|
 |
CNN TALKBACK LIVE
Cardinal Law Comes Under Oath; Who is Lucas Helder?
Aired May 8, 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, everyone, and welcome to TALKBACK LIKE. I'm Arthel Neville. Today, something many people have been waiting for: Answers from Cardinal Bernard Law. We'll talk about the latest in the Catholic Church scandal.
And, a tale of letters, pipe bombs and one troubled 20-year-old. Who is suspect Lucas John Helder?
I want to hear from you, so give me a call at 1-800-310-4CNN or e-mail talkback@cnn.com. Here's where we're going today.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: He has to be honest. He has to be straightforward. He has to come clean. It is time.
NEVILLE (voice over): Accused of protecting pedophile priests under his watch, Cardinal Law faces tough questions under oath about what he knew and when.
A 21-year-old arrested after a nationwide manhunt. He's accused of leaving pipe bombs in mailboxes across the Midwest.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: I really want you to know that Luke is not a dangerous person, I think he is trying to make a statement about the way our government is run.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: This is the farthest thing I could see him doing, something like this. He was, you know, like I said, really nice kid, and I don't see him being violent like this.
NEVILLE: What could drive someone to do this, and did anyone see it coming?
Plus, a weighty issue. A 240-pound woman takes on Jazzercise and wins. Does appearance matter when it comes to aerobics? Would a plus-size instructor motivate you, or make you switch classes?
(END VIDEO CLIP)
OK, everybody, we're going to start in Boston, where Cardinal Bernard Law has been in court much of the day. He's answering questions about why he transferred priests accused of molesting children. Joining us now with the latest, CNN's Jason Carroll, and Catherine Crier of Court TV. She's a former state prosecutor and judge. And, J. Albert Johnson. He's a trial attorney from Boston. Welcome to all of you.
CATHERINE CRIER, COURT TV CORRESPONDENT: Hey, Arthel.
NEVILLE: Hey, Catherine.
Jason, I want to start with you. I would like you to read excerpts from Law's deposition, one at a time. Then we will get Catherine and J. Albert to analyze the statements. OK, Jason?
JASON CARROLL, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Well, let's start out with some of the documents that we have here. We received some 100 pages of documents from the morning's session of Cardinal Law's deposition. Basically Cardinal Law was asked in the beginning about his background. He was also asked about the first time that he met John Geoghan. He said he could not remember the first time that he had met John Geoghan. Cardinal Law was also asked about a letter that he received back in September of 1984, this letter coming from a woman who was complaining about John Geoghan.
In that letter it says -- question: "In 1984, you knew, did you not, that it would have been wrong for a priest to have sexually molested boys, is that correct?"
Answer: "Oh, absolutely."
"OK, that is something that you would have tried to stop from happening again?"
"That's correct."
"OK, what was the practice that you had in place in 1984 when you were archbishop to deal with this kind of allegation when it comes in?"
Answer: "I viewed this as a pathology, as a psychological pathology, as an illness. Obviously I viewed it as something that had a moral component. It was, objectively speaking, a grayful (ph), sinful act, and that is something that one deals with in one's life, in one's relationship to God. But I also viewed this as a pathology, as an illness, and so I consequently -- I, not being an expert in this pathology, not being a psychiatrist, not being a psychologist -- my modus operandi was to rely on those whom I considered, and would have reason to consider, to have an expertise that I lack in assessing this pathology."
Cardinal Law had indicated that he did not remember initially receiving a letter complaining about Cardinal Law, but he was in fact asked during this deposition about his philosophy in terms of how would -- and how he dealt with a priest accused of sexual abuse.
So some interesting developments, certainly, coming out of the morning session of Cardinal Law's deposition -- Arthel. NEVILLE: OK, Jason, hang on for me.
OK, Catherine, I want to start with you on this one. Obviously he is under oath, so he has to tell the truth, but is he at all being evasive?
CRIER: You got it right on the head. To listen to a cardinal, called a prince of the church, equivocate like this, pass it off on a doctor, just gives me chills.
