Return to Transcripts main page
CNN Wolf Blitzer Reports
Medicare Measure Set to Pass Senate; Jury Recommends Death Penalty for John Allen Muhammad
Aired November 24, 2003 - 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.
MARTIN SAVIDGE, GUEST HOST: Happening now, the Senate moves on Medicare, we'll have the latest developments from Capitol Hill.
Also, a national exclusive, the John Muhammad jury foreman gives his only one-on-one television interview to CNN.
Stand by for hard news. What else would you expect on WOLF BLITZER REPORTS.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
SAVIDGE (voice-over): Sniper sentence.
PAUL EBERT, VA COMMONWEALTH'S ATTORNEY: The death penalty is reserved for the worst of the worst.
SAVIDGE: The jury weighs in.
Overhauling Medicare a boom for seniors or a boondoggle? Showdown in the Senate.
Troops targeted, is the Iraq insurgency spreading?
Going public, Michael Jackson speaks out on the web.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
ANNOUNCER: This is WOLF BLITZER REPORTS for Monday, November 24, 2003.
SAVIDGE: Thanks very much for joining us, great to be with you. I'm Martin Savidge in for Wolf.
Well, you may be one of the 40 million Americans affected by impending Senate action. Senators are moving toward passage of the most sweeping changes in Medicare, well since the program began 38 years ago, the latest now from CNN Congressional Correspondent Jonathan Karl.
JONATHAN KARL, CNN CONGRESSIONAL CORRESPONDENT: Well, Marty, the Democrats had a chance to put up two big procedural hurdles to prevent the Republicans from passing this prescription drug bill and they have now failed on the second effort.
It now looks like it's all over but the talking and there is some more talking to be done. Democrats are vowing to go down fighting but what we saw today is that Republicans have more than enough votes to prevail.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
SEN. EDWARD KENNEDY (D), MASSACHUSETTS: We are strongly committed to make sure that our Republican friends are not going to hijack the prescription drug bill when they are really attempting to undermine the Medicare system. We're going to continue to fight this tonight. We'll fight it tomorrow.
We're going to fight it in every opportunity that's available to us in the days and the weeks ahead and we're going to fight it next year and we're going to fight it in the congressional elections and we're going to fight it in the presidential elections as well.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
KARL: But Republicans have shown they have the votes and they got a handful of those votes, more than a dozen from Democrats who are supporting them on this effort to pass this prescription drug bill.
Here's a look at what the bill actually does in terms of that prescription drug benefit. First of all the benefit doesn't kick in until the year 2006. When it does, seniors may elect to have the coverage by paying a $35 a month deductible - a $35 a month premium with a $250 deductible for their prescription drugs.
Then it would cover 75 percent of drug costs from the $275 up to $2,250. Above $3,600 it would pay 95 percent of the drug costs but there is a coverage gap there for the costs that are in between, for drug costs between $2,250 and $3,600 there would be no coverage although low income seniors would be able to get some assistance for those costs but for most seniors there would be no coverage during that gap.
That's a look at what the benefit does. What Democrats have been objecting to, Marty is that although it has that benefit it also changes Medicare in some ways including for the first time putting Medicare up in direct competition with private insurance companies in a pilot program that would operate in six regions around the country - Marty.
SAVIDGE: Jonathan what happens next does this have to be rectified with the House version or does it go straight to the president's desk now?
KARL: No, the House has already passed this so once they get a final vote on this and that vote could come late tonight, it could come tomorrow morning but once that vote is done it goes right down to the other end of Pennsylvania Avenue where the president will eagerly sign it into law.
SAVIDGE: I'm sure he will. Jonathan Karl, Capitol Hill, thanks very much.
Convicted sniper John Allen Muhammad is now one step closer to being put to death for his crimes.
CNN's Jeanne Meserve is out side the Virginia Beach courthouse where today jurors recommended the death penalty for Muhammad - Jeanne.
JEANNE MESERVE, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Martin, it took jurors five and a half hours of deliberations to reach a verdict but when they did it was unanimous.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
MESERVE (voice-over): Death the recommended penalty for a season of murder and terror.
JOHN ALLEN MUHAMMAD, DEFENDANT: Until then just follow the body bags.
MESERVE: Death for the ten lives lost and numerous others forever changed.
WILLIAM FRANKLIN: My wife's been shot.
EBERT: The death penalty is reserved for the worst of the worst and we think Mr. Muhammad fell into that category and the jury agreed.
MESERVE: Though video of John Muhammad playing with his children and questions about the death penalty itself made the decision a tough one for some jurors, the accumulation of evidence eventually led them all to the same conclusion. Muhammad should die for his crimes.
JERRY HAGGERTY, JUROR: I think it's the collective nature of the crimes, the vileness. The violence was there across the board and the lack of remorse.
MESERVE: Muhammad portrayed no reaction in the courtroom but his attorneys said they were bitterly disappointed.
PETER GREENSPUN, MUHAMMAD'S ATTORNEY: There's been much pain and devastation. The sanction of yet another death by the government is not likely to come of any benefit to anyone.
MESERVE: Dean Meyers was by all accounts a generous man. His shooting at a Manassas, Virginia gas station was the centerpiece of this trial and for his family there is with this verdict some measure of closure.
BOB MEYERS, BROTHER OF DEAN MEYERS: This isn't a revenge thing not in any way, just feel like what was done was right.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
MESERVE: There will be appeals and other trials for other murders but this jury has spoken. Final sentencing is set for February 12 -- Marty, back to you.
SAVIDGE: Jeanne Meserve in Virginia Beach thanks very much. Now a CNN exclusive joining us from the same Virginia Beach courthouse the jury foreman in Muhammad's trial Jerry Haggerty, Mr. Haggerty thank you very much for being us this evening.
HAGGERTY: You're welcome.
SAVIDGE: Let me ask you this which was more difficult to come up with a conviction and finding of guilty or coming up with a recommendation of a death sentence?
HAGGERTY: I think they were both very difficult decisions. It's hard to say one is more difficult than the other. Certainly the first verdict guilty we had to go through a number of discussions and the same as we did for sentencing but I don't think you can say one is more difficult than the other.
SAVIDGE: Did the emotions change at all when you'd gone from deciding guilt to now trying to determine whether or not to recommend death? Does that change the whole dynamic?
HAGGERTY: Yes, very much so. I think the discussions on whether to vote for the death penalty or life imprisonment definitely brought out much more emotion. One of the things that I tried to do as the foreman when we first talked about the guilty verdict was to make sure that people separated the two so that we didn't think about the death sentence while we were trying to determine guilt or not guilt.
SAVIDGE: And what made you decide as a group that the death penalty was appropriate?
HAGGERTY: Well, I think we first had to look at everything that had gone on. We had already determined that he was guilty. He was a principal participant. It was a joint effort on both of their parts and looking at a number of issues but I think probably the one thing we looked at was the probability that he could commit additional violence.
None of us were willing to live with the thought that if we said life sentence and he did cause bodily harm to another individual that would have been difficult for each of us to live with and we knew we had a chance to stop that.
SAVIDGE: The signs or no signs of remorse coming from the defendant did that weigh in too in your decision to make that recommendation?
HAGGERTY: Oh, absolutely. Each of us had been watching around the courtroom as the -- over the preceding six weeks and depending on which witness was up there, there were times when some of his friends were up and he would smile.
There were times when discussing his children and then there were times when his ex-wife was up there and you could almost see the hatred on his face. So, certainly the lack of emotion, his failure to even acknowledge what he had done played into it.
SAVIDGE: Do you feel like a weight has been lifted from you?
HAGGERTY: In some sense, yes. In another sense I think that it will always stay with me. I mean because we reached a verdict in a sentencing does not mean that we will not have to live with that.
That's something that we talked about and we wanted to make sure before we turned in our sentence that we were all comfortable with being able to live with this and that's something we'll all carry around with us. That's why in many respects we're also victims of this whole affair.
SAVIDGE: Do you think you'll mentally revisit that when and if the sentence is carried out?
HAGGERTY: Oh, I'm sure we will. I'm sure that we will all be very much aware of what goes on between now and February when the sentencing and I understand listening to some of the news that the state of Virginia averages a little over seven years in the appeal process which is actually less than some states so, yes, it's going to be a long time.
SAVIDGE: I'm sure it will. Mr. Haggerty, thank you very much for taking the time to talk to us today.
HAGGERTY: My pleasure. Jerry Haggerty the jury foreman in the John Muhammad case.
Here's your turn to weigh in on this very difficult story. Our web question of the day on this important one, "Was the jury correct to recommend the death penalty for John Allen Muhammad"? You can vote right now at cnn.com/wolf. We'll have the results later in this broadcast.
And while you're there we'd like to hear directly from you, our viewers. Send us your comments anytime and we might read some of them at the end of the program.
