Return to Transcripts main page

CNN Sunday Morning

D.C. Area Sniper Case Examined

Aired October 27, 2002 - 09:15   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.


ARTHEL NEVILLE, CNN ANCHOR: We want to get more insight now on the sniper case. We head back to Washington, where our security analyst, Kelly McCann, is standing by live. Good morning again, Kelly.
KELLY MCCANN, CNN SECURITY ANALYST: Hi, Arthel.

NEVILLE: Hi. We have some e-mails for you, starting with Chris from NYPD, it says. "Why is everyone concentrating on the false flaws of law enforcement? The initial description of the sniper and vehicle used was absolutely contrary to the actual perpetrator, or perpetrators. Police are not psychics, and people in the press expect too much. Why is that?"

MCCANN: That's a good question, Chris. And you have to remember that in the totality of the aftermath information, it's really easy to sit down and be critical and ask, you know, why didn't anybody see this before. But I'll leave you with paraphrasing FDR: It's not the critic who counts, not the man who points out who the strong man stumbles. Credit belongs to the man who's actually in the ring, whose face is marred by dust and sweat and blood, so that his place will never be with those cold, timid souls who know neither victory nor defeat. You know what I'm talking about.

RENAY SAN MIGUEL, CNN ANCHOR: Yeah, there seems to be a tendency to investigate the investigation. We talked about that before. Let's move on to our next question, our e-mail here from Clint in Mistic (ph), Connecticut. "Would ballistic fingerprinting have helped track down the killer sooner? Was the weapon they used registered and/or legally possessed by the killers?"

MCCANN: Topical issue. Ballistic fingerprinting is coming up again and again. The problem with is is, functionally, that it only goes to the point of last legal sale, and we know that most firearms out on the street are obtained during daytime burglaries, and also illegally from port of entry, et cetera. So if there doesn't exist any test data to match the ballistics against, then obviously you have no fingerprint. And if you have a fingerprint but it only goes to the last legal owner, then where it's been used in a crime, it may not be relevant. So there's still some issues about that.

NEVILLE: OK, Kelly, we're going to go to an e-mail from Tom now who says, "do you think our society will lean towards being more alert in public places, particularly in large metropolitan areas?"

MCCANN: I think it's necessary that we do. I mean, right now, in the war on terror, we know that the public access force multipliers. We are, in fact, the eyes and ears for the law enforcement organizations out there. The problem is that a lot of the points of input, sometimes the information doesn't appear to be credible because people get emotional or they overreact to something they saw. And also, that apparatus to handle that input of information is straining sometimes.

On the other end of it, that information, how it's collated and then analyzed and what mechanism puts it out into the bigger law enforcement organization system is problematic. So we're going to have to get our arms around it, but this is the way of the future.

SAN MIGUEL: Another question here from David in Columbia, South Carolina. Kelly, "What legal terms specifically make a witness a material witness? How is that different from somebody who might be seen as an eyewitness in the case?"

MCCANN: That's a good question. I pulled up Black's Law Dictionary, and it says "a person who apparently has information about the subject matter of a lawsuit or a criminal prosecution which is significant enough to affect the outcome of that case." So again, as we said earlier, it's not a witness that may add tertiary information, but significant information that could affect even innocence or guilt.

SAN MIGUEL: Also may be the case where they may not want to cooperate initially with the investigation so you have to declare them that, and that's why arrest warrants are issued, in the case of Lee Boyd Malvo, I understand, correct?

MCCANN: Exactly. Exigent circumstances could exist. There could be a flight problem. But it basically puts on notice the person who is named as a material witness.

NEVILLE: OK, Kelly. Dr. Ernest Bridgewater from New Jersey writes: "I have thought that the sniper was a terrorist. Though there was no massive damage, the sniper was assessing the police military response and tactics."

MCCANN: True (ph) question. Absolutely. We know that al Qaeda and other international organizations look and learn. They did so in Egypt Air 800. They have done so in other incidents. So it's foolish for us to believe that they didn't take note of this incident, whether they were involved in a far-reaching thing or not, and learn about our mobility, learn about how quickly we can shut a highway down, learn about how you can evade. Absolutely. I'm sure that they took notes.

