Return to Transcripts main page
CNN Talkback Live
Free-for-All Friday
Aired June 07, 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 free for all Friday, and we are going to cover a lot of ground this hour. We'll start with the verdict in the Martha Moxley murder case.
Forty-one year old Michael Skakel was found guilty of killing 15- year old Moxley with a golf club nearly 27 years ago. You can weigh in on the verdict by calling me at 1-800-310-4CNN or e-mail talkback@CNN.com. Right now take a look at what else we're talking about today.
The president calls for a government overhaul.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
GEORGE W. BUSH, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: I ask the Congress to join me in creating a single permanent department with an overriding and urgent mission, securing the homeland of America and protecting the American people.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
NEVILLE: Is this a plan easier said than done?
Also, how did the D.C. police miss this?
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: The bone was found approximately 25 yards from where some of the remains were located that we recovered earlier.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
NEVILLE: And in the murder trial of Danielle van Dam's accused killer, her parents' swinging lifestyle gets the third degree.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: There was a sex party at the house when you got home?
BRENDA VAN DAM: There's never been a sex party at my house.
(END VIDEO CLIP) NEVILLE: But what, if anything, does their lifestyle have to do with the death of their daughter?
OK, let's meet our panel of talk show hosts. Jane Chastain, co- host of "Judicial Watch Report" on the USA radio network; Karel Bouley, a writer for "Billboard Magazine"; Steve Malzberg, a NewsMax.com columnist and WABC talk show host; and Jason Jarvis host of the syndicated "Jason Jarvis Show" and I want to welcome all of you here today. I'm glad to see all of you.
All right, you know what guys, let's start with the verdict in the Michael Skakel trial. The guilty verdict apparently came as quite a surprise to a lot of people today. Just to remind you, Skakel was found guilty of bludgeoning 15-year-old Martha Moxley to death with a golf club nearly 27 years ago.
Here to tell us how this verdict came about is CNN legal analyst Jeffrey Toobin. And Jeffrey, you know, we're talking about no forensic evidence. So much time has passed since this murder, and how did the prosecution get a conviction?
JEFFREY TOOBIN, CNN LEGAL ANALYST: I think Jonathan Benedict, the prosecutor, put it best when he said Michael Skakel's own words convicted him. He had confessed to his involvement in the crime to various friends over the years. And in his description of what happened that night, he had changed his story in so many ways and in ways that were very incriminating, the jury said the reason he's lying is because he did it.
NEVILLE: Now, does Skakel have any grounds for an appeal?
TOOBIN: He certainly has many grounds for appeal. The most important ground for appeal is that the crime took place when he was 15 years old. Had he been tried at the time, he would have been tried in juvenile court, but because so much time passed, the courts, the case was moved to Superior Court and he got a much greater sentence. But, Arthel, it's worth pointing out that though he has many grounds for appeal and that's the biggest one, most appeals fail. I think it's likely this one will fail, so he's looking at least 10 years to life.
NEVILLE: And Jeffrey, why wasn't he tried back in the '70s?
TOOBIN: Well, because the cops could never figure out who did it. The investigation went nowhere for year after year. Initially, his brother, Tommy Skakel, was a serious suspect. In fact, the cops prepared an arrest warrant. They wanted to arrest him. The prosecutor said you don't have enough evidence.
Then suspicion fell on the tutor in the family, Ken Littleton, and the cops asked his ex-wife to conduct a kind of sting operation to get him to confess. That didn't work. Years later, there was more investigation. Mark Fuhrman, the detective in the O.J. Simpson case, wrote a book about the case, revived interest. Prosecutors found out that they thought they finally had their man, and it looks like they did. NEVILLE: All right, Jeffrey Toobin, thank you very much for that update.
OK, all right, I want to bring the panel in now. Steve, I'll start with you. Was this the right verdict?
STEVE MALZBERG, WABC RADIO TALK SHOW HOST: Well, apparently so. Again, since there was no hard evidence, most people are shocked, but the prosecutor -- and everybody said this by now -- did a wonderfully amazing job in summation in his final arguments in piecing this together, putting -- connecting the dots, as they say, which is what they say the FBI and CIA did not do in preventing the terrorist attack.
But he connected the dots, and again, the most incriminating evidence was Michael Skakel's own words. And I think this -- this is good. This is good for the criminal justice system. It shows you can run, but you can't hide. And if you're going to be stupid enough to brag about the fact that you killed somebody, even though it was a long time ago, the law is going to get you.
NEVILLE: Yes, well, Jane, he said, hey, I'm a Kennedy, I can get away with it.