This is -- there is no greater hierarchy than the Catholic Church. This man was clearly responsible, whether he wants to shove it off to somebody else or not. He was the agent of the pope out there, and it was his obligation to read those letters, to follow through, and on top of that, Arthel, I do believe it was a general practitioner that he talked with about Geoghan, not some sophisticated psychiatrist in the business, and he certainly could not rely on a GP's word that this man could go back with young boys.
NEVILLE: Right, Mr. Johnson, what do you say about this?
J. ALBERT JOHNSON, ATTORNEY: Nothing new in this deposition at all. What you must keep in mind that a deposition is not evidence. But, there was nothing knew that we got out of this morning's session. What was said was what the cardinal has said before.
He admitted that he was grossly negligent in assigning Geoghan to different parishes, knowing that he had been accused of pedophilia or abuse of children, so there is nothing new that happened, no startling developments whatsoever, and I do not believe he was evasive at all. I think he just said the same thing that he has been saying right along. He was grossly negligent at the time, that he accepted full responsibility for it, and I think that the real problem here is that by divulging the deposition testimony at this time, in the frenzy that goes on here in Boston today, we may be depriving others, including the cardinal on trial, of a fair trial, because of the proliferance of the information.
NEVILLE: Because we are tainting the possible jury pool?
JOHNSON: That's correct. There is not a juror or a potential juror who you would want on your jury who has not heard about this matter, at least in and around Boston, or certainly within the state of Massachusetts.
CRIER: But counsel, what could you possibly be worried about if you said he clearly and unequivocally admitted gross negligence? Game is up.
JOHNSON: Well, he has, and he has admitted that right from the very beginning. He has admitted that he was grossly negligent. He said that from the very, very beginning. There is nothing new from what he said...
CRIER: You think he is going to try to use diplomatic immunity with his joint citizenship with the Vatican to get out of this? JOHNSON: No, I don't. I think that the main thing we ought to keep in mind is that all of the attorneys who have represented the alleged victims have said that this is not about money, and if it is not about money, then there is a $20,000 cap on recoveries in Massachusetts, and that $20,000 cap, which is exercised in all cases of charities in Massachusetts, ought to be brought into play.
NEVILLE: OK, Jason, are you hearing this conversation about this $20,000 cap? Have you heard of this before? I mean, these plaintiffs, these 86 plaintiffs, are going after about, what, $400,000 each.
CARROLL: I have heard about that, but I do want to really talk about something else that was raised here, in terms of accepting full responsibility. I am not quite sure that is what Cardinal Law is trying to say here. I think he is trying to lay the groundwork for the fact that he was trying to do the best he could under the medical advice that was given to him.
I also want to point something else out. In that letter that he received back in 1984, he initialed that letter, and he also wrote a note on it saying, please follow through -- that note written to the bishops serving under him. He admitted during this deposition that this was something that -- the reason why that note was written was because he said, obviously, even though I can't remember the actual letter, it was something that obviously was of great concern and I wanted those under me to follow through on it, and he said that he trusted those people underneath him to follow through on that.
NEVILLE: Yeah, but if he is that concerned, he would follow up himself. Jason Carroll, I've got to go to break. I want to thank you for being with us. And Mr. Johnson and Catherine, we can talk about that after the break, and here's a question for you -- what is the next step, and what should happen to Cardinal Law? Everybody still wants to know. I want to know. What do you think? We'll talk about it when we continue.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
And welcome back to TALKBACK LIVE, everybody. Got some breaking news to share with you right now. CNN has learned Luke Helder has confessed to being the mail bomber. We of course will discuss that right here on TALKBACK LIVE in just a few minutes. Stay with us. In the meantime, we're talking about this Cardinal Law deposition held this morning and this afternoon.
And Kathy from South Carolina, I think you have a question for one of our panelists.
KATHY: I would like to know if the $20,000 cap applies to all suits that are filed in Massachusetts.
NEVILLE: J. Albert?
JOHNSON: Yes, it applies to all charitable institutions. In other words, Harvard University or any other charity which is a true charity, it applies to. There is a $20,000 limit of recovery.
NEVILLE: OK, but help us understand how does this apply in this case here.
JOHNSON: It means that anyone who bring this lawsuit against the archdiocese of Boston is limited in recovery to $20,000. Can't get any more.
NEVILLE: OK, then if that is the case, then how at this point have they gotten to $400,000 for each of these 86 victims?
