The Web    CNN.com      Powered by
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
SERVICES
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
SEARCH
Web CNN.com
powered by Yahoo!
TRANSCRIPTS


 

Return to Transcripts main page

CNN LARRY KING LIVE

Amber Frey Testifies: Day 2

Aired August 11, 2004 - 21:00   ET

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


(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
LARRY KING, HOST: Tonight, sex, lies, and audiotape. Night two. It's night two of Scott Peterson's other woman Amber Frey on the stand in the double murder trial. And the court hears phone conversations she taped at police request after she learned he not only lied to her about being single, but was a suspect in his pregnant wife's disappearance.

Here with the eyewitness details CNN's Ted Rowlands inside that packed courtroom today as was Court TV's Nancy Grace, the former prosecutor.

Also with us high profile defense attorney Chris Pixley and more experts who saw it all inside court today.

Michael Cardoza, leading defense attorney in the area.

Chuck Smith, a former prosecutor in San Mateo County where Scott Peterson is being tried.

Richard Cole, the veteran trial reporter for The Daily News Group and a segment with Gloria Allred, the attorney for Amber Frey.

They're all next on LARRY KING LIVE.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

KING: A couple of quick reminders. Tomorrow night, President and Mrs. Bush will be our special guests. George W. Bush and First Lady Laura Bush. An exclusive hour with the president and the first lady.

Tonight's program like last will feature our three guests, Ted and Nancy and Michael in the first segment and Gloria Allred. And then our complete panel. We start with Ted Rowlands. What happened today?

TED ROWLANDS, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Well, as you alluded to, another day of Amber Frey and another day of recorded phone conversations that were played in court. There was a bit of testimony but the bulk of the day was centered on these phone conversations.

The jurors went along with printed transcripts and listened in to these hours of tape where Peterson claimed again that he was in Europe, starting in Paris, calling Frey, talking to her for about an hour in one of the conversations on New Year's Eve, claiming that he was in Paris.

They talked a lot about different subjects throughout the day in these recordings. They talked about their future together at times. Peterson was very glowing in the way he described what was coming up for them in their future. He talked about Amber in ways that were very glowing and romantic as well.

But for the first time he did sort of open up an out for himself in the relationship. At one point, he said, "well, unfortunately five percent of me has doubts, we'll just have to wait and see." It was the first time he sort of hedged and gave himself a potential out if he wanted to get out of the relationship.

Again, tons of lies. In fact the whole thing was really absurd at times because of the depth of the lies. He's talking about a bomb going off in Paris and how he was on the other side of the city and how he was unharmed, talked about going jogging because of all the fattening French food that he had been eating. He wanted to lose some weight but he tripped on the cobblestones in Brussels and hurt himself.

It was really pathetic at times. Jurors though very intent, following along, taking copious notes as always. Both families in the courtroom the entire day, had to be tough to hear all of this for both families and for Peterson himself. He was listening intently and following along as well and he would sort of divert his attention at times. But really a long, long day and a lot for the jury to ingest.

KING: Nancy Grace, the murder charge aside, what do you make of why he -- why go into all these ridiculous lengths?

NANCY GRACE, COURT TV: Larry, I was wondering the same thing. Because today, in one day alone, we heard his travels from Paris to Brussels to Madrid to Guadalajara. The crazy thing is this guy has got to have a very high IQ to keep all of these facts straight. Whenever Amber Frey would bring up something he didn't want to talk about, suddenly, you know how those international calls are. Shhh. He'd go, "I can't hear you, I can't you." Click.

At one point you could hear Laci's dog barking in the background. And Scott complained, "how did they let a dog in the hotel here in Brussels?" It's incredible. But my most significant observation is that people in the courtroom were actually stifling laughter. Everybody was afraid Delucchi would kick us out if we laughed out loud. I looked up to the jury, nobody was laughing.

KING: Michael Cardoza, what do you make of it? Why these lengths? Forget the murder. Just to have an affair, it sounds crazy.

MICHAEL CARDOZA, LEADING AREA DEFENSE ATTORNEY: It does sound crazy. And you wonder why he went to such an elaborate lie. Absolutely, he was lying like crazy. But one thing it did for him, to her it put him out of the country, he didn't have to respond to her and he could deal with what was going on at home. So that's the only reason I would think that he would go to that length to lie. But Nancy, I did see some of the jurors laughing. A couple of them put them down and they were stifling laughs, so not only were the people in the audience doing it, but the jurors were doing it, too at different parts. If it weren't so sad, this was funny stuff.

KING: Would you gather, Nancy, based on this, that he almost has to take the stand?

GRACE: You know, I've been thinking about that. It seems as if logically he would have to take the stand and explain his actions. But the reality is trial strategy, I don't think Geragos, who's a pretty shrewd little cookie is going to let Peterson take the stand because he'll fall apart under cross-examination. There's too much to explain away.

