Return to Transcripts main page

CNN Larry King Live

Analysis of Day 7 of Scott Peterson Preliminary Hearing

Aired November 06, 2003 - 21:00   ET

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

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


LARRY KING, HOST: Tonight, inside an explosive day seven of Scott Peterson's preliminary hearing. A detective testifies that Scott Peterson told his other woman, Amber Frey, that his wife, Laci, was dead two weeks before Laci disappeared.
We'll get a firsthand account of how it all went down from Ted Rowlands of KTVU -- he was inside the courtroom -- renowned defense attorney Johnnie Cochran, a member of O.J. Simpson "dream team"; Judge Jeanine Pirro, district attorney, Westchester County, New York; Jim Hammer, assistant district attorney, San Francisco; high-profile defense attorney Chris Pixley. And later, Gloria Allred, attorney for Scott's other woman, Amber Frey. They're all next on LARRY KING LIVE.

Another great panel assembled on this case that has the world interested. A lot of your phone calls later. Let's begin with Ted Rowlands in Modesto.

The highlights of the day, Ted?

TED ROWLANDS, KTVU-TV: Yes, big day, all Al Brocchini, the lead detective in this case. He spent the entire day on the stand, starting with his dealings with Scott Peterson in that first day, talked about going through the house with him, talked about finding a loaded .22-caliber pistol in Peterson's truck, which Peterson told him was there. He confiscated that. He also went to the warehouse with Peterson and conducted a search there and back to the Modesto Police Department for an hour-long interview, which he said Peterson was cooperative for the entire time.

He also talked about his dealings with Amber Frey. As you mentioned at the top, Frey told him that on December 9, she confronted Peterson about being married and he told her that his wife was dead and that this Christmas was going to be the first major holiday that he was going to be without her. Brocchini said that he was actually behind the operator when Frey called the 911 tip line. He took that call and went down and interviewed her down in Fresno. Frey also said that when Laci was missing on December 25, 26, 27 and 28, Peterson continued to call her. In fact, he said he was in Europe and that he would be back in January and they could start spending more time together starting on January 25th.

KING: So...

ROWLANDS: The afternoon session was all cross-exam from Kirk McAllister, not Mark Geragos, which most people thought was going to be the case.

KING: So Ted, how did Scott explain how he explained to Amber that his wife wasn't dead after she went missing?

ROWLANDS: He told the police detectives that he didn't have a girlfriend, so there was no explaining yet, in terms of in open court, of what he was going to say as an explanation. Detective Brocchini said that Peterson told them that he did not have an -- he had not had an affair and had no affair going at the time. So a clear lie there. Of course, he went on to lie everybody on television, as well.

KING: In fact, let's do that. Here's a clip from Scott's interview. Remember, he tells the detective he didn't have an affair. Here's a clip from his interview with ABC's Diane Sawyer.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

DIANE SAWYER, ABC NEWS: Had you told anyone? Did you tell police?

SCOTT PETERSON: I told the police immediately.

SAWYER: When?

PETERSON: That was the first night we were together -- the police -- I spent with the police.

SAWYER: You told them about her?

PETERSON: Yes. From December 24 on.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

KING: Johnnie Cochran, the detective describing what all these people said -- is that hearsay, or is it allowed in preliminary hearings?

JOHNNIE COCHRAN, DEFENSE ATTORNEY: Definitely allowed in the preliminary hearing, clearly, be allowed in the preliminary hearing, and probably, also Larry, it'll be allowed at trial because the -- I'm sure Mr. Stevenson (ph) had been advised of his constitutional rights, at that point. So this would be in the nature of, like, an admission and would admissible. And you know, what you have here is a series of things the prosecution will try to link together, and you know, as a pattern to try and, you know, buttress their case.

KING: Was this, in your opinion, Johnnie, a bad day for the defense?

COCHRAN: Well, I don't know that we've heard all the cross- examination. I think the positive things for the defense is that he appeared cooperative. But it is -- I think he's going to some explaining to do, if he says two weeks before his wife is missing that she's already dead. Now, you know, it's not against the law for a man to have a girlfriend. It's not the right thing to do but that doesn't mean he's a murderer. But if he's telling his girlfriend his wife is dead two weeks before, and if he tells Diane Sawyer later that he told the police about the girlfriend and he didn't do that, these lies start to add up. And what it makes -- it makes it very difficult because at the trial, you got to make a decision whether or not the defendant is going to testify because, you know, if he doesn't testify, who's going to explain these lies?

KING: And by the way, Johnnie's book about his life as a lawyer is now out in paperback, a terrific read. And another terrific read is "To Punish and Protect: One DA's Fight Against a System That Coddles Criminals." And the author of that book is Judge Jeanine Ferris Pirro. Judge Pirro is the district attorney for Westchester County, New York.

What did you make of today?

JEANINE FERRIS PIRRO, DISTRICT ATTORNEY, WESTCHESTER COUNTY, NY: I think, Larry, it was a bad day for the defense. You've got Scott Peterson lying to the police the first night. You've got him on national television saying that he told the police that he had a girlfriend on December 24. And you know, Larry, there are so many inconsistencies here that we have to concern ourselves with. The idea that when he left, Laci was mopping the floor, when the housekeeper was there the day before, mopping the floor.

And what's curious to me is that the defendant would call Brocchini and say, Did you take my gun? Now, this is the first time I'm hearing anything about Peterson owning a gun. There is a loaded .22-caliber handgun in his truck. And he also calls the police on Christmas night and says, Are you going to use cadaver-sniffing dogs? This is all not sounding good for the defense at all.

KING: And what's your read, Chris Pixley, as a defense lawyer?

CHRIS PIXLEY, DEFENSE ATTORNEY: Well, I think it's predictable. I don't think it's that bad, Larry.

KING: No?

PIXLEY: No. You know, you talk about the gun. The gun's a non- issue. The fact that he owned a gun doesn't matter. Clearly, there's no blood evidence in the home. There isn't any suggestion by the police that he actually used the gun to murder his wife. The gun is just one of these many facts that they're parading in the media, that they want all of us to hear about, they want their potential jury to hear about.

You know, the same is true about the cadaver dogs. The idea that Scott called the police and said, Are you using a cadaver dog? That's been suggested today to make us all infer that Scott knew that she was dead and he thought the police knew, as well. The fact of the matter is, you know, this is linguistics. We need to know what exactly was said. And Scott could have been saying -- Scott could have heard that they were using the cadaver dog and simply been saying, Why are you using a cadaver dog? You need bloodhounds. You need to be looking for my wife.

So you have to consider the context. We're only hearing from the prosecution right now. But Johnnie makes a good point. You've got to decide, at some point, if you're going to put your own client on the stand to explain some of this, or if you've got another way of doing it.

KING: By the way, there are no hearings tomorrow or Monday or Tuesday. Next hearing resumes on Wednesday. We'll ask Gloria Allred at the bottom if Amber Frey is expected to testify on Wednesday. Many are predicting that.

Jim Hammer, is the prosecution going to need more than he was having an affair?

JIM HAMMER, ASSISTANT DISTRICT ATTORNEY, SAN FRANCISCO: Absolutely. You know, I would say 99.99 percent of people who have affairs don't kill their wives or girlfriends.

But to follow up on what Chris said, you don't have to be a linguistics expert to parse what it means when a man says to the guy he's having a -- the woman he's having an affair with that, My wife's dead, and I want to start changing my schedule so I can spend more time with you. I think today was one of the very best days for the prosecution, and on what seemed like a relatively thin physical evidence case for the prosecution, a hair, which 1 in 10 or 1 in 100 women have the same DNA profile, how he acted around that time and these extraordinary statements -- My wife's dead, and I want to change my schedule so I can hang out with you more, I think is absolutely devastating.

PIRRO: And Larry, if I can also add, I mean, the fact he says that by January 25 or 26, exactly 30 days from that day, that he would have more time to spend with Amber Frey is a real concern. He's not just saying she's dead. And everyone has been saying, Larry, Oh, he was just a cad. He was trying to, you know, get myself tight with Amber Frey. But he says, She's dead, and by January 25, I'll be able to spend more time with you -- that is very disturbing.

HAMMER: And I don't think divorce was the way he was going to do that, from what we see of the evidence so far.

(CROSSTALK)

KING: And when we come back, we'll ask Johnnie Cochran and Chris Pixley to comment on what the prosecutors just said and also about why so much comes out at a preliminary hearing. We'll be including your phone calls. Gloria Allred will join us later. Tom Jones tomorrow night. Don't go away.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

MARK GERAGOS, SCOTT PETERSON'S ATTORNEY: Cross-examination was handled by Kirk today. The -- I wanted to be here to participate with him. I was participating with him. And clearly, there are different areas. The judge is allowing one lawyer to do each witness. Each witness in a preliminary hearing is testifying via what's called Proposition 115. So the witness will testify as to what he did, and also the hearsay of other witnesses.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

GERAGOS: Certain of the people that the officer is testifying to right now, I'm going to be handling later on. Others Kirk's going to be handling later on. So since we can only have one lawyer do it, we decided, for tactical reasons, that he was going to do it. But I needed to be here so that I could give him the questions that I wanted asked regarding the witnesses that I will handle later on.

QUESTION: Such as Amber.

GERAGOS: There's numerous ones, but I'm not going to get into that.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

KING: Johnnie Cochran, why so much coming out at a preliminary hearing in which it appears most likely the defendant's going to be bound over for trial?

COCHRAN: Well, that's true. He probably will be, Larry. But I think that both sides are probably really playing to the potential jurors. I mean, this is a case that's being tried, you know, not only in the courtroom there but also to the media. I mean, and this happens very, very often in these cases. So I think that's why you're seeing that. And you see the wheels turning on both sides.

I want to say one other thing, Larry, that keep in mind, this is a circumstantial evidence case, and there will be no really bold pieces of evidence really coming forward. There'll be no -- it's thin, from a scientific standpoint. But these statements -- you know, we used to have a statement that the road to state prison is paved by a defendant's statements. And sometimes it's very difficult. And I think that we have to look at these statements and see whether or not, as someone said earlier, are getting parsed. Are these the words that Mr. Peterson did? And can they be disproved under the circumstances? But certainly, it was not a pleasant day for the defense, but certainly not one that they cannot overcome.

KING: Ted Rowlands, before we ask Chris to comment on it, what about the equipment on the boat? Was it true that there were fishing tackle not used?

ROWLANDS: Yes. Well, there was a couple lures that were in a big, a Big Five Sporting Goods bag. That was in his truck. In the boat, there were a couple of fishing poles that appeared to be wet, according to Brocchini's report. There was also a weight -- and we've heard a lot about these cement weights -- and Brocchini described the weight as being cement, with a piece of rebar as a handle. Basically, he said it looked like someone had put a bunch of cement in a bucket and that's how it was formed. He went on to say that it looked to him like it was fairly fresh, but then on cross, admitted that it was solid.

