Return to Transcripts main page
CNN Wolf Blitzer Reports
Marjorie Knoller Found Guilty; Jerusalem Bombing Hampers Peace Movement
Aired March 21, 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.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Verdict as to Marjorie Knoller, count one. We the jury, in the above entitled action, find the defendant, Marjorie Knoller, guilty of the crime of murder in the second degree, in violation of section 187.
WOLF BLITZER, CNN ANCHOR: Guilty all five counts, in the dog- mauling murder. Hello, I'm Wolf Blitzer reporting in Washington. We continue now our breaking news coverage.
In recent weeks, much of the nation has been gripped by this dog mauling case in California. That's because this time the dog owner was charged with murder. Now, as you just heard, the jury has spoken.
Let's go straight to CNN's Charles Feldman. He's right outside the courthouse in Los Angeles. Charles, give us the background. Tell us how these last few minutes unfolded.
CHARLES FELDMAN,CNN CORRESPONDENT: Well, Wolf, as you can well imagine, everybody has been waiting here breathlessly for the jury's verdict. It was a five-week long trial about the tragic mauling death of Diane Whipple up in San Francisco, by two Presa Canario dogs -- large dogs, in excess of 120 pounds each.
But the interesting and significant legal issue here of course, is whether or not the owners of these dogs -- the dogs in the custody of these two people, Marjorie Knoller and Robert Noel -- whether they can be held legally liable for the actions of their animals.
And so, after a five-week trial, a jury today returned a verdict on all five counts. The most significant, of course, against Marjorie Knoller, finding her guilty of second degree murder in connection with the mauling death of Diane Whipple up in San Francisco.
Now let's go to a sound segment of those moments, Wolf, when the jury's verdict was announced publicly.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: As to Marjorie Knoller count three, we the jury in the above entitled action find the defendant, Marjorie Knoller, guilty of the crime of being the owner of a mischievous animal, who kills in violation of section 399 of the California penal code, a felony as charged in count three of the indictment. Dated March 20, 2002 at 3:00 p.m. and signed by the foreperson.
Verdict as to Robert Noel, count three. We the jury, in the above entitled action, find the defendant, Robert Noel, guilty of the crime of being the owner of a mischievous animal who kills, in violation of section 399 of California penal code, a felony as charged in count three of the indictment. Dated March 20, 2002 at 3:00 p.m. and signed by the foreperson.
Verdict as to Marjorie Knoller, count two. We the jury, in the above entitled action, find the defendant, Marjorie Knoller, guilty of the crime of involuntary manslaughter, in violation of section 192B of the California penal code. A felony as charged in count two of the indictment, dated March 20, 2002 at 3:00 p.m. and signed by the foreperson.
Verdict as to Robert Noel, count two. We the jury, in the above entitled action, find the defendant, Robert Noel, guilty of the crime of involuntary manslaughter in violation of section 192B of the California penal code, a felony as charged in count two of the indictment, dated March 20, 2002 at 3:00 p.m. and signed by the foreperson.
Verdict as to Marjorie Knoller, count one. We the jury, in the above entitled action, find the defendant, Marjorie Knoller, guilty of the crime of murder in the second degree, in violation of section 187 of the California penal code, a felony as charged in count one of the indictment, dated March 21, 2002 at 10:00 a.m. and signed by the foreperson.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
FELDMAN: Now, Wolf, let's talk a little bit about the possible sentences that could be given to Marjorie Knoller and Robert Noel. In the case of the third count -- that's the count about having a mischievous animal that can kill -- the possible sentence range in California, 16 months to three years.
On count No. 2 -- that's the involuntary manslaughter charge in which both Marjorie Knoller and her husband, Robert Noel, were found guilty -- in California the prison term can be up to four years. And in that second-degree murder charge, that the jury found Marjorie Knoller guilty of, she faces a possible sentence of 15 years to life.
What happens now, Wolf, is that these two people, this husband and wife, Marjorie Knoller and Robert Noel -- both attorneys, by the way, in their own rights -- will be transported back to San Francisco, where this tragic case began. In a couple of weeks there will be a report by the department of probation, and then the judge will announce the sentence -- Wolf.
BLITZER: All right. Charles Feldman, stand by. We'll probably be coming back to you as we get increasing reaction from these verdicts. But I want to bring in a former judge, Catherine Crier, for some legal perspective. She's the host now of Court TV.
Catherine, thanks so much for joining us. How surprised were you, guilty all five counts?
CATHERINE CRIER, HOST, COURT TV: Not surprised. I did anticipate they would come back with involuntary manslaughter on Marjorie Knoller, though. But to take that next step, that is a precedent-setting case. It really took a lot of -- I won't say guts, because the evidence was there. But the jury had to really feel a sense of malice and a sense of disgust that went on with this woman.
But the defendants did not present a particularly appealing pair. And while I would have made this involuntary manslaughter, I'm not really surprised.
BLITZER: Well, that's the most serious charge, guilty of murder in the second degree against Marjorie Knoller. She's 46 years old and that sentence, as we just heard from Charles Feldman, is what, 15 to life. What do you anticipate? Is there any way of guessing what kind of sentence she'll end up getting for that very serious second-degree murder charge?
CRIER: Well, we love to speculate on these sorts of things. But you've got mitigating circumstances and aggravating circumstances, that the judge will look at to figure out where along the continuum the sentence ought to be.
