| LARRY KING, HOST: Tonight: day one of Scott Peterson's crucial preliminary hearing. The prosecution began laying out the murder case against him while headlines were made by Gloria Allred, attorney for Scott's other woman, Amber Frey. Why did Scott's lawyer, Mark Geragos, fight so hard to keep her out of this hearing? We'll talk later with Gloria Allred. And we'll get all the latest on today's dramatic developments with Ted Rowlands of KTVU, who was inside the Modesto, California, courtroom all day; reporter Brian Melley of the Associated Press, who was also there to watch the prosecution and the defense go at it; also Court TV's Nancy Grace, the former prosecutor; high-profile defense attorney Chris Pixley; and psychologist Dr. Robi Ludwig, a frequent Court TV commentator. The case against Scott Peterson, and when will he go to trial, next. Let's start with Ted Rowlands and Brian Melley. Ted, you first, on the occurrences today in court. We understand from reports it was a boring day about DNA evidence. Right? TED ROWLANDS, KTVU-TV: Well, the bulk of it, yes, was about mitochondrial DNA, and part of a Kelly-Fry (ph) hearing, what they call it. Basically, the prosecution wants to introduce this type of DNA. The defense doesn't want it in court. And it was a long day and a long lesson for non-scientists to follow. But there were some other things that popped out, as well. One, the prosecution said that they will not use any wiretap evidence in the prelim. That would lead most people to believe that Amber Frey is, indeed, going to appear. And as you alluded to at the top, also, Mark Geragos wanted Amber Frey's lawyer, Gloria Allred, out of court, and they skirmished a bit in court. She ended up staying, and I guess, technically winning that battle. We got a glimpse of what to expect next. The prosecution was forced to tell the court, because of the Judge Girolami's order, the next witness in line, each time they call a witness. And they said the next witness will be the Peterson maid. When that happens, though, remains to be seen. We'll have to wait until the mitochondrial DNA lesson is over. KING: Now, Brian Melley, we understand that this mitochondrial DNA -- that deals with hair, right? BRIAN MELLEY, ASSOCIATED PRESS: Yes, to extract DNA from hair in this case, some hair found on pliers in Scott Peterson's boat, the boat that he said he was fishing on Christmas Eve, the day his wife disappeared. As you've alluded to, yes, the prosecutor referred to it as "DNA 101." At times, it seemed like a graduate-level seminar on DNA testing. The important thing, I think, to point out is that they did find a match between Laci Peterson and her mother, although this type of testing is apparently -- does not provide the high level of probability you tend to find in so-called genetic fingerprinting. The expert from the FBI said that this DNA sample would be found in 1 in 112 Caucasians and 1 in 159 Hispanics. KING: Nancy Grace, in view of that, is that solid evidence? NANCY GRACE: Well, of course, everything is subjected to cross-examination, but I would like to point out some documents that I have uncovered tonight, Larry, a big brouhaha as to whether mitochondrial DNA will be allowed. It's not just hair, but the tooth, blood, as well, has been used for decades in identifying bodies from overseas -- for instance, in the world war. But this is very important, Larry. In this decision that I found in a neighboring jurisdiction, right there next door to them in San Diego, with a colleague of this judge -- this is Judge William H. Kennedy, ruled just two years ago nearly to the day that mitochondrial DNA in hair form in a murder case would be allowed in.And we can split hairs -- pun intended -- all we want to and argue the numbers, but I think a jury will be very convinced when they hear about the hair wound into needle-nose pliers in Scott's boat. KING: It's obvious then, Nancy, you're convinced. GRACE: Yes. I'm convinced to this point, and I am a firm believer in DNA, whether it proves you guilty or innocent. KING: Chris Pixley, what do you make of the Geragos's argument that this doesn't belong? CHRIS PIXLEY, DEFENSE ATTORNEY: Well, I think it's a solid argument when you look at the history here, Larry. I mean, there's no case law on the books in the state of California regarding the admissibility of mitochondrial DNA testing. KING: Nancy just said she had a case. PIXLEY: It's not -- these are not appellate decisions, Larry.That means that the California courts have not said, as a matter of law, this is admissible, reliable evidence. And that's why, in fact, we're going through a Kelly-Fry standard hearing today to see whether or not it should be admissible. You know, I think one of the best arguments for why it may not be admissible -- ultimately, I do think it will be admitted, but one of the best arguments against it is actually in the prosecution's own brief, where they say, Look, 38 states don't allow it to be admitted in criminal cases. So it's certainly not something that, while it's been around for a