The Web      Powered by
powered by Yahoo!


Return to Transcripts main page


Analysis Scott Peterson, Kobe Bryant's Preliminary Hearing

Aired November 13, 2003 - 21:00   ET


LARRY KING, HOST: Tonight: It's day nine of Scott Peterson's pretrial hearing, with more bombshells. But the defense comes back fighting. Scott's other woman, Amber Frey, will not testify. The pants on Laci's body do not seem to match the description that Scott gave police. And that detective admits posing as a tipster to call the Peterson hotline.
Details on all that, and Scott's trips to the Marina where Laci's body would later be discovered, with Ted Rowlands of KTVU, inside the courtroom all day; Court TV's Nancy Grace, the former prosecutor; renowned defense attorney Johnnie Cochran; high-profile defense attorney Chris Pixley; Judge Jeanine Ferris Pirro, district attorney, Westchester County, New York; Gloria Allred, attorney for Amber Frey; and doctor of psychology Dr. Robi Ludwig.

Plus, Kobe Bryant in court today, face to face for the first time with the judge who'll preside over his rape trial and with his accuser's family. We'll talk about all that next on LARRY KING LIVE.

First, the Laci Peterson matter. And Ted Rowlands from Modesto, California, Amber Frey will not be called? Why?

TED ROWLANDS, KTVU-TV: Well, according to Gloria Allred -- and I'm sure we'll hear more from Gloria in just a bit -- the prosecution decided not to utilize Ms. Frey during this prelim. She was told -- Ms. Allred -- late this -- or today, and she announced it late this afternoon, after today's session. The reasons behind it, I guess only the DA really knows, but I guess it was up in the air for a while and they finally made the decision.

Otherwise, in court, a very busy day. We learned a lot more about the prosecution's case through testimony from not only detectives but also from a few of Laci's and Scott's neighbors. We learned that Scott Peterson made several trips to the Berkeley marina, with Modesto police detectives following him in early January. They say that he drove up, usually in a rental car, would get out of his car and then sort of just peer out into the ocean or into the bay, and then get back in his car and usually drive back to Modesto.

We also learned that Scott Peterson not only told Amber Frey that his wife was dead, but he also told Amber Frey's best friend, the person that introduced the two, the exact same story. So that seems to solidify that story.

And we learned that the pants found with the remains of Laci Peterson were cream-colored. They seemed to resemble the pants that she was wearing the night she was last seen, the pants that were described by Laci's sister, Amy Rocha, at the hair salon.

Also, a neighbor got up and testified that on the night that Scott was reported missing -- or Laci reported missing, Scott came over to her house, asked if she had seen Laci. She said no. And then later said that he was playing golf all day, not fishing, and that he had been trying to call Laci throughout the day.

Afterwards, Mark Geragos said it was a good day for the defense. I'm sure Nancy Grace has another opinion on what happened today.

KING: All right. Ted Rowlands, thank you. We'll be coming back to everybody on the panel.

Nancy, before we comment on the driving to the bay and the like, and those other things, I want everyone to comment on what they think about why the prosecution didn't call Amber Frey. Why, Nancy?

NANCY GRACE, COURT TV: I think that while Amber Frey will be a pivotal witness at trial, I think that at this juncture, right now, if we freeze-frame today, Thursday, the state has enough evidence to go forward with a murder prosecution. The judge will bind it over, as of today. So why put her Frey and subject her to this fishing expedition that would take place if Geragos had her under cross? Save her for trial.

KING: Johnnie Cochran, wasn't that obvious from the beginning?

JOHNNIE COCHRAN, DEFENSE ATTORNEY: Well, it could be, but I think it's more than that. I think they don't have everything they thought they would have with her, quite frankly. I think, you know -- because both sides are playing to future juries, Larry. Make no mistake about it. So if they thought she'd come across with some blockbuster testimony, they'd put her up there. They could somewhat try to limit the questions, you know? And of course, Geragos is going to cross-examine her now or later, at any rate. So I think there's more to it as to why they didn't call her.

KING: Judge Pirro, what do you think?

JEANINE FERRIS PIRRO, WESTCHESTER COUNTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY: You know, I've been a judge and a prosecutor for 27 years. And think about it. This is day nine of a preliminary hearing. We just don't need any more testimony. And if there is testimony that Laci's body washed up with cream-colored pants, tattered however they might be, that is clearly supportive of the claim that she disappeared on December 23. You need any more. They don't have to prove this case beyond a reasonable doubt. And there's no need to create impeachment material on a witness who will clearly be very important at the trial, Larry.

KING: And Chris Pixley, what are you thoughts?

CHRIS PIXLEY, DEFENSE ATTORNEY: Generally in agreement with everyone, Larry. I mean, the fact is it's the prudent thing to do to keep her off the stand right now. And I agree with Johnnie. The case would have gone south very fast for the prosecution if they put Amber Frey on the stand and she didn't hold up.

The problem for them, potentially, is that it still puts the prosecutors in a bit of a precarious position if they don't really have a major smoking gun. Her testimony has been for the past several weeks the big promise that we've heard, the big evidence that we've heard about. It may be that the judge is right today that the clothes that were found on Laci's body are the big piece of evidence. But otherwise, we just have a lot of conduct, a lot of inferences.

