CNN LARRY KING LIVE
Legal Analysis of Scott Peterson Preliminary Hearing Day Two; Interview With Paul Burrell
Aired October 30, 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, day two of Scott Peterson's preliminary hearing. Could a single strand of hair from Scott's boat be enough to convict him of killing his wife, Laci, and their unborn son? That hair and the DNA it contains were the subject of intense questioning today.
And we're going to get firsthand accounts from ABC News's senior legal correspondent Cynthia McFadden. She was inside the Modesto courtroom all day. Also, Ted Rowlands of KTVU. He sat through today's hearing today, as well.
Plus, consulting with the Scott Peterson's defense team, forensic legend, Dr. Henry Lee. His new book goes right to the heart of today's hearing. It's called "Blood Evidence: How DNA Is Revolutionizing the Way We Solve Crimes."
Also, Court TV's Nancy Grace, the former prosecutor, high-profile defense attorney Chris Pixley, Gloria Allred, the attorney for Scott's other woman, Amber Frey.
And then Princess Diana's former butler, Paul Burrell. Her sons, Prince William and Harry, say he betrayed her with his shocking claims about her tragic death.
It's all next on LARRY KING LIVE.
KING: Let's start with a familiar face too long missing around this these days, Cynthia McFadden in Modesto. Is it true you got inside the cell block where Scott's being held? Can you tell us about it and how you got in?
CYNTHIA MCFADDEN, ABC NEWS: Right up to the bars, Larry. We didn't go back inside the actual cell block, but we did get some pictures back there. We asked, and they let us go, so -- nothing like asking, if you're a journalist. Sometimes they actually let you do it.
KING: Does he have much space?
MCFADDEN: No. I mean, this is -- you know, this is really 9-by- 12. It is exactly what maximum security looks like around the country. It is not a hotel, by any stretch of the imagination. It's very confining. A shower every day, if you're lucky, every other day, exercise two days a week outside by himself. This is a tough, tough confinement, and it's an old facility. This is -- this is not hotel living. This is not a federal prison. This is tough. Food's pretty lousy...
KING: Even though it is a...
MCFADDEN: ...too, I hear.
KING: Even though it is a jail, and that's before conviction, before any trial, I thought they're treated in better in jail than they are in prison.
MCFADDEN: Well, I mean, you know, nobody's beaten up here, but it's certainly not luxury accommodations. I don't think any of us like to spend the night there, say nothing of the last six months. I'm sure it's been a tough time.
KING: Ted Rowlands, the highlight today, was it Mark Geragos's cross-examining of the FBI guy?
TED ROWLANDS, KTVU-TV: Yes. FBI doctor. Very aggressive questioning from Geragos, which lasted the better part of the day. There was some redirect and then re-cross. It was all DNA all day long.
KING: And do you think Geragos made impression? Did he -- did he move the hearing at all?
ROWLANDS: Well, you know, it's -- one thing is evident, this is very important to the defense. They didn't just let this go. He was very meticulous, went into a number of different topics, went into many articles, and really put this doctor through the ringer, if you will. She stood her ground and did an excellent job. It was a great -- another day of great education for the rest of us. And you know, to what degree this actually will be a huge part of the prosecution's case remains to be seen, but the defense sure is not taking a chance. The put up a huge defense. And keep in mind, we're going to revisit this subject again on Monday, when Geragos brings his own expert. And it did seem as though he was getting some work done today that he would follow up on Monday.
KING: What's happening tomorrow?
ROWLANDS: Tomorrow we'll start with the rest of the prosecution's case and witnesses. It'll be a short day in court, starting a little early at 9:00 o'clock and then off at 1:00 o'clock for Halloween, basically, for those folks that have to get home to their kids. And they're going to start the prosecution with a -- with witness testimony from the maid, Scott Peterson's maid. It's expected that she will talk about a number of different things. Of course, she was in the house on the 23rd of December. They'll most likely ask her what she did, in terms of cleaning, what types of things she handled and where she left them, specifically, possibly, some towels. And then also it's expected they'll -- that she will comment about Laci and her situation, her wellbeing.
ROWLANDS: We've heard that Laci was very tired and that she wouldn't be up for going on a walk with her dog. And that may come out tomorrow.
KING: Dr. Lee, are you expected to testify at the preliminary hearing?
DR. HENRY LEE, FORENSIC SCIENTIST CONSULTING WITH DEFENSE: No. Larry, I'm not.
KING: Are you attending at all?
LEE: As you know, you know, I cannot directly comment on the case...
KING: That's right. You can't. You're under -- you're under...
LEE: (UNINTELLIGIBLE) involved and...
KING: You're under -- you're under...
LEE: Right, right.
KING: You can't speak. What is -- tell us what mitochondrial DNA is, without being too technical.
LEE: OK. In our human body cells, we have two type of DNA. One type of DNA called chromosomal DNA, also refered as nuclear DNA. Those are DNA found in the nucleus, center of the cell. Then in the cell plasma, outside, have a lot of little energy houses we refer to them as mitochondria.