KING: Michael, what if he just says, "I have a -- what if he takes the stand and he is a good witness. What if he just says, "I just have a wild imagination." You know, what if he's a good witness?

CARDOZA: You know what, if he's a good witness, it pushes this trial further toward him. But one of the things that I find interesting and, Nancy, think about it. You have these two district attorneys, and even you say they're not among the very best, as a defense attorney I know...

GRACE: No, no, no, I never said that.

CARDOZA: Nancy, you know. All right. Fine. You never said that. I'll say it. They're not among the best. When you watch them put this case on, I've got to tell you, if I were going to put Scott on or thinking about it I'd say, "how do I think these guys are going to do on cross? I'll tell you what, I wouldn't be afraid of them on cross. And if I were Geragos, I would think more strongly about putting him on the stand.

KING: Nancy, you say no?

GRACE: You know what, there's no way -- I don't care, you don't put a lay person who's up to here swimming, drowning in a pack of lies. I mean, for Pete's sake, Larry, he's talking about the static around the Eiffel Tower at the New Year's Celebration. What it is is the vigil. He can't explain that...

KING: So what does Geragos do, cover it in the final argument? How does he get around it?

CARDOZA: The way he gets around it is...

GRACE: He covers it in his closing statement.

CARDOZA: And in cross-examination. You know, when he cross- examines it's as if Peterson is speaking. To be real clear, I'm not advocating he put Scott Peterson on, I'm not doing that at all. But I'm factoring in if this case gets closer, and as a defense attorney, you start think, gosh, maybe I got to put him on. I wouldn't be afraid of these two lawyers putting him on where there are some that I would say there's no way I'm putting this guy on the stand, he will have you for lunch. Not with these two though.

KING: Ted Rowlands, there's no court on Friday, there's more tomorrow. How long will she be on the stand, do you think?

ROWLANDS: Well, according to somebody familiar with the prosecution's case, they don't expect to hand her over, if you will, to the defense until early next week at some point. Then it's a question of how long does Geragos go with her to try to bring out some of these explanations for Peterson's behavior.

It's expected that he's going to try to paint this as a ploy by Peterson to keep her, as he put it -- Geragos in opening statements -- emotionally at bay. Keep tabs on her, call her every day, see where she's at, make sure she doesn't know about what's going on in Modesto and keep these elaborate lies going so that he can keep contact and keep her satisfied as the girlfriend so that she doesn't blow his cover.

KING: What do you make of her -- I'm sorry. Go ahead, Michael.

CARDOZA: What I found interesting today is something Ted mentioned. That Peterson is giving himself a way out. Here he started a love affair with her and he's given himself a way out. You know, there's an old saying that says any fool can start a love affair but it takes real genius to get out of one. And I see him trying to. He's not exactly that genius, but he's trying to move out of the love affair. You can see him maneuvering towards that with some of the things he says.

GRACE: That's not true.

CARDOZA: Yes, it is true.

GRACE: Larry, in these tapes, I have the transcript right here with me, he talks about fulfilling each other forever, meeting each other's needs for the rest of their lives. That's not bye-bye talk, that's marriage talk.

KING: Let me get a break, guys. We'll come back, I'll spend some moments with Gloria Allred and then our complete panel will assemble including Ted and Nancy and Michael. You're watching LARRY KING LIVE. The president and Mrs. Bush tonight. Don't go away.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

SUSAN CLAUDIO, SCOTT PETERSON'S SISTER: We all know he had an affair. That's not the issue here. The issue is about Laci. And I don't think the two are connected whatsoever.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

KING: We now welcome Gloria Allred, Amber Frey's attorney. She's in Redwood City. What's been her mood through these two days, Gloria. GLORIA ALLRED, AMBER FREY'S ATTORNEY: Well, Larry, she's, I think, surviving it very well. And I think she'd done an outstanding job on the witness stand. I think she's been very important for the prosecution. And I'm very, very proud of her.

KING: It's almost just listening to tapes, right? She hasn't had much to say. The tapes are the evidence, right?

ALLRED: Well actually, there was quite a bit of testimony yesterday. But listening to the tapes, of course, her voice is on it she recorded those phone calls when Laci went missing when law enforcement ask her to do so.

These phone calls with Scott. It was so interesting, today, to hear Scott's words on those tapes, Larry. To me, the bombshell this afternoon was hearing Scott say what he thought was the best movie ever. What was that movie? "The Shining." What happens "The Shining?" "The Shining" is about a husband whose mental state deteriorates so much that he tries to kill his wife. It's a chilling movie, Larry. Everyone who saw Jack Nicholson in it thought that I think, that it was a very chilling horror movie. Even more chilling is that it's Scott Peterson's favorite movie.

KING: Why did Amber Frey leave the court for a while? And you went with her.

