CNN.com - Transcripts

Transcript Providers

Return to Transcripts main page

CNN Talkback Live

Judge Asked to Overturn Central Park Jogger Convictions; Al Qaeda Readying Deadly Holiday Surprise?

Aired December 05, 2002 - 15:00 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.

ARTHEL NEVILLE, HOST: Hello, everybody. Welcome to TALKBACK LIVE. I'm Arthel Neville.
And we're going to start with one of the most notorious cases in the 1980s: the rape and savage beating of a Central Park jogger. Five boys accused of being on a wilding spree confessed, were convicted, and sent to prison. Today, the prosecutor in that case has asked the judge to clear all five of them. We'll go live to New York to find out why.

And then stay tuned, because you're going to meet the mother of one of those young men. What made her son confess if he didn't do it? And will she sue?

And then later: Al Qaeda says Americans haven't learned their lesson. It's threatening to deliver a holiday gift to mark the end of Ramadan.

OK, let's go to New York first, where CNN's Deborah Feyerick is covering a bizarre turn in the case of the rape and beating of a Central Park jogger -- hi, Deborah.

First of all, if you could just remind us, though...

(CROSSTALK)

DEBORAH FEYERICK, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Yes.

Hi, Arthel. Sorry. I'm having a little bit of an audio problem here. But let me tell you what is up.

The district attorney is asking a judge to overturn the guilty convictions of the Central Park five. That is a very big deal here in New York City. A judge now has the final say. Lawyers for the five young men think that the judge could rule very quickly.

Now, the reason that this is happening is because new evidence, which the district attorney's office says, had they had it at trial, then it's very likely that the verdict could have been very different, in fact, that the five young men may have gotten off in the rape of the Central Park jogger.

The new evidence: confessions of a serial rapist who came forward this year, saying he acted alone attacking that jogger. We went back to the park and walked through, going over the details.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

(voice-over): This is where it all began on a cool April night almost 14 years ago. Prosecutors believe a group of teenaged boys entered the northern end of Manhattan's Central Park. It was 9:00 p.m. And what happened next would traumatize the entire city for years.

(voice-over): The teenagers were out for what would come to be known as a night of wilding, the pack of boys attacking runners and bike riders.

(on camera): By the time it was over, several people had been assaulted and a female jogger was dragged from this path into the woods, where she was savagely beaten and raped.

(voice-over): Five teenagers were taken into custody. Several confessed to police detectives.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: I did it twice.

FEYERICK: Implicating themselves in the attack.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: This was my first rape.

FEYERICK: One teen even described how the jogger screamed for help.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: She was just hollering, like, "Help, help."

FEYERICK (on camera): But now those confessions are under question, because somebody else was in the park that night, somebody who, earlier this year, confessed to the rape.

(voice-over): Matias Reyes. His semen was found on the jogger. His pubic hair was on her sock. It's the only DNA evidence tying anyone to the attack. Reyes, serving 33 years for murder and rape, told prison guards this year he alone raped the Central Park jogger. His former lawyer believes him.

RICHARD SIRACUSA, FORMER ATTORNEY FOR MATIAS REYES: He's a person that does things like that and just doesn't care, doesn't care whether the person lives, dies, nothing. And nothing bothers him emotionally. I'm sure he lost no sleep over this.

FEYERICK: The Manhattan district attorney reopened the case, reanalyzing physical evidence.

ROBERT MORGENTHAU, MANHATTAN DISTRICT ATTORNEY: Senior prosecutors and investigators have been conducting a thorough and complete investigation of Reyes' account.

FEYERICK: Lawyers and families of four of the five men say they're innocent, the video confessions coerced.

SHARONNE SALAAM, MOTHER OF DEFENDANT: Our children have paid a heavy price and so have our families. FEYERICK: They want a judge to toss out all convictions.

MICHAEL WARREN, DEFENSE ATTORNEY: When you examine the course of what took place during the trial, none of those witnesses who came forward were able -- as Ms. Salaam has indicated, were able to identify any of those young boys.

FEYERICK: But the Detectives Union tells CNN the convictions should stand, saying Reyes' DNA evidence doesn't eliminate the other five. A doctor who treated the jogger says there's no way Reyes acted alone.

DR. ROBERT KURTZ, JOGGER'S PHYSICIAN: The lacerations in the scalp were sharply inflicted and not bluntly inflicted. So, to me, that means that more than one person has to be involved in this.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

FEYERICK: It was the strength of the confessions, Arthel, that helped convict the boys.

Now, of course, even at the time of trial, there were many discrepancies in the confessions themselves. For example, the boys gave differing accounts of how, when, and what time the actual rape occurred, all of that now under review to see just why these boys confessed to something that ultimately they didn't do.

As for the teenagers themselves, well, they're now young men. Each of then them served between seven to 13 years in prison -- Arthel.

NEVILLE: Deborah, what happened at the courthouse today?

FEYERICK: Well, it was very much just formal. The district attorney brought the papers to the judge, telling him that, yes, they thought that they should overturn the convictions.

NEVILLE: OK, Deborah Feyerick, go inside. It's cold out there. Thank you so much for joining us here in TALKBACK LIVE.

And joining us now to talk about what may have gone wrong in this case are Wendy Murphy, a former prosecutor and visiting scholar at Harvard Law School; and criminal defense attorney Robert Dunn.

I want to welcome both of you to the show.

WENDY MURPHY, FORMER PROSECUTOR: Nice to be here.

NEVILLE: Good.

Mr. Dunn, I will begin with you.

How do you get five teenagers to confess to crimes they didn't commit?

ROBERT DUNN, CRIMINAL DEFENSE ATTORNEY: Well, this isn't something that's really uncommon, unfortunately.

And the way in which you do it is the way in which it was done in this case. You have a situation where these young men were interrogated for up to eight hours before the -- quote, unquote -- "confessions" began to spring, during which time not only are they being beaten down in terms of their psychological state and put into a state almost akin to hypnosis, where the person becomes prone to suggestibility.

But, during the course of this eight-hour rigorous examination by trained and experienced officers, there are seeds that are being planted with regard to, at hour two, you may have a statement, "Well, we notice she was bruised on her thigh." Then, at hour four, after you're hammering the kid, the kid at this point wants to give his captors whatever it is he thinks is necessary to satisfy them.

So, knowing that there's some kind of a bruise about the thigh, he'll give something that would be consistent with that. "Yes, so- and-so knelt on her thigh to hold her legs down at some point." This isn't anything new. First of all, you have to remember that these homicide and rape detectives that went in here to do the examination, they went in with a mind-set that these kids did it. And it was their job, in their mind, to get a confession out of these kids.

There's no physical evidence to tie these kids to the attack. There's no eyewitness to tie them to the attack. They know that this case either sails or fails based upon a confession. They went in there with the mind-set they were going to get it. And after hours and hours and hours and hours, they got it.

NEVILLE: Wendy, how do you see it?

MURPHY: You know, it's really unfortunate to hear Robert talk like that about the nature of the interrogations, because that really isn't the focus of what's happening right now.

It really is fundamentally about whether this new DNA evidence, if it had been available back then, would have been usable by the defendants. And I agree that it would have been usable. And this is a new kind of evidence. And so it's fair to think about whether they got a fair trial. And I think it's fair to grant them a new trial.

But to talk about their interrogations as being at all unfair or behind any of the judge's decision and the district attorney's decision, I think is unfortunate. It's wrong, because here's what the truth is about the interrogations. And I think it's terribly important to keep this in mind.

There were lengthy interrogations, but three out of four of the boys who were interrogated had their parents there at all times. These were extensive interrogations that were, for the most part, videotaped. And anyone who wants to judge the way in which the interrogations occurred should watch the videotapes and see what they think. I've seen some of the videotapes. They were not coerced.

(CROSSTALK) NEVILLE: Excuse me. Robert, hang on one second.

Wendy, do you believe, then, that what those boys said on those taped confessions, do you believe them?

MURPHY: This is what I think about the nature of this case.

I think it is absolutely plausible that they didn't get a fair trial because of the absence of the DNA evidence that we now know exists and that they did participate. And one of the most important pieces of evidence that tells us that is that one of the boys, Mr. Wise, not only confessed to the police. He later spoke to a friend from prison, told her over the telephone that he was there, that he -- and he said to her: "I didn't rape her. I can't believe I'm in trouble for rape, because I didn't rape her. All I did was hold her legs down."

Now, that's a pretty credible statement. It came from his friend. She has continued to maintain that's what he said, to this day. And that would explain why there was no DNA evidence from that defendant. I mean, much of what we think happened in this case and what the evidence suggests happened is that some of the assailants did not actively penetrate in a sexual way, so you wouldn't expect to find their DNA at the crime scene.

But five guys confessing to a crime separately, with their parents there, acknowledging and describing intense details about what happened, things they could not have agreed to in advance.

