Return to Transcripts main page

CNN The Point

More Controversy at Olympics; Crossing the Line Before Takeoff; Who Has Best Strategy in Dog Mauling Trial?

Aired February 22, 2002 - 20:30   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.
ANNOUNCER: THE POINT with Daryn Kagan.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

SARA HUGHES, U.S. GOLD MEDALIST: I've taken my picture with tons and tons of people, and just had fun and been showing the medal around.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

ANNOUNCER: A gold medalist glows, while the Russians scowl.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: If you do not want fair competition, fine. Just let us know to start with. Because our guys do not have to suffer because of that.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

ANNOUNCER: Why are so many people unhappy?

"Flashpoint," jumping to conclusions at the Olympics.

Welcome to the airport, where guards are waiting to look at everything, from your shoes to your pockets, to your luggage. But are some security checks getting too intimate?

"Flashpoint," crossing the line before takeoff.

After week one of the dog mauling trial, who has the best lawyer and the better strategy? And why are there so many dog attacks? Tonight, an expert who has been in the courtroom.

THE POINT. Now, from Atlanta, Daryn Kagan.

DARYN KAGAN, HOST: And it is a pleasure to be with you in the evening hours, tonight. Let's start with the Olympics which are supposed to bring out the best in everyone. But this Winter Games, this year, have also brought along protests, grumbling protests of boycotts and allegations of fixed judging.

The latest battleground is women's figure skating. The Russians challenged last night's results awarding American Sarah Hughes the gold medal. The Russians say their skater Irina Slutskaya was a victim of bad judging, just like the Canadian pairs skaters last week. And they'd like the same remedy, to have Slutskaya's silver medal bumped up to gold.

Even before the figure skating finals, the Russians were threatening to pull their entire team out of the Olympics because of controversies in skating, cross country skiing and hockey.

"Flashpoint," jumping to conclusions. Let's welcome our guests: Andrei Sitov joins us from D.C. bureau, he is the Washington bureau chief of the Russian news agency Itar Tass. And in Salt Lake City, Mark Lund, publisher of the "International Figure Skating Magazine." Gentlemen, good evening. Thank you for joining us.

MARK LUND, INTERNATIONAL FIGURE SKATING MAGAZINE: Good evening.

KAGAN: Mr. Sitov, I want to start with you. How do we know that all this Russian talking and complaining isn't just a big distraction from what has been a disappointing turnout by Russian athletes during these Winter Games?

ANDREI SITOV, ITAR TASS: You can believe whatever you want to. We are talking perceptions here. And the Russian perception is that the games have been spoiled. And the responsibility for that, in my opinion, lies squarely with the IOC. I actually believe that the IOC, the president, Mr. Rogge, should either resign after the games or be fired for botching the Olympics.

KAGAN: That's a very strong claim and a very strong demand.

SITOV: I believe it's justified. It's been a flop so far as the Russians are concerned. You mentioned that the Russians are not showing their best achievement --

KAGAN: Well, it hasn't been the best Winter Games for the Russian athletes, you would have to say that.

SITOV: I totally agree with you. I totally agree with you. But the point is here that even in those cases when the Russians were clear favorites, they were summarily -- they did not get the fair chance to fight, and to show the best that they could by the judges.

KAGAN: Let's look at a very specific example. Irina Slutskaya in last night's figure skating competition. Awarded the silver medal coming in second to Sarah Hughes. A 16-year-old American. Let's bring Mark Lund in on this. Mark, you watched this competition carefully. Did Irina get a raw deal? Should she in fact have the gold medal, in your opinion?

LUND: Oh, Irina definitely did not deserve the gold medal. She just did not skate up to true form. She did not do the technical difficult elements that Sarah Hughes did, she definitely deserved the silver medal. So I am at a loss to see what the point is of the Russian Federation for filing this protest. There's no basis for it.

KAGAN: And didn't the Russian judges score her even lower than some of the other judges from other countries?

LUND: Yes. Absolutely.