ALLRED: Yes. She left this morning while one of the tapes was being played because the baby needed to be fed and she's, of course, nursing the baby, beast feeding the baby. And the break, this morning, took place earlier than usual. And the baby simply wasn't able to wait until lunchtime in order to be fed. And, of course, the court allowed her to leave for that reason.

Also on the tapes, Larry, I think it was very significant in support of the prosecution's theory in this case are numerous statements by Scott Peterson about the future he was planning with Amber Frey. He says he was -- I mean, was going to take her to Hawaii, according to Scott Peterson's own words. Another time he said he was going to take her to see the Monarch Butterflies.

So, this is a man not planning trips to find his missing pregnant wife, but planning trips to go to Hawaii with Amber Frey, his woman friend, after Laci disappeared. Hardly sounds like the grieving husband to me.

KING: Does it make him, Gloria -- it obviously proves he's a cad, but it doesn't prove he's a murderer, does it?

ALLRED: Well, Larry, this is a circumstantial evidence case. Everything matters. Everything counts. And all of this, his planning a future with Amber, having a relationship with Amber. Anyone who listens to these tape-recorded phone calls is thinking that he's having a relationship with Amber, except of course for the defense and there's few supporters who I guess will never believe it in a million years no matter what he says. But, as Nancy pointed out, he says, forever when he's talking about Amber and his relationship. I think that all of that is extremely important evidence to support the prosecution's argument there is a motive to kill here. And, of course, he had the opportunity. Put together motive, put together opportunity, the jury could find that motive and opportunity helped them to identify the perpetrator of the crime as Scott Peterson.

KING: The motive being?

ALLRED: The motive would be -- a motive would be to have a relationship with Amber Frey.

KING: So you get divorced.

ALLRED: It may not be the only motive, but it is a motive.

Well, he could get divorced -- well, but if Laci, of course, were to live, and deliver Connor, then he would have 18 years of child support.

One of his favorite books, apparently, according to Scott Peterson on the tapes was "On The Road." And he indicates that he's never really had freedom of responsibility. Maybe that was on of the reasons that was his favorite book, Jack Kerouac. And maybe he wanted to be free of responsibility.

KING: 18 years of supporting someone's life -- child support might be better than death in the electric chair, or by injection. For a choice, I think I'd choose the former.

ALLRED: Exactly true, exactly true. But, of course, most people who murder. Of course, I'm not saying Scott did it, that's for the jury to decided, but most people who murder think they're going to get away with it. They don't think they're going to get caught. Fortunately, for most people who murder, they're wrong about getting caught.

KING: Did she have qualms about taping him?

ALLRED: When law enforcement asked her to tape, she immediately agreed. Having said that, she really did so at great risk to herself and she did suffer many invasions of privacy as a result. And it was quite inconvenient in her life, but she did it. I'm very proud of her that she did it because this has been, I think, of enormous assistance to this criminal investigation.

KING: Was it emotionally -- obviously, she had to have some feeling for Scott or she wouldn't have been involved, so was there any kind of emotional problem to do that? She didn't have no feelings or else she's nothing, she must have had feelings.

ALLRED: I agree with you, I think she had feelings with Scott and I think it was hard for her to see Scott Peterson in the courtroom today after not having seen him for so long. But she does have a strong sense of what was right and what was wrong. And she knew that the right thing to do was if law enforcement asked her to participate and assist them in their investigation by taping Scott Peterson, than this is double murder case, she really felt it was important that she assist. And I'm glad she did so.

And she did so, I mean, really -- she didn't take a long time to think about it. She agreed immediately, they went to Radio Shack, they bought the equipment and Scott Peterson's first call was when the detectives were still there in that first day that she agreed to tape.

KING: Gloria Allred, thank you. The attorney for Amber Frey.

ALLRED: Thank you.

KING: When we come back, Ted Rowlands, Nancy Grace, Michael Cardoza remain and we're joined by Chris Pixley, Chuck Smith and Richard Cole. And later, your phone calls. Don't go away.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: After remaining silent for over a month, Scott says he decided to speak out because he felt the focus had shifted from Laci to him.

S. PETERSON: In hopes that people will go, you know what, if I think he had some involvement, if I don't think he had some involvement, that doesn't matter, because Laci is what matters and she's out there missing and she needs to be home with her families. So I don't care to defend myself. I don't care what people the of me.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

KING: Welcome back. Let's meet our complete panel. We'll go to your calls in a little while.

Ted Rowlands, CNN correspondent has covered this case from the get-go had one of the few on camera interviews with Peterson.

Nancy Grace, the Court TV anchor, host of "Nancy Grace Live," prime time specials, former prosecutor, in court today.

As was Michael Cardoza, the local defense attorney and former prosecutor.

Joining the panel now in Atlanta is, Chris Pixley, the noted defense attorney.

And Redwood City, Chuck Smith, the former San Mateo County prosecutor. Six years a homicide prosecutor.

And Richard Cole, covering the case for the "Daily News Group," including the Redwood City "Daily News." A veteran crime and trial reporter.

