CNN.com - Transcripts

Transcript Providers

Return to Transcripts main page

CNN Larry King Live

Police Search Jackson's Home; Scott Peterson Ordered to Stand Trial

Aired November 18, 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: Police state a surprise raid on Michael Jackson's home at Neverland Ranch while he's away. They say it's part of an ongoing criminal investigation. One source with knowledge of the probe says it does have to do with an allegation of child molestation. So does (ph) Jackson family attorney Brian Oxman -- he joins us tonight -- and the reporter covering the story from the get-go, Court TV's Diane Dimond. She was on the scene at Neverland today. Also with us, Jann Carl, correspondent with "Entertainment Tonight," Court TV's Nancy Grace, the former prosecutor, and the renowned defense attorney Johnnie Cochran, who represented Michael Jackson in connection with the '93 child molestation lawsuit.
And then later: Scott Peterson will stand trial on double murder charges. But before his preliminary hearing ends, more details emerge of his relationship with Amber Frey. We'll have the latest on that story, the Michael Jackson investigation all next on LARRY KING LIVE.

Before we talk to any of our guests, let's get an update from Frank Buckley, on the scene at the Neverland Ranch. Frank, what's the latest?

FRANK BUCKLEY, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Well, Larry, investigators are still here at Neverland Ranch. They've been here since about 8:30 this morning. A spokesman for the sheriff's department here in Santa Barbara County says that some 60 to 70 investigators from the sheriff's department and the district attorney's office have been here throughout the day, and they continue to do whatever it is they're doing. We haven't been able to see what, if anything, they've removed, but we know that investigators are still here on the scene.

KING: And we do know it definitely is in connection with a child molestation matter?

BUCKLEY: Well, that's what one source who is familiar with this investigation has told me. He said that it is having to do with an allegation of the sexual molestation of a child. But again, still just an investigation, at this point. No charges, obviously, have been brought.

KING: That's a very big area, right, to cover?

BUCKLEY: It is. The ranch is so big, in fact, Larry, that where we are, which is at the gatehouse, you can't even see over the hill, where the residence is. So this is a great deal of area to cover.

KING: Thanks very much, Frank Buckley, on the scene at Neverland.

Here's a statement released late today through Michael Jackson's spokesman, Stuart Backerman. I just spoke to Stuart right before we went on the air. And here's what they have to say. "We cannot comment on law enforcement's investigation because we don't know yet what it's about. We can comment on the malignant horde of media hounds claiming to speak for Michael on this and many other issues. A rogues' gallery of hucksters and self-styled inside sources have dominated the airwaves since reports of a search at Neverland broke, speculating, guessing, fabricating information about an investigation they couldn't possibly know about. Michael himself said, quote, `I've seen lawyers who do not represent me and spokespeople who do not know me speaking for me. These characters always seem to surface with a dreadful allegation just as another project, an album, a video is being released.' Michael, will, as always" -- again, the statement continues -- "fully cooperate with authorities in any investigation, even as it's conducted yet again when he is not at home."

What do you make of this, Johnnie Cochran?

JOHNNIE COCHRAN, JACKSON'S ATTORNEY IN '93 MOLESTATION SUIT: Well, it sounds like dej vu to me, from that standpoint. I don't know very much about this at all, Larry. It's unfortunate, clearly, and we'll have to see how it plays out. I mean, I think that Tom Sneddon was involved in the investigation back in 1993. So...

KING: Tom is who?

COCHRAN: It's Tom Sneddon is the district attorney there in Santa Barbara County, and I understand he was there -- one of the people there today. So probably hear more from him in the near future. I don't know what the allegations are or where this is going. I do know that Michael is -- maintains his innocence. I know that. And that's all I know, at this point.

KING: Brian, you're the Jackson family attorney. Does that include Michael?

BRIAN OXMAN, JACKSON FAMILY ATTORNEY: We've represented most of the family in their divorce cases, and we've represented them for 14 years. And I have always been a defender of Michael, never wanted to speak for him because he speaks for himself. And what I want to do is let Michael be able to answer any of these allegations that he has made. But I can tell you the entire family is very upset about the whole thing, and they see this...

KING: Upset at Michael or upset about the coverage, as the statement says?

OXMAN: The statement. The statement is -- the allegation, I think, is the correct way to look at this. They are just upset. It's dej vu, as Johnnie says. But more important, it's here we go again. Michael just seems to be a sitting target for anyone who wants to take a potshot at him, and this appears to be another one of those cases. And it causes a worldwide hysteria.

KING: Diane Dimond, when she joins us, will be by phone. She's covering a story that she may tell us about, connected with this.

Nancy Grace, what would they be looking for at the house in connection with child molestation evidence?

NANCY GRACE, COURT TV: Good question, Larry, because, of course, unless there is a child victim there to tell them some type of evidence, some type of verbal statement, we're wondering what could be found at the house? But I've got a clue. Larry, we know that there are about 70 members of law enforcement there. We know that a member from the district attorney's office is there, which is, in my mind, very significant. This is something that is a joint effort by police and the DA's office. They would be responsible for a preliminary hearing or a grand jury...

KING: So what would...

GRACE: ... proceeding.

KING: So what might they...

GRACE: That means that...

KING: ... be looking for?

GRACE: That means to me it's much more serious, if a DA is in. Also, a locksmith was brought in earlier today, reported by Diane Dimond. We have heard reports that there are lockboxes there, possibly photos, who knows, something that is significant to the alleged complaint of a 12-year-old boy.

And Larry, I just heard Brian Oxman state that Michael Jackson's there for anybody to take potshots at, but I would like to point out that not long ago, we were discussing this affidavit of a 13-year-old boy. Sound similar? Yes. This boy -- I will only call him J. Chandler (ph) -- signed an affidavit, a sworn affidavit, describing sexual contact when he -- starting around the age of 5 to 7 with Michael Jackson. This resulted in a multi-million-dollar settlement.

Now, also in my experience as a felony prosecutor, that's one type of offender that can't help but repeat...

KING: All right...

GRACE: ... offend, and that's a child molester.

KING: Is that -- is that the case you settled, Johnnie?

COCHRAN: Yes, I think she's probably referring to that case, and that case was resolved and, you know, the record was pretty clear about it. You know, there's a -- it's very complex. It's not as easy as Nancy makes it for anybody involved in it to talk about that. It was resolved to the satisfaction of all parties.

KING: But you can't talk about that, right?

COCHRAN: It's very -- it's very limited, what you can say about that.

KING: Of course, the obvious thinking of the public is, if someone didn't do anything, why settle for a penny?

COCHRAN: Well, I think that it had -- you just look back at what happened, and the record was that both sides maintained that they brought -- the young person's side and his lawyer, Larry, felt and maintained they brought their case in good faith. The defense said they'd making that in good faith. And the matter was resolved and it never went further. There was never any criminal charges.

KING: But the public thinks?

COCHRAN: Yes. Perhaps so. But you know, at any rate, Michael Jackson has always been a target by many -- for many. You know, one of the things that I think that Brian was thinking about today is that, isn't it ironic, though, these charges are brought on the day of the release of his latest album. And these things always seem to happen.

KING: Do you see a connection, Jann Carl?

JANN CARL, "ENTERTAINMENT TONIGHT": You know, I don't know if I can say there's a connection that the DA's office -- or that they -- you know...

KING: Out to disturb an album, do you...

(CROSSTALK)

CARL: Yes. I mean, this is something...

COCHRAN: ... it's always coincidental.

CARL: You know, I think it's if an ongoing investigation, and according to some reports, it's been going on for three months, you know, you have to look at when did they ask the judge for the search warrant? When did the judge actually come forward and give them the search warrant? And if they asked for the search warrant a week ago or two days ago and they finally got it late last night or early this morning, then, no, I would say it doesn't have anything to do with the release of an album.

KING: What must they show to get a warrant, Brian?

OXMAN: There has to be some kind of showing of probable cause. And what we've seen with, like, the Kobe Bryant case is an accuser who makes the allegation, can establish the probable cause merely by the accusation itself. But it's so interesting. There are 60 officers, vans, trucks -- this is an invasion more than it is anything else. I've handled child molestation cases for 27 years, and I've never seen 60 officers approach anybody's house in this manner. Something is amiss...

GRACE: That's because this is...

COCHRAN: ... in the Santa Barbara's office...

GRACE: ... a fortress, Brian! This isn't a regular...

OXMAN: Oh, I -- oh, I've had...

GRACE: ... one-bedroom apartment! This is a fortress...

COCHRAN: I've seen fortresses...

GRACE: ... the police are searching!

OXMAN: ... I've seen houses where they have to batter the door down, and they don't bring 60 officers. This is incredible.

GRACE: You know, Brian, I only have one thing to say. This affidavit says, "Michael Jackson and I in bed together," "He had me twist his nipples"...

OXMAN: You are reading the Jordie Chandler affidavit, which is 10 years old and...

GRACE: "He told me nothing was wrong with it."

OXMAN: The affidavit...

KING: That case is settled.

OXMAN: ... is just long history. It's digging up old history. And here's the point of the problem. Michael settled that case and, it appears that what the accusation here is, it's mirroring the 10- year-old accusation. It's a deja vu all over again, and I'm wondering about that.

KING: But that doesn't mean it isn't true, Brian.

OXMAN: Correct, Larry. We don't know. We don't know who the accuser is and we...

KING: Well, at this point, no one knows anything.

OXMAN: We just don't know.

KING: Let me get a break and come back with more. Diane Dimond will be joining us by phone. Later, we'll discuss in the program -- some other panelists will join us -- the wind-up of the Peterson hearing. You're watching LARRY KING LIVE. Don't go away.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

CHRIS PAPPAS, SANTA BARBARA SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT: We have investigators. We have additional personnel on scene to handle forensics considerations and things of that nature. The district attorney's office has investigators on scene, as well. And that makes up the bulk of that contingent, most of those being from the Santa Barbara County sheriff's department.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

KING: By the way, we'll be taking some calls on this from you, the viewers. And a news conference is scheduled by Santa Barbara authorities for tomorrow morning at 11:00 AM Pacific time.

You were saying something, Jann?

CARL: The last time when this occurred, 10 years ago, I know that there was -- Johnnie we were talking about it -- there was a body search. I mean, it was part of the search warrant to search the body of Michael Jackson. And he talked about being...

KING: You mean the kid was able to identify things...

CARL: Well, that was the implication.

KING: Is that true, Johnnie?

COCHRAN: Well, again, without going into details regarding the case per se...

KING: No charges were ever filed, right?

COCHRAN: No charges were ever filed. There was a humiliating search warrant for Michael's body. That was one of the...

(CROSSTALK)

KING: And did they follow through on that?

COCHRAN: Oh, yes. They did. And that was a -- it was a court order.

CARL: They photographed it.

