YT YouTube2Text

YouTube2Text → Transcripts → Scott Peterson: First On-Camera Interview in 2 Decades

Scott Peterson: First On-Camera Interview in 2 Decades — Transcript

by COURT TV · 5,062 words · 711 segments · language en · Watch on YouTube

Open in transcriber Summarize with AI Download SRT/VTT

Full transcript

0:00[Music]
0:00Scott Peterson serving a life sentence
0:02for the 2002 murders of his wife Lacy
0:05and unborn son Connor after more than 20
0:07years he still claims he didn't do it
0:10and now he's breaking his silence in a
0:13new docu series with the LA Innocence
0:16Project taking over his case DNA testing
0:19on a single piece of duct tape could
0:21give Peterson a new
0:24trial good evening and welcome to
0:26closing arguments I'm Ted rolands in
0:28tonight for Vinnie poit we're going to
0:30begin tonight with a story that many of
0:32us have been following for more than 20
0:35years now convicted killer Scott
0:37Peterson of course was found guilty of
0:39the murders of his wife Lacy and unborn
0:41son Connor back in 2004 and since day
0:45one he's always maintain that he had
0:46nothing to do with it now the LA
0:49Innocence Project is pushing for
0:50Peterson to get a new trial and after
0:52their latest effort for a new DNA tests
0:55the judge has
0:57ruled sort of in their favor basically
1:00she said no to testing the items except
1:03one one single piece of duct tape found
1:06on Lacy Peterson's body will be tested
1:09and they're hoping that there's going to
1:11be some DNA and someone else might be uh
1:15found it fingered for this double murder
1:18but unlikely we'll talk about that in a
1:21bit another development for the first
1:23time since 2003 Scott Peterson is
1:26speaking out in his first on camera
1:29interview in more more than two decades
1:31as part of a new peacock docu series
1:33called face to face with Scott Peterson
1:37the new three-part series is premiering
1:39on peacock August 20th take a
1:46look thanks for talking with me
1:48[Music]
1:56today he didn't want to be a dad didn't
1:58want to pay child support didn't want us
2:00to pay spousal and this is the way he
2:02thought about getting out of
2:06it I believe my brother-in-law Scott has
2:09been wrongfully convicted of that
2:12[Music]
2:18murder he's been in prison since April
2:21of 2003 Scott has not spoken on camera
2:25about the case in those 21 years
2:29[Music]
2:31why should anyone care about what you
2:34have to say 20 years
2:39later the deeper you get into this case
2:42the more question you
2:48have now a big reason that Scott
2:50Peterson was convicted was the testimony
2:53of Amber fry he was cheating on Lacy
2:57with Amber fry she cooperated with
2:59investigators recorded his phone
3:01conversations and when she entered that
3:03courtroom I was there for every day of
3:05this trial she completely changed the
3:08case tonight the attorney who
3:11represented Amber and came down that
3:12escalator with her glor all red is with
3:15us also here Deputy public defender of
3:17Los Angeles County Philip dubet good
3:19evening to both of you Gloria what's
3:21your take on Scott uh taking part in
3:24this documentary on um Hulu I don't know
3:26if you're in it or not or Amber but the
3:29um
3:30they're billing it is Scott's talking
3:32for the first time in 20 years what what
3:34could he
3:36say well I have a lot of questions uh
3:39for him uh and also for peacock uh he's
3:43not going to be testifying under oath he
3:46never did testify under oath in this
3:48criminal case because he invoked his
3:50Fifth Amendment privilege against
3:52self-incrimination he wasn't required to
3:55testify and he chose not to testify now
3:58he's doing the peacock documentary I
4:00just want everyone to know he has no
4:03duty to tell the truth the whole truth
4:05and nothing but the truth so help him
4:07God is not under oath in this
4:09documentary also his conviction for
4:13murdering or you know homicide of lacy
4:17and also of the uh unborn uh fetus
4:22Connor was affirmed by the California
4:25Supreme Court the only thing that was
4:26overturned was the death penalty so now
4:30he's trying to get a new trial with uh
4:33DN DNA evidence on a number of items but
4:37the judge recently found that uh all but
4:40one of those dozen or so items that the
4:43Innocence Project wanted to test uh
4:46should not be tested only as was pointed
