| CNN LARRY KING LIVE Analysis of Laci Peterson Murder Case Aired May 27, 2003 (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) MARK GERAGOS, SCOTT PETERSON'S ATTORNEY: What happened in court I think was significant from our standpoint, in that it allows the investigation to go forward. (END VIDEO CLIP) LARRY KING: Scott Peterson in court today. Will we ever get to hear his 69 wiretapped phone calls? Did he tell his girlfriend, Amber Frey, that he knows who killed Laci? And what about those sealed warrants and autopsy reports? We'll get to it all with Ted Rowlands of KTVU, in Modesto, California, Court TV's Nancy Grace, a former prosecutor, defense attorney Chris Pixley, Kimberly Guilfoyle Newsom, assistant district attorney, San Francisco, and defense attorney Jan Ronis. Can you tell us, Chris, that decision today that the judge orders logs of intercepted calls between Scott and his attorney turned over to the defense. What does this mean? CHRIS PIXLEY: Well, I think the judge had to do that. The question really is whether the 69 intercepted phone calls are going to really reveal much to the defense. It may be that there actually is a conspiracy and the police were really going after conversations between the defense team, but you know, I've said all along, that we can't rush to judgment with the prosecution's case. Yes, they took a lot of evidence out of the home. There's a lot of evidence out there. By the same token, I don't think that we can assume right now that there's going to be a lot in the 69 phone calls. KING: Kimberly, why do they tap the conversations between a lawyer and his client? KIMBERLY GUILFOYLE NEWSOM: Well, obviously, the prosecution did not intend to do that. The allegation is that this was done, and Chris Pixley's saying there's some kind of conspiracy. I don't think that's the case at all. It was inadvertent, I'm sure, at best, and that information cannot be used. It'll be excised, and they won't be allowed to present it. KING: Jan, why did they have to go to court to get to hear it? JAN RONIS: Well, first of all, I think -- I'd be hard pressed to think that they inadvertently wire-tapped those phone calls 69 times -- perhaps once or twice. But they are entitled to them. I'm surprised they haven't turned them over thus far, and they did seek the order of the court today. So it will be interesting to see what they say. KING: Any relevance, Nancy? NANCY GRACE: Yes. Definitely. Wiretapping is not uncommon. I've handled several wiretaps myself. And you expect when you wiretap a defendant, his or her attorney may very well call. KING: But shouldn't you click off as soon as he calls? GRACE: Well, yes. And that is addressed specifically in the California law. Larry, the statute says that when attorneys call and there's a wiretap in place, that the procedure called minimization comes into play, which means very simply that once you identify it's the lawyer, you realize who you're listening to, you're supposed to cut it off. And then, after about two more minutes, you can start listening in again to see if there's a different phone call going on. This is not uncommon. And the best of scenarios for the defense is that these two conversations will be thrown out. I don't think the entire wiretap will be thrown out. KING: But basically, if that's true, then, Chris, it's going to be blah listening, right? Hello? How are you? And as soon as they start to talk about a case... PIXLEY: Well, that's what it should be, Larry, and that's why, again, as Jan already explained -- you know, 69 phone calls -- that's a really large number. We may find out that it's just a momentary lapse and they really didn't get any meaningful information. But until the defense has had an opportunity to look at that -- you know, they made the point today they haven't had access to those records. They haven't even had access to the autopsy reports. So it was appropriate for them, I guess, to make the request if the prosecution wasn't going to bring it out to them. KING: All right. How about the intercept of calls to the media? I got a notice that one of my talks -- I only talked to him once -- to Scott -- was intercepted. Ted Rowlands will be with us in a minute. He got a notice. Why don't -- why don't they give -- turn those over? NEWSOM: Well, I mean, I guess they're going to seek to do that, I imagine, but the bottom line is all different conversations are picked up during these wiretaps, and it isn't something they purposely set out to do. So you're going to get a notice like that, Ted Rowlands. But again, they weren't seeking to tape or intercept a conversation from you or from Ted specifically. KING: Mark Geragos said today that Scott wanted to get into court as soon as possible, but that he persuade him to waive the right to speedy proceedings so they could be totally prepared. Why wouldn't he want a speedy trial, Jan? RONIS: Well, I think this is one of those cases where the defense is wise to listen to their attorney because there's-- this is a huge case. The bottom line is they're trying to execute him, if they're successful in convicting him. The defense needs as much time as possible. I'm sure the prosecution needs time, as well. But this is the kind of case where, really, time is on the defendant's side because they need it for preparation purposes. KING: Nancy, "The New York Post" reports today in a headline, "I know Laci's killer, Scott in shock call to his mistress." According to the story, Scott called Amber five or six times a night after she went public with their affair, and they reported the taped conversation -- "Do I need to be afraid of you?" "Absolutely not," etcetera. How do they know that? GRACE: Well, apparently, they've gotten to listen to some of the transcripts or some of the tapes. And very quickly, it was said here on the panel there's going to be a lot of boring listening. If there are tapes, conversations between Scott Peterson and Amber Frey, I can guarantee you it's not going to be boring. KING: No, I said the boring would be with his lawyers. GRACE: With the lawyer. Now, you may be very right about that. But regarding this, I... KING: But how do you know that that's fact? GRACE: ... it was quoted... KING: How do you know -- I mean, "The New York Post"... GRACE: And it was also reported by several other news outlets. Apparently, there's a leak on one side or the other