Return to Transcripts main page

Paula Zahn Now

Interview With Richard Ben-Veniste; Osama bin Laden Tape Released?

Aired April 15, 2004 - 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: Good evening. Thanks so much for joining us tonight. I'm Paula Zahn.
It is Thursday, April 15, 2004.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

ZAHN (voice-over): It's likely the voice of America's archenemy trying to convince European allies to turn on the U.S.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE (through translator): This is a message to our neighbors north of the Mediterranean Sea with a proposal for a truce.

ZAHN: Is it Osama bin Laden and how will Europe respond?

They're trying to balance secrecy, public relations, and partisanship while conducting a deadly serious investigation.

RICHARD BEN-VENISTE, 9/11 COMMISSION: Our function is to find the facts. And this is not personal and it's not partisan.

ZAHN: I'll discuss the 9/11 probe with one of its most vocal, some would say too vocal commissioners, Richard Ben-Veniste.

Tonight, why is this man, an admitted child molester who claims 200 victims out of prison? Even his own family is outraged.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

ZAHN: Also ahead tonight, we visit a military base where the welcome home banners will have to wait because its troops are staying in Iraq. Plus, could a juror in the Martha Stewart trial keep her out of jail?

First, some of the headlines you need to know now.

To the relief and joy of their families, three Japanese hostages reportedly have been released by their Iraqi kidnappers. At least eight civilians from a number of countries are still being held.

Mosques in Fallujah are broadcasting calls for Iraqi police to come back to work on Friday. It is considered a hopeful sign as negotiations continue to end the standoff between U.S. forces and rebels there.

The judge in the Scott Peterson murder trial has set May 7 to hear arguments on whether to move the trial to Los Angeles County.

"In Focus" tonight, a sinister reminder that the war on terrorism is far from over. Arabic TV networks today broadcast an audiotape that experts say is likely the voice of Osama bin Laden. The voice offers European nations a truce coupled with a threat of more bloodshed.

Our coverage begins with senior international correspondent Nic Robertson who joins us from Khost, Afghanistan.

Nic, what's the latest from there?

NIC ROBERTSON, CNN SR. INTERNATIONAL CORRESPONDENT: Well, Paula, this message purporting to come and very much appears to be coming from Osama bin Laden a much more politically astute message than we've heard him give before.

It has certain time references. It references the Madrid bombing March the 11th. It references the killing of Sheik Yassin, the Hamas spiritual leader, on March the 22nd. But it perhaps takes its political position from that March 11 bombing in Madrid. It appears to take the fact that the Spanish government in response to that bombing then decided to indicate that it may pull its troops out of Iraq. The message says in view of the positive response coming from them, meaning Europe.

Now, what this message sets out to do is to set out the terms by which European countries can set themselves aside from the United States and avoid attacks by al Qaeda.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

UNIDENTIFIED MALE (through translator): I offer a truce to them with the commitment to stop operations against any state which vows to stop attacking Muslims or interfere in their affairs, including participating in the American conspiracy against the wider Muslim world.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

ROBERTSON: Now, this message gives European countries three months to meet that deadline. If they don't, then Osama bin Laden says that they are the sons of war, meaning they will continue the attack against those countries.

Right here at this military base here in the east of Afghanistan, close to the Pakistan border, soldiers I talked with today out hunting and searching in the mountains for Osama bin Laden and his associates told me they were very interested about this message, very interested to know that it came very recently. They said that they were doing everything they could to track him down. And they didn't believe he was operating in their region -- Paula.

ZAHN: Nic Robertson, thanks so much for the update.

So what do Europe's leaders think of bin Laden's truce offer? In any language, the answer is no.

Guy Raz sums up the reaction.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

GUY RAZ, CNN CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): An offer to end scenes of carnage in European capitals like last month's Madrid train bombings, the speaker's terms, an end to al Qaeda's terrorism in return for European troop withdrawal from Muslim lands, but in Europe the message was greeted with universal rejection.

JACK STRAW, BRITISH FOREIGN MINISTER: One has to treat such claims, proposals by al Qaeda with a contempt which they deserve. This is a murderous organization which seeks impossible objectives by the most violent of means.

RAZ: Germany, France and Italy have also dismissed the offer.

FRANCO FRATTINI, ITALIAN FOREIGN MINISTER (through translator): It is unthinkable we would establish any kind of negotiation with bin Laden. Everyone understands this.

RAZ: The prime minister-elect of Spain who is threatening to withdraw troops from Iraq didn't directly address the tape, but members of his government have dismissed it as well. In European capitals, the public is following suit.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE (through translator): I think they should not accept it because terrorists are unpredictable.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: I think there should be no negotiation with somebody like that. We would be horrendous and surrender if we were to negotiate with Osama bin Laden.

RAZ: Experts believe anti-war sentiment in Europe and the trans- Atlantic divisions over the war on terror has allowed bin Laden to exploit those differences.

SAJJAN GOHEL, ASIA-PACIFIC FOUNDATION: It seems that they want to isolate the U.S. on the ground inside Iraq. They wish to go off after the U.S. without having to worry about any of its coalition partners. And that in turn would then bring the U.S. into pressure into leaving from Iraq.

RAZ (on camera): European analysts believe until al Qaeda's strategy will backfire and actually strengthen Europe's commitment to the war on terror.

Guy Raz, CNN, London.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

ZAHN: Here now with a different take on how this tape is playing in Europe is Arnaud De Borchgrave. He's editor at large for "The Washington Times" and UPI. He joins us tonight from Palm Beach.

Always good to see you, sir. Welcome.

ARNAUD DE BORCHGRAVE, EDITOR AT LARGE, "THE WASHINGTON TIMES": Thank you.

ZAHN: So let's talk a little bit about what you think, if this tape is authentic, Osama bin Laden's strategy is here.

DE BORCHGRAVE: Well, Osama bin Laden saw what happened in Spain March 11.

In three days, al Qaeda achieved what the Soviet Union couldn't do in 45 years, namely detach a European member of a U.S.-led alliance. And his message today is not -- he knows very well that negotiations with European leaders are out of the question. He's appealing to two different forms of public opinion. There are the 12 to 15 million Muslims who live in Western Europe.

In England, you have two million Muslims, mostly from South Asia. And in a recent survey, 13 percent of those two million felt that another 9/11 attack against the United States would be justified. And over half, over 50 percent, felt that if they had to live like Palestinians they would become suicide bombers. And 10 percent, that's about 200,000 believed that Osama bin Laden is a good guy and that the villain is the United States.

ZAHN: So what you're telling me, if this ends up being authentic, that what Osama bin Laden is trying to do is get those people to put pressure on their governments?

DE BORCHGRAVE: Well, you see, European public opinion as a whole, I'd say well over half and in some countries it's 80 percent, are against the U.S. occupation of Iraq.

So they are playing to both. There are more and more pressures on European governments. It doesn't mean obviously that from one day to the next, things will change, but he's not thinking of one day to the next. He's thinking of the next six to 12 months.

ZAHN: Let's listen more specifically to some of the language in this tam tape, where Osama bin Laden, if it is in fact him who did this tape, referred directly to 9/11 and the March 11 attacks in Spain.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

UNIDENTIFIED MALE (through translator): What happened on September 11 and March 11 are your goods returned to you so that you know security is a necessity for all. We do not accept that you monopolize it for yourselves and knowledgeable nations will not accept that their leaders risk their security.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

ZAHN: Once again, from that small portion of the tape, what is it he's trying to yield?

DE BORCHGRAVE: Well, clearly, Iraq is not directly mentioned except in terms of an American company, Halliburton.

But he's clearly trying to activate his sympathizers and supporters in Iraq and to get us out of Iraq, because he knows very well that the occupation is now -- has got a lot of jihadis in Iraq fighting the U.S. occupation. This is bound to grow. And this kind of message is an encouragement to the people trying to push the U.S. out of Iraq.

ZAHN: What does the existence of this tape tell us about the prospects for capturing bin Laden or killing him?

DE BORCHGRAVE: I personally doubt that he's up in those mountains. He's certainly not commanding all these different affiliates around the world. He can't use a satellite telephone because it would be spotted by the National Security Agency right away and he'd have a U.S. fighter bomber overhead in just a few minutes.

So my guess is that he could be living in a city in Pakistan, possibly Peshawar,which has 3.5 million people. And today 66 percent of Pakistanis are pro-Osama bin Laden. They think he's a freedom fighter.

ZAHN: Arnaud De Borchgrave, we really appreciate your insights tonight. Always nice having you on.

DE BORCHGRAVE: Thank you.

ZAHN: So the question we have tonight, is the latest tape from bin Laden really him? An audio detective shows us how CIA analysts try to verify that.

And a surprising admission from Defense Secretary Rumsfeld about U.S. troops in Iraq. You'll hear what he told reporters at the Pentagon.

And families at one Army post feel the pain of a delayed homecoming, how they are dealing with the decision to keep their loved ones longer in Iraq.

