Aired May 12, 2003

The latest on Scott Peterson's defense, including new word on a potential key prosecution witness,
with Ted Rowlands of KTVU, Kimberly Guilfoyle Newsom, assistant district attorney from San
Francisco, defense attorney Chris Pixley, Jeanine Ferris Pirro, district attorney of Westchester
County, New York, defense attorney Jan Ronis and jury consultant Jo-Ellan Dimitrius LIVE.

KING: All right, let's swing to the Peterson matter. Jo-Ellan, what kind of -- if you were handling
this for Geragos, what kind of jury do you Want?

JO-ELLAN DIMITRIUS, JURY CONSULTANT: Well, first of all, you want a juror that hasn't formed
an opinion based on everything that they've heard. I think you want to find someone who doesn't
necessarily believe that the next step from having an affair is killing your wife. I think you want to
have someone who possibly can understand the reason why he changed his appearance was...

KING: You can ask these questions and questions...

DIMITRIUS: Oh, sure.

KING: You can ask anything?

DIMITRIUS: Sure. And that's going to be a sensitive question, obviously, is how do you feel about
adulterous scenarios? You can't -- well, I mean, you can ask a juror themselves, but they don't,
you know, frequently want to share that with you. But you might ask it in a questionnaire.

KING: Ted Rowlands, what's the latest about this alleged burglar who may be a witness for the prosecution?

TED ROWLANDS, KTVU-TV: Well, apparently a burglar was in the area where Scott and Laci lived
on Covina on the 24th earlier in the morning. This individual was casing the area for a burglary that
took place on the 26th across the street from the Peterson home. And he, according to sources, is
telling police that he may have seen Scott Peterson outside his home doing something in the early
morning hours. And this could add into the prosecution's time line that they're establishing and that
Scott Peterson made two trips to the Berkeley Marina.

That's the timeline that we understand they're working on, that he first went early morning, came
home, and then for whatever reason went back to the Berkeley Marina again.

KING: But didn't he tell you in an interview that he thought he saw someone when he was loading,
what, umbrellas?

ROWLANDS: Yes, he -- I asked him if he had any interaction with that person.  And he said he didn't
see them, but he did acknowledge that someone could have seen him loading umbrellas with a blue
tarp wrapped around it. But I asked him if he had -- if he talked to that person? He said no, I'm not
sure who saw me doing that.

KING: Chris, from what you now know, is this a highly defensible case?

PIXLEY: I still think it is, Larry. Remember, we don't have any witnesses. We're now hearing today that
we may have a witness, one whose credibility is highly questionable, a burglar in the neighborhood.
But still to this point, no witnesses, no murder weapon, no real theory on how Laci was killed. We also
don't have a cause of death. And with each passing day, there's a greater question in everyone's mind
whether there ever will be a cause of death determined.

And we also, Larry, don't have anything tying Laci's body to any of the paraphernalia that's been paraded
around in the media, the rope, the tarp, the cement, you know, items you can find in anyone's garage
anywhere in America. I imagine right now, Scott Peterson is thanking his lucky stars that he's a golfer
and a fisherman, and not a hunter or somebody that collects knives, because you can just imagine what
the prosecution would do if they had that kind of evidence in the house.

KING: Kimberly, was -- it was mentioned early on slam dunk. That's no longer the case here, is it?
This is not a slam dunk prosecution?

NEWSOM: Well, I agree with Chris. The more time that progresses and passes and we still don't have
a cause of death, I think it is unlikely that they're going to be able to come up with one. And what's
troubling in cases I've done, homicides, where you have women that have been strangled, there's
the hyoid (ph) bone that's in the neck area here. And you can tell if that's been fractured, that
someone's been strangled or they could tell if, you know, there was some other cause of death in
this case. Then you could maybe tie that into, you know, how Laci was killed. And maybe to Scott with
a piece of physical evidence.

KING: But if you don't have the cause of death, it's a tougher prosecution?

NEWSOM: It is a tougher case, definitely.

 KING: Jan Ronis, do you think it's highly defensible, this case?

RONIS: Well, I hope the prosecution has something better than a burglar as one of their key witnesses.
Burglary is a mandatory prison sentence in California. So it's clear that somebody could certainly try to
cut a deal in exchange for testimony that might help them out of their own particular situation. But I think
we have to emphasize all we really know factually is that she's missing Christmas Eve. She turns up
close to the Marina, where his boat was moored. He's arrested. He has yellow hair and $10,000 in his
pocket. Those are really the facts. And it's pretty hard to extrapolate or come to an opinion about guilt at
this point. And I again, I just emphasize, everybody has to hold on until we know facts other than the facts
we know. Not rumor and innuendo.

KING: Jeanine, what are your thoughts?

PIRRO: Well, you know, we really don't know all of the evidence right now. But I think that if we're going
to rely on a witness at 3:00 in the morning, I guess nobody other than a burglar is going to be out at
3:00 in the morning on Christmas Eve, trying to figure out what's going on outside the Peterson house.
But I mean, you deal -- you know...