NEVILLE: Wendy, excuse me for a moment. I'll let you continue when we come back. I do have to take a break right now.

In just a few minutes, I hope to speak to the mother of one of the men who could be exonerated. As you can see, there's a lot of snow in New York. And we're not sure if she's able to go ahead and make her way to the studio. What will she urge her son to do now is the big question I'd love to ask her.

And you can get in on this by giving me a call at 1-800-310-4CNN. Or, of course, you can e-mail me at TALKBACK@CNN.com.

And then later, we're going to take time to look at how winter is paralyzing much of the South and Northeast.

Don't go anywhere. TALKBACK LIVE continues after the break.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

NEVILLE: Welcome back, everybody.

We're talking about the Central Park jogger case and why five men confessed to a crime they probably didn't commit.

We're going to go now to the phones. Ontario is where we're going.

And Thomas is standing by. Thomas, your thoughts are? Is Thomas still there?

OK, let's move back to our guests now.

Robert, if the rape convictions are overturned, these guys won't be exonerated. It simply means that the prosecutor failed to, I guess, meet the burden of proof, correct?

DUNN: Well, no, not that he failed to meet the burden of proof.

The case is being -- the prosecution is consenting that the convictions be overturned on a very specific technicality, that being that the defense was not armed with all of the necessary information that they should have had in order to properly defend their clients, i.e., that they were not aware of the fact that there was semen that was identifiable to a particular individual, and that they were not told with regard to any other attack that was under investigation at that same time, which was an attack perpetrated by Mr. Reyes two days before that's consistent with the underlying facts of this case.

But what needs to be understood is, that's what the smokescreen that Wendy and the prosecution would want people to just simply focus on, the fact that there is this technicality with regard to what was supposed to be given to the defense that wasn't give to the defense.

NEVILLE: So Wendy, then, so, you believe these guys are not innocent?

MURPHY: Well, I just think it's silly to call it a mere...

DUNN: Can I finish my point, Arthel, please?

NEVILLE: Go ahead, Robert.

DUNN: If I may. And I'll try to be brief.

NEVILLE: Go ahead. Take your time.

DUNN: The point of the matter is, is that we know now that it's not simply that Reyes has said that he did it and he's now in a position where he can't be charged because of the statute of limitations.

The only physical evidence that we have in this case, it backs him up that he was the perpetrator of the offense. His DNA was found in her person. His DNA was found on her socks. So, there's no question about the fact that Reyes did it. And we know that Reyes was on a spree of doing these types of crimes. Reyes himself has said that he did it alone. The doctor's testimony...

MURPHY: But, Robert, you're not telling the whole truth, Robert.

DUNN: Well, I am telling the whole truth.

MURPHY: No, you're not, because I agree with you that Reyes did it. There's nobody who doubts Reyes did it. It's unfortunate he wasn't prosecuted. (CROSSTALK)

MURPHY: I let you finish, Robert. Now you let me finish.

DUNN: I wasn't finished. You cut me off to begin with.

MURPHY: No, you were finished. Let me respond.

(CROSSTALK)

DUNN: Reyes is the one who brought it to everybody's attention that he was the perpetrator. He is the one who said that, "I'm the only one that did it and nobody else did it."

(CROSSTALK)

DUNN: That's where the whole case opened up from.

MURPHY: No, the fact that Reyes may have today a motive for claiming sole responsibility is a different issue. We all know that Reyes did it. His semen is there. His DNA is all over the place. That's fine. We also know that five other men confessed to participation in very compelling, highly detailed confessions

(CROSSTALK)

NEVILLE: Now, there were discrepancies in those confessions.

MURPHY: The details that they knew, which...

NEVILLE: Wendy, did you hear me?

MURPHY: ... were consistent with internal police reports, showed that they were consistent on 12 major areas.

(CROSSTALK)

DUNN: The details were provided to them by the police. And two other misstatements that you made: The parents were not there during the entirety of their being interrogated, nor was the entirety of their interrogation filmed.

(CROSSTALK)

MURPHY: Robert, may I finish?

The fact is, very young boys in separate rooms gave confessions that provided a great deal of consistency -- and an internal police report that demonstrates 12 material ways in which what they described was consistent. How could young boys provide these

(CROSSTALK)

NEVILLE: Excuse me, Robert. I want to throw this in for the sake of conversation. I am certainly not on anybody's side here. And what happened was horrendous. But I will say this: in all the material that I read, that there were indeed discrepancies in the boys' separate confessions.

MURPHY: Very minor discrepancies and very material and serious consistencies.

And, look, I'm not suggesting that black -- particularly young black men don't get mishandled and prosecuted in a disproportionate way that is outrageous and racist in this country. But this case is not necessarily a symbol of bad police interrogations and bad police work. What it is, is a symbol of advancements in technology that thankfully has identified one of the assailants in a case where I think it's fairly clear there were many assailants.

DUNN: No, it's not fairly clear at all that there were many assailants.

MURPHY: It's crystal clear.

DUNN: No, it's not at all clear that there was more than one assailant.

Mr. Reyes indicated exactly how she got the particular injuries that she sustained with regard to when he hit her over the head, when he dragged her back to the woods, everything that -- all of the injuries that she had are consistent with what Mr. Reyes said that he did.

Now, the doctor who initially testified that he could not say, with any degree of precision within medical certainty, how the abrasions and the nature of cuts or whatever may have been sustained by the victim. Now, lo and behold, several years later, in order to buttress the report, he's now saying, "Oh, well, those kinds of cuts are too sharp and they're consistent with someone necessarily holding the person down, while the other person is"

(CROSSTALK)

MURPHY: Your allegation on this program, Robert...

NEVILLE: Excuse me, Wendy. I don't mean to cut you off. I do have to take a break right now. I'll let you speak when we come back, as well as Mr. Fritz (ph) here in the audience.

And we're going to go back to Ontario to talk to Thomas.

Hang on for me, Thomas.

And you hang on as well. We're back in a moment. Thank you.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

SHARONNE SALAAM, MOTHER OF CONVICTED TEEN: I want for my son what every mother wants for their son, no more, no less. I want him to be able to live his life in freedom, with justice, and be able to be all he can be, with no restraints.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

NEVILLE: OK, you just heard from Sharonne Salaam. She is the mother of Yusef Salaam, one of five men who confessed to the attack on the Central Park jogger.

We had hoped to talk to Ms. Salaam today, but she wasn't able to get to our studios in New York because of snow.

In the meantime, Darey (ph) is here with a comment.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Yes, I think that if you were part, if you were on the scene and one guy held the legs, and they were all there, then you're guilty thereof whatever crime. If the crime was rape and murder, you were part of it because you were there.

MURPHY: Good for you.

NEVILLE: Thank you very much, sir.

And I have -- Erica, stand up for me. I think Erica has a question.

DUNN: I would agree with that, too. The issue is, were they there? I said, I would agree with that also. But the issue is, was any of those individuals there? That's the question.

MURPHY: Well, they said they were.

And, you know, Robert, you're so willing to dismiss out of hand and ignore separately given, compelling confessions and just act like they were all forcibly coerced by police. But you're making up the evidence that they were coerced. You're just speculating.

(CROSSTALK)

DUNN: I myself, in my own case with the Egyptian student who was accused of having the Arab-band radio across from the World Trade Center on 9/11, he wasn't there. He didn't have the radio. But he was forced into a confession. And he gave three explanations for why he had it. And that's not the first time I've encountered that in 22 years. It's happened I don't know how many times in my 22 years.

MURPHY: I'm not saying that no is ever coerced to confess. Robert, I'm not saying no one has ever been coerced.

I'm saying you have to point to evidence of coercion in this case or stop speculating and falsely accusing the police of misconduct. You don't have any evidence of that.

DUNN: The evidence of coercion is the statements made by the young men immediately after they had given the confession. Within days, they said that they were forced into giving, threatened into giving the confession. Mr. Salaam himself said that he felt as though he had a gun to his head, given the amount of threats and pressure that was being brought to bear upon him that caused him to make the confession.

MURPHY: How do you explain Mr. Wise's confession from prison to his friend?

DUNN: Mr. Wise was a 15-year-old immature

(CROSSTALK)

MURPHY: No, he told his friend he held her legs down. You can't just dismiss that out of hand. That wasn't the police, Robert. Now, what do you have to say about that?

DUNN: What I have to say about that is that that came at hour eight or nine in Mr. Wise's interrogation.

MURPHY: No, his confession to his friend.

DUNN: Excuse. You asked me to answer the question, right?

It was after information had been fed to him with regard to the types of injuries that the victim had sustained and the type of information that the detectives were looking for to fit the puzzle.

(CROSSTALK)

MURPHY: Why would he lie to his friend?

(CROSSTALK)

NEVILLE: Listen, apparently, there are many questions surrounding this case. And, back in 1988, Governor Cuomo put the state's attorney general in charge investigation the Tawana Brawley case. And I am wondering if you think Pataki will do the same in this case.

