The Web    CNN.com     
Powered by
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
SERVICES
 
 
 
SEARCH
Web CNN.com
powered by Yahoo!
TRANSCRIPTS
Return to Transcripts main page

CNN LARRY KING LIVE

Panel Discusses New Updates in Peterson Case

Aired June 9, 2003 - 21:00   ET

THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.

LARRY KING, HOST: Tonight, what did Scott Peterson say in his wiretapped phone conversations? The conversations the nation is dying to hear. Today his defense got its first look at transcripts of those calls. And what will they find?
Joining us to go over the latest in this constantly developing story, Ted Rolands of KTVU, Court TV's Nancy Grace, the former prosecutor, defense attorney Chris Pixley, renowned forensic psychiatrist Dr. Henry Lee, and high-powered jury consultant Jo-Ellan Dimitrius, plus later, attorney Gloria Allred, trying to stop "Hustler" magazine from publishing nude photos of her client, Scott Peterson's other woman, Amber Frey (ph).

They're all next on LARRY KING LIVE.

And a quick reminder, Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton's first live interview concerning her new book will be on this program tomorrow night.

Ted Rolands, what's the latest? Understand sources have told you about what Scott might have done after Laci's disappearance?

TED ROLANDS, KTVU-TV: Yes, we've had it confirmed from multiple sources on both sides of this investigation that Scott Peterson on a number of occasions went to the San Francisco Bay at different times of the day after Laci was missing. Of course, he was picked up by surveillance, a couple of times he was reported to have been seen there. And then they had that GPS tracker on him, so they were watching his every move.

And obviously, from an investigation standpoint, this raised a red flag, because there would be no plausible explanation of why this individual would be at a fishing -- a place where he went fishing and should have no other significance. So they really took note to that.

The defense admits that, indeed, he did make some trips up there, but they point out he has a sister that lives in Berkeley, and he was using the Bay area as sort of a safe haven to get away from the media. And he knew that police were searching in the bay, and they -- he had been told that that is where they thought Laci was.

So he went there because of those reasons and wanted to monitor the search. So a very interesting development.

KING: Also, Nancy Grace, if he doesn't take the stand, that could never come up, could it?

NANCY GRACE, COURT TV; FORMER PROSECUTOR: Well, the fact that he went back and forth to the location (UNINTELLIGIBLE)...

KING: I mean, how would it come, how would it come up at a trial if he never took the stand in his own defense? Who would be bringing up where he went?

GRACE: Whoever did the surveillance as part of the investigation, it would come in that way. And Larry, this is not a cliche, that very often you will find criminal defendants go back to the scene of the crime. Larry, it's not part of their big plan. It's almost as if they can't help it that they have to go back.

In fact, at the very beginning, when Scott came under suspicion, you and I actually talked about whether he had been seen after the disappearance at Berkeley Marina. It's very typical.

KING: Chris Pixley, what do you make? Is it anything or nothing?

CHRIS PIXLEY, DEFENSE ATTORNEY: I think it's nothing right now, Larry. You know, the fact of the matter is that Scott was arranging search groups to look for Laci up and down the coast. He was as far south as Los Angeles looking for her. And he did know, in fact, that the bay was being searched, so he had reason to go by there. I think the defense's explanation of it for right now is very plausible.

KING: (UNINTELLIGIBLE) I'll bring Henry Lee in and Jo-Ellan in just a minute. But, Ted, there was another report you had today I want to get to about police reporting body parts from three or four people found in a dumpster in Davis, California, some of the body parts basically bones, seemed mummified. What's the relationship?

ROLANDS: Well, the bones were found last Monday -- or placed there, they believe, last Monday or Tuesday. They were found last Tuesday near a dumpster in the city of Davis, which is near Sacramento. And the Yolo County coroner there took those bones into their possession. And for some reason, because of some visual similarities or something, it triggered an investigation to contact the Contra Costa County coroner's office.

Those folks came out and they looked at some of these bones. There were bones -- remains from four different individuals. And something there gave them enough to go ahead and test one set of remains to see if, indeed, it would match up with Laci's Peterson's DNA. So that -- those tests are being done, and that's been confirmed that the Yolo County coroner is working with the Contra Costa County coroner in this to see if, indeed, there is a match there.

And, of course, the defense points out, if there is, boy, their client is presumably not guilty because of the connotations that would go along with that.

KING: Dr. Lee, Catherine Crier of Court TV saw the autopsy photos, and she reported that Laci's remains are in devastating condition, major internal organs, major limbs gone. She reported that baby Conner's remains appear very much intact. What does this tell you forensically?

DR. HENRY LEE, FORENSIC SCIENTIST: Well, that tells us the fetus was somehow protected. Either in body of Laci Peterson, or he, the baby, was separated or wrapped up, protected certain fashion. I -- can I make a comment on the bones? And because those bones apparently have four different people. Some are mummified, some only the bone (UNINTELLIGIBLE) are fresh. So that's create a major issue beside, if not relate to Laci Peterson, more so, some interesting seeing how the bone get there.