We have heard that there were more cement imprints in the warehouse. Nothing came out, however, today, as far as any more than just the one cement anchor. And then on cross, the defense was able to establish that when Peterson bought the boat, the previous owner wanted to keep his anchor, so Peterson bought a boat without an anchor.

KING: Chris, are all these little things, little things that add up to make trouble for the defense?

PIXLEY: They do. And that's the prosecutor's job, especially in a case like this, Larry, where they don't have hard physical evidence, to try to build a case around statements and circumstances. That's why everyone's been referring to it as a circumstantial case. But jurors are smart, and they will keep in mind the fact that much of what they do on a daily basis, if you get down to the microscopic level, could be questioned.

You know, Scott Peterson's lies generally focus around his relationship with Amber Frey. And the fact of the matter is, he did what many, many people would do in that situation, right or wrong. He was wrong to have an affair, and he did one more thing wrong. He didn't trust that the police would treat him fairly if he revealed that.

But when you think of the circumstances, it's Christmas Eve, his wife is missing, it's a surreal experience. He knows he's having an affair. He believes that the same police that are rummaging through his home right now while they're interviewing him probably won't believe him if he tells them that he's having an affair but he has nothing to do with his wife's disappearance.

Jurors will put all of that in perspective. It's the defense's job to help them put it in perspective, and it's the defense's job right now at the preliminary hearing to get that all started. But you know, you've got to come up with more than Amber Frey. And we've been saying that for a while now.

KING: Jim Hammer, what about stories that the defense may introduce that Scott had other girlfriends and that he wasn't going to kill a wife over one woman?

HAMMER: You know, that's not a bad tack to take. And I think it's appropriate Johnnie Cochran's here because this case so far could almost be said to be in honor of his defense in the O.J. Simpson case. We've had the hunt for the real killers. We've had "the rush to judgment" argument. We've had the planted evidence, the mishandled evidence. All we need is Mark Fuhrman, but I think he's living in Idaho right now.

It's not enough that this man had an affair, I agree, but because I think the circumstantial evidence physical case is going to be thin, Larry, really zeroing in on what kind of man Scott Peterson was -- and as Chris said, not just lies about his affair. That doesn't get you to murder. But if he lied to the police about cleaning that house and crucial things like that, I think that could convict him.

KING: Judge Pirro, although Jim mentioned Johnnie Cochran, if my memory serves correct, Mr. Cochran won that case.

PIRRO: He did win that case. And Larry, that's exactly the reason that there's so much that's coming out at this preliminary hearing stage. Because of what Johnnie did and because of the fact that he was so successful at it, lawyers, both prosecution and defense, understand that they've got to get their message out right away. And nobody was better at that than Johnnie Cochran.

But you know, in answer to what Chris said about, you know, the affair and everyone saying that doesn't mean he murdered his wife -- clearly, it does not, but there are things that spun out of that affair that are extremely relevant and I think will be very telling to the jury. If it is true that the defendant said to Amber, when she said, Were you involved in your wife's disappearance, he said, Yes, no, but I know -- I didn't, but I know who did, that is more than an affair. That is an admission, along with some of the forensic evidence and all of the circumstantial evidence of his behavior, that can build a wall that the defense cannot hurdle.

KING: Jeanine, Judge, we don't know how he first told her his wife was dead and then after she goes missing and it's a big story, how he explained to her she wasn't.

PIRRO: Right. And I think that it'll be very telling when Amber takes the stand next week if she says that she's the one who had to bring it up and say that, you know, Are you Scott Peterson? Is your wife missing? And if it took that, while he is publicly grieving and still telling her that he loves her and that he's going to meet her and be free after January 25, then he's going to have an awful lot of explaining to do.

KING: We're going to take a break, take some phone calls for this panel. Gloria Allred will join us at the bottom of the hour. You're watching LARRY KING LIVE. Tom Jones, a rare interview with one of the greats, tomorrow night. Don't go away.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

KING: Let's include some calls. To Jacksonville, Florida. Hello.

CALLER: Hi. My question is for any of the panel.

KING: Sure.

CALLER: Do we know if Luminol was applied to Scott's house and boat, and what, if anything, that turned up?

KING: Chris?

PIXLEY: Well, we believe that it has been. The police and the prosecution actually haven't presented that part of the case yet. But what we do know is this. The police executed search warrants back on December 26 and 27, and again on February 18. They didn't arrest Scott until April 18, when the bodies washed up in the bay. Presumably, they didn't get the blood and DNA evidence that they're looking for to prove forensically that Scott is responsible for this crime.

KING: Johnnie, by the way, you know LA courtrooms as well as anyone. Geragos well fit, well suited for this?

COCHRAN: He really is. He's very thorough. He's very methodical. He knows what he's doing. And he's the right man, probably, for this particular case. You notice today, he made a motion today, Larry, that the FBI had been surveilling Scott's home and those tapes have not been turned over. It's difficult sometimes to get the FBI involved. And the judge has said if the FBI doesn't turn those tapes over, that there may be -- a motion for dismissal may be granted, which I think would be another aspect. But Geragos is very thorough, and as I said, he's an excellent lawyer.

KING: Jim Hammer, how good are the prosecutors?

HAMMER: They seem to be very good. I don't think they're used to a high-profile case, the way Mark Geragos is, but they seem to be keeping their heads down and focused on the evidence. I hope, I have to say, as a prosecutor, there's more evidence we haven't heard of yet. Compared to the physical evidence so far, the O.J. Simpson case for me, I hope, would have been a cakewalk. I would have liked to have had a shot against Johnnie Cochran -- with a different jury, of course.

(CROSSTALK)

COCHRAN: I retired from criminal law now. You'll have to wait for another lifetime!

(LAUGHTER)

HAMMER: Let me know when you're ready, Johnnie!

KING: Edmonton, Alberta, Canada. Hello.

CALLER: Hi.

KING: Hi.

CALLER: I was just wondering, can the court judge or whoever order a lie-detector test or perhaps a truth serum?

KING: Judge Pirro?

PIRRO: No. Lie detectors are not considered reliable, and therefore, the results of them are not admissible in a criminal court. But many times, defense attorneys -- and Johnnie and Chris can speak to this -- generally ask a client to take a lie detector because they, I think, give some credence to them. But the jury will never hear if he took it or if he passed or failed.

KING: Johnnie, you ever asked a defendant to do it?

COCHRAN: I've not, but I've heard of cases where sometimes that does happen. If you had a client who just protests and maintains he's innocent, this guy will do anything to prove it, sometimes you might do that. And at in the early stages, if he passed the test with a national recognized expert, you might take those results and give them to the prosecution and said, Look, you got the wrong guy here.

KING: Did you do it with O.J.?

COCHRAN: No, I did not. And there was some mention of that before, but I was -- I came in the case a little bit down the road, at that point.

KING: All right. Chris Pixley, do you ask defendants to do it?

PIXLEY: No. I agree with Johnnie. And the interesting thing is, apparently, Kirk McAllister, who was Scott's first attorney there on the scene within a week or two of Laci's disappearance, felt the same. And Scott has made it clear in the media and his family has made it clear, as well, that the reason he didn't take a lie-detector test was his counsel told him not to. Now, Mark Geragos is in a very similar situation to Johnnie. He came into the case later on, and the die was really cast. I don't know what value there is in doing it. And again, as the judge points out, they are considered unreliable. That's across the country. Without a stipulation between the two sides, you won't get it into evidence. And it's kind of voodoo science still.

KING: Seabrook, Texas. Hello.

CALLER: Yes. I guess, along the same lines, I was wondering if anybody's done a psychological evaluation. And if the defense has, if they have to pass that along to the prosecution.

KING: Jim?

HAMMER: If the defense does one and intends to use it at trial, they'd have to turn it over to the prosecution as part of regular discovery, and then the prosecution would have a chance to have him examined by their psychologist, as well. In California, there is reciprocal discovery. Both sides have to turn over their lists. But until the defense decides to use it, they don't have to even tell the prosecution about it.

KING: Ted, nobody has approached anybody in this case to talk about a deal, have they?

ROWLANDS: Well, we heard early on that the prosecution approached Peterson and said, Tell us where Laci's body is and we will not seek the death penalty. That apparently happened in January. And apparently, Peterson said, No way, maintaining the innocence, of course. But other than that, we haven't heard of any deals since the prelim has started or even leading up to the prelim at all from either side.

KING: Pittsburgh. Hello.

CALLER: Hi, Larry. My question has to do with the 24th, when Scott came home and did his laundry. Is this something that the family has stated or the housekeeper, that he would normally do his own laundry?

KING: Ted?

ROWLANDS: Well, I think it's being established that Peterson, and maybe Laci and Scott, were fairly neat and clean types of people. And you know, when you listened to the testimony today, it didn't seem inconceivable that if he was out in the bay fishing and he was wet, that he would come in. Obviously, when he walked in the door, he wouldn't think that his wife was missing, per se. He just would probably think that she was somewhere else. So you know, I don't know that that will be something that's going to be harped on throughout this.

KING: Johnnie, as cases go, would you call this a very tough one for the defense?

COCHRAN: No, not necessarily. I mean, they have no...

KING: No?

COCHRAN: I've not seen a real smoking gun, at this point. I tell you what, Larry. Prosecutors have a way -- and Jeanine may want to talk about this -- of building up for a grand finale. I think you're going to see next week -- we'll talk about this next week, I'm sure. But Amber Frey, at first, I thought was not very relevant. She may have more than we thought. And we have to deal with that. So that may be the -- I'll have to answer that question again next week.

As it is right now, I think that it's a case that -- it's going to be a war. It's going to be a war. Both sides are equipped for this war, and the jury will have to piece this evidence together to see whether or not this case, they can prove it beyond a reasonable doubt.

KING: By the way, Johnnie and others will be back with us next Wednesday night, when the hearings resume next Wednesday.

We're going to take a break, come back. We'll have more phone calls, and Gloria Allred will join us. You're watching LARRY KING LIVE. Tom Jones tomorrow night. We'll repeat our interview on Saturday night with Wynonna. Don't go away.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

QUESTION: How would you characterize the strength of the prosecution's case today?

GERAGOS: If I were to do that, I would be in violation of the protective order.

QUESTION: How do you think so far your case is (UNINTELLIGIBLE)

(CROSSTALK)

GERAGOS: Today -- all I'll say is today was a very good day. Thank you. (END VIDEO CLIP)

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

KING: By the way, in fairness, we've shown clips of Mr. Geragos speaking to the press today. The prosecutors chose today not to talk to the press. We're always fair and balanced, as we say on this program. A little joke. Anyway, we try to give equal time to all sides. But the prosecutors did not speak today to the press.

