Return to Transcripts main page

Nancy Grace

Judge Rules O.J. Simpson to Stand Trial; Stacy Peterson Update

Aired November 14, 2007 - 20:00   ET


MIKE BROOKS, GUEST HOST: Breaking news tonight. O.J. Simpson goes to trial, but this time in Las Vegas. Just moments ago, a Las Vegas judge ruled there is enough evidence for Simpson to stand trial on 12 charges. The charges include kidnapping, armed robbery and assault with a deadly weapon, all connected to what Simpson calls an undercover sting operation at a Las Vegas casino, Simpson and five others accused of bursting into a room at the Palace Hotel to steal sports memorabilia at gunpoint, and it`s all caught on tape. Tonight: O.J. Simpson could end up behind bars for the rest of his life.

JOE BONAVENTURE, JUSTICE OF THE PEACE: It does appear to me from the testimony and exhibits produced at this hearing that the crimes of conspiracy to commit a crime, conspiracy to commit kidnapping, conspiracy to commit robbery/burglary while in the possession of a firearm, two counts of first-degree kidnapping with use of a deadly weapon, two counts of robbery with use of a deadly weapon, two counts of assault with use of a deadly weapon and two counts of coercion with use of a deadly weapon have been committed and that there is sufficient evidence that Orenthal James Simpson, Clarence Stewart and Charles Ehrlich have committed said offenses.


BROOKS: And tonight, after weeks of hiding, then lashing out at the media, Drew Peterson finally tells his side of the story. The police sergeant said he had nothing to do with his third wife`s mysterious death or his fourth wife`s disappearance, but Peterson is not surprised he`s a suspect. He claims Stacy left on her own and pleads with her to come home. Drew Peterson also says his relationship with both women were emotional roller-coasters, this as authorities conduct a second autopsy after exhuming the body of wife number three. And reportedly, just weeks from retirement, the veteran police sergeant resigned suddenly from the force.


UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Both his dead third wife and missing fourth wife showed signs of being emotionally unstable. That`s according to Drew Peterson, a police sergeant and police suspect, in an interview on NBC`s "Today" show. Stacy Peterson hasn`t been seen since October 28, and Drew Peterson hasn`t participated in any of the searches. Yesterday, the body of Peterson`s ex-wife, Kathleen Savio, was exhumed. Investigators have reopened their probe into her apparent drowning death in a bathtub.


BROOKS: Good evening. I`m Mike Brooks, in for Nancy Grace. First tonight, it`s another trial for O.J. Simpson, this time in Las Vegas.


UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Four days of preliminary hearing wrapped up earlier today. The last piece of the puzzle came today as alleged victim and memorabilia dealer Alfred Beardsley took the stand.

ALFRED BEARDSLEY, MEMORABILIA DEALER: We were just robbed by a bunch of thugs, and my adrenaline was pumping. He`s a high-profile person. People have been waiting for him to screw up, and he screwed up.

BONAVENTURE: ... the crimes of conspiracy to commit a crime, conspiracy to commit kidnapping, conspiracy to commit robbery/burglary while in possession of a firearm, two counts of first degree kidnapping with use of a deadly weapon, two counts of robbery with use of a deadly weapon, two counts of assault with use of a deadly weapon and two counts of coercion with use of a deadly weapon have been committed and that there is sufficient evidence that Orenthal James Simpson, Clarence Stewart and Charles Ehrlich have committed said offenses. You are all ordered to appear in front of the trial judge in this case, Judge Jackie Glass (ph), on the following date.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: November 28, 10:00 AM, District Court 5 (ph), courtroom 1A.


BROOKS: Good evening. I`m Mike Brooks, in for Nancy Grace. Well, it looks like O.J. is going to be going to trial again. The judge has decided -- actually, justice of the peace has decided that there is enough probable cause to have this bound over for trial.

But for the latest, let`s go out to Las Vegas. Outside the courthouse is Thelma Gutierrez, CNN correspondent. Thelma, what`s the latest out there?

THELMA GUTIERREZ, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Well, Mike, I can tell you that this is the culmination of a very colorful four days of testimony. From my vantage point right here outside the steps of this courthouse, I can tell you that the moment the judge actually made his decision and announced it, we saw a couple of the defense attorneys go right past us. They left abruptly. They did not talk to reporters. And then shortly after that, O.J. Simpson came down with his entourage of attorneys. They walked down the stairs of the courthouse. His SUV was waiting out in front. He hugged his attorney, Yale Galanter, and then he got in his SUV and drove off.

And it took Judge Bonaventure less than 15 minutes, Mike, to actually read that decision and bind these people over to district court. Now, the next time they`re expected in court is in November 28, when they`re expected to enter a plea. They`ll be arraigned at that time -- Mike.