JANE CHASTAIN, USA RADIO NETWORK: Apparently so, and I think he must be really kicking himself today because apparently he can't keep his emotions in check well enough to be put on the stand, at least if he had any chance at all. It was taking that stand in his own behalf looking those jurors straight in the eye and telling his story.
But, you know, I think the person that's perhaps celebrating most today has to be Mark Fuhrman. He was branded a racist during the O.J. Simpson trial, and any police work he did on that case just dismissed. So here -- he's the person that put the dots together that led to Michael Skakel's conviction. So I think he has a lot to celebrate today.
NEVILLE: I'm to let Nick jump in from Pennsylvania. He's calling in. Go ahead, Nick.
NICK: Yes, Arthel, I think it has a lot to do with the Kennedy mystique, OK, their arrogant family. They try to get away with everything, and him being a cousin, trying to get away with it, it just backfired on him. He bragged about it, now he has to pay for what he said and what he did. And the fact that he is going to jail for the rest of his life possibly is great.
NEVILLE: Hey, Karel, what do you think about all of this?
KAREL BOULEY, RADIO TALK SHOW HOST: Oh, there's so much I think about this, Arthel. First of all, the Kennedy mystique, we love to hate them. I mean when John-John died, it's a national outpouring and Jackie O and then suddenly we want to nail the Kennedy. This case was all on hearsay, which bothers me in the first place, even it was his hearsay, it was all on hearsay and he was 15 when he committed this crime and was a juvenile. So ... NEVILLE: And what's your point about that, Karel?
BOULEY: Well, you know, I personally feel, you know, since we do this in other cases he should have been tried as a juvenile. I mean, he is not the same person now 27 years later that he was at 15. Did he commit it? Yes. I think the interesting thing will be the penalty phase, because what do we do with this man.
You know he's been 27 years convicted on no physical evidence, no DNA evidence, nothing, just all hearsay from Mark Fuhrman, of all people, and the like and his own confessions. What do we do with him? I mean, should we put him away for 10 years? Is that justice served?
NEVILLE: Jason Jarvis, how do you see this?
JASON JARVIS, RADIO TALK SHOW HOST: I've got to tell you, Arthel, I think in the long run it's going to be a hollow victory for the Moxleys, because I think Mickey Sherman's going to appeal. I think they're going to get Michael out on bail, and they're going to go through this whole process all over again, and they are going to be dragged through the emotions. And in terms of trying this case in a juvenile court, could you imagine trying a 41-year-old in a juvenile court? I just think that'd be absurd.
BOULEY: Well, I think the entire case is absurd. I mean, he's -- when you look at it and it came back because of public opinion. So I guess all you have to do to get a murder solved in this nation is just interest the public, and then suddenly they'll start caring again.
JARVIS: No, it came back because of the grand jury.
MALZBERG: It came back because of a grand jury. It came back because he mouthed off about it, and if he's a different person now than he was at 15 when he committed the murder, why in the interim didn't he go to the police and say, hey, you know what, I did this.
(CROSSTALK)
NEVILLE: I was a young kid ...
(CROSSTALK)
BOULEY: That is naive ...
CHASTAIN: I think the judge can ...
BOULEY: ...on anyone's part.
CHASTAIN: ... I think the judge will take that into consideration in the penalty phase of the trial. But bear in mind appeals like this rarely win. And if they let him out on bail, I mean certainly with his wealth he has to be a flight risk.
NEVILLE: You know what let's get Todd (ph) -- oh ...
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Oh, that bell.
NEVILLE: That bell, baby, you know what that means?
Todd (ph) in Texas, I'm sorry, you're on the phone. If you want to talk about our next subject, stick around. OK. We're going to talk about FBI bundles in the new Department of Homeland Security. Is the president on the right track? TALKBACK LIVE back after this.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
NEVILLE: OK, welcome back, everybody. Last night, President Bush asked Congress to create a whole new Department of Homeland Security. Is the Cabinet-level department made up of such diverse organizations as the INS, the Coast Guard, the Customs Service, and the Secret Service?
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
GEORGE W. BUSH, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: The reason to create this department is not to create the size of government, but to increase its focus and effectiveness. The staff of this new department will be largely drawn from the agencies we are combining.
By ending duplication and overlap, we will spend less on overhead and more on protecting America. This reorganization will give the good people of our government their best opportunity to succeed by organizing our resources in a way that is thorough and unified.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
NEVILLE: OK, the president says less on overhead. We're talking about a $37.5 billion budget for this department.
BOULEY: That's less overhead.
NEVILLE: OK, Karel, I mean ...