Let's reintroduce our panel.

Ted Rowlands is in Modesto, California, a reporter for KTVU, has covered this case from the get-go .

In New Orleans, Johnnie Cochran. Always great to see Johnnie. He was with us the other night. Good to have him back on LARRY KING LIVE.

In New York, is judge Jeanine Ferris Pirro, district attorney, Westchester County, and a former judge.

In San Francisco, is Jim Hammer, assistant attorney general for San Francisco. He is head, by the way, of the homicide unit.

In Atlanta, the well-known defense attorney Chris Pixley.

And joining us now in Modesto California is Gloria Allred, the attorney for Amber Frey, Scott Peterson's former girlfriend. Gloria has already told us she will not say whether or not will Amber will take the stand. Everyone is expecting it next week.

Do you know -- I know you won't say. Do you know if she's going to take the stand. You don't have to tell us. But do you know?

GLORIA ALLRED, AMBER FREY'S ATTORNEY: Yes, I do, Larry.

KING: OK. So, they do keep you informed of that?

ALLRED: Well, you know, I know what might happen.

KING: Now, they say you can't tell your client about what happened in the hearings today. But your client could be watching the show and know what's happened in the hearings today. Isn't that moot?

ALLRED: Well, Larry, although most people watch your show -- I know millions do and enjoy it. Amber Frey doesn't watch the news and she's not interested in watching the news about this case, and so I have no doubt that is she not watching the show.

KING: But she can if she wishes?

ALLRED: Well, I...

KING: There's no order preventing her from watching all of television? ALLRED: Yes, I don't think there's an order that prevents it. But she doesn't need an order. She's not interested in watching news about this case. She'll come in if she's called to testify. She'll testify truthfully. Whatever's said on the news is not going matter because whatever she testifies to will be the same.

KING: All right. Gloria will join our panel, but our panel may -- some of the panel may have questions for Gloria.

Ted, do you have a question for Gloria?

ROWLANDS: Yes. Is Amber dreading testifying or excited about it? What is sort of her demeanor going into this. You sort of paint her as being willing to do her duty. But inside, what does she want to do here?

ALLRED: Well, she is going to do whatever she is asked to do. But it is not as though she's looking forward to it or dreading it. It's just -- she will do her duty if she is asked to do it.

Obviously, there's a lot of pressure, a lot of stress, a lot of tension. But it's really up to the district attorney to decide whether or not she will testify.

KING: Johnnie, you have a question for Gloria?

COCHRAN: I do. Hello, Gloria. How are you?

ALLRED: Hi, Johnnie. How are you?

COCHRAN: Fine. Gloria, if in -- in the event your client does testify, what will your role be in the courtroom , if any? The district attorney will examine her, of course, and protect on cross examination, right?

ALLRED: Well, exactly. It is for the district attorney to the do the examination and he will be objecting where he thinks it's appropriate to object.

COCHRAN: What will your role did be?

ALLRED: Well, my role continues to be as her private attorney and I will be there to observe the proceedings.

KING: But you can't speak out at the proceeding, right?

ALLRED: I don't think there's a necessity to do that.

KING: Judge Pirro, you have a question for Gloria?

PIRRO: Well, you know, Gloria, I'm curious as to whether or not Amber has been able to work. Has she been able to lead any kind of a normal life since all of this happened?

KING: Good question. ALLRED: Thank you for that question. Yes, in fact, that's exactly what she wanted to do. What she has been doing is leading a normal life, as much as humanly possible. That normal life includes, as her priority, taking care of her little child, being a great mother that I know she is, going to work every day to support her child, going to church, having the support of many members of her church. And -- and, you know, having her spiritual convictions.

And so, she is leading as private a life as she can under the circumstances.

KING: Chris Pixley, you have a question for Gloria?

PIXLEY: Sure. Gloria, when the case is over, will you continue to represent Amber Frey?

ALLRED: I really haven't thought that far down the road. We're just taking this to the end of this case and then we'll see what happens after that. If there is a need, then I would have to assess it at this time.

I think she's very brave, though. Just, you know, even the thought of having to come into court, if she is required to testify, and face Mark Geragos, who may vigorously cross-examine her and attack her for having done the right thing -- and we heard today what that might be -- then, you know, I think it takes a very brave young woman to do that, especially because she's never testified before.

KING: If there were a civil matter involving her, you would represent her in that matter?

ALLRED: Well, right now, there is a civil lawsuit pending, which I do not represent her on, and that's her lawsuit against someone who dared to publish photographs of her where she said she hasn't release the rights to those photographs.

But right now, you know, we're focused on this criminal case and I'm focused on helping her to understand the criminal justice system and supporting her throughout this how ever I can. I think that's my role.

It was interesting, the testimony today by the detective, Larry, and I know you've been discussing it. But the detective having testified that she called the tipline, which I think is just wonderful of her to have called in to law enforcement, to have provided information to them, and then, the very -- the very interesting information that the detective said that she said that Scott had indicated that he had lost his wife and this is -- that he would be spending the first holidays without her. I mean, this is several weeks before Laci went missing. That I think is very, very powerful if, in fact, it's confirmed by Amber's testimony or in some other way.

KING: Jim Hammer, you have a question for Gloria?

HAMMER: I do, Larry, and you tried to coax it out of Gloria,. But I know Mark Geragos has crossed swords with it seems to wish Amber Frey were not around to testify. Gloria, based on what you know, do you think Scott Peterson killed Laci?

COCHRAN: I object to that question.

(CROSSTALK)

HAMMER: You're not practicing criminal law anymore, Johnnie. You have no standing.

PIRRO: Overruled!

KING: Object overruled. You may answer the question, Miss Allred.

ALLRED: OK. My position...

HAMMER: Judge King has spoken.

(CROSSTALK)

ALLRED: ...Amber's position is that that is the ultimate question for the jury to decide.

HAMMER: I'm asking you.

ALLRED: And that God will also be the judge.

HAMMER: I'm asking you, Gloria.

ALLRED: That's my position, as well, that it's a jury question, not a...

(CROSSTALK)

KING: ...in other words, you don't have an opinion?

ALLRED: My opinion is the same in any criminal case, that it's question for the jury to decide. Or if it's a court trial, for the court to decide.

KING: I remember in the Simpson case, you definitely thought he was guilty before the jury came back.

ALLRED: Actually, Larry...

KING: I used to heard you on the radio. Yes, you did.

(CROSSTALK)

HAMMER: I think OJ's guilty, too. I'll say that.

(CROSSTALK)

ALLRED: I can tell you to 100 percent certainty that I made a point...

COCHRAN: Jury found him not guilty, guys. (LAUGHTER)

ALLRED: ...in the Simpson case, which is the Nicole Brown Simpson case -- and Ron Goldman, may they rest in peace case -- that I always said that, you know, that I would not say whether or not I thought that he was guilty.

After, of course, the civil case, where the jury found that Mr. Simpson was liable for the deaths of Nicole and Ron, then, of course, I said that he was liable because they found by clear and convincing evidence, in fact, O.J. Simpson was responsible for the deaths.

KING: But -- you could have -- but you could have disagreed with the civil decision, just as you may have agreed or not agreed with the criminal decision. You don't have to agree with every decision.

ALLRED: Well, but, I don't.

KING: OK.

ALLRED: But I think that there was certainly clear and convincing evidence that formed a basis for their decision against O.J. Simpson.

KING: Johnnie, if you were involved with this case, would you come down rough on Amber Frey?

COCHRAN: You know, it's a difficult time -- difficult decision. I think, you know, here's a young lady who does volunteer and come forward.

If you're going to vigorously cross-examine her, I think the preliminary hearing is the time to do it. Once there's a trial and there are jurors there, you might very well offend the jurors at that time. So I think you're going to really have to test her, her memory, her recollection, whether she has any bias -- is she working on a book? I mean, all of those kinds of things, you've got to test next week. And I'm sure Geragos will do that if he's going to cross- examines her.

PIRRO: But Johnnie...

KING: We'll take a break and come back. You want to say something, Gloria? Or is that Jeanine? Gloria?

PIRRO: It was Jeanine.

ALLRED: Well, I mean...

KING: Jeanine. I'm sorry. Jeanine.

ALLRED: Bring it on.

PIRRO: OK. Johnnie, but wouldn't you make that decision depending upon what tapes she may have reported? In other words, if the credibility is already established, you're not going to take her apart the way you might if she's just coming saying, Scott said this Scott said that.

If it's all tape recorded and in Scott's words, you're going to go a little lighter on her than you might if she's just saying it.

COCHRAN: I think so. It depends upon the evidence. You're don't try to beat up a witness just for fun. You know, you've got to have a real purpose behind it.

But I was -- the point I was making, Jeanine, was that, you know, clearly you've got to be a lot more careful when the jurors are there, however. And I think it does depend on the kind of evidence, whether she taped everything and how she comes across. I mean, you know, she may come across as a very, very saintly person.

You know, one thing about it -- Gloria is being very, very quiet. But she's very excellent preparing her client. And by that I mean, preparing her to testify. I mean, not tell her what to say, but that she'll be prepared when she gets in that courtroom, also, and Geragos knows that.

KING: We'll take a break and come back with go to more phone calls. Gloria Allred will remain with the panel.

You're watching LARRY KING LIVE. Tom Jones tomorrow night.

Don't go away.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

GERAGOS: I think we could probably finish it Wednesday, Thursday or Friday., depending on -- depending on how many more witnesses they call.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Including -- counting Fry (ph)?

GERAGOS: Well, the Kelly Fry will just be Wednesday, probably half a day depending on how much they do on direct, because they're just going to do rebuttal, apparently. And if they do that, we finish that witness half a day. They've got numerous -- I shouldn't say numerous, but they got a couple more civilian witnesses. They have some more police officers. They have not indicated but I expect that they will have Miss Frey testify and then I think they're going to have potentially the medical examiner. So if you take those, it should -- we should be able to finish in, if not those three days, maybe two days after that.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

KING: Back to our calls. Grand Junction, Colorado, hello.

CALLER: Yes. My question is, doesn't anyone think that it's an odd coincidence that if she was on abducted that her body found at the exact same place that Scott was fishing?

KING: Johnnie.

COCHRAN: Not the exact same thing but manager the prosecution will make a lot of. I suppose it could be a coincidence. That, it'll be a fact with the other fact that is a jury has to decide. An that's what really making a case is about. And, you know, if it could be important, it will be a fact with the other facts.

KING: In other words, Jim Hammer, it's a building process, right?

The prosecution is doing.

HAMMER: In law school, good facts for the prosecution and bad facts for the defense. If it's buried in his backyard, a better fact. It's a really, really good fact.