You'll heard about her good works. We actually heard about contributions that she made to society, even though we didn't get a chance to watch this testimony live. You'll hear all that sort of evidence. But then you'll also hear the aggravating factors, certainly against Robert Noel.
The letters that he wrote, the fact that he didn't care whether anyone was frightened there in the apartment complex. Even Diane Whipple, he referred to her in a very derogatory fashion, talking to the prosecutor. All of those sorts of things will aggravate the sentence the judge imposes.
BLITZER: And remind our viewers, Catherine, why was Marjorie Knoller charged with a second-degree murder count, and her husband, Robert Noel, 60 years old, not?
CRIER: It's actually just the fact that she was there. She was the one taking the dog around. He had knowledge and therefore, you could assume, it was implied, that he understood the dangerous character of these dogs. But she was actually the one who took the animal out and placed her neighbor in a circumstance that the jury determined was with malice aforethought.
And you can imply that sort of malice by your sort of malignant, abandoned heart, if you will. This wonderful language, ancient language in the law. But essentially, she was not respecting that neighbor. She was taking a sort of dangerous instrument, equivalent to a loaded gun, there in the hallway. And second-degree murder was, arguably, the appropriate response.
Interestingly, Wolf, the prosecutor didn't ask the grand jury to come back with second degree murder. They asked for involuntary manslaughter. But the grand jury raised the standards, raised the bar and said, no, this is what we're going to send back.
BLITZER: And, Catherine, tell us why this is a precedent-setting case, potentially?
CRIER: Murder for leading a dog around. It certainly is. Although the circumstances are very unique, Wolf. There may be a lot of dog owners, myself included, out there going, oh, dear. But you have the dogs of war kenneled, you've got a breed known for its ferocity. These dogs hunt pit bulls.
They're extraordinary animals. And they were apparently being bred, and somewhat trained, for their aggressive nature. To take that sort of animal and place it in a crowded apartment complex is lunacy, at best. So you have very unique circumstances that won't translate to a lot of people, So we shouldn't be worried. But it does put that precedent on the book, that you can be convicted of murder because of the behavior of your animal.
BLITZER: All right. Catherine Crier of Court TV, formerly of CNN, thanks so much for joining us.
CRIER: You bet.
BLITZER: I want to bring in now former federal prosecutor, Cynthia Alksne. She has a lot of experience in these kinds of matters. Cynthia,, both of these defendants, lawyers in their own right. The assumption is widespread they will seek an appeal. On what basis will they appeal?
CYNTHIA ALKSNE, FMR. FEDERAL PROSECUTOR: Well, they'll go through the record and think of everything they can think of. But the most important question is whether or not you can have second-degree murder for the killing by your dog.
That is the question -- it was a factual question for the jury, and almost is never overturned, because the jury made the factual finding of this implied malice, based on the numerous warnings that they had, based on the fact that both of the defendants apparently lied about it. They lied about whether or not they received the warnings. And then Ms. Knoller lied about the events on the day as they occurred.
Remember, she said, oh, I fought so hard and I tried so much to save her. And yet the prosecution had an expert that said, you know, she did not fight that hard because she had very minimal injuries. The jury could make an inference that she lied. And when you put all that together, the jury can make the factual finding, we can disagree with it. But it's the jury's choice and they can make it, and they did.
BLITZER: And, Cynthia, if you take a look at these five counts, everybody widely assumed that, as far as the mischievous conduct, as far as the involuntary manslaughter, the prosecution had a strong case. It was that fifth second-degree murder charge that was really up in the air. How surprised were you that she, Marjorie Knoller, was convicted of that murder charge? ALKSNE: I have to tell you I was not surprised, because there was very little remorse on their part. Because the jury watched this woman essentially lie to them. And juries don't like that. And they make you pay for that.
If she had gotten on the stand and said, "we made a terrible mistake," and was honest about what happened and, "I'm sorry we didn't take advantage," and, "I'm sorry we didn't muzzle the dogs" and "I didn't have these warnings." Instead she said, I didn't have those warnings.
They blamed the victim because she didn't act appropriately. They blamed the other people for not actually making formal complaints. And juries don't like that. And I think we can tell they didn't, based on their verdict.
BLITZER: This was also a politically charged trial, because the woman who was killed, Diane Whipple, 33 years old, was a lesbian, had a domestic partner, and it was in San Francisco. That seemed, at least as far as the defense attorneys representing the defendants were concerned, to build a case against her clients which was unfair.
ALKSNE: Well, Ms. Ruiz actually talked about that in closing statement. It was somewhat difficult to believe because it was such an outrageous argument, that a grand jury would make a political decision about whether or not to charge her, or whether or not it was OK to have your dog maul to death. It just didn't make any sense. And I think it was shocking for the jury and, I'm sure, backfired. Ms. Ruiz is very dramatic, and sometimes that helps you and sometimes it doesn't.
BLITZER: All right. Stand by for a second, Cynthia. Diane Whipple, who's dead, her mother is now speaking. Let's listen in.
PENNY WHIPPLE,VICTIM'S MOTHER: ... the whole entire thing, except when it got a little gruesome and I had to leave. And I'm very happy with this verdict. I feel the prosecution did a wonderful job. I'm a little on that right now, so I hope you forgive me. But it's been a long process. And like Ron says, I'm looking forward also to this civil suit.
QUESTION: What does this mean to you now at this point?