that is releasing this, either the transcript or the tape, which is very interesting... KING: Chris, why are you laughing? GRACE: ... both sides want privacy, but yet they're both leaking. So they want their cake and they want to eat it, too! KING: Why are you laughing? PIXLEY: Well, because from the very beginning of this case, the prosecution has been leaking. And one of the travesties today is that, suddenly, we're talking about a gag order... GRACE: Satanic cult! PIXLEY: And Mark Geragos' team has only been on the case for two weeks, Larry. Now, think about it. Going all the way back to January, we were hearing about a blue tarp. It was the police that told us about Amber Frey. GRACE: Oh, the neighbor told us about...the blue tarp! PIXLEY: They told us about the life insurance policy that Scott had taken out on his wife. They even went on national television, said, We're going to seek the death penalty. Their case has been leaked for the last four-and-a-half months. Now, for two weeks, for only two weeks, we've been getting information about the defense case...and now the judge is considering a gag order. So... RONIS: One more thing. If there's leaks of these wiretaps going on, the defense doesn't have any of them, so it could only be coming from the... prosecution. It can't be...coming from the...... from the defense side. GRACE: ... "I didn't do it, but I know who did, and I'll tell you later." Isn't that the headline... ... not what the police did wrong! KING: I keep going back to this, Kimberly. Do we know that that phone -- it's reported in "The New York Post." NEWSOM: Right. KING: They've been wrong before. NEWSOM: Sure. KING: They're the one with this headline, "Bring in the monster." Right? OK. So they've been occasionally wrong. Do we know that that's a factual call? And is it going to be introduced in evidence? Do we know that? NEWSOM: Right. Well, we don't know that it's actually a fact. We're not going to know any facts. All of this is speculation until the case is presented, first and foremost, in a preliminary hearing or to a grand jury, but it looks like a preliminary hearing now... ... and (UNINTELLIGIBLE) trial. Exactly. And unless someone comes into court and presents that evidence, authenticates it and the prosecution seeks to introduce it, then that's how it's going to come in. KING: So what is evidence is determined only in court, right, Jan? All of this is speculation, as we hear it. RONIS: Absolutely. That's why I've said, at least to myself, on a number of occasions, right now, all we know for sure is that she's missing, she turns up a mile from the boat, he's arrested with money and orange hair. And those are really all the facts. Everything else is speculation. KING: But Nancy, you say we know more than that. GRACE: I think we do know more than that because, No. 1, first and foremost, Scott Peterson gave very lengthy interviews, giving his alibi, his feelings about his wife, and basically lied on national television! KING: Those are facts that we know... GRACE: Those are facts, according to him. Also, statements have been made by Amber Frey's family. We have no reason to think that they are lying. Certain neighbors, regarding the blue tarp, for instance -- they leaked that, not the police. Witnesses have come forward and given certain tidbits that we piece together. PIXLEY: I don't think the neighbors are leaking the story about the blue tarp... The police are leaking the story...And Larry, in terms of what do we know? We know that the prosecution doesn't have witnesses. We know that they don't have a murder weapon. Now we know, because of further leaks, that they don't have a cause of death. We don't even think that they have, really, any good forensic evidence. I mean, think about it. They were in the house... KING: Why do they have an arrest? PIXLEY: We don't have an arrest until April 18, though, Larry. We had search warrants executed on the home, the boat, the cars, his storage unit in February. No arrests until April 18. They don't have any blood or DNA evidence.. more that we don't have. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) GERAGOS: I think the court hit on exactly what the problem is here. They're swimming upstream against law of the case. The 5th District has already considered all of the arguments that they've made this morning. The 5th District has resoundingly rejected all of these arguments. And once again, the 5th District has said in unequivocal language that this argument that she's just made, that somehow, the object of the investigation has the documents, so therefore, the public has a right to know -- the 5th District said just because there is a criminal filing of a criminal complaint does not mean that the real perpetrator is not still out there. (END VIDEO CLIP) KING: Ted Rowlands of KTVU-TV now joins us. He's been covering this case from the start. We've been discussing what happened in court today. We understand that you have brought another woman concept into this. What's that all about, Ted? TED ROWLANDS, KTVU-TV: Well, it's actually -- it's something that's surfacing out of San Diego. A dancer down there claims that she was with Scott Peterson the night before he was arrested. She says that he asked her to drive her to Mexico. We have confirmed that Scott apparently may have been there, but nothing else to it, right at this point. But we're working on it. And the story -- just when you think it's starting to slow down a bit, something else pops up. KING: Is it your indication, Ted, as you know this judge and that area, that this trial will be telecast? ROWLANDS: It sure seems that way. The judge asked for both sides to submit briefs on that subject, and he is going to address that at one of the upcoming hearings. But you know, he's allowed a camera into each of the proceedings. And today there was a bit of a problem because so many people from the media who are here, they were not able to get into the courtroom. Every agency wasn't able to get a representative. There's a valid argument, really, to have at least a feed of some sort for an overflow section. And you start with that, and you can just see where it's going to go. Most likely, it'll be televised. FULL TRANSCRIPT HOME INDEX TRIAL TRANSCRIPTS INDEX CONNER SCOTT LACI EVIDENCE-NEWS ALIBI-WITNESS LIST LACI'S FAMILY |
| LACI & CONNER FOREVER IN OUR HEARTS |
 |
 |
|