COCHRAN: It was a court order.

(CROSSTALK)

COCHRAN: It was one of the most difficult days I ever spent as a lawyer.

KING: Nancy, are you hooking one with the other because -- just because that's the only basis you have to go on, the similarity of a matter 10 years ago?

GRACE: Larry, I am basing this on over a decade of handling startlingly similar cases. Larry...

KING: Yes, but no one was convicted in this.

GRACE: Yes, I know that, Larry. There was a multi-million- dollar settlement in order to keep it out of court. And when Johnnie's referring to a full body search -- it was apparently a photographic session of Michael Jackson's body to corroborate, in my mind, what the alleged child victim -- how he described Michael Jackson without his clothes on.

Now, Larry, you know, of course, a defense attorney can paint that as perfectly innocent. In my mind, I don't think that's innocent. I don't think that's appropriate. In fact, that is a felony. You asked me earlier, what do I think police are looking for? Let me just be blunt. In my mind, they are looking for photographs, they are looking for videos, they are looking for letters, communications between Jackson and this young accuser, something to corroborate what this young boy, if he exists, has said -- the description of the inside of the home, the bedroom, whatever, something to corroborate his story.

KING: Yes, back it up. Is this a case, Brian, of sort of like it looks like a duck and it acts like a duck, it could be a duck?

OXMAN: It is a case of excitement and hysteria because here we have the same accusations that we had 10 years ago. It's like playing the play-offs all over again. There are more than...

KING: But Nancy is right in getting excited about something like that. I mean, angry excited.

OXMAN: People get excited. Nancy is excited. I understand that.

GRACE: No, I'm not excited! I'm discouraged...

OXMAN: You sure look excited to me, Nancy.

GRACE: ... with the justice system -- I'm disturbed that the justice system chose not to go forward with an investigation. He had an excellent attorney, I can vouch for that, with Johnnie Cochran. And now, apparently -- and I don't know all the facts yet, nobody does. But apparently, there's yet another young alleged victim out there. And if the justice system had done what it should have done 10 years ago, there wouldn't be another alleged victim!

OXMAN: I think the justice system did do what it should have done 10 years ago, and what we're finding here now is that it happened once, a shakedown took place once, and apparently, it might be the same accusation again. We don't know. We can't prejudge this. We don't know anything about the accuser. We don't know what it's all about. And when we find out, we'll make a reasoned judgment about it.

KING: How serious was that, years ago, Johnnie? I mean, by -- the allegation...

COCHRAN: I think it was very serious. It was a very serious, very serious case

KING: Were they close to indicting?

COCHRAN: You know, it's hard to say. I mean, it was -- there were both offices. There was Gil Garcetti in Los Angeles and Mr. Sneddon, I think, in Santa Barbara. It was a -- I took it very seriously. And at the end of the day, when the matter was resolved, you know, I felt it was the appropriate resolution for all parties involved.

KING: Are there times a client will resolve something financially. even though he didn't do the alleged act?

COCHRAN: I think there are.

KING: And what would be those times?

COCHRAN: I think that -- I think you look at a number of factors -- without speaking about that particular case, which I'm really precluded from doing. I think if you felt that your name was going to be drug through the mud and it would do great damage to your career, it would last a long period of time, one might make that decision.

KING: In other words, hypothetically, Kobe Bryant might have done nothing wrong but might settle this just to let it go away?

COCHRAN: To not have to have all this exposed and lose all his corporate...

(CROSSTALK)

CARL: ... charge that severe, even a charge as child molestation? I mean, that seems to be a category all in itself to me, that, yes, your name is going to be drug through the mud, but you've got an accusation -- and maybe Brian can answer this, too -- that's so severe that most of us consider one of the worst crimes.

KING: In other words, Brian, I would say that if that was -- if I was accused of that, the natural thing to say, I would never settle if I didn't do it.

OXMAN: Well, sometimes it's not your choice.

KING: If I did do it, I would settle.

OXMAN: I have brought child molestation cases against defendants, and I always include a negligence allegation in that because that means that the homeowners' insurance policy takes over and a homeowners' insurance policy...

KING: Really?

OXMAN: ... can settle right out from under the defendant. The defendant can scream, I will not settle that case, and they have no choice because the insurance company settles it.

KING: Nancy, how do you respond to that? What if the insurance company says, We're going to settle this.

GRACE: You know what, Larry? You know, how I respond to that? This is not, in my mind, a matter of money or insurance companies and settlements and civil suits! This is about, in my mind, a young boy, in this case, an alleged 12-year-old boy! You say we don't know what the facts are? You're right. But I do know this. Something a 12- year-old boy said sent 70 people out to Neverland...

KING: By the way...

GRACE: ... on an exhaustive search...

KING: But Nancy, let's...

GRACE: ... and a judge agreed signing a search warrant!

KING: Let's be fair. A 12-year-old boy could also fantasize, and he could imagine.

GRACE: Sure, Larry. It could happen.

KING: So the mistake we make on this program frequently is we jump to conclusions.

GRACE: Larry, I'm not...

KING: We make a leap.

GRACE: ... jumping to a conclusion. I know...

(CROSSTALK)

KING: In other words, you have made no conclusion yet? You don't believe this boy, is what you're saying. You believe this boy or don't believe him?

GRACE: I haven't made any conclusion, but I know what I see. I know that we have been told by sources that have openly stated this is the result of something alleged by a 12-year-old boy.

KING: OK, but...

GRACE: I think we can accept that as true.

KING: Could it be possible...

GRACE: And because of that...

KING: ... that a 12-year-old boy could fantasize? Is that possible?

GRACE: Well, of course, it's possible. But don't you...

KING: So why don't we say two things are -- two things are possible. He might have harmed him, the kid might be lying. Is that true?

GRACE: Absolutely true.

KING: So why are we so mad?

GRACE: Larry...

KING: I don't understand it. We don't know enough.

GRACE: I find it very difficult to believe that an entire fleet of police officers and the district attorney's office and an impartial magistrate, a judge, would go to this extent based on a 12-year-old's boy fantasy, OK?

KING: So what more could they have, then, other than...

GRACE: If you want to believe that, fine. I don't believe it.

KING: ... a statement?

GRACE: They could have physical evidence. They could have evidence on this boy's body.

KING: But we don't know.

GRACE: Well, of course, we don't know! We won't know until we get the return on the search warrant!

KING: So how can you be angry at Michael yet, if you don't know?

GRACE: A, I'm not angry!

KING: You're not angry?

GRACE: B, I'm disappointed. I'm disappointed that...

KING: Oh, OK.

GRACE: ... this has been allowed...

KING: I'm sorry. I was -- I apologize, Nancy.

GRACE: ... to continue, and that our justice system apparently, from outside observances, allowed a molestation to slip through its fingers.

KING: All right. I was reading you as angry. I apologize. I didn't know that you were concerned.

We'll take a break and -- I read you as angry. I'm totally wrong. We'll be right back. Don't go away.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP - DECEMBER 22, 1994)

MICHAEL JACKSON: There have been many disgusting statements made recently concerning allegations of improper conduct on my part. These statements about me are totally false. As I have maintained from the very beginning, I am hoping for a speedy end to this horrifying, horrifying experience to which I have been subjected.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

KING: Let's take some calls. We go to Norfolk, Virginia. Hello.

CALLER: Yes. I have been wondering, has anyone considered doing DNA testing on Michael Jackson to confirm that these children are his biological children? They do not look anything like him, and I wonder if he has fathered them.

KING: Why would -- who would do the testing, and for what purpose?

CALLER: Well, I just wonder if anybody has wanted to see if he has bought these children, if they are, in fact...

KING: Brian, do you want to comment?

OXMAN: I can tell you that they are Michael's children. He's had the first two, who were Prince, and then he had Paris with Debbie Rowe. They are his kids. And the third child, who is Michael, Jr., Prince Michael, Jr., is his biological child had with the surrogate. There's no allegations concerning these children. They are absolutely fantastic, beautiful kids, and there's not any problem with them by way of a DNA test or anything that would be required with a DNA test..

KING: Kirksville, Missouri. Hello.

CALLER: Yes. I have a question for the panel.

KING: Sure.

CALLER: In a case like Scott Peterson's or Michael's, does the defense attorneys know the truth?

KING: Johnnie?

(CROSSTALK)

COCHRAN: That's a good question. I think that -- who knows the truth? I mean, from a standpoint -- your client says they're innocent. And you go in and investigate the facts. And you -- you know, from a standpoint, you present what the facts are. You can't change the facts. They are what they are, and you just deal with it. Now, if a client says they're guilty, Larry, that's when you dispose of the case. You plead them guilty. You make -- you work -- you enter them into a plea bargain.

KING: You can't let your client lie.

COCHRAN: No, you don't let them lie at all. Now, if the client says, I'm guilty, and...

CARL: But I want you to get me off.

COCHRAN: ... you try to work the best deal you can. But if he's says, I'm guilty and I want to -- you can't let them testify... (CROSSTALK)

KING: Nancy, what if 10 years ago, the prosecutor didn't have a case because the kid dropped the charge?

GRACE: Well, you know, Larry, when a case becomes a criminal matter, the victim cannot drop the charge. At that point, the prosecution represents the people, the state, justice, society. And at that point -- and I have had victims want to drop charges and not testify, but it's not just about that victim, although, in my mind, they are paramount. It is about future innocent victims, and therefore, my practice was to subpoena the victims and have them come to court anyway.

KING: What if the father or mother of the victim said to you, I'm the mother. The victim is 12. I will not let him or her testify. Do you want to put them in jail, put them in jail.

GRACE: You know, Larry, you got me between a rock and a hard spot because I would not want to harm -- emotionally harm the victim or the victim's family. But on the other hand, when you don't seek justice and you don't chase the truth, no matter it tastes going down, you have a repeat offense, like what I believe we may be seeing right now.

KING: Rockford, Illinois. Hello.

CALLER: Good evening. This question is for Nancy.

KING: Yes.

CALLER: Could it be that some parent has some trumped-up idea that they're going to bleed Michael for some money and extort money from Michael by lying about a molestation that really didn't happen?

KING: Isn't that a possibility?

GRACE: You are so correct. And Brian was correct earlier. When somebody's got a lot of money and the rest of the world knows about it, they're sitting targets for scams. But it's hard for me to believe, frankly -- to the caller -- that the district attorney, probably several assistant district attorneys, lawyers, an impartial judge and 70 people from law enforcement would buy into a scam without checking it out first.

KING: Jann, this is how big a story?

CARL: This is huge. This is about as...

KING: Now, CBS has a show what, scheduled when?

CARL: CBS has a one-hour special with Michael Jackson scheduled for November 26. We contacted -- "Entertainment Tonight" contacted CBS and asked, you know, if there are any thoughts about the special, what they may do with it. Today they said they're waiting to hear more information, which... KING: He's singing in the special?