GRACE: But Chris...

KING: Nancy, what was big today about the clothes today and about the drive to the bay?

GRACE: Huge, huge. And Larry, this is something that you have been talking about on your show from day one. Remember the day that the entire Rocha family was interviewed on your show, and during that show, it was asked of the Rocha family, What was Laci wearing the last time you saw her, December 23. And Amy Rocha, her sister, described a cream-colored, flowered outfit. I recall it right now. And we asked, Have you looked for the clothes? The very next day, Larry, the police, obviously having watched LARRY KING LIVE, the night before, got Amy Rocha, took her into the home. Larry, she came out in tears. It was on video. Amy came out crying hard.

The next thing you know, contrary to Scott's story that she was wearing black pants and a white shirt, she is now found wearing remnants of clothing matching what Amy described. What does this mean? It means all those people that claim they saw here walking a dog in black pants, white shirt are wrong. And it means she disappeared on the 23rd!

KING: Johnny Cochran, isn't that a very sound point?

COCHRAN: No. Not at all. In fact, what kind of a detective, Larry, in a case when you're seeking the death penalty against a husband in a circumstantial evidence case would not follow up and talk to Bill (ph) and Debbie (ph) and Mitchell (ph) and Homer Maldonado (ph)? It's not just that couple...

GRACE: Hide the ball!

COCHRAN: ... but three people -- but three people...

KING: Hold it. Wait a minute. Don't interrupt.

COCHRAN: ... three people, Larry, who say they see her on the 24th, walking the dog. Those people are going to be called as witnesses. You've got to -- you've got to run that out, unless you've made up your mind, unless you've rushed to judgment, you've got to -- that's what happened. And that's going to come back to haunt them, Larry. Mark my words. That will come back to haunt them. They should have followed up on it. On the fact of going to the bay, Larry, I think that Geragos pointed out that each time he went there, it was after it had been reported in "The Bee," in "The Modesto Bee," that the divers were looking for the bodies at that location, so -- and he drove in a rental car because the police had impounded his truck. So I mean, I think there are some reasonable explanations to this whole thing.

I think it's probably better day for Geragos. They came out swinging today, and I think they made real significant points.

KING: Judge, you got...


KING: Judge Pirro, didn't he know he was being followed?

PIRRO: He may not have known he was being followed. Look, this is a guy who has lied deliberately. We now have found him in another deliberate lie, where he tells Amber Frey's friend that his wife is dead, again, weeks before she is reported missing.

But I think, Johnnie, in answer to the issue as to whether or not Brocchini spoke to those witnesses who supposedly saw Laci walking the dog -- Brocchini just said he didn't question them. That doesn't mean that any one of a number of other police officers on the case didn't question them. Brocchini didn't question them. I'm sure he had a lot of other things to do.

KING: All right, I got to get a break. But Chris Pixley, your thoughts quickly on the pants. Then we'll come back and talk to Gloria, and back with our panel. The pants and the trips.

PIXLEY: The pants and the trips are a problem for the defense. I think we're going to hear much more about them from the defense when we actually get to trial, and there may be many explanations that have yet to come out. But the fact is, the pants are maybe the most compelling evidence, aside from the widower comment, that we've seen to date, and the defense is going to have to address them.

The good news is, though, that the prosecution still doesn't have much more than Scott's behavior and this relationship with Amber Frey, and they can't show any physical evidence to explain how, when or where Laci died.

KING: We'll get a break and come back. Gloria Allred will give us her thoughts on why her client will not be testifying at the preliminary hearing. Then back to our panel. And a lot of your phone calls going to be taken, as well. Don't go away.


MARK GERAGOS, ATTORNEY FOR SCOTT PETERSON: It was what I would consider a very good day. Other than that, there's not much else I can say because of the protective order. I think under the protective order I can tell you that it looks like they're winding up, in terms of timing. So for those of you who want to make your reservations, I think you might want to be in Modesto on Monday, and my hope is, is that that would be the last day.



KING: Gloria Allred, the attorney for Amber Frey, joins us for a few moments before we get back to the panel. What was Amber's -- you can tell us this. What was her reaction to not being called?

GLORIA ALLRED, AMBER FREY'S ATTORNEY: Well, Amber has always understood, Larry, that she might or might not be called at this preliminary hearing. She is ready and willing to testify at the trial.

KING: I know, but what was her reaction to not being called?

ALLRED: Well, I'd rather not comment, frankly, on what her reaction is.

KING: What does it matter? I mean, why can't...

ALLRED: I just...

KING: Why couldn't you tell us?

ALLRED: Because she's a very private person, and I don't comment on what her communications are with me or my communications are with her. But I -- of course, it's clear to me that she has been a victim of Scott Peterson's deceptions. And I think that had she been called, Larry, to testify at this preliminary hearing, that there may very well have been an attempt by the defense to revictimize her, to attack her for doing the right thing, which was cooperating with law enforcement.