Those mitochondria inside have a piece of DNA. That DNA is from the mother, so-called "maternity DNA." The nucleus DNA is from the father and mother, two pieces. The mitochondrial DNA is small pieces. There are thousands and sometimes millions of little mitochondria. So that's why make it's a very accessible (UNINTELLIGIBLE) to get DNA.
KING: Do you regard mitochondrial as effective examination? Would you say it's...
LEE: Yes. Mitochondria DNA has been used in the field, has been a settled (ph) procedure. However, mitochondrial DNA is not a positive proof, say somebody definite have this, because that's maternity link. Everybody -- this maternity line From the mother. Every sister going to have the same DNA, brother should have the same DNA, mitochondrial DNA. Nuclear DNA give you, let's say, the frequency 1 in 30 million to billions (UNINTELLIGIBLE). Mitochondrial DNA only give you 1 in hundreds or to thousands (UNINTELLIGIBLE) So...
KING: I see. Do they use it in Connecticut?
LEE: We use couple cases, and just to show their similarity. You cannot say positively for any person.
KING: Nancy Grace, are you -- is the prosecution helped when the "National Enquirer" comes out with, like, "Laci died on Scott's boat: Exclusive, the evidence that will convict him." Is that something the prosecutor hates? NANCY GRACE, COURT TV: Well, at this point, the prosecutor probably doesn't care. I think if it were closer to the time of the actual jury trial -- Larry, I can guarantee you, between now and a jury being struck, there will probably be about 52 more issues with Laci and Scott on the front of "The Enquirer," "The Globe," "The Star" and "The Examiner."
KING: But the question is, doesn't that...
GRACE: But right now, they're probably not worried about it.
KING: Doesn't that hurt the prosecutor because it taints the jury, doesn't it?
GRACE: I think, at this point, I don't think it really matters. If it were closer to the jury selection, every jury would have to be voir dired -- your (UNINTELLIGIBLE) correct about that -- to make sure they had not read the article, or if they had, they were not tainted by it.
KING: Chris Pixley, what does the defense think of something like that?
CHRIS PIXLEY, DEFENSE ATTORNEY: Well, I think the publicity that Scott Peterson has received, especially the negative publicity, has been a major problem from day one. And of course, when the gag order came out shortly after his defense team was assembled, they really didn't have time to respond to many of these stories. This's why the preliminary hearing is actually going to be potentially the defense's day to shine. Not only will they be poking holes in the prosecution's theory, as we would normally see in this kind of hearing, but they're also potentially going to be putting up their own witnesses. And there's a good reason for doing it. It's to counter this kind of -- this kind of publicity that's out there.
KING: Do you like the British system, Chris, where we couldn't be covering this tonight if it were in Great Britain?
PIXLEY: I don't know that I like the British system because if you -- it creates difficulties, I think, for both sides. The problem in this particular case, Larry, is that with the gag order, the defense really hasn't had an opportunity to respond to these stories. And even in the last week, we're hearing new leaks about things like paint on the boat. Well, that leak didn't come from the defense. That's a leak that comes from the state. And to the extent those leaks come out and the defense can't respond to them, in this case, it's a real problem.
KING: All right, let me get a break and we'll come back. More with the panel, more of your phone calls. Lots more to come. Don't go away.
KING: Ted Rowlands, tell me about this these letters that Scott has been writing to a friend. ROWLANDS: Well, they were letters that we were given, basically, able the look at. We knew about them some time ago. We never reported anything on it, but then we saw them and just reported this morning some excerpts from these letters. Basically, it's just Scott's life in jail and as he articulated it, and as Cynthia saying, it's not a lot of fun. He was saying the worst thing for him is the cell, the size of the cell and being stuck in that cell for days without getting out, except for him to take a shower. Also talked about the food. And he also talked about missing, he said, his wife and unborn son. And he's talked about specific days, specifically Laci's birthday, said he missed her and it a tough day for him. So it was really just his impressions from inside of this jail, and we took a few excerpts from those letters that we were able to validate indeed they did come from Scott.
KING: Cynthia, how did the letters get out? Is that from the defense? Obviously, it makes him look good. He's grieving over his wife and son.
MCFADDEN: Well, one would imagine that someone sympathetic to the defendant released those letters. I mean, there's nothing -- there's nothing but positive things about Scott Peterson in these letters. I mean, obviously, people who believe in Scott Peterson and believe in his innocence would like the public to know that he is a regular guy who's not a crazed murderer, but rather, a grieving husband and father. So yes, I think this is something that helps the defense. Maybe Ted can tell us who gave him the letters, but I don't know.
KING: Who gave you the letters, Ted? I don't know, CNN, we just put them up. You can't tell us.
ROWLANDS: Well, I'm not going to say where we go them and how we found out about them. I can tell you emphatically it did not come from the defense team. It wasn't something that was orchestrated, by any means. And yes, nothing -- it's sympathetic towards Scott Peterson. He's the one that wrote them. I mean, he's the author of them, and it really is just his feelings. You can take them for what they are, and that's exactly what they are. Really, they're just letters from Scott Peterson from jail.
