Return to Transcripts main page
CNN LARRY KING LIVE
Legal Analysis of Scott Peterson Trial; Interview With Paul Burrell
Aired June 21, 2004 - 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 12 of Scott Peterson's murder trial. Emotional testimony from two of Laci Peterson's friends and he yoga instructor. And testimony that Scott's other woman, Amber Frey, stayed overnight with one of Laci's friends after revealing her affair in January 2003. All this, while the judge warns the jury about inappropriate behavior.
With all the latest: CNN's Ted Rowlands inside the courtroom today; Court TV's Nancy Grace, the former prosecutor; Chris Pixley the high-profile defense attorney; Michael Cardoza, the leading defense attorney in the area also inside the courtroom today; Chuck Smith, former prosecutor in San Mateo County -- where Scott Peterson's being tried -- he was in the courtroom, as well; and so is Richard Cole, the veteran crime and trial reporter of the Daily News Group.
And then later, Paul Burrell -- the man Princess Diana called "her rock" -- on Prince William turning 22 today and on the recent death of Diana's estranged mother and more. All next, on LARRY KING LIVE.
KING (on camera): Well, we've got a lot to get through. We're in New York tonight, and we'll be here all this week. Gene Hackman is the special guest tomorrow night, Ron Reagan on Wednesday, Bill Clinton will be with us Thursday night, and Friday night Jon Stewart.
Let's move through them. Ted, give us the highlights of today.
TED ROWLANDS, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Well, to start it off, dealing with this juror situation, the judge came out and ruled that there was no juror misconduct between juror number five and Brent Rocha, Laci's brother. They had interaction inside the courthouse going through the metal detector, but the judge said nothing happened there. Warned the jurors just be careful and warned the media to not blow things out of proportion, basically.
Then it moved on to testimony. Three of Laci's friends testified. The first -- and most compelling, arguably, because she was so emotional -- was Stacey Boyers. She told the jury that she had been friends with Laci all her life, and went on to say that after Laci was reported missing, in the day or so after, she saw Scott Peterson in his home vacuuming a relatively small area in front of the laundry area in the house. She said he stayed and vacuumed just one certain area for an extended period of time. She said she thought it was odd and asked him what he was doing, to which he replied, "I can't keep this house clean enough."
She and the other girlfriends also testified that Peterson did not want his photo displayed at the volunteer center and did not want his photo given to the media in those first few days and weeks after his wife's disappearance. And finally, she also testified that Laci complained of being tired, as did the other friends. And as you mentioned at the top, also, that Amber Frey stayed the night at one of the friend's house after she came forward.
Next up was the yoga instructor. And she was a bit confusing, because her testimony contradicted what she told police on two separate occasions. Geragos pointed that out. It is unclear what effect she will have with this jury and whether or not she will be deemed credible.
KING: Thank you, Ted.
Chuck Smith, you were there. The flap over juror number five, why did he stay on the jury?
CHUCK SMITH, FMR. SAN MATEO COUNTY PROSECUTOR: Well, the juror stayed on because the judge examined both the juror and Brent Rocha in chambers in private separately. And they both obviously told the judge that it was an innocuous conversation. It was not about the case.
And the judge determined that because it was not about the case, there was no misconduct. He warned both of them and warned the other jurors and the witnesses and the family members that they simply can't do that. The appearance of impropriety would be great and that should avoid it in the future, but let's move on with the trial.
A good call by Judge Delucchi.
KING: Richard Cole, was Stacey Boyers, the friend, a very effective witness?
RICHARD COLE, DAILY NEWS GROUP: I thought she was very effective when it came to the issue of the photos. I think that was kind of telling.
The problem that I think the prosecution is having with a lot of these witnesses is more and more you get the feeling that the Rocha family and friends kind of banded together and decided they would do everything they could to make Scott look bad. And the more that kind of comes out, the more of a shadow it passes over some of this testimony.
Now, whether the jurors will see that or whether they'll see the individual testimony, that's what we'll find out at the end of the trial.
KING: Was the Amber Frey thing surprising to you, Richard? COLE: Yes, it was. We had heard that she had -- had some relationship with the Rochas, but this is the first time I had heard that the actual night of her press conference, she stayed overnight at a close friend of Stacey's.
The friends of -- I'm sorry, of Laci's. The friends of Laci were invited to the press conference by the police department, you can't help but wondering what the thinking was to allow the woman who was becoming their chief witness to go home with some of the other witnesses and friends of Laci Peterson. Maybe they will explain that later on the stand.
KING: Michael Cardoza, you were there. What about the testimony of the yoga instructor? We understand Geragos got pretty rough with her.
MICHAEL CARDOZA, LEADING AREA DEFENSE ATTORNEY: He did. Well, rough, but rightfully so. The yoga instructor gets up and comes up with testimony I know Geragos hadn't heard before. One of the things she said was that Laci never left home without her cell phone. And number two, that Laci had a very difficult time walking from the yoga classes to her car.
You could see Geragos react to that. And he asked her, "Have you told anybody this before?" " Well, yes, I told the district attorneys." Well, I know the district attorneys didn't give that information to Geragos just because of the way he was acting. Shortly after that, they go back into Delucchi's chambers.