If the DNA match Laci Peterson, of course, that going to be a bombshell and really give the defense a lot, a lot of argument.

KING: Jo-Ellan, will it be (UNINTELLIGIBLE) -- jurors are going to have to be looking at all these pictures, right? They're going to see horrible things.

JO-ELLAN DIMITRIUS, JURY CONSULTANT: (UNINTELLIGIBLE)...

KING: Might they need counseling after a trial like this?

DIMITRIUS: Well, certainly, that is done in a lot of high- profile cases, where there is something as horrific as this, that the court would actually bring in social psychologists or clinical psychologists to deal with the jurors if, in fact, they feel they need that additional help.

But I would like to go back to what you were saying originally about Scott going back and forth to the marina. I think what's fascinating is that on one hand the defense can say, Well, he had different parties going out all over the state, and yet when the remains were found, and not yet identified, he didn't come back up from San Diego to go up to see what was going on at that point.

So I think that's a little bit of a problem that the defense would have to deal with.

KING: There've been rumors about the possibility that this GHB, this date rape drug that he might have used that. Have you ever had that in a case, Nancy?

GRACE: Yes, I have. And you will hear a lot of experts suggest, Larry, that it puts you in a twilight sleep, where you kind of know what's going on. I disagree with that anecdotally, because I have had rape victims that are totally out of it, Larry. They wake up the next morning and they would not even know they had been assaulted if they had not woken up without their clothes on.

Then they go to the hospital and find out, yes, in fact, they have had sex. You are totally knocked out. You have no idea what's happening. That's why they are...

And I also disagree with this term, they're using the term, this could have been a soft kill. In my book, no such thing. But if this were used, it would all be able to be proved by his computer records. Of course, Larry, if there are computer records that show he was trying to obtain GHB around the time Laci went missing, there are a million explanations for that he can use. It's got to be more than simply attaining it online.

KING: Chris, do you agree?

PIXLEY: I agree, given all of the assumptions, that it would be very damning evidence if Scott Peterson is in fact found to have been searching for a source of GHB on his computer. But, you know, one of the disturbing things about the suggestion that the police have computer records that indicate GHB might have come up is, that, you know, we all know that when you get onto the Web, any number of things can pop up at any number of times. So until we see the evidence they have...

GRACE: Not true.

PIXLEY: ... I'm not sold on the idea that Scott Peterson is using a date rape...

GRACE: That's not true.

PIXLEY: ... drug on his wife.

GRACE: Larry...

PIXLEY: And again, you know, Nancy, you're going to have to prove real serious sociopathologies here with Scott Peterson...

GRACE: No, you don't.

PIXLEY: ... if, in fact, you want to demonstrate that this is what he was doing. Same with the body being in this horrible...

GRACE: No, you don't.

PIXLEY: ... condition.

GRACE: You don't have to prove why he did anything. He could be a sociopath, for all I know. That's not the state's burden. But regarding GHB, gamma-hydroxybutyrate (ph), that doesn't just pop up on my computer when I log on to Yahoo, and I'm looking something up. A dope dealer doesn't just pop up on my computer and say, This is how you can score illegal drugs, Nancy Grace.

No. You have to go on and log on to certain sites and make a transaction, if, in fact, that is even what is there. So you're suggestion...

KING: I got to...

GRACE: ... it would pop up is impossible.

KING: Let me get a break, and then we'll get to the nonrelease of the autopsy reports, yet they leaked out, and Miss Crier got one. We'll also be including your phone calls. Don't go away.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

KING: Our Ted Rolands, the judge said releasing the autopsy report before trial could hamper the investigation and prejudice public opinion. How?

ROLANDS: Well, the judge pretty much said that nothing changed from the time that the prosecution and the defense wanted everything suppressed. In his eyes, the idea that somebody leaked a little bit of this autopsy report was not enough to justify a reversal in his decision. So he basically said no to the DA. They wanted the entire thing released after these leaks, but the judge said, No, we're just going to keep everything sealed, at least until the preliminary hearing.

And at least that's what we've been led to believe, that, you know, of course, it may be brought up again, but it looks like everything's going to be sealed up until that preliminary hearing.

KING: Nancy, why would the prosecutor want it out?

GRACE: Well, because at this point, at this juncture, portions, slivers of the autopsy report have been released to help the defense, adding fuel to the fire of the satanic cult. Well, Larry, you where I stand on that. I think that should be saved for one night around the campfire, not a court of law.

So the prosecution said, OK, fine, release the whole thing. But I think the judge responded predictably in that that would be allowing the tail to wag the dog. Just because there was an illegal leak, I don't think the judge is going to let that dictate his ruling.

KING: How, Chris, would Miss Crier have gotten that leak?

PIXLEY: Well, it's really interesting, Larry. You know, I think there are so many different sources of information at this point in time. There are, of course, people that work in the coroner's office, there are people that work in the investigator's office. And as we go down the line, down the road, there are going to be people in the court clerk's office and so forth.