KING: Nancy Grace, you make anything of it?
GRACE: Yes. They're called "self serving statements," and they are disallowed in the court of law. If the defendant wants to take the stand to be cross-examined about his pain, he can do that. And Chris said something on point. You look at these leaks, really, they go back and forth. You never know who really leaked them. This doesn't necessarily have to be from the defense team, just as the buoy, buoy marker No. 2, that has the paint that we hear is matching up to something scuffed onto Scott's boat -- that may not have been from the state. It could have been from someone at the patrol, there at marina. It could have been from a clerk or a secretary. Leaks are going to abound, and we're feeding off them because we don't know exactly what's in the evidence.
KING: Chris, agree?
PIXLEY: I do. And I think that Nancy's right also that, you know, we are going to start seeing more leaks from either side and from people that don't even have anything to do with the case. And this is a subplot of a larger story that's going to be coming out, I think, between now and the time of trial, about Scott Peterson. I do think the media's going to want to pick up on the other side of the story.
And we've heard, of course, consistently although it's only been, you know, the story on page 3, that Scott Peterson is a gentle person, that this is a laid-back guy, not quick to anger, no history of violence. It's going to force the prosecution to abandon this kind of water- cooler theory that this was a murder that occurred in the heat of passion or during a fight one night and force them to prove that this man...
GRACE: That's not true!
PIXLEY: ... premeditated his wife's murder.
GRACE: That's not true, Larry. I can count on one hand -- for instance, Rabbi Fred Neulander (ph), a rabbi in New Jersey -- Clara Harris -- remember the dentist that rode over her husband in Texas -- Michael Peterson, the novelist -- it goes on and on, people with no history of violence suddenly kill their spouse. This is not a new story.
PIXLEY: And the difference, in fairness, Larry, is that in each of those cases there was solid physical evidence. There was the kind of evidence that we don't have in this case.
KING: Yes. Doctor...
GRACE: Says you.
PIXLEY: We don't know how the murder occurred and we don't know why in this case.
KING: We don't know anything yet until evidence is presented. All this is speculation, is it not?
LEE: Correct, and all...
LEE: ... this speculation because you have one hair. Even, say, you prove that's Laci Peterson's hair, but it cannot as a proof for Scott Peterson killed Laci. That's a quantum leap. Even you have a paint transfer, not necessarily that day, the paint transfer. Nancy mentioned two cases (UNINTELLIGIBLE) Even that because the jury decision, not really. If you know the physical evidence, you start questioning whether (UNINTELLIGIBLE) the right decision or not.
KING: Dr. Lee, do you expect to testify? Can you answer that? In the trial.
LEE: Maybe. Maybe.
KING: I mean, if it's helpful to the defense, you'll testify. If it's not, you won't.
LEE: Yes. That's correct, Larry, 100 percent correct. And not always am I examination in favor of the defense or prosecution.
KING: I understand. Kettering (ph), Ohio, as we take some calls. Hello.
CALLER: Good evening. On one of your previous shows, it was told that Scott had told Laci of his affair. Do you know if she ever told her parents or friends?
KING: Do we even know that that's a fact? Do we know that, Chris?
PIXLEY: Well, we do know that Scott has come out on national television and said, Look, I did tell Laci about the affair. And it appears that she did not tell her parents or Scott's parents about it. That's, at least, what we've heard in the stories. So there's the question, why wouldn't she tell? Of course, there will be, I'm sure, a number of potential answers posed between now and the time of trial, one of them being...
GRACE: That's not what he said!
PIXLEY: ... that he's her husband, and she didn't want to turn the family against him.
GRACE: That's not what he said, Chris. He said on national TV that he had told Laci he was having an affair, and she was OK with it. Now, if the jury's going to believe that, I will stand on my head in Central Park.
PIXLEY: I don't think that we said something different. Maybe she was OK with it...
GRACE: That she was OK with it.
PIXLEY: ... maybe she wasn't OK with it. But the question is whether...
GRACE: And Larry...
PIXLEY: ... she told any...
KING: Well, we don't know, do we? We don't know. She's dead. You know, some women might...
GRACE: Well, of course we don't, but...
KING: ... have been OK. We don't know. GRACE: ... her family -- her family on your show suggested that they knew nothing about it and she would have told them. But Larry, I've got a big question for anybody, especially Chris Pixley or Dr. Henry Lee, who -- PS, I enjoyed watching you in those trials, Doctor. Everybody keeps saying this hair means nothing? A, if it means nothing, why is Geragos fighting so hard to get it excluded? And two, could somebody tell me how her hair gets on a set of needle-nose pliers? What was her head doing...
LEE: OK, I can tell you, Nancy.
GRACE: ... next to some pliers?
LEE: I can tell you easy.
KING: Let him answer, Nancy. Quickly, Doctor.
