The Web     
Powered by
powered by Yahoo!
Return to Transcripts main page


Analysis of Scott Peterson's Murder Case

Aired May 19, 2003 - 21:00   ET


GLORIA ALLRED, ATTORNEY FOR AMBER FREY: It's my opinion that what she has to say in testimony will be very important to the case.


LARRY KING, HOST: Tonight: Scott Peterson's other woman, Amber Frey, hires an attorney. And that attorney, Gloria Allred, is here to discuss her new client's impact on the case. Meanwhile, the search for clues to Laci Peterson's murder continued today in San Francisco Bay amidst word of leaks from the sealed autopsy on Laci Peterson's body and reports of a possible Satanic cult connection. We'll go over it all with Ted Rowlands of KTVU, who's covered the story from the beginning, Court TV's Nancy Grace, a former prosecutor, defense attorney Chris Pixley, Kimberly Guilfoyle Newsom, attorney from San Francisco, and defense attorney Nancy Luque. They're all next on LARRY KING LIVE.

Guess what? We're all in Washington tonight, save for Gloria Allred, who's in Los Angeles, and Ted Rowlands, who's in Richmond, California.

Let's start with Gloria. We've heard you over the past few hours describe why your client needs an attorney. Now, you have no standing in the court. The prosecutor will question her. The defense attorney will question her. There will be objections to questioning. The judge will allow what goes in and what doesn't go in. Why does she need a lawyer?

ALLRED: Well, she needs a lawyer, Larry, for two reasons. One, she is also a victim, and victims are entitled to lawyers. She's a victim of Scott Peterson's deception. In addition, she is a witness. And her testimony, we think, is going to be important. And I -- I think that...

KING: What does she need a lawyer for?

ALLRED: ... it's likely that there will be attacks on her reputation, on her credibility, by those who have other agendas in the press, in anticipation of her testimony. And her reputation is very important to her, and I intend to do everything possible to protect it.

KING: But what can a lawyer do to prevent an attack? If someone's going to attack her tomorrow or someone's going to attack her in a courtroom, what can a lawyer do, other than after the fact?

ALLRED: Well, I mean, there's no way we can prevent an attack, but certainly, we can respond and make sure that the truth is out there on the public record. And that's what I intend to do. I intend to protect my client.

KING: Was she smart, Nancy, to hire a lawyer?

NANCY LUQUE, DEFENSE ATTORNEY: Well, I think it was a good thing for her to do, once she put herself in the public domain and made herself a public figure and made herself somebody everybody's talking about. But you're right, Larry, I mean, there's nothing she can do sitting in the courtroom. And presumably, we'll get to the truth of what this woman has to say in a courtroom and only in a courtroom.

KING: Nancy Grace, does she need a lawyer?

NANCY GRACE, COURT TV: Well, Larry, we have seen Amber Frey come under a lot of attacks since she came forward, even to the extent of certain people suggesting she's responsible for Laci's kidnapping and murder. It's way off the charts! So I definitely think that Gloria Allred, who's handled a lot of high-profile cases, can help in this matter. However, you're right, Gloria will not have standing in that criminal court of law come murder trial time. And Amber Frey will have to take the slings and arrows of the defense, and they will come on cross-exam.

KING: Chris, does Amber Frey need a lawyer?

CHRIS PIXLEY, DEFENSE ATTORNEY: Well, again, you know, the real question is what good comes of having an attorney representing you when you're a witness in a case like this, Larry? I don't really know right now if -- that there's really any reason. We have not heard from this defense team that they are focusing on Amber Frey. Amber was cleared by the police very early on in the case. So it's almost begging the press to come kind of sniffing at your door for more evidence about Amber by hiring an attorney.

KING: What do you think, Kimberly?

KIMBERLY GUILFOYLE NEWSOM, ASST. DISTRICT ATTORNEY, SF: As a prosecutor, I prefer to not have witnesses and victims in cases have attorneys. I think it complicates it. It interferes with the case that you're trying to present. And I don't think it's necessary, per se, in this case, except it's a high-profile case. And I'm sure there's other issues involved.

KING: Ted Rowlands, were you surprised, as layman but a journalist, that she hired a lawyer?

TED ROWLANDS, KTVU-TV: Well, we had heard that this was happening for the last couple weeks. It was in motion. And so, you know, at first, maybe a little bit wondering the same questions that are being asked tonight. But as they were answered at that press conference -- you know, a lot of people have lawyers.

KING: When she called you, Gloria, what did she say she wanted you for?

ALLRED: Well, Larry, you know, as a matter of policy, I would never disclose what any client or even perspective client who wishes to hire me says in any conversation because I always protect their confidentiality. But I will say that, certainly, this has disrupted her life -- that is, her involvement in this case. But what she has done, I think, is very brave and very commendable, the fact she has gone to law enforcement, you know, even before she ever met me or contacted me. From the very beginning, she contacted law enforcement and was there to cooperate in any way that might be helpful to them, in terms of learning information that might be helpful in this case. And I commend her for that.

It's caused a great deal of sacrifice on her part. It'd been burdensome to her life emotionally. There's been press hounding her, harassing her. And I can assure you that she is not going to be doing any interviews prior to trial because we're going to be sure that her testimony is not contaminated.

I want to say this is not the first time I represented a witness in a criminal case. I've represented a number of witnesses in a number of murder cases and am currently doing so. And all of them feel it's best for them and that they need that kind of protection and advice.