A lot of people that will have access to this information. I was a little upset to hear when that autopsy report or that portion of it was leaked that the DA came out the next day and said they were virtually certain that the defense had leaked it.

If that's how the DA does their investigation, because I'm sure at that point in time, within 24 hours, that they hadn't been able to interview everyone that had access to that document, to suggest the defense had done it, when, in fact, the defense, as we learned on Friday, hasn't even received the entire, or hadn't as of Friday, received the entire autopsy report, I think was jumping the gun. Lot of people have access, though.

KING: Dr. Lee, what is the effect on the public of an autopsy report, which is usually couched in long in medical terms, isn't it?

LEE: Yes, a lot of medical terms. But now even leaked to the public, a lot of people can make copies, and multiple copies. Everybody give a different opinion now. It's not supposed to leak to the public. It's not only, you know, for the family's sake, (UNINTELLIGIBLE) investigation. It's a very difficult thing if things leak out before any conclusion can be reached.

KING: Jo-Ellan, what is the potential effect on jurors?

DIMITRIUS: Oh, it has a tremendous impact. And whoever leaked it, the bottom line is, that information is out there, and I think certainly -- (UNINTELLIGIBLE) -- excuse me, the prosecutors wanted to have that information, the additional information, released so that, you know, both sides were receiving just as much information and media attention.

So I think that it sounds as though the judge is going wait until the prelim to release all that information. But clearly, it places one side at a distinct disadvantage. And that's the problem with media leaks all the way around, is that it always places one side at a distinct disadvantage. And that's why I'm very, very surprised that on Friday, the judge did not issue a gag order.

KING: Yes, about that, Ted Rolands, why no gag order? Everyone was expecting it.

ROLANDS: Well, it still may come. The judge is going to rule on that, and he took everything into consideration. But he definitely has not ruled it out. So that still may be coming. But, of course, as they talk about on this show, the prevailing theory is that a gag order really doesn't have a lot of effects, because people violate the gag order, especially people around the inner circle, the folks that do have some of the information but not all of it.

And I know that the defense team argued in court that the right thing to do is to have no gag order, so that you at least get some accurate information out, tainted as it is.

GRACE: Hey, Larry...

KING: Nancy Grace, if there's a gag order, that means neither the prosecutor or the defense can talk to the press?

GRACE: That's right, or any witnesses related to the case. And what's so interesting, Larry, I was about to tell you, is that the judge would basically have to do this suis ponte (ph), on his own, because neither side is really pressing for a gag order.

At most, the DA had mentioned a limited gag order, which it applies to the attorneys on either side. But a full gag order means all attorneys, all investigators, all witnesses, all potential witnesses may not speak, including Amber Frey. So if the judge were to do this, he would basically have to bring up his own motion and grant his own motion, which is what suis ponte means.

And I just don't see that.

KING: And Chris, this is two different judges, right?

PIXLEY: Two different judges, Larry. And the case is going down two different tracks right now.

Early on in the case, in fact, even before the arrest was made, the DA challenged Judge Jeralami's (ph) right to oversee both the civil complaint that had been filed by the media, "The Modesto Bee" and "Contra Costa Times," "San Jose Mercury News," and others who are seeking access to these search warrants, and the criminal case, and that was kind of a curious decision, because what it means now is that you have two judges deciding on common issues, and there's a great opportunity for there to be disagreement between the two, which doesn't make the Stanislaus County bench look very good.

It also could create havoc in this case.

KING: We'll take a break and come back and start to include your phone calls on this edition of LARRY KING LIVE.

Senator Clinton tomorrow night.

Don't go away.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

KING: Back with our panel.

Let's include some phone calls.

Columbia, Pennsylvania. Hello.

CALLER: We always hear and hear from Scott Peterson's sister-in- law, but has anyone actually seen or heard his brother speak publicly?

KING: Do we know, Nancy, have we heard from his brother?

GRACE: No, not once have I heard his brother speak publicly. And we were -- I recall asking her that. I never really got a clear answer on that. I think she said that he was very emotionally upset about the whole thing, and so, therefore, he wasn't speaking publicly about it. But if he was right.

KING: Ted, do you know?

ROLANDS: Yes, I interviewed him, one of the brothers, a couple times up in Modesto early on during the search effort. But, you know, I'm not quite sure the reason why the sisters took the role and the sister-in-law Janie did, but they did, and everybody in the family seems comfortable with that.

KING: Sacramento, California. Hello.

CALLER: Hi, Larry, thanks for taking my call. I love your show.

KING: Thank you.

CALLER: A quick comment and a question. Nancy, thank you so much for coming on and being there for us victims. My question is this. Has anyone heard, or have they investigated, whether there has been any domestic abuse prior to the murders? Because being a victim of domestic abuse, I've got to say, I just wonder if they looked into the medical records or what have you. And I'm just curious about that. I'm -- and Nancy, thank you very much.

KING: All right. Does anyone know of any -- Ted, there's been no report of any...