KING: Why do you think the prosecution didn't call her? Your opinion.

ALLRED: I really can't speculate on what their decision is. It's...

KING: Well, you're speculating on her treatment by Scott -- you're speculating about Scott. Speculate about this.

ALLRED: Well, speculating on the defense's attack on her, which I think is, frankly, a very safe bet. As to...

KING: Well, hold it. Hold it. Hold it! You speculated that they would attack her. That's fair. Why can't you speculate on why the prosecution didn't call her?

ALLRED: Well, I'll tell you what. My educated guess is that they feel that they have enough to argue to a judge that there is sufficient evidence to hold Mr. Peterson over for trial, and that therefore, it is not necessary to call Amber Frey to the witness stand because they already -- well, they will by the end of this hearing have produced enough evidence to satisfy the judge so he'll bind Mr. Peterson over for trial.

KING: Yesterday, the defense suggested, Gloria, that Amber may have been taping conversations as early as December 16. Does that suggest that your knowledge of the same?

ALLRED: Well, Larry, I'm not going to be giving the defense a preview of Amber Frey's testimony as to what she did or did not do prior to law enforcement asking her to tape conversations with Scott Peterson. If they want that information, they're not going to get it through watching television. They're going to have to get it by asking Ms. Frey on the witness stand, and they're certainly welcome to do that.

KING: "People" articles say friends say that Frey has never said she thinks Peterson is guilty, but it seems that now she's prepared to consider the worst. Does that back up what you know?

ALLRED: Well, she has never said that he's guilty, and she's not going to reach that conclusion. She understands that that is a conclusion that is solely for the jury to decide, whether or not he is guilty of the crimes for which he's charged, and that also God will be the judge of that.

KING: Since yesterday...

ALLRED: She has very deep spiritual convictions.

KING: I know. Since yesterday, have you read the "People" article?

ALLRED: I have read the "People" article, yes.

KING: Any comment?

ALLRED: Well, all I can say is that, you know, I'm always concerned when there are invasions of privacy, but I'm not going to further invade her privacy by either confirming or refuting any kind of statements that are made about her private life. Amber will come across, when she testifies, as a very courageous young woman, as a very honest young woman. Much of what she says will be corroborated when she testifies. I think the defense knows that. And they'll have their chance to ask any questions that are relevant at the time of trial, and they're not going to get to invade her privacy, the way some articles -- and I'm not saying "People" is one of them -- but that some articles have.

KING: Can you tell us whether you...

ALLRED: And sometimes, some things have been distorted, as well.

KING: Can you tell us whether you liked or disliked the article or what you thought of it in general?

ALLRED: Well, I'm always interested in any articles about my client. She is not interested in having articles done about her. That is why she did not speak to "People," but it was unauthorized. They did it anyway. There's no way that she could prevent it. So it's done. It's over.

KING: All right.

ALLRED: And she's going to go on with her private life, at this point.

KING: Did she read it, do you know?

ALLRED: She doesn't watch the news. She's really not interested in numerous articles that talk about her. And when I last had contact with her, she had not read the article.

KING: Thank you very much. That was Gloria Allred, who is the attorney for Amber Frey.

Now let's get to the panel. Nancy Grace, is she serving Amber well?

GRACE: Well, yes. I think she is. Of course, Amber's not charged with anything right now, but you can imagine, if Gloria Allred was not protecting Amber, right now, all these type of questions, innuendo, who she dated, who the father of her baby was, would be being hurled at her, even though there's a gag order to potential witnesses in this case. Hope you're listening, Mark Geragos! There's a gag order! But I'm glad that someone is protecting Frey. She'll get carved up like a Thanksgiving turkey on cross-exam. So this is a time for her to be safe and secure.

KING: Johnnie Cochran, what are your thoughts?

COCHRAN: I'd like to posit another thought, Larry. You know, one of the reasons they may not have called her was you noticed today there was testimony from the detective that they had been giving theories to Amber Frey and questions for her to ask, you know, Scott Peterson as he was being taped. I mean, she was almost like their agent. And you can bet your bottom dollar again that Geragos or the other counsel are going to pursue that aspect.

You know, that's going to be another tack. These police were intimately involved in getting this lady to ask certain questions, to do certain things. You know, this detective goes out, Larry, and poses as a tipster, and -- you know, to see whether or not the Peterson family will report tips. You know (UNINTELLIGIBLE) because he rushed to judgment. And you know what? It became very personal for him. And I think you're going to see more and more of that. And when a detective becomes very personal, he loses his objectivity and they don't become nearly as effective. And I think that's another reason why she probably wasn't called, at this point.

KING: Judge Pirro, what do you make of what Gloria had to say?

PIRRO: Well, I think that Gloria represents Amber well, in terms of trying to remind the public that this is a woman who, No. 1, didn't need to get involved, who offered her services as soon as she realized that Scott Peterson's wife was not dead but instead was missing. And I think it's important that victims and witnesses in the criminal justice system have someone to speak on their behalf because, but for people like Gloria, victims and witnesses get dissected and bisected every day in the criminal justice system.

