Return to Transcripts main page

CNN Talkback Live

Memorial Service Held for Chandra Levy; Cantor Fitzgerald Ad Raises Controversy

Aired May 28, 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.

There's been a lot of movement in the Chandra Levy case today. A memorial service for the former Washington intern is underway in California. And the D.C. medical examiner today determined Chandra's death as a homicide. We'll find out if that's going to change the course of the investigation in just a minute.

I want to hear from you on this as well, so give me a call at 1- 800-310-4CNN or e-mail talkback@cnn.com. Now let's take a look at today's lineup.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

NEVILLE (voice-over): Everyone now knows this much about what happened to Chandra Levy.

DR. JONATHAN ARDEN, D.C. MEDICAL EXAMINER: The cause of death has been certified as undetermined, and the manner of death has been certified as homicide.

NEVILLE: But they still can't say how Chandra died. We'll find out where the investigation goes from here.

Also, a bond trader wraps its ad campaign around employees killed in the World Trade Center attack.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Anybody who was in their office that day that worked for Cantor Fitzgerald did not get out. We want to make sure that these families can go on. And that's why we're in business today.

NEVILLE: Are the ads a sensitive tribute or a tasteless return to business as usual?

And a judge says no harm done after a teacher pleads guilty to a six-month sexual affair with her student.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: This is a 13-year-old child who was abused by a sexual predator 43 years old, a teacher.

NEVILLE: Would it be a different story if the teacher were a man and the student a girl?

(END VIDEOTAPE)

OK, we're going to start with Chandra Levy. The remains of the former Washington intern were found last week in a remote area of Washington's Rock Creek Park. A public memorial is underway today in Modesto, California, where the Levy family lives. And CNN National Correspondent Gary Tuchman is there -- Gary.

GARY TUCHMAN, CNN NATIONAL CORRESPONDENT: Arthel, hello to you.

This is the convention center here in Modesto, California, the downtown section of the city where the memorial service is taking place right now. There are no cameras allowed inside.

We can tell you, though, we hadn't seen Robert and Susan Levy for six days. They had stayed inside their house ever since they found out last Wednesday that the body of their daughter had been identified. But today we did see them. They left the house about 45 minutes ago, along with their son, Adam.

They were taken for a 20-minute ride to the Modesto Center Plaza, the small convention center where the memorial service is now taking place. And we were so used to seeing the Levys over the past 13 months coming out of their house hopeful that by talking they could end this mystery and find their daughter alive, because they truly believed there was the possibility that perhaps she had amnesia, perhaps she ran away.

But they were still hoping until the very last second they would find her alive. And this is the first time we have seen them in person, seen them in mourning, going through the ultimate nightmare for a parent, the loss of a child.

Inside the convention center, the Modesto Symphony Orchestra was playing in the lobby that you're looking at here as people walked in. And the service began about 15 minutes ago.

One of the opening songs was a song called "Dona Dona." It's a Yiddish song about living life to the fullest. It was written in 1940, but it was recorded in the '60s by Joan Baez. That's why you might be familiar with it.

Leading the service is Rabbi Paul Gordon (ph). He's the rabbi of their synagogue here in Modesto. There will also be people speaking during the service within the next few minutes we expect. One of the speakers will be Chandra Levy's grandmother, who will talk about her granddaughter.

Also we expect that her brother Adam will also speak to mourners. And there are about seven or eight hundred people, I would estimate, inside right now. As far as the Levys themselves, we are told they are too grief stricken to speak during the memorial service that is now taking place for their daughter, who would have been 25 years old last month -- Arthel, back to you.

NEVILLE: Gary Tuchman, thank you very much for joining us here today on TALKBACK.

Now late this morning, Medical Examiner Jonathan Arden confirmed that Chandra Levy was killed. CNN's National Correspondent Bob Franken is following this in Washington. And Bob, if you would, fill us in on the latest.

BOB FRANKEN, CNN NATIONAL CORRESPONDENT: Well, what the medical examiner did was to put the official infomater (ph) on an approach that had been pretty much agreed would occur. There was little question in the mind of investigators, once they found the remains, that Chandra Levy was the victim of a homicide. But now that there is the official designation, it can affect the investigation itself. And so it was an appropriate question to ask the police chief just a little while ago, "Now what?"