LEE: Secondary transfer. For example, the hair -- every person, normal person, we lose about 50 hair every day. Of course, some people cannot afford to lose that many hairs.
LEE: But generally, we lose a lot of hair. Those hair is scattered around. If somebody...
GRACE: This was wound in, though, Doctor!
LEE: ... picked up some hair -- oh, you -- Nancy, if you look at a crime scene, every day, I find hundreds, sometimes thousands of hair at the scene. If I trace every hair, my life going to be just look at a hair!
LEE: Found in the plier, of course, that's of some significance, but you cannot say the plier is the murder weapon. And second...
KING: All right, let me get a break and come right back. We'll come right back with our panel. Don't go away.
KING: By the way, one quick note. David Blaine, the illusionist who starved himself for, like, 45 days in London, his first appearance next week on this show.
Let's take another call. Granada Hills, California, for Cynthia McFadden, Ted Rowlands, Dr. Henry Lee, Nancy Grace and Chris Pixley. Hello.
CALLER: Hi. Good evening, Larry.
KING: Hi. CALLER: This is for Nancy.
KING: Sure. Go ahead.
CALLER: OK. When this story first broke, there was a story that Scott Peterson was questioned once before when he was a student in a college town. And that student was never found. Whatever happened with that possible coincidence?
GRACE: Well, they've ruled Scott Peterson out on that. I was keenly interested in the fact that he was questioned in the disappearances of two young women. He was ruled out. The prime suspect in that case remains, to my understanding, the girl's boyfriend at the time, not Peterson.
KING: Cynthia, you're new to our discussions on this. I know you've been covering it. What's fascinating? Why do you think the world is fascinated in this particular murder?
MCFADDEN: Well, I mean, Larry, it's such a tragic story. Of course, you know, any murder is a tragedy.
MCFADDEN: But this young woman on Christmas Eve, murdered, pregnant -- you know, I just think the nation's attention has been riveted to this.
You know, Larry, with the fear of bringing Nancy's wrath down on me, which is a scary prospect, I just want to tell you how effective I think the defense has been in the cross-examination. Now, that's not to say it hasn't been dull as watching paint dry for those of us who are not scientific experts. It has been. But I think Mark Geragos done a brilliant job in creating a record that his experts are going to be able to use to poke holes in the science, if, in fact, this goes to court and...
GRACE: That's right.
MCFADDEN: ... if, in fact, the evidence introduced.
GRACE: She's absolutely right, Larry. And that is why Dr. Henry Lee wouldn't tell you if he was going to be in the courtroom during this testimony. With Geragos, he doesn't have to be because he can read the transcript and read the state's scientific findings and come up with his own opinion.
Geragos is mounting a four-pronged attack on the state's mitochondrial evidence. First, they're claiming it should have been compared to Laci's own bones, this hair. No. 2, he's attacking the science of mitochondrial. That's going to go nowhere. It's already admitted in about 18 states. Three, attacking the FBI's extraction methods, getting the DNA out of the hair. And last, and if all else fails, he will claim the DNA is contaminated, a la, O.J. That's where he's headed.
KING: But we -- none of us know how...
MCFADDEN: But you know, Larry, there were some...
KING: ... the jury will be affected by that. None of us know that. It's all guessing.
To Atlantic City, New Jersey. Hello.
CALLER: Hello. Good evening, panel. A couple months ago, I caught the "Today" show early in the morning, and there was a psychic being interviewed. And if I remember correctly, she had been hired by the Peterson family. And she was stating the fact that she felt that he had hit her over -- Scott had hit Laci over the head and that he had wrapped her in blankets. And I wondered if you'd heard anything about that -- and taking her out of the house afterwards.
KING: Ted Rowlands, you ever heard that?
ROWLANDS: Well, I know that there were some psychics involved. I'm not sure who hired who or what the conclusions were. This was, keep in mind, when everybody was desperately trying to find this woman, and they were trying to go towards anything they -- they just had no answers. The country looking for her. Everyone in Modesto was looking for her. Both families were united at that time, and they were all looking for Laci. So they, quite frankly, did everything in their power to try to bring her home alive, and this was a by-product of that.
KING: Barbourville, Kentucky. Hello.
CALLER: Hi. My question's for Nancy.
CALLER: Last night -- how important was it about Amber Frey, about him calling her an hour before the vigil? How important will that be in the case?
GRACE: Well, after Chris Pixley and I discussed it last night, I went and looked it up again in my notes. And as a matter of fact -- remember, a lot of the tape -- the phone calls were not being taped at that time. But what they can do, as we all know, is the state can get -- or a divorce attorney -- can get your cell phone records or your home phone bill records, and they can see who called who at what time. Just before that vigil, about an hour ahead of time, there were two phone calls between Amber and Scott Peterson that lasted for a substantial period of time.
Will it matter? Heck, yes, it's going to matter to a jury. Larry, that's one thing I would be willing to bet on. You always say we don't know how a jury will react, and I agree with you. But with him calling his girlfriend while he's on his way to the vigil for his wife -- that's not going to look good.
