Return to Transcripts main page

CNN Larry King Live

No Oil Flowing Into Gulf; Interview With Lynette Taylor

Aired July 15, 2010 - 21:00   ET

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

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

LARRY KING, CNN ANCHOR (VOICE-OVER): Tonight, the Mel Gibson melodrama gets even messier. Another tape released today, reveals more rage, but is it a real deal? Is it a setup or a scam? An audio expert says he can prove the recording is doctored.

Plus, exclusive, Lawrence Taylor's wife is standing by her man. He's charged with raping a 16-year-old. Lynette Taylor is here to tell us he is not guilty.

But first, breaking news from the Gulf. First time in months, no oil flowing from that leaking well. Is the environmental nightmare finally over? Next on LARRY KING LIVE.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

KING (on-camera): Good evening. We begin with breaking news from the Gulf. First time in months, no oil leaking from that damaged well. Let's go to CNN's Ed Lavandera with the latest. What happened, Ed?

ED LAVANDERA, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Right now, we're in the midst of what BP officials are calling the integrity test. To do all of this, they've essentially shut down the flow of oil coming out of all that machinery down there 5,000 feet below the Gulf of Mexico. And right now, we're nearing the end of the first six-hour window. So, if everything is going according to plans so far, we know that scientists and experts are all huddled about now, kind of comparing notes and the pressure readings on these, on the tests that have been done so far to kind of get a sense of, of well how this will proceed forward.

So far, so good. The longer that this well stays not flowing over the course of the next 48 hours, the better sign that is, Larry.

KING: Is this it? Is this the final solution? Does it appear to be that way?

LAVANDERA: This isn't going to be the final solution because this does not kill off the flow of oil. All of this does is essentially control it. And if the cap by itself doesn't work, they hope that they'll be able to use the riser pipes coming out of all that machinery and start collecting it at about a rate of almost 80,000 barrels a day. What will kill this off for good is that relief well. Right now, the work is temporarily stopped while they're doing this test.

But they're saying they still are on track for mid August to essentially kill off this well. But that's why this is so significant. If this works, it will essentially save a month's worth of oil from leaking into the Gulf waters.

KING: The mood there must be pretty good, huh?

LAVANDERA: I'm sorry?

KING: The mood must be pretty good?

LAVANDERA: Well you know, it's interesting, what we've heard repeatedly over the last, for the last few hours is really more of a tone of cautious optimism because the oil will be turned back on, in, the next 48 hours or so as they figure out how to proceed forward. So, but, you know, this is the best news we've seen in almost three months. So, I think people run here will take that. But they also realize that there are months if not years of cleanup left to do.

KING: Thanks, Ed. Ed Lavandera on the scene in New Orleans. Now, let's go to CNN center and Chad Myers, our CNN weather anchor. Chad, walk us through, how did they stop this?

CHAD MYERS, AMS METEOROLOGIST: They took apart the old top of the well, Larry. It was the riser pipe that went up, and it bent over. When it bent over, it kinked, and it made itself just unusable. They cut it off. They took it away, but it still wasn't sealable. So, what they did is they, I'm going to take the oil away. So, you can see it. The original cap here, they put on here, was leaking. It always leaked. The oil always came out from the other side because of this nipple, we'll call it, that was down here the rest of what was the riser pipe, it was bent. It just wasn't straight.

They brought a machine down. They took the bolts out. And they took this thing away. And then, they brought in a brand new piece that they just built, a cleaner piece with better edges. They brought it down and stacked it right on top of the old blowout preventer. So, what that did -- that allowed now a better sealing piece to be laid on top. Not that old clunky looking cap that they put on earlier. There is a nice clean ring, they could clamp on to that ring, and now they had a good seal. A good seal here and a good seal to the new cap. Kind of a blowout preventer if you will on top of a blowout preventer.

There is the old one, and there is the new one kind of coming out of the abyss. Now, for a while, the oil was still coming out. Yesterday and today, what they did is they started turning these valves off. There are three of them up here and a number of them down here where the oil used to go up to the ships up to the Q-4,000, up to the Helix Producer up to there, then the oil stopped coming out. It stopped coming out today. And everyone said hallelujah, it's done. It is done for now. It is done for -- especially, emergency purposes, when a hurricane may be coming over all of the ships up above this thing.

The key is I think to know that this is not the plan to keep it this way. They are going to hook all of the lines back up. They are going to turn the flow back on and suck the oil back out, but they're not going to lose any this time because they have good seals everywhere. All of the oil will just go to the ships on the surface. Now, what happens if there's a hurricane, they're going to try to turn it back off again and take the ships away. That's the issue isn't it? Because, you know, it's great that it stopped.