But, first, since it's April 15, here's a look at how the government spends your tax dollars; 20 cents goes to paying the interest on the national debt. And 4 cent goes to education. We'll reveal the rest of the pie as we go along.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

ZAHN: Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld expressed regret today that he has to keep 20,000 troops in Iraq after they had already been told they were going home, but that wasn't the only thing Secretary Rumsfeld had to say in his briefing today.

And senior Pentagon correspondent Jamie McIntyre joins us live. He was at that the briefing today.

Good evening, Jamie.

JAMIE MCINTYRE, CNN MILITARY AFFAIRS CORRESPONDENT: Good evening, Paula.

Well, the decision to keep 20,000 troops in Iraq three months longer is a tacit admission by the Pentagon that things in Iraq is not going as well as they had hoped. And today, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld was uncharacteristically blunt in admitting that he didn't anticipate the staying power of the insurgents.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

DONALD RUMSFELD, SECRETARY OF DEFENSE: If a year ago you had asked me to describe where you would be on April 15, 2004, in Iraq, how might you have described it, and I answered by saying I would not have described it precisely the way we are now.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

MCINTYRE: April has been the deadliest month of the war with nearly 90 Americans killed, more than 540 wounded. The decision to keep those troops will affect now about 40 different Army units, including 11,000 soldiers from the 1st Armored Division, about 3,000 from the 2nd Armored Regiment, and about 6,000 Guard and Reserve troops. Today, Army leaders conceded that many of those troops would be disappointed.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

GEN. GEORGE CASEY, ARMY VICE CHIEF OF STAFF: Frankly, the first thing a soldier says when he told he's been extended is probably said -- or words to that effect. Everybody's disappointed.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

MCINTYRE: Now, Rumsfeld said that they do plan to send fresh troops to replace those troops who have had to stay an extra three months in the summer if they decide they need to maintain a higher force level -- Paula.

ZAHN: Jamie McIntyre, thanks so much; 20,000 troops in all the numbers they're talking about.

And behind each one of those soldiers is a father and a mother and often a spouse and children.

Gary Tuchman went to Fort Polk in Louisiana to see how military families are taking the news.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

GARY TUCHMAN, CNN NATIONAL CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): Fort Polk, Louisiana, was ready to host a huge party for its soldiers returning from Iraq.

MAJOR RON ELLIOTT, FORT POLK SPOKESMAN: This was going to be the biggest celebration, we were hoping, within the country. We'd even put in a request for the president to come back out here.

TUCHMAN: The celebration has been put on hold.

SUZY YATES, WIFE OF U.S. SOLDIER: The first thing I thought was to be strong for him. I don't like to have my husband to hear me cry. So I told him it would be all right.

TUCHMAN: Suzy Yates was told by her husband, Sergeant Corey Yates (ph), that after a year in Iraq his return home later this month has been delayed by at least three months.

YATES: And my head dropped into my hands and I took a moment for myself and let it sink in.

TUCHMAN (on camera): How difficult that was moment?

YATES: It was pretty difficult. I was in a lot of shock, disbelief. I thought I was dreaming.

TUCHMAN: The home of the 2nd Armored Cavalry Regiment, which has lost 14 soldiers in Iraq, has been told 3,000 of their men and women will not be coming home as scheduled, including Sergeant Arnold Powell, a husband and father.

HELEN POWELL, WIFE OF U.S. SOLDIER: I couldn't get mad at him and I couldn't get mad at anybody so I was kind of mad at the Army, but it's an entity. I'm mad at that a lot.

ALEX POWELL, SON OF U.S. SOLDIER: There's more of a chance he might get hurt or something might happen to him.

TUCHMAN: Many people are sharing similar thoughts with military counselors.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: And now the chances right now of him being hurt or being killed are even stronger.

TUCHMAN: Back at the Powells' house, personal items already sent home from Iraq are going back to Iraq.

(on camera): Sergeant Powell had planned to retire from the military, but that has now been delayed. He had planned to go on a celebratory Caribbean cruise with his wife next month, but that has now been canceled.

H. POWELL: I am very proud of my husband. I'm starting to get upset. I am very proud of my husband and I am very proud of his job.

TUCHMAN (voice-over): Now they just want him home.

Gary Tuchman, CNN, Fort Polk, Louisiana.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

ZAHN: We change our focus quite a bit when we come back. How does a convicted serial child molester who claims more than 200 young systems end up being freed from prison? And you see them everywhere talking about the 9/11 investigation, but some members of the commission are now being criticized for speaking too openly. I'll ask Commissioner Richard Ben-Veniste what he thinks about that.

And we show you were 24 cents of your federal tax dollar goes. Let's spend another 6 cents worth.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

ZAHN: What happens when a child molester is set free from a life sentence and then disappears? Well, Edward Harvey Stokes has admitted to molesting over 200 people. He said he preyed on runaways. He would use drugs and alcohol to entice them.

His latest accuser committed suicide before the trial. And an appeals court overturned Stoke's conviction, saying that defendants have a right to confront their accusers in court. Stokes was released from the Orange County jail last week. Even his sister says that his release was a very bad idea.

Susan Stokes said -- quote -- "It's appalling to me that a person with his criminal history has been released. He is dangerous."

With me now are two men who know this case very well. John Barnett represented Stokes when the charges were dismissed. He joins us tonight from San Diego. And Tony Rackauckas is the Orange County district attorney. He joins us from Anaheim, California.

Welcome, gentlemen.

(CROSSTALK)

ZAHN: So, John, we've talked about your client having been convicted of sexual assault. He was in the process of serving a life sentence. How does a man who says he molested over 200 victims get set free from prison?

JOHN BARNETT, FORMER ATTORNEY FOR STOKES: Well, because we're a country of laws. And the trial he had was unfair and the court of appeal reversed his conviction. We stood ready for trail last week and the people were not prepared to go forward.

And so he was released. As to his prior convictions, he served his time for those and we don't hold people without trials.

ZAHN: Do you, John, believe he is a danger to society?

BARNETT: Well, I don't have any evidence of that.

He is a person who has been punished for what he's done and served eight years without being able to confront his accuser and that is not just.

District Attorney Rackauckas, you heard John, you just heard your colleague lay out the law in California. Was there anything you could have done to keep him in jail?

TONY RACKAUCKAS, ORANGE COUNTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY: Well, look, let me say first of all, that I have a lot of respect personally for John Barnett. He's a very fine attorney and he's held in high regard here in our county as one of the best attorneys in the county.

But let me differ with him to some extent. First of all, this victim, this poor victim was cross-examined at the first trial and he was cross-examine again at a conditional hearing that was held. He was cross-examined, you know, until the defense was tired of it and then he committed suicide before trial. He had a fair trial. He had a trial by one of the best judges in the county who considered all of these factors, looked at all of the evidence and decided that he was guilty.

And it's very, very disappointing that the court of appeals would reverse the case on the grounds -- on the grounds that they did. And this person is a severe danger to society. And it's a travesty that he's released back into society to prey on other victims.

ZAHN: John, you heard what the district attorney had to say; this man did have a fair trial.

BARNETT: Well, of course, the court of appeal, which is the -- decides these issues, disagreed with the prosecutors, who made this argument earlier.

And the fact of the matter is that the cross-examination was not complete and was inadequate and really a charade, because the prosecution, not Mr. Rackauckas' office, but the government, in the form of the San Bernardino Sheriff's Office, withheld an 85-page report in which there were several inconsistencies that the deceased was not able to be examined upon. And that is why the court of appeals said he did not get a fair trial because the right of cross- examination was not fulfilled.

ZAHN: Mr. Rackauckas, do you concede that, that the case was botched?

RACKAUCKAS: No. I don't.

I think that the judge had all of that material. Judge Ryan (ph), a very fine judge, very experienced, very highly regarded, considered that, put all of those considerations on the record, gave the defendant a fair trial. And I don't think it had to be reversed. I think that the error pointed to by Mr. Barnett and argued by defense counsel was, frankly, was harmless. It wouldn't have changed the result in this case.

ZAHN: John, Edward Harvey Stokes is considered a level-three offender, which means he is likely to reoffend. If he does, how will you sleep at night?

BARNETT: Well, I'll sleep very easily because I am gratified that the Constitution has been vindicated and the right to fair trial has been assured, not just for Mr. Stokes, but for everybody in California.

It's important to understand that this is the most basic right that a defendant has. And that's to confront and cross-examine his accusers. And the court of appeal has decided that he didn't get that right. And he spent eight years in jail not getting that right. And so I'll sleep fine knowing that the Constitution has been upheld in this case and that we don't suspend the Constitution because we don't like a particular individual.

ZAHN: In closing, District Attorney Rackauckas, how much of a threat do you think Mr. Stokes represents in your community?

RACKAUCKAS: You know, in his own words, he represents a 97 percent threat if he's treated. So he's a very serious threat. This is a red alert. This person is going to reoffend. He's going to have new victims. There's no question about it.

ZAHN: Tony Rackauckas, John Barnett, thank you for joining us tonight.

BARNETT: Thank you.

RACKAUCKAS: Thank you.

