CNN LARRY KING LIVE
Legal Analysis of Laci Peterson Murder Case Developments; Interview with Mary Tyler Moore
Aired June 23, 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: Scott Peterson's lawyer says the DA leading the prosecution has violated a court-imposed gag order, while San Francisco authorities fight the Peterson team's attempt to link this case to the murder of another pregnant woman whose remains also turned up in San Francisco Bay.
Joining us with the latest on this constantly developing story, Ted Rowlands of KTVU -- he's been on top of it from day one -- Court TV's Nancy Grace, a former prosecutor, and defense attorney Chris Pixley.
And then TV's comedy goddess, Mary Tyler Moore, on the urgent crusade to find a cure for the disease that could kill her. It's all next on LARRY KING LIVE.
Our opening portion of the program deals tonight with the Peterson matter. Mark Geragos, the attorney for Scott Peterson, on Friday failed contempt claims against the Stanislaus County district attorney, James Beauchesne, alleging he violated a gag order by giving an interview to "The Modesto Bee."
What's the story, Ted?
TED ROWLANDS, KTVU-TV: Well, basically, Geragos is going to ask the judge on Thursday to hold a contempt hearing, dealing with the DA down in Stanislaus County, Jim Brazelton, because of the interview he did with the local newspaper. In that interview, Brazelton said that the reason they're going for a preliminary hearing rather than a grand jury is because, in part, they wanted to show their cards a bit to the public. And he wanted to say quote, "by putting on a prelim, they're going to see some stuff that may open some eyes."
Of course, this, in Geragos's mind, is a complete -- is completely in violation of the gag order issued by the judge and supported by the DA. SO we'll see what the judge does on Thursday, but he filed that last week in court, and they're going to ask the judge to hold the DA in that county in contempt.
KING: He also said -- told, according to "The Bee," Brazelton also said, "We spend all our time running down this phony-baloney stuff that they throw up." Doesn't that appear, Nancy, to be a direct violation of a gag order about a case?
NANCY GRACE, COURT TV: Yes. Larry, at first glance, it does. I've got the article right here in my hand. And if you look at it in context, however, in the sentence before that, he is referring to media theories about the case. And then he says, "We spend all our time running down all this phony-baloney." It seems to me, in context, he's referring to the media. However, Larry -- and you know I'm usually very law-and-order -- I think this is very, very dangerous. It could be construed as referring to the defense. And to suggest it would open the eyes of the public, in my mind, is commenting on the evidence.
KING: Because, Nancy, and by the same turn, Mark Geragos could say, I think the prosecution's case is phony-baloney, according to all the stuff I've been hearing, and he could say it's from the media.
GRACE: That's absolutely correct, Larry. But the problem is this. You can't have your cake and eat it, too. You can't call the district attorney on the rug and then not be willing to go into court and say, My hands are clean. None of these leaks have been a result of the defense team. So I say, pot, don't call the kettle black.
KING: Chris Pixley, in a country with a First Amendment that separates us from most countries in the world, why have a gag order at all?
CHRIS PIXLEY, DEFENSE ATTORNEY: Well, I think the gag order is a problem for the defense team. And I agree with you, Larry. There's a real question as to why we have a gag order in this case right now, where there was over four months of real crazy media speculation about what had gone on in this case, most of it being fueled by leaks from the prosecution before the defense team was ever assembled. So it's one of the reasons, I think, the gag order is being asked to be reconsidered and why the defense team and the media want it reconsidered.
And you know, the media's made, actually, some very interesting arguments when it comes to the reconsideration of the gag order, one of them being, Hey, we're going to continue to report on this case, and in fact, it may do more harm to Scott Peterson's case that we continue to go over and over the old leaks from the past. Let us know the information as it comes out.
KING: The judge has no power over the press.
PIXLEY: No, he doesn't. And so the press is going to continue to report on the case, but what the judge is trying to do is limit the amount of information that comes out of the defense and prosecution camps. And you know, I think that as we go day by day forward, we're going to see just how effective that is. But of course, the -- you know, there are reports that have come out just in the last couple of days that -- you know, reports, for example, of what the mayor in Stanislaus County had to say about his meeting with Scott Peterson shortly after Laci disappearance. You have to wonder, where did those reports come from?
KING: Ted, what happens if the judge agrees with the motion?
ROWLANDS: Well, we'll have to see what happens. He would agree, basically, then to set a date for a hearing to discuss and evidently -- and eventually rule on whether or not Brazelton was in contempt. And maybe one of the other lawyers could take it another step further. I'm not sure if -- how that would work because he's not actually prosecuting the case day by day, but he is the DA and he's seen all of the evidence. I don't know what would happen.
KING: Nancy, is Thursday a hearing about a hearing?
