Return to Transcripts main page
CNN Wolf Blitzer Reports
Government Visas Arrive for Two 9/11 Hijackers; Ridge Makes Color-Coded Threat Warning System; U.S. Planes Continue to Bomb
Aired March 12, 2002 - 17:00 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.
WOLF BLITZER, CNN ANCHOR: Now on WOLF BLITZER REPORTS: a CNN exclusive. How could this have happened? Six months after September 11th, a government invitation for two of the hijackers!
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
TOM RIDGE, HOMELAND SECURITY DIRECTOR: We face an enemy as ruthless and as cunning and as unpredictable as any we've ever faced.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
BLITZER: But is a color-coded warning system enough to meet that threat?
Already hailing a victory in the valley, U.S. forces get a break from Operation Anaconda.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: I'm grateful to be back to the camp, to be where it's warm. It's kind of cold up there.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
BLITZER: But, no breaks for the enemy.
Now it's the jury's turn in a Texas mother's murder trial.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Look at the evidence. Don't be confused. Do what you know is right.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
BLITZER: And a siege on Long Island, after a priest and parishioner are gunned down during mass.
Hello, I'm Wolf Blitzer in Washington. Topping our news alert, a CNN exclusive report: Six months after the September 11th terror attacks, the INS mails out notification of student visas for two of the hijackers. A Florida flight school receives an incredible item in the mail from the Immigration and Naturalization Service: student visas approved for Mohammed Atta and Marwin al-Shehhi, the pilot hijackers who crashed planes into the World Trade Center. The INS says the incident points to serious problems in the visa process. We'll have much more on this in a moment.
At ground zero, the remains of as many as five firefighters were found amid the rubble today. The bodies were discovered at the south roadway, beneath what was the South Tower. They have not been identified.
U.S. warplanes continue to bomb al Qaeda positions in the mountains of eastern Afghanistan. This, as Afghan forces take on the brunt of the ground fighting in Operation Anaconda. A U.S. military official says almost 600 American troops have returned to their bases. They may be used later in attacks on pockets of al Qaeda fighters, elsewhere in the country.
Vice President Dick Cheney is in Jordan on a mission focused on two difficult problems: Iraq leader Saddam Hussein and continued deadly violence between Israelis and Palestinians. Jordan's King Abdullah says U.S. military action against Iraq would be disastrous for Middle East stability and security.
More now on what even the Immigration and Naturalization Service calls an embarrassing moment: a Florida flight school being told that new visas had been approved for two of the September hijackers. And on top of that, the INS notification arrived six months to the day of the attacks. CNN's Mark Potter, with a story you will see only on CNN.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
MARK POTTER, CNN CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): It was at Huffman Aviation International, a flight operations and training center in Venice, Florida, where Mohammed Atta and Marwin al-Shehhi received flight lessons. They entered the United States on tourist visas, and trained at Huffman on this plane, from July, 2000 until early January, 2001. Nine months later, they each flew a jet into the towers of the World Trade Center.
Huffman's owner, Rudi Dekkers, spent months afterward answering questions from investigators and reporters, although recently, things had begun to slow down.
(on camera): But early this week, on the six-month anniversary of the September attacks, Rudi Dekkers got a big surprise. In the mail, he received two envelopes from an INS processing center. Inside were documents showing that the INS had granted student visas to Mohammed Atta and Marwin al-Shehhi. They had been granted permission by the U.S. government to take flight lessons.
(voice-over): The letters from the Immigration and Naturalization Service showed the student visa requests were made at the end of August, 2000, but weren't approved until almost a year later, last July and August. That was long after both men had completed their flight training, and before the September attacks. The letters arrived six months after their deaths.
RUDI DEKKERS, OWNER, HUFFMAN AVIATION: That's what we don't understand why this came in today, and why this is not done a year ago.
POTTER: A spokesman for the INS blamed the slip-up on a huge backlog of cases and paperwork involving millions of applications a year. He said, "It's certainly embarrassing that the letters showed up at this date. But it does serve to illustrate what we've been saying since 1995, that the current system for collecting information and tracking foreign students is antiquated, outdated, inaccurate and untimely."
A former INS district director says the letters should never have been sent.
TOM FISHER, FMR. INS DISTRICT DIRECTOR: I see this as characteristic of an agency in free-fall, that really doesn't have control over the databases.
POTTER: The INS spokesman says a new computer system for tracking and monitoring international students has been tested, and will be available to schools, including flight schools, this fall.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
Now, as to how Atta and al-Shehhi could have taken flight lessons before they received their student visas, there is a provision in the law that says that someone who is in this country on a tourist visa can take courses, up to 18 hours a week, including flight training, without government monitoring or prior approval. That is what Atta and al-Shehhi did. It is legal, and that provision of the law is still in effect -- Wolf.
BLITZER: Mark Potter in Florida, thanks for that excellent report. Who should be held accountable for immigration mistakes, and what needs to be done about that? I'll talk to Pat Buchanan, who says shut down the borders, and a woman who takes him on later in this newscast.
But first, a new terror threat warning system is in place in the United States, and the country is now on level "yellow." That means an elevated risk of attack. Homeland Security Director Tom Ridge unveiled the color-coded system earlier today, and we get more details now from CNN's Jeanne Meserve.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
JEANNE MESERVE, CNN CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): During the Cold War, radios had specially marked civil defense frequencies, where the public could get information about imminent danger. Now a new warning system for a new enemy: terrorists.
TOM RIDGE, HOMELAND SECURITY DIRECTOR: We can fight them not just with conventional arms, but with information and expertise and common sense.
MESERVE: The Attorney General will evaluate the creditability, specificity and gravity of terrorist threats, and set a color-coded threat level that will be relayed to federal agencies, state and local officials, the private sector and, in most instances, to the public.
Green for times of low risk, blue when there's a general risk. When the level rises to yellow there is an elevated risk. Orange indicates a high risk and red means there is a severe threat. Each level triggers specific responses. For instance, at level red, transportation systems could be stopped, just as they were on September 11.
And the threat levels can be targeted, geographically or otherwise.
RIDGE: The system will not eliminate risk. No system can. We face an enemy as ruthless and as cunning and as unpredictable as any we've ever faced. Our intelligence may not pick up every threat.
MESERVE: One goal of the system is to create a common language to eliminate confusion that has cropped up since 9-11.
GALE NORTON, INTERIOR SECRETARY: I would say our dams are at level three, and someone would say, why do you have it next to the bottom? And I'd say, no, in our system, that's next to the top. And someone would say, well, how does that compare with level C or D? We had no common way of explaining how we were preparing.