while, certainly, is not something that is so reliable that courts allow it in as a matter of course. GRACE: Well, that's not what this says. KING: ... Chris, by -- Chris, what do you mean by Kelly-Fry hearing? PIXLEY: Well, Kelly-Fry is standard hearing in California that you go through when you are testing the admissibility of novel scientific evidence. And what the court is essentially saying, by actually going through with this hearing and forcing the prosecution to prove that this evidence is, in fact, reliable -- the court's saying, Look, it is novel. This is an unusual technique. It's one that may not be generally accepted in the scientific community. And if it's not generally accepted in the scientific community, then we will not allow this evidence in. So the fact that we're even having this hearing, Larry, is evidence to the fact that this is not something that is standard. KING: Debatable. Dr. Ludwig, is there any psychological aspect so far in this to you? DR. ROBI LUDWIG, CLINICAL PSYCHOLOGIST: Well, it is interesting that, initially, people really thought Scott Peterson is guilty. And there is something called the "primacy effect," which is very similar to a first impression. So basically, if our first impression is a bad one, that is very hard to alter. But there's also something called the "recency effect," and if there is a time lag between an initial impression and then, subsequently, later we find out information that is very powerful, for some people, they will tend to believe what is most recently revealed. So it will be very interesting to see which way it goes. KING: Ted Rowlands, isn't it all a bit moot since it's obvious that he's going to be bound over for trial? I mean, all of this whole 12 days, he's going to be bound over, right? ROWLANDS: Yes. You know, the bar is pretty low here and, in fact... most preliminary hearings, most lawyers will say, are an afternoon, maybe one day. But I think that both sides, because of the publicity, want to come out of this either not losing any momentum or gaining momentum because they really are playing to a potential jury pool, no matter where this trial eventually takes place. KING: Brian, is that the purpose of this, playing to 12 people? I mean, right now. Isn't all of it kind of moot? Nothing's in evidence yet. There's no trial yet. He's going to be bound over. Why all these days doing this? MELLEY: Well, I think, eventually, they want to introduce this evidence, and maybe it's not the best evidence they have, but it's going to be tested, at some point. Why not test it now? And maybe if it's not the best evidence they have, they can use it in the preliminary hearing, get him bound over on it, and save some of their big guns for later. KING: Nancy, why is this hearing important? GRACE: Larry, if we did not have this hearing, you, Chris Pixley, the media in general, would be screaming, lying prostate on the courthouse steps, that Scott Peterson has not gotten his constitutional rights if this case were rubber-stamped and sent on to trial. This is a very important right in our constitution that Scott Peterson get every safeguard there is, including a hearing before this judge.And I'd like to correct something that was said earlier. There are many states that have not yet considered mitochondrial DNA. They have not ruled out the use of mitochondrial DNA. And the number of 38 states in that position is changing literally by the month. Now that number has gone down to 34. KING: Nancy, you can be indicted by a grand jury and not have a pre-trial hearing, can't you? GRACE: Absolutely. And when that happens, Larry, you will hear the defense bar scream to the top of their lungs that it was done in secret and that the defense didn't get a chance to put up their witnesses or cross-examine witnesses! So here you've got an open forum, a very thorough forum, and that is why the state is going forward with the preliminary hearing. KING: Let me get a break, and then Chris will respond. Gloria Allred will be joining us later. As we go to break, Mr. Geragos did speak with the press today. Watch. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) MARK GERAGOS, SCOTT PETERSON'S ATTORNEY: Obviously, we're still -- we're still under a protective order, so I don't have anything to comment on that would violate the protective order, other than the fact that, obviously, we're glad to finally be underway, and we're looking forward to the truth coming out in this matter.(END VIDEO CLIP) KING: I want to get into Amy Rocha, but Chris, you want to respond to what Nancy said? PIXLEY: Well, first of all, I agree with Ted and others. Obviously, it is a bit of a foregone conclusion that this case is going to be bound over for trial. I think that was the case the moment the bodies washed up in the San Francisco Bay. But there is a reason for going forward with the preliminary hearing as a defendant in a case that's receiving this much media attention. You've got to defend yourself. Let's be honest. The press tends to convict defendants. KING: Laci Peterson's sister, Amy Rocha, may be called as a prosecution witness. She was one of the last people to see Scott and Laci together. That's the night before Laci disappeared. She was a guest on this show back in January, and Nancy Grace asked her about that last meeting. Watch. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP - JANUARY 3, 2003)GRACE: Amy, when did you last speak with Laci? AMY ROCHA: It was on Monday night, around 5:30. Scott and Laci both came into the salon where I work, and I had cut Scott's hair and -- so they were there together. GRACE: Did she mention anything unusual? What was her frame of mind? ROCHA: Nothing. It was just the same as always. They were both very happy. (END VIDEO CLIP) KING: Dr. Ludwig, do you think she's going to testify, Amy? LUDWIG: If she's asked, I'm sure she will. She'll probably do anything she can to help out her deceased sister and to find the actual killer. And the family, at this point, after they found out he had an affair, seems to think that he is guilty. So I'm sure the family will do anything that it takes. KING: Is there guessing, Ted? Is it definite that she'll be called? Does she have something germane to add? ROWLANDS: Oh, yes. She was the last person to see Laci and Scott together, as you mentioned, and she knows what Laci was wearing the night that they came into her hair salon. And she was brought into the house during one of those search warrants on Covina to find the clothing that Laci was supposedly wearing the night before, and sources say she didn't find it. The clothing was not in the home. And sources also say that the pants that Laci found may have been those pants that she was wearing -- or that she was wearing when her remains were recovered was possibly the same pair of pants that she was wearing when she went to the hair salon.That opens up the timeframe for the prosecution to say that Laci was killed the night before and not on Christmas Eve, as Scott said, that she was alive and went to walk the dog. So it goes a long way proving the timeline. KING: And speaking of that, Ted, when the sister, Amy, was called -- may be called to testify -- she was on this show in February, and Nancy at that time asked her what Laci was wearing the last time she saw her. And here's the response. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP - FEBRUARY 13, 2003) ROCHA: I do know what she had on. GRACE: What? ROCHA: She was wearing, like, a black-colored top, with cream either flowers or polka dots on it. It was a maternity shirt. And like, cream-colored pants, a black coat, cream scarf. (END VIDEO CLIP) KING: Nancy, why was that important? GRACE: Well, it was important to me because I was wondering if the police had taken her into the home yet to see if she could find those clothes. Like, Larry, you could recognize your wife's clothes and vice versa. So I thought Amy could recognize some of Laci's clothes. And as a matter of fact, Larry, it was the next day that the police took Amy Rocha into the home. And I know this much. She came out of Laci's home crying, visibly crying really hard. And what I'm hearing from Ted Rowlands is that those suspicions were correct. Another thing, regarding the timeline, the jury would have to believe that Laci, if Scott's telling the truth, wore the same maternity clothes to the hair salon, to dinner that night, into the evening, slept in the clothes and was killed and abducted by a satanic cult the next day wearing the same clothes. A jury's just not going to buy it. KING: Brian Melley, what's the coverage like there? What's the press situation like? MELLEY: Well, I've never covered a case quite this large. I was in Modesto during a lot of the Gary Condit-Chandra Levy disappearance, and it's just overwhelmed by the amount of coverage here. I have to say, it's probably not as large as it would have been. A lot of crews apparently pulled out to go cover wildfires down in southern California.But you know, there's a small tent city set up here in front of the courthouse that we're in front of. And behind the cameras are -- is a large parking lot of -- well, a construction site that's been turned into what they're calling "satellite city," with satellite trucks and -- there's quite a bit of coverage. Nearly 200 reporters applied for press credentials to cover the case, to be in the courtroom, including a crew from a TV station in Japan. So it's being widely covered. KING: Jackie Peterson spoke today with the press. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) JACKIE PETERSON, SCOTT PETERSON'S MOTHER: We're fine, and we're glad it's getting started. And we're -- we're praying for wisdom for the court, and we're looking forward to seeing the truth come out.(END VIDEO CLIP) FULL TRANSCRIPT - PHONE CALLS, GLORIA ALLREAD AND MORE COURT DATES HOME INDEX LACI SCOTT EVIDENCE-NEWS WIRETAPS AUTOPSY INDEX TRANSCRIPTS INCONSISTENT STATEMENTS |
| LARRY KING LIVE October 29, 2003 |
| LACI & CONNER & THEIR FAMILY "I grieve with you for your loss & I pray for peace in your hearts" With Love, Lynn - CA - Guestbook Entry |
 |