KING: Jeanine, I am sorry. Go ahead.

ALLRED: Larry, Gloria.

KING: Gloria, I am sorry.

(CROSSTALK)

HAMMER: Gloria, is going to tell us if she thinks Scott did it, I hope.

ALLRED: No, Larry, I was going to say I mean, if a husband loves his wife and his wife is missing, wouldn't one think that the husband would tell the police the whole truth, the painful things like an affair to have all of the information necessary in order to try to find the wife?

The fact that there was testimony today that Scott Peterson lied to the police or that is, didn't tell him he was an affair, tells the state -- I think is very powerful and I don't think that a jury would take kindly to that.

PIXLEY: Larry, if Scott Peterson...

KING: You have not made any judgment, Gloria, about his innocence?

HAMMER: Sounds like a guilty vote, Larry. I heard a guilty vote there.

KING: That sounded incriminating, Gloria.

ALLRED: I don't have to ignore my common sense.

KING: Chris, hold on. One on a time. Chris, you wanted to say something than Jeanine.

PIXLEY: Simply if Scott Peterson is innocent of the crime and if Scott Peterson is questioned on December 24, I would ask Gloria, what relevance does the affair have to his wife's disappearance? I think, it boils down to, as add of behavior as this is, if this man is really looking for his wife and believes that she is missing and knows that he has nothing to do with it, he's not going to want the police to know about the affair, he is simply going to want them to find his wife and bring her back to him.

ALLRED: Well, you know, I don't think it's for Scott Peterson or any husband whose wife is missing to make selective judgments about what police need to know. All questions should be answered to law enforcement and that certainly is a question that -- and why did by the way -- why did Scott Peterson, allegedly ask the detectives to get -- if he was going to get cadaver dogs for the park? Why would he think she was dead so early on in the search or why would he think the cadaver dogs were necessary?

Aren't they for a body?

KING: Ted -- by the way Ted Rowlands, is that a fact?

ROWLANDS: That he asked about the cadaver dogs?

KING: Yes.

ROWLANDS: According to detectives Brocchini, yes, in a telephone call that he made to Brocchini on December 25, he apparently asked, are you using cadaver dogs in the park?

As Chris pointed out, that was it. In terms of the entire connotation there, saying in it an I aggressive way, what are you doing using the cadaver dogs or are you suggesting it?

All we have is that he said that statement in a phone call to the Brocchini.

PIXLEY: And here's the other issue, Larry.

(CROSSTALK)

KING: One at a time. One at a time. Judge Pirro is that you?

Go ahead.

PIRRO: Yes. It goes beyond that because it's not about not telling the police that you're having an affair because you don't think it's relevant. Just weeks before, your girlfriend, Amber Frey in this case, confronted you about having a wife. Now, two weeks or three weeks later, your wife is missing.

Why aren't you at least telling the police something that might be crucial unless you know what really happened to your wife?

In addition, Scott didn't tell the police that he had three cell phones. He told them he only had one. And when you get down to this evidence as we're hearing it, think about the fact that it was on December 9, the day that Amber Frey confronted Scott with the fact he was married, that he goes out and buys a boat. Doesn't tell anyone about it. And pays cash for the boat. There's planning going on here.

KING: Statesboro, Georgia, hello.

CALLER: Hi, Larry. I want to know who's paying for Peterson's defense.

KING: The Peterson family.

CALLER: How can they afford Mark Geragos.

KING: The Peterson family is well off and they are paying for the defense. Peterson's parents are -- don't need a benefit.

Glen Daniel, West Virginia, hello.

CALLER: Hi, Larry.

KING: Hi.

CALLER: I was wondering if anyone has given any thought to the theory that Scott could have been mopping up after Laci's water broke.

HAMMER: I think he would have said that if that was the case, wouldn't he?

KING: Yes.

ROWLANDS: Probably, too, yes. The whole mop thing is a very intriguing because we have heard and hasn't come out yet that anything contrary that there was nothing tested in the mop water in the mop itself. And not talking about vomit or blood or anything like that. They are just talking about the positions of the mop. Whether Modesto or the prosecution is trying to establish that detectives had some circumstantial evidence which would make them believe that Scott could be a suspect to sort of explain their actions, could be one direction to go they're going. But right now, there really hasn't been anything to the mop except for the location. But there's been nothing tested positive within the water or the mop itself it appeared.

KING: Johnnie, you're not practicing criminal law anymore, is that correct?

COCHRAN: That's correct, Larry.

KING: Would you come back for this case?

COCHRAN: No, I would not, Larry. This one -- neither this one...

HAMMER: That's a second guilty vote, Larry.

COCHRAN: No. I'm doing civil law. I'm enjoying it a lot more, guys. I have got to tell you. That's what I do. Now, unlike Gloria, I have not made up my mind on this case. I am keeping an open mind. The defendant is presumed to be innocent. ALLRED: I am sure he never takes the defense side. Larry, can I just say one thing about the bucket. It sounds as if the bucket which the maid left on the washing machine suddenly, mysteriously moved outside and then he brings it back in. Says -- Scott says the last time he saw Laci, according to the detective's testimony that is, was when she was mopping on December 24. Why she would mop the day after the maid was there and cleaned is beyond me. But beyond that then some how the bucket moved out side (UNINTELLIGIBLE). Today I think, the defense was setting it up perhaps later to make a motion to suppress the collection of the bucket. Perhaps the mop. Because they asked the detective did you have consent to collect the evidence? Not just to look at the evidence, but to collect it. So, they may be forewarning that's to come in the future.

HAMMER: Larry, apparently Scott Peterson claimed they were watching Martha Stewart. So perhaps Mr. Geragos will say they're obsessive cleaners. I think that defense might pop up as we come along.

KING: We will take a break and there are such things as obsessive cleaners. We'll take a break and come back with more moments and few more phone calls for our panel. Don't go away.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

KING: Our Johnnie Cochran, the great defense lawyer was a good friend of mine. The late Edward Bennett Williams told me once, in a criminal case, you never, you never let your client speak to the media any time, any where, until it's over. Would you have prevented Scott Peterson from doing the interview with Diane Sawyer?

COCHRAN: Absolutely I would have. Just as though I think the lawyers who stopped Robert Blake for as long as they could was appropriate. I think, you really have to try to control the situation.

The only time your client needs to talk about the case is when they take the stand and tell the jury they're not guilty. Everything else is a risk. I don't know how you gain anything by doing that, quite frankly, and Edward Bennett Williams one of the great lawyers of all time, and his advice is still relevant today. And it should be for defense lawyers, forever more.

KING: By the way, that was before Geragos came in. And Ted Rowlands, I understand there's something about the car that Scott was in when he was arrested.

ROWLANDS: Yes. They talked about the car today. Brocchini did, about the day that he was arrested. He was in a Mercedes that he paid cash for.

Brocchini said that they interviewed the person that Peterson bought the car from in San Diego and when he bought the car, he said that his name was Jacklyn Peterson and showed -- that's how he filled out the registration with the transfer of owner answer the guy questioned him and said, Jacklyn? He said, yes, my parents called me Jack but like "A Boy Named Sue" thing. And of course, Jacklyn is his mother Jackie and registered the car in her name. Paid $3600 I believe for it and that's the car he was arrested in.

KING: What could that possibly mean, Jeanine?

FERRIS: Well, you know, what you've got is he's changed his identity. He's using a different name. And he paid $3600. Ted, I believe, it was in cash. Just as he paid that $1500 in cash for the boat.

KING: What does that mean?

FERRIS: In other words, you don't trace it. There's a sense that, you know, most people pay with a check or, you know, with something that...

KING: It doesn't mean he's a murderer.

FERRIS: Doesn't mean he killed anybody. Just changing the identity, changing his name, changing his hair color, having $10,000 in cash, buying a car, saying his name was Jacklyn and lying...

KING: Johnnie, why are you shrugging?

COCHRAN: Isn't he surveilled by the FBI this entire time. I think he knows that at that point. So, he's not really trying to hide that, I don't think Jeanine. I think he knows he's being followed.

FERRIS: So then why did he change his appearance?

COCHRAN: It's erratic, but it doesn't mean he's guilty of anything. He knows he's being followed. He's knows they're looking and watching him.

ROWLANDS: It does mean one thing, there's no chance of bail for this guy. If there was a chance of bail, that's what it meant.

KING: Elko, Nevada -- good line -- Elko, Nevada hello.

CALLER: Thank you, Larry, for taking my call. I just have a few things I was wondering if your panel could think in the same prospect as maybe I'm thinking.

There are so many things to be explainable, such as the pliers with the hair. That's not attached to the boat. They could have came from inside the house and Laci could have used them. The mop and the bucket, she was in the eighth month of pregnancy so smells could have got to her and wanted the bucket outside with the dirty rags in it. Maybe the morning when she was mopping, according to Peterson, maybe something got spilled on the floor.

KING: We're running close on time. A caller for the defense, is that a good point?

HAMMER: Great point. Unless there's something big to come that the case is not that straight on circumstantial evidence. It will be coming down to Scott Peterson himself, how he was acting around the time of the disappearance, lies are not easily explainable like an affair and lying about cleaning up and things otherwise. And what was he doing the days following? How was he talking to Amber Frey? Was he talking like he knew Laci Peterson was never coming back and didn't care very much about her? Was he acting like a killer?

KING: Last call. Newport Beach, California, hello. Quickly?

CALLER: Hello, this is a question for Johnnie Cochran. Mr. Cochran, you're familiar with high profile cases. How do you get an objective, non-bias jury and how do you convince them with all the media coverage?

COCHRAN: Very, very difficult. And you need to ask your judge to allow you to have extensive voir dire and use questionnaires. You've got to find out as much as you can about those jurors, otherwise it will be very, very difficult.

KING: All right. And Gloria, do you think if Amber testifies it will be next week? Do you think that if she does?

ALLRED: It's difficult to predict anything in this case, Larry, because much of the testimony taking longer than probably anybody anticipated. So, it is difficult to say. But, you know, if she's called, she will be there whenever it is. She's a brave, young woman.

KING: Thank you Ted Rowlands, Johnnie Cochran, Judge Jeanine Ferris Pirro, Jim Hammer, Chris Pixley and Gloria Allred. And I'll come back and tell you about tomorrow night and the weekend. Don't go away.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

KING: Sunday night we'll repeat our interview with David Blaine in case you missed it last night. Saturday night Wynona. And tomorrow night, an hour with Tom Jones. Doesn't do many interviews, it will be great to see him.

Aaron Brown is standing by to do "NEWSNIGHT." Didn't you love Tom Jones, Aaron?

AARON BROWN, CNN ANCHOR: Uh, yeah. And my mother did too.