ZAHN: Coming up, he is an expert on getting tape recordings to give up their secrets. We're going to ask him what it takes to confirm the latest Osama bin Laden tape is the real thing.

And jurors are supposed to decide the truth, but two now have been kicked off the Scott Peterson trial for lying. Are high-profile trials just too tempting for some people?

And she was the picture of elegance and grace, but, amazingly, Jacqueline Kennedy Onassis didn't even think she was attractive.

And, on this day, your taxes are due. Here's another look at where the government spends every dollar you pay, a little over half right now.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: There were such failures, such glaring failures...

RICHARD BEN-VENISTE, 9/11 COMMISSION MEMBER: Unfortunately, the information that we had in our possession was not utilized.

JAMES THOMPSON, 9/11 COMMISSION MEMBER: There's no question that yesterday's hearing revealed serious faults in...

(END VIDEO CLIP)

ZAHN: Some of the 9/11 commission members who've been accessible to the news media talking about their investigation of the terror attacks. But critics, like former president Gerald Ford, who served on the commission that investigated the JFK assassination, say the accessibility and openness of this commission will have an adverse impact on its upcoming report.

Here's one of the more outspoken members of the 9/11 commission, Richard Ben-Veniste. He joins us from Philadelphia. Welcome, sir.

BEN-VENISTE: Thank you.

ZAHN: Do you think by commission members being accessible to the news media, you have compromised the integrity of your final report?

BEN-VENISTE: Not at all. In fact, the Kennedy assassination report, the Warren commission, has been the subject of innumerable theories all over the place, of various kind of cover-ups and strange and unusual goings-on. And we think we learned from that, that in our democracy, we can tolerate open hearings. We've had public hearings. We've had interim reports, which our statute has encouraged us to provide to the public. We have brought the public along with us, trying to make as much available as possible over time. And Paula, you know...

ZAHN: All right...

BEN-VENISTE: ... I didn't break into this studio with a sledgehammer. I've probably accepted about 10 percent of the invitations to come on...

ZAHN: All right...

BEN-VENISTE: ... and discuss our work.

ZAHN: Yes, I understand that, sir, but I think some of the criticism goes beyond the accessibility of commission members and it cuts to the issue of you all talking in a very detailed way about what some of your reactions to the material. And the critics say perhaps you are leading us to a conclusion that won't exist in the final report.

ZAHN: Well, I don't think that's true. I think the things that we have been saying -- and our chairman, Governor Kean, has encouraged us, has encouraged us from the very beginning to be accessible, so that we don't repeat the failures of other commissions, whose reports are simply put on the shelf somewhere and collect dust in Washington in some archive, but rather to bring the public along and not operate behind closed doors, as certain commissions have in the past, and to make as much as possible available. It's a strength of our democracy that we can have this kind of an investigation and inquiry, which will then inform recommendations based on what went wrong.

ZAHN: What do you think is the most troubling thing you have learned so far through these hearings, if you had to reduce it to one issue?

BEN-VENISTE: Probably the inability to communicate among our agencies, and from the agencies to our executives in government, up to and including the president of the United States.

ZAHN: So you're not too reassured these intelligence agencies are serving the American public in the best way possible.

BEN-VENISTE: Well, changes have been made. The question is whether we've done enough by way of change. We have confidence in Director Mueller, in his integrity, in his enthusiasm to change and to do the right thing. The question is whether the plumbing is so ossified, whether, you know, we've got to pour some giant can of Drano into the mechanics of how this system works, or whether we've got to start all over and build something new. So that's the question facing us.

But as far as what we had before, you know, we've heard about getting the president to shake the trees, or the national security adviser. And quite frankly, if you're standing in a petrified forest, shaking the trees might not work. But we certainly had a lot of information. That's the thing that jumps out at us.

ZAHN: And finally tonight, as you deliberate with your fellow commission members and come to some summertime conclusions, your reaction to the existence of what is believed to be another audiotape made by Usama bin Laden? How should Americans view that, as your deliberations continue?

BEN-VENISTE: Well, our concern has to do with the period prior to 9/11, up to and including the catastrophe that occurred. And thank goodness, we're not obliged to make assessments of what's going on now and deal with these current events. We've got a daunting enough task to provide a definitive account of what happened in 9/11, without fear or favor, something that will last and will survive criticism over time. And we think we can do that with integrity in a bipartisan report.

ZAHN: Commissioner Richard Ben-Veniste, thank you. I know you only accept 10 percent of the requests. Thanks for joining us tonight. Appreciate it.

BEN-VENISTE: Thank you.

ZAHN: This Martha Stewart juror did not tell the truth about his past, which could overturn the verdict. Do some people lie just to be part of a high-profile trial? And tomorrow: They're the NRA, and they vote. But this election, gun rights may not be the top issue with many NRA members. We'll explain. And bit by bit, the dollar you sent to the IRS today is getting spent. There's still 41 cents left. We'll use it up a bit later.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

MARK GERAGOS, SCOTT PETERSON'S ATTORNEY: That woman lied through her teeth. She was a convincing liar. She had a background in psychology. And she was determined to get on to this jury so that she could send my client to the gallows. (END VIDEO CLIP)

ZAHN: That was attorney Mark Geragos complaining about a potential juror for Scott Peterson's upcoming murder trial. The potential juror was dismissed. But there are now allegations that a juror in the Martha Stewart case lied about his past. Time will tell if that gets Stewart a new trial.

Senior legal analyst Jeffrey Toobin is here to talk about judging jurors' honesty. Wacky time, isn't it?

JEFFREY TOOBIN, CNN SENIOR LEGAL ANALYST: Wacky times in jury land these days.

ZAHN: So what we're seeing here is a pattern of people not only lying to get off juries, but also lying to get on juries?

TOOBIN: Jurors have become public figures in this era of the high-profile case. Think back to the O.J. Simpson case. You had four different books written by jurors in that case. Now, there's not comparable interest. Nobody, I don't think, is going to be writing any books about the Tyco case or even the Scott Peterson case, but it just shows that there is something about being a juror on these trials that people want to participate in. And the system has to try to adjust to this changed status.

ZAHN: Going back to Mark Geragos, he got this potential juror dismissed. Isn't it a bit of a reach to suggest, then, that you need to change the venue?

TOOBIN: Absolutely. It's a big reach. I mean, he -- the system worked in that case, where you had a juror, who obviously, at least, according to the judge, had a bias. It was discovered. She was thrown off the jury, and jury selection continues. That does not suggest that he deserves a second change of venue here, and I think it is a stretch to think that he has any chance of getting that moved again.

ZAHN: So from the judge's point of view, the chances of this happening are zip.

TOOBIN: I think -- I think very unlikely.

ZAHN: Let's go on to the Martha Stewart case and talk about juror Chappell Hartridge. This is the guy who was accused of embezzling Little League funds to support his cocaine habit...

TOOBIN: Very -- very bad...

(CROSSTALK)

ZAHN: ... something he didn't admit to on his juror questionnaire.

TOOBIN: Very bad crime. And it is worth remembering that voir dire is under oath. So there is the potential... ZAHN: That is when they question...

TOOBIN: ... that he lied under oath.

TOOBIN: ... you.

TOOBIN: Right. Voir dire, which is...

ZAHN: When you're a potential...

TOOBIN: ... jury selection process. The prospective jurors give their answers under oath, so he may have lied under oath during jury selection. However, just because a juror may have lied, or in fact, did lie, during jury selection, doesn't mean you get a new trial unless you can prove that the juror lied in order to get on the jury to reach a certain verdict. And bad as these accusations are about Hartridge, there's really no evidence that I've seen that he was lying in order to convict Martha Stewart.

ZAHN: That may be true, but there is some circumstantial evidence and controversy surrounding this guy, about, Let's do one for the little guy...

TOOBIN: Right. Right.

ZAHN: ... the attention paid Martha Stewart's $6,000 handbag.

TOOBIN: He was the one, the only one of the 12 jurors who held a big press conference right after the verdict. He did call some attention to himself. But having a big ego and wanting attention is different. And remember, there's -- the system has a real interest in not opening up jurors' backgrounds to a lot of scrutiny after the fact because every time someone got convicted, defense lawyers could say, OK, let's go over jury selection. Let's try to find someone who lied. That way, we get the case tossed out.

ZAHN: Sure, but "Newsweek" is reporting that Martha Stewart's team was actually out there with private investigators, looking into the pasts of some of the jurors sitting on the trial before the verdict was rendered.

TOOBIN: Well, that -- well, it was right -- it was right around the time the verdict was rendered. And if they could find that a juror had displayed some sort of anti-Martha Stewart bias -- not that they lied about something, but bias against Martha Stewart -- then they'd have a chance of a new trial. But so far, I think it's a real long shot.

ZAHN: All right. So basically, you're telling Martha Stewart tonight she can plan to spend a little time in jail.

TOOBIN: It's looking bad for Martha. It's been looking bad, and it still looks bad.