BROOKS: Well, what do you think that plea`s going to be? And now, keep in mind, Thelma, we still also have two other co-defendants, Charles (SIC) "C.J." Stewart and Charles Ehrlich, who were also there in he courtroom with him. Did they have anything to say after the hearing?

GUTIERREZ: No, they didn`t. It was very interesting, Mike, that the only person who spoke was Yale Galanter. In fact , he`s out there right behind me, in front of the courthouse right now, speaking to reporters. He says that his client will not enter any -- will not make a plea deal. He did not say exactly what kind of a plea he will make, but I can tell you that he`s absolutely convinced, he says, that O.J. Simpson committed no crime. He says he never went to that hotel room with the intent to commit robbery, and he felt that all along, his client should not be bound over for trial.

BROOKS: Well, I tell you, now it looks like he will be going to trial, and he could serve up to life in prison for that kidnapping charge. But let`s hear what the judge had to say in court today.


BONAVENTURE: It does appear to me from the testimony and exhibits produced at this hearing that the crimes of conspiracy to commit a crime, conspiracy to commit kidnapping, conspiracy to commit robbery/burglary while in the possession of a firearm, two counts of first-degree kidnapping with use of a deadly weapon, two counts of robbery with use of a deadly weapon, two counts of assault with use of a deadly weapon and two counts of coercion with use of a deadly weapon have been committed and that there is sufficient evidence that Orenthal James Simpson, Clarence Stewart and Charles Ehrlich have committed said offenses.


BROOKS: That was justice of the peace Joe Bonaventure, who has been hearing the case over the last number of days, last week into this week.

And going out to Pat Lalama, investigative reporter -- Pat, is it any surprise at all that he was bound over to trial? I don`t think there is.

PAT LALAMA, INVESTIGATIVE REPORTER: No, Mike. And I was just going to say you well know that this is really the prosecution`s show. And all - - the standard, as you well know, is very, very low, just to say all we have to do is throw out enough stuff for the judge to say it`s reasonable to imagine that a crime was committed here. And he made it clear, especially on -- a lot of people thought he was going to throw out that kidnapping thing. Uh-uh. He read the statute, and he said, It`s clear to me that the possibility exists. And this is clearly something a jury must decide. So Mike, after covering every day of the old criminal case and the civil case, here we go again (INAUDIBLE)

BROOKS: You`ll be back at it again, Pat. Let`s uncage...

LALAMA: I hope so.

BROOKS: ... the lawyers. From New York, Joey Jackson, defense attorney, and from Atlanta, Meg Strickler. First to you, Joey. What`s going to be his defense, or is there any defense?

JOEY JACKSON, DEFENSE ATTORNEY: Well, certainly, he has a defense, you know? And I just concur with Pat regarding there is no surprise. And you know, I have to tell you, Mike, these preliminary hearings provide great jewels (ph) for defense attorneys. Why? Because number one, you size up the witnesses. Number two, you lock them into the testimony. Number three, if there are any surprises, you hit them with inconsistent statements.

The reality of the matter is that they`re going to have to demonstrate that he had intent, he possessed that intent when he went over there. And look at the cast of characters they`re bringing before the court. Yale Galanter described it best. I believe he referred to them as pimps and thugs, and on and on and on. So certainly, they have to address, the prosecution, the credibility of the witnesses that are giving testimony against him.

Final point, Mike, and that is this. Listen, you know, the reality of the matter is, is that when you have an instance like this, where you have O.J. Simpson, a very high-profile person and everything else, you have witnesses who turn state`s evidence. The question has to be asked, Mike, Why did they do it? They did it because they get plea deals and nice times for themselves without jail and only probation.

BROOKS: But is that...


BROOKS: But Meg, that`s not -- you know, that`s -- so what? They were witnesses. You know, they were kind of lured into this, for the most part, weren`t they?

JACKSON: It`s not "So what," Mike. And the reason it`s not "So what" is because you have a vested interest. It taints what you do.

BROOKS: OK. Well, what about O.J.? O.J. says, Oh, no, there were no guns. And then afterwards, he tells the guys after they all left, You didn`t see any guns in that room. And you`ve got two people that said, yes, I did see the guns. Then you`ve got the complainants that said, Yes, as soon as they came in, Stewart was the first one through the door, and what he talked about, a military-style operation -- the second guy, gun`s up, pushed a gun in his face.

JACKSON: Mike, these will all be credibility determinations that`ll be made. You have evidence, and at any trial, you have evidence that is consistent and inconsistent. Credibility determinations will be made as to whether or not he possessed the requisite intent of knowing that guns were used or they weren`t. And I think it is telling and you have to look at the people who are giving testimony because...

BROOKS: But Meg...

JACKSON: ... that`s the credibility...


JACKSON: ... we will be assessing.


STRICKLER: ... terrible, absolutely terrible witnesses. I mean, yes, the case is bound over, but it`s not -- I think you could see the result in a hung jury, or you know -- he`s not going to prison for the rest of his life. Absolutely not.