JOHNSON: There have been claims made in the past, which have been paid above the cap voluntarily, but none of those have actually reached the trial stage. In Massachusetts, if you go to trial, and if the charity asserts the charitable immunity cap, you cannot receive $20,000.
CRIER: Is there any provision at all for punitive damages gross negligence is actually alleged and proved?
JOHNSON: There is none. There is none. The $20,000 cap is absolute.
NEVILLE: OK, but Catherine, let's talk about this, because there was an agreement. There is a contract between these victims and the archdiocese, so if they back out now aren't they in breach in contract?
CRIER: If in fact we are talking about a extra-judicial agreement, then the archdiocese is bound. That cap would only a apply if they carried this into court and the defendant, the church, responded with that charitable category, then they would be limited.
They can agree to billions outside the doors, and at that point in time the church is liable.
NEVILLE: OK, Pat from -- hang on one second, Mr. Johnson -- Pat from California has a question.
PAT: I would like to know what the consequences or -- the outcome of the conflict between cannon law and civil law will be, and what the effect might be on the relationship between the church, because in this country right now, we have separation of church and state. What are the implications of this controversy?
CRIER: You know, that is a very, very good question, and we are hearing some of that in materials, the notion that he might have diplomatic immunity, if he returned to the Vatican, the notion that the pope, months ago, said we will take care of this inside of the church through our own sort of trial procedure, but when you talk of the separation of church and state, you are not talking about the ability to avoid criminal or civil misconduct. And the secular laws, the rule of law in the United States, is the one that ultimately governs that sort of behavior.
JOHNSON: Yes, we are a country of laws and not of men, and the law which is in effect in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts and the United States of America would govern, notwithstanding when the cannon law might say.
NEVILLE: OK, I've got Nelson standing by on the phone. Go ahead, Nelson.
Nelson, are you still there?
OK, let me get Roy here in the audience to stand up.
ROY: Yes, my real comment is about the cardinal himself. I feel that he should take full responsibility for this and not be involved in a cover up. Him being a leader -- I mean, the leader is supposed to set the example. You have children involved. I do not feel that delegating to your bishop, your underlings to investigate and not have a total follow-up is totally absurd.
JOHNSON: Let me say this, if I may. The cardinal has accepted responsibility for the acts of a few priests compared, to all of the priests of the archdiocese who have committed these horrific acts, terrible, terrible acts.
The fact of the matter is the church, as an institution, ought not to be destroyed monetarily, and to deter it from the good works it has performed over the past 2000 years, in providing for the poor, in providing for the needy...
NEVILLE: OK, but what about the money? What about these victims?
CRIER: Roy is absolutely right, Arthel. I am sitting here with cases before me. We have Paul Shanley, Reverend Shanley. That is in Massachusetts. We have got Kathleen (ph), that is in Massachusetts. We have got lots of activities that Bernard Law was well aware of. He abdicated his responsibility to his parishioners, to all of the Catholics in the country when he behaved in this fashion. The man should not remain a cardinal.
NEVILLE: Exactly! And so what is going to happen to him? I am sick of asking this question. I think that this guy should be criminally charged.
CRIER: You have the opportunity to go for an accessory, but I do not think will you see a criminal court do it.
NEVILLE: Why not, Catherine?
CRIER: Well, now, Massachusetts law -- I will certainly bow to someone who practices Massachusetts law.
NEVILLE: OK.
JOHNSON: Massachusetts law does not allow for the prosecution of an aider or abettor or an accessory before the fact to a crime, unless they actually participate in the commission to that crime. In other words, for the cardinal to be indicted in a criminal fashion, he would have to empower the individual, that is, the priest, to commit the crime itself, and that has not been shown. It can't be shown.
CRIER: Well, I tell you, you could certainly -- it is getting a little esoteric and a little theoretical, but you certainly push that a bit and say that if you have a known pedophile that you returned to a parish, you allowed, knowing he is going to counsel young children, particularly young boys -- if that is not helping to commit the crime, I do not know what is.
JOHNSON: Catherine, the supreme court in Massachusetts has said otherwise, and has said that acts of omission alone will not allow the criminal conviction of a individual charged...
NEVILLE: You said aiding and abetting -- they cannot be charged for that?
