there?

LIEBERMAN: Well, we've decided not to compete in Iowa because the calendar has changed this time around. In the past, you had Iowa, then New Hampshire, and then a long gap. This time, a week after New Hampshire, there are seven more states holding primaries. So, in two weeks, you're going to have nine different states in which voting will occur. And I think each of us is going to have to decide where we can compete more effectively and where we could most effectively put our resources.

ZAHN: But, sir, isn't that a tacit acknowledgement that, if you could have won there, you would have kept your resources in the state?

LIEBERMAN: Yes, look, let me say two things directly in response to that.

One is that it sure looks like the race in Iowa is between Dick Gephardt, who comes from right next door and won the Iowa caucuses in 1988, and Howard Dean. We felt that if I was prepared to spend enough time and resources there, that I could finish respectably, but that we could better use that money in other states where I expect to win. And so this was a redeployment of resources for that purpose.

I don't think anyone thinks this nomination is going to be decided after Iowa or New Hampshire. It's probably going to go well into March.

ZAHN: How do you respond to Barbara Bush's comments that were aired on network television this morning, that you and your Democratic colleagues are a pretty sorry group?

LIEBERMAN: Obviously, I don't think we're a sorry group. I think we're a hearty group that wants to provide different leadership and give America a fresh start.

And I admire a mother's love for her son, but the fact is that George Bush has failed to give America leadership that's continued our prosperity, that protected people's jobs, done anything to improve health care or education or homeland security, and also made us a nation that today is despised around the world, which is not where we were when he became president.

ZAHN: And finally tonight, Senator, given the president's eroding poll numbers, is this the Democrats' race to lose?

LIEBERMAN: Well, that's an optimistic view.

The president is the president. And there's always authority that goes with that. But the president doesn't have a record to run on. And that's why I believe, if we nominate a candidate like myself, who can run from the center out, be strong on security and values, but be ready to take the president on, on his failed economic policies and on a social agenda that really is far to the right of most Americans, I think we're going to win.

And I think people are losing confidence in George Bush. They want a leader who they can trust to make their lives better and to know that their government will be there to help them, not fall below a floor, but help them up. And that's why I'm very optimistic and working as hard as I am.

ZAHN: Senator Lieberman, we're going to have to leave it there this evening. Again, thank you for dropping by. Appreciate your time this evening.

LIEBERMAN: Thank you, Paula. Take care.

ZAHN: So Lieberman and Clark are out of the Iowa caucuses, which are just three months away. What will this mean for the race?

CNN senior analyst Jeff Greenfield joins us now.

Always good to see you, Jeff.

JEFF GREENFIELD, CNN SR. ANALYST: Hi.

ZAHN: Do the Iowa caucuses matter anymore?

GREENFIELD: They don't matter nearly as much as Iowa would like them to and the press says they do. They took off after George McGovern made a decent showing there and Jimmy Carter jump-started his campaign in 1976.

But the fact is, more often than not, you watch what happens in Iowa. New Hampshire, as often as not, reverses the results the next week, and we're off to races. And then the later primaries decide. But because it's the first time that you can count something, people like me rush there and we pour millions of dollars into the coffers of car rental agencies and hotels and restaurants, quite seriously.

ZAHN: Sure.

GREENFIELD: And Iowa will hold to that first-in-the-nation test, because they want the attention and the money. And they suddenly threaten people like Wesley Clark, well, if you get the nomination, what's going to happen in November when you come looking for our love and affection?

It matters in the sense that it can eliminate somebody, like a Dick Gephardt. Got to do well there, because of the expectation game. But I think it's a greatly overrated event.

ZAHN: What does it mean to you once you get the nomination down the road, though, if you alienate a bunch of Democrats in Iowa?

GREENFIELD: Well, it's seven electoral votes that have been in the Democratic column since Michael Dukakis won the state in '88. And you'd just as soon not tick them off.

The cost of it is that, for a guy like, say, Bill Bradley four years ago, he might have won New Hampshire had he not poured resources into Iowa. We saw John McCain in the Republican contest four years ago skip Iowa, clobber Bush in New Hampshire. The reason he lost the nomination had nothing to do with the fact that he didn't compete in Iowa.

So you're right. The fear of alienating the Iowa voters is what drives a lot of these people into a process they'd just as soon skip.

ZAHN: Finally, General Wesley Clark has had some other problems. Some new pro-Bush remarks that he made in the year 2002 have surfaced.