MESERVE: State and local officials want even more information about pending threats, but say this system is an improvement on earlier generic warnings.
MAYOR PATRICK MCCRORY, CHARLOTTE, NORTH CAROLINA: I think it's going to clarify exactly how we can better allocate our resources at the local level, and also better communicate to our citizens as to what actions they should take and what actions they shouldn't take.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
MESERVE: State and local officials and the private sector cannot be forced to follow the plan, but they are expected to. It's already enforced for federal agencies. The current threat level: yellow, for significant threat. Jeanne Meserve, CNN, Washington.
BLITZER: Let's follow up this story now. We speak about the new terror alert system. Joining us is the former New York City police commissioner, Bernard Kerik. Mr. Commissioner, thanks once again for joining us. Is this going to make people in New York City safer, this new color-coded system?
BERNARD KERIK, FMR. POLICE COMMISSIONER, NYC: Well, I think it's going to educate the people of the city. And I think, most importantly, it's going to be a systematic indicator, on a national level, what the threat levels are. And as you know, we've had several warnings since September 11th. You know, go to your highest alert, go to a higher alert. This creates a systematic system, really, for the entire nation to know and understand. And I think it will educate the public as well as the law enforcement agencies around the country.
BLITZER: Well, Commissioner Kerik, are people going to wake up every morning in the country and listen to the radio or watch TV, and wonder what the threat level is right now? Is it yellow, which is currently the case of elevated threat? Are these threat levels going to be part of our daily lifestyle?
KERIK: No, I don't think so, Wolf. I think primarily, these will be used for law enforcement agencies around the country, I think, to ensure everyone's on the same page, they're looking at the same thing. I think people have come to the realization around the country right now that there is a threat level, an obvious threat, that there could be retaliatory attacks, that there are possibly cells out there looking to retaliate.
I think people understand that, and they're educating themselves as to what they can do about it. But I think, primarily, this should be used for law enforcement officials, law enforcement agencies. And if there's a need for the public to know, I think this would be a good way for them to get the message out to the public.
BLITZER: So basically, what you're saying, this is a tool that will help law enforcement. But if the law enforcement knows that the country is on yellow, or heightened alert, or orange, which is even a higher alert. Red, being the highest kind of alert. Specific steps will be enacted by local police departments, is that what you're saying?
KERIK: Well, there will be steps at every different category. You know, as you mentioned in the broadcast, about shutting down possibly the mass transit systems. There were times between September and January 1st that the mayor and I were notified of some very high alerts in the city. And we contemplated looking at the World Series or looking at the Marathon -- should they continue?
I think these indicators, these standards will really identify certain indicators in which you could be manage the city governments, the state governments, and have a basic idea of where you want to go from there.
BLITZER: Commissioner, if you were still the police commissioner of New York, and you were told by Tom Ridge that there was a severe alert, a red alert, what would, specifically, you have to do? Give us a few examples. Would people not be allowed to go to a Yankee's baseball game?
KERIK: Well, I think the first thing you'd have to do -- you know, Tom Ridge, Governor Ridge, or the president, or the attorney general, can say, you should go to your highest alert. I thin, the first and foremost thing we have to do is talk to the people that know about the alert, to make sure that we, personally, you know, the mayor, the police commissioner -- we know what that alert is all about. Then we can move forward to look at the Yankee game, look at the mass transit system. There are certain things that created the government to announce that alert. We need to have that intelligence information. We've talked about this in the past. I think that's extremely important.
We need to know. The people responsible for the safety and security of the city and the state should know what the indicators are, what the information is, so we can make those decisions.
BLITZER: Those are decisions I'm sure you would like. But a lot of times, as you know -- we're not going to get into this now -- the intelligence agencies don't want to share that information, for fear of compromising what they call their sources and methods. But that's a subject for another day.
Commissioner Kerik, always good to have you on the program. Thank you so much.
KERIK: Thanks, Wolf.
BLITZER: And our Web question of the day is this: how secure does the Office of Homeland Security's color-coded threat advisory system make you feel? You can vote at cnn.com/wolf. That's my Web page. While you're there, let me know what you are thinking. There's a "click here" icon on the left side of the page. Send me your comments. I'll read some of them on the air each day. Also, you can read my daily on-line column at cnn.com/wolf.
And turning now to the war in Afghanistan: the United States-led campaign to root out al Qaeda and Taliban fighters in mountain caves is taking a new turn. Afghan troops are taking on more of the fighting as U.S. soldiers begin returning to bases to prepare for possible action elsewhere in the country. CNN's Martin Savidge is near the frontlines, and he has details.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
MARTIN SAVIDGE, CNN CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): Day 11 of Operation Anaconda, and still, coalition as well as Afghan military forces are pushing the fight against the remaining pockets of the Taliban and al Qaeda. Much of the searching that is taking place is now being conducted by about 2,000 soldiers. And a majority of them are now Afghan military soldiers.
The benefit of that is that it is allowed to free up the coalition and U.S. forces that have been up fighting in the high elevation for the past 11 days, to finally get a break now, and begin returning to the Bagram base here, which has been the main staging area.
Huge Chinook helicopters come flying in, usually in the early- morning hours. They're escorted riding shotgun by the Apache gunship helicopters, and then the soldiers make their way, heavily burdened with all that equipment. Coming back into camp, and it's a welcomed respite for many of time. For one, just to get a good lungful of air. The other, to get a good, hot meal and maybe, a hot shower.
It's only probably going to be a few days of rest for many of these soldiers here. There are other operations that are in the work. There is still Operation Anaconda that could, from time to time, require U.S. and coalition forces.
Operation Anaconda worked so well that military leaders here believe it will serve as a model for future operations when going up against Taliban and al Qaeda pockets, elsewhere in Afghanistan. So for now, it's a break. But it's a break that won't last long.
Martin Savidge, CNN, Bagram, Afghanistan.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
BLITZER: And we'll have more assessment of the war on terror 7:00 p.m. Eastern, here in the CNN "WAR ROOM." Our focus: should an attack on Iraq be the next phase of the war? I'll ask the Former Secretary of State Lawrence Eagleberger and the former NATO commander, General Wesley Clark. Please join me then.
Let's turn now to the Middle East, and what one Palestinian official calls a "bloodbath." The latest Israeli military action involves thousands of troops, in what Israeli television calls "the biggest operation since the 1982 invasion of Lebanon."
That operation, and Palestinian counterattacks, come amid new efforts by the Bush administration to stop the killing and restart peace talks. Our Michael Holmes is covering these developments. He joins us live from Jerusalem -- Michael.