4:48out uh only one item will be tested and
4:52that's the tape uh that was found uh and
4:55that at the time of the autopsy on her
4:58pants so that will be tested so the real
5:01question is why is he doing it because
5:03he lost in the court of law I guess now
5:06he's appealing to the court of public
5:08opinion is he getting any money from
5:10this where is the money going is it
5:12going for attorneys is it going to him
5:15or to his sister-in-law who's pushing to
5:18get him a new trial I'd just like to
5:20know the ansers to these questions
5:21because he's a convicted felon now
5:24facing a life sentence since the death
5:26penalty was overturned um and I just
5:29have question
5:30about Philip why are we still talking
5:32about Scott Peterson what what what is
5:34it about this
5:35case well first of all he initiated a
5:38petition with the court California
5:40passed a new law relatively new that uh
5:44authorized the uh testing of untested
5:47DNA or uh DNA that may have been tested
5:50with flawed procedures at the time of
5:52the offense so what he's doing is he's
5:55exercising his right and you have to
5:57understand that in order to even
5:59exercise ex that right it
6:01presupposes that the petitioner has
6:03already been convicted and is serving
6:06time in prison so it's a a prerequisite
6:08to the petition and you have to
6:11understand that there is uh a piece of
6:14evidence that was not tested it was a
6:17152 in strip of duct tape that was found
6:21adhered to Lacy's uh pants that was
6:25lifted during the autopsy back in
6:282003 and the rich source of any DNA and
6:32hopefully it's not Scots because if it
6:33is we're going to close this out well
6:35let's just pretend there's an unknown
6:37contributor on the uh sticky substrate
6:40if you will of that tape it could show
6:44that somebody other than Scott Peterson
6:47is the culprit the whole idea behind
6:50this statute allowing for testing for
6:52DNA is to determine the identity of the
6:56perpetrator and if you have a piece of
6:59sticky tape stuck to a victim's body
7:02where DNA matches somebody other than
7:05Scott Peterson then all the evidence
7:07about the Affairs not wanting to pay
7:09child support not wanting to pay
7:11spouse's support and being a cad it's
7:14all noise because at the end of the day
7:16the science could set him free now what
7:19this would do in the end uh assuming he
7:22is successful in the lab uh by the way
7:24that strip uh I believe was sent to pure
7:27gold forensics it's a lab in in Southern
7:30California I think it's in the city of
7:32Redlands but let's say they do find some
7:35donor other than Scott what it would do
7:38is form the basis of a new trial of the
7:40guilt phase of his murder case and we'll
7:43see right now it's up in the air I think
7:45the lab has approximately 45 days to
7:47conclude the testing and get the results
7:50to San Mato Court under seal and you
7:53know the they did actually test a bit of
7:54that piece of duct tape originally they
7:57found um DNA but the
8:00defense successfully argued to the judge
8:01hey do it we got to do it again we have
8:03to do a different portion of it because
8:05the testing at that time was inferior to
8:07what we're dealing with now Gloria if
8:09that comes back Joe scho that has
8:13nothing to do with anything and is you
8:14know it's not the robbers across the
8:17street or it's not someone who lived in
8:19Modesto at the time does that give him
8:22enough traction for a new
8:26trial well I that's going to be
8:28determined by the judge Ted and the
8:31question is by the way I don't have any
8:32problem with someone trying to prove
8:35that he's factually innocent if he can
8:37prove it uh but I do have a problem with
8:42uh the fact that he's doing a
8:44documentary he's trying to have an
8:47impact on the court of public opinion
8:49maybe he thinks if he can get a new
8:50trial this documentary will help him to
8:54prove that he should not have been
8:57convicted that someone else did it and
9:00but let's me so to have an impact on the
9:02jury pool but let's remember this he was
9:06found to be guilty Beyond a reasonable
9:10doubt it doesn't mean for a conviction
9:13that he has to be found guilty Beyond
9:16any doubt whatsoever that's not the
9:18burden of proof that is not the standard
