Return to Transcripts main page

CNN Talkback Live

What Happened to Rilya Wilson?; Blake to Ask for Bail; An Uproar Over Thongs

Aired May 01, 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, and welcome to TALKBALK LIVE. I am Arthel Neville. We have a lot to talk about today. But we are going to go straight right now to the shocking story from Florida.

Five-year-old Rilya Wilson has been missing for 15 months, but nobody realized it until last week. Her grandmother thought the Florida Department of Children and Families had the girl, but the state thought Rilya was with her grandmother. And now police are trying to find out if Rilya could be the little girl who was beheaded in Missouri.

To help us sort all of this out -- this is an unbelievable story -- CNN's Susan Candiotti is in Miami -- Susan, welcome first of all.

SUSAN CANDIOTTI, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Hello, Arthel.

NEVILLE: Susan, though, what do we know about Rilya Wilson? And why was she living with her grandmother?

CANDIOTTI: Well, it's an embarrassing case here for Florida's Child Welfare Agency. We know that she was a little girl, who was apparently the daughter of a mother who had a drug problem. And she was removed from the mother's custody and placed in the care of her grandmother.

Months went by, and then in January of 2001, the grandmother claims that some people came to her doorstep here in Miami, who claimed to be from Florida's Child Welfare Agency and said that the girl needed to be removed from the home, because they had to take her away for an evaluation, and that it could take time. Then the grandmother says these same people returned the following week and said oh, we need her clothing and some toys. We don't know how much longer it's going to be.

Well, apparently that was the last evidently recorded visit of some kind or contact with the child until just last week or so, when state welfare workers here in Florida reached out to the grandmother and said, we want to check on the child. And the grandmother said, well, I don't have her anymore. I gave her to you back in January of 2001.

NEVILLE: And let me jump in... CANDIOTTI: I don't know where she is.

NEVILLE: And let me jump in there, because now was the grandmother expecting anybody from the state welfare or Children's Welfare Department to show up and take the child?

CANDIOTTI: Well, under the state's rules, the child is required to have a visit from social workers at least once a month. Clearly, that didn't happen here, and the state of Florida admits it.

NEVILLE: And then the grandmother, once the grandmother -- the girl was taken from the grandmother, the grandmother contacted the Children's Welfare Services, and they said they didn't have any record of this case.

CANDIOTTI: That's right. The grandmother claims that she called repeatedly, although the state of Florida says it has no records of the grandmother's phone calls. Police do tell me that they have talked to at least one employee who says they recall some contact, but they don't remember now long ago.

It is a very complicated case, also complicated by the fact that the caseworker in this particular matter was forced to resign just last month, because authorities say she was falsifying paperwork, child visitation logs in yet another case. So all kinds of complications here.

NEVILLE: And in fact, she was supposedly falsifying document in this case, saying that she was actually visiting the little girl, no?

CANDIOTTI: No, not in this case, Arthel.

NEVILLE: No, not at all.

CANDIOTTI: In another case.

NEVILLE: OK. So -- because I read that it was this, so thanks for that correction. But again, this is such a bizarre story, and it is sad of course. And now there is the whole idea of the police finding the other missing girl or the body of a little girl who was beheaded in Missouri.

CANDIOTTI: Yes, there is a year-old unsolved murder case in Kansas City. A little girl, they never were able to identify her, and they discovered her body in April of 2001. Now, this would have been a few months after January, when we last know apparently Rilya had some contact with state authorities, or at least that's the last time the grandmother saw her.

So now, they are checking the fingerprints that are on record for Rilya Wilson with the fingerprints of this unidentified little girl in Kansas City to see if they are one in the same person. They don't know yet.

NEVILLE: Right. Susan, clarify something else for me now. This caseworker, who was working on Rilya's case in Miami, what's going to happen to this person?

CANDIOTTI: Well, she denies any knowledge of what happened to this little girl. And authorities have spoken with her, have spoken to the grandmother, are talking to neighbors and friends to see if anyone knows anything else. But in terms of the caseworker, we are told that she was forced to resign under threat of being fired, and so far that is all we know about that case, other than the police have talked with her.

NEVILLE: So what finally prompted the Miami Welfare Department to report this little girl as missing?

CANDIOTTI: Well, finally just about a week or so ago, caseworkers happened to reach out to the grandmother to schedule a visit. That's what we are told. And at that time, that is when they discovered that the little girl was no longer with the grandmother, now living in a different location in this area. And that's how they came to find out that the little girl was nowhere to be found. Then the state contacted the police, and the police have been on this case for just a few days now.

