Return to Transcripts main page

Paula Zahn Now

Jury Recommends Death in Sniper Trial; Hatred on the Streets of Baghdad?

Aired November 24, 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: The jury recommends death for convicted sniper John Allen Muhammad. We'll tell you what happens next and what it may mean for his alleged accomplice, Lee Boyd Malvo.
Shocking images: two American G.I.s brutally killed in Iraq. How deep does the hatred run on the streets of Baghdad?

And we'll be talking with the daughter of a mafia kingpin, now a celebrity columnist, who says she had a Michael Jackson story months before it broke. Victoria Gotti joins us.

Good evening. Welcome. Glad to have you with us tonight.

Also ahead: Three years after the presidential election that showed a nation divided, new numbers reveal the U.S. may be more polarized than ever. George W. Bush campaigned as a uniter, not a divider. So why is the nation splitting even further apart?

And I will turn to our own Joe Klein and Candy Crowley for a wrap-up of today's Democratic presidential debate in Iowa.

Plus, the tools of the spy trade revealed by the CIA, gadgets that might make even James Bond envious.

Also, I will ask a former chief of the Red Cross why she says we may be on the threshold of wiping out the nation's No. 1 killer, heart disease.

First, though, here's a look at what you need to know right now.

Democrats failed to block passage of a sweeping Medicare bill in the Senate today. That paves the way for a final Senate vote on the $400 billion plan. The House of Representatives already approved the bill. If it does pass, it would be the largest expansion of Medicare ever.

"In Focus" tonight: The jury recommends death for D.C. area sniper John Allen Muhammad. Muhammad showed no emotion when that decision was read.

And earlier, I asked the jury foreman, Jerry Haggerty, how the jurors decided Muhammad should die.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE) JERRY HAGGERTY, JURY FOREMAN: The first two things, before we even got to determining whether we were going to vote for the death penalty, was to decide what the probability was of him, Muhammad, doing additional violence. And we decided that there was a high probability.

And then we unanimously voted that it was a vile, inhumane act. And based on those two, then we could take the death penalty as an option. And, at that point, that's when we started to discuss how we all felt. And that was a very difficult and sometimes emotional process, where everybody had a chance to openly voice their concerns, issues, personal beliefs. And we went around talking about the evidence that we had heard and what we had observed in the courtroom, as well as the mitigation, the factors of his children and his love and his children's apparent love for him.

So, it was a very difficult and long process.

ZAHN: Mr. Haggerty, prosecutors offered no proof that Muhammad was the triggerman, but they did present a mountain of circumstantial evidence linking him to the crimes. How persuasive was the prosecution?

HAGGERTY: We had to determine, was he a principal participant? And it didn't say, was he a triggerman or not? It was, was he a principal participant on the charge of murder of Dean Meyers, as well as at least one other, within the three years, and the terrorist charge?

So, we felt unanimously that he was a principal participant, that he actively participated, not just by helping, aiding and abetting, but he was very active in planning and picking out, selecting, and determining it, and that he very well was a triggerman on some of the murders.

ZAHN: What role did lack of remorse play in the decision?

HAGGERTY: His lack of emotion, lack of remorse throughout the trial was very evident. And I think it played heavily on our feelings that he was a high probability of creating violence again, if given the opportunity.

ZAHN: I know this has been a long and draining day. Thank you for spending some time with us this evening.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

ZAHN: Muhammad was convicted of murdering Dean Harold Meyers. His brother, Bob Meyers, now joins us from Virginia Beach.

Welcome back, Bob.

BOB MEYERS, BROTHER OF SNIPER VICTIM: Hi.

ZAHN: Describe to us what your thoughts were when you heard the sentence read? MEYERS: One of relief.

I kind of felt, from a principled standpoint, that what was necessary to be done was done and the hard work of the jury and their courage brought about the correct result, so that the sentence fit the crime.

ZAHN: Would you have been disappointed if it had been a life sentence instead of a death sentence?

MEYERS: Yes, I would have been. I feel like the statute is there for a reason. And if it's not there for this case, then it's not very useful.

ZAHN: Would you like to see John Allen Muhammad tried for the rest of the crimes that he's accused of committing?

MEYERS: I guess that's a question that needs to be answered based on the probability of the appeals process overturning decisions that have already been made. But, for me, I don't find it necessary, as long as these decisions are not overturned.

ZAHN: Would you understand why some other families might be disappointed if these other cases didn't proceed? I know you say the big if is whether this will end up being appealed after all.

MEYERS: I would certainly understand that and I would respect their feelings. Interestingly, though, the contact that I've had with other victims' families, that subject has never really come up.

ZAHN: How much is your brother on your mind this evening?

MEYERS: It's been a big day. And his image and his character and our relationship and his relationship to the rest of my family and many people outside the family is very much weighing on me tonight. I recognize that, for the most part, this process is over, and yet he's still in the grave. So, I guess it will never end.

ZAHN: And I imagine one of the more difficult things you had to do was look at John Allen Muhammad in the courtroom. Do you think you'll ever be able to erase his image in your mind?

MEYERS: Well, that's probably not the paramount issue with me.

I would just like him and the defense team to take responsibility for what really happened and not play the game strategically that he's still innocent and then show some remorse, if there's any there.

ZAHN: Bob Meyers, I know you must be exhausted. You've been a tower of strength throughout this. Thank you for sharing some of your thoughts with us this evening.

And we're going to take a closer look now at the decision against Muhammad. I took up that issue with regular contributor and CNN legal analyst Jeffrey Toobin, as well as Paul Rothstein of Georgetown University, a death penalty expert and defense attorney and author of the book "Evidence in a Nutshell."

And I started by asking if lack of remorse should have been the deciding factor for the jury.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

PAUL ROTHSTEIN, DEATH PENALTY EXPERT: Well, the law throws it to the conscience of the jurors and it lets them consider almost anything they want. And so that is a valid consideration.

I think it was his impassivity, his don't-care attitude. Every time you saw a picture of him, that's what he exuded. I also think it was that he didn't introduce any psychiatric testimony. There surely must have been something a little wrong with him mentally for him to do these things. Usually, if jurors can latch on to anything of a psychiatric nature, they will and they will not give the death penalty.

ZAHN: Because Muhammad, Jeff, refused to be interviewed by the court's psychiatrist, the defense couldn't use that.

JEFFREY TOOBIN, CNN LEGAL ANALYST: That's right.

ZAHN: How much did it hurt them?

TOOBIN: I think we need to keep our eyes firmly on the obvious here, 10 people. He killed or participated in killing 10 people. That's a lot of people.

If you're convicted of a crime of that magnitude and the death penalty is available to a jury, you're going to get it. So I think, beyond the remorse issue, beyond his demeanor, that is such a huge, awful crime. That's why he got the death penalty.

ZAHN: And, Professor, Muhammad is the first person to be convicted under Virginia's new anti-terrorism law. Do you think that that potentially could have prejudiced jury members against him?

ROTHSTEIN: Well, I think there are some legal issues for appeal there, whether this terrorism law fits this kind of thing or just the kind of thing we had in 9/11, and also that he wasn't the triggerman under the other death penalty law. That provides legal issues.

There's also some other legal issues for appeal. A lot of evidence was introduced about other crimes that he committed, other shootings, way more than I would have thought was fair or needed. So I think that's going to be an appeal, too.

ZAHN: What does the outcome of this trial mean for Mr. Malvo?

TOOBIN: Well, in theory, it should mean nothing. The jury should not know about this verdict. And if they know, they should be able...

ZAHN: They would have to live on another planet not to know about this verdict. TOOBIN: Well, the idea is to keep their mind clear of that.

I think it's bad. I think, to know that the partner -- this is so much a joint enterprise -- to know that the partner in this crime spree got the death penalty I think can only hurt Malvo.

ZAHN: So how is this going to impact on the rest of the cases, Paul?

ROTHSTEIN: Well, I take a little different view than Jeffrey there.

I would say that the fact that Muhammad has been convicted and given the death penalty, in a funny way, helps a little bit Malvo's defense, because Malvo's only real defense is going to be that this was like a Svengali situation: My strings were being pulled. I was almost hypnotized by this guy.

And I think the jury coming in and finding Muhammad guilty of being the mastermind is really going to help that.

ZAHN: Jeffrey, in closing, let's come back to the rest of the cases that are open now. Do you see them all being tried?

TOOBIN: Very tough decisions. Alabama, Louisiana, Maryland, the federal government all could bring cases. Do they want to spend the money? Do they want to put the victims and all the witnesses through this again?

ZAHN: And how much political pressure is on them by constituents?

TOOBIN: But do they want to pretend that their own murders never happened? Very tough decisions. I can't imagine they will all go forward, but I don't think John Muhammad has seen the last of the inside of a courtroom either.

ZAHN: Well, you're a former prosecutor. If you were in one of these jurisdictions, would you carry on with the case?

TOOBIN: You know what? I would.

ZAHN: Is there going to be a race to the gas chamber?

TOOBIN: There really will. If there are other death penalty cases, that's how it will work. And Virginia is a state that, when you get the death penalty at trial, the overwhelming likelihood is, you will be executed. And I think that has to figure into the process to whether you want to subject your community and your budget to this all over again.

ZAHN: Jeffrey Toobin, Paul Rothstein, thank you for both of your perspectives this evening.

ROTHSTEIN: Thanks, Paula.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

ZAHN: And now on to Iraq and those disturbing images of two U.S. soldiers shot to death in Mosul on Sunday. The military says initial eyewitness reports that their throats were cut and that they had been beaten with rocks turned out to be wrong. Officials say both soldiers died from gunshot wounds, that the autopsy in fact did not show stab wounds, nor slash marks.

But locals apparently did drag the soldier's bodies out of their civilian vehicle and stripped them of personal effects. One Mosul resident calls Americans invaders who stole Iraqi oil and land. How much do Iraqis hate the U.S.?