BOULEY: That's less overhead. I mean, first of all, he says it's not going to increase the size of government, yet that's exactly what it's doing. He's turned into a very good Democratic president, actually. He's the best Democrat the Republicans could have elected.
My question is, what are all these agencies doing now? I mean, we're paying for the CIA, the FBI, INS, Border Patrol. We -- I thought that was homeland security was their job. What are they doing now? Are we saying that for the last years they've been doing nothing?
MALZBERG: Well, this is obviously what people have been clamoring for. This is going to tie them all together and make sure that they communicate ...
BOULEY: Well, why are they untied now? I don't understand.
NEVILLE: Exactly.
BOULEY: Why are they untied now?
MALZBERG: Well, for instance, it's been the CIA's job traditionally to deal with overseas issues and foreign issues, and it's the FBI's job to react to domestic issues. Now the FBI's been given more leeway. They are more preventive, and the CIA and the FBI will find new ways they will communicate.
BOULEY: But can't they do this in their own infrastructure?
(CROSSTALK)
CHASTAIN: Here's the problem -- here's the problem with this new homeland post. As the Cabinet secretary of that post, he will have no authority over the CIA or the FBI or the intelligence gathering of the Defense Department. In other words, in his own words, he said he will be a customer of the intelligence gathering agencies. Now, somehow I picture him standing in line at the post office as a customer. Does any of that relate?
(CROSSTALK)
JARVIS: I don't -- I don't think you can solve -- I don't think you can solve a problem, a bureaucratic problem by creating a separate bureaucracy.
And you're absolutely right, this new Homeland Defense Agency is not going to get raw intelligence. They're still going to have the problem that the FBI and the CIA not talking to each other, that they're not distilling this information properly and it's not getting into the right hands. That's the problem ...
(CROSSTALK)
JARVIS: ... creating another bureaucracy does not solve that problem.
BOULEY: And it's come to the point where ...
(CROSSTALK)
CHASTAIN: Bush said earlier that you have to change the culture at the FBI and that is the key. But the problem is that you've got a culture that covers up for the middle managers ...
NEVILLE: And then also, Jane ...
CHASTAIN: ... there's no accountability. We have praised Coleen Rowley. We have, at the same time the FBI has deep-sixed special agent ...
NEVILLE: Absolutely.
CHASTAIN: Robert G. Wright. I had David Shiffer (ph) ...
NEVILLE: As well as Coleen Rowley ...
CHASTAIN: ... "Judicial Watch" on my show ...
(CROSSTALK)
NEVILLE: Jane, I'm going to jump in there on you. Excuse me for a second, Jane.
(CROSSTALK)
NEVILLE: Jane, I'm sorry. Patrick here is dying to jump in. Go ahead -- go ahead, Patrick.
PATRICK: Yes, I had two points. One, I want to repeat Mr. Jarvis' comment, in that I think that the hints that we had available for September 11 were largely in the form of raw information rather than distilled information, and will be helpful if this new department is only privy to the distilled information. Do you think that is going to be likely to make any improvement to our additional system rather than creating new budget problems for our federal governments have to deal with?
JARVIS: What you're doing is creating yet another layer between the raw information and those who actually need it to act on it.
(CROSSTALK)
BOULEY: You're creating a federal DMV to handle homeland security is what it's basically doing.
(CROSSTALK)
BOULEY: I would -- I would like the organizations that exist now that my tax dollars are paying for the FBI, the CIA, the Army, the Navy, the military, the INS, the Border Patrol, restructure those if we need to. We don't need to create something else for them to report to that they're not going to really have any say in the matter any way.
NEVILLE: Absolutely.
CHASTAIN: I think ...
(CROSSTALK)
CHASTAIN: ... if we want to do -- if we want to do something that really means something we've got to allow agents like Robert G. Wright to go to Congress and give his testimony. Right now he's gone through all the channels. He's not a whistle blower like Coleen Rowley, who should be commended, but Robert G. Wright asked permission to go to Congress, to take his Hamas investigation and have us learn from the mistakes that were made when this investigation was deep- sixed.
NEVILLE: And, Jane ...
(CROSSTALK)
NEVILLE: ... you're exactly right.
(CROSSTALK)
NEVILLE: The problem is ...
CHASTAIN: ... earlier this week he was crying. He was apologizing ...
NEVILLE: Sure.
CHASTAIN: ... to the American people because this could have been prevented.
NEVILLE: Yes, and that's really what's sad, that the agents are saying they are not being heard. They're not being heard. But I want Justin from Idaho, I think it is, South Dakota to be heard. Go ahead, Justin.