My guess is if Geragos is as good as I think he is, he's going to have Delucchi find out from the DAs did she tell you that. And if she didn't, Delucchi will instruct the jurors tomorrow that she didn't. Or there will be a stipulation from the DAs agreeing that that witness never gave them that information.
What does that do? It tells the jury that she didn't tell the truth on the witness stand. And believe me, that's going to annihilate that witness, and it's going to put every other witness in question. That witness will be a turning point in this case.
KING: Nancy Grace, how's the prosecution looking?
NANCY GRACE, COURT TV FMR. PROSECUTOR: Well, I think today they're in the best form that they have looked the entire trial. And I want to quickly clarify two things I've just heard. Number one, we have just heard that the family and friends of Laci Peterson kind of banded together against Scott and put a, quote, "dark shadow over their testimony." That's total BS.
Because right here on your show, Larry, in the weeks following Laci's disappearance, Laci's family was supporting Scott Peterson. And at the time of these events, for instance, when Scott Peterson -- while everybody was out looking for his wife, he was vacuuming back and forth in front of his washing machine while other people were out looking for Laci. Her family still supported him on that day and on the days of these other occurrences. KING: Do you think this was a good day for the prosecution?
GRACE: Today, great day for the prosecution. And as to that yoga instructor, I don't think that her testimony is going to be stricken from the trial.
KING: Now, Michael, you said it was a horrible day?
CARDOZA: Oh, it was a horrible day. Nancy, you have a witness that gets on the stand, and it appeared that she made it up as she went.
That would be...
GRACE: Didn't look that way to me.
CARDOZA: It looked that way to me. She made it up as she went.
And Nancy, I was in the courtroom; I saw it. I saw the ways that those DAs reacted. Nancy, I'll bet my trial experience...
GRACE: You just don't like questions...
CARDOZA: You watch. I'll bet my trial experience, tomorrow tells me something's going to explode tomorrow. And I'll bet those DAs agree that that witness did not tell that to them.
How's that going to...
KING: Nancy, if you weren't there, what are you judging it on? Transcript?
GRACE: I am judging it on reporters in the courtroom and what I believe the argument was by Mark Geragos.
KING: So, is Michael Cardoza giving you a different story than your Court TV reporters give you?
GRACE: He is giving me a different legal spin on it. The fact that Mark Geragos -- it's my understanding, from the discovery, that the prosecution handed over this woman's name, address, how the defense could reach her. If they wanted to interview her prior to trial, they had that opportunity.
KING: Chris Pixley, what are your thoughts?
CHRIS PIXLEY, DEFENSE ATTORNEY: Well, you know that both sides have been interviewing all of these witnesses for a while now. I'm sure that the yoga instructor was interviewed several times. If, in fact, the prosecution was surprised by this testimony and they come back and say as much, then I think that Michael's going to be right.
You know, the other problem here is, is that already we've had surprise testimony come out. Just in the last week, the judge had to make it clear to the prosecution, look, you've got to be turning over all of the evidence. If you find out from a witness, even the morning of, that they have new and unexpected testimony, you have to get together with the defense. This the is second time that's happened.
I think, you know, the inference has to go in favor of the defense here. And I would agree with Michael, we're likely to see something happen with respect to this witness. At the very least, the jury gets to decide this witness' credibility. And from everything we're hearing, it's very much in question.
KING: Let me get a break and come right back with our panel. Don't go away, we'll be right back.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Can you correct that? What did...
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: ... the jury?
BRENT ROCHA, LACI PETERSON'S BROTHER: I am going to wait until the judge decides, so I'm not going to have -- make any comments right now.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Do you (UNINTELLIGIBLE) about (UNINTELLIGIBLE) before the judge, possibly? Does that bother you?
(END VIDEO CLIP)
KING: Ted Rowlands, can it be said that Mark Geragos is the most dynamic person in this courtroom?
ROWLANDS: Yes, I would think everybody would concede that his style is to be very gregarious and to engage the jury, his tone is very compelling, and by far, he and, I think, Judge Delucchi are the most compelling people in the courtroom in terms of how they characterize, or how they carry themselves and how they draw people in. The prosecution, very focused and very just sort of to the task, laying it out piece by piece. A bit mundane but they have their style and that is just to go very slowly and deliberately.
KING: Chuck, how does it appear to you as a former homicide prosecutor, they, the prosecution, is impressing the jury?
SMITH: Well, I think they are impressing the jury with the care with which they've put this case together. I agree with Ted. They are nowhere near as flamboyant or dramatic. They do not have the command of the courtroom but they have facts. And ultimately -- there is a saying in my business, lawyers don't win cases, facts do. Jurors don't decide cases on the respective ability of the lawyers involved. They decide cases based upon the facts. And the prosecution is doing a fine job of getting out fact after fact after fact. They are doing fine. They don't have the flair, they don't have the experience, but they are doing a good job in my estimation.
KING: Richard Cole, would you agree with that?