Former Secretary of Defense William Cohen joins us from Washington.

Always good to see you, sir. Welcome.

WILLIAM COHEN, FORMER SECRETARY OF DEFENSE: Good evening, Paula.

ZAHN: Let's take a look at one of the headlines Americans woke up to this morning, a tough one. Now, even if these facts shift a little more, what is the impact of this symbolically?

COHEN: Well, I think emotions obviously are running very high. They are certainly going to be running high in Iraq itself with our soldiers and certainly high back here.

But what we have to keep in mind and what our professional soldiers will do is to exercise great restraint under the circumstances. That's why they're professionally trained to deal with the kind of horrific circumstance that they find themselves confronted with in a time of war. And we have to stress, this is a war that's ongoing and brutality can and does occur. And it inflames the emotions, but our professional soldiers will have to react as they have been trained to react. And that's with great patience and determination to go after the individuals involved, but not respond in a moment of anger.

ZAHN: But, Bill, in spite of this training you're talking about, it's got to have some impact on morale, doesn't it?

COHEN: Oh, it has an impact upon morale. But, again, this is where the training comes into play.

If it's just a question of going into a situation like Iraq and responding to provocations, as horrific as they might be, with a show of force that is random or wanton, then we end up losing more than we gain by it. So I think that this is the mark of the professional military that we have, the finest in the world. And even though those emotions are high and the morale may be impacted, under great leadership, they will exercise restraint.

I'm confident that they will suppress that emotion and they will go out there and do the job that they've been sent to do. ZAHN: You've been through this drill before. Whatever you say as a military official will be parsed and sliced and diced. You had a U.S. military spokesman today characterizing this attack as militarily insignificant. Were those the right words to use?

COHEN: I think we really have to stay away from characterizations like that.

Any soldier that is killed or wounded is significant. And the impact upon that individual or that individual's family is going to be momentous. The notion that, from a military point of view, if you have one individual who is harmed or killed, will that have an overall impact on the military operation, the answer is not -- is no, rather. But we really ought not to characterize it as such.

I think what we have to say is, we are going to carry out our responsibilities. This is a serious blow to that family and that individual, but we will carry on. We've got a job to do, a mission to accomplish. And, as has been said, we can't look at failure as any kind of an option. We have to prevail in this particular case. And that means solidifying our support here at home -- and that's important -- but also solidifying support within the Iraqi people.

And that's a tough job. Both audiences have to be convinced that the United States is there to win and to prevail. And if that's the case, then I think we'll see these kinds of random acts directed at our soldiers with the kind of mob violence that has taken place will tend to be diminished in significant numbers. But we have got to show that we're prepared to win. And any hesitation or doubt and I think that undermines that ability to carry out that mission.

ZAHN: Let's move beyond the human tragedy here. How serious of an image problem is this for the Bush administration, when Mosul is often a city held up as probably one of the better success stories?

COHEN: Well, I think it's a situation in which we're going to see random types of strikes throughout Iraq. The notion that somehow one area is completely safe, I think, is inaccurate. And we should not raise those kind of expectations.

We are in a state of war. And even though some of the neighborhoods, so to speak, seem calm, you have got individuals who will move in, who are paid assassins, who have bounties they're trying to collect by killing Americans. And they can walk into the most peaceful neighborhood that we have recognized as being relatively stable, and, suddenly, you have them targeting American soldiers, inciting violence.

And so no area is completely safe. And we should not expect that. So I don't think that, because it's in Mosul or in any other area, that is reflective of anything but the fact that we're in a war.

ZAHN: Well, we very much appreciate your input this evening. Former Secretary of Defense William Cohen, thank you.

COHEN: Thank you, Paula. ZAHN: The 2000 election revealed a nation divided. And the U.S. may now be more divided than ever over President Bush. We'll look at why Americans seem to love him or hate him.

And Joe Klein and Candy Crowley bring us the highs and lows of today's Democratic presidential debate in Iowa.

We'll also ask if today's cell phone users can take their numbers and run. We're going to tell you what you need to know to switch carriers and keep your number without hassle. Good luck.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

ZAHN: Two months from now, the primary season's first major prize will be in someone's backyard. But the battle for Iowa continued today with a big debate in Des Moines.

Right now, let's get some recap and analysis from our senior political correspondent, Candy Crowley, who covered today's forum which aired on MSNBC, and our regular contributor, "TIME" magazine's Joe Klein, who's here in New York with me with his perspective.

Welcome, both.

So, Candy, you watched the debate. You stood in the spin room and I'm sure were spun wildly. Who's feeling the most positive tonight?

CANDY CROWLEY, CNN SR. POLITICAL CORRESPONDENT: I think they all came away -- if you don't fall down in one of these debates, if you don't say something, as Howard Dean did in the Rock the Vote, the whole Confederate flag issue, if you don't say something that requires you tomorrow to continue talking about it in a negative way, you've pretty much won. So I think they all came away feeling like it was yet another draw.

ZAHN: A little hand-to-hand combat, though, on the issue of Medicare. Let's listen to that.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

SEN. JOHN KERRY (D-MA), PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: Do you intend to slow the rate of growth in Medicare, because you said you were going to do that?

HOWARD DEAN (D), PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: DEAN: Well, what I intend to do in Medicare is to increase reimbursements for states like Iowa and Vermont, which are 50th and 49th respectively.

KERRY: Are you going to slow the rate of growth, Governor, yes or no?

DEAN: We're going to do what we have to do to make sure that Medicare lasts...

KERRY: Are you going to slow the rate of growth, Governor, because that's a cut?

DEAN: Well, I'd like to slow the rate of growth of this debate, if I could.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

ZAHN: Did he ever get a yes or no?

JOE KLEIN, CNN CONTRIBUTOR: Well, he never quite got a yes or no.

But the interesting thing is what John Kerry is asking for. John Kerry is against slowing the rate of growth of Medicare. And that's kind of weird, because, if we don't slow the rate of growth of Medicare, our children are going to be impoverished by our retirement.

ZAHN: So should Howard Dean have turned that question around on John Kerry?

KLEIN: Well, the problem with Howard Dean is that his position on Medicare was far more responsible eight years ago, before he ran for president. Now, in the Democratic -- in this Democratic primary, you have to be in favor of Medicare, no questions asked. And that's an indication of the irresponsibility of this entire debate.

ZAHN: So, John Kerry has a streak of aggressiveness today, Candy, in this debate, but a new "Boston Globe" poll showing him trailing Howard Dean by, what, nine points?

CROWLEY: Yes.

They responded to that and said, look, these polls don't mean anything. And they showed two other polls that came out about the same time showing Kerry winning in his home state of Massachusetts. But, look, any time you have any sort of poll that, in Massachusetts, shows that someone from Vermont is doing better than the longtime senator, that's not a good thing.

He's battling back. He's trying to sort of rewrite his campaign at this point, with "The Real Deal" as his new slogan. Whether or not he can pull that out in New Hampshire still seems like an uphill climb.

ZAHN: In fact, that poll was in "The Boston Herald."

KLEIN: It was "The Boston Herald."

(CROSSTALK)

ZAHN: Talk about Dick Gephardt today.

KLEIN: There was a more interesting poll today out in Iowa. WHO, one of the big TV stations there, has Howard Dean leading Dick Gephardt by 10 points in Iowa. That, I don't know how accurate it is.

(CROSSTALK) ZAHN: You hate these polls. Does it mean anything to you?

KLEIN: Because I've covered these campaigns and I know that they can change on a dime. They'll change three times between now and the election. But...

ZAHN: Because you were pointing out that Gephardt was way behind in what year, in 19...

KLEIN: Yes. In 1987, at this point, Gephardt was last and he wound up winning Iowa.

However, I think that this is an accurate snapshot of where things are now. Dean has a lot of strength there. Gephardt probably has peaked in Iowa. He has as many votes as he's going to get. The interesting thing in Iowa is that John Kerry was only three points behind Gephardt in third place. So he has bad news in his home state and not-so-bad news in Iowa.

Let's talk about Wes Clark now for a moment. Here's what he had to say about George Bush and the war.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

WESLEY CLARK (D), PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: Here we are with the United States Army half-committed in Iraq, no success strategy, $150 billion. This administration took us to war recklessly and without need to do so. And it was wrong. And that is the issue in this election. And that is the issue we should be taking to the American people.

(APPLAUSE)

(END VIDEO CLIP)

ZAHN: So, Candy, how is that going to play in Iowa?

CROWLEY: It plays well. This is a very big peace state. It's nothing we haven't heard before from Wesley Clark and from basically everybody else sitting on that stage. Right now, they're not breaking a whole lot of news here. We're not learning a whole lot new about these candidates.

This has to do with the decibel level. And what hearing is just all of them sort of getting revved up less than two months away. Again, they have heard that. Many people in Iowa have heard that before, but the ratcheting-up of the tone is certainly what was most obvious to me in this debate.

ZAHN: Real quick answer here. Did you learn anything today from these guys? And gal. Excuse me.

KLEIN: Well, the problem is, as Candy said before, nothing really is happening in this race. The five really serious candidates, six really serious candidates, are diminished by the other three, who -- and there are just too many people on the stage. ZAHN: Joe Klein, Candy Crowley, thanks so much for the update.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

DAVID ENSOR, CNN NATIONAL SECURITY CORRESPONDENT: This one is Charlie the catfish. Look closely. He's a spy fish.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

ZAHN: And David Ensor takes us on a tour of the CIA's tools of the trade, like something out of James Bond.

And could we be on the verge of wiping out heart disease? We'll ask the former head of the National Institutes of Health.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

ZAHN: Life imitates art, or is it the other way around? Spies in the movies have all kinds of incredible gadgets to help them gather intelligence. What about real life?

Well, David Ensor goes inside the CIA to find out.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

DAVID ENSOR, CNN NATIONAL SECURITY CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): The fictional British version of the role, Q in the James Bond movies, is well known.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

UNIDENTIFIED ACTOR: Now, 007, do please try and return some -- do try to return some of this equipment in pristine order.