NEVILLE: And police say the grandmother is not a suspect in this case?

CANDIOTTI: Well, they say now that they are not eliminating anyone as a suspect. They have a lot of questions for everyone. However, they do say that the grandmother has been cooperating.

NEVILLE: And finally, when will authorities know if there is DNA match between the body in Missouri and Rilya Wilson?

CANDIOTTI: Well, they only received the fingerprint information in the overnight mail, and so they are in the process, we are told, of checking that. With luck, they might know something sometime later today.

NEVILLE: Susan Candiotti thank you so much for that story, what a sad story.

CANDIOTTI: It sure is.

NEVILLE: OK. And everybody at home, don't forget, you are a major part this show, so I want to hear from you. So don't forget to give me a call 1-800-310-4CNN, or e-mail talkbacklive@cnn.com.

And when we come back, how could this have happened, and who is to blame? We are going to hear from Judge Ellen Morphonios right after this break.

[APPLAUSE]

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

NEVILLE: Hi, everybody. We are talking about a five-year-old girl who disappeared in Florida. Did Rilya Wilson fall through the cracks of a flawed system? Or did something else happen? Joining us now from Miami, Judge Ellen Morphonios. She is a retired Dade County judge -- welcome, Judge.

JUDGE ELLEN MORPHONIOS, RET. DADE COUNTY JUDGE: Thank you.

NEVILLE: How does something like this happen?

MORPHONIOS: Incompetence, No. 1, overworked employees, No. 2, underpaid employees, No. 3, and they just don't give a damn heading the list.

[APPLAUSE]

NEVILLE: You know, and now that this poor little girl has been missing for over a year, is the trail cold now, so you can't trace who might have done this, what might have happened?

MORPHONIOS: No, you will never find out what really happened, what the screw up was, what caused it and who caused it. Obviously, it's is an across-the-board thing. They don't have any accurate notes of where is she at. You do have an employee who was inaccurately filling out anything they wanted. Oh, you want to show I had a visit this month? Sure. There it is. I had a visit. So the records are not accurate.

NEVILLE: Why that kind of attitude, Judge, there in the system?

MORPHONIOS: They don't care. It is something that goes with -- not everybody.

NEVILLE: Right.

MORPHONIOS: Now don't everybody jump on me at once. I know an awful lot of welfare social workers that give their whole lives, and they are excellent. I also know a bunch that don't care. And if you get two or three don't cares all working together, you have an impossible situation.

We have all experienced incompetence in government. It's the joke of our nation, and it should not be, but it is. We have to live it.

NEVILLE: We have to live with it, because nothing can be done about it, Judge?

MORPHONIOS: That's about it. As long as you have people who aren't paid adequately, that is No. 1, and as long as you have people who aren't trained adequately, and people that God just did not put the right caring attitude into their heart.

NEVILLE: You know what? Debbie is standing by now on the phone. I want to get her in on this conversation -- go ahead, Debbie.

DEBBIE: My heart just goes out to that poor child. I remember a number of years ago, there was a child that was found dead in an incinerator in a housing project in Brooklyn, and he had been there for over two weeks, and no one knew that he was gone. And I promised myself that until the day I die, I would remember his name, because no child, no child should ever lie in a dumpster or be gone for a year and have no one's heart be breaking that that child is gone.

His name was Keishel Blacklitch Pool (ph), and I'm going to remember Rilya Wilson too. And everybody should think about the children and then themselves, because it is just heartbreaking. It's truly, truly heartbreaking.

NEVILLE: Yes, children are defenseless, you know. This is ridiculous. Go ahead, Matthew (ph).

MATTHEW (ph): Well, I also think that there is an issue of fatherhood that needs to be addressed, and if there is a missing or unlocateable (ph) father that is inexcusable in this country. Finally, I think that in the system where we have the judicial prerogative to take a child from its biological parent, then that state also assumes full responsibility, and that's not a monthly check. At a minimum, like we have in Virginia, it should be a weekly check, and it should be supervised so there is not only a caseworker, but there is a supervisor who should be responsible.

MORPHONIOS: Exactly.

NEVILLE: And can this supervisor be...

[APPLAUSE]

NEVILLE: Is it possible, Judge, for criminal charges to be filed against the caseworker and the supervisor?

MORPHONIOS: Well, certainly, the supervisor is responsible when there have been such blatant errors, and nobody has seen this kid alive in 15 months. Yes, the people who have done this should, No. 1, lose their job, be made to understand what they did, because a lot of them don't even understand why it's such a big deal is made of it. To them, it's a file number and a name, and it doesn't have a body and a personality. To us, they are little children...