MICHAEL HOLMES, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Hi, Wolf. Yes, I can give you a disturbing report from northern Israel today. Gunmen, at this stage unidentified, opening fire on Israelis close to the Israeli border with Lebanon. Six Israelis were killed, six were wounded.
Two gunmen, pursued by Israeli security forces, were killed. And a hunt began for other gunmen. At this stage the gunmen, not identified. We're told by sources, though, that they almost certainly did not come from Lebanon. Although security forces are not telling whether they were Palestinian or not.
This is an area which has not seen violence like this since the Israeli Army pulled out of Lebanon two years ago. Now, tonight, also i can tell you that three Israelis were wounded in what's being described as an ambush, as they drove in northern Israel near the West Bank. And a Palestinian man, shot in the head as he drove near Hebron.
Now, the shooting continues, meanwhile, in Ramallah. You've been seeing the dramatic pictures that have been coming out of that West Bank city. Five dead and three wounded so far, after Israeli troops and tanks and helicopters entered that city.
The Palestinians, however, are fighting back and are defiant. Here's what the Palestinian information minister had to say. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
YASSER ABED RABBO, PALESTINIAN MINISTER OF INFORMATION: This is leading into a real, open war between us and the occupation power. We have called upon all the Palestinians to resist this occupation, and to confront it.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
HOLMES: The Israeli military, meanwhile, standing firm, saying the incursions that we've seen in recent days, even those that have caused many deaths among Palestinians and injuries, are necessary to curb terrorism, and to break down terrorist infrastructures.
Here's what an Israeli military spokesman had to say.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
COL. GAL HIRSH, ISRAELI ARMY: We found many explosives laboratories. We found many bombs that were already on their way to the main populated areas of Israel. We found a lot of ammunition, rifles, revolvers, machine guns. And we were fighting against terrorists wherever we went to.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
HOLMES: Many here, Wolf, are hoping that what we've seen in recent days is, if you like, the storm before the calm that the U.S. special envoy, Anthony Zinni, might bring to the region later this week. Also, of course, U.S. Vice President Dick Cheney coming here to talk in a more broad regional sense -- Wolf.
BLITZER: Michael Holmes in Jerusalem, thanks for that report.
Let's pick up where you just left off. The Vice President Dick Cheney is, as you know, is in the Middle East on a multi-nation tour aimed at gauging support for possible U.S. military action against Iraq. But he's also delivering the message that the Bush administration is ready to do what it can to stop the fighting between the Israelis and the Palestinians. The 17-month conflict has claimed almost 1,500 lives. Our White House correspondent, John King, is traveling with the vice president and brings us the latest on his trip.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
JOHN KING, CNN SR. WHITE HOUSE CORRESPONDENT: A red carpet welcome for the U.S. vice president in Jordan, his first of 11 stops in the Middle East, and an immediate recognition of the No. 1 concern here.
DICK CHENEY, VICE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: The United States will do all it can to help end the tragic violence between the Palestinians and the Israelis, and return the parties to a productive negotiating process.
KING: But Mr. Cheney made it clear that he is also here to talk about a tougher U.S. posture toward Iraq.
CHENEY: We will confer as well about other challenges to regional security, and the threat that weapons of mass destruction pose to all of us.
KING: Just before this evening, meeting with the vice president, Jordan's King Abdullah told a Saudi newspaper a U.S. military confrontation with Iraq would be disastrous for the region, and would undermine the broader coalition in the war against terrorism. On the streets of Amman, in much of the Arab world, there is resentment at the toll of more than a decade of post Gulf War sanctions on the Iraqi people, and little support for U.S. military strikes.
So while senior U.S. officials say many leaders in the region privately back a regime change in Baghdad, those leaders are not about to publicly endorse another U.S.-led military campaign.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: I think one of the things the leaders in the region will say is, that if you're going to kill the king, you better kill the king. In other words, you better not fail. Don't have a half-hearted effort.
KING: U.S. officials can see the urgent Arab focus on the Israeli-Palestinian violence complicates Mr. Cheney's goal of discussing Iraq and other future fronts in the war on terrorism.
(on camera): But those senior U.S. officials say Mr. Cheney will try to allay Arab worries by promising the new Bush administration diplomatic push in the Middle East will be a sustained one, and also by promising that he is truly here to consult. And that there's no set timetable or options for confronting Iraq. John King, CNN, Amman, Jordan.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
BLITZER: And jurors have the case! Will they be sympathetic to Andrea Yates? Wait until you hear about their backgrounds.
Back in trouble: why Darryl Strawberry has returned to jail.
And in light of the latest immigration flap, should the United States crack down on international visitors? A face-off with Pat Buchanan.
But first, the news quiz. According to the INS, in 1999 student visas were issued to more residents of which country? It is Saudi Arabia? Japan? Germany or Mexico?
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
BLITZER: A jury in Houston, Texas, is deciding the fate of Andrea Yates, who drowned her five children in a bathtub last June. Deliberations got under way after closing arguments. CNN's Ed Lavandera is covering the trial in Houston.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE) ED LAVANDERA, CNN CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): Andrea Yates has told her attorney she'll accept whatever punishment God sends her way. Now eight women and four men are deciding that very question.
Before the jury retreated behind closed doors, attorneys launched into passionate...
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Andrea Yates knew right from wrong.
LAVANDERA: ... and emotional closing arguments.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: I'm scareder than I've ever been in a courtroom in my life.
LAVANDERA: The arguments brought Andrea Yates to tears. Prosecutors painted a picture of Yates as a sinister mother, not the gentle woman seen in home video images.
JOE OWMBY, PROSECUTOR: You don't take children and put them in some bunker somewhere because you think it's right.
LAVANDERA: Prosecutors laid out the most intense allegation in this trial: that Andrea Yates drowned her children to punish her husband, Russell Yates.
OWMBY: She decided to kill those children. And she told him to come because it's time to be punished.
LAVANDERA: They say she asked Russell to come home, so that he would see the children laid to rest on their bed; her way of stabbing him in the heart. Defense attorneys called about a dozen psychiatric experts, compared to two medical witnesses for the prosecution. The defense hopes the jury finds truth in numbers, and that they tell themselves that 12 medical experts can't possibly be wrong about Andrea Yates.
GEORGE PARNHAM, DEFENSE ATTORNEY: If this woman doesn't meet the test of insanity in this state, then nobody does.
LAVANDERA: Defense attorneys say the world will be watching what happens, and how the jury treats what they say is a psychotic woman trapped in a cruel mental dilemma. They say it's common sense: a loving mother who drowns her five children has to be insane.