What did today add-on mean -- Chris Pixley? CHRIS PIXLEY, DEFENSE ATTORNEY: Well, I think today was obviously important for the prosecution. Because regardless, Larry, of what Scott and Amber's relationship ultimately amounted to, and we're going to have debates over that, her taped conversations with Scott, scripted by the police, constitute the next best thing to weeks of police interrogation of this man.

While Scott may have told some big lies, the real big question and it's going to be asked repeatedly over the next several days, is whether Scott reveals anything about this crime or reveals anything about himself in the process. And with what came out today, you see long-winded conversations by Amber Frey. Scripted statements by Amber Frey and very short discreet comments like, yes, or wow, that sounds great from Scott Peterson.

And I have to agree with something, Michael, said earlier, one thing that did come out in this taped conversation today, is that Scott Peterson was really dialing down the commitment level between he and Amber Frey, by the end of the year. He's telling her, look, you know, you are very religious, I'm not very religious. You want to have more children, I don't want to have more children. I think, we might difference, in how you raise your child. So, he's backing out of the relationship already. And this is the first day really of the taped conversations.

KING: What's your read, Chuck Smith?

CHUCK SMITH, FORMER SAN MATEO PROSECUTOR: Here's my read, Larry. there's a big difference between a man having an affair on his wife, cheating on his wife. And events prior to her disappearance, all those can be explained as, well, it happens. What is so significant to me, though, is after her disappearance is when most of those phone calls happened. And In These phone calls, starting on December the 26th, they go on for hour upon hour, when everyone else in the city of Modesto, who cared about Laci Peterson is frantically looking, spending 16, 20, 24 hours a day looking for her.

What is he doing with his time? He's on the phone chit-chatting for hours with Amber Frey, little love talk. What -- this reveals a great deal about his character. Quite frankly, the more you listen to it, it reveals an abandoned and malignant heart, which is part of what must be proven to show malicious. He doesn't care about his wife. He doesn't care about this child. He is more concerned about having a little love talk with his girlfriend on the telephone. It's just remarkable when you contrast it with what is going on in his life and what his family is doing and what he's doing.

KING: Richard Cole, hard to dispute that, isn't it?

RICHARD COLE, "REDWOOD CITY DAILY NEWS": I want to come down firmly for both sides on this issue. I think the prosecution has made a very strong point that we haven't talked about enough. One of the things that I was struck with, Scott's first interview with the Detective Brocchini, which we saw a tape of earlier in the trial, was how natural and how normal he looked. And how, frankly, innocent he looked when he answered all Detective Brocchini's questions, it seemed very candidly. And that made me look and say, gee, he kind of looks like an innocent guy.

However, we know Scott can look you straight in the cell phone and spin lies about being in the Eiffel Tower -- you know under the Eiffel Tower watching the fire walks, jogging on the cobblestones of Brussels. I think it will make the jury kind of look back on some of the things that made him look innocent, and say maybe he's just a really good actor.

On the other hand, I think that, Mike and Chris are absolutely right, I sense from the conversations today he was trying to back off. There is one quote that stuck in my mind, if I can read it here. He said, "Our relationship will grow and when it's the right time, slowly, it will be very beautiful." He also says, "I don't think I really need a commitment with you." When she mentioned timetable. Actually, he says, "I don't think we really need a timetable." That does not sound like man who's desperately trying to get a woman, that he is willing to kill for.

KING: Good point.

Nancy Grace, is it your theory, just as a theory, since this is circumstantial, that he killed her in order to be with Amber Frey, that was his goal?

GRACE: No. No. No.

KING: What is your theory?

GRACE: Larry, I think if he is in fact guilty, which all the evidence to me indicates that he is, he killed in order to be free. It's not necessarily about Amber Frey. Lets get real, Amber Frey, might have thought she found the love of her life, he basicly found a bed partner. There have been so many other women in his life, even while he was married, that I think he had a desperate desire for freedom.

He did not want to have a baby. He spontaneously, and I don't want to cause you gentleman any bad thoughts tonight as you lay your head on the pillow, but he spontaneously volunteered for a snip job, a vasectomy. I don't know about you guys, but I don't see them line up outside the clinic, for a vasectomy. He did not want a family. And you people claiming, that these are one word answers, let me hold up page five, for he goes on, and on and on. And says to describe you Amber, you're so wonderful, you're so beautiful, I would have to be an author, I would have to be a poet, and artist to describe how wonderful you really are.

KING: But your contention is his goal was not to be with Amber, just to be free?

GRACE: Maybe for that night, Larry, maybe for that one day at the Renaissance Hotel.

KING: Michael, is that a good reason?

Obviously, the jury is going to have to weigh this, is that a reason to kill?