MCFADDEN: But on the other hand...
KING: It don't make a murderer, right? Makes him a cad, maybe.
GRACE: I agree.
KING: Cynthia, were you going to say something?
MCFADDEN: I was just going to say the prosecution's going to have to have a lot more than the "cad" prosecution. They're going to have to be able to prove and link Scott Peterson to the murder of his wife. I mean, on the other hand, the jurors are not going to be predisposed to believe that, you know, a nice-looking young guy goes out and murders his pregnant -- eight-months-pregnant wife. I mean, the prosecution's going to have a lot more than the fact that he had a girlfriend. That's not good, but...
GRACE: I agree.
MCFADDEN: ... an awful lot of people do have girlfriends and they don't commit murder.
GRACE: This's right, Larry.
KING: All right, we're going to take a break. We're going to take a break and we'll come back. I'll have a few questions for Gloria Allred and then more with the panel. And then Paul Burrell, the former butler to Princess Di and the author of the book "A Royal Duty" will be with us, the most controversial book around. Don't go away.
KING: I want to spend a few minutes with Gloria Allred, the attorney for Amber Frey, who is attending the hearings. Anything impress you today, Gloria?
GLORIA ALLRED, ATTORNEY: Well, today was a day that was mainly spent in examination and cross-examination of the DNA expert from the FBI lab, Dr. Constance Fisher (ph). And Mr. Geragos did extensive cross-examination of her, but I think he was not able to shake her in her conclusion that the type of DNA testing done on the hair, the mitochondrial DNA testing she says is widely accepted in the scientific and forensic community.
KING: Where's Amber, by the way?
ALLRED: Amber is not in Modesto today, Larry, and has no plans to be in Modesto tomorrow either.
KING: And you have not -- you're going by the court rule. You're not discussing anything with her?
ALLRED: Well, the court does not say that I cannot discuss anything with her. If that's the case, there's no point in representing her. I'm simply asked not to discuss the testimony of other witnesses with her. But frankly, Larry, I don't think there would be any benefit to her to know about DNA testing on a hair.
KING; They're going to make a movie about this. USA Network is going to be called "The Perfect Husband." Dean Cain, the host of "Ripley's Believe it or Not" is going to play Scott Peterson. Are you concerned about how Amber might be portrayed?
ALLRED: Well, I would always be concerned about her reputation because I care about her because I think she's a very brave young woman who's done the right thing. I don't know anything about that. And no one has approached us about movie rights or book rights, and that's not something that would be appropriate in any case for her to consider as she is about to testify.
KING: But they can do a movie, can't they? Because it's a story. You can do a movie about a story.
ALLRED: I would have to look into it and know the facts to reach a conclusion whether or not she would have any rights if they chose to portray her.
KING: And finally, Gloria, how do you prepare her for testimony?
ALLRED: Well, I wouldn't necessarily call it preparing her. I think that my role is to help her to understand the criminal justice system, and what is expected of a witness. She is going to tell the truth. And, when a person is going to tell the truth, they really don't need much in the way of preparation. It's only if they plan to lie they have to practice, practice, practice.
She knows the truth about her life or relationship with Scott Peterson was. Both before Laci's disappearance and afterwards. And she'll tell that truth if asked in the court of law.
KING: Thank you, as always, Gloria. We'll call on you a lot. Gloria Allred, the attorney for Amber Frey and Scott Peterson's former girlfriend.
Chris Pixley, how important will Amber Frey be to the prosecution?
PIXLEY: Well, obviously, they think she's important and gives them a motive. She explains the why of this murder, potentially. We don't seem to have another explanation for it right now.
You know, aside from all of the hype, though, Larry, we don't know about this woman and I think we are going to find out through the preliminary hearing just how important she is because we're going to learn about the relationship, we're going to learn about her background, and, you know, the defense is going to have an opportunity to poke holes in her story and the state's theory.
How long this relationship lasted is an issue before Laci's disappearance. How much time they spent together. Whether she was seeing other men. Whether Scott knew that they weren't exclusive. All of those things will matter and it will also matter whether Amber comes to the court with clean hands. You know, a much is made of the fact that Scott lied to her about being single. But if it comes out that she, in fact, mislead him in any way to either get him into the relationship or to keep him in the relationship, it could change everything.
KING: Nancy, how important is she in your opinion?
GRACE: Could be a bomb shell and said many, many times, what's love got to do with it? She could have more to testify than them going on dates or sleeping together or god knows what. Let's talk about what he may have said to her on the telephone or in person. Remember, they're not bringing in the audiotapes of those phone taps. Or possibly what jewelry given to her. Did any of it belong to Laci? Was it given to her because she knew Laci would never miss it?
KING: She will be vigorously cross-examined, will she not?
GRACE: Of course. And if Mark Geragos wants to parade in the nudey pictures on the Internet, you know what, have at it. The jury is interested in what Scott may have said on the phone
KING: Cynthia McFadden, when do you think the trial is going to take place?