COLE: I think they are doing a good job of laying out a case that they seem to have written down on a piece of paper long ago at the beginning. What they don't seem to be doing well is to reacting to some of the changes that have occurred because of problems with testimony, some of their witnesses, because of points that Mark Geragos has made, they seem to almost skip over it as if they are going by the numbers. And one of the things that you hear consistently and you see consistently in these trials is that jurors like to hear a story, a coherent story.
Mark Geragos' story, so far, has been more coherent than the prosecution. Time after time, we are sitting there as journalists, watching this thing and we see a witness get on the witness stand and we ask ourselves, why was that witness called? It doesn't seem to help the case at all. And if we are thinking that, and we know a lot of things that the jurors don't know, obviously, because their intake of information is restricted, then what are the jurors thinking.
Why do you need to put four or five, six, seven, eight, nine, 10 witnesses on to say Laci was tired and we don't think she would have gone for a walk with the dog. That seems to be overkill. It seems like something you could have done with her doctor, I thought was the best witness for that and yet they keep putting these people on and on.
KING: Michael Cardoza, how does the jury seem to you? There are some reports that they -- some looked bored.
CARDOZA: I'm telling you, they are bored and I couldn't disagree with Chuck more. These district attorneys do not appear prepared for this case. I'll give you an example. A week ago, they were going to put on what they said was the co-pilot of the infrared helicopter that searched the park for Laci. The witness gets on the stand and says, "I wasn't the co-pilot, I was just a passenger." If they're so prepared, why wouldn't they know the witness they were putting on? And then Judge Delucchi wouldn't allow them to use them to use the tape because they didn't give it to Geragos in time. And one of the other things that I noticed seeing in court is those two D.A.s don't talk to each other. I mean, they seem distant. I heard Geragos ask them one day, I think it was Harris, "who are you guys putting on tomorrow?" "I don't know, ask Distaso." I don't know? Those two should be working hand in glove and they don't appear to me to be doing it and that is affecting their case.
KING: Nancy, have you co-prosecuted cases?
GRACE: I was always lead counsel, Larry, but I have watched other people and I've helped other people in their trials and when you are focused on your trial, in front of plain view of the jury. And I want to point something out. While everybody's throwing stones at the prosecution for not being gregarious, for not going home, homecoming queen, let's talk about the evidence for just a moment. We are finally seeing another motive shaping up in this courtroom and at the get-go, I don't think it made any sense, Larry, but when I found out that Laci Peterson was taken to a pawnshop twice by her husband to make about $100 a clip on two visits, she did not want to go to that pawn shop and get rid of her stuff...
GRACE: I'd like to finish.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: You are wrong on that.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: You are absolutely wrong.
GRACE: I am talking about two prior visits, one pawning for $110, one pawning for $140...
CARDOZA: She was by herself.
GRACE: Gold chains. She went also back by herself and she told the person, she told the pawnshop clerk, "my husband is going to be so happy when he finds out this jewelry is worth $100,000."
KING: Michael, why are you saying no?
CARDOZA: Because she went to the pawn shop by herself the first time. Scott went with her the second time. Nancy, don't get fettered by the facts here because the facts are what the jury is hearing. I'm telling you how this went down, Nancy, and the witness testified that Scott reached out to touch Laci on the stomach, very gently and very kindly and...
GRACE: And she got P.O.'d. That's right.
CARDOZA: And now who does that make look kind, Scott. I am telling you, Nancy, you're wrong. What do you mean Scott sent them there to pawn the jewelry? Wrong.
GRACE: He was the one that was happy over the price of the jewelry. That is what Laci said.
KING: Chris, do they need a motive?
CHRIS PIXLEY, DEFENSE ATTORNEY: It sure would help, Larry. It definitely would help at this point when you don't have any physical evidence. But, you know, when it comes to the jury, let me tell you why the jewelry will never matter ultimately in the outcome of this case. It's because Scott Peterson didn't have a profit motive here. He didn't try to do anything with that jewelry. One of the things that came out in the testimony with respect to the jewelry was the fact that Laci Peterson, yes, she got an inheritance from her grandmother a month before her disappearance. Most of that inheritance came in the form of diamonds that she was using to build a new wedding band for herself. And the fact was that those diamonds were at the jewelers at the time of her disappearance. Now Scott Peterson never called the jeweler after her disappearance asking about the whereabouts of those diamonds, trying to get them back, trying to sell them. It came out in testimony, in fact, that the only people that called the jeweler were Sharon Rocha and the police. The police have been going after the profit motive from the beginning. It started out with discussion of the life insurance policy. None of that, none of that ultimately matters.
KING: I've got to...
KING: Very quickly, go ahead.
PIXLEY: By Laci and Connor's death, Scott Peterson dealt himself out of a $2.3 million Rocha family trust including $150,000 that he would have gotten in a short period of time when the house was sold. So what is the argument? That in order to get access to $100,000 in jewelry, he dealt himself out of $2.5 million? I find that one hard to swallow.
KING: Let me get a break and come back. We'll start to include phone calls. Don't go away.
KING: Let's include some calls. Teaneck, New Jersey. Hello.