JOHNSON: Cannot be charged for aiding or abetting, cannot be charged with accessory before the fact.
CRIER: Omission is something very different from affirmatively taking someone, reassigning him, allowing him to go forward in his practice knowing the information...
NEVILLE: Right, but that falls under aiding and abetting, so -- and he cannot be charged with that, so this guy is going to get away with this?
JOHNSON: Well, in the criminal sense, the cardinal cannot and will not be prosecuted.
CRIER: Well, and civilly he will have the church cover him for all of this, and will probably be called back to the Vatican and will live out his life with no repercussions.
NEVILLE: Which is really too bad.
JOHNSON: That is supposing, surmise -- and I do not think that will be the case, but it may be.
NEVILLE: J. Albert Johnson, thank you. And Catherine Crier, you know what I am thinking?
CRIER: What?
NEVILLE: I know you work for Court TV and all, but I am thinking you need your own judge show. I will work out the deal for you.
CRIER: Just give me the gavel. OK. Thank you, Arthel.
NEVILLE: Thanks for being here.
OK. Up next, a young man is in jail under suicide watch, accused of planting all those pipe bombs. CNN correspondent Martin Savidge is in Reno with the latest on the affidavit against Luke Helder. Stay with us. We will be back in a moment.
MATT: Hi, I'm Matt from American University, and I feel that Catholic Priests need to be held to the same standards as civilians and they should be jailed immediately.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
NEVILLE: OK, everybody. In a few hours, Lucas John Helder will go to court. He is being charged in the string of mailbox bombings across the Midwest, and for the latest in the investigation, let's go to CNN's Martin Savidge in Reno, Nevada, where Helder is in custody. Martin, what's the latest?
MARTIN SAVIDGE, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Hello, Helder, nice to see you. I hold in my hand what is the second FBI affidavit of the day coming out regarding the case of Luke Helder, and this one seems to really cement the case, at least in the eyes of the FBI, against the 21-year-old, for the bombing spree that took place in the Midwest, the mail pipe bomb explosions.
It basically says -- and this is according to the latest affidavit -- let me read it to you, because it is hot off the presses from the FBI. Helder has admitted to placing a total of 18 bombs in mailboxes in various states. Using a map, the FBI contends, he identified the towns where he placed the bombs, Helder admitted manufacturing eight pipe bombs in his apartment in Wisconsin, that is where he was going to university, and noted earlier in this affidavit, it says eight pipe bombs were left in locations in Illinois and Iowa.
It goes on to say Helder further admitted to assembling an additional 16 pipe bombs in a motel in Nebraska near Omaha, so essentially what this is implying from the FBI is that the young man has now made a full and complete confession.
It goes on to summarize by saying, based upon the facts and circumstances stated above, it is believed probable cause to conclude that Lucas John Helder, a.k.a. Luke Helder, transported interstate commerce an explosive device with the knowledge and intent that it would kill, injure or intimidate persons.
Now this comes on top of the first affidavit that we received that already outlined a fairly strong case against the young man, and as you mentioned, he goes before a federal magistrate 3:00 local time, 6:00 Eastern time. It is described as his initial court appearance. Should be pretty quick, and then things will take their course from there -- Arthel.
NEVILLE: Martin, do you know if his parents are there?
SAVIDGE: No, they are not. In fact, I asked specifically the sheriff here, whether his parents were planning to come here. We do know that the young man that had a ten-minute phone call with his parents this morning before he headed off to federal court. The young man apparently felt that it was important that he wanted to talk to his parents.
He wanted to see if they were still standing by him after his arrest. It was a ten-minute phone call, as I say, and his parents apparently said yes, we are still with you, although they also mentioned it is not easy. But they say it is simply too much of a financial burden to try to get out here to Reno at this time. The sheriff said hey, he may only be here one to five days and he will probably be moving east, and it might be easier for some sort of reunion to take place at that time -- Arthel.
NEVILLE: Martin Savidge, thank you very much for that update.
OK, who is Luke Helder? CNN's Jeff Flock is at the University of Wisconsin campus where Helder was a student.
And Jeff, I know you have been talk to go a lot of people. I wonder who have you spoken to about Luke Helder and what have you learned about him?