MCFADDEN: I don't know, but the rate of the preliminary hearing, Larry, I don't think the trials going to happen for a while and I think it's going to be a long one. I think this preliminary hearing is going to go all next week and into the following week. We have only testimony of about one hair and it's taken two full days.
You know, at one point before -- actually I think it might have been on this broadcast -- Mark Geragos before he was a defense attorney said if the death pent is still on the table, this trial wouldn't take place until 2004 or 2005. And that's a possibility.
KING: Ted Rowlands, do you have a thought? Off the top when it might take place.
ROWLANDS: Yes. Probably depends on how this preliminary hear goes. If the defense comes out of this feeling confident, I know that the Peterson family and Scott Peterson, specifically, most likely, will urge them to go quickly. If not, who knows? But I think it's safe to say nothing will happen until summer of next year earliest.
KING: Dr. Lee, have you been alerted as to time?
LEE: Well, still far away. A lot of evidence haven't been finished yet. So, we have to look at whatever evidence come up and let the evidence speak for itself.
KING; Thank you all very much. A full program on this coming up tomorrow night. We're going to take a break and come back and talk to Paul Burrell, the Princess Di butler who is author of a new memoir, "A Royal Duty," that is causing an international flack. Paul Burrell is next next. Don't go away.
KING: It is already a runaway bestseller in the United States and in Great Britain. Not surprising. It is "A Royal Duty" is the title. It's being talked about everywhere. The author is Paul Burrell, the former butler to Princess Di, previous guest on this program.
And -- by the way, let's get the first things first. Are you going to have -- they're reporting today that you will have a meeting with Prince William, who has been critical of the book.
PAUL BURRELL, PRINCESS DIANA'S FMR. BUTLER: I certainly am, Larry. William has expressed a wish to see me. I'm very much looking forward to seeing him and sitting down and talking to him man to man.
KING: Were you hurt when he said that they were so saddened, he and his brother, over the release of the letters in your book?
BURRELL: Actually, I was, Larry, because, I'm -- you know, I love these boys. I grew up with them. They grew up with my children too. And we have had such happy times together.
So, I feel that the book's been misrepresented. I think they have seen screaming headlines all week and reacted in this way. So I want to sit down and explain to them that this book is a tribute to their mother. It's a loving tribute, and I think they'll understand what I have to say.
KING: When you had your legal problems, weren't you hurt by the fact that they didn't speak up for you?
BURRELL: Well, I think their hands were rather tied by palace courtiers and legal matters, and they couldn't actually come forward and help me. So I want to speak to them.
And you know, when I have that meeting, it's going to be a very private meeting behind closed doors and no one will ever know what's been said. And I think that's the right way to do it.
If they asked you to relinquish -- only going to be with William?
BURRELL: Probably just with William. But maybe Harry, too, if he wants to be there.
KING: If they ask you to relinquish any papers or tapes or anything you have to them, would you?
BURRELL: I'll speak about it with William when I see him personally. And as I said, that meeting is going to be very private. The boys can have anything they want because I have nothing to hide from them.
KING: What do you make of the reaction to the book?
BURRELL: It's astonishing, really. I mean, it's been a huge success. It is an accurate, historic tribute to the princess. And, you know, I think that everybody in love with the princess will love the book.
KING: Well, why, then, all of the uproar? Was it because, do you think, you revealed -- you know, the person who wrote that letter -- that's a personal letter to you. They writer of the letter owns that letter, in a sense. She's dead. She can't stop it from being printed now. Do you think it was a betrayal of trust?
BURRELL: No, I don't, Larry. I think it's a matter of public interest.
I mean, the question everyone should ask me is, Why has it taken six years for an inquest to be held into the princess' death? Not just her death, but the situations surrounding it.
I think it's a matter of public interest and these things should be brought to light. I waited a very long time for that letter to come out into the public light.
You know, when that accident happened all those years ago, we were all in grief, and I was suffering and I thought, you know, what do I do with this? Do I give it to the Windsors, who might archive it and we may never see it again? Do I give it to the Spencers, whom I've seen shredding personal documents? I certainly couldn't give it to the boys, who were grieving the loss of their mother.
So I kept it safe, thinking that there's going to be an inquest in Britain. Of course, there was one in France. But to be quite honest, I didn't trust the one in France and I thought, There's going to be one coming in Britain. There has to be. For goodness sakes, she's the mother of the future king of England, so we have to look into this seriously.
And time went by and nothing happened. And do you remember the queen warned me that there were dark forces at work in the country?
BURRELL: And I'm thinking about my security and the safety of my family and it was a rather chilling premonition, wasn't it? That the princess should write that note and give it to me before she died.
So all these thoughts are going in my head and I was scared. I'm thinking, Well, what do I do? It's a matter of public interest. It should be out there. And I think now it's sparked such a strong feeling in our country that there has to be an inquest. And I will give them every assistance I can.
KING: Now, the report is that Prince Charles has banned the use of your name, newspapers and commentators have called you a traitor, arrogant, flunky, leech, royal bloodsucker, mercenary. What does that emotionally do to you?