Let's all listen to this together.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

WESLEY CLARK (D), PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: I tremendously admire -- and I think we all should -- the great work done by our commander in chief, our president, George Bush, and the men and women of the United States armed forces.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

ZAHN: Right. You can see the chorus of his critics going, there he is again, the guy that is not a real Democrat.

GREENFIELD: Right.

The interesting thing is, this comment was made after Afghanistan, which was one adventure that virtually everybody supported. And it worked out, at least in ousting the Taliban. And nobody was arguing we shouldn't have gone into Afghanistan. The problem for General Clark is that when people get a sense that you are in a certain category, every piece of evidence seems to add to it.

This, to my way of measuring of it, isn't nearly as damaging as the speech he gave in May of 2001, where he sort of heaped praise on Bush and Cheney and Rumsfeld, practically the whole Cabinet, at a time when Bush had already pretty clearly indicated the direction he was going. This one, however, will count against him because of that earlier comment. And it will raise -- you can hear them all on the campaign trail, John Kerry and other rivals, saying: It didn't take me until I decided to run for president to be Democrat.

He is also skipping Iowa, of course, because he just got in too late to organize. Iowa is a state -- you just don't go vote. You sit in a school cafeteria for four hours and debate.

ZAHN: Sure.

GREENFIELD: And if you don't have organization, you just can't pull that race off.

ZAHN: Jeff Greenfield, thank you for dropping by tonight. Appreciate it.

(CROSSTALK) GREENFIELD: Nice to see you.

ZAHN: The inside story of the rescue of Jessica Lynch. Why did an Iraqi man risk everything to save an American soldier?

And two stronger than one? Can standing by her man turn public opinion in the midst of a scandal?

And royal intrigue: Months before her tragic death, did Princess Diana know of a plot to kill her?

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

ZAHN: Private 1st Class Jessica Lynch became a prisoner and then an icon after her rescue from an Iraqi hospital. Tonight, an interview with an Iraqi man who may have been pivotal in freeing her. "Because Each Life is Precious" is Mohammed al Rehaief's gripping account of his role in the Jessica Lynch saga. It began when he learned she was a POW in the hospital where his wife worked as a nurse.

Through a translator, Mohammed told us his story.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

MOHAMMED AL REHAIEF, HELPED RESCUE JESSICA LYNCH (through translator): The first time I saw Jessica, she was laying in bed and she was getting slapped by that officer. So that's why I decided to do the right thing just to save her.

I went to my house. I saw my daughter and my wife. That's when I was the weakest point, because I was worried about them. But then that's where you got more strength. And the positives were better than the negatives, because there was a life, saving somebody's life. I decided to go to the nearest point, American point or British point of the military, to go and tell them about Jessica.

The men were at the south of Nasiriyah. The place I was trying to go to, it was a really very dangerous area, because it's a no- man's-land. If I go through it, there's a possibility the Fedayeen, the Baath Party loyalists, they will get me. When I got there first, the treatment wasn't -- because they didn't know me, it was not very nice.

Through the questions, the smart questions, they asked me, they found I was telling the truth. That's when they asked for my help. The Marines asked me to go back and have floor plan for the hospital where she is exactly, and the numbers of the Fedayeen there and the Baath Party loyalists, and how many guards.

My going back to the hospital, that was the most dangerous part of the whole trip, because it's -- me going back, they might know I did something or was doing something else. The first night I went through the hospital through my wife, because works in the hospital. She's a nurse down there. The next morning, I went in the hospital through my sister-in-law. She's a doctor, worked in the hospital there And she took me to Jessica's room.

And Jessica looked very pale on the bed. She was laying the way she was laying and she had a Band-Aid on her head. And she was very weak. And Jessica's right hand was covered with a Band-Aid and was lifted up, was raised up a little bit higher. And under, there was a blanket on it.

And Jessica's face was bruised. There were a couple of bruises on both sides. That's when I went to her and told her, "Good morning, Jessica." And I think she thought I was a doctor because she replied to me, she told me, "Good morning, Doctor."

And I wanted to talk with her longer, because my English is not that good. That's when I started looking around the room to check the room, like I was asked. And so, where were the windows, the height of the windows and the height of the bed, if she's safe if there is any firing will happen. I looked to the size of the windows. I looked around the room to check on the measurements.

That's when my sister-in-law said: "OK, time for us to leave. It's getting dangerous for us to stay any longer here." When I left the hospital, I got in my car and drove across a bridge to go to the Marines. And that's where was the bombing. There was three bombs.