SITOV: I would like to jump in here, and say I do not argue with this case. I don't know. I think the Russians only protested because they were frustrated with previous decisions. The previous decisions on the pairs skaters opened the Pandora's Box. Now everything --

LUND: Oh no, sir.

KAGAN: But in fact, Mark, Mr. Sitov does make a point. Do you actually understand the precedent that was set when the IOC, guess what, OK Canadians you are not happy?

SITOV: Right.

KAGAN: Here's another gold medal for you. So let's pass out gold medals to everybody who is not happy.

SITOV: Now everybody will want a gold medal.

LUND: Well, you can't look at what happened with the pairs scandal as opening the Pandora's box to if somebody doesn't win an Olympic gold medal, we just file a protest because we feel like it, because of sour grapes.

Clearly Irina Slutskaya...

SITOV: Of course we can.

LUND: No, please let me finish. Irina Slutskya just did not perform well. She didn't skate well. She made quite a few mistakes. Her choreography wasn't good. Sarah Hughes had the program of a lifetime and there was no collusion backstage. There was nothing like that. It was excellent sport last night. It was a wonderful performance by Sarah Hughes, and she clearly was deserving of first place. So please tell me, sir, if you know, why exactly did the Russian Federation file this protest? Because they felt like it? I'd like to have a real reason for this.

SITOV: Yes, I think just because they had a precedent and they believe they were justified on technical grounds because Sarah Hughes, whom I enjoyed immensely was...

LUND: Justified for what?

KAGAN: Mark, I want to get one more...

SITOV: She was fourth...

KAGAN: ... question here about the additional --

SITOV: ... after the fourth after the short program.

KAGAN: Hold on one second. I want to get one more question here about this additional gold medal. By giving the additional gold medal to the Canadians, did that cheapen the value of the gold medal that the Russians already held?

LUND: Well, what it did...

(CROSSTALK)

KAGAN: Let Mark answer, Mr. Sitov, and we'll get to you in a second.

LUND: It did set a precedent. The ISU went into a completely uncharted territory here. Let's look at the pairs skating. The Canadians were clearly better than the Russians. The Russians made mistakes. Irina Slutskya made mistakes. But the Russian pairs skating, the Canadian pair skating -- that was an entirely different matter.

It had nothing to do with the ladies event. Just because a decision was made, as unprecedented as it was, does not mean that it unilaterally applies to every discipline in figure skating. And then God forbid, go to other sports here at the Olympics. I mean fair is fair, folks, you either do well or you don't do well.

KAGAN: And Mr. Sitov, I want to move on, looking ahead, these are, as you said, some serious demands and some serious threats by the Russian Olympic movement. The entire lower house of the Russian Parliament has voted in a unanimous vote to pull out of the closing ceremonies unless -- and I'll go over these demands, they re-run the cross country race, the 4 by 5 kilometer race.

That they would bar North American referees from tonight's U.S.- Russian hockey match, which has already been completed, by the way. And an apology be issued to the Russian team. Do you think any of this is going to happen? And will the Russian teams show up for closing ceremonies?

SITOV: The hockey team -- the hockey match has already been played, as you mentioned. As for the relay race, I think that was the last straw for the Russians because the Russian team was a clear favorite. It was pulled out of the race at the last moment without proper justification. As for the apology, the president of the IOC actually sent a letter to President Putin and misspelled his name, for one, and said that all other decisions had been correct. I do not regard this as an apology.

KAGAN: But real quickly, do you think the Russian team will be showing up in the closing ceremonies?

SITOV: I think it's a 50-50. And if it was up to me, I wouldn't go.

KAGAN: You'd hold them back. Well, we'll be watching. Andrei Sitov and Mark Lund. Thank you so much for your strong opinions, gentlemen. Appreciate it.

LUND: Thank you.