CARDOZA: Well, I'll tell you, what the prosecutors here are saying, that Scott's reason to kill was to be with Amber. I don't buy it, and I don't think the jury will buy it. It's more -- and it's a better theory, although, I really, really hate to agree with Nancy, that he just wanted to be free. That's going to sell a lot better. But you know, what I find interesting about Nancy and Gloria, say. Here's Scott the big liar, right, he lies to everybody. But yet, when he talks to Amber and talks about trips to Hawaii and a little bit of, maybe having a life, oh there, he's telling the truth. Come on, this is a guy an affair, he's lying to Amber, too, to keep her close. Remember, his wife has gone missing, he wants to keep Amber close to him to find out what's going on. He's going to lie like heck to her. He's a liar we know that.

GRACE: To find out what's going on. He doesn't want her no know what's going on.

CARDOZA: That's why he wants to keep her close.

GRACE: You said to see what's going on.

KING: We'll take a break. All right, let me get a break and come back. We'll start to include your phone calls. Our panel goes it a on this edition of LARRY KING LIVE. Don't go away.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

KING: Before we take your phone calls, Ted, tell us about Scott Peterson's demeanor in court today.

ROWLANDS: He was listening along with everybody else. He had a copy of transcript and was going through it for most of the time. A few times I noticed he was going through other discovery, other packets of information and looking at that. But for the most part, he was like everybody else, just following along.

And Mark Geragos was like him, taking notes as the transcripts went by, and the audio tapes went by. There wasn't a lot of testimony from Amber Frey today, so there wasn't that connection -- or potential connection for him to look at her and vice versa. It just wasn't a factor today.

KING: Did he show, Ted, any embarrassment?

ROWLANDS: No, he didn't flinch at all, neither did his family. It had to be tough for them just to sit there and listen. But nobody really reacted at all from the Peterson side. And that's been the case throughout this. He's been well schooled, Peterson, and he has not made any errors, if you will, in front of the jury in terms of his reaction to any of this testimony.

KING: Bloomfield, Connecticut, hello.

CALLER: Hi. I have two question, well one is a comment. One is, if we're not supposed to believe him when he's lying, then I guess we're not supposed to believe him when he says he didn't kill his wife. And the second thing is, I like to -- the media, in the beginning of this case, was touting that his mother originally, there were seven children, and she originally gave two children up for adoption. And Scott didn't know anything about this until Laci went missing. And then he found out about two of his siblings -- his step siblings.

And then he went away at one point in this trial...

KING: What's the question?

CALLER: ... or one point in this to go live with one of them?

I wonder how far the apple falls from the tree. Because if his mother could give away two of his step siblings and it didn't seem to bother her until all of this happened, then maybe he can just discard of a wife and child easily without any semblance of conscience.

KING: Chris, are we playing psychologist?

PIXLEY: We absolutely are. That's what I was going to say, Larry, we're missing the psychologist right now on the panel. You know, the good news is while a lot of those questions may go on in the minds of the jurors, ultimately, they're asked to decide on the basis of the evidence presented to them. None of this is evidence that's going to be presented to the jury. It's not appropriate. And I do think, it's a good point. Scott Peterson is not credible now, given all the lies he's told. It is almost laughable at this point, but it also doesn't reveal for us any motive. And in fact, the fact Scott Peterson continues to tell his lover all these lies after his wife is missing is not suggestive of a man who premeditated her murder.

In fact, he's keeping his mistress at arms length. And that to me, says that, he does expect that his wife could return. He's trying to get out of this situation. And he's trying to pacify his lover, while he figures out what to do about all the rest of this.

KING: In other words, Chuck Smith, he is caught in a trap?

SMITH: Well, he is caught in a trap. But his behavior is far from normal. The normal thing to do, if there is a normal thing to do, once his wife has disappeared. You know, Fresno, where Amber Frey is from, is only 30 miles from Modesto. The media market is the same.

How could he not think that, Amber was going see something on the news?

How could he not think that?

So, instead of coming to her and saying, hey listen, I'm the one they're talking about. My wife's missing. I need to break off this relationship. Instead he goes through this bizarre lies, upon lies. The message it sends to the jury is, this is not a normal human being. And that's one step to believing, if he's not a normal human being, maybe he did do it. Maybe he (UNINTELLIGIBLE) and he committed this.

KING: Santa Fe, New Mexico. Well put. Santa Fe, New Mexico, hello.

CALLER: My question is for Nancy, and can't the fact that someone -- is a good liar, pretty much convince everyone that they can be a murderer.

Everyone keeps saying, just because Scott is a cad and a lair, doesn't necessarily make him a murderer, then what does it make him?

GRACE: Well, I think you're entirely correct. And what it boils down to me, as a trial lawyer, is what this means regarding proving the case. We keep hearing the same defense camp sing old second verse, same as the first. He runs around, he's not a killer. I disagree. This shows he has no credibility. And you've got to take these phone calls to the lady caller in context. It's just some guy sweet talking another woman, that's married. A search, a desperate search is going on during all these hours and hours of love talk. And he's sitting there in his car or his home, where Laci disappeared, yack yack yacking on the phone. It's not the lies, it's the context.