JEFF FLOCK, CNN CORRESPONDENT: I cotta tell you, we, Arthel, have spoken to people he worked with, people he went to school with, people he lived with back here in this apartment building. One of the scary things is that not any of them had any prior indication of where his head was. Everybody you talked to said what a nice guy, he was laid back, did not have any problems with anything, was a happy student. He didn't have any nasty things to say about the government, he was not anti-government, so I talked to a university official this morning who said -- I said this sounds scary that this would sort of come out of nowhere.
And he said yes, indeed, it is scary. Just a couple of other tidbits that we are learning. One from that earlier FBI affidavit that Marty mentioned, and that is that the FBI describes his father as his adoptive father, so that is a tidbit that we did not know earlier.
The other thing, just in terms of more recent times and what Helder was putting out there -- in the FBI affidavit it also indicates that he became more interested in the subjective death and looking at death of something that was just a way to go on to a better life. So just interesting in maybe how a positive upbeat kid's mind began to turn in some way. Where or what that was about, at this point we do not know, Arthel.
NEVILLE: Yeah, Jeff. Isn't that usually the case, I mean, people say -- what, he was a nice guy, who knew.
FLOCK: Yes, usually in these stories you go and you get someone saying oh, I was always suspicious of that guy, or man, that guy, I knew he was going to do something wrong. Nobody is saying that about this kid.
NEVILLE: Wow. Jeff Flock, thank you so much for that report.
FLOCK: Thanks, Arthel.
NEVILLE: OK.
Well, getting inside the mind of a bomber. We are going to ask our criminal experts why someone -- why would they plant pipe bombs? Does Luke Helder fit the profile? TALKBACK LIVE continues after the break. We'll see you then.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
NEVILLE: Welcome back, everybody.
So, what could drive a normal person to go on a pipe-bomb spree?
Let's ask our guests: Mike Rustigan -- he's a professor of criminology at San Francisco State University -- and Mike Brooks. He is a former D.C. police detective and a former member of the FBI's terrorism task force.
Welcome to both of you gentlemen.
MIKE BROOKS, FORMER FBI TERRORISM TASK FORCE MEMBER: Thank you. Good to be here.
NEVILLE: Thank you.
Rustigan -- I am going to call you guys by your last name, because you are both Mike, which would actually make it easier on me, but I am going to go for the last name.
OK, Rustigan, I will start with you.
From your perspective, what do you know about the suspect?
MIKE RUSTIGAN, CRIMINOLOGY PROFESSOR, SAN FRANCISCO STATE UNIVERSITY: Well, what's intriguing about this case, Arthel, is that there is no discernible motive with Luke Helder, other than the desire for fame, for glory, for publicity.
Now, we call these type of bombers vanity bombers. There is no grudge, like with Timothy McVeigh, a grudge towards federal law enforcement, with the Unabomber, a grudge towards high-tech professionals, with abortion clinic bombings, a grudge against abortion doctors and an agenda.
With Luke Helder, it seems nothing more than vanity, as he referred to his bombs as attention-getters.
NEVILLE: OK, so Mike Brooks, so, this guy just wanted attention? Is he really a terrorist?
BROOKS: Well, if you look at the true definition of how the FBI defines terrorism, it's the unlawful use of force or violence against persons or property to intimidate or coerce a government, civilian population, or any segment thereof, in the furtherance of social or political objectives.
Now, what was his objective? Were there any political or social objectives in this? We don't know. It should be interesting. Now that he has admitted to the crimes, the FBI will go over all these letters. They will get a psychologist in. And they will ask him about what he means by each one of the phrases he said. And it is should be interesting to see exactly what his motive behind these bombings were.
NEVILLE: So, this confession came relatively early on. Is that surprising to you that he said, "Yes, I did this"?
BROOKS: No, it doesn't, because of -- it looks like the overwhelming evidence against that they did have against him, some of the things that were found in his apartment, the letters, people recognizing his writings, and the fact that, when they did find him, they did pull him over, he had talked to an FBI negotiator and apparently negotiated that they would do certain things when they did pull him over. It sounds like the evidence is pretty overwhelming against him.
NEVILLE: Well, you mentioned those letters that he left inside the mailboxes.