SAN MIGUEL: All right. The next question here coming, and you may have seen Mike Luckovich earlier today, the editorial cartoonist for the "Atlanta Journal Constitution" talking about his cartoon about the media coverage of the sniper investigation. This coming from Greg who says, "as a working member of the media in North Carolina, I feel that our coverage of the sniper events was effective and helpful to the investigation. But in recent days, here and across the country, a lot of criticism has arisen over whether the media's coverage may have sensationalized the entire situation." Kelly, as a security analyst, what do you feel? Was the media's coverage a benefit or an obstacle to the investigation of finding the D.C. Beltway sniper? And make it clear, these are suspects that we are talking about here.

MCCANN: Absolutely. Well, I think it was of great benefit, obviously, and very contentious when the names were released and when the license plate was released. Whether to do that or not -- if you watched Aaron Brown's show when it was actually released, it was quite spellbinding.

But it also netted in two and a half hours or so the apprehension of these guys. So I don't think you can argue that. But what we can argue, the validity of, is making the public feel the rises in expectation and then the defeats that police officers feel every day, but aren't reported. In other words, they run leads. Some of them are dry holes, some of them are fruitful.

In this case, the public experienced all of them. And I don't know whether that's appropriate, because it raises expectations to a degree that you only see in fictional TV shows.

SAN MIGUEL: And the idea here that, have you ever seen a situation like this where the media played such a part, the messages from Chief Moose to the sniper, that kind of thing?

MCCANN: Well, of course, with Jimmy Breslin and David Berkowitz, we saw that ongoing narrative back and forth in the papers. And I think internationally there have been other cases, but not here in the United States. This was a first.

NEVILLE: OK, Kelly, get ready for this one. It comes from Chris from Ottawa, Canada. And he says, "I can't figure out how to change the time on my VCR. Can you please help?"

MCCANN: And on a light note, Chris, read your manual.

SAN MIGUEL: Check on the remote control. There's a menu button there that should be your first stop there.

J. Kelly McCann, security analyst for CNN, thanks for joining us this morning.

NEVILLE: Nice to see you, Kelly.

MCCANN: Thanks, folks.

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






Aired October 27, 2002 - 09:15   ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
ARTHEL NEVILLE, CNN ANCHOR: We want to get more insight now on the sniper case. We head back to Washington, where our security analyst, Kelly McCann, is standing by live. Good morning again, Kelly.
KELLY MCCANN, CNN SECURITY ANALYST: Hi, Arthel.

NEVILLE: Hi. We have some e-mails for you, starting with Chris from NYPD, it says. "Why is everyone concentrating on the false flaws of law enforcement? The initial description of the sniper and vehicle used was absolutely contrary to the actual perpetrator, or perpetrators. Police are not psychics, and people in the press expect too much. Why is that?"

MCCANN: That's a good question, Chris. And you have to remember that in the totality of the aftermath information, it's really easy to sit down and be critical and ask, you know, why didn't anybody see this before. But I'll leave you with paraphrasing FDR: It's not the critic who counts, not the man who points out who the strong man stumbles. Credit belongs to the man who's actually in the ring, whose face is marred by dust and sweat and blood, so that his place will never be with those cold, timid souls who know neither victory nor defeat. You know what I'm talking about.

RENAY SAN MIGUEL, CNN ANCHOR: Yeah, there seems to be a tendency to investigate the investigation. We talked about that before. Let's move on to our next question, our e-mail here from Clint in Mistic (ph), Connecticut. "Would ballistic fingerprinting have helped track down the killer sooner? Was the weapon they used registered and/or legally possessed by the killers?"

MCCANN: Topical issue. Ballistic fingerprinting is coming up again and again. The problem with is is, functionally, that it only goes to the point of last legal sale, and we know that most firearms out on the street are obtained during daytime burglaries, and also illegally from port of entry, et cetera. So if there doesn't exist any test data to match the ballistics against, then obviously you have no fingerprint. And if you have a fingerprint but it only goes to the last legal owner, then where it's been used in a crime, it may not be relevant. So there's still some issues about that.

NEVILLE: OK, Kelly, we're going to go to an e-mail from Tom now who says, "do you think our society will lean towards being more alert in public places, particularly in large metropolitan areas?"