ROLANDS: Well, yes, there's really -- that's the one thing that, you know, the Peterson family points out all the time. People who -- there's just no history of it, there's no mention of it. Laci never mentioned anything, never mentioned the cheating to anybody, never mentioned anything. So from the outside, this really was a -- just a normal married couple expecting their first child living in a home in Modesto, California.

KING: Jo...

ROLANDS: And there's (UNINTELLIGIBLE).

KING: Jo-Ellan, (UNINTELLIGIBLE), Jo-Ellan, will the defense point that out? No prior history of violence?

DIMITRIUS: Oh, of course they will. I think that that, you know, very clearly they will have to do once they get into trial.

You know, one of the things that I think will be important, because I've heard a lot of people ask how experts will ultimately be hired in this case, because initially, obviously, he was represented by a public defender. Somehow monies came about such that Mark Geragos was hired. But I think it's unique in this country that California has a statute that allows for state funds to be given to experts in death penalty cases.

So I think that there will be -- most of those experts will be hired through what they call 987.9 funds. And in that situation, what Mark Geragos will do is, he doesn't go to the trial judge, he goes to the presiding judge and asks the judge for authorization to appoint that particular expert in that case.

KING: I see. Dr. Lee, have you -- I know you said no comment last time. Has anyone talked to you on either side of this?

LEE: Yes, quite a few people talk to me, include -- of course, you know, Mark talked to me too. And (UNINTELLIGIBLE)...

KING: Any chance of your coming aboard?

LEE: Well, basically, you know, as a forensic scientist, we really don't take sides. You look at a piece of evidence (UNINTELLIGIBLE)...

KING: I mean, you could be hired, couldn't you?

LEE: Yes, but more likely just like a -- Jo-Ellan's talk about them and maybe court appointed as expert, look at certain physical evidence.

KING: Nancy, (UNINTELLIGIBLE) -- does it -- is it of concern to you prosecutorially that there's no history of prior violence?

GRACE: Well, I'm glad you asked me that, Larry, because after I prosecuted for 10 years, at nights very often I would man our battered women hotline in Atlanta. And Larry, very, very rarely do domestic victims tell their families or their co-workers that they are the victims of abuse. And thinking...

KING: Yes, but when someone is charged with murder, wouldn't someone, who if he'd battered anyone, come forward now? What do you got to lose? He's in jail.

GRACE: Exactly. I would be very carefully -- very careful if I were the defense to open the door to good character. In other words, to say, Scott Peterson has never abused his wife, because then once that happens, the state can then respond with bad character if there is any.

And also, Larry, a quick reality check. Nobody knew that he was out with various women, leading double lives, pretending he was single, out with strippers. Nobody knew that either. So what else does the family not know?

KING: Chris, no history of prior violence. What does it say to you?

PIXLEY: Well, I think Nancy's right, you've got to be careful in making the decision to bring that out at trial, because potentially you're going to open up a whole can of worms, and the prosecution is going to be talking about just what Scott...

KING: But what if you're trying...

PIXLEY: ... has done wrong.

KING: ... what if you're -- what if, as a lawyer, your client tells you, I never harmed anyone?

PIXLEY: Well, it's important, and in fact it's really very important right now, Larry, in this public dialogue that we have about Scott Peterson going on. You know, there's nothing that prohibits us from talking right now about Scott Peterson's history. And the fact of the matter is, as the family will tell you, as Ted's pointed out, no criminal record, no past history of violence.

And Larry, it's a wonderful point you make. If somebody had had a bad experience with Scott Peterson, someone in high school, someone in college, somewhere along the line with him, you know, as these tendencies come out, they're not hidden, they're not under the surface and only explode once you become married. If he had this kind of history, it would have come out. And I think the fact that we can talk about it right now is what really matters. I don't know that it will come out at trial.

KING: Houston, Texas. Hello.

CALLER: Yes, I wanted to ask Nancy if anyone has considered that Laci Peterson was drowned in the swimming pool and therefore there's no forensic evidence.

GRACE: Very interesting. Very interesting. But since they saw her the day before at Salon Salon (ph) that evening around 7:30, the (UNINTELLIGIBLE) -- they spoke with her on the phone later. And then by the next evening, she's missing. I think possibly the neighbors would have seen that.

Also, if the baby was still intact, if there had been a chlorinated drowning, maybe Dr. Lee can speak to this, would that be in the baby's system? Or was too much time passed?

LEE: Nancy, probably very difficult to detect small amount of chlorine in a system. And, of course, the drown in a swimming pool, you're going to have a lot of other associated forensic evidence, because we (UNINTELLIGIBLE) the body badly decomposed, but we don't know, lungs still are available, whether or not we can find any stuff in trace (UNINTELLIGIBLE) chemicals in the lung and also the clothing.

I still think the clothing is the key of the whole case. And because that can give us a lot of information.

KING: All right, we're going to take a break and come back, and then we'll go to a lot more phone calls.

Gloria Allred will be joining us later.

Senator Clinton tomorrow night.

You're watching LARRY KING LIVE. We'll come back and reintroduce the entire panel, get to more phone calls as well. Don't go away.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

KING: Let's reintroduce our panel.