That's when I lost my eye. When the Marines saw me, they were really happy to see me, because I was safe. And then we sat down and we met for a long time. I was giving them all the information I had for them. And I told them everything. Seven maps, I draw for them. Five for the inside of the hospital, I draw. And I draw three for the outside.

The rescue operation was a few days after that. That was one of the happiest news I've heard in my life. It was very good news. I felt like I was born again. Because I lost my eyesight and we saved her life, that's one for the other. It was a little trade.

I'm not a hero. I'm just lucky, because I'm still alive. The real heroes are the kids who saved her, the ones who put their lives on the line to save Jessica. And I just did my job, just did my part to help.

No, but I think I did the right thing. I do.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

ZAHN: A powerful reminder about the strength of a lot of different individuals.

Powerful men and the powerful women standing by them during very public troubles. What are the lessons for Kobe Bryant and his wife, Vanessa?

Also: Gay or straight? Provocative new research is sure to spark some arguments.

And the strategy behind Martha Stewart's latest Kmart ad campaign. Can it work less than three months before she goes on trial?

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

ZAHN: Welcome back. Here's a look at what you need to know right now.

U.S. and Iraqi forces have detained 21 people in a raid early Tuesday morning in the Shiite holy city of Karbala.

Baghdad bureau chief, Jane Arraf, joins us now live with these exclusive details.

Good evening, Jane.

JANE ARRAF, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Good evening, Paula.

U.S. military officials tell us that raid is ongoing. Now this pre-dawn raid, including elements of the Iraqi Civil Defense Force, Polish soldiers, as well as the U.S. forces seemed aimed at part of a group belonging to a cleric in Karbala in which Lieutenant Colonel Kim Orlando, 43-years-old, the highest ranking U.S. officer killed in the war, was shot dead, along with two other U.S. military policemen on Friday.

Now, again, U.S. forces tell us that they are in Karbala and at a mosque in that holy city. Iraqi defense forces, Iraqi police backed, it appears, by Polish soldiers and the U.S. are arresting a group of people in connection possibly with that killing -- Paula.

ZAHN: Jane Arraf, thanks for the late details. When you have new information, we will possibly come back to you.

In case you've just joined us, NBA star Kobe Bryant will stand trial on a sexual assault charge. A judge in Eagle, Colorado made that ruling late today.

Now some people are wondering why his wife, Vanessa, was not at his side during last week's preliminary hearing. How important is it for a wife of a disgraced public figure to stand by her man? Well, important enough to be satirized on "Saturday Night Live."

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: I'm not worried, Paul. I love this man.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Ow.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: I want another ring for that, you pig.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Maybe we should just get a divorce.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Oh, or maybe we should just stay married for the rest of your natural life.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: I hate that.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: You know what I hate? I hate going to my husband's rape trial.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

ZAHN: Ouch.

Criminal attorney Trent Copeland and basketball star Jane Worthy's (sic) ex-wife, Angela Wilder, are in our Los Angeles bureau.

And with me tonight, Elaine Lewis, president of Courtroom Communications.

Glad to have all of you with us.

Trent, I'm going to start with you this evening. How important is it for a spouse of a disgraced public figure to be seen in the courtroom defending the -- his will or honor?

TRENT COPELAND, CRIMINAL ATTORNEY: You know, Paula, I think it's incumbent upon that spouse to come to the courtroom, to show some support for that spouse, to be there, really, I think, as we saw in that piece early, standing by her man.

But I think it's with limited exceptions, and the Kobe Bryant case is one of those limited exceptions. I mean, for Vanessa Bryant to have to come to court and to hear these charges all over again would be really cruel and unusual punishment. I can't imagine that Kobe Bryant or his defense team would really garner many points with the public or the jury for that matter with having her there.

I mean, we've all seen that very tearful public apology that he gave. It almost made you cringe in a way in terms of having to watch Kobe Bryant and his wife hear these things publicly. We almost felt like we were hearing some things for the first time, maybe that she also heard, and I think that really was enough. And I think to bring her into the courtroom and to have her exposed to this any further would really not serve to help the situation. I think some jurors might even find it to be equally as bad as the act itself.

ZAHN: Angela, I don't want to read too much into what I view as sort of quietly nodding here, maybe in agreement. You decided when your husband was accused of soliciting a prostitute to stay out of the limelight. You didn't do any interviews, you basically stayed out of our cameras' sights.