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

CHIEF CHARLES RAMSEY, D.C. METROPOLITAN POLICE: Right now we have a lot of people that we want to interview or perhaps even re- interview. At this stage of the investigation it's premature to start labeling people as suspects.

We're certainly going to go over everything we've done to date. We're going to go over all the things we still need to do in light of the body having been found now in Rock Creek Park. There are additional interviews that are being conducted and need to continue to be conducted.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

FRANKEN: And what they're going to do now is not only interview people, they're going to re-interview people. The last week or so has produced a lot of information. Not enough to go beyond designating this a homicide at this point, not enough to specify exactly how Chandra Levy was killed. But that is just one of the mysteries that now proceeds as the investigation goes on.

Of course, the ultimate mystery is, who is responsible for her death -- Arthel.

NEVILLE: And you know what, Bob, it seems that -- and probably understandably so -- that Chief Ramsey is keeping a lot of this stuff, or some parts of the investigation or information that he may have close to the vest. Because we were understanding that there were reports that perhaps Chandra Levy's remains indicated that she might have been tied up. And this morning I heard Chief Ramsey say he has no information on that at the moment.

FRANKEN: Well what he said was -- as you pointed out -- he wasn't going to discuss that. In this particular one, they feel that it is a bit gratuitous that people have paid so much attention to that.

But beyond that, was explained a little while ago by the deputy police chief, Karen Skaner (ph), they don't want to get out in the public realm any more specifics than they necessarily have to, because they might be able to, in fact, get somebody to trip up further down the line by discussing something that has not been publicly discussed. So it gives them an advantage to put out as little information as possible.

NEVILLE: Exactly. Bob Franken, thank you very much for the report.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

NEVILLE: Welcome back, everybody.

We're talking about the Chandra Levy case. With me here in Atlanta is Mike Brooks, a 26-year veteran of the D.C. police force and former member of the FBI terrorism task force -- Detective Mike, very good to see you.

MIKE BROOKS, FMR. D.C. POLICE DETECTIVE: Good to see you, Arthel.

NEVILLE: Do I still call you detective, or that's your...

BROOKS: If you want to, that's fine.

NEVILLE: OK. I'll call you detective.

Listen, there are so many questions still out there surrounding this case. And if you could help us understand where the investigation will go from this point.

BROOKS: Well now we've moved from a missing persons case to a -- into a death investigation. When they first found her body, they didn't know the cause or the means. Now we have a homicide case. Somebody did kill Chandra Levy.

How that happens, the medical examiner wasn't able to determine that. They found her skeletal remains. There wasn't much left on her skeleton to say if she was strangled, if she was stabbed, if she was shot.

But some of the things we do know that didn't happen, if she was stabbed. Usually, if someone is stabbed, they'll usually hit a bone, leave a nick, that kind of thing. Apparently there was nothing on the skeletal remains that showed that.

If she was shot, usually there would be some kind of bullet wound to a bone. Usually it will hit a bone and ricochet off. They didn't find any of that.

There was apparently no blunt force trauma to the skull either. So, you know, they had to rule that out. Exactly what happened, they don't know.

So now the investigation goes forward. There were other things left on the scene. Some of her personal effects, there was some of her clothing there. What kind of evidence were they able to glean out of that clothing? That remains to be seen. Some of these pieces of evidence are going to be sent to the FBI lab for further investigation. So I think once they get all of that -- they haven't even actually finished the crime scene search yet. They're still in Rock Creek Park making sure that they don't miss anything at all.

So once they finish that, they'll turn the scene back over to the U.S. Park Service.

NEVILLE: But, you know, that begs the question that I know initially the D.C. police, they combed the area there in Rock Creek Park, according to -- based on the map that was set up on Chandra's computer, correct?

BROOKS: Right.

NEVILLE: And I know the park is big. We're talking about, what, 1,800 acres. Still, compared to an entire city, it's relatively small. So therefore they had a particular starting point. And I have to ask, why didn't they look in that area before? Why just that one part of the park?