But, can it be stopped for good? If the pressure starts to go down, they know oil is leaking somewhere. It could leak from down here, the old blowout preventer. It could leak from 12,000 feet down below the surface of the ocean, Larry. And that could leak forever. And they don't want that kind of problem.

KING: Chad, it's always simple later, but why didn't they do this earlier?

MYERS: Yes, it is, right? Why didn't they just put that on there before? Why didn't they just drop that on? Because Larry it didn't exist. They started building this, literally, 80 days ago. It's finally done now. They put it -- the first day this was ready to go, after they were testing it up above, they dropped this thing down and they installed it. It started from -- this has never been tried before on this depth. This is a brand new thing, and they built it from scratch just to put on top of that well.

KING: Thank you, Chad. Chad Myers as always right on top of things.

We'll check in with the Mel Gibson case. You'll hear the latest recorded tirade next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

KING: Big Mel Gibson news today. There was a court hearing earlier, another clip from those infamous recordings was released. You'll hear it in a minute. Jim Moret, we thank him for sitting in for us, the chief correspondent, "Inside Edition" and author of "Last Day of My Life," terrific book. Mark Geragos, criminal defense attorney, Robin Sax, former LA County prosecutor who specialized in felony crimes, including domestic violence, victims advocate, and a best-selling author. What happened in court, Jim?

JIM MORET, CHIEF CORRESPONDENT, INSIDE EDITION: It's hard to tell exactly because the hearings are closed. It's family a court, but we were told that it's an ex-party hearing, meaning one side came in, presumably her side, Oksana's side, wanting to limit if not bar completely the visitation of Mel Gibson for their daughter. She is a alleging that he hit her and hit her with the child.

KING: How old is the girl?

MORET: Eight months old.

KING: This is just about visitation?

MORET: Today was. But, you know, there are a lot of issues. KING: The overall case is what?

MORET: The overall case, now, the sheriff's department is investigating possible domestic violence, possible assault with a deadly weapon. There was this custody issue.

KING: Is the woman asking for any civil money?

MORET: Not yet.

KING: What is this now? What is this right now?

MARK GERAGOS, CRIMINAL DEFENSE ATTORNEY: Right now, this is in the family court. This is to decide issues relating to support, money. She is asking for money in the sense that she's asking for support, and she is asking for custody.

KING: He is still married, right?

GERAGOS: I don't think that he's still married.

ROBIN SAX, FMR. LA COUNTY DEPUTY DA: They were never married.

MORET: I don't know that his divorce, though, is final.

KING: His first marriage is --

MORET: Right. But he's not -- I don't know.

KING: And it is a criminal investigation, Robin we, know that?

SAX: Yes, there is a criminal investigation going on with the sheriff's department, the Lost Hill's Sheriff's Department which is the sheriff's department that is out of Malibu.

KING: All right. (INAUDIBLE) CNN that portions of the audio recordings released by RadarOnline speak for themselves. This network continues to reach out to Mel Gibson for a response and to verify authenticity. So far, he has not commented. Here is an excerpt, rather, of the latest audio posting.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: You (EXPLETIVE WORD) and you don't care about anyone but yourself and your (EXPLETIVE WORD) stupid (EXPLETIVE WORD) career and it's ruined us. Because you (EXPLETIVE WORD). Because you (EXPLETIVE WORD) can't get a, (EXPLETIVE WORD) it, you wanted the dress. I can't believe you asked for that. And the tickets in the Lakers box, I got rid of the box and now nobody gets tickets because of you. I had to sell the mother (EXPLETIVE WORD) because of you.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Why is it because of me? Why is it because of me? What kind of bulls (EXPLETIVE WORD) is this?

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: I sold it because of you. I don't have any (EXPLETIVE WORD) money. (END VIDEO CLIP)

(CROSSTALK)

MORET: It's so hard to believe because he made what? $800 million from "Passion --

GERAGOS: You know that's why this whole idea, you know, when you listen to the tapes the first one to come out. It sounds like she is reading a script. And then you got -- and then you hear today, there are audio experts who are saying its spliced in.

KING: We're going to have audio people on in a minute.

SAX: What's the problem with it being recorded? Being scripted?

GERAGOS: There's nothing wrong with it being scripted if you got the exception under the code. But there is something wrong if it's scripted and you're splicing and dicing the tape together.