WHIPPLE: Well, I feel that justice was done here. And that's what I was hoping for. I hesitated to say any expectations about what I felt that a fair verdict was, but I feel in this case that this was a fair verdict. And I'm very pleased and happy with it.
QUESTION: Ms. Whipple, (UNINTELLIGIBLE) Channel 4 News. At times, the defense was that your own daughter somehow contributed to her own death. How did that make you feel when you had to listen to testimony like that?
WHIPPLE: Well, that was very hurtful. And, as Mr. Hammer brought out, that, you know, Marjorie, from what I could see, never took any responsibility until it was convenient for her to do so at trial, or Mr. Knoller. They were -- they had tried all along to blame my daughter and anybody else that they possibly could, instead of looking to themselves. And I'm just glad that the verdicts came out the way they did.
RON ROUDA, CIVIL ATTORNEY: There will be an opportunity for further questions later, so this will be a brief statement.
QUESTION: What is your name, please?
ROUDA: Ron Rouda, R-O-U-D-A, from San Francisco. The civil suit will be tried in San Francisco, and the civil suit will be consolidated with the case brought by Sharon Smith, the surviving spouse, domestic partner of Diane Whipple.
QUESTION: You're the civil attorney?
ROUDA: Yes, yes.
QUESTION: Any idea when that will begin?
ROUDA: I'm hopeful by the end of the year. We're about to sit down and take depositions of the landlord and building manager. And we've obtained some releases in the apartment. And there's some language in there that leads to liability of the landlord.
QUESTION: Mr. Rouda, are you under the impression still, that Diane Whipple was...
BLITZER: We're back. Cynthia Alksne, our legal analyst, former federal prosecutor. Cynthia, we heard Penny Whipple, the mother of Diane Whipple, the dead woman in this particular case, say that they're now looking forward to a civil suit. What is she referring to?
ALKSNE: Well, they have sued both of these defendants civilly for money, based on the death of her daughter. You just heard the defense attorney say something interesting. They're looking to see whether or not the landlord, the owner of the building, also has liability. We call that in the law, somebody with deep pockets, somebody with maybe some money or an insurance policy.
It's hard for me to believe that the defendants in this case, Ms. Knoller and Mr. Noel, have much money. They've spent a lot of money on their defense and they didn't look like people of means to start with. So on some level it doesn't do any good to sue them because they don't have any money. And lawyers are looking for somebody with money.
BLITZER: And you were talking earlier about the behavior of the defense attorney. A lot of us got to see her quite a bit on television over these past few weeks, Nedra Ruiz, and she was making all sorts of statements. Was there an issue here that you think that her conduct might have undermined her clients' standing before this judge?
ALKSNE: Well, you know, she made statements essentially blaming the victim, and also cross-examined the victim's girlfriend about how if she had complained, perhaps this incident wouldn't have happened. And that was very outrageous. And a lot of people have criticized her for that, and rightly so.
But let me give you one point to think about: Sometimes, what comes out of a lawyer's mouth is what the client tells them to say. So it may be that Ms. Ruiz was pushing arguments that her clients really wanted her to make. And we'll only know that during the course of the appeal.
Because what will happen during the course of the appeal is, one of the counts will be ineffective assistance in counsel, in that Ms. Ruiz made all these scandalous statements. And in the course of that, the attorney client privilege will be waived and we'll find out who actually pushed her to make those statements.
BLITZER: I know you're from California originally, so you're familiar with California law in this particular case. How long will this appeal process go on?
ALKSNE: I'm not exactly sure because I haven't practiced in California except in federal court. I would expect it would take it over a year.
BLITZER: And the process will begin almost immediately, is that right?
ALKSNE: Almost immediately. Right now probably the court reporter is sitting in the back of the courtroom gathering up her papers to get ready to prepare the transcript so that everybody can have copies of the transcript, and the appellate process will begin. It will probably be different lawyers that will be assigned to the appeals process.
Part of what happens in the appeals process is the appellate lawyers blame the lawyers in the lower court to try to help and get a new trial. And that's why the lawyers change.
BLITZER: Let's recap. Both of these defendants, Marjorie Knoller and Robert Noel, they'll remain in prison for the time being unless this verdict is overturned, right?
ALKSNE: Oh, yes. There's no question. Did you see, as the verdict was being read, court officers moved from the back of the courtroom and the sides of the courtroom, and came and stood right up behind them instantly? And that's what happens when a verdict like that is read. They will go back and several weeks after probation a report is written. And they'll come back to the courtroom in San Francisco for the sentencing, and they'll go back to jail pending results from the appeal.
BLITZER: All right. Cynthia Alksne, thank you so much for your insight.
As usual, stand by. We're still waiting for the lawyers on all sides to come before those microphones in Los Angeles. When they do we'll bring you their reaction. Let's just recap briefly. All five counts, guilty as far as this jury in Los Angeles is concerned. As far as Robert Noel, 60 years old, guilty of mischievous conduct and guilty of involuntary manslaughter.
His wife, Marjorie Knoller, 46 years old, guilty of both of those counts. Also guilty, as far as the much more serious count, guilty of murder in the second degree. That carries with it potentially 15 years to life in prison. We're going to continue to follow reaction to this dog mauling trial in Los Angeles.
And this note: our Web question of the day is this: do you agree with the verdict in the California dog mauling trial? You can vote at my Web page, cnn.com/wolf. While you're there, let me know what you're 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. That's also where you can read my daily on-line column, cnn.com/wolf.