DUNN: No, because they want to put this one to bed as quickly and neatly as they can.

This case cries out for -- and, contrary to what Wendy says, it points exactly to the types of improper techniques that are used to get confessions from people and why studies have shown that in, like, almost 60 percent of cases where they've been looked at, confessions were falsely given.

And a lot of the cases where people have been proven not to be guilty, they have been sitting on death row, where DNA evidence has come in now to show that they didn't do the crimes. I don't know what the exact percentage is. But a substantial percentage, like 15, 20 percent of those cases involve confessions. And we now know the people didn't do it.

MURPHY: Robert, look, the fact is, sometimes police are coercive. Sometimes confessions are false. But you can point to nothing but your speculation that these confessions were coerced.

DUNN: I'm going on the statements of the kids that were in there.

MURPHY: And you need to stay focused on what this case is about.

DUNN: And the facts now show that they didn't do it.

MURPHY: You're not telling the truth.

NEVILLE: OK, Wendy Murphy and Robert Dunn, thank you both for joining us here today on TALKBACK LIVE.

MURPHY: Thank you.

And up next: Are you afraid we'll be getting a holiday gift from al Qaeda? Call or e-mail now. And I'll tell you more about it in just a minute.

Also, what will the U.S. do if the U.N. inspectors don't find anything in Iraq? We'll talk about that possibility next.

We're back in a moment.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

(NEWS ALERT)

NEVILLE: Welcome back, everyone. I'm Arthel Neville.

We have a not so veiled threat from al Qaeda this holiday season. In a message posted on the Internet al Qaeda is promising to deliver a holiday gift to America during the final days of Ramadan -- that would be today and tomorrow.

The message says, "America still has not learned its lesson." That follows a faxed said to be from Taliban leader Mullah Omar also promising terror attacks at the end of Ramadan.

That brings me to the "Question of the Day" -- do you fear an al Qaeda attack in the U.S. over the holidays? You can give us a call or e-mail us and we will take those responses later this hour.

In the meantime, more harsh words from the White House today on Iraq. Sunday is the deadline for Iraq to hand over a list of all its weapons of mass destruction. So far it appears U.N. inspectors haven't found anything. Iraq denies having them. Yet President Bush insists weapons of mass destruction are there and said today the choice between war and peace rests with Saddam Hussein.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

GEORGE W. BUSH, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: The question is whether or not he chooses to disarm. And we hope he does. For the sake of peace he must disarm. There are inspectors inside the country now and the inspectors are there not to play a game of hide and seek but they're there to verify whether or not Mr. Saddam Hussein is going to disarm. And we hope he does.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

NEVILLE: OK. White House Spokesman Ari Fleischer said again today that Saddam Hussein has a history of lies.

Joining us now is Roland Martin, editor of blackamericaweb.com. He is also a news editor of "Savoy Magazine" and is author of "Speak Brother :- A Black Man's View of America."

Also with us is Lou Pate a radio talk show host on KIRO Radio in Seattle, Washington. I want to welcome both of you gentlemen to the show today.

ROLAND MARTIN, EDITOR, BLACKAMERICAWEB.COM: Arthel, good to see you again.

NEVILLE: Nice to see you again.

And, Roland, it has been seven days and the inspectors still haven't found anything. Iraq is still saying they don't have anything. Bush is still saying they do. Is a solution even possible?

MARTIN: Well, I think a solution is possible but the inspectors must be given an opportunity to do their job. The inspectors are saying that they are making good progress while the Bush administration says they aren't making good progress.

So we know Saddam Hussein has a history of lying. That's why it is important for our intelligence to, first, have the right intelligence to find these weapons of mass destruction.

But I think we should be alarmed by the Bush administration continuing to act as if we need to go to war with Iraq when our number one threat is al Qaeda.

NEVILLE: So what do you think is behind that?

MARTIN: Well, they clearly have hawks in the Bush administration who want to go to war with Iraq. They don't care what anyone has to say. We've heard a number of different reasons.

First we heard that Iraq was trying to align themselves with al Qaeda. Then we -- then all of a sudden since that wasn't working because they couldn't produce any of the evidence they then changed the subject to weapons of mass destruction being pointed to America so therefore a pre-emptive attack is necessary.

So they've offered two or three rationale for why we should go to war with Iraq when, frankly, the rest of the world does not have the same feeling of the Bush administration.

NEVILLE: So, Lou, how do you see it?

LOU PATE, RADIO TALKSHOW HOST, KIRO RADIO: Well, I think the -- although I support military action a well as the weapons inspections, I think the Bush administration is banking on Saddam Hussein using his old tricks as far as not allowing the weapons inspectors into certain areas and holding back information and things of that nature. It's still too early to tell whether that will happen.

But if they don't find anything, again, we are going to be left with egg on our face. And I don't think . . .

NEVILLE: But hang on - when you say -- what are you talking about? What kind of deadline are you talking about?

I know we -- Sunday, December 8 they are supposed to go ahead and list all of their weapons of mass destruction. But what if, at that point, the U.N. weapons inspectors haven't found anything and they have already said, "Listen, we're just - this is -- we're at the tip of the iceberg here. It takes a long time for this process to be played out here."

PATE: Well, I think at that time they have to keep on going until the duration of what was decided on previously. I don't think they can just go by a list and the Sunday deadline. They just have to keep going.

The problem that's going to happen is -- what's going to happen that will be the problem is after they're completed if they didn't find anything then what do we do? And at that point I think we can only go in with military action if we find something.

If we don't find anything I don't think it would be right to go in.

NEVILLE: And you're saying . . .

MARTIN: The bush administration has made it perfectly clear that they want to go to war with Iraq but here's the problem. Are -- will Turkey allow us to use their bases if there are no weapons found? Will Saudi Arabia be cooperative in this effort as well?

We can go it alone but that's going to cause a significant problem internationally because we can - we must rely on other partners in order to wage this kind of war.

PATE: Well, the coalition has already been put together. I believe they're all with us at this point.

MARTIN: Yeah -- they're with us only if . . .

NEVILLE: The stipulation -- exactly.

MARTIN: . . . the stipulation -- only if the weapons are found. The coalition is there because they feel as if the U.N. Security Council should give the United States the right to go to war. That is the condition. If weapons aren't found and we can't provide the evidence, do not expect that coalition to hold together.

NEVILLE: Let me go to New York now where Joyce (ph) is standing by on the phone. Go ahead, Joyce (ph).

CALLER: I'm from New York. And all I have to say regarding the question -- and are we afraid that there might be another terrorist plot? Well, in New York I'll tell you we're not afraid. What we are is very concerned. That is why I'm fully behind President Bush and his security plan for the United States.

And that's why the Democrats lost all of the seats . . .

NEVILLE: All right -- Joyce (ph), listen -- I really do appreciate your calling in from New York. That is our "Question of the Day". We want to hear from more of you on that later.

We have to take a break right now. I do want to see later as well how a winter storm is affecting air travel across the country not to mention what it's doing across the East Coast.

Stick around -- we have some pictures you'll have to see.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

NEVILLE: Today on TALKBACK LIVE al Qaeda threatens to deliver an end of Ramadan gift to America. Do you fear a terrorist attack in the U.S. during the holidays? Call or e-mail right now. I'll take your calls and letters as TALKBACK LIVE continues.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

NEVILLE: And welcome back, everyone. We are talking about the showdown with Iraq. Carrier groups left this morning from Virginia -- Bush's way of letting Saddam know that he is serious.

And, Lou, I ask you -- is this the right approach?

PATE: Well, what do you mean, "Is it the right approach?" To ask Saddam if he's serious?

NEVILLE: No -- to keep showing -- flexing your muscle -- Bush flexing his muscle to let Saddam know, "Listen -- I'm serious here."

PATE: No, I don't think that's good at this time. He knows we've laid out the groundwork. We've drawn the proverbial line in the sand. And the world knows where we stand.

At this point to keep flexing your muscles I think is much ado about nothing. Now it's up to the weapons inspectors as to whether they find anything or not and it's kind of a wait and see to see if Saddam cooperates, if he turns over the list.

But to flex your muscles now -- I think it makes us look bad in the eyes of world. NEVILLE: Trey (ph) from Georgia.

TREY: Yeah -- I just wanted to say that we have to remind everybody that we've been at war for the past 15 months and we have Special Ops forces in Iraq right now. And I think Bush may know that there might be other things there that the inspectors don't know and that's why they're putting the pressure on and send more troops out today.

MARTIN: Well, first of all, the inspectors have said they don't feel as if the Bush administration is sharing the intelligence that they have with other individuals.

But, again, there is a process here. We went to the United Nations. We said, "Send the inspectors in. Allow them to do their work." Then what's the next step in that process?

So I agree -- I don't think the saber rattling is necessary from the Bush administration and then, frankly, it goes back to the president's cowboy attitude on some of these issues.