Is the insurgency spreading; new fears in Iraq after a deadly attack in the north and a new warning to journalists covering the conflict. We're live from Baghdad.
Sending a message, Michael Jackson speaking out to his fans, find out what the pop star is saying about the case against him.
Making the switch but keeping your current digits, flexibility at last for millions of cell phone users but is there a catch? We'll have a live report.
But first, today's News Quiz.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
SAVIDGE (voice-over): When will areas outside the largest metropolitan cities adopt the new cell phone rule change, this week, January, May, next November," the answer coming up.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
MUHAMMAD: Don't (unintelligible) but we're the people that are causing the killing in your area. Look on the tarot card. It says "Call me God."
(END VIDEO CLIP)
SAVIDGE: (Unintelligible) and now death recommended, the jury makes a decision in the sentencing of convicted sniper John Allen Muhammad. Hear reaction from one sniper victim's close friend ahead.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
SAVIDGE: We have new details about a shocking attack on U.S. troops in Iraq and as the insurgency spreads there is a new crackdown on alleged incitement.
Let's go live to CNN Senior International Correspondent Walter Rodgers who is in Baghdad -- Walter.
WALTER RODGERS, CNN SR. INTERNATIONAL CORRESPONDENT: Hello, Martin.
One fact in the Mosul incident on Sunday remains constant a mob of Iraqi citizens descended on the soldiers' car and they murdered them. The Army after a preliminary investigation says both soldiers were shot in the head.
And then credible eyewitnesses told CNN the two dead soldiers were dragged into the street, their bodies pummeled and the soldiers' bodies were looted. They say that Iraqi women and children and men descended on the soldiers' bodies, stole their watches, their wallets, anything of a personal nature.
Now, again earlier eyewitness accounts said that the soldiers' throats had been slit. The Army says this is not at all so. The soldiers were traveling from one outpost to another in Mosul in a civilian car.
There is an indication that there may even have been something resembling a mob ambush, a report that a concrete block was thrown through the car forcing the car to stop and then the mob descended upon the car. Two U.S. soldiers murdered by a mob, shot through the head according to U.S. Army now.
In another development here in Iraq a cold chill through embryonic Iraqi democracy, assuming that freedom of the press is a basic tenet of that democracy; nonetheless, the Iraqi Governing Council, the appointed, American appointed governing council shut down an Arab television network here, Al-Arabiya and additionally that same Iraqi Governing Council threatened both CNN and the BBC with punitive action as well. Al-Arabiya's alleged transgression is they broadcast the full tape last week of a Saddam Hussein speech. Now, the Iraqi Governing Council says that this was incitement. In point of fact they played the tape which called for Saddam calling for the Iraqi people to rise up against the Americans and the governing council. Al-Arabiya merely played the tape. Having said that it is not, does not bode well for freedom of the press in the new Iraqi state -- Martin.
SAVIDGE: Walter Rodgers live in Baghdad thank you very much.
U.S. troops have been targeted again in Afghanistan. Central Command says a patrol vehicle was hit by an explosive device yesterday near the Pakistani border seriously wounding two soldiers. Several journalists accompanied the patrol but they were not hurt.
Investigators are also looking into yesterday's crash of a U.S. helicopter which killed five American troops and injured eight others near Bagram Air Base. Military officials say the chopper may have been brought down by engine failure but they are not ruling out the possibility of ground fire.
Facing a "great and historic task," President Bush pays tribute to U.S. servicemen and women putting more money toward the nation's defense.
Finally coming home, the remains of three Americans killed during the Vietnam War.
And forced to retire, why basketball star Alonzo Morning must call it quits but first this holiday gift guide.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
(BREAKING NEWS)
SAVIDGE: This just in to CNN, the Associated Press is reporting that Warren Spawn the winningest left-handed pitcher in Major League Baseball history died today. He died at the age of 82. He was most famous for playing with the Boston Braves and the Milwaukee Braves, again the winningest left-handed pitcher in Major League Baseball history. Warren Spawn has died.
President Bush set the day aside for U.S. troops after signing a $400 billion defense authorization bill. He flew to Fort Carson, Colorado which has lost 27 soldiers in Iraq. The president met privately there with the families of the combat casualties but he met very publicly with the troops.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
GEORGE W. BUSH, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: We are fighting the terrorists in Iraq and Afghanistan and in other parts of the world so we do not have to fight them on the streets of our own cities.
(END VIDEO CLIP) SAVIDGE: Does the mob attack in Mosul signal a new phase in Iraq insurgency? Are U.S. forces up to the task of fighting a guerrilla war? Earlier I spoke with retired general and CNN Military Analyst David Grange.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
SAVIDGE: I want to talk about what happened up in Mosul over the weekend specifically two American soldiers were killed up there. There are eyewitness reports that say they were dragged from their vehicle and they may have been dragged through the streets.
Obviously, the loss of any soldier is tragic but these sort of circumstances does it suggest a change in attitude, a change in tactics and how would this play out with the morale of U.S. troops?
BRIG. GEN. DAVID GRANGE, U.S. ARMY (RET.): I don't think it's a change in tactics of the insurgents. I think this was a spontaneous incident, actually an assassination.
Gunmen hired probably to kill Americans for a bounty and the vehicle was stuck there. People reacted, possibly some ringleaders in the area that served as a catalyst to get the crowd in a frenzy that then did terrible things to these GIs and it definitely has an effect on troop morale.
SAVIDGE: The Pentagon or specifically the spokesperson in Baghdad for the U.S. military said they did not wish to comment on how these soldiers died but is it important to know that they were supposedly treated in this way? I guess what
I'm getting at here is it implying a shift in the temperament of the people themselves that they've become so vindictive and could it change the vindictiveness, if that's the word, of the soldiers? Would they be more likely to shoot and to react violently?
GRANGE: Yes, this is -- haven't been in situations like this. First of all, reference the Iraqi people themselves. I don't think it's -- I think this was an incident in that locale at that time and place where there were some that maybe wanted revenge that just got again in this frenzy from others motivating them that, you know, continue to attack, continue to attack, whatever.
Now, I think the most important question though is the reaction of the GI, the American soldier that has a buddy or someone in their own unit that's had some mutilation occur if that's what happened.
Yes, the emotions will just start screaming in each soldier. I mean they'll want revenge. They'll want to react, overreact as a matter of fact and this is a time for discipline and a time where the principals of the military that works for democratic governance comes in and that will prevail.
The soldiers will contain this anger and they'll be directed in a planned coordinated matter to go after those that actually did the act or supported the act and not a reaction to the people themselves. SAVIDGE: We only have about a minute left. I want to bring in Afghanistan. There was the loss of a helicopter over the weekend and now there appears to be new attacks, perhaps even similar to ones carried out like those in Iraq. Does this suggest perhaps a new front is opening up?
GRANGE: Well, I think you can call it the forgotten front, the secular front absolutely. The pressure by Taliban, the al Qaeda, others to distract, to again to expand the area of conflict benefits the guerrilla, the insurgent forces.
It gives them the ability to fight superior forces by spreading the coalition thinner than they already are and to say, hey, we never were defeated. We were just displaced. We just retreated and now we have reformed to fight and we're going to fight again. You have not won this thing and that's the perception they're trying to get out there on the street and in some cases it works.
SAVIDGE: Military analyst David Grange thank you very much sir. We appreciate it as always your insights general.
GRANGE: My pleasure.
SAVIDGE: Thank you.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
SAVIDGE: Addressing the allegations, Michael Jackson on the offense against charges he molested a 12-year-old boy.
Wireless customers are calling it freedom. Their providers call it a headache. The impact of the FCC's new rules and what it means for you.
And the first for the world down under as camera crews capture the rarest of the rare, we have pictures you can't miss.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
SAVIDGE: Life or death decision, convicted D.C. sniper John Muhammad receives his fate but will the ruling stick? A look at the still winding legal road ahead.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
SAVIDGE: Welcome back to CNN.
The jurors recommended death but it is not the final word. Find out what's next for convicted sniper John Muhammad but first a quick check of the latest headlines.
(NEWSBREAK)
SAVIDGE: Joining us now in our Washington studio, Gregory Wims, a friend of the sniper victim.
Mr. Wims, thank you very much for being with us today.
GREGORY WIMS, FRIEND OF SNIPER VICTIM: Thank you. Good to be here.
SAVIDGE: What was this verdict? What was this recommendation of death like for you, knowing obviously a victim?
WIMS: It made me think that justice was served. I personally, and some of the other family members who suffered, wouldn't like to see another life taken. But with the overwhelming evidence, with the destruction, 21 kids have lost either a mother or father or grandparent. Of course, as we know, 13 or more have been killed. So we think that the death penalty in this case was correct and that justice has been served.
SAVIDGE: Closure is such an overused word, but I guess it is because we can't find some other substitute. Will this bring a sense of closure for families?