WENDELL ODOM, DEFENSE ATTORNEY: Did she know her that conduct was wrong when she was doing what she thought was the only thing in the world that could save her children from hellfire and damnation?
LAVANDERA: Almost nine months have passed since Andrea Yates drowned Noah, Paul, John, Luke and Mary. Their smiles are memories now. Those faces, weighing on the 12 people debating their mother's fate behind this closed door. Ed Lavandera, CNN, Houston.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
BLITZER: Joining us now to shed some light on the proceedings that have been going on in the Yates trial is Defense Attorney Dick DeGuerin. He's in Houston. Mr. DeGeurin, thanks for joining us. Let's take a look at the makeup of this jury. Twelve individuals, eight women, four men. Most of them are married with children. What does that say to you, if anything?
DICK DEGUERIN, DEFENSE ATTORNEY: Well, even more than the married with children is the intelligence level of this jury. They're a very intelligent jury, very well-educated. But, for the people with children, they must see that it's so bizarre for a woman who loves her children, to kill their children
BLITZER: So, does that mean that they're going to acquit her, or find her innocent on the basis of insanity?
DEGUERIN: It's really too close to call at this point, Wolf. The prosecution did as they were expected. They drug out the bloody sheets again, and the pictures of the kids. They want the jury to decide it on the emotions of the case, on the fact that there are five dead children.
While the defense talked about the many psychiatric problems that she's had. And most of the psychiatric people that they had testify were treating physicians, people who had treated her in the past. I think that means a lot, particularly with the intelligence level of this jury.
BLITZER: Well, speaking about the intelligence level, not only are they intelligent, by in large, but two of them have psychology degrees. I wonder if that says something to you about the need for a unanimous decision?
DEGUERIN: Well, of course, any decision has to be unanimous. But I think that those folks with psychological background will be able to help the rest of the jurors in understanding some of the terminology that was used by the many psychiatric experts.
BLITZER: So, your bottom line opinion, who got the better of this jury right now, the defense or the prosecution?
DEGUERIN: I think the defense does, and I think you can see that with the way that the prosecution I casting about for theories. They still haven't set on one theory or one motive for this crime. And they're kind of scrambling.
BLITZER: Dick DeGuerin in Houston, thanks for your insight. Appreciate it very much.
DEGUERIN: You're welcome, Wolf.
BLITZER: Thank you. Let's continue our justice file now. In Boston, arbitrators will determine the individual damage awards for 86 people who sued a former priest at the center of a sex abuse scandal. The total settlement, reached last night, could be as high as $30 million. The former priest, John Geoghan, has been convicted in one molestation case. But dozens of other people say he molested them over a 30-year period, at Boston-area parishes. Joining us now from Boston to talk more about the sex abuse settlement, and the entire issue that has shaken Boston, the former Mayor, Ray Flynn. He's also a former United States ambassador to the Vatican.
Mr. Ambassador, thanks for joining us. Give us your assessment. How shaken is the church right now, not only in Boston, but around the country?
RAY FLYNN, FMR. BOSTON MAYOR: Well, the church has been such an important institution in our city, and in fact, across the United States, in terms of dealing with the issues of the poor, the needy, the elderly, educating our children, people living with AIDS.
So, any kind of dispersion, any kind of allegation against the Catholic Church, not only comes as a shock and a surprise, but a real painful situation. Not only for Catholics, but for all people who really admire and respect the Catholic Church and all the priests. Particularly, I might add, Cardinal Bernard Lor (ph), who was one of the finest men that I've ever had the opportunity working with as mayor, and as United States ambassador. Sometimes, Wolf, good people make mistakes. The church made a big mistake in this case, but hopefully now they're moving forward.
BLITZER: As you know, there's a huge Catholic population in Boston. Let's put some numbers.............
As you know, there's a huge Catholic population in Boston. Let's put some numbers up on the screen. The Catholic population of the Archdiocese of Boston: more than two million, 362 parishes, 901 priests, just to give us some perspective.
So many people are complaining that the Catholic Church swept this problem under the rug for so many years and is negligent as a result.
FLYNN: Well, Wolf, I think there's probably an attitude of forgiveness that perhaps many people can't understand.
Quite frankly, I think that's a mistake in terms of forgiving a pedophile priest and reassigning him to another jurisdiction in Boston -- I might add because of the fact that sometimes medical people said that it was an appropriate assignment. I don't think that will ever happen again. And that's why I think it is so important for Cardinal Law to stay on as archbishop of Boston, continue the process of settling these cases on behalf of the victims, bringing justice and adequate compensation for them.
But, look, what we really need is sweeping reform, not only in Boston, but across the country, so that this type of situation, the vulnerability of youngsters is never compromised ever, ever again.
BLITZER: Well, when you say it was a mistake, is it mistake just that can be rectified with these settlements, or should the government, whether local or state or federal authorities, step in and take legal action against those who allowed pedophile priests to stay on the job?
FLYNN: Well, put it this way. I think the cardinal who inherited this problem -- I'm talking about Cardinal Bernard Law -- inherited this problem, as is the policy across the United States.
People think that, once a person has a medical problem like drugs or alcoholism or pedophilia, you can go to some doctor or some institution, some treatment facility, get cured, come back. You have a medical report saying, yes, that person can be reassigned to a jurisdiction, to a parish again to work with young people. That should never happen. That policy has to end.
I don't think there's any criminal intent. I don't think there was anything other than doing what is best for the church, for the people of the church. And, also, the cardinal was trying to be probably too agreeable, too accommodating to these priests who aren't good priests. They don't reflect the overwhelming good priests that are in this -- in the church in Boston and across the country. Most of them are wonderful, wonderful people.
BLITZER: I think all of our viewers will agree with that. Most of those priests are wonderful, wonderful people, but there are some bad ones, as there are...
FLYNN: That's right.
BLITZER: ... I guess in any category of individuals.
FLYNN: And we'll deal with them.
BLITZER: And people have to deal with those problems.
Ray Flynn, always good to have you on the program. Thanks so much.
FLYNN: Thanks, Wolf.
BLITZER: Thank you.
And coming up: Deadly cyanide found in a busy city subway, and police have charged a man who calls himself Dr. Chaos. Plus, former New York Met Darryl Strawberry is headed back to familiar territory. And, guess what? It's not the ballpark. That's all ahead. Stay with us.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
BLITZER: Welcome back.
A daylong standoff on Long Island is over. Police stormed a home and arrested the 34-year-old man they say shot and killed a priest. Witnesses say the man walked into the Lynbrook church and opened fire, killing the priest and a woman in the congregation.