It harkens back to when he made the comment about Osama bin Laden : "wanted dead or alive."

And we don't necessarily need that stuff especially coming from the President of the United States.

NEVILLE: See, now, Roland, President Bush says that it is up to Saddam Hussein whether there will be a war or not. What do you think about that?

MARTIN: Well, it's actually up to Saddam Hussein and it's also up to the United States. Clearly if he has weapons of mass destruction he must disarm.

But, again, it goes back to where is the evidence that points to that? That's the greater issue. So that's why you've got to allow the inspectors to do their jobs.

If he is moving weapons around, if he is hiding them and if we have intelligence -- credible intelligence -- that shows where these weapons are that's a whole different scenario that we can take to the U.N. Security Council to show them the evidence. And then that will determine whether or not they will give us the approval to go to war.

NEVILLE: So you believe the U.N. weapons inspectors should stay there until they get the job done whenever . . .

MARTIN: Yes. Keep in mind in mind the Sunday deadline is not a deadline for the inspectors to leave.

NEVILLE: Correct.

MARTIN: That is the deadline for Iraq to turn over information . . .

NEVILLE: The list.

MARTIN: . . . showing they have disarmed.

NEVILLE: Correct.

PATE: Arthel?

NEVILLE: Go ahead.

PATE: I've always felt that the administration has information that they cannot share with the public for reasons of national security or for whatever their reasons being.

Now the thing is, if they don't find any weapons of mass destruction -- I think they have them. I think they're there it's just a matter of can we find them? Is the administration then presenting that evidence to the public? Will the American public and will the world buy it?

At that point I think it might be too late. It will look like they bunched it together. Meanwhile, they probably have had it for a long period of time.

MARTIN: But . . .

NEVILLE: You make a good point. Let me . . .

MARTIN: Go ahead -- I'm sorry.

NEVILLE: No -- go ahead, Roland.

MARTIN: But we also face this -- we said that North Korea was an axis of evil. They admitted to having a nuclear bomb. The question is -- what is the priority in America? Is it al Qaeda or is it Iraq?

The reality is al Qaeda clearly wants to attack America. They have not offered enough evidence saying that Iraq poises that kind of threat to America.

NEVILLE: Hang on, Roland, because I'm going to give Wayne (ph) the last word here.

WAYNE: Well, I just want to piggyback on Roland actually. The inspectors have eight days to find what Saddam has had eight years to hide.

NEVILLE: They have more time beyond the -- beyond Sunday.

WAYNE: Before international condemnation comes down on Iraq, you've got to give them enough time to do their jobs. I don't know if 10 days is enough. But Bush has set that timeline and we're going to live by it.

NEVILLE: Well, of course, as we keep re-emphasizing that December 8 is just a deadline for Saddam Hussein and Iraq to list whatever weapons of mass destruction that they may have in their possession.

What happens on Sunday remains to be seen. Of course, we will keep a close watch on that.

And, Roland Martin -- Lou Pate -- thank you very much for joining us here on TALKBACK LIVE today.

MARTIN: Thank you, Arthel.

PATE: Thank you, Arthel.

NEVILLE: OK. Up next light up the fire and pour a cup of hot chocolate. If you're on the East Coast chances are you're not going anywhere -- you're just stuck.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

NEVILLE: Boy, can you believe this winter storm that's ravaging the Mid-Atlantic States?

Thousands of airline passengers are stuck - so are folks in cars. The shuttle Endeavor is stuck out in space and millions are stuck without electricity. Life seems temporarily frozen under a glaze of ice and snow. Whew!

CNN Correspondent Jason Bellini is warm inside of LaGuardia Airport. But I have a feeling there are some hot headed passengers up there right about now.

JASON BELLINI, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Indeed -- today was not a good day to be traveling. We have been here since early this morning and the snow has just kept coming down. It's been getting heavier and heavier. And now you don't see any planes at the gates. We've been looking at the board where they tell you if your flight's going to be delayed or canceled. And most of them have switched over and now read "canceled."

I have one -- I have a family of unfortunate passengers here with me. I have Aaron Steirs. Aaron, tell us your tale of woe.

AARON STEIRS, STRANDED TRAVELER: Well, we got here at 11:30. And the flight did get canceled and they told us to go to another airline. We went to that one and they got canceled.

So we didn't make hotel arrangements and I've been hoping for a flight. And unfortunately we're going to be camping out here.

BELLINI: You're going to be camping out here overnight?

STEIRS: Yes with my two girls and my wife. And - so yeah.

BELLINI: Great. Well, thank you. Well, that's not good. We've talked to a lot of people here who have got similar tales. It's really tough for people.

And, also, people like Aaron, some people who have been calling in haven't heard that their flight is canceled and they arrive here just to find that out.

NEVILLE: My goodness. Because you call in advance and they tell you, "Yeah come on out to the airport." You show up and then it's like, "Sorry it's canceled."

BELLINI: Yeah it's not fun for these people - bad news. A lot of people camping out here and it may be an ugly night for people who can't get flights today.

NEVILLE: Jason, tell that family you were talking to -- tell them just to go to that Nathan's Stand (ph) and get some Long Island Hot Dogs - they'll be fine.

BELLINI: All right -- I'll pass the word on.

NEVILLE: All right. What did you say?

BELLINI: I'll pass the word on.

NEVILLE: OK. Thanks, Jason. Nice to see you.

BELLINI: Thanks.

NEVILLE: And with us now is Rally Caparas, a former air traffic controller and spokesman for Travelocity.

Hello, Rally. Where, oh, where are the big delays today?

RALLY CAPARAS, TRAVELOCITY.COM: Well, Arthel, as you just saw a moment ago, obviously they're in LaGuardia's airport but they've been all over the place today. They started in the south and moved to the north. And I'll tell you right now.

Let's go to this depiction. You wouldn't think there would be this many airplanes in the sky with all of delays that are taking place but you're looking at about 4,700 airplanes that are talking to air traffic control.

The big delays, though, today are right now. At Boston's Logan Airport they're seeing 60 to 90 minute arrival and departure delays. Low clouds, snow, reduced airport surface visibility, runway snow removal -- you name it -- it's going to be a problem there.

Then down just a little further south at Newark, LaGuardia, JFK and throw Philly into that -- would you believe it? They're seeing three and four hour delays. You heard the wait earlier -- it's much longer than that.

Many flights have been canceled. We'll talk about that in a moment. But the delays will continue until late evening if you're lucky enough to get airborne.

Down around the Washington, DC area -- Washington metropolitan airports -- specifically Washington Dulles -- they're suffering 60 to 90 minute arrival and departure delays. Low clouds, snow removal -- as you would expect -- will be a problem. And that's going to last well late -- into the late evening hours.

Then down here in the south Atlanta, Charlotte and Raleigh- Durham saw some lengthy delays earlier today. However, we've been -- we've escaped the worst of it so far. It looks like low clouds and rain are going to keep things going for us. Thirty to 45 minute arrival and departure delays and that's going to last until about 9:00.

And then finally up in the Great Lakes region right at Pittsburgh. Pittsburgh International Airport -- they're starting to see a little bit of snow, some de-icing of aircraft. It's going to cost them about 30 to 45 minute delays there.

NEVILLE: Man! You know what? Rally, it looks like that map is covered in pollen or something. I can't believe all of those yellow dots.

OK, Rally Caparas -- thank you so much for joining us here today with that important information.

And up next -- more terror warnings from al Qaeda leads us to our "Question of the Day" -- do you fear a terrorist attack during the holidays? Give me a call or e-mail me now and I'll take your calls and letters in a moment.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

NEVILLE: And welcome back, everyone -- I'm Arthel Neville.

Earlier this week there was a statement posted on the Internet threatening a strike against America to coincide with the ending of Ramadan -- that would be either today or tomorrow. The statement is attributed to al Qaeda.

And that leads us to our "Question of the Day" -- do you fear a terrorist attack over the holidays?

And I have to see what Kelly (ph) has to say now.

KELLY: I don't fear one, Arthel, and I think that we're just egging them on by thinking this. And they're trying to hinder our freedoms and our way of life.

NEVILLE: Thank you very much. And we have Rachel (ph) from Tennessee who says . . .

RACHEL: I don't think that they are going to attack us during the holidays because they're threatening, we're expecting it and it won't be as much of a surprise so they won't think that they can actually get us.

NEVILLE: Thank you.

A couple of e-mails to share with you now. Jamil in Colorado. "I do not think al Qaeda will attack during the holidays because the holidays hold no specific meaning to them. The success of the attack is the only thing that matters."

And one coming in from Maria in Virginia. "I'm very afraid there will be a terrorist attack during the holiday season. I hope the U.S. will have a high security alert during the holiday season."

Thank you so much for your responses. That is all the time we have for today. Thank you so much for joining us.

I'm Arthel Neville. I'll see you again tomorrow at 3:00 Eastern, noon for you West Coasters. Right now here's Judy Woodruff at INSIDE POLITICS.