BROOKS: Well, you think there`s going to be one person on the jury that says, Well, yes, maybe he did go there just to get his stuff back, and you know, he didn`t...


BROOKS: ... know there was -- how could he not know...

STRICKLER: And again, look at the witnesses.

BROOKS: ... there was not any gun?

STRICKLER: These witnesses are crazy. I mean, they have horrible backgrounds. They`re going to be impeached with their criminal convictions. I mean...

JACKSON: And God forbid they say something that is just the slightest, remotest bit that is inconsistent from what they said during this preliminary hearing.


BROOKS: And poor O.J., he`s going back and he said, Oh, this is all happening because of the murder trial where I got off. He thinks that`s one of the main reasons all this is happened to him.

STRICKLER: Well, some of it is...


BROOKS: He`s the consummate victim! Come on!



BROOKS: Let`s go out to the lines. Beverly from Georgia, do you have a question?

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Yes. I want to know why he would think that if someone took his things wrongly, he could just walk right in, knowing that he wasn`t going to make a deal, to forcefully take his things back. Isn`t there any way that he can use the law, rather than take it into his own hands?

BROOKS: Joey Jackson, why didn`t he just call the police...


JACKSON: ... because I think, as he stated, he had concerns with calling the police. The police weren`t his friends. He didn`t have confidence in their ability to do what needed to be done. The fact of the matter is, is that we have to wait and not jump to any conclusions. Additional evidence and that type thing will come out. But the important thing is to assess his intent and to see whether or not he possessed the requisite intent to do anything of a criminal nature when he went to that particular Vegas hotel.

BROOKS: And when walked in -- you know, there are some people said, Oh, no, Meg Strickler, they`re going to get rid of the kidnapping charge. But I don`t think so.

STRICKLER: Well, I don`t -- I mean, you don`t know at this point if they`re going to be able to get kidnapping. I mean, there wasn`t real movement in that whole -- in the hotel room. I think kidnapping won`t be - - there won`t be a conviction of kidnapping. I think he faces -- he probably could get a conviction maybe on lesser charges, perhaps the coercion charge, but not the kidnapping. There`s no way.

BROOKS: Well, let`s take a look -- let`s take a listen on what exactly happened inside that room. And this was tape recorded by Tom Riccio, one of the other characters in this whole -- in this whole escapade.


O.J. SIMPSON: Don`t let nobody out of this room. (DELETED)! Think you can steal my (DELETED) and sell it?


SIMPSON: Don`t let nobody out of here. (DELETED)! You think you can steal my (DELETED)?

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: (DELETED) you! Mind your own business!


UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Get over there~!

SIMPSON: You think you can steal my (DELETED)?

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Backs to the wall~!

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: I was trying to get past you!

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Walk your (DELETED) over there!~

SIMPSON: Think you can steal my (DELETED)?


UNIDENTIFIED MALE: You, against the (DELETED) wall!

SIMPSON: I know (DELETED) Mike took it!


UNIDENTIFIED MALE: And I know what Brian`s trying to prove.

SIMPSON: I always thought you were a straight shooter.







BROOKS: That was some of the audio that we heard that was recorded by Tom Riccio, the guy who basically set up this whole caper and who actually brought the two complainants to the room, went down, got O.J. and his band of merry men, and then came back to the hotel room.

Let`s go out to the lines. Holly from Nebraska, thanks for calling.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Hi, Mike. I was wondering, are you going to -- is O.J. going to be tried with his co-defendants, or will it be separate trials?

BROOKS: Pat Lalama?

LALAMA: I don`t think that`s been determined at this point. I know they all have separate lawyers, but I don`t think that we know at this point.

BROOKS: And also, Holly, there`s a -- we`ve have heard there`s a possibility, a very slim possibility, that these two may also take a plea deal and then testify against O.J.

But I want to go back to Joey. One more question, Joey. Why are they not going to take any plea deal? Why is Galanter not going to take a plea deal for his client? Does he feel he can get off?

JACKSON: You know what, Mike? That could very well just be posturing. It could be, Listen, we lost the preliminary hearing, we have to show a good face to the public, and as a result, we`re so confident in our case that we`re not going to discuss plea deals.

The reality is this, Mike, and that is that in any instance where there is an acceptable and reasonable plea bargain that`s put on the table, at least you explain it to your client, you go over the pros and cons and you make decisions as to whether or not you should take it. So despite what Mr. Galanter said, that in no way, shape or form means, in my view, that he would foreclose that opportunity, should it present itself.

BROOKS: I want to go out to Pat Brown, criminal profiler and author of "Killing for Sport." Pat, you know, you do have a real cast of characters here, with a lot of -- you know, a lot of them, as they were described as career criminals, especially Tom Riccio. You know, what do you think of these guys? Do you think they`re just out to save their own - - but you know, what I think, and correct me if I`m wrong, I think everything everybody was doing before, during and after this caper was for money.