WIMS: It will bring a little closure. But what we're facing now, me as a friend of Sonny Buchanan, and then the other family members who have lost their loved ones, is a trial just 30 miles away in Chesapeake. So although today we think that the jurors did the right thing, in three weeks we're going to wait to see what that jury will do when it comes to Lee Malvo.
So it's going to take awhile. It's going to take these trials to be over for all of us really to heal and bring closure.
SAVIDGE: One of the questions going to be asked now is, should Mr. Muhammad be tried again for other deaths, such as for your friend, Mr. Buchanan? What are your thoughts on that? Should there be other trials or does this suffice?
WIMS: Personally, I would not like to see another trial if, in fact, we get the death penalty in the second trial, because we know then that these two men have been convicted and they've been sentenced to death. But I have talked to some family members who would like to see another trial. So it's -- some family members would like to see it, to have their loved ones named particularly.
I think that it is too emotional for these families, especially if it is out of the area. All of the family members have to travel 500 miles roundtrip just from the Maryland area. And then, as you know, there are some family members coming from Washington State and Louisiana and Baton Rouge. So it's very much a hardship for these families, but also, the pictures that are shown, the pictures of their loved ones, and my friend, Sonny Buchanan, with a bullet either in the stomach or in the head, so it is very dramatic.
SAVIDGE: As far as the alleged accomplice, Mr. Malvo, you have already said you want the death penalty for him. His age has no influence on that for you?
WIMS: What we have first -- and first, let me say I represent an organization that helps all the families, and I also have a stake with a personal friend. I personally believe that if, in fact, found guilty, if the evidence shows that he pulled the trigger, then he should, in fact, receive the death penalty. But there's some family member whose have lost a loved one who think because of his age that maybe he should be given life in prison.
So you have -- you know, not everyone is in agreement. And what we have to do is, quite frankly, leave it up to the jurors. And I'm sure they would do the right thing.
SAVIDGE: Gregory Wims, friend of sniper victim Sonny Buchanan. Thank you very much for talking with us.
WIMS: Thank you.
SAVIDGE: Joining us now with his legal perspective on the case is attorney Kendall Coffey.
And it is good to see you again, Kendall. Let me ask you this: we were just touching on this factor. Should there be other trials now in other states to continue this whole legal issue?
KENDALL COFFEY, ATTORNEY: Well realistically, the issues is the sentence of death from the standpoint of many of the victims and the prosecutors. And that schedule is already moving forward in Virginia. There is no other trial that is going to cause a sentence of death or any other outcome to have more quickly than what is basically already locking in the Virginia timetable. But, as we heard from the prosecutor in Montgomery County, Maryland, who is outspoken on the subject, there may be others who want their day in court.
So I think in the final analysis, the prosecutors are going to pay the most attention to the surviving family members of victims. And that is going to be the key decision in whether there are going to be serial trials for serial killers.
SAVIDGE: Now, as far as the Muhammad case, there is an automatic appeal, correct?
COFFEY: There's an automatic appeal to the state Supreme Court, as you were talking about earlier. The judge himself will actually make the decision as to whether to pronounce the death sentence after reviewing a pre-sentence report that will examine any and all relevant considerations. The judge would have to see good cause to set aside the jury's finding of a death sentence. And frankly, there is no realistic prospect that the judge is going to do anything but issue the death sentence in February.
SAVIDGE: If you look towards an appeal and you are the defense attorney, what do you look at regarding the verdict that has been handed down?
COFFEY: You look at a very, very tough case in terms of any of the facts. One hundred-thirty witnesses, 450 items of evidence. You are focusing on two legal issues. Does Virginia require that to get a capital murder death sentence you actually be the triggerman, and the other grounds for the death penalty, the anti-terrorism law, are there legal frailties or mistakes in what is a death penalty sentence in law that has never been tested before in any state in the country?
SAVIDGE: What does this bode for the Malvo case?
COFFEY: Well, strictly speaking, the jury in the Malvo case shouldn't be paying any attention or even reading about what happened in the Muhammad case. And the judge will instruct them at some point to disregard anything that they've read about in the other case. But if there is to be a spillover, it could be that a jury in the Malvo case looking at a relatively looking young defendant who is supposedly brainwashed, indoctrinated, masterminded by Muhammad, might take some comfort in the fact that the real bad guy, the captain of the shooting team, is being sentenced to death. And that could prompt some jurors to consider a life sentence for Malvo.
SAVIDGE: Kendall Coffey, legal analyst, thank you very much for joining us. We appreciate it.
COFFEY: Thanks, Martin.
SAVIDGE: Well, he's out of sight, but Michael Jackson certainly is not keeping quiet. What is the pop star saying? We're live in California with details.
Plus, making wireless numbers truly mobile. New FCC rules make it a done deal, but what do you need to know about the changes? We'll have a live report.
Then later, a presidential pardon and one very thankful turkey.
But first, a quick look at some other news making headlines around the world.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
SAVIDGE (voice-over): Repair work. The leaders of Britain and France held talks in London in a bid to patch up sharp differences over the U.S. invasion of Iraq. After meeting with Prime Minister Tony Blair, French President Jacques Chirac said that the Bush administration and its plans to speed up the plans for a power to Iraq are positive but insufficient.
Moscow dorm fire. At least 36 students from various countries were killed when a huge fire swept through a dilapidated dormitory at People's Friendship University. Some jumped from the upper stories in a desperate attempt to escape the flames. Officials say the fire may have been caused by an electrical short circuit.
Coming home. Officials in Laos have handed over to the United States the remains of four people, three Americans and one Australian killed during the Vietnam War. The remains include those believed to be of Charles Dean, the brother of Democratic presidential candidate Howard Dean. The remains are being flown to a forensic lab in Hawaii where they will be identified.
Sky gazing down under. Scientists in Antarctica today viewed the first total solar eclipse ever recorded on the icy continent. Also on hand were hundreds of tourists, some of whom paid as much $9,000 to view the phenomenon.
And that's our look around the world.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
SAVIDGE: Michael Jackson is going directly to his fans in a bid to defend himself against child molestation allegations. CNN's Miguel Marquez is outside Jackson's Neverland ranch in Los Alamos, California -- Miguel.
MIGUEL MARQUEZ, CNN CORRESPONDENT: How are you there, Marty? He is, in fact, going directly to his fans in a virtual way, via the Internet. Mr. Jackson has launched a Web site at mjnews.us. His spokesperson says that this is an attempt to have a counter attack, essentially, because they feel that they are subject of lots of bad information out there and want to get Michael's side out there.
One thing that Mr. Jackson does in his debut of the Web site is write something directly to his fans. We have part of that here.
He says, "We will not engage in speculation. We will not provide commentary on every issue or allegation du jour. We intend to try this case in the courtroom, not in the public or the media." Mr. Jackson feeling that his word is not getting out there and his point of view not getting out there and hopes that this Web site will do it.
We are also learning more about the accuser in this case. CNN has confirmed through two different sources that the accuser is a 12- year-old boy who was in the Martin Bashir ABC documentary that aired last February.
The lawyer for the father of the boy says that he will be angry if the charges, obviously, are true. But he says he'll also be angry if they are false and his estranged wife is just looking for money. His lawyer also says that the father of the boy may be called as a witness for the defense.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
RUSSELL HALPERN, ATTORNEY FOR ACCUSER'S FATHER: He finds it difficult to believe that Mr. Jackson could have done these acts because his impression of Mr. Jackson is he's a sincere, benevolent, good person.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
MARQUEZ: Now, on the Web site, Mr. Jackson, or his spokesperson, says that he hopes that this will become sort of a blog-type situation, where Mr. Jackson, Mr. Geragos or Mr. Backerman, the spokesperson, will be able to put information on there as they see other information that they want to rebut to. It is not clear, though, how often this thing will be updated. But it certainly seems as though we're going to have sort of a two-prong strategy here. First, the public side and then the legal. Back to you.
SAVIDGE: Miguel Marquez, thank you very much. Reporting live.
All right. Moving on, joining us in Los Angeles to talk more about this case, forensic psychologist Jack Singer.
Mr. Singer, thanks for being with us.
JACK SINGER, FORENSIC PSYCHOLOGIST: It's my pleasure, Martin.
SAVIDGE: As we understand as events come out that these accusations against Mr. Jackson arose in a -- I guess a counseling session that this young boy had, I'm wondering, what are the legal requirements on the part of a counselor to report this in the state of California?
SINGER: Well, it's interesting, Martin, because in the state of California, when an allegation is made, whether you can have a way of proving that it's true or not, it doesn't matter. You need to report this immediately to the child protective services.
SAVIDGE: OK. Well, that would seem to be understandable. If they -- do you file this? Like you call up someone and say, this is what I heard? I mean, do you turnover your notes?