And it's very important to bring us back to reality. There is one person charged with a crime here, and that's Scott Peterson. But you know, in answer to what Johnnie's saying, you know, in terms of Laci maybe being an agent for the police, the issue, I think, really is, Did Scott call her? And if the police said to her, you know...

KING: You mean Amber?

PIRRO: Scott called Amber. I'm sorry. She has the right to tape-record a conversation, especially if the defendant is calling her. There's nothing wrong with that. It's only when Scott refuses to speak to the police, is represented by counsel, has an attorney who intervenes on his behalf that you cannot have an agent of law enforcement.

KING: All right. I got to get a break. I want Chris Pixley's thoughts quickly on this. Chris?

PIXLEY: Well, I would have to agree primarily with Johnnie, but I would also add something, as well. The prosecution has made so many promises about opening people's eyes with this preliminary hearing and there was so much hype leading up to Amber Frey's testimony that had she gone on, again, and failed, that would have been devastating to the prosecution. They've decided that they've got enough. Of course, the moment that the bodies washed up in the bay, they had enough to bind the case over, Larry, and they're wise not to put her on the stand.

KING: We'll take a break, and when we come back, we'll have some questions for psychologist Dr. Ludwig. And then we'll be taking calls for our panel. And later, we'll talk about the Kobe Bryant matter, and more on this topic tomorrow night, as well. Also tomorrow night, Bernie Yuman will be with us. He's the representative for Siegfried and Roy. We'll get an update on Roy's condition. And don't forget, Monday night Jessica Lynch will be with us, her only live appearance with her with her family discussing the tragedies that occurred in Iraq. We'll be right back.


GERAGOS: I believe that they're bringing the gentleman, Hende (ph), who was referred to by Detective Brocchini today -- his associate, if you will. I believe they're -- obviously, Owens (ph) is on the stand and will be on again. I think that they've got a couple of other officers. And then, my understanding is -- I would only be speculating, but my guess is, is that they're probably going to call the medical examiner and maybe a forensic anthropologist.



KING: Before we go to calls for our panel, I want to spend some moments with Dr. Robi Ludwig, psychologist and frequent commentator for Court TV. The defense suggests that Amber Frey, Robi, secretly began taping calls with Scott as early as December 16. If that's correct, what does it tell us about her?

DR. ROBI LUDWIG, CLINICAL PSYCHOLOGIST: It means that she was probably was suspicious of him earlier than we knew. She might have thought, Hey, something's not exactly right with this guy. We often say, if you come across somebody's who's crazy, your hair will stand up on your neck. Perhaps his stories just didn't sound quite right, and she wanted to just protect herself in some way. This is a woman who had a history of dating married men. Maybe she sensed something.

KING: But nobody was dead. There was no murder, there was no crime involved. So she was taping, do you think, for what purpose?

LUDWIG: She was suspicious. I mean, it isn't exactly clear, but maybe she was suspicious of something. And sometimes intuitively you just sense something is wrong, and you protect yourself in the only way that you know how. And if this is true, perhaps this is the only way she knew how to protect herself.

KING: Detective Brocchini testified today that in January, Scott drove three times to the Berkeley marina, near where the bodies of Laci and Conner were recovered. Defense attorney Geragos suggested that was because "The Modesto Bee" ran stories that divers were searching there. What's your read on that?

LUDWIG: One possibility. But what we do know -- and we see this over and over again -- that people who commit crimes always go back to the crime scene, that it's almost -- there's almost some primitive pull that brings them back there. Perhaps they go back there just to, I don't know, remind themselves of what happened or because they're scared and they want to cover their tracks. So it sounds more suspicious than curious, given everything we have heard about him.

KING: But looking at the other side, if my wife is missing and I didn't do the murder, and I'm reading in the paper she might be in that marina, I might drive to that marina.

LUDWIG: That's true. So if you think he's guilty, you're going to think, Hey, he's going back there to cover his tracks. If you think he's innocent, you think, Hey, let's give the guy the benefit of the doubt.

KING: But you're not supposed to...

LUDWIG: Maybe he's looking...

KING: If you're on the jury, you're not supposed to think anything until you hear the testimony. So what does this testimony mean to you?

LUDWIG: Well, you know, what we know about jurors is they always go in with a certain idea about things. What they have to do is be able to keep an open mind when they hear the evidence presented in the courtroom. But of course, anyone hearing this information is going to come up with their own explanation and their own story. That's just human nature. That's how we process events around us.

KING: So you read it a certain way, I may read it another way. We're both looking at the same event differently.

LUDWIG: That's right. And given our histories and who we are and how someone strikes us, we will make up a different story.

KING: Thank you, Dr. Ludwig, as always.

LUDWIG: Thank you.

KING: Dr. Robi Ludwig, psychologist, frequent Court TV commentator, always interesting additions to the information at hand.

When we come back, your calls for our panel. You're watching LARRY KING LIVE. We'll reintroduce everyone right after this.


GERAGOS: We do have that right. You have to make a -- well, you -- it's not really a right. You have -- under the code, you can make an offer of proof. And if the judge, under the code, accepts that offer of proof, then you can call the witnesses. I can't make that decision until I see exactly who they call, and then I'll go from there.