KING: With what you have.

PIRRO: ...you play with the cards that you're dealt. But there's a lot of evidence. And this is a
circumstantial case, not unlike so many circumstantial cases that we've all tried. It's not about an
eyewitness. It's about piece by piece putting evidence together, block by block until you get to the point
where there's a wall that the defense cannot hurdle.

KING: Generally speaking, Jo-Ellan, in this kind of case for the defense, would you rather have a man
or a woman on the jury?

DIMITRIUS: Probably --I probably think about a man. And I think that --just to follow up on what everybody
else has been saying that the prosecution has some significant problems, too. Aside from the burglar,
we've got a psychic and we've got wiretaps. And wiretaps aren't necessarily viewed in a positive light by,
you know, people out there.

KING: Public?

DIMITRIUS: Sure, absolutely.

KING: Let's get a call. I'm sorry, Jeanine, you want to say something?

DIMITRIUS: But wiretaps are a legitimate way for law enforcement to investigate crimes. I mean, we
do it all the time. You've got a wiretap that has to be signed by the D.A. And in fact, I just did one today
It's got to be signed by a judge. There are several hurdles that have to be met before a wiretap is issued.
It doesn't make the evidence less credible. In fact, it usually is in the words of the defendant himself.

KING: State College, Pennsylvania, hello.

ROWLANDS: Hey, Larry?

KING: Hold on, we take the -- was that you, Ted?

ROWLANDS: Yes.

KING: Okay, Ted, go on. Hold on State College. I'll come to you right away. Go ahead, Ted.

ROWLANDS: Well, you're talking about wiretaps. I received a couple of certified letters this morning
in the mail from the district attorney's office in the Stanislaus County. They are tapping my phone as
well, along with some other reporters and other folks involved in this case.

KING: Why?

ROWLANDS: That's a good question.

KING: You're shocked? Hold it, hold it. Kimberly's mouth is agape.

ROWLANDS: I don't think his phone was tapped. I think what that means is his conversation was
probably intercepted when he called somebody whose phone was tapped.

PIRRO: Exactly.

RONIS: I'm sure they didn't tap his phone.

PIRRO: Yes.

RONIS: That's a receipt and inventory that they have to give.

KING: OK. It must have been -- did you call Scott? They tapped his phone. State College, Pennsylvania?

ROWLANDS: Yes, that's what I thought it was, too, but...

KING: That's no what it says?

ROWLANDS: It's very vague. And I have to get clarification on it. But talking to one prominent defense
attorney, he seems to believe that my phone was tapped.

KING: Oh, wow.

ROWLANDS: It is not...

PIRRO: I find that hard -- I find it hard to believe.

KING: Let me get State College through. I've been holding him for an hour. State College, go ahead.

CALLER: Good evening. What about Scott Peterson's employer? Did they fire him once the police became suspicious of him? And I haven't heard any interviews of any of his co-workers or anything about that.

KING: Oh Scott -- was he fired right away, Ted?

ROWLANDS: No, from his employer, not at all. They supported him and I think they still support him, his employers. He's a guy that works for a company, that'san international company based outside the United
States in Argentina. They came and visited him. And they seem to support him publicly. And from what I
understand, he has enjoyed full support from his employer.

KING: They wouldn't tap a reporter's phone, would they, Kimberly?

NEWSOM: No, I've never seen that done. I think that is highly unusual. And that's why I was so shocked
to hear that, they're doing that With Ted so.

KING: Jeanine, you ever heard it?

PIRRO: You know what? That would be -- there would be a very high burden for a prosecutor to look to
tap a phone of a reporter. I think more likely Ted got a notice that his voice was on a wiretapped recording.
And so he was probably talking with the defendant. I can't imagine that his phone was tapped. I just can't.

KING: Sunnyvale, California, hello.

CALLER: Hi, Larry. I just have a quick question for Kimberly, the lady who did the great case on Whipple.

KING: Yes.

CALLER: My question is, is if she prosecutes cases, we know that the defendant does not have to take
the stand in his own defense. But he has all this videotape of him saying, you know, on the video, well,
I had to sell my other truck to get a truck, and now he winds up with a Mercedes, is he -- are we allowed
to call him to the stand and say is that you on the stand? And...

KING: You can't force a defendant to the stand?

NEWSOM: No, absolutely not. You can't do that. You cannot be compelled to give testimony against
yourself. But they could call people involved with those transactions to testify against Scott Peterson.

KING: Now Chris, what must the prosecution show?

PIXLEY: Well, the prosecution...

KING: I mean, two and two has to equal four, right?

PIXLEY: That's exactly right, Larry. And we don't have that right now, but the prosecution needs more.
They need to tie the bodies, I think, at this point, to something in Scott's possession. They need to be
able to show that the death occurred in the home. They may very well have this evidence, but everything
that's being leaked right now is kind of missing the mark. Now if they do have a witness, as "The Enquirer"
has reported, that can put Scott at the Marina at 3:00 in the morning, that's going to be...