PAT BROWN, CRIMINAL PROFILER: Well, I`m in agreement with you. And this is a horrible cast of characters, but that`s exactly one of the things that O.J. is going to use. I think he`s going to use the "mis-es" defense. He made a mistake when he picked his friends. He was misunderstood when he was -- when he told them what he wanted to be done, and he was misinterpreted when he spoke. So that`s what he`s got to get across to the jury, or his lawyer has to get across to the jury, that everything was a mistake, misunderstood, misinterpreted.

BROOKS: I want to go out to Caryn Stark, psychologist. Caryn, thanks for being with us. You`ve watched O.J. and you`ve seen him during this preliminary -- I call it preliminary hearing trial. And now we go back and we watch him (INAUDIBLE) before. What do you think? It`s almost -- it`s almost -- if you put the pictures side by side, you almost -- except for his age a little bit, you almost couldn`t tell a difference.

CARYN STARK, PSYCHOLOGIST: Well, we also can tell that he has that same personality that takes the law into his own hands, where he feels like, Well, you know, they wouldn`t pay attention to me, so I`m just going to go do this and say I had no choice. And so again, he -- in a sense, he doesn`t know why everybody`s making such a big deal about this. He`s just trying to get his stuff back.

BROOKS: He`s just trying to get his stuff back. And you know, we heard him say -- we heard in the recording, Thelma Gutierrez, that says that Mike took it. Who is this Mike that they`re talking about?

GUTIERREZ: That`s Mike McClinton, is that the one that you`re talking about. He was the fellow who actually burst in the room and he was waving the gun around. Now, there are two Mikes. There`s another, Mike Gilbert. Mike Gilbert is the person who allegedly has the suit that O.J. wore during his acquittal, and that could be the other Mike that is in question.

BROOKS: Well, I tell you, Mike Gilbert is also someone else we`re going to talk about.

But first to tonight`s "Case Alert." The Los Angeles County coroner launches an investigation into the sudden death of music star Kanye West`s mother. A preliminary autopsy Donda West died from surgery or anesthesia. A plastic surgeon to the stars performed the cosmetic surgery on West before EMTs rushed her to the hospital unresponsive. Documents reveal Dr. Jan Adams has a history of medical malpractice suits and DWI convictions. Plus, Dr. Adams is under investigation by the California medical board.

And tonight, the twins are here, and Nancy has a special message about baby Lucy and baby John. To check out this exciting message and exclusive video, go right to and click on Nancy`s baby blog.



UNIDENTIFIED MALE: What was defendant Simpson`s tone as he was talking to you?

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Just irritated. You know, just irritated that -- I think he was hurt that his property was there. I mean, he was very emotional.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Did you steal that property?

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: No. No, I didn`t steal it. And I wanted to make that clear to him, that I did not steal it.

Basically, I was trying to calm him down because I know that he wanted some answers. I could see it in his face. He wanted an explanation as to why we were there with his property.


BROOKS: I`m Mike Brooks, in for Nancy Grace. Thank you for joining us. Well, looks like O.J. Simpson will be back in a courtroom on November 28 in front of Judge Jackie Glass to either make a plea deal, plead guilty, not guilty. But it looks like he may be by himself because it looks like his two co-defendants may also bail on him and turn as witnesses against him.

I want to go back out to Meg Strickler, defense attorney. Meg, who do you think was the strongest witness that we have heard from over these days, and why?

STRICKLER: Well, that`s a tough question, looking at the witnesses. They`re all a bunch of unsavory characters. Perhaps McClinton was a pretty good witness against him, except that he didn`t in his 85-page testimony say initially what the officers said, that Simpson knew he had a gun. I mean, he was inconsistent with that.

But they`re not good. I mean, I`m a defense lawyer. I don`t think they`re very good witnesses, period. There are inconsistent statements already, and the fact that they have gained by turning state`s evidence and now being -- getting offered great plea deals, they`re not facing nearly as much as what O.J. is now facing.

BROOKS: I thought -- I thought Bruce Fromong, right in the beginning, they had enough with that that they could have said, Oh, that`s it, and I think they still would have had enough because, again, it`s probable cause. As a detective, first thing -- as a rookie in the academy, first thing I learned, that any set of facts and circumstances that would lead a reasonable and prudent officer to believe a crime is being committed, has been committed or is about to be committed. Do we see that here? Absolutely.

Let`s go out to the phones. Doris from Florida, thanks for joining us.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Yes, Mike. I`d just like to know if O.J. was going in innocently and he knew two men were in there, why did he bring five strongarm men? Why didn`t he just go in with Riccio?

BROOKS: That`s a great question. Pat Brown, criminal profiler, why didn`t he just go in with Riccio?