JUSTIN: I got two comments. One, I guess what is Condoleezza Rice's role in this? Isn't that -- national security adviser, isn't that her job anyway? And two, this is the second terrorism act that could have been prevented. We have Oklahoma City, where at 9:30 Eastern daylight time the Department of Justice got a phone call saying that, you know, that nobody special standing across from the Murrah Federal Building saw it explode, and that was an hour before.
BOULEY: It's obvious that our departments have trouble speaking to each other and that the people inside those departments have trouble speaking to their higher up. Do we want yet another department, yet another filtering mechanism?
MALZBERG: Here's one thing ...
BOULEY: I don't ...
(CROSSTALK)
MALZBERG: ... here's one thing that President Bush should have said last night and somebody should have said a long time ago. If you want to prevent another attack, we've been told by everybody another attack is coming, and we have to live with it. The president should have said I have a doctrine on terrorism. You're with us or you're against us. You're a terrorist or you're not a terrorist.
If we're hit again on our soil, we reserve the right to use our military might to strike back at any nation or group that we deem supports terrorism or is a terrorist group or nation. That will prevent another attack, if we threaten to nuke some of these list -- these countries on our terrorist nation list.
BOULEY: Absolutely ...
(CROSSTALK)
BOULEY: Absolutely, let's just nuke them all. Why don't we nuke everything from Israel over to India and make it a big Saudi Arabia Disneyland? Why don't we do just that?
NEVILLE: OK, Melissa from South Carolina.
MELISSA: All right, it just appears to me that the formation of a new agency for homeland security just seems like a smoke screen to me put forth by Bush as a cover-up for the inadequacies of all these dinosaur-size agencies that are in place now from the FBI to the CIA, et cetera, et cetera.
BOULEY: That's exactly right.
MELISSA: It's just a smoke screen.
NEVILLE: And I'm going to let Joe from my home state of Louisiana speak out. Go ahead, Joe.
JOE: Well, hey there, Arthel. How are you? I'm from New Orleans, right, and my thoughts is if we're taking 8,000 people from this department and this department, well who's going to do their job that they were doing, you know, for the last how many years? Again, it seems like they're saying hey, I'm agreeing. It seems like just a smoke screen.
(CROSSTALK)
BOULEY: Plus they're adding 170,000 plus employees, so I've read recently, to the Department of Homeland Defense -- 170,000 people does not -- this is not very well thought out. This really is a stopgap measure. I think the audience member is completely right. Bush had to do something.
NEVILLE: OK, that's all we're going to say about that. Up next, D.C. police overlooked a bone in Rock Creek Park. Is it Chandra's? Stay there, we'll be right back.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
NEVILLE: Welcome back to TALKBACK LIVE free for all Friday, everybody. I'm Arthel Neville. Investigators hired by Chandra Levy's family have found a human bone about 25 yards way from where a man walking his dog found Levy's remains last month. The obvious question is why didn't the D.C. police find it when they were combing the area for evidence with dogs, crime scene technicians and cadets. As you might image, Police Chief Charles Ramsey isn't too happy.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
CHIEF CHARLES RAMSEY, D.C. POLICE: We're working as hard as we can to find out who is responsible for the murder of Chandra Levy. I wish we had found all the remains, but obviously we didn't find all the remains. We have to stay focused on the particular investigation. It's easy for people to sit back and Monday morning quarterback and guess. But most of you folks have walked that same area and you know how difficult that terrain is. With the animal activity and other things, we just need to make sure we do a thorough complete search.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
NEVILLE: Yes, but he keeps saying how the terrain is so -- there's so much brush there and everything, but it's not stopping other people, investigators and a man walking his dog from finding remains. Jane, does this make the D.C. police look like the keystone cops?
CHASTAIN: Oh, it absolutely does. And I think the Levys have to be encouraged not only by what their own investigators have been able to uncover, but by the conviction today in the Moxley trial. And we've heard for the last couple weeks ever since Chandra's body was discovered, well, gee, this case is too old, too much time has elapsed, the evidence -- any evidence that we found at this point is only circumstantial.
To the life of me I can't understand why there hasn't been some kind of indictment handed down for Gary Condit at least on an obstruction charge so that they could go forward with some kind of investigation. After all, you look for motive. You look for opportunity. He had a break in his schedule. And this is a question that I don't think anybody has asked at least outside of my show, and that is, as a congressman, he had oversight of the Bureau of Prisons where Chandra Levy worked.
Now the Bureau of Prisons employs thousands of workers. She was well qualified. She had a good education. He could have made one phone call and said, look, there's a constituent of mine who's been working there as an intern. She's paid her dues. I want to be sure that she gets the first available position that comes open. And that woman would not be, would not have been packing her bags, getting ready to leave with no job available.