GRACE: Yes, it is, Larry. And to your last question regarding contempt -- I know this may surprise you, Larry, but I have actually been held in contempt by a trial judge before. And you got a couple of possibilities. You can get an oral reprimand if the judge finds you in contempt, and that will be Geragos's burden to prove -- an oral reprimand. You can be forced to write a check. We saw that happen in the O.J. Simpson case. Or you can hauled off to do a day behind bars. Probably, what'll happen, at worst Brazelton will have to write a check and get an oral reprimand.
KING: Now, Chris, this other matter about San Francisco authorities -- we'll be including your phone calls in this half hour, by the way -- fighting an effort to link the Peterson case to the killing of another pregnant woman. What is that all about?
PIXLEY: Well, as it turns out, and as Ted's explained, the defense team has gone already to Judge Roger Beauchesne and asked for the Evelyn Hernandez (ph) criminal investigative file to be turned over to them. Of course, Evelyn's the woman who disappeared on May 1 and whose body washed up, according to reports, in much the same condition as Laci Peterson's a few months later in the San Francisco Bay. So the defense team believes that there could be some connection between these two murders. The city attorney for San Francisco has now opposed the judge's order to turn that information over, and essentially, what he said...
PIXLEY: Well, he said that there's an evidence code, section 1040, that says that the judge has to engaged in a balancing test. Presumably, Judge Beauchesne already did that. He weighed the disclosure in the interests of justice in Scott Peterson's favor against the preference for not turning over police investigative files. I think, ultimately, although there are some good arguments on the city attorney's side, this issue has really already been decided, and I'm hopeful for the defense that it will be turned over. I also think that the prosecution and the state have taken a lot of different positions when it comes to open records, so they're losing some credibility here.
KING: Nancy, what's the harm in the defense learning about the investigation of the other case, if it might help them?
GRACE: Well, unlike the Open Records Act or Freedom of Information Act, FOIA, an ongoing murder investigation is not necessarily an open document. In fact, the law is in California that it is confidential. And Larry, I had this first arise with me as a trial lawyer in a serial rape case called the "red rapist," who always left a red rose after he raped a woman. The defense wanted to claim to the jury, Hey, you know, another rape happened last year in the same neighborhood. It's the same guy. Well, you know what? The burden is on the defense to show this judge that it is necessary and there is a foundation to believe it's the same perpetrator. I predict what will happen, Larry, is the judge will get the file, read the file, hear behind closed doors from the defense and the prosecution, and determine if the file should be handed over. That will be done in camera, behind closed doors.
KING: Ted, is that the way you think it'll happen?
ROWLANDS: Yes, the investigator that works specifically on the Hernandez case came out and said that they don't want the case law to go into Geragos's hands or anyone else's hands because they're worried about that jeopardizing their own case. They say they've looked at it. It has absolutely nothing to do with the Peterson investigation. And they're worried, if they hand over the open file, that it may, in the end, hurt the Hernandez case if it's leaked out because they're leading their case in a certain direction, and they don't want the person responsible to know what they know.
KING: There've been no arrests made in that case, right?
KING: OK. Let me get a break and come back with more. We'll be including your phone calls with Ted Rowlands, Nancy Grace and Chris Pixley.
Still to come, Mary Tyler Moore. Tomorrow night, John Walsh. Don't go away.
KING: We're back with Ted Rowlands, Nancy Grace and Chris Pixley. We'll start including your phone calls. Ocala, Florida. Hello.
CLINTON: Hi, Larry. About time I got through. Can't believe it. This question is -- I know your time's of an essence. The question is for Nancy, please.
KING: Go ahead.
CALLER: Nancy -- hello?
KING: Go ahead.
CALLER: Yes, Nancy. You're wonderful. Keep it up. Now, the question is, we've heard so much about this, about the body parts or limbs and/or that were found in the dumpster. Nothing else has ever been said about this. Is this -- is there something about the gag order with that information? If so, has there been DNA or any type of proof whatsoever as to whose they were or any chance of them being Laci's?
GRACE: Well, interesting question. The reason we haven't heard anything, I believe, is because the DNA is being tested right now and it takes a period of time. There were four bodies -- three men, one women -- that they can tell so far. And even if it doesn't match up to Laci, which I doubt it will, due to the level of decomposition -- even if it's not Laci, it can still help the defense because if they go with the satanic cult theory, they can say, See? Here are these other victims of the same wacky satanic cult. So either way, this is going to cut for the defense, I predict. Not related to Laci Peterson.
KING: Chris, from your knowledge of this case and with the (UNINTELLIGIBLE), do you gather that the prosecution has a great deal of evidence here, much more than we have come to see?