NEVILLE: Yes.

MORPHONIOS: ... as somebody said, totally defenseless. Yes, something has to be done.

NEVILLE: Susan Candiotti, I want to clarify something in this case that the father I understand, I read that he is in another state.

MORPHONIOS: They don't even know where he is, I believe.

CANDIOTTI: Well, at last count actually, the authorities tell me that they believe that the father is still in this area, and the mother...

NEVILLE: And the mother is in another state.

MORPHONIOS: In Miami. OK. CANDIOTTI: That's right. She was said to be in Cleveland, Ohio. Exactly. I was told they did successfully reach the mother.

MORPHONIOS: She is a junkie.

CANDIOTTI: I don't know about the father.

MORPHONIOS: She is a junkie. She can't take care of the kid. She has already shown that. Grandmother was doing an adequate job apparently, until somebody came and took her away. Now, that's scary for somebody who has seen the criminal justice system for 30 years with all of its warts scares the bejibbers (ph) out of you. Who took the little girl? Was it a really a government worker, or was it just somebody selling kids? You know, it's scary.

CANDIOTTI: What is interesting too, Arthel, is that evidently the person who claimed to be an employee of the state that came to take the child away, according to the grandmother did seem to know something about the case, because they said, you know, we know that you are taking care of this child, but she needs to be taken away for these physiological, psychological, neurological exams.

And you know, the grandmother was also taking care of the little girl's two other siblings as well.

NEVILLE: Right. You know, Susan, have you had a chance to speak to the grandmother? Has anyone spoken to the grandmother? She has got to be distraught at this point. I can't even imagine how she feels.

CANDIOTTI: She remains unidentified at this time. Police are not saying who she is. We do have a few leads we are trying to follow, but so far, the police have declined to make her available to reporters.

NEVILLE: I have a caller on the line now, Anne (ph) in Connecticut -- go ahead.

ANNE (ph): Yes. I was curious. When the agency did go there to get the child the first time, did they show identification? And then when they back to get clothes and toys, did they show identification?

NEVILLE: Susan?

CANDIOTTI: Authorities for the state of Florida here say that they remain unclear at this time what kind of identification they might have shown to the grandmother, because evidently the grandmother is unclear about that very important point.

MORPHONIOS: She would respect authority. she is a little old lady taking care of her grandkids. She can't conceive that government would send a phony person, or that it could ever happen. I think grandma is blameless.

NEVILLE: OK, ma'am, your thoughts are? UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: My thoughts on the situation actually have been partially answered. I was concerned about the legality of the situation, because I am a grandmother. And if I was caring for my grandson and someone came to me and said, well, we need to take your grandson and care for him. Would I not have to have something in writing, or someone to have called me, or someone to prove that they were who they are first? What are my rights on that issue? That is my question.

NEVILLE: Judge, do you want to answer that?

MORPHONIOS: Well, the problem with that is we don't deal with perfect people in the system. I don't know what grandma's educational background is. I don't know what kind of dealing she has had with authority figures, be it the welfare society or the police. She just may not have the capabilities intelligently to understand what she should have done. The average person does not ever deal with the justice system, the courts or the police.

NEVILLE: Right. And most people just get nervous when somebody supposedly of authority shows up...

MORPHONIOS: That's right.

NEVILLE: ... they he freak out. I've got a caller now I'd like to bring in on this conversation. Marianne (ph), go ahead -- you are live.

MARIANNE: Yes. I just wanted to share something with you that happened to me. The judge is absolutely right. My grandchildren are in the custody of the state and placed in their parents' home. The caseworker rarely goes out there.

And in hearings before the judge, continuous hearings -- I will share one incident. One night, a man showed up at the home with a shotgun and confronted my son and myself, and he knew my son. He went to someone else's house afterwards and blew apart the whole home. I believe the only reason they were spared at my son's home is because I was there.

When I reported it had to the caseworker for endangerment of the children, he said he was going to do nothing about it -- nothing. So in desperation and upset, I wrote a letter to his supervisor, and I told the supervisor what was going on. And I said, you know what? If anything happens to my children in that home, I will legally and personally hold the caseworker responsible and the protective services department for not protecting my grandchildren.

I am still involved in going to court and trying to get party status in the case to speak. I don't even have that yet. And every single person involved in this, attorneys for the parents, the child, the CPS and CPS, all they care about is closing this case. It is really a crime against the children of this country. That is all I wanted to share.