KING: You're supposed to tell someone you're recording them?

SAX: This is a two party consent state. So, technically, you are supposed to tell someone. There are exceptions for certain criminal behavior, and based on the contents of this tape, it seems to fall within the exceptions.

KING: How are we hearing these tapes, Jim? Who has them?

MORET: The court had them. But the question is, how did RadarOnline get them.

KING: Who is RadarOnline?

MORET: RadarOnline is a celebrity website. And the court was very clear to Oksana, you are not to release these. And the court had them under seal. Somebody released them. That's obviously --

GERAGOS: I'm not so sure today the today's hearing because it's closed always speculating. I'm not so sure that his side didn't go in there and ask for an OSC in order to show cause they're in (ph) contempt because they're being leaked, and presumably, he is not the one who is leaking these things.

(CROSSTALK)

SAX: There are a lot of people, though, who have a motive to leak these tapes that have nothing to do with the cases off (ph). Anyone who wants some cash. RadarOnline pays for their tapes. So, there is no better way. That could be a low level employee.

KING: Who would have had the tapes?

SAX: There are so many people who have access who are in and out of police stations. I mean, I can't tell you how many times I've seen evidence on detective's desks just sitting there, getting ready to get classified.

GERAGOS: What if the tapes were placed under seal prior to being turned over to the police.

SAX: Then that's a little bit of a different situation.

GERAGOS: Yes, I will tell you something, if they're placed under seal, why are you going to ask the judge to place them under seal if they've already been given to somebody else? The only reason you're asking them to go under seal is, "judge, I got this piece of evidence. This is something that I don't want to get out." or you're asking, "judge put it out so it doesn't prejudice me."

KING: If she put - you're an attorney, too, aren't you, Jim? If she put it out, is she in contempt?

MORET: I would say yes, but she claims and Radar claims they did not get the tapes from Oksana Grigorieva. And she's made that statement. I did not release the tapes.

GERAGOS: She would be incredibly stupid to do it that way. If she's going to leak it, she gives it to an intermediary.

MORET: The damage is clearly done to Mel Gibson's -- to his career, to his reputation.

GERAGOS: You know what, there is a certain part of the public I think that if it turns out in fact that these are spliced, diced and you don't know what the context is and it was a set up. There are a lot of people who do not think that that's a good thing. Plus, there are a lot of people who, even if they are true, feel very uncomfortable listening to them.

KING: You can't entrap -- an individual can't entrap another individual. That's to be the police.

SAX: That's right. The police would do entrapment. It would be extortion or blackmail if it's by an individual. But the splicing and dicing that we're talking about, the splicing and dicing that we're seeing is the splicing by RadarOnline to make a 30-minute tape last through a week of news media.

GERAGOS: No. Actually, that's not true. Yes, they are taking excerpts, but there are people who have listened to that who have said now that those conversations that are supposedly one right after another, her, reading and then him responding are cut and spliced.

KING: As an observation that nobody on this, in this radar, is very nice so far.

SAX: Nice --

KING: Why are they doing this to people? Why are we hearing this?

SAX: Because Mel Gibson hit his wife and threatened his wife. Allegedly. Allegedly.

KING: How could he hit her on the phone?

SAX: At other times that he had allegedly --

KING: Let me get a break now. The first wife says never touched her. At least one audio expert says the tapes have been doctored. He says he can prove it, and he's here next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

KING: Arlo West is a forensic audio expert. He is president of Creative Forensic Services. He is in Auburn, Maine. Paul Ginsberg, also a forensic audio expert, president of Professional Audio Labs. He has worked with the CIA, FBI, DEA and other agencies and he is in New York. Arlo, have you heard the original recordings or this all based on what you've heard on Radar?

ARLO WEST, FORENSIC AUDIO EXPERT: Just what I've heard on Radar, Larry.

KING: Paul, have you heard the original recordings?

PAUL GINSBERG, FORENSIC AUDIO EXPERT: No, I haven't. And that's the problem because we're dealing with copies and downloaded material. And in those processes, that is the copying and downloading, a number of artifacts can be generated that can prove to be problematic.

KING: You agree with that, Arlo?

WEST: It's true, Paul. Yes, absolutely. He's right.

KING: And neither of you are associated with either Oksana or Mel, right?

GINSBERG: Correct.

KING: Let's listen to an excerpt from one of the previously released recordings that RadarOnline claims is a phone call between Mel Gibson and Oksana Grigorieva. Watch.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: You were hitting a woman with a child in her hands. You. What kind of man is that? Hitting a woman when she is holding a child in her hands? Breaking her teeth twice in the face. What kind of man is that?