CALLER: Good evening. Thank you for taking my call.
CALLER: Is there any method of killing someone that would not leave forensic evidence at the scene?
GRACE: Sure. Suffocation or asphyxiation, and also coincidentally, if you take a look at the method and assessment of homicide and suicides, particularly homicide, that is a very common method when people know each other. Man on woman strangulation or asphyxiation.
KING: Would you agree with that, Chuck?
SMITH: I do. And also, death by a blunt instrument. A blunt instrument that doesn't break the skin, but a blunt instrument to the head which causes a contraku (ph) injury in the brain. That will not leave forensic evidence. There is any number of types of killings that will not leave forensic evidence at the scene.
KING: Fairfield, Connecticut hello. Fairfield, Connecticut, hello. Are you there? They are not. Let's try this one. Miami, Florida. Hello.
CALLER: Hi there, Larry. I have a question...
CALLER: ... for Nancy Grace.
CALLER: If -- does the jury receive a transcript of the prosecution and defense opening statements, opening and closing statements, so that they can have some way of judging whether the opening argument is carried out in the closing argument?
KING: Oh, good question.
GRACE: They won't have a transcript, but don't you worry, believe you me, if there is a discrepancy in which either side promised something in opening and they didn't deliver, they will hear about it in closing from the other side. But short answer, no, they will not get a transcript.
KING: Mike, do you agree?
CARDOZA: It scares me to agree with Nancy, but I do agree.
KING: So in the other words, they don't get it, but you can bring it up?
CARDOZA: What the judge will tell them that opening statement is not evidence, what the attorneys argue to them. Remember, DA has two closing arguments, the defense has one, because the DA has the burden of proving him guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. One of the instructions tells them, closing argument is not evidence. It is just the attorney's spin on the case. So they do not get a transcript of opening or either -- or any of the three of the closing arguments.
KING: What do you make, Chris, of this Amber Frey thing?
PIXLEY: Well, you know, the problem with Amber Frey and I think why it's going to be so interesting when she ultimately gets on the stand is that she didn't know Scott Peterson was married, she didn't know Laci Peterson. She therefore arguably didn't have any conversations with Scott whatsoever regarding any planning that went into this murder. And remember, the state has to prove premeditated murder.
At this point in time, about the only thing that we know about the prosecution's case -- I know it's early on, although we have heard from over 30 witnesses -- is that it really hinges on consciousness of guilt. Did this man, by word and deed, demonstrate that he had a guilty mind? And that is very difficult for a jury to decide because it is open to interpretation.
Is he acting guilty because he was having an affair, or is he acting guilty because he murdered his wife? Amber can't answer any of those questions, and so there will be an awful lot of interesting conversation between the two of them, but I think it is going to be very much like the testimony we've had already -- Scott did this, Scott said that, little bits and pieces. I don't know if it is enough.
KING: Hold on.
GRACE: Well, talking about premeditation, number one, premeditation, under the law, can be formed in a twinkling of an eye. So it does not require a long, drawn-out plan. But we do have him researching the waterways in the area...
PIXLEY: Nancy, is that a twinkling of the eye when he bought the boat, or is it the twinkling of the eye when he actually killed her on the evening of the 23rd? That's the problem. They've argued premeditation and you've argued premeditation.
GRACE: We actually have both, and anyone that had ever prosecuted or defended a malice murder case would know that in this case, the state is going to be arguing both. By researching the waterways, buying the boat in cash, keeping it a secret, getting a fishing license for those two days, all of that goes to premeditation.
PIXLEY: They are going to argue everything and the kitchen sink.
KING: Michael, are you saying no?
CARDOZA: Well, well, one thing Nancy threw out was the two-day fishing license. Nancy, do you know that he had a drawer full of two- day fishing licenses? Interesting point. So you can't point to this and say, gee, that was unusual.
GRACE: Yes, as a matter of fact, I do. And he had not used them until these two days, did you know that?
CARDOZA: Oh, Nancy, please, please. Please. Now, here is...
COLE: We should talk a little bit about Amber Frey. We should talk a little about Amber Frey. Let's remember that the prosecution's lead investigator, Mr. Jacobson, at one point applied for an additional search warrant and actually a wire tap authorization to continue tapping phone calls, because he said Scott Peterson could not have committed this murder by himself, that Amber Frey might be somebody who did it with him, and therefore, we want -- remember, this is a sworn affidavit, Nancy -- we want an additional time in order to tap the phone calls.
Now, I have been struck over and over again by Jacobson saying Scott could not have committed this murder by himself. And let's look at Amber Frey. Amber Frey, oh, she was the innocent victim. She didn't know Scott was married. Amber Frey called back the Sacramento Airport, when she got a call from Scott who claimed falsely that he was in the airport about to go on a Christmas trip, she called back the airport to find out if that phone really was in the airport. Does this sound like a woman who has been totally blown over by this married man?
GRACE: No, it sounds like a man who has fallen for a guy, then starts suspecting he's married and starts trying to investigate. That's what it sounds like to me.