9:21in the law and I'm sure your guest would
9:23agree with me on that so if there is
9:26some doubt it doesn't mean that it was
9:28wrong for the
9:29to prove uh you know to find that he was
9:32guilty Beyond A Reasonable Doubt but
9:35let's see what happens next let's see
9:37what the judge decides let's see what
9:39she thinks she found that some of the
9:42evidence that the innocent project
9:44wanted to be tested and which will
9:46probably be in the documentary I don't I
9:49haven't seen it that she wouldn't allow
9:52uh to be tested would not have affected
9:55the outcome of his criminal case or was
9:58not in a condition to be Ed uh or was
10:00not police custody so she didn't allow
10:02it we'll see whether any of that changes
10:06when the evidence comes in on this duct
10:09tape Philip the LA Unis project has
10:12basically said nothing um about the fact
10:15that they are now representing Scott
10:17Peterson what do you
10:19think made them take on this of all
10:23cases because of course you know there's
10:25a huge interest in this case um
10:29what do you think why is there a there
10:31there for
10:32them well first of all I believe he
10:35reached out to them from prison and
10:38probably confided with them
10:42uh regarding items of evidence that he
10:46believes could exonerate him that were
10:48either not tested uh before his trial or
10:51during his trial or were tested with
10:54flawed procedures or with procedures
10:56that are far more advanced now so so
10:59what the uh Innocence Project does is
11:01they focus not on cases where there
11:04might be reasonable doubt but on cases
11:07where there in fact may be proof of
11:09Innocence so for example if all these
11:12items that they wanted tested could
11:14point to the identity of somebody else
11:17then that could win Scott a new trial
11:19and that's ultimately the endgame you
11:22know uh and by the way the LA Innocence
11:24Project has not been around that long I
11:26believe it was created with a grant from
11:29a DNA Exon back in
11:322022 uh he was exonerated I believe here
11:36in LA county uh after serving many many
11:39years in prisons for a crime he didn't
11:41commit and out of his uh utmost
11:44gratitude he donated I believe a million
11:46dollars to create this chapter if you
11:50will of the Innocence Project and they
11:52partnered with uh Cal State Los Angeles
11:55and their California forensic Institute
11:58and uh the man who was exonerated was
12:01Andy Wilson and I believe he won like
12:031.2 million from the California state
12:06victim Compensation Board and I think
12:08$14 million from the sheriffs and the
12:11LAPD uh because he was wrongfully
12:14convicted you know so they have the
12:16resources they have the will and now
12:19let's see what unfolds yeah well we will
12:21definitely see uh Scott Peterson um he
12:24hasn't done interviews in a long time 20
12:27in fact I believe I was the last person
12:28to interview him 20 years ago uh here's
12:31some of the things that he said to not
12:33only me but Diane Sawyer in that time
12:36period before he went to trial and was
12:38trying to tell everybody hey I didn't do
12:40it it was I'm I'm innocent take a
12:43listen violence towards women and
12:47is unapproachable it is the most
12:50disgusting act to me um and I know that
12:54uh suspicion has turned me what kind of
12:57marriage was it
12:58[Music]
13:00God I mean the first word it comes to
13:01mind is you know glorious I mean we took
13:04care of each
13:05other very well
13:09um she was amazing he is amazing another
13:13story that is out there is that the
13:14kitchen was spotless
13:17mhm and in fact there was still a wet
13:19mop around which indicated somebody had
13:21cleaned something very she was mopping
13:24the floors when I left that
13:26morning um yes the house is spotless she
13:29had a cleaning lady on
13:31Monday the
13:3323rd so if the cleaning lady had been
13:36there why have why have to clean again
13:38dog two
13:40cats ladyy backyard you haven't
13:43mentioned your
13:44[Music]
13:50son that was it's so hard it seems like
13:53a it's a waste of Manpower in that
13:57Pursuit and that's unfortunate makes me
13:59sad more than it does angry um you know
14:02when they were out there in the marina
14:04and I heard his 88 officers those there
14:0688 officers which could have been
14:07following up on investigative