SINGER: No, you don't necessarily turnover your notes, because there is some confidentiality here. But you do call child protective services or the police, either one, and you testify to them that you were made aware of an alleged -- an allegation of child abuse or child sexual abuse, and they need to take it from there.
The difficulty for a lot of therapists, for example, psychiatrists and psychologists, is that a lot of times, these allegations are not necessarily true, but they have no choice. They have to report it anyway because, if there's going to be an error, it will be made in a conservative fashion to protect the interest of children.
SAVIDGE: Well, as an expert, what are the telltale signs that a child is revealing the truth to you?
SINGER: Well, actually, what this child and all children in this situation need to undergo is a forensic examination by a forensic psychologist, such as myself, but not by the therapist, because that's a conflict of interest. The child has developed a relationship with the therapist and there's a bias there.
So an outside person needs to evaluate the child, and there are some sophisticated psychological tests that we could use to determine the veracity of this. And it takes an extended period of time to do that.
SAVIDGE: How do you think the defense is going to deal with the veracity of this child? SINGER: Well, I think the defense is going to have to walk a very fine line, Martin, because what they really need to do is to not frighten this child, who is going to be frightened enough to have to testify and talk about allegedly intimate details in front of the world and in front of a bunch of strangers. They're going to have to walk a fine line with trying to impugn his testimony, at the same time not scaring him, so that the jury looks at the defense in a negative way. And that's a real fine like to walk, and it's going to take a lot of talent.
SAVIDGE: Would there be a difference in the sort of questions that you would ask this child to prove if he's telling the truth or not from what authorities would ask the child?
SINGER: Oh, yes, because, as a trained doctor of psychology in this particular field, what I would be doing is looking at his mood when I ask various questions. I would be looking at various kinds of eye contact and respiration rates. And then I would have him do some psychological things that I mentioned before, some drawings, for example, things that get at underlying feels and underlying emotions that you can't see on the surface.
I would also be very interested, Martin, in finding out if he's been coached in any way. You know, as you mentioned in the piece before, there is a custody battle going on. This is a very traumatic event for children. And the thought that the father and the mother are fighting over him and what he says may make a difference in that custody battle is extremely traumatic. And that needs to be addressed as well.
SAVIDGE: There's a lot of weight on that young person's shoulders.
SINGER: Yes.
SAVIDGE: Thank you very much. Forensic psychologist Jack Singer, thank you.
Cell phones in the city. New freedom today from millions of big metro talkers.
DANIEL SIEBERG, CNN TECHNOLOGY CORRESPONDENT: And if you like your number, but you don't like your service, well, starting today, you can take your number with you even if you change carriers. I'm technology correspondent Daniel Sieberg. Coming up, find out what all this means to you.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
SAVIDGE: For millions of cell phone users, today is something of an emancipation day. No longer will you have to switch numbers if you want to change your service provider. A new FCC rule has gone into effect. It allows consumers in the nation's top 100 markets to change providers and keep their old number.
CNN technology correspondent Daniel Sieberg is live with us from an Atlanta cell phone store -- Daniel.
SIEBERG: Hi Martin. That's right. We are here at Lennox Square Mall, which is just outside Atlanta. And we have been talking to a few people here who have decided to make the decision to keep their cell phone number as they switch carriers or take their cell phone number and use that -- or take their home number and use that as their cell phone number.
It is all about choice. Those of us covering the tech industry wondered if this day would ever come. It's been put off for quite a while. And although it means going wireless, there are some strings attached in a sense.
And I'm joined right now by Allan Kieter. He is the founder and president of myrateplan.com, which is, we should say, an unbiased consumer-based Web site. It helps people with their cell plans and long distance plans.
Allan, walk us through here. What are some of the pitfalls or some of the benefits for people if they decide to do this?
ALLAN KIETER, MYRATEPLAN.COM: Well, the main benefit is for the first time people can change carriers and hang on to their phone numbers. So it is really good news for people who maybe for the last several years have been heavy users of cell service, they've got their name and number in the yellow pages, with their cell number on their business cards. And so any inconvenience they've had with service has been overshadowed by the aggravation that it would cause them to change carriers. And so today is almost like their freedom day.
SIEBERG: Right. So people are becoming, in a sense, a free agent if they don't have a particular contract in place. If we can, we have a list of some of the pros and cons so we can break this down for people.
First of all, you do get to keep your number, as you say. And you can save some money because maybe you're getting some more options or a new plan, right?
KIETER: That's right. Generally, if you haven't shopped around in the last year or so, prices have come down quite a bit. So even if nothing else, you're going to get a better deal.
SIEBERG: All right. Now on the con side, or at least the things to think about if you're going to do this, you probably have to get a new phone. Because they are not all compatible with each carrier, right?
KIETER: That's right. You almost definitely have to get a new phone. Every carrier has different technology. Even the carriers with the same technologies, you still have to get a new phone.
SIEBERG: And potentially they're going to be offering you some sweet deals. But they're going to say, hey, how about a two-year contract, and what about those portability fees? Now, what should people do about either of those? KIETER: We recommend you don't sign more than a one-year contract. You can generally get a slightly better deal if you sign a two-year contract. But we don't think it is not worth locking yourself in for another year. So go with the one-year deal. Most of the carriers have them.
As far as the portability fees, the FCC has ruled that carriers are allowed to charge you a small amount for leaving, but we don't think that those fees will be significant. And it is possible you could ask your new carrier to pay you for it.
SIEBERG: All right. Allan Kieter, founder and president of myrateplan.com, thank you so much for joining us.
And Martin, the idea again, too, is to bargain, shop around, look online for as much information as you can, get your new service first before you cancel your old one, because you can't take something with you if you don't have it.
Martin, back to you.
SAVIDGE: I like the wisdom of that. Thank you very much, Daniel Sieberg.
SIEBERG: All right.
SAVIDGE: Pardon me. Please. A turkey tradition at the White House makes for one happy bird.
And of course our hot Web Question of the Day is this: Was the jury correct to recommend the death penalty for John Allen Muhammad? Vote right now at cnn.com/wolf. The results coming up.
But first, a look at stories you may have missed this past weekend.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
SAVIDGE (voice-over): Remembering JFK 40 years after he was gunned down in Dallas. President John F. Kennedy was the focus of a number of ceremonies marking Saturday's anniversary. Among the events, a walk of silence from the conspiracy museum to the spot where Kennedy was shot.
Support for a superstar. Fans of embattled singer Michael Jackson gathered around the world Saturday for a candlelight vigil. Jackson faces allegations of child molestation. The vigils were held in a number of major cities, including Los Angeles, Toronto and Rome. Fans in China and Australia also gathered to show their support for Jackson.
PATH reopens. For the first time since the 9/ 9/11 attack, some commuter trains are running between the World Trade Center site and New Jersey. PATH train service resumed yesterday in a rebuilt station near ground zero. The first train back into the station was the one that was the last to leave before the attacks. Cold blast from the past. The National Hockey League returned the game to its roots Saturday with the league playing its first outdoor game. Edmonton and Montreal faced off in the Heritage Classic in Edmonton in front of 58,000 fans. Before the game, some of hockey's greatest players, including Wayne Gretzky, took to the ice in an exhibition game.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP, "THE SIMPSONS")
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Hello. Welcome to the United Kingdom.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Prime Minister Tony Blair?
(END VIDEO CLIP)
SAVIDGE: Homer and the PM. British Prime Minister Tony Blair was a guest star of sorts on the hit American comedy "The Simpsons." Mr. Blair's voice was the real thing in last night's episode that featured the Simpsons on a trip to London. The British leader is a big fan of the show.
And that's our weekend snapshot.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
SAVIDGE: It is a tradition that goes back 56 years, if you're counting. So when this turkey was brought to the White House Rose Garden, it may have known that it was off the hook. But President Bush made it official, pardoning the national bird and sparing it from the Thanksgiving table. The lucky turkey and the alternate -- who knew -- will spend their days on a petting farm.
OK. Here is how you're weighing in on our Web Question of the Day.
Remember, we've been asking you, was the jury correct to recommend the death penalty for John Allen Muhammad? Look at this. Ninety percent of you say yes, 10 percent of you say no. As we always tell you, this, of course, is not science.
Let's hear from you and read some of your e-mail.
Lois writes: "President Bush is emphatic about bringing democracy to Iraq, yet he is ramming his Medicare bill through Congress by giving it very little time to review the massive bill. Is that the type of democracy he plans to bring to Iraq?"
And Rebecca sends this: "Don't you find it strange that our government can find over $80 billion to send over to Iraq but it can't find the money to support Medicare?"
A reminder: you can always catch WOLF BLITZER REPORTS weekdays at this time, 5:00 Eastern. I'll also see you again tomorrow. Until then, thanks for being with us.