In San Francisco, Ted Rowlands, reporter for KTV News covered the case from the get go.

In New York, Nancy Grace, Anchor of "Trail Heat" on Court TV and a former prosecutor.

In San Diego, defense attorney Chris Pixley.

In Atlanta, Dr. Henry Lee, one the worlds foremost forensic scientist, and professor of forensics at the University of New Haven, and former Connecticut state commissioner commission of public safety.

And in New York Jo-Ellan Dimitrius, jury consultant, co-chair of Vinson and Dimitrius, one of the top jury and trial consulting firms.

Back to the calls.

Boca Raton, hello.

CALLER: Yes, hello, Larry.

If the Rocha's file a wrongful death lawsuit right now, would they be able to freeze all of the marital assets, including any assets Scott gave to his parents?

I can't see Scott using up marital money to pay for a high-power defense team.

KING: Chris.

PIXLEY: I don't know if they can do that, Larry. And I don't know exactly where California law would fall out on the issue. But they're behind the eight ball right now, you know. The criminal case is moving along right now. To file a civil case right now and to trying to get that type of stay would be a difficult thing to do.

KING: Jo-Ellan, you know anything about that regarding a civil manner?

DIMITRIUS: I would agree with Chris, that obviously, the criminal case has priority and any civil action comes after that.

GRACE: Larry, there's another angle to that. Yes, they can file a wrongful death action whenever they wish, including right now. However -- however, think about it, I don't think they will. No. 1, after meeting with Laci's mom, that's not where her head is right now, about filing a money damages suit. No. 2, Scott Peterson is probably judgment poor, he probably won't have any money left. And no. 3, imagine, from my point of view, to have a star witness on the stand with a civil lawsuit pending. The other side can then argue there was monetary gain for this witness's testimony. As a prosecutor, you don't want that.

KING: Kitchener, Ontario. Hello.

CALLER: Hi, Larry. I would like to thank Chris for defending Scott in this matter because -- there is no right way or wrong way to behave and I actually believe he's innocent.

My question is for Dr. Lee.

Because they freed up and released Scott's boat, could it be determined from any DNA whether Laci's body entered the water in one piece or already taken apart?

LEE: That's an excellent question, you know. The boat, I'm sure the prosecution, the police, the forensic scientist probably look it inch by inch, look for Laci Peterson's hair fibers and DNA. Of course, defense should defiantly check the boat, should check the truck and so many times we find additional evidence. That's why a forensic scientist -- although retained by the defense, sometimes we find incriminating evidence, more than the police can find. So it's important, again, to check again, to double check any forensic evidence available.

KING: Portland, Oregon. Hello.

CALLER: Hi, Larry, thank you for taking my call. I think your whole panel is wonderful my question is for Dr. Lee.

It's kind of gruesome, but is there any chance that if Scott Peterson killed Laci could the baby have been born while this was happening, and then would have disposed of the body, and that's why there is plastic around the babies neck.

And also, can you test the house to find any birth matter or any of the fluids that would have come out in a case like that?

LIVE EVENT: Yes, that's another question. As a matter of fact I'm in Atlanta, Georgia, addressed to the International Corner and the Medical Examiner's Association. The participant basically discussed this issue and, as a matter of fact a lot of people agree with you saying, is that possible the baby was already born. And, of course, if it's born -- if it's is inside the house, we should find a massive amount of blood and some tissue like material. And that's why it's important to actually determine the fetus how long exactly how many weeks. Thirty-two weeks, 33 weeks, 38 weeks. That would make major differences again.

DOBBS: Reno, Nevada.

Sorry, go ahead.

GRACE: Larry, the kicker is that that's an interesting scenario the viewer came up with and plausible, however, the baby clearly had not been in the water in the element as long as Laci had been. So the theory that it was born at the time of her death in my mind is impossible, because it was not birthed until some time later and protected.

KING: Reno, Nevada. Hello.

CALLER: Hi, Larry, thank you.

My question is for Nancy Grace because I believe Laci is in heaven thanking you every day for your input because you're so smart. On your show a week or so ago Robert Kennedy Jr. said his cousin Michael Skakel passed the sodium penolthal test. And I want to know if Mark Geragos is so interested in seeking the truth, why doesn't he, in front of everybody, have him injected with sodium penolthal, and give him a lie detector test and let's get to the bottom of it.

KING: Caller, if he did that on public TV and he passed, what would you do?

CALLER: I would call him and apologize. Because I don't believe for one minute, when you sell somebody's car and you don't act like you care about somebody, that he's innocent. I don't believe -- I believe he killed her.

KING: On the other hand, wouldn't a guilty person never do something like that?

Sell a car and act as if they were guilty.

CALLER: He's an idiot. I'll not his mother, I'm not going to go to the wall to defend him. He is a dumb as book of rocks.

KING: Nancy, what about the truth serum.