CARL: He is. And in fact, he was -- he's in Vegas right now, which is why he wasn't home when the police arrived. He's there -- he's working on a music video for the special that -- and what we heard was that Michael actually didn't want to go through with the special at this time, but contractually, our sources tell us, that he had to. So he's been down there trying to play catch-up, get the music video completed. When CBS says they're going to wait to hear more, to me that says...

KING: They're waiting.

CARL: ... there's a possibility...

KING: They may not.

CARL: ... they may or may not air this special.

KING: Santa Barbara. Hello.

CALLER: Hello.

KING: Hi.

CALLER: Hi. This question is for Johnnie. Johnnie, do you think it's any coincidence that the -- that it was served on the day the album was released?

COCHRAN: No, I don't think it's -- I don't think it's -- I think it's probably more than coincidence. I think it was planned. I think you can get a warrant at any time. If it's an ongoing investigation, they could have picked it any time. I think the fact that the -- I think it's a big news day. His album comes out by Epic Records and this happens the same day...

CARL: But what would be the motive?

KING: Why would the prosecutor...

(CROSSTALK)

KING: What's the purpose?

COCHRAN: If you look back at Michael's history, you've seen these things before. Whenever he's had any particular big (UNINTELLIGIBLE), there's always some countervailing thing. You know, he has been really, really a target throughout his career, pretty much over this last decade. Anything he does is blown out of proportion. You know, if he...

KING: So the prosecutor...

GRACE: Oh, Johnnie! Johnnie...

(CROSSTALK) KING: ... the record's coming out, I'm going to file today?

COCHRAN: No. I don't think he said -- I don't think he said that. I think that...

GRACE: But Johnnie, he's not a target...

COCHRAN: I think that -- I think it's not just a coincidence. Now, when I say...

GRACE: Only reason he's a target is because...

COCHRAN: Nancy...

GRACE: ... he wears a big bullseye! He goes on national TV...

COCHRAN: Well, Nancy, I don't know that he...

GRACE: ... and says, yes, I sleep with little boys in my bed.

COCHRAN: I know he wears a big...

GRACE: Of course!

COCHRAN: He did say that on national -- but he said also...

GRACE: Yes, he did.

COCHRAN: ... he would never harm a child. He said he loved children. He would never harm a child. I mean, he said it was all innocent, very innocent. Now...

GRACE: It's all in your definition of love.

COCHRAN: ... as his lawyer -- we'd all advise him, Don't ever put yourself in that position. That's who Michael Jackson is. He's a very, very naive person in many respects, and there's no question about that. So I think that, yes, he does wear a bullseye on him, and so...

CARL: Johnnie, I'd like to know, as an attorney, at some point, have you all said, Don't sleep in bed with little boys anymore, as his attorney?

KING: Has somebody said that?

CARL: Has somebody...

COCHRAN: Well, I think it's not appropriate for us to say what we've said to him. But obviously, you could probably surmise that many of us...

(CROSSTALK)

OXMAN: I think you can look at how Michael travels. He always travels with an entourage of adults. And people say, Why are all these people all around you? Very simple, Larry. He has these people there to make sure that there are not these kinds of accusations being made against him.

KING: Let me get a break, and then we'll have Diane Dimond with us on the phone. Don't go away. You're watching LARRY KING LIVE. Stay there.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

KING: Let's reintroduce our panel. Here in Los Angeles, Brian Oxman, the Jackson family attorney. Jann Carl, the correspondent for "Entertainment Tonight." In New York is Nancy Grace, anchor of Court TV and the former prosecutor. Also in Los Angeles, Johnnie Cochran, who once represented Michael Jackson in a previous matter related somewhat to the current investigation and the similarity factor.

And joining us on the phone is one of the best journalists in the business on covering stuff, Diane Dimond, Court TV anchor and contributor to "Hollywood at Large." She's been covering the Jackson story since sexual abuse allegation case back in '93. What can you tell us of news late, Diane?

DIANE DIMOND, COURT TV: Well, Larry, first of all, I'm sorry I can't be on camera here with you today, but I'm still in Santa Barbara, I am still working this story as best I can.

There is new and breaking information that will come out tomorrow, and that'll come from the district attorney himself and the local sheriff. They're going to have a news conference about 11:00 a.m., but I have learned something very important and I will pass it on to you, in that there was not just a search warrant out there today at Neverland. There was also an arrest warrant. And had Michael Jackson been there, they would have put handcuffs on him and taken him to jail.

KING: Does this mean, Diane, they're going to go to Vegas and arrest him?

DIMOND: Well, I'm trying to determine that. And I get a coy answer from all of my law enforcement sources here. You have a warrant like this, it's good in all 50 states. If he's in Vegas, are you pursuing this, I've asked. And they with a smile on their face say, you can imagine that we are pursuing it. That's all they'll answer.

KING: Did you learn what he's being arrested for?

DIMOND: The charges will be simple. Penal code 288, child molesting.

KING: What do you make of this, Diane, as a reporter?

DIMOND: Well, Larry, as you said, I've been covering this since 1993, '94. You know, once you bite into a story like this, you always stay involved, whether you're covering it on a day-to-day basis or not. It was tough at times. He sued me for $100 million, for goodness' sake. Johnnie Cochran can tell you about that, although the suit was filed by a different attorney.

COCHRAN: It wasn't me.

DIMOND: We won that case, and it's been a long road.

Do I know that he's guilty? No, I don't know he's guilty, but I do know that from what I'm hearing, this case is going to go to trial. There is nobody that wants a monetary settlement here. They want justice.

KING: Was an arrest warrant issued years ago, Johnnie Cochran?

COCHRAN: No. There was not. In fact, when I got involved in the case, we had offered -- Michael was in Europe as I recall -- and he came back, and I told the prosecutors if they wanted him, I would bring him down, because he maintained his innocence and he would come into court, he would come in and (UNINTELLIGIBLE) himself. That never happened in that case. This is perhaps different.

KING: Nancy, what do you make of this report by Diane, that they had an arrest warrant, as well?

GRACE: I think her report is accurate and I think that because simply I do not normally see people from -- representatives from the DA's office going on a regular search unless there's a lot to it.

I am not surprised. I think that, Larry, we are who we are. You can't change your nature. And if Michael Jackson agreed to a multimillion dollar settlement 10 years ago in a similar allegation, I would be willing to bet the behavior not only didn't stop, Larry, but couldn't stop. It is his nature.

KING: OK, Brian. What do you make of an arrest warrant?

OXMAN: Obviously, an arrest warrant causes a serious concern, and we're very disturbed that there would be an arrest warrant out there. Michael is not someone who is going to flee the scene. Michael is not somebody who's going to never be heard of again. As you see with celebrities, they come in voluntarily, almost inevitably. So for there to be no communication between the district attorney's office and Michael and his representatives...

DIMOND: That's not true, Larry. No. That's not true. There have been at least two attorneys for Michael Jackson talking to law enforcement here. In fact, Steve Cochran, I don't think he's any relation to Johnnie, but Steve Cochran was down at Neverland today.

OXMAN: He's a good friend, and we know him and he's excellent.

KING: So you're saying the prosecutor has informed Jackson's representatives of the arrest warrant?

DIMOND: Not only that, but he was told that, you know, there's plenty of room for cooperation here. We're not here to drag anybody's name in the mud. If you want to bring him in, bring him in.

OXMAN: I am certain there will be cooperation, and what I'm criticizing here is that...

DIMOND: Really?

OXMAN: ... there's no prior communication. This is an investigation...

KING: You mean, like yesterday?

OXMAN: Correct. Yesterday or the day before. And Diane has said that this has been ongoing for two months. So, this is a surprise to all the attorneys, and Michael is not someone...

DIMOND: Brian, Brian, wait a minute. You want the law enforcement people here to telegraph what they are going to do in a criminal investigation? Come on.

OXMAN: I think in a molestation case of this nature, I think absolutely so. Because it's a past incident.

DIMOND: Oh, if there was a man down the street with three children and he was molesting the children, they certainly wouldn't call his attorney and say, oh, by the way, we're coming in tomorrow.

OXMAN: You're talking about an ongoing problem. This apparently is something which happened months and months ago.

KING: Your source is who, Diane? People in law enforcement?

DIMOND: Very high, high, high.

KING: And you're saying they have an arrest warrant? Is it your probability then they're going to arrest him in Vegas unless he surrenders?

DIMOND: Well, again, I can't get a straight answer on that, but it wouldn't surprise me, Larry.

KING: What do you expect, Jann? An arrest in Vegas? You got an arrest warrant, you've got to serve it, don't you?

CARL: I would think so. My guess would be that he would turn himself in, according to past behavior.

KING: Johnnie, what would you recommend?

COCHRAN: Well, I would recommend that some accommodation be made that he come forward. I believe he's going to fight these charges, and I expect he's going to come in and say get, you know, get it done and get it going.

KING: If he called you to come in again, would you?

COCHRAN: No, I wouldn't, because -- it's not because of this case, though. When I finished the P. Diddy, Puffy Combs case in New York, I said no more criminal cases for me. And I've remained true to that.

KING: Diane, we thank you very much for this exclusive. You are staying right on top of it again. You've got it from a top police source. They won't tell you if they're going to serve it in Vegas. Maybe they'll make an accommodation. Would you expect that, Diane, to let him come back and surrender?

DIMOND: Oh, I think they absolutely would, they would open the door wide for him to step right through it. I don't, however, think they're anticipating that's going to happen, Larry.

KING: Well, thank you all very much.

DIMOND: Let me tell you too...

KING: Yes, go ahead.

DIMOND: I'm still working this story out here, and tomorrow on Court TV, 9:00, both coasts, 9:00 a.m., big exclusive interview. Tune in.

KING: Thank you, Diane. Thank you, Jann, as always.

CARL: Absolutely.

KING: And thank you, Brian.

CARL: "Entertainment Tonight," Marcia Clark, Johnnie's old buddy.

KING: You've got her on.

CARL: We have Marcia Clark on "Entertainment Tonight."

KING: Johnnie Cochran and Nancy Grace will remain, and we'll be joined by Ted Rowlands and Chris Pixley and Jim Hammer, the assistant D.A. in San Francisco, the head of the homicide unit, and we'll get up to date on the final day of hearing, the preliminary hearing in the Scott Peterson matter. As we go to break, the now famous scene of Jackson and the child. Don't go away.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

KING: Joining us now, our regular Peterson panel. Ted Rowlands of KTVU. Staying with us in New York, Nancy Grace of Court TV. In Atlanta, defense attorney Chris Pixley. In Los Angeles, Johnnie Cochran. The defense attorney whose book "A Lawyer's Life" a terrific read is now out in paperback. And in San Francisco, Jim Hammer assistant district attorney San Francisco head of the homicide unit. Dr. Robi Ludwig will join us a little later in this segment for a quick comment or two.