14:10leads I'm sure there's you know my blood
14:12everywhere in that truck I work on a
14:14farm with machineries and um you know
14:17everyone that's I've done media with you
14:19know looked at the scars and cuts on my
14:20hands and I'm afraid you know man we cut
14:24each other and we bleed obviously not a
14:27positive thing
14:29um and you know I think the real
14:31question that you're getting at and that
14:34everyone wants to know is you know did
14:36that precipitate to me being involved
14:37with her disappearance and no it did not
14:41and I had absolutely nothing to do with
14:42Lacy's
14:46disappearance Gloria I I'm not sure what
14:49he's going to say to Peacock um probably
14:52a lot of the same that he just didn't do
14:55it um he didn't take the stand I might
14:58add said but yeah yeah what you
15:01showed it says admitted into evidence so
15:05I think that was offered by the
15:07prosecution at the trial to prove help
15:10to prove their case as evidence and it
15:12was admitted so it didn't help him to do
15:15those interviews no not at all in fact
15:17the hatred for him just escalated after
15:19those interviews uh people couldn't IM
15:21may just I thought he was full of it uh
15:24your client Amber fry did testify and
15:26and just knocked it out of the park it
15:28it CH the
15:30case it went from it looked like gagos
15:33had a lot of momentum and boom it was
15:35over the would she be you know would she
15:39do it again if she had to have you
15:41talked to her lately what's uh what's
15:42her life
15:44like she has indicated that if it were
15:48necessary she would do it again if there
15:51was another trial because she has said
15:53Ted the truth is the truth and it
15:56doesn't change with the passage of time
15:59so she would testify truthfully as she
16:01did the last time when she testified and
16:04she's always been very brave very
16:05courageous when she secretly taped Scott
16:08Peterson and uh and he didn't know it
16:11and she did it at the request of law
16:13enforcement and that those tapes
16:16definitely had a negative impact on
16:20Scott Peterson he was not only a a
16:23killer he was also a liar and the
16:26argument that we he's an adulterer but
16:29that doesn't mean he's a murderer that's
16:31true but evidence proved that he was a
16:34murderer again affirmed by the
16:37California Supreme Court so I have
16:40confidence in her that she would be a
16:42powerful witness once again if there
16:44were new trial and by the way just
16:47because if they find someone else's DNA
16:50on the tape I don't know why that would
16:52necessarily mean he absolutely has to
16:55have a new trial because you know it
16:58still has to be proven uh I mean could
17:01someone else have put the tape around
17:03her pants I don't know so I'll leave
17:06that to the court to decide Philip if if
17:10indeed it comes back let's say it comes
17:11back to someone they can't track down
17:13would do you think that would be enough
17:15for a new trial oh that's that's a great
17:17question Ted and just so viewers
17:20understand that when these test results
17:22come back and let's say they do Identify
17:25some unknown donor or contributor of
17:28that DNA
17:29the court can make an order that the DNA
17:32profile be uploaded into cotus which is
17:35the combined DNA data bank and what they
17:38will do is see if there are any hits you
17:41never know it could be that whoever uh
17:43has DNA on that tape other than Scott
17:46Peterson hopefully his isn't on there
17:48otherwise we would have gone through
17:49this whole charade for nothing but let's
17:51just assume there's some unknown donor's
17:54DNA on there uh and there's a hit the
17:57standard is
17:59head would there be a more favorable
18:02verdict had this DNA been available at
18:05the outset so I think that that would be
18:09compelling evidence that here on the
18:11adhesive portion of tape that's stuck to
18:14her pant leg it has remained there in
18:17evidence all these years it does not
18:20match Scott but matches somebody else I
18:22don't see how a jury could convict I
18:25think it's that would raise Reasonable
18:27Doubt for a jury oh yeah I agree with
18:30that Gloria bottom line at for us do you
18:33think this is uh a just a charade and a
18:36continuation I know Sharon roacha