KING: Ted, do we know when Amber Frey will be called to testify? ROWLANDS: No, we don't. Her attorney, Gloria Allred, has been a frequent visitor to court here. She's also monitoring another case in the area, however, and she has indicated that she has not been told, given a week's notice yet, so she hasn't been given a window. Sounds like they are probably playing this by ear, depending how long Brocchini is on the stand and the other investigators. By the way, it's expected Brocchini, one of the lead investigators, will take the stand tomorrow. After that, the prosecution will most likely bring on Amber Frey, at some point, but obviously that's the one person that everybody who's been following this case is waiting to hear from.
KING: We'll be back with more calls in a moment. Gene Hackman tomorrow night. Bill Clinton on Thursday night. Don't go away.
KING: We're back. Waupun, Wisconsin, for our panel, hello.
CALLER: Hi. I was wondering if anybody ever pulled the anchor from the bay? When they initially searched the bay, they found an anchor. Peterson has supposedly made more than one. They could compare the cement to see if it was made by him, which would put a discrepancy in his location. I was wondering if that was done?
KING: Chuck Smith, do we know?
SMITH: Well, no, they don't have any such evidence. The anchors that they pulled -- and there is a lot of anchors at the bottom of San Francisco Bay -- none of them they could match up to have anything to do with this crime. There is no forensic evidence supporting that whatsoever.
KING: Louisville, Kentucky. Hello.
CALLER: Yes, I was wanting to know, who has Laci Peterson's jewelry now, and who is entitled to it?
GRACE: I think the government, the police still have the bulk of what was there. And interesting about that jewelry, Larry, this may not mean anything to a male juror, but for instance, I wear my grandmother's engagement ring; never take it off. Apparently, Laci had some of her grandmother's jewelry that she never would take off. Larry, when she went on her walk that day, it was left behind. She didn't wear it that day.
CARDOZA: No, she just got that jewelry. She never took it off? That's not true.
GRACE: She got the jewelry -- she got the jewelry...
CARDOZA: No. GRACE: ... at the beginning of November, in the month of November, and told people, her words were, "this belonged to my grandmother, I am never going to take it off."
COLE: Except that she was selling some of it in pawn shops and she was selling it on EBay.
GRACE: That wasn't her grandmother's. That wasn't her grandmother's.
COLE: Yes, oh, it absolutely was.
GRACE: The piece that she said she would never take off, her pendant, was not what she sold.
COLE: She put her grandmother's watch on EBay.
COLE: I mean, so she was selling some of it off.
GRACE: But not the piece she said she'd never take off. That's my point. I don't know why you guys are fighting with that. It came in in testimony.
KING: Atwater, California, hello.
CALLER: Hi, Larry. My question is, two weeks before the trial started, there was a lady witness that came forward and said that she saw Scott Peterson in the morning in the boat with a large object in the boat, covered with a tarp. Why didn't the police give this lady a lie detector test to see if she was a credible witness or not?
KING: Do we know, Chuck?
SMITH: Well, lie detectors are never used with witnesses. It just doesn't happen. And so they will never do that with a witness.
But the witness I believe that the caller was referring to was a witness who had undergone hypnosis. And that testimony, or that statement came forth as a result of hypnosis. Under our rules in California, if there is not corroboration for that, that will not be permitted into evidence. Because so much can be suggested in a hypnosis session, that the courts won't permit it until there is some corroborating evidence. There was no corroborating evidence for that statement. The jury will not hear it.
KING: Ted Rowlands, is this trial going faster than expected?
ROWLANDS: Yes, according to Judge Delucchi, in open court last week. He told jurors it's going to be a short day, but don't worry, we're moving along at a much quicker pace than we anticipated.
Whether the prosecution is not calling the amount of witnesses that they first thought they would, or if everything is going at a more rapid pace, in terms of the cross and the re-direct, that was unclear, but the judge in open court told jurors, don't worry, it's going much faster than we had hoped. And others say this is going to look more like a three and a half month trial total than a five-month trial.
KING: Judging the other side. How is Geragos doing, Nancy?
GRACE: I think Geragos is doing a great job. He's not getting hung up in technicalities, but when he makes a point, it is a real zinger. And it will stay in the jurors' minds.
KING: Michael, how is the prosecution doing?
CARDOZA: I tell you, as an ex-DA, I am worried. Because they don't appear prepared. They put witnesses on, they don't know what they are going to say, they ask questions -- just from the questions, you know that they don't know the answer to those questions. They go down a particular lane and they stop. And everybody in the audience looks and says, what is that about? You don't ever want that happening as a district attorney. They don't know who their witnesses are going to be the next day. They haven't given Geragos all the discovery he should have gotten. This trial has stopped four -- five times now because evidence was not given to Geragos in a timely fashion. As a district attorney, that is inexcusable. Go ahead.
KING: I'm sorry, Fairfield, Connecticut. Hello.
CALLER: Hi. Thanks for taking my call. I was wondering when the OBGYN was on the stand last week, if the birth date came up of Connor, because the family said it was the 10th of February, and Scott said that on the 23rd the doctors said it was the 16th?