KING: That ended the last portion -- I forgot to lead into it -- was will he call anyone as witnesses.

Our panel:

In Modesto, Ted Rowlands of KTVU. He's been with us from the get-go.

In New York, Nancy Grace of Court TV, the former prosecutor.

In Atlanta, defense attorney Chris Pixley.

In St. Louis tonight, Johnnie Cochran, defense attorney, renowned across the country.

And in New York, Judge Jeanine Pirro, the district attorney, Westchester County, New York. Former judge.

By the way, before we go to calls, Ted, do we have any idea when this concludes?

ROWLANDS: Well, it seems as though it's going to conclude early next week. Geragos, at the end of his brief conversation with reporters today, said make your reservations for Monday but expect to be out of Modesto by Tuesday. And given the witness list, which now does not -- not have Amber Frey on it, it would seem to make sense that it'll last into next week, but only probably until Monday or Tuesday.

KING: Johnstown, Pennsylvania, hello.

CALLER: Yes. I have a question for Nancy Grace.

KING: Go ahead.

CALLER: The man that was walking his dog that was interviewed a few months ago, I believe he was walking his dog the same day she disappeared or supposedly disappeared, why don't they hypnotize him? He said he only focused on the dog. And by the way, Nancy, I think you're great.

GRACE: Thank you.

Guess what? I got to interview him and speak with him myself and I see big problems for the defense if they use him.

One, he wears glasses.

Two, underneath the glasses, he has a glass eye.

He told me that he saw McKenzie, who he had never met before -- that's the dog -- profile at a distance. And he went home and told his wife, I saw Laci's dog. And those words are going to ring in the jury's' ears. He said he never really came out and said he saw Laci, but that he has a visual concept of Laci wearing black pants and a white shirt.

Who cares? That's not what she was wearing. Go ahead, Mark Geragos. Put him up. I'd be mad if you didn't.

KING: Johnnie?

COCHRAN: I love -- I love Nancy's objectivity.

KING: She's so clearly down the middle.

COCHRAN: Oh, she's right down the middle.

Well, you know, I think that again, this is another witness that you have to pursue. I bet you Mark Geragos' investigators are talking to this man. If he has viable testimony, they're going to have to use him. And, you know, I cannot believe that they wouldn't call a detective who would say, Look, I talked to those witnesses who said they saw her Laci Peterson on the 24th or any of these witnesses.

This is very relevant. You know, if you think the husband did it, and don't have an eyewitness, you want to -- you want to exclude everybody else, Larry. And I don't think they've done a very good job, at lest so far, on that.

GRACE: They did talk to him. They did talk to him, Larry. They talked to that guy and he cooperated with police. He's a very straightforward guy.

KING: Danville, Illinois, hello.

CALLER: Hi. Thank you.

First of all, let's hope that none of Nancy's followers are selected as jurors tonight.

My question is for Chris Pixley. You're awesome. Because of the circumstantial evidence against Scott has seemingly logical explanations, when it comes to trials, do you think there's any other direction that the prosecution can take to get a witness? And thank you for being so objective and not convicting anyone every night.

KING: Chris?

PIXLEY: Well, you know, the prosecution at trial is really, from all appearances, going to be focusing on the number of things that Scott Peterson did wrong. There's a clear pattern emerging here and it's that the prosecution is focusing on Scott's behavior and on his relationship with Amber Frey.

They are trying to take that conduct and spin to the potential jury right now that Scott Peterson was conscious of his guilt. The problem is, consciousness of guilt alone does not support a guilty verdict in California. And if that is all they have at trial, even if they do get a conviction, there's going to be a heck of an appeal.

So we're still looking for something more. Maybe it's the pants. Maybe it's some of the evidence that's going to come out over the next few days. There's has not been something to date for me that has opened my eyes as the D.A., Jim Brazelton, said it would. And I think, you know, when you make those kind of promises, you have to come through. The public will remember when you don't.

KING: But, Jeanine, he will be bound over, will he not?

PIRRO: I don't think there's any question. And that's why this preliminary hearing can end sooner than later. I mean, they've already met the threshold, which is a low threshold.


PIRRO: And Chris, I think that you are agreeing that if they bring in evidence that she -- her body was found with beige pants, which is what she was wearing on the 23rd, then there clearly is a connection to Scott Peterson in this case.

PIXLEY: I think that we're going to have a lot of testimony about what, in fact, she was wearing and whether the condition of the clothes after being in the sea for four months is really something that we can determine and link back to what she was wearing on the 23rd.

But I'll give you this, Jeanine. It is an important piece of evidence. It may be one of the few solid pieces of evidence that the prosecution has been able to put up-to-date.

KING: Dallas, hello.

CALLER: Hello. My question is for Ted Rowlands.

KING: Yes.

CALLER: It is -- has anyone asked the question what Scott got his loving wife, Laci, for Christmas?

KING: Ted?


ROWLANDS: Yes. That was asked of Scott and he said that he was -- he got her a bag, a wallet, a Louis Vitton wallet, and that was discussed actually in court during this prelim hearing, whether or not that present was under the tree with the presents that were under the tree Christmas Eve or not. That really hasn't come out. But he says he got her a wallet.