TO ORDER A VIDEO OF THIS TRANSCRIPT, PLEASE CALL 800-CNN-NEWS OR USE OUR SECURE ONLINE ORDER FORM LOCATED AT www.fdch.com
Penalty for John Allen Muhammad>
Aired November 24, 2003 - 17:00 ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
MARTIN SAVIDGE, GUEST HOST: Happening now, the Senate moves on Medicare, we'll have the latest developments from Capitol Hill.
Also, a national exclusive, the John Muhammad jury foreman gives his only one-on-one television interview to CNN.
Stand by for hard news. What else would you expect on WOLF BLITZER REPORTS.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
SAVIDGE (voice-over): Sniper sentence.
PAUL EBERT, VA COMMONWEALTH'S ATTORNEY: The death penalty is reserved for the worst of the worst.
SAVIDGE: The jury weighs in.
Overhauling Medicare a boom for seniors or a boondoggle? Showdown in the Senate.
Troops targeted, is the Iraq insurgency spreading?
Going public, Michael Jackson speaks out on the web.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
ANNOUNCER: This is WOLF BLITZER REPORTS for Monday, November 24, 2003.
SAVIDGE: Thanks very much for joining us, great to be with you. I'm Martin Savidge in for Wolf.
Well, you may be one of the 40 million Americans affected by impending Senate action. Senators are moving toward passage of the most sweeping changes in Medicare, well since the program began 38 years ago, the latest now from CNN Congressional Correspondent Jonathan Karl.
JONATHAN KARL, CNN CONGRESSIONAL CORRESPONDENT: Well, Marty, the Democrats had a chance to put up two big procedural hurdles to prevent the Republicans from passing this prescription drug bill and they have now failed on the second effort.
It now looks like it's all over but the talking and there is some more talking to be done. Democrats are vowing to go down fighting but what we saw today is that Republicans have more than enough votes to prevail.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
SEN. EDWARD KENNEDY (D), MASSACHUSETTS: We are strongly committed to make sure that our Republican friends are not going to hijack the prescription drug bill when they are really attempting to undermine the Medicare system. We're going to continue to fight this tonight. We'll fight it tomorrow.
We're going to fight it in every opportunity that's available to us in the days and the weeks ahead and we're going to fight it next year and we're going to fight it in the congressional elections and we're going to fight it in the presidential elections as well.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
KARL: But Republicans have shown they have the votes and they got a handful of those votes, more than a dozen from Democrats who are supporting them on this effort to pass this prescription drug bill.
Here's a look at what the bill actually does in terms of that prescription drug benefit. First of all the benefit doesn't kick in until the year 2006. When it does, seniors may elect to have the coverage by paying a $35 a month deductible - a $35 a month premium with a $250 deductible for their prescription drugs.
Then it would cover 75 percent of drug costs from the $275 up to $2,250. Above $3,600 it would pay 95 percent of the drug costs but there is a coverage gap there for the costs that are in between, for drug costs between $2,250 and $3,600 there would be no coverage although low income seniors would be able to get some assistance for those costs but for most seniors there would be no coverage during that gap.
That's a look at what the benefit does. What Democrats have been objecting to, Marty is that although it has that benefit it also changes Medicare in some ways including for the first time putting Medicare up in direct competition with private insurance companies in a pilot program that would operate in six regions around the country - Marty.
SAVIDGE: Jonathan what happens next does this have to be rectified with the House version or does it go straight to the president's desk now?
KARL: No, the House has already passed this so once they get a final vote on this and that vote could come late tonight, it could come tomorrow morning but once that vote is done it goes right down to the other end of Pennsylvania Avenue where the president will eagerly sign it into law.
SAVIDGE: I'm sure he will. Jonathan Karl, Capitol Hill, thanks very much.
Convicted sniper John Allen Muhammad is now one step closer to being put to death for his crimes.
CNN's Jeanne Meserve is out side the Virginia Beach courthouse where today jurors recommended the death penalty for Muhammad - Jeanne.
JEANNE MESERVE, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Martin, it took jurors five and a half hours of deliberations to reach a verdict but when they did it was unanimous.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
MESERVE (voice-over): Death the recommended penalty for a season of murder and terror.
JOHN ALLEN MUHAMMAD, DEFENDANT: Until then just follow the body bags.
MESERVE: Death for the ten lives lost and numerous others forever changed.
WILLIAM FRANKLIN: My wife's been shot.
EBERT: The death penalty is reserved for the worst of the worst and we think Mr. Muhammad fell into that category and the jury agreed.
MESERVE: Though video of John Muhammad playing with his children and questions about the death penalty itself made the decision a tough one for some jurors, the accumulation of evidence eventually led them all to the same conclusion. Muhammad should die for his crimes.
JERRY HAGGERTY, JUROR: I think it's the collective nature of the crimes, the vileness. The violence was there across the board and the lack of remorse.
MESERVE: Muhammad portrayed no reaction in the courtroom but his attorneys said they were bitterly disappointed.
PETER GREENSPUN, MUHAMMAD'S ATTORNEY: There's been much pain and devastation. The sanction of yet another death by the government is not likely to come of any benefit to anyone.
MESERVE: Dean Meyers was by all accounts a generous man. His shooting at a Manassas, Virginia gas station was the centerpiece of this trial and for his family there is with this verdict some measure of closure.
BOB MEYERS, BROTHER OF DEAN MEYERS: This isn't a revenge thing not in any way, just feel like what was done was right.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
MESERVE: There will be appeals and other trials for other murders but this jury has spoken. Final sentencing is set for February 12 -- Marty, back to you.
SAVIDGE: Jeanne Meserve in Virginia Beach thanks very much. Now a CNN exclusive joining us from the same Virginia Beach courthouse the jury foreman in Muhammad's trial Jerry Haggerty, Mr. Haggerty thank you very much for being us this evening.
HAGGERTY: You're welcome.
SAVIDGE: Let me ask you this which was more difficult to come up with a conviction and finding of guilty or coming up with a recommendation of a death sentence?
HAGGERTY: I think they were both very difficult decisions. It's hard to say one is more difficult than the other. Certainly the first verdict guilty we had to go through a number of discussions and the same as we did for sentencing but I don't think you can say one is more difficult than the other.
SAVIDGE: Did the emotions change at all when you'd gone from deciding guilt to now trying to determine whether or not to recommend death? Does that change the whole dynamic?
HAGGERTY: Yes, very much so. I think the discussions on whether to vote for the death penalty or life imprisonment definitely brought out much more emotion. One of the things that I tried to do as the foreman when we first talked about the guilty verdict was to make sure that people separated the two so that we didn't think about the death sentence while we were trying to determine guilt or not guilt.
SAVIDGE: And what made you decide as a group that the death penalty was appropriate?
HAGGERTY: Well, I think we first had to look at everything that had gone on. We had already determined that he was guilty. He was a principal participant. It was a joint effort on both of their parts and looking at a number of issues but I think probably the one thing we looked at was the probability that he could commit additional violence.
None of us were willing to live with the thought that if we said life sentence and he did cause bodily harm to another individual that would have been difficult for each of us to live with and we knew we had a chance to stop that.
SAVIDGE: The signs or no signs of remorse coming from the defendant did that weigh in too in your decision to make that recommendation?
HAGGERTY: Oh, absolutely. Each of us had been watching around the courtroom as the -- over the preceding six weeks and depending on which witness was up there, there were times when some of his friends were up and he would smile.
There were times when discussing his children and then there were times when his ex-wife was up there and you could almost see the hatred on his face. So, certainly the lack of emotion, his failure to even acknowledge what he had done played into it.
SAVIDGE: Do you feel like a weight has been lifted from you?
HAGGERTY: In some sense, yes. In another sense I think that it will always stay with me. I mean because we reached a verdict in a sentencing does not mean that we will not have to live with that.
That's something that we talked about and we wanted to make sure before we turned in our sentence that we were all comfortable with being able to live with this and that's something we'll all carry around with us. That's why in many respects we're also victims of this whole affair.
SAVIDGE: Do you think you'll mentally revisit that when and if the sentence is carried out?
HAGGERTY: Oh, I'm sure we will. I'm sure that we will all be very much aware of what goes on between now and February when the sentencing and I understand listening to some of the news that the state of Virginia averages a little over seven years in the appeal process which is actually less than some states so, yes, it's going to be a long time.
SAVIDGE: I'm sure it will. Mr. Haggerty, thank you very much for taking the time to talk to us today.
HAGGERTY: My pleasure. Jerry Haggerty the jury foreman in the John Muhammad case.
Here's your turn to weigh in on this very difficult story. Our web question of the day on this important one, "Was the jury correct to recommend the death penalty for John Allen Muhammad"? You can vote right now at cnn.com/wolf. We'll have the results later in this broadcast.
And while you're there we'd like to hear directly from you, our viewers. Send us your comments anytime and we might read some of them at the end of the program.
Is the insurgency spreading; new fears in Iraq after a deadly attack in the north and a new warning to journalists covering the conflict. We're live from Baghdad.