PIXLEY: Well, they're making a lot of noise about all the evidence they have, and they've suggested that they have more than they've revealed. The only thing, Larry, that that belies that suggestion is the fact that from day one, they leaked on a very consistent basis as much evidence as they possibly could. We go back to January 5, 10 days, 11 days after Laci disappeared, and we were hearing news that the police found a tarp in the water. We go to January 11, and we find out that they had found a cement block that they thought was an anchor. Turned out to be a red herring. There were a lot of red herrings along the way, and day in and day out, we got more information from the prosecution.
So if there was particularly important information that they chose to withhold from us, you know, the question is, why were they so active in getting out there with the media, selling their weaker evidence?
KING: Let's go to Crete, Illinois. Hello.
CALLER: Hi. I have a question for Ted.
CLINTON: Was Scott an avid fisher? And did he always keep receipts, or were those receipts part of a well-thought-out crime?
ROWLANDS: Well, he was an avid fisherman, according to his family. He fished a lot more when he lived down in San Diego growing up as a youngster, but he continued to fish. He bought this boat recently, and according to his family, very excited about the purchase of the boat. He was not, however, an avid sturgeon fisherman in the San Francisco Bay. In fact, this was his first time at it. And as far as receipts, I don't know about the history of that. This is a parking receipt. It's basically a lift receipt that you put some $5 in, and you get it back. Maybe he had it in his windshield and he just held onto it, or maybe he kept it on purpose. KING: By the way...
GRACE: And Larry, speaking...
KING: Yes? Go ahead, Nancy.
GRACE: Speaking of the boat, Larry, another interesting fact that Ted brought up. Nobody in Laci Peterson's family knew he had bought a boat. The boat was kept housed away from the home, hidden at his warehouse. Nobody knew a thing about it. Coincidentally, it was purchased just two weeks before Laci went missing. I guess the virgin voyage was the day Laci disappeared.
KING: Hold on. In other words, every husband should tell their mother and father-in-law what they bought?
GRACE: No, but I know this much. Every man I've ever known, Larry, that had a dingy or a yacht, he was proud of it, and everybody knew about it.
KING: OK, you want -- you want to respond to that, Chris?
PIXLEY: Well, you know, you hear all of these...
KING: It's hardly evidence, but it's interesting.
PIXLEY: It's interesting. It's the kind of thing that we like talking about. But the problem is, Larry, there are all of these different conflicting theories, and the prosecution's going to have to go down one path or the other. You know, we've heard just in the past week that they're going after new phone records. They want phone records of those people that may have been calling Scott or may have been calling Scott's home on the day before Laci's disappearance and the day of Laci's disappearance, one of the theories being that Amber Frey may have called the home, and that may have set off an argument between Scott and Laci that led to her murder. Well, that's one of the "heat of passion" arguments. If that's the case, then all of this talk about the boat being hidden, the boat being something that he kept hidden -- that's inconsistent. That suggests premeditation. He was planning all along to do it. Same thing with the...
GRACE: That's right!
PIXLEY: ... GHB theory. It suggests that he premeditated it, planned it all along. It's not consistent...
GRACE: Tell it, Chris!
PIXLEY: ... at all with the phone calls. It's not consistent at all with the theory that he received phone calls that Laci became aware of and that may have set off a fight. So they've got to go down one road or the other, and I don't see that they've selected one yet. And I think it may have something to do with why the July 16 preliminary hearing, we're now being told, may be put off until September.
KING: When do -- when do they rule, Ted, do you know, on the change of venue?
ROWLANDS: That'll be after the preliminary hearing is over. If the judge holds Peterson to stand trial, at that point, the defense will argue for a -- or will petition for a change of venue.
KING: By the way, Nancy, we congratulate you. Nancy will be the guest host tomorrow on ABC's "The View." If you watch "The View" tomorrow morning, that wonderful show conceived by Barbara Walters, with that panel. We've been on it a few times. Nancy's guest host tomorrow. Congratulations. Look forward to that.
We'll take a break and come back with more phone calls. And then Mary Tyler Moore. Don't go away.
KING: We're back. Shiloh, Tennessee. Hello.
CALLER: Hey, you were so sure -- all of you were so sure that Ricci was the guilty of kidnapping Elizabeth Smart. Maybe Peterson is innocent, too.
KING: Well, that's certainly, possible, right? I mean, a lot of people -- Nancy, people were wrong...
GRACE: That's right.
KING: ... about the Smart case.
GRACE: That's right. And I think, as a correction regarding Ricci...
KING: Should never jump to conclusions.
GRACE: Yes. Regarding Richard Ricci, there's no doubt in my head that he did shoot a cop and had stolen from the Smart home while he was on parole. Parole is a privilege, and he had violated that!
KING: But that didn't make him a kidnapper of Ms. Smart.
GRACE: That is...
KING: And a lot of times...
GRACE: ... correct.
KING: ... on this program, it was alluded that way. And that's one of the things...
GRACE: It certainly was.