NEVILLE: So what's your point?
CHASTAIN: My point is ...
(CROSSTALK)
NEVILLE: Wait. Hold up. Let me -- hang on, Karel.
CHASTAIN: ... no, my point -- my point is here that he obviously didn't want her around.
NEVILLE: Karel.
BOULEY: First of all, they were breaking up. Of course he didn't want her around. And he lied about sex. Well, it's no shock to your viewers men do that.
CHASTAIN: Oh, gee, if you lie about sex then it's OK.
BOULEY: It is not OK. Men lie about sex. You know, in this whole thing the Washington, D.C. police, keystone cops that they look right now, and I encourage the Levys to keep their investigators. They are desperate to find information. I would be too. My God, if this were your child, you'd want to know every single thing, and if you had to hire your own people you'd do it. But they still have not indicted Gary Condit. They have even ruled, basically said he is not a suspect at this time in the media ...
CHASTAIN: They didn't obstruct the -- obstruct the investigation?
BOULEY: He obstructed the investigation by lying about his affair. He didn't obstruct his investigations by saying that ...
(CROSSTALK)
NEVILLE: Go ahead ...
(CROSSTALK)
MALZBERG: There's a -- there's a grand jury -- there's a grand jury convened right now, and I predict they will wind up indicting Gary Condit on obstruction. Gary Condit is a congressman. He has to be held to a higher standard. Saying he lied about sex is as pathetic as saying, oh, Clinton just lied about sex. He committed perjury and he suffered the consequences. Gary Condit should have come forward as a congressman, talking about a constituent and said this is a murder investigation. I had a wrong affair. I apologize, but let's find out what happened to this girl not ...
(CROSSTALK)
BOULEY: It is so easy to be ...
MALZBERG: ... keep your mouth shut ...
BOULEY: It is so easy to be puritanical sitting there in your seat. Until you're the congressman whose affair has blown up or the president, whose affair has blown up in your face ...
CHASTAIN: Whose affair has blown up ...
(CROSSTALK)
BOULEY: ... you really don't know how you're going to behave.
CHASTAIN: Gary Condit -- Gary Condit was a serial philanderer.
(CROSSTALK)
JARVIS: Gary Condit -- Gary Condit -- Gary Condit is obviously a scumbag and I think the voters have spoken in his district and we're not going to hear too much from him unless he gets indicted and possibly as long as we're -- concerning indicting people, why not indict Carolyn Condit? I mean, talk about motive.
BOULEY: Yes. Exactly, the wife here ...
NEVILLE: Oh, man. The bell rang. That's all time we have for that topic. Let's move on.
What's your name back there?
Chris, what's her name?
CHRIS: Jeri.
NEVILLE: Jeri.
Sorry about that, Jeri.
Up next: The parents of 7-year-old Danielle van Dam find their sex lives on trial as they testify against the man accused of killing their daughter. What's the defense trying to prove?
We'll be back right after the news.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
NEVILLE: And welcome back to TALKBACK LIVE's "Free-For-All Friday," everybody. I'm Arthel Neville.
And we are moving on. We just go from topic to topic here on TALKBACK LIVE. That's what Friday is all about, especially.
And right now, we are going to talk about this case. The parents of 7-year-old Danielle van Dam took the stand this week in the California trial of alleged killer David Westerfield. Westerfield, a neighbor of the van Dams, is accused of kidnapping the child from her bedroom and later killing her.
But when the van Dams took the stand, it was their swinging lifestyle that included extramarital sex and the use of marijuana that went on trial. Westerfield's lawyer pressed for details in an effort to show someone else could have had access to the van Dam's children.
Let's listen to some of that testimony.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
STEVEN FELDMAN, ATTORNEY FOR DAVID WESTERFIELD: Isn't it true that on Halloween evening in the year 2000 you engaged in sex with Denise and Andy and Brandon and -- I'm sorry -- and Danny?
BRENDA VAN DAM, MOTHER OF DANIELLE VAN DAM: Yes.
FELDMAN: So, when you told Mr. Dusek that you had never had a sex party at your house, had you forgotten that?
VAN DAM: I don't consider that to be a sex party.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
NEVILLE: Jason Jarvis, what does their sex life have to do with the fact that their daughter was killed?
JARVIS: Absolutely nothing. This is a classic defense distraction ploy. Obviously, they have no defense, reasonable defense of David Westerfield. They basically have him dead to rights. And they are focusing in on moral issues. Listen, I don't want the van Dams to babysit my child. I think their questionable moral lifestyle is not something that I'm into. But, listen, who is on trial here: the van Dams or David Westerfield?