NEVILLE: It really is. Thank you so much for sharing the story. Judge, what is it going to take to make this change, Judge?

(CROSSTALK)

MORPHONIOS: What can make us change? Proper training. No. 1, the legislature has to give enough money to the department for it to operate efficiently. I know some places have just completely done away with their protective services.

NEVILLE: Right.

MORPHONIOS: We started a new one. Maybe we have to do it again.

NEVILLE: Judge, I'm going to...

MORPHONIOS: I don't know.

NEVILLE: Judge, I have to excuse you, but I am going to lose you, your satellite feed. So I wanted to thank you so much. Susan Candiotti, thank you for that report. And Judge Morphonios, I just love you -- thank you very much for being with us today.

MORPHONIOS: Thank you.

[APPLAUSE]

NEVILLE: Up next: Will actor Robert Blake soon be out of jail? We are going to talk bail with Jeffrey Toobin when TALKBACK LIVE returns.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

NEVILLE: All right. Welcome back, everybody. Actor Robert Blake has been behind bars since April 18, charged with the murder of his wife, Bonny Lee Bakley.

Now, this is a live picture I want to show you now of the jail where Blake is being held. Today, he is expected to go back before a judge and ask once again to be released on bail. Should he get it?

Let's ask Jeffrey Toobin. He is CNN's legal analyst and a former federal prosecutor, not to mention a well-known author, and joining us from outside the courthouse in L.A., CNN's Charles Feldman. And, Charles, I'm going to begin with you. Any idea about what's going to happen?

CHARLES FELDMAN, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Oh, yes, Arthel -- hi. In a little over an hour, Robert Blake's attorney is going to make his best argument why his client should be set free on $1 million bail. But privately, Harland Braun concedes that that is highly unlikely.

Prosecutors, he told me, filed papers this morning in their opposition to bail, and among the papers, he said, was police evidence that there was gunpowder residue found on the body of Robert Blake and his clothing. His lawyer says, hey, he was carrying a gun that day to protect his wife, not to kill her. So of course, he is going to have this residue on him. NEVILLE: So reiterate, you are thinking that he won't get out on bail?

FELDMAN: Considering the seriousness of the charges against him, it is considered here unlikely that he will be given bail.

NEVILLE: All right. Charles, stand by for me. Jeffrey Toobin, what do you think about this? Are you surprised at this?

JEFFREY TOOBIN, CNN LEGAL ANALYST: No. I think it is -- I think Charles is right. I think it's unlikely. Usually in bail situations, there are two questions that the judge asks: Is the person a danger to the community, and is that person a risk of flight?

Now, when I spoke to Harland Braun the day before yesterday, he said to me, you know, the only risk here is that the news helicopters following Blake everywhere would crash into each other if he tried to escape. I mean, it is really unlikely I think that he would try to escape.

And even this crime, he is not alleged to just be a random killer. He is alleged to have killed a specific person. So Braun will argue he is not really a danger to other people.

NEVILLE: A danger to society -- right.

TOOBIN: All of that may be, but the fact is most people charged with murder in California don't get out on bail. Judges are very concerned about being perceived as giving celebrities, famous people, rich people special justice, special dispensation. If most people don't get bail, Blake won't get bail.

NEVILLE: Then he probably won't either.

TOOBIN: That's what I think.

NEVILLE: OK. Now, Bonny Bakley's children filed a civil suit, a wrongful death suit against Robert Blake. Now, what do they have to prove in this case? Because usually those are a little bit tougher to prove.

TOOBIN: They are actually a little bit easier...

NEVILLE: Or easier. That's right.

TOOBIN: ... a little bit easier. When someone is charged with a criminal offense, they have to -- the prosecution has to prove beyond a reasonable doubt...

NEVILLE: Right.

TOOBIN: ... that that person committed the crime. And that is generally thought of as over 90 percent sure. In a civil case, the Bakley family will only have to prove that it is more probable than not. That 51 percent sure that Blake committed this - that Blake murdered their relative, their daughter, whoever her heirs are... NEVILLE: Right.

TOOBIN: ... who are suing.

NEVILLE: Right.

TOOBIN: The important thing to remember though is that the civil case always goes after the criminal case. All of the criminal proceedings will have to be done first, and then the civil case (UNINTELLIGIBLE).

NEVILLE: Right, because the civil case could have enough impact on the criminal case or the other way around.

TOOBIN: Absolutely. And the way that the system is structured is the criminal justice system is considered more important. And of course, the case everyone remembers, there was the civil -- there was the criminal O.J. Simpson case, in which he was acquitted.

