Return to Transcripts main page

CNN Talkback Live

Should Andrea Yates Be Sentenced to Death?; What Drives War Correspondents?; Tonya Harding Fights Paula Jones on TV

Aired March 13, 2002 - 15:00   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.
ARTHEL NEVILLE, HOST: Hello, everybody, welcome to TALKBACK LIVE. I'm Arthel Neville.

By now you know Andrea Yates has been convicted on two capital murder charges in the deaths of her children. Now it is up to the jury to decide how she is going to pay for her crimes -- death, life in prison. If you were on that jury, what would you do? Give me a ring, 1800-310-4CNN, or e-mail talkback@cnn.com.

And now, here's a look at what else we are talking about today.

Another journalist is killed covering a war zone, this time in the West Bank. Are the rewards worth the risks on the front lines?

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP, "HARRISON'S FLOWERS")

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: I'm giving it up, Sam. All I can think about now is Sarah and the kids.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

NEVILLE: We'll talk with actress Andie MacDowell about her new movie, "Harrison's Flowers." It's about a woman who goes looking for her husband, a photo journalist who disappears in Bosnia.

And look who's on the ropes.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: I don't want to be a tough name because -- you know, I'm might not be tough. But I'm going to try.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: I don't want it to be a cat fight.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

NEVILLE: Forget Tyson and Louis, Harding and Jones are in the ring. Can you think of a match-up more outrageous?

OK. Let's start now with sentencing of Andrea Yates. She faces the death penalty. Is it what she deserves? Here to talk about it are Janet Parshall, host of "Janet Parshall's America" on the Salem Radio Network. Jim Cohen, associate professor of law and the director of clinical education at Fordham University school of law. And criminal defense attorney and former Texas state prosecutor Joe Roach. Welcome to all of you.

I'd like Jim or Janet to answer this first question, asking that does this set a bad precedent for our understanding of mental illness?

JAMES COHEN, FORDHAM UNIVERSITY LAW SCHOOL: Well, why don't I begin. I think it sets a terrible precedent. I think it demonstrates a serious misunderstanding of how profound mental illness can be, particularly psychosis, which is what this woman clearly suffered from. I also think it sends a bad message to other people who are guilty of murder. If Yates, sick as she is, can be convicted of murder, it raises questions about what do we do with serial killers.

NEVILLE: Janet, what do you think?

JANET PARSHALL, SALEM RADIO NETWORK HOST: We know what we do with serial killers, we put them to death. Let me tell you, when we talk about mental illness, what we have to talk about is intervention and prevention. Both the prosecution and the defense recognized that she was suffering from mental illness, but the jury of 12 -- eight women, by the way, which I thought was significant as a woman, most of them mothers -- had a very narrow question before them, and the question was: Did she know the difference between right and wrong when she committed the crimes?

And when she talked to police afterward, she never once acknowledged the fact that she was delusional. She gave them keys. She changed clothes. And then only, only after the events had occurred did she say it was the devil that made her do it. This is a heart wrenching case. No, it's not about mental illness, it's about whether or not she killed five children, and the answer to that was yes, that's why they came back with such a quick verdict.

NEVILLE: And you have no mercy, Janet, I take it?

PARSHALL: No, I do have mercy, and I'll tell you, as a mother of four, I can't tell you how sickening this case is. When I hear the story of one of the children running down the hallway as he sees the deceased bodies of the siblings, saying, "I'm sorry, mommy, I'm sorry, mommy," I can't tell you how sickening this case is.

And here is what I am going to guess that's going to happen in the punishment phase of the trial -- because there is mental illness here, she will probably be given a life sentence and she'll spend the rest of her time behind bars. And let me tell you, that is the far worse crime, Arthel, because she will wake up every day to her own Dante's inferno. She will wake up to the hellish reality that she has killed her five children.

As the prosecuting attorney said yesterday, it's wrong in eyes of God, and it's wrong in the eyes of the law. So there is mercy here, but there must also be justice.

NEVILLE: So then, Jim, if, in fact, Andrea Yates does spend the rest of her life in prison, what does that do to her mental state? COHEN: Well, she won't get much treatment in prison. She will probably be given medication, but that's really about it. To the extent that she needs more treatment, she simply won't get it in prison.

NEVILLE: Mr. Roach, let's bring you in on this discussion. At issue here is the Texas insanity law. Is there a problem with this law?