BROWN: Because he wanted to get his stuff back, and that wasn`t going to do it. He called it a sting operation because that`s what it was, in a sense. Not a legal one. But he planned to go in there and get all his junk. And if he just walked in there and chatted with the men, I don`t think he would be seeing his stuff going into his vehicle and taking off any time soon.

BROOKS: No, I don`t think so, either. And one of the things that we heard from a number of witnesses was, you know, When you go into the room, act menacing. And we heard from Alexander that O.J. actually told him, you know, to bring some weapons with him. So you know, time will tell.



UNIDENTIFIED MALE: This was something that was totally expected by us. You know, I had done some interviews prior to this hearing basically stating that we were fully expecting the case to be bound over for trial. You know, the prosecution`s burden is slight or minimal, which is, you know, a step above "maybe." And I think that`s what was shown during this week`s testimony.


BROOKS: I`m Mike Brooks, in for Nancy Grace. Well, it looks like O.J. Simpson will be bound over for trial in Las Vegas, his next appearance November 28 on charges such as kidnapping, armed robbery -- oh, it just -- a total of 12 charges, 11 of them felonies.

I want to go out to Caryn Stark, psychologist. Caryn, why do people just like hanging around him, and why do people keep -- you know, they keep glomming onto him? Are they trying to live vicariously through this guy, or are they what they call, the Alfred Beardsley, just kind of a -- strap hangers?

STARK: Well, take a look at people who are hanging around him. The people who like hanging around him are people like him. And if you see him as having that kind of criminal mentality, then you understand why there are thugs that are hanging around him. And I do want to say that those are the kind of witnesses you need to use.

BROOKS: Chet from Canada, thanks for joining us. Do you have a question?

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Yes. I was wondering if anyone knows what happened to the memorabilia, like, if it`s still in O.J.`s possession or if it`s now part of the evidence for the trial or whatever?

BROOKS: Pat Lalama, do we know?

LALAMA: ... police evidence. Nobody`s got their mitts on it right now except the cops.

BROOKS: And it looks like, because they were showing some of the memorabilia during the trial, they`re showing pictures of it, and some of it they were circling. So it looks like it`s all going to be evidence when it comes back to on November 28.

When we come back: With his fourth wife missing and his third wife mysterious death`s under the microscope, Drew Peterson finally speaks out.



UNIDENTIFIED MALE: What would you be telling Drew Peterson right now?

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: I would tell him to obviously keep his mouth shut.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Get yourself back in the house and shut your mouth. Let your lawyer do the talking and let your lawyer have the comments made that need to be made in the media.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Stay in the house, don`t talk to anyone, don`t talk to the media.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: He`s better off just keeping his mouth shut.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: The less he speaks the better off he will be ultimately whether he is charged or not.


BROOKS: I`m Mike Brooks in for Nancy Grace. Well, you just heard our panel of experts over the next number of weeks talking, giving advice to Drew Peterson. But apparently he wasn`t watching the NANCY GRACE SHOW.

Because this morning he was with Matt Lauer on "The Today Show." Let`s take a listen.


DREW PETERSON, SUSPECT IN WIFE`S DISAPPEARANCE: She never told me she was seeing another man. She - well, maybe she did. But I believe she`s with someone else right now.

MATT LAUER, "THE TODAY SHOW": Let me go back to did she or did she not say to you I am seeing someone else, Drew.

PETERSON: It wasn`t put like that. She found somebody else, those were her exact words.

LAUER: And you believe that now she is not dead, that she`s actually run off with another man?

PETERSON: I believe that, yes.


BROOKS: That was video of Drew Peterson on the "Today Show." A stoic Peterson tells his version of what he believed happened to his missing wife Stacy.

But what we heard, a little bit of contradictory there, I`d say. Let`s go out to Kathy Chaney reporter with the "Chicago Defender."

Kathy, what are people there saying about this "Today Show" interview.

KATHY CHANEY, "CHICAGO DEFENDER": They`re actually believing that it`s a joke that, he end on there only to get some type of legal representation for free. He basically chuckled and said Stacy come home, tell people where you are. Like he just believes that she`s still alive. And her family is outraged. They are completely outraged.

BROOKS: I can understand why they would be completely outraged. There he was kind of saying well, I`m not out there searching for her because there`s nowhere to search because he believes she ran off with somebody.

I want to go right out to the defense attorneys, Joey Jackson and Meg Strickler. Meg out of Atlanta, Joey out of New York. If this guy is your client, Joey, wouldn`t you just tell him to shut his mouth and stay in the house?

JOEY JACKSON, DEFENSE ATTORNEY: You know what, Mike, we absolutely would. As defense attorneys we don`t like anyone speaking because you don`t do yourself any favors and anything you say can and will be used against you so it`s always an issue.

Having said that, though, Mike -- And the other issue we don`t like is that everything you say is going to be analyzed. Did he raise his eyebrow to the left, did he turn his eyebrow to the right. Was he sweating, was he serious when he said it, did he chuckle or did he not? Everything you say is going to be analyzed over and over and over. You should be quiet.

