Powerful Earthquake Shakes the Pacific Northwest
ANNOUNCER: THE POINT, with Greta Van Susteren. A powerful earthquake shakes the Pacific Northwest. What happened at the moment of crisis? Tonight's</s>POINT: the Seattle earthquake. On the ground, near ground zero. A missing child, and frantic parents, targeted by authorities.</s>UNIDENTIFIED MAN: What this indictment alleges is that the baby was not kidnapped, as reported by the Aisenbergs.</s>ANNOUNCER: Now the indictment's been thrown out. The spotlight's on the investigators. Tonight, the parents tell us their side of the story. THE POINT. Now from Washington, Greta Van Susteren.</s>GRETA VAN SUSTEREN, HOST: I've been through an earthquake in Los Angeles, and even though it was a minor one, it was terrifying. Today, people in the northwestern U.S. and Canada lived through something of a much greater magnitude. Tonight's "Flashpoint": the Seattle earthquake. The magnitude 6.8 quake hit just before 11:00 a.m. Pacific Time. It was centered near Olympia, Washington's capital city. Right now, Seattle appears to be in surprisingly good shape, considering it has just weathered the second-strongest earthquake in its history. No one is reported dead so far. About two dozen people have been injured, five seriously. All over the Pacific Northwest, there are messes to clean up, safety questions to answer, and some amazing stories to hear.</s>UNIDENTIFIED GIRL: It was really scary at first because our chairs started shaking in the room.</s>UNIDENTIFIED BOY: Well, I was in the kitchen and I just ran in the doorway because there weren't any desks, and I -- I was shaking because I was so rattled up.</s>UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: It made death become a little more real -- the possibility. There was plaster coming off the walls, dust all through the air. And someone recently went up -- back up in to grab stuff and they said that the glass door shattered.</s>VAN SUSTEREN: For the very latest on the quake, I'm joined by CNN's Katharine Barrett in Seattle. Katharine, can you give me an update on whether or not the power has been restored, and whether or not telephone, and the condition of the roads?</s>KATHARINE BARRETT, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Well, the power outage this morning that affected some 17,000 customers has been reduced, at least, I just heard from the deputy mayor, had been reduced to about 9,500 customers at last count. It was restored sometime at mid afternoon. The condition of the roadways -- now, the major arterials, the major interstates, the major bridges, even an elevated highway behind me here that many people had thought would come down in any kind of an earthquake -- is really very, very good. The bridges remained open. The highways remained open. I drove in across a floating bridge this morning to get here after the earthquake, and that was all fine. There has been some cracking and heaving in roads, though, around the area. Boeing field, which is an air strip located just south of downtown, has had some cracking and damage to it. Seattle Tacoma's airport was closed, also because of debris and damage to the runways. They don't want to bring in planes until they can ensure that the runways are smooth enough, that they can take off and land safely. There were also scattered mud slides and some difficulties with local telephone and cell phone service, but again, those appear to be getting restored. At the moment there are building inspectors combing the city and inspecting buildings more closely. But again, not a lot of severe spectacular damage of the kind that we've seen in some California quakes, where you've had highways collapse wholesale. The major structures -- the infrastructure here is still standing. In fact, there's a sense of palpable relief tonight among the citizens of Seattle that it was not much, much worse. People feel quite lucky -- Greta.</s>VAN SUSTEREN: Katharine, step out of your role as a correspondent. Tell me what it was like for you personally when the quake hit.</s>BARRETT: Well, it was -- first of all, I was shocked. I didn't know quite what was happening for about 10 seconds, and then my mind said, earthquake, and I managed to run out, as the door frames and walls in my house were sort of jumping up and down, and then rolling side to side. I scrambled up the stairs to get my six-month old son out of his crib. I had to go up the stairs, sort of on all fours, because I couldn't really make it upright. And we just huddled and rode it out sitting under a door frame. And then, when it was all over, things were just quiet, except for the pound, pound, pounding of my heart.</s>VAN SUSTEREN: All right. Thanks to CNN's Katharine Barrett, from Seattle. A magnitude 6.8 earthquake is strong enough to cause a lot of damage. So why has the northwest gotten off so easily? Geologist Randy Updike joins me from the U.S. Geological Survey in Golden, Colorado, to help explain things. Tell me, Randy, should they after shocks, and are after shocks going to necessarily be less than the initial earthquake?