Don't touch that! It's my lunch.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

ENSOR: But at the CIA, Donald Kerr is the real thing for American spies. In charge of finding technology that helps them do their jobs.

(on camera): Is real life at all like the movies?

DAVID KERR, CIA: Actually real life is better, because we are developing and employing new capabilities all the time.

ENSOR (voice-over): An exhibit as the CIA shows some of the old tricks of the trade, like a pipe that can listen in. KERR: When you put the pipe in your mouth, the amplifier is convert converting the radio signal to an audio signal that's transmitted via your jaw bone so you can hear it.

ENSOR: This one is Charlie the Catfish. Look closely. He's a spy fish.

KERR: It's just one of the kinds of approaches we might make to a target if we wanted to get a sensor up close to it.

ENSOR: And these aren't really dragonflies, they are UAVs, unmanned aerial vehicles with microphone.

ENSOR: Does this fly like a dragonfly?

KERR: It does.

ENSOR: They were tested, but not used because any kind of breeze was enough to push them off course.

(on camera): What is the growth area, in terms of science or technology, to assist with intelligence gathering, espionage.

KERR: Smart dust. The size of it may be a cubic millimeter. Something that, the head of a pin or smaller. And so with functionality to measure something, record something and communicate something all built into this very tiny device.

ENSOR (voice-over): Nanotechnology not in use yet, but Kerr says it will be. How much does reality imitate fiction?

(on camera): Here's a car that has surface to air missiles in it. A watch that has a grappling hook in it.

KERR: Those are more fanciful, because if you think about it, we'd like to have our agents conduct their operations unseen. And these things tend to be a bit showy and spectacular.

ENSOR (voice-over): That is the problem with James Bond's car. It blows its cover.

David Ensor, CNN, Langley, Virginia.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

ZAHN: Hate him? Love him? Why do American's feelings about President Bush run so hot and cold? And is the nation even more divided now than three years ago, when he was elected?

And I'll be talking with Victoria Gotti, celebrity columnist, about what she knew about the Michael Jackson case months before the story broke.

And tomorrow, actor Christopher Reeve in his first full interview without a respirator.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

ZAHN: Welcome back.

In a moment, we examine a nation divided that appears more than ever since the election of 2000 and why opinions of the president are so polarized.

But first, here a look at what you need to know right now. Michael Jackson is going on the offensive tonight. He's getting support from a Hollywood legend.

National correspondent Frank Buckley is standing by live at the Neverland Ranch in Los Olivos, California.

Good evening, Frank.

FRANK BUCKLEY, CNN NATIONAL CORRESPONDENT: Hi there, Paula.

The Hollywood legend, the longtime friend of Michael Jackson, Elizabeth Taylor, who issued a statement today fully supporting Michael Jackson, saying that she knows that Michael Jackson is innocent. Also supporting Michael Jackson today, Michael Jackson himself, who came out with a new Web site, that Web site called mjnews.us.

He issued a statement on that Web site, saying quote -- "As you know, the charges recently directed at me are terribly serious. They are, however, predicated on a big lie. This will be shown in court, and we will be able to put this horrible time behind us. Because the charges are so serious, I hope all of you will understand, on the advice of my attorneys, I will be limited in what I can say about the situation. There will be times when I cannot comment at all. No doubt, this will be frustrating for all of us."

Meanwhile, Paula, Michael Jackson remains in seclusion, his next court date set for January 9 -- Paula.

ZAHN: Frank Buckley, appreciate the update.

We're going to move on now, more about Michael Jackson tonight from celebrity columnist Victoria Gotti, who says she had the story months before it broke.

And ask a friend what he thinks of President Bush and the chances are that person will not mince words. It seems, he's either admired or despised. And while past presidents have divided the electorate, Mr. Bush may be driving a buzz saw down the political center. That's the gist of the cover story in "TIME" magazine, co-written by Karen Tumulty.

She joins us as now from Washington. And David Gergen joins us from suburban Boston. He's with the Kennedy School of Government at Harvard University.

Welcome, both.

Karen, let's start with you, since this is your piece in "TIME" magazine.

Just how polarized are we as a nation?

KAREN TUMULTY, "TIME": Well, Paula, it's striking to take a look at the numbers. Certainly, we have seen polarizing presidents in the past, recently starting with Ronald Reagan and Bill Clinton. But the numbers are just stunning, when you take a look at how Democrats and Republicans view the same man and the same policies on a whole series of issues.

You take a look, for instance, at how Democrats and Republicans look at the economy; 76 percent of Republicans think it's good; 68 percent of Democrats think it's poor. Asked, is this a leader you can trust, 79 percent of Republicans think that George Bush is; 75 percent of Democrats think he isn't. On religion, is he too quick to inject his own religious and moral values into politics, 67 percent of Republicans say no and 68 percent of Democrats say yes.

It's just about any measure of his presidency that you ask people about, whether it's Iraq, unemployment, is he honest with the American people, does he have a grasp of the facts, and you see this mirror image.

ZAHN: David, is this polarization enough of a liability that it could cost the president the election?

DAVID GERGEN, HARVARD UNIVERSITY: There's definitely a backlash that has built up over the last few months, especially since the launching of the Iraq war.

We had a unity of the country behind the president after 9/11. That unity has been shattered. There's been a backlash that has built up. It's nasty. It's growing. The backlash may be big enough at this point to determine the Democratic nomination. It may decide who the nominee is. It's not yet big enough to beat the president next November.

ZAHN: Karen, here's what I want to know. When you try to get at the root of this polarization, what is it? Is it the president's personality or is it his policies?

TUMULTY: Well, it's both, and it's striking how the two things are intertwined, because this is a president who has made who he is and what he believes very much a part of his presidency. It's a big contrast, for instance, from his father, who had trouble convincing the country he believed anything, and from Bill Clinton, who really divorced what people thought of him as a person from what they thought of his policies.

George Bush very much governs according to his values. Things are black and white. And if you agree with those values, you will support him. And he has managed to generate a more united Republican Party even than Ronald Reagan did.

ZAHN: So, David, you've worked for a number of presidents in both parties. If you were advising the president about the lesson to be learned from these polls, what would you tell him?

GERGEN: Well, traditionally, you would have said, Mr. President, you make the statement, it's my way or the highway -- or at least that's the attitude that's being demonstrated -- and a lot of folks are taking the highway. And that's bad news.

But in this new environment, Paula, it may be that this could help the president in the end. Why do I say that? Because, in days past, in years past, the traditional presidential election was fought. Each side had about 30, maybe 35 percent of the vote and there was a great big middle out there. And the way you won the election was to appeal to the middle, to go to the middle.

Today, Karl Rove will tell you, as will consultants on the Democratic side, that that middle has shrunk. The base if much bigger on each side. And the way you win the election is not by going to the center, but by mobilizing your base. And a polarized electorate is one way to get your voters out. If Republicans, if they really get -- if they demonize the Democratic candidate and say, well -- they love George Bush. They will turn out in large numbers.

And that's how the Republicans did so well, Republicans did so well in the off-year elections of 2002 and upset all the prognosticators, because they were extraordinarily well-organized and mobilized their base. And that's what they're trying to do now in this coming election.

ZAHN: Well, it's a fascinating subject to try to understand here and a lot to get your arms around.

GERGEN: It sure is.

ZAHN: Karen Tumulty, thank you for sharing your piece with us this evening.

TUMULTY: Thank you, Paula.

ZAHN: David Gergen, always good to see you.

GERGEN: Thank you.

ZAHN: Thanks for joining us.

Coming up, I'm going to ask a former Red Cross chief and director of the National Institutes of Health why she is saying science may be on the verge of getting rid of heart disease, the nation's No. 1 killer.

And to switch or not to switch? The ins and outs of ditching your cell phone carrier, but keeping your cell phone number.

We'll be back.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

ZAHN: And welcome back.

A December special issue of "U.S. News & World Report" bears a startling title, "The End of Heart Disease." Can this be true? Is medical science conquering America's No. 1 killer? Well, Dr. Bernadine Healy wrote the cover story. She's the magazine's medical and health columnist, former president of the Red Cross, and cardiologist. And she's putting it "In Plain English" for us tonight and join us from Washington.

Always good to see you, Doctor.

DR. BERNADINE HEALY, "U.S. NEWS & WORLD REPORT": Nice to see you, Paula.

ZAHN: Can you really say that your community is conquering heart disease?

HEALY: Well, I think our community is conquering heart disease.

I think that we're at an amazing threshold, Paula. And sometimes, you hear a different medical report a day and it all blends in. But if you look at it in aggregate, for years, we have gone a long way in heart disease by thinking of the heart as a pump. We now are really getting to understanding the heart as a living, breathing pump, understanding of molecules and those genes that make it up.

And by having that power knowledge, combined with the mechanics, mechanics to molecules, we really have almost no aspect of heart disease that we're not understanding. And that means learning new therapies.

ZAHN: So you've got fewer people dying from heart attacks, but more people living with heart disease?

(CROSSTALK)

HEALY: Yes.

It may seem as a paradox. But, Paula, in a way, the heart left, to its own design, is a bit of a drama queen. We know it because we see people who fall over dead with sudden death, which is a tragic -- a perfectly healthy person who just falls over with ventricular fibrillation, or a person who comes in with a heart attack out of the blue, enter a coronary care unit.

Years ago, that was sort of a death sentence to come in with a heart attack. We have been able to convert those dramatic events into chronic events. People can survive these events. They can actually control the progress of their disease. People are living longer. But, as a result, the damage that's been done to their hearts, the long-term high blood pressure and even age contribute to chronic heart failure. So we're seeing a new face of heart disease, but it's one we can handle as well.

ZAHN: Let's talk a little bit about artificial hearts now. Such great hope 20 years ago, when Barney Clark got the first artificial heart. But what's gone wrong? Why haven't they been more promising?