Haven`t said that, he didn`t say anything that he did not say anything that was not stated before or anything inconsistent that would give me pause.

BROOKS: He is a suspect, though. And today, again, Drew Peterson on his wife Stacy on the "Today Show." He says, "Why would I look for someone who I don`t believe is missing? She`s just gone. She`s where she wants to be."

You now, where does she want to be? This whole thing, come home, the pleaing with her. That was not a plea to me Meg Strickler? Do you think that was?

MEG STRICKLER, DEFENSE ATTORNEY: That was not a plea, I hate, to say, it wasn`t very emotional, and I know we are picking on what he said today. But I disagree with Mr. Jackson in the sense that he really should be hiding at home and saying absolutely nothing. Because everything is going to be so scrutinized and he will never look good. Let`s get this out of the media and get it into the court system and let his testimony come out that way not on the "Today Show" with Matt Lauer. No.

BROOKS: Exactly. I want to go out to Pat Brown, criminal profiler and author of "Killing for Sport."

Pat, as a profiler, do you think that other profilers working on this particular case and investigators are going to be going over this interview with a fine toothed comb looking for what?

PAT BROWN, CRIMINAL PROFILER: This is a great interview. It is going to be used for education for years to come. Essentially we have one that`s acting like a psychopath. In the sense that he seems to not understand what is the normal answer. In other words, he wants to give the right answer. The right answer being something that`s going to snow us, not the truthful answer.

He says a lot of interesting things. He says, for example, he told his story to the police about what happened. A story? Not what happened, but a story? He also doesn`t seem to know that his wife found somebody else. I guess she only found somebody but she didn`t actually see them when she found them. That makes no sense.

He`s got enough inconsistencies and strange statements in his stories that it doesn`t sound like a person just sitting there telling the truth. It sounds like a person that`s trying to play was and prove himself to be innocent and try to sway the future jury.

BROOKS: I tell you want. He didn`t totally convince me and with him having now resigned, and we`re going to talk about that in just a second. But also on the "Today Show" Drew Peterson on his wife Stacy.

He said, quote, "I`m not trying to be funny here. Stacy would ask for a divorce after her sister died on a regular basis, I`m not trying to be funny. And it was based on her menstrual cycle. It was just like any other moment she had when she was unhappy with something, she would want divorce."

I want to go out to Karen Stark, a psychologist, what do you think about that comment, Karen?

KAREN STARK, PSYCHOLOGIST: It`s so outrageous. He`s saying that women when they`re premenstrual or menstruating they are all going to want to have a divorce and they get in such a bad mood.

And one of the things I wanted to add about profiling to what Pat said is that people will take a look at his emotional response. The fact that he has such a flat affect and he seems so cold blooded that he`s capable of murder. That comes across very strongly.

BROOKS: And I want to go back to Pat Lalama, does he ever admit that there`s violence in this relationship, with wife number three, Kathleen Savio, or with Stacy Peterson, wife number four?

PAT LALALA, INVESTIGATIVE REPORTER: No, flat out denials. But you know what? All of us who have covered crime or have been involved in solving crimes, this is a pattern. He didn`t do anything. As a matter of fact, Stacy threw a frozen steak at him. He just playfully threw her in a pool one.

Oh, that e-mail where she said she wanted to get out of the marriage? Somebody made that up.

Where have you heard this kind of stuff before?

BROOKS: Now here`s more on the "Today Show," Drew Peterson on his wife Stacy, quote, "I don`t believe our relationship was ever violent. There were a few incidents where Stacy and I would have verbal confrontations and I would be in her face and she hated being cornered. And one point in time she hit me in the head with a frozen steak. That is just incredible.

But right now I want to go out to a very special guest with us from Chicago, Illinois. It`s Michael Lisak, he`s the nephew of Kathleen Savio, wife number three whose body was just exhumed yesterday. Michael thanks for being with us again.

MICHAEL LISAK, KATHLEEN SAVIO`S NEPHEW: Thanks for having me again.

BROOKS: Now, talking about the violence that he has exhibited over the years, the other day, we talked about an incident and I want you to recount that incident again, that violent incident of where Drew Peterson was in the car with both Stacy Peterson and Kathleen Savio, they were both in the car together.

What happened?

LISAK: Well, the incident was when Drew came back to my aunt`s house. I believe to either to pick up the kids or drop them off and he went into the house and told my aunt that Stacy was in the car and she didn`t want her kids to have anything to do with Stacy at the time because Stacy more or less in her eyes was basically the reason that they were getting a divorce.

BROOKS: How did she explain Stacy being in the car? How did he explain it? This is my friend? This is my new girlfriend? This is my new paramour? How did he explain that away?