Do you understand what Trent is saying here? Does it make sense to you?

ANGELA WILDER, EX-WIFE OF NBA'S JAMES WORTHY: I do agree with what Trent has to say. And I think also a piece that maybe people haven't even thought about is the fact that Vanessa herself may feel conflicted about what is going on, and it may be her own personal choice to stay back and sort out for herself how she feels about what is taking place, not only in that court, but if her life.

And I did choose to stay out of the public eye. I didn't feel like my presence would be of any help to James. ZAHN: Elaine, you're laughing. Why?

ELAINE LEWIS, COURTROOM COMMUNICATIONS: Well, I totally disagree. Because if Vanessa is conflicted about whether she's going to forgive him or not, then why should the jury forgive him? I think she needs to be there as a show of support. I think she needs to go to court with him. I think she needs to leave the court with him.

Now I do agree that there may be some moments in the testimony that may be difficult for her to hear.

ZAHN: Difficult? It would be brutal for any woman to listen to.

LEWIS: But look at what Hillary Clinton had to listen to. There's no -- Americans appreciate courage. It would be a courageous thing to go, but it would also send the message that she's willing to forgive him, so she should be there. And she can be excused at certain times if it's really difficult for her.

ZAHN: Oh, but when people hear about the multimillion dollar purple diamond that she has now on her left hand, they're very skeptical about her motivations. You understand that as well?

LEWIS: But he was saying, I apologize. I did a bad thing. And that was his way, I think, of saying, Please forgive me, and may she's going to forgive him.

So if she's going to forgive him, she better be there in court. That would be my advice.

ZAHN: Trent, your reaction to that?

COPELAND: You know, it really -- for me, there simply is no other alternative for Kobe Bryant's wife. You simply stay away from the courtroom. I really don't see that there's any strategic advantage in the one hand for having her there, and I think really -- it really will detract the jury from really what the evidence in the case is.

And at this point, it seems to be going in Kobe Bryant's favor. We really wouldn't want a jury to have to sit there and listen to Kobe Bryant having to explain how he flirted with this woman, how he asked her to come in the Jacuzzi with him, how he asked her to come back to his room and to escape the bodyguards who were guarding the room.

I mean, she would really find that pretty uncomfortable, and I think that it would be very difficult for the jury to pay attention. I think they train their eyes on the witness, on the one hand. They wait to see whether or not she's crying or whether or not she's even lost it in the courtroom. It's a simply unpredictable, volatile situation that I don't really don't think has a real upside.

ZAHN: We're going to have to leave it there. Our trio tonight, Angela, Elaine, and Trent, thank you for all of your different points of view here this evening.

Nature or nurture? Straight or gay? Provocative new research that says human sexuality is determined by genetics.

Also, more on the new Diana letter. Did she see it all coming months before her death?

And tomorrow, plastic surgery, celebrities before and after. The secrets of a Beverly Hills cosmetic surgeon.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

ZAHN: And some new research on mice is sure to reignite the debate over Mr. Homosexuality is determined by genes. The findings may answer the question, why do we feel male or female?

To help us put it in plain English tonight, I'm joined by Peter Sprague. He is the director at the Family Council Center for Marriage and Family Studies.

Also in Washington tonight, Elizabeth Birch, executive director of the Human Rights Campaign. Welcome.

Elizabeth, I'm going to start with you. Do you believe the study adds more credibility to the theory that the origins of homosexuality are geneticly based?

ELIZABETH BIRCH, HUMAN RIGHTS CAMPAIGN: Look, I think this study adds for a body of knowledge that points to the direction that sexual orientation and gender identity are probably geneticly based. But the researchers themselves have said the study is not complete. They've identify 54 genes that they have to delve further into, and I don't think this study is determinative, but I also think it doesn't matter. I think gay people are a fact of life. And in modern American life we should treat every single person with dignity and fairness and equality.

Let me have Peter respond to the first part of your argument. Peter, you dispute the findings of this study that would suggest any length between homosexuality and the gene, and I'd like to read a quote from the studies lead researcher now.

Quote, "It's quite possible that sexual identity and physical attraction is hard-wired by the brain. If we accept this concept, we must dismiss the myth that homosexuality is a choice and examine our civil legal system accordingly.

What impact could this have if it is proven that homosexuality is indeed rooted in genetics?

