12/13/2007 (www.foxnews.com) Greta “On The Record”

“Drew Denies Firing Gun, Fuhrman on Nextel Phone Records)”

http://www.acandyrose.com/2007-12-13-GretaOTR-GunNextel.htm

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,316845,00.html

Report: Drew Peterson Denies Claims He Fired Gun in Home

Friday, December 14, 2007

This is a rush transcript from "On the Record ," December 13, 2007. This copy may not be in its final form and may be updated.

GRETA VAN SUSTEREN, HOST: Welcome to a special edition of "On the Record," "Cops, Cases and Clues." Now, we're going to sink our teeth into some of the hottest cases in the news right now. And first, the Peterson case. Sergeant Drew Peterson is responding to reports that he fired a gun near his missing wife, Stacy, just months before Stacy vanished. Peterson said it was actually Stacy who fired the gun. It's being reported that Peterson says he gave Stacy the gun to Stacy, yes, a gift, and that Peterson now says, "Nothing says I love you like a Glock."

The legal panel will be with us for the entire hour. In San Francisco, former assistant DA Jim Hammer and defense attorney Michael Cardoza. In Washington, D.C., right here, criminal defense attorney Ted Williams. In Detroit, criminal defense attorney Geoff Fieger. Former LAPD homicide detective Mark Fuhrman, as well, joins us from Illinois.

Mark, before we even get to the issue of this gun, this Glock and this gift and this firing, or however we want to characterize it, is there anything new that you've learned on the ground there?

MARK FUHRMAN, FMR LAPD HOMICIDE DETECTIVE, FOX ANALYST: I have. I've got a police source that tells me that Nextel -- that he has actually gotten Nextel phone records as old as seven years old, and that's current. And once again, I've talked to several sources that say that to get a search warrant on anything electronic is like falling off a chair as far, as speed. So it's ridiculous. And it was the same in 2004. Not much has changed.

I've also found out, and confirmed it absolutely, that Drew Peterson prides himself on being able to pick locks. He is a qualified -- I don't think he's a qualified locksmith, but he certainly knows how to pick locks. He's been instructed on it. He possesses and has possessed as many as four different sets of lock-pick tools. And as a new design or a new level comes out, a new level of quality, he purchases them in the hundreds of dollars.

So we have to go back to that night in 2004, and with him in uniform, of which this source says he always carried them when he was in uniform especially. He always had them with him. And you have to think back. They had to call a locksmith to get into the house? I mean, that's really a joke.

VAN SUSTEREN: All right. And let me just sort of -- to orient the viewers, the reason why these phone records are important -- and we'll talk about that in a moment -- is because they could either prove or corroborate Sergeant Peterson's alibi the night Kathleen Savio, wife number three, died. And apparently, according to Mark's investigation he told us about, that had not been done. And we'll talk later about whether that's sloppy or deliberate.

All right. Mark, one other thing I want to ask you about. The night that Kathleen Savio died, were you able to learn any more information about what may or may not have happened? Because I know you've been digging into that.

FUHRMAN: Well, we're actually trying to corroborate some, and I think we might have to save that for tomorrow's show because I haven't been able to completely confirm it through a source that I'm comfortable with. But we do know this. And I think last night, the show ended before we really got to this -- or this segment ended before we really got to this portion.

The real beautiful part of the statements that Stacy is trying to make, and some of the ones that we don't know the full details are, when you listen to what the pastor said, these were details that wouldn't have been known until after Stacy disappeared.

Now, when you hear that, we know what some of them must have been. Well, first is the time of death. If you have somebody that absolutely says that they killed a woman that the police believe died not within that timespan but much later, that is something that only the killer or somebody that the killer talks to at that time, that they can bracket that time. And that is absolutely powerful information. The phone records will tie that into a nice bow, and then there goes the alibi.

VAN SUSTEREN: All right. And the ultimate tease, we'll have to wait until tomorrow to find the -- find out the other stuff.

Let's go out to California and Jim Hammer. Jim, the report that we're hearing that Drew Peterson bought his wife a gift, there was an accidental discharge of the gun -- of any great moment in the investigation, in your opinion?

JIM HAMMER, FORMER ASST. SAN FRANCISCO DA: Well, again, we talked about this thing that law students study over and over, the hearsay rule. The problem is, a narrow part of what she said, if it's corroborated, might come in, her being afraid or hearing a loud noise. If it's an excited utterance, that's an exception to the hearsay rule. But again, generally, her account that Drew Peterson maybe tried to shoot her in the house isn't coming in. It's hearsay, Greta. And unless she turns up alive at this point, no one's ever going to hear that in a court of law, so Drew can say whatever he wants about the incident.