Why isn't he out looking for Laci?

Because he knows where she is, at the bottom of the bay, for Pete sakes.

KING: Michael Cardoza, the problem is, that we all have is, only 12 people are going to decide this, right?

Not Nancy or you or I?

CARDOZA: Nancy's decided already, Larry. I mean, he was arrested. That's enough for her, why go beyond that. But yeah, only 12 people will decide this. You know, what was interesting in court today, that I noticed, during the tapes, Mark Geragos got up and walks out for a while. Gets his cell phone, walks out into the hall, comes back about 20 minutes later, sits down. That may -- I'm not sure, good or bad, that may send a message to the jury, you know, these tapes don't say anything, go ahead, play them. I thought it could be a good ploy, maybe somebody will interpret that differently, I'm sure Nancy will.

But he gets up. He walks out. He comes back later, with all that evidence coming in.

KING: Richard Cole, have you ever seen a lawyer do that, Richard Cole?

COLE: Well, I'll tell you, I've not seen -- I've not seen Mark Geragos do that before. I tried to pin him down, of course, he can't talk, there's a gag order. But he does like to make wisecracks outside of court.

And I tried to pin him down, and said, hey, we're having this debate on the LARRY KING show, are you going to have a long cross- examination or short one. And he turned around and said to me -- said, what's there to cross-examine her about?

KING: Nancy wanted a comment before I get to the next call?

GRACE: Yes, I'd like to respond, Larry, thank you. I notice every night when defense attorneys can't think of anything to say, they make personal attacks on either myself or prosecution. You know, that's all well and good, but that's not what this case is all about. And regarding Geragos leaving the courtroom, I would never myself, in a murder case, much less a double murder case, walk out of the courtroom. I would be concerned something could happen, there could be an outburst, there could be -- who knows what could happen. However, he does have...

KING: What do you think?

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Pat Harris is there.

GRACE: As I was about to say, he does have a second chair sitting there. I don't know if he's trying to send a message to the jury, and I really don't care. I know I would never walk out of the courtroom when my case was being tried.

KING: Delray Beach, Florida, hello.

CALLER: Yes, hi, Larry. This question is for Nancy Grace, since we all love her. It was reported on Court TV that Laci Peterson's first love is in prison for killing his wife.

Is this true and isn't that a coincidence?

GRACE: Yes, it's a heck of a coincidence. I think it was her first boyfriend did commit murder, did kill another women, is behind bars, has no connection in this case what so ever. On the other hand, a women where Scott Peterson went to school turned up dead, as well, and they questioned him. Absolutely no connection, but it incredibly bizarre.

KING: It sure is. Clover, South Carolina.

CALLER: Hi, my question is for the panel.

KING: Yes.

CALLER: I was wondering what happened to the evidence that they stopped court for last week that could possibly get Scott off?

KING: Ted Rowlands, anything further on that?

ROWLANDS: We haven't really heard what the test results were. We have found out, as it was discussed last night, that it was that tarp, the cover of a pallet for construction material. But we just don't know what the test results were. The reason it came into focus because they were just give an revelation, the defense in recent weeks, that the first responders on scene said that they smelled a corpse in that plastic material. So, that put the red alert sign up. They tested it. We just don't know what became of it. Obviously, it wasn't a smoking gun, they stopped the case for it. But I think, they're still waiting for results. COLE: Larry, I might have a little bit of update -- a little bit of an update on that, Larry. Richard Cole, here.

What we understand today is that, the testing is still going on. And apparently Mark Geragos is likely to ask at some point for yet another prosecutorial misconduct hearing. The thesis being, that the original responders, as Ted mentioned, were East Bay Regional Parks Police and Contra Costa Coroner's authorities and perhaps some deputies, that they may have told Modesto Police about what they smelled. But the Modesto Police never told anybody else, never put it in a report. If so, that's yet another in a litany of such charges that we've had. If there is such a hearing, it will not be until after Amber Frey is off the stand.

KING: Bend, Oregon, hello.

CALLER: Hi, Larry.

KING: Hi.

CALLER: My question is for Chuck and/or Nancy.

KING: Go ahead.

CALLER: It appears to me that the day Scott was arrested, that he was making a run for the Mexican border. And, would it have strengthened the case of the prosecution, had they allowed him to continue? That's my question for Chuck and/or Nancy. Thank you.

SMITH: Can I take that, Larry?

KING: Yes.

SMITH: Sure. You know, it would have, because they evidence that they did recover, what was in his car, is ambiguous as to whether or not he was going to make a run for the border. If they had waited a bit...

GRACE: Not true.

SMITH: If he actually made a run for the border, that would have tremendously strengthened the prosecution's case. Because there is an instruction give been in the judge at the end of the trial that is someone flees, flight; flight shows consciousness of guilt, which is common sense and we all know.