BROOKS: Well it's a very rugged area. We're talking an area four or five times bigger than New York City's Central Park, just to put it in perspective for people. It's very difficult.

The area that she was -- they were concentrating in before was an area around the Klingle Mansion. That's where she had actually queried and looked up on her computer the directions and where exactly Klingle Mansion was located.

So they searched that area. They may have been very, very close to where her body was found, but they were going off of the roads, off of the trails about 100 yards, thinking that would be the normal amount that someone would wander, someone would drag a body, should she have met with foul play. We now have found out she has.

And that area there where she was found it's a trail and then it kind of goes off a little hillside. And then off that hillside it just drops off into a sheer little valley. A very rocky, very rugged area. So anyone even going along that path, walking their dog, jogging, if they looked over the side would not have seen her.

NEVILLE: But how did this dog get down there to smell the -- and find the remains?

BROOKS: Well, this gentlemen -- a man was walking his dog early in the morning and they were looking for turtles. So I think they were looking down in the low line areas where they would normally find turtles. So he was probably down in that area looking, you know, for some area where he thought there would be turtles. So I think that's exactly how he found it.

His dog found the remains, and they were apparently covered up. There had been -- you know, all the foliage had fallen, the leaves had fallen off the trees, and (UNINTELLIGIBLE) on top of the body. So that's why even if somebody had walked right up on it, would not have noticed it. It was his dog that actually found her.

NEVILLE: Now I have a lot of questions from the audience here. I'm going to start with Lamar (ph) over here. If you could stand up for me, Lamar?

LAMAR (ph): Sure. First question, I wanted to know what ever happened to the other two ladies? I don't know if they were interns also, but two ladies came up missing right before Chandra Levy. And there was some speculation that there was actually some type of serial disappearance. And how come those leads weren't ever followed up on instead of us focusing in on the congressman?

BROOKS: Those two investigations were followed up on. They happened -- one was about a year or so prior to Chandra's disappearance and the other one was back even further than that. The one woman had been met with -- she was killed by blunt force trauma and also had -- there were also some other particulars I can't get into of the case because it's still an open case. Because I was actually working at that time, and there were some other incidents of that particular case that were not even close to the Chandra case.

Now the other woman, who was a missing government worker, her body was found. Both of these bodies had been found. And this woman had been found in the water. And it's still, to this day, it's an open case also. And I don't know if she was met with foul play.

But there weren't any things -- cases, any bits of the cases, that were even similar to the Chandra case. But they were looked into and looked into very deeply.

NEVILLE: I have another question here from Rodney.

RODNEY: Hi. I was wondering whether they were able to determine whether the time that she was killed, as far as how long she has been dead? Whether she was probably killed the same day she went missing or whether it was later on?

BROOKS: That's a good question. With the remains that they found, the skeletal remains, it's very difficult, especially with nothing on the bones, if you will. It's not pleasant to talk about.

But with nothing on the bones, it's hard to get a core temperature of a body, just to tell what time the time of death. You know, exactly when she did die. It's believed that she may have been killed there and left there.

There's a lot of forensics that have not come out yet. You know, there's soil comparisons. Was there any soil that maybe was left there by the suspect, that was left there possibly on the scene?

When you have a crime like this, even though it's over a year later, usually the suspect will leave something, something of evidentiary value on the scene. Again, law enforcement, the chief and the medical examiner, they're not telling us everything because they just can't put everything out there in the public realm of what they found. But I guarantee you that there's something probably that that person left there at that scene.

NEVILLE: And Detective Mike, behind you we've got Al from New York.

AL: Hi. Detective Mike, I grew up around the Chevy Chase area around Rock Creek Park, and I agree with you. The terrain and the foliage around the area is just unbelievable. I'm amazed you found anything around that place.

But a couple of comments about the case. Number one, my sympathies and prayers go out to the Levy family. I cannot imagine the horror of losing a child like this. My son just recently moved down here from Rochester, New York in Atlanta, and I guess the message I would say is be careful who you hang out. And maybe things don't appear as they seem.