KING: ... we do when we make guesswork like that.
GRACE: That's right.
KING: It was unfair to him as a human being. Wrong. We were wrong.
GRACE: I think it was, to the extent that he did not take Elizabeth Smart. However, I still say...
KING: That's what the show was about.
GRACE: I still say to this day, he was the most logical suspect police had at the time.
KING: But -- but Nancy...
GRACE: And the viewer's right, it may turn out...
KING: But you know he didn't do it.
GRACE: Yes, that's true. That's right. And I'm not a jury...
KING: That's the most important thing.
GRACE: ... and I didn't convict him. But in the Scott Peterson case, Larry, it may be true, the viewer may be right that a satanic cult did take Laci Peterson.
KING: Or maybe someone else.
GRACE: But I don't think so. Or maybe somebody else.
KING: But the viewer never said satanic cult, Nancy.
KING: The viewer just said...
GRACE: Only the difference.
KING: ... maybe someone else. The truth is...
GRACE: Only the defense.
KING: There's one truth here: We don't know.
GRACE: That's absolutely true.
KING: The only person who knows is the one who did it.
PIXLEY: That's right. And Nancy said...
KING: OK, Merced, California. Hello.
CALLER: Hi. My question is, at the beginning of this case, it was reported that the boat was tested and that the results came back negative for it being in salt water. Can you comment on that, anyone. KING: Chris, is that true?
PIXLEY: You know, I turn that over to Ted because I actually...
KING: Ted, is that true?
PIXLEY: ... different reports on that.
ROWLANDS: No. It was reported that way, but it was untrue. In fact, they did tests, and there was salt water in the boat. Scott Peterson definitely had the boat in the bay. And there was an erroneous report, though, that the caller's referring to. Untrue. The boat was tested and there was salt water.
KING: Would you agree, Chris, that Scott has hurt himself the most by his own actions?
PIXLEY: I think there's been a lot of focus on Scott's demeanor, and that's been a problem. Although, you know, again, when Scott does show signs of emotion, when he breaks down, the suggestion now is made that somehow he's faking or it may be orchestrated by his defense team. So there's very little that he can do that's right.
I think Scott has hurt himself in that he was having an extramarital relationship. I think Scott has hurt himself in some of the things that he's said to the media.
But you know, to go back to something that Nancy mention a minute ago -- you know, Scott being the most logical suspect in this case, the same way that Ricci was the most logical suspect in the Smart case, really doesn't mean a lot. Yes, police investigators start in the home. They don't go and execute search warrants at the local 7- Eleven. They execute them on the home first, and that's where they start.
But at this point, what's more logical, that Scott Peterson murdered his wife without leaving a trace of evidence, no blood or DNA anywhere, removed her head and her limbs from her body, potentially excised the baby from the womb, or that some deranged psychopath snatched her in a park and did it? I think there comes a point in time where it is more likely that someone else committed this crime, whether it's a satanic cult or just some crazed transient, than Scott Peterson himself. So the state's...
PIXLEY: ... going to have to show a lot at the preliminary hearing.
KING: Nancy, was that a good point?
GRACE: Well, yes. I think that, at this point, anything is jumping the gun, other than saying he's the most logical suspect and all the evidence does point to him right now. We haven't heard the other side. As to what you originally asked regarding his demeanor and his own actions, lying about the investigation and about cooperation with the police and about his relationship with his wife -- yes, I think it's hurt him more than any so-called leak or any other evidence has.
KING: Sicklerville, New Jersey. Hello.
CALLER: Yes. Hi, Larry.
CALLER: My question has to do with the wiretaps, in that during the wiretap investigation, could they heard Scott about him talking about the $10,000, taking his brother's driver's license and going to Mexico? And could they have done something about that during those wiretaps?
KING: Who wants to respond? Chris? Nancy?
GRACE: They definitely could have heard that. From what I can tell, that did not go into their decision to make the arrest because they had planned the arrest before. But definitely, the viewer is correct. They could have been hearing that because other than attorney/client phone calls and investigator phone calls, the rest of the wiretaps were fair game for them to listen to.
KING: Pekin, Illinois. Hello.
CLINTON: I'd like to direct my question to Nancy?
CALLER: Is it legal or ethical for the defense to defend a client they have reason to believe is guilty?
GRACE: Yes. It is legal and it is ethical. Here's the fine line. If they put up perjury or if they put up evidence that they know to be untrue, such as if they put up Peterson to say, I didn't do it, when they believe he did, that would be unethical. If, however, they put up evidence to simply attack the state's case, put up conflicting experts or medical examiners or DNA experts, that would be ethical under the code of conduct.
KING: Now, Ted, he remains where? Scott's in Modesto, right?