KING: Nancy Luque, let me play dumb a minute. I'm over here.


LUQUE: Sorry about that!

KING: You play dumb on that.

LUQUE: I was actually being dumb.

KING: OK. Why is she an important witness? She wasn't a witness to the crime. She may have had an affair with him. That doesn't mean he's a killer. Why is she an important witness?

LUQUE: Well, given the discussion about Scott Peterson, it seems she's kind of the only witness. I mean, the only evidence that they've established, it seems to me, is that Scott Peterson was having an affair, which gives him presumably, or so the story goes...

KING: You mean he's being tried for murder because he had an affair?

LUQUE: Well, it certainly appears to me that all the talk in the public domain, the only thing I hear linking him to any murder is the fact that he had an affair and may have had a motive. So she's become really important for the prosecution.

KING: I have feeling the other Nancy is going to disagree.

GRACE: Well, I totally disagree. I understand where Nancy Luque is coming from. However, remember, Amber Frey's phones were tapped almost at the beginning. Everything that Scott Peterson was saying to her and back will be on tape this jury will hear. Also, according to sources, Scott Peterson contacted her just two days after Laci went missing. And in that phone conversation -- just imagine if you're on the jury hearing this conversation played in the open court -- in the height of the search for Laci Peterson, he's on the phone not mentioning a thing, discussing when they're going to get back together again! Now, true, a defense attorney would argue there's no playbook...

KING: So he's a cad.

GRACE: ... for a grieving husband. But this suggests he is doing anything but trying to find Laci Peterson!

KING: Chris, would you not say that's incriminating? Or certainly casts aspersions on his credibility.

PIXLEY: Well, it does. It's -- you know, but this is the worst kind of evidence in a court of law, Larry.


KING: ... of the stand?

PIXLEY: They'd like to keep her off the stand. I don't know that they're going to be able to do that. California's evidentiary standards regarding relevance are fairly liberal...

GRACE: No way to keep her off the stand!

PIXLEY: But...

LUQUE: But I don't think Mark's going to go after her if she is on the stand. I mean, I would be shocked...

PIXLEY: Oh, but her -- her testimony, though, better have something to say about what happened to Laci Peterson because aside from that, it's just tabloid news. You know, you've got to have some reason for putting Amber Frey on the stand...

KING: Linking her to...

PIXLEY: ... other than the affair. Again, we're talking about...

KING: So the fact that he...

PIXLEY: We're talking about...

KING: He called her when...

PIXLEY: ... a 30-day relationship here.

KING: The fact that he called her when she was missing is immaterial?

PIXLEY: No, the fact that he called her while Laci's missing, if that's true, Larry, and if that's going to...

KING: Nancy, do you know that...


PIXLEY: ... come into evidence...

GRACE: Do I know that...

KING: Do you know that there is a tape recording of him talking to her two days after his wife went missing?

GRACE: Well, I haven't heard the tape, but I know what has been released so far. And let me remind everyone...

KING: Who is that...

GRACE: It's my understanding that Amber's father gave an interview and stated that -- her father.


NEWSOM: ... admitted to talking to Amber after Laci's disappearance.

KING: He did admit it.


NEWSOM: He was on television in an interview with a reporter, stating that he did that.

KING: And how did he explain doing that?

NEWSOM: He talked about saying, that, Well, I called her to just kind of let her know but didn't bring it up right away. And then he got caught in, again, a web of lies, trying to make explanations about whether it was one day after or two days after. And he then moved off the subject and said, Let's just focus on the fact that...

KING: Gloria, is your client...

NEWSOM: ... my wife's missing.

KING: ... very angry at Scott?

ALLRED: Well, I wouldn't characterize it that way. All I'll say is that she is going to testify. She's going to testify fully. She is going to testify truthfully. And I think that -- that she has a lot of credibility. And she just wants justice to prevail in this case.

KING: We'll take a break and be back with more. We'll be including your phone calls, some other aspects of the case, as well. Don't go away.


AMBER FREY, SCOTT PETERSON'S FORMER GIRLFRIEND: I expect that I will be asked to testify in this case, and I am prepared to do so. I don't think it's appropriate to talk about what might be contained in my testimony prior to me being called to the witness stand. Until that time, I just want to lead a normal life and regain my privacy.



KING: Since Gloria Allred is representing one of the witnesses in the case, she can answer other questions pertaining to the case, as a credible defense attorney, which she is. So we'll cover other areas. And when we go to phone calls, any questions you have of Gloria will be accepted.

Ted Rowlands, you're at the site, aren't you, where they're still searching for what?

ROWLANDS: Well, it's a good question, for what. Obviously, they have a plan that they're carrying out here. Today was day four of their search efforts. And this is the first time that we actually saw them pull anything that could be potentially significant from the bay. That doesn't mean that they haven't pulled other items, but this is the first time that we actually saw them go to the edge of the boat, pull out something. And it appeared as though they bagged it. They were very interested in that item. It appeared to be dark in nature. Not sure what it is and wouldn't want to speculate. But they've been concentrating on a couple specific areas here. It just looks like they are carrying out a well-thought-out plan in a search for potential evidence.

KING: Chris Pixley, does this mean the prosecution is concerned they don't have enough now?

PIXLEY: I think so. Definitely. You know, it's good news for the defense that the prosecution is still out in the bay, Larry, because it means the investigation isn't complete. It means that the case hasn't been made. And you know, this is like searching for a needle in a haystack. One of the press reports that just came out today was that the sidescan sonar equipment that's being used here -- one of the operators said, Listen, we have to use that because the visibility down there in the water is less than a foot in front of you. You're feeling around for evidence.