KING: I imagine. Aaron Brown and "NEWSNIGHT" is next.

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







Aired November 6, 2003 - 21:00   ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
LARRY KING, HOST: Tonight, inside an explosive day seven of Scott Peterson's preliminary hearing. A detective testifies that Scott Peterson told his other woman, Amber Frey, that his wife, Laci, was dead two weeks before Laci disappeared.
We'll get a firsthand account of how it all went down from Ted Rowlands of KTVU -- he was inside the courtroom -- renowned defense attorney Johnnie Cochran, a member of O.J. Simpson "dream team"; Judge Jeanine Pirro, district attorney, Westchester County, New York; Jim Hammer, assistant district attorney, San Francisco; high-profile defense attorney Chris Pixley. And later, Gloria Allred, attorney for Scott's other woman, Amber Frey. They're all next on LARRY KING LIVE.

Another great panel assembled on this case that has the world interested. A lot of your phone calls later. Let's begin with Ted Rowlands in Modesto.

The highlights of the day, Ted?

TED ROWLANDS, KTVU-TV: Yes, big day, all Al Brocchini, the lead detective in this case. He spent the entire day on the stand, starting with his dealings with Scott Peterson in that first day, talked about going through the house with him, talked about finding a loaded .22-caliber pistol in Peterson's truck, which Peterson told him was there. He confiscated that. He also went to the warehouse with Peterson and conducted a search there and back to the Modesto Police Department for an hour-long interview, which he said Peterson was cooperative for the entire time.

He also talked about his dealings with Amber Frey. As you mentioned at the top, Frey told him that on December 9, she confronted Peterson about being married and he told her that his wife was dead and that this Christmas was going to be the first major holiday that he was going to be without her. Brocchini said that he was actually behind the operator when Frey called the 911 tip line. He took that call and went down and interviewed her down in Fresno. Frey also said that when Laci was missing on December 25, 26, 27 and 28, Peterson continued to call her. In fact, he said he was in Europe and that he would be back in January and they could start spending more time together starting on January 25th.

KING: So...

ROWLANDS: The afternoon session was all cross-exam from Kirk McAllister, not Mark Geragos, which most people thought was going to be the case.

KING: So Ted, how did Scott explain how he explained to Amber that his wife wasn't dead after she went missing?

ROWLANDS: He told the police detectives that he didn't have a girlfriend, so there was no explaining yet, in terms of in open court, of what he was going to say as an explanation. Detective Brocchini said that Peterson told them that he did not have an -- he had not had an affair and had no affair going at the time. So a clear lie there. Of course, he went on to lie everybody on television, as well.

KING: In fact, let's do that. Here's a clip from Scott's interview. Remember, he tells the detective he didn't have an affair. Here's a clip from his interview with ABC's Diane Sawyer.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

DIANE SAWYER, ABC NEWS: Had you told anyone? Did you tell police?

SCOTT PETERSON: I told the police immediately.

SAWYER: When?

PETERSON: That was the first night we were together -- the police -- I spent with the police.

SAWYER: You told them about her?

PETERSON: Yes. From December 24 on.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

KING: Johnnie Cochran, the detective describing what all these people said -- is that hearsay, or is it allowed in preliminary hearings?

JOHNNIE COCHRAN, DEFENSE ATTORNEY: Definitely allowed in the preliminary hearing, clearly, be allowed in the preliminary hearing, and probably, also Larry, it'll be allowed at trial because the -- I'm sure Mr. Stevenson (ph) had been advised of his constitutional rights, at that point. So this would be in the nature of, like, an admission and would admissible. And you know, what you have here is a series of things the prosecution will try to link together, and you know, as a pattern to try and, you know, buttress their case.

KING: Was this, in your opinion, Johnnie, a bad day for the defense?

COCHRAN: Well, I don't know that we've heard all the cross- examination. I think the positive things for the defense is that he appeared cooperative. But it is -- I think he's going to some explaining to do, if he says two weeks before his wife is missing that she's already dead. Now, you know, it's not against the law for a man to have a girlfriend. It's not the right thing to do but that doesn't mean he's a murderer. But if he's telling his girlfriend his wife is dead two weeks before, and if he tells Diane Sawyer later that he told the police about the girlfriend and he didn't do that, these lies start to add up. And what it makes -- it makes it very difficult because at the trial, you got to make a decision whether or not the defendant is going to testify because, you know, if he doesn't testify, who's going to explain these lies?

KING: And by the way, Johnnie's book about his life as a lawyer is now out in paperback, a terrific read. And another terrific read is "To Punish and Protect: One DA's Fight Against a System That Coddles Criminals." And the author of that book is Judge Jeanine Ferris Pirro. Judge Pirro is the district attorney for Westchester County, New York.

What did you make of today?

JEANINE FERRIS PIRRO, DISTRICT ATTORNEY, WESTCHESTER COUNTY, NY: I think, Larry, it was a bad day for the defense. You've got Scott Peterson lying to the police the first night. You've got him on national television saying that he told the police that he had a girlfriend on December 24. And you know, Larry, there are so many inconsistencies here that we have to concern ourselves with. The idea that when he left, Laci was mopping the floor, when the housekeeper was there the day before, mopping the floor.

And what's curious to me is that the defendant would call Brocchini and say, Did you take my gun? Now, this is the first time I'm hearing anything about Peterson owning a gun. There is a loaded .22-caliber handgun in his truck. And he also calls the police on Christmas night and says, Are you going to use cadaver-sniffing dogs? This is all not sounding good for the defense at all.

KING: And what's your read, Chris Pixley, as a defense lawyer?

CHRIS PIXLEY, DEFENSE ATTORNEY: Well, I think it's predictable. I don't think it's that bad, Larry.

KING: No?

PIXLEY: No. You know, you talk about the gun. The gun's a non- issue. The fact that he owned a gun doesn't matter. Clearly, there's no blood evidence in the home. There isn't any suggestion by the police that he actually used the gun to murder his wife. The gun is just one of these many facts that they're parading in the media, that they want all of us to hear about, they want their potential jury to hear about.

You know, the same is true about the cadaver dogs. The idea that Scott called the police and said, Are you using a cadaver dog? That's been suggested today to make us all infer that Scott knew that she was dead and he thought the police knew, as well. The fact of the matter is, you know, this is linguistics. We need to know what exactly was said. And Scott could have been saying -- Scott could have heard that they were using the cadaver dog and simply been saying, Why are you using a cadaver dog? You need bloodhounds. You need to be looking for my wife.

So you have to consider the context. We're only hearing from the prosecution right now. But Johnnie makes a good point. You've got to decide, at some point, if you're going to put your own client on the stand to explain some of this, or if you've got another way of doing it.

KING: By the way, there are no hearings tomorrow or Monday or Tuesday. Next hearing resumes on Wednesday. We'll ask Gloria Allred at the bottom if Amber Frey is expected to testify on Wednesday. Many are predicting that.

Jim Hammer, is the prosecution going to need more than he was having an affair?

JIM HAMMER, ASSISTANT DISTRICT ATTORNEY, SAN FRANCISCO: Absolutely. You know, I would say 99.99 percent of people who have affairs don't kill their wives or girlfriends.

But to follow up on what Chris said, you don't have to be a linguistics expert to parse what it means when a man says to the guy he's having a -- the woman he's having an affair with that, My wife's dead, and I want to start changing my schedule so I can spend more time with you. I think today was one of the very best days for the prosecution, and on what seemed like a relatively thin physical evidence case for the prosecution, a hair, which 1 in 10 or 1 in 100 women have the same DNA profile, how he acted around that time and these extraordinary statements -- My wife's dead, and I want to change my schedule so I can hang out with you more, I think is absolutely devastating.

PIRRO: And Larry, if I can also add, I mean, the fact he says that by January 25 or 26, exactly 30 days from that day, that he would have more time to spend with Amber Frey is a real concern. He's not just saying she's dead. And everyone has been saying, Larry, Oh, he was just a cad. He was trying to, you know, get myself tight with Amber Frey. But he says, She's dead, and by January 25, I'll be able to spend more time with you -- that is very disturbing.

HAMMER: And I don't think divorce was the way he was going to do that, from what we see of the evidence so far.

(CROSSTALK)

KING: And when we come back, we'll ask Johnnie Cochran and Chris Pixley to comment on what the prosecutors just said and also about why so much comes out at a preliminary hearing. We'll be including your phone calls. Gloria Allred will join us later. Tom Jones tomorrow night. Don't go away.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

MARK GERAGOS, SCOTT PETERSON'S ATTORNEY: Cross-examination was handled by Kirk today. The -- I wanted to be here to participate with him. I was participating with him. And clearly, there are different areas. The judge is allowing one lawyer to do each witness. Each witness in a preliminary hearing is testifying via what's called Proposition 115. So the witness will testify as to what he did, and also the hearsay of other witnesses.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

GERAGOS: Certain of the people that the officer is testifying to right now, I'm going to be handling later on. Others Kirk's going to be handling later on. So since we can only have one lawyer do it, we decided, for tactical reasons, that he was going to do it. But I needed to be here so that I could give him the questions that I wanted asked regarding the witnesses that I will handle later on.

QUESTION: Such as Amber.

GERAGOS: There's numerous ones, but I'm not going to get into that.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

KING: Johnnie Cochran, why so much coming out at a preliminary hearing in which it appears most likely the defendant's going to be bound over for trial?

COCHRAN: Well, that's true. He probably will be, Larry. But I think that both sides are probably really playing to the potential jurors. I mean, this is a case that's being tried, you know, not only in the courtroom there but also to the media. I mean, and this happens very, very often in these cases. So I think that's why you're seeing that. And you see the wheels turning on both sides.

I want to say one other thing, Larry, that keep in mind, this is a circumstantial evidence case, and there will be no really bold pieces of evidence really coming forward. There'll be no -- it's thin, from a scientific standpoint. But these statements -- you know, we used to have a statement that the road to state prison is paved by a defendant's statements. And sometimes it's very difficult. And I think that we have to look at these statements and see whether or not, as someone said earlier, are getting parsed. Are these the words that Mr. Peterson did? And can they be disproved under the circumstances? But certainly, it was not a pleasant day for the defense, but certainly not one that they cannot overcome.

KING: Ted Rowlands, before we ask Chris to comment on it, what about the equipment on the boat? Was it true that there were fishing tackle not used?

ROWLANDS: Yes. Well, there was a couple lures that were in a big, a Big Five Sporting Goods bag. That was in his truck. In the boat, there were a couple of fishing poles that appeared to be wet, according to Brocchini's report. There was also a weight -- and we've heard a lot about these cement weights -- and Brocchini described the weight as being cement, with a piece of rebar as a handle. Basically, he said it looked like someone had put a bunch of cement in a bucket and that's how it was formed. He went on to say that it looked to him like it was fairly fresh, but then on cross, admitted that it was solid.