BROOKS: No, you're right, they don't appear as they seem. And there's a lot of clues, there's a lot of things that the investigators are going to do right now. As Bob Franken said earlier in the show, they're going to go back and they're going to re-interview some of the people that they've already talked to.

They have done over 100 interviews already. But they want to go back -- and if I was the investigator, I would want to go back and re- interview these people, now taking it from the point of instead of talking about a missing person, talking about now a homicide.

You know there's certain body language, certain things that as a trained investigator you might be able to pick up from an interview or even from a re-interview. They are also going to talk to people. Whether they talk to Gary Condit again, that's the big question.

There are things that people share when they're intimate that a lot of people who are just friends don't share. Now was she a regular jogger? You know there are a lot of things we can get from -- that investigators will be able to glean from re-interviewing some of these people.

NEVILLE: Absolutely. And we have Vincent from Maryland on the phone right now -- Vincent, go ahead.

VINCENT: Yes -- hi, Arthel. I love you to death. Listen, I just have one big question. Is it possible -- and I'm looking at you live on TV, you're great -- listen, is it possible that they're not producing all the information from the coroner's office to help catch that killer? And also, is it possible in today's technology -- I mean advancements in science, couldn't they do a toxicology report? Couldn't they do -- why are they being so evasive, that's what I want to know.

BROOKS: I don't think they're being evasive. When you talk about toxicology, you have to have something to work with. If there was any flesh, if there was anything at all left on the skeletal remains that could be analyzed, they would analyze it.

There's also -- and, again, we don't want to put out in the medical examiner -- talk about "we" from my past life -- they don't want to put out information that could be useful when investigators are re-interviewing people. You don't want to put out if something was found on her clothing. You don't want to put out if something was found on her Walkman.

Even going back a year, fingerprints, DNA residue could still be on her clothing, soil samples. There's a lot of things that they don't want to put out. And I think they would be remiss if they did put everything out, because there are a lot of things that we don't need to know. There's a need to know when it comes to criminal cases, and there's a lot right now that the public doesn't need to know that investigators could use.

NEVILLE: Now in speaking of information the investigators could use, now that this is, in fact, a homicide investigation, will detectives have more access to, say, Chandra's medical records and information like that?

BROOKS: Well they probably did before. But there's some other things, investigative techniques, that they could use now, where they were dealing with a missing persons case, now they move into a crime. Before we didn't have a crime. Now there is a crime.

So if they have developed -- and I know for a fact they were looking -- just recently they were looking at a couple of people. They had an interest. They wouldn't come out and say that they were suspects, but they had an interest in a number of people that may have more information about this.

So there's some other techniques, electronic techniques and some other things that now, through the court, they could possibly use to further their investigation.

NEVILLE: Exactly. Detective Mike Brooks, thank you very much.

BROOKS: Thank you, Arthel.

NEVILLE: Always great to have you on TALKBACK LIVE. Thank you very much.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

NEVILLE: And welcome back, everybody.

On September 11th, the bond trading firm of Cantor Fitzergald lost 658 employees when the World Trade Center came down. Those who have survived have been in a deep state of mourning. And the company has pledged 25 percent of its profits over the next five years to the families of the victims.

But it's not exactly business as usual. Some unusual new ads have been created to sell the company. In them, current employees remember those who died in the attack. In fact, why don't we take a look at one of those ads right now.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) UNIDENTIFIED MALE: I caught the elevator up to 78 and I was walking across the floor to get to our bank of elevators that go up to 101.

There was an explosion. The lights went out, the place filled with smoke and I was just thrown to the floor. And that's when I found Virginia, who is my coworker. And she had third degree burns on her arms. I said, "Virginia, hang on. You're going to be fine. We're going to get help and you're going to be fine."

We got into the stairwell, counting down floors for her. You know, 49, 45. Why'd I get out?

Anybody who was in their office that day that worked for Cantor Fitzgerald did not get out. We want to make sure that these families can go on. And that's why we're in business today.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

NEVILLE: Now I definitely want to get you at home in on this conversation, so you can get ready to e-mail me or give me a call as well. In the meantime, I want you to think about what those ads say to you, how they make you react.