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Oh you are all angry now. You get what you (EXPLETIVE WORD) deserved.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: You're going to answer, one day, boy, you're going to answer.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

KING: All right. Arlo, you believe that recording and others have been doctored? Based on what?

WEST: Well, if you listen to her voice when she is agitated, when she stops her speech, her dialogue, there's a transient there. And like Paul said, we're getting this off radar, so he's right. There could be a problem with that. However, what I'm seeing there looks very similar to a start, stop transient to me.

KING: What does that mean?

WEST: It sounds to me like -- well it's an electrical impulse it's recorded when somebody hits a pause button or stop button. I'm not sure how these recordings were made. Everybody has been calling them tapes. They're obviously not tapes. I believe they're digital recordings.

GINSBERG: Correct, correct.

WEST: Would you agree with that, Paul?

GINSBERG: Yes, and for that reason, I don't think what we're hearing is something that would be a stop and start, which you would expect to see on a wave form of a tape recording. In the digital world, you can, you don't need to have any stops and starts if you're going to be editing. So, it's been (ph) very sloppy.

(CROSSTALK)

KING: Arlo, why is her voice -- why is her voice so distinctive and his not?

WEST: Well, I think she's been -- I think that these were professionally made recordings, Larry. I think that somebody helped her. And that she may have been speaking into a large diaphragm microphone. Frank Piazza from legalaudio.com agreed with me. In fact, he was the one that used the term, large diaphragm microphone. And I agreed with him there. I think she was using a high quality, you know, a good quality microphone. That's why her voice sounds so clear.

KING: All right. Paul, what do you make of that?

GINSBERG: Larry, I got a little chart here to show you. On the bottom, this is frequency from, from 0 hertz up to high frequency. And this part is -- the male voice. And these excursions are the female voice. You see how much more frequency there is in these female portions.

KING: Why?

GINSBERG: And that's because she was talking into a digital recorder using a high quality microphone. And his voice was coming over a speaker phone.

KING: OK. So, you both agree then that she was setting him up?

GINSBERG: Well, wait, I didn't say that. I said that she was making the recording. At her end, for whatever purpose she was gathering evidence.

KING: What other purpose would it be?

WEST: I think she was being coached. She had help.

GINSBERG: If she was feeling threatened and wanted to gather evidence to take to the police to show that that was going on, I don't know that that was setting up. But, I don't know what her mind set was.

KING: Do you -- are you saying, Paul, it was not a doctored tape? We aren't listening to something that was, somebody fooled around with it.

GINSBERG: Based upon my examination, and again, we're dealing with copies that were downloaded, it's laughable as far as evidence goes. But I do not see any evidence of specific points that would really come out to me and say this is a real problem. The voices are two different levels, two different qualities, and his voice has distortion consistent with coming out of a 1 inch speaker of a speaker phone. And the context seems to be continuous as well. Now, what we do have are -- segments.

WEST: Hold on a second. Let me say one thing, Paul. Please. If you listen to the babysitter tape, Larry, have you played that?

KING: No, I haven't.

WEST: Babysitter recording, I should call it. OK. Obviously, they muted out the babysitter's name in that recording.

GINSBERG: Correct.

WEST: So, to say that they're not edited I mean, come on, that's an edit.

GINSBERG: I was talking about edited other than for legal reasons by the website.

WEST: Well, we don't know the website did it, Paul. That's the problem. We don't know how it got edited and who did it. You know what I mean, because the evidence is flimsy. You're right. You're absolutely right. We're working with copies.

GINSBERG: If the people on, on the west coast claim for Mel Gibson that these have been edited and they have proof, I believe really, the only thing they could be referring to is the fact that we have segments, none of these conversations has a beginning, only one of them has an end with a hang-up. So, we don't know how long the actual full conversations were or what order.

KING: Arlo, let me -- Paul? Paul, you are not -- Paul, you are not suspicious. Arlo, you are suspicious, can we say that?

WEST: Well, yes. One of the recordings has a ring at the beginning. And there is a transient, I don't know how it got there, like Paul said, it could be anything that caused that. We don't know. We don't have access to the originals. That's the real problem here.