PETER SPRIGG, FAMILY RESEARCH COUNCIL: Well, the first point I want to emphasize is this study is very far from demonstrating that homosexual orientation is rooted in genetics. This was a study of mice, not of men. When it speaks of sexual identity, it referring to the sexual identity of the mice as male or female. I read the study this afternoon, and the words sexual orientation or homosexual or bisexual or transgender, or even gender identity do not appear in this study. So it's a huge leap to saying genes influence the sex of mice to saying that genes determine the sexual orientation of humans. ZAHN: Let me as you this, it could be decades before there is any definitive research that could confirm this linkage, but is it true that you are concerned that if it comes to that, you could possibly have screening down the road for a gay gene?

BIRCH: Well, there's a couple things. First, don't be too hard, I would say, on those little mice. They have cured a lot of diseases. They helped to map the genome (ph). I mean, we've made enormous progress in the last century in terms of medicine though mice. But yes, human beings have an infinite curiosity, so there is no stopping it. But I think someday in the next decade or so, maybe two decades, it will probably be determined that there is a very complex genetic linkage to sexual orientation, and at that point, I think the fear for that and a variety of conditions, or features of young human life, in the zygote or the embryo, is that human life would try to choose to screen it out. And gay and lesbian people have always, always existed, in every culture, in every era and every age. And I we are kind of an interesting variation on the species, and the concern is always that science would go too far.

ZAHN: We've got to move on. Elizabeth Birch and Peter Sprigg, thank you for both your perspectives.

Martha is back, but is that a good thing?

Can Martha Stewart save her brand name?

And more on that chilling prediction from Princess Diana months before her tragic death. Who did she suspect was trying to kill her?

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

ZAHN: She is under indictment in a stock scandal, but Kmart is betting Martha Stewart can help shore up its own suffering stocks. In a new add campaign, the home decor diva glamorizes Kmart as the chic place to shop. Will it work. Let's ask our frequent contributor, Donnie Deutsch, chairman and CEO of the advertising agency Deutsch Incorporated.

All ways good to see you.

DONNY DEUTSCH, CEO DEUTSCH INC.: (UNINTELLIGIBLE) Paula.

ZAHN: Does this strategy work?

DEUTSCH: This is a great country. You're under indictment, possibly going to jail and you're on TV hawking pillows, and bedspreads and things.

ZAHN: They wouldn't doing this though unless they thought it was going work.

DEUTSCH: From Kmart's point of view, it's a win. She's still buying her stuff. Whether it's her face or not, they'll be pushing Martha's. My question is from Martha's people point of view, is it smart for her to be out there in such a public way, almost kind of snubbing her nose at what's going on? I would have kept a lot more low profile.

ZAHN: So you think these ads make her arrogant?

DEUTSCH: I mean, I think it's -- her whole problem all along, if you talk to any of the legal experts, is that if she had been a little more humble along the way, she wouldn't be in this problem. And I think right, we're in -- it would be like, is Kobe going ton TV hawking Sprite right now? No. I just think there's kind of a -- a -- an atttiude that you just lay back a little bit.

So, from Kmart's point of view, understand why they're doing it -- happy face in there. If I'm in charge of Martha, and I'm saying, Martha, go, hide under the covers. Do not be doing this.

ZAHN: But there's an obvious PR strategy here, isn't there? Let's talk about the ads, and then we're going to have this huge network interview where she talks about how nervous she is about going to -- potentially going to jail.

DEUTSCH: Exactly. But her getting on, Oh, I'm nervous with Barbara Walters. On the other hand, you know, kind of dancing through the aisles of Kmart -- I don't know if those two things are on the same page.

So, I mean, once again -- I don't -- I clearly understand why Kmart wants her in there. I mean, she's the most valuable property they have. And actually, the branded merchandise of hers, the business still strong. Once again, from the business of Martha and Martha staying out of jail, I question it.

ZAHN: Is there any risk here at all for Kmart? I mean, don't these products sell themselves?

DEUTSCH: No. No. You know, there is no risk. Once again, they don't need her face. The brand is so much beyond her at this point. But why not put her in there? The customers love it. It's certainly -- from Kmart's point of view, it's no risk at all.

ZAHN: She apparently she took a tour of a bunch of Kmarts in the New England area, primarily Connecticut, over the weekend. And apparently the response was overwhelmingly positive.