KING: Well, you said they're still looking for evidence, and that -- does that tell you there may be a weakness in the case? Kimberly, an assistant district attorney of San Francisco, nodded yes. Nancy Grace, a former prosecutor, no. So I'll let you go first.

NEWSOM: Well, I mean, I think that -- what I was nodding was the fact that people are criticizing the prosecution. Why are they still looking for evidence, that they've already charged this individual, they don't have a case. But at the same time, I think it is good news, actually, for the defense because they're going to find the truth. And they want all the evidence to determine whether or not, as it looks with the evidence at this point...

KING: So the defense should be happy, then.

NEWSOM: ... Scott Peterson -- absolutely. And no one should be critical of the prosecution. They're doing their job because their job is to find the truth in the matter, whatever the evidence is that it turns up.

KING: Nancy Grace?

GRACE: Well, I'm sure Chris Pixley would love it, as would Mark Geragos, my sparring buddy, if the state would just pack up their bags and all go home and wait for the trial! But that's not the way it works! Larry, I have never quit investigating a murder trial up until the time of closing arguments.

KING: But you've already charged someone. You would think you have all the evidence if you've charged him.

GRACE: No, I would never think that. I would think I have enough evidence to charge and take to a jury. But that doesn't mean I've got all the evidence. And as far as the sidescan sonar technique -- another technique that's being employed -- I don't know if you're familiar with diving or not, but there is only one-foot visibility at the bottom of this bay. And they are down there in what is called the tether technique. They are tethered together, four across, and they are going -- these divers -- and some of them are FBI divers in from New York -- are going on their hands and knees by the feel to see what they can find.

KING: (UNINTELLIGIBLE) for anything, right?

GRACE: We can only speculate as to what they're finding.

KING: Gloria Allred, wear your defense attorney's hat. Is this a good sign for the defense if they're still searching?

ALLRED: Well, I do have to say that I haven't been a defense attorney for many years, and what I am is a victims' rights attorney, at this point. But is it a good sign for the defense? Well, I suppose they're going to, you know, grasp at anything, you know, and hope against hope that there isn't enough to convict their client. It may very well be that they don't need any -- need to find anything in the bay -- that is, the prosecution doesn't -- in order to prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt. Of course, as Nancy has pointed out so ably, they're going to continue their investigation. The police have said there's an ongoing investigation. If they find something, all to the good. If they don't, however, that doesn't mean that's fatal to the prosecution's case.

KING: I see. Nancy Luque, what does it say to you?

LUQUE: It is a fishing expedition, literally and figuratively. They don't have anything linking Peterson to his wife's death. Nothing.


LUQUE: And I want to just finish, Nancy Grace. I think that it is unbelievable -- I mean, you can say you want to investigate. They are dragging the bay for days and days and days. And they wouldn't be doing that unless they were somewhat, I think, desperate. And I think it comes, interestingly enough, on the autopsy, or on the heels of it, which suggests to me that the autopsy doesn't give them much help. Usually, an autopsy will give you lots of interesting information.

KING: In other words, if they're certain, why are they searching?

LUQUE: If -- I'm not saying...


LUQUE: Look, I don't know. Certainty? I don't even think they're close to certainty.

KING: But they charged him.

LUQUE: They have probable cause. He hasn't been formally charged by a grand jury, hasn't been indicted by a grand jury, no preliminary hearing. They have probable cause to believe a crime has occurred and that he has committed it. But come on! Where's the evidence?

KING: That's all they have (UNINTELLIGIBLE)

LUQUE: Where is the evidence? I see no evidence of anything other than an affair.

GRACE: Well, it hasn't been released yet.

LUQUE: Well, you're doing a lot of talking about it!


GRACE: I've got a question for you, Nancy.

LUQUE: You're doing a lot of talking about it, Nancy Grace!

GRACE: Now, if you...

LUQUE: And I haven't heard anything that I think of as solid evidence linking this man to this crime.

GRACE: I have a question for you. If you truly believed that the rest of Laci's remains were at the bottom of that bay -- that is where her body was. That is where Conner's body was. If you truly believed that she had been murdered and that weights or anchors had been used, wouldn't you go, as the prosecutor, and try to find that evidence, whether it linked to Scott Peterson or some other person, to find the truth? Are you saying they should not be doing that?

LUQUE: No. I am saying it shows that they don't have evidence against Scott Peterson. Yes, I would be looking for that, but I'd also be looking for the murderer. I would have an open mind about who did the murder.

KING: Let me get a break, guys. We'll be going to calls shortly. Case boggles the mind. Don't go away.


KING: We're back. Ted Rowlands, you and I have a bond. I got a notice that my conversation with Scott Peterson was intercepted. And I understand now that lawyers representing 11 reporters have filed motions in Modesto to review the tapes. Are you one of the 11?

ROWLANDS: Yes. Indeed. And the motion was filed. The judge put it off until early June, and they will hear those arguments at that time. But the DA's office has said that they're not going fight it, that they don't mind if people come in and just independently listen to what the prosecution thought was interesting enough to hold onto.

KING: Kimberly, what do you make of this defense theory going around about a Satanic cult was responsible?

NEWSOM: Well, I think this case is going to come down to what is reasonable and what's possible or imaginary. I mean, there's no evidence to suggest that there was a Satanic cult operating, in effect, during this time...