KING: Thanks, guys. Arlo West and Paul Ginsberg. All right. I get it. Arlo West and Paul Ginsberg. I get it. I don't know if we'll ever solve it. The editor of RadarOnline, David Perel, has given CNN a statement, responding to reports that purported Gibson recordings were altered. He says, quote, "top experts have certified the tapes are genuine and authentic. To say otherwise is simply a defense strategy. Mel simply cannot deny he said these hateful words, spewed these vicious rants, and these conversations. The real question is when will he take responsibility for his words?" We'll be back with our group after this.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

KING: We're back with Jim Moret, Mark Geragos, and Robin Sax. What did you make, Jim, of that little debate?

MORET: You know what, look, we hear the tapes. You can talk about edits. There were names that were removed, but you hear Mel Gibson or somebody purportedly Mel Gibson saying these hate-filled words. Mark and I, we were saying off the air. I don't know that these tapes will ever come in as evidence. But we've heard them

KING: If they don't, what's the --

MORET: If they don't, he's damaged outside of court. But there is bigger problem aside from the tape because you may have a witness from a dentist who has photographs taken the day after this alleged attack. That could be evidence. You may have a witness in the son who may have seen or heard something. That's evidence

SAX: The tapes are corroborating her prior allegations. That is going to make the difference between filing and not filing.

KING: Is there a crime in words?

SAX: There is a crime in words.

KING: Can I commit a crime by saying something?

SAX: You can commit a crime with a threat, so long as there is reasonable fear. And the injuries, the hitting, the alleged injuries from the past would substantiate the fear.

KING: Why haven't the place charged him?

GERAGOS: There wasn't a fresh complaint. If -- there is a zero tolerance policy in this county. If you pick up the phone and start to say, hey my husband is -- and then hang it up, they're out there at your house. If you say, that was a mistake, they arrest you anyway. It's 50,000 dollars bail and you're on your way to the jail.

KING: You mean, based on the attack?

GERAGOS: Based on anything that you claim, there is a zero tolerance for domestic violence. Doesn't matter if you're a man or a woman.

KING: Is he getting special treatment?

GERAGOS: No. I don't know if he is getting special treatment. It is not unusual when the complaint about the domestic violence is delayed, then they'll initiate an investigation.

KING: From a PR standpoint, should he come forward now somewhere?

MORET: I think from a PR standpoint, he should say nothing. I really mean that.

KING: You would advise him to say nothing?

GERAGOS: There is no way he is going to say anything. He can't. If he comes out and says something about the tapes, as Radar guy is baiting him into it -- there is no way he's going to do that, because if you authenticate a tape, that has real problems on its face right now. You are never going to do that. It is an admission. It's exactly what the police would want him to do to make a case. There is no way. Tackle the publicity agent who tried to get you to do that.

KING: From what you know, Robin, would you prosecute him?

SAX: Absolutely. He would be prosecuted so fast.

(CROSS TALK)

SAX: Well, there is terrorist threats, which is the threats. There's potentially assault with a deadly weapon. With the teeth injury, there's domestic battery. Those are all felonies. They could be charged as misdemeanors depending on the extent of the injury.

GERAGOS: Can you imagine you charging teeth missing as a misdemeanor? You, you?

SAX: I wouldn't charge it as a misdemeanor.

GERAGOS: Felony. She would put GBI on there, great bodily injury. She would ask for 500,000 dollars bail. She would be screaming from the rooftops.

SAX: That's right. You would be saying that he is not guilty and the whole world has got it mistaken.

KING: You are with "Inside Edition." Is his career over?

MORET: I think his career will never be what it was, clearly. I can't imagine a redemption from something like this.

KING: He says he is broke.

(CROSS TALK)

SAX: Doesn't he own an island. MORET: He supposedly made 800,000 (sic) on "Passion of the Christ."

KING: Eight hundred million.

MORET: I'm sorry, 800 million dollars, you're right. Look, I don't know what his divorce settlement is costing, but even if it is half.

KING: Is it strong that his first wife is saying he never harmed her, never raise a voice?

GERAGOS: There is something to be said for that. Here is someone that has been with him, lived with him. I will tell you one thing, if he had an ex-wife who was saying that he was a serial beater, everybody would be trumpeting that. You would have Gloria Allred here in a red suit saying that is compelling evidence.

So, you know, there is something to be said for that, number one. Number two, I don't know that it its completely over. There are things that he said there that -- that are awful. I mean, there is -- I'm sure he hates himself for saying it.

But, remember, itch it turns out that these tapes were diced and spliced -- easy for me to say -- and it turns out that she back filled the questions, based on taping these, and then taped this whole thing and put it through, the American public doesn't like that. People don't like a set up.

KING: No one likes that.