DEUTSCH: And just like if Kobe, you know, came into a basketball court people are going to be high-fiving him. I mean, the American public loves celebrities, and they're going to be hugging her. And certainly her detractors are not going to come up to her and say, Martha, we think you're horrible, we think you're terrible.

ZAHN: All right. So you're in charge of her campaign.

DEUTSCH: Right.

ZAHN: You're going to say -- what? -- stay in your apartment?

DEUTSCH: No. I'm going to say live your life...

ZAHN: Don't come talk to anybody?

DEUTSCH: No, but you don't have to be out there necessarily hawking with your face. Your brand speaks without you.

ZAHN: Donny Deutsch, good of you to join us. Thanks.

We're going to have more on what made Princess Diana fear for her life months before she died in a Paris car crash. We'll be right back.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

ZAHN: And welcome back.

As we've seen tonight, conspiracy theorists have a new mouth- watering morsel. According to a London tabloid, just months before she died, Princess Diana wrote a letter claiming there was a plot to kill her using a car with bad brakes in a crash that would leave her with a fatal head injury. Of course, the cause of the crash was ruled to be high speed and the driver's use of drugs and alcohol at the same time, and Diana ultimately died of cardiac arrest.

What does this say about this breaking story?

Joining us now from London, our royal watcher, Robert Jobson.

Always good to see you. Welcome, Robert.

ROBERT JOBSON, CNN ROYAL CONTRIBUTOR: Thank you.

ZAHN: Do you believe this letter is real?

JOBSON: I have no doubt that the letter itself is real. I've seen many -- much correspondence with Princess Diana and it's clearly her handwriting. I mean, it clearly -- it shows the state of mind the princess was in at the time that she wrote it and her fears from people I know (UNINTELLIGIBLE) and other members of her staff all said that she was fearful of her safety and that she was monitored and felt she was being watched by members of the security services.

ZAHN: Well, here's what I want to know -- do you believe this letter proves that she was murdered?

JOBSON: I don't think it proves that she was murdered, no , Paula. I think what it shows is, as I say, her state of mind. It's a huge leap from the fact that Diana feared that she may well have been under surveillance, that she may have been in danger -- to say that those people that she believed were watching over her, security service agents, et cetera, would actually go the next step and kill her.

Bear in mind that the fact that this crash happened with an awful lot of variables. There was -- it was a car crash. There was no saying that all four people in that car would die. There's no -- there's no saying that the different traffic changes, all sorts of different circumstances that could have happened. So, no, I don't think it proves that she was murdered, but it certainly proves that she was scared.

ZAHN: Have we learned anything new about who she would have held responsible for this plot? Because, as I understand it, in the letter released by the papers, the name of that person or organization was simply blacked out for legal reasons.

JOBSON: Well, from my understanding of it, it actually is a person. We can't go obviously into too much details, because of legal reasons, but that person is known to many of the journalists in Fleet Street, and I understand that that person has been approached. But obviously we can't comment any further than that.

ZAHN: What else are we to make of this allegation? Clearly this is something that Dodi Fayed's father has also alleged in the past.

JOBSON: Well, I think what it does is it puts fuel in the fire of all the conspiracy theories that have been going on for the last six years, and actually (UNINTELLIGIBLE) the fact that Diana wrote it in a letter, a letter that she says was her insurance policy, will cause an awful lot of frenzy and excitement amongst those people that totally believe that she was murdered. And there's a recent poll today saying that 87 percent of those people asked believe that Diana's death was not an accident. And I think that this will only add to that.

ZAHN: Well, the strangest thing to the twist -- the story today is the fact that her personal butler, Paul Burrell, held on to this letter for six years. Are you skeptical about why he did that?

JOBSON: I am skeptical as to why he did it. The reality is if Paul Burrell, who often has gone on record to say that he doesn't want to or wouldn't cash in on Diana's memory -- even though for the last year that is exactly what he has been doing -- if he was that concerned about this letter, surely he should have given it to the inquiry carried out by (UNINTELLIGIBLE) -- in -- that was carrying out the investigation into her death.

If that was the reality of it, my personal belief, somewhat cynically, you might say, is that obviously he knew it would make him money.

ZAHN: Robert Jobson, you're always our eyes and ears for all things royal. Again, thank you for dropping by this evening. Appreciate your time.

JOBSON: Pleasure.

ZAHN: And that wraps it up for all of us here this evening. Thanks so much for being with us tonight.

"LARRY KING LIVE" is next with much more on the Princess Diana story.

Have a great 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





Lieberman>