KAGAN: Thanks for the discussion. We move on, in the wake of September 11, the need for extra airline security is something everyone can agree on. But are some security guards going too far in their efforts? That's our next point. Don't take off quite yet.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

ANNOUNCER: Tight security is a fact of life at the airport. But are some women being humiliated on purpose? Crossing the line before takeoff. THE POINT is coming right back.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

KAGAN: If you've been through the airport, you know they are time consuming, annoying and even a little embarrassing, but everyone understands the need for random security checks at our airports. Sure, all of us would rather have them choose the next person in line, but if we're picked we don't mind too much, that is unless the security guard goes too far.

"Flash Point": Crossing the line before takeoff.

Flight attendant Lori Vitto says that's exactly what happened to her. She joins us from Washington to talk about the complaint that she has filed with her union, the Association of Flight Attendants. Lori, good evening, thanks for joining us.

LORI VITTO, FLIGHT ATTENDANT: Hi, Daryn, thank you.

KAGAN: Tell us what happened to you.

VITTO: Well, it actually happened in two airports...

KAGAN: Which airports?

VITTO: San Diego and Seattle. And when I walked through, I beeped. And they stopped me, and in Seattle they decided not to wand me, but to basically do a full body rubdown.

KAGAN: And were you clearly in your flight attendant uniform, you're on your way to make a flight?

VITTO: Oh, absolutely. Yes. I was on my way to work.

KAGAN: And when they told you that's what they wanted to do, what was your reaction?

VITTO: Well, you know, you can't say no.

KAGAN: Right. You have to go to work.

VITTO: You have to go to work. And if you make a big scene, they could take you away.

KAGAN: I mean, there's definitely a sense -- if any of us have been through any airports lately, it is a no-nonsense attitude, and you know you're not supposed to say no and you're supposed to agree. But did you ask why they didn't have a wand, or did you ask to have a female attendant check you?

VITTO: I had a female attendant.

KAGAN: You did?

VITTO: Yes, I did. I don't know why they didn't use the wand. I know that they were in a hurry. And security is now, you know, it's backed up now that they're having to really check a lot of people now. And I don't know why they just decided to do a full rubdown that day.

KAGAN: So both in San Diego and Seattle, you had a female attendant?

VITTO: Yes.

KAGAN: And -- I mean, you can be as graphic as you want, but explain to us exactly what she did and what was so offensive.

VITTO: Well, when you're told about a patdown, they're supposed to use the back of their hands and they're supposed to just pat you. But they used the front of their hands and they basically took it and rubbed my entire front.

KAGAN: It was inappropriate is what you're saying.

VITTO: It was inappropriate.

KAGAN: So what have you done? You've filed a complaint with your union?

VITTO: I filed a complaint with the union. AFA has written a letter to Secretary Mineta, asking him to look into this issue. We've been told they're looking into it. Once again, the AFA sent another letter in February because they continued to receive complaints from flight attendants about inappropriate touching. We also, on the AFA Web site...

KAGAN: Lori, let me just interrupt you for a second. Are you suggesting that flight attendants in particular are being targeted for these inappropriate patdowns?

VITTO: Actually, I feel crew members are being targeted a little bit more.

KAGAN: And why is that?

VITTO: Because when you go through security screening, I believe that they're looking at -- crew members are easier targets. They know we're going to get through. And if you sit back and watch, they don't want to hassle the paying passengers as much.

KAGAN: So tell me exactly what you would like to see happen?

VITTO: I would like to see a code of conduct written now that TSA (ph) has the jurisdiction over.

KAGAN: That would apply to everybody, not just the flight attendants and crew?

VITTO: Right. I'd like to see a code of conduct so that we would know what to expect when we're going through. Security screeners would know what to do. And I would like to see something put in place to where we can report inappropriate actions.

KAGAN: But do you think it should go so far as to give a special line for flight attendants and crew?

VITTO: Certain airports have done that. And I would like to see that consistently across the country.

KAGAN: But do you think you should get any kind of special treatment?

VITTO: No. I think we should go through, but I think crew members and employees should have their own lines away, because it is embarrassing for a working crew member when you're going through.

KAGAN: Yeah. You filed the complaint; are you hopeful some things are going to change?