CNN's Michael Okwu is keeping track of all of these developments at the church shooting. He joins us now live from Lynbrook.
Michael, fill us in.
MICHAEL OKWU, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Wolf, good afternoon.
The standoff is indeed over. At about 4:00 this afternoon, just as the bells here at Our Lady of Peace Church were ringing, police apprehended the suspect they believe stormed into morning mass and fired off at least six rounds, killing a priest and one female parishioner.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
INSPECTOR PETE MATUZA, NASSAU COUNTY POLICE: About 4:00 this afternoon, members of the bureau special operations tactical team, approximately six to eight officers, hit the front door of 56 Fowler (ph). We arrested the individual that was in there. At the time, he was armed with a knife. He attempted to stab one of the officers, but that was repelled. He was taken into custody without further incident.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
OKWU: And now, again, the man is described as being 34 years old. They say there is no one else inside the building, a house where they believe he may have been renting a room for as short as about two months.
Now, earlier this afternoon, three people fled from the house. We believe that those people were also residents in the building. No one else was hurt. There has been no motive at this point. There's been lots of speculation, but no confirmation.
Now, one word about the priest. His name was father Larry Penzes. He was described by many of the churchgoers here as an exceptional man and an exceptional preach, someone who had been a chaplain at a local police department and also was a chaplain in the Air Force during some time in Turkey and in Iran. And many of the residents here say that it is a tragedy, if not an irony, that he was killed in a place considered to be a sanctuary -- Wolf.
BLITZER: Michael Okwu on Long Island, thanks for that report. Meanwhile, the former New York Yankee outfielder Darryl Strawberry is back in jail tonight. He was kicked out of a Florida rehab center for breaking that center's rules.
CNN Sport Illustrated's Laura Okmin joins us now from outside the Marion County jail in Ocala, Florida -- Laura.
LAURA OKMIN, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Wolf, he was an eight-time All Star, rookie of the year, and played for four World Series championship teams. But say the name Darryl Strawberry these days, and, sadly, it has nothing do with his old glory days.
Today, on his 40th birthday, Strawberry was arrested for the sixth time, this time for breaking an unspecified rule at the Phoenix House, the treatment center where he had been serving an 18-month sentence. No details of the rule violation were given, but we do know that Strawberry did not test positive for drugs, nor did he leave the center on his own.
Strawberry's original sentencing was back in 1999, when he was arrested for drug possession and solicitation of prostitution. A year ago, he violated that probation, disappearing on a four-day drug binge. Following that, he was sentenced to the Phoenix House, with Judge Florence Foster telling him at the time he was in the bottom of the ninth with two strikes against him.
She told Strawberry if he violated probation again, he would be thrown in jail for 18 months. And that is exactly where he will be spending his birthday this evening: behind bars. No bond has been set. Strawberry will have his day in court once again tomorrow morning at the Marion County judicial center -- Wolf, back to you.
BLITZER: Thanks you very much, Laura Okmin, for that report.
And, earlier we told about an embarrassing immigration mistake involving two of the September 11 hijackers. Just ahead: Is the INS doing enough to keep our country safe? We will tackle that next with Pat Buchanan.
Plus:
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP, "THE LATE SHOW WITH DAVID LETTERMAN")
DAVID LETTERMAN, HOST: What I have decided to do -- and this has not been a very easy decision for me -- I have decided to stay here at CBS. And I want to thank...
(APPLAUSE)
(END VIDEO CLIP)
BLITZER: David Letterman will stay at CBS. But is Disney still looking to replace Ted Koppel and "Nightline" on ABC? All of that coming up.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK) BLITZER: We have breaking news to report.
CNN learned there has been a verdict in the Andrea Yates murder trial in Houston. Sources tell CNN that verdict -- we don't know what the verdict is -- has been reached. We are going to find out more information about this -- Andrea Yates, of course the mother of five little children, accused of drowning her five children last June.
We are seeing a live picture now of Russell Yates. He is the husband. He has stood by his wife all of these many months, defending her. She pleaded not guilty on the basis of insanity. But the prosecution went forward seeking the death penalty in the case of Andrea Yates.
The summation arguments by the prosecution and defense were made earlier today. We carried that live here on CNN: both sides making the case to the 12 members of the jury that Andrea Yates, from the prosecution's stance, should be convicted of murder, first-degree murder of her five children -- the defense arguing she should not be guilty on the basis of insanity, given her psychiatric record over the past several years, the defense arguing that she could not tell the difference between right and wrong and, as a result, she went ahead and killed her children, believing it was the right thing to do to save her children, the defense arguing that argument was not good enough.
Unclear what this speedy decision by the jury might mean, whether it is a conviction or a decision to find her innocent, not guilty on the basis of insanity.
We see in the courtroom these live pictures, people having gathered, presumably, to hear the verdict once the foreman comes in.
Gary Tuchman is in Houston. He has been covering this trial for us. He joins us now live with more.
Gary, what are you hearing?
GARY TUCHMAN, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Wolf Blitzer, I can tell you that this is a situation where courtroom observers are stunned. And I rarely say that, because we are used to getting surprises in any courthouse situation.
But everyone thought this would take a long time for a jury to reach a conclusion, simply because the jury has so much to interpret. This is not just a matter of listening to the facts and deciding which facts are true. All these facts could potentially be true from the prosecution and the defense. But the jury has to decide, based on all facts they are hearing, if they do indeed believe this woman is legally insane.
Under Texas law, you have to not know the difference between right and wrong. You could be crazy as a loon, to use an expression, but if you know the difference between right and wrong, you are legally sane in the state of Texas. So, it was thought that the 12 members of this jury, the eight women and the four men, would take a long time, maybe days to figure this out. The fact that they have come back in three hours and 40 minutes saying they have a verdict is surprising to many.
We are expecting, within the next five to 10 minutes, for the jury to come out and then the verdict to be announced. Andrea Yates faces two charges of capital murder. We need to explain this to you so when you hear the verdict, you understand. The first charge is for the deaths of her two oldest children, Noah and John, age 7 and 5. Under Texas law, you need to kill at least two people or kill one person and commit another felony to be eligible for the death penalty. So these two children are one charge.
The other charge is for the death of Mary, who is six months. Under Texas law, if you kill a child the under age of 6, you are also eligible for the death penalty even though you just killed one person. So there's only two capital murder charges. The deaths of Paul and Luke, her two other children, are not covered during this trial. The prosecution says it has the right to retry her on those two other charges involving the two other children. The defense is expected to argue, if it comes down to that, that that would constitute double jeopardy.