KING: Jonesboro, Arkansas, hello.

CALLER: Yes. I have two questions for Johnnie Cochran just real quick.

KING: Sure.

CALLER: And first of all, Nancy, you're wonderful.

Mr. Cochran, wasn't it confirmed that there was also another lady walking there dog that -- as -- in the same stage of pregnancy as Laci?

And how can it -- can you say it's not significant that he returned to the bay? He never asked any of the divers if they saw anything. He never asked them, did they find anything? So, were they divers there when he returned?

COCHRAN: You know, I don't know the answer to that.

But I do know, as I said, if it's reported in "The Modesto Bee" that the divers, looking for his loved one -- and assume for the sake of argument he's innocent, and he wants to go up there and see, that seems to be a normal thing. He's in a rental car because they have his car. And I think that's appropriate. I don't know that he talked to anybody or not.

As to the other lady, I don't know the answer to that. Perhaps some of the panel members know.


KING: One at a time. Nancy.

PIRRO: Larry.

GRACE: Yes. I do know. The day that the cops observed him go down to the bay, he did not go down and speak to any of the divers. He did not go to the dive station. There were people at the shore as well as people out in the water.

Also, him showing interest in Laci's whereabouts completely inconsistent with his prior behavior. Also factor in that before he went down there to check on his missing wife, he would rent a car. He wouldn't go in his own car, but he would go down look out, look out, not speak to anybody, not question the divers or the police, and then high-tail it out of there.

You know, up until that point, the most he was worried how he was going to work in his next phone call to Amber Frey. He was worried about finding about finding Laci's remains.

KING: Well...

GRACE: He was worried about somebody else finding them.

PIRRO: Larry, there's another piece to this.

The other piece to it is this. If you want to give Scott Peterson the benefit of the doubt and says that he is -- he wants to be up close and involved in determining whether or not Laci's body's going to be found, then you have to draw that to its logical confusion.

On the day that they found the bodies that floated up -- if Scott Peterson wanted to be up front and involved, he would have been there waiting for those autopsy results. Instead, he chose to play golf. That sheds some light on the reason that he returned to Berkeley Marina on January 5, 6 and 9.

KING: Stockton, California, hello.

CALLER: Yes. My question is for Chris Pixley.

KING: Yes.

CALLER: There's been said that they found when she was supposedly watching that her purse and her keys were in the closet in the home. Why would her keys be indoors when she should have been having them with him having locked the door behind her?

PIXLEY: You know, it's interesting. These are the kinds of pieces of evidence that jurors can seize on, and it's amazing when you poll jurors after cases and find out what little bits and pieces of the testimony that they did seize on.

The answer, potentially is that when she took walks with the dog she left the door opened. She lived in that kind of neighborhood where she presumably felt comfortable, felt at ease and felt protected. So it may not mean anything.

On the other hand, if Scott Peterson were guilty, it could mean a tremendous amount that there are all of these little trails of evidence that don't seem to make sense.

Larry, if I could, too, I'd like to comment on the previous comment of the caller's first question, which is about another woman walking her dog. You know, the -- one of the best pieces of evidence for the defense is the eyewitnesses and regardless of Nancy's position regarding Mark -- Mike Chevetta, we've him on this show. He makes a wonderful witness because he doesn't make big promises.

He says, Look, this is the best I can do but I believe I saw this dog. I watched dogs. I'm a dog owner. He was -- he's a wonderful witness in my opinion. And the idea...

GRACE: Yes, if you're looking for a dog.

PIXLEY: Well, Laci's dog is out. So maybe it is that he only saw the dog.


PIXLEY: But Homer Maldonado, Vivian Mitchell, other witnesses saw her walking her dog. That's why it's important that the police are able to debunk that theory.


PIXLEY: They have tried to find woman after woman who was pregnant and five feet tall with black hair. They can't find anyone...

GRACE: It came out in court yesterday that Scott Peterson told cops, not that she was walking a dog when he left, Chris, but that she was mopping the floor.


GRACE: The whole story about walking the dog when he left has now been debunked. He told police that day she was mopping the floor. The floor that was mopped the day before by the maid.

PIXLEY: And she was going to walk the dog afterward. And she's in the eight month of pregnancy and she's all over the house cleaning things up and doing what women do when they're in their third term of pregnancy.


PIXLEY: If somebody wants to challenge that, please come forward.

KING: Let me get a break. For the benefit of our audience, none of this has been introduced in evidence yet. None of what we're -- all of this, everything we talk about is based on what we hear and what we think and what's reported. None of it has -- we don't have a trial yet, we don't have a jury. None of this is evidence.

We'll be right back with more calls. Don't go away. (COMMERCIAL BREAK)

KING: Nancy's going to clear something up. Some things are in evidence, is that right, Nancy?

GRACE: They certainly are. These witnesses are under oath. They are sworn in giving testimony. They can actually be used to impeach them if necessary at trial. So what's happening in this preliminary hearing is evidence. All of the physical exhibits, all the testimony, including that testimony that Scott Peterson told the detectives...