</s>RANDY UPDIKE, U.S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY: Yes, that's correct, Greta. This particular earthquake is having an after shock pattern that is very weak. In fact, we've had almost no records of after shocks, which is not too surprising, considering this particular type of an earthquake -- it's very deep. It's on a subduction zone, which means that the type of release of energy is almost instantaneous and then not much in the way of after shocks.</s>VAN SUSTEREN: Is there any notice that an earthquake is going to occur to a seismologist or to anyone who studies earthquakes -- other than all of a sudden, the earthquake is upon you?</s>UPDIKE: In certain circumstances we've had opportunities to see foreshocks -- what we call foreshocks -- of main shocks. Generally, though, the main shocks come without very much warning.</s>VAN SUSTEREN: Give me an idea of how strong this earthquake is. For instance, compared to the one in Alaska in, I think, 1964, and some of the other -- at least the recent one in California.</s>UPDIKE: Well, compared to the one in Alaska in '64, that was a magnitude 9.8, was the second-largest earthquake ever recorded. This earthquake is many thousand times less powerful than that one. In addition, compared to the California earthquakes, this would be a very strong earthquake of this magnitude in California, but the difference is that this earthquake was quite deep. About three times as deep as the earthquakes usually are in California, and so the shaking and damage at the surface is much less for the same magnitude.</s>VAN SUSTEREN: When you say it's deep, is that good sign? Is it a sign that there isn't going to be one in the near future? Or is that simply irrelevant, just means there wasn't heavy vibration at the surface this time?</s>UPDIKE: No, there isn't much correlation to what's going to happen in the future. We do anticipate that this type of magnitude earthquake and this type of event will happen again. And if -- if the past is any indication, probably we'll see these two or three times per century. But what we're really concerned about is the very large earthquakes, and we do have evidence from research that we've been doing over the last two decades that very large earthquakes also occur in this region.</s>VAN SUSTEREN: Just a quick answer: Is any city at a huge high risk today of earthquakes?</s>UPDIKE: I'm sorry. I didn't get that.</s>VAN SUSTEREN: Is there a city right now that's at huge risk of an earthquake in this country?</s>UPDIKE: Well, of course we're very concerned about the Los Angeles area and also the San Francisco area. Those are two highest priority areas. But Seattle and the Puget Sound area is also very high on our list. In addition, in the mid continent, the area of Memphis and St. Louis remains of high concern for us, too.</s>VAN SUSTEREN: All right. My thanks to geologist Randy Updike. What does it feel like to be in the middle of an earthquake? A lot of people have stories to tell. Let's hear James Egan's. He joins us from Seattle. James, what was it like for to you when the earthquake hit today?</s>JAMES EGAN, SEATTLE RESIDENT: I was about 10 feet from here. I was standing next to a pay box. I was paying for my parking, and the -- the earth started moving. I thought it was at first a train that travels under the city, but I realized pretty quickly it was earthquake. I held on to the pay box for -- and just held on for the ride. Saw these windows across the street, shaking and shimmering. It's a -- it's a crazy act of God. I saw the one back in '95. Half a building came down a couple blocks down from here. It's pretty shocking. I think I was probably in a safe place, being in this modern parking garage, as opposed to being anywhere in an old building. I work down here, so...</s>VAN SUSTEREN: How long did you experience the shock? How long did it seem to be?</s>EGAN: I'm sorry. I missed your question.</s>VAN SUSTEREN: How long did it seem that the earthquake was actually shaking the earth?</s>EGAN: Well, it seemed about 20 seconds, and then it seemed like there was still some more shaking after that. Though, perhaps it was just the tremors from the whole experience. I'm sure everybody was nervous, sort of like when you walk away from an accident, your -- the ground feels like it's moving around. And that's how it felt for another minute. And maybe it was, maybe it was just me.</s>VAN SUSTEREN: All right. Best of luck to James Egan, who joins us from Seattle. Now I'm going...</s>EGAN: Yes. Thank you.</s>VAN SUSTEREN: ... to shift focus. In a minute, every parent's nightmare made worse. THE POINT returns in just a moment.</s>VAN SUSTEREN: Welcome back. CNN has just confirmed that there is one fatality arising out of the earthquake in Seattle. That's in King County, one fatality. It was a shocking crime, involving a child. A story that turned even more bizarre when her parents became suspects. It sounds like the JonBenet Ramsey case, but it's different. This is the story of baby Sabrina.</s>VAN SUSTEREN (voice-over): November 24, 1997, shortly before 7:00 a.m., Marlene and Steven Aisenberg of Valrico, Florida realize their 5 month old daughter is missing. They had last seen baby Sabrina asleep in her crib at midnight. Sabrina was kidnapped, they say.</s>MARLENE AISENBERG: We all miss her and love her very much. And we need her to come home to us, please.</s>VAN SUSTEREN: At the Aisenberg's house, no sign of forced entry, no ransom note, and no witnesses. Local, state, and federal investigators search for Sabrina, but find nothing.