LISAK: I really don`t know what he said word for word on that, but the type of person that I have known him to be, he would probably just be blatant and say this is my girlfriend. I mean, he bought a house a block away from my aunt`s house when they were getting divorced.

I mean, talk about not really caring and showing off your 17-year-old girlfriend.

BROOKS: Talk our viewers about the confrontation where he put her on the ground and handcuffed her.

LISAK: Well, he was in the house. He told my Aunt Kathleen that Stacy was in the car. And she didn`t want anything to do with her. She came outside to confront Stacy who was in the car. She had a camcorder that was already taping. My Aunt Kathleen was furious, she was get away, I don`t want you with my kids. She ran to the car and Drew tackled her and pinned her to the ground in the grass and put his knee to her head and Stacy gets out of the car and basically films the whole event and Drew`s pinning her to the ground with his knee behind her head and she`s staying ,"Help me please, somebody help me," and he`s dialing the police on his cell phone.

BROOKS: He should have been dialing the police to come arrest him for assault. Let`s go to the lines, Pat from Ohio, thanks for joining us. You have a question?

CALLER: Yes I do. I was wondering, if he keeps saying that she`s out there somewhere, wouldn`t she at least call her family? They wouldn`t necessarily have to say where she said she was, but I can`t believe she would let her family worry like this.

BROOKS: Pat Lalama, investigative reporter. Haven`t we heard that the family says the same thing, she would never do this?

LALAMA: Absolutely. There`s no ways on God`s green earth that she wouldn`t call somebody and say, I`m OK. Take care of my babies.



BROOKS: During an appearance this morning on NBC`s "Today Show," Drew Peterson appeared calm and collected as he explained why he won`t join the search for his wife. The interview comes a day after police exhumed the body of Peterson`s third wife, at the time of her death authorities ruled Kathleen Savio accidentally drowned in her bathtub. But the information they say that came up in the investigation into Stacy Peterson`s investigations raised new questions about Savio`s death.

And they want to do a new autopsy. A friend of Stacy Peterson tells CNN he received e-mail from her just before her disappearance describing her relationship with her husband as abusive. Drew Peterson said he thinks the e-mail is a forgery.


UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: When I first heard about Stacy, I thought, I my God, I hope nothing happened to her, but now with her being gone so long, I believe that there was definitely foul play involved.


BROOKS: I`m Mike Brooks in for Nancy Grace. Well, we heard Drew Peterson today finally break his silence on wife number three, Kathleen Savio who died under suspicious circumstances in a bathtub a number of years ago and now his missing wife number four, Stacy Peterson. He was on the "Today Show" with Matt Lauer, let`s take a listen.


LAUER: Can you loon look me straight in the eye and tell me that you had nothing to do with the death of your third wife Kathy or the disappearance of your fourth wife Stacy?

PETERSON: I can look right in your eye and say I had nothing to do with either of these incidents.

LAUER: Do you have anything you can produce to me that might prove your innocence?

PETERSON: No. I don`t know what to tell you. Just let the case unfold as it does.


BROOKS: That was video of Drew Peterson on the "Today Show." Peterson calmly denies having anything to do with his third wife`s death or his fourth wife`s disappearance. But did he have anything to do with either one?

Now, yesterday wife number three Kathleen Savio was exhumed, her body was exhumed from the cemetery and taken to the medical examiner`s office, to the coroner`s office there. And a autopsy was conducted by an independent forensic pathologist Dr. Larry Bloom.

Now he`s an independent, board-certified forensic pathologist from northern Illinois. He has conducted over 9,000 autopsy and has conducted over 400 homicide autopsies in the past 20 years.

Right now I want to go to Dr. Jake Deutsch joining us here in New York, doctor of emergency medicine. Dr. Deutsch, thanks for being with us. After three years what kind of shape is the body going to be in?

JAKE DEUTSCH, DOCTOR OF EMERGENCY MEDICINE: You would think there would be some sort of decomposition of the tissue, however the body is in a vault. So it`s a cement case that`s actually going to do a lot of protecting and avoid any of the decomposition that you would expect to see. I think all eyes are on the medical examiner. Because they`re really going to be looking at cause of death here.

Clearly there is a question about the drowning. They`re going to need to look at things, for head injuries, cervical injuries and poisoning. Those are the things I think are going to lead this case in a different direction.

BROOKS: Now, it was ruled accidental by drowning. But apparently she was found in this bathtub and her hair was still wet and she had a laceration on the back of her head but she also contusions over other parts of her body. Now after this much time, are these contusions still going to be present?

DEUTSCH: Unlikely. Contusions are a self eliminating injury. However, the injuries to the bones, the head injuries, the spinal injuries, those certainly would be evident from this autopsy. The other things they could be looking at are possible poisonings, so looking for signs of poisoning in some of the remaining tissue or even the bone would be the job of the toxicology people that are involved in this case.