SAX: You have to also remember, his first wife has an interest in making sure that he is still employed. She has seven kids. That child support depends on him working. So him out of a career --

(CROSS TALK)

GERAGOS: Half of the 800 million dollars, what does she care? She could live off the interest. Four hundred million is still real money.

KING: Are they going to be releasing more stuff?

MORET: It sounds like "Radar Online" has 30 minutes of tape. We have heard what?

SAX: Twenty.

MORET: Ten more minutes to come.

KING: Thank you all, Jim Moret, Mark Geragos, Robin Sax. I guarantee they will be back.

There's a strip of land in Houston, Texas that sheds light on a nationwide problem. It's called the Corridor of Cruelty, where abused animals, many victims of dog fighting, are dumped and left to die. Those are the lucky ones.

This week's CNN hero stumbled across this gruesome place and simply could not turn her back. Watch.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

DEBORAH HOFFMAN, CNN HERO: The first time I ever went to the Corridor, I realized there were strays everywhere. So many dogs that were starving, dogs with broken legs. And I prayed and I prayed that somehow I could be inspired to do something to help.

I'm Deborah Hoffman and my calling in life is to save neglected, abused and abandoned animals.

This street is one of the major dumping grounds. We'll find dogs that we believe are used in dog fighting in large trash bags.

Oh, yeah. Back in here.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Deborah Hoffman was the person who brought to our attention the fact that the Corridor of Cruelty even existed. Deborah is saving the animals and because of her, there are some happy endings in this situation.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Come on, Cody. Come on.

HOFFMAN: This is what I am going to do rest of my life. When I am 85, I will be on my laptop trying to save an animal from my rocking chair.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

KING: Since 2008, Deborah Hoffman and her organization have helped get nearly 100 animals off the street and into safe havens. To see how an abused dog's life changes after rescue, or to nominate someone you think is changing the world, go to CNN.com/Heroes.

Lynette Taylor is here defending her husband, the former NFL star, Lawrence Taylor. Exclusive after the break.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

KING: The former Hall of Famer, maybe the best defensive football player ever to play the game, Lawrence Taylor has pled not guilty to charges that he raped a 16-year-old girl earlier this year in a hotel room in Rockland County, New York. His wife Lynette was in the courtroom during Tuesday's arraignment proceedings. She is in Miami. We're in Los Angeles.

How are you and L.T. doing after all of this?

LYNETTE TAYLOR, WIFE OF LAWRENCE TAYLOR: We're fine with each other. You know, fine as can be expected given the circumstances.

KING: How did it hit you when this first happened and you heard about it. You are the wife? How did it hit you? TAYLOR: Well, when I first heard about it, my sister called me and she was like, is everything OK? I am like, what do you mean is everything OK? She said, well, Lawrence is on the news. So I turned it on. And I am going to tell you, it was like the most crazy thing I have ever -- it was like they made it seem like he went up on a school yard and snatched some girl off with pig tails and drug her back to his room, beat her, and raped her and stuff.

And I'm no, like this is not true at all. There is no way in the world. That doesn't even make any sense. I wasn't able to speak with him immediately, because at that time, he was still in custody. But when I spoke with his friends and everyone else, and then I spoke with him later on that evening, it's just so -- so unfantastic. It really is.

KING: You didn't -- didn't you suspect something, Lynette? He wasn't charged with beating up a girl in the school yard. He was charged with raping a girl in a motel room who was under aged. The girl was in the room, do you believe that?

TAYLOR: She was in the room, but she let herself inside of the room. He didn't open the door. Didn't go strolling.

KING: What did he tell you? What did he tell you what happened, so we can clear it up from his end? What did he say to you?

TAYLOR: The truth. Trust me, I know everything as if I were inside of that room, OK. Everything, every detail, every single word, everything that happened, everything that went on. I know everything.

KING: What can you tell us?

TAYLOR: That he didn't rape anyone. He didn't have sex with anyone. He didn't call her a pimp. He did not go cruising down -- you know, stroll where prostitutes hang at. He didn't do an of those things.

KING: What was the girl doing in the room?

TAYLOR: The girl was in the room because she let herself inside of the room.

KING: She had a key?

TAYLOR: See, what a lot of -- no, no, no. What happened is a friend left and he left the door propped open, because he had been back and forth in and out of the room, and he forgot to put the chain, lock thing -- he didn't close the door. This was the same way the police got in.

KING: How did she know?

TAYLOR: That's in the reports as well.