BURRELL: Oh, my goodness. Well, I didn't know that until you just told me.
KING: They just -- that's what they tell me that that's what's been said about you on...
KING: On the right coast.
BURRELL: That's rather harsh.
You know, in my time in service, he banned all newspapers from the house anyway. So I don't think he particularly likes tabloids press in his residences. It doesn't -- it is no surprise to me.
But, you know, I have only told the truth. I have told -- I have given an accurate portrayal of the princess' life and I think it will stand there long after we're gone.
KING: Why did you write it?
BURRELL: I wrote it because I wanted to actually dispel all those untruths and misconceptions and lies, actually, that have been written about the princess over the years.
You know, so many royal commentators and royal biographers have come out and said, You know, the princess was this and that. Actually, she wasn't mad and she wasn't suffering from a borderline personality disorder and she loved her husband and she had a great relationship with her in-laws.
All these things I've set out in the proper context. And I think, you know, that's right.
In fact, today, one of the princess' closest friends rang me in my hotel room. She's in Rome -- a lady called Lana Marx (ph) that lives in the states. The princess has an intimate relationship with her.
KING: I know Lana.
BURRELL: And she said, You know, Paul, I'm 100 percent behind you because I feel that the princess' hand is on this and her voice comes through the book.
BURRELL: And, you know, you've done justice to her memory. And so, I feel that it's right and her friends will see that when they read the book.
KING: You're saying...
BURRELL: It's only been out for three days.
KING: You're saying she would like this book.
BURRELL: Well, Lana said to me today that the princess was smiling down on me. Now this is a lady that knew the princess intimately. KING: Paul, when the accident occurred -- and you have a letter that says from Diana to you, "I'm sitting here at my desk in October, longing for someone to hug me and encourage me to keep strong and hold my head high. This particular phase in my life is the most dangerous and blacked out. Someone is planning an accident in my car. Brake failure, serious head injury in order to make the path clear for Charles to marry."
As soon as that accident happened, why didn't you go public with this letter?
BURRELL: Well, because, quite frankly, put yourself in my shoes. All I wanted to do was to get to Paris and to take care of the princess. That was my duty -- to be there and to look at her. And that's what I did. And I was continuously looking out for the princess during that day. And then I came back to London with her and we went through the whole business of the funeral and the whole...
KING: All right then, how about right after the funeral? You've got a letter that could be a bombshell, Paul. Here's a letter that could be incriminating. You've got the names blacked out. But obviously there was a name or someone or an organization mentioned.
KING: Why didn't you go berserk? I mean, I would of -- look what I got here, folks. Look at this.
BURRELL: Well, you know, because -- because, Larry, I had to think about it very carefully. I had to think about the security of my family and everybody around me. And, you know, I went to see the queen of Buckingham Palace and then she told me that warning and I was scared. And I didn't know what to do.
KING: Do you think your life would have been in danger?
BURRELL: Well, I was frightened, yes.
You see, at that time, the Spencers came in and they were shredding documents and -- what do I do with something as dynamite as that? I keep it safe. I keep secrets and I kept secrets for many, many years and still keep many secrets.
KING: If the name that was blacked out were printed, would we all know it?
BURRELL: I think you would recognize whatever was underneath that tape. But that should only ever be released to the proper authorities. I think it should only ever go to a proper inquiry and not be released to the media. I think it's very important not to release these secrets into the open world.
KING: But it would be either an organization or a person known to -- we would say, oh boy right? If we saw it. BURRELL: I think so, yes.
KING: All right. Let's take a break and come back. Paul Burrell. The book has been out three days. Already a runaway best seller. The book is called "A Royal Duty."
Paul Burrell is our guest. Don't go away.
KING: We're back with Paul Burrell, the book -- the new memoir is "A Royal Duty." There you see its cover.
You say in the book that Diana had a soul mate. Not Dodi Fayed but a Pakistani born heart surgeon, Dr. Hasnat Kahn (ph). Tell me about that relationship.
BURRELL: Well, Larry, I've discussed that before and the fact that was a very private, personal relationship the princess had. He was -- he is a good friend of mine and I don't want to go beyond what I've already said and say that he was a very good, kind man who cared for the princess deeply.
KING: Do you think the princess was murdered?
BURRELL: I can't make a decision on that until we see all the information. It's very important to collect all that information, and get it all together in one place and let the proper authorities do it. Because we have to have an inquest into the Princess' not just the cause of death but what was surrounding it. The whole evening. It's important the get everything in the right context. There have been so many, so many and theories and conspiracies around this accident that, you know, let's get it done once and for all.
KING: Let's take a call or two. Jamison, Pennsylvania for Paul Burrell, author of "A Royal Duty," hello.
CALLER: Hello, Larry. I really enjoy your show.
I have two quick questions.
The first one is, don't you feel badly that you have divulged late princess' secrets?
Also, what will you do with the proceeds from the book?
