Attorney: Frey bolsters case for prosecution
(CNN) -- Amber Frey, who is testifying this week in the double murder trial of Scott Peterson, has painted a picture of her former lover as a deceptive and charming seducer.
CNN anchor Heidi Collins spoke Wednesday with Frey's attorney, Gloria Allred, about her client's testimony.
COLLINS: Amber Frey says, as we heard yesterday in some of those recorded conversations, that Scott Peterson called her while he says he was in Paris for New Year's Eve, said he was with a friend there -- I believe the names were Francois and Pascal. That night though he went to a candlelight vigil for his missing wife, Laci. Obviously, this makes him appear to be, what we've heard before, the words of a cad, and someone who's not telling the truth.
But did Amber Frey actually say anything that would implicate him as a murderer?
ALLRED: Well, absolutely, her testimony was very strong evidence for the prosecution in support of their theory that she was a motive for murder. He, for example, said that he lost his wife. These would be the first holidays without her, and that's before Laci ever went missing. Now was that just a coincidence, or was that premeditation for the murder of Laci?
Also, Amber asked him as he, you know, sobbing and stomach is churning and he's telling her about how painful it is that he lost his wife, she asked him, are you ready for a relationship with me? And he said absolutely.
He assured her they would have a future together. ... He talked about not being able to see her until the end of January, but in addition, she testified that he said that then he would have more time for her. Now was that because Laci would no longer be there?
And what kind of husband calls from the vigil that is being set up for his missing pregnant wife and is on the phone with his woman friend, Amber, and has this ebullient, man about town, bon vivant conversation with her, lighthearted, on New Year's Eve, where he's saying to her, "I miss you, and you hi, sweetheart. And I'm at the Eiffel Tower, and I'm in Paris."
Now does that sound like a grieving husband who's missing his pregnant wife? I don't think so. And I think it was totally inappropriate, and I think the jury could find from that, that perhaps he wasn't a grieving husband at all.
COLLINS: Gloria, obviously, you were in the courtroom as her attorney, but how do you think Amber Frey did on the stand? Was she nervous?
ALLRED: She was a little bit nervous. That would be natural in such a high-pressure situation. She did very, very well. She was very specific, Heidi, in her recollection of events. She gave great detail. And, of course, she was so important, because she did agree to assist law enforcement by tape-recording those telephone calls with Scott Peterson after Laci disappeared. So some of that was played yesterday.
We're going to hear probably hear more calls played today. So we will hear Scott Peterson's own voice on those recorded telephone calls, and we will hear what he has to say about Amber, and the jury will be able to judge whether or not he was planning a future with Amber. And, if so, then I think they can find that he had a motive for murder.
COLLINS: Let me ask you quickly about something that one of our correspondents actually reported, Ted Rowlands out there covering this for us, that you may try to limit what the defense can ask about Amber Frey's sexual history. Is that indeed your plan?
ALLRED: Well, Heidi, I'm hopeful that the prosecution will seek to limit the questioning that the defense can do on cross-examination with Amber, if it would unduly interfere with her privacy rights, which are protected by the California Constitution.
I think what the defense should have to do is if they want to go into prior sexual history with other than the -- or subsequent sexual history -- with other than the defendant, then they should go into chambers and make an offer of proof to the judge to show that what they want to inquire about is directly relevant to the defense. And if it's not directly relevant, then they should not be able to ask her questions that are oppressive, that would be meant solely to harass, that would unduly invade her privacy.
They should be prohibited from that kind of questioning because just because Scott Peterson is on trial for murder doesn't mean that she should have to sacrifice her privacy rights.