ROWLANDS: Yes, at the Stanislaus County jail, which is right next to the courts there in Stanislaus County, in Modesto, which, by the way, there was a bomb threat there. They cleared it out for a half an hour today, but it was just a threat, deemed no big deal, and everybody was brought back. And the prisoners were not affected in any way.
KING: Let's go to Louisville, Kentucky. Hello.
CALLER: Yes. I'd like to know if they can move the trial out of the state of California.
GRACE: Cannot do it. If it were a federal case, maybe, because there are other federal courts in the country. But this is a state prosecution. Got to stay within the state of California.
KING: Bellingham, Washington. Hello.
CALLER: Yes. My question's for the wonderful Nancy Grace. And my question is, isn't Geragos violating the gag order by subpoenaing this record for the other cases, the other woman that was beheaded and on...
KING: The gag order is public speaking, right? He can certainly issue subpoenas.
KING: I mean, he could...
GRACE: Yes. One of the theories...
KING: He could do anything legal.
GRACE: Yes. It is legal. Larry, there has been a theory that he is fighting the gag order through his court documents. And maybe he is, but that's just a by-product of fighting your case. So other than the original leaks, I don't think he's been commenting on the case.
KING: By the way, Nancy, do you favor the gag order?
GRACE: I do not. I do not favor the gag order. I think many times in the past, as a prosecutor, I had wished there would be a gag order. But in retrospect, you know what, Larry? There are going to be leaks from now until the end of this trial and afterwards, if there's an appeal. And I think that that results in knowing half the story. So at this point, I think they should let it go. We'll find out at the preliminary hearing what they've got.
KING: Thank you all very much. Ted Rowlands, reporter KTVU. He's been covering this from the get-go. He's in San Francisco tonight. Nancy Grace, the host for "Trial Heat" on Court TV, the former prosecutor, who will guest host ABC's "The View" tomorrow. And Chris Pixley, defense attorney based out of Atlanta, Georgia.
When we come back, one of our favorite people to talk about a very important topic affecting millions of Americans. Mary Tyler Moore on the subject of juvenile diabetes. Mary Tyler Moore is next. Don't go away. (COMMERCIAL BREAK)
KING: Always good -- pleasure to welcome Mary Tyler Moore to these cameras. Television's comedy goddess, star of the "Mary Tyler Moore Show, "The Dick Van Dyke Show," the Academy Award nominee, seven-time Emmy Award winner. She is here tonight with another hat she is wearing. The international chairman of the Juvenile Diabetes Research Foundation. She heads up this years Children's Congress in Washington. She was last with us last month with her co-partner Dick Van Dyke when they appeared in the gin game which aired on PBS.
What is this children's Congress all about?
MARY TYLER MOORE, INTL. CHMN. JUVENILE DIABETES RESEARCH FDN.: It's a wonderful opportunity for 200 youngsters ranging in age from 2 to 17 years old to come to Washington to talk with their representatives, both in the Senate and in the House. It also gives these children a chance to see how their government works, meeting new friends, people who have diabetes. They spend most of their lives as unique people. They don't have a chance to see a lot of other diabetics and here they do.
KING: How were they selected?
MOORE: They write in and they ask to be considered. And many people pour over the applications and based on how responsible they are and how they're following the instructions of their doctors and getting along, they are selected.
KING: I had the honor MC'ing one of though event a couple years ago, it's a great event and a great idea.
MOORE: It is. And you were a great MC. You did a great job.
KING: The obvious though, does it pay off?
MOORE: Yes, it does. I am told that when those children, not me, but when the children come to Washington, it really hits home with the people who make the decisions as to the allocation of funds for the research that will provide the cure.
KING: Now, tomorrow you and several researchers and at the end of the program we'll meet one such science professor, Dr. Melton. Are going to appear on the Hill.
What are you telling the representatives, what are you asking for?
MOORE: I'm asking for money. I'm telling them how necessary it is. I will be giving testimony about what it's like to live with diabetes, how uncertain daily life is for everybody from children to old ladies. And I will be thanking them for the allocation that they gave us last year of $750 million to go into research over the next five years to find a cure for type I diabetes, which is the kind I have.
KING: Juvenile as it is more commonly, right?
MOORE: Juvenile diabetes, in the case of type I it means the pancreas has ceased to produce any insulin as a result of the body's immune system destroying the beta cells that make the insulin. We don't understand why that happens. But that is...
KING: It is the more dangerous of the two, is it not?
MOORE: Yes, it is. Type II diabetes or obesity or maturity on set, can be controlled with oral medication, and diet and exercise. But the odd thing about it is the same complications happen to both types. Blindness, the leading cause of adult on set blindness, stroke, heart disease, kidney failure. The derogation of the body is ceaseless and it can happen to you at any point. You don't know.
KING: Were you alarmed by that front page report last week that more and more children are going to be born and have diabetes than ever before. This is a national crisis.