Westerfield is a scumbag. He kidnapped this 7-year-old girl, possibly raped her, left her in a trash pile half burned. Let's not forget that.
MALZBERG: And he should go to jail for that.
JARVIS: He should die for that.
MALZBERG: He should die for that.
BOULEY: Absolutely.
MALZBERG: But these parents are despicable. These parents did not protect that child. And if they are doing the same thing now, they are not protecting the children that they have left.
How dare they let strangers come into their home and then not...
(CROSSTALK)
MALZBERG: Hey, I didn't interrupt you -- and then not check on the children after they see a door open in the middle of the night? That's irresponsible. They should take the kids that are with them away.
BOULEY: In the '70s, these parents would have been considered good neighbors, OK?
MALZBERG: Oh, cut it out.
BOULEY: Now, granted, they are not
(CROSSTALK)
MALZBERG: Not in my neighborhood.
BOULEY: Oh, please, you don't know what goes on in your neighborhood. They are not model parents, by any means.
But the other panelist was so correct. What this trial is about is a 7-year-old girl whose last moments of her life were horrific. It is not about whom is schtupping whom in the neighborhood. It's about this sick man that lived next door, attacked, molested this child and killed her. He is the one that should be dragged through the mud and not the parents, because he is the one who committed -- allegedly, committed this crime.
NEVILLE: Right.
(APPLAUSE)
CHASTAIN: I'm not sure their behavior has anything to do with the murder trial. But, you know, I do hope child protective services is listening, because, if you are of low moral character and you are exposing your children to this type of behavior constantly, I do think it is a concern.
(CROSSTALK)
NEVILLE: Hang on, guys, for me.
Sue from New Jersey.
SUE: Yes. I agree with several people here that, although their private lives should not necessarily be on the witness stand -- but child services should be in looking at this family and seeing how they are raising their children as a total separate issue.
NEVILLE: Let me grab an e-mail for you right now and share it with the audience.
Go ahead and pop it up for me. It's from Richard in California. "It's sickening that the judge in this case is allowing the parents of a murdered child to be tortured in this way. The defense is obviously in a state of desperation."
BOULEY: Can you imagine? Your child is dead. Your 7-year-old is gone. And you have to sit in front of national, international television and talk about your sex life, when your daughter is dead.
MALZBERG: Because they bear some of the responsibility for allowing strangers into their home.
(CROSSTALK)
BOULEY: Let them bear their guilt privately. It has no bearing on what this man did. They did not invite him to take their child anywhere. They didn't loan him the kid.
(CROSSTALK)
NEVILLE: Steve, you know, but I know you say that they are inviting strangers into their home. And I'm certainly not condoning swinging here. And I'm not here to judge them. I'm simply saying, though, so what if you have a dinner party? You have people you don't really know come into your home. I mean, you think you know them.
Anyway, let me let Maddox (ph) here speak out.
MADDOX: I think the key word is, they have suffered. They have suffered. And would the prosecutor -- the defending attorney perhaps been better accepting of them had they been nuns and priests in the home?
(CROSSTALK) CHASTAIN: Well, but the point is, if you are of low moral character, you let other people of low moral character in your home. And can you be surprised?
JARVIS: What exactly is the definition of low moral character?
(CROSSTALK)
NEVILLE: Guys. Guys. Guys.
(CROSSTALK)
CHASTAIN: ... bringing other people to your bed with your daughter in the next room? That's low character.
NEVILLE: Jane, Jane Chastain, this is not the Jane Chastain show right now, Jane Chastain.
BOULEY: Beat 'em, Arthel. Get her, girl. Shake your head.
NEVILLE: OK, we are going to move forward.
Up next: Eminem. If everyone is complaining about the lyrics, who is buying the album? We're back for more of "Free-For-All Friday" right here on TALKBACK LIVE.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
NEVILLE: All right, everybody, welcome to TALKBACK LIVE.
Rapper Eminem's new C.D., "The Eminem Show," sold more than one million copies in its first week. He has been called the other ambitious blond, as well as a lot of names unmentionable, for his outrageous lyrics. He enjoys a stream of critics, whose rants against him Eminem just seem to fuel the artist's popularity.
All right, let's clip it before he starts rapping, before he says anything, we better clip it while I'm safe.
Hey, listen, anybody on this panel surprised -- Karel, I'm going to let you answer first -- anybody surprised that his C.D. is flying off the shelves?
BOULEY: Oh, not at all, not at all. Controversy sells.