Sending a message, Michael Jackson speaking out to his fans, find out what the pop star is saying about the case against him.
Making the switch but keeping your current digits, flexibility at last for millions of cell phone users but is there a catch? We'll have a live report.
But first, today's News Quiz.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
SAVIDGE (voice-over): When will areas outside the largest metropolitan cities adopt the new cell phone rule change, this week, January, May, next November," the answer coming up.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
MUHAMMAD: Don't (unintelligible) but we're the people that are causing the killing in your area. Look on the tarot card. It says "Call me God."
(END VIDEO CLIP)
SAVIDGE: (Unintelligible) and now death recommended, the jury makes a decision in the sentencing of convicted sniper John Allen Muhammad. Hear reaction from one sniper victim's close friend ahead.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
SAVIDGE: We have new details about a shocking attack on U.S. troops in Iraq and as the insurgency spreads there is a new crackdown on alleged incitement.
Let's go live to CNN Senior International Correspondent Walter Rodgers who is in Baghdad -- Walter.
WALTER RODGERS, CNN SR. INTERNATIONAL CORRESPONDENT: Hello, Martin.
One fact in the Mosul incident on Sunday remains constant a mob of Iraqi citizens descended on the soldiers' car and they murdered them. The Army after a preliminary investigation says both soldiers were shot in the head.
And then credible eyewitnesses told CNN the two dead soldiers were dragged into the street, their bodies pummeled and the soldiers' bodies were looted. They say that Iraqi women and children and men descended on the soldiers' bodies, stole their watches, their wallets, anything of a personal nature.
Now, again earlier eyewitness accounts said that the soldiers' throats had been slit. The Army says this is not at all so. The soldiers were traveling from one outpost to another in Mosul in a civilian car.
There is an indication that there may even have been something resembling a mob ambush, a report that a concrete block was thrown through the car forcing the car to stop and then the mob descended upon the car. Two U.S. soldiers murdered by a mob, shot through the head according to U.S. Army now.
In another development here in Iraq a cold chill through embryonic Iraqi democracy, assuming that freedom of the press is a basic tenet of that democracy; nonetheless, the Iraqi Governing Council, the appointed, American appointed governing council shut down an Arab television network here, Al-Arabiya and additionally that same Iraqi Governing Council threatened both CNN and the BBC with punitive action as well. Al-Arabiya's alleged transgression is they broadcast the full tape last week of a Saddam Hussein speech. Now, the Iraqi Governing Council says that this was incitement. In point of fact they played the tape which called for Saddam calling for the Iraqi people to rise up against the Americans and the governing council. Al-Arabiya merely played the tape. Having said that it is not, does not bode well for freedom of the press in the new Iraqi state -- Martin.
SAVIDGE: Walter Rodgers live in Baghdad thank you very much.
U.S. troops have been targeted again in Afghanistan. Central Command says a patrol vehicle was hit by an explosive device yesterday near the Pakistani border seriously wounding two soldiers. Several journalists accompanied the patrol but they were not hurt.
Investigators are also looking into yesterday's crash of a U.S. helicopter which killed five American troops and injured eight others near Bagram Air Base. Military officials say the chopper may have been brought down by engine failure but they are not ruling out the possibility of ground fire.
Facing a "great and historic task," President Bush pays tribute to U.S. servicemen and women putting more money toward the nation's defense.
Finally coming home, the remains of three Americans killed during the Vietnam War.
And forced to retire, why basketball star Alonzo Morning must call it quits but first this holiday gift guide.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
(BREAKING NEWS)
SAVIDGE: This just in to CNN, the Associated Press is reporting that Warren Spawn the winningest left-handed pitcher in Major League Baseball history died today. He died at the age of 82. He was most famous for playing with the Boston Braves and the Milwaukee Braves, again the winningest left-handed pitcher in Major League Baseball history. Warren Spawn has died.
President Bush set the day aside for U.S. troops after signing a $400 billion defense authorization bill. He flew to Fort Carson, Colorado which has lost 27 soldiers in Iraq. The president met privately there with the families of the combat casualties but he met very publicly with the troops.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
GEORGE W. BUSH, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: We are fighting the terrorists in Iraq and Afghanistan and in other parts of the world so we do not have to fight them on the streets of our own cities.
(END VIDEO CLIP) SAVIDGE: Does the mob attack in Mosul signal a new phase in Iraq insurgency? Are U.S. forces up to the task of fighting a guerrilla war? Earlier I spoke with retired general and CNN Military Analyst David Grange.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
SAVIDGE: I want to talk about what happened up in Mosul over the weekend specifically two American soldiers were killed up there. There are eyewitness reports that say they were dragged from their vehicle and they may have been dragged through the streets.
Obviously, the loss of any soldier is tragic but these sort of circumstances does it suggest a change in attitude, a change in tactics and how would this play out with the morale of U.S. troops?
BRIG. GEN. DAVID GRANGE, U.S. ARMY (RET.): I don't think it's a change in tactics of the insurgents. I think this was a spontaneous incident, actually an assassination.
Gunmen hired probably to kill Americans for a bounty and the vehicle was stuck there. People reacted, possibly some ringleaders in the area that served as a catalyst to get the crowd in a frenzy that then did terrible things to these GIs and it definitely has an effect on troop morale.
SAVIDGE: The Pentagon or specifically the spokesperson in Baghdad for the U.S. military said they did not wish to comment on how these soldiers died but is it important to know that they were supposedly treated in this way? I guess what
I'm getting at here is it implying a shift in the temperament of the people themselves that they've become so vindictive and could it change the vindictiveness, if that's the word, of the soldiers? Would they be more likely to shoot and to react violently?
GRANGE: Yes, this is -- haven't been in situations like this. First of all, reference the Iraqi people themselves. I don't think it's -- I think this was an incident in that locale at that time and place where there were some that maybe wanted revenge that just got again in this frenzy from others motivating them that, you know, continue to attack, continue to attack, whatever.
Now, I think the most important question though is the reaction of the GI, the American soldier that has a buddy or someone in their own unit that's had some mutilation occur if that's what happened.
Yes, the emotions will just start screaming in each soldier. I mean they'll want revenge. They'll want to react, overreact as a matter of fact and this is a time for discipline and a time where the principals of the military that works for democratic governance comes in and that will prevail.
The soldiers will contain this anger and they'll be directed in a planned coordinated matter to go after those that actually did the act or supported the act and not a reaction to the people themselves. SAVIDGE: We only have about a minute left. I want to bring in Afghanistan. There was the loss of a helicopter over the weekend and now there appears to be new attacks, perhaps even similar to ones carried out like those in Iraq. Does this suggest perhaps a new front is opening up?
GRANGE: Well, I think you can call it the forgotten front, the secular front absolutely. The pressure by Taliban, the al Qaeda, others to distract, to again to expand the area of conflict benefits the guerrilla, the insurgent forces.
It gives them the ability to fight superior forces by spreading the coalition thinner than they already are and to say, hey, we never were defeated. We were just displaced. We just retreated and now we have reformed to fight and we're going to fight again. You have not won this thing and that's the perception they're trying to get out there on the street and in some cases it works.
SAVIDGE: Military analyst David Grange thank you very much sir. We appreciate it as always your insights general.
GRANGE: My pleasure.
SAVIDGE: Thank you.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
SAVIDGE: Addressing the allegations, Michael Jackson on the offense against charges he molested a 12-year-old boy.
Wireless customers are calling it freedom. Their providers call it a headache. The impact of the FCC's new rules and what it means for you.
And the first for the world down under as camera crews capture the rarest of the rare, we have pictures you can't miss.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
SAVIDGE: Life or death decision, convicted D.C. sniper John Muhammad receives his fate but will the ruling stick? A look at the still winding legal road ahead.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
SAVIDGE: Welcome back to CNN.
The jurors recommended death but it is not the final word. Find out what's next for convicted sniper John Muhammad but first a quick check of the latest headlines.
(NEWSBREAK)
SAVIDGE: Joining us now in our Washington studio, Gregory Wims, a friend of the sniper victim.
Mr. Wims, thank you very much for being with us today.
GREGORY WIMS, FRIEND OF SNIPER VICTIM: Thank you. Good to be here.
SAVIDGE: What was this verdict? What was this recommendation of death like for you, knowing obviously a victim?
WIMS: It made me think that justice was served. I personally, and some of the other family members who suffered, wouldn't like to see another life taken. But with the overwhelming evidence, with the destruction, 21 kids have lost either a mother or father or grandparent. Of course, as we know, 13 or more have been killed. So we think that the death penalty in this case was correct and that justice has been served.
SAVIDGE: Closure is such an overused word, but I guess it is because we can't find some other substitute. Will this bring a sense of closure for families?