NEVILLE: Right.

TOOBIN: But then there was the civil case in which he was found liable. That pattern, criminal then civil will be followed here too.

NEVILLE: Right. OK, I want to let Bobby in Louisiana speak out -- go ahead, Bobby.

BOBBY: Yes, I just wanted to say one thing. I think that in today's society, celebrities and famous people get way too much privilege, and I really don't think he should be let out on bail. I think there is overwhelming evidence that he committed this crime, and he shouldn't be let out.

NEVILLE: OK. Thanks, Bobby, for calling in. Hey, Charles, I have heard that Robert Blake is worth a lot of money, so if in fact the heirs of Bonny Bakley were to win this civil lawsuit, wrongful death lawsuit -- I mean, how much money are we talking about here?

FELDMAN: Well, his lawyer told me a couple of days ago that he is worth a lot more money than he is, and Harland Braun is not a poor man, I should tell you. Just last week, Blake coughed up $1 million in cash of his own money to bail out Earle Caldwell. That's the guy who was his bodyguard who is alleged to have been a co-conspirator in the murder of his wife. And in the unlikely event that he is given bail today, he would have to come up with another $100,000 to pay a bondsman for his bail.

So he has a got a lot of money. He is a man of some means his lawyer said. He made shrewd investments over the years. Clearly, he was picking investments much better than his picking movie scripts.

TOOBIN: I should...

NEVILLE: You're right, Charles. Go ahead.

TOOBIN: I should say, I don't know about you, I am surprised. NEVILLE: I've got to tell you, I didn't think he had any money left.

TOOBIN: You know, "Baretta" has been off the air since I was in high school.

NEVILLE: I know, but he is a great investor apparently, huh?

TOOBIN: But I guess you know, he must have invested in California real estate.

NEVILLE: All right. I'm running out of time here. Let me -- is it Ivan or Evon (ph)?

EVON: Evon.

NEVILLE: Ah hah, see, I knew.

EVON: All right. It seems as if I have a minority view here, but I think according to our justice system, he is innocent until proven guilty, and I see no reason why he shouldn't be let out on bail. I think that particularly this man, although a celebrity, is a celebrity for a tough guy role, and I think that persona is preceding him. And I think it's very difficult to think of him in any other way. So I think that there is a coloration here.

NEVILLE: Thank you.

TOOBIN: Is it Evon or Ivan?

NEVILLE: Evon.

TOOBIN: Evon makes a point that a lot of people believe, but you know, the system has changed in recent years. It used to be that bail was more or less automatic for virtually any charge, that you were innocent until proven guilty. The law has changed dramatically in recent years. Many, many people are held pending trial. And bail is simply not the right that it used to be.

NEVILLE: All right, Jeffrey Toobin, nice to see you here on the set...

TOOBIN: Good to see you, Arthel.

NEVILLE: ... in Hotlanta. Thank you.

And, Charles Feldman, thanks so much for joining us from Los Angeles.

And we are going to take a break right now. And when we come back, TALKBACK LIVE goes undercover.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: We were required to lift up our skirts if we wanted to go in the dance. (END VIDEO CLIP)

NEVILLE: A panty check outside a high school dance -- the parents are outraged.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: I want them fired.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

NEVILLE: An uproar over thongs: Did the vice principal cross the line? Or is this what it takes to keep today's teenagers and their over-the-top fashions under control?

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: They were not dressed like they were going to a high school dance. They were dressed like whores.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

NEVILLE: We will talk about it ahead.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

NEVILLE: Yes, well, you know, you all have been waiting to talk about this. I know you have. And I hope you have been waiting for this: the uproar over underwear.

Parents at a suburban San Diego high school are furious. OK, it seems the vice principal, a woman, did a thong inspection on female students before they were allowed to enter a school dance.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: They asked me what kind of underwear I was wearing. And we were required to lift up our skirts if we wanted to go in the dance to prove that we were in fact wearing the kind of underwear they specified.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: She made you lift up your skirt. And a couple girls went home in tears, because there were guys behind them in line that saw their butt, because they were wearing a thong.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: They were just wearing these little skirts with nothing on under, these tight shirts showing their cleavage, their boobs popping out, everything. They were not dressed like they were going to a high school dance. They were dressed like whores.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

NEVILLE: OK.

So, was the vice principal in the right or did she go too far?

With us now: Gloria Allred. She is an attorney and KABC radio talk show host, and before that, a high school teacher.

I didn't know that, Gloria.

GLORIA ALLRED, DEFENSE ATTORNEY: That's right, and a credentialed high school principal as well.