And kids love it. My 14-year-old nephew Jake adores Eminem. And I'm forced and endured to listen to him in my vehicle when Jake is with me. And I just look at him. I go: "You don't buy all this, right? You don't believe him?" And he's like, "Nah, we just" -- you know, kids sort of just think, "Ah, he's just doing whatever."
If it's an act, if Eminem is an act, it's time to get a new one. And if it's not an act, then it's time to go away, because there's just so much else going on. And he's no longer an angry young white guy. He's wealthy. He's rich.
NEVILLE: Steve, what do you say?
MALZBERG: I got to say, I'm bursting here. The liberals are such hypocrites.
The liberals that sit in the audience at the MTV Awards with their little red ribbons on in support, and the first ones who would bash the church or bash the conservative talk show host for saying, "I disagree with the gay lifestyle," they are up there worshiping at the feet of this guy, who says, "Is he a fag or a les? Kill him. Hit him in the head. Stab him." And they love him. They are such hypocrites, the liberals.
I can't stand it. This guy has the right to sing and make records if he can. But no record company has to -- he doesn't have a right to have his stuff published or put out there. I don't know why they do it. They do it for money. But, if those same liberals that hate the church and hate conservatives would tell their kids, "You're not listening to this homophobic garbage," nobody would be buying his records.
NEVILLE: I'm going to let Scott here -- Scott, first of all, do you mind telling me how old are you?
SCOTT: I'm 20.
NEVILLE: OK, so what do you think about this?
SCOTT: I'm actually really kind of getting sick of the older people and younger people -- I remember when 2 Live Crew first came out down in Miami and there was kind of was a big hoopla over that.
If you don't like it, turn it off. It's ridiculous. If I want to listen to something, I'm going to listen to it.
BOULEY: Well, that's absolutely true.
In fact, as a voting member of the academy of NARAS, when all that went on here with Eminem and Elton John -- who was obviously needing to be seen that year, which is why he consented to be on the Grammys -- I didn't go that year. And it wasn't because -- it's just like, you know what? I chose not to be involved in that controversy. And you're right. You don't like it, don't buy it.
But you also have to remember, there are 15-year-olds walking around saying, "Smack my bitch up" or whatever the case may be. And we have got to wonder: Why?
NEVILLE: Karel, you were waiting to say that, weren't you?
(LAUGHTER)
BOULEY: No.
NEVILLE: Let me get -- was it Jared? Jared. Hey, Jared.
JARED: Hi. I just wanted, well, first of all, the C.D. is really good.
NEVILLE: And you know what? Listen, somebody might get mad at me. Look, you listen to what you want to. But Dr. Dre lays down some phat tracks. He does.
JARED: And if all his critics would leave him alone, this C.D. would not have anywhere as near much impact. Half of this C.D. is him yelling at his critics and telling them how hypocritical they are.
NEVILLE: You're right. You are absolutely right. You're absolutely right.
BOULEY: Oh, yes, sure. The media and the music critics have created Eminem and the controversy.
(CROSSTALK)
MALZBERG: Well, why do you let your kid listen to him? Don't you have parental control? You're here trashing him and say your nephew or your kid, whatever you said before, listens to him all the time.
(CROSSTALK)
NEVILLE: Jane, do you have any thoughts on this one?
CHASTAIN: Some critics are calling him brilliant. And I don't understand what's so brilliant about stringing a lot of four-letter words together. To me, it shows the guy has a limited vocabulary.
NEVILLE: But, Jane, seriously, Jane, Jane, have you heard any of his C.D.s?
CHASTAIN: I have heard enough.
NEVILLE: You haven't? So, the answer is no, right, Jane? I'm not trying to...
(CROSSTALK)
JARVIS: I don't think you are going to sell Jane on Eminem.
(CROSSTALK)
NEVILLE: Jane, it's Arthel. But that's OK.
But, seriously, honestly, I'm not -- I have to say that, if you haven't heard his C.D.s, you need to listen to it. Because if you just hear a piece here, a piece there, then you really don't know what you're talking about.
JARVIS: Arthel, you are not going to make that sales job, Arthel. It's not going to happen.
CHASTAIN: I don't think I'm going to do that, Arthel. BOULEY: Jane, I will gladly send you all of my copies. I have them all. And I will gladly send you them.
CHASTAIN: Oh, no, don't bother. Don't bother.
MALZBERG: Why do you have them? That's what I don't understand. Why do you have them?
BOULEY: I'm a music critic. I work for "Billboard" magazine. I have them because they send them. I haven't bought them. But I certainly can't ignore him. He is a force in the music industry.
MALZBERG: You could throw them out.
BOULEY: Oh, believe, me I haven't digitized them.