18:38released a statement during these last
18:40hearings expressing her frustration that
18:43this just will not go away and on the
18:46other side of the coin you mentioned
18:47Janie Peterson his sister-in-law she
18:50wasn't got a law degree um she's
18:53absolutely convinced that he did not do
18:56this and does that say something I mean
18:59this 20 years later she's still
19:01convinced you got enough time to really
19:03think it through um is what's your take
19:06on
19:08that well her opinion of course is not
19:12evidenced uh but again uh it really
19:16depends on what the judge decides I
19:19don't know that she is absolutely
19:22mandated to Grant a new trial if someone
19:25else's DNA is discovered on it we'll
19:29have to wait and see and I can't say
19:31that
19:33automatically that a judge that a jury
19:36if there were a new trial seeing this
19:39evidence with someone else's DNA if in
19:42fact that's what the DNA test shows
19:45would necessarily change their mind and
19:48decide that there's not enough proof
19:50Beyond a reasonable doubt they can look
19:53at all the evidence and of course that
19:54would have to be admitted uh probably
19:58over objection but in any event we'll
20:01see what the jury decides they're going
20:02to look at all the evidence not just one
20:04piece of evidence and even if it's
20:07somebody else's DNA they could decide
20:09there's enough evidence to prove guilt
20:11Beyond A Reasonable Doubt I I don't
20:13predict what Jes will do uh because I
20:16don't have a crystal ball and they never
20:18know what a jury is going to do but I'm
20:20just saying I don't buy that it will
20:23necessarily A be a new trial if that is
20:25found and B if there is that he will not
20:29be convicted again I Janie Peterson has
20:32said on this program that if he gets a
20:35new trial there is no way another jury
20:37would find him guilty as the first one
20:40did uh but we are eons away from that
20:43taking place waiting on the test results
20:46and then everything in between and first
20:49up it'll be that documentary on uh
20:51peacock I don't know if you'll be
20:52watching Gloria but we'll talk to you
20:53afterwards and get your opinion you as
20:55well Philip yeah I'll watch it by the
20:57way just because the Innocence Project
20:59took his case doesn't mean that he will
21:03be found innocent or that someone else's
21:06DNA will be discovered on the tape and
21:08there have been cases they've taken
21:10where they did not have enough evidence
21:12to prove that their client was factually
21:15innocent absolutely absolutely all right
21:18uh thank you both uh Gloria philli enjoy
21:21your weekends thank you for your
21:22valuable time we're going to get a break
21:23in here when we come back the think tank
21:25is going to join us plus here's a
21:26preview of what's coming up in our next
21:28next hour here on closing
21:31arguments Chad durman accused in the
21:33execution style of his three young Sons
21:36appears in court today for a surprise
21:38plea will bring you the biggest moments
21:41from today's
21:42[Music]
21:45hearing join Court TV's Vinnie palitan
21:48in every story in every trial every case
21:50there's at least two sides to it to dive
21:53into the latest oh my God and breaking
21:56true crime stories
21:58was a very targeted very personal attack
22:01inside I've never seen that in Discovery
22:02I've been incarcerated 3 years and
22:04outside of the court room she's a
22:06psychopath now let's look at the other
22:09side of all of that Vinny pitan
22:11investigates starting Monday night 98
22:13Central on court
22:17TV is that correct Mr Peterson you're
22:19pleading not Kil you the two charges of
22:21uh murder plus the special denying the
22:24special allegations absolutely that's
22:25correct joh I'm in
22:29that was Scott Peterson in court more
22:31than 20 years ago proclaiming his
22:32innocence and even after two decades
22:35Behind Bars he hasn't changed the story
22:36at all now the LA Innocence Project has
22:39taken on Peterson's case in an attempt
22:41to get him a new trial the defense
22:43requested dozens of items to be tested
22:46for DNA and in July the judge overseeing
22:48the case ruled that a single piece of
22:50duct tape submitted to a lab for testing
22:53uh would be it all the other items they
22:56wanted to test the judge said no but