What happened today, Ted? TED ROWLANDS, KTVU: Well, the judge after hearing the evidence said that there was enough to hold Mr. Peterson over for trial, and he'll face charges for murder of his wife and unborn son, Connor. He will be officially arraigned December 3rd here in Modesto. It was a half a day of testimony. We heard from a police detective and a district attorney investigator. The D.A. Investigator basically chronicled some calls between Scott and Amber Frey saying they talked to each other 241 times in a three-month period they were investigating.

And then the detective talked about the arrest, saying they found Scott Peterson with $15,000 in cash and camping gear and clothing, his brother's driver's license and his driver's license, it later came out. Geragos, on cross, able to establish the reason he had his brother's driver's license was for a discount meeting family members. It was a short day. That was about it. It only went to about 11:00. But the bottom line, he will be standing -- is being held on the charges for murder.

KING: Now, Chris Pixley, on December 3rd, all of us that watch "Law and Order," will he plead?

CHRIS PIXLEY, DEFENSE ATTORNEY: He will plead on December 3rd. We'll get the arraignment on that date and then from that point forward, there are going to be a couple of important motions that will be hearing. One for the change of venue, which is something we talked about before for months. It's also important as of December 3rd, if he decides to not waste time, the trial will have to go forward within 60 days assuming that these motions can be handled. If he does waive time, then it will be a matter of the attorneys getting together with -- and telling the judge what their calenders look like and trying to give us an idea as to when it may go to trial.

KING: Do you expect, Johnnie Cochran, they'd ask for a quick trial?

COCHRAN: They may be -- Geragos has said that he wants to get it over with. He's going to be in custody. Wants to get it over with. And sometimes redowns to the client's advantage. Geragos probably prepared now. Keep in mind, we have not heard the defense side of this case. So there, may be a real battle here.

KING: Nancy Grace, do you expect a change of venue?

GRACE: Yes, I do but not in the traditional sense. I think what the judge will probably do and it's a matter of money is to bust jurors in from a contingent or neighbors county. Why, it's easier to move 12 people in and put them up in a hotel than moving the courthouse, the staff everybody else to go try the case somewhere else.

KING: Jim Hammer, is this going to be a tough on prosecutorially?

JIM HAMMER, ASST. DIST. ATTORNEY, SAN FRANCISCO: Well, I thought so until yesterday, Larry. But the evidence yesterday about this essentially a factory where seems to be producing these weights, four or five of which are missing I think is an absolute bomb shell. Apparently there's concrete spread out at these empty spots. I think with that type of evidence it's a good thing for Johnnie he's in retirement, because I think it's a tough case.

KING: Do you agree with that, Nancy?

GRACE: I do. That's been overlooked by the media. The police clearly stated in court they saw where five cement blocks had been made. Several of them are missing. He only went fishing one day so where are the cement weights? They were made to go in his boat. Also, and Chris and I have thought about this on many occasions, the number of phone calls are a huge number including phone calls on Christmas Eve, the night he was supposed to be out looking for Laci and Christmas Day. Also significant are these transcripts, Larry, transcripts of the phone calls that Peterson and Frey made and in them, Frey goes -- she hammers him to explain what happened. And his excuse is, oh, I can't tell you that because I want to protect you from the media. I really want to explain but I can't. It's such bs.

KING: Johnnie, (UNINTELLIGIBLE) against it?

COCHRAN: Well, you know, it's not a slam dunk. And you have not heard from Geragos. But I mean, there are some things, as Jim points out, the cement blocks are not a good thing. The -- not so many the number of calls but what's said during those calls. The statements about my wife being lost on December 9th that's not very helpful

KING: Dr. Ludwig -- Dr. Robi Ludwig, (UNINTELLIGIBLE) joins us for a few minutes.

Do you think the amount is damaging?

DR. ROBI LUDWIG, PSYD. COURT TV COMMENTATOR: Yes. Because clearly he was lying to another woman. So, you know, you can pretty much think, hey, he was obviously lying to his wife. He was lying to practically everyone around him. This guy is not a honest guy. The question is, is he also a murderous guy in addition to being a dishonest guy, and that we don't know. Again, he is not looking like an upstanding guy. Amber Frey was -- go ahead.

KING: So, if he's a cad, they have to connect the dots though, right?

LUDWIG: Absolutely. Because there are so many men in this country that cheat that don't murder their wives. That clearly is not going to be enough. But the circumstantial evidence is so damaging and, again, it's not clear what the defense is going to say. But it's just not looking really good for this guy. He said he was a widower. He lied to Amber Frey. He lied to Laci. He has a boat. There's are these mysterious cement blocks and what we do know is even the most dangerous, homicidal maniac is not violent all the time. That there are moments when they are in crisis that they are violent. So, you can't even look at the history and say, well, he wasn't violent in the past. That doesn't mean he doesn't have a moment where he did lose it. KING: Thanks, Robi. Always good talking to you.

LUDWIG: Thank you.

KING: And when we come back, we'll have more with the panel and a word from Gloria Allred, the attorney for Amber Frey who never was called. We'll be right, don't go away.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

MARK GERAGOS, SCOTT PETERSON'S ATTORNEY: Obviously, we're gratified at least that we're -- this much closer to trial. And, hopefully, trial vindication for Scott.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: If we can have this trial held here, we want the trial held here. We do not want the trial held, though, if it's not going to be properly done, if the jury pool is so biased that the defendant can't get a fair trial. Because that doesn't work for anybody. That's something that we have to look at to make sure that that can occur.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

KING: Gloria -- we're back with the panel. Gloria Allred, the attorney for Amber Frey, are you surprised that when it all came push to shove, your client was not called?

GLORIA ALLRED, AMBER FREY'S ATTORNEY: Well, I never thought that it was highly likely that the defense was going to call her, Larry, because, I mean, originally, she was thought to be a witness that might be called by the prosecution. And I just, based on my knowledge of Ms. Frey's involvement in this matter, couldn't imagine why the defense would think that that would help in their affirmative defense in the case to call Ms. Frey and ultimately, they decided not to call her.

I think it was a good decision for the prosecution to decide not to call her, simply because they had introduced enough evidence and enough evidence had been admitted in order for the judge to hold Mr. Peterson to answer for trial in the double murder charge, and it was not necessary to put Amber Frey on the witness stand from the prosecution's point of view, so I fully expect that she will be called at the trial, because at the trial, she will not, under the rules of evidence, be able to have her testimony come in through the detective, as some of it did in this preliminary hearing. That is permitted. But at the trial, she will need to testify, and that's what I expect will occur.

KING: When you came into this matter, are you now surprised at the amount of phone calls they had with each other? ALLRED: Well, I do -- I am now aware of the numerous calls that they had and the extent and scope of the relationship, and I think what's most interesting is those calls post, that is, after Laci's disappearance, and so I'm sure that many people will be curious about what was said in all of those calls.

We know that some of it was stated today, just a really bare bones little sliver today, but that was where the detective testified that once again we heard that Amber said that Scott said that he had lost his wife, that this would be the first holidays without her, and also, that he wanted to hold on to Amber. So that may be enough to suggest premeditation, to suggest possible motive. I'm not saying that he did it, but those are arguments that might be made.

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

Ted Rowlands, you want to say something about the weights?

ROWLANDS: Yeah. Investigators believe that Scott made these weights on a trailer in the warehouse and that he made five separate weights, and as Jim said there's only one weight left, the one that was found in his boat. The defense and family sources say that indeed he only made one weight, and that he was shuffling it around as it dried, and the problem, after the hearing today, the evidence which was put into evidence was opened up to the media and we were able to look at them.

The only evidence that they have on this weight theory is a photograph that was taken during the search warrant, and I'm a layman but it does appear as though there are not clear circles where you can see five imprints. It's more a mess of cement with -- if you really look at it, yeah, you could see the imprints, but I think, it would be a tough sell for the prosecution to really rely on this as a major, major part of their case.

KING: Jim Hammer, want to comment?

HAMMER: Yeah, it does sound ambiguous, Larry, but again, why is somebody who has the wherewithal to buy a boat and to hide it from his family, why doesn't he go out and buy, buy weights? Apparently, he lied about where he got the cement, saying it was for the pool, and the pool people said that's a bunch of BS. So you've got to wonder, why is this guy making a homemade weight factory? It wasn't for Christmas presents.

KING: Chris Pixley, is this going to be a long trial?

PIXLEY: Oh, this will most definitely be a long trial if there's going to be a fight over forensic evidence and a discussion of the condition of the bodies, what age gestationally baby Connor could have been. And remember, it's still a case where there's no witnesses, no murder weapon, no cause of death.

And, as a result, it will be important for the prosecution to try to link up all of the disparate pieces of evidence that they have presented at this probable cause preliminary hearing. They haven't done it so far and we saw that it took them 12 days just to put it all out there.

KING: How important, Johnnie, will Wecht and Lee be, the two...

COCHRAN: I think that they'll be very important. I think that Brian Peterson (ph), remember, could not tell us, could not say whether or not -- or could not say the child was not born alive, and that could be very important. And who knows what -- when Cyril Wecht takes a look at this what he comes up with, and Henry Lee, of course, is probably the greatest criminalist in the world. And I don't know what his testimony might be. So there will be a defense in this matter, which will prolong the matter. And you know, the question is, is whether or not the people can prove their case beyond a reasonable doubt to all moral certainties. Not enough just to speculate. And you know, I'm not sure. We'll have to take a look and see.

KING: Nancy, how do you feel about the reasonable doubt question?

GRACE: I feel that if anything saves Scott Peterson's skin, it will be Henry Lee and the fleet of experts the defense hires to attack the scientific evidence. They might as well give it up on the circumstantial evidence. I find it overwhelming. I agree with Jim Hammer.

Another thing that came out in court, quickly, Larry, is that Scott Peterson researched lakes and reservoirs and Berkeley Bay on his computer soon after one of his many love chats with Amber Frey. He then went out and bought the boat, and on his maiden voyage, coincidentally, was the day Laci went missing. And from what I see in the facts that came out in preliminary, the police said there were five distinctly clear patches, clear patches interspersed with cement powder. Five weights.

KING: Thank you all very much. We'll see you all again on December 3, arraignment day.