BROOKS: Now do they get it from bone marrow to conduct the toxicology report? What kind of tissue would there be left on -- I know it`s not pleasant to talk about, especially with her nephew with us, Michael Lisak, it`s not pleasant for her family to go through this. But what kind of tissue would be president, still?

DEUTSCH: In the best case scenario, hair fibers, any soft tissue, skin, muscle, anything that may contain the DNA, most likely bone tissue, so bone marrow unlikely to be viable at this point. But the other bone tissue may be able to be used in this case.

BROOKS: Now in a statement today that was put out by Patrick O`Neal (ph) who`s the coroner for Will County in Illinois. He said, "At this time there`s nothing to contradict a change relative to drowning as a cause to Kathleen Savio`s death."

But it also says, the last line, Dr. Bloom`s investigation may take several weeks to complete. Let`s go out to the lines, Stacy from Georgia, thanks for calling us.

CALLER: Thank you. Good evening Mr. Brooks.

BROOKS: Good evening.

CALLER: I would say that the interview that Drew Peterson gave to Matt Lauer today is so similar to the one that Scott Peterson gave to Diane Sawyer. But my question is, if he does find himself in court for what has happened to Stacy Peterson, will his interview be admissible in court for his trial?

BROOKS: Joey Jackson, defense attorney. Would it be?

JACKSON: Absolutely. What will end up happening, Mike, is it will go to show what we call prior inconsistent statements. If he veers off in any way, shape or form to whatever he stated during that interview, the prosecutors are going to have a field day with it as theories always evolve and change when cases move forward.

So he shouldn`t have said anything. But this whole thing about saying was he calm, was he not, people react differently. And we have to understand that.

BROOKS: And it`s amazing, amazing, the similarities in this that there is to the Scott Peterson trial, because I covered that for CNN out in Modesto before and during the trial. And it`s very, very ironic, that their daughter, one of their young daughters name is Lacey, Lacey Peterson. Very, very, very ironic, you could say.

Back out to the lines. Sheeba from Illinois, thanks for being with us.

CALLER: Hi, Mike. My question is, I understand that he is a pilot and has a small plane, I believe. And I have been a pilot myself a little bit here. And I do know that you can remove the doors off of any airplane. And you can get around radar screens. Like in Chicago and big cities and like this.

BROOKS: Right.

CALLER: And if he could have put her in that plane and dumped her, have they checked like a GPS in the plane?

BROOKS: Pat Lalama, investigative reporter, they have looked into some of the plane, haven`t they?

LALAMA: Yeah, here`s the thing with the plane and there`s still some unanswered questions. They don`t keep records at that airport of flying, that`s number one. He used to take her up in the air for rides and they haven`t issued a subpoena for it. So it`s a little bit murky.


BROOKS: Now over to Headline News. Glenn Beck, what`s up?

GLENN BECK, CNN HN HOST: If you`re looking for the ground zero of our border crisis with Mexico, Laredo, Texas might be a good place to start. If you`re looking for the ground zero of political bullcrap, Laredo, Texas is definitely the place to start.

Tonight I`m going to show you how disconnected Washington is from the American people on this issue and how Washington`s incompetence is literally costing American lives.

And Mitt Romney, now the clear leader in primary states like Iowa and New Hampshire and he`s coming on strong all across the country. In depth candid conversation with Mitt Romney, next.

BROOKS: Hi, I`m Mike Brooks in for Nancy Grace. Well, Drew Peterson came out today on the "Today Show" after his wife number three`s body was exhumed yesterday from a cemetery in Illinois. I want to go back out to Dr. Jake Deutsch who is with us here. He is a doctor of emergency medicine.

Besides just examining the body, what else are they going to look at?

DEUTSCH: They`re going to look at anything that`s going to give them the cause of death. That is the job of this medical examiner. They need to get to the bottom of the cause of death. Whether there`s any head injury that wasn`t diagnosed, whether there`s any toxicology that can lead to that, that is the number one priority for this medical examiner.

BROOKS: Let`s go out to the phone. Bridget from California, thank you for joining us.

CALLER: Yes. My question is, has he taken a lie detector test?

BROOKS: You know what I can answer that for you, Bridget, because that`s one of my things as an investigator for that I used to use as a great investigative tool. But no he has not take analyze detect for test. He was cooperative with police early on. But then he called - what we call lawyered up so he has not taken a lie detecter test and basically he`s not talking to the police much anymore.

Tonight let`s stop to remember Army Private First Class Christian Neff, only 19 from Lima, Ohio. Killed in Iraq. An honor student and motivational speaker, Neff wanted to serve his country. He loved public service including organizing food drives for local charities. He leaves behind grieving parents Bill and Nancy and sister Shannon. Christian Neff an American hero.

Thank you to all our guests and thank you at home for being with us and remember to go to Nancy`s baby blog for exclusive video, photos and messages from Nancy. See you tomorrow night at 8:00 p.m. sharp Eastern, until then, stay safe.