MOORE: Yes, it is. Particularly with type II diabetes, that seems to be sweeping the country as a result of lifestyle. Children who don't get out and exercise who are watching videos and eating fast foods and so on, it's a result of the way our society has set things up, I think. But there are children born all the time with type I diabetes and that's what we're after.
KING: And you're going to ask Congress to support the pancreotic cell transportation act of 2003.
What is that?
MOORE: This is a protocol that was developed in Edmonton, where in they were able to take beta cells from the pancreas of cadavers and transplant them into diabetics who are desperate and need this transplant. They don't do well on insulin. The problem is many fold. For one thing, there just aren't that many cadavers to handle all of the type I diabetics that are needy. And, two, the toxic medications that you have to take to not have your immune system reject these cells that have been transplanted is so toxic that people very often don't do well. And in fact, it's awful. It cannot happen to children.
KING: How are we coming along with stem cell research?
That's going to be the eventual cure for this, isn't?
MOORE: Yes, it is for diabetes and many other devastating diseases. I think President Bush who gave a lot of thought and very determined care to his decision in allocating a certain amount, but I think he didn't know at the time what the needs were going to be. The needs now show us that we have a capacity to use many more than we can right now.
KING: How did you first learn you had it?
MOORE: I was 30 years old. I had a miscarriage and I was in the hospital and they did a routine blood test on me and a normal range for blood sugar is anywhere from 75 to 110 and mine was 750. In fact, I made it into a medical book, not as Mary Tyler Moore, but some other name because they couldn't figure out how it is that I was still walking around and functioning at that high of level. They put me on insulin almost immediately and I've been lucky. I have had a scrape with death a few times and some threats out there, losing a toe or losing my eyesight. Fortunately, neither of those things have happened, but there are compromises.
KING: Does someone with juvenile diabetes have a greater desire for sweets?
MOORE: No, not at all.
KING: So, that's a misapprehension then.
KING: There are also times you need sweets, right?
MOORE: If you become hypoglycemic. If your blood pressure is dropping, that is a terrible thing and very dangerous and you need to get something in you right away to elevate the glucose level. For me, that is orange juice because that's one of the fastest things that will get the blood. But, you know, sometimes I have to eat a candy bar.
KING: Do you know -- I'm told that type I accounts for $132 billion in healthcare costs in the United States alone alone.
MOORE: It's shocking what the costs the government to care for all of these people who become the victims of the complications of diabetes. And the lengthy lives they lead then dependent on dialysis. Any number of treatments that they have to undergo.
KING: Now we're going to take a break and come back with Mary Tyler Moore, take a few phone calls. Later we will have our closing moments with Dr. Melton.
The last time -- we'll show you a clip of Mary Tyler Moore testifying in June of 2001. Watch.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
MOORE: Chairman Leaven, Senator Collins, members, we're here again because of our children. Our loved ones with diabetes. They look to us for comfort for a way to stop their suffering and we are determined to find it.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Do I know who my hero is? UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: It's not a princess, it's not a cowboy. It could be a mommy.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: My hero is going to make us all better.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: My hero is going to cure juvenile diabetes.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: That's my best hero.
MOORE: Kids with juvenile diabetes need you to be their hero, now more than ever. Please, help us find the cure now. Your donation makes you...
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: My hero.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
KING: That's the public service campaign now running all over the United States for the Juvenile Diabetes Foundation. Do you do a different set of spots every year?
MOORE: Yes, we do. We do. We do the 10, 15, 30 and 60-minute spots and hope that the networks and stations will play them.
KING: You mean 10, 15, 30 and 60-second spots?
MOORE: Yes, right.
KING: Sixty-minute spots you won't get.
MOORE: Those are a tough sell.
KING: You've been chairman of this foundation for 19 years.
MOORE: That's right.
KING: When you took it on, did you think you would be doing it this long?
MOORE: I knew it was a serious, long-term endeavor. There was no question about it. But I'm really happy that I've been able to throw aside my concerns. At first when they asked me to speak out on behalf of JDRF, at that time it was just called JDF, I thought, well, if people look at me and they see how active I am and how healthy- looking I am, they will not take it seriously, or they'll look at me and say, well, she's going to fall over any minute now. You know, so I finally just said, the hell with that, let's just get out there and do what I need to do.
KING: Let's take a call for Mary Tyler Moore. She testifies tomorrow. The children's Congress is going on right now in Washington, for the Juvenile Diabetes Foundation. Kansas City, hello.
CALLER: Yes, hello.
KING: Yes, go ahead. CALLER: Yes, Ms. Moore, I was just wondering what are some of the symptoms that you should look for in children that might have diabetes that you're just unaware of? Are there some symptoms that you need to look for?