HEALY: Well, that's right. That was 21 years ago, hard to imagine, 21 years ago. And I guess we thought of the heart as a pump. And, at that time, it was this thing in his chest that was hooked to something that looked like a refrigerator or washing machine.

And it showed, sure, the heart could pump, but it couldn't deal with the blood clots it formed. And, of course, hi died after about 100 days. Fast-forward 21 years later. We still have wonderful pumps that work. But they don't work long term for the same reason, the blot-clotting problem. So I think we probably will get there, but it has been ever so much slower because of this whole other dimension, the clotting system.

ZAHN: Well, we're going to keep our fingers crossed that more progress is made in the near future. Dr. Bernadine Healy, medical and health columnist and senior writer for "U.S. News & World Report," thanks for your time.

HEALY: Thank you, Paula.

ZAHN: And I'm going to be talking with a celebrity columnist who said she had the Michael Jackson story months before it broke. What else does she know?

And the pros and cons of taking your cell phone number with you when you switch carriers.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

ZAHN: A big change for most of the 152 million people in the U.S. who use wireless phones. Beginning today, you can keep your cell phone number when you switch phone companies. That eliminates a hassle that discouraged many people from ditching a cell phone company they didn't like. There are some pitfalls, however.

And joining us tonight, "Fortune" magazine editor at large and CNN contributor Andy Serwer.

ANDY SERWER, CNN CONTRIBUTOR: Hello.

ZAHN: So, we shouldn't hold our breath about this one? It's not going to like a two-minute transaction.

SERWER: No.

ZAHN: You have to be a little bit patient.

SERWER: That's right.

ZAHN: But it's pretty good news for folks who really didn't want to go through the process before.

SERWER: Right.

Before this, Paula, you really couldn't switch your cell phone, if you asked me, because you had everyone remembering your number. And if you change cell phones and changed your number, you had to start at square one. And who wanted to do that?

However, if there were four reasons not to change your cell phone before, they got rid of one. There's still a lot of other problems. So it's going to take some time.

ZAHN: Go through those for us.

SERWER: Yes, let's go through it.

First of all, I want to say, you don't want to be a guinea pig here. I would wait days, weeks, months for this to sort out. But here's what is going to happen. First of all, you're going to have to deal with a telephone company. So you've got to be patient there. In fact, you have to deal with two telephone companies. You have to switch over from one to the other.

There are at least 11 pieces of information that need to be exchanged between the two. You are probably going to have to buy a new phone, because the service in your old company won't match the new one. You might have an analog service before, maybe a digital one now, a GSM. So that's there as well. And then the big problem, of course, here is the termination fee. When you signed up for your cell phone, you signed a contract that said...

ZAHN: What contract, Andy?

SERWER: It's in that shoe box in your closet, Paula.

ZAHN: The thing none of us ever bother reading.

(CROSSTALK)

SERWER: Yes, all that fine print which says, if you change service within two years, you owe us $175. So that, to me, is a huge reason. Unless you're really teed off at your company, who wants to spend that kind of money?

ZAHN: All right, but what you really got to have is an incentive to do this.

SERWER: Right.

ZAHN: Tell us what all these companies are offering.

(CROSSTALK)

ZAHN: For us to change our loyalties once again.

SERWER: Right. And here's what you got to wait for, because we're already seeing some right here, for instance, T-Mobile, free Fridays. Their whole weekends are free. They're adding Friday to the weekends. I wish my boss would do that.

(CROSSTALK)

ZAHN: Not a chance, Andy.

SERWER: Not a chance? Sorry, Paula.

AT&T a new phone every 12 months if you sign a two-year deal. Cingular, they're making the peak go back a couple hours, so you get more time there. But the real thing to me is, watch as these companies, Sprint, Verizon, AT&T, Cingular, all of them start to compete more and more to get these customers, I think they may say, want just to reimburse you for that $175 or $200 fee, the termination fee.

ZAHN: But you think they'll ultimately do that? Oh, how nice.

SERWER: They might have to do that, if they start to really get competitive here. So you got to watch these incentives.

ZAHN: What about some of the hidden costs that we should be aware of?

SERWER: Well, I think the biggest hidden cost is just dealing with these phone companies. And, also, they're going to be charging you to do this anyway. They're going to be a hidden line on your bill.

ZAHN: How much, on average?

SERWER: Check out your cell phone -- $1 or $2 a month. But, to me, that's just ludicrous that they're charging the public this $1- or $2-a-month fee.

ZAHN: Does it every stop? Or are you going to pay that the rest of your life?

SERWER: Well, you're going to pay it for a couple years, until the FCC sees fits to remove it. But, to me, that's just egregious that the phone companies are doing that, because they should really just be charging the people that are switching, not just all customers.

ZAHN: So is Verizon the big winner in all of this?

SERWER: Well, I kind of think Verizon will be big winner, because, if you know those surveys they did -- J.D. Power did a survey a couple months ago.

And it showed that their service was really better than the other companies. So I think the word is out that Verizon has a better, or at least equal to the other ones, service. I think a lot of people may be switching over to them.

ZAHN: So, Mr. Serwer, are you standing by your phone company tonight?

(CROSSTALK)

ZAHN: You don't have to tell us who your service is with.

SERWER: No, I'll tell you, I'm an AT&T customer.

ZAHN: OK. SERWER: I'm not that satisfied with the service, I've got to tell you out there, AT&T. But I'm not switching, because I have a contract, because I want to see how this plays out. It is going to take days, probably, to switch over. I'm standing pat right now.

ZAHN: Oh, they're going to get you when they will reimburse you for that $150 fee. I know you, Andy.

SERWER: Give me some free minutes, and then we'll do it, right?

ZAHN: Thanks. Appreciate your explaining that to us.

SERWER: OK. See you.

ZAHN: The Michael Jackson saga continues. Did celebrity columnist Victoria Gotti have the story months before it broke? I'll ask her.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

ZAHN: Last week's aerial shots of police cars alerted most of the world that Michael Jackson was about to be back in the news, but one woman apparently knew there was trouble in Neverland long before it was raided.

Her name is Victoria Gotti. She is a celebrity columnist for "Star" magazine. She joins us now with her story.

VICTORIA GOTTI, "STAR": How are you?

ZAHN: Victoria, always good to see you.

Why did you hold the story?

GOTTI: At the time, Paula, we weren't that sure. We had a lot of evidence. We knew that there was an open and active investigation coming out of Los Angeles against Michael Jackson.

But you're always quick, especially from my angle -- you know what it's like to be scrutinized and to constantly be looked at and for people to assume. So I think I just thought, you know what? Let's give this some space, some room. Let's let it unfold. And I think, right now, the evidence has been brought forward, at least preliminary. And I think, at this point, the only scary thing, you don't want him to be tried in the media.

Let's try and give them some breathing space and maybe follow the case, where they go point to point to point, and then decide what we think, if he's guilty, he's not. I personally wasn't that convinced back then. And I don't know that I still am.

ZAHN: Was it that you didn't trust your sources and what they told you?

GOTTI: No, I did. That's the problem. I really trusted my sources. They were that in the know and in the loop. I think I just -- there's things that you want to believe and there's things you don't want to believe. And I didn't want to believe that. And I still don't. And I'm kind of out to lunch on whether or not I feel he's guilty. I still haven't seen enough yet.

ZAHN: It's kind of hard, because we haven't seen the evidence that the investigators have allegedly collected.

GOTTI: Yes. Right.

ZAHN: Let's talk a little bit about Neverland Ranch and the atmosphere you've discovered, you think, through what sources have told you of what...

GOTTI: We've seen it.

ZAHN: ... a typical visit -- You've been there.

GOTTI: We've seen it. We've been there.

It's bizarre. It is. For lack of a better word, it's bizarre. I have three children and I've done things on Halloween where we've had rides and things outside. That's fantastical and it's temporary. But to live like that every day, I found myself looking around, saying, this is bizarre. And you tried it. You would look around at certain things, the train, the museum, the toys. And you want to say, OK, this is an adult male at 45 years old, but there is something strange.

ZAHN: What can you tell us about what you've learned about the parents of this 12-year-old boy and their credibility and what role it might play in this case?

GOTTI: Well, we're hearing lots of things now, unfortunately, that they're at odds with each other. They're not in agreement about the case or factors of the case. We're hearing things about the boy as well.

I think this is going to be a mind-boggling investigation. I think that this case is going to be a he said/she said. There's going to be a lot of ripping each other's hair out and accusations from Michael's camp to the boy, the boy's camp to Michael, the husband against the wife, wife against the husband. It is going to be very, very much the stuff soap operas are made of.

I believe that early on, because it's not a conventional family.

ZAHN: No, by any means.

GOTTI: In the sense, these two parents are apart. And they're now accusing each other as it is. And then you'll have Michael's defense team, which I'm sure is stellar

(CROSSTALK)

ZAHN: They're ramping it up. GOTTI: Yes. Oh, yes.

ZAHN: Victoria Gotti, thank you.

GOTTI: Thank you.

ZAHN: For spending a little time here this evening.

Tomorrow night, an interview with Christopher Reeve. It is his first full interview without the use of a ventilator. It is a story of hope and inspiration. He also shares a great sense of humor about his most famous role.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

CHRISTOPHER REEVE, ACTOR: I'll tell you one thing. When you're playing Superman and you're standing there in that uniform, you better be pretty committed, because you could look pretty ridiculous in it.

(LAUGHTER)

ZAHN: You looked really good.

REEVE: There's no pockets, you know?

(END VIDEO CLIP)

ZAHN: Christopher Reeve's first entire interview without a ventilator is tomorrow night. And then, on Friday, we will devote the entire program to Christopher Reeve and what amazing breakthroughs he and science are making in the field of spinal cord injury.

Thanks so much for being with us tonight. Appreciate your being with us. "LARRY KING LIVE" is next.