22:58they are testing this one in their
23:00motion for the testing the defense wrote
23:02about this piece of tape in a a strip of
23:06duct tape approximately 15 in long was
23:08found adhered to Lacy's pants on her
23:11right thigh in 2004 a section of the
23:15duct tape that was folded over onto
23:17itself underwent DNA testing and the
23:19presence of human DNA was found but no
23:22DNA profile could be obtained given that
23:25human DNA was obtained and only a small
23:27portion of the duct tape found on Lacy's
23:29pants there is a good reason to believe
23:31broader sampling will with improved
23:34methods and more sensitive DNA testing
23:37May reveal probab probative results
23:40let's bring in the think tank see what
23:42they think about it Chief public
23:44defender for Oakland County Michigan who
23:46represented the Oxford High School
23:47shooter Paul at Lofton is with us
23:49tonight and former senior homicide
23:51prosecutor and founder of the viona law
23:54firm Bernarda viona good to see you
23:55Bernarda and finally the guy that
23:58represent presed Johnny Depp and his
23:59defamation case fellow of the American
24:02College of trial lawyers Ben Chu welcome
24:04to all of you let's um start Paul out
24:07with you what what's your take on the
24:10significance or LA or maybe no
24:12significance of this duct tape and the
24:14fact that the judge is saying fine go
24:16ahead and test it you know I definitely
24:18think this is giving him an opportunity
24:20that he didn't have before obviously
24:22testing has improved in the last 20
24:24years I do have some concern obviously
24:26we know that um there was water that she
24:29was submerged so I don't know if any of
24:31the DNA would have held up but I think
24:33this is a chance for him a definite win
24:35for the Innocence Project um and as you
24:37discussed earlier I think if there is
24:39results that are found on that piece of
24:42duct tape then I think the judge is
24:44going to be more likely to expand what
24:46can be tested uh there was 17 items that
24:50they requested they gave their reasoning
24:52and what they thought those items would
24:55prove or or how they could help solve
24:58who actually committed this crime and I
25:00think if if they win on the duct tape I
25:03definitely think the Judge would
25:05reconsider testing all of those items
25:07and I do think that would warrant a new
25:09trial if especially if a DNA match is
25:12hit in codus and there is a person out
25:14there I definitely think that would be a
25:16strong argument for the Innocence
25:17Project to make ber AR what if what if
25:20uh under that scenario there is no hit
25:22and it's just all right some stranger
25:25DNA that actually might help Peterson
25:27because if it hits in cotus and that
25:29person is investing well I I lived in
25:32you know uh New York during that period
25:34of time it might be a dead end the
25:36unknown might help him too if in if
25:38indeed it comes back absolutely so it's
25:41all going to fall down to what the
25:43results of that testing is going to be
25:46because what if they do test more pieces
25:48of that duct tape and they find that
25:50there is no DNA profile that can be
25:53developed so therefore then it leaves
25:56the case exactly where we started so
25:58with the same conviction because nothing
26:00has changed however if they find the DNA
26:03profile of another individual whether
26:05they're able to match it to a person or
26:07not match it to someone else it still is
26:10a piece of exculpatory evidence and it's
26:13something that would have change the
26:15outcome of the trial and he will be
26:17entitled to a new trial for now we just
26:19have to wait and see what the results of
26:21this testing is going to be of course it
26:24gives Scott Peterson some hope
26:26unfortunately for the family I'm sure
26:27that on pins and needles because they
26:29may have to relive this trial again if a
26:32new trial is granted yeah they have um
26:35been through so much um and continue
26:38this keeps coming up Ben why does it
26:39keep coming up why is peacock interested
26:41Netflix is also doing a um a limited
26:44series on this coming out later this
26:46year what is it about this case that has
26:50uh just enduring
26:54attention Ted it's a great question it
26:57it really captured the the imagination