VAN SUSTEREN: And you know what? I -- I don't know if Geoff Fieger agrees with me, but it's, like, so what? Police officers have guns. They accidentally fire. It's in the house.

GEOFFREY FIEGER, CRIMINAL DEFENSE ATTORNEY: I more than agree with you.

VAN SUSTEREN: This piece of information is, like, So what? All right, Geoff, since you agree, I'll let you take it away. You know, you tell us.

FIEGER: In a country that refuses to recognize the problems with guns, where we've had slaughters now in malls and churches, and we regularly have slaughters in other places, and we refuse to even talk about possession of guns because it's such a sacred constitutional right, some people say, how can we be critical of a police officer owning a Glock? That's just so hypocritical, it's beyond belief, in my lexicon.

FUHRMAN: Greta? Greta?

FIEGER: And I can't believe anybody's even raising that issue.

FUHRMAN: Well, Greta, I mean, the issue is professionalism. He's a supervisor. You know, I'm going to tell you right now, I know because I've talked to the police department, I've talked to the police chief, that is not only required that he reports that to the police, but there's a municipal law about discharge of a firearm within the city limits.

FIEGER: Mark...

(CROSSTALK)

FIEGER: I think you'd agree with me on this, Mark. This is Geoff Fieger. You'd agree that, for instance -- you know, we're looking at everything this guy does. This guy was a policeman for, what, 24 years.

FUHRMAN: Twenty-nine. Twenty-nine years.

FIEGER: Twenty-nine. If he had gone on the witness stand in any case -- in any case in the United States -- and I know Ted will back me up on this -- identifies himself as a 29-year veteran and then tells the biggest lie in the world, every jury in this country would believe him over anybody else.

So all of a sudden now, we don't believe anything he says. But isn't it kind of strange that if it -- if it wasn't the circumstances around his (SIC) death, but we put him in another circumstance, where perhaps he had shot somebody or perhaps he had run over somebody, and it's his word against somebody else, there's not...

FUHRMAN: We're not talking about...

FIEGER: ... a jury in this country that wouldn't believe him.

(CROSSTALK)

FUHRMAN: The current subject is an accidental discharge, and the accidental discharge has been admitted by Drew Peterson because the evidence is in the floor and the carpet and in the wall downstairs in the garage. So he's admitting that.

FIEGER: No, I understand...

FUHRMAN: He's...

(CROSSTALK)

FIEGER: But it's either suspicious or indicative of a man who's trying to kill women, or it's...

HAMMER: It doesn't go to the homicide.

(CROSSTALK)

VAN SUSTEREN: I'm with Jim Hammer, as I hear muttering in the background. We'll go to Ted -- is that -- is that, you know, even if it did happen, even if he didn't report it or if he should have reported it, if it's sloppy police, whatever it is...

HAMMER: It's not...

(CROSSTALK)

HAMMER: Exactly.

TED WILLIAMS, CRIMINAL DEFENSE ATTORNEY: It goes, clearly, to these words -- So what? It doesn't really matter...

(CROSSTALK)

VAN SUSTEREN: ... should have reported it, if it happened.

WILLIAMS: Yes. Well, he should have reported it...

VAN SUSTEREN: Big deal.

WILLIAMS: ... and then you can bring him up on maybe some administrative charges, but it is really no big deal in this investigation. But what it does show is that if you've noticed, every time something comes out where there's an accusation against Peterson, for whatever reason, he has to put his butt before a camera and he responds to the accusation. In this one, he's responded by saying that she loved the Valentine's Day Glock as a present.

But what I'm simply alluding to here is that this guy has a big mouth, and his big mouth is going to put him right in a jail cell sooner or later.

VAN SUSTEREN: And you know what's most surprising, as well, is that we haven't heard Michael Cardoza jump in on this. I'm beginning to get suspicious of him!

MICHAEL CARDOZA, DEFENSE ATTORNEY: Hey, listen...

VAN SUSTEREN: What?

CARDOZA: ... I'm sitting here very quietly. I'll tell you what...

VAN SUSTEREN: Yes, it makes me suspicious you've done this, that you've shot a gun into the floor or something.