GRACE: I think the viewer wants us to add to the indictment and charge a felony stupid. But unfortunately, I don't think the prosecution is going to go for it. But do you what, do you know how many times, Larry, I wondered why. I wanted to give somebody sodium pentothal, or at least a polygraph to find out the truth. Impossible, not going to happen, and I promise the viewer, if Scott Peterson had taken a polygraph arranged by the defense and passed it, we would all know about it. It would be on the front page of the "Modesto Bee," yesterday.

LEE: Well, Larry, can I say something...

KING: Yes, go ahead.

LEE: about lie detectors and polygraph and truth serum. I have had many cases and we people do know lie and pass they polygraph. And the truth serum, that really can't tell the truth, it's just people under subconscious, and more likely to answer the question, not really tell somebody lying or telling the truth.

KING: Ted, do we know if any lie detector has been administered?

ROWLANDS: The prevalent theory is that he has not taken a lie detector test, from the beginning. It hasn't officially come out from either end. And obviously Mark Geragos wouldn't be doing his job -- it just wouldn't work for his client. But Nancy is right if he would have passed the lie detector, it's pretty safe to say we'd know about it.

KING: We'll be back with more calls on this edition of LARRY KING LIVE. Gloria Allred later, don't go away.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

KING: Florence, Alabama, Hello.

CALLER: Hello. I would just like to make a quick comment before my question. My family, the men in my family, always went hunting or fishing on Christmas Eve and the women did the cooking and all.

But I too believe Scott might be guilty and I was wondering if anybody on the panel knows if they've checked to see if Scott could have been involved on (UNINTELLIGIBLE) women that was found in the bay? The other pregnant lady? And I was wondering...

KING: Anyone know anything about that at all? Nancy?

GRACE: I'm familiar with the Hernandez body that washed up in the bay. And I'm sure police have tried to make a connection, have not heard of a connection. They tried to make a connection, Larry, with a college associate of his...

KING: That didn't work.

(CROSSTALK)

GRACE: So, in light of that, I'm sure they've tried and I don't think there's a connection.

KING: Ithaca, New York, hello.

CALLER: I have a van question. If, as the prosecutor said, there's no forensic evidence in the van, why would the defense buy it?

ROWLANDS: Well, I think, Larry, the defense wanted to buy this van so that they could take possession of it if they found it. When they were out searching for this van, and their theory was if we own it we can go up to these people and take it and it was sort of their theory early on. Now it's -- their theory is they want that van because they own it so they can have rights to check it themselves with their own forensic experts.

KING: Paducah, Kentucky, hello.

CALLER: Yes, Larry, thanks for taking my call.

KING: Sure.

CALLER: I have a comment first. Nancy, thank you for never backing down from anybody. You're the voice of most of the country and I totally agree with the previous caller. Scott has never acted anything other than guilty.

I have two questions. What happens to the life insurance money? And is there any chance that Scott will get bail?

KING: Jo-Ellan, what happens to the life insurance? Do you know?

DIMITRIUS: Well I think that's all stayed until the end of the criminal case to see what the outcome of the case is. So I don't think that there is any monies that exchange hands from the insurance companies.

KING: And there's no bail in a capital case, is there, with -- when you're...

DIMITRIUS: It's very rare. It has actually happened, Larry, in a couple of cases in California. But it's very, very rare.

KING: Charlotte, North Carolina, hello. CALLER: Yes, I understand that Scott did refuse a lie detector test. My question to the panel is, if he did refuse one, is the prosecutor allowed to tell the jury that he refused it take one? Also a quick question for Nancy. What do you think Vince Bugliosi would do if he prosecuted Scott Peterson? I think he'd make mincemeat out of him.

GRACE: You know, it's funny you mentioned that because just tonight Jo-Ellan and I were mentioning the only other allegedly satanic case we could think of was Manson and that turned out not to be satanic but a bunch of hippies from the desert doped-up on some drugs. OK? So there are no satanic murders that we can name.

As to the polygraph, you're absolutely correct. Everybody screamed for three months, take a polygraph, he refused. It cannot come into evidence. If it did, if the prosecutor even mentioned it in opening statement, there would be an immediate reversal, that's a comment on the defendant's right to remain silent and not incriminate themselves.

(CROSSTALK)

PIXLEY: Just want to quickly disagree with Nancy on the first part of that answer. You know, for anyone that wants to suggest that there is no basis on the satanic cult theory, I understand that's it's going to a hard one to swallow. It's part of the reason the defense gets it out there right now, so that people understand it is a theory that they're going to following up.

But for anyone that says there are no satanic murders, they have to just go back to Stanislaus County back to 1990. We know they've happened. It's not beyond the purview of possibility.

KING: All right, let me get in. Go ahead El Paso.

CALLER: Yes, This is for Nancy which I think she's just plain wonderful.

Scott has been going to Mexico a lot of times. Why? Do they know the reason for going over there?

GRACE: I don't know that they know the reason why. But Ted Rowlands can probably back this up. i think they had a locater, a tracker on his car. So every time he crossed the Mexican border since Laci went missing, I'm sure the police have accounted for it.

KING: Is that right, Ted?