Have a good night.

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





Streets of Baghdad?>


Aired November 24, 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: The jury recommends death for convicted sniper John Allen Muhammad. We'll tell you what happens next and what it may mean for his alleged accomplice, Lee Boyd Malvo.
Shocking images: two American G.I.s brutally killed in Iraq. How deep does the hatred run on the streets of Baghdad?

And we'll be talking with the daughter of a mafia kingpin, now a celebrity columnist, who says she had a Michael Jackson story months before it broke. Victoria Gotti joins us.

Good evening. Welcome. Glad to have you with us tonight.

Also ahead: Three years after the presidential election that showed a nation divided, new numbers reveal the U.S. may be more polarized than ever. George W. Bush campaigned as a uniter, not a divider. So why is the nation splitting even further apart?

And I will turn to our own Joe Klein and Candy Crowley for a wrap-up of today's Democratic presidential debate in Iowa.

Plus, the tools of the spy trade revealed by the CIA, gadgets that might make even James Bond envious.

Also, I will ask a former chief of the Red Cross why she says we may be on the threshold of wiping out the nation's No. 1 killer, heart disease.

First, though, here's a look at what you need to know right now.

Democrats failed to block passage of a sweeping Medicare bill in the Senate today. That paves the way for a final Senate vote on the $400 billion plan. The House of Representatives already approved the bill. If it does pass, it would be the largest expansion of Medicare ever.

"In Focus" tonight: The jury recommends death for D.C. area sniper John Allen Muhammad. Muhammad showed no emotion when that decision was read.

And earlier, I asked the jury foreman, Jerry Haggerty, how the jurors decided Muhammad should die.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE) JERRY HAGGERTY, JURY FOREMAN: The first two things, before we even got to determining whether we were going to vote for the death penalty, was to decide what the probability was of him, Muhammad, doing additional violence. And we decided that there was a high probability.

And then we unanimously voted that it was a vile, inhumane act. And based on those two, then we could take the death penalty as an option. And, at that point, that's when we started to discuss how we all felt. And that was a very difficult and sometimes emotional process, where everybody had a chance to openly voice their concerns, issues, personal beliefs. And we went around talking about the evidence that we had heard and what we had observed in the courtroom, as well as the mitigation, the factors of his children and his love and his children's apparent love for him.

So, it was a very difficult and long process.

ZAHN: Mr. Haggerty, prosecutors offered no proof that Muhammad was the triggerman, but they did present a mountain of circumstantial evidence linking him to the crimes. How persuasive was the prosecution?

HAGGERTY: We had to determine, was he a principal participant? And it didn't say, was he a triggerman or not? It was, was he a principal participant on the charge of murder of Dean Meyers, as well as at least one other, within the three years, and the terrorist charge?

So, we felt unanimously that he was a principal participant, that he actively participated, not just by helping, aiding and abetting, but he was very active in planning and picking out, selecting, and determining it, and that he very well was a triggerman on some of the murders.

ZAHN: What role did lack of remorse play in the decision?

HAGGERTY: His lack of emotion, lack of remorse throughout the trial was very evident. And I think it played heavily on our feelings that he was a high probability of creating violence again, if given the opportunity.

ZAHN: I know this has been a long and draining day. Thank you for spending some time with us this evening.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

ZAHN: Muhammad was convicted of murdering Dean Harold Meyers. His brother, Bob Meyers, now joins us from Virginia Beach.

Welcome back, Bob.

BOB MEYERS, BROTHER OF SNIPER VICTIM: Hi.

ZAHN: Describe to us what your thoughts were when you heard the sentence read? MEYERS: One of relief.

I kind of felt, from a principled standpoint, that what was necessary to be done was done and the hard work of the jury and their courage brought about the correct result, so that the sentence fit the crime.

ZAHN: Would you have been disappointed if it had been a life sentence instead of a death sentence?

MEYERS: Yes, I would have been. I feel like the statute is there for a reason. And if it's not there for this case, then it's not very useful.

ZAHN: Would you like to see John Allen Muhammad tried for the rest of the crimes that he's accused of committing?

MEYERS: I guess that's a question that needs to be answered based on the probability of the appeals process overturning decisions that have already been made. But, for me, I don't find it necessary, as long as these decisions are not overturned.

ZAHN: Would you understand why some other families might be disappointed if these other cases didn't proceed? I know you say the big if is whether this will end up being appealed after all.

MEYERS: I would certainly understand that and I would respect their feelings. Interestingly, though, the contact that I've had with other victims' families, that subject has never really come up.

ZAHN: How much is your brother on your mind this evening?

MEYERS: It's been a big day. And his image and his character and our relationship and his relationship to the rest of my family and many people outside the family is very much weighing on me tonight. I recognize that, for the most part, this process is over, and yet he's still in the grave. So, I guess it will never end.

ZAHN: And I imagine one of the more difficult things you had to do was look at John Allen Muhammad in the courtroom. Do you think you'll ever be able to erase his image in your mind?

MEYERS: Well, that's probably not the paramount issue with me.

I would just like him and the defense team to take responsibility for what really happened and not play the game strategically that he's still innocent and then show some remorse, if there's any there.

ZAHN: Bob Meyers, I know you must be exhausted. You've been a tower of strength throughout this. Thank you for sharing some of your thoughts with us this evening.

And we're going to take a closer look now at the decision against Muhammad. I took up that issue with regular contributor and CNN legal analyst Jeffrey Toobin, as well as Paul Rothstein of Georgetown University, a death penalty expert and defense attorney and author of the book "Evidence in a Nutshell."

And I started by asking if lack of remorse should have been the deciding factor for the jury.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

PAUL ROTHSTEIN, DEATH PENALTY EXPERT: Well, the law throws it to the conscience of the jurors and it lets them consider almost anything they want. And so that is a valid consideration.

I think it was his impassivity, his don't-care attitude. Every time you saw a picture of him, that's what he exuded. I also think it was that he didn't introduce any psychiatric testimony. There surely must have been something a little wrong with him mentally for him to do these things. Usually, if jurors can latch on to anything of a psychiatric nature, they will and they will not give the death penalty.

ZAHN: Because Muhammad, Jeff, refused to be interviewed by the court's psychiatrist, the defense couldn't use that.

JEFFREY TOOBIN, CNN LEGAL ANALYST: That's right.

ZAHN: How much did it hurt them?

TOOBIN: I think we need to keep our eyes firmly on the obvious here, 10 people. He killed or participated in killing 10 people. That's a lot of people.

If you're convicted of a crime of that magnitude and the death penalty is available to a jury, you're going to get it. So I think, beyond the remorse issue, beyond his demeanor, that is such a huge, awful crime. That's why he got the death penalty.

ZAHN: And, Professor, Muhammad is the first person to be convicted under Virginia's new anti-terrorism law. Do you think that that potentially could have prejudiced jury members against him?

ROTHSTEIN: Well, I think there are some legal issues for appeal there, whether this terrorism law fits this kind of thing or just the kind of thing we had in 9/11, and also that he wasn't the triggerman under the other death penalty law. That provides legal issues.

There's also some other legal issues for appeal. A lot of evidence was introduced about other crimes that he committed, other shootings, way more than I would have thought was fair or needed. So I think that's going to be an appeal, too.

ZAHN: What does the outcome of this trial mean for Mr. Malvo?

TOOBIN: Well, in theory, it should mean nothing. The jury should not know about this verdict. And if they know, they should be able...

ZAHN: They would have to live on another planet not to know about this verdict. TOOBIN: Well, the idea is to keep their mind clear of that.

I think it's bad. I think, to know that the partner -- this is so much a joint enterprise -- to know that the partner in this crime spree got the death penalty I think can only hurt Malvo.

ZAHN: So how is this going to impact on the rest of the cases, Paul?

ROTHSTEIN: Well, I take a little different view than Jeffrey there.

I would say that the fact that Muhammad has been convicted and given the death penalty, in a funny way, helps a little bit Malvo's defense, because Malvo's only real defense is going to be that this was like a Svengali situation: My strings were being pulled. I was almost hypnotized by this guy.

And I think the jury coming in and finding Muhammad guilty of being the mastermind is really going to help that.

ZAHN: Jeffrey, in closing, let's come back to the rest of the cases that are open now. Do you see them all being tried?

TOOBIN: Very tough decisions. Alabama, Louisiana, Maryland, the federal government all could bring cases. Do they want to spend the money? Do they want to put the victims and all the witnesses through this again?

ZAHN: And how much political pressure is on them by constituents?

TOOBIN: But do they want to pretend that their own murders never happened? Very tough decisions. I can't imagine they will all go forward, but I don't think John Muhammad has seen the last of the inside of a courtroom either.

ZAHN: Well, you're a former prosecutor. If you were in one of these jurisdictions, would you carry on with the case?

TOOBIN: You know what? I would.

ZAHN: Is there going to be a race to the gas chamber?

TOOBIN: There really will. If there are other death penalty cases, that's how it will work. And Virginia is a state that, when you get the death penalty at trial, the overwhelming likelihood is, you will be executed. And I think that has to figure into the process to whether you want to subject your community and your budget to this all over again.

ZAHN: Jeffrey Toobin, Paul Rothstein, thank you for both of your perspectives this evening.

ROTHSTEIN: Thanks, Paula.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

ZAHN: And now on to Iraq and those disturbing images of two U.S. soldiers shot to death in Mosul on Sunday. The military says initial eyewitness reports that their throats were cut and that they had been beaten with rocks turned out to be wrong. Officials say both soldiers died from gunshot wounds, that the autopsy in fact did not show stab wounds, nor slash marks.

But locals apparently did drag the soldier's bodies out of their civilian vehicle and stripped them of personal effects. One Mosul resident calls Americans invaders who stole Iraqi oil and land. How much do Iraqis hate the U.S.?

Former Secretary of Defense William Cohen joins us from Washington.

Always good to see you, sir. Welcome.