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

Al Qaeda Readying Deadly Holiday Surprise?>

Aired December 5, 2002 - 15:00 ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
ARTHEL NEVILLE, HOST: Hello, everybody. Welcome to TALKBACK LIVE. I'm Arthel Neville.
And we're going to start with one of the most notorious cases in the 1980s: the rape and savage beating of a Central Park jogger. Five boys accused of being on a wilding spree confessed, were convicted, and sent to prison. Today, the prosecutor in that case has asked the judge to clear all five of them. We'll go live to New York to find out why.

And then stay tuned, because you're going to meet the mother of one of those young men. What made her son confess if he didn't do it? And will she sue?

And then later: Al Qaeda says Americans haven't learned their lesson. It's threatening to deliver a holiday gift to mark the end of Ramadan.

OK, let's go to New York first, where CNN's Deborah Feyerick is covering a bizarre turn in the case of the rape and beating of a Central Park jogger -- hi, Deborah.

First of all, if you could just remind us, though...

(CROSSTALK)

DEBORAH FEYERICK, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Yes.

Hi, Arthel. Sorry. I'm having a little bit of an audio problem here. But let me tell you what is up.

The district attorney is asking a judge to overturn the guilty convictions of the Central Park five. That is a very big deal here in New York City. A judge now has the final say. Lawyers for the five young men think that the judge could rule very quickly.

Now, the reason that this is happening is because new evidence, which the district attorney's office says, had they had it at trial, then it's very likely that the verdict could have been very different, in fact, that the five young men may have gotten off in the rape of the Central Park jogger.

The new evidence: confessions of a serial rapist who came forward this year, saying he acted alone attacking that jogger. We went back to the park and walked through, going over the details.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

(voice-over): This is where it all began on a cool April night almost 14 years ago. Prosecutors believe a group of teenaged boys entered the northern end of Manhattan's Central Park. It was 9:00 p.m. And what happened next would traumatize the entire city for years.

(voice-over): The teenagers were out for what would come to be known as a night of wilding, the pack of boys attacking runners and bike riders.

(on camera): By the time it was over, several people had been assaulted and a female jogger was dragged from this path into the woods, where she was savagely beaten and raped.

(voice-over): Five teenagers were taken into custody. Several confessed to police detectives.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: I did it twice.

FEYERICK: Implicating themselves in the attack.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: This was my first rape.

FEYERICK: One teen even described how the jogger screamed for help.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: She was just hollering, like, "Help, help."

FEYERICK (on camera): But now those confessions are under question, because somebody else was in the park that night, somebody who, earlier this year, confessed to the rape.

(voice-over): Matias Reyes. His semen was found on the jogger. His pubic hair was on her sock. It's the only DNA evidence tying anyone to the attack. Reyes, serving 33 years for murder and rape, told prison guards this year he alone raped the Central Park jogger. His former lawyer believes him.

RICHARD SIRACUSA, FORMER ATTORNEY FOR MATIAS REYES: He's a person that does things like that and just doesn't care, doesn't care whether the person lives, dies, nothing. And nothing bothers him emotionally. I'm sure he lost no sleep over this.

FEYERICK: The Manhattan district attorney reopened the case, reanalyzing physical evidence.

ROBERT MORGENTHAU, MANHATTAN DISTRICT ATTORNEY: Senior prosecutors and investigators have been conducting a thorough and complete investigation of Reyes' account.

FEYERICK: Lawyers and families of four of the five men say they're innocent, the video confessions coerced.

SHARONNE SALAAM, MOTHER OF DEFENDANT: Our children have paid a heavy price and so have our families. FEYERICK: They want a judge to toss out all convictions.

MICHAEL WARREN, DEFENSE ATTORNEY: When you examine the course of what took place during the trial, none of those witnesses who came forward were able -- as Ms. Salaam has indicated, were able to identify any of those young boys.

FEYERICK: But the Detectives Union tells CNN the convictions should stand, saying Reyes' DNA evidence doesn't eliminate the other five. A doctor who treated the jogger says there's no way Reyes acted alone.

DR. ROBERT KURTZ, JOGGER'S PHYSICIAN: The lacerations in the scalp were sharply inflicted and not bluntly inflicted. So, to me, that means that more than one person has to be involved in this.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

FEYERICK: It was the strength of the confessions, Arthel, that helped convict the boys.

Now, of course, even at the time of trial, there were many discrepancies in the confessions themselves. For example, the boys gave differing accounts of how, when, and what time the actual rape occurred, all of that now under review to see just why these boys confessed to something that ultimately they didn't do.

As for the teenagers themselves, well, they're now young men. Each of then them served between seven to 13 years in prison -- Arthel.

NEVILLE: Deborah, what happened at the courthouse today?

FEYERICK: Well, it was very much just formal. The district attorney brought the papers to the judge, telling him that, yes, they thought that they should overturn the convictions.

NEVILLE: OK, Deborah Feyerick, go inside. It's cold out there. Thank you so much for joining us here in TALKBACK LIVE.

And joining us now to talk about what may have gone wrong in this case are Wendy Murphy, a former prosecutor and visiting scholar at Harvard Law School; and criminal defense attorney Robert Dunn.

I want to welcome both of you to the show.

WENDY MURPHY, FORMER PROSECUTOR: Nice to be here.

NEVILLE: Good.

Mr. Dunn, I will begin with you.

How do you get five teenagers to confess to crimes they didn't commit?

ROBERT DUNN, CRIMINAL DEFENSE ATTORNEY: Well, this isn't something that's really uncommon, unfortunately.

And the way in which you do it is the way in which it was done in this case. You have a situation where these young men were interrogated for up to eight hours before the -- quote, unquote -- "confessions" began to spring, during which time not only are they being beaten down in terms of their psychological state and put into a state almost akin to hypnosis, where the person becomes prone to suggestibility.

But, during the course of this eight-hour rigorous examination by trained and experienced officers, there are seeds that are being planted with regard to, at hour two, you may have a statement, "Well, we notice she was bruised on her thigh." Then, at hour four, after you're hammering the kid, the kid at this point wants to give his captors whatever it is he thinks is necessary to satisfy them.

So, knowing that there's some kind of a bruise about the thigh, he'll give something that would be consistent with that. "Yes, so- and-so knelt on her thigh to hold her legs down at some point." This isn't anything new. First of all, you have to remember that these homicide and rape detectives that went in here to do the examination, they went in with a mind-set that these kids did it. And it was their job, in their mind, to get a confession out of these kids.

There's no physical evidence to tie these kids to the attack. There's no eyewitness to tie them to the attack. They know that this case either sails or fails based upon a confession. They went in there with the mind-set they were going to get it. And after hours and hours and hours and hours, they got it.

NEVILLE: Wendy, how do you see it?

MURPHY: You know, it's really unfortunate to hear Robert talk like that about the nature of the interrogations, because that really isn't the focus of what's happening right now.

It really is fundamentally about whether this new DNA evidence, if it had been available back then, would have been usable by the defendants. And I agree that it would have been usable. And this is a new kind of evidence. And so it's fair to think about whether they got a fair trial. And I think it's fair to grant them a new trial.

But to talk about their interrogations as being at all unfair or behind any of the judge's decision and the district attorney's decision, I think is unfortunate. It's wrong, because here's what the truth is about the interrogations. And I think it's terribly important to keep this in mind.

There were lengthy interrogations, but three out of four of the boys who were interrogated had their parents there at all times. These were extensive interrogations that were, for the most part, videotaped. And anyone who wants to judge the way in which the interrogations occurred should watch the videotapes and see what they think. I've seen some of the videotapes. They were not coerced.

(CROSSTALK) NEVILLE: Excuse me. Robert, hang on one second.

Wendy, do you believe, then, that what those boys said on those taped confessions, do you believe them?

MURPHY: This is what I think about the nature of this case.

I think it is absolutely plausible that they didn't get a fair trial because of the absence of the DNA evidence that we now know exists and that they did participate. And one of the most important pieces of evidence that tells us that is that one of the boys, Mr. Wise, not only confessed to the police. He later spoke to a friend from prison, told her over the telephone that he was there, that he -- and he said to her: "I didn't rape her. I can't believe I'm in trouble for rape, because I didn't rape her. All I did was hold her legs down."

Now, that's a pretty credible statement. It came from his friend. She has continued to maintain that's what he said, to this day. And that would explain why there was no DNA evidence from that defendant. I mean, much of what we think happened in this case and what the evidence suggests happened is that some of the assailants did not actively penetrate in a sexual way, so you wouldn't expect to find their DNA at the crime scene.

But five guys confessing to a crime separately, with their parents there, acknowledging and describing intense details about what happened, things they could not have agreed to in advance.

NEVILLE: Wendy, excuse me for a moment. I'll let you continue when we come back. I do have to take a break right now.