KING: Where did that come from?

NEWSOM: In 1990, they had a Satanic cult that was apparently operating in Modesto. So now they're trying to draw a very tenuous, at best, link to that, dating back 10 years ago, and say that perhaps because of this brown van and this mystery woman that that's what happened.

KING: Gloria Allred, Scott's attorneys are upset by disclosures law enforcement had intercepted calls between Scott and his attorney. What do you make of that?

ALLRED: Well, you know, no attorney likes to be eavesdropped on. However, it doesn't appear that that is, in fact, what happened to Kirk McAllister. Apparently, what has happened is, yes, there was an intercept on Scott's phone, not Mr. McAllister's phone, but that as soon as law enforcement identified the voice on the other line as being his attorney, there was no monitoring of the actual telephone conversation. So in other words, they didn't listen in to it.

So the defense is apparently pretty upset, but they don't have anything to be upset about, if, in fact, law enforcement reports and district attorney's reports are true that there was no listening in on the conversation that he, in fact, had with his attorney.

KING: Chris, Mark Geragos said that it's unfathomable that in this year 2003, any law enforcement agency would listen to conversations between a client and an attorney. Do you think they listen further than they say?

PIXLEY: Well, you're relying on the person that's flipping the switch when they realize that it's a conversation between counsel and their client. I would agree with Mark. I think that it's -- it would be so unusual and so actionable for the prosecution to listen in.

KING: Wouldn't a zealous prosecutor do that, Nancy Grace?

GRACE: Well, I've handled many wiretaps in the past, and the police are actually the ones that are sitting there monitoring, and not the prosecutor. And furthermore, those tapes are then transcribed. The attorneys have a right to listen to each and every one. So if you're trying to suggest some frame-up where they try to listen in on attorneys' conversations, you've got to believe that not only did they listen in illegally, but then they erased the tape and then altered the transcript so the attorney would never find out.

KING: It's not a frame-up. I mean, just to listen is immoral, to listen -- wiretapping a lawyer...

GRACE: Wiretaps...

KING: ... talking to a client is immoral.

GRACE: And it violates...

KING: Illegal and immoral.

GRACE: ... the attorney-client privilege. But the goal of this is to bring evidence into the courtroom. And even if that had been monitored, it would never come into court because of the attorney- client privilege. That's the end goal.

LUQUE: Number one, John Ashcroft has issued an executive order that he can listen to attorneys talking to their clients, which is...

KING: In terror matters, right?

LUQUE: I believe it's 2002. Certain issues. And I think it's gone on a lot more than we know. And number two, these guys do listen. And I would insist that these guys be put under oath. They could have turned off the tape recorder. It's called minimization. I would bring them in, and I'd want to hear.


GRACE: ... gone into the courtroom!

LUQUE: Number two, you can put on privileged information if you can prove certain elements, which the government can go to the judge in a sealed affidavit and say...

NEWSOM: But there has to be some kind of crime...

LUQUE: Crime fraud. NEWSOM: ... fraud deception. But in this case, it's just -- it's not going to come in. If it inadvertently was taped, it's not coming into evidence.


LUQUE: But that's not the issue.

ALLRED: Larry, everybody...

LUQUE: The issue is whether...

ALLRED: Larry, everybody...

KING: All right, Gloria. Go ahead.

ALLRED: Yes. Everybody should be clear, John Ashcroft has nothing do with this case. This is a case that is being prosecuted -- it's -- people versus Scott Peterson is being prosecuted by the district attorney of Stanislaus County, Mr. Brazelton, and his deputies. And John Ashcroft has nothing to do with it.

KING: Is he going to -- are they going to go to the grand jury, Chris? Are they going to try for a grand jury indictment?

PIXLEY: Yes. We've been talking about this earlier and in past shows. I think the prosecution will definitely go for a grand jury indictment.

KING: What's the difference between a direct information indictment and a grand jury indictment?

PIXLEY: Well, first of all...


PIXLEY: ... the prosecution doesn't have to make their case public. You know, this goes on in secret. There's no cross examination that will go on by the defense. The defense won't even be present. So -- and again, I mentioned this in the last show. But Larry, I think, from a perception standpoint, the public believes that an indictment means that this guy is guilty. It means something. They don't understand how easy it is to come by an indictment.

KING: You can indict a ham sandwich, right? That's the old joke.

GRACE: Well, you know, that's funny you'd say that because I've never seen a ham sandwich taken to trial. And that's always thrown out when a defense attorney doesn't want to talk about the fact...

KING: Have you seen a prosecutor refused an indictment?

GRACE: Yes, I have. I've also seen a grand jury nolo or get rid of an indictment...


KING: How common is that?

GRACE: ... throw it out. It's very uncommon because prosecutors normally have a case when they take it to a grand jury. And the reason the defense wants a preliminary hearing instead of a grand jury indictment is because then they can go fishing! In other words, every witness the state puts up at preliminary hearing, they've got a right to cross-examine them until they're blue in the face! Not so at grand jury.

LUQUE: That is absolutely not true. Blue in the face? Your right to cross-examine at a preliminary hearing is curtailed. Moreover, it's to test the evidence. In a grand jury, the evidence isn't tested because the grand jury will do whatever the prosecutor asks it to do. And more importantly, the prosecutor gets to choose what evidence goes before the grand jury and won't put exculpatory evidence in there.