WIMS: It will bring a little closure. But what we're facing now, me as a friend of Sonny Buchanan, and then the other family members who have lost their loved ones, is a trial just 30 miles away in Chesapeake. So although today we think that the jurors did the right thing, in three weeks we're going to wait to see what that jury will do when it comes to Lee Malvo.
So it's going to take awhile. It's going to take these trials to be over for all of us really to heal and bring closure.
SAVIDGE: One of the questions going to be asked now is, should Mr. Muhammad be tried again for other deaths, such as for your friend, Mr. Buchanan? What are your thoughts on that? Should there be other trials or does this suffice?
WIMS: Personally, I would not like to see another trial if, in fact, we get the death penalty in the second trial, because we know then that these two men have been convicted and they've been sentenced to death. But I have talked to some family members who would like to see another trial. So it's -- some family members would like to see it, to have their loved ones named particularly.
I think that it is too emotional for these families, especially if it is out of the area. All of the family members have to travel 500 miles roundtrip just from the Maryland area. And then, as you know, there are some family members coming from Washington State and Louisiana and Baton Rouge. So it's very much a hardship for these families, but also, the pictures that are shown, the pictures of their loved ones, and my friend, Sonny Buchanan, with a bullet either in the stomach or in the head, so it is very dramatic.
SAVIDGE: As far as the alleged accomplice, Mr. Malvo, you have already said you want the death penalty for him. His age has no influence on that for you?
WIMS: What we have first -- and first, let me say I represent an organization that helps all the families, and I also have a stake with a personal friend. I personally believe that if, in fact, found guilty, if the evidence shows that he pulled the trigger, then he should, in fact, receive the death penalty. But there's some family member whose have lost a loved one who think because of his age that maybe he should be given life in prison.
So you have -- you know, not everyone is in agreement. And what we have to do is, quite frankly, leave it up to the jurors. And I'm sure they would do the right thing.
SAVIDGE: Gregory Wims, friend of sniper victim Sonny Buchanan. Thank you very much for talking with us.
WIMS: Thank you.
SAVIDGE: Joining us now with his legal perspective on the case is attorney Kendall Coffey.
And it is good to see you again, Kendall. Let me ask you this: we were just touching on this factor. Should there be other trials now in other states to continue this whole legal issue?
KENDALL COFFEY, ATTORNEY: Well realistically, the issues is the sentence of death from the standpoint of many of the victims and the prosecutors. And that schedule is already moving forward in Virginia. There is no other trial that is going to cause a sentence of death or any other outcome to have more quickly than what is basically already locking in the Virginia timetable. But, as we heard from the prosecutor in Montgomery County, Maryland, who is outspoken on the subject, there may be others who want their day in court.
So I think in the final analysis, the prosecutors are going to pay the most attention to the surviving family members of victims. And that is going to be the key decision in whether there are going to be serial trials for serial killers.
SAVIDGE: Now, as far as the Muhammad case, there is an automatic appeal, correct?
COFFEY: There's an automatic appeal to the state Supreme Court, as you were talking about earlier. The judge himself will actually make the decision as to whether to pronounce the death sentence after reviewing a pre-sentence report that will examine any and all relevant considerations. The judge would have to see good cause to set aside the jury's finding of a death sentence. And frankly, there is no realistic prospect that the judge is going to do anything but issue the death sentence in February.
SAVIDGE: If you look towards an appeal and you are the defense attorney, what do you look at regarding the verdict that has been handed down?
COFFEY: You look at a very, very tough case in terms of any of the facts. One hundred-thirty witnesses, 450 items of evidence. You are focusing on two legal issues. Does Virginia require that to get a capital murder death sentence you actually be the triggerman, and the other grounds for the death penalty, the anti-terrorism law, are there legal frailties or mistakes in what is a death penalty sentence in law that has never been tested before in any state in the country?
SAVIDGE: What does this bode for the Malvo case?
COFFEY: Well, strictly speaking, the jury in the Malvo case shouldn't be paying any attention or even reading about what happened in the Muhammad case. And the judge will instruct them at some point to disregard anything that they've read about in the other case. But if there is to be a spillover, it could be that a jury in the Malvo case looking at a relatively looking young defendant who is supposedly brainwashed, indoctrinated, masterminded by Muhammad, might take some comfort in the fact that the real bad guy, the captain of the shooting team, is being sentenced to death. And that could prompt some jurors to consider a life sentence for Malvo.
SAVIDGE: Kendall Coffey, legal analyst, thank you very much for joining us. We appreciate it.
COFFEY: Thanks, Martin.
SAVIDGE: Well, he's out of sight, but Michael Jackson certainly is not keeping quiet. What is the pop star saying? We're live in California with details.
Plus, making wireless numbers truly mobile. New FCC rules make it a done deal, but what do you need to know about the changes? We'll have a live report.
Then later, a presidential pardon and one very thankful turkey.
But first, a quick look at some other news making headlines around the world.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
SAVIDGE (voice-over): Repair work. The leaders of Britain and France held talks in London in a bid to patch up sharp differences over the U.S. invasion of Iraq. After meeting with Prime Minister Tony Blair, French President Jacques Chirac said that the Bush administration and its plans to speed up the plans for a power to Iraq are positive but insufficient.
Moscow dorm fire. At least 36 students from various countries were killed when a huge fire swept through a dilapidated dormitory at People's Friendship University. Some jumped from the upper stories in a desperate attempt to escape the flames. Officials say the fire may have been caused by an electrical short circuit.
Coming home. Officials in Laos have handed over to the United States the remains of four people, three Americans and one Australian killed during the Vietnam War. The remains include those believed to be of Charles Dean, the brother of Democratic presidential candidate Howard Dean. The remains are being flown to a forensic lab in Hawaii where they will be identified.
Sky gazing down under. Scientists in Antarctica today viewed the first total solar eclipse ever recorded on the icy continent. Also on hand were hundreds of tourists, some of whom paid as much $9,000 to view the phenomenon.
And that's our look around the world.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
SAVIDGE: Michael Jackson is going directly to his fans in a bid to defend himself against child molestation allegations. CNN's Miguel Marquez is outside Jackson's Neverland ranch in Los Alamos, California -- Miguel.
MIGUEL MARQUEZ, CNN CORRESPONDENT: How are you there, Marty? He is, in fact, going directly to his fans in a virtual way, via the Internet. Mr. Jackson has launched a Web site at mjnews.us. His spokesperson says that this is an attempt to have a counter attack, essentially, because they feel that they are subject of lots of bad information out there and want to get Michael's side out there.
One thing that Mr. Jackson does in his debut of the Web site is write something directly to his fans. We have part of that here.
He says, "We will not engage in speculation. We will not provide commentary on every issue or allegation du jour. We intend to try this case in the courtroom, not in the public or the media." Mr. Jackson feeling that his word is not getting out there and his point of view not getting out there and hopes that this Web site will do it.
We are also learning more about the accuser in this case. CNN has confirmed through two different sources that the accuser is a 12- year-old boy who was in the Martin Bashir ABC documentary that aired last February.
The lawyer for the father of the boy says that he will be angry if the charges, obviously, are true. But he says he'll also be angry if they are false and his estranged wife is just looking for money. His lawyer also says that the father of the boy may be called as a witness for the defense.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
RUSSELL HALPERN, ATTORNEY FOR ACCUSER'S FATHER: He finds it difficult to believe that Mr. Jackson could have done these acts because his impression of Mr. Jackson is he's a sincere, benevolent, good person.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
MARQUEZ: Now, on the Web site, Mr. Jackson, or his spokesperson, says that he hopes that this will become sort of a blog-type situation, where Mr. Jackson, Mr. Geragos or Mr. Backerman, the spokesperson, will be able to put information on there as they see other information that they want to rebut to. It is not clear, though, how often this thing will be updated. But it certainly seems as though we're going to have sort of a two-prong strategy here. First, the public side and then the legal. Back to you.
SAVIDGE: Miguel Marquez, thank you very much. Reporting live.
All right. Moving on, joining us in Los Angeles to talk more about this case, forensic psychologist Jack Singer.
Mr. Singer, thanks for being with us.
JACK SINGER, FORENSIC PSYCHOLOGIST: It's my pleasure, Martin.
SAVIDGE: As we understand as events come out that these accusations against Mr. Jackson arose in a -- I guess a counseling session that this young boy had, I'm wondering, what are the legal requirements on the part of a counselor to report this in the state of California?
SINGER: Well, it's interesting, Martin, because in the state of California, when an allegation is made, whether you can have a way of proving that it's true or not, it doesn't matter. You need to report this immediately to the child protective services.
SAVIDGE: OK. Well, that would seem to be understandable. If they -- do you file this? Like you call up someone and say, this is what I heard? I mean, do you turnover your notes?
SINGER: No, you don't necessarily turnover your notes, because there is some confidentiality here. But you do call child protective services or the police, either one, and you testify to them that you were made aware of an alleged -- an allegation of child abuse or child sexual abuse, and they need to take it from there.