ROWLANDS: They have kept close tabs with Scott throughout this whole investigation. And one thing about Mexico, his family does has some property down there, he's familiar with Mexico, he did go to that convention, that fertilizer convention. So, him traveling to Mexico, per se, is not out of the ordinary, it's not as though he had never been there before. So there was a connection there. He's from San Diego, very close to the border.

KING: Let me get a break and the attorney for Amber Frey will join the panel right after these words. Don't go away.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

KING: Joining our panel now is famed attorney Gloria Allred. We'll ask her some questions, the panel may have some questions as well. Report that you and your client met with prosecutors this past weekend, you and Amber Frey. True?

GLORIA ALLRED, AMBER FREY'S ATTORNEY: I met with prosecutors on Friday and I am unable to confirm or to deny as to whether or not Amber met with them.

KING: But they want to go over with her her testimony, right? I mean sometime or other, they're going to have to talk to her, correct?

ALLRED: Generally prosecutors will talk to a witness.

KING: Last week "Hustler" magazine publisher Larry Flynt said he's been approached by a (UNINTELLIGIBLE) who says he owns the rights to about two dozen photos of Amber, many showing her nude. What's your reaction?

ALLRED: Larry, she in no way authorizes anyone to sell or to give away or to publish any posed photos of herself and she is absolutely devastated by this development, she is very hurt by it. And she's just a person who came forward to do the right thing in this case shortly after Laci's disappearance, after she learned that Scott Peterson was Laci's husband.

By the way, a fact she didn't know when she first met Scott Peterson and entered into a relationship with him. She went to law enforcement and provided information that may be relevant to this double homicide investigation.

And now she finds herself in the middle of all this and she cooperated every way with law enforcement, did the right thing, has said she wouldn't do any interviews prior to testifying in a court of law, she won't do it for pay, she wouldn't do it for free because she's respecting the criminal justice system and the integrity of it.

Now she finds herself with this controversy. I think the people who are doing this should be ashamed of themselves.

KING: Did she give the photographer a release?

ALLRED: Well I am presently in a fact-finding situation, attempting to find out what all the facts are. I have corresponded with Mr. Flynt, have informed him that she is not authorizing the publication of any photograph. And he's responded to me and then I have sent him another letter this morning asking him to see the original of any preported release so that I can determine what the true facts are.

KING: Isn't it a defense, though, to -- if the prosecution puts up a witness to question the quality of the witness? That's what any good defense attorney would do. And anything that lends to question credibility, a good defense attorney would be lax if he didn't bring it up.

ALLRED: Well, absolutely, the defense will attempt to question the credibility of any and all witness called by the prosecution.

KING: So why are you shocked by revelations like this that she's a story now? That's the nature of the game.

ALLRED: Well, however, I don't see how this -- even if it is were true, that some photographs were taken some years ago, would have any bearing on her credibility. Amber Frey...

KING: You mean you wouldn't bring it up if she was a witness and you were the defense attorney?

ALLRED: I don't see how it is relevant on an issue of credibility. Amber Frey is credible. When she testifies under oath, she will do so truthfully. She will answer fully all questions that are asked of her.

KING: I'm just asking.

ALLRED: And furthermore, I want to say most all of her testimony will be corroborated, which is unusual for a witness in a criminal case. And you'll see how it's going to be corroborated when she testifies.

KING: Nancy, what do you make of this?

GRACE: Well, first of all, Gloria is correct. Most of her testimony, I think, from the outside looking in, will be corroborated because we've got the tapes. Everytime Amber says, He told me X, you're probably going to have a tape to it and hear his voice saying that.

And, you know, I can't be anything but blind about it. It's never a good thing when your star witness has posed for nude pictures. But Gloria is right on that account, too.

Gloria, you cannot be surprised that the defense is going to take this tack. I recall in rape cases I prosecuted the first question on cross would be, Isn't it true three years ago you had birth control prescription filled? Like somehow that made the witness a bad person. But I know you saw this coming a mile away, so you might as well buckle your seatbelt and put on your crash helmet.

KING: (UNINTELLIGIBLE). Well, Chris Pixley, you're a defense attorney. If she was on the stand, would you bring it up?

PIXLEY: Well, Larry, I think that you're going to have to be very careful in how you examine Amber Frey And you want to and see how the prosecution is going to use her and what testimony they really want to elicit from Amber.

But, you know, in fairness to the defense here, Gloria and Amber, to some extent, and more through Gloria's voice have stepped forward and suggested, however subtlety, that Scott Peterson is guilty here. And I think it's fair for the viewers to ask, what ah Gloria based that opinion on? I know that she can't say....

ALLRED: Oh, I'd like to answer that.

PIXLEY: ...what evidence she has, but it would be nice to know that she does, in fact, have some evidence and I'd like to hear whether she does.

(CROSSTALK)

PIXLEY: ...the mere relationship itself.

ALLRED: Well, here's the answer.

First of all, neither Amber nor myself have said or suggested that Scott Peterson is guilty. Amber's position is clear. That is for the jury to decide and she feels the final judgment will be made by God and not by Amber Frey.