JOE ROACH, DEFENSE ATTORNEY: I think this case draws the attention to the problem in the law, and a lot of people in Houston are talking about it, as well as other people in Texas are talking about it, because it is so narrow. Someone can be very mentally sick, suffering from psychosis, postpartum depression, hallucinations, schizophrenia -- and all of that was brought out in the testimony -- but at the same time function as a normal adult, you know, show keys, talk to police like as if nothing happened, I think that's what the jury had difficulty grappling with.

The only two pieces of evidence they looked at were the 911 tape and the confession. And there were experts on both sides, five separate psychiatrists and a neurologist testified that she was grossly psychotic and mentally ill and didn't know the difference between right and wrong.

NEVILLE: But now, if the question is, did she know the difference between right and wrong, clearly this is a very complex situation. So, is that too simple of a question?

ROACH: I think -- I think the standard has to be changed. That perhaps the old standard, before the Hinckley case, that her conduct, she knew the difference between right and wrong, but it was impossible for her to conform her conduct. She was unable to conform her conduct to a rightness standard.

I take issue with the previous speaker, because in the testimony at trial, which I saw, she thought Satan was inside her, and she has a lengthy history of in and out of mental institutions, in and out of being treated by psychiatrists. It wasn't, like, this occurred, or she claimed this the day after the murders.

NEVILLE: And Joe, if I can jump in there, because I mean, obviously, people agree that this lady has to be out of her mind. She is not in her right mind if she does this. It was brought up in court. You were there every day.

ROACH: Absolutely.

NEVILLE: Both sides recognized the fact that she does have some mental illness here, but she's still convicted of these crimes, of murder. So this is what I'm trying to understand, the Texas law, if you can break it down for me here.

ROACH: The breaking down is just what you said. Did she know the difference between right and wrong? And that's it. And if this woman is not insane, I'm not sure there could ever be someone found not guilty by reason of insanity in Texas. It's so rarely used because no one ever can fit that definition. I mean, a guy that's jumping off the walls, hallucinating, you can talk to and he can still know the difference between right and wrong. He will know that the courtroom is there to punish him.

But yet, he is still clearly insane, hearing voices as you speak to him. So, and I still think that society as a whole has a problem with mental illness. It was brought up in the arguments yesterday. If a man had a stroke, and the car ran off the road and killed five children, would we prosecute him? I was a prosecutor here for five and a half years. No, we wouldn't prosecute that man.

And -- but if a person is so mentally ill and kills five children, would we prosecute that person? Sure, we would, because mental disease is still not at the level of being recognized as valid, as physical ailment.

NEVILLE: And Jim, I want to talk to you about that in a second, but right now I want to get a caller in on this conversation. We have Laura standing by in the line. Laura, go ahead.

CALLER: Yes, I was just talking about this case with my brother, and I was wondering, what happens to the psychiatrist who took her off the medication two days before the killing? And also the husband, who after four babies that she was already going through this -- I mean, where are they held responsible, and will they be held responsible?

I think they should be, because everybody already knew that she was going through this. They knew she was getting sick in her head, or, you know, I mean, going through these states of Satanic -- or whatever she was going through, you know. In a spiritual realm where she is coming from, she's not dealing with what in the reality that we're at.

NEVILLE: You know, Laura, I have spoken to several people who had that -- share your sentiments, and that is, what about the husband? What about the husband?

ROACH: Can I speak to that?

NEVILLE: Sure.

ROACH: Well, I -- I think there is an issue that he could be charged with child endangerment. We have a law in Texas, if you leave your children in harm's way, in a situation where you know they could be in danger -- like, I have three children, and if I leave my 9-year- old in charge of his younger siblings, I could be prosecuted because that's an endangering situation. If it could be shown in the law that Russell Yates knew by leaving his wife with the children the children were in harm's way, then he could be prosecuted.

NEVILLE: So, Joe, yes or no, is a trial for him imminent?

ROACH: I can't predict that; I'm not the prosecuting attorney here.

NEVILLE: Sure.

ROACH: But I think it certainly bears looking into.

NEVILLE: OK.

ROACH: And the psychiatrist I think will face a big, big time civil suit.

NEVILLE: Listen, we have to take a break at the moment, but we definitely want to continue this conversation, so don't go anywhere. TALKBACK LIVE continues in a moment.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

NEVILLE: Welcome back to TALKBACK LIVE. We are talking about how Andrea Yates should be sentenced now that she has been convicted of killing her children, and I'm standing here with Camilla, and I would like to hear your thoughts on this.