But when you hear this verdict, there will only be two charges of capital murder. If she is found guilty, she faces the potential of the death penalty. There will be a sentencing phase. The jury could also decide to give her life with the potential for parole after 40 years. However, if she is found not guilty because of insanity, she would go to a mental hospital -- Wolf.
BLITZER: And, Gary, briefly, how did the court notify reporters, everyone, the families, that they have -- that the jury reached this speedy, this exceptionally speedy decision?
TUCHMAN: What happened, Wolf, inside the courtroom, we have our personnel, our producers, our reporters waiting. The clerk came out and said, "The jury has announced they have reached a verdict." So everyone is gathering now inside this courtroom, the Harris County courthouse here in Eastern Texas. And we expect we are about 10 minutes away from hearing the verdict in this landmark case.
BLITZER: All right, Gary, stand by. I want to come back to you.
But Cynthia Alksne, our legal analyst, a former federal prosecutor, is on the telephone.
Cynthia, what do you make of this extraordinary decision, 3 1/2 hours or so, the jury has reached a verdict?
CYNTHIA ALKSNE, CNN LEGAL ANALYST: I think it is amazing. I really expected it would take a long time because of the number of exhibits, the difficulty of the psychiatric testimony and as much videos and the other things that were admitted into evidence. It is pretty shocking.
BLITZER: In your experience -- and you have extensive experience in these kinds of cases -- a speedy decision like this, is that usually good news for the prosecution or bad news for prosecution?
ALKSNE: Ordinarily, you would say it is good news for the prosecution. But this was such a totally different case, I'm not sure that applies there.
Ordinarily, would you say you wouldn't let somebody be not guilty for any reason after they have murdered five children without a lot of serious discussion. So, the general rule of thumb, it would be good for the prosecution, but I don't think that is necessarily going to apply here because the evidence is so overwhelming of her mental illness.
BLITZER: But, as you have pointed out, and as our viewers have come to know, mental illness alone is not enough in the state of Texas. You have to prove that the suspect could not tell the difference between right and wrong. Isn't that right?
ALKSNE: That's exactly right. And here there were nine defense psychiatrists who said she didn't know the difference from right and wrong.
And, in the closing arguments today, the defense attorneys not only effectively summarized the psychiatric testimony, but also very effectively undermined the single prosecution expert, because not only was he making a lot of money, but because he based his opinion on certain things which appeared to be faulty.
So it is -- I'm shocked, like you are, and I think most trial observers are, that it has come this quickly.
BLITZER: What are the various options, Cynthia, as far as you know, that the jury could come up with as far as guilty, innocent, not guilty? What are the options they have before them?
ALKSNE: The options right now are either guilty, and then we'll move on to the sentencing phase for either death penalty or life imprisonment, or not guilty by reason of insanity, or just totally not guilty, which I think is the only thing we can rule out here.
BLITZER: Are you familiar enough with the case in Texas to know what kind of discretion the judge might have?
ALKSNE: The jury will make the decision -- if it is a guilty verdict, the jury will make the decision on the death penalty or life imprisonment, not the judge.
BLITZER: So the judge really has no discretion in this particular matter at all.
ALKSNE: No, this is a jury decision.
(CROSSTALK)
BLITZER: Go ahead.
ALKSNE: To this extent, the judge does have discretion. If it is not guilty by reason of insanity, and she goes off to a mental institution, this will be the judge who will be reviewing the petitions for her release throughout the course of her treatment. So there is discretion there.
BLITZER: All right, now, if you look at makeup of the jury, 12 individuals, eight women, four men, mostly highly educated, mostly married with children, what does that say to you, if anything?
ALKSNE: Well, there are only people with small numbers of children. There was nobody with four children, for example. There were also two women with bachelor's degrees in psychiatric training, which you would assume would be defense jurors. That would be the classic assumption of most prosecutors, who are trying to strike those types of people in this case.
On the other hand, there were some very strong prosecution jurors. There were retired military. There was an engineer, I believe, an energy technician. So it looked, we're reading the tea leaves, like there were jurors on both sides. So I'm surprised they came to a verdict this quickly.
BLITZER: And we are looking at live pictures of Andrea Yates. She has now been brought into the courtroom. She is flanked by her attorneys. And she is sitting, waiting for the jury to walk in, for the judge to walk in, to hear this verdict. I'm sure they are as surprised as all of us that it only took the jury three hours and 40 minutes to deliberate on this case.
Gary Tuchman, our reporter, is standing by in Houston as well.
What kind of anticipation? What's the mood at the courthouse, Gary?
TUCHMAN: Well, I can tell you something very interesting about Andrea Yates' mood, Wolf. I talked to George Parnham after the jury went out to start deliberating. He is her chief defense attorney. And I was curious. Normally, when you cover a murder trial, you assume that the defendant wants to be found not guilty.
But I asked him, because of this case, because of the nature of it, "What does Andrea Yates think about it?" And he told me -- quote -- "She wants whatever God wants." So that was his response to what Andrea Yates wants to hear from this 12-member jury this afternoon.
BLITZER: What kind of mood was Joe Owmby, the prosecutor, in after he delivered his summation earlier today, Gary?
TUCHMAN: Well, I can tell you the prosecutor on previous days has told us, when we asked him, "Are you nervous as this trial is coming to a close?" he said, "I'm never nervous about anything that goes on in a courtroom." And that was his attitude today after the closing arguments were finished.
BLITZER: Yates' attorneys made some compelling arguments that this is a very, very mentally ill woman. When you were listening and when you were watching all of this, Gary, could you get any sense of how the jury was reacting?
TUCHMAN: The jury in this case -- and I have been to many a long trial and many a murder trial where jurors have actually fallen asleep in the jury box, because much of the testimony in these types of trials is very dry. These jurors were very attentive. They were a very good jury. And both the attorneys have agreed on both sides that these jurors paid attention during the trial.
But it is impossible to figure out their mood. They certainly have had tears in their eyes during some of the emotional testimony. This has been a very tough case to sit through no matter who you are.
And it's very important to point out that both sides acknowledge this woman was mentally ill. Just the prosecution says she knew right from wrong. The defense says she thought what she was doing was right, that she had no idea that it was wrong.
BLITZER: Gary, stand by. I want to bring Cynthia Alksne, our legal analyst, back in as well.
The fact, Cynthia, that Andrea Yates' husband, Russell, and her mother stood by Andrea Yates throughout this trial, testified on her behalf, trying to convince the jury she couldn't tell the difference between right and wrong, how compelling was their testimony?