MOORE: Yes. There are. Thirst. Unreasonable thirst. Drinking water all the time. Frequent urination. A feeling of fatigue, lethargy. What else? I think that's about it.
KING: And then the child would get a blood test?
MOORE: The child would then get a blood test, and that would tell the doctor immediately what the situation is. And there might be a glucose tolerance test, which they give you sugar to eat, and over a period of time they test your body's tolerance for the sugar.
KING: Mary, you keep wiping the curl away, it looks great.
MOORE: Oh, does it, really?
KING: Leave it. I like the drop.
MOORE: But, you see, I'm looking into the monitor and it's going the wrong way. There.
KING: No, I like it. Oh, that's nice. Now you got a double drop. OK...
MOORE: All right, double is better than one.
KING: Corona del Mar, California, hello.
CALLER: Mary, I would like to thank you first of all for all that you've done for juvenile diabetes. My question is, having had diabetes for 29 years myself, I am wondering, have you ever considered an insulin pump. I am currently on an insulin pump and it has made the world of difference.
MOORE: I hear that from so many people that I think I will certainly have to do that at some point.
KING: Do you still inject yourself?
MOORE: Yes, I do.
KING: Doesn't the pump eliminate that?
MOORE: Yes, it does.
KING: So why not?
MOORE: I don't know why not. I think maybe it's because I grew up as a dancer and I just don't like the idea of having something attached to my body, which is about line and grace, and I don't know, it's a very immature viewpoint.
KING: In other words, it's aesthetic.
MOORE: Yes, probably so.
KING: Because the pump does work.
MOORE: Yes, it does!
KING: OK, don't get mad at me. I'm just trying to help you.
MOORE: No you're not, you're trying to humiliate me into getting the pump. All right, I will.
KING: She's so hard to convince. Are you, really now, confident that this disease is going to be cured?
MOORE: Oh, yes. I don't think there is any question about that. And when you talk with JDRF volunteer scientist Dr. Melton, I think you will hear that from him, too. Especially as we get involved in stem cell. In that research, once we can produce some effects from that, I think it's a very quick trip to the curing of several diseases.
KING: Haven't we seen in your 19 years a lot of advances?
MOORE: Absolutely. Improved methods of checking the blood, finer syringes for injecting the insulin, better methods of testing. All kinds of dietary improvements, knowledge about exercise, what kind of exercise, all of these things have been very helpful. When you think that 35 to 40 years ago they were thinking of diabetes as a kind of mental illness, especially when evidenced by low blood sugar, which leaves you very strange feeling and unable to function, they were just putting people into mental hospitals. We've come a long way.
KING: By the way, for more information on juvenile diabetes and the Juvenile Diabetes Research Foundation, there's an 800 number. It's 800-533-CURE, 1-800-533-CURE, or visit the Web site at www.jdrf.org. That's www.jdrf.org. By the way, we thank Paul Brownstein (ph) for the clips he has provided tonight, as well, reminding you that "Mary Tyler Moore" and "The Dick Van Dyke Show" set of DVDs are all going to be released October 21. She stars in a new television movie called "Blessings," which will be aired on CBS. What is that about?
MOORE: It is based on a novel, "Blessings," by Anna Quindlen, a wonderful book that I read last year, never dreaming that I was going to be able to play the matriarch, who was an 82-year-old woman. Argue with me now, Larry. Say no, you couldn't possibly do that.
KING: How can you play an 82-year-old woman? No, really, how do you do that?
MOORE: Brilliant, brilliant makeup and hair people who did the trick. And a fabulous cast. It was directed also by Arthur -- excuse me, by Arvin Brown, who directed "The Gin Game." Wonderful producer, Larry Sinitski (ph), and a young man named Leon Wait (ph) who is the son of Ralph Wait (ph), and Kathleen Quinlan and China Chow (ph). It's a brilliant cast.
KING: By the way, the American Screenwriters Association honored Moore with a David Angell Humanitarian Award last year for her contributions as chairman of the Juvenile Diabetes Research Foundation and for helping to improve the lives of other diabetics. I was honored to be at that dinner.
MOORE: You were.
KING: It was a good night for you, Mary.
MOORE: You were there.
KING: In fact, I made the presentation...
MOORE: You did.
KING: For Mary Tyler Moore that night. That was a great, great evening for you, and I congratulate you on that.
MOORE: Thank you.
KING: And there I am standing with you...
MOORE: There you are.
KING: ... as you get your many, your multi-trophied career. Right?
KING: Do you like going to Washington? Do you like having to appear -- do you like doing this kind of thing?
MOORE: Yes, I do. I really do. It makes me nervous, because I want to do so well by the cause. I want to make sure that I speak it correctly and with the passion that I feel, and make people think, maybe change their minds.
KING: Where do children get their courage from, do you think? They're amazing when you meet these children.