NEVILLE: Oh, OK.

And Julia Hare, she's a psychologist and the president of BlackThinkTank.com.

Welcome, ladies.

ALLRED: Thank you.

JULIA HARE, PSYCHOLOGIST: Welcome. And I was also a teacher at one time. And, like Gloria, I'm happy that I escaped it.

NEVILLE: OK.

Well, Dr. Hare, then I am going to start with you.

Was this vice principal in this case just over the top?

HARE: Yes, she was.

It was absolutely incorrect to do that. That was an invasion of privacy. And that could have been avoided. And it can be avoided now if only we would decide to do some things that private and parochial schools are doing. If she had initiated a dress code that would say that no thongs are allowed here, or Depends or diapers or whatever she was searching for, if there was a dress code that had been initiated, and those who would break the code, if there is something called a zero tolerance there, then that situation could have been handled.

And it would also cut down on much of the crime that is going on if they wore uniforms. But to go under their dresses to search for what they had on, it was absolutely incorrect. I am angry when I have to take off my shoes at the airport, but at least I understand a reason for that. But what was she looking for under the thongs? And, hopefully, she found it.

NEVILLE: Gloria, what do you say about that?

ALLRED: By the way, I want to say, I did not escape teaching. I think it is very a difficult and challenging and important job, and actually a lot more difficult than being a lawyer.

But, having said that, I do think that there is no justification whatsoever, Arthel, for any member of a faculty to put their hands underneath a student's clothing to check for what kind of underwear that student is wearing. I think that that is an invasion of privacy. I don't know that that is what occurred, that it is being alleged that it occurred. If it occurred, it is wrong.

There is always this tension between what a school thinks is appropriate and what students think is appropriate. And there is always a pushing of the envelope by the students. We, most of us did it when we were students. But I think they could have had an educational session first and talked about what the rules are rather than going to this kind of panty check.

NEVILLE: Now, Gloria, listen to this now.

Supposedly, allegedly, a year ago, this same high school at the dance there, allegedly, one girl showed her breast and another girl took off her underwear. So, maybe, the vice principal was on to something here.

ALLRED: Yes, I have to wonder where did they think they were, the Oval Office? But, in any event...

NEVILLE: Oh.

ALLRED: I think that students need to learn what is appropriate conduct and what is not appropriate conduct. But where better to learn that than in a school, as well at home?

But I think that faculty members shouldn't be making kind of on- the-spot judgments about appropriate dress. Those kinds of things should be done ahead of time. And there should be a school policy. Unfortunately, there was no written policy. Therefore, students didn't even have notice in advance of what was expected.

NEVILLE: OK, Crystal (ph), how old are you?

CRYSTAL: Seventeen.

NEVILLE: And you're in high school?

CRYSTAL: Yes, I am.

NEVILLE: And you think what about this?

CRYSTAL: I think the principal was totally wrong for what she did, because, by checking to see what kind of underwear students have, that makes students not want to participate in school-related activities. And, second, I know at Booker T. Washington High School, when we say a dance is going on, we say semi-casual attire. So, maybe next time when they decide to do a dance, they need to say semi-casual attire instead of saying, "Let me see what kind of underwear you have on."

NEVILLE: OK, but now, semi-casual attire, a lot of girls these days are wearing thongs. It is kind of part of the deal.

CRYSTAL: But there's nothing wrong with wearing thongs. It is what you do when you wear the thongs and how you act when you wear the thongs. So, it is really no problem wearing them. It is just how you act when you wear them.

NEVILLE: Right.

Now, Shannon (ph), I know you are standing by on the line in Texas, but I have to talk to Crystal a little bit longer.

OK, now, what about this wearing these low-riser jeans and stuff when you sit down and you flash people? Is that cool or not cool?

CRYSTAL: It totally depends upon the person and their attitude. I mean, for me, I know I would not wear them, because I would say probably say, OK, nobody behind me wants to see all that I'm supposed to have covering up. But it all depends on the person and how their personality and how they were trained or what they think is a fashion.

NEVILLE: So, some of them can pull it off, actually, without looking like they are a little tart or something like that. All right, Crystal, thank you for speaking out.

(CROSSTALK)

NEVILLE: Hang on. I want to get Shannon in Texas to go ahead.

Go ahead, Shannon.

SHANNON: OK, yes, ma'am.