Ted Rowlands, Nancy Grace, Chris Pixley, Johnnie Cochran, Jim Hammer, and we thank Dr. Ludwig and Gloria Allred, as well. And I'll come back with our great guest coming for you tomorrow night. I'll tell you all about that right after this.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

KING: Quite a night! Tomorrow night, Regis Philbin. You don't have to say his last name. Regis, tomorrow night. Who else could I be talking about? On LARRY KING LIVE. Right now, all I've got to do is say Aaron, who else am I talking about? Who else? 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

Stand Trial>

Aired November 18, 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: Police state a surprise raid on Michael Jackson's home at Neverland Ranch while he's away. They say it's part of an ongoing criminal investigation. One source with knowledge of the probe says it does have to do with an allegation of child molestation. So does (ph) Jackson family attorney Brian Oxman -- he joins us tonight -- and the reporter covering the story from the get-go, Court TV's Diane Dimond. She was on the scene at Neverland today. Also with us, Jann Carl, correspondent with "Entertainment Tonight," Court TV's Nancy Grace, the former prosecutor, and the renowned defense attorney Johnnie Cochran, who represented Michael Jackson in connection with the '93 child molestation lawsuit.
And then later: Scott Peterson will stand trial on double murder charges. But before his preliminary hearing ends, more details emerge of his relationship with Amber Frey. We'll have the latest on that story, the Michael Jackson investigation all next on LARRY KING LIVE.

Before we talk to any of our guests, let's get an update from Frank Buckley, on the scene at the Neverland Ranch. Frank, what's the latest?

FRANK BUCKLEY, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Well, Larry, investigators are still here at Neverland Ranch. They've been here since about 8:30 this morning. A spokesman for the sheriff's department here in Santa Barbara County says that some 60 to 70 investigators from the sheriff's department and the district attorney's office have been here throughout the day, and they continue to do whatever it is they're doing. We haven't been able to see what, if anything, they've removed, but we know that investigators are still here on the scene.

KING: And we do know it definitely is in connection with a child molestation matter?

BUCKLEY: Well, that's what one source who is familiar with this investigation has told me. He said that it is having to do with an allegation of the sexual molestation of a child. But again, still just an investigation, at this point. No charges, obviously, have been brought.

KING: That's a very big area, right, to cover?

BUCKLEY: It is. The ranch is so big, in fact, Larry, that where we are, which is at the gatehouse, you can't even see over the hill, where the residence is. So this is a great deal of area to cover.

KING: Thanks very much, Frank Buckley, on the scene at Neverland.

Here's a statement released late today through Michael Jackson's spokesman, Stuart Backerman. I just spoke to Stuart right before we went on the air. And here's what they have to say. "We cannot comment on law enforcement's investigation because we don't know yet what it's about. We can comment on the malignant horde of media hounds claiming to speak for Michael on this and many other issues. A rogues' gallery of hucksters and self-styled inside sources have dominated the airwaves since reports of a search at Neverland broke, speculating, guessing, fabricating information about an investigation they couldn't possibly know about. Michael himself said, quote, `I've seen lawyers who do not represent me and spokespeople who do not know me speaking for me. These characters always seem to surface with a dreadful allegation just as another project, an album, a video is being released.' Michael, will, as always" -- again, the statement continues -- "fully cooperate with authorities in any investigation, even as it's conducted yet again when he is not at home."

What do you make of this, Johnnie Cochran?

JOHNNIE COCHRAN, JACKSON'S ATTORNEY IN '93 MOLESTATION SUIT: Well, it sounds like dej vu to me, from that standpoint. I don't know very much about this at all, Larry. It's unfortunate, clearly, and we'll have to see how it plays out. I mean, I think that Tom Sneddon was involved in the investigation back in 1993. So...

KING: Tom is who?

COCHRAN: It's Tom Sneddon is the district attorney there in Santa Barbara County, and I understand he was there -- one of the people there today. So probably hear more from him in the near future. I don't know what the allegations are or where this is going. I do know that Michael is -- maintains his innocence. I know that. And that's all I know, at this point.

KING: Brian, you're the Jackson family attorney. Does that include Michael?

BRIAN OXMAN, JACKSON FAMILY ATTORNEY: We've represented most of the family in their divorce cases, and we've represented them for 14 years. And I have always been a defender of Michael, never wanted to speak for him because he speaks for himself. And what I want to do is let Michael be able to answer any of these allegations that he has made. But I can tell you the entire family is very upset about the whole thing, and they see this...

KING: Upset at Michael or upset about the coverage, as the statement says?

OXMAN: The statement. The statement is -- the allegation, I think, is the correct way to look at this. They are just upset. It's dej vu, as Johnnie says. But more important, it's here we go again. Michael just seems to be a sitting target for anyone who wants to take a potshot at him, and this appears to be another one of those cases. And it causes a worldwide hysteria.

KING: Diane Dimond, when she joins us, will be by phone. She's covering a story that she may tell us about, connected with this.

Nancy Grace, what would they be looking for at the house in connection with child molestation evidence?

NANCY GRACE, COURT TV: Good question, Larry, because, of course, unless there is a child victim there to tell them some type of evidence, some type of verbal statement, we're wondering what could be found at the house? But I've got a clue. Larry, we know that there are about 70 members of law enforcement there. We know that a member from the district attorney's office is there, which is, in my mind, very significant. This is something that is a joint effort by police and the DA's office. They would be responsible for a preliminary hearing or a grand jury...

KING: So what would...

GRACE: ... proceeding.

KING: So what might they...

GRACE: That means that...

KING: ... be looking for?

GRACE: That means to me it's much more serious, if a DA is in. Also, a locksmith was brought in earlier today, reported by Diane Dimond. We have heard reports that there are lockboxes there, possibly photos, who knows, something that is significant to the alleged complaint of a 12-year-old boy.

And Larry, I just heard Brian Oxman state that Michael Jackson's there for anybody to take potshots at, but I would like to point out that not long ago, we were discussing this affidavit of a 13-year-old boy. Sound similar? Yes. This boy -- I will only call him J. Chandler (ph) -- signed an affidavit, a sworn affidavit, describing sexual contact when he -- starting around the age of 5 to 7 with Michael Jackson. This resulted in a multi-million-dollar settlement.

Now, also in my experience as a felony prosecutor, that's one type of offender that can't help but repeat...

KING: All right...

GRACE: ... offend, and that's a child molester.

KING: Is that -- is that the case you settled, Johnnie?

COCHRAN: Yes, I think she's probably referring to that case, and that case was resolved and, you know, the record was pretty clear about it. You know, there's a -- it's very complex. It's not as easy as Nancy makes it for anybody involved in it to talk about that. It was resolved to the satisfaction of all parties.

KING: But you can't talk about that, right?

COCHRAN: It's very -- it's very limited, what you can say about that.

KING: Of course, the obvious thinking of the public is, if someone didn't do anything, why settle for a penny?

COCHRAN: Well, I think that it had -- you just look back at what happened, and the record was that both sides maintained that they brought -- the young person's side and his lawyer, Larry, felt and maintained they brought their case in good faith. The defense said they'd making that in good faith. And the matter was resolved and it never went further. There was never any criminal charges.

KING: But the public thinks?

COCHRAN: Yes. Perhaps so. But you know, at any rate, Michael Jackson has always been a target by many -- for many. You know, one of the things that I think that Brian was thinking about today is that, isn't it ironic, though, these charges are brought on the day of the release of his latest album. And these things always seem to happen.

KING: Do you see a connection, Jann Carl?

JANN CARL, "ENTERTAINMENT TONIGHT": You know, I don't know if I can say there's a connection that the DA's office -- or that they -- you know...

KING: Out to disturb an album, do you...

(CROSSTALK)

CARL: Yes. I mean, this is something...

COCHRAN: ... it's always coincidental.

CARL: You know, I think it's if an ongoing investigation, and according to some reports, it's been going on for three months, you know, you have to look at when did they ask the judge for the search warrant? When did the judge actually come forward and give them the search warrant? And if they asked for the search warrant a week ago or two days ago and they finally got it late last night or early this morning, then, no, I would say it doesn't have anything to do with the release of an album.

KING: What must they show to get a warrant, Brian?

OXMAN: There has to be some kind of showing of probable cause. And what we've seen with, like, the Kobe Bryant case is an accuser who makes the allegation, can establish the probable cause merely by the accusation itself. But it's so interesting. There are 60 officers, vans, trucks -- this is an invasion more than it is anything else. I've handled child molestation cases for 27 years, and I've never seen 60 officers approach anybody's house in this manner. Something is amiss...

GRACE: That's because this is...

COCHRAN: ... in the Santa Barbara's office...

GRACE: ... a fortress, Brian! This isn't a regular...

OXMAN: Oh, I -- oh, I've had...

GRACE: ... one-bedroom apartment! This is a fortress...

COCHRAN: I've seen fortresses...

GRACE: ... the police are searching!

OXMAN: ... I've seen houses where they have to batter the door down, and they don't bring 60 officers. This is incredible.

GRACE: You know, Brian, I only have one thing to say. This affidavit says, "Michael Jackson and I in bed together," "He had me twist his nipples"...

OXMAN: You are reading the Jordie Chandler affidavit, which is 10 years old and...

GRACE: "He told me nothing was wrong with it."

OXMAN: The affidavit...

KING: That case is settled.

OXMAN: ... is just long history. It's digging up old history. And here's the point of the problem. Michael settled that case and, it appears that what the accusation here is, it's mirroring the 10- year-old accusation. It's a deja vu all over again, and I'm wondering about that.

KING: But that doesn't mean it isn't true, Brian.

OXMAN: Correct, Larry. We don't know. We don't know who the accuser is and we...

KING: Well, at this point, no one knows anything.

OXMAN: We just don't know.

KING: Let me get a break and come back with more. Diane Dimond will be joining us by phone. Later, we'll discuss in the program -- some other panelists will join us -- the wind-up of the Peterson hearing. You're watching LARRY KING LIVE. Don't go away.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

CHRIS PAPPAS, SANTA BARBARA SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT: We have investigators. We have additional personnel on scene to handle forensics considerations and things of that nature. The district attorney's office has investigators on scene, as well. And that makes up the bulk of that contingent, most of those being from the Santa Barbara County sheriff's department.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

KING: By the way, we'll be taking some calls on this from you, the viewers. And a news conference is scheduled by Santa Barbara authorities for tomorrow morning at 11:00 AM Pacific time.

You were saying something, Jann?

CARL: The last time when this occurred, 10 years ago, I know that there was -- Johnnie we were talking about it -- there was a body search. I mean, it was part of the search warrant to search the body of Michael Jackson. And he talked about being...

KING: You mean the kid was able to identify things...

CARL: Well, that was the implication.

KING: Is that true, Johnnie?

COCHRAN: Well, again, without going into details regarding the case per se...

KING: No charges were ever filed, right?

COCHRAN: No charges were ever filed. There was a humiliating search warrant for Michael's body. That was one of the...

(CROSSTALK)

KING: And did they follow through on that?

COCHRAN: Oh, yes. They did. And that was a -- it was a court order.

CARL: They photographed it.

COCHRAN: It was a court order.