In just a few minutes, I hope to speak to the mother of one of the men who could be exonerated. As you can see, there's a lot of snow in New York. And we're not sure if she's able to go ahead and make her way to the studio. What will she urge her son to do now is the big question I'd love to ask her.

And you can get in on this by giving me a call at 1-800-310-4CNN. Or, of course, you can e-mail me at TALKBACK@CNN.com.

And then later, we're going to take time to look at how winter is paralyzing much of the South and Northeast.

Don't go anywhere. TALKBACK LIVE continues after the break.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

NEVILLE: Welcome back, everybody.

We're talking about the Central Park jogger case and why five men confessed to a crime they probably didn't commit.

We're going to go now to the phones. Ontario is where we're going.

And Thomas is standing by. Thomas, your thoughts are? Is Thomas still there?

OK, let's move back to our guests now.

Robert, if the rape convictions are overturned, these guys won't be exonerated. It simply means that the prosecutor failed to, I guess, meet the burden of proof, correct?

DUNN: Well, no, not that he failed to meet the burden of proof.

The case is being -- the prosecution is consenting that the convictions be overturned on a very specific technicality, that being that the defense was not armed with all of the necessary information that they should have had in order to properly defend their clients, i.e., that they were not aware of the fact that there was semen that was identifiable to a particular individual, and that they were not told with regard to any other attack that was under investigation at that same time, which was an attack perpetrated by Mr. Reyes two days before that's consistent with the underlying facts of this case.

But what needs to be understood is, that's what the smokescreen that Wendy and the prosecution would want people to just simply focus on, the fact that there is this technicality with regard to what was supposed to be given to the defense that wasn't give to the defense.

NEVILLE: So Wendy, then, so, you believe these guys are not innocent?

MURPHY: Well, I just think it's silly to call it a mere...

DUNN: Can I finish my point, Arthel, please?

NEVILLE: Go ahead, Robert.

DUNN: If I may. And I'll try to be brief.

NEVILLE: Go ahead. Take your time.

DUNN: The point of the matter is, is that we know now that it's not simply that Reyes has said that he did it and he's now in a position where he can't be charged because of the statute of limitations.

The only physical evidence that we have in this case, it backs him up that he was the perpetrator of the offense. His DNA was found in her person. His DNA was found on her socks. So, there's no question about the fact that Reyes did it. And we know that Reyes was on a spree of doing these types of crimes. Reyes himself has said that he did it alone. The doctor's testimony...

MURPHY: But, Robert, you're not telling the whole truth, Robert.

DUNN: Well, I am telling the whole truth.

MURPHY: No, you're not, because I agree with you that Reyes did it. There's nobody who doubts Reyes did it. It's unfortunate he wasn't prosecuted. (CROSSTALK)

MURPHY: I let you finish, Robert. Now you let me finish.

DUNN: I wasn't finished. You cut me off to begin with.

MURPHY: No, you were finished. Let me respond.

(CROSSTALK)

DUNN: Reyes is the one who brought it to everybody's attention that he was the perpetrator. He is the one who said that, "I'm the only one that did it and nobody else did it."

(CROSSTALK)

DUNN: That's where the whole case opened up from.

MURPHY: No, the fact that Reyes may have today a motive for claiming sole responsibility is a different issue. We all know that Reyes did it. His semen is there. His DNA is all over the place. That's fine. We also know that five other men confessed to participation in very compelling, highly detailed confessions

(CROSSTALK)

NEVILLE: Now, there were discrepancies in those confessions.

MURPHY: The details that they knew, which...

NEVILLE: Wendy, did you hear me?

MURPHY: ... were consistent with internal police reports, showed that they were consistent on 12 major areas.

(CROSSTALK)

DUNN: The details were provided to them by the police. And two other misstatements that you made: The parents were not there during the entirety of their being interrogated, nor was the entirety of their interrogation filmed.

(CROSSTALK)

MURPHY: Robert, may I finish?

The fact is, very young boys in separate rooms gave confessions that provided a great deal of consistency -- and an internal police report that demonstrates 12 material ways in which what they described was consistent. How could young boys provide these

(CROSSTALK)

NEVILLE: Excuse me, Robert. I want to throw this in for the sake of conversation. I am certainly not on anybody's side here. And what happened was horrendous. But I will say this: in all the material that I read, that there were indeed discrepancies in the boys' separate confessions.

MURPHY: Very minor discrepancies and very material and serious consistencies.

And, look, I'm not suggesting that black -- particularly young black men don't get mishandled and prosecuted in a disproportionate way that is outrageous and racist in this country. But this case is not necessarily a symbol of bad police interrogations and bad police work. What it is, is a symbol of advancements in technology that thankfully has identified one of the assailants in a case where I think it's fairly clear there were many assailants.

DUNN: No, it's not fairly clear at all that there were many assailants.

MURPHY: It's crystal clear.

DUNN: No, it's not at all clear that there was more than one assailant.

Mr. Reyes indicated exactly how she got the particular injuries that she sustained with regard to when he hit her over the head, when he dragged her back to the woods, everything that -- all of the injuries that she had are consistent with what Mr. Reyes said that he did.

Now, the doctor who initially testified that he could not say, with any degree of precision within medical certainty, how the abrasions and the nature of cuts or whatever may have been sustained by the victim. Now, lo and behold, several years later, in order to buttress the report, he's now saying, "Oh, well, those kinds of cuts are too sharp and they're consistent with someone necessarily holding the person down, while the other person is"

(CROSSTALK)

MURPHY: Your allegation on this program, Robert...

NEVILLE: Excuse me, Wendy. I don't mean to cut you off. I do have to take a break right now. I'll let you speak when we come back, as well as Mr. Fritz (ph) here in the audience.

And we're going to go back to Ontario to talk to Thomas.

Hang on for me, Thomas.

And you hang on as well. We're back in a moment. Thank you.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

SHARONNE SALAAM, MOTHER OF CONVICTED TEEN: I want for my son what every mother wants for their son, no more, no less. I want him to be able to live his life in freedom, with justice, and be able to be all he can be, with no restraints.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

NEVILLE: OK, you just heard from Sharonne Salaam. She is the mother of Yusef Salaam, one of five men who confessed to the attack on the Central Park jogger.

We had hoped to talk to Ms. Salaam today, but she wasn't able to get to our studios in New York because of snow.

In the meantime, Darey (ph) is here with a comment.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Yes, I think that if you were part, if you were on the scene and one guy held the legs, and they were all there, then you're guilty thereof whatever crime. If the crime was rape and murder, you were part of it because you were there.

MURPHY: Good for you.

NEVILLE: Thank you very much, sir.

And I have -- Erica, stand up for me. I think Erica has a question.

DUNN: I would agree with that, too. The issue is, were they there? I said, I would agree with that also. But the issue is, was any of those individuals there? That's the question.

MURPHY: Well, they said they were.

And, you know, Robert, you're so willing to dismiss out of hand and ignore separately given, compelling confessions and just act like they were all forcibly coerced by police. But you're making up the evidence that they were coerced. You're just speculating.

(CROSSTALK)

DUNN: I myself, in my own case with the Egyptian student who was accused of having the Arab-band radio across from the World Trade Center on 9/11, he wasn't there. He didn't have the radio. But he was forced into a confession. And he gave three explanations for why he had it. And that's not the first time I've encountered that in 22 years. It's happened I don't know how many times in my 22 years.

MURPHY: I'm not saying that no is ever coerced to confess. Robert, I'm not saying no one has ever been coerced.

I'm saying you have to point to evidence of coercion in this case or stop speculating and falsely accusing the police of misconduct. You don't have any evidence of that.

DUNN: The evidence of coercion is the statements made by the young men immediately after they had given the confession. Within days, they said that they were forced into giving, threatened into giving the confession. Mr. Salaam himself said that he felt as though he had a gun to his head, given the amount of threats and pressure that was being brought to bear upon him that caused him to make the confession.

MURPHY: How do you explain Mr. Wise's confession from prison to his friend?

DUNN: Mr. Wise was a 15-year-old immature

(CROSSTALK)

MURPHY: No, he told his friend he held her legs down. You can't just dismiss that out of hand. That wasn't the police, Robert. Now, what do you have to say about that?

DUNN: What I have to say about that is that that came at hour eight or nine in Mr. Wise's interrogation.

MURPHY: No, his confession to his friend.

DUNN: Excuse. You asked me to answer the question, right?

It was after information had been fed to him with regard to the types of injuries that the victim had sustained and the type of information that the detectives were looking for to fit the puzzle.

(CROSSTALK)

MURPHY: Why would he lie to his friend?

(CROSSTALK)

NEVILLE: Listen, apparently, there are many questions surrounding this case. And, back in 1988, Governor Cuomo put the state's attorney general in charge investigation the Tawana Brawley case. And I am wondering if you think Pataki will do the same in this case.

DUNN: No, because they want to put this one to bed as quickly and neatly as they can.