ALKSNE: You know, I think it is a very important aspect to this case, especially if there were people on the (INAUDIBLE)
BLITZER: Cynthia, unfortunately, we are losing your phone line. We are going to try to repair that.
Let me ask that same question to Gary Tuchman, who is covering this case as well.
The fact that her husband, Andrea Yates' husband, the fact that her mother testified on her behalf, saying she should be not guilty on the basis of insanity, how compelling was that testimony? How important was it, Gary?
TUCHMAN: Well, it is certainly an important aspect for the jury to consider. And it's something the defense wants them to consider: that Russell Yates, her husband, who lost his five children, too, thinks his wife should be found not guilty by the reason of insanity.
It is really interesting, Wolf. Russell Yates is very angry at the prosecution. He said they never once consulted him or asked him any questions about this entire case since this happened in June 20, 2001. He says he is angry that they didn't even allot his family seats inside the courtroom. We should point out the Russell Yates hasn't been allowed in the courtroom except for closing arguments, because he was a witness in the case. So he wasn't allowed in. And, eventually, seats were allotted for the family members.
But the family, the Yates family on both sides, is not happy with the prosecution.
BLITZER: Russell Yates is now in the courtroom. We just saw him.
And let's recap for our viewers who may be just tuning in. There has been a verdict reached in the Andrea Yates trial. It should be announced momentarily. We are standing by in Houston. We will stay in this courtroom until this verdict is announced.
Gary Tuchman, our reporter, has been covering this trial over these past several weeks. He is in Houston outside the courthouse with additional information.
Gary, as you take a look at the various stages of the expert witnesses that were brought in, the psychiatrists, the psychologists, on behalf of the prosecution as well as on behalf of the defense, who seemed to have the more credible witnesses before this jury?
TUCHMAN: Well, one thing we can tell you is that both sides have exploited this aspect. They have each paid their witnesses. And that is a standard thing you do in court. People just don't work for free for months and months and weeks and weeks.
But that is one thing that each side has tried to impugn the other side with, that they have paid their witnesses a great deal of money. For example, for the prosecution, Dr. Park Dietz, who is a well known forensic psychiatrist, who has worked on many cases -- as a matter of fact, he was the chief evaluator for the government in the John Hinckley case. That is the man who shot President Reagan in 1981. He said he is paid $500 an hour. And he has worked many hours on this case. And during closing arguments, the defense brought that aspect up.
So, it is hard it tell who is more credible. All that matters, obviously, is what the jury thinks. But each side has had eight witnesses testify to their viewpoint. The defense has paid witnesses that have said that this woman was absolutely crazy, that she didn't know what she was doing, that she thought she was doing what was right, that she thought that her children were going to hell and the she needed to kill them while they were innocent so they would go to heaven.
BLITZER: Gary, we see some movement, the prosecution and defense, Andrea Yates, standing up.
Let's listen in.
(JOINED IN PROGRESS)
JUDGE BELINDA HILL, HARRIS COUNTY DISTRICT JUDGE: The court does not know what that verdict is. Regardless of what the verdict is, the court understands that this case has been emotional on all sides. However, the court will not tolerate any emotional outbursts, no matter what the verdict is. If you feel that you cannot control your emotions, you need to leave the courtroom now. If there is any outburst whatsoever, you will be removed from the courtroom immediately.
Are both sides ready for the jury? UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Yes, Your Honor.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Yes, Your Honor.
HILL: Bring the jury in, please.
BLITZER: The jury is now being brought in: 12 individuals, eight women, four men, most of them married. Most of them have children, although not, as we heard from Cynthia Alksne, four or five children, as Andrea Yates and her husband, Russell, had five children.
We're waiting for the jury to walk in. We won't see the jury. That's usually the case in these kinds of situations where the jury is about to release its verdict. They deliberated for three hours and 40 minutes, very fast.
HILL: Please be seated.
Madam Foreperson, has the jury reached a verdict?
FOREPERSON: Yes, ma'am.
HILL: Will you please pass it to the bailiff?
Mrs. Yates, please stand.
"In cause number 880205, the State of Texas vs. Andrea Pia Yates, we the jury find the defendant, Andrea Pia Yates, guilty of capital murder as charged in the indictment," signed by the foreperson.
"In cause number 883590, the State of Texas vs. Andrea Pia Yates, we the jury find the defendant, Andrea Pia Yates, guilty of capital murder as charged in the indictment," signed by the foreperson.
Does either side wish to have the jury polled?
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Yes, Your Honor, we do.
HILL: You may be seated.
Ladies and gentlemen, the clerk will now call you by your juror number, not by your name, by your juror number. If this is your individual verdict, please answer yes. If it is not, please answer no.
CLERK: Juror No. 1.
JUROR NO. 1.: Yes.
CLERK: No. 2.
JUROR NO. 2: Yes.
CLERK: No. 3.
JUROR NO. 3: Yes. CLERK: Four.
JUROR NO. 4.: Yes.
CLERK: Five.
JUROR NO. 5: Yes.
CLERK: Six.
JUROR NO. 6: Yes.
CLERK: Seven.
JUROR NO. 7: Yes.
CLERK: Eight.
JUROR NO. 8: Yes.
CLERK: Nine.
JUROR NO. 9. Yes.
CLERK: 10.
JUROR NO. 10: Yes.
CLERK: 11.
JUROR NO. 11: Yes.
CLERK: 12.
JUROR NO. 12: Yes.
HILL: See the lawyers at the bench please? Oh, I'm sorry, that's right. Please be seated.
Ladies and gentlemen, given the hour, the court is going to recess you until tomorrow morning. Once again, tomorrow morning, we are going to start at 10:30 a.m. And once again I must give you your admonitions. You are not to discuss this case among yourselves. You are not to permit anyone to discuss it with you. If anyone attempts to do so, please notify the baliff and he will notify the court. Once again, should this case be covered in the news media, not to read about it, watch or listen to it or permit anyone who may read about it, watch or listen to it to tell you about it. If anyone attempts to do so, please identify yourselves as jurors and please inform the baliff. You are now in recess until 10:30 a.m. tomorrow morning.
All rise for the jury, please.
BLITZER: And so it is, Andrea Yates found guilty, two counts capital murder, after a jury of 12 individuals deliberated for three hours and 40 minutes. Cynthia Alksne, our legal analyst, is on the phone once again. Cynthia, your initial inclination that a speedy verdict like this probably was good news for the prosecution was obviously correct.
ALKSNE: Well, it's still shocking. The prosecutor today, the female prosecutor, made a very compelling argument. She had (UNINTELLIGIBLE).