NEVILLE: Steve, have you heard any of his C.D.s?
MALZBERG: "Slim Shady," yes. That's what I'm saying. ""Is he a fag or a les? Kill him. Stab him in the head." Yes, I heard it.
(CROSSTALK)
JARVIS: You don't like it. You don't have to live it.
NEVILLE: Hang on.
Steve...
MALZBERG: Yes?
NEVILLE: We are going to have to work on that rhythm thing.
(LAUGHTER)
BOULEY: He could use some of Dr. Dre's phat tracks.
NEVILLE: Before we go, I think I have enough time to get -- I think it's Tony from Texas.
Go ahead, Tony.
CALLER: Yes. I just believe that Eminem is getting a lot of heat because he's white. He's not the only rapper who makes these type of comments.
NEVILLE: OK, so you are saying, by us talking about him, we are helping sell C.D.s for him.
BOULEY: Oh, sure.
NEVILLE: Tony is gone.
BOULEY: Yes, the only bad press is no press at all.
NEVILLE: I know. Isn't that too bad, though? MALZBERG: And I don't like those blue or pink M&Ms. I think it ruins the whole integrity of the pack.
(LAUGHTER)
BOULEY: Stick with the red and green.
(CROSSTALK)
CHASTAIN: He said he doesn't want his daughter to listen to his C.D.s and yet he used her occasionally to put on his tracks.
(BELL RINGING)
NEVILLE: All right, that's the bell.
Jane Chastain, Karel Bouley, Steve Malzberg, Jason Jarvis, now, aside from that one little bit, you all have been a really good panel. And I want the four of you to come back together again, OK?
BOULEY: You got it, Arthel, any time.
(CROSSTALK)
NEVILLE: All right.
And, everybody else, stay right there. We have a little -- I don't like the word gossip, but we have a little sexy news to tell you about after this. Oh, you do not want to miss this.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
NEVILLE: OK, welcome back, everybody.
All right, J.Lo reportedly is solo. A source tells the Associated Press she and husband, Cris Judd, have split. No plans yet for a divorce, but according to Cindy Adams of PageSix.com, Jennifer Lopez has reunited with old flame Puffy, P. Diddy.
On the phone with us now is Jamie Foster Brown, publisher of "Sister 2 Sister" magazine. And, as always, Jamie has the juice.
Jamie?
JAMIE FOSTER BROWN, PUBLISHER, "SISTER 2 SISTER": How you doing?
NEVILLE: I'm fine. What's going on? What did you find out?
BROWN: Well, I have called Puffy's people. And they don't want to comment on it at all, not at all.
But the rumor has always been that they really have -- they really, really love each other. Puffy was devastated when they broke up. The lawsuit that went against Puffy during that time that Jennifer at the club, the New York club, really put a strain on their relationship. NEVILLE: Because, Jamie, if I can jump in there, I would imagine that J.Lo's people, if you will, the people who are taking care of her P.R. campaign, may have told her to break away from Puffy at that point.
BROWN: Well, they certainly -- they didn't like it. They thought it was really bad. And they didn't feel that she should have been brought out into those kind of clubs in the first place, exposing people with that high celebrity to that -- just to anybody. A lot of times, you don't see artists just hanging around everywhere. They have to be careful where they go.
NEVILLE: That's right.
BROWN: But I have always heard that they have always been in love. Puffy is just -- even when he was with Kim, it was always back and forth between Kim and Jennifer, Kim and Jennifer.
NEVILLE: Right.
Jamie, I want to jump in, because I'm short on time here. But you know what I wanted to say, that, isn't it amazing how the public, public opinion sometimes forces these celebrities -- who are people, too -- to go with the so-called right person?
BROWN: Exactly. Exactly.
And it is very difficult. I have even seen where they have said, "You need to go." They even paid people to go out with a certain celebrity so that they can be seen with that person. It's better for their image. It's better for them.
NEVILLE: That's right.
Jamie Foster Brown -- the current issue of "Sister 2 Sister" magazine, a fabulous story on TLC, on Lisa "Left Eye" Lopes -- thank you so much for joining me here today.
And thanks to our audience and to you at home for watching, too.
Have a great weekend. I'll see you right here again on Monday for more TALKBACK LIVE. And you won't want to miss the rest of the week. On Thursday, I'll talk to the author of a controversial new book claiming Elvis Presley is still alive. "Thank you very much."
Have a very good weekend, everybody.
TO ORDER A VIDEO OF THIS TRANSCRIPT, PLEASE CALL 800-CNN-NEWS OR USE OUR SECURE ONLINE ORDER FORM LOCATED AT www.fdch.com