KING: he was in the room? TAYLOR: Well, pretty much, everyone in New York knew that Lawrence was going to be in New York. He was doing an autograph signing session the next day. If you go back to his 60-minute interview, he explained to you that he and his friend, they were sending hookers to each other's rooms and stuff like that. This was really an extortion prop, extortion plot that went wrong. Because he didn't fall for -- he didn't fall for the bait. I'm sorry.

KING: I got you. You are saying that he was being set up?

TAYLOR: Yes. Yes. I mean, it's obvious. And it's like, OK, she called her uncle. She texted her uncle, help me, I'm in trouble, whatever. How did her uncle know exactly where to go, where to send the police? Oh, she is a runaway. Her parents live in Virginia. But she is in New York and her -- her uncle, she's been missing for months, but he knew exactly where to go send the police to? Doesn't make any sense.

KING: All right, LT -- we'll be back with Lynette Taylor. He has had his problems over the years. Why does she trust him so much now? Does she think he did anything morally wrong? We'll talk with Lynette Taylor right after this.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

(NEWS BREAK)

KING: We're back with Lynette Taylor. You were at his arraignment. He was charged for third degree rape, allegedly engaging in sexual intercourse with some one younger than 17. The document released said he had admitted to police that he paid 300 dollars to engage in sex, but he thought she was 19.

TAYLOR: No, wait a minute.

KING: What's the difference? What is going on?

TAYLOR: There is a difference between paid and gave. There is a huge difference. OK. Anyone who -- if 00 if he is an alleged John or whatever, everyone knows what the price of -- everyone knows that is a high price, OK. It wasn't about paying any one anything. It as it bout giving someone money. It is a big difference.

KING: All right, why did he give her money?

TAYLOR: Because she sat there telling him about all the problems she had.

KING: So this woman --

TAYLOR: That's what --

(CROSS TALK)

KING: I'm trying to figure out.

TAYLOR: I'm listening.

KING: We're getting lost in each other. Yeah.

TAYLOR: OK, if you are asking why he does that? He always -- we go to restaurants and waiters -- our favorite restaurants, they fight over who is going to get our table, because he over-tips. He over- compensates for things. That's just him. I mean it's like I said. I have a 11,000 dollar bill from a golf course because he pays for everyone to play golf. And it's like he is just that guy. He is the guy that is going to pick up the check all the time.

So I mean for him, 300 dollars, here -- here is 300 dollars. Will this help you out any? It was very much that. But, see, this is what I am saying. Now trust me when you said before you went to the break that -- why do I trust him so much. It's not that I trust him so much. It's just that I know the truth. There's a difference.

I don't understand why no one -- why people have a problem with trusting him. OK. He used to do drugs. All right. He had problems with taxes, his child support. None of those things have anything to do with raping or having sex with a 16-year-old girl. I don't understand how in the heck that could make someone -- oh, he's guilty, throw the book at him because he smoked crack. That's not fair. That's not right.

(CROSS TALK)

KING: Everyone is innocent until -- But what I'm saying is, when we say trust --

TAYLOR: Unless you're a celebrity. Unless you're a celebrity, because --

KING: That's true. But you weren't there, Lynette. So it comes down to trust. Lawrence is telling you the story and you believe him. You weren't there.

TAYLOR: Uh-huh.

KING: So it is trust.

TAYLOR: No, I was not, but I may as well have been, because, I promise you, I got to the bottom of it, from all different angles.

KING: By talking to whom?

TAYLOR: Well, I have -- talking to him, to private investigators, to different people and we've found out quite a bit.

KING: Why, then, do you think the police arrested him if you had all of this contrary evidence?

TAYLOR: Because he's Lawrence Taylor. If it wasn't Lawrence Taylor, this wouldn't even be news. This wouldn't even be a big deal. I mean -- but it's a big deal because the media is making it like it's so fascinating, like, oh, my gosh. He's gross. He's an animal and this and that and this. And, I mean, it's like -- even when we went to court, it's like everyone there is like, this is a joke. All of this is circumstantial.

And here's another thing that I don't understand. If everyone is believing what this victim said -- the police just took what she said and just, before doing an investigation, went and arrested Lawrence, because they believed her and found her to be credible. Then why couldn't he believe her if she told him that she was 19. So I don't understand why -- if she is so believable and so credible, why is it a problem that he believed her? That part is beyond me.

KING: How is he handling all of this?

TAYLOR: Runaway, no -- well, it's like the way that he's handling it is --

KING: Yeah.

TAYLOR: Naturally, he's not happy about it. He's not pleased about it. But I'm like we'll get through this. We can get through this. So, you know, he has a good support team.