(CROSSTALK)

COCHRAN: It was one of the most difficult days I ever spent as a lawyer.

KING: Nancy, are you hooking one with the other because -- just because that's the only basis you have to go on, the similarity of a matter 10 years ago?

GRACE: Larry, I am basing this on over a decade of handling startlingly similar cases. Larry...

KING: Yes, but no one was convicted in this.

GRACE: Yes, I know that, Larry. There was a multi-million- dollar settlement in order to keep it out of court. And when Johnnie's referring to a full body search -- it was apparently a photographic session of Michael Jackson's body to corroborate, in my mind, what the alleged child victim -- how he described Michael Jackson without his clothes on.

Now, Larry, you know, of course, a defense attorney can paint that as perfectly innocent. In my mind, I don't think that's innocent. I don't think that's appropriate. In fact, that is a felony. You asked me earlier, what do I think police are looking for? Let me just be blunt. In my mind, they are looking for photographs, they are looking for videos, they are looking for letters, communications between Jackson and this young accuser, something to corroborate what this young boy, if he exists, has said -- the description of the inside of the home, the bedroom, whatever, something to corroborate his story.

KING: Yes, back it up. Is this a case, Brian, of sort of like it looks like a duck and it acts like a duck, it could be a duck?

OXMAN: It is a case of excitement and hysteria because here we have the same accusations that we had 10 years ago. It's like playing the play-offs all over again. There are more than...

KING: But Nancy is right in getting excited about something like that. I mean, angry excited.

OXMAN: People get excited. Nancy is excited. I understand that.

GRACE: No, I'm not excited! I'm discouraged...

OXMAN: You sure look excited to me, Nancy.

GRACE: ... with the justice system -- I'm disturbed that the justice system chose not to go forward with an investigation. He had an excellent attorney, I can vouch for that, with Johnnie Cochran. And now, apparently -- and I don't know all the facts yet, nobody does. But apparently, there's yet another young alleged victim out there. And if the justice system had done what it should have done 10 years ago, there wouldn't be another alleged victim!

OXMAN: I think the justice system did do what it should have done 10 years ago, and what we're finding here now is that it happened once, a shakedown took place once, and apparently, it might be the same accusation again. We don't know. We can't prejudge this. We don't know anything about the accuser. We don't know what it's all about. And when we find out, we'll make a reasoned judgment about it.

KING: How serious was that, years ago, Johnnie? I mean, by -- the allegation...

COCHRAN: I think it was very serious. It was a very serious, very serious case

KING: Were they close to indicting?

COCHRAN: You know, it's hard to say. I mean, it was -- there were both offices. There was Gil Garcetti in Los Angeles and Mr. Sneddon, I think, in Santa Barbara. It was a -- I took it very seriously. And at the end of the day, when the matter was resolved, you know, I felt it was the appropriate resolution for all parties involved.

KING: Are there times a client will resolve something financially. even though he didn't do the alleged act?

COCHRAN: I think there are.

KING: And what would be those times?

COCHRAN: I think that -- I think you look at a number of factors -- without speaking about that particular case, which I'm really precluded from doing. I think if you felt that your name was going to be drug through the mud and it would do great damage to your career, it would last a long period of time, one might make that decision.

KING: In other words, hypothetically, Kobe Bryant might have done nothing wrong but might settle this just to let it go away?

COCHRAN: To not have to have all this exposed and lose all his corporate...

(CROSSTALK)

CARL: ... charge that severe, even a charge as child molestation? I mean, that seems to be a category all in itself to me, that, yes, your name is going to be drug through the mud, but you've got an accusation -- and maybe Brian can answer this, too -- that's so severe that most of us consider one of the worst crimes.

KING: In other words, Brian, I would say that if that was -- if I was accused of that, the natural thing to say, I would never settle if I didn't do it.

OXMAN: Well, sometimes it's not your choice.

KING: If I did do it, I would settle.

OXMAN: I have brought child molestation cases against defendants, and I always include a negligence allegation in that because that means that the homeowners' insurance policy takes over and a homeowners' insurance policy...

KING: Really?

OXMAN: ... can settle right out from under the defendant. The defendant can scream, I will not settle that case, and they have no choice because the insurance company settles it.

KING: Nancy, how do you respond to that? What if the insurance company says, We're going to settle this.

GRACE: You know what, Larry? You know, how I respond to that? This is not, in my mind, a matter of money or insurance companies and settlements and civil suits! This is about, in my mind, a young boy, in this case, an alleged 12-year-old boy! You say we don't know what the facts are? You're right. But I do know this. Something a 12- year-old boy said sent 70 people out to Neverland...

KING: By the way...

GRACE: ... on an exhaustive search...

KING: But Nancy, let's...

GRACE: ... and a judge agreed signing a search warrant!

KING: Let's be fair. A 12-year-old boy could also fantasize, and he could imagine.

GRACE: Sure, Larry. It could happen.

KING: So the mistake we make on this program frequently is we jump to conclusions.

GRACE: Larry, I'm not...

KING: We make a leap.

GRACE: ... jumping to a conclusion. I know...

(CROSSTALK)

KING: In other words, you have made no conclusion yet? You don't believe this boy, is what you're saying. You believe this boy or don't believe him?

GRACE: I haven't made any conclusion, but I know what I see. I know that we have been told by sources that have openly stated this is the result of something alleged by a 12-year-old boy.

KING: OK, but...

GRACE: I think we can accept that as true.

KING: Could it be possible...

GRACE: And because of that...

KING: ... that a 12-year-old boy could fantasize? Is that possible?

GRACE: Well, of course, it's possible. But don't you...

KING: So why don't we say two things are -- two things are possible. He might have harmed him, the kid might be lying. Is that true?

GRACE: Absolutely true.

KING: So why are we so mad?

GRACE: Larry...

KING: I don't understand it. We don't know enough.

GRACE: I find it very difficult to believe that an entire fleet of police officers and the district attorney's office and an impartial magistrate, a judge, would go to this extent based on a 12-year-old's boy fantasy, OK?

KING: So what more could they have, then, other than...

GRACE: If you want to believe that, fine. I don't believe it.

KING: ... a statement?

GRACE: They could have physical evidence. They could have evidence on this boy's body.

KING: But we don't know.

GRACE: Well, of course, we don't know! We won't know until we get the return on the search warrant!

KING: So how can you be angry at Michael yet, if you don't know?

GRACE: A, I'm not angry!

KING: You're not angry?

GRACE: B, I'm disappointed. I'm disappointed that...

KING: Oh, OK.

GRACE: ... this has been allowed...

KING: I'm sorry. I was -- I apologize, Nancy.

GRACE: ... to continue, and that our justice system apparently, from outside observances, allowed a molestation to slip through its fingers.

KING: All right. I was reading you as angry. I apologize. I didn't know that you were concerned.

We'll take a break and -- I read you as angry. I'm totally wrong. We'll be right back. Don't go away.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP - DECEMBER 22, 1994)

MICHAEL JACKSON: There have been many disgusting statements made recently concerning allegations of improper conduct on my part. These statements about me are totally false. As I have maintained from the very beginning, I am hoping for a speedy end to this horrifying, horrifying experience to which I have been subjected.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

KING: Let's take some calls. We go to Norfolk, Virginia. Hello.

CALLER: Yes. I have been wondering, has anyone considered doing DNA testing on Michael Jackson to confirm that these children are his biological children? They do not look anything like him, and I wonder if he has fathered them.

KING: Why would -- who would do the testing, and for what purpose?

CALLER: Well, I just wonder if anybody has wanted to see if he has bought these children, if they are, in fact...

KING: Brian, do you want to comment?

OXMAN: I can tell you that they are Michael's children. He's had the first two, who were Prince, and then he had Paris with Debbie Rowe. They are his kids. And the third child, who is Michael, Jr., Prince Michael, Jr., is his biological child had with the surrogate. There's no allegations concerning these children. They are absolutely fantastic, beautiful kids, and there's not any problem with them by way of a DNA test or anything that would be required with a DNA test..

KING: Kirksville, Missouri. Hello.

CALLER: Yes. I have a question for the panel.

KING: Sure.

CALLER: In a case like Scott Peterson's or Michael's, does the defense attorneys know the truth?

KING: Johnnie?

(CROSSTALK)

COCHRAN: That's a good question. I think that -- who knows the truth? I mean, from a standpoint -- your client says they're innocent. And you go in and investigate the facts. And you -- you know, from a standpoint, you present what the facts are. You can't change the facts. They are what they are, and you just deal with it. Now, if a client says they're guilty, Larry, that's when you dispose of the case. You plead them guilty. You make -- you work -- you enter them into a plea bargain.

KING: You can't let your client lie.

COCHRAN: No, you don't let them lie at all. Now, if the client says, I'm guilty, and...

CARL: But I want you to get me off.

COCHRAN: ... you try to work the best deal you can. But if he's says, I'm guilty and I want to -- you can't let them testify... (CROSSTALK)

KING: Nancy, what if 10 years ago, the prosecutor didn't have a case because the kid dropped the charge?

GRACE: Well, you know, Larry, when a case becomes a criminal matter, the victim cannot drop the charge. At that point, the prosecution represents the people, the state, justice, society. And at that point -- and I have had victims want to drop charges and not testify, but it's not just about that victim, although, in my mind, they are paramount. It is about future innocent victims, and therefore, my practice was to subpoena the victims and have them come to court anyway.

KING: What if the father or mother of the victim said to you, I'm the mother. The victim is 12. I will not let him or her testify. Do you want to put them in jail, put them in jail.

GRACE: You know, Larry, you got me between a rock and a hard spot because I would not want to harm -- emotionally harm the victim or the victim's family. But on the other hand, when you don't seek justice and you don't chase the truth, no matter it tastes going down, you have a repeat offense, like what I believe we may be seeing right now.

KING: Rockford, Illinois. Hello.

CALLER: Good evening. This question is for Nancy.

KING: Yes.

CALLER: Could it be that some parent has some trumped-up idea that they're going to bleed Michael for some money and extort money from Michael by lying about a molestation that really didn't happen?

KING: Isn't that a possibility?

GRACE: You are so correct. And Brian was correct earlier. When somebody's got a lot of money and the rest of the world knows about it, they're sitting targets for scams. But it's hard for me to believe, frankly -- to the caller -- that the district attorney, probably several assistant district attorneys, lawyers, an impartial judge and 70 people from law enforcement would buy into a scam without checking it out first.

KING: Jann, this is how big a story?

CARL: This is huge. This is about as...

KING: Now, CBS has a show what, scheduled when?

CARL: CBS has a one-hour special with Michael Jackson scheduled for November 26. We contacted -- "Entertainment Tonight" contacted CBS and asked, you know, if there are any thoughts about the special, what they may do with it. Today they said they're waiting to hear more information, which... KING: He's singing in the special?