I want to go ahead and take a look at some of the excerpts from those letters and get you and Rustigan to analyze them.
Let's pop up the first one, which would say: "I often wonder why so many people spend their entire lives consuming what is fed to them, without knowing if they are consuming anything at all. All of my family and friends were raised to believe, to be gullible, to be materialistic, to fear authority, to blindly follow."
Rustigan, what is he saying? What does this say about him?
RUSTIGAN: Well, what it says about him is that he has a monstrous ego, like he is watching American society and he is looking at a bunch of sheep.
And he is up there. He has this kind of a missionary zeal. And he is going to push his ideas, whatever they are -- and they seem kind of sketchy -- by killing people. Clearly, he is a domestic terrorist. He has full intent to injure and kill innocent people for some dubious cause. But, clearly, here is a man who is full of himself, a monstrous ego. And he wants to go down in history.
NEVILLE: Mike?
BROOKS: It is kind of hard. You read every one of the words. And what is truly behind it? I am not a psychologist, by any means. But you look at it and it is hard to really decipher exactly what he is trying to say.
I look at him as maybe an anarchist type. Its' kind of anarchist thinking in this, against society, rebellion, those kinds of things. But, apparently, nowhere along the way did he actually express these kind of views to his family, to his friends, to the people that are closest to him. So, it should be interesting, when they finally get through the interviews with him, to see what kind of final psychological profile they do get of him.
Now, of the writings initially, the FBI profiling team thought that he was older. So, I think that is interesting, too, because of the way the letters were written. And it should be interesting to see what they finally have to say, though.
NEVILLE: Was it odd at all that his parents' reaction was: "OK, Luke, you got everybody's attention. Not enough people were listening to you, but you got their attention. So, give us a call. Call mom and your little sister," I think, "and dad"? That is an odd reaction.
BROOKS: It is. But looking and not knowing all of his background, if he was adopted, if both parents were adoptive parents, what kind of background did he have before? How strict were his parents with him?
There's a lot are little things, the little idiosyncrasies we are going to find out about him, I think, in the near future that will probably help us to develop why and come up with an opinion of why he actually did this.
NEVILLE: Right.
We have an e-mail I would like to share with you right now.
Let's pop that up and I'll read it to you: "I graduated with Luke Helder. He was a nice kid in school. He was very smart and played football and golf and was a peer counselor. He played the guitar. He was never a mean person and would always say hi to you in the halls. I hope he knows that what he did was wrong and is not proud of what he did. I feel sorry for his family." That's from Katie in Minnesota.
So, well, there is some sympathy with Luke.
And, Moheet (ph), right?
MOHEET: Yes.
I have a question on confusion about profiling. I know we heard a lot of controversy about profiling. Does this add a new twist to a normal-looking local American boy?
BROOKS: No, I don't really think it does. Profilers have to take the information that they have at hand at that time. And they go through and they try to develop a profile. They look at the writing style. They look at the way things were written to try to find out if the person seems educated or not, exactly what was said.
But, again, profiling is a tool. It is not an exact science by any means. But it is an investigative tool. And I think some of the other things they said about him, maybe a loner, those kind of things, did come true.
NEVILLE: But, Mike, if I can jump in on that, because I think what Moheet is getting to is the fact that, here is this guy who was stopped three times in three different states. First, he's speeding like I don't know what, because he's moving really fast to get all these places. And then he gets stopped again for not wearing a seat belt.
He is acting suspiciously: "I'm sorry. I didn't mean to hurt anybody." Come on, if he did not look like the -- quote, unquote -- "all-American boy," he would have been detained. So, that is what you are talking about in terms of profiling. When authorities profile, they are looking for the wrong person.
BROOKS: You talk about suspicious activity.
What exactly is suspicious activity? We look at terrorists. You talk to a profiler, you talk to a criminologist about what kind of suspicious activity a terrorist would use before getting on a plane or something like that. The FBI and other experts say there really is no suspicious activity or suspicious behavior profile that you can make of a terrorist.
NEVILLE: I have got to run back here to the top row with Steve.
Go ahead, Steve.
STEVE: Arthel, I think you hit it on the head. He wanted to be caught. He wanted to be stopped, at some level psychologically. He kept doing things to call attention to the police, speeding, speeding again, speeding again, and then telling and saying, "I didn't mean to hurt anybody."