And I want you to meet Robbie Vorhaus. He's the president of the public relations firm Vorhaus Communications -- and welcome, sir.

ROBBIE VORHAUS, P.R. EXECUTIVE: Hello. How are you?

NEVILLE: I'm good. What do you think about this ad campaign?

VORHAUS: Well I think advertising is like any form of storytelling. The beauty of advertising is you get to tell a story exactly the way you want it told. Similar -- the same is if you want to tell a story in novels or in movies.

The problem is, is that every story is not about you, it's what you represent. What it represents to the people that you're trying to reach. And whether or not people see this as exploitation or great storytelling is really a question that's going to be answered by...

NEVILLE: So how do you see it?

VORHAUS: Well I see it as a very interesting risk. I think that in this business, the finance business, Wall Street, it's a risk- taking business. I think that Howard Lutnick had to take some risks to overcome some of the negative publicity he had. And they clearly at Cantor Fitzgerald have some wonderful people who have some great true stories.

And, you know, as I talk about in my upcoming book: "Truth, the Ultimate Spin," truth is...

NEVILLE: You're spinning right now, but it's OK.

VORHAUS: Well, it's all about telling a story and the way the people perceive the story and what they take from your story. How do you see these commercials? And if you're looking for a job or you're looking to choose one company or another and you feel that these are interesting people, then...

NEVILLE: OK. Tell you what, hang on for me for a second. I want to bring up an e-mail that just came in here to TALKBACK from Dave in Arizona. He says, "No one who trades on tragedy for commercial profits will ever get my business." What do you think about that, Mr. Vorhaus?

VORHAUS: Well I think that there is a very -- I came down on the subway and I asked a woman who is an MBA student at NYU, and I asked her -- I showed her the "USA Today" story and I asked her what she thought, and she said that she felt it was exploitive. I asked my wife, and she felt that it was taking a risk. I know that people who know the company feel that there are some wonderful people there and maybe they could have told the story in another way. We'll see what other people have to say.

I don't know if Dave is in the industry and if this is the type of person that they are trying to reach. But, of course, every story, at end of the day, is about how you feel about it, not about who is telling the story.

NEVILLE: OK, let's see how Barry from New York feels about it.

BARRY: Hi.

I lived through this. I worked just on the other side of the 59th Street Bridge. And I saw all the people leaving over the 59th Street Bridge when the city was closed down. And I feel very bad for all the people that didn't make it out of that building.

But I feel that, if they want to use the commercial to benefit the family of the people who didn't make it from Cantor Fitzgerald, I feel that all of the money from those commercials should be sent to the family.

NEVILLE: So, you are saying 25 percent of the profits, that's not enough. You are saying, if they want to really help these families and not themselves, then start the ad campaign and give all of it to the families, right?

BARRY: Yes. I believe that 75 percent of the commercials will be benefiting the company and not the families. And I feel that is not right.

NEVILLE: Interesting, Barry. Thank you very much for that comment.

And I know this lady over here has something to say.

And, Mark (ph), I know you are standing by on the phone. I will get to you after the break.

TALKBACK LIVE continues in a moment on this very same subject. Don't go anywhere.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP, CANTOR FITZGERALD AD)

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: I don't think you can put a value to being around people that gone through the same thing that you have been through, especially when there is only 375 of them in the world. I knew that I couldn't just sit there. Everything I was doing was to make sure that all the hard work and effort that we had put into that company, each and every one of us, was not in vain, and that we weren't going to close the doors. That was not going to happen.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

NEVILLE: And welcome back, everybody.

We are talking with Robert Vorhaus about a controversial new ad campaign, one of which you just saw, one of those commercials by the Wall Street firm Cantor Fitzgerald -- the focus: on employees who died in the September 11 attack on the World Trade Center.

And, Mr. Vorhaus, I asked you if you considered this savvy advertisement or just playing on people's sympathy.

VORHAUS: Well, remember, I run a public-relations firm. And we counsel people on how to tell the truth in a public forum.