We have heard that there were more cement imprints in the warehouse. Nothing came out, however, today, as far as any more than just the one cement anchor. And then on cross, the defense was able to establish that when Peterson bought the boat, the previous owner wanted to keep his anchor, so Peterson bought a boat without an anchor.

KING: Chris, are all these little things, little things that add up to make trouble for the defense?

PIXLEY: They do. And that's the prosecutor's job, especially in a case like this, Larry, where they don't have hard physical evidence, to try to build a case around statements and circumstances. That's why everyone's been referring to it as a circumstantial case. But jurors are smart, and they will keep in mind the fact that much of what they do on a daily basis, if you get down to the microscopic level, could be questioned.

You know, Scott Peterson's lies generally focus around his relationship with Amber Frey. And the fact of the matter is, he did what many, many people would do in that situation, right or wrong. He was wrong to have an affair, and he did one more thing wrong. He didn't trust that the police would treat him fairly if he revealed that.

But when you think of the circumstances, it's Christmas Eve, his wife is missing, it's a surreal experience. He knows he's having an affair. He believes that the same police that are rummaging through his home right now while they're interviewing him probably won't believe him if he tells them that he's having an affair but he has nothing to do with his wife's disappearance.

Jurors will put all of that in perspective. It's the defense's job to help them put it in perspective, and it's the defense's job right now at the preliminary hearing to get that all started. But you know, you've got to come up with more than Amber Frey. And we've been saying that for a while now.

KING: Jim Hammer, what about stories that the defense may introduce that Scott had other girlfriends and that he wasn't going to kill a wife over one woman?

HAMMER: You know, that's not a bad tack to take. And I think it's appropriate Johnnie Cochran's here because this case so far could almost be said to be in honor of his defense in the O.J. Simpson case. We've had the hunt for the real killers. We've had "the rush to judgment" argument. We've had the planted evidence, the mishandled evidence. All we need is Mark Fuhrman, but I think he's living in Idaho right now.

It's not enough that this man had an affair, I agree, but because I think the circumstantial evidence physical case is going to be thin, Larry, really zeroing in on what kind of man Scott Peterson was -- and as Chris said, not just lies about his affair. That doesn't get you to murder. But if he lied to the police about cleaning that house and crucial things like that, I think that could convict him.

KING: Judge Pirro, although Jim mentioned Johnnie Cochran, if my memory serves correct, Mr. Cochran won that case.

PIRRO: He did win that case. And Larry, that's exactly the reason that there's so much that's coming out at this preliminary hearing stage. Because of what Johnnie did and because of the fact that he was so successful at it, lawyers, both prosecution and defense, understand that they've got to get their message out right away. And nobody was better at that than Johnnie Cochran.

But you know, in answer to what Chris said about, you know, the affair and everyone saying that doesn't mean he murdered his wife -- clearly, it does not, but there are things that spun out of that affair that are extremely relevant and I think will be very telling to the jury. If it is true that the defendant said to Amber, when she said, Were you involved in your wife's disappearance, he said, Yes, no, but I know -- I didn't, but I know who did, that is more than an affair. That is an admission, along with some of the forensic evidence and all of the circumstantial evidence of his behavior, that can build a wall that the defense cannot hurdle.

KING: Jeanine, Judge, we don't know how he first told her his wife was dead and then after she goes missing and it's a big story, how he explained to her she wasn't.

PIRRO: Right. And I think that it'll be very telling when Amber takes the stand next week if she says that she's the one who had to bring it up and say that, you know, Are you Scott Peterson? Is your wife missing? And if it took that, while he is publicly grieving and still telling her that he loves her and that he's going to meet her and be free after January 25, then he's going to have an awful lot of explaining to do.

KING: We're going to take a break, take some phone calls for this panel. Gloria Allred will join us at the bottom of the hour. You're watching LARRY KING LIVE. Tom Jones, a rare interview with one of the greats, tomorrow night. Don't go away.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

KING: Let's include some calls. To Jacksonville, Florida. Hello.

CALLER: Hi. My question is for any of the panel.

KING: Sure.

CALLER: Do we know if Luminol was applied to Scott's house and boat, and what, if anything, that turned up?

KING: Chris?

PIXLEY: Well, we believe that it has been. The police and the prosecution actually haven't presented that part of the case yet. But what we do know is this. The police executed search warrants back on December 26 and 27, and again on February 18. They didn't arrest Scott until April 18, when the bodies washed up in the bay. Presumably, they didn't get the blood and DNA evidence that they're looking for to prove forensically that Scott is responsible for this crime.

KING: Johnnie, by the way, you know LA courtrooms as well as anyone. Geragos well fit, well suited for this?

COCHRAN: He really is. He's very thorough. He's very methodical. He knows what he's doing. And he's the right man, probably, for this particular case. You notice today, he made a motion today, Larry, that the FBI had been surveilling Scott's home and those tapes have not been turned over. It's difficult sometimes to get the FBI involved. And the judge has said if the FBI doesn't turn those tapes over, that there may be -- a motion for dismissal may be granted, which I think would be another aspect. But Geragos is very thorough, and as I said, he's an excellent lawyer.

KING: Jim Hammer, how good are the prosecutors?

HAMMER: They seem to be very good. I don't think they're used to a high-profile case, the way Mark Geragos is, but they seem to be keeping their heads down and focused on the evidence. I hope, I have to say, as a prosecutor, there's more evidence we haven't heard of yet. Compared to the physical evidence so far, the O.J. Simpson case for me, I hope, would have been a cakewalk. I would have liked to have had a shot against Johnnie Cochran -- with a different jury, of course.

(CROSSTALK)

COCHRAN: I retired from criminal law now. You'll have to wait for another lifetime!

(LAUGHTER)

HAMMER: Let me know when you're ready, Johnnie!

KING: Edmonton, Alberta, Canada. Hello.

CALLER: Hi.

KING: Hi.

CALLER: I was just wondering, can the court judge or whoever order a lie-detector test or perhaps a truth serum?

KING: Judge Pirro?

PIRRO: No. Lie detectors are not considered reliable, and therefore, the results of them are not admissible in a criminal court. But many times, defense attorneys -- and Johnnie and Chris can speak to this -- generally ask a client to take a lie detector because they, I think, give some credence to them. But the jury will never hear if he took it or if he passed or failed.

KING: Johnnie, you ever asked a defendant to do it?

COCHRAN: I've not, but I've heard of cases where sometimes that does happen. If you had a client who just protests and maintains he's innocent, this guy will do anything to prove it, sometimes you might do that. And at in the early stages, if he passed the test with a national recognized expert, you might take those results and give them to the prosecution and said, Look, you got the wrong guy here.

KING: Did you do it with O.J.?

COCHRAN: No, I did not. And there was some mention of that before, but I was -- I came in the case a little bit down the road, at that point.

KING: All right. Chris Pixley, do you ask defendants to do it?

PIXLEY: No. I agree with Johnnie. And the interesting thing is, apparently, Kirk McAllister, who was Scott's first attorney there on the scene within a week or two of Laci's disappearance, felt the same. And Scott has made it clear in the media and his family has made it clear, as well, that the reason he didn't take a lie-detector test was his counsel told him not to. Now, Mark Geragos is in a very similar situation to Johnnie. He came into the case later on, and the die was really cast. I don't know what value there is in doing it. And again, as the judge points out, they are considered unreliable. That's across the country. Without a stipulation between the two sides, you won't get it into evidence. And it's kind of voodoo science still.

KING: Seabrook, Texas. Hello.

CALLER: Yes. I guess, along the same lines, I was wondering if anybody's done a psychological evaluation. And if the defense has, if they have to pass that along to the prosecution.

KING: Jim?

HAMMER: If the defense does one and intends to use it at trial, they'd have to turn it over to the prosecution as part of regular discovery, and then the prosecution would have a chance to have him examined by their psychologist, as well. In California, there is reciprocal discovery. Both sides have to turn over their lists. But until the defense decides to use it, they don't have to even tell the prosecution about it.

KING: Ted, nobody has approached anybody in this case to talk about a deal, have they?

ROWLANDS: Well, we heard early on that the prosecution approached Peterson and said, Tell us where Laci's body is and we will not seek the death penalty. That apparently happened in January. And apparently, Peterson said, No way, maintaining the innocence, of course. But other than that, we haven't heard of any deals since the prelim has started or even leading up to the prelim at all from either side.

KING: Pittsburgh. Hello.

CALLER: Hi, Larry. My question has to do with the 24th, when Scott came home and did his laundry. Is this something that the family has stated or the housekeeper, that he would normally do his own laundry?

KING: Ted?

ROWLANDS: Well, I think it's being established that Peterson, and maybe Laci and Scott, were fairly neat and clean types of people. And you know, when you listened to the testimony today, it didn't seem inconceivable that if he was out in the bay fishing and he was wet, that he would come in. Obviously, when he walked in the door, he wouldn't think that his wife was missing, per se. He just would probably think that she was somewhere else. So you know, I don't know that that will be something that's going to be harped on throughout this.

KING: Johnnie, as cases go, would you call this a very tough one for the defense?

COCHRAN: No, not necessarily. I mean, they have no...

KING: No?

COCHRAN: I've not seen a real smoking gun, at this point. I tell you what, Larry. Prosecutors have a way -- and Jeanine may want to talk about this -- of building up for a grand finale. I think you're going to see next week -- we'll talk about this next week, I'm sure. But Amber Frey, at first, I thought was not very relevant. She may have more than we thought. And we have to deal with that. So that may be the -- I'll have to answer that question again next week.

As it is right now, I think that it's a case that -- it's going to be a war. It's going to be a war. Both sides are equipped for this war, and the jury will have to piece this evidence together to see whether or not this case, they can prove it beyond a reasonable doubt.

KING: By the way, Johnnie and others will be back with us next Wednesday night, when the hearings resume next Wednesday.

We're going to take a break, come back. We'll have more phone calls, and Gloria Allred will join us. You're watching LARRY KING LIVE. Tom Jones tomorrow night. We'll repeat our interview on Saturday night with Wynonna. Don't go away.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

QUESTION: How would you characterize the strength of the prosecution's case today?

GERAGOS: If I were to do that, I would be in violation of the protective order.

QUESTION: How do you think so far your case is (UNINTELLIGIBLE)

(CROSSTALK)

GERAGOS: Today -- all I'll say is today was a very good day. Thank you. (END VIDEO CLIP)

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

KING: By the way, in fairness, we've shown clips of Mr. Geragos speaking to the press today. The prosecutors chose today not to talk to the press. We're always fair and balanced, as we say on this program. A little joke. Anyway, we try to give equal time to all sides. But the prosecutors did not speak today to the press.