SMITH: These are all estimates, and we are going to hear a lot more on this whole issue of how old was the baby, based upon the postmortem examination. But -- but all of these are estimates. And there is going to be a lot more testimony on this whole subject matter. It's very critical, very important.
CARDOZA: But they did say the due date was 2/10. That was their estimate.
SMITH: Right, sure. Everyone -- everyone I think is confirming that.
KING: Richard Cole...
KING: Richard Cole, you've covered a lot of trials. What is perplexing to you about this one?
COLE: I think the most perplexing thing is, I don't understand the prosecution's story yet. I don't understand how she was killed, where she was killed, how he got the body to where he got it. I don't have a feeling for this. And I see the prosecution putting on a lot of witnesses that it's frankly mind-boggling, that the repetition that we are hearing, that we talked about the jury looking bored on occasion. I can guarantee you, the journalists are, too. I don't understand why they are not being more dramatic with some of the testimony that they have. Why are they not emphasizing it.
KING: And what, Nancy, if anything, is perplexing to you?
GRACE: Well, what's perplexing to me at this juncture is I would have thought both sides would have given a clear analysis in their opening statement. I didn't hear that.
KING: On either side?
GRACE: Either side. And I realize Geragos' theory will probably morph a couple of times, based on the state's evidence. But I want to quickly address something I am hearing tonight, an attack on the state. I don't know how you guys feel about getting a not guilty as a prosecutor, but between not putting up enough evidence and over-doing it, that is why the prosecution is putting up several witnesses to make the same point. And if you look at their testimony very carefully, you will find that each witness has something different to offer. They would rather put up too much, than put up too little.
KING: What was that, Michael and then Chris. Michael.
CARDOZA: I'll tell you what, Nancy, if they are putting on witnesses to say something different, it is going over the heads of everybody in the courtroom, including the jury. So why do it?
PIXLEY: Well, you know, the thing I'd point out to Nancy is, yeah, we are doing a lot of Monday-morning quarterbacking when it comes to the prosecution. We are going to be doing that when Mark Geragos gets up and presents his case. It's what -- it is the nature of this business. The fact is, right now, the jury is losing interest. And are you going to lose witnesses -- are witnesses going to turn on you? Yes, it is going to happen in some form or fashion in every trial. The question is, are you going to keep the attention and the interest of the jury? Because if you lose the jury -- forget about losing a witness here or there, you lose the jury, you lose the case. And I think that's a challenge...
GRACE: (UNINTELLIGIBLE), Chris.
PIXLEY: ... when you take the snowball effect, Nancy. I'm not saying it's the wrong thing to do.
GRACE: When you have a complicated case that lasts for months and months and months, trust me, the jury knows they have got to come up with a verdict. They're not losing interest. Just because a group of panelists that are defense lawyers are arguing that state isn't doing a good job doesn't make it so. That jury is sitting there taking notes and paying attention. PIXLEY: Nancy, you would keep their interest, I think you keep our interest at night. They are losing the jury's interest, and if you lose them, they stop paying attention. And if your story doesn't make sense, I've got to agree with Richard, you have got to have a consistent theme. It has got to make sense, you have to limit the issues throughout the trial.
CARDOZA: Chris, Larry?
CARDOZA: You know what is going here that I find interesting? Geragos is putting his defense case on right in the middle of the prosecution's case. There was a witness that was put on. The limit of that witness was flying over in the helicopter. Geragos went way beyond the scope of direct examination, which isn't allowed and started to talk about the burglary in Medina's house up the street. Boom, right in the middle of their case, the defense case, I'm wondering if Geragos even has to put a defense on. He is getting it on during their case.
KING: We'll be doing a lot more with all of you and thank you very much as always. Nancy Grace, Ted Rowlands, Chris Pixley, Michael Cardoza, Chuck Smith, and Richard Cole. When we come back, Paul Burrell. He was Princess Diana's butler and confidant. He's the author of "A Royal Duty." He's even got a one-man show in New York. We will be right back.
KING: Great pleasure to welcome a return visit to LARRY KING LIVE for Paul Burrell. He was Princess Di's butler and confidant and author of "A Royal Duty." This is now -- you see out in paperback with some new material. What kind of new material?
PAUL BURRELL, AUTHOR, "A ROYAL DUTY": Larry, it's about what happened to me after the book was published. A great deal happened.
KING: All the flack you took?
BURRELL: I took a lot. I took a lot.
KING: Were you surprised at that?
BURRELL: I was, actually. I'm naive, aren't I? And I thought, you know, the press wouldn't go for me in such a way but it did and, of course, the boys made a statement. William and Harry made a statement.
KING: Did that hurt you?
BURRELL: It did. Because, you know, I grew up with those boys. Those boys grew with my children. I love those boys. I would never hurt them. And the book is a loving tribute to their mother.
KING: Do you think they spoke without reading it? BURRELL: Yes, they did. The book wasn't published when they made the statement.
KING: Did you attempt to reach them?
BURRELL: I did.
BURRELL: I've written to them and my letters have been returned. I see, it's sad that the people in their mother's world never saw them. Recently their grandmother died and she said that during those last seven years she never saw her children. And the people in the princess' world have been ostracized away from the boys and they haven't seen the boys. It's very sad.