ZAHN: I don't know. We listen to former prosecutor Jeffrey Toobin here. Thank you. Coming up: An audio expert shows us just what it takes to find out if the latest Usama bin Laden tape is the real thing. And as a young woman, former first lady Jackie Kennedy was filled with doubt about her looks, her poise and confidence. An intimate account of the Jackie you never knew coming up. And now, that last big chunk of that tax dollar you sent to Uncle Sam is about to disappear. Here's where the final 41 cents of every dollar is going these days.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

ZAHN: The CIA's analysis of the latest Usama bin Laden audiotape was quick to conclude that it was likely his voice. Now, you might wonder how analysts verify something like that. Time now to ask an expert in audio analysis. Paul Ginsberg is president of Professional Audio Laboratories. He's been involved in more than 1,600 cases where recordings were used as evidence, including the trials of Branch Davidians in Waco, as well as that of an Egyptian cleric convicted in the 1993 terrorist attack on the World Trade Center. He's also done audio analysis for the CIA and the FBI.

Good to have your expertise this evening.

PAUL GINSBERG, EXPERT AUDIO ANALYST: Good evening.

ZAHN: Welcome. Why don't we listen to part of that recording that was released earlier today. Based on your own analysis today, do you believe that voice to be that of Usama bin Laden?

GINSBERG: I would say that it's possible that it could be. It's certainly not -- I would not rule it out.

ZAHN: Based on what? What are you hearing?

GINSBERG: I'm hearing -- I'm hearing the same type of recording made, as compared to earlier recordings in which we knew it was bin Laden because it was a video. But there's a lot more that we can learn from the tape, in addition to whether or not it's actually bin Laden.

ZAHN: Like what?

GINSBERG: OK. It's my feeling that this was recorded in a very small, enclosed room, one with straight, hard, reflective surfaces. He was not on mike. It was a mediocre kind of recording situation, maybe...

ZAHN: Maybe a makeshift studio of some sort.

GINSBERG: Exactly.

ZAHN: Let's listen to a recording alleged to be from Osama bin Laden from October of 2003 for comparison. Is that the same man's voice?

GINSBERG: It -- it may or may not be. And the reason I hedge is that, of course, there are teams of people doing analysis using spectrum analyzers, as well as analysis of speech patterns and a number of other factors that would be done before some sort of a finding could really be made with any degree of certainty.

ZAHN: But the CIA's saying tonight it is likely to be that of Osama bin Laden. Let's go through what a typical audio investigation would entail, and I guess there are four different components to that. Let's start off by talking about voice identification, electronic analysis. How does that work?

GINSBERG: OK. That is a process by which we look at the frequencies in each of the voices, the test voice as well as a reference voice, and we compare the strengths and weaknesses with respect to the high frequencies, low frequencies and all that. It's like a fingerprint.

ZAHN: Then you move on to the second component, which is speech patterns and vocabulary.

GINSBERG: Exactly. You want to see which words are being used, whether there's a speech impediment, whether there's an accent, the speed with which the talker is speaking, whether he uses certain slang or expressions that are mispronounced, for example.

ZAHN: Then we'll quickly move on to No. 3, the crypto team and analyzing possible embedded messages to cells.

GINSBERG: That's right. That's very important because we don't like to play a lot of original recordings as we get them in the foreign tongue because it's possible that a leader can embed a secret message to induce some sort of action.

ZAHN: And then there's the electronic team, looking for clues as to time and location, something you kind of analyzed when you thought today that this appeared to have been recorded in a small room.

GINSBERG: Exactly. That's right. The team will go further than looking at the voice. They want to know whether there are any cues, like airplanes flying overhead, certain other signals that would give them an idea of the time or the place with which these recordings were made.

ZAHN: It's fascinating work that you do.

GINSBERG: I love it.

ZAHN: You've witnessed a lot of history this way, haven't you.

GINSBERG: Oh, yes. Oh, yes.

ZAHN: Paul Ginsberg, thank you for spending some time with us tonight.

GINSBERG: Thank you.

ZAHN: The Jacqueline Kennedy we never knew, from someone who knew her pretty well, a new look at the young woman who would captivate the nation.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

TINA SANTI FLAHERTY, AUTHOR, "WHAT JACKIE TAUGHT US": Her father taught her to be mysterious, to never reveal everything, to, in other words, always keep them guessing.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

ZAHN: Next month will mark 10 years since the death of Jacqueline Kennedy Onassis. Behind her role as first lady, she personified beauty, grace and intelligence for millions. And though it may seem incredible, she did it by overcoming low self-esteem.

So what can we learn from her experience, is the focus of a new book. It is called "What Jackie Taught Us: Lessons From the Remarkable Life of Jackie Kennedy Onassis." And earlier this week, I caught up with the author, Tina Santi Flaherty.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

Tina, great to see you. Welcome.

TINA SANTI FLAHERTY, AUTHOR, "WHAT JACKIE TAUGHT US": Thank you.

ZAHN: What I was most surprised about in everything you wrote about Jackie Kennedy Onassis was the fact that the world's most beautiful woman had self-image problems.

FLAHERTY: She did. She grew up with a negative self-image. Her mother told her here feet were too large -- they were size 10 -- that her hands were too large, they were masculine-looking, and that her hips were too big. And Jackie felt that they were. And also, her eyes were very wide-set. It would take her three weeks to get a pair of glasses made. But her father, he gave her massive dose of "vitamin p," praise, as she and her sister called it. He made her feel good about herself in terms of her looks.

ZAHN: So that's where she got her sense of self-worth from.

FLAHERTY: That's right.

ZAHN: You also have an interesting story about her father guiding her. And he always used to tell her, quote, "Never act as if you're looking for someone as you enter a room. They should be looking for you."

FLAHERTY: Exactly. He taught her how to make entrance, like an actress does, to not look around the room eagerly, but just to walk in and wait for someone to come to you.

ZAHN: And she perfected the so-called lighthouse (ph) look.

FLAHERTY: Yes. I was very fascinated by that. But Jackie had this ability to look into a man's eyes, and then she would lock into his mind. And he would make -- Jackie, rather, would make every man feel like they were the most important person in the world, that what they had to say was truly, truly important. And I interviewed quite a few men who told me that. And she became a social light beam, so to speak.

ZAHN: So it was very disarming.

FLAHERTY: Very disarming.

ZAHN: And these were very strong man who could be very intimidating.

FLAHERTY: Exactly. But Jackie did this with everyone -- an eminent judge, a waiter, our doormen.

ZAHN: In the end, that was a very sweet story you talk about. In the terribly painful last days of her life, she made it very clear to the doorman in her building and some of the other employees of the building that she wanted them to attend her funeral.

FLAHERTY: Yes. She was thoughtful about inviting all of them in our building to her funeral. Yes, she was.

ZAHN: Let's talk a moment about Jackie's style and what the rest of us can learn about it. It is interesting that you point out the fact that she really spent a lot of time researching her wardrobe and actually did sort of test-marketing of it before she wore it in public. How did that work?

FLAHERTY: The suit she had on in Dallas when President Kennedy was assassinated -- she test drove that suit a couple of days earlier in Caroline's play school. She went to pick her up.

ZAHN: Just to see what the reaction was.

FLAHERTY: Just to see what the reaction was. Was the jewelry right? were the shoes right?

ZAHN: Some of this may sound frivolous to some readers, but you also balance in your book with how this was a woman who was very well read. She devoured 10 books a week.

FLAHERTY: That's the difference between some people and Jackie. Jackie was active in her pursuit of knowledge. She didn't just sit back passively and take knowledge in. And that's what we all have to do. We have to have a quest for the best.

ZAHN: To this day, though, there was a certain mystery surrounding her, wasn't there, and who she was and what drove her.

FLAHERTY: Her father taught her to be mysterious to never reveal everything, to, in other words, always keep them guessing.

ZAHN: When you think about her contribution to history, I think most viewers would probably hearken back to the great dignity she showed during the funeral for her husband. To this day, though, so many years after her death, what else is it about her that still captivates Americans?

FLAHERTY: I think her unique image and style captivates America. And Jackie behaved as beautifully as she dressed. And she trained her children to behave beautifully. I mean, her children had beautiful manners. In the White House, they would address everyone -- doormen, whoever -- as Mr. Miss. But Jackie was a very, very thoughtful person, and I think all of that -- all of us remember her for that.

I wanted to write a book about all the lessons that she taught us, Jackie's inspiration and what she did with her life. She changed her life, and that's what this book hopes to do, to let you know that if you follow the road map that Jackie laid out, then you can improve your own life.

ZAHN: I think we all seek to do that on a daily basis.

FLAHERTY: We do.

ZAHN: Tina, thank you for sharing your book with us tonight.

FLAHERTY: Thank you, Paula.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

ZAHN: And that wraps it up for all of us here this evening. Thanks so much for being with us. Tomorrow night: Is Hollywood ganging up on President Bush? We'll debate whether some new movies are unfairly taking aim at the White House.