Let's reintroduce our panel.

Ted Rowlands is in Modesto, California, a reporter for KTVU, has covered this case from the get-go .

In New Orleans, Johnnie Cochran. Always great to see Johnnie. He was with us the other night. Good to have him back on LARRY KING LIVE.

In New York, is judge Jeanine Ferris Pirro, district attorney, Westchester County, and a former judge.

In San Francisco, is Jim Hammer, assistant attorney general for San Francisco. He is head, by the way, of the homicide unit.

In Atlanta, the well-known defense attorney Chris Pixley.

And joining us now in Modesto California is Gloria Allred, the attorney for Amber Frey, Scott Peterson's former girlfriend. Gloria has already told us she will not say whether or not will Amber will take the stand. Everyone is expecting it next week.

Do you know -- I know you won't say. Do you know if she's going to take the stand. You don't have to tell us. But do you know?

GLORIA ALLRED, AMBER FREY'S ATTORNEY: Yes, I do, Larry.

KING: OK. So, they do keep you informed of that?

ALLRED: Well, you know, I know what might happen.

KING: Now, they say you can't tell your client about what happened in the hearings today. But your client could be watching the show and know what's happened in the hearings today. Isn't that moot?

ALLRED: Well, Larry, although most people watch your show -- I know millions do and enjoy it. Amber Frey doesn't watch the news and she's not interested in watching the news about this case, and so I have no doubt that is she not watching the show.

KING: But she can if she wishes?

ALLRED: Well, I...

KING: There's no order preventing her from watching all of television? ALLRED: Yes, I don't think there's an order that prevents it. But she doesn't need an order. She's not interested in watching news about this case. She'll come in if she's called to testify. She'll testify truthfully. Whatever's said on the news is not going matter because whatever she testifies to will be the same.

KING: All right. Gloria will join our panel, but our panel may -- some of the panel may have questions for Gloria.

Ted, do you have a question for Gloria?

ROWLANDS: Yes. Is Amber dreading testifying or excited about it? What is sort of her demeanor going into this. You sort of paint her as being willing to do her duty. But inside, what does she want to do here?

ALLRED: Well, she is going to do whatever she is asked to do. But it is not as though she's looking forward to it or dreading it. It's just -- she will do her duty if she is asked to do it.

Obviously, there's a lot of pressure, a lot of stress, a lot of tension. But it's really up to the district attorney to decide whether or not she will testify.

KING: Johnnie, you have a question for Gloria?

COCHRAN: I do. Hello, Gloria. How are you?

ALLRED: Hi, Johnnie. How are you?

COCHRAN: Fine. Gloria, if in -- in the event your client does testify, what will your role be in the courtroom , if any? The district attorney will examine her, of course, and protect on cross examination, right?

ALLRED: Well, exactly. It is for the district attorney to the do the examination and he will be objecting where he thinks it's appropriate to object.

COCHRAN: What will your role did be?

ALLRED: Well, my role continues to be as her private attorney and I will be there to observe the proceedings.

KING: But you can't speak out at the proceeding, right?

ALLRED: I don't think there's a necessity to do that.

KING: Judge Pirro, you have a question for Gloria?

PIRRO: Well, you know, Gloria, I'm curious as to whether or not Amber has been able to work. Has she been able to lead any kind of a normal life since all of this happened?

KING: Good question. ALLRED: Thank you for that question. Yes, in fact, that's exactly what she wanted to do. What she has been doing is leading a normal life, as much as humanly possible. That normal life includes, as her priority, taking care of her little child, being a great mother that I know she is, going to work every day to support her child, going to church, having the support of many members of her church. And -- and, you know, having her spiritual convictions.

And so, she is leading as private a life as she can under the circumstances.

KING: Chris Pixley, you have a question for Gloria?

PIXLEY: Sure. Gloria, when the case is over, will you continue to represent Amber Frey?

ALLRED: I really haven't thought that far down the road. We're just taking this to the end of this case and then we'll see what happens after that. If there is a need, then I would have to assess it at this time.

I think she's very brave, though. Just, you know, even the thought of having to come into court, if she is required to testify, and face Mark Geragos, who may vigorously cross-examine her and attack her for having done the right thing -- and we heard today what that might be -- then, you know, I think it takes a very brave young woman to do that, especially because she's never testified before.

KING: If there were a civil matter involving her, you would represent her in that matter?

ALLRED: Well, right now, there is a civil lawsuit pending, which I do not represent her on, and that's her lawsuit against someone who dared to publish photographs of her where she said she hasn't release the rights to those photographs.

But right now, you know, we're focused on this criminal case and I'm focused on helping her to understand the criminal justice system and supporting her throughout this how ever I can. I think that's my role.

It was interesting, the testimony today by the detective, Larry, and I know you've been discussing it. But the detective having testified that she called the tipline, which I think is just wonderful of her to have called in to law enforcement, to have provided information to them, and then, the very -- the very interesting information that the detective said that she said that Scott had indicated that he had lost his wife and this is -- that he would be spending the first holidays without her. I mean, this is several weeks before Laci went missing. That I think is very, very powerful if, in fact, it's confirmed by Amber's testimony or in some other way.

KING: Jim Hammer, you have a question for Gloria?

HAMMER: I do, Larry, and you tried to coax it out of Gloria,. But I know Mark Geragos has crossed swords with it seems to wish Amber Frey were not around to testify. Gloria, based on what you know, do you think Scott Peterson killed Laci?

COCHRAN: I object to that question.

(CROSSTALK)

HAMMER: You're not practicing criminal law anymore, Johnnie. You have no standing.

PIRRO: Overruled!

KING: Object overruled. You may answer the question, Miss Allred.

ALLRED: OK. My position...

HAMMER: Judge King has spoken.

(CROSSTALK)

ALLRED: ...Amber's position is that that is the ultimate question for the jury to decide.

HAMMER: I'm asking you.

ALLRED: And that God will also be the judge.

HAMMER: I'm asking you, Gloria.

ALLRED: That's my position, as well, that it's a jury question, not a...

(CROSSTALK)

KING: ...in other words, you don't have an opinion?

ALLRED: My opinion is the same in any criminal case, that it's question for the jury to decide. Or if it's a court trial, for the court to decide.

KING: I remember in the Simpson case, you definitely thought he was guilty before the jury came back.

ALLRED: Actually, Larry...

KING: I used to heard you on the radio. Yes, you did.

(CROSSTALK)

HAMMER: I think OJ's guilty, too. I'll say that.

(CROSSTALK)

ALLRED: I can tell you to 100 percent certainty that I made a point...

COCHRAN: Jury found him not guilty, guys. (LAUGHTER)

ALLRED: ...in the Simpson case, which is the Nicole Brown Simpson case -- and Ron Goldman, may they rest in peace case -- that I always said that, you know, that I would not say whether or not I thought that he was guilty.

After, of course, the civil case, where the jury found that Mr. Simpson was liable for the deaths of Nicole and Ron, then, of course, I said that he was liable because they found by clear and convincing evidence, in fact, O.J. Simpson was responsible for the deaths.

KING: But -- you could have -- but you could have disagreed with the civil decision, just as you may have agreed or not agreed with the criminal decision. You don't have to agree with every decision.

ALLRED: Well, but, I don't.

KING: OK.

ALLRED: But I think that there was certainly clear and convincing evidence that formed a basis for their decision against O.J. Simpson.

KING: Johnnie, if you were involved with this case, would you come down rough on Amber Frey?

COCHRAN: You know, it's a difficult time -- difficult decision. I think, you know, here's a young lady who does volunteer and come forward.

If you're going to vigorously cross-examine her, I think the preliminary hearing is the time to do it. Once there's a trial and there are jurors there, you might very well offend the jurors at that time. So I think you're going to really have to test her, her memory, her recollection, whether she has any bias -- is she working on a book? I mean, all of those kinds of things, you've got to test next week. And I'm sure Geragos will do that if he's going to cross- examines her.

PIRRO: But Johnnie...

KING: We'll take a break and come back. You want to say something, Gloria? Or is that Jeanine? Gloria?

PIRRO: It was Jeanine.

ALLRED: Well, I mean...

KING: Jeanine. I'm sorry. Jeanine.

ALLRED: Bring it on.

PIRRO: OK. Johnnie, but wouldn't you make that decision depending upon what tapes she may have reported? In other words, if the credibility is already established, you're not going to take her apart the way you might if she's just coming saying, Scott said this Scott said that.

If it's all tape recorded and in Scott's words, you're going to go a little lighter on her than you might if she's just saying it.

COCHRAN: I think so. It depends upon the evidence. You're don't try to beat up a witness just for fun. You know, you've got to have a real purpose behind it.

But I was -- the point I was making, Jeanine, was that, you know, clearly you've got to be a lot more careful when the jurors are there, however. And I think it does depend on the kind of evidence, whether she taped everything and how she comes across. I mean, you know, she may come across as a very, very saintly person.

You know, one thing about it -- Gloria is being very, very quiet. But she's very excellent preparing her client. And by that I mean, preparing her to testify. I mean, not tell her what to say, but that she'll be prepared when she gets in that courtroom, also, and Geragos knows that.

KING: We'll take a break and come back with go to more phone calls. Gloria Allred will remain with the panel.

You're watching LARRY KING LIVE. Tom Jones tomorrow night.

Don't go away.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

GERAGOS: I think we could probably finish it Wednesday, Thursday or Friday., depending on -- depending on how many more witnesses they call.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Including -- counting Fry (ph)?

GERAGOS: Well, the Kelly Fry will just be Wednesday, probably half a day depending on how much they do on direct, because they're just going to do rebuttal, apparently. And if they do that, we finish that witness half a day. They've got numerous -- I shouldn't say numerous, but they got a couple more civilian witnesses. They have some more police officers. They have not indicated but I expect that they will have Miss Frey testify and then I think they're going to have potentially the medical examiner. So if you take those, it should -- we should be able to finish in, if not those three days, maybe two days after that.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

KING: Back to our calls. Grand Junction, Colorado, hello.

CALLER: Yes. My question is, doesn't anyone think that it's an odd coincidence that if she was on abducted that her body found at the exact same place that Scott was fishing?

KING: Johnnie.

COCHRAN: Not the exact same thing but manager the prosecution will make a lot of. I suppose it could be a coincidence. That, it'll be a fact with the other fact that is a jury has to decide. An that's what really making a case is about. And, you know, if it could be important, it will be a fact with the other facts.

KING: In other words, Jim Hammer, it's a building process, right?

The prosecution is doing.

HAMMER: In law school, good facts for the prosecution and bad facts for the defense. If it's buried in his backyard, a better fact. It's a really, really good fact.