CARL: He is. And in fact, he was -- he's in Vegas right now, which is why he wasn't home when the police arrived. He's there -- he's working on a music video for the special that -- and what we heard was that Michael actually didn't want to go through with the special at this time, but contractually, our sources tell us, that he had to. So he's been down there trying to play catch-up, get the music video completed. When CBS says they're going to wait to hear more, to me that says...

KING: They're waiting.

CARL: ... there's a possibility...

KING: They may not.

CARL: ... they may or may not air this special.

KING: Santa Barbara. Hello.

CALLER: Hello.

KING: Hi.

CALLER: Hi. This question is for Johnnie. Johnnie, do you think it's any coincidence that the -- that it was served on the day the album was released?

COCHRAN: No, I don't think it's -- I don't think it's -- I think it's probably more than coincidence. I think it was planned. I think you can get a warrant at any time. If it's an ongoing investigation, they could have picked it any time. I think the fact that the -- I think it's a big news day. His album comes out by Epic Records and this happens the same day...

CARL: But what would be the motive?

KING: Why would the prosecutor...

(CROSSTALK)

KING: What's the purpose?

COCHRAN: If you look back at Michael's history, you've seen these things before. Whenever he's had any particular big (UNINTELLIGIBLE), there's always some countervailing thing. You know, he has been really, really a target throughout his career, pretty much over this last decade. Anything he does is blown out of proportion. You know, if he...

KING: So the prosecutor...

GRACE: Oh, Johnnie! Johnnie...

(CROSSTALK) KING: ... the record's coming out, I'm going to file today?

COCHRAN: No. I don't think he said -- I don't think he said that. I think that...

GRACE: But Johnnie, he's not a target...

COCHRAN: I think that -- I think it's not just a coincidence. Now, when I say...

GRACE: Only reason he's a target is because...

COCHRAN: Nancy...

GRACE: ... he wears a big bullseye! He goes on national TV...

COCHRAN: Well, Nancy, I don't know that he...

GRACE: ... and says, yes, I sleep with little boys in my bed.

COCHRAN: I know he wears a big...

GRACE: Of course!

COCHRAN: He did say that on national -- but he said also...

GRACE: Yes, he did.

COCHRAN: ... he would never harm a child. He said he loved children. He would never harm a child. I mean, he said it was all innocent, very innocent. Now...

GRACE: It's all in your definition of love.

COCHRAN: ... as his lawyer -- we'd all advise him, Don't ever put yourself in that position. That's who Michael Jackson is. He's a very, very naive person in many respects, and there's no question about that. So I think that, yes, he does wear a bullseye on him, and so...

CARL: Johnnie, I'd like to know, as an attorney, at some point, have you all said, Don't sleep in bed with little boys anymore, as his attorney?

KING: Has somebody said that?

CARL: Has somebody...

COCHRAN: Well, I think it's not appropriate for us to say what we've said to him. But obviously, you could probably surmise that many of us...

(CROSSTALK)

OXMAN: I think you can look at how Michael travels. He always travels with an entourage of adults. And people say, Why are all these people all around you? Very simple, Larry. He has these people there to make sure that there are not these kinds of accusations being made against him.

KING: Let me get a break, and then we'll have Diane Dimond with us on the phone. Don't go away. You're watching LARRY KING LIVE. Stay there.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

KING: Let's reintroduce our panel. Here in Los Angeles, Brian Oxman, the Jackson family attorney. Jann Carl, the correspondent for "Entertainment Tonight." In New York is Nancy Grace, anchor of Court TV and the former prosecutor. Also in Los Angeles, Johnnie Cochran, who once represented Michael Jackson in a previous matter related somewhat to the current investigation and the similarity factor.

And joining us on the phone is one of the best journalists in the business on covering stuff, Diane Dimond, Court TV anchor and contributor to "Hollywood at Large." She's been covering the Jackson story since sexual abuse allegation case back in '93. What can you tell us of news late, Diane?

DIANE DIMOND, COURT TV: Well, Larry, first of all, I'm sorry I can't be on camera here with you today, but I'm still in Santa Barbara, I am still working this story as best I can.

There is new and breaking information that will come out tomorrow, and that'll come from the district attorney himself and the local sheriff. They're going to have a news conference about 11:00 a.m., but I have learned something very important and I will pass it on to you, in that there was not just a search warrant out there today at Neverland. There was also an arrest warrant. And had Michael Jackson been there, they would have put handcuffs on him and taken him to jail.

KING: Does this mean, Diane, they're going to go to Vegas and arrest him?

DIMOND: Well, I'm trying to determine that. And I get a coy answer from all of my law enforcement sources here. You have a warrant like this, it's good in all 50 states. If he's in Vegas, are you pursuing this, I've asked. And they with a smile on their face say, you can imagine that we are pursuing it. That's all they'll answer.

KING: Did you learn what he's being arrested for?

DIMOND: The charges will be simple. Penal code 288, child molesting.

KING: What do you make of this, Diane, as a reporter?

DIMOND: Well, Larry, as you said, I've been covering this since 1993, '94. You know, once you bite into a story like this, you always stay involved, whether you're covering it on a day-to-day basis or not. It was tough at times. He sued me for $100 million, for goodness' sake. Johnnie Cochran can tell you about that, although the suit was filed by a different attorney.

COCHRAN: It wasn't me.

DIMOND: We won that case, and it's been a long road.

Do I know that he's guilty? No, I don't know he's guilty, but I do know that from what I'm hearing, this case is going to go to trial. There is nobody that wants a monetary settlement here. They want justice.

KING: Was an arrest warrant issued years ago, Johnnie Cochran?

COCHRAN: No. There was not. In fact, when I got involved in the case, we had offered -- Michael was in Europe as I recall -- and he came back, and I told the prosecutors if they wanted him, I would bring him down, because he maintained his innocence and he would come into court, he would come in and (UNINTELLIGIBLE) himself. That never happened in that case. This is perhaps different.

KING: Nancy, what do you make of this report by Diane, that they had an arrest warrant, as well?

GRACE: I think her report is accurate and I think that because simply I do not normally see people from -- representatives from the DA's office going on a regular search unless there's a lot to it.

I am not surprised. I think that, Larry, we are who we are. You can't change your nature. And if Michael Jackson agreed to a multimillion dollar settlement 10 years ago in a similar allegation, I would be willing to bet the behavior not only didn't stop, Larry, but couldn't stop. It is his nature.

KING: OK, Brian. What do you make of an arrest warrant?

OXMAN: Obviously, an arrest warrant causes a serious concern, and we're very disturbed that there would be an arrest warrant out there. Michael is not someone who is going to flee the scene. Michael is not somebody who's going to never be heard of again. As you see with celebrities, they come in voluntarily, almost inevitably. So for there to be no communication between the district attorney's office and Michael and his representatives...

DIMOND: That's not true, Larry. No. That's not true. There have been at least two attorneys for Michael Jackson talking to law enforcement here. In fact, Steve Cochran, I don't think he's any relation to Johnnie, but Steve Cochran was down at Neverland today.

OXMAN: He's a good friend, and we know him and he's excellent.

KING: So you're saying the prosecutor has informed Jackson's representatives of the arrest warrant?

DIMOND: Not only that, but he was told that, you know, there's plenty of room for cooperation here. We're not here to drag anybody's name in the mud. If you want to bring him in, bring him in.

OXMAN: I am certain there will be cooperation, and what I'm criticizing here is that...

DIMOND: Really?

OXMAN: ... there's no prior communication. This is an investigation...

KING: You mean, like yesterday?

OXMAN: Correct. Yesterday or the day before. And Diane has said that this has been ongoing for two months. So, this is a surprise to all the attorneys, and Michael is not someone...

DIMOND: Brian, Brian, wait a minute. You want the law enforcement people here to telegraph what they are going to do in a criminal investigation? Come on.

OXMAN: I think in a molestation case of this nature, I think absolutely so. Because it's a past incident.

DIMOND: Oh, if there was a man down the street with three children and he was molesting the children, they certainly wouldn't call his attorney and say, oh, by the way, we're coming in tomorrow.

OXMAN: You're talking about an ongoing problem. This apparently is something which happened months and months ago.

KING: Your source is who, Diane? People in law enforcement?

DIMOND: Very high, high, high.

KING: And you're saying they have an arrest warrant? Is it your probability then they're going to arrest him in Vegas unless he surrenders?

DIMOND: Well, again, I can't get a straight answer on that, but it wouldn't surprise me, Larry.

KING: What do you expect, Jann? An arrest in Vegas? You got an arrest warrant, you've got to serve it, don't you?

CARL: I would think so. My guess would be that he would turn himself in, according to past behavior.

KING: Johnnie, what would you recommend?

COCHRAN: Well, I would recommend that some accommodation be made that he come forward. I believe he's going to fight these charges, and I expect he's going to come in and say get, you know, get it done and get it going.

KING: If he called you to come in again, would you?

COCHRAN: No, I wouldn't, because -- it's not because of this case, though. When I finished the P. Diddy, Puffy Combs case in New York, I said no more criminal cases for me. And I've remained true to that.

KING: Diane, we thank you very much for this exclusive. You are staying right on top of it again. You've got it from a top police source. They won't tell you if they're going to serve it in Vegas. Maybe they'll make an accommodation. Would you expect that, Diane, to let him come back and surrender?

DIMOND: Oh, I think they absolutely would, they would open the door wide for him to step right through it. I don't, however, think they're anticipating that's going to happen, Larry.

KING: Well, thank you all very much.

DIMOND: Let me tell you too...

KING: Yes, go ahead.

DIMOND: I'm still working this story out here, and tomorrow on Court TV, 9:00, both coasts, 9:00 a.m., big exclusive interview. Tune in.

KING: Thank you, Diane. Thank you, Jann, as always.

CARL: Absolutely.

KING: And thank you, Brian.

CARL: "Entertainment Tonight," Marcia Clark, Johnnie's old buddy.

KING: You've got her on.

CARL: We have Marcia Clark on "Entertainment Tonight."

KING: Johnnie Cochran and Nancy Grace will remain, and we'll be joined by Ted Rowlands and Chris Pixley and Jim Hammer, the assistant D.A. in San Francisco, the head of the homicide unit, and we'll get up to date on the final day of hearing, the preliminary hearing in the Scott Peterson matter. As we go to break, the now famous scene of Jackson and the child. Don't go away.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

KING: Joining us now, our regular Peterson panel. Ted Rowlands of KTVU. Staying with us in New York, Nancy Grace of Court TV. In Atlanta, defense attorney Chris Pixley. In Los Angeles, Johnnie Cochran. The defense attorney whose book "A Lawyer's Life" a terrific read is now out in paperback. And in San Francisco, Jim Hammer assistant district attorney San Francisco head of the homicide unit. Dr. Robi Ludwig will join us a little later in this segment for a quick comment or two.