Thanks again for joining us tonight. We'll be back same time, same place tomorrow night. In the meantime, "LARRY KING LIVE" is next. He will be talking with the wife of Tom Hamill, the American hostage in Iraq. Again, thanks for dropping by. 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


Aired April 15, 2004 - 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: Good evening. Thanks so much for joining us tonight. I'm Paula Zahn.
It is Thursday, April 15, 2004.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

ZAHN (voice-over): It's likely the voice of America's archenemy trying to convince European allies to turn on the U.S.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE (through translator): This is a message to our neighbors north of the Mediterranean Sea with a proposal for a truce.

ZAHN: Is it Osama bin Laden and how will Europe respond?

They're trying to balance secrecy, public relations, and partisanship while conducting a deadly serious investigation.

RICHARD BEN-VENISTE, 9/11 COMMISSION: Our function is to find the facts. And this is not personal and it's not partisan.

ZAHN: I'll discuss the 9/11 probe with one of its most vocal, some would say too vocal commissioners, Richard Ben-Veniste.

Tonight, why is this man, an admitted child molester who claims 200 victims out of prison? Even his own family is outraged.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

ZAHN: Also ahead tonight, we visit a military base where the welcome home banners will have to wait because its troops are staying in Iraq. Plus, could a juror in the Martha Stewart trial keep her out of jail?

First, some of the headlines you need to know now.

To the relief and joy of their families, three Japanese hostages reportedly have been released by their Iraqi kidnappers. At least eight civilians from a number of countries are still being held.

Mosques in Fallujah are broadcasting calls for Iraqi police to come back to work on Friday. It is considered a hopeful sign as negotiations continue to end the standoff between U.S. forces and rebels there.

The judge in the Scott Peterson murder trial has set May 7 to hear arguments on whether to move the trial to Los Angeles County.

"In Focus" tonight, a sinister reminder that the war on terrorism is far from over. Arabic TV networks today broadcast an audiotape that experts say is likely the voice of Osama bin Laden. The voice offers European nations a truce coupled with a threat of more bloodshed.

Our coverage begins with senior international correspondent Nic Robertson who joins us from Khost, Afghanistan.

Nic, what's the latest from there?

NIC ROBERTSON, CNN SR. INTERNATIONAL CORRESPONDENT: Well, Paula, this message purporting to come and very much appears to be coming from Osama bin Laden a much more politically astute message than we've heard him give before.

It has certain time references. It references the Madrid bombing March the 11th. It references the killing of Sheik Yassin, the Hamas spiritual leader, on March the 22nd. But it perhaps takes its political position from that March 11 bombing in Madrid. It appears to take the fact that the Spanish government in response to that bombing then decided to indicate that it may pull its troops out of Iraq. The message says in view of the positive response coming from them, meaning Europe.

Now, what this message sets out to do is to set out the terms by which European countries can set themselves aside from the United States and avoid attacks by al Qaeda.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

UNIDENTIFIED MALE (through translator): I offer a truce to them with the commitment to stop operations against any state which vows to stop attacking Muslims or interfere in their affairs, including participating in the American conspiracy against the wider Muslim world.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

ROBERTSON: Now, this message gives European countries three months to meet that deadline. If they don't, then Osama bin Laden says that they are the sons of war, meaning they will continue the attack against those countries.

Right here at this military base here in the east of Afghanistan, close to the Pakistan border, soldiers I talked with today out hunting and searching in the mountains for Osama bin Laden and his associates told me they were very interested about this message, very interested to know that it came very recently. They said that they were doing everything they could to track him down. And they didn't believe he was operating in their region -- Paula.

ZAHN: Nic Robertson, thanks so much for the update.

So what do Europe's leaders think of bin Laden's truce offer? In any language, the answer is no.

Guy Raz sums up the reaction.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

GUY RAZ, CNN CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): An offer to end scenes of carnage in European capitals like last month's Madrid train bombings, the speaker's terms, an end to al Qaeda's terrorism in return for European troop withdrawal from Muslim lands, but in Europe the message was greeted with universal rejection.

JACK STRAW, BRITISH FOREIGN MINISTER: One has to treat such claims, proposals by al Qaeda with a contempt which they deserve. This is a murderous organization which seeks impossible objectives by the most violent of means.

RAZ: Germany, France and Italy have also dismissed the offer.

FRANCO FRATTINI, ITALIAN FOREIGN MINISTER (through translator): It is unthinkable we would establish any kind of negotiation with bin Laden. Everyone understands this.

RAZ: The prime minister-elect of Spain who is threatening to withdraw troops from Iraq didn't directly address the tape, but members of his government have dismissed it as well. In European capitals, the public is following suit.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE (through translator): I think they should not accept it because terrorists are unpredictable.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: I think there should be no negotiation with somebody like that. We would be horrendous and surrender if we were to negotiate with Osama bin Laden.

RAZ: Experts believe anti-war sentiment in Europe and the trans- Atlantic divisions over the war on terror has allowed bin Laden to exploit those differences.

SAJJAN GOHEL, ASIA-PACIFIC FOUNDATION: It seems that they want to isolate the U.S. on the ground inside Iraq. They wish to go off after the U.S. without having to worry about any of its coalition partners. And that in turn would then bring the U.S. into pressure into leaving from Iraq.

RAZ (on camera): European analysts believe until al Qaeda's strategy will backfire and actually strengthen Europe's commitment to the war on terror.

Guy Raz, CNN, London.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

ZAHN: Here now with a different take on how this tape is playing in Europe is Arnaud De Borchgrave. He's editor at large for "The Washington Times" and UPI. He joins us tonight from Palm Beach.

Always good to see you, sir. Welcome.

ARNAUD DE BORCHGRAVE, EDITOR AT LARGE, "THE WASHINGTON TIMES": Thank you.

ZAHN: So let's talk a little bit about what you think, if this tape is authentic, Osama bin Laden's strategy is here.

DE BORCHGRAVE: Well, Osama bin Laden saw what happened in Spain March 11.

In three days, al Qaeda achieved what the Soviet Union couldn't do in 45 years, namely detach a European member of a U.S.-led alliance. And his message today is not -- he knows very well that negotiations with European leaders are out of the question. He's appealing to two different forms of public opinion. There are the 12 to 15 million Muslims who live in Western Europe.

In England, you have two million Muslims, mostly from South Asia. And in a recent survey, 13 percent of those two million felt that another 9/11 attack against the United States would be justified. And over half, over 50 percent, felt that if they had to live like Palestinians they would become suicide bombers. And 10 percent, that's about 200,000 believed that Osama bin Laden is a good guy and that the villain is the United States.

ZAHN: So what you're telling me, if this ends up being authentic, that what Osama bin Laden is trying to do is get those people to put pressure on their governments?

DE BORCHGRAVE: Well, you see, European public opinion as a whole, I'd say well over half and in some countries it's 80 percent, are against the U.S. occupation of Iraq.

So they are playing to both. There are more and more pressures on European governments. It doesn't mean obviously that from one day to the next, things will change, but he's not thinking of one day to the next. He's thinking of the next six to 12 months.

ZAHN: Let's listen more specifically to some of the language in this tam tape, where Osama bin Laden, if it is in fact him who did this tape, referred directly to 9/11 and the March 11 attacks in Spain.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

UNIDENTIFIED MALE (through translator): What happened on September 11 and March 11 are your goods returned to you so that you know security is a necessity for all. We do not accept that you monopolize it for yourselves and knowledgeable nations will not accept that their leaders risk their security.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

ZAHN: Once again, from that small portion of the tape, what is it he's trying to yield?

DE BORCHGRAVE: Well, clearly, Iraq is not directly mentioned except in terms of an American company, Halliburton.

But he's clearly trying to activate his sympathizers and supporters in Iraq and to get us out of Iraq, because he knows very well that the occupation is now -- has got a lot of jihadis in Iraq fighting the U.S. occupation. This is bound to grow. And this kind of message is an encouragement to the people trying to push the U.S. out of Iraq.

ZAHN: What does the existence of this tape tell us about the prospects for capturing bin Laden or killing him?

DE BORCHGRAVE: I personally doubt that he's up in those mountains. He's certainly not commanding all these different affiliates around the world. He can't use a satellite telephone because it would be spotted by the National Security Agency right away and he'd have a U.S. fighter bomber overhead in just a few minutes.

So my guess is that he could be living in a city in Pakistan, possibly Peshawar,which has 3.5 million people. And today 66 percent of Pakistanis are pro-Osama bin Laden. They think he's a freedom fighter.

ZAHN: Arnaud De Borchgrave, we really appreciate your insights tonight. Always nice having you on.

DE BORCHGRAVE: Thank you.

ZAHN: So the question we have tonight, is the latest tape from bin Laden really him? An audio detective shows us how CIA analysts try to verify that.

And a surprising admission from Defense Secretary Rumsfeld about U.S. troops in Iraq. You'll hear what he told reporters at the Pentagon.

And families at one Army post feel the pain of a delayed homecoming, how they are dealing with the decision to keep their loved ones longer in Iraq.