KING: Jeanine, I am sorry. Go ahead.

ALLRED: Larry, Gloria.

KING: Gloria, I am sorry.

(CROSSTALK)

HAMMER: Gloria, is going to tell us if she thinks Scott did it, I hope.

ALLRED: No, Larry, I was going to say I mean, if a husband loves his wife and his wife is missing, wouldn't one think that the husband would tell the police the whole truth, the painful things like an affair to have all of the information necessary in order to try to find the wife?

The fact that there was testimony today that Scott Peterson lied to the police or that is, didn't tell him he was an affair, tells the state -- I think is very powerful and I don't think that a jury would take kindly to that.

PIXLEY: Larry, if Scott Peterson...

KING: You have not made any judgment, Gloria, about his innocence?

HAMMER: Sounds like a guilty vote, Larry. I heard a guilty vote there.

KING: That sounded incriminating, Gloria.

ALLRED: I don't have to ignore my common sense.

KING: Chris, hold on. One on a time. Chris, you wanted to say something than Jeanine.

PIXLEY: Simply if Scott Peterson is innocent of the crime and if Scott Peterson is questioned on December 24, I would ask Gloria, what relevance does the affair have to his wife's disappearance? I think, it boils down to, as add of behavior as this is, if this man is really looking for his wife and believes that she is missing and knows that he has nothing to do with it, he's not going to want the police to know about the affair, he is simply going to want them to find his wife and bring her back to him.

ALLRED: Well, you know, I don't think it's for Scott Peterson or any husband whose wife is missing to make selective judgments about what police need to know. All questions should be answered to law enforcement and that certainly is a question that -- and why did by the way -- why did Scott Peterson, allegedly ask the detectives to get -- if he was going to get cadaver dogs for the park? Why would he think she was dead so early on in the search or why would he think the cadaver dogs were necessary?

Aren't they for a body?

KING: Ted -- by the way Ted Rowlands, is that a fact?

ROWLANDS: That he asked about the cadaver dogs?

KING: Yes.

ROWLANDS: According to detectives Brocchini, yes, in a telephone call that he made to Brocchini on December 25, he apparently asked, are you using cadaver dogs in the park?

As Chris pointed out, that was it. In terms of the entire connotation there, saying in it an I aggressive way, what are you doing using the cadaver dogs or are you suggesting it?

All we have is that he said that statement in a phone call to the Brocchini.

PIXLEY: And here's the other issue, Larry.

(CROSSTALK)

KING: One at a time. One at a time. Judge Pirro is that you?

Go ahead.

PIRRO: Yes. It goes beyond that because it's not about not telling the police that you're having an affair because you don't think it's relevant. Just weeks before, your girlfriend, Amber Frey in this case, confronted you about having a wife. Now, two weeks or three weeks later, your wife is missing.

Why aren't you at least telling the police something that might be crucial unless you know what really happened to your wife?

In addition, Scott didn't tell the police that he had three cell phones. He told them he only had one. And when you get down to this evidence as we're hearing it, think about the fact that it was on December 9, the day that Amber Frey confronted Scott with the fact he was married, that he goes out and buys a boat. Doesn't tell anyone about it. And pays cash for the boat. There's planning going on here.

KING: Statesboro, Georgia, hello.

CALLER: Hi, Larry. I want to know who's paying for Peterson's defense.

KING: The Peterson family.

CALLER: How can they afford Mark Geragos.

KING: The Peterson family is well off and they are paying for the defense. Peterson's parents are -- don't need a benefit.

Glen Daniel, West Virginia, hello.

CALLER: Hi, Larry.

KING: Hi.

CALLER: I was wondering if anyone has given any thought to the theory that Scott could have been mopping up after Laci's water broke.

HAMMER: I think he would have said that if that was the case, wouldn't he?

KING: Yes.

ROWLANDS: Probably, too, yes. The whole mop thing is a very intriguing because we have heard and hasn't come out yet that anything contrary that there was nothing tested in the mop water in the mop itself. And not talking about vomit or blood or anything like that. They are just talking about the positions of the mop. Whether Modesto or the prosecution is trying to establish that detectives had some circumstantial evidence which would make them believe that Scott could be a suspect to sort of explain their actions, could be one direction to go they're going. But right now, there really hasn't been anything to the mop except for the location. But there's been nothing tested positive within the water or the mop itself it appeared.

KING: Johnnie, you're not practicing criminal law anymore, is that correct?

COCHRAN: That's correct, Larry.

KING: Would you come back for this case?

COCHRAN: No, I would not, Larry. This one -- neither this one...

HAMMER: That's a second guilty vote, Larry.

COCHRAN: No. I'm doing civil law. I'm enjoying it a lot more, guys. I have got to tell you. That's what I do. Now, unlike Gloria, I have not made up my mind on this case. I am keeping an open mind. The defendant is presumed to be innocent. ALLRED: I am sure he never takes the defense side. Larry, can I just say one thing about the bucket. It sounds as if the bucket which the maid left on the washing machine suddenly, mysteriously moved outside and then he brings it back in. Says -- Scott says the last time he saw Laci, according to the detective's testimony that is, was when she was mopping on December 24. Why she would mop the day after the maid was there and cleaned is beyond me. But beyond that then some how the bucket moved out side (UNINTELLIGIBLE). Today I think, the defense was setting it up perhaps later to make a motion to suppress the collection of the bucket. Perhaps the mop. Because they asked the detective did you have consent to collect the evidence? Not just to look at the evidence, but to collect it. So, they may be forewarning that's to come in the future.

HAMMER: Larry, apparently Scott Peterson claimed they were watching Martha Stewart. So perhaps Mr. Geragos will say they're obsessive cleaners. I think that defense might pop up as we come along.

KING: We will take a break and there are such things as obsessive cleaners. We'll take a break and come back with more moments and few more phone calls for our panel. Don't go away.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

KING: Our Johnnie Cochran, the great defense lawyer was a good friend of mine. The late Edward Bennett Williams told me once, in a criminal case, you never, you never let your client speak to the media any time, any where, until it's over. Would you have prevented Scott Peterson from doing the interview with Diane Sawyer?

COCHRAN: Absolutely I would have. Just as though I think the lawyers who stopped Robert Blake for as long as they could was appropriate. I think, you really have to try to control the situation.

The only time your client needs to talk about the case is when they take the stand and tell the jury they're not guilty. Everything else is a risk. I don't know how you gain anything by doing that, quite frankly, and Edward Bennett Williams one of the great lawyers of all time, and his advice is still relevant today. And it should be for defense lawyers, forever more.

KING: By the way, that was before Geragos came in. And Ted Rowlands, I understand there's something about the car that Scott was in when he was arrested.

ROWLANDS: Yes. They talked about the car today. Brocchini did, about the day that he was arrested. He was in a Mercedes that he paid cash for.

Brocchini said that they interviewed the person that Peterson bought the car from in San Diego and when he bought the car, he said that his name was Jacklyn Peterson and showed -- that's how he filled out the registration with the transfer of owner answer the guy questioned him and said, Jacklyn? He said, yes, my parents called me Jack but like "A Boy Named Sue" thing. And of course, Jacklyn is his mother Jackie and registered the car in her name. Paid $3600 I believe for it and that's the car he was arrested in.

KING: What could that possibly mean, Jeanine?

FERRIS: Well, you know, what you've got is he's changed his identity. He's using a different name. And he paid $3600. Ted, I believe, it was in cash. Just as he paid that $1500 in cash for the boat.

KING: What does that mean?

FERRIS: In other words, you don't trace it. There's a sense that, you know, most people pay with a check or, you know, with something that...

KING: It doesn't mean he's a murderer.

FERRIS: Doesn't mean he killed anybody. Just changing the identity, changing his name, changing his hair color, having $10,000 in cash, buying a car, saying his name was Jacklyn and lying...

KING: Johnnie, why are you shrugging?

COCHRAN: Isn't he surveilled by the FBI this entire time. I think he knows that at that point. So, he's not really trying to hide that, I don't think Jeanine. I think he knows he's being followed.

FERRIS: So then why did he change his appearance?

COCHRAN: It's erratic, but it doesn't mean he's guilty of anything. He knows he's being followed. He's knows they're looking and watching him.

ROWLANDS: It does mean one thing, there's no chance of bail for this guy. If there was a chance of bail, that's what it meant.

KING: Elko, Nevada -- good line -- Elko, Nevada hello.

CALLER: Thank you, Larry, for taking my call. I just have a few things I was wondering if your panel could think in the same prospect as maybe I'm thinking.

There are so many things to be explainable, such as the pliers with the hair. That's not attached to the boat. They could have came from inside the house and Laci could have used them. The mop and the bucket, she was in the eighth month of pregnancy so smells could have got to her and wanted the bucket outside with the dirty rags in it. Maybe the morning when she was mopping, according to Peterson, maybe something got spilled on the floor.

KING: We're running close on time. A caller for the defense, is that a good point?

HAMMER: Great point. Unless there's something big to come that the case is not that straight on circumstantial evidence. It will be coming down to Scott Peterson himself, how he was acting around the time of the disappearance, lies are not easily explainable like an affair and lying about cleaning up and things otherwise. And what was he doing the days following? How was he talking to Amber Frey? Was he talking like he knew Laci Peterson was never coming back and didn't care very much about her? Was he acting like a killer?

KING: Last call. Newport Beach, California, hello. Quickly?

CALLER: Hello, this is a question for Johnnie Cochran. Mr. Cochran, you're familiar with high profile cases. How do you get an objective, non-bias jury and how do you convince them with all the media coverage?

COCHRAN: Very, very difficult. And you need to ask your judge to allow you to have extensive voir dire and use questionnaires. You've got to find out as much as you can about those jurors, otherwise it will be very, very difficult.

KING: All right. And Gloria, do you think if Amber testifies it will be next week? Do you think that if she does?

ALLRED: It's difficult to predict anything in this case, Larry, because much of the testimony taking longer than probably anybody anticipated. So, it is difficult to say. But, you know, if she's called, she will be there whenever it is. She's a brave, young woman.

KING: Thank you Ted Rowlands, Johnnie Cochran, Judge Jeanine Ferris Pirro, Jim Hammer, Chris Pixley and Gloria Allred. And I'll come back and tell you about tomorrow night and the weekend. Don't go away.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

KING: Sunday night we'll repeat our interview with David Blaine in case you missed it last night. Saturday night Wynona. And tomorrow night, an hour with Tom Jones. Doesn't do many interviews, it will be great to see him.

Aaron Brown is standing by to do "NEWSNIGHT." Didn't you love Tom Jones, Aaron?

AARON BROWN, CNN ANCHOR: Uh, yeah. And my mother did too.

KING: I imagine. Aaron Brown and "NEWSNIGHT" is next.

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