What happened today, Ted? TED ROWLANDS, KTVU: Well, the judge after hearing the evidence said that there was enough to hold Mr. Peterson over for trial, and he'll face charges for murder of his wife and unborn son, Connor. He will be officially arraigned December 3rd here in Modesto. It was a half a day of testimony. We heard from a police detective and a district attorney investigator. The D.A. Investigator basically chronicled some calls between Scott and Amber Frey saying they talked to each other 241 times in a three-month period they were investigating.

And then the detective talked about the arrest, saying they found Scott Peterson with $15,000 in cash and camping gear and clothing, his brother's driver's license and his driver's license, it later came out. Geragos, on cross, able to establish the reason he had his brother's driver's license was for a discount meeting family members. It was a short day. That was about it. It only went to about 11:00. But the bottom line, he will be standing -- is being held on the charges for murder.

KING: Now, Chris Pixley, on December 3rd, all of us that watch "Law and Order," will he plead?

CHRIS PIXLEY, DEFENSE ATTORNEY: He will plead on December 3rd. We'll get the arraignment on that date and then from that point forward, there are going to be a couple of important motions that will be hearing. One for the change of venue, which is something we talked about before for months. It's also important as of December 3rd, if he decides to not waste time, the trial will have to go forward within 60 days assuming that these motions can be handled. If he does waive time, then it will be a matter of the attorneys getting together with -- and telling the judge what their calenders look like and trying to give us an idea as to when it may go to trial.

KING: Do you expect, Johnnie Cochran, they'd ask for a quick trial?

COCHRAN: They may be -- Geragos has said that he wants to get it over with. He's going to be in custody. Wants to get it over with. And sometimes redowns to the client's advantage. Geragos probably prepared now. Keep in mind, we have not heard the defense side of this case. So there, may be a real battle here.

KING: Nancy Grace, do you expect a change of venue?

GRACE: Yes, I do but not in the traditional sense. I think what the judge will probably do and it's a matter of money is to bust jurors in from a contingent or neighbors county. Why, it's easier to move 12 people in and put them up in a hotel than moving the courthouse, the staff everybody else to go try the case somewhere else.

KING: Jim Hammer, is this going to be a tough on prosecutorially?

JIM HAMMER, ASST. DIST. ATTORNEY, SAN FRANCISCO: Well, I thought so until yesterday, Larry. But the evidence yesterday about this essentially a factory where seems to be producing these weights, four or five of which are missing I think is an absolute bomb shell. Apparently there's concrete spread out at these empty spots. I think with that type of evidence it's a good thing for Johnnie he's in retirement, because I think it's a tough case.

KING: Do you agree with that, Nancy?

GRACE: I do. That's been overlooked by the media. The police clearly stated in court they saw where five cement blocks had been made. Several of them are missing. He only went fishing one day so where are the cement weights? They were made to go in his boat. Also, and Chris and I have thought about this on many occasions, the number of phone calls are a huge number including phone calls on Christmas Eve, the night he was supposed to be out looking for Laci and Christmas Day. Also significant are these transcripts, Larry, transcripts of the phone calls that Peterson and Frey made and in them, Frey goes -- she hammers him to explain what happened. And his excuse is, oh, I can't tell you that because I want to protect you from the media. I really want to explain but I can't. It's such bs.

KING: Johnnie, (UNINTELLIGIBLE) against it?

COCHRAN: Well, you know, it's not a slam dunk. And you have not heard from Geragos. But I mean, there are some things, as Jim points out, the cement blocks are not a good thing. The -- not so many the number of calls but what's said during those calls. The statements about my wife being lost on December 9th that's not very helpful

KING: Dr. Ludwig -- Dr. Robi Ludwig, (UNINTELLIGIBLE) joins us for a few minutes.

Do you think the amount is damaging?

DR. ROBI LUDWIG, PSYD. COURT TV COMMENTATOR: Yes. Because clearly he was lying to another woman. So, you know, you can pretty much think, hey, he was obviously lying to his wife. He was lying to practically everyone around him. This guy is not a honest guy. The question is, is he also a murderous guy in addition to being a dishonest guy, and that we don't know. Again, he is not looking like an upstanding guy. Amber Frey was -- go ahead.

KING: So, if he's a cad, they have to connect the dots though, right?

LUDWIG: Absolutely. Because there are so many men in this country that cheat that don't murder their wives. That clearly is not going to be enough. But the circumstantial evidence is so damaging and, again, it's not clear what the defense is going to say. But it's just not looking really good for this guy. He said he was a widower. He lied to Amber Frey. He lied to Laci. He has a boat. There's are these mysterious cement blocks and what we do know is even the most dangerous, homicidal maniac is not violent all the time. That there are moments when they are in crisis that they are violent. So, you can't even look at the history and say, well, he wasn't violent in the past. That doesn't mean he doesn't have a moment where he did lose it. KING: Thanks, Robi. Always good talking to you.

LUDWIG: Thank you.

KING: And when we come back, we'll have more with the panel and a word from Gloria Allred, the attorney for Amber Frey who never was called. We'll be right, don't go away.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

MARK GERAGOS, SCOTT PETERSON'S ATTORNEY: Obviously, we're gratified at least that we're -- this much closer to trial. And, hopefully, trial vindication for Scott.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: If we can have this trial held here, we want the trial held here. We do not want the trial held, though, if it's not going to be properly done, if the jury pool is so biased that the defendant can't get a fair trial. Because that doesn't work for anybody. That's something that we have to look at to make sure that that can occur.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

KING: Gloria -- we're back with the panel. Gloria Allred, the attorney for Amber Frey, are you surprised that when it all came push to shove, your client was not called?

GLORIA ALLRED, AMBER FREY'S ATTORNEY: Well, I never thought that it was highly likely that the defense was going to call her, Larry, because, I mean, originally, she was thought to be a witness that might be called by the prosecution. And I just, based on my knowledge of Ms. Frey's involvement in this matter, couldn't imagine why the defense would think that that would help in their affirmative defense in the case to call Ms. Frey and ultimately, they decided not to call her.

I think it was a good decision for the prosecution to decide not to call her, simply because they had introduced enough evidence and enough evidence had been admitted in order for the judge to hold Mr. Peterson to answer for trial in the double murder charge, and it was not necessary to put Amber Frey on the witness stand from the prosecution's point of view, so I fully expect that she will be called at the trial, because at the trial, she will not, under the rules of evidence, be able to have her testimony come in through the detective, as some of it did in this preliminary hearing. That is permitted. But at the trial, she will need to testify, and that's what I expect will occur.

KING: When you came into this matter, are you now surprised at the amount of phone calls they had with each other? ALLRED: Well, I do -- I am now aware of the numerous calls that they had and the extent and scope of the relationship, and I think what's most interesting is those calls post, that is, after Laci's disappearance, and so I'm sure that many people will be curious about what was said in all of those calls.

We know that some of it was stated today, just a really bare bones little sliver today, but that was where the detective testified that once again we heard that Amber said that Scott said that he had lost his wife, that this would be the first holidays without her, and also, that he wanted to hold on to Amber. So that may be enough to suggest premeditation, to suggest possible motive. I'm not saying that he did it, but those are arguments that might be made.

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

Ted Rowlands, you want to say something about the weights?

ROWLANDS: Yeah. Investigators believe that Scott made these weights on a trailer in the warehouse and that he made five separate weights, and as Jim said there's only one weight left, the one that was found in his boat. The defense and family sources say that indeed he only made one weight, and that he was shuffling it around as it dried, and the problem, after the hearing today, the evidence which was put into evidence was opened up to the media and we were able to look at them.

The only evidence that they have on this weight theory is a photograph that was taken during the search warrant, and I'm a layman but it does appear as though there are not clear circles where you can see five imprints. It's more a mess of cement with -- if you really look at it, yeah, you could see the imprints, but I think, it would be a tough sell for the prosecution to really rely on this as a major, major part of their case.

KING: Jim Hammer, want to comment?

HAMMER: Yeah, it does sound ambiguous, Larry, but again, why is somebody who has the wherewithal to buy a boat and to hide it from his family, why doesn't he go out and buy, buy weights? Apparently, he lied about where he got the cement, saying it was for the pool, and the pool people said that's a bunch of BS. So you've got to wonder, why is this guy making a homemade weight factory? It wasn't for Christmas presents.

KING: Chris Pixley, is this going to be a long trial?

PIXLEY: Oh, this will most definitely be a long trial if there's going to be a fight over forensic evidence and a discussion of the condition of the bodies, what age gestationally baby Connor could have been. And remember, it's still a case where there's no witnesses, no murder weapon, no cause of death.

And, as a result, it will be important for the prosecution to try to link up all of the disparate pieces of evidence that they have presented at this probable cause preliminary hearing. They haven't done it so far and we saw that it took them 12 days just to put it all out there.

KING: How important, Johnnie, will Wecht and Lee be, the two...

COCHRAN: I think that they'll be very important. I think that Brian Peterson (ph), remember, could not tell us, could not say whether or not -- or could not say the child was not born alive, and that could be very important. And who knows what -- when Cyril Wecht takes a look at this what he comes up with, and Henry Lee, of course, is probably the greatest criminalist in the world. And I don't know what his testimony might be. So there will be a defense in this matter, which will prolong the matter. And you know, the question is, is whether or not the people can prove their case beyond a reasonable doubt to all moral certainties. Not enough just to speculate. And you know, I'm not sure. We'll have to take a look and see.

KING: Nancy, how do you feel about the reasonable doubt question?

GRACE: I feel that if anything saves Scott Peterson's skin, it will be Henry Lee and the fleet of experts the defense hires to attack the scientific evidence. They might as well give it up on the circumstantial evidence. I find it overwhelming. I agree with Jim Hammer.

Another thing that came out in court, quickly, Larry, is that Scott Peterson researched lakes and reservoirs and Berkeley Bay on his computer soon after one of his many love chats with Amber Frey. He then went out and bought the boat, and on his maiden voyage, coincidentally, was the day Laci went missing. And from what I see in the facts that came out in preliminary, the police said there were five distinctly clear patches, clear patches interspersed with cement powder. Five weights.

KING: Thank you all very much. We'll see you all again on December 3, arraignment day.

Ted Rowlands, Nancy Grace, Chris Pixley, Johnnie Cochran, Jim Hammer, and we thank Dr. Ludwig and Gloria Allred, as well. And I'll come back with our great guest coming for you tomorrow night. I'll tell you all about that right after this.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

KING: Quite a night! Tomorrow night, Regis Philbin. You don't have to say his last name. Regis, tomorrow night. Who else could I be talking about? On LARRY KING LIVE. Right now, all I've got to do is say Aaron, who else am I talking about? Who else? 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

Stand Trial>