WILLIAM COHEN, FORMER SECRETARY OF DEFENSE: Good evening, Paula.

ZAHN: Let's take a look at one of the headlines Americans woke up to this morning, a tough one. Now, even if these facts shift a little more, what is the impact of this symbolically?

COHEN: Well, I think emotions obviously are running very high. They are certainly going to be running high in Iraq itself with our soldiers and certainly high back here.

But what we have to keep in mind and what our professional soldiers will do is to exercise great restraint under the circumstances. That's why they're professionally trained to deal with the kind of horrific circumstance that they find themselves confronted with in a time of war. And we have to stress, this is a war that's ongoing and brutality can and does occur. And it inflames the emotions, but our professional soldiers will have to react as they have been trained to react. And that's with great patience and determination to go after the individuals involved, but not respond in a moment of anger.

ZAHN: But, Bill, in spite of this training you're talking about, it's got to have some impact on morale, doesn't it?

COHEN: Oh, it has an impact upon morale. But, again, this is where the training comes into play.

If it's just a question of going into a situation like Iraq and responding to provocations, as horrific as they might be, with a show of force that is random or wanton, then we end up losing more than we gain by it. So I think that this is the mark of the professional military that we have, the finest in the world. And even though those emotions are high and the morale may be impacted, under great leadership, they will exercise restraint.

I'm confident that they will suppress that emotion and they will go out there and do the job that they've been sent to do. ZAHN: You've been through this drill before. Whatever you say as a military official will be parsed and sliced and diced. You had a U.S. military spokesman today characterizing this attack as militarily insignificant. Were those the right words to use?

COHEN: I think we really have to stay away from characterizations like that.

Any soldier that is killed or wounded is significant. And the impact upon that individual or that individual's family is going to be momentous. The notion that, from a military point of view, if you have one individual who is harmed or killed, will that have an overall impact on the military operation, the answer is not -- is no, rather. But we really ought not to characterize it as such.

I think what we have to say is, we are going to carry out our responsibilities. This is a serious blow to that family and that individual, but we will carry on. We've got a job to do, a mission to accomplish. And, as has been said, we can't look at failure as any kind of an option. We have to prevail in this particular case. And that means solidifying our support here at home -- and that's important -- but also solidifying support within the Iraqi people.

And that's a tough job. Both audiences have to be convinced that the United States is there to win and to prevail. And if that's the case, then I think we'll see these kinds of random acts directed at our soldiers with the kind of mob violence that has taken place will tend to be diminished in significant numbers. But we have got to show that we're prepared to win. And any hesitation or doubt and I think that undermines that ability to carry out that mission.

ZAHN: Let's move beyond the human tragedy here. How serious of an image problem is this for the Bush administration, when Mosul is often a city held up as probably one of the better success stories?

COHEN: Well, I think it's a situation in which we're going to see random types of strikes throughout Iraq. The notion that somehow one area is completely safe, I think, is inaccurate. And we should not raise those kind of expectations.

We are in a state of war. And even though some of the neighborhoods, so to speak, seem calm, you have got individuals who will move in, who are paid assassins, who have bounties they're trying to collect by killing Americans. And they can walk into the most peaceful neighborhood that we have recognized as being relatively stable, and, suddenly, you have them targeting American soldiers, inciting violence.

And so no area is completely safe. And we should not expect that. So I don't think that, because it's in Mosul or in any other area, that is reflective of anything but the fact that we're in a war.

ZAHN: Well, we very much appreciate your input this evening. Former Secretary of Defense William Cohen, thank you.

COHEN: Thank you, Paula. ZAHN: The 2000 election revealed a nation divided. And the U.S. may now be more divided than ever over President Bush. We'll look at why Americans seem to love him or hate him.

And Joe Klein and Candy Crowley bring us the highs and lows of today's Democratic presidential debate in Iowa.

We'll also ask if today's cell phone users can take their numbers and run. We're going to tell you what you need to know to switch carriers and keep your number without hassle. Good luck.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

ZAHN: Two months from now, the primary season's first major prize will be in someone's backyard. But the battle for Iowa continued today with a big debate in Des Moines.

Right now, let's get some recap and analysis from our senior political correspondent, Candy Crowley, who covered today's forum which aired on MSNBC, and our regular contributor, "TIME" magazine's Joe Klein, who's here in New York with me with his perspective.

Welcome, both.

So, Candy, you watched the debate. You stood in the spin room and I'm sure were spun wildly. Who's feeling the most positive tonight?

CANDY CROWLEY, CNN SR. POLITICAL CORRESPONDENT: I think they all came away -- if you don't fall down in one of these debates, if you don't say something, as Howard Dean did in the Rock the Vote, the whole Confederate flag issue, if you don't say something that requires you tomorrow to continue talking about it in a negative way, you've pretty much won. So I think they all came away feeling like it was yet another draw.

ZAHN: A little hand-to-hand combat, though, on the issue of Medicare. Let's listen to that.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

SEN. JOHN KERRY (D-MA), PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: Do you intend to slow the rate of growth in Medicare, because you said you were going to do that?

HOWARD DEAN (D), PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: DEAN: Well, what I intend to do in Medicare is to increase reimbursements for states like Iowa and Vermont, which are 50th and 49th respectively.

KERRY: Are you going to slow the rate of growth, Governor, yes or no?

DEAN: We're going to do what we have to do to make sure that Medicare lasts...

KERRY: Are you going to slow the rate of growth, Governor, because that's a cut?

DEAN: Well, I'd like to slow the rate of growth of this debate, if I could.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

ZAHN: Did he ever get a yes or no?

JOE KLEIN, CNN CONTRIBUTOR: Well, he never quite got a yes or no.

But the interesting thing is what John Kerry is asking for. John Kerry is against slowing the rate of growth of Medicare. And that's kind of weird, because, if we don't slow the rate of growth of Medicare, our children are going to be impoverished by our retirement.

ZAHN: So should Howard Dean have turned that question around on John Kerry?

KLEIN: Well, the problem with Howard Dean is that his position on Medicare was far more responsible eight years ago, before he ran for president. Now, in the Democratic -- in this Democratic primary, you have to be in favor of Medicare, no questions asked. And that's an indication of the irresponsibility of this entire debate.

ZAHN: So, John Kerry has a streak of aggressiveness today, Candy, in this debate, but a new "Boston Globe" poll showing him trailing Howard Dean by, what, nine points?

CROWLEY: Yes.

They responded to that and said, look, these polls don't mean anything. And they showed two other polls that came out about the same time showing Kerry winning in his home state of Massachusetts. But, look, any time you have any sort of poll that, in Massachusetts, shows that someone from Vermont is doing better than the longtime senator, that's not a good thing.

He's battling back. He's trying to sort of rewrite his campaign at this point, with "The Real Deal" as his new slogan. Whether or not he can pull that out in New Hampshire still seems like an uphill climb.

ZAHN: In fact, that poll was in "The Boston Herald."

KLEIN: It was "The Boston Herald."

(CROSSTALK)

ZAHN: Talk about Dick Gephardt today.

KLEIN: There was a more interesting poll today out in Iowa. WHO, one of the big TV stations there, has Howard Dean leading Dick Gephardt by 10 points in Iowa. That, I don't know how accurate it is.

(CROSSTALK) ZAHN: You hate these polls. Does it mean anything to you?

KLEIN: Because I've covered these campaigns and I know that they can change on a dime. They'll change three times between now and the election. But...

ZAHN: Because you were pointing out that Gephardt was way behind in what year, in 19...

KLEIN: Yes. In 1987, at this point, Gephardt was last and he wound up winning Iowa.

However, I think that this is an accurate snapshot of where things are now. Dean has a lot of strength there. Gephardt probably has peaked in Iowa. He has as many votes as he's going to get. The interesting thing in Iowa is that John Kerry was only three points behind Gephardt in third place. So he has bad news in his home state and not-so-bad news in Iowa.

Let's talk about Wes Clark now for a moment. Here's what he had to say about George Bush and the war.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

WESLEY CLARK (D), PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: Here we are with the United States Army half-committed in Iraq, no success strategy, $150 billion. This administration took us to war recklessly and without need to do so. And it was wrong. And that is the issue in this election. And that is the issue we should be taking to the American people.

(APPLAUSE)

(END VIDEO CLIP)

ZAHN: So, Candy, how is that going to play in Iowa?

CROWLEY: It plays well. This is a very big peace state. It's nothing we haven't heard before from Wesley Clark and from basically everybody else sitting on that stage. Right now, they're not breaking a whole lot of news here. We're not learning a whole lot new about these candidates.

This has to do with the decibel level. And what hearing is just all of them sort of getting revved up less than two months away. Again, they have heard that. Many people in Iowa have heard that before, but the ratcheting-up of the tone is certainly what was most obvious to me in this debate.

ZAHN: Real quick answer here. Did you learn anything today from these guys? And gal. Excuse me.

KLEIN: Well, the problem is, as Candy said before, nothing really is happening in this race. The five really serious candidates, six really serious candidates, are diminished by the other three, who -- and there are just too many people on the stage. ZAHN: Joe Klein, Candy Crowley, thanks so much for the update.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

DAVID ENSOR, CNN NATIONAL SECURITY CORRESPONDENT: This one is Charlie the catfish. Look closely. He's a spy fish.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

ZAHN: And David Ensor takes us on a tour of the CIA's tools of the trade, like something out of James Bond.

And could we be on the verge of wiping out heart disease? We'll ask the former head of the National Institutes of Health.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

ZAHN: Life imitates art, or is it the other way around? Spies in the movies have all kinds of incredible gadgets to help them gather intelligence. What about real life?

Well, David Ensor goes inside the CIA to find out.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

DAVID ENSOR, CNN NATIONAL SECURITY CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): The fictional British version of the role, Q in the James Bond movies, is well known.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

UNIDENTIFIED ACTOR: Now, 007, do please try and return some -- do try to return some of this equipment in pristine order.