And he's on his way out of the country, but earlier terrorists hit one stop on his tour. Coming up: protecting the president in Peru, and his tough words for the bombers.
Can the U.S. negotiate with this man? Why ties with Yasser Arafat are in jeopardy.
And the police chase that had Arizona viewers in suspense. Witness the ending, coming up.
First, with more on our top story, here's the news quiz. Which pure-bred dog is responsible for the most fatal attacks in the United States? Is it a Rottweiler, a Doberman Pinscher, a Pit Bull or a German Shepard? The answer, coming up.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
BLITZER: Welcome back. For the second straight day, Israel is the target of a Palestinian suicide bomber. The latest attack in downtown Jerusalem killed at least three Israelis and wounded about 40 others. Authorities also say the bomber was killed.
Palestinian sources say the attack was carried out by the Al-Aqsa martyrs brigades, the military wing of Yasser Arafat's fatah movement. The Palestinian leader condemned the bombing.
Just days before President Bush's visit to Peru, a car bomb attack near the American embassy in Lima killed at least nine people and injured 25 others. No Americans were among those killed. No one has claimed responsibility, but U.S. officials say they suspect Shining Path rebels carried out the attack. President Bush is scheduled to arrive in Lima on Saturday.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
GEORGE W. BUSH, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: I'm still going. I'm sure President Toledo will do everything he can to make Lima safe for our trip. You know, two-bit terrorists aren't going to prevent me from doing what we need to do.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
BLITZER: More now on the deadly suicide bomb attack in Jerusalem. So far, there has been no Israeli military response, but the government did cancel a round of U.S.-brokered cease-fire talks with the Palestinians. CNN's Michael Holmes is covering developments in Jerusalem.
MICHAEL HOLMES, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Wolf, thanks very much. Yes, this incident further hampers the efforts of U.S. special envoy, Anthony Zinni, as he tries to bring about a cease-fire here. This suicide bombing happened in a busy area of west Jerusalem, an area of commercial activity, shops and residential, as well. It's also, sadly, an area that has seen these sorts of attacks several times in the past.
Now, responsibility for previous incidents in recent days here have been claimed by groups such as Islamic Jihad and Hamas. These are groups that are vehemently opposed to any sort of peace with Israel, and are opposed to these cease-fire talks.
But today's bombing has been claimed by the Al-Aqsa brigade. That a splinter group, if you like, of the armed militia that is linked with Yasser Arafat's own fatah movement. Israeli government spokesmen seized on that to lay the blame for the day's events at the feet of Yasser Arafat.
However, the Palestinian Authority president was quick to appear in public and condemn these attacks, and say that the Palestinian Authority will do everything it can to find those responsible. Meanwhile, cease-fire talks, which had gone on during the violence of recent days, did not go on today.
A high-level meeting between Palestinian and Israeli security officials was meant to take place this evening. It was called off by the Israelis. However, a government spokesman this evening said that Israel was not going to support a unilateral cease-fire. That is, call for a cease-fire on their own without full Palestinian involvement.
They did, however, say that that security meeting may well take place tomorrow, Friday, in Israel. Now, before this latest attack, there had been a sense of hope here, Wolf. A sense of hope that things were being achieved, and that the cease-fire process, if you like, was moving forward. But it's fair to say that here tonight the uncertainly has returned -- Wolf.
BLITZER: Michael Holmes in Jerusalem, thank you very much. Yasser Arafat's response to the bombing was not enough for President Bush, who called on the Palestinian leader to do more to stop the violence. Covering that part of the story is our senior White House correspondent, John King. He joins us now live -- John.
JOHN KING, CNN SR. WHITE HOUSE CORRESPONDENT: And, Wolf, senior officials tell us here the decision on the Cheney meeting, whether Mr. Cheney will go to Egypt for that meeting Monday or Tuesday with Yasser Arafat, could be made, the final decision, as late as Sunday night. They want to assess what is going on. They want to hear more from the president's special envoy, Anthony Zinni.
But the administration sent, in very blunt terms to Yasser Arafat today, a message. He must dismantle this group responsible for today's attacks and he must do more to stop the violence, and he must do it now.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
(voice-over): Aboard Air Force One, destination El Paso, Texas, an urgent discussion of the latest deadly bombing in Israel, and the decision to make clear a meeting between Vice President Cheney and Palestinian leader Yasser Arafat is no sure thing.
GEORGE W. BUSH, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: Mr. Arafat must do more to stop the violence in the Middle East.
KING: A Palestinian group called the al-Aqsa Martyrs Brigade took responsibility for Thursday's attack. Al-Aqsa is affiliated with Arafat's fatah movement. Senior officials say Mr. Bush deliberately added this line to a speech in Texas just after his call for Arafat to do more.
BUSH: If you harbor a terrorist, if you hide a terrorist, if you feed a terrorist, you're just as guilty as the terrorists themselves.
KING: Secretary of State Powell called Mr. Arafat from Air Force One, demanding that he publicly denounce the latest violence and immediately arrest those responsible if he wants the meeting to take place.
The administration believes a Cheney-Arafat meeting just before next week's Arab summit in Beirut would: give Israeli Prime Minister Sharon political cover to lift travel restrictions on the Palestinian leader. Allow the vice president to make clear that Mr. Arafat must say nothing at the summit that might incite violence. Encourage the summit debate to focus on the new Saudi peace initiative, not public condemnation of Israel or the United States and allow Arab leaders to directly pressure Mr. Arafat to do what is necessary to reach a lasting cease-fire.