CAMILLA: Yes, I feel that she does deserve death penalty. Although there was obvious insanity involved, I still feel that you don't just take your children one by one and drown them in a bathtub, and especially the part where the child was running down the hall screaming, "mom, I'm sorry." I mean, it wasn't even the children's fault. And so, even though there is insanity, I still feel that justice needs to be taken into account, and you can't just kill your children and then get away with it. I feel that the action that was taken was the correct action.

NEVILLE: Janet, what do you say to that?

PARSHALL: I think Camilla is right on. And let me tell you, there are three states that have already started to question whether or not to use the innocent by reason of insanity. They have already abandoned it, by the way, several states are also looking at it, because it is such a very difficult standard.

But you know, this is the most horrific act that humankind can imagine. It's the stuff of Shakespeare's plays and Greek mythology. And when we stop and we ruminate on the mythology of what she did to have to capture these children -- in fact, at one point, one of the surviving siblings saw the body of the six-month-old floating in the bathtub, and said, "mommy, mommy, what's wrong with Mary?" Now, it's interesting, because, again, in the police videotape after the fact, she said -- gave evidence to the fact that she knew the difference between right and wrong, because her very verbiage was, "I made a bad choice."

Again, the narrowness of the question before the jury was, did she know the difference between right and wrong, and the answer here was, yes.

NEVILLE: Jim, you know, some people would say, listen, we are tired of this excuse of I didn't know what I was doing, I was mentally insane, and some people are saying this simply an excuse to do bad things. What do you say to that? COHEN: Well, first of all, this woman has been profoundly mentally ill for most of the five previous years prior to the event. We have a concept in this society that we only punish those that are blameworthy, those that are legally responsible for their conduct. Yates believed that her children were inhabited by the devil. Now, that's why she killed them. Somebody who is possessed of such an extreme and profound delusion simply shouldn't be punished. They should be put away in a mental hospital. That's why we draw lines between conduct in this society. There is no question that the conduct in which she engaged was horrendous. But how do we differentiate that conduct from that of a serial killer? Janet's answer is, we should lock everybody up.

NEVILLE: Or, or from that of someone who is claiming to be crazy?

COHEN: Then she has malingered for five years.

NEVILLE: I'm not saying -- I'm not talking about Ms. Yates at this moment, I'm just talking about in general, someone who claims to be crazy, this is why I did this.

ROACH: Well, somebody claims to be crazy, that's why we have 12 people decide. Jurors are not stupid. Jurors are smart. And obviously, these 12 people did not buy the insanity defense. So I think we have to give credit to this jury. They were a very attentive jury. They were a smart jury. I might not necessarily agree with their verdict, but this was an attentive jury, and we don't know -- we cannot second-guess what their deliberations were.

But, again, too, it goes saying -- I want to add one other thing, she also truly believed that Satan was inside her, and she had this belief before she killed the children. And by killing the children, her children would go to heaven and Satan would leave her and die.

And that is a serious psychotic belief. I mean, doctor upon doctor, even the state's expert testified that the day after the killings Ms. Yates was grossly psychotic. That is what Dr. Dietz testified to, the state's own expert from California testified to that.

NEVILLE: Right, now -- which is why I'm a little surprised by the verdict. But let me jump in here now with Mern (ph) from Missouri. Mern, you're on the line, and I'd like to hear your thoughts on this subject.

CALLER: I firmly believe -- I firmly believe this woman needs the death penalty. A lot of what she has done can be faked. I agree that she has a mental illness, probably a great profound personality disorder, but the horrendous things that she has done was methodic, and I don't think she deserves to live.

NEVILLE: I'm standing here -- Mern, thank you, first of all, for your comments. And I'm standing here with Ernest from Michigan. Ernest, what are your thoughts? ERNEST: I don't think she should get the death penalty. I think there should be some punishment, because the main thrust of the prosecution's argument was that she could not rationalize because she was psychotic. So we can't have it both ways. So therefore, she said she was doing what was best for the kids, but yet she -- we wanted to buy into her rationalization. If she's psychotic, why would the jury buy into the rationalization?

NEVILLE: Go ahead -- thank you, sir. Janet, I would like to ask you, if you had your (UNINTELLIGIBLE), your wish, how would Andrea Yates be punished for this?

PARSHALL: Well, in the perfect world, Arthel, I'd turn back the hands of time and I would have gotten some pretty aggressive intervention in her life, and I would have been paying very close attention to the signals, like when she filled the bathtub and she said to either her mother or her mother-in-law, "I may need this someday." Hello? Red flags going off everywhere. That's after the fact, exactly, the hindsight is always 20/20.