This case cries out for -- and, contrary to what Wendy says, it points exactly to the types of improper techniques that are used to get confessions from people and why studies have shown that in, like, almost 60 percent of cases where they've been looked at, confessions were falsely given.

And a lot of the cases where people have been proven not to be guilty, they have been sitting on death row, where DNA evidence has come in now to show that they didn't do the crimes. I don't know what the exact percentage is. But a substantial percentage, like 15, 20 percent of those cases involve confessions. And we now know the people didn't do it.

MURPHY: Robert, look, the fact is, sometimes police are coercive. Sometimes confessions are false. But you can point to nothing but your speculation that these confessions were coerced.

DUNN: I'm going on the statements of the kids that were in there.

MURPHY: And you need to stay focused on what this case is about.

DUNN: And the facts now show that they didn't do it.

MURPHY: You're not telling the truth.

NEVILLE: OK, Wendy Murphy and Robert Dunn, thank you both for joining us here today on TALKBACK LIVE.

MURPHY: Thank you.

And up next: Are you afraid we'll be getting a holiday gift from al Qaeda? Call or e-mail now. And I'll tell you more about it in just a minute.

Also, what will the U.S. do if the U.N. inspectors don't find anything in Iraq? We'll talk about that possibility next.

We're back in a moment.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

(NEWS ALERT)

NEVILLE: Welcome back, everyone. I'm Arthel Neville.

We have a not so veiled threat from al Qaeda this holiday season. In a message posted on the Internet al Qaeda is promising to deliver a holiday gift to America during the final days of Ramadan -- that would be today and tomorrow.

The message says, "America still has not learned its lesson." That follows a faxed said to be from Taliban leader Mullah Omar also promising terror attacks at the end of Ramadan.

That brings me to the "Question of the Day" -- do you fear an al Qaeda attack in the U.S. over the holidays? You can give us a call or e-mail us and we will take those responses later this hour.

In the meantime, more harsh words from the White House today on Iraq. Sunday is the deadline for Iraq to hand over a list of all its weapons of mass destruction. So far it appears U.N. inspectors haven't found anything. Iraq denies having them. Yet President Bush insists weapons of mass destruction are there and said today the choice between war and peace rests with Saddam Hussein.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

GEORGE W. BUSH, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: The question is whether or not he chooses to disarm. And we hope he does. For the sake of peace he must disarm. There are inspectors inside the country now and the inspectors are there not to play a game of hide and seek but they're there to verify whether or not Mr. Saddam Hussein is going to disarm. And we hope he does.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

NEVILLE: OK. White House Spokesman Ari Fleischer said again today that Saddam Hussein has a history of lies.

Joining us now is Roland Martin, editor of blackamericaweb.com. He is also a news editor of "Savoy Magazine" and is author of "Speak Brother :- A Black Man's View of America."

Also with us is Lou Pate a radio talk show host on KIRO Radio in Seattle, Washington. I want to welcome both of you gentlemen to the show today.

ROLAND MARTIN, EDITOR, BLACKAMERICAWEB.COM: Arthel, good to see you again.

NEVILLE: Nice to see you again.

And, Roland, it has been seven days and the inspectors still haven't found anything. Iraq is still saying they don't have anything. Bush is still saying they do. Is a solution even possible?

MARTIN: Well, I think a solution is possible but the inspectors must be given an opportunity to do their job. The inspectors are saying that they are making good progress while the Bush administration says they aren't making good progress.

So we know Saddam Hussein has a history of lying. That's why it is important for our intelligence to, first, have the right intelligence to find these weapons of mass destruction.

But I think we should be alarmed by the Bush administration continuing to act as if we need to go to war with Iraq when our number one threat is al Qaeda.

NEVILLE: So what do you think is behind that?

MARTIN: Well, they clearly have hawks in the Bush administration who want to go to war with Iraq. They don't care what anyone has to say. We've heard a number of different reasons.

First we heard that Iraq was trying to align themselves with al Qaeda. Then we -- then all of a sudden since that wasn't working because they couldn't produce any of the evidence they then changed the subject to weapons of mass destruction being pointed to America so therefore a pre-emptive attack is necessary.

So they've offered two or three rationale for why we should go to war with Iraq when, frankly, the rest of the world does not have the same feeling of the Bush administration.

NEVILLE: So, Lou, how do you see it?

LOU PATE, RADIO TALKSHOW HOST, KIRO RADIO: Well, I think the -- although I support military action a well as the weapons inspections, I think the Bush administration is banking on Saddam Hussein using his old tricks as far as not allowing the weapons inspectors into certain areas and holding back information and things of that nature. It's still too early to tell whether that will happen.

But if they don't find anything, again, we are going to be left with egg on our face. And I don't think . . .

NEVILLE: But hang on - when you say -- what are you talking about? What kind of deadline are you talking about?

I know we -- Sunday, December 8 they are supposed to go ahead and list all of their weapons of mass destruction. But what if, at that point, the U.N. weapons inspectors haven't found anything and they have already said, "Listen, we're just - this is -- we're at the tip of the iceberg here. It takes a long time for this process to be played out here."

PATE: Well, I think at that time they have to keep on going until the duration of what was decided on previously. I don't think they can just go by a list and the Sunday deadline. They just have to keep going.

The problem that's going to happen is -- what's going to happen that will be the problem is after they're completed if they didn't find anything then what do we do? And at that point I think we can only go in with military action if we find something.

If we don't find anything I don't think it would be right to go in.

NEVILLE: And you're saying . . .

MARTIN: The bush administration has made it perfectly clear that they want to go to war with Iraq but here's the problem. Are -- will Turkey allow us to use their bases if there are no weapons found? Will Saudi Arabia be cooperative in this effort as well?

We can go it alone but that's going to cause a significant problem internationally because we can - we must rely on other partners in order to wage this kind of war.

PATE: Well, the coalition has already been put together. I believe they're all with us at this point.

MARTIN: Yeah -- they're with us only if . . .

NEVILLE: The stipulation -- exactly.

MARTIN: . . . the stipulation -- only if the weapons are found. The coalition is there because they feel as if the U.N. Security Council should give the United States the right to go to war. That is the condition. If weapons aren't found and we can't provide the evidence, do not expect that coalition to hold together.

NEVILLE: Let me go to New York now where Joyce (ph) is standing by on the phone. Go ahead, Joyce (ph).

CALLER: I'm from New York. And all I have to say regarding the question -- and are we afraid that there might be another terrorist plot? Well, in New York I'll tell you we're not afraid. What we are is very concerned. That is why I'm fully behind President Bush and his security plan for the United States.

And that's why the Democrats lost all of the seats . . .

NEVILLE: All right -- Joyce (ph), listen -- I really do appreciate your calling in from New York. That is our "Question of the Day". We want to hear from more of you on that later.

We have to take a break right now. I do want to see later as well how a winter storm is affecting air travel across the country not to mention what it's doing across the East Coast.

Stick around -- we have some pictures you'll have to see.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

NEVILLE: Today on TALKBACK LIVE al Qaeda threatens to deliver an end of Ramadan gift to America. Do you fear a terrorist attack in the U.S. during the holidays? Call or e-mail right now. I'll take your calls and letters as TALKBACK LIVE continues.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

NEVILLE: And welcome back, everyone. We are talking about the showdown with Iraq. Carrier groups left this morning from Virginia -- Bush's way of letting Saddam know that he is serious.

And, Lou, I ask you -- is this the right approach?

PATE: Well, what do you mean, "Is it the right approach?" To ask Saddam if he's serious?

NEVILLE: No -- to keep showing -- flexing your muscle -- Bush flexing his muscle to let Saddam know, "Listen -- I'm serious here."

PATE: No, I don't think that's good at this time. He knows we've laid out the groundwork. We've drawn the proverbial line in the sand. And the world knows where we stand.

At this point to keep flexing your muscles I think is much ado about nothing. Now it's up to the weapons inspectors as to whether they find anything or not and it's kind of a wait and see to see if Saddam cooperates, if he turns over the list.

But to flex your muscles now -- I think it makes us look bad in the eyes of world. NEVILLE: Trey (ph) from Georgia.

TREY: Yeah -- I just wanted to say that we have to remind everybody that we've been at war for the past 15 months and we have Special Ops forces in Iraq right now. And I think Bush may know that there might be other things there that the inspectors don't know and that's why they're putting the pressure on and send more troops out today.

MARTIN: Well, first of all, the inspectors have said they don't feel as if the Bush administration is sharing the intelligence that they have with other individuals.

But, again, there is a process here. We went to the United Nations. We said, "Send the inspectors in. Allow them to do their work." Then what's the next step in that process?

So I agree -- I don't think the saber rattling is necessary from the Bush administration and then, frankly, it goes back to the president's cowboy attitude on some of these issues.

It harkens back to when he made the comment about Osama bin Laden : "wanted dead or alive."

And we don't necessarily need that stuff especially coming from the President of the United States.