KING: Kimberly, what is the defense entitled to know about the prosecution's case?

NEWSOM: Well, they're entitled to know everything. They're entitled to all...

KING: Everything? Every witness, every person?

NEWSOM: They're entitled to have absolutely everything turned over. If the prosecution fails to turn over evidence, that evidence can be suppressed and the prosecution can be barred from using it in court. They get everything -- every piece of paper (UNINTELLIGIBLE) psychics calling in. All that has to be documented. All that has to be turned over. And that's why those things are in the report.

KING: Ted, what's -- where is it standing now on the autopsy report?

ROWLANDS: Well, it's been turned over presumably to the defense and to the prosecution. The Satanic cult stuff is coming out of that autopsy report a little bit, in that the defense is -- sources with the defense team have let out that the body was without the hands and the feet and the head. And also that some internal organs were missing, that according to the arrest warrant and the autopsy report. People are connecting the dots there. But there's nothing that says that they were removed forcibly, and the prosecution's quick to point out that they could have and they believe came off naturally.

KING: We're going to take a break, and I'll reintroduce the panel and we're going to go to your phone calls. Tomorrow night, Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. Don't go away.


KING: We're back. We're going to go to your phone calls and you can ask questions of individuals on the panel or the entire panel. The panel is: in Los Angeles, Gloria Allred, the attorney for Amber Frey, the woman who admitted to having had an affair with Scott Peterson.

In Richmond, California, is Ted Rowlands of KTVU. He's been covering this from the beginning. He is, by the way, at the site of the Richmond shoreline on which the remains of Laci and her unborn son were found on different days last month.

Here in Washington, Nancy Grace, anchor for "Trial Heat" on Court TV and a former prosecutor.

Chris Pixley, defense attorney.

Kimberly Guilfoyle Newsom, assistant district attorney, San Francisco.

And Nancy Luque, defense attorney.

And we'll go to your calls. Beaconsfield, Quebec, hello.

CALLER: Well, hello to your panel.

This question is for Nancy Grace. Nancy, I really enjoy your contributions to the discussions.

GRACE: Thank you.

CALLER: I understand that there is concerns about finding an unbiased jury for this trial. I would like to know if in the state of California one can be tried by a judge alone and if so, how would the defense team feel about this?

GRACE: Yes, you're absolutely correct. I expect that Mark Geragos will try to get a change of venue due to the excitement, the emotions there in the area.

KING: When can a judge try it by himself? It's a -- defense asks for that, right?

GRACE: They call it a bench trial, and in a lot of jurisdictions, both side have to agree to it. However, in many jurisdictions, the defense alone can have a bench trial. I do not think that Mark Geragos will ask for a bench trial in this case. He's got a better chance with 12 than with one.

KING: Chris, the prosecution can't ask for it, though, right? Only the defense can ask for it.

PIXLEY: That's right.

KING: Right?

PIXLEY: That's right.

KING: And when do you go to the judge? When -- as when as a defense attorney do you want the judge only to hear your case?

PIXLEY: Well, you want the judge -- you could want the judge in a case like this, Larry, where, you know, you've got all of this publicity, all of this media excitement about the case and high emotions, especially emotions running high in the Modesto area.

But I -- but for the most part, that's not going to be the situation here. You want a bench trial when you think a reasonable mind should rule the day, when you're concerned about the type of evidence that is coming out from the prosecution.

KING: Versailles, Kentucky, hello.

CALLER: Hi, Larry.

My question is for Nancy Grace. Nancy, you're great. I'd like to ask you why you feel it is important for Mark Geragos to create a theory that Scott Peterson is not guilty of the deaths of his wife and unborn son?

GRACE: Well, of course the defense, under our constitution, does not have to put up anything in front of the jury.

However, I think that Mark Geragos will present the jury with some type of explanation. But hold on, check the weather outside, because so far there have been several theories advanced by the defense so far, and we haven't even selected the jury.

First of all, Mark claimed the police investigation was voodoo police.

He secondly said there was a mystery woman that could exonerate his client. He's forgotten about that.

Now there are credible suspects that will clear Scott.

Forget that. We're now focusing on a brown van in the area and a Satanic cult.

KING: Is that good lawyering?

GRACE: Heck, no. Not at this point because and -- Mark, don't get mad, wherever you are -- because if you put it out there in the media, and this jury has heard it, if you commit yourself to a -- if you commit yourself to a Satanic cult defense this far in advance -- you don't even know all the state's evidence. Your defense must rise to the state's evidence and counter it.

KING: Gloria, you're in the Los Angeles bar. How good is Geragos?

ALLRED: Well, I mean, I think he's an experienced lawyer.

But having said that, you know, this case is not about Mark Geragos and the defense team's hyperactive imagination. It is about Laci and it's about Connor. And that's what we need to focus on. KING: Nancy?

LUQUE: I think it's not clear who has a hyperactive imagination here -- whether it is the people who are putting Scott Peterson in jail before he's had a fair trial, getting rid of reasonable doubt, or if it's these very sources floating defenses.

We don't know Mark Geragos is floating those defenses. We don't know where they're coming from.

I mean, the other problem is he has to -- he went into a case where he has to refute people sitting in shows like this, out the window is the presumption of innocence., something that is so critical to our system and it keeps us from being, like, Red China for God's sake -- out the window is any sort of notion of fairness. He has to get out something quickly.

KING: Is the good prosecutor concerned about fairness? Or is it -- let's be honest -- winning?