But to get an instruction in that regard would have been powerful. So, a lot of us are thinking that they jumped the gun a little bit. Why didn't they wait to see what he was going to do with that material that was in his car?

KING: Nancy, why do you disagree?

GRACE: Larry, somebody needs to recheck the list of what was in Scott Peterson's car. The car he bought under his mother's name. He represented himself as Jacqueline Peterson. In that car was a fillet knife, a water purifier, a firestarter. He had plenty of packets of Viagra, OK. I don't know why he needed that for the golf course. He had a survival gear.

I'm talking about flight. This guy was not going to play golf, OK. He had survival gear, rope, a bowie knife, a hatchet.

KING: But the question was, wouldn't it have been more effective if he had gone into Mexico as opposed to 30 being miles from Mexico?

GRACE: Well, I don't know. Why don't don't we let him move to Mexico and rebuild a house and remarry and start a whole new life? Why wait? He's in the U.S., arrest him. But you people that say he was going to play golf, that was one heck of a golf course, I guess survival golf.

ROWLANDS: Well, Larry, you know what. He was on his way to meet his family to play golf. And that will definitely come out in testimony. In fact, he called his brother and said I don't think I can make it to golf, you go ahead because I have these people tailing me. And they tailed him for two hours before they pulled him over.

So, on that day, he was definitely going, or planning to play golf.

KING: All right. Let me get a break and come back with more calls on this edition of LARRY KING LIVE. President George W. Bush and Mrs. Bush tomorrow night. Don't go away.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

BRENT ROCHA, LACI PETERSON'S BROTHER: I'd like to confirm that on January 16, 2003 by phone, Scott Peterson did admit to me he was having an affair with the Fresno woman. I confronted him this allegation after viewing pictures of him with this woman.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

KING: We're back, Kenosha, Wisconsin, hello.

CALLER: Hi, Larry.

KING: Hi.

CALLER: My question is for Nancy Grace.

KING: Sure.

CALLER: At the onset of this case, I recall hearing that on the evening of the 23rd of December, that there was someone who had noted that he was putting something into the back of his truck that was covered in a tarp, and when he was questioned about that, he said that they were umbrellas. I never heard another word about that piece of evidence. GRACE: I read the same report to the lady caller. I haven't heard another word about it. I understand he did tell police he carried these outdoor umbrellas to his warehouse so they wouldn't get wet. I think the tarp is the most interesting aspect of that story, but not a word of it in court.

KING: Have you heard anything, Ted?

ROWLANDS: Yes. That was testimony from a woman that was walking by. But the problem was she was the woman that was hypnotized. So she has not come out in trial.

What she saw was Peterson at 9:00 in the morning loading something in a blue tarp. He then, in fact, in the interview we did with him, he said he was loading those umbrellas, that he had wrapped them in tarps, they're outdoor umbrellas, why he wrapped them in a blue tarp, who knows, but he did that. And the tarps, I guess, did show up. Police found them, either at the warehouse, or I think still in the truck.

KING: Champlin, Minnesota, hello.

CALLER: Hi. My question is for anyone on the panel except Nancy please. I'm wondering why everyone seems to think that Scott is quite intelligent. And I'm wondering why he would be so stupid to have his alibi be right where they found the bodies?

KING: Michael?

CARDOZA: Well, I tell you what. That question is one I've asked all along. The prosecution puts forth here's the guy that committed the perfect murder in the house, no forensic evidence. Then, he gets felony stupid after that. He goes to the warehouse, he builds these anchors, leaving all this evidence behind. Then he goes to the bay. He dumps the body, then he tells police where he was, exactly where he was, I suppose hoping the bodies would never come up.

But you would never do that. So, how does he get so smart to, as I say, felony stupid. It makes absolutely no sense.

KING: Chuck Smith, what do you think of that?

SMITH: You know, it's a real difficult conundrum in this whole case. I tell you something, listening to these tapes today and listening to him talk to Amber Frey, these are such stupid inane, juvenile, teenage lover conversations. A woman sitting next to him, an observer from the public, she said how could anybody hire this guy. This had to be so humiliating and embarrassing for the family to listen to this.

But it does strike you. This is a dumb guy, which, you know, I harken back to your question the other day Larry, did he commit the perfect murder? Well, this guy on tape, no way I did he commit the perfect murder. So it's hard to figure out, unless he's just basically off, he's got a screw loose somewhere.

KING: Chris Pixley, what do you make of it?

PIXLEY: I have slightly different spin, but I'm going to have to agree with the panel. On one hand, here's a guy who is, if he's responsible for this murder, has committed a murder without leaving any physical evidence behind. And that's a difficult, difficult thing to do, Larry.

On the other hand, when he starts talking to police, and in particular, when he starts talking to the press, he becomes ridiculously stupid. Obviously, the taped conversations also reveal...