At a morning Oval Office session, both the president and vice president said special Mideast envoy Anthony Zinni will make the final decision on the meeting based on progress in implementing security improvements required in the so-called Tenet plan.
DICK CHENEY, VICE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: He'll make his judgments based on whether or not Arafat is in fact implementing the Tenet. Not just promising to implement, but implementing Tenet.
KING: The State Department upped the stakes on Mr. Arafat by announcing its designation of the Al-Aqsa Brigade as a foreign terrorist group.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
Now, that designation blocks any fund-raising in the United States, or any travel to the United States by Al-Aqsa members. Though senior officials tell us, the bigger meaning is this: It gives a green light for an Israeli military response if Mr. Arafat does not dismantle the group, quickly -- Wolf.
BLITZER: John King at the White House, thank you very much.
And of course, violence not strictly limited to the Middle East. There was that deadly car bombing in Peru's capital, Lima. And that raises serious questions about whether President Bush should go there, as he plans to do.
We heard the president say he won't let what he calls "two-bit terrorists" stop him from going. The bombing happened very close to the U.S. embassy. Mr. Bush is scheduled to arrive in Lima on Saturday.
Joining us now with his insight into what's involved in protecting the president is the former deputy assistant director of the Secret Service, John Libonati. John, thanks for joining us.
This must be a nightmare for the Secret Service, protecting the president in Lima, following this bombing that just occurred outside the embassy.
JOHN LIBONATI, FORMER DEPUTY ASST. DIRECTOR, SECRET SERVICE: Well, I think it is not unique.
I would point to the Secret Service's history of protecting presidents in what would be called high-tension areas. I would point to the recent trip of Vice President Cheney to the Mideast. I would point to President Clinton's trip to Bosnia, former president, then President Bush's trip to the area of Kuwait and Saudi Arabia during the Gulf War.
I think, certainly, one talks about heightened concerns. But I think the Secret Service -- my history, knowing it as I do -- would tell you that the service is always at a heightened concern over things like this. They've managed these things before. This is not unique. And I think they will use their history and their training and the countermeasures and intelligence to deal with it. And I'm absolutely convinced that the trip will go well and the president will be safe.
BLITZER: And you have been in a presidential detail. You know personally what it is like to protect the president. But at what point -- and it's happened -- I covered the White House -- does the Secret Service say to the president, "I know the political mission is important; you really want to go; but, Mr. President, we don't think it's a good idea"?
LIBONATI: Well, Wolf, I think you also know that once an agent, always an agent. So I'm going to maintain the policy of not speaking to the issue of recommendations. I think you have to draw a distinction between briefings and discussions with the appropriate intelligence agencies and White House staff and recommendations. And, again, I'm going to pass on the issue of recommendation and say that, clearly there will be discussions and clearly there will be briefings. But I think the service has a long history of providing protection in this environment.
I think, as you know, that there is an advanced team that will be well armed with the appropriate countermeasures and intelligence. I think also the service has a long history of working, not just with domestic law enforcement intelligence partners, but with foreign intelligence partners. And I point to working with 67 organizations and agencies in the recent challenge they had with the Olympics and many of the challenges they have faced overseas, some of which I've mentioned before.
So I'm quite confident that they're up to the task. They were ready for this. They were armed with the intelligence that goes with the history of that region. And there's no doubt in my mind that they will be focused and disciplined and successful.
BLITZER: Spoken like a true Secret Service officer. You once were. You still are.
LIBONATI: Always are, always will be.
BLITZER: John Libonati, thanks again for joining us.
LIBONATI: Thank you for having me, Wolf.
BLITZER: Appreciate it very much.
LIBONATI: Thank you.
BLITZER: And, as we first told you yesterday, the defense secretary, Donald Rumsfeld, has unveiled rules for the expected military trials of some high-ranking al Qaeda and Taliban detainees in U.S. custody.
During the proceedings, which the Pentagon calls commissions, defendants will be presumed innocent. They will be provided with attorneys and won't be required to testify or implicate themselves. At the same time, they will have limited right of appeal. And standards of evidence will be looser than in regular civilian trials.
Rumsfeld says the rules are fair to everyone involved.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
DONALD RUMSFELD, SECRETARY OF DEFENSE: We have made every reasonable effort to establish a process that is just, one that protects both the rights of the defendant to a fair trial, but also protects the rights of the American people to their security and to live as they were meant to live: in freedom and without fear of terrorists
(END VIDEO CLIP)
BLITZER: Earlier, I also spoke with the deputy defense secretary, Paul Wolfowitz.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
PAUL WOLFOWITZ, DEPUTY DEFENSE SECRETARY: We spent a lot of time trying to make sure that, on the one hand, they would meet standards of fairness, because that's the American way: to give people a fair trial. At the same time, we're in unusual circumstances with this war on terrorism. We have classified information we have to be able to deal with. We have information that may be collected on the battlefield. So the normal legal process really isn't adequate for some of the people we may have to try.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
BLITZER: And for the full interview with the No. 2 man at the Defense Department, please be sure to join me tonight here in the CNN "War Room." That's 7:00 p.m. Eastern, 4:00 Pacific.
And, in other news, it's been now more than two years since EgyptAir Flight 990 plunged into the Atlantic Ocean. Now the National Transportation Safety Board has released its final report on that crash that killed everyone on board.
CNN's Kathleen Koch joins us now with details -- Kathleen.