So now we go into the punishment phase. I have to tell you that what I would like to see is I would like to see her get life imprisonment and aggressive treatment while she's there. And as one of our guests alluded to, if she's not going to be treated there, then the next part of our discussion has to be real good prison reform in this country. And if you are not getting treated when you are psychotic in prison, then something needs to be done on that level.

But the jury wasn't responsible for prison reform; they were responsible for listening to 38 witnesses, 10 of whom testified to her psychiatric state, and came back in a resoundingly fast fashion with an unanimous verdict, because the evidence said, sorry, Andrea, you knew the difference between right and wrong.

NEVILLE: Jim Cohen, some final thoughts from you. I would like to know that if Ms. Yates does end up in prison for life, are you confident that she will receive mental treatment?

COHEN: No, I'm not confident at all. As I indicated, she will probably receive medicine, antipsychotic drugs, but beyond that she won't receive anything. As a high-profile defendant, she probably will get that.

But I think you ought to focus a little bit on the standard that Joe talked about. I think it is a misunderstanding of the insanity law even in Texas to suggest that because you can turn on the faucet or because you can -- or call the police, that therefore you know the difference between right and wrong. This woman was in the grip of a psychotic delusion, and I represented people who are like that. And they just -- they don't know right from wrong in any meaningful sense at all. I think the prosecutor successfully narrowed the frame for the jury to focus on, and they focused on things like the ability to turn on a faucet and the ability to call the police, and I think they got away from what psychosis is really all about.

NEVILLE: Joe Roach, do you think prosecution should have had a different argument?

ROACH: Well, the prosecution carried the day. They won. But what I would like to see...

NEVILLE: I mean defense, pardon me, I do mean the defense. Yes.

ROACH: The defense did a brilliant job, a brilliant job. But one of the bad things in Texas is, what I would like to have seen done is her placed in a mental institution for life, with appropriate treatment. And she would probably never have gotten out of that mental institution. In Texas law, if they had found her not guilty by reason of insanity, the jury is not entitled to know what happens to her.

So people have watched "The Practice," or they have watched television too much to think that she walks out of this courtroom with the jury. And that's simply not true. Statistics have shown that people who have been found guilty -- not guilty by reason of insanity have actually served longer incarcerated in mental institutions than in prison sentences. And she needs the appropriate help, and she is simply not going to get that in Texas prisons. They don't have the facilities. They are lucky if they get adequate drug treatment. She needs help, and she needs to be locked up. She needs to be away from children.

No one wants to see her do this again, including myself. I'm a father of three, I think it's horrendous what happened. But I think at the same time, justice is served by locking her up in a mental institution, probably for life. She would be brought back in front of Judge Belinda Hill if she ever petitioned to get out. Doctors would have to agree, and both the prosecution and defense would have a say in arguing to the judge as to whether she would ever get out. It's not that easy.

NEVILLE: Janet, final thoughts. I will give you the last word. What do you have to say?

PARSHALL: Final thought is, the punishment must fit the crime. It sends a message. Every time somebody does something bad, your defense is, the devil made me do it -- don't think so. That's not a good standard of law.

NEVILLE: Janet Parshall, Jim Cohen, Joe Roach, thank you very much for joining me here today.

Now, do you ever wonder what drives journalists like Daniel Pearl to risk their lives in war zones around the world? Next, we will hear how journalists got caught in the crossfire in Ramallah and meet a woman whose job it is to send photo journalists into war zones. Then, actress Andie MacDowell discusses her new movie about that very subject, "Harrison's Flowers." That's back after this break.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

NEVILLE: And welcome back. How dangerous is it for journalists on the war front? We all know what happened to Daniel Pearl in Pakistan. Now, an Italian photographer has become the first press casualty in the West Bank since the violence began there in September of 2000. CNN's Cairo bureau chief Ben Wedeman reports, the area near Ramallah has become extremely dangerous for reporters.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

BEN WEDEMAN, CNN CORRESPONDENT (on camera): Here in Ramallah, we had a chance to go in and around the city of Ramallah, and we saw that the Israeli tanks have really advanced very close to the center of the city. At the same time, we saw dozens of Palestinian gunmen taking up positions, trying to confront them, but really the Palestinians are by and large are outnumbered and outgunned by the Israelis.

Now, one very disturbing incident that took place here today was an Italian journalist, Raffaele Ciriello, who was killed during clashes in the middle of the city. Now, according to eyewitnesses, he was shot six times in the chest by a gun from an Israeli armored personnel carrier. According to people there, that the ambulances were not able to reach Mr. Ciriello, and he eventually was taken to a hospital by some Palestinian youth, but his wounds were too severe, and he died shortly thereafter.