MCCANN: I think it's necessary that we do. I mean, right now, in the war on terror, we know that the public access force multipliers. We are, in fact, the eyes and ears for the law enforcement organizations out there. The problem is that a lot of the points of input, sometimes the information doesn't appear to be credible because people get emotional or they overreact to something they saw. And also, that apparatus to handle that input of information is straining sometimes.

On the other end of it, that information, how it's collated and then analyzed and what mechanism puts it out into the bigger law enforcement organization system is problematic. So we're going to have to get our arms around it, but this is the way of the future.

SAN MIGUEL: Another question here from David in Columbia, South Carolina. Kelly, "What legal terms specifically make a witness a material witness? How is that different from somebody who might be seen as an eyewitness in the case?"

MCCANN: That's a good question. I pulled up Black's Law Dictionary, and it says "a person who apparently has information about the subject matter of a lawsuit or a criminal prosecution which is significant enough to affect the outcome of that case." So again, as we said earlier, it's not a witness that may add tertiary information, but significant information that could affect even innocence or guilt.

SAN MIGUEL: Also may be the case where they may not want to cooperate initially with the investigation so you have to declare them that, and that's why arrest warrants are issued, in the case of Lee Boyd Malvo, I understand, correct?

MCCANN: Exactly. Exigent circumstances could exist. There could be a flight problem. But it basically puts on notice the person who is named as a material witness.

NEVILLE: OK, Kelly. Dr. Ernest Bridgewater from New Jersey writes: "I have thought that the sniper was a terrorist. Though there was no massive damage, the sniper was assessing the police military response and tactics."

MCCANN: True (ph) question. Absolutely. We know that al Qaeda and other international organizations look and learn. They did so in Egypt Air 800. They have done so in other incidents. So it's foolish for us to believe that they didn't take note of this incident, whether they were involved in a far-reaching thing or not, and learn about our mobility, learn about how quickly we can shut a highway down, learn about how you can evade. Absolutely. I'm sure that they took notes.

SAN MIGUEL: All right. The next question here coming, and you may have seen Mike Luckovich earlier today, the editorial cartoonist for the "Atlanta Journal Constitution" talking about his cartoon about the media coverage of the sniper investigation. This coming from Greg who says, "as a working member of the media in North Carolina, I feel that our coverage of the sniper events was effective and helpful to the investigation. But in recent days, here and across the country, a lot of criticism has arisen over whether the media's coverage may have sensationalized the entire situation." Kelly, as a security analyst, what do you feel? Was the media's coverage a benefit or an obstacle to the investigation of finding the D.C. Beltway sniper? And make it clear, these are suspects that we are talking about here.

MCCANN: Absolutely. Well, I think it was of great benefit, obviously, and very contentious when the names were released and when the license plate was released. Whether to do that or not -- if you watched Aaron Brown's show when it was actually released, it was quite spellbinding.

But it also netted in two and a half hours or so the apprehension of these guys. So I don't think you can argue that. But what we can argue, the validity of, is making the public feel the rises in expectation and then the defeats that police officers feel every day, but aren't reported. In other words, they run leads. Some of them are dry holes, some of them are fruitful.

In this case, the public experienced all of them. And I don't know whether that's appropriate, because it raises expectations to a degree that you only see in fictional TV shows.

SAN MIGUEL: And the idea here that, have you ever seen a situation like this where the media played such a part, the messages from Chief Moose to the sniper, that kind of thing?

MCCANN: Well, of course, with Jimmy Breslin and David Berkowitz, we saw that ongoing narrative back and forth in the papers. And I think internationally there have been other cases, but not here in the United States. This was a first.

NEVILLE: OK, Kelly, get ready for this one. It comes from Chris from Ottawa, Canada. And he says, "I can't figure out how to change the time on my VCR. Can you please help?"

MCCANN: And on a light note, Chris, read your manual.

SAN MIGUEL: Check on the remote control. There's a menu button there that should be your first stop there.

J. Kelly McCann, security analyst for CNN, thanks for joining us this morning.

NEVILLE: Nice to see you, Kelly.

MCCANN: Thanks, folks.

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