(LAUGHTER)

CARDOZA: Hey, listen, I'll tell you what. So what? There are a lot of police officers that actually discharge a gun. Heck, when I was a district attorney, there was an investigator sitting at a desk that discharged a round into a wall. It happens. So what?

But I agree with Ted on one thing. This is something that Peterson shouldn't address. Remember what that attorney, Brodsky...

HAMMER: Let him keep talking!

CARDOZA: ... said the other day? This didn't happen. Why are you denying this? So what? It happens. This doesn't mean your guy committed murder. And it wasn't...

FIEGER: I'll tell you, that's the real story.

CARDOZA: ... that he was shooting at him. It wasn't...

FIEGER: Michael, that's...

CARDOZA: ... that he was shooting...

FIEGER: That's the real story, why him or Brodsky is out there talking about anything.

CARDOZA: Exactly.

FIEGER: It's craziness.

CARDOZA: But Geoff...

HAMMER: Fieger...

FUHRMAN: Greta, this is all...

(CROSSTALK)

HAMMER: ... anything in the world for prosecutors that he keeps talking and talking and talking and...

FIEGER: Right.

(CROSSTALK)

CARDOZA: They just keep feeding him. I'll tell you what, thought...

VAN SUSTEREN: Why won't he talk to us?

(CROSSTALK)

HAMMER: You asked tough questions, Greta. That's all.

VAN SUSTEREN: All I -- all I -- I just have -- I have only one question. Where were you October 28 for 24 hours?

(CROSSTALK)

WILLIAMS: He won't talk to Greta...

HAMMER: And that's a tough question!

WILLIAMS: ... because he doesn't want to...

HAMMER: That's a tough question!

WILLIAMS: ... go on the record. He doesn't want to go on the record. And he'd have to go. And he doesn't want to respond.

But I have to agree with everybody on the panel. Hey, sooner or later, his lawyer and himself are putting themselves in jeopardy or peril. And I can assure you, the DA is sitting back, listening to all this, saying, Go for it. Keep talking.

VAN SUSTEREN: But you know -- wait a second...

CARDOZA: Hey, I'll tell you something...

VAN SUSTEREN: Go ahead.

CARDOZA: I'll tell you something that Geoff said earlier that was really true. And that's if you put a 29-year police officer on the stand, a jury just gobbles up whatever they say.

WILLIAMS: Absolutely.

CARDOZA: And I'll tell you what. I...

(CROSSTALK)

VAN SUSTEREN: I don't think that's true in this case.

CARDOZA: Wait a minute. Let me finish. I try a lot of cases. I just got out of trial a couple weeks ago. Jurors are getting a little more skeptical of police officers because they hear more and more that, Gosh, maybe they're not that honest on the stand. Maybe they do try to think the ends justify the means. It used to be that way. It's still predominantly that way, but it is changing.

VAN SUSTEREN: But you know what...

CARDOZA: Jurors look more closely.

VAN SUSTEREN: Wait a sec, Michael.

CARDOZA: Go ahead.

VAN SUSTEREN: Listen, this police officer doesn't take the witness stand...

(CROSSTALK)

VAN SUSTEREN: Look, I mean, let's face it. The burden of proof...

CARDOZA: This is not your typical cop.

VAN SUSTEREN: ... in some ways -- yes, this is not typical. And in some ways, because of his behavior, because of the weird stuff going on, he's trying to -- he's doing everything he can to shift the burden of proof to himself, which is foolish...

(CROSSTALK)

WILLIAMS: Hey, guys, all he's really doing is having that public, that jury pool possible out there, to dislike him. I don't know where he gets his attorney or where he comes from, but it is terrible what they're doing to themselves.

VAN SUSTEREN: Jim...

FUHRMAN: Greta...

(CROSSTALK)

VAN SUSTEREN: Go ahead, Mark.

FUHRMAN: I'm sorry. One thing we can see here is -- well, one, this stuff's coming out of the woodwork because people knew it before, but only because Peterson has put himself in the limelight here with the disappearance of Stacy, are all these little tidbits of him, his judgment and his life. But no matter what happens, no matter what allegation, no matter what accusation, there's one thing that is absolutely true on this. Two things will happen. He will get in front of a screen, and he will be the victim. And that is something that you can see this pattern that I'm sure Jim Hammer...

(CROSSTALK)

WILLIAMS: Nobody's going to believe that.