At the same time, a French journalist was shot twice in the leg, and an Egyptian journalist was hit in the side by a bullet. Fortunately, he was wearing a flack jacket, so his injuries were minimal.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

NEVILLE: That was Ben Wedeman reporting from an area near Ramallah. Thank you very much for that report.

In the meantime, I want you to meet a woman who is responsible for sending photo journalists into war zones. Sarah Harbutt is the director or photography at "Newsweek" magazine, and also with us is actress Andie MacDowell. She stars in the about-to-be-released film "Harrison's Flowers." It's about the wife of a photo journalist missing in Bosnia, and right now we're going to take a look at the clip from the movie.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP, "HARRISON'S FLOWERS")

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: The Red Cross sent word yesterday.

ANDIE MACDOWELL, ACTRESS: Photographer, American, he was here taking pictures. Have you seen this man?

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Vukovar is very far, and dangerous. We (UNINTELLIGIBLE).

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Come on, come on!

(END VIDEO CLIP)

NEVILLE: Wow, some powerful scenes there. Andie, it seems that those are very, very emotional scenes, and I want to ask you now, when you're doing a movie, one of those art imitating life movies and when the life is at the very forefront of the headlines, does it make it a little tougher to do your job?

MACDOWELL: Well, this movie was shot way before 9-11, so I didn't have that extra added pressure of what our reality is now, but I do believe that it is a beautiful story about what it takes to be a photo journalist, and the acting in this, the other actors that I'm working with, Adrien Brody and Brendan Gleeson and David Strathairn, they do amazing jobs and beautiful portrayals of photo journalists.

NEVILLE: People are always wondering how far an actor will go to prepare for a role, and I ask you that regarding this movie?

Andie?

MACDOWELL: Yes, I'm sorry, because the thing flashed on down there, I was confused. You know, the preparation for what I did for this was -- really the part that appealed to me the most about the story was the love between these two people. It is a romantic story. A great portion of it does take place during the war, but the thread that holds the whole movie together is the love between my character and her husband. I work at "Newsweek." I'm on the other side. I'm at home in America. He sends the film to me. I'm in charge of getting these pictures developed.

And what happens is, he ends up going to this war in Yugoslavia at a period in his life when he's ready to stop, and disappears.

NEVILLE: Andie, you know what? I have got to take a break for a news break right now, but I definitely want to hear more about this movie, because those scenes do look amazing.

And we'll talk more with Andie MacDowell and Sarah Harbutt after this break. Don't go anywhere.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

NEVILLE: And welcome back.

We're talking with Andie MacDowell and Sarah Harbutt.

Andie, I want to start with you again, because you were explaining before the break that "Harrison's Flowers" really is about the love this woman had for her husband, which was so strong that it had her take on extraordinary feats.

MACDOWELL: That's right. And that's what holds the story together, because it is such an intense story. The whole war part is very difficult to watch. But the thread that holds it all together is the fact that these two people love each other that much.

NEVILLE: And, Sarah, Andie also mentioned that, in fact, this movie was shot before September 11. But now we're all watching closely reporters who are in war zones doing their jobs.

Your job is to send these people to these war-torn countries. But the occurrences like that of which happened to Mr. Daniel Pearl, it happens more than we know. Is that true -- or more than we hear about?

SARAH HARBUTT, "NEWSWEEK": Yes, it does.

And during the conflict in the former Yugoslavia, 47 journalists lost their lives. And that's an extraordinary number in five years time. We've lost photo journalists today in the Mideast. It continues. It is a very risky job. It is very dangerous.

NEVILLE: Now, in the movie, also, I noticed that Andie's husband, his character in the movie says he was getting clammy hands or something and he didn't want to go there anymore. Have you ever had anyone tell you that, any reporters tell do you, "Listen, you know what, I don't think I can do this anymore"?

HARBUTT: No.

I collaborate with photographers. I will do research, as will a photographer, on a given story in a given area. We will do logistical research to figure out how we're going to go into the region. And we're in constant contact once that happens. So it is not quite as flippant as described in the film.

NEVILLE: Right. It's not quite -- these are not haphazard assignments that you are giving out here.

HARBUTT: No, not at all. Not at all. It is real news, real stories, with real danger.

NEVILLE: OK. I am having Deloris here standing by with me, because you have a comment or a question for Andie or Sarah.