Where are these children's fathers? I don't understand. I have a daughter and a son. And you let them ask my daughter to raise her dress up. I guarantee you, before the sun rises, somebody's eye is going to be fat and we are both going to be sitting in jail. I guarantee that, because this is not a right. That makes them a sexual predator. These are children going to school. Who cares what they have got on under the dress as long as they don't take it off?

NEVILLE: Well, let me follow up with that to Dr. Hare.

And was the vice principal wrong because she checked for the thongs? Or is the way she did it in front of other people? Was that the problem?

HARE: I think it is wrong, but she checked for thongs by raising up the girls' dresses. It was an invasion of privacy.

But I think -- someone mentioned a minute ago that if you sit down that there is a portion of the thongs that will show. I think that what we are actually doing -- eventually these girls are going to grow up. They are going to get married. They are going to have children. And would you want your daughter to see that you wore the low-rise jeans with the pierced navels and the pierced breasts, the pierced ears?

(CROSSTALK)

HARE: And you can see the top of this whole thing.

NEVILLE: It was in style at the time.

HARE: Everything that is a style and everything that is a fashion is certainly not appropriate, I think, for students under 18. Now, if they are going to wear the thongs, if there is no rule against that, wearing the thongs, the principal is wrong whether there was a rule or whether it was not, but if you initiated a dress code and decide whether you want to wear thongs -- but, no, the principal had no reason to look under those dresses.

ALLRED: Well, I think, in all fairness to the school, my guess is that the faculty had good intentions and that perhaps their reason was because maybe they believed or saw that some of the girls were wearing very short skirts, and that, if they were wearing thongs underneath them and then they were dancing around on the dance floor, there might have been sights revealed that the school faculty didn't believe should be revealed in a public place.

But even if they had that good-faith intention and reason for doing it, it was not done in an appropriate manner if in fact they asked the girls whether they were wearing thongs, or, even worse...

NEVILLE: In front of people.

ALLRED: ... went underneath their skirts to check for themselves.

NEVILLE: Exactly.

(CROSSTALK)

NEVILLE: Hang on. Dr. Hare, give me a second here, because I want to let Hanna jump in. And I have got an e-mail and a phone call waiting. And I am so excited about this story.

HANNA: Really, to see it, the whole purpose because -- the girls were exposed anyway. So, if the teacher was trying to not let them flash, she did it for them. And I think it should be up to the parents how they send their children to the schools. It should not be up to the teachers.

NEVILLE: Thank you very much.

OK, I have got Paul waiting by on the line from Ohio. I've got an e-mail coming in. I am going to get to all of that when I come back, because everybody is just loving this thong story. You've got a lot to talk about.

So, don't go anywhere. TALKBACK LIVE continues.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

NEVILLE: OK, welcome back, everybody.

We are talking about teenagers and thongs. Should dress codes cover the stuff you can't see?

I want to bring in an e-mail now from Morris, who has something interesting to say: "Isn't this sexual harassment? This seems like a major abuse of power." Gloria Allred, answer that for me.

ALLRED: Well, it may be a battery. It may be possibly sexual harassment of the student. It really depends on what was done and what the facts are.

But I think what we need to also look at is the cultural milieu in which these students are making their garment choices. There are a lot of students, adolescents, who want to look like Britney Spears, who want to look almost like pornographic figures. And that concerns me.

So, I think there needs to be a lot of discussion with them about what is appropriate, where it is appropriate, and when it is appropriate so that they can learn and make those right choices.

NEVILLE: OK, we have Daisy.

Stand up for me, Daisy, because you were shaking your head and kind of chuckling when the mention of Britney Spears. What are you thinking?

DAISY: Oh, God, I don't know.

NEVILLE: Do you think it is OK to wear the thongs?

DAISY: I think so. But I think that underwear are underwear. And if you are at school, then you don't show your underwear. If you are outside of school, I think that you should do whatever you want. But if you are somewhere that has that kind of dress code, then don't show your underwear. But if it is the short skirt that is the problem, ban the short skirt, not the underwear.

NEVILLE: Thank you very much.

I want to go Paul right now, who is standing by on the line in Ohio.

Go ahead, Paul.

CALLER: Well, we have heard the argument that this might be about the school's dress code, but nobody has addressed the issue of whether or not underwear could legitimately be a part of the dress code in the first place. I mean, the school can decide if your behavior is inappropriate. They can decide if your visible clothing is inappropriate. If somebody is coming to school in a "Kiss Me Where it Counts" T-shirt, that is obviously a discipline problem. But what you wear under your clothes is a different matter. And unless you are showing it to people, what difference does it make?

(CROSSTALK)

NEVILLE: Go ahead, Dr. Hare.