KATHLEEN KOCH, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Wolf, this is a very controversial report that has been delayed several times, primarily because of concern that it could hurt U.S. relations with Egypt, one our key Arab allies.
Of course, at the center of the debate are the actions of the co- pilot, Gamil al-Batouti, who was alone in the cockpit that October day in 1999 as the plane began to plunge toward the ocean.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
(voice-over): A desperate man bent on suicide and perhaps revenge, or a pilot struggling to save his plane: the two very different interpretations of EgyptAir co-pilot Gamil al-Batouti's actions emerged as soon as the cockpit transcripts were released. Batouti, alone at the controls, repeats, "I rely on God," as the automatic pilot is disengaged, the engines throttled back, and the Boeing 767 sent into a steep dive.
The pilot bursts in, asking, "What's going on," and "Pull with me. Pull with me," before the plane plummets into the ocean. Egypt has long insisted there must have been a problem with the aircraft.
MOHAMED FAHIM RAYAN, EGYPTAIR CHAIRMAN: What we are nearly 99 percent sure that there was something in that elevator system.
(END VIDEOTAPE) KOCH: Now, the elevator is the movable, horizontal part of the tail that moves up and down, pointing the aircraft's nose up or down. The NTSB report released today says that it exhaustively looked at such scenarios, but found the crash -- quote -- "did not result from a failure in the elevator control system or any other plane failure."
Investigators instead concluded that the airplane's movements during the initial part of the accident were the result of the relief first officer, Gamil al-Batouti's, manipulation of the controls. And the NTSB said, when the captain burst in, that his actions were consistent with an attempt to recover the accident airplane and the relief first officer's were not.
Investigators do not speculate, though, on Batouti's motives, saying -- quote -- "The reason for the relief first official's actions was not determined." Egypt has said that it will formally appeal for reconsideration of the NTSB's findings -- Wolf.
BLITZER: Kathleen Koch reporting, thank you very much for that report.
And we turn now to a very different kind of crash: In Phoenix, Arizona, a man is facing a variety of charges for leading police on a 40-minute chase in a stolen dump truck. The vehicle was involved in two accidents before it ran a red light and collided with a car. The truck flipped on its side and clipped a traffic light before coming to a stop. Police say the man behind the wheel may -- may -- have been on drugs.
And when he takes a stand, millions of the faithful listen. But did Pope John Paul II go far enough in addressing the sex scandal in the United States? I will ask The God Squad's Monsignor Tom Hartman. And later: troubling activity after the World Trade Center tragedy and what New York is doing to stop it.
Stay with us.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
BLITZER: Welcome back.
Pope John Paul II is breaking his silence on the sexual abuse cases plaguing the Roman Catholic Church here in the United States. In his annual message to priests around the world, the pope says the scandal has cast -- quote -- "a dark shadow of suspicion over the church and all members of the clergy."
Although not using the word pedophilia, he called the abuse at the hands of priests -- quote -- "the most grievous forms of the mystery of evil at work in the world."
It's been a very tough few months for the Catholic Church as it struggles to deal with the priest abuse allegations and charges it has not done enough to stop inappropriate behavior.
Before we discuss that, I want to go back to Los Angeles, where there's some reaction, increasing reaction now to the convictions in the dog-mauling case.
Let's listen in.
(JOINED IN PROGRESS)
SHARON SMITH, WHIPPLE'S DOMESTIC PARTNER: I just want to say, to start, that there's no real joy in this. But certainly some of justice for Diane was done today. And I'm very grateful to the jury for all their time and everything that they have done for this, Judge Warren. Mr. Hammer has done an absolutely amazing job presenting the case and getting the evidence in. And I'm forever grateful to Mr. Hammer.
So, we've crossed two hurdles. I've got standing to sue, and now this victory in the criminal court, and one more to go. And that's a civil suit. I'm looking forward to that, getting that over with, and moving on with my life.
QUESTION: What does this mean to you, Madam?
SMITH: Some closure. This criminal trial has always been about justice for Diane, though. And I'm feeling a little bit of that today.
QUESTION: Can you talk about what you feel this verdict says about what, in your mind, really happened that day?
SMITH: I have said, from the very first day, that I thought this was second-degree murder and manslaughter for Knoller and Noel. I'm very happy that the grand jury returned that indictment. And I am -- I feel really good about this jury and their decision today to see the grand jury indictment through.
QUESTION: Could you walk us through coming in to the courtroom today and having to sit through the suspense there?
SMITH: It felt like weeks before the clerk read the verdict -- very nervous -- thinking about the last 14 months. And that felt just like yesterday.
QUESTION: I heard Michael tell you, "Breathe," and you took a deep breath. What were you thinking when guilty came on second degree?
SMITH: I was thinking, "That's for you, Alexis."
QUESTION: Could you share what the prosecutors told you when you embraced right afterwards?
SMITH: Jim said, "This was God's doing" and that Alexis was going to be at peace now.
QUESTION: You've got an award coming tonight. Can you tell us a little bit about that and why?
SMITH: Do you want to talk about that? MICHAEL CARDOZA, ATTORNEY FOR SHARON SMITH: Sure, I will tell you.
At the bailiff dinner in San Francisco, Sharon's going to be receiving the community service award. Carol Migden will be presenting the award to her tonight in San Francisco. And, in fact, I know she's not flying back. She has got to drive back. So, Mr. Hammer has promised us clear passage from here to San Francisco so Sharon can be on time.