BURRELL: Well, I think it's a matter of public interest to let you know how and correct those untruths that have been written about the princess. There are so many people out there with the anti-Diana spin these days, it's important for someone to say, actually, you're wrong. So, you know, I felt it's appropriate to tell you that the princess had a wonderful life, that she had a great relationship with her in-laws.
I mean, for goodness' sakes, letters I saw the princess showed me were signed with love from pa and mama. That's shows that they had a very good relationship. And the money from the proceeds, money is never important to me. The honest truth is it will give me the independence and the security for my family and my friends so I can do things in my life now that are important to me.
KING: Are you going to move to the United States?
BURRELL: I don't have any plans to move to the United States, Larry. I'm very happy in England with my family. A little house in Chester. I love the States as the princess did and I would like to spend more time here if I can.
KING: I think someone printed you were buying a home in Florida or something.
BURRELL: Yes. There are plan to have a holiday home in Florida but I'm not planning to move her full-time.
KING: Plantation, Florida, hello.
CALLER: Hi, Larry. Thank you for taking my call. Hi, Paul. Thanks for writing this beautiful book on Diana and thank you for taking such good care of the princess.
BURRELL: Thank you.
CALLER: In an interview you said you thought that Diana would hate her resting place (UNINTELLIGIBLE). I was wondering where you think she would have wanted to rest in peace.
BURRELL: Well, you know, I always thought the princess would like to be with people. I don't like to feel she's alone there in a very lonely, isolated place. Wouldn't it be nice to be in the middle of the Trafalgar Square or somewhere where everyone could come from all walks of life, all around the world and pay the tributes to the princess?
KING: You don't think she and Dodi were going to get married, right.
BURRELL: No. I have no idea that the princess was going to marry Dodi.
KING: So, she never said she was planning to marry him?
KING: She had a great deal of affection for him?
BURRELL: Yes. She was having a good time that summer. And joked with me she was given a wonderful necklace, she had been given lovely earrings, and she said, to me what will I Do, Paul, if I'm given a ring. So, I said, well you put it on your right hand, the forth finger of your right and not on your left.
She said, well, well, what's the difference? I said, one is friendship and the other one's an engagement. Don't give the wrong message, and she was very giggly about that. So, as far as I'm concerned, she never received a ring and she never intended to get married.
BURRELL: She said she needed a marriage like a bad rash.
KING: London, Ontario, hello.
CALLER: Hi, Paul. How are you tonight?
BURRELL: Very well, thank you.
CALLER: That's good. I want to let you know I enjoy listening to you speak.
BURRELL: Thank you.
CALLER: I was wondering if either Princess Diana's boys or other members of the royal family asked to read the book before it was published to the rest of the world.
BURRELL: No, no one did. But, you know, I want everyone to read it now. I have nothing to hide. It's out there. I will stand by it. I'm proud of it. I think it is a wonderful, moving tribute to the princess. A great historical account of her life. And I think I've been very discrete and very loyal and I'm surprised people think I haven't but then have they read it. Because, have if they did read it, they would know that I have been very discrete.
KING: It's kind of weird that people knock a book they haven't read. Before you knock anything, you should read it.
KING: Before you criticize a movie, watch it.
BURRELL: Yes. I'll stand by it, Larry. I wrote it with every page I wrote with the princess' memory in mind and kept things to myself would she mind this or approve?
And I think there are so many things I could have written that I didn't. I knew where the line was. I knew where the threshold.
KING: So there will not be a second book?
BURRELL: I have no plans to write a second book. This one's been enough, thank you.
KING: You've been bothered quite a bit, I gather?
BURRELL: I've been beaten around with a big stick by the media in England. It's been a rough ride. But I'm determined to stay strong. I'm proud. I'll stand up for what I think is right. KING: Paul, thank you so much for joining us. Good to see you.
BURRELL: A joy to see you, Larry.
KING: I want to thank all our guest tonight.
We'll have more coverage of the Scott Peterson hearing tomorrow. And one more note, this week, the TV Land Network and the city of Raleigh, North Carolina, honored one of the best loved programs in TV history, "The Andy Griffith Show," with a bronze statue based on the shows opening sequence. Andy and Ron Howard as the son Opie Taylor walking hand in hand. On Thanksgiving night, Andy Griffith and his co-start Don Knotts, Sheriff Andy and Deputy Barney Fife will be our guest for the full hour. That's Thanksgiving night, November 27.
I'll be back in a minute to tell you about tomorrow night. Don't go away.
KING: Tomorrow night more on the Peterson matter. Happy announcement, congratulations to Paul McCartney and Heather Mills McCartney, both guest on this program. They are the proud parents of a little baby girl Beatrice Milly McCartney. Beatrice is after Heather's mother, and Milly is after Paul's aunt. Welcome to the world Beatrice Milly McCartney.
TO ORDER A VIDEO OF THIS TRANSCRIPT, PLEASE CALL 800-CNN-NEWS OR USE OUR SECURE ONLINE ORDER FORM LOCATED AT www.fdch.com
Two; Interview With Paul Burrell>