VAN SUSTEREN: You know what? I actually think -- Mark's sort of onto something. Let me go to Jim because he's the prosecutor. Jim, all these things in complete isolation, I can explain away.

HAMMER: Absolutely.

VAN SUSTEREN: They just -- they truly are explainable. I mean, police officers can accidentally discharge guns or anything. But as I go through the list and making notes, the ex-fiancee, she was afraid. She got pushed around. She got falsely arrested. She got stopped. She got harassed. Wife number three was afraid. She called the police. Lots of reports. Wife number four apparently...

HAMMER: The wife dies accidentally.

VAN SUSTEREN: ... apparently made -- I mean -- I mean, each one of these -- if it were just simply one little thing or one item with each, it's something easily explainable. It's the combination here. And that's the big question. Would the jury hear the combo? Would the jury hear the combo if he were arrested for something?

HAMMER: They'll hear most of it. They might not hear about the gun going off accidentally. But circumstantial evidence cases, as opposed to somebody actually saying, Hey, I just saw him shoot his wife or dump the body off, circumstantial evidence cases are dependent, Greta, on all these little pieces coming together.

And again, you can escape two of three or four of them. If the prosecutors finally have enough to put both the murders together in an indictment and they don't get severed -- that is, they're tried together -- each of those is sort of a circumstantial evidence case of a guy who's a domestic violence perpetrator...

FIEGER: Here's the one thing, though...

HAMMER: ... and finally kills. That's the most damning circumstantial evidence case.

FIEGER: They'll never...

(CROSSTALK)

FIEGER: The one thing the jury will never -- the one thing the jury, Greta, will never, ever be able to accept is how he went out there, the father, and she's the disappeared mother of two young children, and acted in that manner. They will never accept that.

VAN SUSTEREN: Oh, I don't agree with that.

(CROSSTALK)

VAN SUSTEREN: I don't agree with that. And actually, you know what?

HAMMER: It's like Scott Peterson...

VAN SUSTEREN: I so don't agree with that.

HAMMER: ... on the cell phone call during the vigil for his wife. He's making calls to the girlfriend at the vigil, the most damning piece of evidence in that case.

CARDOZA: But this is...

VAN SUSTEREN: You know, Geoff, there's so many of those, regrettably. You know, it's, like, you've got -- and look, I mean...

(CROSSTALK)

FIEGER: He keeps doing them!

VAN SUSTEREN: ... the O.J. Simpson case. I mean...

FIEGER: It's not one incident. This guy's out there -- this guy's out there constantly goofing around.

CARDOZA: Well, that's...

(CROSSTALK)

CARDOZA: This is a classic example of why Peterson -- it's probably horrible to say, but it's a classic example of why Peterson and his attorney, Brodsky, should shut up, lock themselves in a room and say, If you got it...

FIEGER: Exactly.

CARDOZA: ... bring it because you don't have it.

WILLIAMS: You're absolutely right.

VAN SUSTEREN: But Michael -- but Michael...

CARDOZA: They keep feeding this fire.

VAN SUSTEREN: Does -- does -- Michael...

CARDOZA: That's what's insane about their approach. Yes?

VAN SUSTEREN: Does Joel Brodsky -- I mean, as much as we pummel him, has he really hurt his client?

CARDOZA: Yes!

(CROSSTALK)

FIEGER: Absolutely.

VAN SUSTEREN: ... because what he says is not admissible against his client.

WILLIAMS: Hey, wait a minute!

(CROSSTALK)

HAMMER: Greta, Greta, Greta, in today's wires -- in today's wires, we just got, he was asked by a local media source, Where did this story come about, about the minister allegedly having an affair. You know what he said? And this is in print. My client told me.. He has now violated attorney-client...

VAN SUSTEREN: And wait a second! You know...

HAMMER: ... privilege and burned his client as a source!

VAN SUSTEREN: Well, can I give you one worse, is it's too bad he's not on the witness stand. We played the transcript, and he said he'd received several calls (INAUDIBLE) his client calling him several times...

(CROSSTALK)

HAMMER: ... Drew Peterson. He's violated that privilege. Once you violate it -- any lawyer here will tell you, once you violate privilege...

FIEGER: Forget violating the privilege!

(CROSSTALK)

HAMMER: ... at some point, you lose the whole privilege.

FIEGER: This case...

CARDOZA: But remember, too...

FIEGER: ... is ultimately tried in public opinion, and he's destroyed it for his client.

WILLIAMS: Absolutely.

FIEGER: Destroyed it!