VITTO: Yes, I am hopeful.

KAGAN: Are you going to keep flying?

VITTO: Absolutely.

KAGAN: Lori Vitto, thanks for stopping by and talking about it. We'll be looking for changes out there in America's airports. Appreciate your story.

VITTO: Thank you.

KAGAN: We still have some loose ends to tie up before we go. Stay with us for a recap of the week of the dog mauling trial. An attorney who represents dog bite victims has been watching this testimony very closely out in Southern California. His thoughts after a break.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

KAGAN: For most of this week, a California jury has been listening to harrowing stories of what it was like to be the neighbors of Robert Noel and Marjorie Knoller and their huge dogs. Last year, the dogs attacked and killed another neighbor, Diane Whipple. Knoller is now charged with second degree murder, involuntary manslaughter and having a mischievous animal that killed a human being. Noel, who was not home during the fatal attack, faces the manslaughter and mischievous animal charges.

Kenneth Phillips has been closely following the trial because he's an attorney for dog bite victims. And he joins us this evening from Los Angeles. Good evening. Thanks for joining us.

KENNETH PHILLIPS, ATTORNEY: Thank you, Daryn.

KAGAN: This looks like it could be an open and shut case. They had the dog. The dogs attacked and killed Diane Whipple. But it is not that simple, is it?

PHILLIPS: No, not that simple, especially -- it's not a second degree murder case, Daryn.

KAGAN: Why not?

PHILLIPS: Well, second degree murder requires proof of malice. And the photos that were shown of Marjorie Knoller were amazing. She's the woman that...

KAGAN: They were disgusting is what they were.

PHILLIPS: Well, they were disgusting because she was covered in blood from head to toe. Her hand was bitten from trying to push the dog's face away from Whipple. And she was bitten on her shoulder and on her chest from being down on the ground trying to guard Whipple's body with her own body. So, how can they say that she had malice against Diane Whipple when she was the only one in that apartment building that was trying to save her?

KAGAN: But don't they have to prove that -- doesn't the prosecution have to prove that these two defendants knew that their animals were dangerous?

PHILLIPS: Yes.

KAGAN: I mean, isn't there simply malice in knowing that you have a dog that can attack and kill somebody?

PHILLIPS: No, no. The elements are that the dog was dangerous. You knew it was dangerous, and you did something wrong on that day that caused that.

KAGAN: So, what is that crime?

PHILLIPS: Well, that crime could just be involuntary manslaughter or it could be the other crime of owning a mischievous animal that kills somebody. It could be one or the other.

KAGAN: Now, this story just gets kind of weirder and weirder the more people look into it. Yesterday, there was testimony that talked about the links that this couple allegedly had to this Aryan brotherhood prison gang and this group of prisoners that are known to breed these deadly dogs. Could proving those links go ahead and help prove that these people knew that they had these dangerous dogs with the intent to kill?

PHILLIPS: Well, I think that it goes a long way to proving that the people knew that the dogs were dangerous. But I think it's a big mistake for the prosecutor and for the judge to let this evidence in because it is clearly prejudicial. I mean, there's no crime -- there's no crime when you own a dog that's dangerous and the dog kills somebody. That's not the crime. The crime is doing something that enables the dog to be in a position to kill the person. That's what the crime is. And by bringing it all...

KAGAN: Well, clearly, that happened to Diane Whipple. I mean, that's news to her family, I'm sure, that that wasn't a crime.

PHILLIPS: Well, the crime was the crime probably of Marjorie Knoller of trying to control the dog, not being able to control the dog. This dog had gotten away from her one time before. So her crime, her negligence was having a dog...

KAGAN: Well, Ken, in fact, it could have been more than one time that the dogs had a problem. In fact, now we're hearing person after person come on and testify, hey, that dog bit me on this day and this dog bit me on that day. And then the response from Robert Noel, at least, just being, oh, wasn't that interesting that that happened at the time.