DELORIS: I just have a comment.

No matter what our mission is in life, no matter what our job is, there's a certain amount of risk involved in no matter what we do. It's just part of the job. Those people at ground zero, I mean, who could -- their job...

NEVILLE: And you're a schoolteacher, right?

DELORIS: For 31 years I taught. And every single day it was...

(APPLAUSE)

DELORIS: Thank you very much.

Every single day, it was like putting your life on the line, because sometimes these kids are just kind of whacked out. And you don't know what they may want to do to you at any given time.

NEVILLE: Thank you, Deloris, for your comments. Thank you very much.

Andie, I'd like the talk to you again. In the end, I'm sure you're proud of your movie. You wouldn't have taken on the project if you weren't feeling that way. In the end, though, do you think it gives us, just laypeople, a pretty good look inside the life of the family of a photo journalist who covers war-torn countries?

MACDOWELL: Yes, I think it does give a very powerful view of what it would be like to be married to someone that their job was to go off and take pictures of war, and the effects that, you know, that can have on him or you or all your children, because there is a strange relationship between my son and his father due to the fact that the son feels the stress.

You see the little boy waking up to listen to my telephone calls. You see how intent and powerfully how much he worries about his father and what he does and the anxiety that that causes him as a child.

NEVILLE: Sarah, do you ever get to hear any of those stories shared by some of the reporters with you about the children and about the family and, "Maybe my wife is getting a little antsy" or "My child is having trouble sleeping now because daddy is going out or mommy is going out to cover these stories"?

HARBUTT: Absolutely. Absolutely. And I think if you look at correspondents as a breed, you will find greater stress in their lives than in many other careers. So that is a factor of the career.

The difference, though -- if I can go back to what that woman was bringing up -- there's a difference between covering a war that's following Geneva Convention rules for the press. It is very different when all those rules break down and all the guidelines from the Geneva Convention for humanitarian care of the civilians are broken down.

And that's what we saw in Bosnia. And that's why so many died. It was not because what they were doing was dangerous -- it is dangerous -- but they were also being targeted. And that's another issue.

NEVILLE: Right. There are rules. And then when the rules are broken, it changes the play of the game.

HARBUTT: Exactly.

NEVILLE: Andie's movie, "Harrison's Flowers," opens in theaters this Friday.

Andie MacDowell and Sarah Harbutt, thank you very much for joining us here this afternoon.

MACDOWELL: Thank you.

NEVILLE: Sure.

And coming up next: Ruben Rivera, what was that Yankee thinking? He seems to have traded a $1 million contract for a teammate's bat and glove. Hello?

(COMMERCIAL BREAK) NEVILLE: All right, sometimes you have just got to wonder: What was he thinking?

Ruben Rivera, the baseball player, just signed a $1 million contract to play backup center field for the New York Yankees. So, what does he do? He's accused of stealing a bat and a glove from shortstop Derek "Cutey Pie" Jeter and allegedly selling them for $2,500 -- $2,500, OK? So now the Yankees don't want him and he's out of a job.

Well, here to talk about it are Steak Shapiro. I see you in the background, Steak. He is the host of "Mayhem in the A.M." on Sports Radio 790 here in Atlanta -- also Jon Heyman, a baseball columnist with "Newsday."

Thank you very much for both of you being here.

Steak, since you are sitting right here, I'm going to have to ask you, because you know I would, Steak, what's up with that name?

STEAK SHAPIRO, RADIO TALK SHOW HOST: I wish I had a better story for you, Arthel. It is a long and sordid tale. I got it up in Boston. I was doing talk radio up there. It is about a steak house in Minnesota.

NEVILLE: So you like steak. Or you did something crazy in a steak house.

SHAPIRO: Don't I look like the kind of guy you would name Steak, though?

NEVILLE: Anyway, you know what, Steak? I thought you had a better story. I'm moving on now. I'm moving on.

SHAPIRO: Why are you dissing me? That's cold.

(LAUGHTER)

NEVILLE: Oh, come on.

Jon, let me go to you right now. What the heck was this Ruben guy thinking?

JON HEYMAN, "NEWSDAY": He obviously wasn't thinking too clearly, because he had a $1 million guaranteed contract and he was going to get paid April 15. You get paid 12 times a year in Major League Baseball. He was going to get an $80,000 paycheck on April 15. I don't why he couldn't hold out.

I assume he had some kind of financial problems. But he shouldn't be that hard up. And Major League players get $906 in meal money and incidental during spring training. So that should have tided him over.