This seems to me to a case that is going to be where the judge and the jury are ultimately going to be the people who hear it. And your audience is speaking as we're right on the air. And they are saying that they find it exploitive. I think that that is something that Cantor Fitzgerald needs to listen to.

NEVILLE: OK.

I have a phone call now from Mark here in Atlanta.

Go ahead, Mark.

CALLER: I think that the ads can only help Cantor Fitzgerald. After all, they have lost so many employees. And they have got to get their name back out into the market. But they really need the help. And advertising is going to do it. But this can only show how much they are dedicated to their employees.

NEVILLE: OK, Mark, thank you very much for the call.

And Moira (ph)?

MOIRA: Well, I work with a guy who went up to the World Trade Center and helped out. He was a New York fireman. And he is a registered nurse right now in Florida. His name is Andy. And it left a major impact on him, helping with the World Trade Center and cleaning up the devastation. It's made a major impact on the country. And I think it is not something we can easily let go. People have... NEVILLE: So, what do you think about these ads, Moira?

MOIRA: I think it is a way to help bring people together. Cantor Fitzgerald has to survive. They have to survive. They have to get business. And, in order to help their employees and those families, they have to keep going. And I think this is a way of doing it. Hopefully, they will be able to donate more than 25 percent.

NEVILLE: Interesting.

I am going to cut in front of you there, Mike. I'm going to get a young fellow back here, Matt from New York, to stand up and speak out.

How old are you?

MATT: Eleven.

NEVILLE: And what do you have to say, Mike -- Matt? Excuse me.

MATT: I think that they should earn the money and then donate it, and not just get it from people feeling sorry for them.

NEVILLE: And you feel like these commercials, perhaps, would play on people's sympathy and have people do just that, feel sorry for them?

MATT: Yes.

NEVILLE: OK, thank you.

I am going to come up here to the top row.

Tom, get to you stand up for me.

TOM: How you doing?

I would just like to know. I personally think it is exploiting human tragedy. Let me take another situation. Suppose this was the Holocaust. Or suppose this was genocide over in Africa and we were having a company that was also trying to make profit as a result of human tragedy. Would we be willing to accept that in that particular situation, as we are now with the September 11 situation?

NEVILLE: Thank you for that comment.

Tonya over here, stand up for me. It's coming over to you.

TANYA: Hi.

From my understanding, that Cantor Fitzgerald would donate 25 percent over the next five years. Well, what would happen the sixth year or the seventh year or eighth year? Are they still planning to do things for the family or would they just cut them off?

NEVILLE: That's an interesting point you make there, Tonya. And, again, Robert, you are hearing some people are in favor of it. Some people aren't. And I know earlier, you mentioned that there was a little bit of a P.R. mishap on the part of Cantor Fitzgerald, let's say. Do you think they have been able to clean up their image from that which was just shortly after the attacks?

VORHAUS: Well, I think people are still talking about.

And it is not what happens to you. It is what you do with what happens to you. And I think that what Howard Lutnick did when he first went on the air immediately after the tragedies, and he was crying, was compelling.

Afterwards, when the reports came out that Cantor Fitzgerald was withholding some paychecks, that was something that they did based on internal decisions. Now they are turning around and they are trying to rebuild their business. There are people who have families to support. And there is a reason for them to be in business. And there are some wonderful people who work for Cantor Fitzgerald.

The question is, is: How are they perceived from these ads? And is it going to benefit their business?

NEVILLE: Robert, Mr. Vorhaus.

VORHAUS: Robert. Thank you.

NEVILLE: Thank you very much for joining me, but you keep asking the questions I wanted you to answer, and you didn't. Hello?

VORHAUS: Well, the question...

NEVILLE: Anyway, I have got to go now. Thank you so much for being here on TALKBACK LIVE.

VORHAUS: Thank you.

NEVILLE: It's time for another break.

Up next, another story: A superior court judge says there was no harm done when a female teacher had a sexual relationship with her 13- year-old male student. We'll tell you why his sentence provoked outrage in New Jersey.

Stay with us.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

NEVILLE: OK, everybody. Welcome back to TALKBACK LIVE. I'm Arthel Neville.