Don't touch that! It's my lunch.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

ENSOR: But at the CIA, Donald Kerr is the real thing for American spies. In charge of finding technology that helps them do their jobs.

(on camera): Is real life at all like the movies?

DAVID KERR, CIA: Actually real life is better, because we are developing and employing new capabilities all the time.

ENSOR (voice-over): An exhibit as the CIA shows some of the old tricks of the trade, like a pipe that can listen in. KERR: When you put the pipe in your mouth, the amplifier is convert converting the radio signal to an audio signal that's transmitted via your jaw bone so you can hear it.

ENSOR: This one is Charlie the Catfish. Look closely. He's a spy fish.

KERR: It's just one of the kinds of approaches we might make to a target if we wanted to get a sensor up close to it.

ENSOR: And these aren't really dragonflies, they are UAVs, unmanned aerial vehicles with microphone.

ENSOR: Does this fly like a dragonfly?

KERR: It does.

ENSOR: They were tested, but not used because any kind of breeze was enough to push them off course.

(on camera): What is the growth area, in terms of science or technology, to assist with intelligence gathering, espionage.

KERR: Smart dust. The size of it may be a cubic millimeter. Something that, the head of a pin or smaller. And so with functionality to measure something, record something and communicate something all built into this very tiny device.

ENSOR (voice-over): Nanotechnology not in use yet, but Kerr says it will be. How much does reality imitate fiction?

(on camera): Here's a car that has surface to air missiles in it. A watch that has a grappling hook in it.

KERR: Those are more fanciful, because if you think about it, we'd like to have our agents conduct their operations unseen. And these things tend to be a bit showy and spectacular.

ENSOR (voice-over): That is the problem with James Bond's car. It blows its cover.

David Ensor, CNN, Langley, Virginia.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

ZAHN: Hate him? Love him? Why do American's feelings about President Bush run so hot and cold? And is the nation even more divided now than three years ago, when he was elected?

And I'll be talking with Victoria Gotti, celebrity columnist, about what she knew about the Michael Jackson case months before the story broke.

And tomorrow, actor Christopher Reeve in his first full interview without a respirator.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

ZAHN: Welcome back.

In a moment, we examine a nation divided that appears more than ever since the election of 2000 and why opinions of the president are so polarized.

But first, here a look at what you need to know right now. Michael Jackson is going on the offensive tonight. He's getting support from a Hollywood legend.

National correspondent Frank Buckley is standing by live at the Neverland Ranch in Los Olivos, California.

Good evening, Frank.

FRANK BUCKLEY, CNN NATIONAL CORRESPONDENT: Hi there, Paula.

The Hollywood legend, the longtime friend of Michael Jackson, Elizabeth Taylor, who issued a statement today fully supporting Michael Jackson, saying that she knows that Michael Jackson is innocent. Also supporting Michael Jackson today, Michael Jackson himself, who came out with a new Web site, that Web site called mjnews.us.

He issued a statement on that Web site, saying quote -- "As you know, the charges recently directed at me are terribly serious. They are, however, predicated on a big lie. This will be shown in court, and we will be able to put this horrible time behind us. Because the charges are so serious, I hope all of you will understand, on the advice of my attorneys, I will be limited in what I can say about the situation. There will be times when I cannot comment at all. No doubt, this will be frustrating for all of us."

Meanwhile, Paula, Michael Jackson remains in seclusion, his next court date set for January 9 -- Paula.

ZAHN: Frank Buckley, appreciate the update.

We're going to move on now, more about Michael Jackson tonight from celebrity columnist Victoria Gotti, who says she had the story months before it broke.

And ask a friend what he thinks of President Bush and the chances are that person will not mince words. It seems, he's either admired or despised. And while past presidents have divided the electorate, Mr. Bush may be driving a buzz saw down the political center. That's the gist of the cover story in "TIME" magazine, co-written by Karen Tumulty.

She joins us as now from Washington. And David Gergen joins us from suburban Boston. He's with the Kennedy School of Government at Harvard University.

Welcome, both.

Karen, let's start with you, since this is your piece in "TIME" magazine.

Just how polarized are we as a nation?

KAREN TUMULTY, "TIME": Well, Paula, it's striking to take a look at the numbers. Certainly, we have seen polarizing presidents in the past, recently starting with Ronald Reagan and Bill Clinton. But the numbers are just stunning, when you take a look at how Democrats and Republicans view the same man and the same policies on a whole series of issues.

You take a look, for instance, at how Democrats and Republicans look at the economy; 76 percent of Republicans think it's good; 68 percent of Democrats think it's poor. Asked, is this a leader you can trust, 79 percent of Republicans think that George Bush is; 75 percent of Democrats think he isn't. On religion, is he too quick to inject his own religious and moral values into politics, 67 percent of Republicans say no and 68 percent of Democrats say yes.

It's just about any measure of his presidency that you ask people about, whether it's Iraq, unemployment, is he honest with the American people, does he have a grasp of the facts, and you see this mirror image.

ZAHN: David, is this polarization enough of a liability that it could cost the president the election?

DAVID GERGEN, HARVARD UNIVERSITY: There's definitely a backlash that has built up over the last few months, especially since the launching of the Iraq war.

We had a unity of the country behind the president after 9/11. That unity has been shattered. There's been a backlash that has built up. It's nasty. It's growing. The backlash may be big enough at this point to determine the Democratic nomination. It may decide who the nominee is. It's not yet big enough to beat the president next November.

ZAHN: Karen, here's what I want to know. When you try to get at the root of this polarization, what is it? Is it the president's personality or is it his policies?

TUMULTY: Well, it's both, and it's striking how the two things are intertwined, because this is a president who has made who he is and what he believes very much a part of his presidency. It's a big contrast, for instance, from his father, who had trouble convincing the country he believed anything, and from Bill Clinton, who really divorced what people thought of him as a person from what they thought of his policies.

George Bush very much governs according to his values. Things are black and white. And if you agree with those values, you will support him. And he has managed to generate a more united Republican Party even than Ronald Reagan did.

ZAHN: So, David, you've worked for a number of presidents in both parties. If you were advising the president about the lesson to be learned from these polls, what would you tell him?

GERGEN: Well, traditionally, you would have said, Mr. President, you make the statement, it's my way or the highway -- or at least that's the attitude that's being demonstrated -- and a lot of folks are taking the highway. And that's bad news.

But in this new environment, Paula, it may be that this could help the president in the end. Why do I say that? Because, in days past, in years past, the traditional presidential election was fought. Each side had about 30, maybe 35 percent of the vote and there was a great big middle out there. And the way you won the election was to appeal to the middle, to go to the middle.

Today, Karl Rove will tell you, as will consultants on the Democratic side, that that middle has shrunk. The base if much bigger on each side. And the way you win the election is not by going to the center, but by mobilizing your base. And a polarized electorate is one way to get your voters out. If Republicans, if they really get -- if they demonize the Democratic candidate and say, well -- they love George Bush. They will turn out in large numbers.

And that's how the Republicans did so well, Republicans did so well in the off-year elections of 2002 and upset all the prognosticators, because they were extraordinarily well-organized and mobilized their base. And that's what they're trying to do now in this coming election.

ZAHN: Well, it's a fascinating subject to try to understand here and a lot to get your arms around.

GERGEN: It sure is.

ZAHN: Karen Tumulty, thank you for sharing your piece with us this evening.

TUMULTY: Thank you, Paula.

ZAHN: David Gergen, always good to see you.

GERGEN: Thank you.

ZAHN: Thanks for joining us.

Coming up, I'm going to ask a former Red Cross chief and director of the National Institutes of Health why she is saying science may be on the verge of getting rid of heart disease, the nation's No. 1 killer.

And to switch or not to switch? The ins and outs of ditching your cell phone carrier, but keeping your cell phone number.

We'll be back.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

ZAHN: And welcome back.

A December special issue of "U.S. News & World Report" bears a startling title, "The End of Heart Disease." Can this be true? Is medical science conquering America's No. 1 killer? Well, Dr. Bernadine Healy wrote the cover story. She's the magazine's medical and health columnist, former president of the Red Cross, and cardiologist. And she's putting it "In Plain English" for us tonight and join us from Washington.

Always good to see you, Doctor.

DR. BERNADINE HEALY, "U.S. NEWS & WORLD REPORT": Nice to see you, Paula.

ZAHN: Can you really say that your community is conquering heart disease?

HEALY: Well, I think our community is conquering heart disease.

I think that we're at an amazing threshold, Paula. And sometimes, you hear a different medical report a day and it all blends in. But if you look at it in aggregate, for years, we have gone a long way in heart disease by thinking of the heart as a pump. We now are really getting to understanding the heart as a living, breathing pump, understanding of molecules and those genes that make it up.

And by having that power knowledge, combined with the mechanics, mechanics to molecules, we really have almost no aspect of heart disease that we're not understanding. And that means learning new therapies.

ZAHN: So you've got fewer people dying from heart attacks, but more people living with heart disease?

(CROSSTALK)

HEALY: Yes.

It may seem as a paradox. But, Paula, in a way, the heart left, to its own design, is a bit of a drama queen. We know it because we see people who fall over dead with sudden death, which is a tragic -- a perfectly healthy person who just falls over with ventricular fibrillation, or a person who comes in with a heart attack out of the blue, enter a coronary care unit.

Years ago, that was sort of a death sentence to come in with a heart attack. We have been able to convert those dramatic events into chronic events. People can survive these events. They can actually control the progress of their disease. People are living longer. But, as a result, the damage that's been done to their hearts, the long-term high blood pressure and even age contribute to chronic heart failure. So we're seeing a new face of heart disease, but it's one we can handle as well.

ZAHN: Let's talk a little bit about artificial hearts now. Such great hope 20 years ago, when Barney Clark got the first artificial heart. But what's gone wrong? Why haven't they been more promising?