KING: We'll be back with more moments with Lynette Taylor, the wife of the former great NFL star Lawrence Taylor. Don't go away.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

KING: We're back with Lynette Taylor, the wife of the former NFL star Lawrence Taylor. If he's convicted, he could face up to four years in prison. Are you ready to deal with that?

TAYLOR: You know, I'm not really giving it much thought because I'm not trying to have to deal with it.

KING: Well, he got pretty angry. He told one reporter it must be a slow news day. He urged another to grow up. He was pretty feisty.

TAYLOR: Let me explain it to you why that happened. When we were walking into the courtroom, the reporter asked him a question. Everyone is screaming out different stuff. Asked him, "Lawrence, are you guilty of these charges?" The grow up thing, I wish he would have choose different words, but it's basically like, are you serious? I'm really going discuss that with you? I'm going to stand here and tell you that I'm guilty, or I'm going to prove to you that I'm innocent? I'm at a courthouse. Why would he sit here and explain that to you?

So, yes, it was a very ignorant question. I don't even know why they have her as an interviewer. That was just stupid. As far as the slow news day, yes, that was very necessary to say, because the cameras are not allowed inside the courtroom, but reporters are. There was barely space in the courtroom for us to sit down. And as soon as he got up, everyone in there walked out with him. It was ridiculous.

We thought there were people there because they had different cases going on, or they were there for different things. No, everyone in the courtroom -- obviously, they are all reporters. So, yeah, it did seem like a very slow news day. Some things I wished he would have kept to himself. But it's like one of those things, you're damned if you do, damned if you don't, because it's all of those things, they all made sense. But it's like because he said that, can you believe he said that. That's just ridiculous.

KING: You said there's no --

TAYLOR: The questions were stupid.

KING: I understand. You said there's no problem legally. Do you have any questions of your husband morally?

TAYLOR: OK. As far as what I cannot -- morally, yes. But that's for God, him, me to deal with.

KING: Right.

TAYLOR: Yes, he should have told her to get the heck out of my room. But I cannot explain why men do what they do. I don't understand why we're destroying the Earth to get to Jupiter. That doesn't make sense to me. I don't understand why we're fighting a war, spending billions of dollars fighting a war over oil, instead of spending that money on stuff that we don't need oil. I don't understand why men do what they do.

And when no one's looking, well, they will try to get away with whatever. I can't say that. But here's the problem. When I say this was an extortion plot that went awry, because what it was to go, did you know that girl was 16, but he didn't have sex with. OK?

So now let's move on to Plan B. Let's just say he raped you and then we can sue him and we'll still get money. All right? This -- this is the most silly, ridiculous thing in the world. And I don't know -- it's like, oh, now she's a prostitute. How in the heck do you rape a prostitute.

She's a run away. Good girls don't run away. I'm sorry. I've been a 16-year-old girl, all right. I've been a 19-year-old girl. I didn't leave my home. That's what happens. that's what I think people need to tell their kids. That's what happens when you run away from home. When you leave the sanctuary of your home and your parents, yes, there are bad people out there. There are pimps waiting at bus stops and stuff things like that. You know what, stop running away. She shouldn't have ran away.

I'm not attacking her, but all I'm saying is, I don't understand how -- it's like, oh, she's only 16. Sixteen is so young. Sixteen- year-olds are driving our cars. Sixteen-year-olds are working in our stores. They're serving our food. They are old enough to have jobs. She was hold enough to, if she wanted to get help, get help. Why did it have to be a rich guy before she decided, oh, I don't want this anymore? It doesn't make sense.

(CROSS TALK) KING: Is he with you now in Miami?

TAYLOR: Yes, he is.

KING: He's doing OK?

(CROSS TALK)

TAYLOR: He is doing as well as he can be.

KING: When is the trial scheduled?

TAYLOR: They haven't set a date for that yet. We have a court appearance coming up next month. Well he does. But they haven't set a date for trial yet. And then, as far as this indictment thing --

KING: Quickly, if you can say it in ten seconds. He was indicted.

TAYLOR: OK. As far as indictment thing, we kind of, in a way -- as weird as it sounds, we wanted that, because it didn't make sense to testify to a Grand Jury, because it's a lopsided proceeding. It does not make sense. So as far the indictment, oh, he was indicted, he's guilty; no, that's not true.

KING: Thanks, Lynette. Lynette Taylor, the wife of former NFL star Lawrence Taylor, thanks so much. Time now for Anderson Cooper, "AC 360."