A New Jersey teacher has admitted having sexual relations with a 13-year-old student. But Pamela Diehl-Moore won't be spending any time in jail thanks to a sympathetic judge.

Let's find out what that's all about from Bob O'Brien at affiliate station WWOR in New Jersey.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

BOB O'BRIEN, WWOR REPORTER (voice-over): Pamela Diehl-Moore had been a teacher at Woodrow Wilson Middle School in Clifton. It was there she met the boy who soon became her lover.

She pleaded guilty to sexual assault in January and could have faced 10 years in prison. But Superior Court Judge Bruce Gaeta sentenced the woman to five years probation. Judge Gaeta said -- quote -- "I really don't see the harm that was done here. And certainly society doesn't need to be worried. I do not believe she is a sexual predator. It's just something between two people that clicked beyond the teacher-student relationship" -- end quote.

Bergen County Assemblywoman Rose Heck was shocked.

ROSE HECK, BERGEN COUNTY ASSEMBLYWOMAN: This is a 13-year-old child who was abused by a sexual predator, 43 years old, a teacher. He was sent to school by his parents to be safe.

O'BRIEN (on camera): Pamela Diehl-Moore admitted in court that, during the summer of 1999, she began bringing the 13-year-old boy to her home here in Lyndhurst. He had just completed the seventh grade. She says they had consensual sex together over a six-month period right here in her home.

Her neighbors say, a few days after her arrest last year, Pamela Diehl-Moore disappeared from the block, sold her home, and hasn't been seen here since. Her former next-door neighbor is outraged that Pamela Diehl-Moore will never do a day in jail for sexually abusing a child who had been her student.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: I'll be honest with you. I think she should get 20 in jail, hard time. Anybody that would do that to a child is the worst.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

NEVILLE: OK, let's meet Robert Galantucci. He's a criminal defense lawyer and has appeared before Superior Court Judge Bruce Gaeta many times. So, he might know something about how the judge thinks. Also with us: attorney Robert Weiss.

I want to welcome both of you gentlemen to TALKBACK LIVE

ROBERT WEISS, ATTORNEY: Thank you.

ROBERT GALANTUCCI, CRIMINAL DEFENSE ATTORNEY: Good afternoon.

NEVILLE: Good afternoon.

Mr. Galantucci, I will begin with you.

If you could help us understand why Judge Gaeta would see this as no big deal. GALANTUCCI: Well, I don't think at all that he said that this was no big deal.

The judge was going through a series of aggravating and mitigating factors in an effort to make a determination as to whether or not the presumption of incarceration could be overcome. What you do is look to the aggravating factors, one of which is the harm to the victim.

I think that the judge -- I know that the judge had many expert reports, medical reports, indicating what the impact was on this young man. The judge was articulating one of the factors, mitigating factors and aggravating factors, in the statute and made a determination that the harm was not so severe as to count against the defendant in making a determination as to whether or not the presumption of incarceration was overcome.

NEVILLE: Robert Weiss, what do you see? What do you see that...

WEISS: I think it's ridiculous.

I think there is no doubt that the presumption of incarceration would not have been overcome if it was a girl. If you had a 43-year- old man having sex with a 13-year-old girl, that guy would be doing time; 20 years, as somebody said earlier, is the kind of thing that people get for that.

So, I just -- it doesn't make any sense at all to me. It seems to me that the judge is using a double standard for men and for women. And I think the judge clearly made those statements. They are inflammatory statements. And the assembly person, Rose Heck, was very, very upset. There are a lot of people in the media. I looked at editorials. He has been criticized throughout the legal community, throughout the press.

And it's just a horrible, horrible decision.

GALANTUCCI: I think what Mr. Weiss misses here, quite frankly, is that, in the judicial system, we don't deal with emotionalism. We must look to facts in an effort to make a determination as to what is just.

(CROSSTALK)

WEISS: But the fact is, you had a woman have sex with a 13-year- old boy. That fact, in and of itself, should lead to incarceration. There is no way you are going to wind up having the same type of thing happen

(CROSSTALK)

NEVILLE: OK, you know what? Time out to both of you.