NEVILLE: Steak, what do you think this guy was thinking?

SHAPIRO: Well, again, obviously he wasn't thinking. It was a ridiculous move.

It is like the third or fourth time in the last six months that one professional athlete is stealing from a guy on his own team in his own locker room. It happened with the New Orleans Saints, a town you're familiar with. Deuce McAllister was getting ripped off by Albert Connell, a wide receiver with the Saints. And they had to cut him.

And especially in a locker room, you know, in professional sports, you spend more time in your locker room than you do at home or you do with your family or anywhere else. That is a sacred ground.

NEVILLE: Absolutely.

SHAPIRO: So for any player to even mess with the integrity of that -- the Yankees had a vote yesterday. Of course he's the cousin of Mariano Rivera, who is of course the great Yankee reliever. And they just said, look, there's certain lines you can't cross.

And the other thing is, why are you only selling the bat for $2,500? You can't get more money for Derek Jeter's bat? Get some jack out of it. If you're going to sell it, get some cash.

NEVILLE: You're right, Steak, because I'd pay more than that for Derek Jeter's baseball bat or his glove.

SHAPIRO: You would pay more than that for a date with Derek Jeter, wouldn't you?

NEVILLE: Hey, hey, hey, now, don't go there. I didn't say that. I think he's cute, but that's about it.

SHAPIRO: Single? You're single. He's single.

NEVILLE: No, I'm not. I'm not.

Jon, you know, I wish you were here for all this fun. I want to make sure you stay here, though, with us.

So the guy is going to get kicked off the Yankees. Do you think, Jon, any other team will pick him up?

SHAPIRO: I don't think immediately anyone is going to a take chance on him. I think this is just a crime that they don't accept in baseball. If he had done drugs, obviously, you get a couple chances with that. Even if you commit a crime that is probably considered a bigger crime, a felony, like maybe stealing a car or something like that, they give you a chance with that.

But if you're stealing one of your teammate's gloves, they really don't like that, understandably, because you have to have trust in that locker room. The Yankees were built on trust. And all these other teams feel the same way. You can't be thinking about who is going to be taking stuff out of your locker room. It's hard enough to play the game of Major League Baseball without worrying about having something stolen out of your locker. NEVILLE: Now, when you mentioned that other athletes have been kicked off -- or kept on teams for worse crimes than that, then you, Kim, amongst a lot of other people here, started laughing.

What do you think of this whole state of this stealing baseball gloves and just the whole state of athletes and athletics in general? And some of these guys are giving the entire athletic department and athlete fraternity a bad name.

KIM: Yes, they are.

I don't know. It's hard to believe that it has happened. I don't understand his reasons behind it. But it is kind of funny. I mean, of course we all laughed at it when he said, if you did drugs before, you got a second chance. But because you sold somebody's glove, it will be a hard time for you to get another team.

I don't know. It is just hard to believe that, when you have got $1 million dollars standing in front of you, that you will take the chance of selling a glove for $2,500. It just doesn't make a lot of sense.

NEVILLE: Well, Kim says it doesn't make a lot of sense.

And, Pat, you're on the air now. And I'd like to hear what you have to say about this.

CALLER: On this Mr. Rivera question, I think it just verifies, it proves that money or talent or fame really have nothing to do with character. That's something that comes from within. And, obviously, Mr. Rivera just doesn't have that.

NEVILLE: So, is it a question of poor judgment or bad morals?

SHAPIRO: People like to paint broad strokes when it comes to professional athletes and make statements about, oh, lack of integrity, and doesn't that speak to the character of athletes?

If you put 40 people in an office together in the same situation, you'll find stuff like this go on. It happens everywhere. It just so happened, when it is the Yankees and it's the former world champs and it's the most visible team in America -- and how would you like to be Mariano Rivera trying to talk about your cousin? You talked him up. You got him a tryout. You get him $1 million. And now you have got to explain to your team. It's like, "Well, so much for that guy."

It's a very tough situation for Mariano Rivera to have his cousin behaving like that.

NEVILLE: Oh, absolutely. Talk about embarrassing.

Jon, I want to get you in there for a second, but I have got Steve on the line from Nevada.

So, Steve, go ahead and chime in with your comment. Steve, are you still there? CALLER: Hello?

NEVILLE: Hey, Steve, go ahead. What do you have to say?

CALLER: Yes. This kind of thing goes on all the time. The younger players, sometimes like Kid Chris (ph), he even sell Brad's wheelchair occasionally. It goes on every time this happens.