KING: Yes.

PIXLEY: ...a real problem for him. But they don't have it right now.

KING: Before I ask Ted Rowlands another question about the tapping story, Kimberly wanted to explain
when she thinks a defendant would take the stand.

NEWSOM: Yes, in this case, Mark Geragos is going to keep Scott off the stand if, you know, depending
on the circumstances of the case. He'll have to get on to explain if they want to go to heat of passion or
try and get it down to a voluntary manslaughter to say something terrible happened. Then he'll have to
explain it, if the case is strong.

KING: If the case is strong.

NEWSOM: If the case is weak, then he's going keep him off the stand and let the D.A.'s case fall apart.

KING: Ted, the staff wants you to read the letter you got. Can you do that for me?

ROWLANDS: Sure, I'd love to.

KING: OK.

ROWLANDS: "Pursuant to penal code Section 62968, you are hereby notified on April 15th, 2003 the
Stanislaus County Superior Court authorized Stanislaus County wiretap number three authorizing the
interception of wire communications for a period of 30 days commencing on that date, monitoring
under this order was terminated on April 18. During the period covered by the order, communications
were intercepted."

KING: Jeanine, that sounds like his phone was tapped.

PIRRO: Well, no, it does not.  I think that what he's saying -- what they're saying is that pursuant
to the penal law, he is notified, as happens across the country, that his voice was intercepted.
It doesn't mean that it was his phone that was tapped. But everyone who speaks to the person
who was on the -- whose phone is tapped gets a notification because apparently that is relevant.

KING: Oh.  Then why does it say for one month?

PIRRO: Because it's -- it's in 30 day intervals, Larry.....that a wiretap is legitimate. Then we go
for extensions after 30 days. And then the next extension and the next extension. That's the
normal time period within which a wire is issued.

KING: OK. Rapid City, South Dakota, hello.

CALLER: Yes, hello. To the attorneys on the panel, especially Chris Pixley, shouldn't it help in Scott's
defense or at least create reasonable doubt in two ways that, one, that the dog was wandering around
aimlessly with the leash? And then secondly on the morning of the 24th, there were two or three
eyewitnesses in the neighborhood who may -- looks like they may have seen Laci walking the dog?

KING: Chris?

PIXLEY: I agree. You know, we've heard that the police have discounted these witnesses that say they
saw Laci Peterson walking her dog on the 24th. We've talked about it before. It would be awfully strange
for there to be another short dark-haired, attractive pregnant woman almost full term walking the dog on
that day. It's possible. And Nancy Grace has made the point many times, that it's been discounted for
good reason. But there's a lot of evidence of that kind that needs to be analyzed. And the police may
possibly still be analyzing it all. It's one of thereasons that the search warrants have been sealed and
why the prosecution is arguing to keep them sealed as with the defense.But I do think all of those facts
play in favor of the defense.

KING: Binsens (ph), Indiana, hello.

CALLER: Hello, sir. I just was wondering if this Mark Geragos has information that could clear his
client and get him out of jail, why would you not just come ahead and bring it out instead of the way he's
going about it? And two, I can't see how anybody, I mean, this is my opinion, if my wife had been murdered
and son, you know, I would have been -- you couldn't even -- I couldn't have even have stood in front of the
TV.  And I've watched this from the beginning. And all I've seen is a guy that is smug and like he's laughing
at everybody, like he got away with something.

KING: Yes.

CALLER: And it don't take a genius to see--you know, you change your appearance and if he was doing that...

KING: Yes, it don't look good.

CALLER: If he was doing that to -- because people was...

KING: All right, I'm running low on time. I understand where you're going. But Jan, if the attorney has
information, why not come out with it?

RONIS: Right. Well, certainly I'm sure he has information we don't have. But the system doesn't really
work that well. He may have information which he believes exonerates his client. That doesn't mean the
district attorney's going to believe it now if he presents it to him. It'll be a jury issue. So Mark is doing it
the way attorneys do it. He's doing it the right way.

PIRRO: But Larry, there is one interesting point here. And as a judge, what happens is I've said to juries
at the end of the case, look, the defense has no burden. So Mark can say whatever he wants at this point,
but when we get to the point of proving the evidence, that's on the prosecution alone, and the judge will
say specifically you cannot seek evidence from the defense.

NEWSOM: I think Mark is trying to create a presumption of innocence. I don't think that witness necessarily
is going to show up. And he's trying to change public opinion about this case.

KING: Thank you, all.

TRANSCRIPTS         HOME       INDEX       LACI          SCOTT       CASE INFO & STORIES

TRIAL    VERDICT    ALBUMS
LARRY KING LIVE
GOD BLESS LACI & CONNER
MAY THEY REST IN PEACE
HOME

INDEX