Michael from North Carolina.

MICHAEL: Well, our parents send us to school not to be around people like this. And if the judge let her off the hook, how many people is she going to do this to in the future?

NEVILLE: How old are you, Michael?

MICHAEL: I'm 14.

NEVILLE: Now, OK, let's ask Michael here.

If your teacher came on to you or suggested that it's OK for to you have a sexual relationship with her, how would you react to that and how would that make you feel?

MICHAEL: I would be shocked. But I would go to the principal. And that's the only thing you can do. But, I mean, I don't think any kids are prepared for that kind of situation these days. And for society to accept it, it's ridiculous.

NEVILLE: And let me ask you this, because they are saying that it was consensual, that he agreed to it. And you think -- you just rolled your eyes. Why?

MICHAEL: Because he is 13. He don't know what he wants to do with his life. And that could have just ruined his life right there.

WEISS: And if I could just jump in here, Arthel, the fact is that a 13-year-old child is not capable of consent, is not capable of consent anywhere in the law: not capable under contract, not capable for sex. He's just incapable.

And I also want to add that the Catholic Church is reeling from a scandal; 16 priests have committed suicide offer the exact same thing. They have to pay out hundreds of millions of dollars. And this woman gets off with a slap on the wrist?

NEVILLE: I have Linda here in the audience. She is a teacher.

LINDA: Yes, I am. I teach eighth grade. And the students that I'm entrusted with every day, when their parents send them to me, I am expected to function, in a lot of ways, as their mother and dad while I have them at school. And I can't imagine ever feeling that I could violate that trust. I just can't even imagine that.

And, also, there is no way that you can say that it is consensual when you have a 13-year-old child and a 43-year-old adult. In order for it to be consensual, they have to be on the same maturity level.

NEVILLE: Now, let's ask this, because there was a case in Marrero, Louisiana, where you had a 26-year-old teacher and a 16-year- old student. Would that make a difference, in your eyes?

LINDA: No, I don't think it would be, because you still have a situation where you have a teacher, who is an authority figure, who students are led to believe that they can trust, and also have a sense of responsibility to lead them in a very positive way.

Yes, I teach them academics, but I am also responsible for the moral standard that I live out in front of them. NEVILLE: OK, I have to take a break. And we will continue this subject after this break.

Don't go anywhere.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

NEVILLE: And welcome back, everybody.

We are talking about why a judge might not have a problem with sex between a teacher and her 13-year-old student.

And I know Leslie is standing by.

But, Leslie, hang on for me, because, Mr. Galantucci, I would like to ask you, what about statutory rape?

GALANTUCCI: This is, in effect, statutory rape.

You see, the judge never justified the conduct of this teacher. A judgment of conviction has been entered against this person. The judge then exercised his discretion in weighing the various factors to make a determination that this person didn't belong in jail, based on medical reports that were submitted.

You know, if you just take everybody...

NEVILLE: So, if the child isn't harmed mentally by this, then the statutory rape factor just is much lighter.

GALANTUCCI: No, that's one factor, one factor out of roughly 22 factors that the court must go through and analyze in an effort to determine whether this is one of those cases where he should be exercising his discretion in a way that does not send the person to jail.

That person is on five years probation. They talk about the predatorship. If this person does something again during that course of five years, they will go to jail.

NEVILLE: Leslie from Minnesota, go ahead, quickly, for me.

CALLER: Yes.

I just wanted to say that I think I agree with the judge 100 percent. I think our attitudes towards sexuality are a bit old- fashioned. For instance, geneticists just said that it is OK for first cousins to marry. There's no problem.

And the second point is, if that same 13-year-old boy walked into McDonald's with a gun and robbed them, then they want to put him way for life without parole. If he can do life without parole, he should be able to have sex. I don't see how you can be a child one place and not another.

(CROSSTALK) NEVILLE: Unfortunately, we are out of time.

Thank you so much to attorneys Robert Galantucci, Robert Weiss. And thanks to all of you at home for watching.

We will have more tomorrow on TALKBACK LIVE, 3:00 Eastern. I'm Arthel Neville. I will see you then.

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