HARE: You may first have to define what a thong is, if that is considered underwear or what that might be. And, of course, that takes us into another issue.

NEVILLE: But it is underwear, Dr. Hare.

HARE: Wait.

But someone raised the problem a minute ago about harassment and that, could this be possibly be conceived as harassment? If the principal had been a male, would we would raise that question? That would definitely be harassment, had that been a male, to raise the skirts of the girls. I think that harassment can work both ways. I am not saying that this principal or vice principal attempted to harass them, but I do think that a dress code should spell out everything.

But, most importantly, did the parents, did the mothers let the daughters go out wearing minis and thongs and then, if they come back in and something had happened to the girls -- not that what you wear should give license for things to happen to you -- then what about the mothers? Were they there when their daughters left wearing those clothing, mini-skirts and thongs?

ALLRED: By the way, it is not sexual harassment if it is one incident unless it is considered severe. And so the question would be, would this one incident be considered severe? It may not be.

NEVILLE: OK, Michael from Tennessee.

MICHAEL: Yes.

We at Booker T. Washington have a dress code. And we work closely with the parents as far as what the kids should wear and should not wear. And I think, if the vice principal of the school had worked with the parents a little more, that probably would have stopped a lot of the problems, because I have a 15-year-old daughter, and I think I would have been highly upset if she had came home and told me about that.

NEVILLE: Thank you, first of all, sir.

Now, these parents are really upset about this. And they want this vice principal out.

Gloria, do you think that is calling for too much, or is that a fair request?

ALLRED: Well, I can understand their anger and their upset about it. It really -- obviously, the vice principal is entitled to due process. Whether this one incident is going to be considered sufficient that she should lose her job over, I think that is questionable. Whether she should be disciplined in some way, perhaps. But losing her job is a rather extreme remedy.

NEVILLE: A little extreme? I see.

Hey, Brenda in Canada, I know you are there. I have got to take a break right now. And I'll talk to you after the break, OK? Don't go anywhere. TALKBACK LIVE continues.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

NEVILLE: And welcome back, everybody. We are talking about teens and thongs.

And Brenda in Canada, speak out.

CALLER: Yes.

I have a 13-year-old. And I monitor what she wears to school. And I am sure most parents monitor the same thing. And we all abide by the school rules. So, if the school has a zero tolerance, we abide by it. It's the same thing. I think that the principal, the vice principal should be, under the following rule, zero tolerance. So that vice principal should be fired, because it's zero tolerance for that also.

NEVILLE: Thank you, Brenda.

And, Tracy?

TRACY: I was just going to say that there are plenty of other ways to check for a thong besides pulling up the entire skirt and exposing the rear of the girls. Like, you can check on the side, check in the back -- and if she really wanted to check, that pulling it up was uncalled for. And there was no reason for it.

NEVILLE: Right. And I think somebody here -- thank you.

Somebody in the audience said that they felt that the teacher or vice principal was trying to humiliate the girls. Who said that? One of you said it.

Did you say that? Let me get you, Annie. Stand up for me.

ANNIE: Well, I think that the vice principal should be reprimanded or perhaps even terminated, because it was not an act to correct a behavior, but more to humiliate. If there is a problem, there should be some standard where there is a punishment that the kids knew in advance: "If I did this, then this is going to be the consequence."

But there was no such this thing that happened. She was just randomly going around pulling up dresses. She has to think about it. She's a parent. How would she feel if somebody did that to her child? So, it was very unfair and she should be terminated.

NEVILLE: Thank you, Annie.

And I want to call up an e-mail right now. OK, it said: "The principal was justified in checking for thongs, though checking in front of other students was inappropriate. Administrators have a responsibility to check for items that are not allowed." But I don't think anyone -- thanks, Derek, first of all, in Kentucky, I don't think they said that thongs were not allowed at the school.

And, Gloria, final question for you: Do you think that -- the parents mentioned that if this vice principal is not going to be out of a job, they might sue. Do you think they have a case?

ALLRED: Well, they might if in fact there is evidence that she picked up the girls' skirts without their consent and checked in their panties or put her hands on them. That is possible. And I don't think that, obviously, when the girls went to school, they expected the panty police to be there in the form of any member of the faculty. So, they may very well have a case.

NEVILLE: OK.

Gloria Allred and Dr. Hare, thank you both for being with us here.

ALLRED: Thank you, Arthel.

NEVILLE: OK.

And thanks, of course, to our studio audience and all of you at home for watching. I'm Arthel Neville. I will see you again tomorrow right here for more TALKBACK LIVE.

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