NEVILLE: Thanks Steve, by the way, first of all.

And, Jon, I want to ask you now, do you think these clubs, the football clubs, baseball clubs, what have you, will start enforcing a little more maybe some sort of conflict-of-image clause here, because there's a lot of stuff going on in the world of sports, it seems?

HEYMAN: Well, I know there's moral clauses in baseball. And that's how the Yankees got out from under this $1 million contract. That's how they negotiated it down to $200,000. And I think it is a good idea that they have this.

But, like I said, I think this is just a very, very rare situation where a guy is making $1 million and just shows incredibly bad judgment to think that he needs $2,500 dollars that quickly. I think that is a very rare situation. This was a very, very sad story to begin with.

This guy has the talent of Derek Jeter, probably. And when he came up in '95, '96 with the Yankees, people thought he was going to be a superstar. They called him a five-tool player. He had all the tools. But he must have been missing something, because he is a .218 career hitter right now. It was a very sad story to begin with and now it just got even sadder.

NEVILLE: It got worse.

HEYMAN: Yes.

NEVILLE: What is going to happen to him, Jon, do you think?

SHAPIRO: I think he is going to have trouble getting a job initially. He may try out for an Independent League team, play for maybe the Long Island Ducks, some team -- probably not in the New York area, actually. But some team out there will probably take him. Maybe try Japanese baseball. I think it is going to be hard for him to get in the Major Leagues, at least this year. Maybe if a little time passes, maybe at that point, someone will take him. But right now, I think he is poison to take.

NEVILLE: All right, thank you, Jon Heyman, for joining us today.

Steak is sticking around. You're going to stay here, huh, Steak?

SHAPIRO: Yes, we've got a great challenge to talk about, right?

Steak -- and I'm going to call myself French Fry for this next segment. Steak and French Fry. SHAPIRO: How about Potatoes? You be Potatoes.

NEVILLE: OK, Steak and Potatoes. We'll be back in a moment. We're going to talk about boxing.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

NEVILLE: All right. We're back.

You might not get to see Mike Tyson take on Lennox Lewis, but they're not the only ones packing punches these days, right, Steak?

SHAPIRO: Good stuff.

NEVILLE: Fox has roped a series of matches few could imagine. Get this: The Partridge Family takes on The Brady Bunch. Danny "Boom Boom" Bonaduce takes on Barry "The Butcher" Williams. Todd Bridges meets Vanilla Ice. And maybe the strangest of all, Tonya Harding takes a swipe at Paula Jones.

All right, Steak, if you had some cold cash to put on this, let's talk about Tonya Harding or Paula Jones. Who would you put your money on?

SHAPIRO: I think you go with the athlete there. Plus, Paula Jones, remember, she is a late entry. They wanted Amy Fisher.

NEVILLE: Yes, they wanted Amy.

SHAPIRO: And her probation or whatever, she is under some kind of...

NEVILLE: She couldn't make it.

SHAPIRO: Well, she's not allowed to earn money while she is on probation.

NEVILLE: She has got problems.

(CROSSTALK)

SHAPIRO: Actually, it is not fair because I know the results of this. And I don't want to ruin it.

NEVILLE: Hey, don't you tell me. Steak, don't you do that.

SHAPIRO: I think she looks good.

And, again, Vanilla Ice ...

NEVILLE: No, no, no, Steak, follow me.

SHAPIRO: OK, sorry.

NEVILLE: Now the next question is Barry Williams or Danny Bonaduce, who is Danny Partridge, who are you going with on this one? SHAPIRO: Two manly men.

NEVILLE: Two manly men.

SHAPIRO: I'm partial to the Brady Bunch, so I guess I am pulling there in that direction.

NEVILLE: OK, we can work with that .

All right, finally, Todd Bridges vs. Vanilla Ice.

SHAPIRO: I think Todd Bridges has got a whole lot of you know what in him. He's going to take care of business.

NEVILLE: I want Todd Bridges to win that one.

OK, now, you said you had nickname for me, or a match for me.

SHAPIRO: If we are really going to talk about someone that would scintillate, a rivalry that makes sense, why don't we talk about Arthel against Greta Van Susteren over at Fox News?

(CROSSTALK)

NEVILLE: Look at you. You know you're trying to stir up stuff. I'm not going to let you stir up stuff.

Bye-bye everybody. We're out of time.

Steak Shapiro, thank you so much for being here.

Thanks to all of you, too, for watching. I'm Arthel Neville. And I'll be back again tomorrow at 3: 00 Eastern.

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