HEALY: Well, that's right. That was 21 years ago, hard to imagine, 21 years ago. And I guess we thought of the heart as a pump. And, at that time, it was this thing in his chest that was hooked to something that looked like a refrigerator or washing machine.

And it showed, sure, the heart could pump, but it couldn't deal with the blood clots it formed. And, of course, hi died after about 100 days. Fast-forward 21 years later. We still have wonderful pumps that work. But they don't work long term for the same reason, the blot-clotting problem. So I think we probably will get there, but it has been ever so much slower because of this whole other dimension, the clotting system.

ZAHN: Well, we're going to keep our fingers crossed that more progress is made in the near future. Dr. Bernadine Healy, medical and health columnist and senior writer for "U.S. News & World Report," thanks for your time.

HEALY: Thank you, Paula.

ZAHN: And I'm going to be talking with a celebrity columnist who said she had the Michael Jackson story months before it broke. What else does she know?

And the pros and cons of taking your cell phone number with you when you switch carriers.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

ZAHN: A big change for most of the 152 million people in the U.S. who use wireless phones. Beginning today, you can keep your cell phone number when you switch phone companies. That eliminates a hassle that discouraged many people from ditching a cell phone company they didn't like. There are some pitfalls, however.

And joining us tonight, "Fortune" magazine editor at large and CNN contributor Andy Serwer.

ANDY SERWER, CNN CONTRIBUTOR: Hello.

ZAHN: So, we shouldn't hold our breath about this one? It's not going to like a two-minute transaction.

SERWER: No.

ZAHN: You have to be a little bit patient.

SERWER: That's right.

ZAHN: But it's pretty good news for folks who really didn't want to go through the process before.

SERWER: Right.

Before this, Paula, you really couldn't switch your cell phone, if you asked me, because you had everyone remembering your number. And if you change cell phones and changed your number, you had to start at square one. And who wanted to do that?

However, if there were four reasons not to change your cell phone before, they got rid of one. There's still a lot of other problems. So it's going to take some time.

ZAHN: Go through those for us.

SERWER: Yes, let's go through it.

First of all, I want to say, you don't want to be a guinea pig here. I would wait days, weeks, months for this to sort out. But here's what is going to happen. First of all, you're going to have to deal with a telephone company. So you've got to be patient there. In fact, you have to deal with two telephone companies. You have to switch over from one to the other.

There are at least 11 pieces of information that need to be exchanged between the two. You are probably going to have to buy a new phone, because the service in your old company won't match the new one. You might have an analog service before, maybe a digital one now, a GSM. So that's there as well. And then the big problem, of course, here is the termination fee. When you signed up for your cell phone, you signed a contract that said...

ZAHN: What contract, Andy?

SERWER: It's in that shoe box in your closet, Paula.

ZAHN: The thing none of us ever bother reading.

(CROSSTALK)

SERWER: Yes, all that fine print which says, if you change service within two years, you owe us $175. So that, to me, is a huge reason. Unless you're really teed off at your company, who wants to spend that kind of money?

ZAHN: All right, but what you really got to have is an incentive to do this.

SERWER: Right.

ZAHN: Tell us what all these companies are offering.

(CROSSTALK)

ZAHN: For us to change our loyalties once again.

SERWER: Right. And here's what you got to wait for, because we're already seeing some right here, for instance, T-Mobile, free Fridays. Their whole weekends are free. They're adding Friday to the weekends. I wish my boss would do that.

(CROSSTALK)

ZAHN: Not a chance, Andy.

SERWER: Not a chance? Sorry, Paula.

AT&T a new phone every 12 months if you sign a two-year deal. Cingular, they're making the peak go back a couple hours, so you get more time there. But the real thing to me is, watch as these companies, Sprint, Verizon, AT&T, Cingular, all of them start to compete more and more to get these customers, I think they may say, want just to reimburse you for that $175 or $200 fee, the termination fee.

ZAHN: But you think they'll ultimately do that? Oh, how nice.

SERWER: They might have to do that, if they start to really get competitive here. So you got to watch these incentives.

ZAHN: What about some of the hidden costs that we should be aware of?

SERWER: Well, I think the biggest hidden cost is just dealing with these phone companies. And, also, they're going to be charging you to do this anyway. They're going to be a hidden line on your bill.

ZAHN: How much, on average?

SERWER: Check out your cell phone -- $1 or $2 a month. But, to me, that's just ludicrous that they're charging the public this $1- or $2-a-month fee.

ZAHN: Does it every stop? Or are you going to pay that the rest of your life?

SERWER: Well, you're going to pay it for a couple years, until the FCC sees fits to remove it. But, to me, that's just egregious that the phone companies are doing that, because they should really just be charging the people that are switching, not just all customers.

ZAHN: So is Verizon the big winner in all of this?

SERWER: Well, I kind of think Verizon will be big winner, because, if you know those surveys they did -- J.D. Power did a survey a couple months ago.

And it showed that their service was really better than the other companies. So I think the word is out that Verizon has a better, or at least equal to the other ones, service. I think a lot of people may be switching over to them.

ZAHN: So, Mr. Serwer, are you standing by your phone company tonight?

(CROSSTALK)

ZAHN: You don't have to tell us who your service is with.

SERWER: No, I'll tell you, I'm an AT&T customer.

ZAHN: OK. SERWER: I'm not that satisfied with the service, I've got to tell you out there, AT&T. But I'm not switching, because I have a contract, because I want to see how this plays out. It is going to take days, probably, to switch over. I'm standing pat right now.

ZAHN: Oh, they're going to get you when they will reimburse you for that $150 fee. I know you, Andy.

SERWER: Give me some free minutes, and then we'll do it, right?

ZAHN: Thanks. Appreciate your explaining that to us.

SERWER: OK. See you.

ZAHN: The Michael Jackson saga continues. Did celebrity columnist Victoria Gotti have the story months before it broke? I'll ask her.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

ZAHN: Last week's aerial shots of police cars alerted most of the world that Michael Jackson was about to be back in the news, but one woman apparently knew there was trouble in Neverland long before it was raided.

Her name is Victoria Gotti. She is a celebrity columnist for "Star" magazine. She joins us now with her story.

VICTORIA GOTTI, "STAR": How are you?

ZAHN: Victoria, always good to see you.

Why did you hold the story?

GOTTI: At the time, Paula, we weren't that sure. We had a lot of evidence. We knew that there was an open and active investigation coming out of Los Angeles against Michael Jackson.

But you're always quick, especially from my angle -- you know what it's like to be scrutinized and to constantly be looked at and for people to assume. So I think I just thought, you know what? Let's give this some space, some room. Let's let it unfold. And I think, right now, the evidence has been brought forward, at least preliminary. And I think, at this point, the only scary thing, you don't want him to be tried in the media.

Let's try and give them some breathing space and maybe follow the case, where they go point to point to point, and then decide what we think, if he's guilty, he's not. I personally wasn't that convinced back then. And I don't know that I still am.

ZAHN: Was it that you didn't trust your sources and what they told you?

GOTTI: No, I did. That's the problem. I really trusted my sources. They were that in the know and in the loop. I think I just -- there's things that you want to believe and there's things you don't want to believe. And I didn't want to believe that. And I still don't. And I'm kind of out to lunch on whether or not I feel he's guilty. I still haven't seen enough yet.

ZAHN: It's kind of hard, because we haven't seen the evidence that the investigators have allegedly collected.

GOTTI: Yes. Right.

ZAHN: Let's talk a little bit about Neverland Ranch and the atmosphere you've discovered, you think, through what sources have told you of what...

GOTTI: We've seen it.

ZAHN: ... a typical visit -- You've been there.

GOTTI: We've seen it. We've been there.

It's bizarre. It is. For lack of a better word, it's bizarre. I have three children and I've done things on Halloween where we've had rides and things outside. That's fantastical and it's temporary. But to live like that every day, I found myself looking around, saying, this is bizarre. And you tried it. You would look around at certain things, the train, the museum, the toys. And you want to say, OK, this is an adult male at 45 years old, but there is something strange.

ZAHN: What can you tell us about what you've learned about the parents of this 12-year-old boy and their credibility and what role it might play in this case?

GOTTI: Well, we're hearing lots of things now, unfortunately, that they're at odds with each other. They're not in agreement about the case or factors of the case. We're hearing things about the boy as well.

I think this is going to be a mind-boggling investigation. I think that this case is going to be a he said/she said. There's going to be a lot of ripping each other's hair out and accusations from Michael's camp to the boy, the boy's camp to Michael, the husband against the wife, wife against the husband. It is going to be very, very much the stuff soap operas are made of.

I believe that early on, because it's not a conventional family.

ZAHN: No, by any means.

GOTTI: In the sense, these two parents are apart. And they're now accusing each other as it is. And then you'll have Michael's defense team, which I'm sure is stellar

(CROSSTALK)

ZAHN: They're ramping it up. GOTTI: Yes. Oh, yes.

ZAHN: Victoria Gotti, thank you.

GOTTI: Thank you.

ZAHN: For spending a little time here this evening.

Tomorrow night, an interview with Christopher Reeve. It is his first full interview without the use of a ventilator. It is a story of hope and inspiration. He also shares a great sense of humor about his most famous role.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

CHRISTOPHER REEVE, ACTOR: I'll tell you one thing. When you're playing Superman and you're standing there in that uniform, you better be pretty committed, because you could look pretty ridiculous in it.

(LAUGHTER)

ZAHN: You looked really good.

REEVE: There's no pockets, you know?

(END VIDEO CLIP)

ZAHN: Christopher Reeve's first entire interview without a ventilator is tomorrow night. And then, on Friday, we will devote the entire program to Christopher Reeve and what amazing breakthroughs he and science are making in the field of spinal cord injury.

Thanks so much for being with us tonight. Appreciate your being with us. "LARRY KING LIVE" is next.

Have a good night.

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





Streets of Baghdad?>