KING: All right. It's not evidence the jury has seen.

GRACE: They haven't seen it yet, but it is evidence. And they may very well see these transcripts.

KING: Or maybe not.

GRACE: Maybe not.

KING: Okay. That's what I meant. York, Pennsylvania, hello.

CALLER: Yes. My question is for the Jeanine Pirro. Going towards Scott's golf outing, had he made reservation or made plans with any particularly person to play golf with?

PIRRO: You know that's a great question. And no one yet answered that. Clearly, if Scott had intentions of playing golf that day, he should have had a tee time, he should have had people that he was playing golf with. I would want to know if he did, what time he called them to say he wasn't going to play golf. Whether or not they went out anyway and what his excuse was for not going out, but it's a great question.

KING: Oak Ridge, Tennessee, hello.

CALLER: Hello, Larry and Nancy. Thanks for taking my call.


CALLER: My question is for Ted Rowlands. Since we know that Scott had an affair, have the prosecution or reporters looked for any other women he might have had an affair with to see what he might of told them about his marital status?

KING: Well, according to folks familiar with the discovery and familiar the history Scott did have a number of other affairs, some folks have it up to six. In fact, the folks that have been discovered is up to six. So those individuals were most likely interviewed by police at some point.

Whether or not they contributed anything remains to be seen. It doesn't appear as though any of them will be taking part in this trial, at least that's not the indication we got. So most likely they didn't contribute anything that would benefit the prosecution. KING: Johnnie might it benefit the defense in saying why would he kill to marry a woman if he has relationships with six women?

COCHRAN: Possibly would. You know, the fact he's a cad doesn't mean he's a murderer. You're treading on dangerous ground because, you know, defendants do better with juries like them, Larry. Of course, if he brings out one, two, three, four, five, six relationships and a beautiful wife with this wonderful smile, it's a tough sell. But you know, you might want to risk that but it's really tough. I'll tell you.

KING: Good point. Grand Falls, Newfoundland, hello.

CALLER: Hi. Good evening, Larry. My question is to the panel and it is, since this is all circumstantial evidence, if the judge throws this out, can Scott Peterson be recharged?

COCHRAN: Absolutely.

KING: Yes.

COCHRAN: Absolutely.

KING: If they throw it out now. You can't be tried twice, right Johnnie?

COCHRAN: No, you can't be tried twice, but at this point, jeopardy hasn't been attached. If this judge doesn't bound him over, he would not get out of jail, they'd refile these charges immediately.

GRACE: Immediately.

COCHRAN: And they'd throw in everything else they didn't have. You know, calling everybody. So, jeopardy doesn't attach. Clearly that's what would happen. And this judge will not throw this out, we're going to have a trial on this matter.

KING: Timmins, Ontario, hello.

CALLER: Hi. I'd just like to give my condolences to Laci's family. It's very sad. I was just -- this is a question for Johnnie Cochran. Okay. With all the media hype that's going around with Scott Peterson and the woman he had the affair with, okay, how can this be kept from the jury? To be sure that they're not convinced by all the media hype that he's guilty or not guilty?

KING: How can he get a fair trial, Johnnie?

COCHRAN: That's a wonderful, wonderful question. It is very, very difficult. And you're always really torn about that. I think you have to do it through a serious, significant voir dire process. When you seek to select this jury.

Clearly, everybody will know about the case, but can they keep an open mind. Can they be honest about it? Is Modesto the right place? The lawyers have to make a judgment whether or not they move for a change of venue? I'm not sure you can move anywhere in California. Everybody watches Larry King. So you have to be careful in picking the jury. And everybody's got to be honest about it.

KING: How correct you are.

COCHRAN: If people are not honest, the whole system falls apart.

KING: Boston, hello.

CALLER: Hi. My question is for Chris Pixley. I was just wondering, how do you justify him, Scott Peterson, giving his jewelry away? Precious jewelry that made a lot to Laci days before the murder. And I just want to say, I think you're all great and Nancy, I appreciate you, too. And I appreciate Chris Pixley's fair side and...

KING: All right. Thank you for the comments. I need a break soon. Chris, you want to answer quickly?

PIXLEY: Right now, I have to pair something you said, Larry. That hasn't come into evidence. We have heard reports early on that was the case. But I have to point some things out here. The state has made arguments through the press, or press made arguments on their own that have proven in this preliminary hearing not to be true.

The state bragged that they had a slam dunk case when they clearly didn't. They bragged that they had evidence that this crime occurred in the home. When they didn't. And, they also told us that they could disprove these eyewitness' testimony and we have heard nothing to disprove their testimony that Laci was walking the dog that day.

KING: I have to get a break. Ted Rowlands will be back with us tomorrow night. When we come back, Nancy, Chris, and Johnnie and Judge Pirro will discuss the Kobe Bryant matter. Don't go away.


KING: Kobe Bryant's first appearance today, before the judge to preside over the trial. What does it mean, Nancy Grace?