MOORE: Oh, children. Aren't they just -- children can adapt to anything. You know, especially with a little love and support from the family. And also from the children in their schools, their teachers, their counselors. It's very important to make sure that everybody understands what diabetes is, so that it's not scary or frightening to others, but an interesting aspect of what other people are made of.
KING: We'll take a break and come back with our remaining moments, and Dr. Melton will join us as we wrap things up with Mary Tyler Moore. Don't go away.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
MOORE: Do you know you have a stain on your tie?
DICK VAN DYKE, ACTOR: How did you know?
MOORE: I do wish you wouldn't point, it's so impolite.
VAN DYKE: Lora!
MOORE: My name is not Lora, it is Lolack (ph). Lolack (ph) of Twilo (ph). I see you.
VAN DYKE: It's not possible!
MOORE: My eyes, don't touch my eyes.
VAN DYKE: I got to wake up, I've got to get out of this nightmare.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
KING: Joining Mary Tyler Moore in Washington is Dr. Douglas Melton, Harvard science professor, associate director of the Juvenile Diabetes Research Foundation. He has two children who have been diagnosed with diabetes, Sam and Emma. Is that what got you involved, Dr. Melton?
DOUGLAS MELTON, PH.D., ASSOCIATE DIRECTOR, JDRF: Yes, it is. My son Sam was diagnosed when he was six months old, and Emma, my daughter, who is now 16, was diagnosed a little more than a year ago, and as millions of parents with children with type I diabetes, it gets your attention, and that's why I now work on that problem.
KING: How did you find out at age 6 months?
MELTON: Well, Sam got very ill and was taken to the hospital, and it was unclear at first from what he suffered, as Mary had said earlier. And yet the doctors and nurses discovered after some hours that he had very high blood sugar and was then diagnosed as a type I or juvenile diabetic.
KING: And he was delegated to the first children's Congress, and now Emma is one of eight children representing Massachusetts at this third Congress, right?
MELTON: That's right. Yes. Emma gave a nice talk today to introduce Secretary Thompson, and we're excited to be down here to lobby the Congress for more funding.
KING: Now, you're not a physician. Your field is science. Are you as confident as Mary is about curing this disease? MELTON: I think that there are very good ideas now about how to cure the disease. And among them one of my favorites is the idea of using stem cells to make more pancreatic beta cells, that is the cells which make insulin, and then use those for transplantation. One still has to solve an autoimmune rejection problem, but the things we learn in the lab every month or two, my colleagues and myself, convince me that it's going to be possible to cure the disease in the future.
KING: You're going to need a lot more stem cells, though, right?
MELTON: I think it will be a help if there are more stem cells available to researchers, but there is the challenge to figure out how to instruct these cells to become insulin-producing cells. But as I said, I'm confident that that can be done.
MOORE: That's the magic of these cells, Larry, is that they can be trained to become anything the scientist wants it to be. Is that right?
MELTON: That's right. Mary is absolutely right. The cells are unique because they have the potential to become any part of the body. And we're in my lab and others are trying to tell them and instruct them to become these pancreatic cells.
KING: How well, doctor, does a layperson like Mary do with this?
MELTON: She's so good, I am going to invite her to come and give and the lectures for me at Harvard.
KING: She's that good. But you're as confident as she is, very important to bring that home.
MELTON: I think so, yes. I am very confident and very committed, of course, to solve this problem.
KING: Do your children use the automatic pump or do they inject?
MELTON: Well, like Mary, my daughter Emma doesn't like to use the pump now, so she does injections, but my son Sam has been using the pump very effectively for several years now.
MOORE: And a little child shall lead them.
KING: Mary may go to the pump. Doctor, I thank you very much. I want to give the numbers out again, because it's very important. It's 1-800-533-CURE, 1-800-533-CURE. Or visit the Web site at www.jdrf.org.
Best of luck tomorrow in your testimony, congratulations on all you do and continued success with the Congress, and the hope, the best hope is one day there is no Juvenile Diabetes Research Foundation.
MOORE: Thank you. Absolutely.
KING: We hope you wipe out the foundation. That would be great news. MELTON: Thank you very much.
KING: Thank you. Dr. Douglas Melton of Harvard, and Mary Tyler Moore. I'll come back and tell you about tomorrow night. Don't go away.
KING: Tomorrow night, on LARRY KING LIVE, John Walsh returns with a lot of updates, including his thoughts on that capture down in Mexico by bounty hunters. John Walsh has been on top of that case. Walsh, tomorrow night. "NEWSNIGHT" in New York is next.
TO ORDER A VIDEO OF THIS TRANSCRIPT, PLEASE CALL 800-CNN-NEWS OR USE OUR SECURE ONLINE ORDER FORM LOCATED AT www.fdch.com
Interview with Mary Tyler Moore>