But, first, since it's April 15, here's a look at how the government spends your tax dollars; 20 cents goes to paying the interest on the national debt. And 4 cent goes to education. We'll reveal the rest of the pie as we go along.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

ZAHN: Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld expressed regret today that he has to keep 20,000 troops in Iraq after they had already been told they were going home, but that wasn't the only thing Secretary Rumsfeld had to say in his briefing today.

And senior Pentagon correspondent Jamie McIntyre joins us live. He was at that the briefing today.

Good evening, Jamie.

JAMIE MCINTYRE, CNN MILITARY AFFAIRS CORRESPONDENT: Good evening, Paula.

Well, the decision to keep 20,000 troops in Iraq three months longer is a tacit admission by the Pentagon that things in Iraq is not going as well as they had hoped. And today, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld was uncharacteristically blunt in admitting that he didn't anticipate the staying power of the insurgents.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

DONALD RUMSFELD, SECRETARY OF DEFENSE: If a year ago you had asked me to describe where you would be on April 15, 2004, in Iraq, how might you have described it, and I answered by saying I would not have described it precisely the way we are now.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

MCINTYRE: April has been the deadliest month of the war with nearly 90 Americans killed, more than 540 wounded. The decision to keep those troops will affect now about 40 different Army units, including 11,000 soldiers from the 1st Armored Division, about 3,000 from the 2nd Armored Regiment, and about 6,000 Guard and Reserve troops. Today, Army leaders conceded that many of those troops would be disappointed.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

GEN. GEORGE CASEY, ARMY VICE CHIEF OF STAFF: Frankly, the first thing a soldier says when he told he's been extended is probably said -- or words to that effect. Everybody's disappointed.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

MCINTYRE: Now, Rumsfeld said that they do plan to send fresh troops to replace those troops who have had to stay an extra three months in the summer if they decide they need to maintain a higher force level -- Paula.

ZAHN: Jamie McIntyre, thanks so much; 20,000 troops in all the numbers they're talking about.

And behind each one of those soldiers is a father and a mother and often a spouse and children.

Gary Tuchman went to Fort Polk in Louisiana to see how military families are taking the news.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

GARY TUCHMAN, CNN NATIONAL CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): Fort Polk, Louisiana, was ready to host a huge party for its soldiers returning from Iraq.

MAJOR RON ELLIOTT, FORT POLK SPOKESMAN: This was going to be the biggest celebration, we were hoping, within the country. We'd even put in a request for the president to come back out here.

TUCHMAN: The celebration has been put on hold.

SUZY YATES, WIFE OF U.S. SOLDIER: The first thing I thought was to be strong for him. I don't like to have my husband to hear me cry. So I told him it would be all right.

TUCHMAN: Suzy Yates was told by her husband, Sergeant Corey Yates (ph), that after a year in Iraq his return home later this month has been delayed by at least three months.

YATES: And my head dropped into my hands and I took a moment for myself and let it sink in.

TUCHMAN (on camera): How difficult that was moment?

YATES: It was pretty difficult. I was in a lot of shock, disbelief. I thought I was dreaming.

TUCHMAN: The home of the 2nd Armored Cavalry Regiment, which has lost 14 soldiers in Iraq, has been told 3,000 of their men and women will not be coming home as scheduled, including Sergeant Arnold Powell, a husband and father.

HELEN POWELL, WIFE OF U.S. SOLDIER: I couldn't get mad at him and I couldn't get mad at anybody so I was kind of mad at the Army, but it's an entity. I'm mad at that a lot.

ALEX POWELL, SON OF U.S. SOLDIER: There's more of a chance he might get hurt or something might happen to him.

TUCHMAN: Many people are sharing similar thoughts with military counselors.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: And now the chances right now of him being hurt or being killed are even stronger.

TUCHMAN: Back at the Powells' house, personal items already sent home from Iraq are going back to Iraq.

(on camera): Sergeant Powell had planned to retire from the military, but that has now been delayed. He had planned to go on a celebratory Caribbean cruise with his wife next month, but that has now been canceled.

H. POWELL: I am very proud of my husband. I'm starting to get upset. I am very proud of my husband and I am very proud of his job.

TUCHMAN (voice-over): Now they just want him home.

Gary Tuchman, CNN, Fort Polk, Louisiana.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

ZAHN: We change our focus quite a bit when we come back. How does a convicted serial child molester who claims more than 200 young systems end up being freed from prison? And you see them everywhere talking about the 9/11 investigation, but some members of the commission are now being criticized for speaking too openly. I'll ask Commissioner Richard Ben-Veniste what he thinks about that.

And we show you were 24 cents of your federal tax dollar goes. Let's spend another 6 cents worth.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

ZAHN: What happens when a child molester is set free from a life sentence and then disappears? Well, Edward Harvey Stokes has admitted to molesting over 200 people. He said he preyed on runaways. He would use drugs and alcohol to entice them.

His latest accuser committed suicide before the trial. And an appeals court overturned Stoke's conviction, saying that defendants have a right to confront their accusers in court. Stokes was released from the Orange County jail last week. Even his sister says that his release was a very bad idea.

Susan Stokes said -- quote -- "It's appalling to me that a person with his criminal history has been released. He is dangerous."

With me now are two men who know this case very well. John Barnett represented Stokes when the charges were dismissed. He joins us tonight from San Diego. And Tony Rackauckas is the Orange County district attorney. He joins us from Anaheim, California.

Welcome, gentlemen.

(CROSSTALK)

ZAHN: So, John, we've talked about your client having been convicted of sexual assault. He was in the process of serving a life sentence. How does a man who says he molested over 200 victims get set free from prison?

JOHN BARNETT, FORMER ATTORNEY FOR STOKES: Well, because we're a country of laws. And the trial he had was unfair and the court of appeal reversed his conviction. We stood ready for trail last week and the people were not prepared to go forward.

And so he was released. As to his prior convictions, he served his time for those and we don't hold people without trials.

ZAHN: Do you, John, believe he is a danger to society?

BARNETT: Well, I don't have any evidence of that.

He is a person who has been punished for what he's done and served eight years without being able to confront his accuser and that is not just.

District Attorney Rackauckas, you heard John, you just heard your colleague lay out the law in California. Was there anything you could have done to keep him in jail?

TONY RACKAUCKAS, ORANGE COUNTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY: Well, look, let me say first of all, that I have a lot of respect personally for John Barnett. He's a very fine attorney and he's held in high regard here in our county as one of the best attorneys in the county.

But let me differ with him to some extent. First of all, this victim, this poor victim was cross-examined at the first trial and he was cross-examine again at a conditional hearing that was held. He was cross-examined, you know, until the defense was tired of it and then he committed suicide before trial. He had a fair trial. He had a trial by one of the best judges in the county who considered all of these factors, looked at all of the evidence and decided that he was guilty.

And it's very, very disappointing that the court of appeals would reverse the case on the grounds -- on the grounds that they did. And this person is a severe danger to society. And it's a travesty that he's released back into society to prey on other victims.

ZAHN: John, you heard what the district attorney had to say; this man did have a fair trial.

BARNETT: Well, of course, the court of appeal, which is the -- decides these issues, disagreed with the prosecutors, who made this argument earlier.

And the fact of the matter is that the cross-examination was not complete and was inadequate and really a charade, because the prosecution, not Mr. Rackauckas' office, but the government, in the form of the San Bernardino Sheriff's Office, withheld an 85-page report in which there were several inconsistencies that the deceased was not able to be examined upon. And that is why the court of appeals said he did not get a fair trial because the right of cross- examination was not fulfilled.

ZAHN: Mr. Rackauckas, do you concede that, that the case was botched?

RACKAUCKAS: No. I don't.

I think that the judge had all of that material. Judge Ryan (ph), a very fine judge, very experienced, very highly regarded, considered that, put all of those considerations on the record, gave the defendant a fair trial. And I don't think it had to be reversed. I think that the error pointed to by Mr. Barnett and argued by defense counsel was, frankly, was harmless. It wouldn't have changed the result in this case.

ZAHN: John, Edward Harvey Stokes is considered a level-three offender, which means he is likely to reoffend. If he does, how will you sleep at night?

BARNETT: Well, I'll sleep very easily because I am gratified that the Constitution has been vindicated and the right to fair trial has been assured, not just for Mr. Stokes, but for everybody in California.

It's important to understand that this is the most basic right that a defendant has. And that's to confront and cross-examine his accusers. And the court of appeal has decided that he didn't get that right. And he spent eight years in jail not getting that right. And so I'll sleep fine knowing that the Constitution has been upheld in this case and that we don't suspend the Constitution because we don't like a particular individual.

ZAHN: In closing, District Attorney Rackauckas, how much of a threat do you think Mr. Stokes represents in your community?

RACKAUCKAS: You know, in his own words, he represents a 97 percent threat if he's treated. So he's a very serious threat. This is a red alert. This person is going to reoffend. He's going to have new victims. There's no question about it.

ZAHN: Tony Rackauckas, John Barnett, thank you for joining us tonight.

BARNETT: Thank you.

RACKAUCKAS: Thank you.