NEVILLE: See, now, Roland, President Bush says that it is up to Saddam Hussein whether there will be a war or not. What do you think about that?

MARTIN: Well, it's actually up to Saddam Hussein and it's also up to the United States. Clearly if he has weapons of mass destruction he must disarm.

But, again, it goes back to where is the evidence that points to that? That's the greater issue. So that's why you've got to allow the inspectors to do their jobs.

If he is moving weapons around, if he is hiding them and if we have intelligence -- credible intelligence -- that shows where these weapons are that's a whole different scenario that we can take to the U.N. Security Council to show them the evidence. And then that will determine whether or not they will give us the approval to go to war.

NEVILLE: So you believe the U.N. weapons inspectors should stay there until they get the job done whenever . . .

MARTIN: Yes. Keep in mind in mind the Sunday deadline is not a deadline for the inspectors to leave.

NEVILLE: Correct.

MARTIN: That is the deadline for Iraq to turn over information . . .

NEVILLE: The list.

MARTIN: . . . showing they have disarmed.

NEVILLE: Correct.

PATE: Arthel?

NEVILLE: Go ahead.

PATE: I've always felt that the administration has information that they cannot share with the public for reasons of national security or for whatever their reasons being.

Now the thing is, if they don't find any weapons of mass destruction -- I think they have them. I think they're there it's just a matter of can we find them? Is the administration then presenting that evidence to the public? Will the American public and will the world buy it?

At that point I think it might be too late. It will look like they bunched it together. Meanwhile, they probably have had it for a long period of time.

MARTIN: But . . .

NEVILLE: You make a good point. Let me . . .

MARTIN: Go ahead -- I'm sorry.

NEVILLE: No -- go ahead, Roland.

MARTIN: But we also face this -- we said that North Korea was an axis of evil. They admitted to having a nuclear bomb. The question is -- what is the priority in America? Is it al Qaeda or is it Iraq?

The reality is al Qaeda clearly wants to attack America. They have not offered enough evidence saying that Iraq poises that kind of threat to America.

NEVILLE: Hang on, Roland, because I'm going to give Wayne (ph) the last word here.

WAYNE: Well, I just want to piggyback on Roland actually. The inspectors have eight days to find what Saddam has had eight years to hide.

NEVILLE: They have more time beyond the -- beyond Sunday.

WAYNE: Before international condemnation comes down on Iraq, you've got to give them enough time to do their jobs. I don't know if 10 days is enough. But Bush has set that timeline and we're going to live by it.

NEVILLE: Well, of course, as we keep re-emphasizing that December 8 is just a deadline for Saddam Hussein and Iraq to list whatever weapons of mass destruction that they may have in their possession.

What happens on Sunday remains to be seen. Of course, we will keep a close watch on that.

And, Roland Martin -- Lou Pate -- thank you very much for joining us here on TALKBACK LIVE today.

MARTIN: Thank you, Arthel.

PATE: Thank you, Arthel.

NEVILLE: OK. Up next light up the fire and pour a cup of hot chocolate. If you're on the East Coast chances are you're not going anywhere -- you're just stuck.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

NEVILLE: Boy, can you believe this winter storm that's ravaging the Mid-Atlantic States?

Thousands of airline passengers are stuck - so are folks in cars. The shuttle Endeavor is stuck out in space and millions are stuck without electricity. Life seems temporarily frozen under a glaze of ice and snow. Whew!

CNN Correspondent Jason Bellini is warm inside of LaGuardia Airport. But I have a feeling there are some hot headed passengers up there right about now.

JASON BELLINI, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Indeed -- today was not a good day to be traveling. We have been here since early this morning and the snow has just kept coming down. It's been getting heavier and heavier. And now you don't see any planes at the gates. We've been looking at the board where they tell you if your flight's going to be delayed or canceled. And most of them have switched over and now read "canceled."

I have one -- I have a family of unfortunate passengers here with me. I have Aaron Steirs. Aaron, tell us your tale of woe.

AARON STEIRS, STRANDED TRAVELER: Well, we got here at 11:30. And the flight did get canceled and they told us to go to another airline. We went to that one and they got canceled.

So we didn't make hotel arrangements and I've been hoping for a flight. And unfortunately we're going to be camping out here.

BELLINI: You're going to be camping out here overnight?

STEIRS: Yes with my two girls and my wife. And - so yeah.

BELLINI: Great. Well, thank you. Well, that's not good. We've talked to a lot of people here who have got similar tales. It's really tough for people.

And, also, people like Aaron, some people who have been calling in haven't heard that their flight is canceled and they arrive here just to find that out.

NEVILLE: My goodness. Because you call in advance and they tell you, "Yeah come on out to the airport." You show up and then it's like, "Sorry it's canceled."

BELLINI: Yeah it's not fun for these people - bad news. A lot of people camping out here and it may be an ugly night for people who can't get flights today.

NEVILLE: Jason, tell that family you were talking to -- tell them just to go to that Nathan's Stand (ph) and get some Long Island Hot Dogs - they'll be fine.

BELLINI: All right -- I'll pass the word on.

NEVILLE: All right. What did you say?

BELLINI: I'll pass the word on.

NEVILLE: OK. Thanks, Jason. Nice to see you.

BELLINI: Thanks.

NEVILLE: And with us now is Rally Caparas, a former air traffic controller and spokesman for Travelocity.

Hello, Rally. Where, oh, where are the big delays today?

RALLY CAPARAS, TRAVELOCITY.COM: Well, Arthel, as you just saw a moment ago, obviously they're in LaGuardia's airport but they've been all over the place today. They started in the south and moved to the north. And I'll tell you right now.

Let's go to this depiction. You wouldn't think there would be this many airplanes in the sky with all of delays that are taking place but you're looking at about 4,700 airplanes that are talking to air traffic control.

The big delays, though, today are right now. At Boston's Logan Airport they're seeing 60 to 90 minute arrival and departure delays. Low clouds, snow, reduced airport surface visibility, runway snow removal -- you name it -- it's going to be a problem there.

Then down just a little further south at Newark, LaGuardia, JFK and throw Philly into that -- would you believe it? They're seeing three and four hour delays. You heard the wait earlier -- it's much longer than that.

Many flights have been canceled. We'll talk about that in a moment. But the delays will continue until late evening if you're lucky enough to get airborne.

Down around the Washington, DC area -- Washington metropolitan airports -- specifically Washington Dulles -- they're suffering 60 to 90 minute arrival and departure delays. Low clouds, snow removal -- as you would expect -- will be a problem. And that's going to last well late -- into the late evening hours.

Then down here in the south Atlanta, Charlotte and Raleigh- Durham saw some lengthy delays earlier today. However, we've been -- we've escaped the worst of it so far. It looks like low clouds and rain are going to keep things going for us. Thirty to 45 minute arrival and departure delays and that's going to last until about 9:00.

And then finally up in the Great Lakes region right at Pittsburgh. Pittsburgh International Airport -- they're starting to see a little bit of snow, some de-icing of aircraft. It's going to cost them about 30 to 45 minute delays there.

NEVILLE: Man! You know what? Rally, it looks like that map is covered in pollen or something. I can't believe all of those yellow dots.

OK, Rally Caparas -- thank you so much for joining us here today with that important information.

And up next -- more terror warnings from al Qaeda leads us to our "Question of the Day" -- do you fear a terrorist attack during the holidays? Give me a call or e-mail me now and I'll take your calls and letters in a moment.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

NEVILLE: And welcome back, everyone -- I'm Arthel Neville.

Earlier this week there was a statement posted on the Internet threatening a strike against America to coincide with the ending of Ramadan -- that would be either today or tomorrow. The statement is attributed to al Qaeda.

And that leads us to our "Question of the Day" -- do you fear a terrorist attack over the holidays?

And I have to see what Kelly (ph) has to say now.

KELLY: I don't fear one, Arthel, and I think that we're just egging them on by thinking this. And they're trying to hinder our freedoms and our way of life.

NEVILLE: Thank you very much. And we have Rachel (ph) from Tennessee who says . . .

RACHEL: I don't think that they are going to attack us during the holidays because they're threatening, we're expecting it and it won't be as much of a surprise so they won't think that they can actually get us.

NEVILLE: Thank you.

A couple of e-mails to share with you now. Jamil in Colorado. "I do not think al Qaeda will attack during the holidays because the holidays hold no specific meaning to them. The success of the attack is the only thing that matters."

And one coming in from Maria in Virginia. "I'm very afraid there will be a terrorist attack during the holiday season. I hope the U.S. will have a high security alert during the holiday season."

Thank you so much for your responses. That is all the time we have for today. Thank you so much for joining us.

I'm Arthel Neville. I'll see you again tomorrow at 3:00 Eastern, noon for you West Coasters. Right now here's Judy Woodruff at INSIDE POLITICS.

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

Al Qaeda Readying Deadly Holiday Surprise?>