BROOKS: No, and you're right. And the writings that he did -- even one of his roommates, he left a message on the answering machine that says, "Watch the news and act accordingly." So, you are right. I think he did want to get caught. And when he was caught, he had two other weapons with him, two handguns, apparently, and bomb-making material.
NEVILLE: OK, so, hello, isn't that enough to hold somebody?
BROOKS: Well, actually, that when he was stopped finally. When he was stopped initially, there was -- by law, when cops pull you over, a police, a trooper or whatever pulls you over, they can't just go and look in your trunk. They have to have some kind of probable cause.
These were just for seat belts and those kinds of things. They can't pull you over, pull you out of the car and go through your car. They can't. They can't do that by law.
NEVILLE: That's true, the old probable. You are right.
BROOKS: Exactly.
NEVILLE: Hey, you know what? I have got a phone caller.
Alexis, go ahead. You are on the air. Alexis, are you still there?
Alexis is not there.
Any other comments from my audience here before I go?
Yes, Jennifer, stand up for me.
JENNIFER: I agree with his point, because wasn't it -- it was my understanding that he had a written a letter to the editor of the school newspaper and addressed it and had signed his name to it. Is that correct?
BROOKS: Yes, apparently, there was a letter that he had written to "The Badger," the newspaper there.
But, again, when all these -- it takes law enforcement to put all these things together. It's like a big puzzle. And you get one of the little pieces and you put the little pieces together. Now, when he was stopped by the local law enforcement, his name was not out there. They had not announced that his name -- that he was wanted. So, again he was just another citizen riding down the road speeding or without a seat belt.
His name had not been said that he was wanted. And there was no warrant for him at that time.
NEVILLE: Kathy from South Carolina.
KATHY: Based upon what I have seen on the news today, he looks like he is very pleased with himself. Why has he not been charged with attempted murder? He could have killed someone. And that is not one of these charges he's been charged with. How do we deter other people? There is going to be copycats of this unless the government says you can't do this.
NEVILLE: Thank you.
(APPLAUSE)
BROOKS: I agree what Kathy is saying. And he has been charged right now initially with two charges. That is not to say that down the road and today, when he appears in court, there are other underlining charges. They took the most serious charges of the explosives and the use of a weapon in commission of a felony and charged him with that. But you're are going to see more charges, I think, coming down the road as we go along.
NEVILLE: OK, Mike Brooks, Mike Rustigan, thank you very much for being with us here today.
And up next, ability vs. appearance: Should weight be a factor in hiring fitness instructors? A plus-size teacher takes on Jazzercise and wins. We'll talk about it in just a minute.
Work that body. Work that body.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
NEVILLE: OK.
Here's the question for you: Does size matter? Jazzercise says it will no longer require that instructors look trim. That's after settling a complaint with a 240-pound San Francisco woman.
Juliette Goodrich of CNN affiliate KPIX has that story.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE) JULIETTE GOODRICH, KPIX REPORTER (voice-over): Fitness instructor Jennifer Portnick reason to dance proud.
When Jazzercise rejected her application to teach classes because of her weight, she filed a complaint with the San Francisco Human Rights Commission. Today, Portnick announced the commission ruled in her favor. And now Jazzercise has dropped all weight restrictions when it comes to evaluating applicants. Portnick, out at a no-diet rally today, says it is a step in the right direction.
JENNIFER PORTNICK, FITNESS INSTRUCTOR: A lot of people are like me. They feel like: "I am a eating healthy. And I'm working out. And I should be able to do anything I want to do." And sometimes, doors are closed. But the good news is that, if we stand up for ourselves, there can be positive social change.
GOODRICH: While the door is open to instructors of all sizes now, Jazzercise says it will continue to evaluate applicants based on their endurance, techniques, movement and physical ability.
Jazzercise instructor Vivian Dawson (ph) says it's a positive change.
VIVIAN DAWSON, JAZZERCISE INSTRUCTOR: This is for everybody. It isn't just for one particular size.
GOODRICH: And the students in her class agree.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: I think it is great.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: I think it brings more people into the class and stuff, that it is not just for fit people.