NEWSOM: Larry, of course they're concerned about fairness. I mean, the job of a prosecutor is to seek truth and for justice, regardless of the results, right, to -- if the case is not there and the evidence is not there, then you get rid of the case. And that's the bottom line.

KING: Chris is smiling.

NEWSOM: I know, because he's a defense lawyer. He's jaded.

KING: You don't believe prosecutors are to be fair?

PIXLEY: I don't believe that they carry the mantle of truth and justice with them. I mean, that's part of the problem we have when we have discussions and the press really sees this -- especially of late, on this idea that prosecutors are the good guys and defense attorneys are somehow, you know, the smart guys that do the tricky lawyering that get guilty people off. And that's simply not the case.

You know, Nancy Luque makes a wonderful point. When we prosecute somebody in the press the way that we've done here, as a defense team, you know, the assumption of innocence is out the window. Whether it's a dangerous tactic or not, you have got to step forward and come up with an alternative theory. It's not enough to say it is a tragedy and mystery and we don't know what happened but you've got the wrong guy.

KING: I'm assuming the prosecution believes he's guilty or they wouldn't prosecute him.

PIXLEY: Well, the prosecution has probable cause at this point and time.

But also, Larry, again, this is such a public case. They don't want to be the Boulder police department. They don't want to be the Boulder D.A. that couldn't take action in a case. This is not the best case. It's not one that would go to trial if it weren't this public.

KING: Gloria and then Ted. Gloria?

ALLRED: Larry, let's just always note, of course, that presumption of innocence is something that applies in a court of law. In a court of public opinion, people can reach whatever conclusions they want to reach.

KING: Of course.

ALLRED: So the people need to understand that. They're free to draw their own conclusions.


ALLRED: They may be correct or not correct. But -- and Mark Geragos is going to get out there and he's going to be an advocate for his client and, you know, he'll say and do whatever he thinks he has to say and do. But as long as he doesn't try to destroy anyone else, then he can do that.

KING: Nancy, if you're come to a conclusion, you can't serve on the jury, right?

GRACE: That's absolutely correct and...

KING: One way or the other.

GRACE: Another issue regarding the various defense theories that have already been floated, they were all floated from the defense camp and Geragos. These are direct quotes from press conferences. So these are not...

PIXLEY: The satanic cult is not a direct quote from any press conference. I asked Geragos about it today and he had no comment.

GRACE: And he refused today refute it. And it is from defense sources and they have not refuted it.

KING: Ted, do you think the media has been fair? I know you're a member of the media. Judge yourself. Has this been fair?

ROWLANDS: Well, you know, to be honest with you, for four months, all when he was what the prosecution was really floating and the facts, and that was that Scott Peterson was arrested and then now since Geragos has entered the fray, there is someone now speaking on Peterson's behalf. So I think that -- I don't think it was a question of being fair or not. I think it was a question of reporting what we knew and now we know more.

KING: We'll be back with more, more of your phone calls for this panel on this edition of LARRY KING LIVE.

Don't go away. (COMMERCIAL BREAK)

KING: Let's go back to the calls. Frederick, Maryland, hello.

CALLER: Hi, Larry. My call is for any of your panel.

Back in February, well before Laci's body was found, the case was classified as a missing person and changed to a homicide. What kind of evidence could investigators possibly have had to make that change without a body? Would there have been -- had to have been -- some kind of physical evidence possibly obtained from the Peterson home or some type of other evidence?

KING: Good question. Kimberly?

NEWSOM: It is interesting. The date was March 25, I believe, that this was reclassified as a homicide. And notice after the fact we found -- I was wondering that myself -- that they supposedly identified what they thought was Laci's body and Connor's body in the water but they were unable to retrieve it. It was during that time frame maybe that was part of the fabric that led them to think this was not just a missing person case.

KING: Is that correct, Ted?

ROWLANDS: I think another factor, too, that was going into that is that they were ready to proceed with an arrest, without the body. And in order to do that, they had to establish that Laci was murdered and by doing that with this reclassification, where they were going through all the things this woman -- there was no other plausible explanation for her being missing this long.

And I think that also was a marker for them as they went forward. Their plan was to go forward with an arrest, without this body.

KING: Oahu, Hawaii, hello.

CALLER: This call is for Gloria or anyone on the panel who would like to comment.

Do you think it is odd that Amber Frey does not want to be in the public eye yet she's had an amazing makeover since her first press conference.

KING: Everyone was talking about that today, Gloria -- the makeover of Amber Frey. Why?

ALLRED: I don't think it was a makeover. She simply had her hair down today instead of up. But, no, she wants people to know -- she wants the press in particular to know she does not wish to do any interviews. She's received many, many calls on a daily basis. It's been very disruptive to her life. People have sometimes come to her work and other places to try to interview her.

So this is today, the day that we said, "Look, she's not going to be doing interviews for money or not for money. She is only going to be testifying in the court law -- truthfully." And that's what she wanted people to know.

KING: Kimberly you were ...

NEWSOM: Her hair color is different. I think she's had a complete makeover. It's like an Oprah Winfrey makeover like they do on that show. I mean, she looks so good, she almost looks as good as Gloria. Really. Think about it.

KING: Was it a makeover, Nancy?

GRACE: Sure. Of course she had a makeover.

KING: What do you make of it?

GRACE: I make nothing of it because the woman is going to have a national press appearance where she faces the press. She may or may not answer questions. Why not have a makeover? You could take every lady out of every salon and indict her with felony makeover. No problem.