GRACE: Today, very interesting, but not uncommon, the defense chose to waive the formal reading of the charges. Why, because she doesn't want Kobe Bryant sitting there squirming like he did at the press conference, his mouth all dry, can't speak as the judge reads the very serious sounding document. Also, no entering of not guilty or guilty plea. Why, once you enter that plea, you have six months to go to trial if you file a speedy trial demand which I don't think they'll do here. Why, they don't want him going to trial in the NBA season.

KING: So Johnnie Cochran, what was the point of today?

COCHRAN: She has that right except the part about squirming. I mean, you're innocent, you really would squirm in Colorado. You've got this problem you can't go into the victims background. Your innocent. You're worried about the jury panel. You're worried about whether you can get a fair trial. Who wouldn't have dry mouth? And I think that's the issue in that situation. We'd all have that. I think he wants to get out of there as fast as he can. Larry, one thing I think, Larry, is really important today the fact at the arraignment the victims' family was there. I mean, that's going to be something. Because I mean, I wonder...

KING: Was that an arraignment?

COCHRAN: Supposed to be an arraignment.


COCHRAN: Technically it would have been like arraignment. It's the first appearance in this superior court, but he was arraigned clearly. But to have the victim's family there is very unusual at that point. So, I wonder who will be there to support Kobe Bryant. I think it's going to be a lonely time unless he gets out of the area.

KING: Judge Pirro, when does he plead?

PIRRO: Well, you know, they did some scheduling things today, Larry. They scheduled December 19 and January 23 for the submission of motions and this is something that can be arranged between the attorneys and the court. But once he does plead not guilty and once he's advised of the charges, although he's waived the reading of them, there's a six-month period within which he has to go to trial. So, I think they're trying to get this passed the NBA season, but in terms of the family being at the arraignment, that is not unusual. Crime victims' families are in court all the time. And I think that this victim's family is starting to feel that because the victim was trashed and dissected and bisected at this preliminary hearing, it's a reminder that there's another human being on the other side of this, not just the defendant.

KING: Chris Pixley, what are your thoughts on today?

PIXLEY: I thought one of the most interesting aspects of the today is the chief judge for the 5th District took this case from a second year judge who the case actually wound up with. And said, no, no, I want to handle this. That's highly unusual. The second-year judge that was scheduled to handle the case was not being recused from the case. The chief judge just said, this is mine. I'm going to take it over.

And what that suggested to me even if the D.A. intends to treat him like any other defendant like they have said to the press, the court doesn't seem to intend to treat him like any other defendant.

GRACE: Larry, Larry, correction.

KING: Yes, by the way the Laker haves a game on the 19th. So, obviously he won't be able to play.

Nancy, what?

GRACE: Larry, one quick thing regarding the timing of trial, once you enter a plea in that jurisdiction, you can either demand a right for speedy trial which means you go within six months or waive that right. I predict they waive it. I don't think they'll go to trial within six months because they want to be well passed the basketball season. Also I'd like to report the victim has apparently -- allegedly victim has apparently left town. And although I don't think she's going to do this prior to trial because of a cross- examination issue, once the "Globe" outed her, she's not a public figure. I'm predicting a big, fat, civil lawsuit from alleged victim against "The Globe."

KING: Johnnie Cochran, obviously they're not considering his play dates. He has a game on December 19. That will not matter?

COCHRAN: No, I don't think will matter, the play dates. But think that Nancy is right. They would like to get passed the season. It is difficult. It would be real distraction for everybody. And I think that clearly, it's probably better to have this trial if there's going to be a trial after the season is over.

GRACE: I don't think it'll bother the judge, Johnnie, if they have the trial during the season.

COCHRAN: It may not bother the judge, but I think the judge is probably a reasonable person. If he took the case from one of the colleagues, you know, he obviously wants the case. So, you know, you have to watch him along the way. I got to tell you that. So, I'd be worried.

KING: Judge Pirro, do you expect a change of venue?

PIRRO: A change of venue?

You know what, Larry, you'd have to be from Mars to not have heard of this case.

KING: I wonder if he can get a fair trial in that community which only has three black families in it.

PIRRO: Well, you know, that's certainly an issue. And there's a question of whether or not you can move the trial to an adjoining county, that may be possible. And I think that there are some real issues in that county as it relates to the potential jury pool and the nature of this case.

KING: Chris Pixley, you only have about 20 seconds. Is this going to be a tough one for the prosecution?

PIXLEY: I think it is a tough case for the prosecution. I think we saw that at the preliminary hearing. They may have more physical evidence. Remember, Larry, we didn't see the photos of the injuries. If the injuries turn out to be significant, that could make the case much better for the prosecution. Otherwise, a real uphill battle for them.

KING: Thank you all very much. We'll see you all tomorrow night as we continue with another day of the Laci Peterson hearings. And we'll take a break and come back and tell you more about tomorrow night right after this.


KING: Tomorrow night the same panel will return to give us more updates on the Laci Peterson matter and we'll also spend some moments with Bernie Yuman the spokesman for Siegfried and Roy about the condition of Roy, who is now in a hospital at UCLA hospital here in Los Angeles. He's been moved from Nevada.



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