KING: William is 22 now. Is he going to face the kind of attention that Di did?
BURRELL: Yes, he is. Yes, he is because he is his mother's son. What a fine king he will make.
KING: You think so?
BURRELL: I think so. I don't think we'll ever see a King Charles III and Queen Camilla on the throne of England. I think we will see King William.
KING: What's he going to do now with his life?
BURRELL: William? I think he'll probably join the forces. I think he will follow in his father's footsteps in a military career and I'd like to see them do something in their mother's world and champion the causes that she championed in her lifetime.
KING: Are they going to set standards for who he marries?
BURRELL: Well, I think he'll make his own mind up. I think he'll have a choice. Whereas, you know, the princess didn't have a choice in those days.
KING: And it is different now, right? He can pick who he wishes... (AUDIO GAP).
BURRELL: I think so because -- it was very different for the princess.
KING: Tell me about this one-man show.
BURRELL: I am not singing and dancing. It is an evening of memories, it is my opportunity to say to an audience, judge me on what you see, judge me on my words, not on what other people have written about me.
KING: Have you performed already?
BURRELL: I have. I did last night at the Theatre Royal Drury Lane...
KING: In London?
BURRELL: In London. And I stood there on the stage, I'm looking up at the royal box and thinking, "wow, this lad's come a long way from the north of England."
KING: So, what do you speak and take questions from the audience?
BURRELL: Yes. In the first half, I give a talk about my life, and what's happened and answer some of the questions which have been rattling around Diana and the second half is the audience's chance to ask me questions. And that's what I enjoy, you see, because there is a good exchange.
KING: And the show will be at Town Hall in New York this weekend, right? Thursday, Friday, Saturday?
BURRELL: That's right. Thursday night, I'll be there in Town Hall, I hope at least six people turn up. It doesn't matter.
KING: How many turned up last night?
BURRELL: Oh, several hundred. The theater wasn't full, but there were enough people there to have a good evening. It doesn't matter, Larry, how many people turn up because those people that turn up want to be there to share memories. They want to be there because they adored the princess. And there are millions of people out there that adored her. It is a loving tribute to her, it is an extension of the book, you see.
KING: Why do you think people got angry at you?
BURRELL: I think because I was so close to her. They thought I was going to tell intimate, personal details about her life. I think they thought I was going to go into bedrooms and, of course, I've never done that. I don't think it's my place to do that. Other people will do that in the future, but not me.
KING: The former archbishop of Canterbury George Carey has urged Charles and Camilla to marry. Do you agree with that?
BURRELL: Well, I think he should make an honest woman of her. He has been with her for long enough now and why not? But that brings in then a bigger constitutional question. The, would he become king? And as I said before, I think the queen will reign to be a very old lady. I think she will die queen. And by the time she dies, Prince Charles is going to be 70-something, and too old, and then it'll be the -- the natural succession will be William, you see.
KING: He also, the archbishop described Di as very angry, very fallible, and suggested she was more cunning, using the media than Charles.
BURRELL: I think that is very sad that the head of the Church of England should make comments like that.
KING: What do you make of it?
BURRELL: Well, I think it is very sad because, you know, he was one of the people that knew the princess was going to get a divorce before the princess did. I mean, the princess told me, "the queen, the prince of Wales, the archbishop, and the prime minister all knew I was getting divorced before I did." And that is the way her world worked.
KING: In the new material in the book, you claim that during a first quarrel, Charles told Diana he had always had his father's blessing to turn back to Camilla to comfort if Diana failed to make him happy.
BURRELL: Within five years. Yes, that's true. The princess did tell me that and that is the truth. You see, if you write the truth, Larry, no one can undermine you because it is the truth. That is what they don't like. They don't like the truth being said and especially by a servant. You see, I suffer from the servant classes. Not here in America, though.
KING: You're a commoner.
BURRELL: I am a commoner. I should know my place.
KING: You also said that in a letter to Prince Philip, Diana wrote she felt she'd been offered to the royal family on a sale or return basis like merchandise. She really felt that way?
BURRELL: She did. How sad is that?
KING: She was a prop?
BURRELL: She was. She was there to provide an heir and a spare to the throne and he said, "well, I never loved you anyway." So it's a very sad situation but it is history being written by the people that were there, heard it, saw it, it was part of my life.
KING: Let's take a break and take some calls for Paul Burrell. We'll be right back.
KING: Before we talk about the unveiling with Paul Burrell, Levittown, New York, hello.
CALLER: Yes, hi. Thanks for taking my call. I wanted to know what Paul thought about when he sees Camilla pretty much act as like the Diana incarnate.
BURRELL: Well, Camilla lives in a wonderful lifestyle now. She lives at Clarence House, the home of former queen mother. It's been refurbished to the tune of 10 million pounds, even has gold leaf on the ceilings. So she lives...
KING: Does it annoy you?
BURRELL: Well, it does, actually. It does annoy me. She has things that the princess never had. And she is living in a lifestyle befitting a queen. She is everything but a queen, and it is annoying. But as I said, I don't think we will ever see Queen Camilla. I don't think the country wants it.