</s>STEVE AISENBERG: The hole in our family right now is very large, and only you can fill it. Please help us by bringing Sabrina home to us.</s>VAN SUSTEREN: Detectives suspect the Aisenbergs are covering up their daughter's death or sale. This, on the heels of the 1996 murder of JonBenet Ramsey in Boulder, Colorado. JonBenet's parents, John and Patsy Ramsey, remain under what Colorado investigators say is an umbrella of suspicion for their daughter's death. In December, detectives wiretap the Aisenberg's home, and allege that these incriminating remarks were captured on audio tape. Marlene: "The baby's dead and buried. It was found dead because you did it. The baby's dead no matter what you say. You just did it." Steve responds: "There was nothing I could do about it. We need to discuss the way that we can beat the charge. I would never break from the family pact and our story, even if the police were to hold me down." Using the tapes, detectives persuade a federal grand jury to indict the couple.</s>CHARLES WILSON, U.S. ATTORNEY: What this indictment alleges is that the baby was not kidnapped as reported by the Aisenbergs, that they lied to law enforcement authorities concerning the circumstances surrounding the baby's disappearance.</s>VAN SUSTEREN: Charged with conspiracy to make false statements to authorities, the Aisenbergs are arrested in September of 1999. In October they plead not guilty to all charges, citing what they call false and fictitious evidence. They ask a judge for a hearing into government misconduct. Now, in a strange turn of events, the investigation turns to the investigators. Earlier this month, a federal magistrate criticized investigators, saying they used deceptive means to get approval to bug the Aisenberg's home and that the tapes do not contain the incriminating statements they claimed. He recommends the case be thrown out, and accuses detectives of jumping to conclusions and building a case on lies and half-truths. Last week, the case against the Aisenbergs was dropped. Sabrina's disappearance still remains a mystery.</s>VAN SUSTEREN: With me here in Washington are Sabrina's parents, Steve and Marlene Aisenberg. We're also joined by their attorney, Todd Foster. Marlene, let me go first to you. The decision that the judge wrote is a rather harsh one of the detectives, using such terms as "materially distorted" in terms of their investigation. Let me ask you this: First your child's missing, then you are indicted. What it like to be that target?</s>MARLENE AISENBERG: Devastating. I mean, your daughter is taken from you. You have to defend your innocence for three years. They lost the window of opportunity that was so important in the beginning, to go out and follow leads for a baby, instead of a body. We have William and Monica at home who we still need to be there for. It's been devastating.</s>VAN SUSTEREN: Steve, what do you think happened to your daughter?</s>STEVE AISENBERG: That somebody now has her and is loving her and raising her as their own.</s>VAN SUSTEREN: So, you think it's a kidnaping and not a homicide?</s>STEVE AISENBERG: Well, I don't believe anybody would have taken our daughter to hurt her.</s>VAN SUSTEREN: Is -- was there any sort of indication that there was an intruder in your home?</s>MARLENE AISENBERG: Yes.</s>STEVE AISENBERG: The door was open when my wife, to our house, when my wife first realized that Sabrina was missing.</s>MARLENE AISENBERG: There was other fingerprints that were that were found that were never talked about. There was a footprint in the baby's room that was never talked about. There was a hair on the baby's crib that didn't match any of ours. There were other things that just weren't brought out.</s>VAN SUSTEREN: Todd, let me go to you. The case has now been dismissed. I remember the publicity with all these, the family home had been bugged. There was supposedly all these incriminating statements by Marlene and Steve. What happened to the case?</s>TODD FOSTER, ATTORNEY FOR AISENBERGS: The government dismissed the case because they knew that the case could not survive, because it was coming apart piece by piece.</s>VAN SUSTEREN: Are you saying that the detectives were deceitful or were they negligent? What happened? I mean, did the tapes contain that which the, was in the indictment? I remember the tapes were actually quoted in the indictment.</s>FOSTER: Right. The tapes do not contain what is quoted in the indictment, and it's not me saying that the detectives were deceitful. That is what is contained in the magistrate judge's order. What you referenced earlier, where the magistrate judge says quote, "The detectives gave substance to unintelligible recordings and distorted the context of intelligible recordings." Meaning that the detectives claim that they heard things on tapes where nobody could hear anything. And the little bit that could be heard was distorted and taken out of context.</s>VAN SUSTEREN: Marlene, what kind of pressure has been on the family? Because there's been a lot of suspicion that one or both of you is involved in a homicide of your own child.