(CROSSTALK)
QUESTION: ... impact statement at sentencing, and can you tell us what you might say?
BLITZER: Sharon Smith, the domestic partner of Diane Whipple, who was killed by that dog in the dog-mauling case in San Francisco a year ago January -- her attorney, Michael Cardoza, speaking as well -- Sharon Smith expressing gratification in the conviction of Marjorie Knoller and Robert Noel, all five counts, including the most serious count against Ms. Knoller, a count of murder in the second degree.
We'll continue to monitor reaction from outside that courtroom in Los Angeles. We'll go back there when others come out to react.
But in the meantime, I want to bring in Monsignor Tom Hartman. He's half of the so-called God Squad. And he's obviously very, very concerned about the scandal unfolding in the Catholic Church right now.
We heard from the pope earlier, Monsignor, condemn what's going on. How serious of a crisis is this for the Catholic Church in America?
TOM HARTMAN, THE GOD SQUAD: Well, it's an important turning point in the church.
Many of the laypeople who love the church are angry with the church, because they feel as though sexual abuse has occurred. And they want to make sure that it doesn't occur anymore and that it be taken care of by the church. So, the church has to address this very directly.
The holy father, in writing a letter on Holy Thursday, which he does every year -- it's day of the renewal of priesthood -- goes out of his way at the end of the letter to make sure that everyone knows where he stands: It's a scandal. It's a betrayal of the priesthood. And it is also evil.
Those are very strong words on the part of the pope. And they're appropriate for the offense.
BLITZER: And, even as we're speaking right now, Monsignor, we're getting word in our computer, a Catholic monsignor here in the nation's capital, in Washington, D.C., has been placed on leave after allegations he engaged in sexual misconduct with two minor girls. It seems these accusations are unfolding on a nearly daily basis right now. Is there a hemorrhage going on within the Catholic Church?
HARTMAN: Well, once something is public, everyone is going to be coming forth with any story that they have.
The important thing is to have balance in this. First of all, any priest who has worked in a parish and knows people and works hard with people knows how terrible sexual abuse is. The church needs to root out any vestiges of sexual abuse at all. It is wrong.
On the other instance, there are also instances where priests are unjustly accused. And so we try to balance out the real concern, which is the primary issue for children and those who have been sexually abused, and those who have been falsely accused.
BLITZER: Monsignor, the most recent Pew Research Center survey asks this question on the child abuse allegations in the Catholic Church: "Have Catholic leaders covered it up or dealt with it?" Fifty-four percent believe they've covered it up, the most serious allegation, that there's formal cover-up among the hierarchy in the Catholic Church.
How does the leadership deal with that perception?
HARTMAN: Well, over time, the leadership has come to understand this problem more deeply. Initially we felt as though it was a moral lapse, so that, when there was an accusation, the priest was called in. If there seemed to be any substance at all, that priest was sent on retreat and also sent to psychiatric assistance. We would wait to hear from the psychiatrist what the results of those tests were. And if they were fit to work again, they would be sent back.
I think it's important for people to know that the church was trying to do the right thing. But we have since come to understand a lot more about the illness and to understand, in some instances, it cannot be cured. And in those instances, priests have to be removed from the priesthood.
Also, we're aware, in certain instances -- not many -- but in certain instances, people have repeatedly done the same thing and, in those circumstances, are not at all to be justified.
BLITZER: Monsignor Tom Hartman, as usual, thanks so much for your insight. We appreciate it very much.
And a crackdown after September 11. We will tell you why New York's attorney general is leading the way -- but first, our "News Quiz" answer.
Earlier we asked: "Which purebred dog is responsible for the most fatal attacks in the United States?" Is it a rottweiler, a doberman pinscher, a pit bull, or a German shepherd? Statistics from a 20-year period ending in 1998 show the pit bull responsible for 66 fatal attacks. The rottweiller comes in second with 39.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
BLITZER: Welcome back.
And an incredible story of greed from New York this hour connected to September terror attacks. Authorities have charged 23 people with trying to get emergency relief funds after falsely claiming relatives who died in the World Trade Center.
CNN's Maria Hinojosa is in New York. She joins us now live with details -- Maria.
MARIA HINOJOSA, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Wolf, after September 11, so many people across the country wanted to help a devastated New York City and its residents. And from far away, all most people could do was to send their money as an expression of their mourning. Today, a story of those who were illegally helping themselves to money from the mourners.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
(voice-over): Almost every day since September 11, Julia Hernandez (ph) makes the familiar rounds in search of financial help. Her husband, a cook at the restaurant on top of the World Trade Center, left four children behind. She's gotten help from the Red Cross and a local victims group. Because she and her husband are undocumented, the aid has been the result of her tenacity. But sometimes there is no help available.
(on camera): You didn't get any help from FEMA at all, but you asked for it.
(voice-over): And what's likely to cause even more pain for people like Julia Hernandez: today in New York charges of fraud, people claiming they had lost family in the September 11 attacks.
ROBERT MORGENTHAU, MANHATTAN DISTRICT ATTORNEY: Twenty-three people have been charged for falsely filing death certificates claiming that members of their family died in the attacks on the World Trade Center so that they could obtain emergency relief funds; 15 of the defendants actually obtained a total $760,000 based on fraudulent claims. The other eight were caught before were received any funds.
HINOJOSA: Some were called professional con artists, charged with fraud previously. Still, this crime sets them apart.