BLITZER: Cynthia, unfortunately we can't hear you. We have to get a better cell phone for you. Unfortunately, we are not hearing you. Try to fix that and we will work on that.
Gary Tuchman is standing outside the courthouse as we see Andrea Yates and other members of the team leave the courtroom. Gary, this was a slam dunk decision. Explain to our viewers why there were two counts of capital murder when she drowned five of her children.
TUCHMAN: OK. The way it works is the first count of capital murder was for the deaths of her two oldest children, Noah and John, age seven and five. Under Texas law, you can only get the death penalty if you kill more than one person or if you kill one person and commit an additional felony. She did not commit an additional felony. That is why the prosecution structured that charge that way.
Charge two was for the death of Mary, age six months. Under Texas law, if you kill someone under the age of six, that's also eligible for the death penalty. The two other children, Paul and Luke, who weren't included, the prosecution reserved the right to bring up those charges later. Now it appears the prosecution won't have to use that.
I do want to point out just now, as Andrea Yates left the courtroom, she looked back. She is looking back at her mother, Karen Kennedy, who has been in the courtroom pretty much every day during this trial. A few days ago, Andrea Yates walked into the courtroom and smiled at her mother. Her mother smiled back. Obviously, the expression was much different this time. You also saw her husband, Russell Yates, sitting on the other side of the courtroom. His head was in his hands after he heard the verdict. He has been very supportive of her this entire time, saying that she is insane, saying that she needs to go to a mental hospital. And that is what would have happened. If she was found not guilty today, she would have gone back to jail. They would have drawn up the papers and then she would have gone to the North Texas State Hospital in Vernon, Texas, where she would have stayed for an undetermined amount of time.
But now, Andrea Yates is convicted of the brutal murders. And no one has denied those murders were brutal. These children suffered incredibly, all five children. They were lured into the bathroom. They were tricked into the bathtub and they took as many as six minutes to die. Her first child, Paul, three years old, that went into the bathroom, walked in when his mother called him, and Paul said, Mommy, are we talking a bath today. And then he was drowned.
Then, two-year-old Luke was drowned, five-year-old John, Mary, six months old, went into the bathroom. And Andrea Yates testified on videotape that her little baby was the only one who didn't struggle because she wasn't strong enough. She was only an infant. And then seven-year-old Noah was told to come in. And Noah walked in and saw his sister Mary floating in the tub, and said, Mommy, what's wrong with Mary? And then, Andrea Yates took seven-year-old Noah, put him in the bathtub and she testified later that Noah started saying something like, I'm sorry. I'm sorry. And she then proceeded to drown her seven-year-old boy.
So this woman did partake in brutal killings. They have now been officially ruled by a 12-member jury as brutal murders -- Wolf.
BLITZER: Gary, stand by. Judge Belinda Hill, when she read the verdict, she was very forceful, very decisive. For those of our viewers just tuning in, I want to replay the verdict as it was announced in the Houston courtroom only a few moments ago.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
HILL: "In cause number 880205, the State of Texas vs. Andrea Pia Yates, we the jury find the defendant, Andrea Pia Yates, guilty of capital murder as charged in the indictment," signed by the foreperson.
"In cause number 883590, the State of Texas vs. Andrea Pia Yates, we the jury find the defendant, Andrea Pia Yates, guilty of capital murder as charged in the indictment," signed by the foreperson.
Does either side wish to have the jury polled?
(END VIDEO CLIP)
BLITZER: And, Gary Tuchman, as you pointed out, Russell Yates, the husband, he put his head into his hands. He was clearly distraught, clearly upset when he heard the guilty verdicts, two counts, capital murder announced. He is, from day one, he has stood by his wife, hasn't he?
TUCHMAN: Well, keep in mind, Wolf, one of the things the prosecution is saying is we don't definitely know why she killed her children. But one of the theories they put out there is that she was trying to get back at her controlling husband, Russell Yates. They say that Russell Yates, their allegation is that he made his wife's life miserable. He made her live on a bus, the whole family lived on a bus for a while. She home-schooled her five children. After she had her fifth child, she continued the home-schooling the first day she got back. And the prosecution has said that because of her trying to get back at her husband, because she didn't think her children were as perfect as she thought they should be, that was one of the reasons they threw out there as to why she got so frustrated, despite her mental illness, that she killed her children.
One thing the prosecution has said all along, they agree, she is mentally ill. But they say she knew right from wrong. She called the police. They say, why would she call the police if she didn't know there was something wrong with this. And she also said in interviews that she knew that this is against what society wants and against what God wants. And that apparently resonated with this jury. BLITZER: And, Gary, as you well know, having covering this case for so many months, almost from the very beginning, when she was first -- when she first came forward, she was clearly aware that she must have done something wrong because she immediately called her husband and then called the police.
Was that the most compelling part of the argument that the prosecution made to the jury because they had to convince the jury she could tell at that particular moment when she drowned her five children that she knew she was doing something wrong?
TUCHMAN: I'll tell you what I think hurt the defense. One thing the defense kept saying is even if she called the police, that's not necessarily becuase she thought it was illegal. She just knew something bad happened. Her children weren't alive anymore. So she brought people over.
But the defense called up an expert, Dr. Phillip Resnick, who was paid by the defense, testified on behalf of the defense. He said she didn't know what she did was wrong. However, he did say that she was aware that it was illegal. And that may have meant something to this jury.
BLITZER: And the Texas juries have a history of being tough, but I would venture to say, Gary, a lot of people even in Texas are surprised how quickly this verdict was reached.
TUCHMAN: I think no one can accuse this verdict, Wolf, of not paying attention. As I said earlier, I didn't see anyone falling asleep in the time I was in court. Most trials that last a long time, there is usually one or two jurors who nods off in the back. These people were very attentive, most of them took notes. And that would be a hard one to say, that these jurors weren't paying attention to the facts in this case.
BLITZER: Gary Tuchman, thanks so much for your information. Cynthia Alksne, thanks to you as well.
We are going to continue to follow the wrap up, the reaction to what happened. If any of the attorneys walk outside and speak live, we will bring that to you, of course, as we continue to monitor what had happened. But in the case of the state of Texas versus Andrea Pia Yates, two counts guilty of capital murder in connection with drowning her five children last year. We'll continue to follow this story, all the reaction.
But for now, I'm Wolf Blitzer in Washington. "LOU DOBBS MONEYLINE" begins right after this.
TO ORDER A VIDEO OF THIS TRANSCRIPT, PLEASE CALL 800-CNN-NEWS OR USE OUR SECURE ONLINE ORDER FORM LOCATED AT www.fdch.com