KING: It is obvious, Nancy Luque, she didn't do anything wrong.

LUQUE: Amber?

KING: Amber. She's a total ...

LUQUE: Probably not but ...

KING: What you to mean probably?

LUQUE: I don't know. I mean this is just like everything else. We don't know everything that has gone on yet.

ALLRED: I do know and I want to make it very clear that she is a witness, an important witness as far as I can discern in this case. She is not a suspect. The police do not think of her as a suspect. They made that clear at the news conference she did previously at the police department. And there is no way the police department is going to do a news conference with somebody who is a suspect. So she is clear.

KING: Nancy, were you implying she was a suspect?

LUQUE: No, absolutely not. I'm just not sure exactly what her role is or her motives are or anything else. It will become clear.

ROWLANDS: She doesn't have a good role in the case. That's the problem with ...

ALLRED: (UNINTELLIGIBLE) what her role is ...

ROWLANDS: Amber Frey. Again, unless she has something very relevant to say about the cause of the disappearance or any of the evidence in this case, her testimony really isn't all that valuable. The idea, too, that a 30-day relationship is going to be the motive for a murder is a really weak prosecutorial ploy. GRACE: I think it is great use as a witness, and I think it boils down to this. The week before Laci went missing, reports are that he told Amber, "You know what? I'm not just single. My wife is dead."

And the next week, boom, she is dead.

Unless Mark Geragos can establish a pattern of clairvoyance on Scott Peterson's part, he is in a heap of trouble. This week my wife is dead, the next week she is. If that's true, Amber Frey can testify to that.

KING: This is going to see ridiculous then, but would it be a good defense for him, Kimberly, to introduce 11 other women he had affairs with, all of whom he told his wife was dead, and never killed his wife with those 11?

LUQUE: That's next week -- the bon vivant cat around town with ...

Well, he suggested (UNINTELLIGIBLE) I'm going to Maine, then to Belgium and said that he wanted to be with her and elope. So 30 days, I don't think so. He was acting a lot more involved, picking up her child, taking pictures with the family.

LUQUE: I'm just not sure you can use an affair as a motive for a man killing his unborn child. That is something that is inconceivable to most people no matter how many affairs.

KING: Even if it (UNINTELLIGIBLE) lies and your wife is dead and all -- as Nancy points out -- that's still immaterial?

LUQUE: Well, I think that's -- you know -- people say things and I'm not sure that's evidence of anything.

KING: All right. Hemit, California, hello.

CALLER: Hello.

KING: Hello. Go ahead. Speak up.

CALLER: Hi, Larry. Did anyone on the panel see the interview with Amber Frey's father, where he said Scott had told him that his wife had been dead for a year?

KING: Nancy Grace pointed that out earlier, yes.

KING: Well, Gloria, before we go to break, she's an important witness in your opinion. Why?

ALLRED: Well, I think she has a lot of information about Mr. Peterson that will be relevant.

KING: But none about his wife or her death?

ALLRED: Well, I think it is going to be for the district attorney to decide what is put on and what is not put on and what she may have to say and how that may contribute to their theory of the case.

KING: They will use her to build a theory of the case. Is that right, Nancy?

ALLRED: Well, no. I think they have a theory of the case.

GRACE: Hey, Gloria, you and I both agree the state is under no duty to prove motive to this jury. But I think that Amber Frey, and her relationship with Peterson, gives somewhat of a motive to a jury.

How many times, Gloria, have you and I seen a domestic homicide go down, and lurking in the background is the man's desire to be free, to be with another woman? It may not be the motive but is a motive to present to a jury.

KING: How about divorce?

GRACE: I said that a million times. When will domestic -- exactly -- I'm not saying murder is the alternative to divorce.

KING: We'll be back with our remaining moments. Some more phone calls as well.

Don't go away.


KING: We're back. San Jose, California, hello.

CALLER: Yes, hello, Larry. My question is for the attorneys on the panel. When this trial starts, if some more evidence related to Laci or related to this case washes ashore, at what point during the trial can the prosecution no longer introduce that evidence?

KING: Good question.

Nancy Grace.

GRACE: It is covered by a doctrine called newly discovered evidence. And the prosecutor must be able to show to a judge, this is hearing outside the juries presence, they had no knowledge of this evidence prior to that moment and that they had brought it forward as soon as they can and delivered it to the defense and it can and will come in.

KING: Nancy Luque, should they ask for a speedy trial, the defense?

LUQUE: No. Speedy trials are almost never in your client's interest.

KING: Really -- even if you think they haven't got all the evidence?

LUQUE: Even if you think that and I'm sure Marc thinks that.

KING: Niagara Falls, Ontario, hello.

CALLER: My question is for anyone on the panel. Everyone is talking about.

KING: Hello.

CALLER: Hello.

KING: Yes, go ahead.

CALLER: Everyone is talking about physical evidence, can Scott Peterson be convicted on only circumstantial, somewhat like the Michael Skakel trial that just happened?

KING: Well, all trials unless there is an eyewitness is circumstantial, right?

NEWSOM: Sure. Circumstantial evidence has the same force and effect as direct evidence in the court of law. There are jury instructions that specify that. So, it doesn't matter if the entire case is circumstantial.


KING: They don't have to show, Chris, how she was killed?

PIXLEY: No, they don't have to. But the defense is going to point out that's a major problem in the case.