ZAHN: Coming up, he is an expert on getting tape recordings to give up their secrets. We're going to ask him what it takes to confirm the latest Osama bin Laden tape is the real thing.

And jurors are supposed to decide the truth, but two now have been kicked off the Scott Peterson trial for lying. Are high-profile trials just too tempting for some people?

And she was the picture of elegance and grace, but, amazingly, Jacqueline Kennedy Onassis didn't even think she was attractive.

And, on this day, your taxes are due. Here's another look at where the government spends every dollar you pay, a little over half right now.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: There were such failures, such glaring failures...

RICHARD BEN-VENISTE, 9/11 COMMISSION MEMBER: Unfortunately, the information that we had in our possession was not utilized.

JAMES THOMPSON, 9/11 COMMISSION MEMBER: There's no question that yesterday's hearing revealed serious faults in...

(END VIDEO CLIP)

ZAHN: Some of the 9/11 commission members who've been accessible to the news media talking about their investigation of the terror attacks. But critics, like former president Gerald Ford, who served on the commission that investigated the JFK assassination, say the accessibility and openness of this commission will have an adverse impact on its upcoming report.

Here's one of the more outspoken members of the 9/11 commission, Richard Ben-Veniste. He joins us from Philadelphia. Welcome, sir.

BEN-VENISTE: Thank you.

ZAHN: Do you think by commission members being accessible to the news media, you have compromised the integrity of your final report?

BEN-VENISTE: Not at all. In fact, the Kennedy assassination report, the Warren commission, has been the subject of innumerable theories all over the place, of various kind of cover-ups and strange and unusual goings-on. And we think we learned from that, that in our democracy, we can tolerate open hearings. We've had public hearings. We've had interim reports, which our statute has encouraged us to provide to the public. We have brought the public along with us, trying to make as much available as possible over time. And Paula, you know...

ZAHN: All right...

BEN-VENISTE: ... I didn't break into this studio with a sledgehammer. I've probably accepted about 10 percent of the invitations to come on...

ZAHN: All right...

BEN-VENISTE: ... and discuss our work.

ZAHN: Yes, I understand that, sir, but I think some of the criticism goes beyond the accessibility of commission members and it cuts to the issue of you all talking in a very detailed way about what some of your reactions to the material. And the critics say perhaps you are leading us to a conclusion that won't exist in the final report.

ZAHN: Well, I don't think that's true. I think the things that we have been saying -- and our chairman, Governor Kean, has encouraged us, has encouraged us from the very beginning to be accessible, so that we don't repeat the failures of other commissions, whose reports are simply put on the shelf somewhere and collect dust in Washington in some archive, but rather to bring the public along and not operate behind closed doors, as certain commissions have in the past, and to make as much as possible available. It's a strength of our democracy that we can have this kind of an investigation and inquiry, which will then inform recommendations based on what went wrong.

ZAHN: What do you think is the most troubling thing you have learned so far through these hearings, if you had to reduce it to one issue?

BEN-VENISTE: Probably the inability to communicate among our agencies, and from the agencies to our executives in government, up to and including the president of the United States.

ZAHN: So you're not too reassured these intelligence agencies are serving the American public in the best way possible.

BEN-VENISTE: Well, changes have been made. The question is whether we've done enough by way of change. We have confidence in Director Mueller, in his integrity, in his enthusiasm to change and to do the right thing. The question is whether the plumbing is so ossified, whether, you know, we've got to pour some giant can of Drano into the mechanics of how this system works, or whether we've got to start all over and build something new. So that's the question facing us.

But as far as what we had before, you know, we've heard about getting the president to shake the trees, or the national security adviser. And quite frankly, if you're standing in a petrified forest, shaking the trees might not work. But we certainly had a lot of information. That's the thing that jumps out at us.

ZAHN: And finally tonight, as you deliberate with your fellow commission members and come to some summertime conclusions, your reaction to the existence of what is believed to be another audiotape made by Usama bin Laden? How should Americans view that, as your deliberations continue?

BEN-VENISTE: Well, our concern has to do with the period prior to 9/11, up to and including the catastrophe that occurred. And thank goodness, we're not obliged to make assessments of what's going on now and deal with these current events. We've got a daunting enough task to provide a definitive account of what happened in 9/11, without fear or favor, something that will last and will survive criticism over time. And we think we can do that with integrity in a bipartisan report.

ZAHN: Commissioner Richard Ben-Veniste, thank you. I know you only accept 10 percent of the requests. Thanks for joining us tonight. Appreciate it.

BEN-VENISTE: Thank you.

ZAHN: This Martha Stewart juror did not tell the truth about his past, which could overturn the verdict. Do some people lie just to be part of a high-profile trial? And tomorrow: They're the NRA, and they vote. But this election, gun rights may not be the top issue with many NRA members. We'll explain. And bit by bit, the dollar you sent to the IRS today is getting spent. There's still 41 cents left. We'll use it up a bit later.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

MARK GERAGOS, SCOTT PETERSON'S ATTORNEY: That woman lied through her teeth. She was a convincing liar. She had a background in psychology. And she was determined to get on to this jury so that she could send my client to the gallows. (END VIDEO CLIP)

ZAHN: That was attorney Mark Geragos complaining about a potential juror for Scott Peterson's upcoming murder trial. The potential juror was dismissed. But there are now allegations that a juror in the Martha Stewart case lied about his past. Time will tell if that gets Stewart a new trial.

Senior legal analyst Jeffrey Toobin is here to talk about judging jurors' honesty. Wacky time, isn't it?

JEFFREY TOOBIN, CNN SENIOR LEGAL ANALYST: Wacky times in jury land these days.

ZAHN: So what we're seeing here is a pattern of people not only lying to get off juries, but also lying to get on juries?

TOOBIN: Jurors have become public figures in this era of the high-profile case. Think back to the O.J. Simpson case. You had four different books written by jurors in that case. Now, there's not comparable interest. Nobody, I don't think, is going to be writing any books about the Tyco case or even the Scott Peterson case, but it just shows that there is something about being a juror on these trials that people want to participate in. And the system has to try to adjust to this changed status.

ZAHN: Going back to Mark Geragos, he got this potential juror dismissed. Isn't it a bit of a reach to suggest, then, that you need to change the venue?

TOOBIN: Absolutely. It's a big reach. I mean, he -- the system worked in that case, where you had a juror, who obviously, at least, according to the judge, had a bias. It was discovered. She was thrown off the jury, and jury selection continues. That does not suggest that he deserves a second change of venue here, and I think it is a stretch to think that he has any chance of getting that moved again.

ZAHN: So from the judge's point of view, the chances of this happening are zip.

TOOBIN: I think -- I think very unlikely.

ZAHN: Let's go on to the Martha Stewart case and talk about juror Chappell Hartridge. This is the guy who was accused of embezzling Little League funds to support his cocaine habit...

TOOBIN: Very -- very bad...

(CROSSTALK)

ZAHN: ... something he didn't admit to on his juror questionnaire.

TOOBIN: Very bad crime. And it is worth remembering that voir dire is under oath. So there is the potential... ZAHN: That is when they question...

TOOBIN: ... that he lied under oath.

TOOBIN: ... you.

TOOBIN: Right. Voir dire, which is...

ZAHN: When you're a potential...

TOOBIN: ... jury selection process. The prospective jurors give their answers under oath, so he may have lied under oath during jury selection. However, just because a juror may have lied, or in fact, did lie, during jury selection, doesn't mean you get a new trial unless you can prove that the juror lied in order to get on the jury to reach a certain verdict. And bad as these accusations are about Hartridge, there's really no evidence that I've seen that he was lying in order to convict Martha Stewart.

ZAHN: That may be true, but there is some circumstantial evidence and controversy surrounding this guy, about, Let's do one for the little guy...

TOOBIN: Right. Right.

ZAHN: ... the attention paid Martha Stewart's $6,000 handbag.

TOOBIN: He was the one, the only one of the 12 jurors who held a big press conference right after the verdict. He did call some attention to himself. But having a big ego and wanting attention is different. And remember, there's -- the system has a real interest in not opening up jurors' backgrounds to a lot of scrutiny after the fact because every time someone got convicted, defense lawyers could say, OK, let's go over jury selection. Let's try to find someone who lied. That way, we get the case tossed out.

ZAHN: Sure, but "Newsweek" is reporting that Martha Stewart's team was actually out there with private investigators, looking into the pasts of some of the jurors sitting on the trial before the verdict was rendered.

TOOBIN: Well, that -- well, it was right -- it was right around the time the verdict was rendered. And if they could find that a juror had displayed some sort of anti-Martha Stewart bias -- not that they lied about something, but bias against Martha Stewart -- then they'd have a chance of a new trial. But so far, I think it's a real long shot.

ZAHN: All right. So basically, you're telling Martha Stewart tonight she can plan to spend a little time in jail.

TOOBIN: It's looking bad for Martha. It's been looking bad, and it still looks bad.