KING: The queen will unveil a memorial to Diana on July 6. You are invited?
BURRELL: I am. I have my tickets...
KING: You're not going?
BURRELL: I'm not going. I have my tickets last week. I am still a member of the government committee to establish a memorial to the princess, and I was invited to be there. But I can't go, Larry, because that would be the first time I had seen the boys since the princess died. And I don't want to see the boys with all the world's media watching. It would detract from the day. That day is about our monarch unveiling the national memorial on behalf of the people to the princess. It's about the princess, it's about her memory. It's not about one individual.
KING: It will also be the first time the royal family and the Spencer family are publicly together since the funeral.
KING: What would that be like?
BURRELL: Quite icy, I would think. I don't think there has been a great mending of the ways there. I think it's going to be difficult for everyone. But they have to put their own feelings aside and think about the princess.
KING: On the death of Di's mother, you wrote an article for "The Daily Mirror," in which you described her as dying a weak, isolated and sad lady. Age had taken its toll, so did the cigarettes she chain-smoked, the vast quantities of wine she drank. But for me, the root of her decline was the nagging, acting guilt from the rift with the princess she could never repair.
BURRELL: That's true.
KING: What caused that rift?
BURRELL: It was the telephone call...
KING: To whom?
BURRELL: Well, Mrs. Shand Kydd rang one night, and she was barely legible on the telephone, and the princess was sobbing in her sitting room. She shouted to me, "come quick, come quick." I thought she'd had an accident. And I sat with her, cross-legged on her floor, and listened at the edge of the phone, and Mrs. Shand Kydd she shouted abuse down the phone at her.
BURRELL: Over her company of men. Particularly, a Muslim man. And so, the princess slammed the telephone down and said, "I will never speak to my mother again." And she never did. And I think that guilt stayed with Mrs. Shand Kydd, all those years. Sad.
Interestingly, when the princess died, we walked from the island to the little temple, and tellingly she said to me, "Paul, at least I had her for nine months." That is all she had her for, the time she was carrying her.
BURRELL: What a thing for a mother to say. She only had her for nine months.
KING: Is Fergie back in good graces now?
BURRELL: It looks like she is. But I didn't see -- I didn't see her with the entire family, but she was in a box at the polo.
KING: She speaks, always when she's with us, very kindly about Di.
KING: But they were not close.
BURRELL: No, they fell out, too.
KING: What caused that?
BURRELL: Well, the duchess wrote her book and told her story, and the princess didn't agree with everything she said. And so they fell out. Which is very said, because they were like sisters, and they were so close. And the duchess is a lovely lady, you know that.
KING: Oh, yeah.
BURRELL: She is a lovely lady.
KING: What do you make of the inquest?
BURRELL: Well, I have been helping the police with the inquiry.
KING: You have?
BURRELL: I have. I have given them two lengthy meetings. See, I know what the princess felt and thought before she died. I know what I saw in Paris, but I don't know what happened in between.
And of course, that letter, that letter is rather spooky premonition of what happened to the princess, in her own hand. And that has to be investigated. Doesn't it? Because that is how she felt.
KING: When you say you know what she felt, how would you describe it?
BURRELL: Well, she was scared. She was frightened.
BURRELL: Of being watched, being followed. She wasn't paranoid, she was informed. She knew that people were watching her.
KING: Do you have suspicions about the accident?
BURRELL: I am going to keep an open mind. Because...
KING: You don't -- you're not saying it is as we see it?
BURRELL: No, I have to -- we have to wait and see what the rule (ph) coroner says. We have to see what his finding brings, because...
KING: And you would not be shocked if it were more than we -- it appears?
BURRELL: Well, I think it is going to be very interesting what happens, because there are so many questions that have to be answered. And I can't make a decision on that just now. I will come back and we'll discuss it.
KING: How long will it take? How long will it take?
BURRELL: I think it will take the rest of the year. There are a lot of people to interview, including Prince Charles.
KING: Thank you, Paul.
BURRELL: Thank you.
KING: Always good seeing you.
BURRELL: Nice to see you too.
KING: Paul Burrell, if you are in New York, he will be appearing at the town hall, on Friday, Saturday -- Thursday, Friday and Saturday night with his one-man show. And the book, "A Royal Duty" is now out in paperback with some added materials.
And we will add some material about upcoming nights right after this.
KING: Tomorrow night, Gene Hackman will be our special guest. Ron Reagan will be aboard on Wednesday night. Thursday night, former President Bill Clinton, his first live, prime-time appearance with your phone calls. And Jon Stewart joins us on Friday. New York is a brighter place tonight. Aaron Brown has the night off. It is brighter, because she's come up from Washington to host "NEWSNIGHT." It's brighter because there she is, Judy Woodruff, making New York a better place, about to take over the reins.
TO ORDER A VIDEO OF THIS TRANSCRIPT, PLEASE CALL 800-CNN-NEWS OR USE OUR SECURE ONLINE ORDER FORM LOCATED AT www.fdch.com