KING: But once she came forward, she put herself in the mix, right? She harmed him by revealing that he had an affair. So why can't the defense harm her by revealing she posed for nude photos?

(CROSSTALK)

ALLRED: She is not there to help or to harm Scott Peterson, Larry.

KING: Did she help him?

ALLRED: She is there to provide important information to the law enforcement and that is for district attorney and for law enforcement to determine whether anything she says can be helpful to the case.

KING: I got you. Nancy, once she came forward she knew it would harm him, right?

GRACE: You know what, Larry? What harmed Scott Peterson is his own action of running around on his wife and pretending.

(CROSSTALK)

KING: Yes, but once Amber introduced -- but once Amber came forward, she knew it would harm him.

GRACE: Well of course she knew that having an affair would hurt him and give him motive.

KING: Obvious.

GRACE: But the fact is, that was his doing. Not her doing.

ALLRED: And Nancy is so right about this. Because she -- because Amber has been a victim of Scott Peterson's deception. But her point is to tell the truth. If it helps, that's fine. If it hurts -- well, that's the way it's going to be.

KING: Jo-Ellan, you're the jury expert. What effect would it have on a jury to know that the witness for the state had posed nude?

DIMITRIUS: Well, first of all, I think that even -- to address Chris' question -- even if the defense doesn't bring it up, clearly it's out there in the public, and they're going to know about it one way or the other even if the defense doesn't bring it up.

I think that, you know, each juror is going to look at that in terms of how it may impact what she's saying. But the bottom line, her credibility, her likability in the courtroom, how she appears on that witness stand should be the only thing that those jurors take into consideration.

Same -- that being said, we do know obviously that everybody walks into the courtroom with attitudes and opinions. They don't check their common sense at the door.

KING: Ted Rowlands has a question for Gloria. Ted?

ROWLANDS: Yes, I'd just like to know if after meeting with prosecutors, you've been given an indication of how important your client's testimony is and specifically will she be part of the preliminary hearing in July?

ALLRED: Ted...

KING: Fair questions.

ALLRED: The prosecutors have not indicated to me nor have I inquired on whether or not Amber Frey is an important witness or an unimportant witness. I've not asked them to characterize in any way.

As to whether she will be called at the preliminary hearing, that is for the district attorney to decide and to announce. I certainly...

KING: He hasn't given you any indication?

ALLRED: I certainly have some sense of what might happen or not happen, but I would leave it to the district attorneys to make the judgment as to whether or not they're going to call her and sometimes, if the judgments are made, they are changed by the time there is a preliminary hearing.

KING: We have a minute and a half left. You don't want a gag order issued, right?

ALLRED: I oppose a gag order and the court did allow me to argue in opposition to any protective order ...

KING: Because?

ALLRED: ...against Ms. Frey, a potential witness.

Because, Larry, first of all, the only reason to grant a gag order, to prevent her -- and to exercise a prior restraint against speech is if she presents any clear and present danger to Mr. Peterson's fair trial rights. And she presents no danger whatsoever because she indicated she's not giving any interviews, nor has she.

KING: So why are you opposed to the gag order for?

ALLRED: Well, because, also we don't want the gag order because there have been many, many attacks on her reputation, many inaccurate statements made about her. She needs to be able to defend her reputation and not be prevented from doing so. Otherwise, why would other witnesses come forward in the future if they were going to be basically gagged and unable to respond to protect themselves in the future?

KING: Isn't that a good point, Chris?

PIXLEY: Well, I think Gloria has actually made, a moment earlier, a very good point though for the defense, as well. She said, Listen, Amber has been lied to by Scott. Amber has been hurt by Scott. The fact she is not a dispassionate or disinterested witness in this case.

Now is it a good point that a gag order or the lack of a gag order allows Amber to defend herself? Yes, I think that there are some attacks out there being made against her. But also, Gloria said that this is a heroine a woman that wants to get her life back and go back to a normal life. I would think if she wanted to go back to a normal life, that she wouldn't want any media coverage, including having her own spokesperson out there having to defend her.

I think it all goes away if we stop talking about it.

KING: I've run out of time, but we're going to have Gloria back. We've been doing a lot on this case. Gloria, as you know, you're about to become a regular.

Ted Rowlands, Gloria Allred, Nancy Grace, Chris Pixley, Dr. Henry Lee and Jo-Ellan Dimitrius, thank you all for joining us on this edition of LARRY KING LIVE.

And I'll be back in a couple minutes to tell you about tomorrow night. Don't go away.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

KING: We hope you enjoyed tonight's edition of LARRY KING LIVE.

Tomorrow night should be rather interesting. Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton in her first live interview -- her previous two television interviews were pre-taped -- her first live interview is tomorrow night on this program.

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




International Edition
CNN TV CNN International Headline News Transcripts Advertise With Us About Us
SEARCH
   The Web    CNN.com     
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.
CNN.com does not endorse external sites.
 Premium content icon Denotes premium content.
Add RSS headlines.