GOODRICH: There are only four locations in the United States where it is illegal to discriminate based on weight: San Francisco, Santa Cruz, Washington, D.C., and Michigan . But Jazzercise has dropped all weight restrictions throughout its entire franchise nationwide.
PORTNICK: I am absolutely thrilled. I could not be more delighted.
GOODRICH: While Portnick is pleased with the outcome, she says she's decided not to reapply to be a Jazzercise instructor.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
NEVILLE: All right, everybody, we are going to talk about this, because my audience is just all excited about this story.
But before we get to you guys, we are going to bring in the guests: Brooke Siler. She is a Pilates expert who owns a fitness studio in New York. Uh huh, Mrs. Pilates. And Steve Malzberg, he's a talk radio show -- OK, whatever.
You're not a talk radio show, but you're a host of one for ABC in New York and a columnist at NewsMax.com.
Welcome to both of you.
STEVE MALZBERG, RADIO TALK SHOW HOST: Thank you.
NEVILLE: And, Brooke, I will begin with you. Should Jennifer Portnick be allowed to teach low-impact aerobics?
BROOKE SILER, PILATES EXPERT: Absolutely. More power to her. I think it's phenomenal. I own a studio with 20 instructors. And I have to tell you, if personality were weight, I would take an overweight staff any day. It is absolutely who you are and what you can contribute to the people you teach.
MALZBERG: And, you see, that is the beauty of it, if I may. She owns the studio. And if she chooses to hire that person, then more power to her.
But, as a small-business owner or a business owner, you would like to think that you would be able to choose people who not only would represent what you are trying to put forth to the public, but would not misrepresent or turn people away from what you are trying to serve the public with.
So, let's say this Jazzercise -- these owners felt that this woman would turn away customers. They would say: "We feel uncomfortable. We don't want to do this." Don't they have a right as business owners to say, "It just doesn't fit"? Why should they be forced?
(CROSSTALK)
NEVILLE: Craig, stand up for me, because you're applauding over here. Why do you...
CRAIG: I agree with him.
I am not saying that she does not have a right to be an instructor of aerobics. But Jazzercise should not be forced to pick everybody who comes through their door, to say, "Yes, we will certify you. We will certify you. We will certify you." They should be able to choose whoever they want.
NEVILLE: OK.
(CROSSTALK)
NEVILLE: Wait. Stand up, Barbara.
BARBARA: Sir, that is discrimination. And you can't do that. It is against the law. It's against the law to discriminate. The next thing we know, OK, then we can't have men, or if your hair is too long or your hair is too short or you don't meet this standard or that. And once you start putting restrictions -- if she can meet the qualifications that's necessary to be a Jazzercise instructor, that is what is necessary. (CROSSTALK)
NEVILLE: Hang on, Steve. Steve, I have to take a break. But this is exciting.
So, don't go anywhere, OK, everybody? TALKBACK LIVE continues after this break.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
NEVILLE: OK, we are talking about fitness and fatness.
Jennifer.
JENNIFER: Yes. I am a critical care nurse. And there's a bunch of us here this week.
(CHEERING)
JENNIFER: And my point is, when you go to a hospital, do you want to pick someone -- do you want to have your nurse take care of you who is slim or who knows what the heck they are doing?
NEVILLE: Thank you very much, Linda.
(CROSSTALK)
NEVILLE: Hang on, Steve.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: I am also a nurse. And I see her as a positive role model. I totally agree with the Pilates instructor. She is one for the American people to follow.
NEVILLE: Thank you.
Bolanda (ph).
BOLANDA: Not all people respond to Barbie doll instructors. And I think overweight people can also inspire other people who are overweight, so they will not be inhibited.
NEVILLE: Steve, 10 seconds. Steve, go ahead.
MALZBERG: It should be left up to the employer. Would the hospital employ a nurse who gives the appearance of being dirty and disheveled? No.
(CROSSTALK)
NEVILLE: Brooke, I've got to go.
SILER: Can I just say that the Jazzercise companies would be lucky to have a woman like this who is going to influence millions of people who are actually that size.
NEVILLE: Brooke Siler, Steve Malzberg, thank you so much for joining us.
We are out of time. I will be back tomorrow, 3:00 p.m. Eastern with 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
|
|
|
|
|