26:59of of people 20 years ago and when I
27:02first saw that you were doing this
27:03segment I I it was a hard hard for me to
27:06believe that it really was that long ago
27:08but it was a high-profile case there and
27:12you know a few people or some people
27:15seem to have some doubts so this gives
27:18him um at least a a small Ray of
27:20potential hope Paul what do you think of
27:23him doing this interview on the um
27:26documentary coming out on peacock
27:29as a defense attorney that makes me so
27:31extremely nervous especially seeing the
27:34clips from the last two interviews that
27:36you played in your last segment he did
27:38not do well in those interviews those
27:40interviews did not help him at all um so
27:43if his Manner and demeanor like so
27:46laidback that it was almost creepy is
27:49how it's going to be this time I I think
27:51it will hurt him also if he is so sure
27:54that there is going to be evidence
27:55that's going to get him a new trial it
27:57is not a good idea to put yourself in
28:00front of the world in these interviews
28:02when a jury is going to be deciding your
28:04fate I think it's a bad move yeah during
28:07I did one of those interviews that we
28:09just saw clips of that not the ding
28:11Story one the other one the uh obviously
28:13Bernarda and he was in control he made
28:16us take our shoes off we came into his
28:18house and it was very like yeah 15
28:20minutes just one light um take your
28:23shoes off and my you know photographer
28:24and I like all right take our shoes off
28:26and uh it was and he had this weird
28:29confidence they tested him during the
28:32trial with some mock interrog you know
28:36mock cross and it was decided no way
28:39this guy's not getting up on the witness
28:41stand uh do you agree with pet Bernardo
28:44this this is a bad idea on some level
28:46especially given the momentum of the LA
28:48Innocence Project now taking on his
28:50case exactly if I was Scott Peterson's
28:53attorney I would definitely recommend
28:55against him given any interview because
28:58number one we have to wait and see
28:59what's going to happen with this testing
29:01of this piece of tape also if there is
29:04the chance of a new trial even if Scott
29:06Peterson does not testify any interview
29:10that he has given and does give can
29:13still be used against him a prosecutor
29:15can still put that forth in front of a
29:18jury to show his demeanor the type of
29:20person he is or if he inculpates himself
29:22in any way also with the new testing we
29:25don't know what other new evidence can
29:27come about it and he doesn't know the
29:29answers to it so for him to open up this
29:31can of worms is not recommended Scott
29:34Peterson shouldn't be giving any more
29:35interviews at all let things play out
29:38let's see the finality of all these
29:40appeals that he's making before he
29:42decides he wants to give interviews and
29:44then also is he even making money off of
29:46this because usually in majority of
29:48States you can't profit off your crime
29:50so there's no incentive for him to give
29:53these
29:53interviews yeah um all that will
29:55eventually come out it always does uh
29:57we'll have to to see again that um that
30:00limited series on peacock debuts in uh
30:03August end of August oh it is August so
30:05yeah coming up a couple weeks

About this transcript

This page contains the full transcript of Scott Peterson: First On-Camera Interview in 2 Decades by COURT TV, generated from the public captions YouTube serves with the video. The transcript has 5,062 words across 711 segments, with the original timestamps preserved so you can click any line to jump to that moment in the embedded player.

What you can do with it

Use the transcript to take notes, quote the speaker, build a study guide, generate a summary with ChatGPT or Claude via the YouTube Summary tool, or export it as a timed subtitle file with YouTube to SRT. You can also re-open it in the transcriber to translate the transcript into 100+ languages.

Free YouTube transcript tool

YouTube2Text is a free YouTube transcript generator — no signup, no daily limit. Paste any YouTube link and get the full transcript instantly, with timestamps, click-to-jump, translation to 100+ languages, AI prompts for ChatGPT, Claude, and Gemini, and exports to TXT, SRT, VTT, or Markdown.