KING: Can he be smart at one thing and stupid at another?

PIXLEY: I don't think you can be. And I don't think that the jury is going to accept that. They are going to ask, why would this guy make so many mistakes after the fact, if he committed such a perfect crime?

KING: Richard Cole, what do you think?

COLE: I have to agree that this smart/stupid dichotomy of Chris has been going on for a long time. The idea that he would drop the bodies in the water. Let's not forget that, supposedly, he checked the charts first. It's five feet of water. And it's, at low tide, you can walk to land from that spot. He knew it was shallow. He says to Detective Brocchini during the interview the night of the 24th, I stopped there to fish because it was shallow. I saw that it was in a shallow area. So, he's going to drop the bodies there? I've always struggled with that.

I have to agree, we have this smart Scott, stupid Scott thing that keep seeing. And, as we see it in the tapes, and we see it in a lot of places.

KING: Nancy, what do you make of it?

GRACE: I went out on the Bay myself this weekend so everybody can talk about what they think, but I went out there myself to where Scott Peterson said he went fishing near Brooks Island. And I spoke to a third generation boat captain who then took me to Point Isabel where Laci and Conner washed ashore. And as the crow flies, it's about one mile directly between where he was fishing and where they washed up.

Now you all can argue all you want to but to me that is very hard evidence against Scott Peterson.

KING: We'll take a break and be back with our remaining moments and more phone calls. Don't go away.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

KING: We're back. Ontario, hello.

CALLER: Thank you for taking my call. My question is about the rumors of the trouble brewing amongst the jury. I'm aware they expelled juror five but I hear there's also something brewing with the other jurors. Is there any truth to that?

KING: Ted.

ROWLAND: There have been rumors that have been spread in part by juror number five, not spread but we've learned a lot about the jury through him. Apparently there might be something going on. I wouldn't read a lot into it. This jury is very focused. They're all sitting there, taking notes, doing their best job. It's long trial. And they're living together through this. So whatever's happening, I don't think it's very substantial at all and one shouldn't read too much into it.

KING: California, hello.

CALLER: My question is for Mr. Cardoza. Has anybody ever checked to see about Amber Frey's alibi?

CARDOZA: The police did talk to the people that were involved with Amber's alibi and they said it all checked out. So we're not going to hear anything about that but maybe on cross-examination, if Judge Delucchi allows Mark Geragos to do that, he may go into that if he chooses to do that so they did check it out allegedly.

COLE: One other thing, if I may throw this in, they gave Amber Frey a lie detector test, the Modesto police did and she passed with flying colors according to their reports.

CARDOZA: Remember, those aren't admissible in court. Lie detectors not admissible in court.

COLE: Of course not.

KING: Chris Pixley, does Gloria Allred, since she's not covered by the gag order, since she -- does she help or hurt do you think with the nightly conferences?

PIXLEY: I don't know if the nightly conferences help or hurt. I don't tend to think that they're doing anything for the prosecution. Gloria has made it clear from the very beginning, she considers Scott Peterson to be guilty. She takes ultimately the fifth on that question if you ask it to her directly but every inference is that she considers Scott to be guilty. So she has an agenda.

The real question I have is whether Gloria's participation with her client will hurt her testimony. I think in the first day of testimony we saw Amber Frey challenging the prosecutors a bit, the way a professional witness does, saying can you restate that for me? Can you explain what you mean? I don't understand you, I don't follow you. Almost as though she has been so well coached that when Mark Geragos gets up on cross-examination she will be giving him a hard time. You don't want to be a witness who is somehow hiding things. That is something we get from Gloria quite often. So I think it could hurt Amber in terms of preparation.

KING: Nancy, what do you think?

GRACE: I'm not quite sure what anybody's point really is other than Amber Frey is very composed and very prepared on the stand. I've always told my witnesses if there's ever a point you don't get where I'm going, just tell me, right then and there, we'll clear it up in front of the jury. It's OK. She's doing exactly that. The reality is she's articulate and she's composed, and apparently some people tonight have sour grapes.

PIXLEY: Honestly, Nancy, with the amount of preparation that's gone into getting Amber ready to testify, I find it hard to believe that she should need to repeatedly ask the prosecutors to restate the question.

GRACE: That's what you think. If anybody ever tried a murder case you know you have to prepare your witnesses.

PIXLEY: Exactly. That's the problem here.

KING: That's it for tonight. That's our panel for tonight as this matter continues. We'll continue in a couple of minutes to tell you about tomorrow. Don't go away.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

KING: Tomorrow night, President and Mrs. Bush in an exclusive hour. Friday night the elusive, often elusive Brian Wilson. You don't see him interviewed much.

Now a man who is never elusive. That's not his role. His role is the opposite of elusive. His role is to be there on the scene letting you know what happened with his wheel and his newspapers and all his schikt (ph).

There he is. Aaron Brown, the man of renown, the host of "NEWSNIGHT."

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


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