PHILLIPS: Yes, yes, that's right. But you know something? You have to wonder about something. There are a lot of people that are going to come forth and say that the dogs did bad things in the past. But how come nobody ever complained? How come nobody ever complained to animal control or the police or wrote a letter to the landlord or did something along that nature?

There have been no civil complaints. There have been no insurance claims. So a lot of people have come out of the woodwork and, you know, I think one of the reasons why we have a dog bite problem in this country is because people don't get serious about reporting the dangerous dogs. That's what the neighbors should have done.

KAGAN: Well, and people, dog owners don't get serious about having proper obedience for their dogs too, but that's a topic for a different show. Hey, what about the attorneys in this case? There has been some interesting courtroom behavior, I have to say.

PHILLIPS: Yes. I think the attorneys are all good, but I think they're all making mistakes. The prosecutor is introducing this evidence that doesn't belong there. The attorney for Marjorie Knoller...

KAGAN: Which evidence, the Aryan brotherhood? You don't think that that belongs there?

PHILLIPS: No. I don't think it belongs there because I think it is prejudicial.

KAGAN: So, I mean, if you're this couple who adopts a grown man who is part of the Aryan brotherhood in prison, that might make you a freak and strange but it doesn't necessarily belong in a criminal trial, is your point?

PHILLIPS: That's right. I'd like a nice, clean prosecution and a clean conviction so that this serves as an example to dog owners and to other people as to what's illegal and what isn't. And simply...

(CROSSTALK)

Well, I was going to say, simply being weird and having a weird lifestyle and writing a lot of stupid letters with a lot of strange fantasies should not be, you know, what you go to jail for.

KAGAN: Well, and there's no shortage of that in this case. Let's just say that.

PHILLIPS: No, there isn't.

KAGAN: But what about the defense attorney getting down on the ground in the courtroom and crawling around and being all animated? You don't see that every day in your California courtrooms, even in California.

PHILLIPS: Yes, even in California. You know, they say a picture paints a thousand words. And I think the mistake that she made is that the picture that people are going away with is her down on the floor crying and crawling, when, in fact, the picture that helps Marjorie Knoller are the police photos taken an hour after the event showing her covered in blood and bruised and bitten.

KAGAN: And, finally, no one is going to argue that is it a tragedy. Even you have the defense saying it was a tragedy that Diane Whipple lost her life in this attack. But what is the big lessons that dog owners, and there's millions of us across America, can take -- not that we all own dangerous dogs -- but in controlling our dogs from this trial?

PHILLIPS: Well, the big lesson for dog owners is that you have to protect other people from your dog, especially if you have a big, powerful dog. And, you know, the man problem with dogs is not killing people, because only 15 to 20 people get killed, but 5 million Americans get bitten every year. Most of the victims that are bitten seriously are kids.

So I would say to dog owners to take the bite out of the dog bite epidemic. Keep your dog away from the faces of children because usually kids get bit in the face.

KAGAN: Good idea. Protect the kids and protect the dogs as well.

PHILLIPS: That's right.

KAGAN: Ken Phillips, thanks for joining us. Appreciate your insight tonight from Los Angeles. Thank you very much.

And we want to say that tonight's "Final Point" goes to three of our viewers who e-mailed us about the killing of U.S. journalist Daniel Pearl. This one is from a man who identified himself as a Muslim and an American of Pakistani origin. And he writes: "I wish that these fundamentalist fanatics would realize that we are all human beings. There's no way that these murderous thugs could be called Muslims."

Anil from New York says: "I feel sadness in knowing that although people have the capacity to care selflessly for one another, that hatred and ignorance have such a prominent place in our collective human conscience."

And finally, Mark writes in: "While fear is a natural first response in those who share Daniel's vision, his murder can better serve as inspiration to the bravest of journalists who will continue to seek the truth and share a perspective with the world."

Thanks for writing in. I'm Daryn Kagan at CNN Center in Atlanta. Up next, September 11 widow Lisa Beamer joins Larry King to discuss the birth of her new baby, Morgan. Have a great weekend. Anderson Cooper is back on Monday.

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