The difficulty for a lot of therapists, for example, psychiatrists and psychologists, is that a lot of times, these allegations are not necessarily true, but they have no choice. They have to report it anyway because, if there's going to be an error, it will be made in a conservative fashion to protect the interest of children.
SAVIDGE: Well, as an expert, what are the telltale signs that a child is revealing the truth to you?
SINGER: Well, actually, what this child and all children in this situation need to undergo is a forensic examination by a forensic psychologist, such as myself, but not by the therapist, because that's a conflict of interest. The child has developed a relationship with the therapist and there's a bias there.
So an outside person needs to evaluate the child, and there are some sophisticated psychological tests that we could use to determine the veracity of this. And it takes an extended period of time to do that.
SAVIDGE: How do you think the defense is going to deal with the veracity of this child? SINGER: Well, I think the defense is going to have to walk a very fine line, Martin, because what they really need to do is to not frighten this child, who is going to be frightened enough to have to testify and talk about allegedly intimate details in front of the world and in front of a bunch of strangers. They're going to have to walk a fine line with trying to impugn his testimony, at the same time not scaring him, so that the jury looks at the defense in a negative way. And that's a real fine like to walk, and it's going to take a lot of talent.
SAVIDGE: Would there be a difference in the sort of questions that you would ask this child to prove if he's telling the truth or not from what authorities would ask the child?
SINGER: Oh, yes, because, as a trained doctor of psychology in this particular field, what I would be doing is looking at his mood when I ask various questions. I would be looking at various kinds of eye contact and respiration rates. And then I would have him do some psychological things that I mentioned before, some drawings, for example, things that get at underlying feels and underlying emotions that you can't see on the surface.
I would also be very interested, Martin, in finding out if he's been coached in any way. You know, as you mentioned in the piece before, there is a custody battle going on. This is a very traumatic event for children. And the thought that the father and the mother are fighting over him and what he says may make a difference in that custody battle is extremely traumatic. And that needs to be addressed as well.
SAVIDGE: There's a lot of weight on that young person's shoulders.
SINGER: Yes.
SAVIDGE: Thank you very much. Forensic psychologist Jack Singer, thank you.
Cell phones in the city. New freedom today from millions of big metro talkers.
DANIEL SIEBERG, CNN TECHNOLOGY CORRESPONDENT: And if you like your number, but you don't like your service, well, starting today, you can take your number with you even if you change carriers. I'm technology correspondent Daniel Sieberg. Coming up, find out what all this means to you.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
SAVIDGE: For millions of cell phone users, today is something of an emancipation day. No longer will you have to switch numbers if you want to change your service provider. A new FCC rule has gone into effect. It allows consumers in the nation's top 100 markets to change providers and keep their old number.
CNN technology correspondent Daniel Sieberg is live with us from an Atlanta cell phone store -- Daniel.
SIEBERG: Hi Martin. That's right. We are here at Lennox Square Mall, which is just outside Atlanta. And we have been talking to a few people here who have decided to make the decision to keep their cell phone number as they switch carriers or take their cell phone number and use that -- or take their home number and use that as their cell phone number.
It is all about choice. Those of us covering the tech industry wondered if this day would ever come. It's been put off for quite a while. And although it means going wireless, there are some strings attached in a sense.
And I'm joined right now by Allan Kieter. He is the founder and president of myrateplan.com, which is, we should say, an unbiased consumer-based Web site. It helps people with their cell plans and long distance plans.
Allan, walk us through here. What are some of the pitfalls or some of the benefits for people if they decide to do this?
ALLAN KIETER, MYRATEPLAN.COM: Well, the main benefit is for the first time people can change carriers and hang on to their phone numbers. So it is really good news for people who maybe for the last several years have been heavy users of cell service, they've got their name and number in the yellow pages, with their cell number on their business cards. And so any inconvenience they've had with service has been overshadowed by the aggravation that it would cause them to change carriers. And so today is almost like their freedom day.
SIEBERG: Right. So people are becoming, in a sense, a free agent if they don't have a particular contract in place. If we can, we have a list of some of the pros and cons so we can break this down for people.
First of all, you do get to keep your number, as you say. And you can save some money because maybe you're getting some more options or a new plan, right?
KIETER: That's right. Generally, if you haven't shopped around in the last year or so, prices have come down quite a bit. So even if nothing else, you're going to get a better deal.
SIEBERG: All right. Now on the con side, or at least the things to think about if you're going to do this, you probably have to get a new phone. Because they are not all compatible with each carrier, right?
KIETER: That's right. You almost definitely have to get a new phone. Every carrier has different technology. Even the carriers with the same technologies, you still have to get a new phone.
SIEBERG: And potentially they're going to be offering you some sweet deals. But they're going to say, hey, how about a two-year contract, and what about those portability fees? Now, what should people do about either of those? KIETER: We recommend you don't sign more than a one-year contract. You can generally get a slightly better deal if you sign a two-year contract. But we don't think it is not worth locking yourself in for another year. So go with the one-year deal. Most of the carriers have them.
As far as the portability fees, the FCC has ruled that carriers are allowed to charge you a small amount for leaving, but we don't think that those fees will be significant. And it is possible you could ask your new carrier to pay you for it.
SIEBERG: All right. Allan Kieter, founder and president of myrateplan.com, thank you so much for joining us.
And Martin, the idea again, too, is to bargain, shop around, look online for as much information as you can, get your new service first before you cancel your old one, because you can't take something with you if you don't have it.
Martin, back to you.
SAVIDGE: I like the wisdom of that. Thank you very much, Daniel Sieberg.
SIEBERG: All right.
SAVIDGE: Pardon me. Please. A turkey tradition at the White House makes for one happy bird.
And of course our hot Web Question of the Day is this: Was the jury correct to recommend the death penalty for John Allen Muhammad? Vote right now at cnn.com/wolf. The results coming up.
But first, a look at stories you may have missed this past weekend.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
SAVIDGE (voice-over): Remembering JFK 40 years after he was gunned down in Dallas. President John F. Kennedy was the focus of a number of ceremonies marking Saturday's anniversary. Among the events, a walk of silence from the conspiracy museum to the spot where Kennedy was shot.
Support for a superstar. Fans of embattled singer Michael Jackson gathered around the world Saturday for a candlelight vigil. Jackson faces allegations of child molestation. The vigils were held in a number of major cities, including Los Angeles, Toronto and Rome. Fans in China and Australia also gathered to show their support for Jackson.
PATH reopens. For the first time since the 9/ 9/11 attack, some commuter trains are running between the World Trade Center site and New Jersey. PATH train service resumed yesterday in a rebuilt station near ground zero. The first train back into the station was the one that was the last to leave before the attacks. Cold blast from the past. The National Hockey League returned the game to its roots Saturday with the league playing its first outdoor game. Edmonton and Montreal faced off in the Heritage Classic in Edmonton in front of 58,000 fans. Before the game, some of hockey's greatest players, including Wayne Gretzky, took to the ice in an exhibition game.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP, "THE SIMPSONS")
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Hello. Welcome to the United Kingdom.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Prime Minister Tony Blair?
(END VIDEO CLIP)
SAVIDGE: Homer and the PM. British Prime Minister Tony Blair was a guest star of sorts on the hit American comedy "The Simpsons." Mr. Blair's voice was the real thing in last night's episode that featured the Simpsons on a trip to London. The British leader is a big fan of the show.
And that's our weekend snapshot.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
SAVIDGE: It is a tradition that goes back 56 years, if you're counting. So when this turkey was brought to the White House Rose Garden, it may have known that it was off the hook. But President Bush made it official, pardoning the national bird and sparing it from the Thanksgiving table. The lucky turkey and the alternate -- who knew -- will spend their days on a petting farm.
OK. Here is how you're weighing in on our Web Question of the Day.
Remember, we've been asking you, was the jury correct to recommend the death penalty for John Allen Muhammad? Look at this. Ninety percent of you say yes, 10 percent of you say no. As we always tell you, this, of course, is not science.
Let's hear from you and read some of your e-mail.
Lois writes: "President Bush is emphatic about bringing democracy to Iraq, yet he is ramming his Medicare bill through Congress by giving it very little time to review the massive bill. Is that the type of democracy he plans to bring to Iraq?"
And Rebecca sends this: "Don't you find it strange that our government can find over $80 billion to send over to Iraq but it can't find the money to support Medicare?"
A reminder: you can always catch WOLF BLITZER REPORTS weekdays at this time, 5:00 Eastern. I'll also see you again tomorrow. Until then, thanks for being with us.
TO ORDER A VIDEO OF THIS TRANSCRIPT, PLEASE CALL 800-CNN-NEWS OR USE OUR SECURE ONLINE ORDER FORM LOCATED AT www.fdch.com
Penalty for John Allen Muhammad>