ALLRED: I would also differ with Nancy originally who said that it is never in the defense's interest to push for a speedy trial. That is exactly what occurred in the case of people versus O.J. Simpson, the defense had a strategy of pushing for a speedy trial. And that may have been one of the things that helped them in the ultimate result.

GRACE: It really did. And then it back fired, you're right, Gloria. Nancy Grace here. You're right about O.J. But it back fired in the David Westerfield trial. They asked for a speedy and he ended up with the death penalty. I think you're right. I do not think there will be a speedy demand here. Geragos has to got prepare for two trials. One guilt innocence phase and, two if there is a conviction, the death penalty phase.

ALLRED: The name for the defense is delay, delay, delay.

KING: But your client is in jail while you're delaying.

ALLRED: That's true but he's not convicted and not dead.

KING: Destin, Florida, hello.

CALLER: I would like to ask Chris why does he think Amber Frey hired a private investigator to follow Scott Peterson after she had only dated him 21 days. The report says they dated for three weeks.

Don't you find that strange, Chris?

PIXLEY: That they would hire a private investigator.

KING: Did she hire a private investigator?

PIXLEY: Again, there is so much press coverage here and so many different reports out there. This is one I don't...

KING: Gloria did your client hire a private investigator.

ALLRED: I wouldn't have any comment on that at this time.

KING: I mean, is it a fact or not a fact, did she hire a private investigator?

ALLRED: Well, I wouldn't have any comment on


GRACE: These are rumors Frey suspected Peterson was married and she asked one of her friends to find out. Now, any woman in her right mind that suspect her boyfriend was married would try to find out.

LUQUE: Why didn't she just ask him?

GRACE: Because obviously he lied.

LUQUE: Maybe she didn't ask and went right to the investigator.

PIXLEY: I think one of the problems we face with all of the press coverage and all of these different reports is we have a tendency to do the weight test. We don't know what the evidence is. But we kind of do what prosecutor or what college professors always accused of doing, of just weighing the papers and saying this one is heavier, it is an a, this one is less, it is a b. Nancy has said, hundreds of documents, hundreds of pieces of evidence were taken out of this man home. Scott Peterson's home. And that is some how is evidence of guilt. It's absolutely evidence of nothing. Three search warrants being executed in this home means...

GRACE: I said evidence was taken to the (UNINTELLIGIBLE) unit, which suggests to me there would be DNA from the home.

PIXLEY: Yes, evidence...


PIXLEY: ... and they've executed three search warrants.


PIXLEY: I'm not contesting that. When there are three search warrants executed in this home, Nancy, it could mean they're zeroing in on their man. It could mean that they're coming up empty handed. KING: What Kimberly is the preliminary hearing on May 27 when this panel will next gather?

NEWSOM: Well, this is going be to preliminary -- actually a pretrial conference and they'll set preliminary hearing date or like we discussed, we believe the...

KING: Pretrial conference to establish what?

NEWSOM: Well, they are going to have whatever discussion issues they want to bring up. They're going to set a preliminary hearing or decide whether or not they'll proceed by the way of grand jury indictment. I think it will be the latter.

KING: Is Scott Peterson grant any interviews in jail, Ted, to your knowledge?

ROWLANDS: I've been asking Mr. Geragos' people that and at this point no. But I'm putting my name first in line if he does.

KING: Are his parents going to come forward, Ted, do you think?

ROWLANDS: His parents?

KING: Yes.

ROWLANDS: They've been doing a little bit of talking, but mainly they're just sort of letting Mark do the talking, when he's in Modesto, and that's it. They haven't really had too much to say. They seem very happy with the way Mark is handling it. And he's only talking when he's in Modesto and really been guarded as to his availability.

KING: Gloria, only a minute. Is the next time we'll see your client when she's in court?

ALLRED: That very well may be the case. She certainly will not be doing any interviews prior to that time.

KING: So unless you spot her on the street, your not going to see her publicly, no more news conferences.

ALLRED: That's exactly right.

KING: OK. Was this a good day for the prosecution -- Chris.

PIXLEY: Every day has been a good day for the prosecution and the press, Larry.

KING: You agree with that Nancy?

GRACE: Well, especially when the defense floats so many different inconsistent theories. That is a good day for the prosecution.

NEWSOM: Yes, they are turning it into a Stephen King novel with the whole satanic.

LUQUE: Bad day for the prosecution, watching them troll through the bay. That's not good.

KING: Thank you, all very much. Gloria Allred, attorney for Amber Frey.

Ted Rowlands, reporter for KTVU.

Nancy Grease -- Nancy Grease, got you in a new play. Nancy Grace, anchor for "Trial Heat."

Chris Pixley, defense attorney.

Kimberly Guilfoyle Newsom.

And Nancy Luque.

And I'll be back in a little -- a couple of moments to tell you about tomorrow night. Thanks for joining us panel. We'll be right back.


KING: Tomorrow night, a fascinating hour with Robert F. Kennedy Jr. who talks about his family, the deaths of his uncle and his father. Robert F. Kennedy Jr. tomorrow night.


International Edition
CNN TV CNN International Headline News Transcripts Advertise With Us About Us
   The Web     
Powered by
© 2005 Cable News Network LP, LLLP.
A Time Warner Company. All Rights Reserved.
Terms under which this service is provided to you.
Read our privacy guidelines. Contact us.
external link
All external sites will open in a new browser. does not endorse external sites.
 Premium content icon Denotes premium content.
Add RSS headlines.