ZAHN: I don't know. We listen to former prosecutor Jeffrey Toobin here. Thank you. Coming up: An audio expert shows us just what it takes to find out if the latest Usama bin Laden tape is the real thing. And as a young woman, former first lady Jackie Kennedy was filled with doubt about her looks, her poise and confidence. An intimate account of the Jackie you never knew coming up. And now, that last big chunk of that tax dollar you sent to Uncle Sam is about to disappear. Here's where the final 41 cents of every dollar is going these days.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

ZAHN: The CIA's analysis of the latest Usama bin Laden audiotape was quick to conclude that it was likely his voice. Now, you might wonder how analysts verify something like that. Time now to ask an expert in audio analysis. Paul Ginsberg is president of Professional Audio Laboratories. He's been involved in more than 1,600 cases where recordings were used as evidence, including the trials of Branch Davidians in Waco, as well as that of an Egyptian cleric convicted in the 1993 terrorist attack on the World Trade Center. He's also done audio analysis for the CIA and the FBI.

Good to have your expertise this evening.

PAUL GINSBERG, EXPERT AUDIO ANALYST: Good evening.

ZAHN: Welcome. Why don't we listen to part of that recording that was released earlier today. Based on your own analysis today, do you believe that voice to be that of Usama bin Laden?

GINSBERG: I would say that it's possible that it could be. It's certainly not -- I would not rule it out.

ZAHN: Based on what? What are you hearing?

GINSBERG: I'm hearing -- I'm hearing the same type of recording made, as compared to earlier recordings in which we knew it was bin Laden because it was a video. But there's a lot more that we can learn from the tape, in addition to whether or not it's actually bin Laden.

ZAHN: Like what?

GINSBERG: OK. It's my feeling that this was recorded in a very small, enclosed room, one with straight, hard, reflective surfaces. He was not on mike. It was a mediocre kind of recording situation, maybe...

ZAHN: Maybe a makeshift studio of some sort.

GINSBERG: Exactly.

ZAHN: Let's listen to a recording alleged to be from Osama bin Laden from October of 2003 for comparison. Is that the same man's voice?

GINSBERG: It -- it may or may not be. And the reason I hedge is that, of course, there are teams of people doing analysis using spectrum analyzers, as well as analysis of speech patterns and a number of other factors that would be done before some sort of a finding could really be made with any degree of certainty.

ZAHN: But the CIA's saying tonight it is likely to be that of Osama bin Laden. Let's go through what a typical audio investigation would entail, and I guess there are four different components to that. Let's start off by talking about voice identification, electronic analysis. How does that work?

GINSBERG: OK. That is a process by which we look at the frequencies in each of the voices, the test voice as well as a reference voice, and we compare the strengths and weaknesses with respect to the high frequencies, low frequencies and all that. It's like a fingerprint.

ZAHN: Then you move on to the second component, which is speech patterns and vocabulary.

GINSBERG: Exactly. You want to see which words are being used, whether there's a speech impediment, whether there's an accent, the speed with which the talker is speaking, whether he uses certain slang or expressions that are mispronounced, for example.

ZAHN: Then we'll quickly move on to No. 3, the crypto team and analyzing possible embedded messages to cells.

GINSBERG: That's right. That's very important because we don't like to play a lot of original recordings as we get them in the foreign tongue because it's possible that a leader can embed a secret message to induce some sort of action.

ZAHN: And then there's the electronic team, looking for clues as to time and location, something you kind of analyzed when you thought today that this appeared to have been recorded in a small room.

GINSBERG: Exactly. That's right. The team will go further than looking at the voice. They want to know whether there are any cues, like airplanes flying overhead, certain other signals that would give them an idea of the time or the place with which these recordings were made.

ZAHN: It's fascinating work that you do.

GINSBERG: I love it.

ZAHN: You've witnessed a lot of history this way, haven't you.

GINSBERG: Oh, yes. Oh, yes.

ZAHN: Paul Ginsberg, thank you for spending some time with us tonight.

GINSBERG: Thank you.

ZAHN: The Jacqueline Kennedy we never knew, from someone who knew her pretty well, a new look at the young woman who would captivate the nation.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

TINA SANTI FLAHERTY, AUTHOR, "WHAT JACKIE TAUGHT US": Her father taught her to be mysterious, to never reveal everything, to, in other words, always keep them guessing.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

ZAHN: Next month will mark 10 years since the death of Jacqueline Kennedy Onassis. Behind her role as first lady, she personified beauty, grace and intelligence for millions. And though it may seem incredible, she did it by overcoming low self-esteem.

So what can we learn from her experience, is the focus of a new book. It is called "What Jackie Taught Us: Lessons From the Remarkable Life of Jackie Kennedy Onassis." And earlier this week, I caught up with the author, Tina Santi Flaherty.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

Tina, great to see you. Welcome.

TINA SANTI FLAHERTY, AUTHOR, "WHAT JACKIE TAUGHT US": Thank you.

ZAHN: What I was most surprised about in everything you wrote about Jackie Kennedy Onassis was the fact that the world's most beautiful woman had self-image problems.

FLAHERTY: She did. She grew up with a negative self-image. Her mother told her here feet were too large -- they were size 10 -- that her hands were too large, they were masculine-looking, and that her hips were too big. And Jackie felt that they were. And also, her eyes were very wide-set. It would take her three weeks to get a pair of glasses made. But her father, he gave her massive dose of "vitamin p," praise, as she and her sister called it. He made her feel good about herself in terms of her looks.

ZAHN: So that's where she got her sense of self-worth from.

FLAHERTY: That's right.

ZAHN: You also have an interesting story about her father guiding her. And he always used to tell her, quote, "Never act as if you're looking for someone as you enter a room. They should be looking for you."

FLAHERTY: Exactly. He taught her how to make entrance, like an actress does, to not look around the room eagerly, but just to walk in and wait for someone to come to you.

ZAHN: And she perfected the so-called lighthouse (ph) look.

FLAHERTY: Yes. I was very fascinated by that. But Jackie had this ability to look into a man's eyes, and then she would lock into his mind. And he would make -- Jackie, rather, would make every man feel like they were the most important person in the world, that what they had to say was truly, truly important. And I interviewed quite a few men who told me that. And she became a social light beam, so to speak.

ZAHN: So it was very disarming.

FLAHERTY: Very disarming.

ZAHN: And these were very strong man who could be very intimidating.

FLAHERTY: Exactly. But Jackie did this with everyone -- an eminent judge, a waiter, our doormen.

ZAHN: In the end, that was a very sweet story you talk about. In the terribly painful last days of her life, she made it very clear to the doorman in her building and some of the other employees of the building that she wanted them to attend her funeral.

FLAHERTY: Yes. She was thoughtful about inviting all of them in our building to her funeral. Yes, she was.

ZAHN: Let's talk a moment about Jackie's style and what the rest of us can learn about it. It is interesting that you point out the fact that she really spent a lot of time researching her wardrobe and actually did sort of test-marketing of it before she wore it in public. How did that work?

FLAHERTY: The suit she had on in Dallas when President Kennedy was assassinated -- she test drove that suit a couple of days earlier in Caroline's play school. She went to pick her up.

ZAHN: Just to see what the reaction was.

FLAHERTY: Just to see what the reaction was. Was the jewelry right? were the shoes right?

ZAHN: Some of this may sound frivolous to some readers, but you also balance in your book with how this was a woman who was very well read. She devoured 10 books a week.

FLAHERTY: That's the difference between some people and Jackie. Jackie was active in her pursuit of knowledge. She didn't just sit back passively and take knowledge in. And that's what we all have to do. We have to have a quest for the best.

ZAHN: To this day, though, there was a certain mystery surrounding her, wasn't there, and who she was and what drove her.

FLAHERTY: Her father taught her to be mysterious to never reveal everything, to, in other words, always keep them guessing.

ZAHN: When you think about her contribution to history, I think most viewers would probably hearken back to the great dignity she showed during the funeral for her husband. To this day, though, so many years after her death, what else is it about her that still captivates Americans?

FLAHERTY: I think her unique image and style captivates America. And Jackie behaved as beautifully as she dressed. And she trained her children to behave beautifully. I mean, her children had beautiful manners. In the White House, they would address everyone -- doormen, whoever -- as Mr. Miss. But Jackie was a very, very thoughtful person, and I think all of that -- all of us remember her for that.

I wanted to write a book about all the lessons that she taught us, Jackie's inspiration and what she did with her life. She changed her life, and that's what this book hopes to do, to let you know that if you follow the road map that Jackie laid out, then you can improve your own life.

ZAHN: I think we all seek to do that on a daily basis.

FLAHERTY: We do.

ZAHN: Tina, thank you for sharing your book with us tonight.

FLAHERTY: Thank you, Paula.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

ZAHN: And that wraps it up for all of us here this evening. Thanks so much for being with us. Tomorrow night: Is Hollywood ganging up on President Bush? We'll debate whether some new movies are unfairly taking aim at the White House.

Thanks again for joining us tonight. We'll be back same time, same place tomorrow night. In the meantime, "LARRY KING LIVE" is next. He will be talking with the wife of Tom Hamill, the American hostage in Iraq. Again, thanks for dropping by. 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