</s>MARLENE AISENBERG: You know, we really didn't worry about that and concentrate on that. I mean, we have William and Monica at home. We know we didn't do anything to Sabrina. We have no idea where she is. All we asked all along was that people look for her, and help us to get her home. So we couldn't concentrate on the negative things that were that were being said out there because we have to believe, we believe she's going to come home, and we need to stay positive.</s>VAN SUSTEREN: What are you do -- are you doing anything to try to find your daughter?</s>MARLENE AISENBERG: Yes, we are. We had...</s>STEVE AISENBERG: We had an age progression done by the missing children help center, of her at three, what she would look like at three years of age. She's now three and a half years of age. We have continued to contact the missing children help center to see if there're any new leads. You said, what is -- it's always been hard over the past year and a half to three years, we've been defending ourselves...</s>VAN SUSTEREN: Do you understand why the suspicion was cast in your direction?</s>STEVE AISENBERG: We had no problem with the authorities investigating us. We told them we had no problem with you investigating us. Bet we asked that they also investigate to fullest ability all leads coming in and look for a living child. They had told relatives that they were not looking for a living child, that they were looking for a body because they believed Sabrina was dead.</s>VAN SUSTEREN: Now polygraphs are inadmissible in most courts. Have either one of you taken any polygraph, although I can see that they're inadmissible?</s>STEVE AISENBERG: Yes, we have. And we took -- I took a polygraph with the police department and an independent -- and we both took independent polygraphs with Richard Radcliffe (ph), who did the Richard Jewell polygraphs. And he declared that we both were nondeceptive in our polygraphs.</s>VAN SUSTEREN: Do you think police have just given up and do you have any sort of sense of resentment, Marlene, that they focused on you?</s>MARLENE AISENBERG: We have a lot of resentment that they did and anger and frustration, but we still need officials to bring her home. We have to hope and pray that they will do it right now, and look at leads. And that's why it's so important to show this picture and get her age progression out. If somebody had a baby come into their family one year ago, two years ago, three years ago, and somebody knows that, and maybe it will be a friend or another family member that will say, you know what? That child does look like Sabrina. We need to call in and see if this could be her.</s>STEVE AISENBERG: We also know that there are a lot of police out there who probably worked very hard and thought they were doing a good job and that this is probably we feel was initiated from the beginning from the officers. When the 911 call went in, they first sent out a homicide detective and a child abuse detective. We think that their conclusions were made before they even entered our home.</s>VAN SUSTEREN: Todd, the governor of the state of Florida appointed a special prosecutor; why?</s>FOSTER: To investigate the lying that occurred. To investigate the lying that resulted in these people being indicted for things they did not do.</s>VAN SUSTEREN: I'd like to thank Steve and Marlene Aisenberg, as well as their attorney, Todd Foster. After a quick break, a preview of who's going to be in the hot seat tomorrow here in Washington.</s>VAN SUSTEREN: Tonight's flashpoint: today was just the tip of the iceberg. At a hearing today on presidential pardon power, here is what former United States pardon attorney Margaret Love had to say:</s>MARGARET LOVE, FORMER UNITED STATES PARDON ATTORNEY: I believe that it is the Justice Department's reluctance to recommend casings favorably for clemency, that it was, at least in part, responsible for the extraordinary break down of the pardon process at end of the Clinton administration.</s>VAN SUSTEREN: And these hearings were tame. Wait till the fireworks hit tomorrow, when the House Government Reform Committee has summoned a star-studded list of witnesses to testify. Like Skip Rutherford of the Clinton Presidential Foundation. The committee wants to ask Skip, who gave to the Clinton library and how much? Will Skip tell them? Next: Jack Quinn, former White House counsel, and pardon attorney for Marc Rich. Any chance he will persuade the committee this was a wise pardon? My guess: zero chance. Then: former White House counsel Beth Nolan and Clinton adviser Bruce Lindsey -- word is they both opposed the Rich pardon, so how did it slip by? What did they know and when? Finally, someone you don't know now, but will soon: Lewis Libby. His former job? Lawyer for -- yes, you guessed it -- Marc Rich. His current job? He gave up private practice for government service. He is now, hold onto your seat, Vice President Dick Cheney's chief of staff. My take: Washington is a place full of strange bedfellows, and it's only going to get stranger before this is all over. If you have any thoughts on the pardon controversy, and tomorrow's Congressional hearings, send an e-mail to askgretta at cnn.com. That's one word, askgretta. Stay with CNN for the latest on the Seattle earthquake. There will be an hour-long special report tonight at 10:00 p.m. Eastern. I'm Greta Van Susteren in Washington. CNN's coverage of the Seattle earthquake continues in just a minute, on "LARRY KING LIVE."