ELIOT SPITZER, NEW YORK ATTORNEY GENERAL: It just strikes to the core of our moral structure. Those who would violate this sense of what is right and wrong deserve to spend a long time behind bars.
HINOJOSA: Many charity organizations say that, right after September 11, looking out for fraud was not a priority. They were only interested in getting people help fast. But now they have created internal fraud review panels to deal with the issue.
In a statement the Red Cross says: "We are cooperating fully with law enforcement authorities. All cases brought to our attention by such authorities or through our own internal investigations are immediately frozen pending resolution of these cases."
(END VIDEOTAPE)
HINOJOSA: The amount of money that some of these people allegedly scammed was also shocking. One man from Michigan who claimed he lost his brother received more than $270,000 from the Red Cross and Safe Horizon. The smallest amount: $1,000 for a Florida woman who claimed her ex-husband had died in the attacks -- Wolf.
BLITZER: Maria Hinojosa in New York, thank you very much.
And joining us now to talk a little bit more about these cases is the New York state attorney general, Eliot Spitzer.
We just saw you in Maria's report, Mr. Attorney General.
Is this the tip of the iceberg, or is that it, the people who were charged today?
SPITZER: Wolf, there will be more cases. I don't want to say it's the tip of the iceberg, which would suggest thousands of additional cases. I think there will be additional cases that we file in the coming weeks and months.
I and Mr. Morgenthau, with whom I have made these cases, have always said that we will pursue these cases aggressively. It strikes at the heart of our moral values. There is grotesque self-interest and a violation of our common sense of decency when people would take advantage of the enormous generosity of the American public: $2 billion that was given to the charities. And then these people show up pretending they lost loved ones in a horrendous effort to take advantage of the system.
We will prosecute these types to the fullest extent of the law.
BLITZER: And when they're apprehended and confronted with these charges, what do they say, if anything?
SPITZER: These are not individuals who express remorse. These are not individuals who see anything other than an opportunity to take advantage of the system.
So, what they say doesn't matter to us. We know that their actions have violated our sense of decency. They have taken advantage of the public. And they violate our memory of those who were killed on September 11. And for all those reasons, we will prosecute them vigorously.
BLITZER: Well, presumably, they have to return the money, but do they also face jail time?
SPITZER: Oh, absolutely. We are going to seek jail time. They face three to nine years, depending upon the individual facts of the cases.
Recovering the money is difficult, even though. As you heard, about $760,000 was turned over to these individuals, most of it is gone. It has been squandered, spent. It is hard to recover it. These individuals do not have bank accounts or assets which we can seize. We will do everything we can to recover the money. For most of them, the remedy and the way we impose our sanction will be sending them to jail.
BLITZER: Any new guidelines you're giving some of these charitable organization dispersing funds that they should be watching?
SPITZER: There is really a new chapter right now. During the immediate phase in the aftermath of 9/11, when all the money was flowing into the charities, there was an enormous need to disperse money to victims to make sure that their basic needs were taken care of: housing, food, shelter.
Now we are in a phase where the charities are taking a more careful look at the needs of the individuals. More time can go into the examination before cash is dispersed. So I think the charities are less likely to fall prey to those who would try to perpetrate these scams. And in the process of filing for death certificates, which requires government involvement, the lawyers working for the government have examined the underlying facts.
And that, indeed, is how we caught these individuals. They made false statements to the government in an effort to get a death certificate. And because of that, we were able to bring them in and charge them.
BLITZER: Eliot Spitzer, the attorney general of New York state, thanks for joining us. Appreciate it very much.
SPITZER: My pleasure.
BLITZER: And let's stay in New York, get a preview of "LOU DOBBS MONEYLINE." That begins right at the top of the hour -- Lou.
LOU DOBBS, "LOU DOBBS MONEYLINE": Wolf, thank you very much.
Tonight, I'll be joined by Congresswoman Sue Kelly, her House subcommittee holding the first hearings into the collapse of Global Crossing today. We'll also hear from Scott Cleland, who testified before her committee. Senator Richard Durbin's Judiciary Committee is investigating Enron's collapse. The senator joins us tonight to tell us why he disagrees with the Justice Department's decision to indict the firm of Andersen. And GE accounting practices are now under fire by bond fund manager Bill Gross (ph). He'll be here to tell us what is wrong with all that debt. And we'll tell you what was behind today's mixed market on Wall Street and what could well lie ahead for investors.
Please join us -- Wolf, back to you.
BLITZER: Thank you very much. And your chance to be heard is coming up. Do you agree with the verdict in the California dog-maul trial? Vote: CNN.com/Wolf.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
BLITZER: Time now to hear from you on the war on terror.
Dan writes this: "I keep hearing you media types insinuating that our war on terror is starting to resemble Vietnam. This notion is preposterous and completely illogical. Vietnam did not attack our nation. I liken this war to War World II. We were attacked then, too."
We're going to get to our Web question tomorrow: "Do you agree with the verdict in the California dog-maul trial?" You can go to my Web page: CNN.com/Wolf. Vote. We'll give you the answer tomorrow.
In the meantime, that's all the time we have for now. I'm Wolf Blitzer in Washington. "LOU DOBBS MONEYLINE" begins right now.
TO ORDER A VIDEO OF THIS TRANSCRIPT, PLEASE CALL 800-CNN-NEWS OR USE OUR SECURE ONLINE ORDER FORM LOCATED AT www.fdch.com
